Questions about Kubasik's Story Entertainments

[Scripty]

Hi everyone.

I had a question regarding the Castle Falkenstein-Lite rules set forth in Christopher Kubasik's "Story Entertainments" as described in his "Interactive Toolkit" articles found here:

http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/itoolkit4.html

Personally, I like the idea of card-based mechanics because they handle both resource management and randomness (much like the dice in The Pool), as well as the idea of a rules system that you could write on the back of an envelope, which these rules seem to accomplish.

But I was wondering how these rules played out and how people reacted to them. Has anyone actually tried using this method to run a game?

scott
(edit: i added my name at the end here)

[clehrich]

I have tried something quite similar, actually, in one of the run-ups to Shadows in the Fog (see Indie Design Forum).

My experience is that this works quite well, but it sometimes takes players (and GMs!) a while to get the hang of it.  The tricky bit, I find, is that granularity becomes your problem; that being the case, you have to strike a balance between speed and power.

Let me put it this way.  Kubasik gives the example of a Fencing match, where the player says, "I'm going to fence him back so that he falls off that cliff behind him."  Now the point of a resolution system like this, is that you're essentially bridging between the Pool-style MoV (which happens after formal resolution [dice]) and the traditional "say what you're doing then roll" system.  And Kubasik likes this example because it's so damn big: you're allowed to sketch pretty much the whole fight this way, rather than having to say "I'm going to try to stab him in the right wrist (roll); (deal with his action); okay now I'm going to feint left and stab at his right wrist again -- he won't expect a repeat (roll); (deal with his action)"; and so on.

But taken to an extreme, you have this:  
"I'm going to stop this scene cold in its tracks by playing a card that says I win."

The flip side is:
"I'm going to fence him backwards and (blah blah blah lots of cool description) so he goes off the cliff."
GM: "Uh, no, that's too powerful, um, you manage to stab him in the wrist and that's all."

See what's happening here?  In one extreme, you have the player who (intentionally or otherwise) uses the freeform granularity to destroy the scene by "winning" at it.  On the other extreme, you have the GM who is so worried that this will happen that he cold-cocks every attempt by the players to do fast, exciting scenes.

My experience was that there is no solution to this outside of Social Contract.  It's just a question of everyone getting a mutually agreed-upon "feel" for how much is okay, when.  In Shadows in the Fog there are a few rules intended to help this happen smoothly, but I think it's 99% Social Contract.

Does that help?

[Scripty]

Greatly.

Thanks. I had many of the concerns regarding the scope of actions that you addressed. I could, for instance, see one player proposing a challenge in order to drive a Fencing opponent off the edge of a cliff through skillful manueverings, and then I could see another saying, "I whack him in the head."

I didn't consider the GM cold-cocking player narration or the player using a high card to run-off with the collective story. Perhaps an alternate might be to bring the players deeper into the meta-game, much like in SOAP or Universalis, where other players (as well as a Fifth Business/Moderator) could challenge their actions?

[clehrich]

Perhaps an alternate might be to bring the players deeper into the meta-game, much like in SOAP or Universalis, where other players (as well as a Fifth Business/Moderator) could challenge their actions?

I happen to like this solution, and have used it in Shadows in the Fog.  A quick example:

Adam wants his character, Sir Bob, to shinny up the side of a building without being seen.  The GM thinks this is sufficiently difficult to require formal resolution.  The GM now draws a card from her hand, or from the deck, and that sets the difficulty.  Let's say she draws a 7 (suits don't matter here -- this is a Tarot deck, and if Trumps come up the s*** hits the fan).  So the difficulty is 7.  Sir Bob has an Athletics skill of Good, which is worth 2.

The GM now says, "Any bids?"

Now 3 basic situations can happen here.

1. Nobody bids.  Adam decides not to play any cards.  7 (difficulty) - 2 (skill) = 5 / 2 (no card playing) = 2.5, rounds to 3 Concessions.

2. Nobody bids.  Adam decide to play a 4.  7 (difficulty ) - 2 (skill) - 4 (card) = 1 Concession.

3. Dave thinks this scene should be a big deal, and bids a 10.  Adam, desperate not to get hosed, plays a 9.  7 (difficulty) -2 (skill) + 10 (bid) - 9 (counter-bid) = 6 Concessions.

Note: a Concession is a complication or disadvantage accrued by the acting character in the course of successfully completing the action.  So things like scraping one's hands, staining or ripping one's clothes (making it obvious you've been housebreaking), getting spotted but not identified, getting quite badly hurt, are all possibilities, and are worth a number of Concessions that basically scales toward 10 = Big Trouble.  The acting player chooses the Concessions, with kibitzing allowed from the other players (and GM).

One point I want to emphasize here is that in case #1, the final total is divided by 2.  This is because nobody considered this event sufficiently interesting to spend resources (cards) on it, implying that they would like to get on with the show.  So the final number is divided by 2, giving fewer Concessions and thus less play focus on the event.

There is also a fourth possibility, which is that somebody (could be anyone except the GM) decides to Trump, at which point the entire event takes on a magical importance and significance.  The Trump has to be interpreted, and generally a lot of play focus shifts to this event; thus the expenditure of a major resource causes a big swing in focus, and this power is available to anyone at the table.

Anyway, just one way of dealing with the issue.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi all,

Chris pmailed me, asking me of he was getting what I'd written correct.  (Very courteous of him.)

Let me quickly say, I wrote those articles years ago, alone with no one to talk to about this stuff.  (Or, if there was anyone to talk to about, nothing like the strange forward thinking of the Forge was available.)  

I wrote them mostly to get something, *anything*, moving in the world of RPG design.  I'm grateful they seemed to have had that effect.  But as far as specifics go...  Anything anyone wants to do with the material or idea are for there for the taking.

The point then is this: no need to worry about attaching an 's to my name in these matters.  And, humbly, I offer I don't have more to offer about these specifics than anyone else interested in these matters.

Take care,
Christopher

[Scripty]

Thanks again Chris and Christopher. I appreciate the input. I look forward to learning more about Shadows in the Fog.

Primarily, I wanted to see what had been done with the information in the Story Entertainments articles, if anything. I like the idea of the Castle Falkenstein-Lite mechanic and wanted to do some research to see if what I had in mind (adding a bit more "N" to the GNS) had already been done before.

I'll follow up by looking into Shadows in the Fog.

Thanks again.

scott