Fortune in the Middle vs Stunt Rewards

[Joe Murphy (Broin)]

Assuming one is using the Fortune in the Middle approach, is there any way to then offer PCs rewards for well-described actions?

In Exalted and Feng Shui, well-described actions get a bonus to their rolls. In Exalted, there's even a paragraph that seems to recommend that GM's 'cheat' slightly, to ensure that well-described stunts succeed (and now that I've spotted that paragraph, gah, it annoys me).

So, let's assume I start running a Fortune in the Middle game where I want to see a lot of over-the-top stunts and so on. How can I offer rewards for interesting stunts?

Joe.

[Tor Erickson]

Hi Joe,

In Over the Edge there's a very simple mechanic that gives bonus dice for "cool" actions.  Basically, other than a few guidelines as to what a "cool" action is, it's just that: the cooler the more bonus dice.  Sorcerer picked this up and integrated it with an explicit Fortune in the Middle system.  I'm not quite sure why you see a conflict or a problem.  Is it because people generally regard FitM as starting with a general intention, rolling, then determining the specifics that it doesn't seem to make sense?  If that's the case, then perhaps it would be useful to note that FitM can start with a specific stated action...though what actually happened is still open to change after the dice are rolled (or cards are played, or chesthairs plucked, whatever).

The interesting thing that I picked up from playing Sorcerer was that it's much easier than it sounds to award appropriate bonuses.  Before playing I was worried about getting into disputes with the players over what was cool and what was not etc etc.  But during actual play, I'd say pretty much everyone at the table could tell when an idea was inspired and when it was tired.  Like at one point one of the characters was wrestling on the ground with somebody and the player said "I headbutt him!" and everybody else said "Hell yeah!!"  I gave him a fat bonus because, well, it just fit.

Tor

[hardcoremoose]

Joe,

What Tor says is basically right.  Although FitM gives itself naturally to a generalized intent, it works fine in games like Sorcerer so long as the players realize that some rewriting of the described action may be necessary after the dice hit the table.  

It's kind of the same thing with games that use a big list o' skills, like the WW games.  These are not ideal for FitM (as we've been finding out in our current Mage game), because you kinda' have to pigeonhole yourself before the die roll.  Once you say that you're going to shoot the bad guy and roll your Dex+Firearm dice, it doesn't quite follow that you could describe some other fate for the villain other than him getting plugged full of holes.  But that doesn't mean that you're completely without recourse, and so long as everyone has the same understanding of how the Fortune mechanics are going to be implemented, you can still describe some pretty cool outcomes.

Of course, that's assuming you're not suffering from Whiff Syndrome (right Paul? :smile: ).

- Scott    

[ This Message was edited by: hardcoremoose on 2001-12-20 00:00 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Joe,

This was discussed in the Sorcerer forum a while ago. The problem is that people are so used to stating "what the character does" just once that they have a hard time announcing (a) the cool intent, for which they might get bonus dice; and (b) the cool actual actions once the dice have been rolled.

I hope my explanation http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=386&forum=7&1">here might be helpful.

Best,
Ron

[Joe Murphy (Broin)]

Thanks, all. =)

Yup, Tor, I couldn't see how one could give a bonus if, typically, we started with a very general action. I'll go read OtE again. =)

And yup, Mr Moose, I mostly had WW games in mind. :smile: I've been trying to explain FitM to my playing group. One of the first stumbling blocks was pointing out how really, really specific rolls don't suit the approach quite so much. They don't allow for a lot of leeway. Typically, we play in quite detailed games (mostly because it's taken this long to realise we have a choice).

And yup, Ron, thankyou for your explanation. :smile:

Do you have any idea how well your advice works, from a marketing point of view? :smile: I'm going to buy Sorceror tomorrow. :grin:

Best,

Joe.

[Le Joueur]

Joe Murphy (Broin) wrote:

Assuming one is using the Fortune in the Middle approach, is there any way to then offer PCs rewards for well-described actions?

[Example snipped.]

So, let's assume I start running a Fortune in the Middle game where I want to see a lot of over-the-top stunts and so on. How can I offer rewards for interesting stunts?not to use the mechanics (mostly for beginners).

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-20 11:38 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Fang,

It is very difficult to know what to do with your references to Scattershot. Since the game is not available in any form to read or playtest, your use of it to support points, or claims about its design, is not working for me.

This particular post describes an outcome (Fortune in the Middle) of a system feature - but the actual feature is inaccessible. At this point, when a particular technique is being discussed and you respond with "Scattershot does this," it really has no weight. I have no reason to disbelieve your claim, but I can't apply that claim to the discussion in any positive way either.

I am bringing this up because, after many posts, the name Scattershot is carrying quite a few claims - it apparently includes an enormous range of RPG design innovations. It's come to the point where "roll videotape" is the next step, at least in terms of my ability to grasp the claims.

I shall clarify. I'm not telling you what to do, in  terms of your posts. You are free to post as you wish. Reveal aspects of Scattershot, or don't. Use it to support points, or don't. Make a statement about its attributes, or don't. Absolutely no instructions or restrictions are being laid upon you by me, regarding this issue. My goal in this post is to tell you what I can(not) make of these references to Scattershot.

If you're interested in what I'd like, or what would help me understand better, it would be the following:

1) What is Scattershot, as a role-playing game? What kind of premise, in the sense of my use in my essay, is involved? (I am not asking for design secrets; just what the back-cover text would say.)

2) Is any version of it to be made available to anyone, ever? I am not being sarcastic, but strictly literal. I asked this once before and could not understand your reply.

3) You frequently refer to "we" - is this in reference to a co-author or partner? To a publisher? Or whom?

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

Ron Edwards wrote:

It is very difficult to know what to do with your references to Scattershot. Since the game is not available in any form to read or playtest, your use of it to support points, or claims about its design, is not working for me.on theory not concrete examples, that would go in the Actual Play or the Game Design forums.  As usual, I am not expressing myself very clearly.  My references to Scattershot are only to show the source of my ideas, not to lend them any additional support.  If the idea alone does not carry, ask about the idea.

This particular post describes an outcome (Fortune in the Middle) of a system feature - but the actual feature is inaccessible. At this point, when a particular technique is being discussed and you respond with "Scattershot does this," it really has no weight. I have no reason to disbelieve your claim, but I can't apply that claim to the discussion in any positive way either. Quote

I am bringing this up because, after many posts, the name Scattershot is carrying quite a few claims - it apparently includes an enormous range of RPG design innovations. It's come to the point where "roll videotape" is the next step, at least in terms of my ability to grasp the claims. Quote

I shall clarify. I'm not telling you what to do, in terms of your posts. You are free to post as you wish. Reveal aspects of Scattershot, or don't. Use it to support points, or don't. Make a statement about its attributes, or don't. Absolutely no instructions or restrictions are being laid upon you by me, regarding this issue. My goal in this post is to tell you what I can(not) make of these references to Scattershot. Quote

If you're interested in what I'd like, or what would help me understand better, it would be the following:

1) What is Scattershot, as a role-playing game? What kind of premise, in the sense of my use in my essay, is involved? (I am not asking for design secrets; just what the back-cover text would say.) is an unfair characterization).  At this point I do not have enough of the text in readable form for any of the 12 genres we have chosen, but between the two of us we know it all by heart.

By now you should be quite familiar both with my passion for writing and my inability to express myself on the first try.  I would love to provide this kind of flavor text, but until I have a solid playtest product to put before people, I can hardly solicit the responses that help me clarify myself.  I also try very hard not to engage in hyperbole; I only say things I can most certainly back up about Scattershot.  So advertising flavor text is not forthcoming.

I know you will say the counter, but I have to say putting up things about generic or general mechanics<

2) Is any version of it to be made available to anyone, ever? I am not being sarcastic, but strictly literal. I asked this once before and could not understand your reply. just<is<

3) You frequently refer to "we" - is this in reference to a co-author or partner? To a publisher? Or whom?

[Laurel]

Joe- in using the "Over-the-Top" flavor of Exalted in a WoD game, I'd just transfer the mechanic itself, telling players you'll add 1-3 dice to their pool ~if~ they really wow you with their discription and quickly establish how much ~wow~ they need to provide for each dice.  

One thing I've done in a similar situation as a ST is taken control of the dice, rolling them myself for their characters as they are in mid description so they can keep talking and then interrupting with a successful result, failure or an Unexpected Event that might be something of both and proceeding for there.  It speeds the game up, among other factors.

[Zak Arntson]

So, let's assume I start running a Fortune in the Middle game where I want to see a lot of over-the-top stunts and so on. How can I offer rewards for interesting stunts?

Positive reinforcement. Simply notice when they do an over the top stunt and reward it with in-game (or out-of-game) consequences. Make sure the person knows why they get the reward, and they will be more likely to try and earn it in the future.

[Blake Hutchins]

Fang,

For what it's worth (addressing your last post), I find your contributions here extremely well-reasoned, incisive, and thought-provoking.  The exchanges you and Ron have had in the past truly raised the bar in terms of the quality and depth of the analysis.  I personally have no issue with any references to Scattershot, but then I'm a little paper boat on a raging torrent as far as Forge intellectual debate goes.  If anything, Scattershot sounds intriguing enough that not getting a holistic view of its innovations may be a bit frustrating.

Best,

Blake

[Gordon C. Landis]

On topic -

I think that once FitM gets you away from the "dice DETERMINE the effect" to "dice INFLUENCE the effect", it shouldn't be too hard to carry that over to "and your DESCRIPTION will also influence the effect".  In the specific instance cited - over the top stunts, in combat and combat-like situations - I can imagine things like "wow, great idea - you do an extra two points of damage" or "well-described - not only does your stunt work, but you've got the initative next round" and etc.  If you like, come up with a number of examples of these "bonuses" and give 'em "levels", so folks know that REALLY GOOD description/ideas might get 'em, say, an immediate extra free action, pretty good ideas/descriptions yield a bonus to damage or some other benefit of that magnitude, while a clever little bit might just get you a minor plus on your next, realted action.

On Scattershot -

I share Ron's frustration at the Scattershot references, and Blake's admiration for Fang's contributions.  The frustration is due to the fact that even as theory, I find it almost impossible to "see" from the Scattershot example the point Fang is trying to make - the Scattershot reference (for me) ends up making it MORE obscure, rather than clearer.  Fang, I suspect that Scattershot is so clear in your mind that references to it help YOU to understand your point, but it doesn't help me.  I'm left thinking I'd understand you better if you left Scattershot out of it, because that'd force you to use language and thought-patterns NOT tied to the two year process that has been your creation of the system.  I guess this is a (perhaps unrealistic) fourth option to your three - discuss not without ANY basis, but rather with either: a context derived from the thread and/or the Forge in general as the basis; or a full description of the relevant Scattershot details (either directly or by reference).

The admiration is because (besides your often generaly interesting points), the glimpses I am able to get of Scattershot are DAMN interesting.  Disclosure - I have a "pet system" running through my own brain that also uses 2d10.  Thus my current name - the "2-20 System".  Logo ripped off from d20 as much as possible without risking a law suit :smile:

On the , er, "emotional intent" of posts -

Fang (but really, this applies to most everyone, at some time or another), I can understand why Ron's post might make you feel a bit defensive.  But really, it's DAMN HARD to communicate in this format, and I'm actually quite sure Ron wasn't trying to attack you, but really just has an issue (that I pretty much share) that he wants to remedy.  Just a personal recommendation (again, to everyone) - always assume, unless proven VERY strongly otherwise, that the motive behind a post is  . . . good, true and noble.  We're all working together to communicate in a difficult medium, about difficult issues.  It'll save a whole lot of time going back and forth trying to refute and/or support claims that may not have even been the posters' concern.

There's always time to write somebody off as an asshole later.

Gordon

[Ron Edwards]

 This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-12-21 12:11 ]

[Le Joueur]

Gordon C. Landis wrote:

On Scattershot -

I suspect that Scattershot is so clear in your mind that references to it help YOU to understand your point, but it doesn't help me. explains<

I'm left thinking I'd understand you better if you left Scattershot out of it, because that'd force you to use language and thought-patterns NOT tied to the two year processⁱ that has been your creation of the system.  I guess this is a (perhaps unrealistic) fourth option to your three - discuss not without ANY basis, but rather with either: a context derived from the threadⁱⁱ and/or the Forge in general as the basis;ⁱⁱⁱ or a full description of the relevant Scattershot details (either directly or by reference).^ivmy flagrant disregard<Robin Hood, Prince of thieves<during play<and perpetuates itself."

Is this the point where I can say, "We did that for Scattershot" without it sounding like you need to know the game?  To me, (and this describes some of why I cannot seem to express myself) it still sounds exactly the same.  Does this mean I should just give up on trying to be any briefer at all?

The admiration is because (besides your often generally interesting points), the glimpses I am able to get of Scattershot are DAMN interesting.

I appreciate the compliment, I really do.  Occasionally, this is all that keeps me going.

Disclosure - I have a "pet system" running through my own brain that also uses 2d10.  Thus my current name - the "2-20 System".  Logo ripped off from d20 as much as possible without risking a law suit :wink:.  Maybe I'm hoping your system is enough like mine that I won't have to actually put in that hard work to make mine even as close to reality as Scattershot is . . .

If you are really that interested, would you like me to add your name to the list of people who will receive the outline of the Scattershot mechanics separate from the game?

On the , er, "emotional intent" of posts -

I can understand why Ron's post might make you feel a bit defensive.  But really, it's DAMN HARD to communicate in this format, and I'm actually quite sure Ron wasn't trying to attack you, but really just has an issue (that I pretty much share) that he wants to remedy.  Just a personal recommendation (again, to everyone) - always assume, unless proven VERY strongly otherwise, that the motive behind a post is  . . . good, true and noble.  [Snip.]not to use the mechanics (mostly for beginners).  Which was only originally included for bragging purposes.

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-21 12:59 ]

[Paul Czege]

To me...it still sounds exactly the same.

Damn Fang...that was pretty damn accessible. it doesn't sound the same to me at all.

I'm not sure you don't create a conflict of interest for the player (skewing slightly positive on Gamism and slightly negative on Narrativism) by making him choose between spending experience points on quality of success in the current conflict or on saving them to improve the character, with the idea that high levels of quality of success would be wrung from the Fortune part of the resolution mechanic. But I like the new posting style quite a bit.

Paul

[ This Message was edited by: Paul Czege on 2001-12-21 12:42 ]