Fear & confusion (split)

[Dauntless]

There was an excellent game called Phoenix Command that was put out in 1986 by Leading Edge games.  Basically it was a replacement firearms combat system for other roleplaying games as it didn't really have other roleplaying aspects to it (no real skills for example).

But it made up for it in utter realism and detailed firecombat.  The system worked around an Action Count system in which depending upon a character's encumbrance and skill level, they had so many Actions that they could spend every phase.  A character had to spell out what his character would do during the phase (2 seconds of time) and from this, the Action Cost would be determined.  To switch this Course of Action required a certain initiative cost, which was determined by one's intelligence (the smarter you were, the better you could react to situational changes).  So for example, let's say the character Kyle had 8AC to spend every phase.  He could for example duck out from out of cover (2AC), ready his weapon 2AC, and aim for 4AC.  Combat begins at phase 0, and the phases continue until all combat is over.

So let's say an NPC was covering this area while a comrade ducked to another piece of cover.  When Kyle pops his head over the cover to shoot, it's at Phase 2.  The NPC is already covering this zone and has his weapon ready.  The NPC decides to make a quick snap-shot by only aiming 2AC.  Now Kyle has a choice, as soon as he ducks his head, he sees the opponent who has a shot at him.  He can either duck back, or continue on.  If he changes his mind, it's going to cost him so AC to do this.  Kyle decides instead to risk his luck.  So NPC A (the one covering his friend) gets to shoot at Kyle on Phase 4.  At Phase 4, Kyle is just now readying his weapon.  So let's say Kyle is lucky and the NPC misses...but it's not over yet.

Depending on how badly the NPC missed, Kyle may have to make a morale check.  If the round comes close enough, Kyle has to make a morale check (imagine a bullet hole just inches from your head, the splinter debris flying into your face).  The morale check is based off of his Gun Combat Skill level, which is a measure of how experienced in combat the character is and his Knockout Value which is a combined measure of willpower and health.  If Kyle fails this check, then he MUST duck back under cover, and Kyle will lose his shot.  If Kyle fails this roll, he can make a later morale check to try and pop-back out from cover.

The system was amazing for its time, and you can still learn a lot from it.  Combat was deadly if you got hit, and hitting was a bit more difficult than it is in other games.  And there's a certain "playing chicken" aspect to it....do you aim longer spending more time but having a better shot of hitting, or do you just blast away, taking your chances but also quite possibly making your opponent flinch?

[Dauntless]

I too have been wondering how to make a player lose control of his character's actions.

I come from a wargaming background, and in wargames, you get used to the idea that you lose control of your forces from time to time.  There's an old military adage that says, "it is far easier to break a man's will than break his body". Many good wargames take account of this, and it's the job of the player to make sure that his forces maintain good morale as well as cohesion of his forces.

But I've noticed that many roleplayers feel that loss of the control of their character is worse than death.  It's like a rape or violation.  The problem in my mind is that players feel that it is undramatic and therefore unfun.  I can only say that if players feel this way, then you must make sure of your intentions in the Social Contract what your game intends.  I personally feel that many players simply don't know how to seperate good roleplaying from beneficial roleplaying (i.e act your character in the playing group's best interest rather than how the character would most likely truly react).  Game mechanics can enforce certain roleplaying behavior.

However, as some people have mentioned to me, there is a punitive gamesystem mechanic to determine in-game behavior (lose control of your player) or a rewarding game system behavior to do so (perhaps by giving the player experience which can be used to create the next character even if the current character dies).

There's another adage that comes to mind....happiness is the feeling that one is in control of one's life.  The same can be applied to the control of one's character.  So the loss of control is tantamount to the loss of happiness.  I think Simulationists are the least affected by such game system mechanics, for they are the most interested in how the system should affect behavior (whether behavior of a person, of combat, of socializing, etc).  Gamists and Narrativists have the most to lose from loss of control, so I think such mechanics are probably less suited for those system types.

[Callan S.]

I too have been wondering how to make a player lose control of his character's actions.

I come from a wargaming background, and in wargames, you get used to the idea that you lose control of your forces from time to time.*snip*

Yeah, but keep in mind its unlikely you loose control of ALL your units.

In the spirit of that you could have partial control failures in characters, eg:
Cannot choose if he shoots bursts or single shots, does so randomly.
Cannot choose the exact path he runs, ending on a square X amount of distance away from his chosen point, in a random direction.

Stuff like that. And note how I say random rather than GM discretion. Coming to a game only to have your input into the game (the whole reason your there) taken because of a random effect is rough. Not only having it taken so your redundant, but also the thing you've put so much effort into, your PC, is now in the GM's hands. Not good.

I think this could be gamist, but it would involve looking for realism, designing a system around it, then going back and changing that system so players still have strong tactical input.

[Dauntless]

In wargames, as the commander of your forces, you have to consider the events that help or hurt morale and account for them.  The trick and enjoyment of playing come from minimizing the effects that lead to bad morale, while enforcing the one's that help morale.

For example, group cohesion and having your leader physically close to the troops is often a boost to morale.  While having your leader up close can be dangerous, it can also mean the difference between leading a rag-tag group of men, and leading a strong confident group of men.

I actually played a few games where virtually every one of my units was either shaken or routed.  Is there a frustration at losing control of your troops?  Of course, but that's a part of the game, and you accept it because while morale is not 100% in your control, there are elements you can control.  And to me, any sort of rules system is partially about defining constraints.  Some see constraints as a bad thing, something to be avoided.  I see them as a challenge, and the things that make you grow.

There's that old saying that goes something like this:
"God give me the strength to change the things I can change.
God, give me the courage to face the things I can not.
And God, give me the wisdom to know the difference"

Me personally, I think that's a great saying, and it goes to show that there are things we can't change.  In other words, there are things beyond our control.  We must learn to accept the things we can't, or at best, learn to minimize its impact on us.  I do feel that games which allow player behavior to always be 100% in the hands of the player to not just be unrealistic, but they provide less of a challenge...not just in the sense of it being more difficult to "win", but less of a challenge for the player to also grow from it.  I can already hear the rebuttal, "yeah, but this is a game, not real life", to which my counter is, why not learn something from a game AND have fun?  

Granted, some genres just beg for drama, and losing control of a character at a critical moment would just be anti-climactic.  I therefore think there can either be metagame mechanics or perhaps in-game mechanics which allow a character to override certain results.  For example, in my game setting, there is an attribute called Discipline.  You can spend Discpline points in order to counteract certain effects, but as you use up Discpline, you can't use it for other things, plus, it can have other drawbacks (it's tiring, and it could cause damage to your psyche depending on how you use it....for example, using Discpline to override a moral principle).

I think there are three ways to look at roleplaying.  One is that it's just a game like any other game, except the object of winning has changed.  Instead, you try to grow your character by your chosen values (make him more powerful, wealthier, etc).  Another way is to play a story.  Here, roleplaying and the characters are just vehicles, in some ways merely props to weaving a story.  The story is weaved by the characters, but the characters are really secondary to the story itself.  A third way of playing is to step into the shoes of your character, and experience the world he experiences.  A story may or may not be important, but what is important is trying to relate to the character.  If you see a similarity to GNS, this is how I personally divide up roleplaying.  But ironically, I think the players who hate losing control of their characters the most are those that see roleplaying as a storytelling adventure (usually a heroic story).  If you lose control of the character, you lose the ability to weave the story to your liking.  To the simulationists, losing control of your character is something that happens sometimes, and should be accounted for and experienced.  Gamists in a roleplaying environment aren't too fond of it either, because they lose their "playing piece", and hence their desired objective of making their characters 'better' (though in wargaming environments they are less disapproving of it since losing control of your forces is simply another tactic used, and since both sides are affected by it, there are no balancing qualms).

[Sydney Freedberg]

There was an excellent game called Phoenix Command ....the smarter you were, the better you could react to situational changes....When Kyle pops his head over the cover to shoot...he sees the opponent who has a shot at him.  He can either duck back, or continue on.  If he changes his mind, it's going to cost him so AC to do this..... Depending on how badly the NPC missed, Kyle may have to make a morale check.

Interesting. So here we have Fear (that morale check) but not particularly Confusion -- except for making it less expensive in terms of action points for the quick-witted to change what they're doing. As you've described it, there's no question that Kyle WILL see the NPC, just what he'll do about it. In a real combat situation -- and what we're struggling with implementing -- in this thread -- Kyle might not see the guy at all.

Or did Phoenix Command actually have some kind of "situational awareness check" mechanism to handle things like that?

.....And there's a certain "playing chicken" aspect to it....do you aim longer spending more time but having a better shot of hitting, or do you just blast away, taking your chances but also quite possibly making your opponent flinch?

That I like. I'm trying to work out trade-offs for "hurry task, take penalty" vs. "take your time, get bonus" in My Eventual Game as well.

Also -- Dauntless, Noon, interesting discussion on "morale" and deprotagonization? That's important for this thread; but frankly I think it might be worthy of a thread of its own -- the question being: "Is it okay to lose control of my character because of game mechanics that simulate his/her emotions -- be they fight-or-flight reflexes, love at first sight, being overawed by the majesty of the True King, or just being the subject of a successful Charm roll by another character?

Hmmm. I'm going to post that now, actually. So what if I'm late for work...

[Sydney Freedberg]

Something I've been playing with to address these problems....

Confusion:
At the start of a scene, or when a new element is introduced, you check Awareness. If you pass, the higher the margin of success on this roll, the more correct information the GM gives you the PLAYER and the bigger the bonus your CHARACTER gets on all subsequent rolls. If you fail, you can still act -- but the worse the margin of failure, the more vague or outright incorrect information the GM gives you the player, and the bigger the penalty your character takes on all subsequent rolls.
If you want to reorient yourself and get rid of the penalties, you can take a new Awareness check, at a bonus for taking a second "look" -- but this counts as any other action and therefore takes precious time (or counts as a second simultaneous action distracting you from what else you're doing, say, trying to take cover).

Fear:
When you're first attacked (physically or socially, for that matter) or exposed to horror or whatever, and any time you're injured, you roll a fight vs. flight check. If you pass, your margin of success turns into a temporary Enraged trait -- a bonus to fighting back, but a penalty to running away or negotiating. (So if someone attacks you but doesn't drop you, they may make you so Enraged you are a more dangerous opponent). If you fail, your margin of success turns into a temporary Frightened trait -- a bonus to running away or hiding, but a penalty to fighting back.
(More on this idea of "ambivalent" modifiers in this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11363&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15).

The idea in each case is to force both you player and your character to deal with the consequences of Fear & Confusion, but without dictating how you must choose to act. You failed your Fight or Flight roll but don't want to run away? Fine, your character masters himself/herself and stays in the fight -- but you're less effective because you've got the shakes. You failed your Awareness check? You can either act now on poor information at a penalty, or risk taking them time to reorient and get better information and a bonus.

Now, does this (sketchy) mechanic address the issues of this thread? Feel free to fire away...

[Bill Cook]

This is an interesting thread.  I think confusion is an untapped goldmine for invigorating combat.  I always thought it was silly that the surprise check in D&D only came at the beginning.  And I think that not expecting something is just as devestating as not being aware of it.  (e.g. The TROS counter maneuver.)

Sydney keeps returning to the example of a modern day firefight.  I've heard a handful of armed servicemen remark how weird it is, killing people that you never see.  And they're just up the street or down the hill.  But really, anything can do it.

Consider the duel at the end of Rob Roy.  (Just think how physically-minded RPG rules would fail to capture his wife's rapist's psychological meltdown.)  To continue with movies a bit, remember in The Messenger when that red-bearded Frenchman cleared his opponent's leg at the knee?  (This happens with level 4-5 wounds in TROS all the time, causing the players in my group to cringe; we literally have to stop playing for a few moments to get the willies out.)  And how about the route and rally near the end of The Patriot (i.e. the flash of British uniforms in co-ordinated action vs. the lone, non-descript banner bearer, waving without regard for his defense, driving into their ranks).    

In these examples, we know where the bad guys are and what they're doing, it's just . . . shit!  We didn't know it was gonna be like that.

I think confusion is especially cool because it's an effect of nothing.  I see a continuum of implementation for emotional effects: limiting effectiveness; limiting choices; preventing any action; forcing a certain action.

[Dauntless]

From my studies of martial arts (both academic and in the dojo), I've learned that one of the principles of combat is staying calm and relaxed.  This is extremely hard to do under duress.  In aikido in practice with the bokken, even though I know we're not really striking, just knowing that if my partner loses the grip of his bokken and could hit me makes me a bit tense.  Now if this were a live blade, I can only imagine how tense it would make me.

And tension slows you down, and worse it confines the mind.  The buddhist monk Takuan constantly stressed that the mind should have no place to abide.  You hear it alot in martial arts circles as the concept of No Mind.  But it's wrong to think of this as not thinking.  Rather it the ability of the mind not to be entangled by anything.  Not of life, of death, of victory, of defeat, of duality or even of self.  Thoughts should be allowed to flow where they will without being stopped to reflect on anything.  If a person strikes you and you think of blocking his strike, your mind has already been captured and thus your opponent has an advantage over you.  This is the main principle of Aikido.  Aikido does not stop the physical, rather it stops and controls the mind and intent (the Japanese have better words to explain this...shin is not just mind as we think of it, but also spirit or intent).

When one is scared or confused, his mind is scattered and has stopped it's ability to constantly flow and adapt.  In effect, one loses control of his own actions and thoughts when his mind has stopped (abided on something).  I think this is an important aspect to capture in combat, because the great fighters aren't those who are necessarily faster, more accurate or stronger, but the one's who always are able to control their minds, and hence their actions.  The samurai had an old saying, "control your emotions, or they will control you".

So I have an issue with game systems that allow utter control of their character regardless of the terrifying and confusing nature of combat if one of the things the game system is trying to get across is the reality of combat.  So my system has game attributes that reflect how in control of one's mind and emotions he is.  

Confusion:
Situational awareness comes from not fixating your mind on one thing.  If you can keep the bigger picture by not tunnelling your vision, you should have a better picture of what's going on around you and hence be less confused.  But fear and tension tend to narrow our field of senses so that we concentrate on what we perceive as a threat.  So I think confusion is related to fear, and how intensely focused someone is on something.  

My game system allows for the usage of something called Focus-Concentration as well as Drive-Passion in order to increase the effectiveness of one's task.  But there's a drawback to doing this, and this is precisely one of them.  Because when you concentrate you narrow your attention, you lose sight of the bigger picture.  This means that you lose defensive ability to anything outside your field of focus and there's a greater chance for confusion.  And if you use Drive-Passion to give a surge of adrenaline to boost your ability, the same thing happens.  Your emotions fixate on the task and you lose awareness of what goes on around you.

However, there's also Focus-Awareness (or Mushin, as I may eventually call it) which is a calm and serene awareness of everything going on around the character.  It is intensely living in the moment without being preoccupied by it.  Focus-Awareness is something that you "enter", you can't try to be in it, either you are or you aren't.  Masters are more easily able to enter this state (or may always be in it).  It's a powerful ability, and you must train yourself if you want to increase it.

Fear:
Fear is a different form of "losing your mind".  Fear is the loss of control of your character because something has made the mind dwell on it.  Since my game (though somewhat Universal) is based around Eastern concepts with a martial arts flair, I think of it as the Buddhist concept of attachments.  Fear is caused by the thought that you will lose something that you are attached to.  Normally this thing that you are attached to is your life.  

So the ability to overcome fear is the ability to override this attachment.  The other principle task enhancing mechanic in my system is Drive-Discipline, which can be used to override any negative reinforcement.  Another aspect that I haven't really thought about but I should is considering a trait which measures a character's Attachments, of which one of these would be his life.

Some cultures and/or religions train or teach their adherents not to fear death.  So they should have a higher innate level of non-attachment.  Another thing which could modify one's fear is simply exposure to death.  The more one has put his life on the line, the more tolerance you build up.  But like exercising, there's probably a point at which you "overtrain" this.  It will never totally get rid of the fear, but I think a veteran of a war would have less of a negative reaction of fear to his actions than someone who's never even been in fisticuffs before.

So in nutshell, there's an inherent "bravery" which reflects how much importance one places on life, there is a component of discipline which forces us to do things that we don't want to do, there's a religious/cultural/convictions factor which can influence how much fear can influence actions, and finally there's a matter of being exposed to many life or death situations.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Sydney keeps returning to the example of a modern day firefight.  ...  But really, anything can do it. Consider the duel at the end of Rob Roy....

Point well taken. I keep using the firefight example because it's the easiest context in which to make points about confusion -- but a swordfight can be plenty confusing too when it's not the classic duel on level ground ("Centurion, look out! Two more barbarians behind you, in the trees!"). And of course there's fear a-plenty in both firefights and hand to hand -- the difference perhaps being one is fear of what you can't see and the other fear of what you're face to face with.

[Sydney Freedberg]

From my studies of martial arts (both academic and in the dojo), I've learned that one of the principles of combat is staying calm and relaxed.  This is extremely hard to do.... My game system

By the way, all -- more of Dauntless's very interesting thoughts on simulating the mental aspects of martial arts are to be found over in this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11265).

Letting characters focus on one problem to get a bonus there at the expense of a penalty with anything else that comes up while you're fixated would be a good trick to use in My Eventual Game, come to think of it. "Tunnel vision" is historically a very good way for people in combat to get themselves killed by whatever they weren't paying attention to. I think I might crib from Dauntless's notebook here.

[Tomas HVM]

Hi Sydney,

your thoughts on this theme mirrors mine, and as a game designer I have made an effort to make a method for combat which includes factors like fear, confusion and chaos. My method was made as a module for a traditional fantasy RPG (swordwielding warriors, skills like Fighting and Fencing, and die-rolling).

Note that I am using "method" to describe this, not "system". There is a system in it too, but this is merely the foundation for the method I am using. The method make the gamemaster into the power behind the combat scenes, giving the GM some techniques to do this (quite ordinary techniques, but used with consequence and power).

Some principles in this method may be used on other themes too, any theme with constant or periodic conflicts in which the character-group may be active participants. This may relate to rising in high society, a venture into commerce, the conflicts within a family, political intrigues, etc.

Combat and Chaos
- a method for realistic combat in traditional roleplaying games

This is a method for combat in roleplaying games. It is not meant to stand contrary to any other way of solving combat, but is a method in it's own right, for you to use or to cast aside. Rather than focusing on the dice and the number-crunching, I have chosen to focus this method on character-driven combat, giving tools to do this realistically. The major tools of this method are described in detail in this article, but many of the minor tools are left out.

The gamemaster should be told that descriptions of consequences should be delivered with as little as possible of sentimentality. The gamedesigner may instigate this by giving a multitude of short paragraphs on consequences, to be used by the gamemaster. The paragraphs should be accompanied by advice and examples on how to be precise, unpredictable, effective and brutally honest in combat resolution.

Timing is essential to the methods ability to overrun the players inborn tendency to "beat the system". It relies heavily on the GM in this respect. How to shift between rythmic and unrythmic GM'ing should be addressed in a presentation of the method. The consequences in such shifting should be explained to the GM, together with the strenghts to be derived from both rythmic and unrythmic GM'ing.

The goal of this method is to give players (who usually know little about combat) a sniff of the heat of combat, and it's consequences. To reach this goal this method demand a willingness to expose the players to scenes where they have no control, and where the string of events engulf them in chaos.

1.step: the recruit
In combat the players are introduces to a rapid succession of situations, where their choice are requested and essential. The main point is to stress them in their choices, and to make them forget the medium or long term consequences of their actions. Initially there is no time to ponder such consequences, but it will come with their experience in the method (as fighters get experience with the chaotic nature of combat). They will learn to recognise certain situations, and to be vary of what they do and don't do. Little by little the players will be able to respond to stressed situations with something close to force and foresight.

By exposing the players to chaos, by bombarding them with critical situations, forcing them to respond immediately with little or no insight in consequences, the players will be placed in a situation similar to that of a fresh recruit in his first combat. This creates a basis for giving the players insight in the dynamic nature of combat.

It is not essential to the combat that combat is resolved in any clear-cut order. The die will be cast in a multitude of scenes, and consequences will be described, but it will never be dwelt upon. Any single scene consist of:
--> Description (effective and minimal wording by GM)
--> Reaction (fast action by player(s), if he lingers he get no action)
--> Consequence (erffective and minimal wording by GM)
--> Scene jump (go to a NEW scene with another player, new description)

RULE: never return to an old scene. Every single player will face a new challenge every time he is addressed by the GM. The follow up of what happened in the combat will be left to after the combat, when there is time to think it through.

This seemingly crude framework will help the GM mirror the dynamic and bewildering nature of combat, when filled with a powerful narrative push. It will create a "realistic" basis of combat, by hurling lots of combat-scenes at the players in one single combat. As the players must be expected to know next to nothing of real combat, this will make their knowledge of it mirror the insight of the characters they play.

It is essential, already in these early stages, that you make the players see the benefits of such an approach, in spite of their lack of control in critical situations. You, as a GM, must strive to make the players get into this method, without them expecting to master the consequences their characters face.

2.step: the veteran
The next step in the method, is to introduce combat where the players are allowed take the initiative and take free action. Give them more control over their character and it's actions in the combat. Let them steer away from the most gruesome consequences, and take actions which are effective (in terms of fighting the enemy) and significant (contributing to the outcome of the combat). Let them rule their characters, to a certain extent, but also make them accept that no experience may lead a character untarnished through a combat. Still you will take control away from them, and expose their characters to brutality and pain. But now your descriptions will also include information on other characters, observations, and insight into which side is winning the combat

The second step of the method is meant to mirror the professional attitude of the veteran. It mirrors his detached way of relating to the brutality , and his effectiveness in dealing with the chaos.

The players, and their characters, are established as veterans of combat through repeated combat-scenes where they have been able to act as effective soldiers and detached professionals. Simultaneously they have been exposed to repeated situations within each combat, of chaotic and unmaneuverable brutality. the players have been rendered powerless time and again, but should have learnt to cope with it, much like veterans of an army learn to cope with their unpredictable surroundings.

Most people stop development on the veteran-level, there being less drive for them to develop further (away from comradeship and the ease of following orders, never being truly responsible). They are proficient and popular, and have a survival-rate far higher than the recruits.

Some of these veterans may choose to harden themselves against the horrors they witness, becoming "the cold veterans of war", to be engaged emotionally on your own peril.

As hardened veterans, let the players go on for some time, being effective in combat, trusted by their comrades, and popular among their superiors. let them be closed, and cold and seemingly unaffected.

Then they should be given notice of small cracks in the shell they have made to "deal" with the horrors they have experienced. These cracks might be in the form of unnecessary brutality, some problems with sleep, minor adjustment-problems in normal social situations, and bad moods. None of these cracks should ruin anything in themselves. They may instigate some comments from the surroundings, but not more. If they are dealt with, the character may be able to deal with his underlying anxiety and nightmares.

If however, the signs are ignored, the inevitable nervous breakdown will come. In such a breakdown the full horror of the hardened veterans experiences come back to haunt him. It may happen anytime, from one moment to the next, and it will render the character a helpless victim of his own feelings. He may become unspeakably violent, or frozen in abject terror, or dissolved in unstoppable crying, or utterly nervous and frightened. And there is little or nothing anyone can do. He is basically left to fend for himself, facing the most coldharted and vengeful ghosts ever to emerge from a human mind.

3.step: the master
The third step of this method is to make players (and their characters) the true masters of combat.

If the character develop into a master; then the player should be given the power to decide if a combat may be won, or must be lost (make sure to make the player tell why he rule the combat to end so), and what this outcome hinges on (considering unknown factors, changing premises, etc.). Let such players also tell how this will affect the participants in the combat, on both sides. Make them observe possible consequences with respect to individual survival, desperate efforts, breakdown of command, raising/sinking moral, and thraumaes after the combat.

The combat is now resolved in the way veterans do it, but with the added bonus of giving masterful characters powers to "turn the tide", help their comrades, lead them, and form the combat with their intentions. This is achieved by resolving the combat in a calm rythm, cooperating in handling it, making it a "discourse" on combat, only occationally broken by GM-instigated (or player instigated) scenes of chaos. When there is one or more master characters, the combat is resolved as a joint venture, with all masters (gamemasters and character masters) as equal participants in and rulers of the fight.

However: this detached and calm way of handling combat should not remove the brutality, the blood and dirt and dread, the dying and wounded. These aspects of combat should be observed within the "discourse", but in a precise and "dull" language. The gamemaster (and the players) should trust the emotional content of "dull" combat-descriptions to be strong, both due to the actual content of it, and due to the brutal combat-resolutions done earlier in the campaign (a campaign in which this method is used).

The chaos of combat is now becoming a dynamic field upon which the characters have a strong presence, and persue their goals with selfconfidence. This way of handling combat invests the players with decisive power. It reflects the mastership and calculated calm of the field marshal.

The goal of the method
This method is true to a goal of characters in development. It is true to a goal of severe realism, without being bogged down in "tennis matches" of opposing die rolls, or tedious detailism devoid of emotional content. The method is also true to a goal of interactivity and player-focus. The method take it for granted that players do not have total control over their characters. At the same time this method makes it easier for the players to believe in the combat, to see it's consequences on their character, and to make his emotional shock (or shocking coolness) a part of the game. it makes the aftermath of combat more important, as the content of it will not be dwelt upon until combat is over (the drive of the GM is meant to stress the players to the degree that no time is left to thinking and emotions).

it is important to observe that the method is designed to instigate different ways of thinking, behaving and acting by the players and their characters, and these ways of behaving corresponds with three levels of insight or mastership within the area:

1.level: The recruit is green and without knowlegde, acting on fragmentary inofrmation. This is mirrored by the players being given little info, being forced to make premature decisions, and left with short descriptions of their "insignificant" actions.

2.level: The veteran is experienced and resourceful, action on prior knowledge, and on more efficient observations of the situation. This is mirrored by the players being given more info, better time to react, and more positive feedback on their actions (from the GM).

3.level: The master will contribute to the description of the situation himself, and will master the outcome. His knowlegde is listened to, taken into consideration, and are as good as "the thruth" about the conflict. The player of a master character may play his character with an ingame authority equal to that of the gamemaster.

Also; this method presents a way of resolving combat which is meaningful in a game-context, and engaging in respect to dealing with a important part of life. It take into consideration the importance of player-character contact, and introduces methodical thectniques to strenghten the player-character contact through several stages, relating to the substance of the chosen conflict, and considering the changing attitudes of the characters, towards the conflict.

Method-thinking vs System-thinking
It is a method, not a system. The nuances in meaning between these two terms holds an essential difference in thinking. The system focus on techniques related to skill-use, statistics, die-rolling, and formulas. The method make use of system(s), but focus more on the discourse between participants, creating techniques to steer this discourse in directions consistent with the game-theme. This kind of thinking has made it possible to make the method described here (I know it's a lousy description, vague and probably full of misspellings (I'm Norwegian)). The method has been tested on several occations, by several GMs, and found highly effective. Players have left the game sessions with a feeling of being skinless and mentally fatigued.

I hope this posting have given some ideas on how to create emotional content and chaos in combat, within roleplaying games. I sincerely think this is the way to go; by techniques for making the participant-discourse morror the conflict. No combat system I know aboutk, has been close to the powerful and highly believable effect this method has proven itself to give.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Note that I am using "method" to describe this, not "system".

It's definitely a cool method. And to be frank, 90% of the experience of any game is how the GM and players interact.

But (you all saw that coming, right?) here at the Forge, we tend to be System Does Matter folks. So is there a way to translate your method into mechanics and make it System?

[Tomas HVM]

Hi Sydney,

"System does matter" is a way of saying that the actual GAME you are playing, will influence the way you roleplay.

I do agree, and I propose for designers to care about how they can make this even more true, by communicating effective techniques for gameplay to be used with their games. As you say; 90% of the experience of any game is how the GM and players interact, which lead me to think that some effort should be done to highten this part of the experience, on the part of the designer.

Frankly, I do not believe it possible to create anything close to a believable combat situation in a roleplaying game, on the character level, by the use of mechanics. You will have to give sound and applicable advice on how the interaction could be used to strenghten the experience.

I've seen this discussion on many RPG-forums, over and over again. It stops being interesting as soon as you focus on mechanics. In my view, mechanics are the easy part of the equation.

[Sydney Freedberg]

As you say; 90% of the experience of any game is how the GM and players interact, which lead me to think that some effort should be done to highten this part of the experience, on the part of the designer.

That's an interesting thought, especially since so much how the GM-to-player, player-to-player interactions work is usually just assumed in game texts and/or transmitted purely by "oral tradition" among gaming groups.

Which raises a whole huge other subject, but in this context, I suppose the issue is, how do we get away from our wargame roots and change the way GM and players interact around the table in a combat setting?

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

The above posts were all split from Fear & confusion  - do all role-playing games miss the point?.

Carry on,
Ron