Suggestions on running my first truly Narr game

[Darcy Burgess]

Or, "switching gears for fun and profit"  :)

Here's a little background to the situation:

- up until recently, I've been running a game set in the Star Wars universe using The Riddle of Steel as a base engine (I converted it lightly to handle SW), to mixed reviews.

- the game wasn't "clicking" (or whatever you want to call it), and after in-depth examination (both solo, with my players, and with folks over at the TRoS forum), I came to the conclusion that the problem did not lie with the story, the setting or the characters.  The system just didn't support the style of play that Space Opera mandates -- "cinematic frolic".  Of particular concern was the fact that TRoS really works best when the players/characters are under constant tension -- tension that is derived from the system's exceptional lethality.  That sort of lethality is anathema to Space Opera.

- I did some digging, and finally settled on the pool as a system that would support my play goals, which are:

1. develop a compelling story
2. focus on the PCs as heroes by means of keeping them at the forefront of the plot
3. flexibility in terms of threat level
4. find a way to 'balance' Jedi and non-Jedi PCs.  I don't mean "balance" in a min/max sense, but rather allow PCs of all stripes to share equally in the unfolding of the story, and in a meaningful fashion
5. ease the burden on me somewhat regarding "what to do tonight", in other words, have the players help drive the plot

So, we've done our character generation, and I've got a good handle on where the "big story" is going.  I'm 2 weeks away from my next (and in another way, first) session.

And I'm sweating bullets.

I'm not worried about involving characters, steering the plotline, having players run off with it, etc.  My concerns are finer, fiddlier things.  I think that they are artefacts of having run under a G/S (with a pinch of N) model for such a long time.

Concerns:

1. "how much" should one roll cover in the Pool?  Is it strictly conflict resolution level?  Does it work well on a sliding scale between "task" and "conflict".

2. How have others handled "group efforts" under such a system?  An obvious example is combat.  If the whole group is involved, who gets to roll?  How much of the result can/should they narrate?

3. Any suggestions on getting the players to "latch onto" the system and really run with it would be very helpful.

4. How much guidance should I put on the plot?  Have others had experiences with the outcome of this situation:

GM (thinking to self): I really want "X" to happen at the climax.

Players (thinking to self): I don't know what the GM is up to, but I really want "Y" to happen at the climax.

ensuing behind-the-scenes power struggle

???

Thanks in advance

[Andrew Cooper]

I've played The Pool with a group probably fairly similar to yours.  Here's my advice...

1.) Stick with Conflict Resolution.  The Pool really isn't made to handle Task Resolution and the players will notice that it doesn't do this very well.  Better to just jump right in and do the unfamiliar thing that the system does do well.  Remember to define Stakes for the Conflict with some precision and the Scope of the resulting Narrations will be pretty easy for people to figure out.

2.) One way to handle this is to let the players pick one person to use a Trait and roll while the others can donate dice to gamble on the roll, if they so choose.  The other method I've tried is to separate Conflicts when possible.  In combat, for example, perhaps one character is "holding off the guards" while another is "trying to run away like a girly-man" and the third is trying to "find a way to disable the tractor beam".

3.) Latching onto the system... hmmm... Well, my suggestion (at least at the beginning) is never resolve anything in their favor without throwing in a complication or two, unless they ask for a Conflict and do the narration themselves.  This will push them to actually engage the system as the problems keep piling up and up and up if they don't.  Remember in The Pool that anyone can ask for a Conflict at any time (at least that's how I read it).  Player A can propose and action and then Player B note that it is a Conflict and ask for one.  As the GM, I'd hold off on asking for Conflicts at the start.  Make the players do the work.

4.) Don't over-analyze the game.  The Pool isn't difficult.  It doesn't require lots of strange techniques to run and run well.  Prep should consist of the following. A) Think of a really cool and tense Situation.  B) Jot down some NPCs involved in the Situation.  C) Sketch in the Relationships between the NPCs.  Don't worry about making X happen at the end.  In fact, don't worry about what is going to happen at all.  Pick that Situation so that it forces the PCs to act in some way and then just keep on throwing more Situation at them depending on what it is they do.  The only techniques used in mainstream RPGs that I would toss out the window for the The Pool are those that relate to Illusionist/Participationist play.  Don't be afraid to let the players take the Story wherever they want.  It isn't like NPCs are hard to create in The Pool.  Write down a name.  Done.

[Bankuei]

Hi Eggo,

I was surprised to see this thread from you, knowing that you've been on the Riddle of Steel stuff for so long...  Here's THE key point to be aware of:  

You can't have Nar play if you've already decided where the story is going.

The key to Nar play is conflict, or problems.  As a GM, your place is to figure out interesting situations and conflicts to throw at the PCs and help set up the pacing.  Riddle of Steel is exceptionally easy to do this with, because ALL you have to do is focus on the SAs all the time.  As long as you can contrive a situation that has a conflict relating to one or more SAs, you can easily set up conflicts and get Nar play.

If you're having trouble with ROS, you might find the Pool to be equally as difficult, if not moreso, because 1) you don't have SAs to reference and 2) the players can TAKE narrative control and really get input.  This is where you really can't rely on "I know where the story SHOULD go" because the players can toss that with a few Monologues of Victory.

If you want Nar play, you cannot have the story ready, planned, or directed...  that's why it's called Story Now.  I'd say that's the most important thing to concern yourself with.  I'd highly suggest playing, or running a one-shot of something like Inspectres where it is impossible to railroad(at least if you're following the rules) in order to get a clear idea of the concept.

Chris

[jburneko]

Hello,

I really like the pool.  It's extremely elegant.

1. "how much" should one roll cover in the Pool?  Is it strictly conflict resolution level?  Does it work well on a sliding scale between "task" and "conflict".

Stick to conflicts but I'd like to point out that conflicts can be quite small.  The key is not to repeat yourself.

For example when I ran my Eden Falls game one player kicked in the bedroom door of a villain.  I announced, "Okay he's going for the gun on the bedside table."  The player announced, "I tip the table over knocking it away."  We roll.  Player wins, takes a die, I narrate the guy diving for the gun and ending up the floor as the table spills out of his reach.

Now the issue of the gun has been resolved.  Bad guy can't get it.  End of Story.  So now what? So I announce, "He springs to his feet and heads for the door.  The Player announces, "I wrap my arms around his waist and tackle him to the ground." Player wins and takes a Monologue of Victory and includes the detail that the bad guy is completely pinned.

Okay, so now the issue of the bad guy's mobility is solved.  He's pinned.  He ain't going nowhere.

Player, says, "Where's the [kinnaped] girl, scum bag?"  Rolls, player fails.  I narrate, "No way you'll get me to squeal."

Now the issue of whether or not the bad guy will talk is over.  No more interigating.  No information gained.  Now what and so on?

So the key to running detailed fight/chase/arguments what have you is to break what the total scene is about, "capture the bad guy and find out where he's holding the hostage," into smaller conflicts.  Yes, these are conflicts, not tasks.

2. How have others handled "group efforts" under such a system?  An obvious example is combat.  If the whole group is involved, who gets to roll?  How much of the result can/should they narrate?

I suggest using the rules exactly as written combined with the "break it down" technique I describe.  Everyone should describe what "sub-conflict" their character is tackling.  Then roll simultaneously.  Those who want Monologues of Victories collaborate mostly focusing on their sub-conflict borrowing from each others narration if it helps.  GM narrates the impact of any failed results.  All of this mostly informs the range of possible follow up sub-conflicts.

Basically, there is no such things as "assisting" another player in The Pool.  Either you're involved in your own conflict or you're pure color on another player's conflict.  

Note: I think it's legal to gift dice from your pool to another player.  That player doesn't even have to use it.  But I view this rule as pure meta-game with no in-game tie ins.  It's litterally one player sharing his game resources with another player.  No character-to-character interaction required.

3. Any suggestions on getting the players to "latch onto" the system and really run with it would be very helpful.

I suggest you get used to the idea that Monologues of Victory do not have to be huge game changing things that suddenly introduce new NPCs siginficantly alter backstory or bring down other earthshattering events.  When I ran Eden Falls I did just as much prep work as I always dod and Monologues of Victories were largely contained to the details of the immediate here and now conflict.  Players mostly used them to narrow the range of possible follow up conflicts.  I.E. make it real clear through narration that the bad guy really and truely is pinned with no hope of escape.

4. How much guidance should I put on the plot?  Have others had experiences with the outcome of this situation:

GM (thinking to self): I really want "X" to happen at the climax.

Players (thinking to self): I don't know what the GM is up to, but I really want "Y" to happen at the climax.

And this is where we get into the worries.  If you or anyone else has any idea of what the climax of the story is going to be BEFORE you actually reach it, you're missing the point.

I suggest droping the term Narrativism and adopt the new phrase Story Now.  See my comments here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15413

Edited Note: It's too bad this a conversion of a game already underway.  There's an idea I've had for use in a Star Wars game that I've been dying to try out.  I was going to suggest you give it a go.  You know those scrolling text sequences at the beginning of the movies.  I was going to have the players write up that scrolling text for the game we're about to play with little or no input from myself and use that as the basis for my scenario.

Jesse

[Darcy Burgess]

Ok, I'm hearing you all loud and clear on conflict resolution as the way to go.  :)  However, I might be missing something on the issue of "breaking conflicts down"  -- don't you eventually break something into a small enough chunk so that it becomes a task?  What is the definitive dividing line between task and conflict?  My initial reaction is that they're actually one and the same, in that they can be as large or small in scope as desired.  What is different is that the result of a conflict is fixed whereas the result of a task is reversible.  Under task resolution, kicking the gun away from an NPC can be "undone" by another task.  Under conflict res, that gun no longer plays a factor in the scene, because that conflict is resolved.

Am I out in left field on this one?

Reagarding Chris' point about the difficulty I've been having with RoS (and the looming difficulty with the Pool), I think I may have misdirected the discussion with my references to driving the plot and controlling climaxes.   I haven't gone and scripted this thing out so that the PCs have to jump through hoops.  What I have done is come up with several cool events that are happening within the setting for the PCs to interact with.  I'm not married to them as ideas, but I do like them.  If an opportunity presents itself, I'll introduce them.  If not, then there's no harm/no foul.  I don't really see the difference between having a couple of potential conflicts in my back pocket and having to come up with them on the fly, other that in terms of preparedness.

As a side note, I could write a rather long post about why RoS wasn't working as an engine.  There were myriad problems for various members of the group, but one that most players sited was the fact that it was a rather involved system (all those charts and whatnot) with a significant handling time.  My concern as GM was managing the lethality of the game -- I didn't want my PCs dropping like flies, they're the main characters for pete's sake!  Within a lethal framework like RoS, that meant constantly fudging left right and centre.  And if that's going to be the case, why do I need the lethal system in the first place?

I think that  Gaerik's suggestion about lacing GM-narrated successes with complications is an excellent example of a "stick" method of getting the players to grab hold of the system and embrace it.  The Pool already has a "carrot" built into it (the Monologue of Victory), but I think that until the players have been hit with the stick a couple of times, they're going to find that carrot a little intimidating.

[Andrew Cooper]

Here are some excellent recent threads on Conflict vs Task Resolution.

Vocab: Task versus Conflict
Using Task Reso to get Conflict Reso
Conflict vs Task Resolution to facilitate Narrativism

My take on the whole issue is that Conflict Resolution deals with the "Why?" question and Task Resolution deals with the "What?" or the "How?" question.  

Taking combat as an example, most Task Resolution systems for combat are geared towards answering the questions "How well did I strike with my sword?". "How fast did I react to my opponent?", or "What damage did I do with that hit?"  Notice that these examples pretty much have no connection to motivation or the ultimate goals of the characters involved.  The scope doesn't matter either.  Task resolution could settle the whole fight with 1 roll and it's still Task resolution.

Conflict resolution tend to deal with "Why are you fighting?".  So, one player's goal is "I want to humiliate my enemy physically." while the other guy's goal is "I want to get away without getting hurt."  There's your Stakes.  There's your Conflict.  Have at it.  What's resolved is the "Why?".  The How and What of it is fairly immaterial.

Edited to clean up mistakes in BBCode.

[Andrew Cooper]

However, I might be missing something on the issue of "breaking conflicts down"  -- don't you eventually break something into a small enough chunk so that it becomes a task?

Ack... I didn't directly answer your question in my posting above.  Sorry.  The answer is, No.  Scope doesn't determine whether something is Conflict or Task Resolution.  The difference is what I discussed above.  You can have very granular Conflict Resolution (take a look at Bringing Down the Pain in The Shadow of Yesterday) and very large scope Task Resolution (take a look at Regent Actions in the Birthright setting for AD&D 2ed).

[jburneko]

Hello Again,

However, I might be missing something on the issue of "breaking conflicts down"  -- don't you eventually break something into a small enough chunk so that it becomes a task?  What is the definitive dividing line between task and conflict?  My initial reaction is that they're actually one and the same, in that they can be as large or small in scope as desired.  What is different is that the result of a conflict is fixed whereas the result of a task is reversible.

Gaerik answered thsi pretty well but I'll just back it up and say that scope wise tasks and conflicts can be the same.  You can have huge sweeping tasks and single "action" conflicts.  But the point is resolving what's at stake ranther just whether I succeed or fail at the physical maneuver I'm attempting.

For example, if in my original example we just resovled whether the player succeeded in knocking over the table all we know is that the table is knocked over and the gun is on the floor.  The conflict hasn't progressed one bit.  The conflict is whether or not the gun is still in play.  Note: The player could have used the SAME action but swtiched the conflict to be about who HAS the gun, the bad guy or himself.

I haven't gone and scripted this thing out so that the PCs have to jump through hoops.  What I have done is come up with several cool events that are happening within the setting for the PCs to interact with.  I'm not married to them as ideas, but I do like them.  If an opportunity presents itself, I'll introduce them.  If not, then there's no harm/no foul.

Ah, yes, there may have been a misunderstanding preping potential conflicts is good and useful.

Jesse