[Lendrhald] A system to reward players, not characters?

[David Berg]

Ideas for dividing up game responsibilities:

I'd certainly like it if the players kept track of everything pertinent to their characters -- what they've learned in-game, things their characters "would know" that the GM's already told them, what they're carrying, who's carrying what, how much money most essentials tend to cost -- and left the GM out of that entirely.  My attempts to make this happen haven't been very successful thus far, and maybe an "official" system, plus some convenient tools (columns on character sheets?) would help.

Players should also be 100% responsible for determining what their characters do.  No telling the GM "here's what I want to accomplish" and the GM saying, "here's what your character does to accomplish that."  (On the other hand, telling the GM "here's what I want to accomplish, would my character know anything about how best to do that beyond what I know?" and the GM saying, "Darvtok probably has a sense that..." is totally cool.)

The responsibility for putting stuff in the world that the players will enjoy interacting with has already been discussed in this thread.  I'm all for having the players involved in this to the extent that it doesn't hinder their ability to immerse themselves in the gameworld too much.  The frontrunning idea right now is for players to tell the GM the kinds of things they'd like to encounter, and the GM to make those happen a session or two later, in such a fashion that it (a) doesn't feel like a response to a request, and (b) could plausibly have happened independent of the players.  I have no system to formalize this yet.

As the determiner of "what's in the world and how it works", the GM should probably also be in charge of determining how the game rules that arbitrate in-game outcomes apply to a given situation.  The GM says, "Based on the slope and texture of the cliff, this is both a Climb skill check and a Strength attribute check," and the GM says, "Here's how thoroughly the "relatively good" result of your rolls allows you to succeed at what you attempted."

In terms of achieving consensus on physical space and positioning, my first thought is:
1) GM describes dimensions and contents of a given space
2) players describe where they want their characters to be, and how fast they wish to move
3) GM charts the whole thing on graph paper, adjusts the characters' positions each round, and after each change of position clarifies the character's situation (3 feet from X, 20 feet from Y, etc.) -- description is preferable to showing the graph paper

[Valamir]

Hey David, I think we're definitely on the same page here.  I don't have anything really substantial to say further, and I'm heading to GenCon soon.

On your question of how much is shared Creative Agenda and how much is enabled by system, I'll say that alot CAN BE enabled by system and what isn't winds up getting left to the vagaries of social contract.  I think you'll have to experience a few Forge Games in action to see the potential of system in that direction.  Even if those games go farther afield than you're currently planning to, you'll see more of what I'm trying to say than what I could possibly explain in words.

And yes, absolutely, a few instances of people doing their own thing is in no way a game breaker.  Paying 100% attention, 100% of the time, to 100% of what's going on I doubt is even humanly possibly and probably isn't really desireable if it was.  Sounds like you have a handle on what I was getting at there.  And yes to your "as much as possible" comments as well.

I mention "interference" here only because the following remains a cause of concern:
(a) attempt to get player 1 interested in the play of player 2 -> (b) relatively hindering immersion for player 1 -> (c) player 1 losing some degree of interest in his own play

On this I'll simply say "probably not as much as you think", but again you'd have to experience that for yourself.

I love that phrase.  To me, it evokes a burst of totally immersed play coming to a tidy stopping point, and then everyone at the table relaxing their expressions, sipping their drinks, and going, "Niiiiice."

Quite (and as an aside...its precisely those moments where they say "Niiice" that Creative Agenda can be seen to be at work).  There are lots of ways to strike the balance between the immersion and meta.  For me I most often use what I'd call a "one eye on the road" sort of play technique.  Meaning, I'm pretty much continually concious of the meta game (with one "eye") while remaining quasi immersed (with the "other eye").  That's because the biggest joy for me is coming up with a story that makes me say "man if this were a movie, I'd totally go see it". 

So I can fully enjoy games that have mechanics that require players to be constantly touching the meta.  You, on the other hand, while also (I'm sure) loving your games to come out with kick ass stories, place a higher immediate priority on the immersive aspects.  So for you mechanics that require "one eye on the road" play probably aren't going to deliver that.  The "come up for air" style is probably a better sharing paradigm for you're after.

There are lots of ways you can build a "come up for air" structure into a game.  As an example you might have a game that has hard and fast scene definitions.  Within the scenes its immersive time.  Metagame mechanics do not get used "in-scene".  Between scenes however, the "come up for air" part hits and Metagame mechanics do get used.  This is when you can have players chatting with each other about what scene they want to do next ("ok, we totally need to go back to the dark wood and have the wise woman cast the bones for us"..."wait, shouldn't we report back to the king and see if he'll give us reinforcements?"..."there's no time for that we need to head out right away..." blah blah).  At this time players can award each other tokens for great play...cash in experience for some advantage...or whatever rules you have.  Then once all of that is out of the way the GM sets the stage for whatever scene is next...and back "under" you go leaving the meta stuff behind until the GM decides the scene is over.

Ideas for dividing up game responsibilities:
I'd certainly like it if the players kept track of everything pertinent to their characters -- what they've learned in-game, things their characters "would know" that the GM's already told them, what they're carrying, who's carrying what, how much money most essentials tend to cost -- and left the GM out of that entirely.  My attempts to make this happen haven't been very successful thus far, and maybe an "official" system, plus some convenient tools (columns on character sheets?) would help.

Sometimes its as simple as articulating the areas of responsibility clearly so everyone is on the same page as to expectations.  Sometimes its a matter of figuring out why people AREN'T doing it, and then structuring the game to reduce those obstacles.

Frex, maybe people just find shopping and inventory management b-o-r-i-n-g, which is why they keep trying to schlep that off onto the GM to do for them.  Well, instead of having the GM do it, or forcing players to do something they don't like, the designer can try to find ways to make the shopping and inventory less boring.

One way would be to make inventory a question of a successful roll rather than a list of items.  "do I have an axe or hatchet or something?", "is that something that a forest ranger who spends most of his life in the wilderness is likely to have?", "yeah, it'd be stupid if I didn't have one", "so make a Wilderness Surivival check vs. Wits, with a minimal success you have one, with a critical success you have an item of quality"...for example.  Another method was used by Pendragon back in the day.  You have a "kit" based on social status which essentially lists what kind of gear your character would have on him as a matter of course.  All you had to record was "Kit #5" (or whatever) and you were assumed to have whatever was standard for that.  Lots of options that get you to the same desired end point.

Players should also be 100% responsible for determining what their characters do.  No telling the GM "here's what I want to accomplish" and the GM saying, "here's what your character does to accomplish that."  (On the other hand, telling the GM "here's what I want to accomplish, would my character know anything about how best to do that beyond what I know?" and the GM saying, "Darvtok probably has a sense that..." is totally cool.)

Here's where its crucial to lay this out.  Almost no traditional rule set says anything about it but its one of the most important things.

Consider, as player I say "I kill the troll with my sword"

Does this mean 1) the troll is now dead, 2) I have struck the troll a mortal wound but he may yet survive, 3) I am committed to attacking the troll even if the GM now reveals something that makes me wish I hadn't, and whether I even hit the troll let alone kill him is yet to be determined, 4) I'm merely indicating my intention to attack the troll, and if the GM says something that I don't like, I'm free to change my mind.

Any one of those is a valid possible way of interpreting "I kill the troll with my sword" and we could find examples of different games (or different groups with the same game), for each of them.  Do a search on IIEE and you'll find lots of discussion on this issue.  "players are responsible for what their characters do" is just the start.

[uote]The responsibility for putting stuff in the world that the players will enjoy interacting with has already been discussed in this thread.  I'm all for having the players involved in this to the extent that it doesn't hinder their ability to immerse themselves in the gameworld too much.  The frontrunning idea right now is for players to tell the GM the kinds of things they'd like to encounter, and the GM to make those happen a session or two later, in such a fashion that it (a) doesn't feel like a response to a request, and (b) could plausibly have happened independent of the players.  I have no system to formalize this yet.

A session or two later, or just the next scene if you liked my example above.  Also do a search on Flags (although alot of that discussion moved out into the blogosphere) for some mechanics that attempt to accomplish that.

As the determiner of "what's in the world and how it works", the GM should probably also be in charge of determining how the game rules that arbitrate in-game outcomes apply to a given situation.  The GM says, "Based on the slope and texture of the cliff, this is both a Climb skill check and a Strength attribute check," and the GM says, "Here's how thoroughly the "relatively good" result of your rolls allows you to succeed at what you attempted."

A valid decision...but...how much do the players know before they roll?  Are they told the modifiers and then can decide to roll or not?  Do they committ to the attempt only on the basis of the GM's description and aren't told the specifics of the roll until after?  Is the roll out in the open or in secret?  All that stuff gives a very different flavor to the game, yet you'll find few traditional texts that specify one way or another.

In terms of achieving consensus on physical space and positioning, my first thought is:
1) GM describes dimensions and contents of a given space
2) players describe where they want their characters to be, and how fast they wish to move
3) GM charts the whole thing on graph paper, adjusts the characters' positions each round, and after each change of position clarifies the character's situation (3 feet from X, 20 feet from Y, etc.) -- description is preferable to showing the graph paper

Worth playtesting.  You also might want to check out the Terrain mechanics in Riddle of Steel.  In a nut shell, all rolls are on a die pool.  Players could sacrifice some of the dice in their dice pool to use to make a "Terrain Check".  Success on the Terrain check would allow them to accomplish certain positioning effects (like facing only 1 opponent for a round, or gaining a height advantage, or blocking a doorway, or whatever).

[David Berg]

Ralph-

It seems like we've reached a logical stopping point for this particular dialogue.  Thanks for being patient with all my questions and only-sorta-relevant thought experiments.  Beyond whatever might have been accomplished, I enjoyed the exchange.  Some quick takes on the contents of your last post:

alot CAN BE enabled by system and what isn't winds up getting left to the vagaries of social contract.  I think you'll have to experience a few Forge Games in action to see the potential of system in that direction.

Do a search on IIEE and you'll find lots of discussion on this issue.  "players are responsible for what their characters do" is just the start.

do a search on Flags . . . for some mechanics that attempt to accomplish that.

You also might want to check out the Terrain mechanics in Riddle of Steel.

I intend to pursue all these suggestions to expand my own understanding of and familiarity with a broader range of techniques.  And, in the shorter-term, I'll also ponder and confer with my co-designer regarding applying the following to Lendrhald:

you might have a game that has hard and fast scene definitions.  Within the scenes its immersive time . . . Between scenes however, the "come up for air" part hits and Metagame mechanics do get used.

Sometimes its as simple as articulating the areas of responsibility clearly so everyone is on the same page as to expectations. 

the designer can try to find ways to make the shopping and inventory less boring.
. . .
One way would be to make inventory a question of a successful roll rather than a list of items. 
. . .
Another method was . . . [y]ou have a "kit" based on social status which essentially lists what kind of gear your character would have on him as a matter of course.  All you had to record was "Kit #5"

Lastly, I also find the following to be a useful distillation of the issues involved in a dynamic that my co-designer and I are already working on tackling:

how much do the players know before they roll?  Are they told the modifiers and then can decide to roll or not?  Do they committ to the attempt only on the basis of the GM's description and aren't told the specifics of the roll until after?  Is the roll out in the open or in secret?  All that stuff gives a very different flavor to the game, yet you'll find few traditional texts that specify one way or another.

So, basically, thanks for all your feedback!  I'll post more on my game at a later date, after lots of reading, grappling with new techniques, and hopefully playing some different games (including Universalis).

Ps,
-David