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?

Actually, unbeknownst to most of the playtesters, Scattershot (the game we're developing over here) is an unusual FitM system.

This works as you've asked, because of three things.  First, if a participant so desires, 'quality of success' units generated "in the Middle" with our "Fortune" mechanic¹ may be 'spent' detailing an outcome.  (This is largely what makes it a FitM system.)

Second, outside of an obligatory threshold (based exactly upon how "over-the-top" a group wants their game to be), the "Fortune" outcome (in either extreme) forces a resolution that requires description instead of mechanical action.  Thus every 'critical hit' whether combat related or not, requires a detailed and unique description (and the game specifically states that such should be a 'turning point' of the scene, this is what supports 'Narrativist drift' built into the mechanic).

Finally, 'experience units' may be 'traded in' at any time to somewhat randomly add to the "Fortune" part of the resolution.  Because Scattershot also uses an 'instant experience' bonus technique, these are frequently awarded "for well-described actions" on the spot.  These can then be turned right around to 'force' further extreme results (that in turn, force creatively detailed results).  Liberal 'instant experience' awards almost compels this kind of usage, which feeds more creative resolution descriptions into the game, which results in more 'instant experience' and so the cycle continues.

At least, that's how we do what you ask for.  It's kind of a feedback loop that self-perpetuates.  What do you think?

Fang Langford

¹ not all ability use is moderated by the mechanics in Scattershot.  There are some fairly explicit guidelines on how to decide when 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.

I see (and saw) you use very much the same technique regarding both your current (then future) essay and the upcoming one about publishing (was it?).  You mention things and then clip them, saying things like "...I won't say any more, not until I get the next essay done."

And besides this forum is based 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.

The reference to Scattershot is not meant to carry any weight whatsoever (and for the record, I have made no responses in this thread until now, and I have never 'hidden' behind Scattershot, the way you make it sound).  It refers to the source of the idea I presented.  The idea, I thought, carried its own weight.  Did I leave something out?  The rest of what Scattershot does or does not do is not relevant to what I was responding to.  To go into that kind of detail in a thread I did not, myself, start, would be hijacking a thread most foul.

What part of "after the middle of our FitM mechanic, the 'quality of success' units can be spent on detailing...extreme results of this resolution force non-mechanical narration...and the 'experience units' are often instantly granted because of it and can also be traded in to cause this to happen more frequently" requires any working knowledge of Scattershot's resolution system itself?  Does the description of a self-perpetuating loop of "over-the-top" antics not show clearly by what I described alone?  How would knowing Scattershot uses a Rating – 2d10 = 'quality of success' units have added to this discussion?

I didn't want this to become a thread about Scattershot.  I did want to provide an answer to "How can I offer..." without sounding like I was just blowing wind about something I have never tried.  So I used Scattershot to provide a concrete background for the technique I suggested, it is hardly surprising that an author would have his own works 'on the brain.'  I believe the technique stands on its own without any further systemic information.  I feel it could actually be quite easily 'stolen' and used in systems unlike Scattershot's.  I am just not getting what you see is missing (unless you believe I am saying that, only as a part of Scattershot, this technique has merit, which I am not).

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 count four (not including the marketing ideas, because they are unsupportable as 'innovations'), this hardly seems like an "enormous range."

The main thing I have done with Scattershot is paid attention to the chronic advice I see around to only create a game if it adds something to the body of work in the hobby and is not easily replaced by existing products.  This is a hard thing to do when I set out to create something that was both familiar to the broad group of gamers out there and is a 'general' system applicable to a number of settings.  Worse trying to make it clear in the body of the game that it is indeed 'different' when everything in it seems so familiar.  (For gods' sake, if I get attacked one more time for having something that happens to be called Hit Points and then not having anything like Intelligence....)

(In fact, language is one of the biggest hang-ups I have about presenting hardly any of Scattershot's material here.  Much of it is written to use terms like narrative and contest in a more common, non-jargon-laden fashion.  I would have to follow everything up I wrote with extensive decoding to make it fit the vernacular of the Forge or face enough confusion to make the presentation not worth the effort.  And that requires even more writing time; virtually rewriting a whole game I haven't even finished writing yet in the first place.)

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.

You were never expected to do anything with them here.  In an article on theory a writer has to be allowed to cite references that readers are not able to access, if they only use them as a venue to describe something else.

By the way, in using the line "you respond with 'Scattershot does this'" (in as out-of-context fashion as I am quoting in here), reads very much like character assassination after the "I'm not telling you what to do...." stuff.  Kinda like, 'quit hiding behind your family' and 'but I'm not calling you a pansy.'

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.)

Sorry, Scattershot defies this type of description.  As a whole it has no premise, it is after all, a 'general system' (which seems like a strike against it around here, and that 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 on the Forge usually draws less than avid response, and until recently I was not convinced I could support the argument that Scattershot either used FitM or was in any way Narrativist (arguably the 'style du jour' on the Forge).  Quite frankly, I expected that if I spoke at length about Scattershot without being able to back up it being at least capable of 'Narrativist drift,' I figured I would be left twisting in the wind (or at least in the silence).

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.

Recently, for the first time, the whole mechanic (not including what I hope won't be too extensive of text on 'how to play role-playing games,' Scattershot in particular) is only just being pulled together into outline form as of this month.  So far, I have one request to see this 'nuts and bolts' form, but it won't be pretty.

I know I haven't revealed this to the Forge at large, but outside of the posting I do here, I really only get about a half an hour to work on it a day (did I say I have the patience of a....).  I usually don't mention this because less fair-minded of parties elsewhere somehow equate time with dedication.  Anyhoo, this means whatever I do goes incredibly slowly.  Yes, the design of Scattershot is quite well crystallized.  Yes, I have most of it 'on paper,' but in fifty different files across three different computers.  Yes, I would like to get some playtesters who are not close friends, but most refuse to work with mechanics doled out by the thimble-full.

I really admire you, Ron, not for just creating and publishing a game, but also for the hard part: being a business owner.  You must have a huge fountain of free time.  My wife and I live pretty much at the poverty line (another thing I usually don't share publicly) and one of our children (the five year old) has 'special needs' (the two year old is about as perfect and as patient as one could ever hope for).

Why am I 'coming out' like this?  Not because I want sympathy, not because I want to commiserate, but because tonight, I am tired of people picking on me for doing something so passionately with hardly a scruple of time (that may not be your reason, but that is your effect).  I could have said this without bringing my family into it, but then it could be argued that I may actually be "being overly tentative, undervaluing my actual abilities due to self-doubt."  Without any substantiation that is frequently the feeling I see people getting.

This is quite similar to me forever mentioning Scattershot.  It exists all right, but I don't believe I need it for any kind of validation for the theories it's based on.  Allow me a syllogism:

I mention Scattershot while describing a technique or theory: here I am getting attacked for using worthless substantiation.

I say I don't have time to do much work on my passion: I tend to have people assume I am timid or lying or have nothing to show.

Okay, I have explained why I have very little time to work on Scattershot (which prevents me from producing it here).  Do I also have to substantiate the mechanic to prove a technique that existed before it?

Ultimately, I am always faced with three choices, is it?  Discuss a theory without any grounding at all (even though I discovered it working on Scattershot), discuss the same with (what I thought was) only passing mention of our game, or discuss our game in detail (being open for attacks for hijacking a thread) to make a point.

Since I don't believe as ungrounded of theories read very convincingly, I never have the time to 'finish' Scattershot (as in make a single grammatical document of more than just the rudimentary mechanics, not some kind of magnum opus), and I do not wish to be accused of doing the actual hijacking, I must therefore choose the second choice.  However, it is my fault for not making the idea 'clear enough' on its own to carry the technique and for making seem like I was depending on reference to Scattershot to lend the technique some kind of cachet (which was not my intention).

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

That would be my wife and collaborator.  She would fault me for 'taking all the credit' if I kept saying me, me, me all the time.  As I mentioned elsewhere (and I suppose it gains value from having my situation explained), I do not wish to become a business owner (nor do I have the capital for even the most modest of start-ups).  Yes, oh yes, I want Scattershot to be published and on store shelves.  Without no hesitation at all.  But considering all of the advice on both sides, I think it's arguable to assume that this will really happen.

It is my fondest wish that my friend from Britain (whom I have never shown this to) will like it enough to publish it.  What worries me is that unless we are several products down the pipe when this happens, considering my schedule, I will default on the contract to support the line.

And finally, I have a tiny announcement.  We have finally arrived at the 'basic look' design for the web page to support Scattershot.  However, it must be remembered that #1 I have very little time to work on it, and #2 I need to teach myself enough CGI to make it work (unless I can find a good script source, but then I would still need enough knowledge to know I was getting what I wanted).  So the plan is to have that up after Gen Con at the earliest.

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-20 19:37 ]

[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 is my post to respond to Fang, and I apologize to Joe for the thread-within-a-thread.

Fang,

Your perception of being attacked is the central issue in your post, and it needs to be dealt with. You perceive yourself to be "accused of hiding behind Scattershot", or being picked on, or as the target of character assassination.

The same goes for your caution about posting regarding Scattershot, in that if it is a generalist game, or not Narrativist-focused, then it will not garner respect or interest.  It also applies to your perception that you lose face, in some way, by not working on or not finishing Scattershot fast enough.  Or to the notion that you should abandon your commitment to your family to prioritize on game design.

These are fears, not certainties. You are concerned that they would happen, and strike to defend yourself from statements that might, maybe, perhaps, be the beginning of such attacks.

The trouble is that none of these are the case. You do not lose face in that manner. No one has said, "Fang is lame because Scattershot isn't done." No one would want you to work on it at the expense of family commitments (and if anyone does say that, I'll kick their ass). Finally - and this is important - you cannot be certain that any aspects of its prose or design would be unfairly treated until you actually post about it. I think you'd be surprised, especially in the long term.

For instance, JAGS was on the face of it not to my tastes in role-playing. Yet I am currently preparing a JAGS game based on Marco's description of his horror module (side note - it's a pretty cool module). The discussion impressed and interested me - hence, I play.

I see a fine solution to the conundrum, much as Blake describes. In fact, you've already begun it in your post. "Scattershot is a generalist game." Cool! Now I know something that I didn't.

Why not post a "state of the art" thread in Game Design? It doesn't have to give away specifics of dice mechanics; your statement about Rating - 2d10 is plenty. It doesn't have to be complete or to give away detailed design material. It doesn't have to be polished (God knows).

The result would be one of the following:
Everyone ignores it. Worst-case scenario, they even belittle and deride it. Your worst suspicions of the Forge are confirmed. This outcome would, I think, reveal the Forge's input and activity to be worth none of your or anyone's time, and would not reflect badly on you or your game.
You receive responses, statements of inquiry or puzzlement, and you can enter into some dialogue about it. If you are willing to address misunderstandings as such, and not as judgments on either the game or your clarity of presentation, then a good thread could result.
Best of all, you might even get help. Artists, layout, web hosting, web design, access to Adobe Acrobat, references to printers who cut first-time publishers a break, whatever - all the punk-publishing tips that many of us have learned and used to great effect. This has nothing to do with approval. Speaking for myself, I do not have to like a game, necessarily, in order to help its author gain recognition or get the work one step closer to publishing.

Finally, you could then refer to Scattershot as a reference point, in other threads such that I (for instance) can say "Oh! I get it," and thus your three equally-uncomfortable options are bypassed.

As I stated before, I do not expect or require anything from you. You do not have to follow my suggestion, and you certainly are free to present ideas or references to Scattershot in exactly the way you've been doing. If, in fact, you really don't see why I am always boggled by them, then you are under no obligation to change. Nor am I suggesting that you would be stupid or insensitive to me, or cowardly in any way, by taking that path.

My only concern is the atmosphere of fear and perceived hostility that occasionally surfaces in your posts. Therefore my final point, in hopes of finding a common ground for analogy and thereby being extra clear, is based on your comment that you have studied some martial arts, in a previous post. I have too. One of the most important lessons was, "Choose your fights." If it's not an attack, one does not have to defend. If a person always assumes injury and strikes to retaliate, then he or she is not a warrior but a victim and victimizer, no matter how much damage they can do.

Best,
Ron


[ 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.

Then I am clearly not...well, clear.  I have, on every reference tried to keep Scattershot from being 'a part of the answer.'  In this I am failing to communicate.  It is frustrating to me that I cannot show a lack of implication that Scattershot explains anything about my responses, that it is merely the 'color of the paper' I use.

I think I am at a disadvantage here:

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).^iv

ⁱ Actually, it comes out to more like eight or nine 'real' years of development and less than two 'man' years of work.

ⁱⁱ That always results in my reputation for writing articles that are too long.

ⁱⁱⁱ That would work if it were not for my problems with the bias created by a lot of the jargonization reinforced by Ron's essay.  Terms like story have proven poor choice on the internet in general (in regards to role-playing games), anything with the letters 'n-a-r-r-a-t-i-v' in them automatically adds connotations to the GNS model (which I am on record for finding lacking); this robs me of the ability to describe what I would use such terms for, in any way succinctly, leaving me with cumbersome statements like "the sequence of consequential in-game events, existing both as a chain in juxtaposition and a unit for overall consideration."  Whenever I write something out like that, I immediately get responses saying what I have written 'is too dense' or 'cannot be parsed out.'

I suppose I could just put it out the way it works for me in my own words, but nearly every time I have done that, it results in, rather than a discussion of what I brought up, an argument over terminology or misunderstandings because of my flagrant disregard for proprietary jargon.

^iv Lately, that kind of response seems to draw criticism for 'hijacking a discussion.'

Okay, you want "without any basis?"  You want "context derived from the thread?"  You want "context derived from the Forge in general?"  Okay, here you go.  (You're right.  No matter how many times I rewrite that, it never sounds as funny as I'd like, nor as 'un-angry' as I'd wish.  Really, this next part comes from my 'good side' and a desire for clarity.)

Translation:
This works as you've asked, because of three things.

"You might try this idea, it comes in three parts:"

First, if a participant so desires, 'quality of success' units generated "in the Middle" with our "Fortune" mechanic¹

"First, set up the 'Fortune in the Middle' mechanic so that the results of the middle 'Fortune' part, are acting as both a rating of the 'quality of the success'..."

may be 'spent' detailing an outcome.  (This is largely what makes it a FitM system.)

"...and can be used as a form of 'currency'^a that will be spent to create detail that has more relevance to the quality of the 'sequence of in-game events taken as an overall aesthetic unit'^b.  The higher the 'quality of the success' of the 'Fortune' component of this FitM^c resolution mechanic, the more latitude the player has in affecting the game beyond usual FatE^c ('Fortune at the End') methods."

Second, outside of an obligatory threshold (based exactly upon how "over-the-top" a group wants their game to be),

"Second, set a hard and fast limit on this 'quality of the success' rating based on how cinematic a flavor you want the game.  (The smaller the limit, the more cinematic the results will seem.)"

the "Fortune" outcome (in either extreme) forces a resolution that requires description instead of mechanical action.

"When the 'quality of the success' rating exceeds this limit (either upwards – great success – or downwards – abysmal failure) require that a player define what impact this resolution will have on the direction of the story^a above and beyond how it affects the circumstances it is in."

Thus every 'critical hit' whether combat related or not, requires a detailed and unique description (and the game specifically states that such should be a 'turning point' of the scene, this is what supports 'Narrativist drift' built into the mechanic).

"This will make for those cool, "Robin's tiny hit fatally damages the Sherriff of Nottingham's vanity," (from Robin Hood, Prince of thieves) kinds of things.  It could be pretty Narrativist^c."

Finally, 'experience units' may be 'traded in' at any time to somewhat randomly add to the "Fortune" part of the resolution.

"Third, create a rewards system, like any experience point system you might like, but make it so that the rewards can be 'spent' increasing the above mentioned 'quality of the success' rating.  If you want to add to emotional excitement of the 'Fortune' part, you could make this 'spending' yield a somewhat random amount."

Because Scattershot also uses an 'instant experience' bonus technique, these are frequently awarded "for well-described actions" on the spot.

"Next make sure that everyone playing knows that they can get these rewards at any time during play, especially when what they do serves your interest in creating those 'over-the-top' situations."

These can then be turned right around to 'force' further extreme results (that in turn, force creatively detailed results).

"Remember, these rewards will feed directly back into creating those high 'Fortune' results making the 'quality of the success' rating high and usually over the limit you have set."

Liberal 'instant experience' awards almost compels this kind of usage, which feeds more creative resolution descriptions into the game, which results in more 'instant experience' and so the cycle continues.

"If you are free with the 'during play' rewards, it will almost guarantee that the players will have to resort to affecting the story^a in a fashion (because they understand about the 'over-the-top' genre^a) that almost can't help but yield more of these 'during play' rewards, and so on."

At least, that's how we do what you ask for.  It's kind of a feedback loop that self-perpetuates.  What do you think?

"And that's what it sounded like you were asking for, a system that reinforces 'over-the-top' play that gets beyond the FitM^c mechanism while still using it.  This does that 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.]

I did say I am tired (and sick, as it happens), but I must admit an off-topic post that has language like "I'm not telling you what to do..." is "DAMN HARD" to not see as even a polite attack.  If "Ron wasn't trying to attack" then why did he draw his response on Scattershot as opposed to the idea (I thought separate) offered?

Well, anyways, what do you think of the self-perpetuating 'FitM/Instant Reward/Forced Narration' idea?  (To attempt to get back on topic.)

Fang Langford

^a These terms either A) have specific Forge connotations that should not be assumed in this usage, B) generally confuse issues on the internet broadly, or C) are subtle 'no-no's around here.

^b This is what I would use the term 'narrative' to mean anywhere except where Narrativists can hear me.

^c This is pretty Forge-specific terminology.

¹ not all ability use is moderated by the mechanics in Scattershot.  There are some fairly explicit guidelines on how to decide when 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 ]