Explicit Goals

[contracycle]

A discussion of the use of expicit goals and steps, especially for gamist play.  Original post:

I agree with Noon's point. Thinking about things like Power/Evil has recently priompted this idea: why not be much more explicit about the challanges that are posed? Why not even let players choose them? Further, why use an abstract reward system when a concrete one could also be used?

To explain the last point first, the distinction I am claiming between abstract rewards and concrete rewards is the distinction between a bunch of XP and an actual change on the charsheet. That is, conventionally we award XP and allow players to spend them on whatever they want, but why not offer them what they want up front? Then you can say, this challenge carries the reward "4 levels of Swordsman skill" or something like that.

Prompted by some elements that have become standard in PC games, like checkpoint saves and explicit goal lists accessible through the game menu, such challenges could also be checkpointed up front so that the player knows what the express goals are. So the challenge associated with the above reward of 4 levels of Swordsman skill might be:

Rescue the Princess
1) Break into Castle Dread
2) Kill the Evil Count and get the dungeon key
3) Find your way to the Dungeons
4) Escape via the sally port

The reason we do not conventionally do this sort of thing is in order to retain the "surprise" and discovery associated with Sim. But for strict gamist purposes such concerns can be ditched. Such an explicit structure would facilitate scene framing, by having clear points at which the process has developed from one stage to the next. In addition, the use of concrete rewards might prompt more discussion between player and GM as to what they want ourt of the game and their characters.

It also opens the possibility that individual players could be pursuing individual challenges that coincide or overlap, if such is even necessary - conceivably an explicit system like this could be re-integrated with open, Tourist sim in a manner reminiscent of MMORPG's.

[contracycle]

Silmenume wrote:

Just a quick thought on the parallels between Narrativist Bangs and the idea of Gamist Bangs. What contracycle proposed seems to incorporate overtly, as in the Gamist equivalent of overtly discussed Narrativist scene framing based on Premise issues, the notion of Ron's Go's or "Go lengths" in the Gamism essay. Contracycle's proposition sort of fills in the other half of the "Go length" coin. IOW's the player's are aware of the Go's and can have a say in them. There may be some good stuff to be mined in this type of game design.

[contracycle]

Silmenume has spotted on of the features of such a proposition: given that this is explicit, is visible up front, it must necessarily inform the SIS even if only tacitly; it will "leak" across from metagame into the play itself.

As mentioned above, usually we have tried to prevent this leakage but perhaps instead we should examine how we might take advantage of it.  And, while this has been articulated above mostly in terms of Gamist play, I'm not sure that it would be so alien to Simmers as to be unusable.  I'm less sure about Narr qand would appreciate thoughts on that.  Otherwise, all comments welcome.

[Lord Shield]

I have found that such rewards in games do indeed work. I use it sparingly when I see fit.

For instance, assisting a Guild in some major endeavour might end up with them training the character, resulting in maybe an extra couple of points in a skill, or they get to add it to their Class Skills (using D20 as an example) and get a couple of free points in it.

It is used in many computer games, especially CRPGs. For instance, in Lionheart there are Way Crystals (5 of them) that give you bonuses, and there's an extra if all 5 are found

[Kerstin Schmidt]

Thinking about things like Power/Evil has recently priompted this idea: why not be much more explicit about the challanges that are posed? Why not even let players choose them?

I very much agree with this point for gamist play, although I'm not sure where the novelty in this is, perhaps I'm not quite getting your point here?  I don't think I've ever played in (and certainly never run) a gamist game that didn't envolve choices between challenges for the players, and at least to me these choices are an integral part of gamist play.  I wouldn't want to play without that.  

Having choices is fun.  In gamist play that is because evaluating challenges tactically (and then seeing how your choices play out) can be immensely satisfying.  To me this is as important as actually playing through the challenge afterwards.  

And I say "tactically" not because I'm thinking of the kind of "choice" where you have to work out which way to go has the best chances of success and which is a death trap cunningly presented by the GM.  That's not what you mean when you say let's allow players to choose I think, and it's not what I mean when I say choices are a vital part of gamist play to me. We are discussing genuine choices here, I'll assume.  

The reason I say "tactically" is because even where a choice presented is a genuine one, i.e. the options presented are all sound or feasible, I'll still approach the problem with a tactical mind - simply because what I'm most interested in when I play gamist is the option that involves the (to me) most interesting/rewarding challenge, and the one promises the most interesting longer-term developments.   No matter whether it's at the level of "shall we steal the dungeon key or shall we get ourselves arrested and break out from inside instead?", or at the level of "shall we side with this town over here or with that count over there in this civil war?", I like choices and I'll evaluate them in terms of (a) how to beat each challenge presented and (b) what further challenges will follow of my choice, right away and later.   And I've seen other gamist players do the same thing.  

Further, why use an abstract reward system when a concrete one could also be used?
...
That is, conventionally we award XP and allow players to spend them on whatever they want, but why not offer them what they want up front? Then you can say, this challenge carries the reward "4 levels of Swordsman skill" or something like that.

For the same reason advanced economies use money, not bartering systems? An abstract currency makes it a great deal easier to provide the player with the power to get what they want.  With your suggestion the GM always stands between the player and their swordsman skill - sure, you may work to offer rewards that satisfy player preference, but at best that'll increase the need for communication and negotation.  

Prompted by some elements that have become standard in PC games, like checkpoint saves and explicit goal lists accessible through the game menu, such challenges could also be checkpointed up front so that the player knows what the express goals are. So the challenge associated with the above reward of 4 levels of Swordsman skill might be:

Rescue the Princess
1) Break into Castle Dread
2) Kill the Evil Count and get the dungeon key
3) Find your way to the Dungeons
4) Escape via the sally port

The reason we do not conventionally do this sort of thing is in order to retain the "surprise" and discovery associated with Sim. But for strict gamist purposes such concerns can be ditched.

Huh? Not at all.  Your list squashes two entire gamist dimension of the princess-saving enterprise:  planning the mission;  and adapting to events turning out differently than you'd planned.

Why nail the players to your idea of how things ought to go? I mean, who's to say a given group is going to want to follow those steps 1 through 4?  With your list to cut off all opportunities for players to come up with other solutions.  

To go with your example for a moment:  maybe they don't break in at all, but have the PCs sneak in and kidnap the count's daughter to negotiate a hostage exchange. Maybe they have the PCs get themselves an invitation to the Big Party.  Maybe they find key-searching a really tedious exercise and spend a great deal of tactical effort to come up with a key-less solution.  Maybe ally with the count and kill his rival for him, in exchange for the princess whom they then return home or sell to the highest bidder.  

My argument isn't limited to your specific example, mind you. I'm just illustrating my line of thought here.

And of course you can always write a checklist plan based on a group's plan for dealing with a challenge (rather than have the GM cook one up in their own lonely mind).  And whether it's a lonely GM list or a player-plan based list, you can always trash it right away once you start playing through the challenge.  Because well, you know. No plan survives contact with the enemy.  And that's half of the fun of it, if not more.  When it isn't the GM lanching surprises, it's the dice interfering in the oddest ways, not even to mention that players will come up with new ideas continuously, grasping new opportunities as they arise and dodging blows to their pretty plans as they fall.

Such an explicit structure would facilitate scene framing, by having clear points at which the process has developed from one stage to the next.

But you can have scene framing anyway, except you'll have to stay flexible and see what's happening right now and where events are going next.  Define the "next item on the list" as you finish dealing with current item, i.e. the challenge at hand.  

When the GM frames, just listen to the players' plan, what remains of the original one and those changes they are making as they go, and frame to the next challenge.  If you want a player to frame let them know where to frame to (location and some basics of the challenge).

I don't see why you'd need a scripted list for that. On the contrary, what such a list will do is hamper play because all flexibility to respond to how things play out is lost.

In addition, the use of concrete rewards might prompt more discussion between player and GM as to what they want ourt of the game and their characters.

But with an abstract system the player's preferences are plain to see on the char sheet.  We are still talking gamist play, right?  And people who actually want to play that way?

An experienced player will choose a character they will have fun playing, and will know how to convert the abstract currency into things they want out of their character.  For a beginner it's trickier of course until they get the hang of the system, so they need more advice - but that's more about how to work the system so it yields what you want, than about getting the player to apply to the GM for specific benefits so the GM can then kindly offer them as rewards for specific challenges.  

So why would you force a discussion about what a player wants when you can just hand them the currency and let them buy what they want and write it on their char sheet for everyone to see?

[contracycle]

And I say "tactically" not because I'm thinking of the kind of "choice" where you have to work out which way to go has the best chances of success and which is a death trap cunningly presented by the GM.  That's not what you mean when you say let's allow players to choose I think, and it's not what I mean when I say choices are a vital part of gamist play to me. We are discussing genuine choices here, I'll assume.  

My feeling is, the fear that a given choice may be a death-trap can hinder play and IMO send it in some silly directions.  Because of that fear, excessive precautions may be taken, precuations that then hinder other elements of the game - such as being excessivley suspicious to NPC's, or perhaps the desire to not let anyone get away alive, or being hesitant to bite the proferred mission carrot.

So the proposal is to distinguish between a choice at the "metagame" level, which is merely about the direction of play, and a choice at the in-game level, in which concerns about death-traps and so forth are relevant.

No matter whether it's at the level of "shall we steal the dungeon key or shall we get ourselves arrested and break out from inside instead?", or at the level of "shall we side with this town over here or with that count over there in this civil war?", I like choices and I'll evaluate them in terms of (a) how to beat each challenge presented and (b) what further challenges will follow of my choice, right away and later.   And I've seen other gamist players do the same thing.  

Yes but - it doesn't seem to matter in most gamist play.  So many computer games use this limited form of freedom that I can't think its totally alien to RPG gamism.

You see what we have done is bounded the challenge.  By establishing up front that in order to "win" you have to kill the evil count and get the key, I have not mandated HOW you kill the count, or get the key.  And becuase there is a live GM present, and this is not a computer game, you might for example be able to steal the key without killing the count and the GM could allow this as an alternative.

But in so doing we have also eliminated a whole bunch of concerns around, say, where is the key or do we even need one?  We can get straight on into the action of resolving the How questions; that is, we get to "Game On" faster.

For the same reason advanced economies use money, not bartering systems? An abstract currency makes it a great deal easier to provide the player with the power to get what they want.  With your suggestion the GM always stands between the player and their swordsman skill - sure, you may work to offer rewards that satisfy player preference, but at best that'll increase the need for communication and negotation.  

Well, the intent is not necessarily that the GM should dictate the rewards, but instead offer the rewards that the players actually want.  For two reasons - one, so that players can actually get what they want, which they may not if they have to slog through multiple adventures to accumulate enough points; and second, because this exoplicitly tells the GM which direction the player intends to develop the character, and can therefore better anticipate the kind of things that will attract the players interest.

I'm also thinking here that the GM should have a bunch of possible plots on bits of paper, and then the players select one, or possibly one each.  The intent is to prompt negotiation that is explicit and understood by all, because player motivation is no longer expressed through the character but directly.

Huh? Not at all.  Your list squashes two entire gamist dimension of the princess-saving enterprise:  planning the mission;  and adapting to events turning out differently than you'd planned.

Why nail the players to your idea of how things ought to go? I mean, who's to say a given group is going to want to follow those steps 1 through 4?  With your list to cut off all opportunities for players to come up with other solutions.  

Right.  Because I'm only human and there is only so much I can prepare for in any degree of detail.  What such an open and agreed process would therefore obviate is the insidiously deceptive and manipulative aspects of railroading.  The idea is to achieve agreement up front as to the rough course of play so that the GM does not have to resort to underhanded techniques to keep play focussed.

Because well, you know. No plan survives contact with the enemy.  And that's half of the fun of it, if not more.  When it isn't the GM lanching surprises, it's the dice interfering in the oddest ways, not even to mention that players will come up with new ideas continuously, grasping new opportunities as they arise and dodging blows to their pretty plans as they fall.

Granted.  But I would hope, because the players anf GM have already agreed the outline, the responses to unusual events can be smoothed over by mutual agreement, and by the flexibility of human problem solving, without recourse to non-consensual Force.

But you can have scene framing anyway, except you'll have to stay flexible and see what's happening right now and where events are going next.  Define the "next item on the list" as you finish dealing with current item, i.e. the challenge at hand.  

Sure.  That is possible as a development - some computer games are notorious for bait-and-switching their mission assignments.  But I'd like to discuss the core suggestion first.

When the GM frames, just listen to the players' plan, what remains of the original one and those changes they are making as they go, and frame to the next challenge.  If you want a player to frame let them know where to frame to (location and some basics of the challenge).

It doesn;t work.  Or at least, it doesn't work for me.  Doing it in real time is impossible - to make this happen I would have to ask "wehat are you going to do", and then plan for that to be delivered at the next session.  This suggestion is aimed at circumventing that problem.

I don't see why you'd need a scripted list for that. On the contrary, what such a list will do is hamper play because all flexibility to respond to how things play out is lost.

But with an abstract system the player's preferences are plain to see on the char sheet.  We are still talking gamist play, right?  And people who actually want to play that way?

It's only visible after the fact, and I want to see it before the fact.  Because it seems to me that every single element on a character sheet is a kinda statement that "I want to solve problems with this tool".  By understanding explicitly what goals they are working towards, and ehat kind of problem solving experience the player wants to have, I get that information early and can incorporate it into play directly.

For example, if I player says that their ambition is to gain 4 levels of Swordsman, I might introduce a character earlier who mocks the player for their lack of skill; and then, after they have achieved their goal, they can come back and thrash that NPC.  Thus the player not only gets the tangivble reward, but I have also established a scene in which they get to glory in that triumph - which I also foreshadowed.  Thats the kind of planning I don;t think is possible with the points-n-purchase model per se.

[Callan S.]

Hi StalkingBlue,

Rescue the Princess
1) Break into Castle Dread
2) Kill the Evil Count and get the dungeon key
3) Find your way to the Dungeons
4) Escape via the sally port

The reason we do not conventionally do this sort of thing is in order to retain the "surprise" and discovery associated with Sim. But for strict gamist purposes such concerns can be ditched.

I originally thought contra meant, in presenting this list, that you would show it to players and rather than they being 'nailed' to it, it would be discussed. For instance, a player might like to change number 2, to finding some dirt on the count to blackmail the key out of him.

This rather an in game change of plan, like trying to break in with the original idea of killing the count, but instead kidnapping the daughter. Or anything other than the outlined challenge goal. Instead you would discuss this goal prior to playing it. That does take remove the 'excitement of discovery' out of coming up with an alternate plan mid game. But this is gamism, not sim, so that's okay.

[Callan S.]

Anyway, I've come to the unpleasant realisation of why it will always be seen as a trick/in game question by the GM.

It's simply the stakes involved. Your invested in your character. Assuming the games rules can make you loose your character, you can't see something as just a player choice between A or B. You'll always take your investment into account. Which means you'll always be somewhat in game, in the choice you make.

Damn!

This is stuffed! I can even see this inhibiting traditional trail blazing play, where only the GM determines the arenas. The players still have to say yes to them though. If you just want a casual game, but the stakes are raised so high you can't...you wont feel like playing. Damn, I think that's part of the loop my group is in. The investment forces you to take the whole affair so seriously! Perhaps that's why T&T has it's characters on 3x5 cards.

[Kerstin Schmidt]

Hiya Callan.  My name's Kerstin. It's in my sig.

Anyway, I've come to the unpleasant realisation of why it will always be seen as a trick/in game question by the GM.

It's simply the stakes involved. Your invested in your character. Assuming the games rules can make you loose your character, you can't see something as just a player choice between A or B. You'll always take your investment into account. Which means you'll always be somewhat in game, in the choice you make.

Yes. And it doesn't even have to be seen as an in game question by the GM, in fact that bit is almost irrelevant.  Even once the GM sorts out with the players that certain choices are presented not as challenges but to give the players input into what is going to be played, the player will look at the tactical side of things.  

In my experience non-challenge choices can work with a gamist group to some extent, but pretty much only at a very high-up level.

Not by providing checklists for missions tactics.  That has problems not only because it's stepping on player turf, but also because the players are forced into considering the likely outcome for their character from step to step.

What can work is discussing which direction the players want to take the characters in the longer term.  Campaign choices, not mission choices.  Such as side with ruler A or with leader of insurrection B?  Get more jobs in capital X to establish themselves as the heroes of the kingdom or move around the country like a wild bunch of typical PCs? When you do that, some players may start coming up with their own ideas for steps on the way and suddenly you get input.

Another thing that always helps is talking to players to find out what challenges they enjoyed in play, and repeat the good stuff more in the future. But the closer you get to the actual level of mission tactics, the less the GM can and should interfere. It's just contrary to what gamist play is about.

If you just want a casual game, but the stakes are raised so high you can't...you wont feel like playing. Damn, I think that's part of the loop my group is in. The investment forces you to take the whole affair so seriously! Perhaps that's why T&T has it's characters on 3x5 cards.

The opposite workaround would be to introduce some mechanism that makes it harder to lose a character.  The Conan d20 RPG tries doing that by awarding a limited number of Fate Points that can be spent on being "left for dead" instead of dying.


(Side note: For your group it might be worth looking at where the investment in the characters comes from.  If you feel that this investment is inhibiting gamist play, then it might be a different agenda coming in.  I've experienced this in a Midnight game that I started running in its default d20 system until we hit more and more serious problems with investment in characters that wasn't all about not wanting to be a loser.  Feel free to start an AP thread if you want to discuss this further?)

[Callan S.]

Hi Kerstin. Sigs aren't show in the topic review box! :)

Not by providing checklists for missions tactics.  That has problems not only because it's stepping on player turf, but also because the players are forced into considering the likely outcome for their character from step to step.

I dunno. I can imagine myself being presented with contra's list by one GM, and feeling fully confident I could overwrite the whole thing and that would be fine. And I could also imagine being given that list and knowing I'm being dictated to by the GM.

I don't see a list as being a problem, unless it's at a scale the players aren't interesting in working at. For example, if players like working at the battle grid level, manouvering for best advantage and counting the squares a fire ball fills, contra's list is great. If players like to work at a larger level, skipping the manouvering and like to work at the level of kidnapping daughters rather than five foot steps, then the list is confining. However, a much more encompasing list is easy to make.

The opposite workaround would be to introduce some mechanism that makes it harder to lose a character.

I think it may be better to simply make it impossible to loose a character, and shift the games primary stake to something other than 'can your PC survive'. I had a rant about such a change (in relation to computer games) at RPG.net awhile ago: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=195725

It's interesting though. Every time a different stake is set, over time the players will invest in that stake and the problem will rise again where they aren't interested in putting that stake at risk/playing.

[Kerstin Schmidt]

Gareth, I understand you to be saying that you as the GM in a gamist want more advance information about:

1. the individual steps of players' plans, in order to prepare for a session; and
2. a player's plans for character development so you can (I assume?) present the kinds of challenges the player would like to see.

In order to achieve that, you propose to introduce:

(a) detailed goal checklists, to be agreed with the GM before a session, which will take the players step by step through a mission;
(b) specific rewards for goals that the GM determines in consultation with the players. 

That about right?

Well, here's my point. You can possibly get closer to your goals by using the techniques you propose in a group that agrees to them, but your technniques will increase GM presence in the game and will require increased volumes of negotiation and communication (see my argument about bartering). My view is that with a flexible approach you can get the same or better results without the hassle. I've seen it done and done it.  I don't think it's particularly unusual, it's certainly not impossible. 

So what's a more flexible approach?


Ad 1:  Pre-sessio info.  I agree we want that.  In a gamist game I want to prep for challenges properly, I want to put thought and care into designing stuff that could cause players to lose characters, and when I'm a non-GM player I expect the same level and thought and care from my GM.

Yet that doesn't mean I have to have the players' plans laid out step by step for me. What I need is to know our theatre of operations, if you'll forgive the grandiose term.  So what I'll ask beforehand is, "There's a princess that needs rescuing from Count X's castle in the east, and town Y in the west appears to have been overrun by zombies. I could prep for either, any preferences or should I just choose one?"  Theatre of operations: Count X's castle, or town Y.

Let's assume we agree on the princess-in-distress. That's as much as I need to prepare the theatre and place challanges in it. I'll have the Count, some other NPCs, elite guards, the princess. With stats, goals, standard operating procedures.  Possibly non-sentient challenges (guard beasts, traps. puzzles, obstacles). Mooks of course, which don't need much prep and won't get much spotlight.  Keys and stuff of a similar level of interest don't get prep from me.

I'll sketch out roughly what the major NPCs will be doing assuming the PCs don't turn up, and how they will resond to complications. It's not completely unlike a Relationship Map, except the relationships matter less and for different reasons than in Narr play. 

The princess won't just be sitting in the dungeons forever, the Count will likely be planning the party for their wedding, or be in negotiations with foreign representatives about selling her on. Or perhaps she's in on some nefarious plan of his, or who knows but she's the bad one and he's really the one who needs protection.  The foreign representative's dragon mount has her own use for a bunch of PC adventurer's (say, to free her from this magic dragon-binding saddle and take them to a lair of treasure later).  Whatever. 

Anyway, with just:

- our agreed theatre of operations, and
- my dynamic challenges (in the sense that they have their own goals and will allow me to respond to PCs flexibly)

I'm set for whatever plans the players come up with.  No checklist needed. 

Now let me say one thing quite clearly: no computer could do this thing.  I can do it because I'm human and can respond flexibly with out scripting, and that's why when people play with me they play an RPG - whereas when they play with a computer they play computer games. Two worlds. 

This flexible approach may not be what you want if you enjoy heavier scripting, which is what your suggestions involve. Personal preference. But they aren't necessary, nor even the most efficient way of dealing with the problems you said you'd like to deal with.


Ad 2: Player's character development plans.  This one I don't even see as a problem. 

In every gamist game I've seen, every player fills a niche in the group of characters. The default exchange of questions when you join a gamist game at a Con are: "Can I play?" - "Sure, what do you want to play?" - "What do you need?"  So every somewhat experienced player will choose a concept and stick with it. Of course the swordsman's player is going to take more levels in swordsman. The rest of the group would be miffed (and rightly so) if he suddenly started taking levels in Storyteller instead, it would upset the entire balance of the group and their abilit to function as a tactical unit. Unless switching to Storyteller has been agreed among the group in advance, whih usually happens for some system-inherent reason (say, Storytellers gain strange magic powers that the group needs and someone else plays the primary swordsman anyway).  So when you see what a player is playing you know where they are headed with it - or if not, it's easy to ask and you'll hear the gist of it.  Swordsman or storyteller, healer or fire mage or ninja, you can get the idea from the player without reserving the right to award abilities step by step yourself. 





Kerstin

[contracycle]

I think the view that this is "dictating" to the players is somewhat making mountains out of molehills.

I am not proposing that the players be heavily constrained in what they want to do, quite the opposite, I am proposing that the GM and players discuss what they want to do through this sort of device.  The proposition is that that checklist is agreed by the players and GM, not handed down ex cathedra from the GM.  The key concept is the EXPLICIT nature of the goals, not their unilateral origin.  I don't particularly care how explicit goals are negotiated or established at the moment.

It's also worth noting that a near infinite amount of gameplay can be fitted, fractal-like, between any two given explicit goals.  If I'm playing Castloe Wolfenstein, I know that I must finish this level, but I have a variety of means at my disposal - sneaky stealth stuff with the silenced Sten, sniping from range, or close in with SMG's and grenades.  Or, if I am playing Children of the Nile, my goal might be to achieve a certain population level, but all the gameplay will be in the How that question is answered - the exact methods you employ to grow the economy such that the population is sustainable.

Similarly the HOW of the assasination of the count is left unspecified.  That could be done by scaling the walls and suffocating him in his sleep, or by inveigling a position in the kitchens and poisoning his wine.  There is still a near infinite amount of action that could comprise the actual game as played, and still a vast space for player-directed choices as to what is to be done and how.  With multiple players, and characters with differeing effectivenesses, constructing a viable plan will still require planning, discussion, etc.

But what we have done is focussed the exercise not a particular route you must follow, but on the kind of goals you need to achieve.  The players, therefore, know what it is they are trying to do and can act with purpose and confidence - the GM knows what needs to be prepared and can be ready.  That seems like a win-win situation to me.  Working fromt he Sim presumption that the "edges of the board" must be invisible, or that any thing that can be conceived should be a valid option, is not necessarily a good thing, as this can IME produce a lack of direction and purpose to the point that good and bad options cannot be distinguished.

[Kerstin Schmidt]

Hi Kerstin. Sigs aren't show in the topic review box! :)

I have now sorted out that problem. :)

I dunno. I can imagine myself being presented with contra's list by one GM, and feeling fully confident I could overwrite the whole thing and that would be fine. And I could also imagine being given that list and knowing I'm being dictated to by the GM.

I don't see a list as being a problem, unless it's at a scale the players aren't interesting in working at. For example, if players like working at the battle grid level, manouvering for best advantage and counting the squares a fire ball fills, contra's list is great. If players like to work at a larger level, skipping the manouvering and like to work at the level of kidnapping daughters rather than five foot steps, then the list is confining. However, a much more encompasing list is easy to make.

Neither is to my point really. 

The checklist idea doesn't only have problems when it's dictated by the GM.  It's also less than efficient when it's being negotiated with the players.  The question isn't whether you can find groups who'd agree to that sort of thing or might enjoy it - I'm sure you could, people will be different. But we're in Theory here, so I'm thinking at a more general level and I think that's what Gareth posted about. Are his suggestions an improvement to gamist play? That's the question I'm trying to answer, and I'm saying no.  Because there's other ways of doing this that make the game more like an RPG (which it is) and less like a computer game (which it isn't).

It's interesting though. Every time a different stake is set, over time the players will invest in that stake and the problem will rise again where they aren't interested in putting that stake at risk/playing.

Not sure what you're saying here. Is this a problem, do you think, or is it a feature of play?  And if a problem, do Gareth's suggestions for checklists and specific rewards deal with it?



Kerstin

[contracycle]

That about right?

Yes

I'm set for whatever plans the players come up with.  No checklist needed. 

Whereupon the players say "Count, we were offered X to rescue this princess but if you double the money we'll be over the border by morning"

Or they say.... "If the count can blackmail X with this Princess, so can we, lets not rescue her so much as take over the counts operationr".

Neither of these may be the game you planned - all your planning is now worthless.  So what do you do?  Well, thats precisely thr GM-intervention that you claim is undesirable; if the players mention these ideas, I drop hints that "it wouldn't be a good idea" or "they'd just hunt you down", or whatever else I can think of to re-frame the conflict back into the general direction it had been intended to go.

And yet... why even deal with that?  If I crack open Diplomacy or Risk the rules tell me exactly 1) what I have to do to win and b) how I am to go about doing that.  The very board in front of us informs play.  All I'm trying to do is formulate a method which is just as descriptive from the outset.

Now let me say one thing quite clearly: no computer could do this thing.  I can do it because I'm human and can respond flexibly with out scripting, and that's why when people play with me they play an RPG - whereas when they play with a computer they play computer games. Two worlds. 

Firstly I don't think the differences are that clear, and secondly the simile is mistaken - I have not said anything about writing adventures in such a way that there is only one way to go down them - quite the opposite in fact.  I have merely nominated gateways tyhrough which play will pass.

Swordsman or storyteller, healer or fire mage or ninja, you can get the idea from the player without reserving the right to award abilities step by step yourself. 

Asking people what they want, and then giving it to them, is not reserving any right to myself.  Thats misleading language.

[Kerstin Schmidt]

Whereupon the players say "Count, we were offered X to rescue this princess but if you double the money we'll be over the border by morning"

Or they say.... "If the count can blackmail X with this Princess, so can we, lets not rescue her so much as take over the counts operationr".

Neither of these may be the game you planned - all your planning is now worthless.  So what do you do? 

Worthless? Not at all.  See, here's perhaps where we differ.  With my approach I can't expect that everything I prep for is going to come into play - same thing as when I prep an R-map and bangs in narr play.  I just make up a repertoire of stuff to use and play off of, I don't expect my players to play through every single one of my nifty ideas. 

But with both your player responses I'll get quite a bit of play out of my prep anyway, and then we can move on to wht the players had their PCs do:

Now I'll give you that "Double our reward and we leave" is ambiguous. It could be that the players are sabotaging the session, walking straight up the count to make their offer and ignoring the princess stuff entirely.  Although in this case, why would they have agreed to playing on the princess theatre of operations anyway? Doesn't make sense unless the players are being passive-agressive towards your trying to negotiate the plot, in which case there's some other problem that needs to be addressedtht doesn't concern us here.

The more likely situation for a "Double our reward" offer is when the PCs and the count have already clashed and there's a face-off of some sort. In which case we'll have got some play out of my prep already and if negotiations end with the PCs getting their reward and heading out of there - well then we'll have something new to explore next session, won't we? Unless the foreign representative with his dragon mount has overheard the plan and decides to ambush the PCs on his way back home, say. 
And btw, just to be very clear: I'd use this ambush idea only if it makes sense in the contest of the game and if I think it's something the players would enjoy, certainly not just because I've prepared it and I'm forcing the players through my prepped material.

And the "Let's take over his operations" response is perfect actually. Again I'm not out of the scope of my prep at all, on the contrary.  If the players decide to take over the count's operations they have to get him out of the way first, so whatever I've prepared for him and his elite guards and sorcerous adviser will come into play - and once they succeeed they have a princess on their hands and a foreign representative in the castle who might be happy to negotiate with the PCs instead of the count, or who might declare them his deadly or whatever is most fun.  That should do us nicely for the session. And for next session I can prep something new and will do so happily, knowing that my players have grabbed an opportunity they like for their PCs: new challenges trying to run Castle X and dealing with the aftermath of the count's, um, resignation from his post. That's not worthless, it's fantastic IMO. 


Although one thing is true: neither will get 100% mileage out of my prep. Some will remain unplayed.  Not only with your creative player responses, but always.
If you're looking for a 100% match, my approach won't give you that.

Well, thats precisely thr GM-intervention that you claim is undesirable; if the players mention these ideas, I drop hints that "it wouldn't be a good idea" or "they'd just hunt you down", or whatever else I can think of to re-frame the conflict back into the general direction it had been intended to go.

I'm not proposing to do that at all. I'm proposing to let go and run with what the players want. The trick is to agree and set up a theatre of operations that if the players agree to it will provide you with at least about one session's worth of play - not really very difficult to do, although sometimes events will mean that you run a bit short of material.  In which case, early session end. Compliments to the players on a job smoothly done, hand out XP and treasure.  Provide options for where across the border the PCs may be heading to define new theatre of operations.  In a game with intense enough challenges, sometimes finishing early (and knowing that this happened because you played so skilfully or grasped an opportunity) can be a reward in itself.

And yet... why even deal with that?  If I crack open Diplomacy or Risk the rules tell me exactly 1) what I have to do to win and b) how I am to go about doing that.  The very board in front of us informs play.  All I'm trying to do is formulate a method which is just as descriptive from the outset.

But we're not discussing board games here any more than we're discussing computer games. To my mind flexibility is what distinguishes RPGs from all those games. Do you disagree?

Swordsman or storyteller, healer or fire mage or ninja, you can get the idea from the player without reserving the right to award abilities step by step yourself. 

Asking people what they want, and then giving it to them, is not reserving any right to myself.  Thats misleading language.

Well, look at it from the player's point of view. Can I get a level of swordsman? Yes, once I have saved up X amount of char development currency (XP, whatever). With your system, it's: Can I get a level of swordsman? Yes, if the GM offers a challenge that carries a "level of swordsman" reward.  Of course a GM can be nice and always try to offer the rewards the players are asking for - my point isn't that it forces a GM to be patronising or abusive. But what it does is force the player to come to the GM for specific rewards, or the GM to ask, and both of them to discuss this stuff from case to case (bartering) when with the default abstract reward (XP, which represent a char development "money system") the player is free to save up and act on their own.  Your suggestion involves specific GM intervention by definition where the abstract approach does not.




Kerstin