(Champions/Hero) Stakes before Sim...

[RDU Neil]

At that point we go to conflict resolution -- which in PTA is one play of the cards to determine who wins and who loses. About 1 minute later we know that the player lost. (Lost bad, I monkey stomped him.) At that point we know what is going to happen -- but it hasn't happened yet. We just know where we have to get to. We actually spend the next 15 minutes playing it out, with the hunter leaping from car to truck and climbing about and gettind dumped below the truck and clinging onto the undercarriage and getting shot three times and killing a half-dozen demons, and then getting shot with a shotgun at close range and blown off the back of the truck. It was all crazy, fast action with everyone in the group tossing in things like "and then the guy should try to shoot him, but get kicked right through the wall of the truck so that the freaking Toys R Us backwards R goes falling down the mountain!"

Similar things happen in our social scenes. We get to crisis, and figure out who is going to win and who is going to get to narrate -- but then we all play it out as a group with the person that won having final say over what can and can't get into reality. (Basically the winning player gets to do with the rest of the scene what the GM would normally do -- recasting and renarrating people's statements, telling them they can or can't do that, etc.)

This type of resolution does lose the "blow by blow" tension -- but that's because its set up to determine the outcome of conflicts not tasks. Other games that use stakes (Dogs in the Vineyard, HeroQuest, The Shadows of Yesterday) all can still use the stakes and the blow by blow. Either way you can still roleplay out and describe lots and lots of stuff. The only real difference is that you know before you start what it takes to win, what it takes to lose, and what happens (in general, if not specific) if both happen.

Ok... this clarifies something for me.  If we were to create a Stakes like mechanic for Hero "bolt on" style, what I would be looking for is "set the stakes, then go into blow by blow, whether combat or politics or whatever... to determine outcome."   I even have something in mind that grafts onto our Luck Chit rule that I think would work.

Now, for a different issue. A lot of people here are focused on the "fun win, fun loss" element of things. I am too. Lots of us are very focused on cooperation, fun on all sides, and playing nice. However, this doesn't mean that you have to set up stakes that make people happy about losing. A lot of other folks on the Forge don't play nice like that.

TonyLB should be the one explaining this, but he and his group have sometimes used stakes setting as a way to bone each other. He once described it in terms something like, "I figure out what the player wants for the character, then make it as hard for them to get it as I can. I take everything they want, and try to take it away from them." He'll also frequently say things like "When setting stakes as a GM make the stakes for the characters losing things that SUCK." The reason this is functional play, and not Tony being an ass, is because of stakes and contested mechanics (and because he is targeting the character for the suck, and not the player).

If a GM just FUBARS you all the time when you have no ability to know what is coming, or to stop it, then it's the old railroad again. However, if you can say, "If I win this roll then I get X" and negotiate fairly the "if I lose this roll then I lose Y" so that Y is something that sucks but does not ruin the game for you, and the GM has to live with the results of the roll like anyone else, then suddenly you can get into a position where you can push and push back HARD and still have the game come out fair. Games like Capes and Polaris, as a matter of fact, work very well when played like this.

So there are times when using stakes can let you push harder than any other time. If you can get the players to agree to the stakes, knowing what happens when they lose, then they have to take it if they lose. It was their call, and now they've blown it. This is in direct contrast to a game where the players don't know what they are risking, don't know what it will take to win or lose or what will happen if they do, and then get (rightfully) pissed when the GM herds them into a corner of invisible walls and crushes them with the toe of his boot.

This raises some other questions.  I think there is a lot of middle ground between win/win and "Stick it to the player" stakes... but that is likely purely perception.

This seems more a "flags" issue than "stakes."   Flags say "This is important to me as a player" not "This is what the character wants"  Right?  So a flag indicates to a GM "Send adversity at this character in the following way" and the player should grok on it.

Incorrectly assigned flags may be something like in Champions with Disadvantages... A player may put down "Secret ID" on their sheet... because it "fits" the character... but have no desire to role play out things like having a snoopy reporter chasing 'em around.  Thus a GM hits on a flag, but the player thinks the GM is "boning" them.

As a GM though, looking at flags that I know the player does want... stakes again seems a way for the player to reduce risk of having the GM attack their flag in ways they don't want... but to get some emotional connection, should the PLAYER (not the character) be at risk of having the story go in ways they don't want it to... to losing some aspect of "story" that they want.  In other words... to get the story they want, they need to risk a story they don't want?

I'm not saying it has to be this way... but I'm sure that if the GM did this to some players, it would seem like them being boned, and the player would try to use stakes to stop it.

Just seems like Stakes give the players too much ability to avoid anything unpleasant or bothersome at all.  To me, stories have unpleasant and bothersome moments... that's what makes the up moments and resolutions so satisfying.  That's what makes the role playing experience "real."

Dunno... it just seems like such a fine line to walk... not to mention I'm wondering how often "pounding a flag" and "stakes" come into conflict in a game.  Hmmm...

[RDU Neil]

TonyLB should be the one explaining this, but he and his group have sometimes used stakes setting as a way to bone each other. He once described it in terms something like, "I figure out what the player wants for the character, then make it as hard for them to get it as I can. I take everything they want, and try to take it away from them." He'll also frequently say things like "When setting stakes as a GM make the stakes for the characters losing things that SUCK." The reason this is functional play, and not Tony being an ass, is because of stakes and contested mechanics (and because he is targeting the character for the suck, and not the player).

Not really.  I totally go after the players.

An example that has been repeated (in demonstration games) so often that I have laminated cards with these stakes printed on them:  I play Major Victory, self-righteous defender of justice.  Some poor sap plays the Iron Brain, angry, bitter villain.  We take maybe ten seconds getting into character ("Curse you, Major Victory!  At last I will have my revenge!") and then I introduce the first stakes:  "If I win this then I prove that Justice will always lead .... to Victory!"

For the full effect you have to imagine it with me looking the other guy square in the face, giving an easy, arrogant grin and flashing the "V for Victory" sign with my fingers.  This is totally "I will make your character a pathetic loser, and you can't stop me!" territory. 

The other player reliably responds by taking a deep breath, glaring at me as if I'd just pissed on their dog, and then looking through the set of pre-printed stakes that they can offer in response.  They get an evil grin, and they chuckle, and that is how I know that they have flipped to "Humiliate Major Victory."  They play it and I take a deep breath and respond "Oh, that is never going to happen!" and away we go.  Lots of very heated dice rolls ensue as we pursue those goals.

So I really like stakes where winning is good and losing sucks.  I think they make for fun, intense conflict (and they encourage, as you say "Bummer, I died, but it was cool" scenes).  And they work really well with explicit conflict resolution.  And ... I don't really know whether I'm saying stuff that's obvious or revealing, so I'll stop here and wait for feedback.

I'd really like Storn to comment on this... because this is the exact kind of thing that I do NOT think would work in our group... but could happen inadvertently causing bad feelings.  There was always an old Champions saying of "Hit the character's psychological limiations, but be careful not to stomp on the PLAYER's psych lims!"  Above is a way of saying that the game is all about creating animosity between players... to create and me vs. him attitude... thus losing does suck and you might as well be playing poker for money and laughing when you take their paycheck.

No thanks, IMO... but again, I wonder what Storn would say, though I don't think he'd like this.  I dunno.

[Brand_Robins]

No thanks, IMO... but again, I wonder what Storn would say, though I don't think he'd like this.  I dunno.

For what its worth, half of my players read Tony's posts and respond with horror. I've even had one tell me that if I ever start GMing like that she'll leave the group after kicking me in the balls. (Oh what friends I have.)

OTOH, the other half reads his posts and gets this crazy fucking gleam in their eyes and starts talking too fast.

It works really well for those it works for, and not at all for those it doesn't. The trick is to figure out where it falls for you. You said something like "I see a lot of room between happy/happy and bone the player" and you're very right. Stakes setting is a very flexible tool, and there are many different ways to actually negotiate it out.

[TonyLB]

Above is a way of saying that the game is all about creating animosity between players... to create and me vs. him attitude... thus losing does suck and you might as well be playing poker for money and laughing when you take their paycheck.

Well, part of what makes it work in the games I play that way is that the person who loses is the one who gets the resources.  That whole "Beat me down and I get stronger" thing makes some people a lot happier with taking a savage beating.

So it's less like laughing when you take their paycheck and more like beating them soundly, then paying them for the privilege.

But, as Brand says, it might well not work for your group.  I like his description of the "crazy fucking gleam" though.  Oh yeah.  I know that gleam.

[RDU Neil]

Above is a way of saying that the game is all about creating animosity between players... to create and me vs. him attitude... thus losing does suck and you might as well be playing poker for money and laughing when you take their paycheck.

Well, part of what makes it work in the games I play that way is that the person who loses is the one who gets the resources.  That whole "Beat me down and I get stronger" thing makes some people a lot happier with taking a savage beating.

So it's less like laughing when you take their paycheck and more like beating them soundly, then paying them for the privilege.

But, as Brand says, it might well not work for your group.  I like his description of the "crazy fucking gleam" though.  Oh yeah.  I know that gleam.

To be frank... this is the kind of thinking I especially do NOT want to encourage.  This is a gaming reflection on the worst aspects of humanity.  This is for people whose sense of self worth comes from beating others down... through control and coercion and violence.  It is no better than those sick losers in high school who used to role play to express their rape fantasies.  This kind of "stakes" is basically using role playing show whose dick is bigger.  To be honest this sickens me.  "...paying them for the privilege" is like saying you relate to your players like they were prostitutes.  Degrading them is ok as long as you toss them money as you leave.

That "crazing fucking gleam?"  That is psychosis.  Not a good thing.

Man, now I know why I stayed away from these boards for so long.  Sick. 

[daHob]

Weird.

I've never really on board with Tony's playstyle either. I'm just not as competative as he seems to be.

However, how is wha t he said much different than:

Just seems like Stakes give the players too much ability to avoid anything unpleasant or bothersome at all.  To me, stories have unpleasant and bothersome moments... that's what makes the up moments and resolutions so satisfying.  That's what makes the role playing experience "real."

Hob

[Brand_Robins]

Man, now I know why I stayed away from these boards for so long.  Sick. 

Niel, you're over reacting.

If Tony's style isn't for you, then you don't play that way. Simple as that.

It's no sicker than those of us who enjoy sparing or martial arts and like to wrestle. Or for that matter those who like football or chess. In all of these games and sports you have rules, have people trying to win, and in many of them actually have people slamming into each other physically. (Combat chess anyone?)

There is no beat down, as everyone is using the rules, everyone is there to have fun. It's a mental wrestling match, that is all.

Certainly I have seen sick stuff in RPGs, but not from Tony and not from people who play with Tony. In fact most of the sick shit is from those who conceal their motives behind social games and passive-agressive controls, not those who openly admit they like to compete.

[RDU Neil]

Weird.

I've never really on board with Tony's playstyle either. I'm just not as competative as he seems to be.

However, how is wha t he said much different than:

Just seems like Stakes give the players too much ability to avoid anything unpleasant or bothersome at all.  To me, stories have unpleasant and bothersome moments... that's what makes the up moments and resolutions so satisfying.  That's what makes the role playing experience "real."

Hob

Big difference between dealing with something unpleasant in order to achieve a longer term goal and being "beat down" for someone else's pleasure.  Short term pain for long term gain is very different than playing a game where the object is to make someone else your bitch. 

Actually... this keyed something in me.  If "Stakes" enable a clarification of what is at risk... so that the players understand that the situation is "short term pain for long term gain" and NOT "he's trying to bone me, the fucker!"   Then I'm all for Stakes in that case.  As long as Stakes aren't used to avoid all adversity and to brow beat the GM into appeasement style gaming... ok then.  Let's do it!

[RDU Neil]

Man, now I know why I stayed away from these boards for so long.  Sick. 

Niel, you're over reacting.

If Tony's style isn't for you, then you don't play that way. Simple as that.

It's no sicker than those of us who enjoy sparing or martial arts and like to wrestle. Or for that matter those who like football or chess. In all of these games and sports you have rules, have people trying to win, and in many of them actually have people slamming into each other physically. (Combat chess anyone?)

There is no beat down, as everyone is using the rules, everyone is there to have fun. It's a mental wrestling match, that is all.

Certainly I have seen sick stuff in RPGs, but not from Tony and not from people who play with Tony. In fact most of the sick shit is from those who conceal their motives behind social games and passive-agressive controls, not those who openly admit they like to compete.

Maybe... but I came into RPGs because of the old "Role playing isn't about winning or losing" mantra.  That was so key to me.  Here was a social interaction that wasn't about one-upmanship and being "better" than someone else.  And yes, I've seen the passive-aggressive behavior you speak of... as you guys call it here, the "My guy" syndrome of being a prick and using the excuse of "in character."  I guess I have a tough time seeing how Tony's description of stakes differs.  I see it as "I get to be a total bastard to you (the player) but it's not me... it's the game!"  It's formalized "my guy"ism.

[Hisho]

I have one question, the example with Major Victory from Tony is played as a part of a Capes demogame... right?

At least I hope so, because this would explain a lot.

I like HERO, Champions, have a lot of HERO books and think the system works fine... but if you want to introduce Stakes you should under no circumstances do it Capes Style.

In Capes, I think this is a very good move, as far as I understand the game (and I love this game too... and not only because it has Superheroes in it). Sometimes Capes just screams for a little bit of adversity between the players, after all you have to get them moving... and it does its job wonderfull, after all... you get story token, inspiration and whatever for doing all this. Ok, there is no GM and everybody knows what he's in for.

In HERO I prefer to use stakes in the form of pre-combat/scene talk, something along the lines of hard scene-framing combined with grouptalk about how they wish the scene to move along. Then I would tell them, what the worst thing is that could happen and go from this... and then... well, play that little scene.

Well, it's a little late here and I had a hard day...

Michael

[RDU Neil]

I have one question, the example with Major Victory from Tony is played as a part of a Capes demogame... right?

At least I hope so, because this would explain a lot.

I like HERO, Champions, have a lot of HERO books and think the system works fine... but if you want to introduce Stakes you should under no circumstances do it Capes Style.

In Capes, I think this is a very good move, as far as I understand the game (and I love this game too... and not only because it has Superheroes in it). Sometimes Capes just screams for a little bit of adversity between the players, after all you have to get them moving... and it does its job wonderfull, after all... you get story token, inspiration and whatever for doing all this. Ok, there is no GM and everybody knows what he's in for.

In HERO I prefer to use stakes in the form of pre-combat/scene talk, something along the lines of hard scene-framing combined with grouptalk about how they wish the scene to move along. Then I would tell them, what the worst thing is that could happen and go from this... and then... well, play that little scene.

Well, it's a little late here and I had a hard day...

Michael

What you state is very close to a the model I was asking about at the beginning.  Stakes as "scene framing"  with the "Just so you know, here is the worst that can happen" talk.  Great way to put it.  What I was wondering is whether or not this was a legitimate use of Stakes... or is Tony's model the "true" model and this is some other kind of technique?

[Brand_Robins]

What you state is very close to a the model I was asking about at the beginning.  Stakes as "scene framing"  with the "Just so you know, here is the worst that can happen" talk.  Great way to put it.  What I was wondering is whether or not this was a legitimate use of Stakes... or is Tony's model the "true" model and this is some other kind of technique?

The thing about Stakes is that they tend to get set depending on the game you're playing and the people you're playing with. You may notice in my play examples above that the stakes in HeroQuest were a little softer than those in Prime Time Adventures, despite being with the same (basic) group. In HeroQuest what I really did was set up a "if you lose now he'll start another contest, and you'll be at a big penalty in it" stake. In PTA I set up a "if you lose you lose hard, but still have a chance to save the city from death later on." That's because the way the two systems use Stakes, the scale and mechanics of their conflict resolution systems, are slightly different.

Capes is different yet again. In Capes there is no GM, and "stakes" are set as challanges that people put out on the table rather than as something negotiated between players and GMs (as, obviously, there is no GM). So in, say HeroQuest, what you as a GM want to do is push the players and try to make an interesting story based on their successes and failures. In Capes, otoh, you want to introduce conflicts that force people to react. If no one cares about your challange you just sit there and talk to yourself. If you can get them to care, however, you can have a big conflict and they can get rewards for pushing you back. Both games use Stakes, but the way it works out in the play of the game is very different.

There is no "one way" or even "right way" to use Stakes. It's a general tool, not a specific one.

[Judd]

The thing about Stakes is that they tend to get set depending on the game you're playing and the people you're playing with. You may notice in my play examples above that the stakes in HeroQuest were a little softer than those in Prime Time Adventures, despite being with the same (basic) group. In HeroQuest what I really did was set up a "if you lose now he'll start another contest, and you'll be at a big penalty in it" stake. In PTA I set up a "if you lose you lose hard, but still have a chance to save the city from death later on." That's because the way the two systems use Stakes, the scale and mechanics of their conflict resolution systems, are slightly different.

That is really interesting, Brand and I know I'd really appreciate it if you could start an AP thread with examples of different stakes setting for different systems and the intricacies and differences between systems, why you set stakes different for different systems and so on.

That's really interesting to me.

[Storn]

Big difference between dealing with something unpleasant in order to achieve a longer term goal and being "beat down" for someone else's pleasure.  Short term pain for long term gain is very different than playing a game where the object is to make someone else your bitch.

I think this might be ONE of the reasons Stakes interest me so much.  I have no problem for short term pain for a long term gain.  Much prefer it to the other way around.  Pay before ya go, y'know?

But!  In your love of Uncertainity (which, is good some of the time, I'm not saying Stakes all the time).... If Stakes are NOT stated... then when I'm at the table, HOW do I know what the long term gain is?  If I'm operating under that Uncertainity, there might never be a payoff.  You know, you are the GM, you have more info, more seeing of all the connections of the plot, and how things are affected.  My view is myopic.

As in all art forms, it is about balance and judgement.  Stakes is simply one arrow in the quiver.

I'd really like Storn to comment on this... because this is the exact kind of thing that I do NOT think would work in our group

The above quote is a comment to Tony's "beat down" scenario for Capes.

I think Tony's way is all about context.  I would probably have a blast with Tony and Capes... because this was the social contract from the get go.  I buy its "wrestlin"... not full out psychological war. 

I would probably walk from the table if that is the way things started to happen in RDU on a full time basis.  Occasionally, those PC vs. PC contests (non-lethal, bragging rights kinda thing) are wonderful... and then Tony's "beat down" method is totally appropriate.

So my comment.... "it depends".   How's that for fence sittin'?  <g>

Incorrectly assigned flags may be something like in Champions with Disadvantages... A player may put down "Secret ID" on their sheet... because it "fits" the character... but have no desire to role play out things like having a snoopy reporter chasing 'em around.  Thus a GM hits on a flag, but the player thinks the GM is "boning" them.

Yeaaah-Baybhee.... unfortunately, Disads can suffer from this shell-game.  I was impressed by how Burning Wheel said Instincts are "pay attention to this" OR "I stated this so I don't have to deal with it, ever.  It is fait d'accompli."

Sorry, my comments are cherry picking from a whole bunch of really cool posts. 

[daHob]

Big difference between dealing with something unpleasant in order to achieve a longer term goal and being "beat down" for someone else's pleasure.  Short term pain for long term gain is very different than playing a game where the object is to make someone else your bitch.

You've stated that you occasionally create situations for the player to feel 'short term pain' from the actions in the game. You didn't do this to make them your bitch, you did it to really engage them emotionally in play. I'm going to make a guess that you view this as one of the jobs/responsibilites of a good GM. Moreover, that one of the skills of a good GM is to push the right buttons on a player to get them emotionally invested without poking them in a spot so soft that it will hurt.

In the scenario Tony was describing, they were playing Capes. Capes is a GM-less game. In effect, all the players GM for each other. Good Capes play comes from players trying to create conflicts that engage the other players emotionally. It's basically the same skill.

Incorrectly assigned flags may be something like in Champions with Disadvantages... A player may put down "Secret ID" on their sheet... because it "fits" the character... but have no desire to role play out things like having a snoopy reporter chasing 'em around.  Thus a GM hits on a flag, but the player thinks the GM is "boning" them.

You have to be careful with things that could be flags, but that also give other system advantages (in this case disad points). Sometimes they are the player expressing what they want their character to be about, and sometimes they are just there for the points. If they start bitching about you picking on their disads, that is a good sign tht it's the later.

Hob