(Champions/Hero) Stakes before Sim...

[Alan]

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."

Like Ron said, this is about scale.  Just because a technique calls for stakes on a roll, doesn't mean that _any_ size of stakes are acceptable.  If both GM and players want a more meaningful build up to some big stakes, then they should stop and think of smaller stakes for intermediate rolls.  Also, everyone at the table may decide that they're playing a game where "destroy the world" will never actually happen.  In a case like that, they can all admit that ultimate destruction is just not on the table and look for something else to win or lose.

[John Kim]

Like Ron said, this is about scale.  Just because a technique calls for stakes on a roll, doesn't mean that _any_ size of stakes are acceptable.  If both GM and players want a more meaningful build up to some big stakes, then they should stop and think of smaller stakes for intermediate rolls.  Also, everyone at the table may decide that they're playing a game where "destroy the world" will never actually happen.

Actually, I think this one is a little tricky.  The problem with a series of rolls is that if you agree to only the first roll's stakes, you don't know what the ultimate stakes are or how many rolls are required.  This is the classic complaint that many people make about task resolution -- i.e. you want to track your target.  The GM asks for a tracking roll.  Then he asks for another tracking roll or perception roll, and so forth.  There's no way to know at the start how many rolls it will take for you to succeed. 

The exact same thing is true on a higher scale.  i.e. You want to stop Dr. Destroyer from blowing up the world.  OK, what are the steps to that?  Even if you apparently succeed, you might find that he has a backup plan, a twin, or whatever.  Unless the ultimate stakes are on the table somehow, this involves possible choice on the GM's part. 

However, the alternative is asking for a fixed number of rolls (or at least well-understood number of rolls), which can be repetitive.  I think Dogs in the Vineyard has an elegant solution to it -- you put the ultimate stakes on the table but have a number of raises and sees along the way.  However, this does mean that you understand from the start a fair amount about how the conflict works. 

[Doug Ruff]

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."

Like Ron said, this is about scale.  Just because a technique calls for stakes on a roll, doesn't mean that _any_ size of stakes are acceptable.  If both GM and players want a more meaningful build up to some big stakes, then they should stop and think of smaller stakes for intermediate rolls.  Also, everyone at the table may decide that they're playing a game where "destroy the world" will never actually happen.  In a case like that, they can all admit that ultimate destruction is just not on the table and look for something else to win or lose.

True, but it's also true that any size of stakes may be acceptable.

For example: Dr Destroyer has threatened to blow up the world. This could be a single conflict. If the players succeed, then Dr Destroyer is defeated, but his allies come looking for vengeance. If the players fail, they still manage to stop Dr Destroyer, but one of the characters has to give their life up, and Dr Destroyer gets away.

As long as the stakes for winning and losing both open up interesting story opportunities, and the players are invested in both outcomes, is the scale really an issue? I think it's more a question of story arc: if the players are expecting to enjoy a whole session worth of conflict with Dr Destroyer, fast-forwarding is a bad thing. The corollary is, if the players couldn't care less about Dr Destroyer and his stupid Domesday Devices, why not blow through the conflict to something more interesing?

Or to put it another way: are we talking about the scale of individual conflicts relative to the setting, or the scale of conflicts relative to the story?

[Lance D. Allen]

Totally on-board with a whole techniques -vs- agenda thing;

Personally, I consider Dogs in the Vineyard to be a hybrid between task and conflict resolution. You set your stakes, but it's not about a single roll determining the results. Suddenly you have task resolution going on in rapid-fire back and forth.

Dog: "Begone back whence you came, foul demon!" 5, 6

Demon: "No. <laughs evilly as it shrugs off the Dog's command>" 6, 6

Demon: "Die! <lunges at the Dog, claws ripping>" 4, 3

Dog: "By the power granted me by the King, I defy you! <grabs the demon's wrists>" 7

Dog: "And by your name abjure you, Beelzebub!" +6

Demon: "Eeeargh! <it's form begins to shred> 4, 4, 5

etc.

That was 3 separate tasks resolved within the conflict. The Dog failed to banish the demon once because it "blocked". The demon attacked, but the Dog Layed on Hands and was able to turn the blow. His second attempt to banish the demon was notably more successful, bolstered by the Layed on Hands, and Calling the True Name. Depending on the Stakes, the demon may be banished, or it may come back, but that's beside the point. Multiple task resolutions within a conflict resolution is still quite possible.

Now, the Dogs system isn't necessarily what you want, as you've said you're fond of Champions. But the principle remains the same. As an example:

Conflict: Beard the vampire in his own lair
Stakes: If you win, his taint will lessen and the people will breathe a sigh of relief. If you fail, he will take retribution on those you love most.

Now, instead of rolling a die to see if they win or lose, you send them in with the whole Champions system backing them, and fight it out as normal. All of a sudden, they realize they can't win; One hero bleeding out, and the other at the Elder's mercy. So he says t'hell with it, grabs his buddy, and flees. They've failed. So now the wounded heroes are racing to try to get to their loved ones in time to save them from the Elder vampire's vengeance, and you've got a lot more going on. It's not pass/fail, it's interesting consequence/interesting consequence.

[RDU Neil]

Ok... I began to reply to all this, but then got quite riled up about this whole stakes thing (which I'm liking less and less) and just wanted to respond the point below.

[Or to put it another way: are we talking about the scale of individual conflicts relative to the setting, or the scale of conflicts relative to the story?

I would assume that story is most often manifested through a character, right?  It is that character's story, and the player is playing that character in order to explore that story.

Well... as GM... the world, the setting... this IS my character.  The world has theme and story that are being manifested in every adventure... so scale is critical.  The actual defeat of Dr. Destroyer may not matter to the story of the players (How he was defeated... what the player's had to sacrifice... what it says about their theme... those could matter whether he was defeated or not) but defeat or victory for the man who kept the 20th  Century under his thumb is critical to the story of the world.  Defeat means a paradigm shift in the political and social climate of the world... while his victory would mean a paradigm shift from covert manipulation to overt tyrrany.  Those are the themes and story I want to explore... and as GM I do so through my "character" which is the setting.  Every event may have individual meaning to a player through their character... but when a GM's character is the imaginary world... that changes things quite a bit.  Scale is critical

[RDU Neil]

Totally on-board with a whole techniques -vs- agenda thing;

Personally, I consider Dogs in the Vineyard to be a hybrid between task and conflict resolution. You set your stakes, but it's not about a single roll determining the results. Suddenly you have task resolution going on in rapid-fire back and forth.

Dog: "Begone back whence you came, foul demon!" 5, 6

Demon: "No. <laughs evilly as it shrugs off the Dog's command>" 6, 6

Demon: "Die! <lunges at the Dog, claws ripping>" 4, 3

Dog: "By the power granted me by the King, I defy you! <grabs the demon's wrists>" 7

Dog: "And by your name abjure you, Beelzebub!" +6

Demon: "Eeeargh! <it's form begins to shred> 4, 4, 5

etc.

That was 3 separate tasks resolved within the conflict. The Dog failed to banish the demon once because it "blocked". The demon attacked, but the Dog Layed on Hands and was able to turn the blow. His second attempt to banish the demon was notably more successful, bolstered by the Layed on Hands, and Calling the True Name. Depending on the Stakes, the demon may be banished, or it may come back, but that's beside the point. Multiple task resolutions within a conflict resolution is still quite possible.

Now, the Dogs system isn't necessarily what you want, as you've said you're fond of Champions. But the principle remains the same. As an example:

Conflict: Beard the vampire in his own lair
Stakes: If you win, his taint will lessen and the people will breathe a sigh of relief. If you fail, he will take retribution on those you love most.

Now, instead of rolling a die to see if they win or lose, you send them in with the whole Champions system backing them, and fight it out as normal. All of a sudden, they realize they can't win; One hero bleeding out, and the other at the Elder's mercy. So he says t'hell with it, grabs his buddy, and flees. They've failed. So now the wounded heroes are racing to try to get to their loved ones in time to save them from the Elder vampire's vengeance, and you've got a lot more going on. It's not pass/fail, it's interesting consequence/interesting consequence.

Now THIS is more like it!  This is exactly what I was asking... can you set the stakes... before role playing it out in the traditional manner... exactly as you stated it.  This was my desire all along... just bring the Stakes piece in to "set the stage" in such a manner in a more clear "we are all on the same page here" kind of thing.  I'm totally down with this... and in fact, it could be a way of setting a sessions objectives.  (I come from a training background, so setting clear, realistic objectives is ingrained in me.)  There could be stakes that are discused and set... so you have a "By the end of tonight's session either X will have happend or Y... win or lose.

Now Stakes that come up in the game itself have boundaries... I win... we get closer to X... I lose, we are moving closer to Y...   We've established a framework for the game session.  This I like... because Stakes become more like incremental guidelines... not hard/fast either/or.   I'm horribly unhappy with absolutes.  I love uncertainty... and I'm not sure that I like the certainty that Stakes bring.  It's kind of an equilibrium thing.  I'm willing to suffer the crappy outcomes of uncertainty, in order to get the exalted highs when uncertainty plays out in a fun way.   Stakes bring a calm, flatness to these peaks and valleys... you avoid the bad stuff... but you don't get the really good stuff either.  Like going through life on Prozac.  No thanks...

[Storn]

It's not pass/fail, it's interesting consequence/interesting consequence.

Well said... and I guess that is the way I've been thinking about Stakes.  If I accept the Stakes... then losing is as interesting to me as winning... interesting consequences indeed.

Stakes bring a calm, flatness to these peaks and valleys... you avoid the bad stuff... but you don't get the really good stuff either.  Like going through life on Prozac.  No thanks...

No.... you SUSPECT that it will bring a calm/ flatness. Thought you didn't like absolutes? <g>   We haven't *really* tried this out at the table.  I suspect the opposite.  I think Stakes do 3 very important things.

1.  Clarify the situation for Players and GMs by linking it to intent.... "what are you trying to do"  By stating Stakes... it becomes clear really quickly if a Player is on the same page or not.

2.  Ease the idea of "losing".  Die rolls goes against a player, they are likely to be more "cool" with it, because of forewarning of what the loss is... and because it might be genuinely interesting in its own dramatic right.  I KNOW there will be times that the Losing Stake is more interesting to me and I will be hoping for the dice to go against me... despite wanting to solve the problem ahead of us.

3.  Generate new and cool directions for the story that everyone at the table has input on.  Not just GM interpertation of bad die rolls.  GM's control does go down a bit, but is made up for immersion and, hey!  its less work on the GM. 

[Valamir]

Stakes bring a calm, flatness to these peaks and valleys... you avoid the bad stuff... but you don't get the really good stuff either.  Like going through life on Prozac.  No thanks...

There's no rule that says stakes have to be binary with the good being good but not great and the bad being bad but not horrible.

There may well be times when the stakes can be given in gradients.

The old:  Yes, and / Yes / Yes, but / No, but / No / No, and  scale is a helpful way to characterize stakes.  You don't need to use every step in the path but you can certainly (where appropriate) have stakes where "Yes you get your desired stakes AND things turn out even better" or "No you don't get your desired stakes AND things turn out even worse" are stated possibilities.

i.e."If you lose the Vampire will go after your loved ones, but if one of you actually dies or falls unconcious during the scene the Vampire will have ripped the identities and locations of those loved ones from your mind and have a head start in getting to them". 

[RDU Neil]

There's no rule that says stakes have to be binary with the good being good but not great and the bad being bad but not horrible.

It is not the stakes themselves, but knowing the outcome that is flat.  If I've already pre-determined what is going to happen... what's the point?

i.e."If you lose the Vampire will go after your loved ones, but if one of you actually dies or falls unconcious during the scene the Vampire will have ripped the identities and locations of those loved ones from your mind and have a head start in getting to them". 

But this assumes we stop the game and think through every possible outcome and truly have an perfectly complete idea about what will happen after they "kick open the door."   I rarely do.  I have some general concepts, but I make stuff up based on what the players seem to want to do.  In the example we've used, I didn't even have a specific lair in mind until the PCs started talking about "While they are hunting us, we should hit them where they live.  Anyone have any ideas where that is?"  So I impromptu made up a logical location and had one of the NPCs who would have an idea point them that way.  Most of the adventure then took place in something I made up on the spot (fitting the general concepts I've got in my head).  There is no way I could have set stakes, because I don't really know them until things are over and I'm sorting out a logical direction to go.

Now... and this is interesting... if the Stakes piece came up AFTER the fight... one PC practically dead and the other about to be overwhelmed... and NOW, with the game left on a cliff-hanger... NOW we determine stakes.   NOW the players have a say in "what happens next"  They can say, "I want my character to live, despite the horrendous wound..." or "I want my character to escape, knowing he unleashed an even worse evil in destroying the coven of vampires..." etc. 

Now we've got something... Stakes as blue-booking during critical turning points... ok, that could work.  I'm not so sold on Stakes in game.

I disagree that Stakes help immersion.  I think they are completely anti-immersion.  Instead of Vector talking with Taurus over the need to build intra-solar shuttles ... we have Storn negotiating with Neil about the game world ramifications for character and setting.  Not immersive at all.  I'm not saying it can't work... just that I wouldn't call it immersive.

[Storn]

disagree that Stakes help immersion.  I think they are completely anti-immersion.  Instead of Vector talking with Taurus over the need to build intra-solar shuttles ... we have Storn negotiating with Neil about the game world ramifications for character and setting.  Not immersive at all.  I'm not saying it can't work... just that I wouldn't call it immersive.

a-HA!!! 

I think I found the disconnect. 

Intent and Stakes help frame the role playing and story creation.  They do NOT take its place.  We've been taking games to a Metagame discussion at the table  for years now... why should this bother you now?

It doesn't bother me, because of what I was trying to point out about newer games.  They REWARD the roleplaying mechanically.  They prompt it.  Hero doesn't.  It can... and how it does... is another discussion.  But at the moment it does not.

So I do not get a bonus or an extra die in Hero as it stands now, unless you deem it so, when Vector is trying to convince Taurus to free up monies for Intra-Solar Shuttles.  But in games that do, BW, in order to get the BONUS to tackle the Stakes, you still have to do the role playing.  Vector still has to have the conversation with Taurus.  I still have to frame his persuasive arguement in the tone of Vector... not the tone of Foxbat.

But if my Belief:  All of Mankind Should be Bettered by Powers (Paranormals) comes into play during that discussion about Intra-shuttles... then my roleplaying should get a chance to affect the die roll for the Stakes themselves.  It is hardwired into games like BW & Riddle of Steel.  The Flag is waving, this is important to the characer!!!  He will blow resources, take chances and we will all hopefully be interested in the outcome regardless of the die roll.  Die roll is STILL important... it still has weight.  As does the GM's response...

Does thinking like this break "talking in character"... yeah it does... but that doesn't equate to "anti-immersion".

[Mark Woodhouse]

There is no way I could have set stakes, because I don't really know them until things are over and I'm sorting out a logical direction to go.

Well, one of the neat things about stakes-setting is that you, the GM, don't have to come up with everything based on your read of the situation and players. You ask the players what they're willing to have at risk. Stakes-setting (at its best) isn't something that one player does all alone, it's negotiated with the whole group.

[Judd]

Well, one of the neat things about stakes-setting is that you, the GM, don't have to come up with everything based on your read of the situation and players. You ask the players what they're willing to have at risk. Stakes-setting (at its best) isn't something that one player does all alone, it's negotiated with the whole group.

Agreed.  The best stakes setting is when the whole group is in on it.  If everyone is thinking about stakes, everyone is invested in what is happening.  It leads to a whole different vibe at the table.

[RDU Neil]

Intent and Stakes help frame the role playing and story creation.  They do NOT take its place.  We've been taking games to a Metagame discussion at the table  for years now... why should this bother you now?

This might be your interpretation... but in the threads I've been reading here, I've yet to see anyone say "We set the stakes then role played out the argument"   It's all been... set the stakes, roll the dice, I WIN!  Not a single "Actual Play" example has sounded like role playing to me... it all sounds like dice-moderated-plot-scripting for the most part.  

In fact, I get the sense from these descriptions of games that we are at the very tip of the Nar side of the beeg-horseshoe.  A very mechanistic, almost touching into gamist territory, play experience.   Where wargaming with minis might have a 'character" with  it's important "stats" on a card... in these Stakes games you have a "character" with important stats on the "card" as well... just instead of movement, range, rate of fire and damage... you have Beliefs and Desires and Flaws and what have you.

Just like in a wargame where there is no sense of "being the mini" you aren't really "being the character" in a Stakes game... you just interact with another player by rolling your character stats vs. their character stats.  My flaw has more points than your belief, so I win that volley... next round.  Instead of "My mini is left standing and yours isnt... I win!" you get "My Desire for "paranormals uplifting all mankind" outbid your Belief in "All things are flawed and corrupt and will fail in the end" so I win!"  

It's like an abstracted wargaming of politics and intellect rather than guns and swords... where victory is getting to describe a scene rather than have your minis left standing on the table.  As an intellectual activity... this sounds cool... but it isn't what I want when I'm looking to role play.  It's not just using metagaming to enhance role play...it is ALL metagaming.  I could be wrong, but I've yet to see an "Actual play" description that dispells this perception.

[Judd]

This might be your interpretation... but in the threads I've been reading here, I've yet to see anyone say "We set the stakes then role played out the argument"   It's all been... set the stakes, roll the dice, I WIN!  Not a single "Actual Play" example has sounded like role playing to me... it all sounds like dice-moderated-plot-scripting for the most part. 

That is really not how it is at all at the tables I've run at.

Stakes are a jumping off point for role-playing, not a replacement.

I think that is a real danger with discovering a technique that you like, is that a table can end up talking about the game more than they are playing it; it is a balance issue that has to be carefully watched.

I've got those two stakes threads, if you would like to go to them and ask me about any of my examples, I'll specify what happened before and after the dice were rolled.

Listen, it is very much like role-playing in the traditional sense.  In the old days what was constantly at stake at my games were hit points, now what is at stake can be your PC's soul, your relationship to the princess, does the king like you, etc., etc.  It changes the role of the dice and of how failure works, not replacing the act of role-playing.

[Brand_Robins]

This might be your interpretation... but in the threads I've been reading here, I've yet to see anyone say "We set the stakes then role played out the argument"   It's all been... set the stakes, roll the dice, I WIN!  Not a single "Actual Play" example has sounded like role playing to me... it all sounds like dice-moderated-plot-scripting for the most part. 

Okay, here's one -- a fairly typical one of how things play out around my table.

We're playing in the world of A Game of Thrones using HeroQuest. One of the PCs is Percival Reed, a noble loyal to House Stark. He, by series of misadventures, had ended up nearly killing then taking as a bondsman one Theon Greyjoy. Theon is an ass, he had once been the best friend of the head of House Stark, but had planned on betraying him, seizing his castle while he was away, and imprisoning his younger brothers. Percival is now dragging Theon, who is plotting to murder him in his sleep, with him on his mad quest to find a lost prince.

So at the start of the scene I describe the ship they're on, and Percival talking to the captain to figure out where they need to go, and Theon giving him the death eye as he scrubs the decks. The player suddenly says, "That's it, before I go any further I need to deal with Theon." Everyone else at the table is happy, because we figure Theon is about to become shark food. But no, the player says, "I want to convert him – make him my friend and make him remember his loyalty and friendship with House Stark." "Allright" says I, "but if you fail you'll open yourself up to him betraying you later." He agrees to these stakes and then... we start to roleplay.

He plays out approaching Theon and trying to bring him into the camaraderie of his House men. I play Theon being a dick. (At this point we're using an extended contest – which uses a series of rolls and Advantage Points to determine the course of the whole contest.) We roll, he gets a slight victory and Theon, almost against his will, finds himself starting to talk and joke with Percival's men. I then play Theon trying to butter them up for information, finding dirt he can use to blackmail them. He plays out his men dutifully reporting this and him telling them to be patient. We roll, he gets another minor success. We play out his men staying loyal, and then him bringing Theon in for a private conversation in which he tells him a story about when he and Lord Stark were young, that's filled with loyalty and honor. I play Theon scoffing at the Starks and honor... or trying to at least. We roll, and he gets a huge, crushing, brutal success – at this point he's won the contest. I play Theon breaking into tears at the end, clearly touched to his soul. The player decides, however, that he isn't satisfied with that and takes one more action to go for the kill, and plays out taking Theon into his arms and hugging him, forgiving him for his evil because he didn't understand what he was doing – and telling him that if he ever does it again he will be damned and Percival himself will come for his heart. We roll, he gets another success, winning the stakes and ending the conflict, and breaks Theon's will and makes him an honorable man. 

There was lots and lots of roleplay, character interaction, and uncertainty. Its just that we knew at top and bottom what was going on in the scene. If anything it let us focus and refine our character acting more than in our older games – because we knew what both characters wanted, how they were going to get it, and what they were risking if they lost.

We do the same thing when we use simple contest resolution mechanics as well (where you resolve the whole contest with one roll). We play a scene until we reach a moment where we know there is a crisis that must be resolved, we put everything on the table, we roll the dice, and then we play out the results.

I think the reason it comes off in many AP posts as a "roll and done" is because most of the time we focus on procedural elements and the reactions of the players around the table, and don't fully explain or recount the action of the fiction or the moment to moment flow of play. However, I know that in my games stakes and conflicts have led to more character acting and immersion – not less.