[Rifts PBP] I look at it. What do I get?

[Callan S.]

Contra,

It seems to me your risk is, or at least appears to the players, to be doubling up.  It makes no sense to expose yourself to risk only for the purpose of exposing yourself to yet more risk.  What they are trying to do with their interrogative questions is assess whether or not the situation is a) risky and b) how risky.  If they must assume risk in order to even find out a) and b), then it must either be the case that they take on unnecessary risk in what would otherwise (had they not asked the question) have been safe, or they acquire both the risks inherent to the situation and whatever they gambled to find out what the situation was.

I understand the conflict there. But say that reasoning is at level 5. At level 10, which overides level 5 'cause it's bigger, I see this reasoning - if I don't risk something, it's a non event. That damages the gamist agenda. So even though the level 5 reasoning makes sense, it has to be put aside for awhile to facilitate gamist play. The non optimal choice (putting a risk in place) is actually better for gamism, in the long run.

Old terms like "Mony Haul play" refer to a realisation that all that stuff gained without risk is by an large a non event. I'd like to know why that's not being realised here (there are quite a few answers to this, some already given here) and if I'm tackling something more than just a lack of that realisation.



Tony,

As said, situation does not equal agenda. I could have a gamist game about people confined to wheelchairs who are trying to win a photography competition. Your advice tells me that just wont work unless I get a necrotic behemoth in there. Listened and disagreed, nuff said.



Hi Bill,

I was about to say I already asked them for risk. But do you mean, that the very format of always stating the risk, would insist on them stating it? That they can dodge me with wording, but the blank after the word "Risk" is very insistant on being filled in by the player? When they leave it blank, it's quite noticable as opposed to what's happening now with the back and forth discussion (which isn't very clear).

Subtle, yet powerful! I'm gunna have to try that out!

[Grover]

I'm still a bit confused by the rules about stating risk.  What I think happens doesn't make sense to me, so I'll list what I think happens, and you can correct the bits I got wrong.

So - some event occurs (a rustling bush, for example).
That event has some risk inherent in it (There's a sabertooth tiger hiding behind the bush)
Players can choose to ignore the event (in which case it goes away) or...
Players can assume some risk in order to deal with the event (I leave myself open to ambush as I pay attention to the bush) and win a possible reward (xps for beating up a sabertooth tiger)

So there are 5 possible outcomes
Player ignores event - nothing happens
Player accepts risk, is not ambushed, and then kills the sabertooth tiger for xp
Player accepts risk, is not ambushed, and then gets mauled by a sabertooth tiger
Player accepts risk, has to fight off an ambush, and then kills the sabertooth tiger for xp
Player accepts risk, has to fight off an ambush, and then gets mauled by a sabertooth tiger

This seems odd to me.  Am I getting anything wrong?

Steve

[dunlaing]

Hi Bill,

I was about to say I already asked them for risk. But do you mean, that the very format of always stating the risk, would insist on them stating it? That they can dodge me with wording, but the blank after the word "Risk" is very insistant on being filled in by the player? When they leave it blank, it's quite noticable as opposed to what's happening now with the back and forth discussion (which isn't very clear).

Subtle, yet powerful! I'm gunna have to try that out!

Exactly. I'm a big believer in formatting making a difference.

[Callan S.]

Steve: You haven't included accepting the risk for the reward of more information.

I think because your assuming railroading/force techniques and that compensation is in order, ie "If the GM is forcing me into this monster encounter, it's unfair that I should have to accept risk just to find out more about an encounter he's dropping in my lap. So I don't have to and wont accept risk."

While I'm looking at players not at all forced to engage the encounter (remember how it was 200 feet away?), engaging it of their own free will yet shrugging off any risk acceptance while doing so.

It reminds me of something Tony said in this thread

So they switched a single notch up their defense-condition ladder (because, after all, it's not just a rustling ... it's a rustling that the GM specifically mentioned)

Ie, the GM is doing his thing.

Ever see the movie "Kung pow?". Where the hero asks fellow good guys to hit him with staffs (in a show of toughness like the villain did), until the hero throws them all aside dramatically? But the hero gets knocked out in about two seconds and thus will never throw them all aside. However, they keep hitting his inert body over and over, even getting tired while doing it and asking "Do you think he wants us to keep going?" "He said to keep doing it until he throws us aside dramatically!".

The juxtaposition of them thinking they are supporting the hero in what he wants to do, when (despite what they think) they are really doing their own thing, is horribly funny.

I get it as a technique, I think. Perhaps it was the first time I GM'ed years ago, I had the big boss say his dramatic line and - a player interupted to say "I shoot him". There was a pause. Even back then, the play group actually discussed that the villain gets to bang off his lines, THEN you get to shoot him.

Soooo, I wonder if with the rustling bush, it's "waiting for me to finish my lines" (while earning rewards for doing so by posturing and drawn weapon type bonuses?).

[Rob Carriere]

Your battlemap is a risk stating device, IMO. When a player moves his piece, it's so well known around the table that any particular square could mean BOOM, that it's clear he's taking on risk. I'd say the battlemap is more sophisticated than raw spoken statements of 'I take on risk X'. I think were talking about similar things. :)

Hi Callan,
Yes, we're definitely talking about similar things. The two points where the battlemat is more "sophisticated" than raw spoken statements are,

1. It's automatic. I just move the die that represents my character, I don't have to rattle off a list of risks that I am prepared to take and a list of other risks that I am not prepared to take. Especially when things go multi-character, multi-round, this avoids a lot of repetitive language.

2. It's precise. No arguments along the lines of "but I never meant to say that". Either my die is in that square or it isn't.

I agree that a standard format like Dunlaing proposes can help a lot (you will tell us how that experiment goes, right?) A number of standardized risk options (like the 15 second delay in the example) might also help. There's a natural human tendency to minimize effort, so you need to make the risk-stating as easy and natural as possible.

With respect to players waiting for you to finish your lines, that's something that just doesn't seem to happen much in FTF play, but I guess in PBP they can't see the look of eager expectation on your face. :-) Perhaps steal from good old radio and have an explicit terminator? So, you'd either have:

GM: 200' away the bushes rustle.

(Meaning: I'm not done yet, but you can interupt me here if you need to.)
or you have:

GM: 200' away the bushes rustle. What do you do?

(Meaning: I'm all done, ball's in your court.)

SR
--

[contracycle]

I understand the conflict there. But say that reasoning is at level 5. At level 10, which overides level 5 'cause it's bigger, I see this reasoning - if I don't risk something, it's a non event. That damages the gamist agenda. So even though the level 5 reasoning makes sense, it has to be put aside for awhile to facilitate gamist play. The non optimal choice (putting a risk in place) is actually better for gamism, in the long run.

Yes but: the problem is that you are giving them a level 5 prompt, and expecting a level 10 response.  But they, quite reasonably, are giving you a level 5 response.

The use of a batllemat, or other explicit rules for triggering the conflict and stating risk, would raise the initial challenge to 10.  Without the recognition that the GM is trying to act on this higher plane, the players will respond purely in terms opf changes to the SIS, not the broader concept of operations you wish to drive play, I fear.