[Seven Leagues (a fantasy RPG of Faerie)] Please comment

[hieronymous]

<snip> I was speaking mostly from the perspective of your stated goal that the game would strongly encourage narrative styles of play.  However, it is hard to do so when characters are not fully empowered to pursue a premise of their own chosing (usually through some control over the direction of the game at both the setup phase and during play) and they are not allowed to make meaningful choices in which they understand the consequences and see those consequences played out.

There is a difference in my mind between narration and plotting. My intent was to give players control over their actions based on a linguistic expression of their abilities (what I think of as narration), and limited control over the outside elements of the story (what I think of as plot). They seem to me to be different issues. One could have a system in which there is no single GM, but at the same time characters were delineated with very hard lines. Personally, I prefer a cohesive story with opportunities for player riffs, and fluid characters based on design intent rather than strict abilities. That is, fairly strong GM control over plot, but with opportunities for players to contribute, while at the same time giving players plenty of lattitude and creative opportunities with their own characters, even if they aren't perfectly designed.

("I fly up to 28,000 feet and attempt to stabilize the falling aircraft." "Well you have plenty of Flight, Superstrength, and 100x vision (to see the plane in the first place), but darn it you forgot to buy the Bearfat power--I'm sorry, you freeze to death, your eyeballs shattering like so many Christmas ornaments!")

Now that we have moved on from that context, which I agree is a good idea (I only brought it up because of the introductory text in your game), I think we can look at the issue from a different perspective.  What are the benefits of granting a lot of control over the rules to the GM?  It seems like, in examining the examples I pulled out above, the different goals that you are trying to achieve are all there to meet one or more of three basic functions in some combination or another (please ammend if you think that there are others):

1.  To make sure that players both stay true to the fairy tale setting and create internally consistent characters - i.e. if a player puts "likes to hack computers" but the setting is medieval fairy tale, or if they create an aspect of "Hulking Brute of a Man" and then give themself a 1 in Hand, then the Narrator can step in and require changes.

Check. Hopefully they can do that on their own, but as someone recently pointed out to me, "let's be mature" isn't much of a rule.

2.  To enforce game balance - i.e. if a player puts "can do anything and everything that anyone else can do" the Narrator can veto or limit that power so that other players are not overshadowed.

I tried to short-circuit that by avoiding any statistical association with Charms. In other words, all a Charm does is give you a hook for narration. Ironically, the broader the power, the weaker the hook. I set out to deliberately throw game balance out the window, but it inadvertently snuck in anyway.

3.  To enforce a feedback mechanism for determining the quality of input from a given player and by so doing give incentive for players to "tell good stories," so to speak

<snip>

I'll try and toss out some random ideas that might make you either think about some alternate ways of handling these issues or decide that you have already made the right choice and like how it is handled already - I'm not trying to say that you have made any wrong decisions.

#1
It is everyone's game, right?  A potential problem here is that the Narrator creates a game that he enjoys, and nobody else enjoys, but everyone goes along with it anyway because that's what the rules tell them to expect.  What if, instead of the GM setting everything up for everyone, all of the players had some kind of mechanism for providing input into the underlying setting of the game?  <snip> I suspect that if you achieve that kind of consensus then everyone is more likely to stay true to the setting.  You might look to Universalis for one example of how this can be done.

I had (perhaps wrongly) assumed that this was a metagame question, albeit one which might potentially be fair game for the system itself, but not necessarily. I have assumed that we all gather around the table with if not similar at least compatible visions of the game at hand. It seems that if that is lacking in a troupe, no rules will save the day. But I'm more than happy to see how Universalis or anyone else has explicitly addressed this.

As regards a character having inconsistencies, I would like to question whether it matters or not.  In http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14913">this thread about characters vs. character sheets there is some discussion about whether the character exists on paper or in the game.  What matters more, the sheet that a player creates or how the character actually unfolds in play?  When do and do not the words on the page ("Hulking Brute of a Man") become credible statements in play ("Just got his butt handed to him in a wrestling match with a little girl") and can the words on the page be pre-empted by actual experience ("Thinks he's a hulking brute, but is tragically full of hubris and delusion")?

Thanks for the link; I've read some of the referenced thread. There is of course an opportunity for close readings of a sheet, or for blow-back when a character is poorly designed. Again, as a personal preference, I tend to be more satisfied as a player and GM when characters are played as intended--whether intention lies in the mind of the player or on the page of the sheet is secondary to me. In my experience players who fail to play there characters tend to do so not because they've hit upon a brilliant reinvention of the character, but because they'll play the aggressive dwarven warrior whether you put an effete elvish glassblower or shadowy thief in their paws. I would say "the play's the thing" in answer to your question; the problem lies in that more often than not in my experience deviations from the intended character tend to be for the worse. And I should probably underscore that I am far more concerned with players playing their characters qua characters, rather than a stack of powers.

[hieronymous]

However, it seems strange for the GM to assign herself bonuses for a good description.  I know very few people who are capable of honestly judging their own descriptions to the degree which the game requires.  However, since so much of the resolution system is based on narrative bonuses it would be a hard problem to get around.

Here is one suggestion.  Instead of giving the NPCs bonuses for the GM's narration simply raise their virtues.  The GM will still partake in the Embellishment stage with the players, but with the goal of giving the players more material to work with then to increase her probability of success.

Yeah you caught me. I've been worrying about that one to be sure. And I like your suggestion of upping NPC Virtue. But the problem lies in that the narration of Crescendo requires a vibrant dialogue in order to be effective; it wouldn't work for the Player to monologue. Rather than increase Virtues, perhaps Antagonist Embellishments are always +1 (or +0 or +2).

I'll have to give this some serious thought.

And thanks very much, BTW, for the kind words and praise. I'm very pleased you like it so far. Best,

:h:

[Bill Masek]

heironymous,

I could see that working.  If you decide to go with the static NPC bonus then I recommend that you allow the players (perhaps the one with the highest heart roll) to decide when the Embellishment stage should end.  After all, once their statements are no longer interesting they are no longer gaining points and their opponents are.  

If you do this then I would also recommend you make a rule to say who gets the last word in.  Probably the player with the lowest Heart roll would make the most sense.

Best,
       Bill

[hieronymous]

What I like about the static bonus, as you have rightly pointed out, is that it gives the players incentive to quit while they are ahead. That's very nice, because it evens the Player/Narrator power dynamic a bit and gives the player more control, which seems to be a Good Idea.

I had originally designed the Courage roll in Overture to determine both the opener and ender, and had tried it both ways (ie, winner of Courage gets first and last word, as well as winner gets first word and loser gets last).

In the end I thought it better to let the Embellishments end on their own when they had run out of steam.

But now I think a good rule might be that either the Protagonist can end the Embellishments, in which case the Antagonist gets a final retort, or the Narrator can end it, in which case the Player gets the retort. In other words, anyone can end it at any time, but the other guy gets the last word.

What do you think?

Thanks for your help on this.

:h:

[Bob the Fighter]

I think that your game is wonderfully engaging; character creation is a wonderful exercise in Being There!

I think that it might be in your interests to focus more purely on Sim than Narrative, since you've chosen a wonderfully evocative setting for your game. I think this works in that fairy tales aren't really about complex motivations and dialogue; they're about cultural conflicts and taking lessons from stories.

This is not to say that Conflict Resolution won't or doesn't work here; it really captures the symbolic-universe aspect of storytelling that's particularly prominent in myth.

I think that if players really want to author a story, then this isn't the game for that. I think that Seven Leagues doesn't so much let its players construct a story as it does let them shine within one. I think that "narrative" here translates to "conflict-resolution"; the game's evasion of nitty-gritty details doesn't inherently land it in storytelling-land. (I'm picturing the Beeeg Horseshoe Theory here.)

But this IS definitely a really immersive piece that captures a number of themes really well. Good stuff, good focus on getting the GM to tell a story, and awesome premise in character creation!

[Bill Masek]

heironymous,

Since the players are the ones who either benefit or suffer for their narration it seems to me that they should be the ones who choose when the narration ends.  However, this does not necessarily mean they get either the first or last retort.

Perhaps you should give the looser of the heart roll last retort.  If an NPC gets last word then, at the end of every NPC Embellishment, the player may choose to make another Embellishment.  If she does then the GM gets another Embellishment and the process repeats.

If a player looses the heart roll that player will simply declare any Embellishment she wants the last one.

Also consider giving he victor of the heart roll choice of either first or last Embellishment.

Best,
        Bill

[hieronymous]

<snip>I think this works in that fairy tales aren't really about complex motivations and dialogue; they're about cultural conflicts and taking lessons from stories.

BtF, thanks for the compliments. I would say, however, that I can imagine a "fairy-tale" involving complex motivations insofar as it addressed complex cultural or moral issues. The issues and therefore motivations in Perrault are (more or less) simple given that these were morality tales aimed at young people. But even simple parables can have profound meaning (mind you I'm not claiming I could write such a thing). Furthermore, a "modern" fairy tale might have a greater degree of complexity (and contradiction) than Perrault would have allowed. I imagine that in-game exploration of such a tale might lead to more complex characters (here I mean the literary dimension of an RPG character, not the mere stat block), hence more complex motivations and even dialogue.

I think that if players really want to author a story, then this isn't the game for that... I think that "narrative" here translates to "conflict-resolution"; the game's evasion of nitty-gritty details doesn't inherently land it in storytelling-land. (I'm picturing the Beeeg Horseshoe Theory here.)

I admit I'm old-school, and while I've been reading up on newer game styles, GNS, et al., I won't pretend to have a profound grasp of all the implications of Narrativism/not Narrativism (which is why I took earlier remarks to heart and have left GNS as a teenie-point footnote in the latest draft of Seven Leagues). Suffice it to say that personally I like a game with a cohesive story (hence "strong" GM), but one in which characters can have a great deal of latitude. "Seven Leagues doesn't so much let its players construct a story as it does let them shine within one"; that was exactly my goal. Thanks for seeing that.

[hieronymous]

Since the players are the ones who either benefit or suffer for their narration it seems to me that they should be the ones who choose when the narration ends.  However, this does not necessarily mean they get either the first or last retort.

Potentially Antagonists might also suffer or benefit from the Players' narration (even more so if they get a fixed Narrative Modifier, as my current draft allows). Rather, I think the determination of who gets to declare an end to Embellishment is best left as a mechanism whereby a Player (or Narrator) can strategically react to a conflict's going badly. If a Player sees that the story is going against her (i.e., she's not doing so well on her Narrative Bonuses) then she can declare an end and cut her losses. The price: her opponent gets a retort. If a Player tries to drag it out beyond the conflict's natural life, presumably her Narrative Modifers would creep (or plummet) below +2, and each round of Embellishments will start to be a net loss.

Conversely, if the Player is on a roll and making brilliant Embellishments, a defensive Narrator will call an end and allow the Player one last big bonus. On the other hand, a Narrator who is enjoying the Player's clever narration may let the conflict go a few more cycles, even if that's not good for the NPC.

Allowing either adversary to cry "Uncle" is a built-in way to insure that conflicts aren't prolonged needlessly or painfully.

[Bill Masek]

Conversely, if the Player is on a roll and making brilliant Embellishments, a defensive Narrator will call an end and allow the Player one last big bonus. On the other hand, a Narrator who is enjoying the Player's clever narration may let the conflict go a few more cycles, even if that's not good for the NPC.

Allowing either adversary to cry "Uncle" is a built-in way to insure that conflicts aren't prolonged needlessly or painfully.

heironymous,

If you take this rout the pure dominance strategy (from a purely technical point of view) for a GM will be to continue to cut off a player who is making cool narrations.  Since most other rules in your game try to shift the equilibrium towards one which promotes cool narrations it seems counter productive.  If a player is doing badly the GM will let her keep going.  If the player is doing well the GM will cut her off.

I wouldn't worry about the embellishment bonus being to high or going to long.  If it starts going to long the players will cut it off.  If the bonus is to high then all that means is you had a bunch of really cool embellishments and your game is doing exactly what you want it to do.  This is why I strongly recommend that you let the players determine when to cut off Embellishments.

You might consider giving the players bonuses for their embellishments after every one is completed.  It will give them a way to gage when their embellishments are getting old.

Best,
      Bill

[James Holloway]

Suffice it to say that personally I like a game with a cohesive story (hence "strong" GM)

As an aside, that's not a "hence," really. The two don't need to go together.

But that really is an aside. I've been looking through the PDF, and it's a very interesting system. My one, possibly idiosyncratic, worry is that a mechanic that centers around artistic criticism will likely lead to hurt feelings or arguments -- what has your experience of this been like in playtest?

[Bob the Fighter]

I think that hurt feelings could be avoided if you're positive in general.

For example:
"Sounds good. I don't think that merits a bonus, though."
"Hey, nice. I'd give that a +1."
"Wow, awesome! I'd give that a [higher than +1]."

[hieronymous]

My one, possibly idiosyncratic, worry is that a mechanic that centers around artistic criticism will likely lead to hurt feelings or arguments -- what has your experience of this been like in playtest?

It has been suggested that the players rate themselves, as a means of addressing your concern, with either the Narrator or the group as a whole voting on whether the assessment of the Embellishment is accurate. That might work, but it creates as many problems as it solves:

-- In a solo game, who votes?
-- If the Narrator must approve the assessment, why not have the Narrator make the assessment in the first place?

I may be repeating myself, but it seems to me that the Narrator is the most disinterested party sitting at the table. Theoretically (s)he has the best interests of the game session as a whole at heart. Part of the GM's job is to be a judge: to assess the difficulty of an action, to judge an NPCs reaction to PCs actions or words, etc. Why allow that the GM is not really the GM?

You raise a good point that the Narrator must be tactful. That's just good manners. Bob the Fighter is right though that there are ways of handling this, and perhaps the rules should hint as much. But I feel that the bottom line is you have to have a certain unity of purpose at the game table (we're all here to tell a good story and have fun) and a certain level of trust in the Narrator (there's no rule against siccing an NPC with a 29 Renown and 8 Charms against beginning characters, nor do I feel there need be).

I must confess I haven't made up my mind how to resolve all this, and I'm grateful for the varied perspectives presented here. I have read enough other newer systems to notice that there seems to be a trend in letting dice pools sidestep this issue (instead of a flat bonus you get a die per Embellishment (e.g. Wu Shu)), and that's a fine way to resolve the GM having to assign a bonus or penalty based on narration. But Wu Shu (for example) gives you a die per embellishment, whether it's good or not. That's fine for Wu Shu because the sytem seeks to simulate over the top narrations; the more the merrier. That's appropriate for the genre. I was looking for a similar free-form conflict system, but one which specifically rewarded good storytelling. I frankly don't know of any other way to do it than by having a judge somewhere.

Why not let the Narrator be that judge?

[berginyon]

My friends and I have really become attached to this system of late after we found it. Originally we came up with a similar idea ourselves, then I remembered this game and we looked it up. What we were going for was slightly different; instead of a "fairty tale" style of setting we want more of a "mythic hero" setting, which required some changes in the system.

So far our adaptation is going well and include a few of our own ideas, including a slightly different luck system, a semi hit point system called mortal points, and changing a few rules to fit our purposes, such as keywords and rules on death.

I felt that since this system is invariably yours we should share our ideas with you in order to have some kind of mutual understanding of ownership as well as some possible feedback from your. The ideas we have so far include:

1. Luck Points- The Narrator would determine a number, preferable between one and ten, or perhaps seven or thirteen, based on a character's description, aspect, and legend, which would be kept hidden from the player. If a player wishes to have a bonus on an action of significant importance he could use a luck point to gain a moderate bonus in this action. If a player attempts to use a luck point when they have none, this would act as a penalty instead and the character would be beset by a karma quest, which would constitute an entire or perhapes several tales, once the quest is completed they would recieve a small number of these points back.

2. Mortal Points- Again the narrator would determine a number based on a characters description that would be kept from the players between one and ten or perhaps sever or thirteen. These however would be more modestly given becuase they determine the number of "lives" a character has. If a conflict would normally result in death a character would instead burn a mortal point, therefore surviving the conflict. Completely human heros would most likely have only one or two mortal points, but a more powerful and supernatural character would have more. This makes death possibly immenent in any conflict but is not your run-of-the-mill hit point system.

3. Seven leagues = 38.89200 kilometers... yeah.

4. We also felt that the keyword system doesn't really fit the "mythic hero" setting as well as the "fairy tale creature" setting and were considering disposing of it altogether, however if you have input which might allow us to change it to fit our setting it would be most welcome.

[hieronymous]

see post below (double-posted by mistake).

[hieronymous]

Thanks for your interest. I'm glad you are finding ways of repurposing the system to suit your needs.

1. Luck Points- The Narrator would determine a number, preferable between one and ten, or perhaps seven or thirteen, based on a character's description, aspect, and legend, which would be kept hidden from the player. If a player wishes to have a bonus on an action of significant importance he could use a luck point to gain a moderate bonus in this action. If a player attempts to use a luck point when they have none, this would act as a penalty instead and the character would be beset by a karma quest, which would constitute an entire or perhapes several tales, once the quest is completed they would recieve a small number of these points back.

Given that great narration can give you a bonus of up to +5 *per embellishment*, that would have to be a big bonus to make it worthwhile. Why not give everyone 7 Luck, and you can burn one Luck to get a "redo"? Buy more Luck by undertaking a quest, etc.

2. Mortal Points- Again the narrator would determine a number based on a characters description that would be kept from the players between one and ten or perhaps sever or thirteen. These however would be more modestly given becuase they determine the number of "lives" a character has. If a conflict would normally result in death a character would instead burn a mortal point, therefore surviving the conflict. Completely human heros would most likely have only one or two mortal points, but a more powerful and supernatural character would have more. This makes death possibly immenent in any conflict but is not your run-of-the-mill hit point system.

I like it in principal, but worry about application. If you follow my premise that characters are practically immortal and that death as a Defeat is exceedingly rare, then why have Mortal points at all? On the other hand, if you reject my premise and death is commonplace, then you really need to retool Defeats altogether (back to a "damage table" I'm afraid!).

Why not tie Luck and Mortal points together (in fact they could be the same stat)? Want a mulligan? Then burn a Life (start with nine, cat o' mine). Now the Narrator can't kill the player--only the player can. Maybe then Luck/Mortal *can't* be regenerated; when you're out of Lives, that's it.

I'm not sure I know what *you* mean by "mythic hero"; *I* imagine Odysseus, Theseus, and Herakles. At some point a hero (esp. one in the Greek tradition) dies; that's part and parcel of the gig. With one *last* Luck/Mortal point you burn it to redo your heroic action, saving the day, but dying in the process. Now *that's* a hero!

4. We also felt that the keyword system doesn't really fit the "mythic hero" setting as well as the "fairy tale creature" setting and were considering disposing of it altogether, however if you have input which might allow us to change it to fit our setting it would be most welcome.

Hmmm. Again, not sure what your interpretation of mythc hero is, but Keywords aren't necessarily fairy-tale specific--they are "just" a mechanism for giving players greater narrative control over the scene of the Tale. Your mythic hero could claim he has a friend who owes him a life-debt in the next valley, and cash in a favor in a time of need. How is that un-mythic hero?

Good luck!