The Forge Archives

Quote from: VaxalonThe two elements of the game must mutually interact with each other. If you're playing DnD miniatures, and as your Aasimar Paladin moves forward, you say, "Telgar the Pure marches forward, sword in hand!" that's not a roleplaying game. Your declaration is not part of the game, it's ancillary, and as such is just a play-by-play tacked onto the miniatures game; the fact that you moved your miniature forward twelve inches is part of the game; the narration is not.

By the way: This is where I feel Capes is weak.

Since this aside was latched onto in another thread, let me elaborate.

Capes has no explicit mechanic whereby the group can say, "Who, wait a minute..." and call someone on a play.

For example:

There's a conflict on the table.  "Blue Laser catches the Dog Thief."  Joe is playing the Blue Laser.  Joe has four points on his side.  The player of the Dog Theif uses a skill to roll his one up to a five.  Joe wants to react...

Blue Laser's only power at five is "Laser Blast".

Joe says, "Okay, I'll use the laser blast power, put a point of debt into Justice, and roll that five..."

There's no formal mechanism, at this point, for the group to go, "Hey, whoa, how does that fit?"

I'm not saying it has to have one.  Every game has weaknesses, that's what the social contract is for.  If I were playing at that table, I'd say, "Hey, Joe, could you describe that bit?  I think it needs a little narration."

The same thing goes for assigning debt to drives.  There's no mechanism for the group to say, "Whoa, hold on there... "

It's too easy to lose sight of the narration, and get heavily involved with playing with the dice and cards and tokens, and it stops being a roleplaying game.

You're right, this did need it's own thread.

OK, I can see where you are coming from a lot better now. Before I respond to this properly, I want to ask you something:

The example you've given involve the use of a Laser Blast power. Can you see the same thing happening with Attitudes? Can you also give an example of a similarly 'unsatisfying' (where 'unsatisfying' = 'inadequately narrated') use of an Attitude?

Oh, certainly.

The conflict is, "Goal: Blue Laser (as his secret identity, Joe Benson) has a pleasant night out with the wife."

At some point, he wants to roll down a four.  His only four (other than Powers, which after the last fiasco, he knows better than to call on) is "Angry."  He checks it off, and rolls the die, and the rest of the group says, "Wait, hold on..."

Ironically, this thread, which I enthusiastically posted to, was the seed for my opinion on this topic.

I want to reiterate, here, that I don't think this weakness is a Bad Thing.  Every game has weaknesses.  You play around them, you pave over them with social contract, you go for the fun.

Right, therefore the criticism appears to be that the book doesn't support the players in working through that social contract.

This is a problem I'm having with Schrodinger's War, by the way. It's also got 'free-form' traits (as in, you don't pick from a defined list of abilities) so there's the risk that people aren't going to agree whether an ability is appropriate.

I've decided to resolve it this way for my game:

(1) If in doubt, the player who owns the trait gets to say whether or not it's an appropriate trait to use.
(2) Don't be an ass about enforcing rule (1). If everyone disagrees with you, consider that you may be wrong or you need to give an explanation (or a better explanation) why you are right.

Tony: do you think this is a valid criticism of the rules, and (if so) is the proposal above useful for guiding new players?

As it stands, I don't see a lot of merit in the criticism.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding it.  

The absence of a veto power is deliberate, and explicit.  I did it on purpose.  The game system also does not provide a mechanism for Player A to veto Player B's choice of what to wear, or who to date, or any other thing that is none of Player A's business.

If Player B decides that Joe Benson finds it pleasant to get angry at his wife then the other players should take a moment to revel in the sheer dysfunction of that, rather than acting as censors.  

Artistic disputes can and should be mediated through the conflict rules.  No other rules are needed or wanted.

You, as a player, feel that Benson shouldn't be able to get a pleasant evening by being angry?  Fine.  Put your money (and your Story Tokens) where your mouth is.  One of you will care more about it than the other, just the same way that you care more about (say) saving hostages, or humiliating heroes.  The one that cares more will win.  Where's the weakness in that?

Quote from: TonyLBIf Player B decides that Joe Benson finds it pleasant to get angry at his wife...

You're assuming that by playing "angry" on the "pleasant evening with the wife" conflict, Player B is deciding that Joe finds it pleasant to get angry during a pleasant evening with the wife... until he actually narrates it, that isn't what he's saying at all... he hasn't really said ANYTHING about how getting angry connects with the pleasant evening with the wife.

He might get angry with the maitre d' to get a good table.

He might get angry with the guy who's smoking at another table.

There's nothing in the rules that says that just because Joe plays the "angry" attitude on that conflict, that it necessarily applies directly.

Oh, sorry, I misread what you meant.

So you're just talking about how the group deals with someone who ignores the rule on page 38 saying "Whether the player accepts the die they rolled or not, they always narrate what happens. The Ability they used must be central."  Have I got that right?

That's a good start.

Another point is if the narration is nonsensical.

For example, he rolls on Angry, shouts at his wife... and calls that pleasant.

"Dude... Blue Laser finds it pleasant to shout at his wife?"

"No... I just needed to use it to roll down that die."

That exchange boils down to:

A:  I change the SIS in specified way X.
B:  Wow... X?  Really?
A:  No, not really.

Are you saying that you fear people will do that?  Or have I misunderstood you again?

What we found during the second game (the we played Easter sunday) is that people had to be reminded, again and again, to narrate... and that often, those narrations didn't make a lot of sense in retrospect.  Someone has to have the authority to say, "Well, if your narration doesn't match what you're doing with your attributes, then you can't use that attribute."  The rules don't provide that authority.

The next time we play, I'm going to suggest implementing Doug Ruff's Rules 1 and 2.

Quote from: VaxalonSomeone has to have the authority to say, "Well, if your narration doesn't match what you're doing with your attributes, then you can't use that attribute."

Okay, I'll bite:  Why?

Because otherwise you get dissatisfying, jarring moments, when the game side takes hold, and someone wants to WIN THAT CONFLICT, even though, when it comes right down to it, he has run out of applicable resources, and he really ought to sit back and admit defeat, and see it as a roleplaying opportunity.

Like I said, I don't think the game needs to be changed.  I just think that our social contract, for OUR group, needs to strengthen certain narrative aspects.

There's no such thing as inapplicable resources.  If they've got the numbers, they should win the conflict.  Anything else is treating roleplaying as a privileged viewpoint, more valid than gaming.  Tony's Standard Rant #1 most definitely applies.

So I've got some questions for you:  How many players did you have, and who was reminding people to narrate?

We had four players.  Myself, My wife (who you met), Brenna (who is familiar mostly with games like DnD) and her mother Bambi (who is mostly familiar with LARP).

Generally speaking, the reminders to narrate were coming from whoever wasn't rolling the die.  I needed reminding, my wife needed reminding, we all did.  And sometimes, the narration just felt... wrong... and I would just shrug, and say, "Hey, the rules say that if that's the explanation for why that attribute fits... it stands.  Even if it makes no sense."