(Champions/Hero) Stakes before Sim...

[RDU Neil]

So... been playing Champions/Hero since 1st Edition.  Come a long way over the last 25 years... but still find the core task resolution, combat system to be the most flexible and effective for what kind of games I like.   That being said, even at it's 5th Edition Revised status... this is still a System that is old school, early '80s based... Nar mechanics and such like Outcome Resolution (not just task resolution) just aren't part of it.  To me, though... Hero is plenty flexible to allow for "bolt on" constructs that provide this missing functionality.  I took Fate Chips from Deadlands and modified them into a Luck Chit system for Hero that is much more a metagame mechanic for player/Story interaction than a character level mechanic for number and dice.  It works fabulously.

Stakes are another matter.  I like the idea of "intent" being key (Not just "I'm trying to kick down the door" but "I want my character to just blow through this door to demonstrate his power over things that would top an normal man!") and that has become part of our game.  Don't just way WHAT you are trying to do, but WHY you are trying to do it.  Stakes... as much as I can figure out from posts here... take that to a new level.  Setting very clear "IF X then Y" outcomes.  I find this to be rather stark and unsettling from an "in play" experience... and I think I know why.

As GM... I still want to be surprised.  I still want to see a dice roll happen... and THEN, figure out in plot/theme/Story terms how it plays out.  More so... I still want that Sim aspect (most often in combat or other task res situations) in terms of "I don't know how this will play out... let's see... and the outcome could very well turn on a simple success or failure of a task resolution that didn't seem significant until AFTER the scene played out as a whole."

I hope this is making sense, but essentially... I don't want to have a X or Y option set ahead of time... because I see an outcome as a series of connected task resolutions... not a single resolution.

That being said... I do think Stakes have a place... but I see them more in a broad sense.   Instead of "I beard the vampire in it's lair... win or lose" but "If you choose to pursue the vampires into their own lair, understand that we are entering a Sim arena.  Once combat starts, we are going to let the tasks play out to whatever conclusion takes place... which we will then adjust and continue the game/theme/Story using those results as a springboard."    Essentially, the Stakes are hidden... but from everyone, because we won't know how successful or catestrophic the scene turns out to be until it plays out.  Still there are stakes... players know they could "lose" and that negative repercussions will occur.  Essentially, Stakes are broadly set right before they kick open the door... but after than, we kind of Sim the combat out, then figure out repercussions as a group afterwards.

My question and or point being... is this a legitimate use of the concept of "Stakes"... one that I think is flexible and adjustable for even an old system like Hero... and does anyone else do anything similar?

I can give a perfect example of an in game situation of this if needed... but I'm trying to get a feel for whether anyone considers it acceptable to mingle Nar like Stakes with Sim-like task resolution... or am I bastardizing things in an ugly, unnecessary way.

[Brand_Robins]

Everyone else can come on and give you the proper answer with their smarty-brains, but I can tell you how I use these kinds of things.

I used to only call it "stakes" when I'm doing some kind of conflict (rather than task) resolution. In task resolution the stakes are often harder to nail down, as the assumed result is simply "you fail at what you're trying to do." However even in task resolution there can be some stakes set. The most obvious example that comes to mind is the "What happens if you fail your jump roll to jump from the roof of one building to the roof of another in the middle of a fight?" That's a task, right? And yet, there can be a lot of friction over what happens if you fail. Do you fall the whole distance while your enemy shoots at you? Do you stop just at the edge of the building without making the jump? Do you get to make an acrobatics check to grab the ledge of the opposite building and pull yourself up while being shot at? Do you make it anyway because the GM doesn't want you to die?

A lot of this stuff is handled by the rules in some games (Spycraft 2.0 is really damn clear about what happens on failed Jump checks), and by the social contract in many others. However, because it often comes down to "whatever I'm thinking at the moment, which you may not be thinking at the moment" there can be confusion. There can also be negation of player choice -- if they fail the roll and you (GM) save their ass anyway, well then there wasn't even a task being attempted -- just an empty roll.

So in that sense stakes can be set for even task resolution. Having a clear idea of what actually happens when you succede and fail can be a very good thing, and avoid the whole "but I wouldn't have jumped over the gap if I knew I would fall into the uranium stockpile!" argument.

In many games I also do something like you talk about with the meta-scene framing. I call it setting the stage, and I use it to let players know what they are risking in this scene. I find it makes a big difference to say something along the lines of "if you lose this fight, all you're risking is being put in a death trap" before a scene than if I say "if you lose this fight you are risking death." Players will use different tactics, fight more or less hard to win, and so on depending on how they feel about that general sense of expectation. I don't set what will happen for sure, win or lose, ahead of time -- but I do give them some sense of what is being risked.

[RDU Neil]

Actually, your post, Brand, and others I've been reading sparked a thought on how to address my own question.

Would it be legitimate to say that...

"Conflict Resolution (something I've called Outcome Resolution) = Stakes tension"

"Task Resolution = Uncertainty tension."


That the unspoken (in many cases) social contract of Task Resolution is that the player is allowing the GM to make the call on what happens... but arguments (as you noted) come up because players don't realize that they've agreed to this, thus argue about the "plutonium pile." 

Thus the addition of Stakes is really allowing the PLAYER to say, "I'm not comfortable with uncertainty, I want a clear thematic/Story choice with clear stakes at this point."  This takes the game into a different realm for that scene or event.

Now, clearly this interpretation is coming from my own experience, biased to decades long Hero playing (other systems as well, but Hero primarily) so that I see the Task Res = Uncertainty as the default position of the game... with ConRes = Stakes being the "special situation" position.  Others, I'm sure, could say that a game can be Stakes based by default.  I'm not comfortable with that, but I'd certainly accept it as legitimate.

To my mind... the division I set above is very much appropriate as a "bolt on" to Hero or other games.  If the group is comfotable with Uncertainty as default... you only need an appropriate metagame mechanic to allow for a clear "we are stepping into Stakes territory" communication... IMO one that limits the number of times you can do this as a player (GM could propose Stakes whenever) so that the players treat Stakes moments as precious commodities.

hmmmm... I think I like this a lot... and your input above really helped clarify something for me.  Thanks again, Brand.

[Brand_Robins]

I have talked to Sim players and GMs in the past who have put forward the idea that in a lot of Nar and Gamist play, people roll dice when they want to take control of the game for their character/story, but that in some (only SOME) Sim play you roll to give up control of the character/story. Sometimes this leads to GM fiat and/or ouija boarding issues -- but sometimes it does so in a functional way because it is what people want.

So, if you want to follow the logic of that, I'd ask where it leads you? If you're rolling for uncertainty, then in times when players do not want to be uncertain do you still make them roll? Or do you set stakes when they want to know the possible results, but not set stakes when they want to be surprised?

For example, in my ongoing Truth and Justice game I have once or twice had a player say to me, "I need to win this. I don't want to roll, I just want to win and move on." We've worked out a system where I allow this, and in exchange get a black chip – which I can cash in later for a "you lose, no roll, just lose" later in the game. When she wants to win, she does, but knowing it will cost her a loss later on. When she wants to "see what happens" we roll the dice and use the system as normal. Believe it or don't, it works brilliantly with this group.

In the two year long Exalted game that I just finished running, there were several times where one player or another would step away from the general Nar stance of the game and say something along the lines of "I don't know what to do. I want to roll one of my virtues and figure it out." Often this was in response to another character attempting to manipulate them in one way or another, and for whatever reasons the players were happy to roll dice in order to give up control of the decision rather than stepping up and addressing premise by making the decision themselves. Sometimes this was a ouija board issue ("I really want to sleep with the hottie, but can't admit that to the group"), but other times it was because of two equally fun options that the character just couldn't decide between. To make it work we had to know – before the roll – what a win or loss meant. Without knowing that the roll was just random dice hitting the table ("I rolled 4 successes! What does that mean?" "I have no clue, I don't even know what you were rolling for...").

On the other hand, we would frequently end up in combats in which the task-by-task resolution was not clearly stake-set before the swing because we were just going with the flow of what happened and liked to surprise each other back and forth with our stunts. Because of the degree of cooperation this worked in the group, despite the fact that other points of the game could be very much based around using game to push stakes. It was, in fact, almost the opposite of a lot of RPGs – we pushed the plot with social and magical issues, and combat was the part where we just handwaved a lot because it wasn't so important to push there.

[RDU Neil]

I think it comes down to... as other's have put it... "Know what you are rolling for before you pick up the dice."  Thus the situation is quite issue specific as you describe above.

In a Hero example, there could be a variety of ways rolls could play out... most often with the "I missed the roll... what happens" falling into the uncertainty tension/GM decision mode.

I try to backflip over the attacker to make a surprise attack on them.  If they make the roll, rules clearly state a bonus.  If they miss the roll, rules got nothin' and the GM has to decide.  "You flip over, but land badly, stumbling backward so that you can't attack and your opponent can get first attack next phase!"  Often enough... with short term tactical results... this kind of thing happens all the time and no one notices the GM decision/giving up control aspect of the situation.

Or "I try to backflip over the attacker."  GM - "What do you hope to accomlish by this?"  Player - "I want to get the drop on them, getting my sword at their neck so that if they move, they risk death!"  Ok... suddenly we are in stakes territory.  The GM can counter with... "To do so will be a roll at -5, so you have a decent chance of failure, but get a huge bonus normally outside a simple acrobatics roll.  If you fail, though, the attacker gets a free shot... no to hit roll, just do damage as they reverse their sword so you land on it!"   Now you've got something warranting Stakes.

I could actually use a "I just win" chit mechanic like you promote above though I would require more than "I just win."

Example:  Last night we had two players tackle a coven of Vampires in their lair.  They did pretty well, killing a couple, avoiding others, then taking out one of the big bads before the rest could return home to confront them.  They then managed to crack the seal on a warded room, realeasing the truly Big Bad whom the rest of the vampires had trapped and would tap for power (their sire.)  I'd figured this might happen, and though beaten up a bit, likely the two PCs could have beaten the sire who was just as interested in punishing his progeny as taking out the heroes.  Then the dice struck.  One of the progeny made a suicide attack on a PC... and the dice went her way.  She rolled a natural critical hit (a 3 on 3d6, not all that common) and just tore him in half in one shot.  Suddenly the Big Bad only had one PC to face... and though he did his best (tricking the ancient one who'd never seen a gun into getting shot with three holy water bullets) it wasn't quite enough to finish the old guy off, and the last attack by the PC (a sword shot that could have been the finishing blow) missed due to bad tactics by the player and a bad roll.  All luck chits used up (for GM and players both) and we'd been simming this fight for the most part... but all of us realized that just killing off the heroes and saying, "You lose... big bad wins..." wasn't an appropriate story/theme/plot way to end it... so we left it on a cliff hanger with one PC bleeding out and another at the mercy of the ancient sire.   

To have a "I win" mechanic that could then be turned around for an "I lose later" mechanic would have worked here.  Or maybe it worked... it wasn't a perfect ending... but at the same time, to be able to just "I win" the big bad could have felt like a cheat.  I dunno.  Instead, my plan is to sit down with the players and say, "While your characters were left in a bad way... to put in mildly... I still see plot/story/theme ideas that could move forward.  What do you guys think?  Where do you want to go with this?"   Discuss options and player desires and story ideas... and then move ahead when we next play.  This is unstructured and without a mechanic... but it still gets at what we want at our table.  Intense, often gritty combat that can have unexpected and bad results... but not so much that players feel unsatisfied and character's go unfulfilled in theme/concept. 

Back to my original post... the players entered the fight with the knowledge that it was an extreme risk and not a guaranteed success... but the six or seven possible outcomes I now see possible in moving forward are more interesting (to me) than a Stakes bases win/lose two option concept that might have been used. 

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I think this topic isn't a Creative Agenda thing at all. I think it has to do strictly with how much of a given "series" of fictional events gets resolved by a given roll ... a scale thing.

Like you, I'm a Champions veteran from the way-back. I faded away from it in 1994 or so. And boy, do I know what you mean about having rolls be consequential. A lot of my goals with Sorcerer, for instance, were built from how we approached our rolling in Champs.

What I'd really like to see is that in-game account that you offered a couple posts back. I'd also like to see holding off on the Creative Agenda talk, at least for a while, because I really do think this is a Techniques discussion and not especially relevant to CA except in an internal way (one CA at a time, not comparative).

Best,
Ron

[RDU Neil]

Another example of Hero based rolls and whether they could be "Stakes" or "Uncertainty"

KS: Lore of Atlantis - Standard scenario... I have a 14-, I roll... 10!  Made it by four.  What do I find out?  (Now GM has the authorship of what they learn, based on how well the roll was made and where they want the info to lead.)

KS: Lore of Atlantis - Stakes scenario... I ha ve a 14-.  I want to find solid information on the deep origins of the Lemurian Snake Idol and it should tell me why Dr. Destroyer is so keen to get his hands on it!"  GM, "Ok, you get a -3, and if you miss the roll not only do you not find out the information, but you fall under an ancient curse that causes you to obsess and covet the idol yourself in the most paranoid state of mind!"

Now we have something very different.  I think both are appropriate, depending on the desires of the group and the situation in the game.  Getting comfortable with the idea of Stakes could allow characters to request "vague" stakes even, like, "We are going in after the Vampires... but if we lose, I don't want this to be the death of my character."  GM can counter with, "Ok, but if the risk is not so extreme, than if you win, the victory will not be clean or final!"   This is more of  a "win/win" type of situation, rather than "You fail if you lose.  More like, a negotiation of "If I get X that I want, you can have Y that you want."  THAT concept of stakes I'm much more comfortable with than a win/lose, zero sum game type of situation.

[RDU Neil]

Hiya,

I think this topic isn't a Creative Agenda thing at all. I think it has to do strictly with how much of a given "series" of fictional events gets resolved by a given roll ... a scale thing.

Like you, I'm a Champions veteran from the way-back. I faded away from it in 1994 or so. And boy, do I know what you mean about having rolls be consequential. A lot of my goals with Sorcerer, for instance, were built from how we approached our rolling in Champs.

What I'd really like to see is that in-game account that you offered a couple posts back. I'd also like to see holding off on the Creative Agenda talk, at least for a while, because I really do think this is a Techniques discussion and not especially relevant to CA except in an internal way (one CA at a time, not comparative).

Best,
Ron

This does get to what I was asking in some ways.  Is setting Stakes before a "series of events" and acceptable technique... or is it an inappropriate bastardization of what you expect.  My first and still main concern with Stakes is that at the extreme it can result in "GM - Ok... Dr. Destroyer has threatened to destroy the world."  Player "I roll to stop him."   Ok... entire adventure comes down to a single "1-3 you lose, 4-6 you win" roll.  That is the negative piece of Stakes I really have to overcome to be comfortable with the concept... and yes, this is a technique question.

We used to joke about that back in the day.  "Do you beat the monster?"  Roll a d6... YES!  "Do I get the gold?"  Roll a d6 No! Booo!  Do I get the girl?  Roll a d6... etc.   It was a funny running joke... but to be honest, the discussion of Conflict/Outcome Resolution and Stakes makes me think of this... and I'm honestly looking for techniques that would avoid reducing an RPG experience to that.

Was the scenario I painted above what you were looking for, Ron?

[RDU Neil]

Or to put it more succinctly...

"Is it appropriate to mix Stakes resolution and Taks resolution not only in the same game or session, but in the same scene or imagined event?"

[Supplanter]

For example, in my ongoing Truth and Justice game I have once or twice had a player say to me, "I need to win this. I don't want to roll, I just want to win and move on." We've worked out a system where I allow this, and in exchange get a black chip – which I can cash in later for a "you lose, no roll, just lose" later in the game. When she wants to win, she does, but knowing it will cost her a loss later on. When she wants to "see what happens" we roll the dice and use the system as normal. Believe it or don't, it works brilliantly with this group.

Makes perfect sense to me. Nor need it be necessarily Sim. "Dicing for defined stakes" and Narrativism aren't intrinsic to each other. I don't want to derail a Sim thread with a lot of Nar talk, but you've hit upon a sacrifice mechanic with a powerful potential for theme creation.

Instead it's worth talking about how stakes tension could support Sim. It can let both sponsors of the roll assure each other, in advance, that the outcome will reinforce the Dream - win or lose, the validity of the fiction and the character's place in it will be reinforced. It would be hell on immersive sim, but it could work for a more "birdseye" style, where players are comfortable standing in the same relation to their characters as the guys around a Drang Nacht Osten (sp?) board. And it's still tension, so people that like rolling dice will like it.

EDIT: Crossposting with Ron I see, whom I think I'm agreeing with about stakes creation as such being independent of CA: it can serve some slice any of them.

Best,


Jim

[Callan S.]

Hi Neil,

Simming the combat out then figuring out repurcussions as a group latter isn't like the stakes used in conflict resolution. Conflict resolution involves the group figuring out what a pass and fail will mean, then the dice decide if a pass or fail happen. Simming out the combat is rolling a bunch of dice, then the group may use that to varying degrees as a springboard to decide happens next. In this case rolling the dice is much like watching a scene in a movie, then hitting stop and the group instead decides what happens next, in their collective imaginations. Basically the dice don't resolve anything, they just provide inspiration. In conflict resolution, they definiately resolve stuff!

That the unspoken (in many cases) social contract of Task Resolution is that the player is allowing the GM to make the call on what happens... but arguments (as you noted) come up because players don't realize that they've agreed to this, thus argue about the "plutonium pile." 

The player doesn't realise they've agreed to this? I think what can happen is that you agree to a paradoxical statement - the impossible thing before breakfast. Where the player just controls his character and the GM controls the story. It's not something anyone can actually agree to - the plutonium arguement shows this, rather than showing a player who's somehow forgetting what he's agreed to.

Thus the addition of Stakes is really allowing the PLAYER to say, "I'm not comfortable with uncertainty, I want a clear thematic/Story choice with clear stakes at this point."  This takes the game into a different realm for that scene or event.

I agree, full on CR stakes are really different, particularly in how it is agreed to.

My first and still main concern with Stakes is that at the extreme it can result in "GM - Ok... Dr. Destroyer has threatened to destroy the world."  Player "I roll to stop him."   Ok... entire adventure comes down to a single "1-3 you lose, 4-6 you win" roll.  That is the negative piece of Stakes I really have to overcome to be comfortable with the concept... and yes, this is a technique question.

I think that's the price to pay for co-authorship - if they just aren't excited by your story proposal, they'll just get it out of the way with one roll. It's not a bug, it's a feature of co-authorship - the other players actually control stuff like this.

I think what your really worried about is a player who doesn't take on some of the burden of co-authorship themselves and rips through story proposals from you with CR, thinking that it's purely up to the GM to provide entertaining risk. I think these players do exist in abundance, but mostly because they are used to years of play where they had no control - ie, their arguements about the plutonium would be ignored.

[Brand_Robins]

I think this topic isn't a Creative Agenda thing at all. I think it has to do strictly with how much of a given "series" of fictional events gets resolved by a given roll ... a scale thing.

Ron's right about this one. I just came to post a note saying "Um, you know how I was talking CAs... I was wrong."

But Mr. Smarty-Brains beat me to it.

I think what your really worried about is a player who doesn't take on some of the burden of co-authorship themselves and rips through story proposals from you with CR, thinking that it's purely up to the GM to provide entertaining risk. I think these players do exist in abundance, but mostly because they are used to years of play where they had no control - ie, their arguements about the plutonium would be ignored.

My AP experience with newbs of all ages and RL types leads me to disagree with this. Some folks do like to take a more passive role than is the standard around here as their new to game prefered stance. Now, I do think that a lot of established RPers do this out of training: but the "real folks" wandering around the wild do show some leanings towards it as well. Call and response oral storytelling, after all, is a pretty natural pattern for many of them to fall in, and in those situations it is often the teller who is in charge of tension and risk.

[Storn]

Hiya,

I think this topic isn't a Creative Agenda thing at all. I think it has to do strictly with how much of a given "series" of fictional events gets resolved by a given roll ... a scale thing.

Like you, I'm a Champions veteran from the way-back. I faded away from it in 1994 or so. And boy, do I know what you mean about having rolls be consequential. A lot of my goals with Sorcerer, for instance, were built from how we approached our rolling in Champs.

What I'd really like to see is that in-game account that you offered a couple posts back. I'd also like to see holding off on the Creative Agenda talk, at least for a while, because I really do think this is a Techniques discussion and not especially relevant to CA except in an internal way (one CA at a time, not comparative).

Best,
Ron

Ron, not sure what you mean here.... let me stab at a couple of things.  Because we are discussing trying to craft Stakes onto an old system, Hero, that is a Technique?   And therefore not really about CA.... even though, by my reckoning, Stakes really speak to the CAs of not only the Players, but the GM as well.... so I'm not sure how you can seperate it all out.

This is not me being argumentative.... this is me being a bit confused.

Although scale is definitely part of the discussion.  I agree with you there entirely.

[Storn]

I think that's the price to pay for co-authorship - if they just aren't excited by your story proposal, they'll just get it out of the way with one roll. It's not a bug, it's a feature of co-authorship - the other players actually control stuff like this.

I think what your really worried about is a player who doesn't take on some of the burden of co-authorship themselves and rips through story proposals from you with CR, thinking that it's purely up to the GM to provide entertaining risk. I think these players do exist in abundance, but mostly because they are used to years of play where they had no control - ie, their arguements about the plutonium would be ignored.

I agree.  Neil, I don't think we have much to worry about with our players.  We've got good, thoughtful people, who just can be a bit scattered at times and tough to herd and and engage all at once.  I think ease-ing them into more co-authorship is just the ticket.  It is certainly what I want as both GM AND Player.  Less work for me when I GM, more immersion for me as a player.

KS: Lore of Atlantis - Standard scenario... I have a 14-, I roll... 10!  Made it by four.  What do I find out?  (Now GM has the authorship of what they learn, based on how well the roll was made and where they want the info to lead.)

KS: Lore of Atlantis - Stakes scenario... I ha ve a 14-.  I want to find solid information on the deep origins of the Lemurian Snake Idol and it should tell me why Dr. Destroyer is so keen to get his hands on it!"  GM, "Ok, you get a -3, and if you miss the roll not only do you not find out the information, but you fall under an ancient curse that causes you to obsess and covet the idol yourself in the most paranoid state of mind!"

To me the second one is NEAT!  I LIKE IT!  I would accept those Stakes in a heartbeat.... and all of sudden, my lowly, rarely used KS becomes a major engine of a subplot.  Or even a main plot!!!   Either outcome is interesting to me!

I think, what? call 'em: "incremental" Stakes?  Incremental Stakes are much more interesting to me as a player than roll once, Dr. Destroyer is defeated.  No one at the table wants to ruin the story.  We all have different ideas on what the story direction might go in.... but no one wants to ruin it.  Roll once, Dr. Destroyer is defeated, is ruining the story, IMO. 

Also, as GMs, we don't have to take the Stakes offered by players... and we certainly don't have to offer Stakes that we don't even agree with in the first place.  Roll once, defeat this cadre of Dr. Destroyer's agents in the abandon warehouse... I would be willing to accept that as a GM, if the Players really wanted (Stakes are, if roll fails, 2 Agents get away and tip off the Good Doc.).  But I would never accept the Stakes of roll once, Dr. D is defunct!  GMs are players too, and they can walk away from proposed Stakes as well.

[Mark Woodhouse]

All this is reminding me immensely of Bringing Down The Pain in The Shadow Of Yesterday. The neat wrinkle there is that it's retroactive, in a sense. You can be cooking along, resolving huge amounts of stuff with conflict rolls, and then suddenly decide "No. That roll, there, was not enough detail and attention to be worthy of this outcome. Let's get serious!"

Which is a handy technical capability for just about any game and set of preferences, I'd think.