Preventing munchkin behavior

[GreatWolf]

Now, at this point, I'm going to challenge the idea that the first narration is "munchkin".  Check out this AP thread.  In particular, look at the narration for Na'ir:

We cut away at this point.  When we returned, Na'ir was emerging from the Mistake, bloody and broken but still clutching the hilt of his father's sword.  Nonetheless, he knew what he had to do.  He staggered to the remnant and entered it.  The city was full of wailing and crying as the Wail exacted its vengeance.  He groped his way to the top of the Starsinger tower, which is the tallest tower in the remnant.  Grasping the hilt of his father's sword, he plunged it into the floor.  Then he lifted his face to the sky and called out a name.

And the stars began to fall.  And with them, they brought healing and life.

In response, the Mistake belched up a demon horde which poured from its maw, hurtling towards the remnant.  Na'ir drew forth his father's sword, which was reforged in ice, and personally led the defense of the remnant.  He rallied the defenders, including Heka, and forced the demon horde back from the remnant.  Then, in a scene reminiscent of Return of the King, cavalry from another remnant arrived and charged.  The demon horde was scattered.  A falling star obliterated the Wail.  The remnant was saved.

And then, as Na'ir turned from the battle, a stray arrow pierced his heart.  He fell, and he died.

No one remembered him and his noble leadership.  No songs were ever sung of his sacrifice.  Indeed, he was blamed by the people for raising the Mistake against the remnant.  He was accounted a traitor to the people, and his name was dust on the winds of time, forgotten by all.

Except for us.

Is this munchkin narration?  Not necessarily.  See, behind the scenes, there was an intense system-based struggle for this narration.  I fought for every bit of that sequences of events with the tools given to me by the game, and, as a result, there was consensus on the outcome.

So, going back to your example, why shouldn't the priest be able to blast the invading ork army to pieces?  Because there's no dramatic tension.  But, is that really true?  Dramatic tension comes from conflict and uncertainty, which is, in turn, provided by the players by using the system.  There's no way of knowing, from your example, if there is real tension or not.  So the priest blasts the entire army to pieces.  What did that cost him?  Or, was that merely the vanguard of a larger army?  What else is at stake?  Is there a bigger threat?

See, the power level of a narration isn't really important.  Instead, what you need to do is give the players the tools to create dramatic tension.  In other words, the game needs uncertainty and conflict.

Some good examples of games to look at are Universalis and Polaris.  Both are GM-less games that address the issue of conflict and uncertainty in different ways.

[LemmingLord]

Now, at this point, I'm going to challenge the idea that the first narration is "munchkin".  Check out this AP thread.  In particular, look at the narration for Na'ir...

Is this munchkin narration?  Not necessarily.  See, behind the scenes, there was an intense system-based struggle for this narration.  I fought for every bit of that sequences of events with the tools given to me by the game, and, as a result, there was consensus on the outcome.

So, going back to your example, why shouldn't the priest be able to blast the invading ork army to pieces?  Because there's no dramatic tension...

See, the power level of a narration isn't really important.  Instead, what you need to do is give the players the tools to create dramatic tension.  In other words, the game needs uncertainty and conflict.

Some good examples of games to look at are Universalis and Polaris.  Both are GM-less games that address the issue of conflict and uncertainty in different ways.

My example may not be great, but I really hope my point doesn't get lost.  In answer to our thread poster asked how to deal with munchkinism in the GMless system he described, I am suggesting that all parties agree upon certain scene related limitations to keep whatever balance upon which the group can agree. 

I believe both I and our posting colleague could use some additional insight from you that on what mechanisms Universalis and Polaris use to address the issue of conflict and uncertainty "behind the scenes."  Please tell us more.

[GreatWolf]

Sure thing.  Obviously these are really short overviews, so I'm glossing over details for the sake of brevity.

Universalis is a universal GM-less RPG.  The way it works is that each player has an equal amount of Coins that he spends to create characters, declare events, and suchlike.  In a way, it's more of a GM-ful game, actually, since the Coins are a method of distributing authority to the players.  At the end of each scene, each player gets back a few Coins.  As a result, the best way to get Coins is actually by starting a Complication, wherein players acquire dice by creating a conflict in the story.  The dice determine who wins and therefore who gets more Coins from the Complication.  So the game actually bribes the players into providing conflict and uncertainty by rewarding them with additional Coins which are used to power the game.

Polaris is currently riding high on my personal list of favorite games.  In it, you play (essentially) fairy/elvish Knights protecting a doomed society from demons.  If you're into that kind of thing, it's very cool.  Again, this is a GM-less game, ideally for four players.  Each player controls one Knight, and, during a scene starring that Knight, each of the other players takes on specific roles.  One of these roles is the Mistaken, who is responsible for providing opposition to the Knight and his goals.  All narration is free-form, but it can be negotiated through the use of specified Key Phrases.  The simplest one is "But only if..." which says "I accept what you just narrated, as long as this thing also happens."  One of these Key Phrases is "It Shall Not Come To Pass"; in other words, "Roll dice!"  The tug of war between Heart (the player of the Knight) and Mistaken provides the necessary conflict and uncertainty to drive the game.

And now, the requisite links:

Universalis (Forge forum)
Polaris (Forge forum)

I hope that this is helpful.

(Edited to fix a link)

[Valamir]

The general principle that can be derived from both Universalis and Polaris is where the hard line parameters are.

In Universalis you can say absolutely anything you want, as long as you can afford to pay for it, AND as long as any other player doesn't interfere...because they can say anything they want also as long as they can afford to pay for it.  Disagreements between who wants to say what can be handled either by who spends the most to make it happen, or by going to the dice and who has more existing facts supporting their side to help them win.  Point being there is a very clear hard line way to resolve disagreements.  If you say something I don't like there is no doubt whatsoever as to what recourse I have (and vice versa) and the game mechanics outlines the precise procedure to follow that will get the game to a resolution that everyone who desires had input into resolving.

In Polaris you can say absolutely anything you want without any affording to pay for it limitation...BUT at any time the player who is opposed to you (i.e. representing goals opposite yours) can interfere by making a conflict out of it.  Like Universalis there is a very clear hard line way to resolve disagreements and a precise procedure that will get the game to a resolution that everyone had input on.  In Polaris the mechanic is trading key phrases.  Once the game goes to a conflict you can still say anything you want BUT you have to adhere to certain formats in how you say them.  Inherent in those formats is the idea of concessions and addendums.  In other words, I'll agree to what you say as long as you agree to what I say.  You'll agree to that as long as I agree to something else and so on until neither of us wants to escalate any further, or until one of us decides the escalation has gone too far and uses a different format to reset back to a previous state.  Ultimately at some point "and that was how it happened" embeds everything into the shared imaginary space and it becomes part of the reality of the game.

The key in any player empowered narration system, especially those that essentially let players say just about anything is:

1) clearly identify the recourse player X has when either a) player X doesn't like what player Y said, or b) player X thinks they have a way to make what player Y said better.  This means clearly identifying the following:  what can Y say that X can't question or interfere with, when can X jump in and make their own assertions, and a clear set of rules outlining which player speaks and when (and this includes what you can say when its someone elses turn).

2) whatever the rules are (Coins, Dice, Key Phrases, Cards, a fist fight out back) they must eventually get you to an ultimate resolution where a) it is clear to everyone how events played out and b) everyone who has a stake in those events had some input into them somewhere along the way (either during resolution itself, or in the lead up to resolution where they established their right to participate).


Universalis and Polaris do both of those VERY well and VERY differently without needing to rely on the old safty measure of having a GM to arbitrate.  Because there is no GM the rules have to be able to handle all necessary arbitration with precision.

If you accomplish these things, then it is very unlikely that munchkiny behavior will ever be a problem.

[Green]

Sorry about the long wait.  I thought this thread was buried.  I didn't even know it was still around until I read a post at Story Games.  My fault.

Thanks for the ideas, Valamir.  They really get at the heart of the conflict I have with the rules.  It's going to take a while, but I'm going back to the drawing board to figure something out that resolves this conflict while accomplishing my goal of low-impact play.