[Shadow World] New high-flown adventures

[Mike Holmes]

Not sure if this is addressed specifically to me here, but I was, in fact, talking about technique over agenda. That is, I'm assuming that the agenda is pretty solid here, and not worried about it at all from what I've read. What I was expressing a worry about is that Fredrik might be using the technique in a way that could, in other circumstances, lead to less than exciting play.

As we all agree in this case it's not particularly important. But what I'm saying is that, generally speaking, if you allow players to "escape" from bangs without making a statement that they often don't add much to play in those cases.

Actually it almost always has to do with making a certain kind of statement, what I'll call the "Homey don't play dat" statement. Basically the player makes the statement that his character doesn't participate in the "game" that the GM has set up here. This has some slight thematic interest depending on how it's presented as an answer. I always give the same example of a dilemma bang so voided - that being in Batman Beyond when the Riddler has two characters that he drops, and supposedly Batman has to chose one or the other. Batman, of course, makes the decision to risk his own life to save both of the others. In this way, his answer is "None of the above" but we see how much he values each of the choices.

The problem with this sort of answer is that it gets really old, really fast, if it's the only answer that the character ever gives. If his only answer is every "I'll do whatever it takes so that I don't have to make tough decisions" then the only thing we know about the character is that he's like this. Meaning you don't create anything new the second and subsequent times.

Done occasionally, this is no different than a "fizzled" bang. That is, not all bangs "go off" anyhow - sometimes the player completely fails to be engaged by the opportunity to create for one reason or another. Actually I'd rather have a "Don't Play That" response here than a complete fizzle. So, again, not horrible.

But the point is that there are techniques one can use to remedy this. That is, try to make bang situations such that there is no way to contest out. At the very least, make sure that doing so has more potential ramifications than selecting one of the options presented (because at least the action accellerates then). Also, try to get away from dilemma bangs. While we always use them as examples, there are other sorts. Like the bang where you drop something important in their lap. In fact, the more multivariate the possible choices, the less chance that the player will balk at having to choose between two obvious choices (and the more creative he can be).

Mike