The Forge Archives

An exerpt from this Rifts play by post game: http://rpol.net/display.cgi?gi=15181&gn=Rifts:+Do+you+dare%3F&threadnum=4&date=1140068269

There was already some activity with a third player trying to talk to some probably sentient trees. But I figured this left the other two players waiting on that players results, so I added another event.

Quote from: CallanAbout two hundred yards away along the edge of the forrest, there suddenly seems to be some sort of scuffle happening amongst the leaves and branches, almost like something is about to or trying to leave. That's what you (all) note at a glance.

Quote from: Player of cybered gun slinger: Snake EyesAt the sound and movement indicating some kind of activity, Jesse's hands move faster that than the average eye can follow.  Two odd-looking pistols-both long, heavy weapons with a clip port in front of the trigger instead of in the grip, though one is more round with three barrels inside of a smaller cowling-are suddenly in his hands and aimed towards the scuffle.  He does not fire, though it appears that it would take almost no pressure ong the triggers to release whatever form of death these unusual pistols may unleash.
Instead, he adjusts his eyes, bringing the area into sharper focus.
OOC:  Intitiative of 31 on that draw....

Quote from: Player of cyborg: BreachStill seated on the cycle Breach again activates his optic and audio systems and zooms in on the area; switching between modes to get a good view of whats going on.  His railgun is leveled at the area and his joints lock in place in preperation for the recoil.  The initial warmup of the weapon takes a fraction of a second.  Once active it emitts a slight vibrating hum that is almost inaudable.

The agenda I'm going for is gamist. But there's something about this that rubs me the wrong way. The balls in my court, as to a responce. But the players haven't actually done anything.

I think the idea of just rendering the game world is out of place. If I just figure out what they would see - well, is there anything else I can give for free?

On the other hand, I don't want them saying stuff like 'well, with my infra red eye mod, my character would see x'. They're not here to tell me how the game world causality works and for me to absorb that into my dream or something.

Typing that out has helped me think about it. I think what's missing is not so much that they haven't done something, but that the players haven't declared that they're risking anything. Not even a small risk, like saying they think they'd see something, which would mean looking a little silly if they are incorrect about that statement. Well, perhaps 'little' is up for debate - the scale of social feedback can be unpredictable (even if it's just what the player thinks the social feedback level is).

How does it appear to other forge members?

Actually they have risked something - they have risked that the rustle in the bushes is a distraction and that they are in fact about to be attacked from the rear.  If this were one of the X-com games, or something like Pheonix Command, those statements would have cost action points to carry out and changed their facing, which would itself be systematically significant.

Its a long time since I read Rifts, but if you are not using graph paper and the system does not have AP that track such things, it will feel like nothing happened, and the change is registered in the SIS through narration rather than system.  But probably there are facing modifiers in the rules somewhere.

Callan,

Just as an idea: it looks as though the problem isn't as such that they haven't risked anything - it's that they haven't given you anything to respond to.

You could summarise the play you posted - slightly cruelly to the players - as follows:

GM: There's a rustle in the bushes.
Player 1: I describe myself I describe myself I describe myself
Player 2: I wait for something to happen.

...and it's very difficult for the GM to respond to that.

If one of the players had said "I switch to infrared view and run the resulting patterns through my lifeform-detection banks", then they wouldn't have risked much, but at least you'd have been able to move the story on.

Graham

This is early in the campaign, I take it? How about reflecting back to them your understanding of what they've written in terms of priorities and choices: e.g. "If I understand you right, Jesse is focusing on the bushes at the expense of attention to other areas; his emphasis is on not firing blindly at the noise and he trusts his reflexes to deal with the possibility that whatever's in the bushes attacks suddenly."

Anyway, charitably assume that there's constructive action, or at least *posture* in the text and try to draw it out into the light. I see two likely outcomes: 1) Player says, You got it. 2) Player says, Actually, my priority is X rather than Y. 3) (Oops! Miscounted.) Player says, "whaddaya mean, at the expense of? I'm ready for anything! You're trying to trick me, aren't you!" or words and in and between the lines to that effect.

The last is the potential pitfall, and would call for a discussion along the lines of, "Guys, my assumption in the campaign is that there's no such thing as *covering all bases equally well*. Your goal is to make the best choices given the information available to you as to where to focus and what to risk. My goal is to give you enough ongoing information and feedback that you *can* make those choices well. If you never risk anything and I don't give you a fair chance to figure out what to risk, we don't have a campaign here. If you do risk things and I do a good enough job giving you information to go on, we can have a hell of a lot of fun."

Best,


Jim

I think the concern here from the player's point of view is trying to accertain what there is to be responded to.  They have declared a 'readying' action so as to negate any surprise.  But as Contracycle mentioned, it took a fraction of their time.  A reasonable risk due to the mysterious nature of what you described. 

To spur action, concider increasing a 'dread' factor.  A reason that if they do nothing is infact to risk more harm than doing nothing.  Even if the tree was eating peasents, pulling them limb from limb, the characters may decide risk is unacceptable.  Perhaps the forest ground rustling with the movement of roots around them would add to a sense of urgency to act.  Something needs to be given to put the character in peril, mortally, ideally or spiritually.  Otherwise, sitting on the side as a witness is a far safer course of action.

-Rob

OK, maybe I'm missing something by not reading deeply enough into the subtext of the events in game, but what I see is two guys saying "more information, please."

They haven't put anything at risk because they don't know what's worth risking at this point. Is it an unearthly monstrosity, come to claim their chrome, or an over-large badger trying to shake off angry hornets? I would respond to those opponents very differently.

I'm not sure what I'd risk in that situation. I've got a ranged weapon. I'm a quick draw. When I sense something is wrong, I go into alert mode and draw my gun ... and see if something dangerous develops. What were you looking for?

-Marco

Yeah, my gut response would be you haven't given them enough to react to.

My inclination, in this kind of situation, is to assume that if you have a mysterious rustling in the bushes, of course your combat-trained characters are going to posture themselves appropriately -- guns out, sensors scanning, whatever -- and then write that into your post so you can get to the good stuff.

In other words, don't write, "you hear rustling in the bushes" and stop. Write, "you hear rustling in the bushes -- you draw your wicked kewl uber gunz of killing +3! -- and then a monster/ninja/panicked peasant/hot goth chick jumps out!! What do you do?"

Now, if the players say, "Wait! I wouldn't have drawn my gun! I'd have kept it holstered to avoid scaring off the hot goth chick, or poked around in the bushes unarmed to express that I'm curious and foolhardy, or run away screaming and waving my arms and wetting myself," then you rewind and change what happened. It's all made up, right, so nothing is "real" until all the participants agree it is (Lumpley Principle!).

Yes, I am advising that you, as GM, make the player-characters do something without consulting the players first. But in a play-by-post, it'll take forever if you consult with them over every routine action. The three essentials to avoiding deprotagonization here are
1) get to know your players' visions for their characters, so you can describe them doing the in-character thing
2) make the characters sound cool
3) never, ever make the characters do something that would penalize them -- when you temporarily take control like this, assume they do the most sensible thing (even if the players, if asked, might've done something stupid...)

BIG FAT CAVEAT: The only PBEM stuff I've ever managed to run was total freeform (i.e. unstructured Drama plus GM fiat -- whee!), with posts in the hundreds or even thousands of words, so my advice may not apply. Crunchy combat systems in play-by-post/play-by-email -- that's hard.

Hi Contra and Elindryn,

They really haven't said for themselves that their risking anything. If I were to apply some danger from behind, that doesn't turn it into a risk statement made by them. It'd be like trying to turn someone's choice in a game into a nar address.
GM "Your jobs at risk!"
Player "I work real hard at keeping it!"
GM "Umm, and you made that choice against looking after your (previously non existant, the GM is inventing her now) girlfriend, who leaves you because of all the hours your putting in. There, you made an address of premise!"

Here, I'd be doing the same thing - introducing the issue of facing after the event. Something they had not considered at all (like the player in the example hadn't thought about a toll on relationships). I don't think that makes their action an address of challenge.

Although when I started role playing years ago, everyone was always hyper and nervous - we never really discussed what bad thing could happen from any action, but with all the nerves, there was a sense from every player that for every action something quite bad could happen. Though this faded over time, as we learnt the ins and outs of roleplay in general. Perhaps the players in this game feel some sense of a nasty thing happening after any post. But I just don't see it right now. So if it's there, communication needs to be worked on.

Also, I think in games like X-com, the rules are so strongly present, that they represent a language that a player can communicate their risk by (eg, "I've been playing X-com for awhile, so I know exactly what I'm risking when I turn my guy around to cover this ground" is all said in one click of the mouse). But I think as the rules become fuzzy in wording and disconnected from each other this language deteriates, until it really doesn't communicate risk anymore. And that's what I'm working with, with Rifts. I need to rely on their words, not some half remembered facing rules tucked away somewhere.



Hi Jim,

QuoteThis is early in the campaign, I take it? How about reflecting back to them your understanding of what they've written in terms of priorities and choices: e.g. "If I understand you right, Jesse is focusing on the bushes at the expense of attention to other areas; his emphasis is on not firing blindly at the noise and he trusts his reflexes to deal with the possibility that whatever's in the bushes attacks suddenly."

Anyway, charitably assume that there's constructive action, or at least *posture* in the text and try to draw it out into the light. I see two likely outcomes: 1) Player says, You got it. 2) Player says, Actually, my priority is X rather than Y. 3) (Oops! Miscounted.) Player says, "whaddaya mean, at the expense of? I'm ready for anything! You're trying to trick me, aren't you!" or words and in and between the lines to that effect.

Your first paragraph really helped me figure out a different perspective and some of my responces to Contra/Elindryn. But I think that rather than trying to tease it out or figuring out their past priorities, I should be just flat out dare them "So your going to leave your rear exposed, to cover this thing?". If that's not what they mean, I prompt them to tell me what their risking. If they don't want to risk anything, then they'll get no type of reward, regardless of how this moment in the situation turns out. And the discussion makes the risk/reward connection pretty explicit. Basically the same as your saying, but more provocative (which avoids certain issues of risk obscurement).



Hi Gains,

Your concentration on wanting to know what the thing is before you put anything at risk - isn't that bypassing the 'find out what it is' challenge that was presented? Their saying "Information, please" is like a kid doing the seeking in hide and seek saying "Information on where you are, please!". I think this AP example is akin to calvin balling, because it implies a certain causality of 'if I look at it, I should see more' to bypass the challenge presented.



Hi Marco,

I get the reward in drawing guns and covering the patch of ground, system wise. But what would you look for - to just get that reward, or get the thrill of earning that reward by risking some sort of penalty?



Hi Sydney,

Quote1) get to know your players' visions for their characters, so you can describe them doing the in-character thing
2) make the characters sound cool
3) never, ever make the characters do something that would penalize them -- when you temporarily take control like this, assume they do the most sensible thing (even if the players, if asked, might've done something stupid...)

Apart from #2, that's some terrible advice, man! I appreciate you giving it, but your telling me that in a gamist game as GM, I should be making the optimal choices for the players, so we can get to the good part. Dude, making those choices IS the good part! :) Not being able to get enough information - that is an issue, but rather than being an issue of 'the games not getting to the good part', I'm making the game revolve around this issue because I think it's meat that makes a good game.

Perhaps 'the bushes rustle' has just been used too often as a teaser technique by GM's to introduce encounters in a dramatic fashion, to actually be seen as an issue/information challenge in itself.

I'd always go for rewards without risk if I were playing gamist, yes. Min-maxing is pretty much preferred, no? It'd be looking for the thrill of winnning--and that means not overcommiting where possible.

-Marco

Quote from: Callan S. on February 17, 2006, 06:27:00 PM....Hi Sydney...that's some terrible advice, man! I appreciate you giving it, but your telling me that in a gamist game as GM, I should be making the optimal choices for the players, so we can get to the good part. Dude, making those choices IS the good part! :)

Okay, that makes sense. I was thinking of getting past the obvious tactical choices that don't make for much of a Challenge ("there's a noise in the bushes!" "We draw our weapons and look!" or "A 100-ton weight is falling on you!" "We jump out of the way!"; I mean, what the hell else are they gonna do?) to get to the meatier tactical stuff, but, obviously, you guys value all those choices. Got it. Allow me to revise my terrible advice:

Get "standing orders" from the players about certain generic tactical situations: Archie always goes first, Bob and Candace follow behind and give cover; if we hear something and can't make out what it is, we draw weapons and cover it but one of us always watches for a flank attack in case it's a distraction; if we go into a bar, we always scope the place out and sit with our backs to the wall near an exit; that kind of stuff.

Then, when you have a "bushes rustle" situation, you as GM already know what they're going to do, so you don't have to hold up the whole game for them to post "I draw my gun and wait!"; but instead of you making their choices for them, it's based on their "standard operating procedure," so they get to benefit from their own smart stuff (e.g. "two of us always check out the noise while the third one always watches for an ambush from another direction") or suffer from their own stupid stuff (e.g. "we open fire randomly in all directions").

Hi Sydney,

QuoteOkay, that makes sense. I was thinking of getting past the obvious tactical choices that don't make for much of a Challenge ("there's a noise in the bushes!" "We draw our weapons and look!" or "A 100-ton weight is falling on you!" "We jump out of the way!"; I mean, what the hell else are they gonna do?)

I think you have a prominant point; what the hell else are they going to do?

Well, they could have a lateral brain wave and think 'well, if this is an obvious action, then it's boring and meaningless play - I should introduce risk so as to make the choice meaningful'. But really that isn't going to happen and I don't and shouldn't expect it - it's a pretty big step. Indeed, thinking over my own gamist history, I don't think it's something I've usually done myself.

I don't blame them for what they posted - as said, I'd likely do the same actions. But even though their well within what should be expected, the lack of knowledge is crushing challenges that they just don't see. It's like some mister McGoo cartoon, where he walks inside a military base because with his blindness, the guards present no threat to him at all. But at the same time, the players are getting the reward for these challenges by pushing the 'obvious' answers. I can understand players not wanting to take up a challenge, but this is different. Gamism is usually seen as pretty robust, but this is a tremendous weak point where it can become flat and boring. "That's just hack and slash" sticks out in my mind as a regular attitude, yet now that I look at it in these terms then it is a self forfilling prophesy. If your not willing to see the myriad risk in such play, then it is not there and such play really is boring (or a 'beer and pretzels/old school thing to do sometimes' event).

Jim's post helped me out with the idea of the teasing out of a risk/daring them. But while thats one way to solve the problem, I think 'what the hell else are they going to do' proves to be a real gamist issue, in terms acts that entirely undercut the priorities of play, yet are entirely understandable and even easily accepted.

On Standard Orders
Sorry to be negative twice, but I think the standard orders might not work. Imagine narrativist play where you put contingencies in, in advance "If faced with a choice between my work and my relationship with my wife, I put my wife first. If this comes up, continue the game, taking that into account".

Actually, I can imagine that nar example working (though its quite different in feel), because it contains the essential components that make it a significant choice. Did you have that in mind with the standard operating procedure - that the procedure would make nods to what the players see as inherent risks involved with it. And thus by using it, the players are saying 'we take on risk', which is pretty cool!

Game design thought: Perversely, it gives me an idea. Such generated operating procedures easily match and replace standard rules. So while a normal rule might say "If you charge, you get +2 to hit and -2 to AC' here the operating procedure could have reward and inherent risk generated by players and encoded into the procedure, rather than the book having that. And the book rules would help your group write up those procedures. The perverse part that at a game world level, the procedure is supposed to protect characters, but at a meta level, players are using it to inject risk into the game. Just a side thought, no comment required!

Callan, as GM, you did something stupid.  You're trying to get the players to commit to action without committing to anything yourself.  It won't work.

"The bushes rustle!  What do you do?"
"We, not being idiots, wait until the GM gives us something more than a breeze in the bushes before we do much of anything.  Sheesh."

If you want them to commit to a course of action then you commit to a course of action.  It takes two to tango.  If all you're willing to do is shake some bushes then why would you expect them to suddenly go all berserk and file a whole battle-plan?  How did that suddenly become their sole responsibility?

You've given the players a chance to make their characters ready.  They've made them ready.  What do you do next?  How can you even ask that?  You release a gigantic freakin' behemoth of tortured, damned necrotic flesh, bound and penetrated with bizarre and unearthly cords of sparking, metallic technology to try to kick their asses!  Give 'em a nice hefty bonus for having been on guard, 'cuz they're gonna need it, this thing being all but immune to pain, damage and any mortal sense of fear.  Not to mention, it stinks ... not like "Hoo boy, Uncle Eddie ain't got nothing on you" but a gagging oily stench of flesh not merely rotted but grown unclean, gangrenous and mushy, that wraps its way down your throat and coats your lungs until your body feels compelled to try to vomit up not merely your lunch but your actual organs in a vain attempt to purge itself.

You do that?  I guarantee you'll see a reaction a bit more extreme than "I switch to infra-red."

In fact, I'm with Sydney:  Why the heck are you boring them with the rustling bushes as a stopping point?  Why not just grant them the optimal response, and move on to the good stuff?  Like "The bushes rustle, and your years of combat intuition tell you that it ain't no hot goth chick, it's bad news with a capital 'BAD', so you let off a stream of autofire ... and it's a good thing you do, because it gets you one free round of attack on the THING that comes half shambling, half flowing out of the woods.  Let's get positions going.  What tactics do you guys want to try?"

Hi Tony,

QuoteIf you want them to commit to a course of action then you commit to a course of action.  It takes two to tango.  If all you're willing to do is shake some bushes then why would you expect them to suddenly go all berserk and file a whole battle-plan?  How did that suddenly become their sole responsibility?

As Contra noted, they have changed their facing. This entails a risk of not covering their rear.

However, I need THEM to say they are taking that risk. Or any old risk they can imagine being involved with the situation (they might have been thinking there is some sort of risk, but I don't know until they say it). Not a battle plan - risk. Otherwise it's a complete non event, posting wise.

Actually, I'll underline that - Complete Non Event. So much so that you can think of it as a kind of pseudo GM, pushy wimp power. Say we were playing some sort splinter cell inspired roleplay and I describe an old wooden bridge ahead. And a player goes "Oh, I just sneak across as usual", with not a mote of concern on their face/without thought of risk. In fact, if asked, they would say the bridge is boring and they would prefer to face a behemoth of necrotic flesh. And since I can't turn what they do into an address of challenge, they get their way. Ie, if the bridge ends up squeaking and alerting guards, the player never contemplated any risk associated with the action before, so they never took on this risk. It's just the GM adding guards. Non event. It's like where in my pseudo nar example from above, where the GM adds the girlfriend split up after the player chooses to pursue his job. It doesn't turn it into an address of premise. And they just repeat their 'non event power' until they get what they want, pushy wimp style.

[rant]So no, Tony, it wasn't stupid. What happens is if I decide to go splinter cell on your ass, you get back in your player chair and take it, or leave the game! I'm not interested in any 'I'd rather something else happens, so I'm taking the GM hat and taking us to what I think is good stuff, by obliterating anything I don't like' BS. You don't get the GM hat, it's mine mine mine! What you get is to choose if you play in the game or not. That's it! And frankly, I never got to really see how you'd handle the old rustling bush...most gamists I know with any skill (yes, this is baiting) know there is ALWAYS risk involved. In fact, the greater part of gamism is NOT avoiding risk, but learning just where it's hiding (without getting burned!) - and I see that task being thoroughly avoided here! (further baiting)[/rant]

I needed to get at what I care about with that rant, so it's impassioned and a bit demented (your not one of my players, clearly). Though I admit I did enjoy saying 'If I decide to go splinter cell on your ass'... :)

I'd also like to add that there are various options built into my game beyond 'like it or leave it'. There are hard rules for exploration, ie 'These locations don't interest me, so I use these rules to indicate I'd like new locations offered (also, nothing bad can happen to players until they decide to step into these locations - ie, take on the risk)'. That's the tool I have explicitly given players to use if they want to say 'Rustling bushes? Ah, screw this, I move on!'

Really, if the rustling bushes are boring, why are they responding to them at all? Why not post about yawning and studying their navels? Well, because they don't want to get gacked while flat footed. I think the players aren't bored with this, they see something there, they just didn't have the right systematic or social prompting for them to express what risk they are taking on in their reaction. Even upping it into a nasty behemoth doesn't guarantee the player will accept the risk of that creature. I think, anyway.

You're both posting complete non-events, but you're here on this thread pretending like it's all the players, and that you had no part in creating the situation.  Here's a quote from your first post:

Quote from: Callan S. on February 16, 2006, 10:47:09 PMThe agenda I'm going for is gamist. But there's something about this that rubs me the wrong way. The balls in my court, as to a responce. But the players haven't actually done anything.

Here's a response I would consider quite reasonable from your players:  "There's something about this that rubs me the wrong way.  The balls in my court, as to a response.  But the GM hasn't actually done anything.  All he's done is say there's a rustling in the bushes."

Do you think that would be an unreasonable complaint?

Yes, it's unreasonable. It relies on the assumption he was 'doing nothing', but doesn't actually question if that is true or not.

Remember various Dogs in the vineyard accounts, where someone says "Jimbo just ran around shooting people! That was crap!". If the beholder isn't willing to see a moral statement being made by shooting all those people, then for that viewer, Jimbo is doing nothing. Narrativism isn't just about making addresses of premise. It's also, of course, about hearing it.

Do you hear what I'm saying with the rustling bush, in terms of gamism?

Even if you don't and think I'm doing nothing, that's cool, I accept that. That's why I set up the exploration rules so players could move on if they just didn't get the challenge. Keep moving on until you find something like that necro flesh monster, if you want.

But not getting what I'm saying, yet STILL engaging so as to get rewards(information) at no stated risk? Yes, that's unreasonable.

Why do you find your listed responce a reasonable one? I see it this way "There's something about this that rubs me the wrong way.  The balls in my court, as to a response.  But the GM hasn't actually done anything.  All he's done is say there's a rustling in the bushes. Hmm, but I don't just feel like looking after myself and walking my PC away to find something more interesting, despite my many complaints. I'll just try and skip to the good parts of it, instead."

Quote from: Callan S. on February 18, 2006, 04:32:35 PMDo you hear what I'm saying with the rustling bush, in terms of gamism?

Not even remotely.  I have no idea why you think Gamism says that "a bush rustles" requires risk-seeking behavior from the players.  It sounds like crazy-moon-language to me.  Can you explain without assuming that all good gamists already know the answer?

Quote from: Callan S. on February 18, 2006, 04:32:35 PMWhy do you find your listed responce a reasonable one? I see it this way "There's something about this that rubs me the wrong way.  The balls in my court, as to a response.  But the GM hasn't actually done anything.  All he's done is say there's a rustling in the bushes. Hmm, but I don't just feel like looking after myself and walking my PC away to find something more interesting, despite my many complaints. I'll just try and skip to the good parts of it, instead."

Hrm.  That doesn't sound all that much like what I was saying.  In fact, I wasn't saying that the players should skip to the good parts.  I was saying that you, the GM, should skip to the good parts. 

And I wasn't saying that they'd complained that your material is boring (though it certainly seems that way from what I've heard).  Have they complained?

As a matter of fact, I think your players have done precisely the right thing.  The GM (that's you) gave them a little rustling in the bushes, which (in and of itself) implies nothing.  Could be a shibboleth, could be a squirrel, could be the wind.  So they switched a single notch up their defense-condition ladder (because, after all, it's not just a rustling ... it's a rustling that the GM specifically mentioned) and then they sat back to see what happens next.  What's so wrong with that?

Yeah right now I dont see anything wrong with what the players have done and dont see any indication of what they could have done to make it better.  Callan, could you retell the incident having them give responses more to your liking, that may help us see what you actually want from them.  After that maybe someone will be able to make suggestions on modifying your game system to promote the behaviour you want, right now it looks like a standard cautious reaction to an unknown situation.  They see no challenge so there is nothing to step up to, though there is the possibility of a challenge lurking in the bushes.

Callan, you have some image of "gamism" that I really don't understand.

What would you have done as the players?

-Marco

Listen to Tony. He's absolutely right - the players acted reasonably.

Best,


Jim

Hi Marco,

I've already said what I'd likely do and now I know you've rushed though thread without reading properly and I suspect your not the only one.

QuoteI don't blame them for what they posted - as said, I'd likely do the same actions. But even though their well within what should be expected, the lack of knowledge is crushing challenges that they just don't see.

Imagine a nar game, where the GM kept taking a player off into another room when it came to the player making an address of premise, hiding it from the other players. Do you think that's a good technique? What if it's the only one the group knows?

Now imagine gamism, where the players never express (or don't even think of) the risk they are taking. It's the same as the nar example.

Do people think I'm beating on the players tactics here or something? It's not about that at all.



Tony,

QuoteNot even remotely.  I have no idea why you think Gamism says that "a bush rustles" requires risk-seeking behavior from the players.  It sounds like crazy-moon-language to me.  Can you explain without assuming that all good gamists already know the answer?

Risk stating, not risk seeking. For you and Caldis there's an example of risk stating right in the first post, with wouldn't involve any change to the actual actions described. I think people have zipped past that post.

In terms of complaints, none so far. It was your second post described this as a non event and I'm using that assumption. Basically I see two states:

1. If it's a non event for them, I expect them to go use the exploration rules.
2. If it's an event for them, I expect them to post an event in responce.

There is no middle ground where I, in their own opinion, post an event, but they can legitimately post a non event in responce.

QuoteYou're both posting complete non-events, but you're here on this thread pretending like it's all the players, and that you had no part in creating the situation.

Yes, it's all up to the players. I created the exploration rules specifically to shift this sort of responsilbity right off my shoulders. Is there a third state I haven't thought of, where the responsiblity is still mine?

QuoteHrm.  That doesn't sound all that much like what I was saying.  In fact, I wasn't saying that the players should skip to the good parts.  I was saying that you, the GM, should skip to the good parts.

No, I've already chosen the card I want. What your saying is that based on the players feedback, I should choose another card. Is this card okay? No? How about this one? I as GM should pick a card, any card, as long as it's one the player already picked. It wouldn't be me skipping play on, it'd be the player. And from what I'm hearing, with a very traditional illusionism technique. I think an actual play example from you would be the best way to investigate this point.



Thread moderation note for all: Before I listen to anybody I should run a pop quiz to see if you've listened to me to begin with. If you want to teach me some sort of lesson, think of what I'm learning when I see you've skipped the information your asking for. And no more 'listen to so and so' posts - they are empty of content. Feel free to PM me with them, but here they just smell of 'me too!'.

Quote from: Callan S. on February 19, 2006, 10:03:37 PM
Risk stating, not risk seeking. For you and Caldis there's an example of risk stating right in the first post, with wouldn't involve any change to the actual actions described. I think people have zipped past that post.

No, I just considered (and still consider) it irrelevant.  But since you think the phrasing is important, I'll rephrase my question.  Why do you think that "a bush rustles" from you obliges them to state risks?

Quote from: Callan S. on February 19, 2006, 10:03:37 PM
1. If it's a non event for them, I expect them to go use the exploration rules.

Okay, can you rough in the shape of these rules for us?  Having reviewed the thread (again) I don't see them listed.  You mentioned that a third comrade is currently in the forest, talking with the trees.  Would the other two using the "exploration rules" imply changing their current position as possible quick-response back-up for her?  Would it, in short, imply leaving her?

Sorry Callan but to be blunt you have failed to express your point well enough for anyone to see it.  The best I can guess at is you want the players to guess whats caused the rustling in the bushes in their posts and somehow that will be the players risking something, maybe social cred if they guess wrong.  Still I dont see why this seemingly meaningless incident has to require the players risking something.  This seems like a set up post for the challenge that is about to come when the bad guy jumps out of the bushes, or just a psych job when it turns out to just be a puppy.  So are you saying that you want every post in the game to have the players risking something, you wont have build up scenes or exposition just constant risk?  If so you are going to need a more tightly focused rule system than Rifts.

I don't know if I could answer a pop-quiz, but let me try and rephrase what you seem to be saying, and then I'll make comments, OK?

Your "Splinter Cell" example: You would be unhappy with something like:
GM:"OK, there is this old wooden bridge ahead."
Players:"OK, We sneak across as usual. Come'on, where is the cool?"
as the players don't seem to be taking risk into account.

You also wouldn't like
GM:"OK, there is this old wooden bridge ahead."
Players:"OK, We sneak across as usual."
GM:"Guards! Yes - a whole bunch of guards" - made up on the spot - "start shooting at you!"
as the GM is making up consequences on the fly. If I understand you correctly, you are likening this to a Narrativist GM going:
GM "Your job's at risk!"
Player "I work real hard at keeping it!"
GM "Umm, and you made that choice against looking after your (previously non existent, the GM is inventing her now) girlfriend, who leaves you because of all the hours your putting in."

Which I agree, is lame. But taking the Narrativist example first, it wouldn't be lame if the players knew - or could make reasonable assumptions about - what effects their decision could have on play. Therefore, the nar GM above should go:
GM "Your job is at risk, but your girlfriend wants you to spend more time with her!"
Player "Umm... Do I lose my job or lose my girl?"
GM: "Pretty much"
Player: "OK, I work real hard at keeping my job"
GM "Right, your girlfriend leaves you because of all the hours your putting in. There, you made an address of premise!"

So taking that back to the Splinter Cell example, I think this would be better:
GM:"OK, there is this old wooden bridge crossing a river that blocks your progress. There is a manned guard post on the other side, watching over the bridge, but the river is fast-moving and freezing cold."
I bet the players won't "Sneak across as usual" when presented with something like that (assuming they have to cross the river somehow, of course). They can look at the situation, make reasonable assumptions of the outcome of each course of action and the associated risks. Therefore they can address the risk - do I risk getting dragged away and/or freezing by swimming? Do I sneak across the bridge and risk alerting the guards? And so on.

Finally, moving back to your Actual Play. I think the players are doing nothing as they have no way of assessing the challenge/risk of a rustling bush. As Tony pointed out, they have gone up an alert stage, but are waiting for more input. If, on the other hand, the players were being chased after by a bunch of savages when they noticed the rustling bush, I expect that they would have considered covering the rear to mitigate the risk of an ambush by the said savages.

If I may be so bold, I would suggest that "A bush rustles" are bad Stakes. "A bush rustles over there, but tribal savages are close on your trail." are better. Good stakes - I would suggest - are not just for Narrativists :)

Warren

Quote from: Callan S. on February 19, 2006, 10:03:37 PM
Hi Marco,

I've already said what I'd likely do and now I know you've rushed though thread without reading properly and I suspect your not the only one.

QuoteI don't blame them for what they posted - as said, I'd likely do the same actions. But even though their well within what should be expected, the lack of knowledge is crushing challenges that they just don't see.

Imagine a nar game, where the GM kept taking a player off into another room when it came to the player making an address of premise, hiding it from the other players. Do you think that's a good technique? What if it's the only one the group knows?

Erm, no. I read everything you've written. Including your quote. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't have any feeling as to whether taking someone off to another room would be good *or* bad. It could increase the tension because I, at the table, don't know what's going to happen with the acting character's actions. It would, I'd think, be unusual--but I have no problem with it.

Basically if you don't blame the players for their actions and would do the same thing yourself in their place then you should be asking yourself what *you* are going to do differently. Since you are clearly not doing that, I think there is a disconnect between what you want and what you are willing to do to get it.

-Marco

Callan,

Not to put too fine a point on it but a player risking something in this situation would be completely stupid from a Gamist point of view.  I play with a Gamist priority almost all the time and I wouldn't have done anything at all different in this encounter thus far.  The reason is simple.  I don't know what is at stake yet and I'm not risking anything if I don't know what's at stake.  Is my character's life at stake?  Him looking cool?  Information we need?  A friendship?  Another character's life?  The information you provided didn't show them any stakes for them to gauge what they should risk... thus, they made non-posts  that are their way of asking you for clarification of what's at stake so they can determine what they're willing to risk.

I'm also a bit confused.

You refer to exploration mechanics for non-events... I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Is the example of the bridge, where they say we cross as normal, a similar event, one in which the players correctly treated the non-event of the bridge as a non-event?

In some senses I wonder if the players have in fact engaged with exploration, rather than risk, in that both those statements are quite "look at me" ones, showing off the chrome and highlighting the abilities.  If this were a movie there would have been a little click-n-lock montage to show off the hardware.  One  might say, they used the prompt of the rustling bushes to express themselves, rather than address risk.

But I do not really see the analogy between the rustle and post facto construction of situation to impose a Nar premise; it seems to me the aspects of direction and attention are implicit any time you play in the persons of individual combatants, unless specifically excepted by mechanics.

But maybe the example is obscuring rather than enlightening.  You say that other things about the recognition of challenge that strike a cord, as something I am have thought about as a problem in gamism, where challenge is not recognised.  Say you have
something like a wandering monster table with a 1 in 10 chance of bumping into a big bad in the dark forest.  After the third time the group traverse this area without anything happening, they will treat it as safe, failing to appreciate the risk they take with every trip.  So, instead of the journey feeling risky, and perhaps colourful, it feels like nothing.  Is that the kind of thing you are thinking of?

Quote from: Callan S. on February 18, 2006, 04:32:35 PM
Do you hear what I'm saying with the rustling bush, in terms of gamism?

It's April 1st already?  What happened to March?  I have to, on some level, assume this is some sort of joke, satire, or troll - not sure which.  Of course, it is PBP so maybe the players are expected to take directorial action <even though Rifts is not made for such> in order to expedite the encounter resolution.

Let me see if I understand the CA aspect of this situation. 

Question: "You hear a rustle in the woods.  What do you do?"

Sim Answer: "The bushes of Xia Ling only rattle when the Tua Lan is moving from the Courts of Heaven to the Next World!  It will surely bear the treasure we come for, the lost Phial of Ortar Juice that will save King Mindor the Trance-known!  We must move swiftly, my cohorts, or all is lost!"

Narr Answer: "I try and overcome my fear of bushes to stand my post, and prove I am worth a damn."

Gamist Answer: "I shoot the bush!  Init 25, To-Hit 18 (modded to 34 by cyberwear), Damage 64 (blasting,fire,irritant,area effect).  XPs, please?

Otherwise, I think this is waaaay too much discussion of two guys simply wanting to know what's coming next.

Hi Contra,

Quote from: contracycle on February 21, 2006, 04:16:17 AM
I'm also a bit confused.

You refer to exploration mechanics for non-events... I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Is the example of the bridge, where they say we cross as normal, a similar event, one in which the players correctly treated the non-event of the bridge as a non-event?

Currently all the bridge examples I've given are where the players treated the bridge as a non event when it should be treated as an event.

QuoteIn some senses I wonder if the players have in fact engaged with exploration, rather than risk, in that both those statements are quite "look at me" ones, showing off the chrome and highlighting the abilities.  If this were a movie there would have been a little click-n-lock montage to show off the hardware.  One  might say, they used the prompt of the rustling bushes to express themselves, rather than address risk.

I wonder this as well.

QuoteBut I do not really see the analogy between the rustle and post facto construction of situation to impose a Nar premise; it seems to me the aspects of direction and attention are implicit any time you play in the persons of individual combatants, unless specifically excepted by mechanics.

Fair enough. How about this, my character observes two flies crawling up a wall. One gets to the top first and the GM declares that my character made a bet that that one would 'win' and my PC has gained 50 gold. Or the GM declares that my PC bet on the other one and I lose 50 gold (same thing). Did I, as a player, really do anything? I don't think so. The 50 gold is just an event that happened after the flies, it isn't actually connected to anything I have done.

QuoteBut maybe the example is obscuring rather than enlightening.  You say that other things about the recognition of challenge that strike a cord, as something I am have thought about as a problem in gamism, where challenge is not recognised.  Say you have
something like a wandering monster table with a 1 in 10 chance of bumping into a big bad in the dark forest.  After the third time the group traverse this area without anything happening, they will treat it as safe, failing to appreciate the risk they take with every trip.  So, instead of the journey feeling risky, and perhaps colourful, it feels like nothing.  Is that the kind of thing you are thinking of?

I think that's dead on! If I'm reading your right, after awhile, because they percieve no risk (I assume they don't know it's a 10% chance), they aren't making any statement (through their heading into this area) that they are willing to take on a risk. Way off?  Thanks for weighing in with this example!



Hi Tony,

QuoteNo, I just considered (and still consider) it irrelevant.  But since you think the phrasing is important, I'll rephrase my question.  Why do you think that "a bush rustles" from you obliges them to state risks?

"You must choose between your dream job or your wife"
"I posture a bit and then look to see if it's worked itself out. Has it?"
What obliges a player to address premise?

Social and system feedback, usually. I've already noted there really needed to be more of both. But the actual content - dream job Vs wife, for example, doesn't ensure any particular agenda will be engaged. Nor does a rustling bush or necrotic behemoth.

QuoteOkay, can you rough in the shape of these rules for us?  Having reviewed the thread (again) I don't see them listed.  You mentioned that a third comrade is currently in the forest, talking with the trees.  Would the other two using the "exploration rules" imply changing their current position as possible quick-response back-up for her?  Would it, in short, imply leaving her?

The exploration rules have a thread of thier own, stickied to the top, because I think they're so important. Here's the main thread list of the game.
http://rpol.net/game.cgi?gi=15181&gn=Rifts:+Do+you+dare%3F&date=1140499745
And here's the exploration rules own thread.
http://rpol.net/display.cgi?gi=15181&gn=Rifts:+Do+you+dare%3F&threadnum=1&date=1138354569

I just noticed I wrote in them that you can't use them in the middle of an adventure. But on the second post I wrote that these rules are a way of avoiding plot hooks if you so wish. Hoo boy, tuck into my writing! But I haven't recieved any PM's/posts asking for clarification, either.

On the quick responce back up: So, you think they might have been staying there, because there was some sort of risk to her/the third companion? That'd be cool and just what I'm looking for if they said that and that player accepted it.



Hi Andrew and Warren,

Here's my conclusion. I can't, by stating a risk, make you accept it. Thus, I don't create stakes, the player does when he accepts a risk. I can offer a whole bunch of risks for you to choose from if you like. But ultimately you choose just the risk that you want and create that stake yourself. That's the sweet spot, when you'd dare to step on up and take a risk of your naming.

Once you realise it's the player who creates the stake, then you realise a player who is looking to clarify what stakes are there, is in an impossible position. He's looking for a stake only he's in a position to create. As long as he spends his time looking, he's failing to create what he's looking for.

This is what I've concluded from looking at this AP.

Quote from: Callan S. on February 21, 2006, 09:17:41 PM

QuoteNo, I just considered (and still consider) it irrelevant.  But since you think the phrasing is important, I'll rephrase my question.  Why do you think that "a bush rustles" from you obliges them to state risks?

"You must choose between your dream job or your wife"
"I posture a bit and then look to see if it's worked itself out. Has it?"
What obliges a player to address premise?

What obliges the player to address premise is the player's engagement with the premise. I think this is what you are missing en toto. These could be the two biggest gamist guys on the planet and they could still be looking for a challenge to engage with. You don't seem willing to describe a happy outcome that begins with nothing but a rustling bush and moves to your action--I think that is because there isn't one.

There is no challenge to address there. The PCs can't make things appear (the players cannot narrate a necrotic behemoth appearing) so, by definition, you, as the GM, are on the spot for this. You keep doing this over and over. Your wooden bridge is a perfect example: there is no guard, no clear challenge--no nothing. So nothing happens.

You want player actions to create some situation of risk and reward but you aren't willing to do anything and you, as the GM, are in the director's chair. I think that's a catch 22 that you need to find your own way out of (most people go with the necrotic behemoth--but you don't like that).

Give the players the ability to create challenges and maybe they'll do it. Either that or you have the task of setting up the challenge yourself (or using a mechanical method someone else has made to construct challenges both you and the PCs are aware of).

-Marco

Quote from: Callan S. on February 21, 2006, 09:17:41 PMThe exploration rules have a thread of thier own, stickied to the top, because I think they're so important. Here's the main thread list of the game.
http://rpol.net/game.cgi?gi=15181&gn=Rifts:+Do+you+dare%3F&date=1140499745
And here's the exploration rules own thread.
http://rpol.net/display.cgi?gi=15181&gn=Rifts:+Do+you+dare%3F&threadnum=1&date=1138354569

I just noticed I wrote in them that you can't use them in the middle of an adventure. But on the second post I wrote that these rules are a way of avoiding plot hooks if you so wish. Hoo boy, tuck into my writing! But I haven't recieved any PM's/posts asking for clarification, either.

Okay.  Your goal here is to figure out why your players are acting in a way other than what you expect, right?

Well let me offer a theory:  They think they're playing standard Rifts.  They think that your "exploration rules" (which to you are a central feature of the system, inherently changing the entire social contract of the entire game) are a side-note, and they're pretty much ignoring them.  They haven't asked for clarification on when they can be used, because they don't care, and don't intend to use them.

Because, y'know, what you've seen so far is 100% pure, uncut, bog-standard Rifts play.  The bushes rustle.  You step up a notch on defense.  You wait for developments.

I don't think you've said or done anything that would make it clear to your players that this isn't exactly what you expect of them.

Quote from: Callan S. on February 21, 2006, 09:17:41 PMBut ultimately you choose just the risk that you want and create that stake yourself.

Uh ... no.  The player and the GM (that's you!) work together to get the player engaged with the risk.  It takes two to tango. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18758.msg197595#msg197595)

They can't choose to risk their lives in pursuit of a juicy reward if all you do is rustle some bushes.  When you do something that could, conceivably, be a risk, or grant a reward ... then they can choose to engage with that as a gamble, and to risk themselves to seek the reward.

Hi Tony,

QuoteOkay.  Your goal here is to figure out why your players are acting in a way other than what you expect, right?

Well let me offer a theory:  They think they're playing standard Rifts.  They think that your "exploration rules" (which to you are a central feature of the system, inherently changing the entire social contract of the entire game) are a side-note, and they're pretty much ignoring them.  They haven't asked for clarification on when they can be used, because they don't care, and don't intend to use them.

Because, y'know, what you've seen so far is 100% pure, uncut, bog-standard Rifts play.  The bushes rustle.  You step up a notch on defense.  You wait for developments.

I don't think you've said or done anything that would make it clear to your players that this isn't exactly what you expect of them.

I think that theory is probably how things are, so I basically agree with it. PBP players tend to be in about six games at once, from what I've noticed. So they tend to treat them all the same way, for simplicities sake.

Now, advising me to keep repeating the rules existence until it's drummed into their heads - I accept that is good advice, but it doesn't shift responsibility for their choice. I've talked with them about the exploration rules already (My third post in - and it actually refers to stuff like having enough details http://rpol.net/display.cgi?gi=15181&gn=Rifts:+Do+you+dare%3F&threadnum=2&date=1139460963&msgpage=2 ). If I tell someone about a rule where you do not open box Z, and then they forget latter on and open it, isn't that their responsibility? Really I don't think they are interested in exploration rules, as yet. Because they like doing things this way and chose to do that.

QuoteUh ... no.  The player and the GM (that's you!) work together to get the player engaged with the risk.  It takes two to tango.

The work out process involves them leaving (exploration table) if the situation doesn't engage them and that signals to me that next time perhaps I should use a necrotic behemoth. When they DON'T leave and DON'T signal to me to try something else, but engage and expect to get something out of a situation at no risk,  that's not the tango.

What if If you ask someone if they want to play chess with you and they sit down with you. But then after a while you catch them moving the pieces the wrong way. However, they say "Oh, I didn't know we were playing yet", when you've been playing for the last five minutes. These players are 'sitting down' at my situation, yet moving the pieces the wrong way. They shouldn't have sat down if they don't want to play.

Now in this situation, I didn't say strongly enough 'THIS IS THE SITUATION TO ENGAGE, RIGHT HERE'. I really don't want to or have to stick to cliches of gamerdom, to attempt to communicate that (ie, gamer translation dictionary - Big bad monster : the risk). We all remember the Knights of the Dinner table comic, where they attack a pergola because they think it's some terrible risk/a type of monster. The actual content of the situation doesn't communicate anything about what to do with it, gamism wise.

QuoteThey can't choose to risk their lives in pursuit of a juicy reward if all you do is rustle some bushes.  When you do something that could, conceivably, be a risk, or grant a reward ... then they can choose to engage with that as a gamble, and to risk themselves to seek the reward.

All through this thread, we've had people saying how they'd want more information. No one yet has identified that information as being a reward in itself. I think my players aren't identifying it as such, either. Something to work on.

Quote from: Callan S. on February 22, 2006, 10:01:39 PM

QuoteUh ... no.  The player and the GM (that's you!) work together to get the player engaged with the risk.  It takes two to tango.

The work out process involves them leaving (exploration table) if the situation doesn't engage them and that signals to me that next time perhaps I should use a necrotic behemoth. When they DON'T leave and DON'T signal to me to try something else, but engage and expect to get something out of a situation at no risk,  that's not the tango.

What would you have had them do to risk something? I mean, if they had, say, approached the bush would that be better for you?

-Marco

Callan,
I can feel the logic of what you want...just outside my grasp. I'd like to run a bunch of very similar examples by you for "grading". Maybe that'll nail it for me.

I going to vary your actual play example. For brevity, I intend "rustle the bush" to stand in for the exact text you wrote during actual play and "posturing move" for the exact text the players wrote during actual play.

1. You: rustle the bush. They: posturing move.
This is the baseline that you're unhappy with.

2. You: rustle the bush. They: "We roll on the Exploration table. A 3. Despite the bush rustling in the wind, we can barely hear the call of the rare Tootybird to our left. But, there are no Tootybirds in this area, so it's probably a signal. We try to silently move there and investigate."

3. You: rustle the bush. They: posturing move+"We've clearly left our back exposed to attack by Retardodonts.", where the plausible presence of Retardodonts has been previously established.

4. As 3, but without the previous establishment.

5+6. As 3+4, but with a roll on the Exploration Table.

Are any of these close to what you want?
SR
--

3 or 4 is fine. With 4, they can say they think they are risking something (like leaving themselves open to being snuck up on, or even just risking looking overstrung by pulling guns on what's just a bush).

The exploration table doesn't mix into that at all. You use the exploration rules when you want to leave. It's like buying a cake - you either pay for it (state risk) or go look at another cake entirely (use exploration rules). You don't get to start eating it while stating "I only wanted to know what it tastes like!!! How can I really know if I want to buy it, unless I start eating it?".

In the talkin' and stuff thread (http://rpol.net/display.cgi?gi=15181&gn=Rifts:+Do+you+dare%3F&threadnum=2&date=1139460963&msgpage=2), one player even brought something up like the above statement.

Quote from: LazzloIf we don't want to just continue past what looks to be a very interesting option or opportunity, can we not advance forward recklessly & just ask questions about things we'd like described specifically (obviously we can't SEE everything but things we're concerned about that seem missing out of the description)

I take it that 'can we' means 'can we do this without suffereing a penalty for it'. Since I'd been talking about a minefield example with him via PM previously, if I agreed, in that case it would mean being able to walk into a minefield without any risk of being blown up (because that's a penalty).

It's kind of like the wolverines senses (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=15937.msg170057#msg170057) effect, in that it uses information gathering as a covert GM tool.

Quote from: Callan S. on February 23, 2006, 09:55:46 PM
3 or 4 is fine. With 4, they can say they think they are risking something (like leaving themselves open to being snuck up on, or even just risking looking overstrung by pulling guns on what's just a bush).

The exploration table doesn't mix into that at all. You use the exploration rules when you want to leave. It's like buying a cake - you either pay for it (state risk) or go look at another cake entirely (use exploration rules). You don't get to start eating it while stating "I only wanted to know what it tastes like!!! How can I really know if I want to buy it, unless I start eating it?".

Cool! I think I get it now. My hangup was that on the one hand you want me to state more than I 'normally' would, yet on the other hand, there's narration that I have to explicitly purchase (by invoking the Exploration rules). That gets me into a 'relative to standard play this is both more and less' state, which, to me at least, is confusing. If you want your players to start doing this, I would really, really recommend a couple of worked examples in addition to the bare-bones rule that you linked to.

Now it seems to me that you have a procedural problem here. You want me to state risk and my reward will be stuff that in standard play would be 'free'. In addition, both in standard play and your revised form, this stuff is needed for play to advance. Thus, you rustle the bush and I, out of habit, make a pure-color posturing move. Play grinds to a halt.

So maybe, you need some more stick & carrot. Let's say that if I state that the risk is that I might get attacked from the rear, then I get a bonus if a rear attack happens, and a penalty if it doesn't. Now it becomes tactically interesting to guess at the risk.

QuoteIn the talkin' and stuff thread (http://rpol.net/display.cgi?gi=15181&gn=Rifts:+Do+you+dare%3F&threadnum=2&date=1139460963&msgpage=2), one player even brought something up like the above statement.

Quote from: LazzloIf we don't want to just continue past what looks to be a very interesting option or opportunity, can we not advance forward recklessly & just ask questions about things we'd like described specifically (obviously we can't SEE everything but things we're concerned about that seem missing out of the description)

I take it that 'can we' means 'can we do this without suffereing a penalty for it'. Since I'd been talking about a minefield example with him via PM previously, if I agreed, in that case it would mean being able to walk into a minefield without any risk of being blown up (because that's a penalty).

OK, I don't this Lazzlo guy from Adam, so I'm probably all wet, but couldn't he be talking about the same sort of thing? He does say "recklessly", which I would read as "with, I expect, a significant penalty". This would be somewhat similar to a D20 houserule I've toyed with on occasion, where you can always Take 20, but any risk will bite you. (So, for example, Take 20 on an Open Lock, will certainly set off any traps on that lock.)

SR
--

It feels rather to me that the risk issue is misleading; what this looks more to me like is: GM rustles bushes - "I'm offering you an encounter here, do you want one?"

And the problem was that you received neither a Yes or No response.  Is that fair?

Hi Contra,

QuoteIt feels rather to me that the risk issue is misleading; what this looks more to me like is: GM rustles bushes - "I'm offering you an encounter here, do you want one?"

And the problem was that you received neither a Yes or No response.  Is that fair?

Yes and no! I'm offering an encounter (the encounter clearly involving the information I haven't given and that it can be earned by paying for that with risk stated).

But the buy in method has been screwed up. You don't just say yes (by either saying yes, or posturing for awhile). You say yes by stating your risk.

If I was interested in whether you just found the situation interesting aesthetically, I wouldn't have a risk buy in cost. And the reverse is true - if I don't ask for a risk buy in, then I must only want to know if you like the look and feel of the situation.

Now, I stuffed up in making this clear. And this leads to the player, by second guessing what the GM thinks, deciding for himself whether there is a risk cost. "Oh, a rustling bush...I think the GM must mean there is no risk cost for engagement" "Oh, a necrotic behemoth...I think the GM must mean there is a risk cost for engagement"

Once you have this precedent in place, the players can glide through all encounters presented by simply presuming there is no risk cost to anything (and there is reward in repeatedly thinking there is no risk - you never get stung -, so that's why they do it). Sure, you can apply damage/nastyness to them as they do it, but it's like the example where the GM decided for you that you made a bet and now you've lost it and must pay the penalty. It's a non event to do so.

Hi Rob,

QuoteSo maybe, you need some more stick & carrot. Let's say that if I state that the risk is that I might get attacked from the rear, then I get a bonus if a rear attack happens, and a penalty if it doesn't. Now it becomes tactically interesting to guess at the risk.

They're already doing this but the other way around "I think the threat is from the front, so I draw and aim my guns at it (bonus: guns drawn at no time cost and an aimed shot bonus or at least no shooting wild penalty).

But there's no statement from them about deciding to take on the risk of the rear attack. Now, in the rules there is a penalty involved - you can't dodge attacks from behind. But I don't see anything in their statement that suggests they are taking that risk, for example. Like most posters here think a player should, they are only looking to explore the situation. I get the stick and carrot idea - but here the players just aren't embracing any sort of stick/risk that I can see. They embrace the rewards all right, but not the risk of stick.

I know I should sell risk to them, but it rubs me the wrong way that they settle into exploration with a technique which is aggressive yet subtle. If I have to do that, then it doesn't feel like I'm selling them on risk for any given encounter. It feels like I'm trying to sell them on the gamist agenda itself and I'm supposed to do that by warping the game world into a necrotic behemoth amusement park.

I dunno. I'm told in this thread I gave them nothing, but they want something (the rewards listed above). Why do they want them if nothing happened? It'd be like in Riddle of steel play, if the player said "Well, you just described a non event to me, Mr GM. Oh, by the way...I get my spiritual attribute dice on this next roll because of what you said in that scene, right?". In this case, by taking up the spiritual attribute bonus dice, the player would have to be agreeing that something meaningful happened in the GM's narration and it was NOT a non event. In my case, when the players take up the rewards, it should be an indicator that something happened.

Then again, that's a thought. What if they aren't embracing the carrot either? They just do it for looks or something? Is that what other posters have thought of them as - kind of something you just say and not really a reward?

QuoteOK, I don't this Lazzlo guy from Adam, so I'm probably all wet, but couldn't he be talking about the same sort of thing? He does say "recklessly", which I would read as "with, I expect, a significant penalty".

Reading it that way doesn't make sense to me in game play terms. If he's asking for that, then he means "Can I walk into the minefield, get blown up and then have my 'what is the danger' questions answered?". With that reading, the info comes too late, so I don't think he means that. I think he wants to walk in, but nothing happens to him until he gets the answers he's looking for. And once you have that precedent, he can keep advancing and asking, using the 'you can't get me until you answer my question' procedure to protect himself all the way through from any event, until he wants it to happen. Stealth GM technique. This player left the game a few days after this discussion.

Side note: Looking at this now, I can see in my own past where I've gone down similar roads. I'm laying into the players in this thread, because I don't want to go soft on myself.

Hi Callan,

Quote from: Callan S. on February 24, 2006, 05:00:22 PMThen again, that's a thought. What if they aren't embracing the carrot either? They just do it for looks or something? Is that what other posters have thought of them as - kind of something you just say and not really a reward?

In some of the games I play, I would consider a posturing move pure color and expect neither reward nor penalty. But those aren't tactical games; I can't imagine playing a tactical game involving combat where changing my character's facing isn't significant.

Regarding the minefield: point well taken. I agree there's clearly something wrong there and it's something I've seen a lot. With the people I currently play tactical games with, when anything resembling this type of discussion comes up, the first thing we do is roll out a battle mat, draw a picture and place all the PCs on it. From that point on, putting your die (we use dice instead of miniatures) in a square means that you accept all consequences that come with that square, be they good, bad, or ugly. So, in your example, putting your die in a square with a mine in it means 'boom'. Never mind the posturing, questions, or handing of munchies to the GM, 'boom'.

Now, we can do that, because we're playing FTF. Rolling out a battle mat through the Internet is a tad of a sticky issue. :-)

But it seems to me that the clarity that the map brings is what you seek and I'm not sure the statement of risk you're pursuing will bring you that. That is, I think your idea of stating risk is really interesting, but not a solution to this problem. Of course, that's easy to say for me, because I don't know what would be a solution. :-(

QuoteSide note: Looking at this now, I can see in my own past where I've gone down similar roads. I'm laying into the players in this thread, because I don't want to go soft on myself.

Heh. Those are the toughest issues to crack, but often the most rewarding.

SR
--

Quote from: Rob Carriere on February 26, 2006, 03:29:42 PMIn some of the games I play, I would consider a posturing move pure color and expect neither reward nor penalty.

Consider what would happen, if I initiated combat and when they went to shoot I said "You haven't drawn your weapons yet". They would say "Yes we have, like we said in our posturing post". It's another way of using causality to insist on a reward, without actually entering the give and take of gamism. This can even be done in an entirely honest way - players just wouldn't think to rewind something that's happened, because that is so awkward/damaging to do to the imagined space. Yet the action is undercutting the reward system.

QuoteRegarding the minefield:*snip*
But it seems to me that the clarity that the map brings is what you seek and I'm not sure the statement of risk you're pursuing will bring you that. That is, I think your idea of stating risk is really interesting, but not a solution to this problem. Of course, that's easy to say for me, because I don't know what would be a solution. :-(

Your battlemap is a risk stating device, IMO. When a player moves his piece, it's so well known around the table that any particular square could mean BOOM, that it's clear he's taking on risk. I'd say the battlemap is more sophisticated than raw spoken statements of 'I take on risk X'. I think were talking about similar things. :)

Here's a further account of actual play, after they ignored the rustling bush and headed into the forrest. PS so you know, the rustling bush was a monster, but it was a monster trying to get out of the forrest alive. The rustling just ended when it was dragged back into the forrest.

Quote from: MeYou pass by ancient trunks covered in moss, their still, monolith presence surrounds you. There are no bird calls here, or apparently any animals to be seen. The ground is mossy and wet, with an occasional large centipede slithering through the undergrowth.

You pick your way over fallen logs and through thick undergrowth, but soon come across a thick cluster of vines and thorns. It reaches up about 20 feet and is so thick you can't even see through it. Looking for a way past, you follow the edge of it for about 30 feet, until you find you've ended up in a corner where another wall of thorns and vines intersects the first.

This is out of the ordinary. What's involved with this? What do you do?

Quote from: Snake EyesHis eyes sweep everything around them, mainly using thermographic vision, a soft tug on the robot horse's left ear indicating that Ed should do the same.  Always alert, the 'Slinger's head jerks towards thre slightest movement.
Ed.  Are there any strange chemicals in the air?

At Jesse's question, the horse can be heard to sniif loudly, turning his head to either side to scent the area around them better.

[Private to DM (Dare Master): Molecular analyzer.  Anything?]

Quote from: MeAre you betting that you can find something to help you out here? At the cost of...lost time (15 seconds), would you say? If you happen to have made the wrong bet?

Quote from: Snake EyesOOC:  Just trying to see if Ed might be able to tell us if anything dangerous is in the air.

Thoughts?

Quote from: Callan S. on February 26, 2006, 09:02:02 PMThoughts?

Callan:  Do you have a question here?  Piling on more evidence doesn't really spark more "thoughts" in me.  I've got my own theory about what's happening, and you choose not to hear it.  That's fine.  But I don't know what kind of stuff you do want to hear.

All I'm picking up, in my attempts to read your intentions, is that you really, really want us to sympathize with you because the terrible non-Forge roleplayers are destroying your beautiful dream.  I don't really have a productive or polite response to that.

Quote from: Callan S. on February 24, 2006, 03:25:30 PM
Yes and no! I'm offering an encounter (the encounter clearly involving the information I haven't given and that it can be earned by paying for that with risk stated).

Ah well then;  your problem is that this looks like a Nigerian money-laundering scam.

For only a nominal fee you - yes you sir - can be put in touch with a shady person with a need to discretely move millions of dollars by means of your clean bank account.  All thats required is certain payments to grease the wheels of what is clearly an already dodgy deal.  Except of course there is no deal, and the real purpose is to get you to make those facilitative payments.

It seems to me your risk is, or at least appears to the players, to be doubling up.  It makes no sense to expose yourself to risk only for the purpose of exposing yourself to yet more risk.  What they are trying to do with their interrogative questions is assess whether or not the situation is a) risky and b) how risky.  If they must assume risk in order to even find out a) and b), then it must either be the case that they take on unnecessary risk in what would otherwise (had they not asked the question) have been safe, or they acquire both the risks inherent to the situation and whatever they gambled to find out what the situation was.

Lets borrow the minefield/board example and propose a slightly different methodology.  If this were a live game, you would write "a rustle in the bushes: diff 20" (whatever) and put it down in front of the players; whoever is macho enough to accept the 20 points of risk can turn the card over and trigger the encounter.  In your particular medium, perhaps these "quest anouncements" can be published in a coloured text, for clarity and attention.  But whatever happens, I think you are going to have to show your hand before they will show theirs.

Tony wrote:

QuoteAll I'm picking up, in my attempts to read your intentions, is that you really, really want us to sympathize with you because the terrible non-Forge roleplayers are destroying your beautiful dream.  I don't really have a productive or polite response to that.

Perhaps it might not be a good idea to import the supercilious arrogance presently infesting the blogosphere...

Callan: I think you need to adopt an explicit format to posts.

Tell your players explicitly that the game you are trying to play is one where for any given action, they must state a risk. Explain to them what "risk" means in this context. Give examples. You may have already done this part, but if so, just copy and paste it as context for the following.

Enact a new format for all posts. Have posts look like this:

QuoteACTIONS: Describe your actions/narrations. Basically write out anything you would normally have written out, and have been writing out so far, but keep it all IC.

REWARDS: OOC what you hope the result of your action is.

RISK: OOC what you're risking. See above for definition of risk. You will not receive either the REWARDS above or even benefits that might have come out of your ACTIONS (such as a drawn weapon, for example) without risking something.

Here's an example of the new format:

QuoteACTIONS: His eyes sweep everything around them, mainly using thermographic vision, a soft tug on the robot horse's left ear indicating that Ed should do the same.  Always alert, the 'Slinger's head jerks towards thre slightest movement.
Ed.  Are there any strange chemicals in the air?

At Jesse's question, the horse can be heard to sniif loudly, turning his head to either side to scent the area around them better.

REWARDS: Molecular analyzer.  Anything?

RISK: I spend 15 seconds doing this.

If you can get your players to follow this format, then they will see when they are asking for rewards without risk, and you will have explicit ways to discuss with them inappropriate risks (e.g., REWARDS: I defeat the mama dragon and steal the egg. RISK: I am delayed 15 seconds.)

Do you think this might help you?

Contra,

QuoteIt seems to me your risk is, or at least appears to the players, to be doubling up.  It makes no sense to expose yourself to risk only for the purpose of exposing yourself to yet more risk.  What they are trying to do with their interrogative questions is assess whether or not the situation is a) risky and b) how risky.  If they must assume risk in order to even find out a) and b), then it must either be the case that they take on unnecessary risk in what would otherwise (had they not asked the question) have been safe, or they acquire both the risks inherent to the situation and whatever they gambled to find out what the situation was.

I understand the conflict there. But say that reasoning is at level 5. At level 10, which overides level 5 'cause it's bigger, I see this reasoning - if I don't risk something, it's a non event. That damages the gamist agenda. So even though the level 5 reasoning makes sense, it has to be put aside for awhile to facilitate gamist play. The non optimal choice (putting a risk in place) is actually better for gamism, in the long run.

Old terms like "Mony Haul play" refer to a realisation that all that stuff gained without risk is by an large a non event. I'd like to know why that's not being realised here (there are quite a few answers to this, some already given here) and if I'm tackling something more than just a lack of that realisation.



Tony,

As said, situation does not equal agenda. I could have a gamist game about people confined to wheelchairs who are trying to win a photography competition. Your advice tells me that just wont work unless I get a necrotic behemoth in there. Listened and disagreed, nuff said.



Hi Bill,

I was about to say I already asked them for risk. But do you mean, that the very format of always stating the risk, would insist on them stating it? That they can dodge me with wording, but the blank after the word "Risk" is very insistant on being filled in by the player? When they leave it blank, it's quite noticable as opposed to what's happening now with the back and forth discussion (which isn't very clear).

Subtle, yet powerful! I'm gunna have to try that out!

I'm still a bit confused by the rules about stating risk.  What I think happens doesn't make sense to me, so I'll list what I think happens, and you can correct the bits I got wrong.

So - some event occurs (a rustling bush, for example).
That event has some risk inherent in it (There's a sabertooth tiger hiding behind the bush)
Players can choose to ignore the event (in which case it goes away) or...
Players can assume some risk in order to deal with the event (I leave myself open to ambush as I pay attention to the bush) and win a possible reward (xps for beating up a sabertooth tiger)

So there are 5 possible outcomes
Player ignores event - nothing happens
Player accepts risk, is not ambushed, and then kills the sabertooth tiger for xp
Player accepts risk, is not ambushed, and then gets mauled by a sabertooth tiger
Player accepts risk, has to fight off an ambush, and then kills the sabertooth tiger for xp
Player accepts risk, has to fight off an ambush, and then gets mauled by a sabertooth tiger

This seems odd to me.  Am I getting anything wrong?

Steve

Quote from: Callan S. on February 27, 2006, 10:28:22 PM
Hi Bill,

I was about to say I already asked them for risk. But do you mean, that the very format of always stating the risk, would insist on them stating it? That they can dodge me with wording, but the blank after the word "Risk" is very insistant on being filled in by the player? When they leave it blank, it's quite noticable as opposed to what's happening now with the back and forth discussion (which isn't very clear).

Subtle, yet powerful! I'm gunna have to try that out!

Exactly. I'm a big believer in formatting making a difference.

Steve: You haven't included accepting the risk for the reward of more information.

I think because your assuming railroading/force techniques and that compensation is in order, ie "If the GM is forcing me into this monster encounter, it's unfair that I should have to accept risk just to find out more about an encounter he's dropping in my lap. So I don't have to and wont accept risk."

While I'm looking at players not at all forced to engage the encounter (remember how it was 200 feet away?), engaging it of their own free will yet shrugging off any risk acceptance while doing so.

It reminds me of something Tony said in this thread

QuoteSo they switched a single notch up their defense-condition ladder (because, after all, it's not just a rustling ... it's a rustling that the GM specifically mentioned)

Ie, the GM is doing his thing.

Ever see the movie "Kung pow?". Where the hero asks fellow good guys to hit him with staffs (in a show of toughness like the villain did), until the hero throws them all aside dramatically? But the hero gets knocked out in about two seconds and thus will never throw them all aside. However, they keep hitting his inert body over and over, even getting tired while doing it and asking "Do you think he wants us to keep going?" "He said to keep doing it until he throws us aside dramatically!".

The juxtaposition of them thinking they are supporting the hero in what he wants to do, when (despite what they think) they are really doing their own thing, is horribly funny.

I get it as a technique, I think. Perhaps it was the first time I GM'ed years ago, I had the big boss say his dramatic line and - a player interupted to say "I shoot him". There was a pause. Even back then, the play group actually discussed that the villain gets to bang off his lines, THEN you get to shoot him.

Soooo, I wonder if with the rustling bush, it's "waiting for me to finish my lines" (while earning rewards for doing so by posturing and drawn weapon type bonuses?).

Quote from: Callan S. on February 26, 2006, 08:44:01 PM
Your battlemap is a risk stating device, IMO. When a player moves his piece, it's so well known around the table that any particular square could mean BOOM, that it's clear he's taking on risk. I'd say the battlemap is more sophisticated than raw spoken statements of 'I take on risk X'. I think were talking about similar things. :)

Hi Callan,
Yes, we're definitely talking about similar things. The two points where the battlemat is more "sophisticated" than raw spoken statements are,

1. It's automatic. I just move the die that represents my character, I don't have to rattle off a list of risks that I am prepared to take and a list of other risks that I am not prepared to take. Especially when things go multi-character, multi-round, this avoids a lot of repetitive language.

2. It's precise. No arguments along the lines of "but I never meant to say that". Either my die is in that square or it isn't.

I agree that a standard format like Dunlaing proposes can help a lot (you will tell us how that experiment goes, right?) A number of standardized risk options (like the 15 second delay in the example) might also help. There's a natural human tendency to minimize effort, so you need to make the risk-stating as easy and natural as possible.

With respect to players waiting for you to finish your lines, that's something that just doesn't seem to happen much in FTF play, but I guess in PBP they can't see the look of eager expectation on your face. :-) Perhaps steal from good old radio and have an explicit terminator? So, you'd either have:

GM: 200' away the bushes rustle.

(Meaning: I'm not done yet, but you can interupt me here if you need to.)
or you have:

GM: 200' away the bushes rustle. What do you do?

(Meaning: I'm all done, ball's in your court.)

SR
--

Quote from: Callan S. on February 27, 2006, 10:28:22 PM

I understand the conflict there. But say that reasoning is at level 5. At level 10, which overides level 5 'cause it's bigger, I see this reasoning - if I don't risk something, it's a non event. That damages the gamist agenda. So even though the level 5 reasoning makes sense, it has to be put aside for awhile to facilitate gamist play. The non optimal choice (putting a risk in place) is actually better for gamism, in the long run.

Yes but: the problem is that you are giving them a level 5 prompt, and expecting a level 10 response.  But they, quite reasonably, are giving you a level 5 response.

The use of a batllemat, or other explicit rules for triggering the conflict and stating risk, would raise the initial challenge to 10.  Without the recognition that the GM is trying to act on this higher plane, the players will respond purely in terms opf changes to the SIS, not the broader concept of operations you wish to drive play, I fear.