Issues with repetition

[Aknaton]

After reading Christopher Kubasik's http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/itoolkit1.html">The Interactive Toolkit I've been thinking a bit. :-)

I now think that one of my biggest issues with traditional (and here I'll leave the concept of "traditional" undefined) RPG character design is the problem of repetition.

When we want to make a character special we give them some special ability (like feats in D&D). Imagine that we give our character a Taunt ability. Because the character gets a bonus to hit when using this ability the player tries to use it in every combat situation (wether its appropriate or not). This gets boring after the first five fights! (And then we try to limit the use of the ability by allowing only to be used once every day).

In stories as they are portraied in books and films characters often have a "broad specialty" like fighting. But a special ability like Taunt is only used in an important scen, and only sparingly. The writer of books and screenplays knows that repetition kills the interest. Remember the scene in Indiana Jones where a guy with a big sword comes after Indy, and Indy instead of continuing to fight him hand to hand, draws his pistol and just shoot him? A funny and interesting scene. But would it still be funny after Indy pulled the same trick för the tenth time?

So I would like see a system that supports the player in making new and interesting things with her character. How can this be done? One way could be to use cards. A character could have 5 combat feats. At the start of an adventure/story the player may then draw 5 cards from the combat feat deck. The player knows that his character will be good at combat but does not know exactly what abilities he will be having in this adventure. And the other players (and GM) does not either, so the suspense and suprise is greater. Other mecanics is of course possible, the main point here is to combat repetition in character behaviour.

Is this thought valid in any way? Thoughts and comments are appreciated.

[Bankuei]

Welcome Aknaton,

I agree wholeheartedly that "same thing over and over" often equals boring.  Many games attempt different ways to fix this, from offering a whole lot of specialized tactics and rules(D&D, TROS, Burning Wheel, etc.), to giving bonuses for inventive combat(Sorcerer, Wushu, Exalted).

In the first case, you get crunchy, tactical sorts of games, that require thought and familiarity with the system.  Ultimately most boil down to a larger "rock,paper,scissors" affair, with tactical decisions being suited to certain situations or outguessing your opponent.

The second case, you get very little crunchy rules, but you have to depend a lot on creativeness on the parts of the players and the GM to work it.  Both have strengths and weaknesses.  Strategy heads find the first sort absolutely fascinating, while creative folks find the second sort great for the simplicity and universal usage.  I tend to like both.  

The drawbacks to having a crunchy system is that you have to make sure there isn't a single winning strategy, and that there's no major holes or issues with your system.  The drawback to the freeform systems is that you have to give adequate examples so that folks don't assume because there's no rules for tripping a foe specifically, that it simply can't be done.

Chris

[xiombarg]

If variety is what you're after, the card system sounds like a good one. The problem is once you know what's in the deck it may start to feel repetitious, even with a very large deck. "Oh, I drew Taunt again... *yawn*"

Instead, how about at chargen, within one's "broad area of interest", you get to make up a special power. How freeform this is depends on what sort of system you're going for -- perhaps it just needs general assent of the group of the GM, or you might want to have a system for "building" the power.

Regardless of how you do it, once that power is used, you can't use it again -- you have to make up a new one. Perhaps you can use "old" abilities once again, but at some sort of penalty -- this way, you build up a bunch of interesting things your character can do/has done.

Hell, you could combine this with your idea and have the old powers put on index cards. You can use your latest trick for free, or pay some sort of character Currency (points, Strength, whatever) to draw from the deck of old tricks.

[Christopher Kubasik]

[I just cross-posted withe folks above, so forgive me for repitition.]

Hi aknaton,

And welcome to the Forge.

I've thought about this subject lately.  (Or, at least something like it.  Read my post and let me know.)

Every time I go into my local game store rooting about for Glorantha material, the owner says, "Well, I've heard the game really doesn't work.  If you've your strongest ability in Fast Talk or something like that, no matter what the circumstances, you're going to try to win by talking to your enemies. You're going to do the same thing to win every time."

(And, I mean, every time, really.  Five times now.  Same example each time.)

Now, I *don't* think this is a problem, and here's why:

1) First, it amazes people think this is a problem.  In most games, PCs will roll one to three combat skills/abilities repeatedly forever to solve almost every encounter -- and for some reason this is considered "normal" while if I have the ability to rally people to my side as a tool, it's considered a draw back.  On the base level I don't get it.  The repitition of a sword swing is not boring, but talking is?


2) The same rule does not mean it's the same trick.  For example, let's go back to Indy again.  The more interesting example of Indy's bag of tricks in the context of this discussion is his whip.  In a game like The Pool and HeroQuest, we'd write Indy up with something like, "Master of the Whip."

What this means is he can use the whip in lots of different ways.  Think, in the first movie, of how many different ways he use the whip. Same tool, same die mechanic, but there's a lot of entertaining variety there.

Same with Taunt.  *How* does the character Taunt.  That's the fun thing.  Think of the french knights in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.  They do the same damn thing every time they show up.  But the variety in the taunts keeps them fresh.


3)  Broader categories of this kind might be better.  I've been thinking about this in terms of games like HQ and The Pool and Over the Edge.  Over on RPG.net someone asked what game would be best suited to scale mortals and angel and demons for a kind of war between heaven and hell.  And lots of people offered games that provide a long scale.  I, though, simply watched my assumptions melt on how to solve this problem and suggested the game mentioned above.  Why?  Because you just say, Angel +2 and you're done.  You *don't* go for a game system that "scales."  You go for a game system that's going to let you build an angel.  And an angel can fly, an angel can wield a flaming sword at the gates of Heaven, an angel can comfort the disheartened.  How many ways can the player vary way an angel is angelic?  That's the fun.

So Taunt might be too narrow.  (Maybe.)  It's a tactic, it's not a broad unique quality like someone who's Verbally Adept.  A Master of the Tongue's Tip.  Or whatever.  There might be tactics *within* the broader catagory, but those are found during play.


4) The game system matters.  The games I've mentioned so far are usually referred to as "rules-lite."  I've come around now and despise the term, too, because they imply something is *missing* from the rules.  The idea is that there are "complete" rules, and these are the rules that are quite complete.

They're not lite.  They are complete. They simply have completely different definitions of completion.  Games that try to turn everything into a skill on a charcter sheet might not best serve this kind of variety of interpretation we're asking for here.  The "one skill, one rule" games usually need very deliberate and precision rules interpretations of what one can do with something.  What I'm offering here is that everyone at the table enjoy flexibility with this interpretation.  "Flexible Rules" (Idon't know what the hell to call them) provide, encourage and demand this kind of play.


5)  Remember that these are not the qualities that define a character.  They traits.   What matters about Indy is that he starts the first movie willing to do anything to gaze upon long burried crap.  At the end fo the movie, he averts his gaze.  Something in the middle is what happens to Indy as he makes different choices in how to behave.  

RPGs often make the assumption that one's professional resume is a character.  It is not.  There are bankers who are thieves, and bankers who are sluts, and bankers who love just doing a good job and nailing down ever penny.  And they might have *exactly* the same skill set.

So to depend on these qualities of "tricks & skills" is going to lead players astray.

Take my angel for example. We've got two angels.  Is it really worth building a frickin' system that can differentiate between who's better with a flaming sword?  Probably not.  They're ANGELS!   The real trick is, which one picks up a sword and which one refuses.  THAT is a real difference between characters.


And that's it from L.A.

Christopher

PS the cards!  I forgot to mention the cards.  Torg (goofy name, good ideas), which yours truly helped design, offered exactly this. You had a hand with a bunch of bonus options for "Trick Shot" "Taunt" "Introduce Love Interest" and you could get bonuses to your roll for introducing the card into play.  The variety came in because you had to figure out how to use the card in your hand in the particular situation your PC is in at the moment.

[Marco]

I think the "traditional" way to do it is to give abilities that aren't always applicable/desirable. Taunt is used when you want your opponent to attack you first (as opposed to when you want to attack first).

I agree with Chris that there are advantages and drawbacks on each side of the crunch-scale.

Rather than limiting the abilities to x per day, I'd try to make it a call as to when you want to use each one (taunting the old master won't work, you don't want to taunt the brawler--but you do want to taunt the technician in the hopes he'll get sloppy)

This is not, I would think, easy to do--and you have to decide what choices of combat/whatever you're going to model ... but then having the choice be a logical one would work for me.

-Marco

[M. J. Young]

You're only half right about writers. We have the problem of trying to avoid repetition; but we also have the opposite problem of having to maintain consistency. I see that as a real pitfall of your card system. That is, if you did X in one situation, and then the next day you come upon another situation in which X would be the perfect thing to do and everyone sees that it is (and there's no reason to think that anyone in the situation would be ready for you to do X again), why won't the character do X? In your system, it's because he doesn't have that card.

Notice how in most stories, when you get to the climax someone does something that we knew they could do. It's usually, but not always, something we've seen them do before. In the end of Die Hard, the cop outside draws his gun and shoots the villain, and it's very satisfying to us, because we know that he's got the gun but is afraid to use it. If nothing had ever been said about him having a gun, or having trouble using it, it wouldn't be nearly so interesting a moment. It's when the hero does something we knew he could do that we're thrilled. In The Last Boy Scout, our former quarterback grabs the football and throws it at the assassin's target, just at the right moment to intercept the bullet. It's because we know that he can make these incredible passes that we believe it. Everything in the climax has to be something we believe because we have been set up to believe it through previous actions or dialogue, or it starts to fall apart.

How many times have you seen a television series episode in which the heroes get caught up in a problem, and your reaction is, why don't they just do what they did in that other episode? That's something you have to avoid.

It is natural for people to play to their own strengths, to do what worked before. To keep a story interesting, you've got to keep coming up with new things they can do and reasons for them to do the new things; but to keep it credible, you've got to let them do the old things whenever this makes the most sense.

Any help?

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I would like to offer the example of the excellent 1970s game, Tunnels & Trolls, which includes a resolution system "underneath" its combat and magic systems.

This resolution system is misleadingly called "Saving Rolls," but what it really is is a completely open-ended, locally-described task-resolution roll based on any of the seven attributes.

Since combat/encounter rounds are two minutes long in game terms, they offer a lot of space for any player to say, "I want to try X," and for the GM to say, "OK, make a Saving Roll on [whatever attribute]." It is hard to describe just how open-ended this is, creatively speaking. It literally permits any situation to be resolved, based on group consensus (the rules-text is explicit that a GM who's too stingy "loses respect"), through a highly generalized attribute roll.

Since there are no skills in T&T aside from languages, all skills are implied or made up on the spot through the Saving Roll system.

I also recommend Amber and Sorcerer for games which permit very broad ranges for customizing attribute rolls per moment of play.

Best,
Ron

[Paul Czege]

Hey,

The http://www.dragonslayergames.com/games/id21.htm">EPICS solution is to start with sketchy characters that players further define through assertions they make about them in conflict situations during play. So, the game waits for the NPC pilot to pass out before ascertaining whether any of the player characters can possibly fly the plane in his stead. The assertions earn Survival Point awards, which are a metagame resource used for favorably influencing die rolls and avoiding wounds. The whole thing nicely rewards player commitment to genre during play, and to keeping things interesting.

Paul

[Christopher Kubasik]

Yes,

Amber, Sorcerer, and Everway.  I'd forgotten about them because lately I've been thinking about "named" opened ended skills unique to an individual character.  But these games simply say, "Look you've got some ability in each of these broad categories just because you're alive as a human being.  Now what do you want to do?"

I think the key point is that trying to do something like this by name every "tactic" tightly will probably lead to unfortunate repition, while providing broad categories with variation left open to the player will provide flexibility and consitency.

Consistency can come both from agreement among player and the rules.  Agreement among players means "You're playing a guy who's just like Sherlock Holmes.  What do you mean he whips up seven course dinner and serves it like Martha Stewart?"  For some, groups, anythying that's funny goes.  For others, group agreement is called for.

Certain rules can focus this as well.  In Sorcerer you choose a descriptor for your attributes.  So if your Will is "Zest for Life" you might well let that descriptor color your choices of how your character would use his or her will to solve a problem.

Christopher

[Thomas Tamblyn]

The 'repeated cool trick problem' can be worked around with sorcerer bonus dice/exalted stunts/etc/etc.

The first time Indy shoots the guy with the sword, its cool, its interesting and surprising, so bonus dice.  The second time, it isn't, therfore no bonus dice.  Likewise, the same taunt each time becomes less effective because it is less interesting when flogged to death.

The group deals with it a similar way to the author who spreads out the characters tricks - by encouraging it when it would be interesting and discouraging it when it wouldn't.

Of course this isn't appropriate to all games because it relies on someone's idea of what is interesting and some gamers really don't like ghostbusters/sorcerer/exalted bonus dice mechanics (I'm sorry but I have no idea what a useful collective term for those should be) but it is a solution.

[John Kim]

I think the key point is that trying to do something like this by name every "tactic" tightly will probably lead to unfortunate repition, while providing broad categories with variation left open to the player will provide flexibility and consitency.  

A purely mechanical operation isn't necessarily repetitious.  If the optimum move changes depending on the state of the fight, or if there is no optimum move -- then you don't get repetition.  For example, I found that Champions was ideal for having a variety of useful moves available.  This varied with character design, but even without buying special attacks and maneuvers there was a fair variety.  

On the other hand, Champions also originated an approach similar to the one's mentioned:  it provides a +1 to +3 bonus to attack for "Surprise Move" for creative player description of a cool trick.  Its maneuvers maintain a fair amount of abstraction: so a headbutt and a punch, say, both fall under the basic "Strike" maneuver.  Even without this bonus combat can be pretty varied, though.  

Other games take other approaches.  Over the Edge instead has penalty dice for predictable or boring attacks.  Lastly, Feng Shui takes yet another approach: there is no bonus or penalty for creative attacks -- but this is meant to encourage cool moves.  Since you can flip over backwards and shoot while flying upside-down just as easily as you can sit and aim, the player's (in principle) will choose the cool moves.  

The 'repeated cool trick problem' can be worked around with sorcerer bonus dice/exalted stunts/etc/etc.
...
Of course this isn't appropriate to all games because it relies on someone's idea of what is interesting and some gamers really don't like ghostbusters/sorcerer/exalted bonus dice mechanics (I'm sorry but I have no idea what a useful collective term for those should be) but it is a solution.

Well, OK, I thought I'll take up devil's advocate here and point out what I consider some flaws in the approach.  There are two main objections:
1) I would compare this to the issue of Star Trek weapons.  In the Next Generation series, they are constantly trying out creative solutions to defeat their opponent.  They eject the warp core to create an explosion, jury-rig the shields into a ram, reverse the polarity of the tractor beams, and what have you.  The one thing they will not do is shoot the enemy with their weapons and defend themselves with their shields.  Taken over the series, this gives one a very dim view of Star Fleet weapon designers.  

As I discussed before regarding mechanics, using your weapons the way they were intended isn't necessarily repetitive.  There can be interest in choices between attacks and patterns of such choices.  For example, Star Fleet Battles (for all its flaws) does have varied play and tactics using fixed weapons and capabilities.  

2) It encourages meta-game thinking.  The character is usually not concerned with looking interesting.  She is concerned with saving her skin and disabling the enemy.  To someone who wants to stay deeply in-character, the interest in the fight should be over choices from his character's points-of-view.  This includes questions like "How much do I risk myself to achieve the goal we are fighting for?" and "Which of my fellows do I try to help most?" and so forth.  

I should mention that in my current game, I try to discourage weird creative tricks in combat.  I do this for two reasons:
1) Genre.  I am emulating the Icelandic sagas, which are not modern cinema.  There are no fancy fencing moves or acrobatics -- it is brutal hacking.  The text tells fairly plainly who attacked whom and how they were wounded.
2) Realism.  I rate genre over realism, but I also value realism as long as it doesn't contradict genre -- which in this case it doesn't.  

This is balanced by several features:
1) Fights are deadly and therefore fast.  I am using a modified version of RuneQuest.  Ideally, there is not room for a lot of repetition within a fight.  
2) Fights are fairly infrequent, and thus are not repetitive as an overall part of play.  Overall, we have averaged one fight every four or five sessions.  
3) The fights are often influenced by personal issues.  At least half of the fights are against people whom they know, as part of some personal grievance.  
4) The wounds are fairly graphic and disabling, rather than just generic hit point loss or dice penalties.  For example, last session a PC was disemboweled by a major wound to the abdomen.  

Of course, I'm not saying that everyone should take my approach.  I'm just outlining why I chose otherwise for this particular campaign.