Mooks, Deer and contest consequences - a matter of style ???

[Mike Holmes]

Your response belongs more properly in Site Discussion or something. That said, it's an old point, and one that gets made perennially. I'll just say that I think that we don't overly abuse Jargon here (there'll always be individual exceptions of course, but we're only human), and that it's a great boon for the most part. If one wants RPG discussion without jargon, check out RPG.net.

Perhaps theory articles should give more examples. Lots of them.

Great idea. When can we see a first draft from you?

Mike

[Barna]

Sorry for going off-topic so often, I'm still adapting to the boards. I'll try to direct this sort of rambling in Site Discussion.

As for a first draft, that's a cool idea. I'll be GMing my group on the 11th. I'll try to put the results up in Actual Play during that week and try to point out what I think are Bangs, examples of good & bad Scene Framing, etc. Let's hope I got the basic ideas right ;)

Still, I'm not expecting fireworks, considering it's the first time I'm trying this. I've warned my players though, so that they know they are in a "Beta" style for now.

[Alexandre Santos]

Greetings to the Forge people. I have been lurking this forum for a month, after stumbling on Ben Lehman's Polaris. This month has modified my thoughts on roleplaying games far more than years of practice, and I have started to pass on the new ideas to my gaming friends.

I wanted to react to Mike's comments:

For anyone who thinks that the techniques I expound upon creates something alien, I suggest you come and observe my IRC game which is open to the public (irc.magicstar.net #indie_ooc) every Thursday evening at 8PM US Central Time. I think that you'll find it interesting that it seems pretty "normal." )

This is actually an excellent idea, as your HQ style of play apparently seems quite different from my gaming habits. My only problem is that living in Europe, it is not possible for me to attend your public gaming cessions. Would it be possible for you to provide a link to an illustrative past logged cession? Brand Robbins posted some IRC logs which helped me a lot to understand how a Dogs in the Vineyard game runs.

What narrativism is about, is giving control of the narrative - the plot - to the players. Gamism is about giving the players the ability to address challenges, Simulationism is about giving the players the ability to make decisions that seem to be part of the reality of the world, and narrativism is about giving players the ability to move the plot forward (usually by making their characters central, and not creating situations that demand certain responses).

This is an usefull summary on your thinking on the so-called GNS model (I admit I did not have the nerve to read seriously the articles hosted in the Forge about it). From what you say, I probably have a simulationist bent on roleplaying gaming, as I am interested in "immersion" in virtual worlds, or living under the skin of someone else. This would be bad news, since I have the intention of using HQ extensively in the future.

One of my projects is to run a HQ campaign centered on a couple of amnesic characters stranded on a beach that turns out to be in an alien planet. The point of the game would be for the players to flesh out their characters as if they were rediscovering who they are, to survive in a world for which they can make no assumptions, but needs to be understood, and be confronted to their unknown past.

I think the campaign is rather simulationist according to your defenition since a good deal of it runs on the play and coherent (belieavable) simulation of the reality of this alternative world. But I have the impression that despite your opinion that HQ runs well for narrativist but not simulationist games, the game system would actually help me to run this campaign: Traits and Abilities of the characters would be given to the characters, according to the type of decisions they make and how they behave; and the ability to allow the characters solve contests their way by using their favorite Traits and Abilities would provide reinforcing feedback to further individualize each character.

Now I took the time to sample your impressive contribution to the Forge, and I noticed that you started your participation claiming you also had a more simulationist approach to gaming. Reading your current ideas it would seem that somewhere along the road you had an epiphany on this subject, as I don't think you inclinations changed that much on the subject, but rather how you rationalize them. Similarly my feeling of having a simulationist approach may stem from a different interpretation of what you call simulationism. Maybe you can give me some clues on what changed in your thinking.

Simulationism is just very hard with HQ. (...) For instance you get the "Ranged Combat" problem (see Brand Robbins' article in narrator advice for how to get around it simulationistically). And the Rapier vs Rapier Wit problem. And the magic resistance problem. And several more I'm forgetting because I put them into memory as "problems I don't have with HQ, because I play it to support narrativism."

Would you care to provide a link to Brand Robbins article? I checked the "Articles" section in the Forge, and could see no text from Brand. I have the impression that the problems you cite are more acute for extended contests, as contrary to simple contests you cannot provide a defenitive interpretation from the die roll results, but must somehow say something even though the AP reserve is not depleted and the final result (and thus interpretation) is unknown.

I don't think that any of these problems is insurmountable, if you want to play this way. But I do think that it's somewhat of an uphill battle. HQ seems, to us at least, like it works best, and with the least amount of interpretation or modification, to support narrativism.

I must say that, probably from my lack of understanding of what simulationism and narrativism is about, I don't understand how this is a problem in one instance and not in the other. Let's take your "Ranged combat" problem, for instance the Zaitsev vs König sniper duel in Stalingrad as evoked in the "Enemy at the Gates" movie:

The constest is about two snipers which try to take the other out by using their Sharp Shoot Talent. For a simple contest it's easy. If Zaitsev wins, König is pinned, if König wins, Zaitsev bites the bullet. But what should one do in case of an extended contest? If Zaitsev wins a roll without depleting König reserve pool, I don't know how to interpret the situation. Should I say that Zaitsev hit König in a non lethal manner? That's inconsistent with the rules, since we don't know how the contest is going to end up.

What really happened in game terms is that Zaitsev acquired a temporary tactical advantage (reduced König reserve pool). I could try to interpret that as Zaitsev being able to gain higher ground without being shot by König and that in fact Zaitsev may not even have shot a single time (suggesting that Sharp Shoot is not only about aiming correctly but also being able to evaluate tactically the situation and to be able to sneak around deftly).

But if I take this path I have König cornered somehow under Zaitsev's line of fire. The Kõnig's player might then bid more APs and roll a die to try to evade this unfavorable position, but are we really still talking about Sharp Shooting? Shouldn't I require a die roll on Stealth Movement instead (since because of my interpretation this is now the most logical talent to use)? If König's Talent of Stealth Movement is weaker than Sharp Shoot I have put this character in a totally different situation than what would have happened in a simple contest.

What I'm trying to say is that because I can't give the most logic interpretation of the events because I don't know the final results (who gets shot), I have to somehow interpret the die results in ways that don't include the person being shot, and as an artificial consequence of this inability, may end up producing a totally different contest from what was initially planed.

Since this problem affects more dramatically "quick" Talents than "slower" ones, or Talents that permanently modify the opponent, I should probably avoid extended contests for these. So for instance it would make sense to run extended contests on the "Street Brawl" Talent but not on "Press Button First" for TV games or "Flamme Thrower" Dragon's Talent.

Cheers,
Alex

[Fredrik S]

Hello Alexandre, and welcome to the Forge, from one lurker to another.

You beat me to the punch by asking to see Mike's logs. I was about to ask the same thing, as I really would have liked to participate, but unfortunately they do indeed take place at the worst possible time for us Europeans.

As for misconceptions of what goes on here, those are easy to make. For one thing there is, as has already been mentioned, an interpretative gap between the rules as written and the reading of the system advocated here.
And then there's the whole narrativism thing, which is difficult to understand just from reading about it. When I came across it sounded very different and .. serious, like you had to have an ambition to create high art in play. Well, after much reading and correspondence I have realized that it isn't quite that exclusive. I still can't claim to understand it - my few attempts to utilise the principles have failed miserably for various reasons - but I think I now have a fair grasp of what narrativism is about.

Simulationism is .. a fuzzy concept. My habitual gm-ing style can also best be defined as simulationist, on the one hand because it's certainly neither narrativist nor gamist, but it's also what fits best with I've enjoyed doing, namely exploration of setting. On the other hand, I don't need a 'reality simulator' to do that; I have been more or less convinced that HQ that will serve my purposes better than HARP or RoleMaster, which is what I have used the most.

The Brand Robbins article on ranged combat and extended contests can be found on the HeroQuest web page: http://www.glorantha.com/support/narrator_advice.html

The article is interesting, and it also speaks the example you used. The sniper duel from Enemy at the gates is a good illustration of an extended conflict I think, and it fits even better than you suggests. If you think back to the movie you'll remember that the key to being a good sniper is just as much about Not Being Seen as about being a good shot. And as such the duel between König and Zaitsev is much more a test of will/patience than of marksmanship. By the end of the contest it is actually König who have the upper hand, with Zaitsev pinned down, not knowing where König is. The conflict ends when one of them gets one good shot at the other. How the conclusion to this would be modelled mechanically? I don't know; perhaps with an AP-lend from the character who stood up and attracted König's attention, giving away his position to Zaitsev.

Ramble mode off. Hope I'm making sense.
So long.

Fredrik

[Alexandre Santos]

Hi Frederik, thanks for the link.

I read Brand's article, and it is very illuminating. Brand does not hesitate to switch the Talents being opposed during an extended context. However for this switch to take place, the party who whishes the switch must place a high bid (to simulate a risky/daring initiative).

Initially I was a bit doubtfull of this solution, since it might provide a loophole for the characters to win all kinds of contests using their pet Talent. So for instance Brand gives the example of Ranulf engaged in a rethorical contest with Jalvera. Severely outdone in its communication skills, he resorts to Seduce(?) her. The move is risky, so requires a high bid, but on the other hand Ranulf's skill is vastly superior to Jalvera's resistance, so he doesn't have second thoughts about it.

My problem is the following: will this character solve all its communication contests in this way? I guess that if a player gets abusive with these tactics one way of solving it would be to give him penalties (like giving him a flaw? like "Chauvinistic Pig Reputation"?)

Nevertheless the result of this way of dealing with things is that it is indeed VERY risky for the advantaged party to go into an extended contest. In a simple contest Jalvera would have easily chastised Ranulf, but in an extended contest anything can happen. Of course simple and extended context have no meaning for the characters, but I expect the players to avoid extended contests like the plague, if they think they might have a favorable position in a contest.

And then there's the whole narrativism thing (...) - my few attempts to utilise the principles have failed miserably for various reasons - but I think I now have a fair grasp of what narrativism is about.

I would be interested to know the difficulties you met while trying to introduce changes in you group gaming style, since I will soon be trying to do the same. I expect it to be a high mountain to climb:

Since a few couple of years, we have played two kinds of games:
- Special operation style of missions (In Nomine), in which the PCs are soldiers with a mission to accomplish or die trying
- Investigation scenarii (for instance in the context of Cthulhu)

In both instances the characters are completely flat and transparent, they are simply a tool for the players to act in the reality of the game. They have no personnal motivations other than "win" the scenario by solving the mystery or accomplishing the mission. Nowadays I realize why this has been so: our scenarii are so tightly planned before the game cession that only flat characters will work well with them. We have uncounsciously flattened the characters to avoid disturbing the scenario.

This is all fine and good, and actually when I ask some people why they like to play the game, "solving the puzzle" is an answear that comes up. But my problem is that I can't stand anymore to play superficial characters. I would really like to "feel" a character I interpret (this is called ROLE playing, after all, not Cluedo), and not simply have a collection of numbers that enable me to play the game.

I nowadays think I will ditch all this business of "writing scenarios" for the game cessions, and instead work a lot more on the creation of the player's characters, so that the action flows from them, and not from the GM. But I am expecting some work to make people understand that they will get no more missions to accomplish or mysteries to solve, but that it's their job to get the meat for themselves, while I provide the sauce.

The sniper duel from Enemy at the gates is a good illustration of an extended conflict I think, and it fits even better than you suggests. If you think back to the movie you'll remember that the key to being a good sniper is just as much about Not Being Seen as about being a good shot. And as such the duel between König and Zaitsev is much more a test of will/patience than of marksmanship.

I agree with you. Would one then consider patience/not being seen as logic skills included in Markmanship? This would make Talents wider in scope than what I had envisioned, but it's probably a good idea.

By the end of the contest it is actually König who have the upper hand, with Zaitsev pinned down, not knowing where König is. The conflict ends when one of them gets one good shot at the other. How the conclusion to this would be modelled mechanically? I don't know; perhaps with an AP-lend from the character who stood up and attracted König's attention, giving away his position to Zaitsev.

Well, I find that interpretation (AP-lend by supporter) a very elegant way of modelling it, since this is exactly what happens, and the game mechanics even allow it.

Cheers,

Alex

[Mike Holmes]

OK, I think that this thread has gotten off topic from Christian's original concerns - Christian will tell us for certain.

In any case, there are several topics here that would seem to deserve their own thread. So I've taken the liberty of splitting them off:
Simulationism Concerns - http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20023.0
Flat Characters - http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20024.0


I will comment quickly here on the subject of IRC logs. The method of play that we've taken to is to have one window for out of character discussion of things, and one window per ongoing scene (often as many as three). Our current practice is to take the scene narration portions and to cobble them together to form a narrative at the end of the session. These are then stored online. The reason we store these, is not to create a story - I think it makes dread dull reading, personally. That's what the logs look like to me, always, some atrociously authored novel. The reason that I want them available is simply to have a record to refer back to when, inevitably, we forget some detail or event and need to recall it for play. It's been very useful for that.

What it does not do, in any way, is give you almost any idea of how we play. The OOC logs being absent, you can't even see how or when we use the mechanics at all. In fact, I'd argue that, sans being able to link up the OOC logs to the IC logs that, even if you did have that record, you'd hardly be able to make heads or tails of what's going on. Even where IRC logs do exist, I think that experiencing the real time production of them is far more useful in understanding how play goes than even reading them in-line would be.

Further, and I'm probably just a bit shy about this, I simply don't want to put those OOC logs out for everyone to read. They contain a lot of social discourse, and I wouldn't feel comfortable putting them out for everyone to see. Rather, I would worry that making them public would put a damper on the real social comraderie that goes on in the OOC chat. You'd find that much of our OOC chat is about things like who is eating the best snack that night, who gets the non-existent reward for using a meaningful gesture first in play that evening, and who's going to meet with who at the upcoming convention. Personal stuff.

If you drop by to lurk, you'll find that we have a humorous "No Lurker" policy. That doesn't mean you can't be logged into the room, but that, if you are, that, first, you'll be asked to make a character, and, second, that you'll be engaged socially. You don't have to play, but you do have to be somebody we can talk to and get to know. The point is that it's not a public play, but a personal thing that happens between friends. And I'm not going to threaten that vibe at all by posting the OOC logs publicly.

So what I'm saying is that, while it wouldn't be too much additional effort to add the OOC logs to the IC logs, I'm against it at this point. I'm also not sure that there's any use to posting the link to the narration logs. But, in case anyone can get any good out of it, I don't mind people reading them that much (and you could probably find them by searching them up) so: http://random.average-bear.com/ShadowWorld/PhaseTwoSessions

I know that it's difficult to come to watch when our play is occuring in the middle of your night. That said, one of the central characters is currently played sporadically by Christoph Boeck, who plays from Switzerland. So it's obviously not impossible.

Also, my game is not the only one in the world played this way. If you get a chance to play with many Forge members at a convention in Europe, say, you can get the same sort of experience. If you ever happen to be over in the US, contact me, and I'll see if I can't get a demo arranged for you while you're here.

Mike

[Alexandre Santos]

Hi Mark,

Of course I understand the privacy issues. I was thinking more about publishing a short "sanitized" and approved excerpt just to get the gist of it. You could for instance take the gobelin's battle of the two camps. The one where Okhfeld has to decide between his line of duty and loyality to his lover. I guess a couple of interesting things happened from the point of view of the mechanics (battle, bang, etc).

I read some of the session's in character logs, and I agree with you, it's hard to understand what's going on mechanistically from those accounts. They are nevertheless usefull, as for instance I see that you have a lot more conversation time and less action/exploration events than in my traditional scenarios. This is expected from what we had discussed before on the characters.

Also as expected, I see that the PCs are much more in "charge of themselves" (even though sometimes Isadora seems a bit apathic for a colony leader faced with so many challenges at hand). In my games I keep throwing stuff at the PCs, to keep them busy and tense. I know that if I don't do this, the players will be a bit lost, because they will not know what to do by themselves. I usually frame very well the challenges (big sign: go here!), to avoid straying characters from the plot. Of course the players are active in finding ways to solve the problems they are faced, but not at all on the direction the story should go (except from post mortem feedback conversations).

we have a humorous "No Lurker" policy.

It's an interesting idea, and I would really like to attend one of those sessions. Maybe if I once get a Friday off I stay awake to follow one of your cessions.

If you ever happen to be over in the US, contact me, and I'll see if I can't get a demo arranged for you while you're here.

Thank you for your invitation, I appreciate it (nothing compares to face to face communication). I do come to the US about every second year. Maybe next time I can try to arrange something.

If you get a chance to play with many Forge members at a convention in Europe, say, you can get the same sort of experience

This is also a good idea, I should check what's coming up in the next months. I have always played with the same group of friends, and we have had no contact with clubs or larger events since about ten years, so that could be a wellcome change.

[Mike Holmes]

Alexandre I posted a reply in another thread here:

Let's let Christian tell us if any of this is germane to his subject before continuing in this thread. Until then, we can always start new subjects.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Forgot the link: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20035.0

And you all wondered how I got such a high post count. ;-)

Mike

[Bankuei]

Hi,

Also, anyone interested in the earlier discussion about whether we're talking some fringe method of play, or simply another valid way, might want to check out this link:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=267664

Chris

[Der_Renegat]

Hi Mike,

i dont see this thread as MY thread and i think its great, it changed into something thats useful for other people.

best

Christian

[Mike Holmes]

That's cool. I just wanted to be sure that there wasn't something that people could say about your topic that they weren't getting a chance to say.

Mike