[Flashback] Incorporating 'Indie' Sensibilities Into A 'Traditional' RPG

[peccable]

Even when I was mainly into 'mainstream' RPGs, I was always more attracted to the weirder ones: Continuum, Unknown Armies, etc.  So discovering the Forge and the Indie game scene was a lot like how I felt moving from high school to college: "Oh *this* is where my tribe's been!" :)

My partner, however, is of the old-skool gamer mentality: weaned on D&D, really into the table-top combat, etc.  He's rediscovered his 'inner geek' in the time we've been together (he'd kind of fallen away from it), but our approaches to role-playing are very different.  That's not to say he can't do deep character stuff: he's much better at creating NPCs than I am, for example.  It's just that he's much more comfortable in a 'traditional' role-playing setting.

Most of my current circle of friends are closer to my end of the spectrum than he is.  He's been a good sport about playing along with some of the weirder indie things I've brought up (he's currently playing in my game of Mountain Witch and doing a great job of it), but I know he's really been itching to do some more straight forward dungeon crawling.  To drag out the old miniatures, the hex/grid board and go at it.

Over the last couple of years, he's developed his own game system.  I'm certain I'm biased to a certain extent, but it's my favorite task- (rather than conflict-) resolution based game.  It's fast, elegant, easy to understand and flexible enough to handle anything we've thrown at it.

In the time we've played with it (I'm currently running a one-on-one campaign with him), I've noticed I've tried subverting some of the more 'traditional' elements towards a more 'indie' mentality: introducing task resolution ideas like the ones discussed in lumpley's Practical Conflict Resolution Advice, trying to pull from the creativity 'at the table' by *not* designing everything beforehand, but rather having him introduce ideas on the fly: what do *you* think would be a cool reason for the NPC doing this?  We haven't designed the government of the city: how do *you* think it works?

This brings up another idea I've culled from the indie designs I've read: improvisational creation.  The idea of building things *in the moment* with the help of the other players rather than pre-planning.  This really appeals to me on a lot of levels.  First, I'm notorious for getting really excited about an idea and go off into the ether, coming up with my own stories and backgrounds and losing connection and perspective of the other player's wants and needs.  I've taken a single, simple seed like 'let's hunt vampires!' and ended up with an overly-detailed history containing themes inspired by Frazer's 'The Golden Bough:' seasons and vegetation cycles and drowned gods combined with the history of vampire myths and legends and meanwhile all the players wanted to do was have a neat mystery they could solve and kill some bad guys.

Second, one of the reasons I've been so adverse to GMing in general is because of the between-session work involved.  Yes, it can be fun, but I just seems that just setting the free time aside to *play* is a herculean task, much less preparing between games.

Because of this, games like Mountain Witch have really appealed to me because I *can't* prepare beforehand.  I can think between sessions a bit and try and tie loose ends together or work off themes the players have given me, but I can't really go off on my own.  I have to work with what the players give me.  And I really like that.  Because, by definition, whatever I do will be something the players are interested in.  I don't have to second guess.  If the player gave it to me, it's something they want to do.

So all of these ideas are bouncing around in my head, along with the fact that my partner is sort of pining for the old-skool gaming he enjoys, the kind of gaming that I feel I'm getting further and further away from.  And I started wondering if there was some sort of middle-ground: a meta-game that we could play, using the task-resolution system we both like, but trying to incorporate an indie sensibility.

I came up with the following.  My plan is for a longish (4+ hour) single session game.  If they really like it we could continue it, though.

I'm having him and another player create characters.  Any kind of character they want.  Any level.  They can be total newbies, or grizzled veterans.  They can be down-on-their-luck tricksters or the rulers of empires.  Whatever they want.  I haven't told them what I'm planning on doing with the characters.  They'll be entering this blind.

We're going to start the session at the *end* of the game.  I'm going to ask the players what they think a cool scene would be that involves their characters in a big, important conflict.  Is it a fight?  Is it a tense moment in diplomatic relations?  Is it an assassination attempt?  A military coup?  An impossible heist?

There's no need to go into details.  But, generally: where are you?  A dank underground corridor?  The throne room of a palace?  Who are your opponents, generally?  An emperor?  A group of monsters?  A cult of demon worshippers?  A long-dead god?

Next: the individual characters.  Where is your character?  What cool/awesome/interesting thing, connected to your concept of the character, is he/she attempting to do?

Next, gain: What cool/interesting piece of equipment/skill are they using that they didn't have at the beginning of the story?  Next, loss: What did your character lose/ruin in the course of the adventure?  Do they have a scar?  A wound?  Is piece of their equipment ruined?

Next, connection: Your character looks at the other character (or just thinks about them), just before the action starts.  What are they feeling?  Envy? Shame?  Anger?  Love?  Again, you don't know the why, just the what.  What would be cool for your character to feel?  What interests you?

The idea is to take all these things: gains, losses, skills, connections, and then leave the scene and flash back to the beginning of the adventure.  We know where we're ending up, but we don't know the specifics: How did your character come to hate the other?  How did he get that wound?  Who is the cult you're attacking?

It'll be my job as GM to give the players an interesting start from what they've given me: a little bit of background, a starting point and then we're off.  We all know where we're headed.  We all know the final scene.  It'll be all of our jobs to make sure the elements we've discussed are introduced: this character has to be wounded, this other character has to gain this item or ability, the opponents have to be introduced.

All of this taking place using a traditional task-based system, but the story being written in the moment, on the fly, with the players giving me ideas for where the concepts from the final scene can click into the story.  And, by definition, it's going to end with a huge, cool scene that I know everyone will be involved and connected with because they helped created it.

So, that's the idea.  I'm hoping to post an Actual Play when we get around to trying it out, but I wanted to post the initial seed here and get some feedback before we started.  I can already think of some mechanics to try mediating player narration (an economy of points, or the like), but to be honest, with the group I plan to play with, I think we can get away with pure negotiation - just talking things out.

Thanks!

-- d

[Christoph Boeckle]

Hello!

Sounds like a nice idea!

I've not much to say for now, except a big yay for the playtesting. Best thing there is to develop a game!

Since you didn't mention them, let me reference Alexander Cherry's Snowball and Andrew Kenrick's Six bullets for vengeance (do a search for this title in First Thoughts and Playtesting to find the five threads discussing it), which use a similar idea.

Good luck!

[Josh Roby]

d, I don't want to piss on your parade but I think you're waving a loaded gun around and asking people if they think you can hit the sky.

Can you narrow down what 'indie' things that you like?  By which I mean hard, specific details of what you do at the table.  Maybe elaborate the "how do you think the city is governed?" bit you mentioned in passing.  Describe it for us.

Then can you narrow down what your partner likes in his old skool D&Dness?  You mentioned his hex maps and minis.  Those are just things.  What activities does he like to do at the table?  Describe a moment that he really enjoyed, for instance.

Then, can you tell us how those two things are in opposition?  What is it that you like that gets in the way of what he likes, and how does it get in the way?  Is it just a matter of allocating time to one thing or the other, or is it some more fundamental conflict?

[Call Me Curly]

Peccable,

There's so much in your post that is very familiar to me:

* the excitement of discovering these new games;
* being close with an old-school player who is re-visiting the hobby-- who isn't excited about more recent ideas;
* putting a lot of thought into how to 'meet the other players halfway'.

Here's me, last November: http://www.lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=132

I've even envisioned an old/new hybrid that's similar to yours, where an old-fashioned dungeon crawl module & map  would be recycled to tell a kewlnew story in flashbacks:
http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=1385#Item_25

So... what wisdom do I have for you?

Treat anything that players are invested-in with respect.  I have a player who prefers dumb/old 4 page character sheets full of never-used stats and inventories-- because they give her a secure feeling that she has what she needs to deal with any situation... that she has enough character-ammo on those pages to tell many stories.  I thought she'd be as psyched as I was about switching to The Pool's character creation method http://www.randomordercreations.com/thepool.htm
But instead she choked-- got a kind of writer's block-- at having 'so little' on the table in front of her.   

An evangelistic "new = right / old = wrong" position is just downright incorrect here.  The old thing facilitates stories for her, and the new thing doesn't; even tho it was designed-to.

This second example may be redundant, but what the heck-- I know another player who recieved D&D Basic Set for her 11th birthday and was thrilled; until the only-other players at her school wouldn't let a girl play with them.  Twenty years later, she wants to finally get to play some D&D for the first time.  She doesn't want another boy telling her she can't play D&D.  She doesn't want to hear what's 'better'.  She doesn't want to be met halfway.

So-- go ahead and be excited about the new games.  But don't be like 'you. guys. are. SO STUPID.' if your enthusiasm isn't as contagious as you'd like.  Do try to meet players halfway, but don't be surprised if your elaborate attempt to pander to someone still leaves them cold.

Do remember that there are a zillion other new things to try, if any particular new concept doesn't work for any particular player.

[peccable]

Thanks for all the responses!

Christoph: Thanks for the references to Snowball and 'Six bullets for vengeance'. The later seems closer to what I was going for, as Snowball seems to have a Momento-like style with each scene being just before the last one, where as what I'm thinking about is simply to start at the end and then flashing back to the beginning.

Joshua, on narrowing down the concepts and 'indie' ideas I'm going for: sorry that I wasn't clear enough in my initial post.  Looking back on it I'm realizing I was a little rambly and didn't get directly to the point.

To sum up what I was trying to say, the following are the some of the 'indie' ideas I've been trying to introduce:

1. Conflict Resolution versus Task Resolution.  As described in the lumpley.com post I referenced, it all comes down to setting stakes and resolutions.  The concept of setting stakes, of intention and possible outcomes has completely changed my view of how conflicts can be handled in an RPG.

The idea of going from 'if you succeed, this neat thing happens; if you fail, nothing happens and you're stuck' to 'regardless of the outcome, interesting *story* will result' has really had a profound effect on me.  It seems to be all about making every roll of the dice tense and interesting, making all the players and the GM emotionally involved in the outcome.

The lumpley post is all about introducing these concepts into a standard, task resolution system, simply through the use of stakes, by asking players for their intentions each and every time they're asked to roll the dice.

I mentioned that I've incorporated this already into some of the task-resolution based roleplaying we've done and how pleased I was with the result.

You asked about the activities I'm trying to connect to in old skool D&D.  A lot of the narrative indie games we've been playing simply don't have systems for detailed action sequences.  My partner is really enjoying the game of Mountain Witch we're playing, but after some of the 'combat' sequences (that were really just glossed over and narrated by the players and I), he mentioned wishing the game had switched to a table-top combat scenario, with the enemies being placed out and the players being able to use strategy and the like, rather than simply grabbing narrative control and saying what happens.

As I write this, it occurs to me that this is what 'Bringing Down the Pain' from Shadow of Yesterday is all about: the option of 'zooming in' on a specific, important conflict from macro-resolution down to micro-resolution involving discrete actions and reactions.  That said, from what I know of SoY (and it's not all that much, I've only read it a couple of times and don't really feel comfortable with the system), even *that* might be a little too touchy-feely for the kind of player I'm talking about here: one who wants miniatures and tactics for combat.

And while the miniatures and the hexes are "just things", they *are* linked to the sort of activities I'm talking about here: strategizing, planning tactics, and working together with other players to overcome an enemy: in *any* sort of conflict.  My partner has had as much fun defeating a bunch of monsters with a sword as coming up with a particularly clever political maneuver to defeat a rival.

2. Player narrative control

This is the part that's sort of new for me, coming out of playing things like Nine Worlds and Mountain Witch.  In fact, I'd say that the 'flashback' mechanic that I'm playing with is simply a variant of the Dark Fates from Mountain Witch.

In MW, you have a fate, and every player can (in fact, must) introduce elements into the game which connect to that fate, giving hints to both the players and the GM how they envision their story playing out. 

The flashback mechanic seems to me to be a variant in which rather than being assigned a fate randomly, players define their fate themselves.  Where is my character going to end up?  What state will they be in at the end of the story? What have they gained and lost? 

The idea, obviously, is not to overwhelm the players.  All of this, as I described in my first post, is purposefully vague.  All the GM really needs is a general idea and a hint of how the player sees things playing out.

This is connected to the "How do you think the city is governed?" example I mentioned earlier.  In the story we're running through now, I've purposefully not defined a lot of the background.  So when it came up that his character would start moving in higher circles of the imperial city, my partner asked about the government.

My reaction was to involve him directly in the design.  He mentioned that he thought it would be cool to have an aging empress, surrounded by a backstabbing court and full of rivalries over who was to be her successor.  And using that as a basis, I came up with the specifics.  We were still able to have a sense of discovery and mystery for him (an important point for him), as he didn't know exactly what was going on, but I knew that anything I came up with would be interesting to both him and his character, as he was directly involved in the creation of the background.

I'm kind of horrified at this point at how long my summation is getting.  :)

In any case, you asked about the conflict between the two styles I've talked about here.  I guess it comes down to most of the 'indie' games I've referenced not having enough meat with regards to tactics, and the 'old-skool' games not having enough connection (through stake-setting) or freedom and control (through sharing narration) for the players in comparison to the indie games I've played. Hence the attempt at a sort of hybrid.  Neo Old Skool, if you will.

Curly:  Thanks for the advice.  I haven't had a chance to look at your hybrid, but will the first chance I get.  I know what I'm playing around with here is not a new idea by any mean, as I think other games (such as Donjon?) have attempted similar ends.

In the end, all of this is really an attempt to find a way to shore up my weaknesses with regards to my style of GMing, while playing to my strengths and the parts of roleplaying that my partner finds the most interesting.

Thanks again, everyone!

-- d

[Josh Roby]

Don't worry about length, d (do you have a name we can call you by, btw?).  Things get long around here; roleplaying is actually pretty complicated once you start unfolding all the bits and pieces.

My initial response to your much more informative summation is to point you at two games: The Shadow of Yesterday and the Burning Wheel.  You're absolutely right; TSOY's bringing down the pain is exactly that 'zoom in' quality.  That may be enough for your partner.  If so, great, but I suspect it's not.  Which is where Burning Wheel comes in.  BW is a lot crunchier, has a lot more options, and therefore has much more depth of tactics and strategy involved.  It's also got good flags in the Beliefs, Instincts, and T... whatever the T stands for in BITs, and it's got clear stakes-setting and good narrative 'motion' attached to what the players are doing.  If you and your partner enjoy scifi, there's also Burning Empires, which is BW slightly retooled for science fiction.

Now, as to the nitty-gritty of your points.  The old "Conflict Resolution versus Task Resolution" thing.  Conflict Resolution is awesome, hands down.  The only thing is that you were already using it before you ever heard of the term.  Any functional roleplaying game uses CR, just maybe not explicitly.  A lot of games resolve conflicts but do so behind a double- or triple-blind of iterative task resolution and GM discretion.  What I suspect has got you so excited is treating conflict resolution explicitly, rather than just "using conflict resolution."

How does your partner feel about putting all that stuff of what you want to accomplish out in the open before you roll the dice?  I have met some 'old-skool' guys who really, really didn't like it since it seemed to take away the suspense, reveals, and turnabouts that illusionist GMs can dispense.  That may be your first hurdle, although it sounds like he's been okay so far?

The second hurdle is how CR is managed.  Games that hand the conflict-winner all narration rights may be uninteresting for an old-skooler.  Part of the non-mechanical reward cycle of old-skool games is the interplay between player and GM, and the GM narrating player success / ceding victory to the player.  If the player ends up narrating his own victories, you lose that element.  A game like Polaris won't provide that recognition, but others (TSOY and BW among them) will.

As far as player narration control goes... I think it's sort of a red herring.  Is it really players narrating how they want things to come out, or is it players having input to what things are happening?  Your flashback example is all about players contributing to the content of the game, but not really the implementation of that content and how it plays out.  A system with good flags (or some good discussion about player expectations) can provide the former handily.  Having players "do the talking" for how things play out is a feature of how a game handles CR, which I've already mentioned.  I would suspect that your partner isn't too interested in "having narration control" when it means he narrates his own victory.  Does that sound accurate, or way off?

You mentioned that your partner likes tactics and teamwork.  What about you?  Do you like figuring a way to stack your resources in such a way that you get what you want?  Or do you just want to narrate the next part of the story already?  Do you get a thrill when you put together disparate characters' abilities to function effectively as a team, or are you more interested in putting together disparate characters to rip into each other to create conflicts to roleplay about?

[Ricky Donato]

It's also got good flags in the Beliefs, Instincts, and T... whatever the T stands for in BITs

T stands for Traits.

Now, as to the nitty-gritty of your points.  The old "Conflict Resolution versus Task Resolution" thing.  Conflict Resolution is awesome, hands down.  The only thing is that you were already using it before you ever heard of the term.  Any functional roleplaying game uses CR, just maybe not explicitly.  A lot of games resolve conflicts but do so behind a double- or triple-blind of iterative task resolution and GM discretion.  What I suspect has got you so excited is treating conflict resolution explicitly, rather than just "using conflict resolution."

Thank you, Joshua, for finally clearing this up in my head. One thing to add: I think the exciting part is not just making CR explicit, but also removing the "GM discretion" portion of CR. That ensures that everyone at the table is capable of having valuable input.