When I first started GMing I had no idea what I had to have prepared in order to have a successful game. It drove me nuts. Sometimes I would have pages and pages of stuff written, names, places and ideas but the game would fall flat and I wouldn't know why.
Other times friends would gather and I'd run soemthing off the fly, entirely improv, making it up as I go and the game would rock.
Usually, during those improv-off-the-fly games I would write down a notebook page's worth of notes.
One of those off-the-fly games was set on the under-side of the Spelljammer setting's Rock of Bral, a place I was enamored with. I decided it was a prison and the game would be set there. The only guidance I gave the players during chargen was that they were in the Rock for a crime and they weren't framed. Whatever it was, they did it.
I filled a notebook page with the guards' names, the warden and other prisoners. Of course these other prisoners, all Drow, Yuan-ti, a Ronin Space Captain from the Imperial Navy were all bangs. I didn't realize what I had to have down until years later but I had to have bangs, situations the players felt compelled to react to and deal with.
I think I capitalized on the real positive energy of those one-shots when people didn' t expect to game but were really excited to do so, a happy surprise and the chatter during character generation was how that notebook paper's worth of notes was compiled.
Fast forward.
Now I don't have to read minds. I've got Kickers, Descriptors, Spiritual Attributes, Beliefs, Instincts, Keys, Secrets, Drives, Passions, Traits, Relationships and such. What excites the players about the game is written on the character sheet. I can take everyone's sheets and come up with the game right there and then.
My first really successful use of this was The Riddle of Steel.
When you first play TRoS there is a tendency to keep your eye on the combat mechanics. They are filled with charts and seem daunting but for the GM, that isn't what is really important at all. What is important are the Spiritual Attributes.
More worried about the combat, I set up a series of judicial duels with pre-made NPC's so that the players could take these NPC's and whack on each other without risking their PC's lives in the brutal combat. Two farmers broke each other's collar bones with staves. Two ship captains whacked on each other in heavily armored maul vs maul combat until one got his hip broken from a good shot.
Two excellent swordsman, professional judicial duelists dueled to the first blood, a brillian back and forth ending with one taking a gash on the leg. Nice stuff.
Then, for whatever reason, I threw in this odd duel at the end to show how combat worked two-on-one. I put in a shit-hot duelist who was hired to duel two men who had raped a young girl who was well loved in her community. These two men were sons of prominent nobles. The duelist did well but then flubbed a roll and got stabbed in the face.
The PC's were watching these duels too, we had decided. They looked at their SA's concerning justice and such and could not let this duel stand. They stepped up and challenged the young men again. The young man accepted.
The PC's, with their SA's firing, mopped the floor with them. One was killed and the other was given the option to jump off of the bridge after his sword hand was maimed. This encounter set off the entire adventuer, a long conflict with the noble house they so offended.
Accidentally, I had tripped over the players' SA's. They looked at me like I was a mad genius for planning it that way but I hadn't. I didn't know that the lone swordsman would die and I didn' t at all realize that the players would look at hteir SA's and step up to right the wrongs with their swords.
Neat.
Another story about the Riddle, I was remaking a D&D character for a Midnight solo game. The player was struggling over Spiritual Attributes. We had been playing for a few months and he had around ten so far. He was talking about how his character found X importand but Y to be more important.
I was watching this one SA, "I hunt creatures of shadow," fall lower and lower on the list, even though I knew that JJ loves hunting things in-game. He and his whole family are hunters and his house, during the deer season, is a hunting lodge where all of his dad's buddies hang out. I had my epiphany about SA's right there and then. "JJ, this isn't about what is important to your character. This is about what is important to JJ about this character." The list of SA's was trimmed down right there and then to an easy five that made for good game because JJ was into 'em.
This brings us to Sorcerer. When you hand the players a list of descriptors, you are, in fact, handing them a list of things from the setting. The players get to look at the parts of the setting and tell you right there, what parts interest them by writing them down on their character sheet.
No shit.
I don't have to write a long history of the world beginning with some hackneyed world creation myth. I don't have to write much at all.
When I ran Sorcerer a few years ago, the Sorcerous Month (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=11555.0"), I saw the process go again and again. I would go to the group with 2 or 3 ideas. They would pick the one they were excited about. We would meet to make up characters and there would be this lovely silence as I handed out the descriptors and everyone read them over. Often someone would mention how there should be an extra one and we'd add it.
They would begin to choose their descriptors. If there were people who choose the same ones, it often was an excuse for their characters to know each other.
But then, the players get to set the tone for the whole shebang via their Kicker. "Here are your toys, Mr. GM, but here's how I want to use them."
This brings me to Burning Wheel.
The Beliefs are your sign-posts. I go into the game with one or two bangs per PC's belief. Usually I only use one or two and the rest of the players riff and get into the conflict caused by one player's reaction.
Example:
Kolja's character has an Instinct: When I am someone I am not supposed to be, I sneak.
This says to me, he wants to be in places where he isn't supposed to be. He had set up a meeting with a Baron's nephew but the kid was standing him up, not giving the information like he said he would when threatened at knife-point. So Kolja's sneaky sorcerer stalked him. He failed his Stealth roll. It became a cat and mouse game through the back-alleys as the sorcerer set his trap for the evil knights of the baron.
The nephew's bodyguards began stalking him and after a brutal struggle they captured him. The rest of the group spent a few good hours of solid dramatic gaming getting Kolja's PC back from the Baron's dungeon. Fun stuff. Hours of gaming from one off-the-cuff bang written next to an Instinct.
This brings me to The Shadow of Yesterday.
The players were very much inspired by Fafrd and the Grey Mouser. Hell, one of them was even a ratkin hired knife and the other was this S&M barbarian with the Key of Unrequited Love for this cute ratkin barmaid.
When the S&M barbarian was captured by the Church of the Leviathan, the ratkin knife took, The Key of Vengeance, swearing to get back at the church that stole his friend. And the adventure was ON as the ratkin sneaked in and the barbarian broke out.
What is neat about keys is players get to tell you which NPC's excite them right then and there. "Damn, those pirate worshippers of the Leviathan are bastards; I'm taking Key of Vengeance on them!" And the GM has his road-map for the game.
TSoY's GMing advice is pretty neat too. It also asks the GM to throw in some stuff the GM digs too, just because. I dig that.
I was also shocked to find that when I was writing up a Planescape mod for TSoY, alignment worked really well for me. It was always a kind of proto-SA, a strange way to tell the GM what kind of moral conflicts you were interested in but with Keys they just shined.
Life is easier since these parts of the character sheet have been around. I don't have to write up a world, just enough so the players can tell me what excites them. All of my GM muscle goes into chargen, making solid bangs, setting cool stakes, setting up fun conflicts, and making sure the players are having fun.
Those notebook papers with ideas and places and names were my bangs but I had no real way to say how I used them or what they did. I only know I needed them and a few of each were aimed at each player. I didn't understand why some would get thrown out onto the table and ignored but it was simply because the players didn't care. The players didn't care and I had nothing on their character sheets, or very little, to tell me what they cared about.
And to conclude with a BW game I am setting up now, kind of a medieval A-Team type of deal. One of the players was saying that he wasn't sure what kind of skills to take because he ewasn't sure what kind of mission it would be. "I won't know either, until I take a look at everyone's Beliefs and Instincts and Traits."
I won't know where the adventure is going to go until I know what you give a shit about.
I had been thinking about this for a while but a few recent blog entries forced my hand:
Deep in the Game:In Plain Words (http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2005/12/in-plain-words.html")
Heads or Tales: Mother Head Scratchers (http://www.chimera.info/blog/2005/12/mother-head-scratchers.html")
Hi Judd,
Yep, I'd been doing this for some time, calling the various things "Flags" or "Markers". My recent post was pretty much the realization that the GM should not have the option to NOT hit on one of those- it might as well be a menu and you can only pick the items there for setting up scenes.
Chris
Quote from: Bankuei on December 20, 2005, 03:20:34 AM
Hi Judd,
Yep, I'd been doing this for some time, calling the various things "Flags" or "Markers". My recent post was pretty much the realization that the GM should not have the option to NOT hit on one of those- it might as well be a menu and you can only pick the items there for setting up scenes.
Chris
I am uncomfortable with that kind of limitation, Chris but I hear ya..
I feel like players also set up markers and flags in game through their actions. Sometimes they beg for a scene or a conflict through the game and a scene is inspired by their action and a bang on your sheet becomes tweaked or twisted or entirely changed to accomodate this change in the game's setting via the players' choices.
Flags and Markers are great terms for them. Thanks.
Hi Judd,
I can understand the "uncomfortableness", but if you look at actual play, I bet it's not a restriction at all. I mean, few people consider it "limiting" to play a single character- as a GM, you're probably going to get at least 3 or 4 ways to push thematic buttons for each player- which means we're talking 9 or more options for every scene, and assuming you have normal rights to frame scenes and conflicts- that's not very limiting at all.
In a way, its a reversal of traditional play- instead of players looking to the GM for signals on where to go next, the GM is looking to the players for signals of what to frame next. It makes your job easier, not harder.
Chris
I'm a complete convert to the need for flags and markers as overt signals to the GM that "this, THIS is what I, the real person playing the game, want the story of my character to be about. This is what I come to the table for and would enjoy."
That said, I'm wondering if Flags need to be mechanical components of the system, or part of the reward mechanism, as in TROS SAs? I think I'd be more comfortable as a GM with devevloping a set of techniques, dialogues, or questions to be used in pre-game prep to tease out or get the player to decide on and clearly express their goals for play, than having to hardwire this into game mechanics (but I realize that I'm going against the tide of Forge design ideals in this preference).
Anyone seen or given any thought to ways to get this info out of the players without making it part of the game rules? I'd like to see a process or technique that could be applied regardless of what system was being prepped for.
John
Quote from: johnmarron on December 20, 2005, 12:02:28 PM
I'm a complete convert to the need for flags and markers as overt signals to the GM that "this, THIS is what I, the real person playing the game, want the story of my character to be about. This is what I come to the table for and would enjoy."
That said, I'm wondering if Flags need to be mechanical components of the system, or part of the reward mechanism, as in TROS SAs? I think I'd be more comfortable as a GM with devevloping a set of techniques, dialogues, or questions to be used in pre-game prep to tease out or get the player to decide on and clearly express their goals for play, than having to hardwire this into game mechanics (but I realize that I'm going against the tide of Forge design ideals in this preference).
Anyone seen or given any thought to ways to get this info out of the players without making it part of the game rules? I'd like to see a process or technique that could be applied regardless of what system was being prepped for.
John
In my experience they have more punch behind them when they are tied into the system with a reward mechanic attached. Otherwise they are just a questionaire that isn't a part of the game's economy.
If you want a technique, make up five loaded questions the players have to answer about their characters during the chargen process. Loaded, in that by answering them they are creating characters who are tied to the game's concept. It wouldn't have much punch but it'd probably work.
But why not just have it tied to the system?
I say the following with a smile on my face and I'm not meaning any condescension: John, man, I don't getcha, really I don't.
I think something that people who dislike this kind of information embeded in the game mechanics miss is the fact that the majority of these games also include real-time update rules for that information. Just because you ask pointed questions at the start of your campaign about a player's character doesn't mean it's going to stay that way.
In The Riddle of Steel the players can change their spiritual atributes and indeed when I run it I let them do it anytime they want, mid-session if they like. I've introduced stuff in play that caused a player to rewrite two or even three of their spiritual attributes. Add to that the fact that SAs are meta-game values, so, just because a player removes "Passion: Love For My Wife" doesn't mean that character doesn't love his wife or that his love for his wife is somehow deminished it just means the player isn't interested in having his love for his wife be an issue at the moment.
So the SAs act as a real-time vector of what the player wants the game to be about right here, right now. And if something catches their interest they have the ability to update that vector to say, "more please" or "less of that" as they see fit.
Jesse
Quote from: johnmarron on December 20, 2005, 12:02:28 PM
Anyone seen or given any thought to ways to get this info out of the players without making it part of the game rules? I'd like to see a process or technique that could be applied regardless of what system was being prepped for.
IIRC, Wick's 7th Sea has a multi-page questionaire that will bring these things to the light--if you know what to look for. That's one of the problem with non-systematized "flag-gathering" systems. They're hard to read. Players don't know how to give the information of "What I want my character's story to be about," so they often bury it in a dozen pages of character background. And GMs, in general, don't know how to read it. If they already know what to look for, they claim that they don't need the questionnaire, and if they don't know what to look for, all the answers on the questionnaire look like that dozen-page character background.
The other problem, of course, is that many, many gamers are trained to ignore any and all "GM advice" as unhelpful filler text. Nonsystematized flag-gathering questionnaires--along with anything else without a number next to it--fall into that category of stuff to skip.
I'd like to point out that just gathering the Flags, just having the player write it on the character sheet, is not enough. The GM also needs to know how to turn those Flags into engaging Bangs. I put a lot of thought into this when writing With Great Power... It's not enough to simply have the players choose which Aspect of their hero is most important to them--the GM must know how to follow those choices toward an engaging story. In WGP...'s case, I coach GMs on how to turn those Strife Aspects into the objects of the villains' nefarious Plans, and give instructions to always set Stakes that furthers those Plans.
Quote from: johnmarron on December 20, 2005, 12:02:28 PMAnyone seen or given any thought to ways to get this info out of the players without making it part of the game rules? I'd like to see a process or technique that could be applied regardless of what system was being prepped for.
If it's a process that is applied to the game, doesn't that make it part of the game's system? I stoop to rhetorical questions; I shame me.
I think what you're asking for is something that doesn't hit the character sheet and have a specific place where it goes on the sheet. Dogs does this, technically speaking. But I can't tell you how useful having this information written down in front of the character's faces is. First of all, having the characters write it down as part of their character makes them invest in the statement "this is what I want." Afterwards, it's right there in front of them as a constant reminder as what they wanted the game to be and what direction their characters should be going in. And finally, putting it down on paper as a mechanical element means that it can be referenced in the reward system, and on-target play can then be reinforced.
Jesse's also got an important point -- these aren't set in stone. There should always be mechanisms to change them.
Quote from: Bankuei on December 20, 2005, 06:37:21 AM
Hi Judd,
I can understand the "uncomfortableness", but if you look at actual play, I bet it's not a restriction at all. I mean, few people consider it "limiting" to play a single character- as a GM, you're probably going to get at least 3 or 4 ways to push thematic buttons for each player- which means we're talking 9 or more options for every scene, and assuming you have normal rights to frame scenes and conflicts- that's not very limiting at all.
In a way, its a reversal of traditional play- instead of players looking to the GM for signals on where to go next, the GM is looking to the players for signals of what to frame next. It makes your job easier, not harder.
Chris
Holy crap, Chris. I read DitG too, but for some reason your post here was a huge "light on" moment for me, to the point where I need to write this down and stick it in every game I write from now on:
Narrative role-playing is a form of constrained creativity. Players are constrained to a single character, with whom they select multiple points of thematic interest. GMs are constrained to a given set of points of thematic interest, from which they draw multiple characters and situations.
Hi Brendan,
(Smile)- right. My breakthrough wasn't in recognizing we ought to be using flags, that I figured out a few years back. It was that I asked the question, "Why the hell would you want to NOT use flags?" and I was left without an answer. I mean, if Flags = what people find interesting, then veering from that means you are openly ignoring what everyone is telling you to make the game about.
"Well, Joan and I are voting we go see Harry Potter, John and Louis want to see Narnia, what do you think?"
"We're watching Pride And Prejudice!"
Everyone: "Um, well, if you -really- want to see it, I guess we'll go along..."
Chris
Hey Judd,
That's the best description of why system matters I've seen in a while.
: )
For John, I can deeply empathize with liking your flags & markers to be narrative in form. Looking at #'s on a sheet can completely break my creativity. But another nice thing about all this new-fangled innovation is that making the mechanics mattter doesn't have to come in one form. Narrative based free-form flags work as well as any stat. Better even at times. The thing about having the markers
not be anywhere on the char/resource sheet is that then, what goes there? The stuff that doesn't matter to anyone, and that's the mess we're trying to get out of. That we are now out of, as Judd's chronology exemplifies. Hope I got the jist of your question, anyway.
Quote"Well, Joan and I are voting we go see Harry Potter, John and Louis want to see Narnia, what do you think?"
"We're watching Pride And Prejudice!"
Everyone: "Um, well, if you -really- want to see it, I guess we'll go along..."
Just a little earlier today, I read on 20by20 a comment by someone saying that the trad GM-is-god play is far less common than folk here seem to imply, but this thread really puts a finger on the real problem. Not that GM's have too much authority over what the players choose to do, but that the GM (herstorically) has to flail around trying to figure out what would make people happy. And the players were not put in a position to say. It's really just a matter of better sharing the toys, and communicating about what to play.
best,
Em
Judd -- pure gold. Your post helped me put my finger on something that's been bugging me about Nobilis for a while now: Chargen forces you to think about your character's Estate, and you have to define your characters moral Code, strengths and weaknesses, and even some important NPC's (Anchors).
The problem is, the GM is then faced with a group of identically-formatted laundry list of potential Markers. But then you have to play mind-reading games to figure out which of these Markers is live and wired in to the player's interests, and which is just sitting there, spun out by the player out of Simmish interest or, worse, dredged up in order to have a filled-out character sheet.
To expand on my already long post: there's a houserule I like that allows PC's to get more magical energy from their bonds to the things they love, and which also encourages them to take strong bonds to a limited number of things. Now it seems that the best thing about this house rule is that it makes it a lot easier for players and GM to identify which are the real Markers! (There should be a good term for false Flags, BTW. "I thought his wife was a Flag, but she was just a Dud.")
I
Dan,
I'm glad I helped with something that's been rattling around in your head. That is a great feeling.
Do you want to take that idea of the flag vs. the dud and make it its own thread?
It seems important enough to be.
Just a thought,
Judd
This is all good stuff. One thing I would add, though, is that the GM might want to be up front and explicit about using flags in this way, and should make sure the players are actually interested in what they're putting down on their character sheet.
I suppose this touches on the "flags vs. duds" question: while producing a PTA game recently, I built the bangs for one player's spotlight episode by looking at his character sheet and putting together the different elements (f'rex, Bang #1 related the Issue to a connection, bang #2 related his issue to his concept, bang #3 related but his nemesis between his goal and a connection, etc.). Now, this was exactly how I had prepped for earlier spotlight episodes in the series, and, up until this point, I had had lots of success. But, with this player, everything just fell flat. It wasn't until about halfway through the episode that I realized that the player wasn't interested in his character's issue and had only chosen it because he thought it "fit the genre".
Quote from: Jon Hastings on December 20, 2005, 05:45:44 PMThis is all good stuff. One thing I would add, though, is that the GM might want to be up front and explicit about using flags in this way, and should make sure the players are actually interested in what they're putting down on their character sheet.
Yes -- do not do this unless the players are aware this will be happening,
especially in games that allow players to gain points by taking disadvantages/flaws/foibles/whatever. If you, as a GM, pick up on one of the disadvantages they took, not because it was interesting, but because it got them points, and you hammer on said disadvantage, you will be seen as 'picking on' that character. It is, in stark terms, a violation of the social contract under which they were operating which stated that "We take disadvantages, get points for them, and only let them affect color." I have a standing "If you put it on your sheet, it ends up in the game" policy that I did not initially make public -- once I did and got the players on board with that, things worked
much more smoothly!
Quote from: Jon Hastings on December 20, 2005, 05:45:44 PM
This is all good stuff. One thing I would add, though, is that the GM might want to be up front and explicit about using flags in this way, and should make sure the players are actually interested in what they're putting down on their character sheet.
Indeed. Others have gone over this, but I thought I'd toss in a couple of other areas in which flags can get misread/used in play.
1. The "protect my ass" motivation. I recently had a Burning Sands: Jihad game in which a player made a character who had the traits The Killer, Artful Dodger, Fearless, Cold Blooded, and Tough as Nails. He also had a 9G sword skill, a personal shield, and two instincts that related to combat and always having weapon and shield ready and on optimal setting. When I asked the player if he really wanted the kind of huge combat challanges his character was set up for his response was "no, I really want to play family drama. I just took that stuff to be sure if there was a fight I'd be ready."
2. The "biggest thing is not the biggest thing" issue. Once we got our signals straight the above player significantly toned down his combat badassitude, but kept a good chunk of it. When I asked him about how important and common he wanted fights to be AGAIN his response was, "Oh, sometimes I want to fight -- but mostly to protect my family or because evil members of my family have forced me to kill a good person for the honor of the house." There were a few beliefes and one trait on his sheet about that family dynamic, and so without talking to him I might have gotten some of them, but I certainly would still have missread the level of importance assigned. He wanted to be a great swordsman, but the story wasn't about the sword, it was about the family that hid behind his blade.
3. The "I really did want it, but, and I'm not sure how to say this nicely... you can't play it right" problem. I've had occasion recently to watch players come to flagged games, both mine and those run by other GMs, put down things that I know they really do want, only to watch them lose interest in them after a session or two. When asked about them they either pass it off as still being interesting (when it obviously isn't), or as some variation of the "I never was interested in that, I just put it down because..." defense. While some of these cases are people not knowing what it was they wanted, other times are pretty patently a case of the GM not being able to give them what they wanted. Obviously communication could help clear this up many times, but when dealing with things like romantic love flags and a GM who doesn't know the inner deeps of how you view love, you're going to have times when a GM just cannot give the player something that feels right. Usually, the solution I've found best for this is somethign like the TSOY version where you can dump one key and buy another -- letting you get out of situations you've come to find unfun.
Hi Brand,
QuoteUsually, the solution I've found best for this is somethign like the TSOY version where you can dump one key and buy another -- letting you get out of situations you've come to find unfun.
Having the option and ability to change Flags is key. Especially the longer term play you're aiming for. Probably a good set of "training wheels" for getting players to recognize what's happening is to discuss informally what's going on as far as the GM decision making... "I want to do a scene introducing the problems with your sister, since we haven't done that yet, how's that sound?" with the intent no so much to listen to the response- but to listen to the attitude in the response to read how excited or not the person is. And, to let the player know that you're using the Flags as the direct sign of how you're running the game.
If you keep getting, "Meh." responses, then maybe stepping back and saying, "Hey, do you want to change this Flag?" I find that the time to ask those sorts of questions is when the player is engaged in a conflict or situation, which may not have been related to their own. For example, if another player is having a tense conflict and the Meh-player is getting engaged or interested in it, then you toss in, "Hey, want to change your flag to 'Hate this guy'?" or something similar.
Suddenly the player sees the door open on the thing they're interested in, that maybe they didn't realize they were interested in, and can jump in on it. I've seen a player or two do this for each other, and I imagine if you had a group full of it, things would be very interesting indeed.
Chris
The other really valuable thing that flags and markers do is allow the GM to spot a problem during chargen with greater ease.
Last month I got into a vicious argument with one of my players whose conduct at the table I found lacking. The argument turned into a My Guy Disconnect and a brutal round of e-mails that turned from a gaming argument to an argument that had nothing to do with gaming at all, tapping into something else, something really messed up deep in the friendship that I just hadn't known was there.
When I looked back at the Beliefs and Instincts he wrote down during chargen, I slapped my head and should have realized that they shouldn't have been allowed at the table; I should have asked him to shape them differently.
The friendship crap it devolved into had nothing to do with flags and markers.
But the My Guy Syndrome that the argument began with was right there in front of me in the Beliefs and Instincts on the character sheet.
Flags and markers = glowing neon signs of player intention.
Quote from: Paka on December 20, 2005, 12:15:31 PM
But why not just have it tied to the system?
I say the following with a smile on my face and I'm not meaning any condescension: John, man, I don't getcha, really I don't.
Judd,
No offense taken. I understand that my preference for minimal mechanics is a bit unusual around here, and I don't set out to baffle you intentionally (honestly).
I think Emily was dead on about my reservations concerning mechanically incorporating flags when she talked about the presence of even more numbers and stats on the character sheet putting me off. I appreciate the value of making Flags central to the game, having them right there on the sheet in front of god and everyone, and rewarding play that focuses on them, but I'm such a number-phobe that I shy away from expressing this in a non-narrative way. That said, Emily's question: "The thing about having the markers not be anywhere on the char/resource sheet is that then, what goes there?", definitely struck a chord with me.
A while back I read through the Decipher Lord of the Rings RPG. I read over the sample characters they provided, and my eyes glazed over at the reams of numerically represented stats. At the bottom of each character sheet was a paragraph of narrative description, and I thought to myself, "this is all I really need to protray or GM for this character". For me, if I can get the players to put honest, thought-out Flags into that paragraph, I think I'll feel comfortable using that info to provide bangs. Obviously, techniques to achieve this are part of the "system", I just don't want them to necessarily require bookkeeping or randomizing.
I'll give some thought to how to achieve narratively-expressed flags, and see if I can implement it in a game. In the kind of system I'm envisioning, character "advancement" (really change) could take the form of adding and/or re-writing sentences of your character description.
John
John,
I feel like we are in danger of disagreeing just becaus we are on the internet here.
The following statement in particular I agree with:
Quote from: johnmarron on December 21, 2005, 09:06:21 AM
A while back I read through the Decipher Lord of the Rings RPG. I read over the sample characters they provided, and my eyes glazed over at the reams of numerically represented stats. At the bottom of each character sheet was a paragraph of narrative description, and I thought to myself, "this is all I really need to protray or GM for this character". For me, if I can get the players to put honest, thought-out Flags into that paragraph, I think I'll feel comfortable using that info to provide bangs. Obviously, techniques to achieve this are part of the "system", I just don't want them to necessarily require bookkeeping or randomizing.
I'll give some thought to how to achieve narratively-expressed flags, and see if I can implement it in a game. In the kind of system I'm envisioning, character "advancement" (really change) could take the form of adding and/or re-writing sentences of your character description.
John
What you just described isn't system-lite or rules that get out of your way. What you just described is a solid idea for an RPG that you should get-a-crackin' on.
Kinda sounds like Heroquest, no?
But back to the topic at hand, I think having the player write a paragraph that isn't linked to the game's mechanics is folly. I'd imagine that you would get lots and lots of character history crap that had no bearing on where they wanted the game to go or what the player wanted to do with the character or see in the game.
But link it to the game so that when the paragraph changes, the character changes, that's a whole different ball-o-wax.
QuoteThe problem is, the GM is then faced with a group of identically-formatted laundry list of potential Markers. But then you have to play mind-reading games to figure out which of these Markers is live and wired in to the player's interests, and which is just sitting there, spun out by the player out of Simmish interest or, worse, dredged up in order to have a filled-out character sheet.
In Adam Dray's Verge (http://verge.legendary.org/index.php/Main_Page), you actually pick several traits and circle them in a given session to tell the GM what you want to deal with
right now. Such a simple fix.
Though if the player doesn't know either, then you're still in a pickle. Seems like the system has to help you create or choose aspects & issues that will spark. That are dynamic. People can also be interested in aspects of a character that keep them in stasis too.
best,
Em
Hi, John. This bit stood out to me:
Quote from: johnmarron on December 21, 2005, 09:06:21 AM
I appreciate the value of making Flags central to the game, having them right there on the sheet in front of god and everyone, and rewarding play that focuses on them, but I'm such a number-phobe that I shy away from expressing this in a non-narrative way.
How would you characterize a Kicker is Sorcerer? It's on the character sheet. It's got no numerical rating. It doesn't modify any dice rolls (and only triggers advancement rolls when it's "resolved"--an undefined term). It's generally written in a couple of sentences. Does this give you what you want?
I'm trying to figure out whether you're objecting to Flags tied to the dice system, or objecting to Flags tied to the capital-"S" System.
Haven't posted here in years, but somebody directed me to this thread which is quite interesting. I have a qusetion for you all...
While we don't use your terminology (Flags, Bangs, etc.) the concepts have filtered into our game play over the years. The idea of "playing off the players" and taking what they give you in terms of positive reactions... tells... and GMing from that position... that is strong in our group... BUT... and here is the issue... I've seen what I would call a "lack of follow through" on the part of players that is quite disruptive to the group. Basically, the player is "into" something for a session or so... which is currently driving the story arc... other players are into it as well, supporting and enjoying things in an audience kind of way... and then suddenly the next episode the player is "meh, whatever..." and lost all interest in the current story... leaving the game sputtering and the GM and players rather put off.
So many posts on here seem to talk about GM responsibility to working to the player Flags... but what about player responsibility to see the story through... to be responsible for the enjoyment of others at the table, not just their own... to be willing to handle some player disappointment in things that don't play out EXACTLY as they want... essentially taking the bad with the good which is just a fact of life... gaming or real.
Maybe I'm missing it, but where does the player responsibility come in this? The players need to commit to stepping up and soldiering on through the "meh" moments to find the true bangs later. This doesn't mean every sessions/episode should be a slog (That is a clear sign of dysfunction in the game.) but a single episode could be in the context of a larger, long term arc that really explores what they enjoy.
I guess the question is, don't you feel that individual players have responsibility to the positive experience of the group as a whole, and not just to their own short terms whims? (Again, I could be misreading, but I just haven't seen anything about player responsibility... just GM responsibility.)
Example:
Quote from: Michael S. Miller on December 21, 2005, 10:22:11 AM
I'm trying to figure out whether you're objecting to Flags tied to the dice system, or objecting to Flags tied to the capital-"S" System.
Michael,
I'm objecting (purely for my own tastes and desires) to Flags tied to the dice system. I think I'm looking for Flags that work under capitol-"S" System without necessarily being tied into resolution or reward rules. I think Sorcerer kickers are a good example of what I'm looking for. I love the idea of TROS SA's as Flags, but hate the crunchiness of the rest of the system.
Judd and I have had discussions recently in which I state my preference as being for rules that "get out of the way", which he pretty strongly disagrees with. I think I need to give some more thought to what experience I'm trying to get out of a game, and try to write a system that gives me that experience. Judd has basically thrown down the gauntlet a few times recently (in a nice, supportive way, of course), and said "put up or shut up".
I'll try to get something on paper that keeps things as narratively described and non-numeric as I want while definitely and clearly spelling out the need, function, and implementation during play of Flags.
John
Quote from: RDU Neil on December 21, 2005, 10:37:59 AM
I guess the question is, don't you feel that individual players have responsibility to the positive experience of the group as a whole, and not just to their own short terms whims? (Again, I could be misreading, but I just haven't seen anything about player responsibility... just GM responsibility.)
Example:
Neil, I was sorry to see that your example got cut off.
Yes, I think everyone at the table has Flag Responsibilities. They have a responsibility to follow their flags with gusto and a responsibility to pursue those flags in ways that are still fun for the rest of the table.
That is tremendously important and not to be taken lightly. Flags can be a real excuse for My Guy behavior, where a player acts like an ass and points to their character sheet, to an SA or Belief in order to show why they did as they did.
But the sudden lack of interest would seem to be almost a symptom of something else at hand. I wonder if that isn't worthy of its own AP thread to examine what is going on there.
Thanks for chiming in.
Hi, John.
Like Judd, I really don't get the minimalist thing sometimes. I only understand part of it. To me, it seems like you don't want to put numbers to the most important stuff. If having too many stats on a page is a problem, then the solution is to hardwire the Flags and drop all that other stuff. I mean, what's really important: character abilities or character flags? If I've got to choose between the two, I want Flags tied into the mechanics (and with numbers on them). Obviously, this a GNS sort of question. Sim may require more than just Flags, I guess.
For example, after looking over a character sheet from an old detailed game I played in, I can summarize all the skills, abilities, and what-not into the four Flag stats below. As a player, those are all I really needed because they are what I wanted to say with the character. I easily could have replaced all that other stuff with these. Stick a number on each, tie in a Humanity stat, provide a Life rating, and I'd be good. (I'd need to be able to shift them, of course.)
1. Own a whorehouse.
2. Heroic despite others' expectations.
3. Master the arts of necromancy.
4. Stay alive.
Quote from: David Chunn on December 21, 2005, 11:11:04 AM
For example, after looking over a character sheet from an old detailed game I played in, I can summarize all the skills, abilities, and what-not into the four Flag stats below. As a player, those are all I really needed because they are what I wanted to say with the character. I easily could have replaced all that other stuff with these. Stick a number on each, tie in a Humanity stat, provide a Life rating, and I'd be good. (I'd need to be able to shift them, of course.)
1. Own a whorehouse.
2. Heroic despite others' expectations.
3. Master the arts of necromancy.
4. Stay alive.
David,
That's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for, but I don't see the need to "stick a number on each". The only thing I might need in addition to your list is some indication of how important each item is to the player, at the moment. Maybe just have the player list their Flags in priority order, and be able to drop, add, or change the order of Flags at will?
John
Quote from: RDU Neil on December 21, 2005, 10:37:59 AMSo many posts on here seem to talk about GM responsibility to working to the player Flags... but what about player responsibility to see the story through... to be responsible for the enjoyment of others at the table, not just their own... to be willing to handle some player disappointment in things that don't play out EXACTLY as they want... essentially taking the bad with the good which is just a fact of life... gaming or real.
Part of what a flag does is that it gives everyone the information about what the player wants to deal with, specifically, with their character. The rest of the rules say who gets to/has to follow up on that. Some games spread that all around, look at Primetime Adventures. The character's issue is the quintisenntial flag. From this,
everyone at the table has the opportunity, power & responsibility to follow up via scene framing, conflict resolution and awarding & use of fan mail.
In Dogs in the Vineyard, the players are the ones who do most of the work bringing the tagged & flagged issues into play. The GM gives you a situation that your character will not & cannot ignore, and then you bring to bear the loaded barrels you've put into your character via the narration you give for raises & sees in conflicts.
And in both these games, it is the GM's responsibility to keep everyone on target, to provide appropriate adversity so that the issues and aspects folks have chosen will sizzle not fizzle.
QuoteI guess the question is, don't you feel that individual players have responsibility to the positive experience of the group as a whole, and not just to their own short terms whims?
Now that's an interesting question, and may be a good candidate for AP discussion. Techniques can be designed to give players the tools to author their compelling stories, but how are they wedded together & what kind of long-term commitment do they impel people to make?
best,
Em
Quote from: johnmarron on December 21, 2005, 11:18:14 AM
David,
That's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for, but I don't see the need to "stick a number on each".
John
John,
In that particular example the numbers would be on the Flags and nowhere else. Those four flags plus Life and Humanity would be the only things on the character sheet. Without numbers on them, we'd be left with diceless play (or numberless at least). I'm just trying to give an example of numerical flags coupled with minimalist design.
Quote from: Emily Care on December 21, 2005, 11:35:36 AM
And in both these games, it is the GM's responsibility to keep everyone on target, to provide appropriate adversity so that the issues and aspects folks have chosen will sizzle not fizzle.
I think I find the bolded phrase above to be the most problematic. What is "appropriate adversity" is never as simple as it sounds. Who determines the level of appropriate? If the player is put out by what the GM provides, is the GM supposed to change to appease the player? Player goes with the GM? Who makes the call?
QuoteQuoteI guess the question is, don't you feel that individual players have responsibility to the positive experience of the group as a whole, and not just to their own short terms whims?
Now that's an interesting question, and may be a good candidate for AP discussion. Techniques can be designed to give players the tools to author their compelling stories, but how are they wedded together & what kind of long-term commitment do they impel people to make?
I think this is tied in to the above... in that I just assumed that putting down your Flags comes with a long term commitment to both the positive and negative ramifications of those Flags in play... that the player would accept "adversity" as part of their character story. Clearly my assumption is not universal. To Jon Hasting's comment at the top of pg. 2, the player may have the desire to play out "what is on their character sheet" but the execution of that is infinite, and unlikely that the player and GM are thinking the exact same thing. When the inevitable "that's not how I wanted it to play out" moment comes... it is not so much a matter of the player saying he'd like to change the priority of the character Flags, or change the Flags all together... often it is "chuck the whole character and the game because it's not working anymore" mentality.
In other words... where is the room for error? When does the player cut the GM some slack when things don't play out perfectly? Can we have a commitment to get back on track without drastically shifting the focus of the game on a player's whim (which only becomes a greater issue with more players at the table). Creativty within boundaries should also reflect shifting Flags within boundaries... player's should have a holistic sense of the game and play within those boundaries as much as the GM should use those boundaries to "keep everyone on target."
Quote from: RDU Neil on December 21, 2005, 01:05:53 PM
I think I find the bolded phrase above to be the most problematic. What is "appropriate adversity" is never as simple as it sounds. Who determines the level of appropriate? If the player is put out by what the GM provides, is the GM supposed to change to appease the player? Player goes with the GM? Who makes the call? [/qupte]
Simple answer: group as a whole.
More complex answers I'm going to want some more actual play to talk about. Going off the cliff into ultimate abstraction may not help us here.
Anyone got stories of when the "appropriate adversity" didn't work out? (I know you do, now spill!)
QuoteCreativty within boundaries should also reflect shifting Flags within boundaries... player's should have a holistic sense of the game and play within those boundaries as much as the GM should use those boundaries to "keep everyone on target."
That's a large part of what Chris and I were saying above -- the ability to shift flags (and emphasis on flags) durring play is an important part of the process. If you get flags that you're stuck with forever and ever it can suck bad. But if you can get rid of or change your flags in various ways, then it lets you open a communication channel with the GM.
I have an AP example of this one. In an Exalted game I was GMing I had a player who had a massive Valor score (5, I think, which is as high as you can get as a mortal). As a result I was often hammering on the character's courage, putting her to the task about "will you stand up to this? for this? what about that? for which? what about when it costs this? when that?" The player had a lot of fun with this, for a time, but eventually got tired of it and wanted a change. She wanted to dump down her Valor score and buy up her Compassion and start to have challenges related to love and peace -- basically doing an Asoka story. (Vicious warrior king becomes compassionate Buddhist monk king, for those without the India fascination.)
So one day we're about to start playing, people are spending their Xp, and the player says to me, "How much does it cost to raise Compassion" and I say "X amount." Then she makes a face, looks at her sheet, and says, "And how much can I sell off dots for?" I am at this point not paying attention and say, "You can't, really. The system doesn't allow for that." So she unhappily sets about raising her Compassion, about half as much as she wanted to, and leaves her Valor really high. As a result, I start pounding on her Valor again.
She isn't so happy with the game, but luckily focuses her anger on the system rather than me. We're talking about game later and suddenly she's saying how much she hates the Exalted system – which is really new for her. So I start asking why, and she gets into the inflexibility of stats and the XP system and such. I say something about charms and game balance, and she snaps, "No idiot, I mean in the... the... author stance things that make the game run Nar!" This from a woman who had been pretty hostile to the whole talk of Nar and stances and such.
We finally figure out what is what, and I let her sell off Valor 2 to 1 for Compassion, and she resets her sheet the way she wants. I look at her new stats and then start to hammer on her Compassion. She is happy. I am happy. Yay.
This is why I have a growing fondness for games that have ways to mess with your "flags" in a more free manner. Be it Burning Wheel's trait votes, With Great Power's ability to shift your focus attribute between games, or Shadow of Yesterday's keys, the ability to move those things around is a key element in keeping the channels of communication open.
I think it's worth noting that OTE, out of the box, is a very flag-central system (in fact, IIRC, the GMing advice does include paying attention to the "flag" aspects of the characters).
What helps a lot there, of course, is that there are -so- few aspects to the characters (3 traits, with the extra markers "central" and "superior" to help further determine the flag-importants, plus a flaw, a "most important person", a secret, and signs for the traits and flaw) that it's harder to accidentally mask out information (like the above example, where the player took a lot of combat schticks because they wanted not to lose combats, not because they wanted to -fight- lots of combats) -- a player who's taking a combat trait "just in case" probably won't slap "central" or "superior" onto it, and if they do, will likely add enough other flavor to make it at least -somewhat- clearer what they mean.
That said, making sure the -players- are aware of this aspect of negotiation is very important, for obviosu reasons.
I think this is particularly important in low Point of Contact Sim (like, say, almost every game I play that isn't trying out a Forgey narr game), because this approach gives the players a good way of influencing the story and pushing it in the ways they're interested in without breaking out of "character space".
That said, what OTE didn't really provide was a way to shift your flags around, though being the kind of player/GM I am, the solution is obvious "you can completely re-define your character between sessions as long as you run it past me -- no, really". But there are groups for which this doesn't work as well, of course. (though a slower "aging" mechanic that involved shfiting characters around would work more or less the same way over the long run without opening things up to gamer abuse)
QuoteSimple answer: group as a whole.
ooh... good answer... one I was struggling to put into words.
I play with RDU Neil. We co-gm. Our styles are different, but not incompatible.
I was the one who was excited about Stakes and Intents, Burning Wheel and I pointed to a couple of recent threads to the various GMs in our 2 and 1/2 gaming groups.
And yet I couldn't articulate to my satisfaction WHY I was geeked about Stakes and Intent.
But the above answer nails it for me. Stakes can create investment for everyone at the table. If we are all interested in the "Vampire getting Bearded in his lair" then everyone is paying attention, everyone is contributing... even if it is with quiet,tacit aproval of the Stakes being set between GM and Player X.
I've sorta said this elsewhere.... but I thinking the Refusal of a particular Stake is as much meat for me as a GM as the acceptence. That is what I look forward to as a GM. Also, that prompt of coming up with the Stake forcing me as a GM to be more clear about HOW i'm percieving the current situation. Always a good thing to strive for. How can Players make informed choices if their GM is vague?
Hmmmm.... Informed Choice. That is what excites the Player side of me.
Quote from: Brand_Robins on December 21, 2005, 01:41:14 PMSimple answer: group as a whole.
More complex answers I'm going to want some more actual play to talk about. Going off the cliff into ultimate abstraction may not help us here.
Anyone got stories of when the "appropriate adversity" didn't work out? (I know you do, now spill!)
Here's one, in which I as GM failed to provide sufficient adversity (as opposed to excessive adversity). I ran an intro conflict for a player in my new Dogs game; his statement was "I hope I kick some demon ass!" (Supernatural meter here set pretty high, obviously.)
Mistake one: I said "okay, so the stakes are whether you kick his ass," and forgot to set up a good opposition stake (eg "... and if you fail, he tattoos his name on the back of your neck").
We set it up that his Dog was out in the desert as a final test of his training, fasting and praying for four days. On the fourth, he saw a man walk out of the shimmering heat in an all-white coat and kindly offer him a canteen (raise 13). He had to take that blow and accept the canteen, netting a little fallout, but then we looked down at our pools and it was clear that he (with 9d6) had simply outrolled me (with my 4d6 + 4d10).
The Dog asked the demon his name; the demon hesitated and stumbled, then made scorpions boil out of the canteen. The Dog threw it down and abjured him to leave in the name of the King. The demon stepped forward, and--I was out of dice. He turned to sand and blew away in a gust of wind.
Mistake two: I had encouraged the player to tie every verbal sally to a raise or see, instead of letting him insert a little small talk before pushing the dice forward. We used up our dice so fast that we didn't even get to a real fight, where the player clearly wanted to go. When we wrapped up the session shortly after, we both acknowledged that we felt disappointed by his intro.
The lesson, obviously, is to take a better cue from the big fat Flag the player planted with "kick a demon's ass"--I should have had a possessed mountain lion jump him, or something, not a kindly stranger just talking. The second lesson is to trust the person on each side of the system to state what's mechanical and what isn't, instead of prompting "is that a see? Is that a raise?"
The same night, we had a much better intro revolving around whether a Dog who had a 2d4 relationship with Lust would resist the temptation of a mild-mannered lady of negotiable affection. Even after bringing multiple Traits and Belongings into play (he threatened her with an axe!), he couldn't match my rolls, and took 8d4 Fallout before he gave. Everybody loved it. The difference: I hit his Flag (lust / temptation / maternal abandonment issues) square on, and he was ready for and expecting their loaded conversation to be the meat of the conflict.
Quote from: Storn on December 21, 2005, 02:19:05 PM
But the above answer nails it for me. Stakes can create investment for everyone at the table. If we are all interested in the "Vampire getting Bearded in his lair" then everyone is paying attention, everyone is contributing... even if it is with quiet,tacit aproval of the Stakes being set between GM and Player X.
The above is where I think we have to be careful. Assuming that one player choosing to set Stakes interests or demands the investment of everyone at the table. This could be true, but just as often not. That tacit approval could actually be somone to shy to speak up or just not caring. We can't assume that Stakes will drive player involvement any more than task resolution and "oooh he missed his roll, what does the GM have happen?" drives player interaction.
QuoteAlso, that prompt of coming up with the Stake forcing me as a GM to be more clear about HOW i'm percieving the current situation. Always a good thing to strive for. How can Players make informed choices if their GM is vague?
Hmmmm.... Informed Choice. That is what excites the Player side of me.
Again, I would argue that it is not "always a good thing" to have clear Stakes vs. uncertainty. They are both valuable commodities in a game. See my thread on Stakes before Sim... Dramatic, involved games have tension... but where that tension is derived can be fun or uncomfortable depending on the situation and player preferences. By saying "Informed Choice" excites you, you are indicating that you prefer Stakes Tension compared to Uncertainty Tension.
Old school, all task resolution games/systems focus almost entirely on Uncertainty Tension. That is probably not where we want to be, but task resolution, GM determined uncertainty results still have a place in the game, and can be preferred by players over Stakes, depending on the situation or preference. You point on refusing the stakes says, to me, that the situation would not go away... it would return to the default position of Task Resolution = Uncertainty.
Example: A player wants their character to enter the fray by swinging on the chandolier with such amazing grace and aplomb that not only do they get a typical combat advantage, but they win the hearts of the ladies and the admiration of the men for their daring do! As a GM, I reply... ok... but if you fail the task... it may hurt your combat situation a bit, but win or lose the fight the charater is humiliated... utterly a laughing stock for many adventures to come." Thus, the player can choose to go ahead or say, "Man, the idea of role playing out being a laughing stock just sounds totally unfun... I retract my Stakes." With that, the situation returns to "task resolution"... simply make your Acrobatics roll and see what happens in terms of tactical combat and uncertainty tension.
It shouldn't be an "either/or" proposition.
QuoteAssuming that one player choosing to set Stakes interests or demands the investment of everyone at the table. This could be true, but just as often not. That tacit approval could actually be somone to shy to speak up or just not caring. We can't assume that Stakes will drive player involvement any more than task resolution and "oooh he missed his roll, what does the GM have happen?" drives player interaction.
True, they might not care or be shy.... but I wouldn't place a bet on it.
If I engage your character on "saying yes to a pretty face, at least for the first time"... you SHOULD be invested in it because you wrote it down. The group should be invested because they agreed and allowed you to write it down (as this happened in a Burning wheel Chargen session recently). (btw, I totally agree that these Flags/Markers will and should evolve with the characters).
In Riddle of Steel.... you get extra dice when tackling those issues that you wrote down. In Burning Wheel, you get Artha (Hero/Fate/Luck) pts.
And this is why this tough to discuss these in a Hero game context. The "Flags", ie, Disadvantages.... Limitations are couched in such mechanical format that often they are forgotten, ignored or taken for points rather than to be Flags. And since Hero System doesn't support a Reward for :
QuoteExample: A player wants their character to enter the fray by swinging on the chandolier with such amazing grace and aplomb that not only do they get a typical combat advantage, but they win the hearts of the ladies and the admiration of the men for their daring do! As a GM, I reply... ok... but if you fail the task... it may hurt your combat situation a bit, but win or lose the fight the charater is humiliated... utterly a laughing stock for many adventures to come." Thus, the player can choose to go ahead or say, "Man, the idea of role playing out being a laughing stock just sounds totally unfun... I retract my Stakes."
They might be less likely to go with the Stakes. Its Carrot and Stick that integrates into the whole system. In BW, IF being dashing is part of my Flags or BITs... Hey win, lose or draw, I'm getting an Artha pt for jumping into the fray in the most flashy way I can think of. A pt that might save my butt down the line. So I'm more inclined to accept the Stakes... after all.... I was the one who wanted to be Flashy and Daring. Also, by blowing some Artha after the humiliation, I might be able to redeem things.... that cute seamstress to the Queen thinking my tripping down the stairs was cute in a heroic, but in a terribly clumsy way.
In Riddle of Steel, the odds are skewed slightly in my favor, because I'm getting extra dice for being a show-off in a dangerous situation.
This is where I want the Informed Choice. The tension isn't gone. It is heightened. Do I take the bet? Do I attempt to be dashing? Also, I've gotten a window on how you are going to rule... not an assumption on my part. If you rule this in a session of Feng Shui, I would go "WTF, Feng Shui is ALL about doing the chandalier". Or, if I withdraw at this point... I don't want to accept my character being a laughing stock.... that is cool too. Because it means that the player realized that maybe he isn't as flashy and daring as he thought he was.
And maybe, just maybe, someone else at the table resets the Stakes. I'm gonna be dashing, going into combat with abolmb... but it now is all for show. I'm gonna jack up my DCV, I'm going to not really attack anyone... and all the "real" fighters will know that I'm not pressing the attack, but the peanut gallery is going to "oooh" and "ahhhh".... can I get a bonus for my Acrobatics now?
QuoteI would argue that it is not "always a good thing" to have clear Stakes vs. uncertainty. They are both valuable commodities in a game. See my thread on Stakes before Sim... Dramatic, involved games have tension... but where that tension is derived can be fun or uncomfortable depending on the situation and player preferences. By saying "Informed Choice" excites you, you are indicating that you prefer Stakes Tension compared to Uncertainty Tension.
Well, for one thing, I'm not advocating setting Stakes all the time. So, strike the "always a good thing" from my end.
But I do think I prefer Stakes Tension. It allows, IMO, for MORE DRAMA, not less. Sure, I like the tales that dice tell.... but I also like tailoring when and how those dice are important. Both as player and as GM. It allows for more minds, more ideas driving the story. Hey, you know me, I might be playing and suggest the Stakes for another player, not the GM.
What I like about BW's BITS is that Players can craft situations for each other, it doesn't all come down to the GM. And that cooperative storytelling is taken to another level then.
Hero started this ball rolling with the mere idea of Disadvantages waaaaay back when. But I think it needs some thought to incorporate what we've learned (and things we might want to experiment with later) into it mechanically.
Quote from: johnmarron on December 21, 2005, 11:18:14 AM1. Own a whorehouse.
2. Heroic despite others' expectations.
3. Master the arts of necromancy.
4. Stay alive.
That's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for, but I don't see the need to "stick a number on each".
Quote
That would allow you to roleplay the character, sure. Would it allow you to collaboratively roleplay with other players who have interests that might be antagonistic to your own? Generally speaking, the attached numbers turn a
description of a character into an
inventory of player credibility methods. If I was playing the aforementioned necromantic whorehouse owner and I wanted to kill an abusive john in order to summon a demon to find out some information that I don't have, how do we determine whether or not I get said information?
Guys, we're starting to drift this thread pretty heavily with our talk of Stakes. We've got another thread about it right here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18092.0 -- perhaps we should talk about stakes there?
Or heck, at this point I think we could spin off multiple new threads. The stuff is worth it, lets get it its own threads where it can shine.
This is all about getting from Character to Situation. Traditionally, it's been the realm of the GM to figure out how the fuck to do that, and game texts haven't been helpful. Flags aren't enough. The other players need to know why you're waving that flag and what you hope to get out of play with it.
Giving some or all scene-framing power to the players is the other critical component. PtA lets you say, "I want a scene about X" and the GM/Producer frames the scene accordingly. Other games give more power to the players but the complaint is that it spoils immersion, whatever that is. ;) I think the scene-request style in PtA is a nice compromise.
Ideally -- say I, at first blush -- the scenario (Situation) should create itself from the character sheets and a simple process everyone can follow. But then I look at Dogs in the Vineyard and wonder if that's true there. I think it is. Town creation is a Setting process. The Situation is where Setting and Character clash. Dogs cleverly handles the Character --> Situation problem by putting it all in the hands of the players. Dump the Characters in the Setting and as players learn stuff they start reacting and Situation just happens. The rules are all about making sure nothing happens to prevent that ("Don't play God," etc.). But does Dogs use flags at all? I don't think so. I don't think the GM is really looking at the character sheets for things to push into the Situation. The GM is looking at the Situation to find ways to escalate to new Situations. The player brings in the things he cares about (traits) via dice mechanics. I think Dogs is a great example of a game that works without flags. Would it be a better game if there was a way for the GM to trigger more Situation involving a character's traits? I dunno, and I won't presume to improve a game that good.
Quote from: Adam Dray on December 22, 2005, 03:43:49 PM
But then I look at Dogs in the Vineyard and wonder if that's true there.
Dogs has flags, they just aren't as strong or direct as those in other games. Relationships and traits often tell the GM something about the kinds of choices players are going to want to make. For example, in my online Dogs game there is a female character who has a relationship with another woman that is set at something like "The girl that wanted me to stay with her" and is explained as the Dog's (chaste) love that the character fled from because she wasn't sure how to deal with her feelings in the context of her faith.
You'd best believe that every other town or so I'm a gonna be putting some love between women trouble into the town, somewhere. Same deal with the character with the huge "argue scripture" traits -- someone in every town is going to end up bringing up scripture to try to convince the Dogs they are wrong.
However, you're very right that those flags aren't the same thing as TSOY keys or BW BTIs. That, however, is because there is one flag that is alway the same in Dogs: the trait/relationship "I'm a Dog" that interacts with the setting "Town Full of Sin." That is an inevitable explosion every time.
Dogs is very focused, very narrow in its approach. You know what the situation will be in every single game. You know what the characters relationship to that situation is every single game. So it still has those flags -- its just that the flags are preset. In TSOY or BW, otoh, you don't know the situation of every single game nor the relationship of every single PC to every single situation -- so you need more obvious, explicit, and flexible flags to get the same ability to create tension. Dogs does it by presetting things (Mountain Witch too, I guess), the other games do it by giving players the ability to set things themselves.
This also becomes a circular prosses as you go on. Dogs come into those preset situations, pick up fallout and do judgement and the GM watches what fallout they take and what judgements they make. He then pushes on those. Every judgement you make in Dogs is a kind of flag: because its a signal to the GM "push this issue harder in the next town." It's just that the flag comes up in play, in that fruitful void at the center of Dogs, rather than beign on the character sheet. I'd say that's fitting, and works, because in the end it isn't a Character Flag. It is a Player Flag.
Hi,
Dogs' flags come in two ways- Stakes & Fallout. A player arguing for "Do we kill him?" vs. "Do we redeem him?" are saying something right to the GM's face. Fallout also tends to flag things because players will add or change Traits, Relationships, etc. that matter- the ones they don't care about tend to stay the same.
Chris
Adam, that link to the individual characters is the one thing that I find missing from the superlative Town Creation rules in Dogs. As Brand points out, the GM can plan Towns in accordance with what's on character sheets (although that's a Good GM technique not specified in the Town Creation procedure), the "I'm a Dog" is always relevant, and the GM is directed to watch player judgments and push them in the next town. And it works, sure, but I'm looking forward to the next step as you lay out, a specific procedure (like Dogs) that creates the Situation directly off of player input / character sheets. Shock: does this; FLFS does this. I believe PtA does this, but I think the gaming gods do not want me to play that game.
In any case, I want to see the procedure go:
Player Preferences -> Character Sheet -> Premise -> Situation Creation -> Scene Framing -> Roleplay
The straighter that arrow, the more on-target the game experience (I suspect).
I don't mean to pick on Brand, but I clicked "Quote" on his post. This applies to what Chris said, too.
Quote from: Brand_Robins on December 22, 2005, 04:19:53 PM
Dogs has flags, they just aren't as strong or direct as those in other games. Relationships and traits often tell the GM something about the kinds of choices players are going to want to make. For example, in my online Dogs game there is a female character who has a relationship with another woman that is set at something like "The girl that wanted me to stay with her" and is explained as the Dog's (chaste) love that the character fled from because she wasn't sure how to deal with her feelings in the context of her faith.
I don't buy that those are flags. They're traits and the player uses them to express what he wants, but they're not signals to the GM and nothing in the system tells the GM to use them to create specific situations for the characters.
QuoteThis also becomes a circular prosses as you go on. Dogs come into those preset situations, pick up fallout and do judgement and the GM watches what fallout they take and what judgements they make. He then pushes on those. Every judgement you make in Dogs is a kind of flag: because its a signal to the GM "push this issue harder in the next town." It's just that the flag comes up in play, in that fruitful void at the center of Dogs, rather than beign on the character sheet. I'd say that's fitting, and works, because in the end it isn't a Character Flag. It is a Player Flag.
Are we labeling anything that generates Situation as a "flag" now? I don't think that's useful. A flag is something written on the character sheet by one player that guides other players towards certain kinds of play. Yes, the stuff in play is a "kind of flag" but it isn't what we've been discussing here at all. Is the fact that Bobby bought a Camaro a kind of flag? Yeah, but it isn't what we mean when we talk about flags and markers here.
Fallout could be a flag, but only if the GM pays attention. I daresay that sometimes, the GM doesn't know what the player wrote for Fallout until it comes up as a trait in a conflict later. A better flagging mechanic would be more explicit about getting this information into the hands of the GM.
Yes, the Dogs rules explicitly tell the GM to push a player to a conflict, get her to pass judgment, then say "really? what about this?" and escalate, escalate, escalate. I don't think any of that has anything to do with flags. I brought up Dogs as an example of a game that works just fine without "flags," as we've been using the term. I don't think there's an RPG out there that works without using some "kind of a flag" --
i.e., signals or communication between players.
A good flagging mechanic requires the players to signal what they want, tells them how to do it, provides procedure for getting this information into the hands of the people who can use it, and requires (and probably rewards) the other players to use it.
Quote from: Adam Dray on December 22, 2005, 06:29:47 PM
I don't mean to pick on Brand, but I clicked "Quote" on his post. This applies to what Chris said, too.
It's okay, pick away!
Especially as you're right. Dogs has feedback mechanisms, but they are different than the flags being discussed in the rest of the thread. Trying to shove them all under one heading is probably not best for clarity.
Adam,
you're right. Sorry for confusing the discussion.
Chris
Quote from: Paka on December 19, 2005, 08:40:44 PM
One of those off-the-fly games was set on the under-side of the Spelljammer setting's Rock of Bral, a place I was enamored with. I decided it was a prison and the game would be set there. The only guidance I gave the players during chargen was that they were in the Rock for a crime and they weren't framed. Whatever it was, they did it.
I filled a notebook page with the guards' names, the warden and other prisoners. Of course these other prisoners, all Drow, Yuan-ti, a Ronin Space Captain from the Imperial Navy were all bangs. I didn't realize what I had to have down until years later but I had to have bangs, situations the players felt compelled to react to and deal with.
I've been thinking about this game, a successful session that I hadn't thought about in years. It occurred to me that the game's concept had flags built in.
The players all came up with a crime that their PC had comitted and there it was, my lone freak flags. One character was a Giff, one of those Spelljammer hippo-men who had gone AWOL from his platoon due to some kind of machievellian elven navy scheme, another was a religious zealot who was making dangerous waves in his world and was sent off for being a political dissident.
I made the guards in the prison Giff, so the player of the Giff convict would be able to play out his problem with his own kind. The dissident got to stir up the cell block into a political frenzy. D&D 2nd edition wasn't exactly highlighting my style of play but it was the devil we knew back then.
Anyway, the concept gave us our flags. These weren't built into the system but before the player could come to the table, they had to tell me their crime and then BINGO, a hand-hold for me to hang on to while I figured out what made the character excited at the table.