Advice on implementation to a newbie (longish)

[Pigfrenzy]

Forgive me if I've posted this to the wrong section, I wasn't sure if this section or Actual Play would be more appropriate.

First off, I've been lurking here off and on for a while and have been interested by a lot of the topics. I have been roleplaying since the 80s and after DnD concentrated mainly in CP & RM, and then Shadowrun. Had a big break and recently have gotten back into gaming with Feng Shui and some White Wolf games (Sorcerers Crusade & Exalted)

The reason why I'm posting is that a lot of the ideas and concepts here seem to be articulated styles I have been heading towards. For example, early roleplay for my group consisted of interacting with the mechanics, and was very much mission or dungeon based. Then pacing became important and in an ad hoc and unstructured way started moving towards some of the concepts expressed here. And it was here that I saw many of the concepts such as social contracts, kickers and bangs discussed in a structured way.

As I did most of the gming, I started treating the mechanics as transparent and as guidelines (eg story-wise it really wasn't important if the guard noticed the sneaking characters; tension-wise that snapping twig causing the sleepy guard to investigate was very important). I started making meaningless rolls and relied on interaction.

This is where I get to the point of my long ramble. In an unstructured way I think we have been using kickers and bangs, and definitely moved towards player directed gaming. I just want to see if I've got some of the basics of the concepts right.

A kicker would be a player including in their character background that they were the driver in a hit and run incident.

A bang could range from the character witnessing a hit and run incident, a police officer being assigned it as one of many cases (the bang being the decision of which case to investigate as a priority), a priest hearing a confession to a H&R, a brother being told of the H&R, a panel beater repairing the H&R vehicle and so on?

As I have mainly been playing and not gming I haven't had much opportunity to develop the theories I have read here. However, my most recent experience  at gming has been as the minor gm in an Exalted game that was partially co-gmed. I noticed some interesting things about the group when I introduced non-directive play.

Players used to linear play often ignore bangs (eg a small old wiry man fleeing in a cart with a large covered object being chased by a squad of cavalry, or a disemboweled man nailed to a tree in a haunted forest), traditional party play inhibits freedom of choice (power structures exist, dominant players hold sway), sometimes the sessions petered out because the players didn't want choice.

What I'm assuming is that for players to be able to control the action the whole game needs to be set up that way at the start? Also, with using bangs, how do most people use them? Do you make them up on the fly, do you generate a series of them at the start of the story/campaign, or do you develop them as needed after each session? Or a bit of all of them? Are there any obvious cues that determine the best use of a bang? Also, how appropriate is it to use themed bangs to nudge the players along a story path you'd like them to explore?

Sorry about the long first-up post, got a bit rambly.

Any help would be appreciated.

Cheers
Pigfrenzy

[Mike Holmes]

Welcome to the frenetic fora of the Forge. If you'd care to share your name, I'd find that far preferable to having to refer to another human as "Pigfrenzy."

Forgive me if I've posted this to the wrong section, I wasn't sure if this section or Actual Play would be more appropriate.

This is the right place. If you were talking about specific actual instances, instead of general play then Actual Play would make more sense. But this touches on play in a more theoretical way, IMO.

A kicker would be a player including in their character background that they were the driver in a hit and run incident.

Almost certainly, if the idea is that it happend like ten minutes ago. If it was "a long time ago" and nobody expects anything to come of it, then that would be just background.

A bang could range from the character witnessing a hit and run incident, a police officer being assigned it as one of many cases (the bang being the decision of which case to investigate as a priority), a priest hearing a confession to a H&R, a brother being told of the H&R, a panel beater repairing the H&R vehicle and so on?

Almost certainly not in all of these cases. That is, I think you've left out some important details on each that would make them Bangs.

The key to a Bang is that there should be no "likely" way that the event will be approached. If you're a witness to a hit and run (or a mechanic who suspects), then you report it, right? Or if you're a bastard, you don't? Where's the dilemma, where's the real choice? If, OTOH, you were in the car, and the person doing the hit and run is a good friend, and expects you to keep quiet, then there's your dilemma. The police officer would count if the GM actually presented the other cases equally. If it's a case of "investigate this one, or there's nothing to play," then it's not a bang. For the people being told, it's a Bang again if the characters in question are not already decided on the issues. I assume that the priest has doubts over the sanctity of the confessional, or that somebody suspects that he knows so that they can apply pressure or something. The brother loves his errant brother, right; if I'm playing a character that hates my H&R brother then there's no choice, I'm going to the police.  

Players used to linear play often ignore bangs (eg a small old wiry man fleeing in a cart with a large covered object being chased by a squad of cavalry, or a disemboweled man nailed to a tree in a haunted forest), traditional party play inhibits freedom of choice (power structures exist, dominant players hold sway), sometimes the sessions petered out because the players didn't want choice.

This could be because these aren't Bangs for the characters in question. Again, if they're known hearless bastards, then leaving the crucified man is the obvious thing to do.

The fleeing man with the cart is not a bang, unless somebody knows the man. This is classic. If the issue isn't pertinent to the character in question - or, more appropriately, if the player isn't interested (his character being his "reach" into the game world) - then it's not a Bang. Ask yourself this? Does the player really make a statement about the character if he ignores this event? Nope, it's just something random that happened. Expecting players to use their metagame sense to see that this is something that they're supposed to pursue is asking them to make the decision that you want to see. For it to be a Bang, walking away has to make a statement, and be a viable option.

So, if it's your best friend being chased, then walking away would be a statement, no? (it also might be unviable, in which case that's still not a Bang).

What I'm assuming is that for players to be able to control the action the whole game needs to be set up that way at the start?

Depends. Yes, you want to have people all on the same sheet of music. But a well crafted Bang works pretty well independent of player acknowledgement.

That is, if people are really adverse to playing in the style, then it's possible that they might resist. But done well, there's really no reason for them to do so.

To step into controversial territory here, some players may be canalized by previous play to ignore Bangs if they can.  One theory says that players who want to play in this style but who have been handled with an iron fist by GMs looking to do all of the directing themselves, retreat into not responding as a defense mechanism. Basically, they want to have some control over what their character does, and if the GM does not give them any options, then their response is to "turtle up," and do nothing. Look up "Abused Player Syndrome" but be aware that there are a lot of different ways to look at this sort of phenomenon.

So there could be a number of things going on. To get past these issues, the best method is to display that you're actually giving the players the power to direct the plot. Extreme measures that you can take include using mechanics that make this clear (See InSpectres, for instance), or playing without a GM, or doing other such "open" things to display that play is collaborative in terms of where the plot is going.

Also, with using bangs, how do most people use them? Do you make them up on the fly, do you generate a series of them at the start of the story/campaign, or do you develop them as needed after each session? Or a bit of all of them?

The last is best. That is, you should have some ahead of time as your prep (this can be most of your prep, actually). Then you present them as seems appropriate. That is, you don't try to force them to occur, but use them when it seems to make sense. And if you sense a Bang that you could throw into play in the middle of play, use it. The idea is to have bangs ready in case ones don't present themselves in play (often players create them by directing their characters' actions). Then, between sessions you update bangs that you didn't use and come up with some others to be sure that you have enough backup for the next session.

Three sessions might go:
Prep 7 Bangs.
Use 3 in session.
Prep 2 more Bangs.
Use 5 in session.
Prep 5 more Bangs.
Use 4 in session.

Creating Bangs between sessions is often ridiculously simple. You look at what's working, and just come up with more of the same sort of thing.

Are there any obvious cues that determine the best use of a bang?

All I can say is that you'll know them when you see them. For example, a player has his character go over to see his uncle with news that his father, his uncle's brother, has died. Perfect time to whip out the Bang in which the Uncle accidentally reveals that he might be the murderer.

Also, how appropriate is it to use themed bangs to nudge the players along a story path you'd like them to explore?

That would make it not a Bang. The entire idea of this method of play is to not have a plot at all ready. The idea is that the players, by addressing the Bangs, create the plot.

So, instead of having a story in which the idea is that the players go off and investigate some temple, there's a character who wants some of the PCs to investigate, but they can say no. As long as saying no is as interesting as going along (maybe they hate the NPC in question or something). In this style of play the "story" is the decisions made by the players. Not something that the GM has planned.

Now, that doesn't mean that the GM doesn't participate. He colors things by the Bangs that he presents. Given two potential Bangs that both make sense for a character, it's the GM's choice of Bangs that represent his input. And this is still crucial.

Mike

[Pigfrenzy]

Learnin' already.

Ok, so my events, to be bangs, have to have some emotional content or hook into the character. So if a character witnessed a hit and run and thought the driver may have been his brother/best friend etc, would that constitute a bang?

The fleeing cart situation was geared more towards a character who represented himself with a strong code of honour to protect the weak. Would the question posed to his code constitute enough of a dilema for a bang?

And the crucifixion was geared towards a player who kept waking up with blood on his hands, plus one or two other characters who were aware they had brought a great evil back into the world with them and had been seen lurking here abouts. Those were the dilemas I wanted posed - was the bloody-handed character responsible for this, or were the others responsible through allowing the evil to rise again. Is this just manipulation on my part or bang-ish?

I think I'm starting to see my problem in that a lot of the stuff would appear that I was hanging events out without tying them in to the characters, hooking them into my story rather than them(?). The open control seems a very reactionary method. Is it a negative thing to encourage people along certain themes when using this style?

Can you overuse bangs?

Thanks for the help, sorry about the name (bad habit)

Cheers
Curtis

[Trevis Martin]

Curtis,

Yes it helps to hook them into the character but only in the sense that a bang presents a real decision for that character that provides an interesting option no matter what the player chooses to do.  Take a look at this thread Clueless about Bangs for some recent examples from my Sorcerer game.

So if a character witnessed a hit and run and thought the driver may have been his brother/best friend etc, would that constitute a bang?

Yes, I would say it presents the character with a lot of choices, including walking away.

The fleeing cart situation was geared more towards a character who represented himself with a strong code of honour to protect the weak. Would the question posed to his code constitute enough of a dilema for a bang?

I would say not necessarily on this one because its really more of a hook.  The player has established that his character will act a certain way and you are presenting a situation that he must respond to in that way.  No real delimma there.  Of course he will help.  Now it could be twisted into a bang.  Perhaps the fleeing person is a bitter enemy being attacked by a third sworn enemy in which case does honor demand that the character help or does it demand that he actually aid the attackers, or does he walk away?  There's a choice to be made.

And the crucifixion was geared towards a player who kept waking up with blood on his hands, plus one or two other characters who were aware they had brought a great evil back into the world with them and had been seen lurking here abouts. Those were the dilemas I wanted posed - was the bloody-handed character responsible for this, or were the others responsible through allowing the evil to rise again. Is this just manipulation on my part or bang-ish?

Hell, the blood on the hands by itself is bangish without even including the crucifixion, as long as the character isn't beaten over the head with it.  I mean to say it screams, "somthing serious happened, what are you doing about it?"

The open control seems a very reactionary method. Is it a negative thing to encourage people along certain themes when using this style?

It depends on what you mean by theme exactly.  We need to make sure we're on the same sheet of music when you use that word.

In the fashion its usually used around here you have two components 1.) a 'Premise' which is a moral question being asked in a situation. (ex, How far would you go for power?) and 2.) a 'Theme' which is the answer that emerges from the consequences of the players overall decisions when they address 1. (ex. Power corrupts.)

Accepting those definitions, then No, you don't want to encourage the players along a particular theme because that means that in a given situation you have the choices they should take already selected.  The point of this style is that the players make those choices and whatever theme that creates is what is created.  You can explore a particular premise but the answer must be generated through play.

All of the above is assuming you are playing with a Narrativist Agenda, (check out the article on Narrativism in the articles section.)  In the purest sense of a bang (you can use them with any agenda) they simply have to present a situation which demands a player decision and will conribute to play no matter what that decision is.  I only focused on narrativism because your leaning towards theme.

hope that helps.

regards,

Trevis

[Mike Holmes]

Wow, Trevis stated that all very well.

Note that for the "cart" incident, that if there's a chance that he won't help because of the circumstances, like the chasing guards, for instance, then that is a bang. That is, in that case, the question is whether he values personal safety or honor more. Or something like cowardice vs bravery as well. Is his code of honor only lip service, or is it something real.

I take it that the character didn't chase after? And it didn't seem like an interesting resolution to anyone? Then there are two possibilities. The first is that you and he have a different idea of what the code of honor means. He may be defining it in play by refusing to chase. Maybe he figured the guy being chased was a criminal who it would be dishonorable to defend. The point is that you and he may just have different ideas about what the character is "about" making it hard to come up with something that's a real bang related to that feature.

The second possibility is that, as Trevis points out, you may not really as a group have a narrativist creative agenda. If, in fact, you have a more simulationist agenda, then what you want is hooks and not bangs. The quesiton to ask yourself is why it is that the players participate in your game. There is always some sort of decision that the players want to make - this sort of decision is the fun and creative part of the game for them. Gamism is making decisions that show that the player himself is good at overcoming challenges that the game presents. Simulationism is making decisions that represent doing things as though the player was the character (that is, the player tries to "think like" the character). Narrativism involves making decisions based on creating theme as Trevis points out above.

So, which of these are what your players really want? If your group just wants to "think like" the characters, then these potentially thematic moments are just like any other event. There's no advantage for the players here, and no reason for them to think about them differently. That is, the player reacts to it just as though you had told him that he was walking by the temple. It's just an event to which the character may or may not respond. If the player determines for whatever reason that it's reasonable not to chase the cart (and I can give you dozens of reasons why he might say that he did not), then the fact that he didn't chase the cart is no more interesting than the fact that he didn't go into the temple.

Basically what we're talking about here is a display of what we call metagame drives that go beyond simply displaying the character consistently. That is, Simulationism is just that drive to display the character in a way that doesn't break the feel of the game being a simulation. Narrativism (and Gamism as well) potentially allow the player to display their personal goals that are outside of the game. For narrativism, this means that the player "edits" the characters action to take into account the fact that there is an "audience" for play. That is, while consistency is always important to some extent in play, it's possible to also consider what would be an "interesting" thing to do in terms of the players interests.

So, what seems like is happening here, potentially, is that the players are informed that they are only supposed to consider the character motives, and not the player motives. So, when the thematically interesting case of the cart is presented, they don't think that it's appropirate to think out-of-character, "Hey, this is a chance to do something that relates to my characters honor in a way that will display it for the other players." That is, I think you're expecting a narrativism response, and getting a simulationism response.

This would be far from uncommon. When different participants in a game have different expectations of play, what you have is what's referred to as incoherent play. OTOH, the fact that you want the players to follow themes that you want may mean that you really want sim play, too. Again, the quesiton, as Trevis says, comes down to what you mean by theme. Do you mean that you want to be the person andswering the premise statements? If so, then you've taken away that particular sort of choice from the player, meaning that they can only be left with the simulationist choice.

This is the difference between a bang and a hook again. The bang gives the player a choice regarding choosing theme, and a hook makes a player do something (if successful) that creates the theme intended by the GM. Thus, if you are Joe Honest Citizen, and you see a hit and run, you report it, and a theme of responsibility has been created, the only reasonable response to the hook. If you make it the observer's brother, you give him a choice of themes, and the player determines which is created.

Now, as I said above, that doesn't mean that the GM has no input. If you're creating a dilemma, for instance, that means that you are selecting two themes and allowing the player to choose between two of them. What themes you can select to make this something that the player will see as a choice isn't infinite, but it does allow the GM to collaborate with the players to an extent. It's not all one participant or another. The key is just allowing the player to create to some extent.

So, if you mean by theme what we call premise, then yes, the GM can go a long way towards shaping that. That is, you get to ask the questions, the players get to answer it. If that's the case, then yes, in narrativism you can have a "guiding" effect.

Help at all?

Mike

[Pigfrenzy]

Incoherent gaming - yes that certainly describes it. Thanks for the above replies, I've been contemplating and reviewing them and my gaming. Looking back and keeping some of your points in mind, I realise that in one instance a player lost a character through what he saw as me being gamist, when he thought he was being simulationist and I was trying to be narrativist (if you follow).

A good part of my problem was that the game was Exalted, I was trying to create mood and pace and was trying to explore the premise What is Evil? (probably poorly defined) as the Solar Exalted are considered demons yet they consider themselves the harbringers of all that is righteous and good. Yet they left a trail of destruction and death in their wake. I was trying to to create situations that would provide choice, eg helping the weak with the cart.

However, after reading articles here and having some things explained I realise I was probably not on the same page as my players. They wanted to smash stuff with their big charms, I thought it would be interesting to examine the effects this behaviour had on someone who was supposed to be very compassionate. I wanted to juxtapose their perceptions of their characters as acting for Good against the public perception that they were evil.

As a result I have stopped co-gming in this instance as I don't think they're interested in non-simulationist (am I categorising it properly?) gaming. It has clarified some other issues we've had, mainly about my gming, so thanks for the help.

No, they didn't help in the cart issue, they weren't interested and the guards were too lowly to be a challenge. During the sessions I ran I had continual problems with action-consequence and the players. Because the charms they had meant they were all but invincible they acted that way. And anyone who opposed them was opposing God and therefore evil. Very strange game.

Anyway, I am now writing up a post-modern game based upon the premise What is Evolution? The ideas here have been very helpful, I'm sure I still haven't got it all so you may hear more from me.

Cheers
Curtis