[Oneiro] Player Introduced Bangs (Split from thread)

[Kirk Mitchell]

This thread was split from my thread in GNS theory Narrativist Reward Mechanics

The basic idea that I have had for my game, now with the final title of Oneiro (of or pertaining to dreams, derived from Oneiros: to dream) is in the reward mechanic area. This is my core ideas dump from the previous thread (just so that I could get it down):

At the moment, there is a resource called "Sacrifice" which can be triggered by a condition called the character's "doom". This is most often character related, and relates to the other characters in the game, so that the characters spend a lot of time setting each other off. If the character's doom is triggered, they can expend a point of Sacrifice (a limited and unreplacable resource) to gain narration rights. The player may narrate the character's actions freely without consulting the cards. However, the more sacrifice that is used up, the more danger the character is in. Should Sacrifice reach 0, the character becomes "fallen" and must try to regain their humanity (having sacrificed it for others) before the other character's become fallen, or the character will be lost. (that was a bit rambling)

There is a problem with this, as I see it. The danger to the character would seem to lead to hoarding, so as well as resonance points, which allow greater impact on the endgame, I have been thinking of granting players player introduced "bangs" (to use Ron's terminology) every time they trigger another person's doom, and granting resonance points every time that player's doom is triggered.

To me, this also seemed to introduce another interesting idea: With player's introducing bangs, instead of the GM, I may not need a GM at all. Players could bid their bang piotns for "Authority" to interpret the rules, and the plot could be manipulated using bangs.

The idea has since solidified. Bangs are gained by players triggering the dooms of other characters. Characters gain resonance points via a vote when their doom is triggered (depending on how cool/effective/important to story etc the sacrifice was), when they help another player gain atonment points (a replacable resource when a character is "fallen", after losing all of their sacrifice points), or gain atonement points themselves.

I see this as follows:

- Resonance is a measure of how important to the story the character is, and as such allows more power in the epilogue.

- Bangs are a measure of how much power the player is in the story, granting them more power to manipulate how it (the story) flows within the game.

What I imagine is that the game will then encourage quite a bit of chaos as players rapidly attempt to trigger off everyone else's dooms, let their own be triggered and help each other when they fall. Essentially it is a blood opera, but with a twist, trying to have yourself destroyed as well as others and with no basis on your own goals. I like the idea, as it also doesn't mean that you need a GM, just an Authority who determines the rules, which could be transferred by "buying" the Authority with Bang points, or by vote. I have written most of this up in a version of my game, but haven't got it to upload onto the net at the moment (I'm at work).

Is this idea worth expanding on? Does it encourage narrativist play as you see it? Any thoughts on how play might run? Anything that I missed? And anything random and off the wall is welcome, I need the feedback. ;)

Kirk

[Mike Holmes]

It sounds vaguely good to me, but then I'm not sure that I understand what you're proposing. Could you take another stab at it? From another angle?

Mike

[Kirk Mitchell]

What I'm trying to say (and without much elequolence), is that players are rewarded with the ability to introduce situations by having their characters trigger off other characters. Characters are rewarded by allowing themselves to be triggered and taking part in the story.

I'm proposing a mechanic that encourages self destruction and using one's knowledge of other characters to assist them in destroying themselves. A lot of tragedy with a byzantine plot throughout the story is sort of what I envisage the result to be.

Does that make more sense or am I just making myself even more incomprehensible?

Kirk

[Mike Holmes]

A little better, but it doesn't seem very concrete. Can you give an example from A to Z of how this might look in play.

Mike

[Kirk Mitchell]

(sorry about the delay, the internet is cranky)

I sort of see the gameplay going like so:

Characters are each in different points. Characterss 1 and 2 are looking for character 1's family. Character 1 has a Doom that relates to protecting his family. Character 3 has taken character 1's family hostage. When they get close, character 3 threatens character 1's family. Character 1 chooses to trigger his Doom and uses it to persuade the desperate character 3 not to do anything stupid. The description is powerful so the other players award that player with two Resonance points. The player controlling character 3 gets a bang point. Character 1 and 2 then try to get character 1's family back but character 3 fights back and he uses the bang to drive the story forwards by introducing something (say the power of character 1's emotions create a rift)...

Damn. I just noticed a flaw. Or at least it is a flaw in my opinion. The usage of bangs could be used only to assist the player's character, rather than driving the story forwards as I want it to. It would introduce competition between players, that I don't want, as well as competition between characters, that I do.

Maybe some sort of mechanic that encourages maybe assisting other players through bangs (even when they are opposed) or driving players into even more and more desperate situations. Maybe everyone gets a bang point when someone's Doom is triggered...

I'm going back to the narrativist reward mechanics essay now and having a look.

Hope that clears things up a bit (it did for me ;))

Kirk

[TonyLB]

I'm not really sure that a real, proper Bang has that much potential to aid a particular character, but I could very well be wrong.

My understanding of a Bang is that it presents one or more characters with a powerful, thematic choice that they have to make.  But you can't dictate how the character is going to make that choice, you can only present it.

So in your example, I don't know that Character 3 can directly say "Character 1's emotions create a rift" and call it a Bang, unless it presents a thematic choice.

But Character 3 could say (for instance) "I throw your wife from the moving railroad car, and now you have to choose between rescuing her from immediate harm and wresting your children from my nefarious clutches".  Which might net him a serious advantage (if C-1 chose to abandon the train) but then again might not.

But as I said, I don't really know.  Bangs are intriguing but not obvious to me.

[Mike Holmes]

I think that what he's saying, Tony, is that the power that he's giving to players to create Bangs for other players could instead be used to advantage the player's own character. Leading to the wrong sort of play.

How about the player getting "banged" has to accept the bang. If he does, then both players are rewarded. If he rejects it, then the event does not happen.

This would be very similar to some of the mechanics of the game Unsung.

Mike

[TonyLB]

That sounds very intriguing... I like the idea of rewarding people for being good sports, but letting them say "No" if the cost strikes them as too high.  Sort of like a safe-word... or maybe that's a metaphor I should have just left lying on the shelf.

[Kirk Mitchell]

Hmmm. Mike, that's an interesting idea. I have the Unsung rules lying around on my computer, but haven't had a look at them yet. I was sort of stuck for examples, I had a complete mind-blank there, so that probably isn't the best of examples. Bangs as I understand them are just situations that are introduced, but what if there is a rule saying that a bang is tied to a particular character as in Tony's example.

The rules I think need to have a lot of information on how to create a bang, so that the players have an idea of what they should be doing. I also like the idea of rewarding people who are good sports. However, the basic thing that I want the players to be doing is having their characters running around trying to drive each other further and further off the edge, and the players cooperating in this goal. So the acceptance of the bang could further the story and reward the player that suggested the bang, and the one that accepted it. I'll have to think on this one.

Just a question, if a bang is tied to a player character, does it count as a bang, using Ron's terminology?

Kirk

[TonyLB]

Bangs have gotten quite a bit of discussion.  I recommend this thread:

Bangs, Crises and Inciting Events

Though it is a bit thickly academic, the thread does really get into the question of what Bangs are and are not.  You may decide "Yes, I need to refine my technique to match this definition" or "No, I need to leave my technique alone and choose another term" or "I can call it whatever I want, but I probably want to put a caveat in when discussing it on the Forge, so people don't mistake my meaning".

That's a Fork, that is...

[Mike Holmes]

If possible, don't call tehm bangs, and don't have some definition that the player is trying to achieve. Say it in more general terms, and let the players be the judge. Basically what I think you're looking for is for players to provide other players with interesting situations in which they feel that their decisions are pertinent to the story. So just say in the rules that the person on the recieving end should judge whether or not they felt that the situation makes them feel like their character is cooler for having been thoough it. In the end, this is definitive of bangs, and players having the ability to judge will apply their own standards anyhow.

What's neccessary then is to ensure that what makes play interesting for the player on the recieving end is bangs. That is, as it stands, the player can probably wait for another player to give them something that advantages their character and then give the reward then. My point is that you can't just say, "reward narrativism!" You have to make the rest of the system such that narrativism is what's sought. Then players will automatically use that criteria for judging.

Do you see what I'm getting at? I think that the game is already pretty close to this if not there already. What I'd do is to playtest the rules without giving guidelines on the use of the ability or on what players should reward, and see what happens. Then you'll know how far you have to go elsewhere.

Mike

[Kirk Mitchell]

Thanks Mike. I think that that is exactly what I'm looking for. I want the players to exactly that

for players to provide other players with interesting situations in which they feel that their decisions are pertinent to the story.

Also, when you said:

I think that the game is already pretty close to this if not there already.

Are you referring to the rules that you looked at in my previous threads, or the ones that I posted in this thread? Either way, thanks, I take it as a compliment. Yeah, I get what your saying, so I'll go and playtest it the next time I have friends over, and post back then. Also, I have the latest rules up on my Yahoo group that I wrote up based upon my first few posts, so feel free to have a look at them. I'll make the appropriate changes soon.

Thanks for the feedback.
Kirk