A gamist resolution system (no setting/game title yet)

[Callan S.]

To some extent prompted by the Ronnies action, I started to think of how I'd pull together a game in 24 hours. I'm still not sure I could manage it. But thinking about how I could was and still is a creative focus that brings these ideas together.

What the game would be about: I'm not really sure - more of an action lover than a setting lover. Shockingly, probably a rip off hybred between Rifts and the PS2 games Mercenaries foremost and a fair bit of Grand Theft Auto.

What the players do: Full on gamism! In a game world full of elements that can help or harm or sometimes both, the players declare their own tactical goal that they think they can meet - and try their damnedest to meet it! Unlike a TROS where the narrativist goal is set and then play is about testing the PC's resolution over and over, here it the encouragement isn't on long term goals. The moment of drama is when a player has the balls (and that includes ovaries!!) to say "I can meet goal X" and the other players go whoa, cause their thinking "How the hell does he think he can do that - I don't think I could do it! Or could I? If he can perhaps I could! I must see what comes of this!" and other such thoughts. So lots of goals would be made and resolved over and over each session, with mechanics which let each player egg on the player who made a goal, to possibly make an even grander goal. But I'm getting ahead of myself, I just have an idea for resolution right now.

Hunter resolution
This involves a set number of resources available, say about five for now. If it were applied to foraging in a forest, you might have resources like "mushrooms", "poison frog", "Nice dry firewood", etc. All of these will have fixed mechanical values/benefits, rather than their value as a currency being up to GM speculation. Listed, it'd look something like this:

1. "mushrooms"
2. "poison frog"
3. "Nice dry firewood"
4. "birds nest"
5. "flowing water"

Okay, narration of the forest and what it looks like occurs pretty much as in your standard game. I'm planning to also have the system ask players to add to the description. Their narration isn't supposed to carry any mechanical weight, it's simply to take some creative effort off the GM's shoulders. It also intended to engender a sense of group buy in (sort of like everyone helping to set the table for a meal would). I'm interested to hear thoughts on what would happen if players add stuff like "There's a pond full of poisonous frogs", where the player assumes some sort of benefit will/ought to by right come to him if such a description is given (ie, he thinks the benefit WILL be poisonous frogs, because of the sheer strength of his assertion).

Important: Although the narration has no mechanical weight, it will naturally revolve around what everyone thinks about the resources involved and what will be there in the game world. This is bound to have a flow on effect on the GM's choice (detailed further down).

Okay, onto resolution. When do we stop narrating and we get into resolution? I haven't worked out mechanics for that yet - I'm basically looking at/treating each resolution like an independent mini game, for now. How they are connected up to form a larger game latter will be very important, because IMO, if they appear to be connected but really it's a series of mini games with a GM trying to uphold an illusion of a greater game, it wont meet my needs. But more on this issue from me when I get to it or someone brings it up.

Resolution involves the GM picking one of the resources involved to be the resource which is more likely to be available. It get's something like a 75% chance of being there. All the other resources have a base chance of say 15% chance of being there. The GM writes/notes this secretly, because were going old school on this. Whatever the GM chooses stays that way once the player makes his choice.

From the earlier example, if the GM chose "Dry firewood" as the resource available, then it'd look like this (the players don't get to see it though):
1. "mushrooms" : 15%
2. "poison frog" : 15%
3. "Nice dry firewood" : 75%
4. "birds nest" : 15%
5. "flowing water" : 15%

And then the player chooses from the list, which resource he thinks is there. If it's the one the GM chose, the GM says so (congrats!) and the player has a 75% chance of getting it. If the player chooses a resource other than that, there's still a 15% chance of getting the resource the player called, anyway.

In a strange way, the 15% chance is reminiscent of fact creation systems like in Donjon. If you think there are mushrooms in the forest, in a way your empowered to sometimes be right. However, perhaps controversially it's actually there to screw with the feedback the GM gets in regards to who's empowered to say exactly what is happening. I hypothesise that if the GM had full control over which resource is there (ie, only his choice exists) along with the expectant crowd factor, he might slip into simulationism, treating it as his moment to make an address about what exists. Rather than just make a call about it in order to support gamism.

A parallel is if the resource choices were instead about ways of convincing someone, a narrativist inclined GM with full control might feel protagonised enough to say to himself "Well, they'd simply have to meet his "perform virtuous deed" requirement. He just wouldn't be convinced by anything else!". With the 15% factor, a player might choose "Small bribe", roll lucky and go "Oh cool, it's all right, he's happy to take a bribe". Same goes for any move to make a simulationist address of how things work/causality. It removes the protagonisation that comes from the power to exactly choose what's important at that moment. Likewise, the 75% chance rather than 100% chance furthers this, ensuring the GM's choice doesn't simply outweigh the others.

This theory mangles GNS theory a great deal, as I've been told before you can't have 'pockets' of one agenda inside another. Basically I want to convey the idea that a fly can get in the soup of gamism. And I'm certain that fly comes from another agenda's motivations/desires. It's drawn to the soup because certain parts of it smell really nice, as if it had been made for the fly. Regardless of how much you can agree, I would like feedback on how different a "75%/15% chance" is Vs a "100%/0% chance", in terms of how it would feel to yourselves as a GM. What would you enjoy about it? What wouldn't you enjoy about it?

Seeker Resolution
Essentially the same as above, but more of an active pursuit angle on the players part. Say the scenario is that ooh, you're a psi guy with a massive psi sword, perched hidden above where an enemy tank is rolling along below. You've already declared to the group, that psi-swords are "awesome" and are out to find out just how right you are (your confident). Now, unlike in the above where there were several prize types, here there is only one. In this case it's some big damage. We still work with a fixed number of options to choose from, like in the above. But this time they can simply be narrated, like each option is described as a certain part of the tank. Again, I think I'd have player input on some of these options, for the same reasons as above.

Then the player chooses which one of the options he takes/which one he attacks with his psi sword, with the same 75% on the GM's choice/15% on everything else distribution.



And that's it. Given the number of Ronnies entries judged to have palour narration, I want to know if that applies to this very mechanised structure as well?

I'm also thinking I could hinge a whole game around this mechanic and it'd be enough. Is it missing something it'd need to forfil this role, that I don't realise?

Any bits that make you think "What's THAT there for?".

[Joe Zeutenhorst]

So, what happens when a player fails a roll?

[Nogusielkt]

Interesting mechanic, however I am a bit confused as to how the list comes into existence.  Does the GM provide the list and choose what he thinks should be the best choice, do the player's create it and the GM picks one, do they both help, or did I miss it entirely?

[Callan S.]

Hi Joe,

The event is resolved, the result being that you don't get the prize.


Hi Nogusielkt,

I didn't expect to have to cover that - perceptive question! Currently in my mind the lists should be preset; listed in the book. Basically if you can construct the list to any degree, your more protagonised to say exactly what is there (because you have more capacity to set it to 'just how you imagine the game world works'). Right now I want fixed lists for that reason, though it might be interesting to allow players the option to randomise one of the options to something else, to add a little spin on what could be available.

As a sneak peak, I envision the larger game involving many option lists and the way you (try to) get to each one is actually though hunter resolution (each hunter option list has a name, which itself becomes an option to choose from in a hunter resolution).

[dindenver]

Hi!
  OK, To answer thhe first question, I like the 75/15 vs 100/0, I think having some chance will allow for more natural game play.
  I don't think I understand what you mean by protagonize... Are you trying to say the GM will be more sympathetic with the PCs if there is a a pre-determined list? Or are you trying to say the GM will feel more justified in playing games against the players if the rules are set forth?
  Also, I am no wiz on the whole GNS thing, but it was my understanding that every game was a clever combination of all three agendas, the question is always at what ratio during which parts of the system. I could be WAY off, but that was my understanding.
  I think that these lists could really detract from play. It almost feels like you are creating a solo game that could be used multi-player. I mean if you know what you need, you just have to travel to the area(s) that provide it and wander around til you get the right roll. I also wonder if you are not making a simulation, if you make a list, then players can only find what you deem possible. And GMs might be encouraaged to represent those 5 items in a simulationist matter. To use your forest example, what GM with such an accurate portrayal of your game world would ever pick anything besides flowing water as the 75% choice? I mean how can you have a forest if there is no water? You can have a forest with no mushrooms, you can have a forest with no poison frogs, cetainly dry fire wood is hard to find in a forest and finding a bird's nest is tricky as most birds don't want them to be found. But every tree needs water to survive...
  I am not trying to dog on you, I am just asking the question, is this Gamism? and is THAT your goal? I thought Gamism was defined by receiving a mechanical reward based on risk/effort? I THINK a Gamist system would center around what mechanical benefit a player receives for an item after they find it and then the GM setting the risk/effort required based on THIS rather than on the effort/risk it would require normally in that setting or by the needs of the story...
  Anyways, most RPG Gamers are pretty creative and will want a means to effect the world around them. For instance, what about the player who decides that poison frogs are a menace to all good people and goes on a crusade. The way the system is designed now, that is futile, there will ALWAYS be at least a 15% chance of having Poisonous Frogs in a Forest. And yet man was able to hunt Dodoes and buffalo to extinction...
  I think you have a great foundation though, good luck man!

[Justin Marx]

On a practical note, composing lists for every setting/situation in existence is probably way too much work, and also quite inflexible. By defining, even loosely, what can and cannot be found in a certain environment, it sounds more simmy to me. The menu of options is prescribed by the book. Players and GMs can be pretty creative - don't get me wrong, I like the notion of co-determined and simultaneously randomised setting elements, but I would trust the players/GM to be able to compose their own list of options. I mean - in most traditional games, GMs do this everyday.

Why can't the player's create the list, the GM fix probabilities, and go from there (one cuts, the other chooses - works for squabbling kids).

As a perhaps completely mistaken observation, it seems a little like you are trying to prevent GM fiat/abuse/favouritism - in order to make the game 'fair' (and hence the challenges valid, so that beating your enemy is actually worth something). This is super-important to how I percieve gamism (and similar to what I am trying to do as well), but... I can't remember where I was reading this (somewhere around here, I'm a lousy referencer), but it's more or less impossible to stop GM abuse - it's all in the social contract. If your GM is going to fudge die rolls, rewrite percentages after die rolls, interpret ambiguous rules to get what he wants (for the players benefit or otherwise) there's not much you can really do about it. Same goes with balancing the possible options. Rulebooks imply a level of impartiality, but they are just as easily manipulable as anything else (the more complex, the better). Who is to decide if you are in a Haunted Wood or a Dark Wood or an Elvish Wood as far as the lists are concerned? The GM....

Or perhaps I am missing the point. I'd love to hear more.

[Justin Marx]

Sorry... just got the bit regarding making the choice of list also another part of Hunter resolution.... that makes list choice slightly easier. I'd still love to hear more though.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Callan, wouldn't your game require an extraordinary amount of preset lists just to cover the *basics* of geographical and inter-personal contests there might be?  Just off the top of my head I can conceive of 30 places where a list like your would be necessary let alone combat possilbilities.

Peace,

-Troy

[Valamir]

This thread inspired some thoughts.

What if instead of fixed lists you had fixed effects like "Food Source", "Potion Ingredient", "Combat Attack Bonus", "Shelter", "Combat Defense Bonus", "Valuable Resource" etc. each of which could have degrees (e.g. Common, Uncommon, Rare Potion Ingredients)

Then you could create the lists by having each player add one (or two depending on how many players) things to the list.  The thing could narratively be anything they want but they'd have to link it to one of the standard effects so that no matter what they described it as, the effect is the same.  That eliminates the need to have premade lists for every situation and allows for variety. 

For instance One player could say "Poison Frog: Uncommon Potion Ingredient" or "Poison Frog: Major Damage Bonus"

Then players could compete in some fashion for the right to select something off of the list to try for.  Character abilities (either as resources to bid, dice to roll, or scores to roll against etc.) would determine which player gets to choose from the list, but the degree (common, uncommon, minor, major, etc) would determine the chance of it actually being there if the player wins.  In this way combining multiple effects into a single item would simply increase the degree and thus decrease the chance of it being there.


Example: 

GM: On your way to Millerton you travel through a old dark forest.  There is an opportunity to search here.

Player 1 the assassin:  I want to find some Poison Frogs that are found in this area because I can use them to poison my blade - I'll go for a Minor Damage Bonus.

Player 2 the ranger:  I want to hunt down a stag to replentish our rations - I'll go for a Major Food Source

Player 3 the mage:  I want to search for the rare Dusk Mushroom, its both a Rare Potion Ingredient and a Highly Valuable Commodity

Player 4 the cleric:  Ummm old dark forests sound like a great place to get ambushed.  I want to search for a camp site that will provide Minor Shelter and also a Major Defense Bonus.

The GM then determines what skills the players roll.  The assassin might roll against Animal Lore, or Poison Craft or the like; the ranger makes a Hunting roll, the mage a Foraging roll, the cleric a Survival or a Tactics roll or the like.  Whoever wins then has a chance to find what they were looking for.  If the Assassin wins he'll have a fair chance of getting his Poison Frogs because the bonus is only minor.  If the Mage wins the chance of getting the mushrooms will be small because it is both Rare and Highly Valuable.

Something like that anyway...

[Josh Roby]

Callan, is there any way for the players to figure out what the most likely resource is?  I mean, if I'm in that forest and there's lots and lots of dead wood suitable for firewood lying all around me, do I get that information, or do I get "you're in a forest" and then I have to guess which one the GM thinks is most likely?

Oooooh... hey, you don't need a GM for this.  Each player proposes the one-or-two resources to generate the master list, and then every player writes down the three that they think are the most likely to be found on little slips of paper, and then toss all of them into a hat.  A player can then declare, "I'm looking for the mushrooms!" and draw a slip of paper from the hat.  If it's mushrooms, he gets his mushrooms.  If it's something else, he gets nothing.

(Admittedly I can't see a good way to prevent every player from choosing the thing he wants to find -- I'm sure another clever Forgie can untangle that part, though.)

[Joe Zeutenhorst]

Callan S:

Sorry my question sucked. What I'm really trying to figure out is when I, the player, blow a roll, what happens after I don't get my choice?

The way Hunter resolution is written down there, it looks like we just move on to whatever might happen next anyway. Is it possible that I might just call for another Hunter resolution? Can that only happen at the beginning of a scene? Can I just go off and start a new scene, to give me a second shot at those poison mushrooms? (Hey, we're playing to win here, right?)

What happens after Psi Guy whiffs against the tank in Seeker resolution? I'm guessing he'll do this multiple times, since he'll probably have a 15% success rate. Does the tank get a Seeker resolution against Psi Guy? If it does, won't this make any sort of contest basically balanced, as long as the two contestants are able to defeat the other? The main ways of giving yourself an advantage would be the favor of the GM, trying to force the GM to choose an option that you like, or mind reading the GM if all options are favorable to the character.

[Callan S.]

Hi Joe (and this applies to one of Dave's first questions about 'wandering around till you get what you want'),

All valid questions. But remember were just looking at one resolution for now.

When do we stop narrating and we get into resolution? I haven't worked out mechanics for that yet - I'm basically looking at/treating each resolution like an independent mini game, for now.

It's like were just looking at one single flip of a coin right now, rather than asking "If he fails, can he flip again till he wins?" sorts of questions. I'll get to them in a latter thread, because it's actually at a higher level of design. A level I'm deliberately not focusing on right now, for clarity reasons.


Hi Dave,

I also wonder if you are not making a simulation, if you make a list, then players can only find what you deem possible. And GMs might be encouraaged to represent those 5 items in a simulationist matter.

I don't think I'm encouraging simulationism, in the same way that if a NPC's reactions were preset in the book, I definitely wouldn't be encouraging narrativist play in regard to that NPC.

A GM getting into a habit of always making running water available is actually what I hope will occur to at least some small degree (preferably more). It allows the gamist some stability in the game world - which is excellent! He can actually base tactics around this sort of repeating resource.

I THINK a Gamist system would center around what mechanical benefit a player receives for an item after they find it and then the GM setting the risk/effort required based on THIS rather than on the effort/risk

It's like money. Money buys you food, for example. But more important than that is how much of it is printed. That controls the value of the money, which controls if you can buy the food. If you just try to concentrate on what it buys and don't try to control how much is printed, you'll end up shooting yourself in the foot. If the GM is left to watching how much is printed, the next problem occurs.

The GM assigning the risk ends up being an equilibrium process. For example, the GM will assign more risk to a high damaging item, and less risk to a low damaging item. The actual risk/damage ratio of both items ends up being the same. Thus there is no tactical difference. Because if there is a difference, the player chooses the best resource every single time. Contrary to what you might think, balance actually kills gamism. D&D 3.X works because although the book is balanced, the eventual game world situation will mean one resource is more useful than another (and the players job is to spot that). However, if the GM is allowed to assess the value of a resource once applied to the current game world situation, it will balance out and kill the tactical opportunities that feed gamism.

Though I think this is a weighty subject, so I'd prefer any largish responses on it to be started in a new thread (perhaps in actual play, with a play example?).



Hi Justin (and this applies to Troy's question as well),

Don't worry, I'm not interested in covering every situation/setting. The breadth of situation/setting coverage that actually ends up being in the game would not represent an attempt to simulate the world. The breadth of situations given are there to amp up the challenge in the game.

It's interesting that you have the same sort of feeling to the preset element as Dave. It comes off as simmy? How does it feel that way? Is it as if the author (myself in this case), gets to say how the game world works/is laid out? I'm really interested in the answer to this, because I don't want the book to creep up on mode.

Further questions: Does it change the mechanics seeming intent if I said it actually bores me to tears to say how the world works? :) I'm actually tired of it, yet I'm still not handing over the power to the GM or players to make the lists.

Why am I withholding that when I don't want to create the world and the player group could have wonderful time creating it?

Well, basically that's it. :) I don't want the games centre of wonderful fun revolving around making the game world. When I as the author say I will be making these lists, it's not because I'm saying "I'll have all the simmy fun of defining this world! Just me!". I'm instead saying "I'm doing this so no one has fun making the world! Because that's not the point of the game! It's not the thing that's supposed to be fun, so I'm removing that fun.".

Big question: Does that description shift the games intent dramatically?



Hi Ralph,

What do you think of the above questions? And what do you think of the equilibrium and gamism tactics problem, how situation solves this by breaking the balance? If situation is a resource you can choose from (and because it can be chosen, needs to be balanced off against the other situation choices), does it fall prey to equilibrium itself? And fail to meet it's former role?



Hi Joshua,

Callan, is there any way for the players to figure out what the most likely resource is? I mean, if I'm in that forest and there's lots and lots of dead wood suitable for firewood lying all around me, do I get that information, or do I get "you're in a forest" and then I have to guess which one the GM thinks is most likely?

Good question! Basically the GM can simply be closed lipped "Your in a forest" and your left to guess. But it's incredibly boring for him. I'd argue an empowered simulationist GM can afford to sit there tight lipped, because there's the anticipation of his address being revealed by either the players figuring it out or he out and out saying it "You all missed the firewood and can't find any! Your all at the top of the valley and it'd been washed down to the bottom of the valley by the recent storm!! See the causal effect of the storm!"

A GM in my game could think the firewood is in that same spot. But, as I imagine it, he'll think to himself "If I sit here silently, the damn players will just move onto resolution and probably roll/guess lucky and get it regardless of what I think. But if I engage in a little question and answer before we get to resolution, I'll be able to convey some of my thoughts on which resources would be here. And hey, while I'm about it it'll be interesting to see if they can figure it out with what I tell them!"

Side note; hadn't thought about it in concrete terms, but the players would need to be able to initiate the start of resolution, so they have this extra leverage at the table in regards to these matters.

[Justin Marx]

I don't want the games centre of wonderful fun revolving around making the game world. When I as the author say I will be making these lists, it's not because I'm saying "I'll have all the simmy fun of defining this world! Just me!". I'm instead saying "I'm doing this so no one has fun making the world! Because that's not the point of the game! It's not the thing that's supposed to be fun, so I'm removing that fun.".

Big question: Does that description shift the games intent dramatically?

Yeah, it changes it a little more, but I thought the main reason for having the lists was to prevent GMs doctoring the landscape to either give the players extra resources or limited resources in a conflict. That is why I can see the Gamist angle in it. In a sense you're taking the exploration of the world component of a lot of traditional play (even when it is gamist, it's usually there to some extent) and replacing it with exploration of system (like a good gamist) by using lists in the rulebook. Gamism thrives on exploring and exploiting the system.

However...

I wasn't trying to imply that you don't want to make a gamist game. The reason for the response of Dave and I (well maybe me, I should just speak for myself here) is that in games which have lists like this, they usually appear as quite simmy - even in a gamist framework - because the logic of what is/what is not present is usually based around unspecified assumptions on the behalf of the designer on what is 'realistic' in this setting to be there. Somewhere, you'll have to make that judgement when designing the lists that you say you'll hate to design. But exploring the system of the setting seems very similar to exploring the setting to me. I'd love to be refuted.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  The reason I said Sim was because it seems like the emphasis of game play is to reproduce the game world as you see it as opposed to mechanical advantages or disadvantages.
  And I think your premise is flawed, no matter how much detail you put in, the players are going to have to create a little more than what you put. The act of describing a scene is not simulation and describing the elements of the scene for the players does not remove the simulation. In other words, you can't make a game more gamist by removing some simulation aspects. You make it more gamist by creating a mechanic that rewards players in game terms rather than in story or setting terms. In my mind, a Gamist solution would be to have some sort of wildlife survival or forestry skill, roll on that and the better you roll, the more stuff from that list you can gather. See the gameplay focuses on the mechanics and the mechanics gfocus on the game play in a gamist mode.
  I could be all upside down here, but you asked so I explained it.
  I don't thik you have a bad idea or that you are even executing it wrong. But to say it is gamist focused or to say you are malking the players focus on playing the game rather than simulating the world you have envisioned is not entirely accurate.
  Good luck man!

[Josh Roby]

Callan, is there any way for the players to figure out what the most likely resource is? I mean, if I'm in that forest and there's lots and lots of dead wood suitable for firewood lying all around me, do I get that information, or do I get "you're in a forest" and then I have to guess which one the GM thinks is most likely?

A GM in my game could think the firewood is in that same spot. But, as I imagine it, he'll think to himself "If I sit here silently, the damn players will just move onto resolution and probably roll/guess lucky and get it regardless of what I think. But if I engage in a little question and answer before we get to resolution, I'll be able to convey some of my thoughts on which resources would be here. And hey, while I'm about it it'll be interesting to see if they can figure it out with what I tell them!"

Okay, so my question now is how is the player's decision of what resource to look for made a meaningful decision if the information he's given by the GM is supposed to telegraph what he thinks is there?  Doesn't this just make it GM mind-reading?  How does the player's initiative to search for X translate into an address of challenge?

Also, random and tangential point, instead of picking one resource that's the most likely, assigning it a 'good' chance and the rest an even 'poor' chance, what would you think of ranking those resources, so that of the five, the most likely has an 80% chance, the second most likely a 60% chance, the third most likely a 40% chance, and so on?  (Numbers obviously being rough and tweakable for the end design.)