Creating the Scenario with the Character Sheets in Front of Me

[Jon Hastings]

This is all good stuff.  One thing I would add, though, is that the GM might want to be up front and explicit about using flags in this way, and should make sure the players are actually interested in what they're putting down on their character sheet.

I suppose this touches on the "flags vs. duds" question: while producing a PTA game recently, I built the bangs for one player's spotlight episode by looking at his character sheet and putting together the different elements (f'rex, Bang #1 related the Issue to a connection, bang #2 related his issue to his concept, bang #3 related but his nemesis between his goal and a connection, etc.).  Now, this was exactly how I had prepped for earlier spotlight episodes in the series, and, up until this point, I had had lots of success.  But, with this player, everything just fell flat.  It wasn't until about halfway through the episode that I realized that the player wasn't interested in his character's issue and had only chosen it because he thought it "fit the genre".

[Josh Roby]

This is all good stuff.  One thing I would add, though, is that the GM might want to be up front and explicit about using flags in this way, and should make sure the players are actually interested in what they're putting down on their character sheet.

Yes -- do not do this unless the players are aware this will be happening, especially in games that allow players to gain points by taking disadvantages/flaws/foibles/whatever.  If you, as a GM, pick up on one of the disadvantages they took, not because it was interesting, but because it got them points, and you hammer on said disadvantage, you will be seen as 'picking on' that character.  It is, in stark terms, a violation of the social contract under which they were operating which stated that "We take disadvantages, get points for them, and only let them affect color."  I have a standing "If you put it on your sheet, it ends up in the game" policy that I did not initially make public -- once I did and got the players on board with that, things worked much more smoothly!

[Brand_Robins]

This is all good stuff.  One thing I would add, though, is that the GM might want to be up front and explicit about using flags in this way, and should make sure the players are actually interested in what they're putting down on their character sheet.

Indeed. Others have gone over this, but I thought I'd toss in a couple of other areas in which flags can get misread/used in play.

1. The "protect my ass" motivation. I recently had a Burning Sands: Jihad game in which a player made a character who had the traits The Killer, Artful Dodger, Fearless, Cold Blooded, and Tough as Nails. He also had a 9G sword skill, a personal shield, and two instincts that related to combat and always having weapon and shield ready and on optimal setting. When I asked the player if he really wanted the kind of huge combat challanges his character was set up for his response was "no, I really want to play family drama. I just took that stuff to be sure if there was a fight I'd be ready."

2. The "biggest thing is not the biggest thing" issue. Once we got our signals straight the above player significantly toned down his combat badassitude, but kept a good chunk of it. When I asked him about how important and common he wanted fights to be AGAIN his response was, "Oh, sometimes I want to fight -- but mostly to protect my family or because evil members of my family have forced me to kill a good person for the honor of the house." There were a few beliefes and one trait on his sheet about that family dynamic, and so without talking to him I might have gotten some of them, but I certainly would still have missread the level of importance assigned. He wanted to be a great swordsman, but the story wasn't about the sword, it was about the family that hid behind his blade.

3. The "I really did want it, but, and I'm not sure how to say this nicely... you can't play it right" problem. I've had occasion recently to watch players come to flagged games, both mine and those run by other GMs, put down things that I know they really do want, only to watch them lose interest in them after a session or two. When asked about them they either pass it off as still being interesting (when it obviously isn't), or as some variation of the "I never was interested in that, I just put it down because..." defense. While some of these cases are people not knowing what it was they wanted, other times are pretty patently a case of the GM not being able to give them what they wanted. Obviously communication could help clear this up many times, but when dealing with things like romantic love flags and a GM who doesn't know the inner deeps of how you view love, you're going to have times when a GM just cannot give the player something that feels right. Usually, the solution I've found best for this is somethign like the TSOY version where you can dump one key and buy another -- letting you get out of situations you've come to find unfun.

[Bankuei]

Hi Brand,

Usually, the solution I've found best for this is somethign like the TSOY version where you can dump one key and buy another -- letting you get out of situations you've come to find unfun.

Having the option and ability to change Flags is key.  Especially the longer term play you're aiming for.  Probably a good set of "training wheels" for getting players to recognize what's happening is to discuss informally what's going on as far as the GM decision making...  "I want to do a scene introducing the problems with your sister, since we haven't done that yet, how's that sound?" with the intent no so much to listen to the response- but to listen to the attitude in the response to read how excited or not the person is.  And, to let the player know that you're using the Flags as the direct sign of how you're running the game. 

If you keep getting, "Meh." responses, then maybe stepping back and saying, "Hey, do you want to change this Flag?"  I find that the time to ask those sorts of questions is when the player is engaged in a conflict or situation, which may not have been related to their own.  For example, if another player is having a tense conflict and the Meh-player is getting engaged or interested in it, then you toss in, "Hey, want to change your flag to 'Hate this guy'?" or something similar.

Suddenly the player sees the door open on the thing they're interested in, that maybe they didn't realize they were interested in, and can jump in on it.  I've seen a player or two do this for each other, and I imagine if you had a group full of it, things would be very interesting indeed.

Chris

[Judd]

The other really valuable thing that flags and markers do is allow the GM to spot a problem during chargen with greater ease.

Last month I got into a vicious argument with one of my players whose conduct at the table I found lacking.  The argument turned into a My Guy Disconnect and a brutal round of e-mails that turned from a gaming argument to an argument that had nothing to do with gaming at all, tapping into something else, something really messed up deep in the friendship that I just hadn't known was there.

When I looked back at the Beliefs and Instincts he wrote down during chargen, I slapped my head and should have realized that they shouldn't have been allowed at the table; I should have asked him to shape them differently.

The friendship crap it devolved into had nothing to do with flags and markers.

But the My Guy Syndrome that the argument began with was right there in front of me in the Beliefs and Instincts on the character sheet.

Flags and markers = glowing neon signs of player intention.

[johnmarron]

But why not just have it tied to the system?

I say the following with a smile on my face and I'm not meaning any condescension: John, man, I don't getcha, really I don't.

Judd,
   No offense taken.  I understand that my preference for minimal mechanics is a bit unusual around here, and I don't set out to baffle you intentionally (honestly).

I think Emily was dead on about my reservations concerning mechanically incorporating flags when she talked about the presence of even more numbers and stats on the character sheet putting me off.  I appreciate the value of making Flags central to the game, having them right there on the sheet in front of god and everyone, and rewarding play that focuses on them, but I'm such a number-phobe that I shy away from expressing this in a non-narrative way.  That said, Emily's question: "The thing about having the markers not be anywhere on the char/resource sheet is that then, what goes there?", definitely struck a chord with me. 

A while back I read through the Decipher Lord of the Rings RPG.  I read over the sample characters they provided, and my eyes glazed over at the reams of numerically represented stats.  At the bottom of each character sheet was a paragraph of narrative description, and I thought to myself, "this is all I really need to protray or GM for this character".  For me, if I can get the players to put honest, thought-out Flags into that paragraph, I think I'll feel comfortable using that info to provide bangs.  Obviously, techniques to achieve this are part of the "system", I just don't want them to necessarily require bookkeeping or randomizing.

I'll give some thought to how to achieve narratively-expressed flags, and see if I can implement it in a game.  In the kind of system I'm envisioning, character "advancement" (really change) could take the form of adding and/or re-writing sentences of your character description.

John

[Judd]

John,

I feel like we are in danger of disagreeing just becaus we are on the internet here.

The following statement in particular I agree with:

A while back I read through the Decipher Lord of the Rings RPG.  I read over the sample characters they provided, and my eyes glazed over at the reams of numerically represented stats.  At the bottom of each character sheet was a paragraph of narrative description, and I thought to myself, "this is all I really need to protray or GM for this character".  For me, if I can get the players to put honest, thought-out Flags into that paragraph, I think I'll feel comfortable using that info to provide bangs.  Obviously, techniques to achieve this are part of the "system", I just don't want them to necessarily require bookkeeping or randomizing.

I'll give some thought to how to achieve narratively-expressed flags, and see if I can implement it in a game.  In the kind of system I'm envisioning, character "advancement" (really change) could take the form of adding and/or re-writing sentences of your character description.

John

What you just described isn't system-lite or rules that get out of your way.  What you just described is a solid idea for an RPG that you should get-a-crackin' on.

Kinda sounds like Heroquest, no?

But back to the topic at hand, I think having the player write a paragraph that isn't linked to the  game's mechanics is folly.  I'd imagine that you would get lots and lots of character history crap that had no bearing on where they wanted the game to go or what the player wanted to do with the character or see in the game.

But link it to the game so that when the paragraph changes, the character changes, that's a whole different ball-o-wax.

[Emily Care]

The problem is, the GM is then faced with a group of identically-formatted laundry list of potential Markers.  But then you have to play mind-reading games to figure out which of these Markers is live and wired in to the player's interests, and which is just sitting there, spun out by the player out of Simmish interest or, worse, dredged up in order to have a filled-out character sheet. 

In Adam Dray's Verge, you actually pick several traits and circle them in a given session to tell the GM what you want to deal with right now.  Such a simple fix.

Though if the player doesn't know either, then you're still in a pickle.  Seems like the system has to help you create or choose aspects & issues that will spark. That are dynamic.  People can also be interested in aspects of a character that keep them in stasis too.

best,
Em

[Michael S. Miller]

Hi, John. This bit stood out to me:

I appreciate the value of making Flags central to the game, having them right there on the sheet in front of god and everyone, and rewarding play that focuses on them, but I'm such a number-phobe that I shy away from expressing this in a non-narrative way.

How would you characterize a Kicker is Sorcerer? It's on the character sheet. It's got no numerical rating. It doesn't modify any dice rolls (and only triggers advancement rolls when it's "resolved"--an undefined term). It's generally written in a couple of sentences. Does this give you what you want?

I'm trying to figure out whether you're objecting to Flags tied to the dice system, or objecting to Flags tied to the capital-"S" System.

[RDU Neil]

Haven't posted here in years, but somebody directed me to this thread which is quite interesting.  I have a qusetion for you all...

While we don't use your terminology (Flags, Bangs, etc.) the concepts have filtered into our game play over the years.  The idea of "playing off the players" and taking what they give you in terms of positive reactions... tells... and GMing from that position... that is strong in our group... BUT... and here is the issue... I've seen what I would call a "lack of follow through" on the part of players that is quite disruptive to the group.  Basically, the player is "into" something for a session or so... which is currently driving the story arc... other players are into it as well, supporting and enjoying things in an audience kind of way... and then suddenly the next episode the player is "meh, whatever..." and lost all interest in the current story... leaving the game sputtering and the GM and players rather put off. 

So many posts on here seem to talk about GM responsibility to working to the player Flags... but what about player responsibility to see the story through... to be responsible for the enjoyment of others at the table, not just their own... to be willing to handle some player disappointment in things that don't play out EXACTLY as they want... essentially taking the bad with the good which is just a fact of life... gaming or real.

Maybe I'm missing it, but where does the player responsibility come in this?  The players need to commit to stepping up and soldiering on through the "meh" moments to find the true bangs later.  This doesn't mean every sessions/episode should be a slog (That is a clear sign of dysfunction in the game.) but a single episode could be in the context of a larger, long term arc that really explores what they enjoy. 

I guess the question is, don't you feel that individual players have responsibility to the positive experience of the group as a whole, and not just to their own short terms whims?  (Again, I could be misreading, but I just haven't seen anything about player responsibility... just GM responsibility.)

Example: 

[johnmarron]

I'm trying to figure out whether you're objecting to Flags tied to the dice system, or objecting to Flags tied to the capital-"S" System.

Michael,

 I'm objecting (purely for my own tastes and desires) to Flags tied to the dice system.  I think I'm looking for Flags that work under capitol-"S" System without necessarily being tied into resolution or reward rules.  I think Sorcerer kickers are a good example of what I'm looking for.  I love the idea of TROS SA's as Flags, but hate the crunchiness of the rest of the system.

   Judd and I have had discussions recently in which I state my preference as being for rules that "get out of the way", which he pretty strongly disagrees with.  I think I need to give some more thought to what experience I'm trying to get out of a game, and try to write a system that gives me that experience.  Judd has basically thrown down the gauntlet a few times recently (in a nice, supportive way, of course), and said "put up or shut up".

   I'll try to get something on paper that keeps things as narratively described and non-numeric as I want while definitely and clearly spelling out the need, function, and implementation during play of Flags.

John

[Judd]

  I guess the question is, don't you feel that individual players have responsibility to the positive experience of the group as a whole, and not just to their own short terms whims?  (Again, I could be misreading, but I just haven't seen anything about player responsibility... just GM responsibility.)

Example: 

Neil, I was sorry to see that your example got cut off.

Yes, I think everyone at the table has Flag Responsibilities.  They have a responsibility to follow their flags with gusto and a responsibility to pursue those flags in ways that are still fun for the rest of the table.

That is tremendously important and not to be taken lightly.  Flags can be a real excuse for My Guy behavior, where a player acts like an ass and points to their character sheet, to an SA or Belief in order to show why they did as they did.

But the sudden lack of interest would seem to be almost a symptom of something else at hand.  I wonder if that isn't worthy of its own AP thread to examine what is going on there.

Thanks for chiming in.

[David Chunn]

Hi, John.

Like Judd, I really don't get the minimalist thing sometimes. I only understand part of it. To me, it seems like you don't want to put numbers to the most important stuff. If having too many stats on a page is a problem, then the solution is to hardwire the Flags and drop all that other stuff. I mean, what's really important:  character abilities or character flags?  If I've got to choose between the two, I want Flags tied into the mechanics (and with numbers on them). Obviously, this a GNS sort of question. Sim may require more than just Flags, I guess.

For example, after looking over a character sheet from an old detailed game I played in, I can summarize all the skills, abilities, and what-not into the four Flag stats below. As a player, those are all I really needed because they are what I wanted to say with the character. I easily could have replaced all that other stuff with these. Stick a number on each, tie in a Humanity stat, provide a Life rating, and I'd be good. (I'd need to be able to shift them, of course.)

1. Own a whorehouse.
2. Heroic despite others' expectations.
3. Master the arts of necromancy.
4. Stay alive.

[johnmarron]

For example, after looking over a character sheet from an old detailed game I played in, I can summarize all the skills, abilities, and what-not into the four Flag stats below. As a player, those are all I really needed because they are what I wanted to say with the character. I easily could have replaced all that other stuff with these. Stick a number on each, tie in a Humanity stat, provide a Life rating, and I'd be good. (I'd need to be able to shift them, of course.)

1. Own a whorehouse.
2. Heroic despite others' expectations.
3. Master the arts of necromancy.
4. Stay alive.

David,

   That's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for, but I don't see the need to "stick a number on each".  The only thing I might need in addition to your list is some indication of how important each item is to the player, at the moment.  Maybe just have the player list their Flags in priority order, and be able to drop, add, or change the order of Flags at will?

John

[Emily Care]

So many posts on here seem to talk about GM responsibility to working to the player Flags... but what about player responsibility to see the story through... to be responsible for the enjoyment of others at the table, not just their own... to be willing to handle some player disappointment in things that don't play out EXACTLY as they want... essentially taking the bad with the good which is just a fact of life... gaming or real.

Part of what a flag does is that it gives everyone the information about what the player wants to deal with, specifically, with their character.  The rest of the rules say who gets to/has to follow up on that.  Some games spread that all around, look at Primetime Adventures. The character's issue is the quintisenntial flag.  From this, everyone at the table has the opportunity, power & responsibility to follow up via scene framing, conflict resolution and awarding & use of fan mail. 

In Dogs in the  Vineyard, the players are the ones who do most of the work bringing the tagged & flagged issues into play.  The GM gives you a situation that your character will not & cannot ignore, and then you bring to bear the loaded barrels you've put into your character via the narration you give for raises & sees in conflicts. 

And in both these games, it is the GM's responsibility to keep everyone on target, to provide appropriate adversity so that the issues and aspects folks have chosen will sizzle not fizzle. 

I guess the question is, don't you feel that individual players have responsibility to the positive experience of the group as a whole, and not just to their own short terms whims?

Now that's an interesting question, and may be a good candidate for AP discussion. Techniques can be designed to give players the tools to author their compelling stories, but how are they wedded together & what kind of long-term commitment do they impel people to make?

best,
Em