Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Judd, December 06, 2005, 01:13:37 AM
Quote from: Ben Lehman on December 06, 2005, 11:25:29 PMI'm strongly convinced that the next generation of games is going to need better rules for stakes than just "do it well on your own."That it is possible to have flat stakes at all is a failure of our present crop of games (with some notable exceptions like Trollbabe.)yrs----Ben
Quote from: Paka on December 06, 2005, 11:08:18 PMI am trying to think of systems whose texts are worth looking up for good stakes setting advice.Trollbabe immediately comes to mind.Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard and Primetime Adventures.Thor says With Great Power which is on my shelf and I'll look it over soonish.We've seemed to come to the following: - Stakes setting is most successful when it doesn't become bogged down and when it is a collaborative activity with everyone at the table. - It needs to be addressed in rule books clearly. - The stakes need to lead to good game no matter which way the conflict rolls. Success = fun. Failure = fun. (The word, discommode from Trollbabe is ringing in my ears, here.) - Stakes need to be set before the dice are rolled or cards are played. - Stakes should be linked to what the player has indicated is important about their PC on their character sheet (issues, Beliefs, etc.). - When stakes are flat the conflict is flat. - Stakes setting should also be a back and forth so that the participants buy-in to the conflict and are excited about the outcome. - Following stakes setting should be a change in the table's status quo leading to further excitement.
Quote from: Vaxalon on December 09, 2005, 03:08:21 PMMike's post points back to the point that a roleplaying group works well when it works as a small social entity. Trust, empathy, sincerity, honesty, all of that.
Quote from: TonyLB on December 09, 2005, 11:42:11 AMIt doesn't hurt to have a feedback mechanism that tells you (just as explicitly) "these were good stakes to set," either.
Quote from: TonyLB on December 09, 2005, 05:19:34 PMIn terms of actual feedback mechanisms (i.e. things that directly feed resources back to the person who did a good job) those are indeed the two that sprang to mind. I suspect Universalis has some such dynamic, but I don't know the game well enough to point to exactly what it is.
Quote from: Vaxalon on December 14, 2005, 11:57:48 AMHow would the system be able to evaluate the stakes, though? I mean, in order for the partner to be able to say, "yeah, good stakes," HE has to know what good stakes are!