Creating the Scenario with the Character Sheets in Front of Me

[David Chunn]

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". 

John

John,

In that particular example the numbers would be on the Flags and nowhere else. Those four flags plus Life and Humanity would be the only things on the character sheet. Without numbers on them, we'd be left with diceless play (or numberless at least). I'm just trying to give an example of numerical flags coupled with minimalist design.

[RDU Neil]

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 think I find the bolded phrase above to be the most problematic.  What is "appropriate adversity" is never as simple as it sounds.  Who determines the level of appropriate?  If the player is put out by what the GM provides, is the GM supposed to change to appease the player?  Player goes with the GM?  Who makes the call?  

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?

I think this is tied in to the above... in that I just assumed that putting down your Flags comes with a long term commitment to both the positive and negative ramifications of those Flags in play... that the player would accept "adversity" as part of their character story.  Clearly my assumption is not universal.  To Jon Hasting's comment at the top of pg. 2, the player may have the desire to play out "what is on their character sheet" but the execution of that is infinite, and unlikely that the player and GM are thinking the exact same thing.  When the inevitable "that's not how I wanted it to play out" moment comes... it is not so much a matter of the player saying he'd like to change the priority of the character Flags, or change the Flags all together... often it is "chuck the whole character and the game because it's not working anymore" mentality.  

In other words... where is the room for error?  When does the player cut the GM some slack when things don't play out perfectly?  Can we have a commitment to get back on track without drastically shifting the focus of the game on a player's whim (which only becomes a greater issue with more players at the table).  Creativty within boundaries should also reflect shifting Flags within boundaries... player's should have a holistic sense of the game and play within those boundaries as much as the GM should use those boundaries to "keep everyone on target."  

[Brand_Robins]

I think I find the bolded phrase above to be the most problematic.  What is "appropriate adversity" is never as simple as it sounds.  Who determines the level of appropriate?  If the player is put out by what the GM provides, is the GM supposed to change to appease the player?  Player goes with the GM?  Who makes the call?  [/qupte]

Simple answer: group as a whole.

More complex answers I'm going to want some more actual play to talk about. Going off the cliff into ultimate abstraction may not help us here.

Anyone got stories of when the "appropriate adversity" didn't work out? (I know you do, now spill!)

Creativty within boundaries should also reflect shifting Flags within boundaries... player's should have a holistic sense of the game and play within those boundaries as much as the GM should use those boundaries to "keep everyone on target." 

That's a large part of what Chris and I were saying above -- the ability to shift flags (and emphasis on flags) durring play is an important part of the process. If you get flags that you're stuck with forever and ever it can suck bad. But if you can get rid of or change your flags in various ways, then it lets you open a communication channel with the GM.

I have an AP example of this one. In an Exalted game I was GMing I had a player who had a massive Valor score (5, I think, which is as high as you can get as a mortal). As a result I was often hammering on the character's courage, putting her to the task about "will you stand up to this? for this? what about that? for which? what about when it costs this? when that?" The player had a lot of fun with this, for a time, but eventually got tired of it and wanted a change. She wanted to dump down her Valor score and buy up her Compassion and start to have challenges related to love and peace -- basically doing an Asoka story. (Vicious warrior king becomes compassionate Buddhist monk king, for those without the India fascination.)

So one day we're about to start playing, people are spending their Xp, and the player says to me, "How much does it cost to raise Compassion" and I say "X amount." Then she makes a face, looks at her sheet, and says, "And how much can I sell off dots for?" I am at this point not paying attention and say, "You can't, really. The system doesn't allow for that." So she unhappily sets about raising her Compassion, about half as much as she wanted to, and leaves her Valor really high. As a result, I start pounding on her Valor again.

She isn't so happy with the game, but luckily focuses her anger on the system rather than me. We're talking about game later and suddenly she's saying how much she hates the Exalted system – which is really new for her. So I start asking why, and she gets into the inflexibility of stats and the XP system and such. I say something about charms and game balance, and she snaps, "No idiot, I mean in the... the... author stance things that make the game run Nar!" This from a woman who had been pretty hostile to the whole talk of Nar and stances and such.

We finally figure out what is what, and I let her sell off Valor 2 to 1 for Compassion, and she resets her sheet the way she wants. I look at her new stats and then start to hammer on her Compassion. She is happy. I am happy. Yay.

This is why I have a growing fondness for games that have ways to mess with your "flags" in a more free manner. Be it Burning Wheel's trait votes, With Great Power's ability to shift your focus attribute between games, or Shadow of Yesterday's keys, the ability to move those things around is a key element in keeping the channels of communication open.

[mneme]

I think it's worth noting that OTE, out of the box, is a very flag-central system (in fact, IIRC, the GMing advice does include paying attention to the "flag" aspects of the characters).

What helps a lot there, of course, is that there are -so- few aspects to the characters (3 traits, with the extra markers "central" and "superior" to help further determine the flag-importants, plus a flaw, a "most important person", a secret, and signs for the traits and flaw) that it's harder to accidentally mask out information (like the above example, where the player took a lot of combat schticks because they wanted not to lose combats, not because they wanted to -fight- lots of combats) -- a player who's taking a combat trait "just in case" probably won't slap "central" or "superior" onto it, and if they do, will likely add enough other flavor to make it at least -somewhat- clearer what they mean.

That said, making sure the -players- are aware of this aspect of negotiation is very important, for obviosu reasons.

I think this is particularly important in low Point of Contact Sim (like, say, almost every game I play that isn't trying out a Forgey narr game), because this approach gives the players a good way of influencing the story and pushing it in the ways they're interested in without breaking out of "character space".

That said, what OTE didn't really provide was a way to shift your flags around, though being the kind of player/GM I am, the solution is obvious "you can completely re-define your character between sessions as long as you run it past me -- no, really".  But there are groups for which this doesn't work as well, of course. (though a slower "aging" mechanic that involved shfiting characters around would work more or less the same way over the long run without opening things up to gamer abuse)

[Storn]

Simple answer: group as a whole.

ooh... good answer... one I was struggling to put into words.

I play with RDU Neil.  We co-gm.  Our styles are different, but not incompatible. 

I was the one who was excited about Stakes and Intents, Burning Wheel and I pointed to a couple of recent threads to the various GMs in our 2 and 1/2 gaming groups.

And yet I couldn't articulate to my satisfaction WHY I was geeked about Stakes and Intent. 

But the above answer nails it for me.  Stakes can create investment for everyone at the table.  If we are all interested in the "Vampire getting Bearded in his lair" then everyone is paying attention, everyone is contributing... even if it is with quiet,tacit aproval of the Stakes being set between GM and Player X.

I've sorta said this elsewhere.... but I thinking the Refusal of a particular Stake is as much meat for me as a GM as the acceptence.  That is what I look forward to as a GM.  Also, that prompt of coming up with the Stake forcing me as a GM to be more clear about HOW i'm percieving the current situation.  Always a good thing to strive for.  How can Players make informed choices if their GM is vague?

Hmmmm.... Informed Choice.   That is what excites the Player side of me.

[Brendan]

Simple answer: group as a whole.

More complex answers I'm going to want some more actual play to talk about. Going off the cliff into ultimate abstraction may not help us here.

Anyone got stories of when the "appropriate adversity" didn't work out? (I know you do, now spill!)

Here's one, in which I as GM failed to provide sufficient adversity (as opposed to excessive adversity).  I ran an intro conflict for a player in my new Dogs game; his statement was "I hope I kick some demon ass!"  (Supernatural meter here set pretty high, obviously.)

Mistake one:  I said "okay, so the stakes are whether you kick his ass," and forgot to set up a good opposition stake (eg "... and if you fail, he tattoos his name on the back of your neck").

We set it up that his Dog was out in the desert as a final test of his training, fasting and praying for four days.  On the fourth, he saw a man walk out of the shimmering heat in an all-white coat and kindly offer him a canteen (raise 13).  He had to take that blow and accept the canteen, netting a little fallout, but then we looked down at our pools and it was clear that he (with 9d6) had simply outrolled me (with my 4d6 + 4d10).

The Dog asked the demon his name; the demon hesitated and stumbled, then made scorpions boil out of the canteen.  The Dog threw it down and abjured him to leave in the name of the King.  The demon stepped forward, and--I was out of dice.  He turned to sand and blew away in a gust of wind.

Mistake two:  I had encouraged the player to tie every verbal sally to a raise or see, instead of letting him insert a little small talk before pushing the dice forward.  We used up our dice so fast that we didn't even get to a real fight, where the player clearly wanted to go.  When we wrapped up the session shortly after, we both acknowledged that we felt disappointed by his intro.

The lesson, obviously, is to take a better cue from the big fat Flag the player planted with "kick a demon's ass"--I should have had a possessed mountain lion jump him, or something, not a kindly stranger just talking.  The second lesson is to trust the person on each side of the system to state what's mechanical and what isn't, instead of prompting "is that a see?  Is that a raise?"

The same night, we had a much better intro revolving around whether a Dog who had a 2d4 relationship with Lust would resist the temptation of a mild-mannered lady of negotiable affection.  Even after bringing multiple Traits and Belongings into play (he threatened her with an axe!), he couldn't match my rolls, and took 8d4 Fallout before he gave.  Everybody loved it.  The difference:  I hit his Flag (lust / temptation / maternal abandonment issues) square on, and he was ready for and expecting their loaded conversation to be the meat of the conflict.

[RDU Neil]

But the above answer nails it for me.  Stakes can create investment for everyone at the table.  If we are all interested in the "Vampire getting Bearded in his lair" then everyone is paying attention, everyone is contributing... even if it is with quiet,tacit aproval of the Stakes being set between GM and Player X.

The above is where I think we have to be careful.  Assuming that one player choosing to set Stakes interests or demands the investment of everyone at the table.  This could be true, but just as often not.  That tacit approval could actually be somone to shy to speak up or just not caring.  We can't assume that Stakes will drive player involvement any more than task resolution and "oooh he missed his roll, what does the GM have happen?" drives player interaction.

Also, that prompt of coming up with the Stake forcing me as a GM to be more clear about HOW i'm percieving the current situation.  Always a good thing to strive for.  How can Players make informed choices if their GM is vague?

Hmmmm.... Informed Choice.   That is what excites the Player side of me.

Again, I would argue that it is not "always a good thing" to have clear Stakes vs. uncertainty.  They are both valuable commodities in a game.  See my thread on Stakes before Sim...   Dramatic, involved games have tension... but where that tension is derived can be fun or uncomfortable depending on the situation and player preferences.  By saying "Informed Choice" excites you, you are indicating that you prefer Stakes Tension compared to Uncertainty Tension.

Old school, all task resolution games/systems focus almost entirely on Uncertainty Tension.  That is probably not where we want to be, but task resolution, GM determined uncertainty results still have a place in the game, and can be preferred by players over Stakes, depending on the situation or preference.  You point on refusing the stakes says, to me, that the situation would not go away... it would return to the default position of Task Resolution = Uncertainty.

Example:  A player wants their character to enter the fray by swinging on the chandolier with such amazing grace and aplomb that not only do they get a typical combat advantage, but they win the hearts of the ladies and the admiration of the men for their daring do!   As a GM, I reply... ok... but if you fail the task... it may hurt your combat situation a bit, but win or lose the fight the charater is humiliated... utterly a laughing stock for many adventures to come."     Thus, the player can choose to go ahead or say, "Man, the idea of role playing out being a laughing stock just sounds totally unfun... I retract my Stakes."   With that, the situation returns to "task resolution"... simply make your Acrobatics roll and see what happens in terms of tactical combat and uncertainty tension.

It shouldn't be an "either/or" proposition.

[Storn]

Assuming that one player choosing to set Stakes interests or demands the investment of everyone at the table.  This could be true, but just as often not.  That tacit approval could actually be somone to shy to speak up or just not caring.  We can't assume that Stakes will drive player involvement any more than task resolution and "oooh he missed his roll, what does the GM have happen?" drives player interaction.

True, they might not care or be shy.... but I wouldn't place a bet on it. 

If I engage your character on "saying yes to a pretty face, at least for the first time"... you SHOULD be invested in it because you wrote it down.  The group should be invested because they agreed and allowed you to write it down (as this happened in a Burning wheel Chargen session recently).  (btw, I totally agree that these Flags/Markers will and should evolve with the characters).

In Riddle of Steel.... you get extra dice when tackling those issues that you wrote down.  In Burning Wheel, you get Artha (Hero/Fate/Luck) pts.

And this is why this tough to discuss these in a Hero game context.  The "Flags", ie, Disadvantages.... Limitations are couched in such mechanical format that often they are forgotten, ignored or taken for points rather than to be Flags.  And since Hero System doesn't support a Reward for :

Example:  A player wants their character to enter the fray by swinging on the chandolier with such amazing grace and aplomb that not only do they get a typical combat advantage, but they win the hearts of the ladies and the admiration of the men for their daring do!   As a GM, I reply... ok... but if you fail the task... it may hurt your combat situation a bit, but win or lose the fight the charater is humiliated... utterly a laughing stock for many adventures to come."     Thus, the player can choose to go ahead or say, "Man, the idea of role playing out being a laughing stock just sounds totally unfun... I retract my Stakes."

They might be less likely to go with the Stakes.  Its Carrot and Stick that integrates into the whole system.  In BW, IF being dashing is part of my Flags or BITs... Hey win, lose or draw, I'm getting an Artha pt for jumping into the fray in the most flashy way I can think of.  A pt that might save my butt down the line.  So I'm more inclined to accept the Stakes... after all.... I was the one who wanted to be Flashy and Daring.  Also, by blowing some Artha after the humiliation, I might be able to redeem things.... that cute seamstress to the Queen thinking my tripping down the stairs was cute in a heroic, but in a terribly clumsy way.

In Riddle of Steel, the odds are skewed slightly in my favor, because I'm getting extra dice for being a show-off in a dangerous situation.

This is where I want the Informed Choice.  The tension isn't gone.  It is heightened.  Do I take the bet?  Do I attempt to be dashing?  Also, I've gotten a window on how you are going to rule... not an assumption on my part.  If you rule this in a session of Feng Shui, I would go "WTF, Feng Shui is ALL about doing the chandalier".  Or, if I withdraw at this point... I don't want to accept my character being a laughing stock.... that is cool too.  Because it means that the player realized that maybe he isn't as flashy and daring as he thought he was.

And maybe, just maybe, someone else at the table resets the Stakes.  I'm gonna be dashing, going into combat with abolmb... but it now is all for show.  I'm gonna jack up my DCV, I'm going to not really attack anyone... and all the "real" fighters will know that I'm not pressing the attack, but the peanut gallery is going to "oooh" and "ahhhh".... can I get a bonus for my Acrobatics now?

I would argue that it is not "always a good thing" to have clear Stakes vs. uncertainty.  They are both valuable commodities in a game.  See my thread on Stakes before Sim...   Dramatic, involved games have tension... but where that tension is derived can be fun or uncomfortable depending on the situation and player preferences.  By saying "Informed Choice" excites you, you are indicating that you prefer Stakes Tension compared to Uncertainty Tension.

Well, for one thing, I'm not advocating setting Stakes all the time.  So, strike the "always a good thing" from my end. 

But I do think I prefer Stakes Tension.  It allows, IMO, for MORE DRAMA, not less.  Sure, I like the tales that dice tell.... but I also like tailoring when and how those dice are important.  Both as player and as GM.   It allows for more minds, more ideas driving the story.  Hey, you know me, I might be playing and suggest the Stakes for another player, not the GM. 

What I like about BW's BITS is that Players can craft situations for each other, it doesn't all come down to the GM.  And that cooperative storytelling is taken to another level then. 

Hero started this ball rolling with the mere idea of Disadvantages waaaaay back when.  But I think it needs some thought to incorporate what we've learned (and things we might want to experiment with later) into it mechanically.

[Josh Roby]

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

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for, but I don't see the need to "stick a number on each".

That would allow you to roleplay the character, sure.  Would it allow you to collaboratively roleplay with other players who have interests that might be antagonistic to your own?  Generally speaking, the attached numbers turn a description of a character into an inventory of player credibility methods.  If I was playing the aforementioned necromantic whorehouse owner and I wanted to kill an abusive john in order to summon a demon to find out some information that I don't have, how do we determine whether or not I get said information?

[Brand_Robins]

Guys, we're starting to drift this thread pretty heavily with our talk of Stakes. We've got another thread about it right here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18092.0 -- perhaps we should talk about stakes there?

Or heck, at this point I think we could spin off multiple new threads. The stuff is worth it, lets get it its own threads where it can shine.

[Adam Dray]

This is all about getting from Character to Situation. Traditionally, it's been the realm of the GM to figure out how the fuck to do that, and game texts haven't been helpful. Flags aren't enough. The other players need to know why you're waving that flag and what you hope to get out of play with it.

Giving some or all scene-framing power to the players is the other critical component. PtA lets you say, "I want a scene about X" and the GM/Producer frames the scene accordingly. Other games give more power to the players but the complaint is that it spoils immersion, whatever that is. ;) I think the scene-request style in PtA is a nice compromise.

Ideally -- say I, at first blush -- the scenario (Situation) should create itself from the character sheets and a simple process everyone can follow. But then I look at Dogs in the Vineyard and wonder if that's true there. I think it is. Town creation is a Setting process. The Situation is where Setting and Character clash. Dogs cleverly handles the Character --> Situation problem by putting it all in the hands of the players. Dump the Characters in the Setting and as players learn stuff they start reacting and Situation just happens. The rules are all about making sure nothing happens to prevent that ("Don't play God," etc.). But does Dogs use flags at all? I don't think so. I don't think the GM is really looking at the character sheets for things to push into the Situation. The GM is looking at the Situation to find ways to escalate to new Situations. The player brings in the things he cares about (traits) via dice mechanics. I think Dogs is a great example of a game that works without flags. Would it be a better game if there was a way for the GM to trigger more Situation involving a character's traits? I dunno, and I won't presume to improve a game that good.

[Brand_Robins]

But then I look at Dogs in the Vineyard and wonder if that's true there.

Dogs has flags, they just aren't as strong or direct as those in other games. Relationships and traits often tell the GM something about the kinds of choices players are going to want to make. For example, in my online Dogs game there is a female character who has a relationship with another woman that is set at something like "The girl that wanted me to stay with her" and is explained as the Dog's (chaste) love that the character fled from because she wasn't sure how to deal with her feelings in the context of her faith.

You'd best believe that every other town or so I'm a gonna be putting some love between women trouble into the town, somewhere. Same deal with the character with the huge "argue scripture" traits -- someone in every town is going to end up bringing up scripture to try to convince the Dogs they are wrong.

However, you're very right that those flags aren't the same thing as TSOY keys or BW BTIs. That, however, is because there is one flag that is alway the same in Dogs: the trait/relationship "I'm a Dog" that interacts with the setting "Town Full of Sin." That is an inevitable explosion every time.

Dogs is very focused, very narrow in its approach. You know what the situation will be in every single game. You know what the characters relationship to that situation is every single game. So it still has those flags -- its just that the flags are preset. In TSOY or BW, otoh, you don't know the situation of every single game nor the relationship of every single PC to every single situation -- so you need more obvious, explicit, and flexible flags to get the same ability to create tension. Dogs does it by presetting things (Mountain Witch too, I guess), the other games do it by giving players the ability to set things themselves.

This also becomes a circular prosses as you go on. Dogs come into those preset situations, pick up fallout and do judgement and the GM watches what fallout they take and what judgements they make. He then pushes on those. Every judgement you make in Dogs is a kind of flag: because its a signal to the GM "push this issue harder in the next town." It's just that the flag comes up in play, in that fruitful void at the center of Dogs, rather than beign on the character sheet. I'd say that's fitting, and works, because in the end it isn't a Character Flag. It is a Player Flag.

[Bankuei]

Hi,

Dogs' flags come in two ways- Stakes & Fallout.  A player arguing for "Do we kill him?" vs. "Do we redeem him?" are saying something right to the GM's face.  Fallout also tends to flag things because players will add or change Traits, Relationships, etc. that matter- the ones they don't care about tend to stay the same.

Chris

[Josh Roby]

Adam, that link to the individual characters is the one thing that I find missing from the superlative Town Creation rules in Dogs.  As Brand points out, the GM can plan Towns in accordance with what's on character sheets (although that's a Good GM technique not specified in the Town Creation procedure), the "I'm a Dog" is always relevant, and the GM is directed to watch player judgments and push them in the next town.  And it works, sure, but I'm looking forward to the next step as you lay out, a specific procedure (like Dogs) that creates the Situation directly off of player input / character sheets.  Shock: does this; FLFS does this.  I believe PtA does this, but I think the gaming gods do not want me to play that game.

In any case, I want to see the procedure go:

Player Preferences -> Character Sheet -> Premise -> Situation Creation -> Scene Framing -> Roleplay

The straighter that arrow, the more on-target the game experience (I suspect).

[Adam Dray]

I don't mean to pick on Brand, but I clicked "Quote" on his post. This applies to what Chris said, too.

Dogs has flags, they just aren't as strong or direct as those in other games. Relationships and traits often tell the GM something about the kinds of choices players are going to want to make. For example, in my online Dogs game there is a female character who has a relationship with another woman that is set at something like "The girl that wanted me to stay with her" and is explained as the Dog's (chaste) love that the character fled from because she wasn't sure how to deal with her feelings in the context of her faith.

I don't buy that those are flags. They're traits and the player uses them to express what he wants, but they're not signals to the GM and nothing in the system tells the GM to use them to create specific situations for the characters.

This also becomes a circular prosses as you go on. Dogs come into those preset situations, pick up fallout and do judgement and the GM watches what fallout they take and what judgements they make. He then pushes on those. Every judgement you make in Dogs is a kind of flag: because its a signal to the GM "push this issue harder in the next town." It's just that the flag comes up in play, in that fruitful void at the center of Dogs, rather than beign on the character sheet. I'd say that's fitting, and works, because in the end it isn't a Character Flag. It is a Player Flag.

Are we labeling anything that generates Situation as a "flag" now? I don't think that's useful. A flag is something written on the character sheet by one player that guides other players towards certain kinds of play. Yes, the stuff in play is a "kind of flag" but it isn't what we've been discussing here at all. Is the fact that Bobby bought a Camaro a kind of flag? Yeah, but it isn't what we mean when we talk about flags and markers here.

Fallout could be a flag, but only if the GM pays attention. I daresay that sometimes, the GM doesn't know what the player wrote for Fallout until it comes up as a trait in a conflict later. A better flagging mechanic would be more explicit about getting this information into the hands of the GM.

Yes, the Dogs rules explicitly tell the GM to push a player to a conflict, get her to pass judgment, then say "really? what about this?" and escalate, escalate, escalate. I don't think any of that has anything to do with flags. I brought up Dogs as an example of a game that works just fine without "flags," as we've been using the term. I don't think there's an RPG out there that works without using some "kind of a flag" -- i.e., signals or communication between players.

A good flagging mechanic requires the players to signal what they want, tells them how to do it, provides procedure for getting this information into the hands of the people who can use it, and requires (and probably rewards) the other players to use it.