Valid question, but it basically asks "Who should I fight, Mr GM?"

[Callan S.]

This is from my PBP rifts game.

It's a kind of an example where tactics applied would have deprotagonised the player (well, tactics would have removed a choice I thought they should have).

They had encountered three opponent opportunities nearby. Some flying alien insects with guns, something big lurking in a nearby chasm and a big furty beetle (about the size of a tank). The difference is, I went into some detail that what they engage is up to each of them, individually.

Now, you could run away (and if any of you do, you will suceed if you choose to). But engaging will earn some knowledge about the ways of combat (big XP).

If you take on one of these foes, as a player your saying you have a plan with which you and your character can beat the menace to handily earn that XP. If you take on two or three at once, there's a 25% or 50% XP bonus, respectively.

Each player can decide to take on one, two or all three opponents at once. Your not forced by group to take on the opponents your comrades are taking on - you can shy away, just taking whichever one you choose, or just leave.

Since each of you have a choice about engaging the enemy, do not take the choice lightly. If you engage, it is not a time for your hero just look good and stylish - you should be engaging because you bet you can beat them and that means if so and so ability you were relying on doesn't work the way you imagined it would, you made the wrong bet. This wont be a 'And my character looks cool in this particular way' combat. I really can't stress this enough - don't think cool, think 'Can I win this? How likely is it that I'm wrong?'.

Now, no doubt given the PBP format and the fact players play in about six games at once, he's forgotten this by the time he's dispatched the flying insectoids (or didn't absorb it in the first place). A few posts are between the above and his following post below:

Looking from the small chasm back to the fury beetle, no longer worrying about the dead bugs, Jesse takes a moment to determine which of the two is the more immediate threat.

That question is just so amazingly dangerous to the agenda IMO. Because if I answered it, I'd be telling him what he should take on. Yet it's such an innocent, seemingly applicable tactical question that if I didn't have a definate rule set in mind, I would just answer it.

I wonder in how many groups gamism has 'died out' because of slips like this. Actually, that gets the brain ticking - I might be able to give some table top accounts shortly.

PS: I'm not knocking the player...for all the people who came to the players rescue in the last thread.

[David Hallett]

I agree that the player seems to have forgotten that he can withdraw at will, because asking about things being a threat isn't very logical when the GM has explicitly said you don't have to fight anything you don't want to.

I don't know that giving an answer to this question removes his choice. After all, the thing that looks more threatening isn't necessarily the hardest to kill. But I agree that "You don't know", or something similar, is probably the safest answer.

Having said that, I don't think I'd play for long with a GM who ran things in such an abstract way. Whether that's my Sim/Nar tendencies showing, I don't know, but if I can't imagine a situation that corresponds to what the GM is telling me, I lose interest quickly. And I can't imagine a situation that plays out tactically the way you've described it, unless I'm missing some important details. Which may be so, and I don't know Rifts at all, so feel free to ignore that comment!

[Thunder_God]

Well, he can withdraw, sure(why didn't the enemies close in while he was further engaged? being able to withdraw at first does not mean you can still withdraw now), but considering he doesn't, which one is closer? Suppose he heads for the further being and when he gets there the close one also reaches him and he faces two creatures at once, where if he first went to the closer one he'd be facing a single opponent.

Remember, in a tactical situation, these questions have much to do. Situations change, and one must ask such questions to know how to best use the stage(setting) to one's benefit!

[Paul Strack]

Looking from the small chasm back to the fury beetle, no longer worrying about the dead bugs, Jesse takes a moment to determine which of the two is the more immediate threat.

That question is just so amazingly dangerous to the agenda IMO. Because if I answered it, I'd be telling him what he should take on. Yet it's such an innocent, seemingly applicable tactical question that if I didn't have a definate rule set in mind, I would just answer it.

I wonder in how many groups gamism has 'died out' because of slips like this. Actually, that gets the brain ticking - I might be able to give some table top accounts shortly.

It does seems to me that the player didn't understand the situation and what you wanted from him. When I face this kind of situation in table-top play, I tend to "creatively misinterpret" the question, and give him an answer that still leaves the choice in the players hands.

For example, you could elaborate on the situation, giving him additional tactical information about his opponents (numbers, proximity, apparent alertness, etc.), but not explicitly tell him which is "more threatening". He does have more information to make a decision, but the decision is still his.

In table-top play, with more immediate feedback, I usually just do this without further explanation (since I have lots of social queues to tell whether my behavior is annoying the player). With PBP ... I am not sure how best to handle it. I might choose to be a little more open about what I was doing. Something like:

"Well, I don't want to outright tell you which target you should attack. But I can give you some more information to help you decide. [Proceed to tactical descriptions]."

[Callan S.]

Having said that, I don't think I'd play for long with a GM who ran things in such an abstract way. Whether that's my Sim/Nar tendencies showing, I don't know, but if I can't imagine a situation that corresponds to what the GM is telling me, I lose interest quickly. And I can't imagine a situation that plays out tactically the way you've described it, unless I'm missing some important details. Which may be so, and I don't know Rifts at all, so feel free to ignore that comment!

I'll be picky and call it a full on meta game choice rather than abstract. But still, you'd find it hard to imagine just being able to sneak away if you want? Have you played Dogs in the Vineyard or heard of it, where the player has the full on meta game choice of whether their character can die during a conflict? It's entirely up to the player, rather than being determined by game world events. The same, I hope, goes for this game where the player decides what he engages, rather than the game world deciding for him.

It worries me that it could be seen as abstract and a turn off - does the 'player decides if his PC's life is at risk' choice with dogs in the vinyard put you off in the same way?

[Callan S.]

Heya Guy,

I think you've highlighted for me how I really need to seperate these meta game choices, because they don't change due to the game world. I've given the player the choice of which foes he fights. If he chose just one, I don't get to add any more foes to that, no matter how much I might think another creature would join the fight latter. I couldn't do that as much as I couldn't just switch from the game system everyones chosen, to another one. It'd be breaking the social contract quite clearly.

Apart from trying to get this through in text, I might use a different colour for the text and describe what that means in the talking thread and main rules thread.


Hi Paul,

Hmm, slick idea! I was previously going for just a full on, no creeping up on mode meta talk. However, I feel I'm probably not slick enough to use your suggestion - the players, upon reading my post, will probably just end up seeing some direction from me as to what the best choice is to take.

But I could just give the meta game talk, then also offer more tactical detail along side that so we get back to more of a game world level. Thanks!

[David Hallett]

...you'd find it hard to imagine just being able to sneak away if you want?

No, but I do find it hard to imagine a tactical situation where I can take on anything from one to three enemies (either separately or together? Not sure whether that was an option) in the way that you describe, without some kind of narration to explain why the situation is like that. It's not the norm, as some of the other responses illustrate, perhaps.

Have you played Dogs in the Vineyard or heard of it

Bought a copy recently, will be running some just after Easter, with luck. And then playing it, once the other players have enough confidence to take a turn at GMing, I hope (which shouldn't take much). Very much looking forward to it.

To me this is a little different though. I'm going to be thinking aloud about why exactly. Something like... DiTV's rule about not dying when you don't risk it, comes out of its mechanics, which are tailored to provide a very particular play experience. I know you know what I mean. When you sign up to play DiTV, you buy a package, more or less. It's not really clear to me that you're running that sort of game here. But it's hard to tell. Will all combats be like this?

The way you describe it reminds me weirdly of the OD+D I used to play when I was 11. That's not a criticism, so much a way of communicating how it comes across to me. No situation as such, no tactics, no dynamic component. Just meet things and fight (or run). When I'm looking for gamist fun these days, this isn't the kind I'm looking for. What I do like is a complicated situation, with just enough time to make a plan of sorts, and some tough choices. This plan will inevitably go wrong, and improvisation will be called for. Hopefully the result will have some redeeming merits!

So I found your comment "I wonder in how many groups gamism has 'died out' because of slips like this" a bit surprising. I'd rather the GM accidentally gave away stuff I shouldn't know, than didn't give me anything I need for fun in the first place.

But I could just give the meta game talk, then also offer more tactical detail along side that so we get back to more of a game world level.

That would certainly float my boat a lot more! But then again, I'm not playing your game, so my opinion isn't worth all that. Maybe I'm just a different kind of gamist from the kind you're thinking of.

[Callan S.]

...you'd find it hard to imagine just being able to sneak away if you want?

No, but I do find it hard to imagine a tactical situation where I can take on anything from one to three enemies (either separately or together? Not sure whether that was an option) in the way that you describe, without some kind of narration to explain why the situation is like that. It's not the norm, as some of the other responses illustrate, perhaps.

A group playing dogs, for example, doesn't have to give any explanation of why in situation X the dog is perfectly safe, but in situation Y it's life and death.

I get your 'buying into the dogs package' that you mention below. What is it about the buy in that let's you turn off the need for an explanation of this? Is it because right from the start you know the rule is there and so everything else about the game fits in around that rule? And in my games case, it seems more like this rule isn't there from the start and has come up inside of play. Thus everything else doesn't slide into place after it, rather it sits uneasily with everything else.

Ron's being holding up the abstract card on me recently. What I wrote makes sense to me (without having gone into multi paragraph detail). How well am I communicating?

The way you describe it reminds me weirdly of the OD+D I used to play when I was 11. That's not a criticism, so much a way of communicating how it comes across to me. No situation as such, no tactics, no dynamic component. Just meet things and fight (or run).

As much as I prefer D&D 3.x, OD+D did have potential for tactical options inside of combat (and plenty of room for ballsy gambling).

Didn't you ever feel something like "I see some tactical potential in this fight - yes, I'll take this one one" in amongst the "Ah, this is just a fight - I'll just run/I'll just hack".

I think that yes, what I'm doing is just like your OD&D example. But that example also makes me think of an equivalent player in capes, who is disinterested in every goal that comes up and don't engage them (ie, he runs). That doesn't mean the tactical system isn't there. Are you sure your not giving an example of a player who is simply disinterested?

When I'm looking for gamist fun these days, this isn't the kind I'm looking for. What I do like is a complicated situation,

This suggests to me I need to get more social in the PBP game. If their looking for more complicated situations, I need to apply social feedback along the lines of "Well, how about you prove how simple this monster fight is, by actually entering the fight". Otherwise I'm second guessing what a good fight is/deciding what the players bet on. Unless it's the player who makes the bet, it's not gamism.

So I found your comment "I wonder in how many groups gamism has 'died out' because of slips like this" a bit surprising. I'd rather the GM accidentally gave away stuff I shouldn't know, than didn't give me anything I need for fun in the first place.

Hmmm, I'm uncomfortable with this. To me it's like if someone were playing capes and wanted to know "Whats the right conflict to enter into?" and said they wouldn't have fun if their not told.

[contracycle]

I  would not have found an answer to that question deprotagonising, but the reason is metagame.

If you had offered me a choice of 3 opportunities, and I had selected only one, I would assume the other two were dormant.  If I had selected the beetle I would not have expected to encounter the other two.  If your player had volunteered to take on all three, and all three are "live" in real time, then the question of whether either pose an imminent threat is valid, as there is no reason to expect they may not be used in concert. 

One might say, if I've taken on the twelve labours of hercules, I expect to do them one by one and in order.  But multiple opponents in a single task is a question of tactics.

[David Hallett]

Callan,

Dealing with your last comment first, it's not like I said I couldn't have fun unless you answered the question. Not at all. My point was only that for me, there would be more serious issues than whether you gave away the ranking of the challenges. Without something to engage my imagination, everything else becomes less relevant.

As to the rest, it's a very good question why DiTV doesn't provoke this response in me. I think it's partly because it's very upfront about it all. It says pretty clearly: forget the other RPGs you may have played, follow these instructions carefully, and you'll have a great time. Whereas you seem to be (on first sight) running a fairly std combat-oriented RPG with the characters facing a rather unusual situation that you're not describing. Dogs does throw up somewhat prescribed outcomes, but it makes you narrate something that describes the result, so that it seems real in-game. Does that make sense?

Another way to look at it is to go back to my days of being 11 playing OD&D. Not only were the dungeons very abstract, no more than a map with some numbers on to say where the monsters and treasures were, but also we played entirely in Pawn stance. It was just for the fun of seeing how "the characters" (we usually had more characters than players) did, and we didn't particularly identify with them.

I guess this is how a too-abstract approach makes me feel - that I am being pushed towards Pawn stance.  Actor and Author stances both require me to think what would/might my character do in this situation. But if there is no situation, and only Player choice remains, they can't really be used very well. I am by no means the King of Immersion, but the idea of playing in Pawn stance most of the time is definitely a turn-off. Again, I don't see Dogs doing this, quite the contrary.

Is that at all helpful?

[Callan S.]

Contra,

The player hasn't stated any plans for taking on all three. He just started shooting at one group and once they were all dead, he's asked which of the remaining groups is the most immediate threat. To use your rather apt term, these two groups are 'dormant' and neither is any more the immediate threat. If he had declared "I'll take on all three at once!" or even author stanced his step on up "All three of them attack me at once!", I agree, his question of which was the most immediate threat would be an entirely apt question.


David,

I think your comparing this against play where 'how the characters did' was focused on, but there wasn't any focus on how the players did. That player evaluation is very important to discussion in this thread.

[David Hallett]

Callan,

Let's recap slightly. I've been trying to explain to you why the (tiny) game sample that you have presented doesn't seem like my idea of Gamist fun, even though it may suit some people. You very reasonably asked me about the parallels between I find some of things I found offputting in your description, and aspects of DiTV. I've tried to explain why I feel differently about the one versus the other.

Bearing this in mind, I don't understand what your last post is supposed to be getting at. Can you explain?

[Callan S.]

Hi David,

I've understood what you've said about 'buying into Dogs' and agree with alot of associated points. But in terms of the play example: Peer evaluation of player skill and guts is vital to gamism. You'll need to highlight where that came up in your examples for them to help out in this thread.


On a general note:
I'm begining to find this situation is sort of like the training players on the use of conflict resolution. You know the old example:
Player "I try to break into the safe"
GM "WHY are you trying to break into the safe"
Player "To get dirt on the evil boss"
GM "Ah, there's the conflict at hand! Lets get some dice out!"

In this case the player is getting info about all opponents (like trying to crack the safe), but I'm failing to ask them WHY they are doing that. But in the case of gamism, WHY they would take on a foe would be a statement of skill and guts.

Recently another player declared attacks against two different groups. But I dont really know if that means she has decided to take both on at once. Again, a call for task resolution that doesn't involve the player giving a statement/a stake.

[David Hallett]

Callan,

I'm sorry but I don't think I can contribute in the way you suggest. For one thing, I'm going away for a few days. But for another,

Peer evaluation of player skill and guts is vital to gamism

is just a theory you happen to espouse. I can't say that it's my experience.

If anything, my experience is that many gamists enjoy the challenge and the overcoming of it, regardless of whether anyone else is watching and appreciating or not, so long as no-one actively rains on their parade. They also don't much care whether they help to create and define the challenge (though they are happy to do so), so long as it's engaging and their attempt to overcome it is met with fairness and justice. It's true that those last two may sometimes imply a degree of judgement by someone else in the room, but that seems to me to be why many gamists like Fortune-heavy systems - to remove as much subjectivity from the matter as possible. Perhaps a useful parallel may be found in athletics competition - there's often great camaraderie between athletes, and I'm sure they enjoy competing against each other more than training alone. But what makes them happy is recording a PB, an objective measure of how well they've Stepped Up to the challenge. Peer evaluation doesn't seem very central to me. You'll have to decide for yourself whether that's a useful analogy or not.

Anyway, I'm happy to talk about the sorts of games I enjoy and the kind I don't, and to try to pick apart the reasons why, if that's useful to you, but I can't confirm this particular assumption.