Explicit Goals

[contracycle]

Now I'll give you that "Double our reward and we leave" is ambiguous. It could be that the players are sabotaging the session, walking straight up the count to make their offer and ignoring the princess stuff entirely.  Although in this case, why would they have agreed to playing on the princess theatre of operations anyway? Doesn't make sense unless the players are being passive-agressive towards your trying to negotiate the plot, in which case there's some other problem that needs to be addressedtht doesn't concern us here.

Right but: by default, the players have not agreed to engage with any theatre - I have offered them a hook, or given them a bang, and I have to hope that they take it the right way.  the point of this proposal is to establish that there is suc a thing as a theatre and are they interested?

And btw, just to be very clear: I'd use this ambush idea only if it makes sense in the contest of the game and if I think it's something the players would enjoy, certainly not just because I've prepared it and I'm forcing the players through my prepped material.

And for the fourth time, I have not mentioned force only agreement!  Let me make this quite clear: FORCING players doesn't work because they fight you every step of the way.  Thats why this is offered as an explicit agreement - just like it would be in almost every form of game except this one!

I'm not proposing to do that at all. I'm proposing to let go and run with what the players want. The trick is to agree and set up a theatre of operations that if the players agree to it will provide you with at least about one session's worth of play - not really very difficult to do, although sometimes events will mean that you run a bit short of material.  In which case, early session end. Compliments to the players on a job smoothly done, hand out XP and treasure.  Provide options for where across the border the PCs may be heading to define new theatre of operations.  In a game with intense enough challenges, sometimes finishing early (and knowing that this happened because you played so skilfully or grasped an opportunity) can be a reward in itself.

I regard that as a failed session.  It flopped. 

But we're not discussing board games here any more than we're discussing computer games. To my mind flexibility is what distinguishes RPGs from all those games. Do you disagree?

Not as such, but flexibility is not necessarily virtuous.  Flexibility which means the preperation does not get used, the sessions terminate early, and the GM is constantly running to keep up with the players is not fun - not to me anyway. 

[Callan S.]

Ad 1:  Pre-sessio info.  I agree we want that.  In a gamist game I want to prep for challenges properly, I want to put thought and care into designing stuff that could cause players to lose characters, and when I'm a non-GM player I expect the same level and thought and care from my GM.

Yet that doesn't mean I have to have the players' plans laid out step by step for me. What I need is to know our theatre of operations, if you'll forgive the grandiose term.  So what I'll ask beforehand is, "There's a princess that needs rescuing from Count X's castle in the east, and town Y in the west appears to have been overrun by zombies. I could prep for either, any preferences or should I just choose one?"  Theatre of operations: Count X's castle, or town Y.

Let's assume we agree on the princess-in-distress. That's as much as I need to prepare the theatre and place challanges in it.

This isn't any different from Contra's idea. Instead of

1) Break into Castle Dread

We have

1) Rescue the princess from castle dread

The only difference is in the size of the theatre. The former is a small theatre, the latter is a larger one. The session structure doesn't matter, as Contra's idea is merely playing out four theatres in a row then getting the players help/permission to work out next sessions theatres, while your own is playing one big theatre and then getting the players help/permission to work out the next sessions single theatre.

The size of the theatre doesn't matter, unless were trying to live up to a sim expection that players shouldn't be able to sense the sides of the board/the theatre (as Contra notes). At a gamist level, the only reason a player would grate with such boarders is that his tactics would preferably draw upon/interact with resources outside the theatre. In more traditional play, the GM would try to give some sort of reason the PC can't do this (which the gamist then takes as a challenge, rather than a formal boundry to halt play at).

Here the player isn't going to be able to use many of the tactics he'd prefer, which is a good thing as it will break him out of his comfort zone. He wont try to gamism past the boundry, because it's been agreed upon at a meta game level.

On a side note: if presented with a wider theatre, the gamist player will be probing for the weakest spot in the challenge (it's his job)...which will most likely co-incide with where the GM is least prepared.

[Kerstin Schmidt]

And btw, just to be very clear: I'd use this ambush idea only if it makes sense in the contest of the game and if I think it's something the players would enjoy, certainly not just because I've prepared it and I'm forcing the players through my prepped material.

And for the fourth time, I have not mentioned force only agreement!  Let me make this quite clear: FORCING players doesn't work because they fight you every step of the way.  Thats why this is offered as an explicit agreement - just like it would be in almost every form of game except this one!

Misunderstanding.  I said that to make clear that I wouldn't force my prep down players' throats regardless of what they do, I'm fine with some prep remaining unplayed. 
Saying I wouldn't do it wasn't intended to imply that you would, or were proposing to do so. 



Kerstin

[Kerstin Schmidt]

The only difference is in the size of the theatre.

It may seem like that on the face of it, because we were working off contra's example to illustrate our respective points.  But that's not the point we were arguing. Our suggestions differ no matter the size of the theatre that a particular group operates on. 

The real difference between our approaches is that he is proposing to narrow options down to permit more specific preparation - so the GM can use all their prep, doesn't run a risk of an occasional early end to a session, and is in control of events rather than having to respond to crazy player decisions all the time.  My approach is the opposite: I'm proposing to leave the players their freedom of coming up with crazy decisions on the spur of the moment.  To prepare flexible and dynamic challenges that permit flexible responses to what the players do. 

Of course at the extreme ends of the range of theatres we meet again.  To illustrate with two extreme and intentionally absurd examples: 
In D&D there's no unit smaller than a 5' step - no need to narrow options down further than the eight directions a 5' step can take.   
OTOH there's a maximum size of theatre that a GM can reasonably prepare for (and still have good-quality prep available). Details vary from GM to GM I'd reckon, but to stay with D&D for a moment, I suspect there isn't anyone who'd be happy to prepare, say, the entire Forgotten Realms setting all at once and let the players loose in it without any agreement as to where play is going to happen. 

What I'm proposing is to choose the widest theatre that will still allow meaningful prep, while accepting that some prep will always (or almost always) have been in vain.  What contra wants is to narrow down theatres to a size that will ensure GM control over events (by prior agreement - resulting in not having to "run after" players) and the greatest possible efficiency in prep.  What size of theatre that involves is relative to the level the group operates at.  We were both using the same example only to give us a common frame of reference. 

On a side note: if presented with a wider theatre, the gamist player will be probing for the weakest spot in the challenge (it's his job)...which will most likely co-incide with where the GM is least prepared.

That's why I propose using prep that is dynamic and flexible, permitting the GM to respond instantly to unforeseen events.  This is also why I said that this approach involves conceding player victories where they are deserved: it's part of the game.  As GM in a gamist game you set up the challenge and you play it, it's not a competition between GM and players - how could it? it's never a level playing field.  Disclosing that the players did much better (or much worse) than expected, and applauding them on a particularly smooth job is part of the job. IMO. 

Now if in a given game the players outsmart 90% of the GM's prep 90% of the time, something is going wrong - of course.  But in my experience that's not the fault of flexible prep, quite on the contrary.   Flexible prep permits a GM to go with the flow rather than be stumped, or have to invent new borders for the theatre on the fly (or agree them explicitly beforehand) to prevent access to unprepared-for events. 





Kerstin

[Nogusielkt]

It's only visible after the fact, and I want to see it before the fact.  Because it seems to me that every single element on a character sheet is a kinda statement that "I want to solve problems with this tool".  By understanding explicitly what goals they are working towards, and ehat kind of problem solving experience the player wants to have, I get that information early and can incorporate it into play directly.

For example, if I player says that their ambition is to gain 4 levels of Swordsman, I might introduce a character earlier who mocks the player for their lack of skill; and then, after they have achieved their goal, they can come back and thrash that NPC.  Thus the player not only gets the tangivble reward, but I have also established a scene in which they get to glory in that triumph - which I also foreshadowed.  Thats the kind of planning I don;t think is possible with the points-n-purchase model per se.

Yes, that's pretty much what character sheets are for.  An easy referrence tool that tells you what problems you are good at solving.  Need to move a boulder?  The guy with high strength is the guy for the job.  Need to pick a lock?  The guy with lockpicking is the way to go.  Need to burn a large area of grass quickly?  The guy with fireball can get the job done.  Players generally play a character type because they either like to play as that character or they like to solve the challenges that that character can solve.  If you understand the system that character is in, you will have no problem looking at his character sheet and knowing what he can and can't do.  So, instead of changing things around, just look at their character sheet before you plan each session.  You seem to want to control how the players obtain their powers or why they want to obtain their powers.

Next... asking players what they want to advance in.  There is a reason experience is used or points are used to detemine when a raise can happen and by how much... because that is how the game developer balanced it.  By taking out an experience system, you introduce balance flaws according to your misconcepts of the system.  You offer +4 swordsman skill to one character and +3 magic skill to another.  The game may not take that sort of balance, but even if it does, the game offers a larger scale of balance than you.  Are you willing to offer +4.2 to swordsman skill?  4.45?  To me, it seems like you want to lock a player in a story based upon his wants.  In a group of three, can you offer +4 to swordsman, +3 to magic, and +3 to divine in the same session to a fighter, mage, and cleric respectively?  Could you still involve a rival for each of them?  Would you be mad if the player didn't come back and defeat the rival?  What if the player refused to show his skill to the rival in the first place?  What if the player doesn't know what they want to increase?  It seems to me that you are too intent on tailoring the session to each player for a pretty dry reason.  You could accomplish the same thing by paying attention to the players.

[Callan S.]

What contra wants is to narrow down theatres to a size that will ensure GM control over events

I think he'd have control over the events you and your players are interested in. But not everyone is interested in events of that scale. For example, if there is a room with a door at the other end you HAVE to go through, with angry monsters in front of it you may read it as "The GM is forcing us to fight those monsters! He's in control!"

Another group would look at it and say "Okay, Freds fighter can charge there, while Bobs cleric can hold those guys and I'll shuffle forward five foot and do all my bow attacks. And on the next round there's even more to do. Man, the GM has given us so much room to move here! Were gunna own this room! What was the GM thinking with this layout!? Were so in control here!"

Many people don't want make descisions at the 'find dirt on the duke or assasinate him?' level. They want to decide stuff at the 'flamestrike or cure critical wounds?' level. Indeed, large theatre games often very unsatisfying for these players as little to no work is put in at this fine a level by the GM. This means at the level they want thier choices to have an important impact, they don't.


Hey Contra,

I think this raises an important issue to discuss with players. At what scale do they want to primarily make descisions? Also, would there be problems with 'the shame of rollplay', where players would actually like to work at the 'flamestrike or cure critical wounds?' but ask for the 'find dirt on the duke or assasinate him?' level out of social pressure? How to get around that?

[contracycle]

Let me say first that I like the "theatre" concept that Kerstin coined and that it may prove very fruitful.  So I'm going to frame response in those terms.  I also think the discussion of concrete rewards should be shelved for the time being.

I have given a single example of how play could be planned through stages, and this carries with it an implicit theatre size, agreed.  On the other hand, I am not proposing a methodology which has any particular interest in any given theatre size whatsoever - all it does is prompt discussion and awareness of the existance of a theatre and its size.  In Legend of the Five Rings, the default campaign structure is given as the "magistrate" campaign, in which the players are sorta troubleshooters for the state.  This establishes not just the scope of the theatre - which is substantial - but also its nature: it would be substantially better to agree this among all participants before character creation begins than trying to chivvy existing characters into it.  But it also establishes what this campaign is Not - it is not a shadowlands border campaign, for example.  The types of conflicts the players can expect to encounter are different, and both GM and players can thereby coordinate their designs.  Does this constitute locking off certain play options?  Yes it does, but seeing this is agreed up front by all concerned, in the discussion of what kind of game we want to play, it remains consensual.

All I am trying to do is take these already implicit constraints and make them explicit; trying to focus the nebulously vague theatre that is "the problem" down towards "the steps by which the problem is solved".  And this is because I have wasted far too many hours of my life sitting in games in which we discussed and discussed and discussed the problem endlessly.  I have been in sessions that ran for four hours and comprised a conversation in one room due to the indecision inherent to the large theatre, and that is simply Not Fun.  It's certainly not fun for the GM who might as well not have been there, except to answer some library research questions.

Although I had not thought of it consciously till just a few minutes ago, some of this approach is inspired by discussions of the "paradox of choice".  I seem to remember someone posted an article about this some time ago but the search function has not located it.  This is the theory that too many choices are a bad thing, that too many options can create a paralysis in which it is impossible to discern the good and bad in each option because the range of consequences is incomprehensibly vast.  It seems to me that this describes exactly the sort of indecisions I have encountered in play myself. 

A review of the work in question appears here: http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/winter05/review05.shtml.htm

So as I see it, the constraint of choices may actually serve to improve the experience of play.  And thus, I think the argument to "freedom of choice" is missing the boat somewhat - it presumes a notional Best but I fear it may be faulty.  As I see it, the overt, consensual constraint of choice can serve the very useful function of coordinating the players at the table such that they all actually do get to have the fun experience they wanted to have.

[Callan S.]

In addition to what I've said about the theatre list being fine, I still have to admit there is something that I find constraining about it. I had a think about it, and I determined what I'm used to is using a large theatre as sort of director stance tool.

For example, say that I find the GM's presented problem to be unfun. I then use a large theatre to approach the problem from a different angle. The GM has to present a new problem there. If I find that one unfun, I approach from another vector. Either that or we give the GM the impression we will do this if the problem stays unfun. Essentially it tells the GM "Stop giving such a hard problem, or we'll make more work for you under the pretense that this is a wide theatre and we should be able to approach the problem any way we like"

This, rather than any direct communication that "This is just not fun. So where do we go from here?"

Contra: I feel exactly the same way about wasted prep (prep's only fun to make for me, when you think of it being used in play). But what about the difference between prep which goes to waste because play doesn't end up using it, and prep which goes to waste because the player simply says they aren't enjoying it?

With explicit goals, explicit exit conditions are needed as well? So each small theatre can be skipped (skip to the next theatre) if the players just can't agree to play in the current theatre anymore? As you note, we need their agreement with the theatre list from the start. Forcing them is futile. But even once they start playing a theatre, we still need their agreement (no exit clause would imply we don't need their agreement once play begins).

[Kerstin Schmidt]

We may be on to something.  I don't know how to explain this in just a few words, so bear with me for a moment.  There's more things than the size of the theatre involved here.  Let me try and distinguish four things below: the scale of play, the goal, the theatre, and the obstacle or obstacles.  Group agreement (or GM dictation, depending on contract - this is not a mention of dysfunctional play, this is mention of functional play where the GM decides these things and everyone is ok with that!) comes into all of them, but for obstacles only to some extent I think.



First, Scale. 

We agree that the scale a group operates at will vary. Scale is the "size" of the things play focusses on.  It could be room-by-room monster bashing, or it could be about taking out rulers, leading armies in a battle, taking over kingdoms. 

Scale is partly down to group agreement (or GM dictation, depending on contract), partly determined by the system.

As Gareth has pointed out Legend of the Five Rings for example imposes a default scale, of being troubleshooters for the ruler. D&D 3.x imposes a need for lots of the one thing the system does well (brilliantly actually): small-group combat in which the PCs act together as a tactical unit. You can have larger overall player goals (want to become king) and missions (rescue the princess), but to get the most out of the system when you play D&D, you need to channel play towards lots of hands-down action for the PCs.

Where exactly scale is at in a particular game doesn't concern us in our discussion, except that there has to be agreement on it in the group, whether implicit or explicit.  Where there's a disconnect about scale because of miscommunication, dysfunction will happen. Where players cause a disconnect about scale to gain control over play, dysfunction will happen, no matter whether that's the GM suddenly and arbitrarily deciding that a certain door just won't open no matter what you do (to prevent the players from doing something the GM isn't ready to deal with), or a non-GM player electing to play with the scale to make life difficult for the GM (Callan's example).


Second, Goals.

There are group goals, e.g. Rescue Princess, or Fight Way Through Snarling Monsters Guarding That Door; and individual goals, e.g. Become King, Avenge Father, or Kill This Demon Over There.

There's goals of all sizes, immediate, mid-term and campaign-spanning ones. Goals must be small enough to fit inside the scale of play. This should go without saying almost: there's no room (literally) for becoming king in a room-by-room monster-bashing loot-carrying game. On the other hand at least some goals must also be big enough to satisfy the agreed scale of the group: if a group is excited about doing world-saving stuff and is sent to clear out kobold caves and city sewers week after week after week instead with no signs of things improving over a longer term, discontent is going to arise.

Individual goals are set by the player for their own PC, usually within the boundaries set by what the group likes, and of course partly determined by the scale of play. Group goals are traditionally set by the GM, "And next week we'll be playing Through the Citadel of Death", but can of course be negotiated:

"There's a princess to be rescued from evil Count X in the east or a town to be cleared of a zombie infestation in the west, any preferences or do you want me to choose what I prep for?" - "Och no, not another princess. Can't we go hunt dragons instead to I can at last get my dragonhide armour?" "Evil Count? Cool. I want to go side with him." - And negotiations might end up with the players going on a dragon hunt, to satisfy the player with the urge for dragonhide armor and to catch a live hatchling intended as a door-opening gift to the Evil Count.

Or even better the players come up with their own ideas. This happens once the players have formulated their own goals. Such as, "Hey GM. We want to start wreaking havoc against the Evil Overlord. We're not yet strong enough to tackle his stronghold but are there any targets in our region that we could attempt to do something with, to cause maximum terror?" - "Hmm... There's a fortress at that river fork over here that has an evil artifact in it. Hard to get to, easy to smash once you're there and the blast from it shattering will likely blow up half the fortress... And there's a festival coming up in this little town over here where some important functionaries are expected to put in an appearance.  Not-all-innocent bystanders (many will be evil worshippers), major evil players exposed while making speeches and somesuch. Or what kind of terror were you thinking of  inflicting? I'm sure we can come up with something if you tell me more..." 

(Both these examples are extrapolated from discussions I've seen in play.)

(Oh and btw Callan, before you ask. This isn't Sim. In negotiations about mission goals I as GM will provide that sort of colour because it carries information of tactical relevance. It's the most efficient way of getting the players in the picture of what I'm thinking the mission might involve, and of them getting me in the picture about kind of tactical challenge they find fun. Plus of course colour is always fun all in itself, no matter the CA.  But it also serves a very clear gamist purpose here.) 

When goals aren't agreed but inflicted by one side (the GM or the PC's player) against what other players want, again dysfunction will happen. And we haven't even got to the theatre yet...



Third: Theatre.

The theatre is the physical boundary in which play about a specific goal takes place. It is determined by the goal.  Rescue Princess isn't a theatre - but by saying that the princess is captive at the Count's castle, we determine the theatre of play: the castle, or possibly certain parts of it (if, say the mission is about going in and out of the dungeons through the city sewers).

The theatre has to be appropriate to the nature and size of the goal - and it has to be appropriate to the size, number and quality of the obstacles (see below) placed on the theatre.  Size really matters here.  If the theatre is very large, the PCs and obstacles may end up sloshing around helplessly without finding each other.  If the theatre is very small, you end up with a 100% linear dungeon crawl in which there is ever only one way to go and every single obstacle to be dealt with in the order they appear in. Or a single-obstacle theatre, which may make for a very cool session if the obstacle provides for a drawn-out exciting contest.

Again, explicit agreement (or GM dictation, depending on contract) on what the theatre will be helps focus play, and keep play at the right size to let players breathe and expand their tactics the way they like while still letting the GM preparing properly.  It prevents players wandering "off the map" in confusion or in an unspoken display of defiance against the GM's adventure, and it gives players the certainty that they have the entire theatre to play with - no door "that just won't open no matter what you do" will arbitratily be inflicted on them in mid-play.

Callan, what you describe as being used to a "wide theatre" to outsmart the GM may be fair use of a predefined theatre, in which case it's perfectly functional play.  Or it may be unfair use of a lack of clarity on what the physical boundaries of play were supposed to be. Players do it to GMs, and GMs do it to players by stopping them short in unexpected places, with (literally or figuratively) doors that "just won't open no matter what you do"...

Speaking of doors that won't open...


Fourth: Obstacles.

Obstacles are things that the PCs encounter that provide the conflicts/tasks resolved by applying the resolution mechanics.  They provide challenges at the level of the resolution mechanics that the system provides.  This means their size is determined by the system.  Whatever the scale of play, whatever the goal and whatever the size of the theatre, the size of the obstacles depends on the system the group plays.

Yet even in very unflexible systems like D&D, there are ways for the GM to adapt obstacles to the size of the theatre.
(I'm saying "for the GM" because as much as I'm in favour of player empowerment, even considering that players might get a say in specific obstacles makes me uncomfortable. Maybe someone else can figure why, I have a blind spot of some sort here.)

Obstacles can be fixed or mobile, nonsentient or sentient. Going back to D&D for examples, a fixed, nonsentient obstacle would be a locked door. (Well, usually nonsentient anyway.)  It's overcome by kicking it down, picking the lock, using opening magic, teleporting past ("nya nya!") or similar. It can be bypassed without engaging with it in a way that triggers resolutin mechanics only if the size and setup of the theatre allows. ("Let's go out the window and freeclimb along the facade instead.") Shambling skeletons and mundane guard dogs are mobile, non-sentient obstacles. The Evil Count is a mobile, sentient obstacle.

If you want a theatre that allows the players some freedom of bypassing certain obstacles, or choosing between obstacles, you want mobile obstacles over fixed ones (because the finest locked door in the world is no use if the PCs come from another side), and more importantly you want sentient obstacles over nonsentient ones because they will give you myriad options for responding intelligently to whatever the players have their PCs do. And the best thing about this is that what's fair for the GM is fair for the non-GM players.  Guard in front of the door instead of a lock? Wait for him to wander away to relieve himself, or finish his jug of ale and fall asleep, or distract his attention, or go bribe and enlist him. Or Charm, Confuse, Dominate him if you have that sort of magic. And that's with a mere mook. With the major NPCs the tactical options become many times more interesting and complex. Not a good choice for every group, I can imagine - but again something that needs to be adapted to the tastes and needs of the group.

The trick is to know what kind of obstacles the group enjoys playing with and what degree of flexibility gives you as GM the most fun and a feeling of being well-prepared.  Sounds like this also could benefit from discussing it with non-GM players, doesn't it? My instinct of not doing it is probably wrong. Or at least partly.

Thinking back I've always found talking with players about specific obstacles after play was very fruitful. "Wow, that was one scary fight, I thought we'd never get out of there. I like it whan you set things up like that." - "It was nice but can we please have fewer traps and puzzles next time? That was getting a bit tedious there."  So I guess where my resistance to opening this up to negotiations comes in is with specific obstacles for future play. May be traditional gamer baggage, but somehow I think there's some tactics-relevant reason for it. At least for me when I've played gamist, some of the most exciting moments have been when we ran into surprises and had to adapt to them on the spot with no time to sit down and re-plan in peace.

What just occurs to me is that this is actually part of why Gareth's checklist makes me uncomfortable though. It establishes an order in which specific obstacles need to be encountered (whatever is guarding/hiding the key, the evil count, the locked door) - and not only that, but it even determines the way in which the players will have to deal with certain obstacles. Get past door? Obtain the key.  Overcome the evil count? Kill him.  It's not necessary to predetermine that, it's perfectly possible to have a door prepared and a count prepared and let the players deal with them in whatever way their tactics play out.  (Obvously it's much easier for me to get use out of a count, that moves around and responds flexibly and in tactically interesting ways, and has minions to use to boot, than out of a door that just sits there hoping to be tackled in some way and not bypassed. Can you guess that my games tend to have rather more counts than doors in them?)

My apologies for harping on your example again, Gareth, I reckon you didn't necessarily mean to have a list of specific obstacles prepared. What I'm trying to do here is simply to further illustrate my point about what obstacles are, how they matter in play and where flexibility comes in (and doesn't) in my posts above.





Kerstin

[GB Steve]

In the same way that a Narrative game sets up the premise to be explored by the players during the game, I can see that the proposition to do a similar thing for Gamism is also useful. And given the gamist focus on achievement, I can see that agreeing on the reward up front is one way of focussing minds on the challenge, and also ensuring that the prize is worth the effort.

But I think several things are being talked about here without clear delineation and there are issues to sort out between player and character. For example, agreeing the prize is not the same thing as agreeing the plan. The prize can only be agreed out of character whereas the plan is more commonly, in my experience, agreed in character. Although I can see that sticking to an OOC plan could work, I get the feeling that such a constraint might sit heavily with some players, and even if agreed by everyone, is still subject to the whims of fate. If the dice go against you and you have to retreat, regroup and try something else, how does that fit in the agreed framework?

[Callan S.]

Kerstin,

I agree!

I still want to hammer out some stuff, of course!

We agree that the scale a group operates at will vary. Scale is the "size" of the things play focusses on.

I think what scale should indicate at what scope players should make their descisions at, rather than just where play happens to focus. Like my example of 'flamestrike or cure critical wounds (or something else)?' Vs the larger scale 'Blackmail the duke or assassinate him (or something else)?' level of choice. The flamestrike/cure level indicates the scope players should think at during the game, as they have agreed to the scale they want.

It is a very gamist tactic (often rightly smiled upon) to think 'outside the box'. Outside the box can easily mean thinking and trying to make choices outside the scale that material is prepped at. As I noted, although thinking like this can garner a win, it's often less through excellence and more because the GM A: didn't put 30 hours of work into the adventure or B: can't improvise challenge like a ninja during play.

It even sounds rough to me as I type it, to stamp on 'outside the box' thinking. But in practical terms if it happens it means one of the following
A: The player hasn't really bothered trying to engage the challenge set, and is seeking a quick get around. This is like walking around the outside of a hedge maze, to get to the exit. It's thinking outside of the box -which completely fails to engage challenge.
B: The problem just isn't that fun to engage and the player would rightly rather skip it.
C: Same as B, but the player doesn't want to express his dissatisfaction, so uses the idea that 'this is a roleplay game, and there is no edge to the board!' to do A.

A is dysfunctional, while B is quite legitimate. I think B needs to be expressed at a meta game level. But I see issues with that, as players are loathe to potentially damage social ties over something which is just a game, which leads to C. What do you think about the social contract issues here?

Callan, what you describe as being used to a "wide theatre" to outsmart the GM may be fair use of a predefined theatre, in which case it's perfectly functional play. Or it may be unfair use of a lack of clarity on what the physical boundaries of play were supposed to be.

I agree, it can be fair use. I just don't think play should default to a wide theatre automatically. I feel part of the push for a wide theatre is from players who fear they wont be happy with the challenge presented, but don't want to talk about it with the other players at a meta game level and in addition would actually prefer the benefits of a smaller theatre.


Hi GB Steve

I get the feeling that such a constraint might sit heavily with some players, and even if agreed by everyone, is still subject to the whims of fate. If the dice go against you and you have to retreat, regroup and try something else, how does that fit in the agreed framework?

I was think that too. I think some sort of 'what happens if you lose' situation would also have to be agreed. I notice you say 'and try something else'. Do you feel you couldn't/shouldn't try the same challenge again?