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

[Callan S.]

Yes, it's unreasonable. It relies on the assumption he was 'doing nothing', but doesn't actually question if that is true or not.

Remember various Dogs in the vineyard accounts, where someone says "Jimbo just ran around shooting people! That was crap!". If the beholder isn't willing to see a moral statement being made by shooting all those people, then for that viewer, Jimbo is doing nothing. Narrativism isn't just about making addresses of premise. It's also, of course, about hearing it.

Do you hear what I'm saying with the rustling bush, in terms of gamism?

Even if you don't and think I'm doing nothing, that's cool, I accept that. That's why I set up the exploration rules so players could move on if they just didn't get the challenge. Keep moving on until you find something like that necro flesh monster, if you want.

But not getting what I'm saying, yet STILL engaging so as to get rewards(information) at no stated risk? Yes, that's unreasonable.

Why do you find your listed responce a reasonable one? I see it this way "There's something about this that rubs me the wrong way.  The balls in my court, as to a response.  But the GM hasn't actually done anything.  All he's done is say there's a rustling in the bushes. Hmm, but I don't just feel like looking after myself and walking my PC away to find something more interesting, despite my many complaints. I'll just try and skip to the good parts of it, instead."

[TonyLB]

Do you hear what I'm saying with the rustling bush, in terms of gamism?

Not even remotely.  I have no idea why you think Gamism says that "a bush rustles" requires risk-seeking behavior from the players.  It sounds like crazy-moon-language to me.  Can you explain without assuming that all good gamists already know the answer?

Why do you find your listed responce a reasonable one? I see it this way "There's something about this that rubs me the wrong way.  The balls in my court, as to a response.  But the GM hasn't actually done anything.  All he's done is say there's a rustling in the bushes. Hmm, but I don't just feel like looking after myself and walking my PC away to find something more interesting, despite my many complaints. I'll just try and skip to the good parts of it, instead."

Hrm.  That doesn't sound all that much like what I was saying.  In fact, I wasn't saying that the players should skip to the good parts.  I was saying that you, the GM, should skip to the good parts. 

And I wasn't saying that they'd complained that your material is boring (though it certainly seems that way from what I've heard).  Have they complained?

As a matter of fact, I think your players have done precisely the right thing.  The GM (that's you) gave them a little rustling in the bushes, which (in and of itself) implies nothing.  Could be a shibboleth, could be a squirrel, could be the wind.  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) and then they sat back to see what happens next.  What's so wrong with that?

[Caldis]

Yeah right now I dont see anything wrong with what the players have done and dont see any indication of what they could have done to make it better.  Callan, could you retell the incident having them give responses more to your liking, that may help us see what you actually want from them.  After that maybe someone will be able to make suggestions on modifying your game system to promote the behaviour you want, right now it looks like a standard cautious reaction to an unknown situation.  They see no challenge so there is nothing to step up to, though there is the possibility of a challenge lurking in the bushes.

[Marco]

Callan, you have some image of "gamism" that I really don't understand.

What would you have done as the players?

-Marco

[Supplanter]

Listen to Tony. He's absolutely right - the players acted reasonably.

Best,


Jim

[Callan S.]

Hi Marco,

I've already said what I'd likely do and now I know you've rushed though thread without reading properly and I suspect your not the only one.

I don't blame them for what they posted - as said, I'd likely do the same actions. But even though their well within what should be expected, the lack of knowledge is crushing challenges that they just don't see.

Imagine a nar game, where the GM kept taking a player off into another room when it came to the player making an address of premise, hiding it from the other players. Do you think that's a good technique? What if it's the only one the group knows?

Now imagine gamism, where the players never express (or don't even think of) the risk they are taking. It's the same as the nar example.

Do people think I'm beating on the players tactics here or something? It's not about that at all.



Tony,

Not even remotely.  I have no idea why you think Gamism says that "a bush rustles" requires risk-seeking behavior from the players.  It sounds like crazy-moon-language to me.  Can you explain without assuming that all good gamists already know the answer?

Risk stating, not risk seeking. For you and Caldis there's an example of risk stating right in the first post, with wouldn't involve any change to the actual actions described. I think people have zipped past that post.

In terms of complaints, none so far. It was your second post described this as a non event and I'm using that assumption. Basically I see two states:

1. If it's a non event for them, I expect them to go use the exploration rules.
2. If it's an event for them, I expect them to post an event in responce.

There is no middle ground where I, in their own opinion, post an event, but they can legitimately post a non event in responce.

You're both posting complete non-events, but you're here on this thread pretending like it's all the players, and that you had no part in creating the situation.

Yes, it's all up to the players. I created the exploration rules specifically to shift this sort of responsilbity right off my shoulders. Is there a third state I haven't thought of, where the responsiblity is still mine?

Hrm.  That doesn't sound all that much like what I was saying.  In fact, I wasn't saying that the players should skip to the good parts.  I was saying that you, the GM, should skip to the good parts.

No, I've already chosen the card I want. What your saying is that based on the players feedback, I should choose another card. Is this card okay? No? How about this one? I as GM should pick a card, any card, as long as it's one the player already picked. It wouldn't be me skipping play on, it'd be the player. And from what I'm hearing, with a very traditional illusionism technique. I think an actual play example from you would be the best way to investigate this point.



Thread moderation note for all: Before I listen to anybody I should run a pop quiz to see if you've listened to me to begin with. If you want to teach me some sort of lesson, think of what I'm learning when I see you've skipped the information your asking for. And no more 'listen to so and so' posts - they are empty of content. Feel free to PM me with them, but here they just smell of 'me too!'.

[TonyLB]

Risk stating, not risk seeking. For you and Caldis there's an example of risk stating right in the first post, with wouldn't involve any change to the actual actions described. I think people have zipped past that post.

No, I just considered (and still consider) it irrelevant.  But since you think the phrasing is important, I'll rephrase my question.  Why do you think that "a bush rustles" from you obliges them to state risks?

1. If it's a non event for them, I expect them to go use the exploration rules.

Okay, can you rough in the shape of these rules for us?  Having reviewed the thread (again) I don't see them listed.  You mentioned that a third comrade is currently in the forest, talking with the trees.  Would the other two using the "exploration rules" imply changing their current position as possible quick-response back-up for her?  Would it, in short, imply leaving her?

[Caldis]

Sorry Callan but to be blunt you have failed to express your point well enough for anyone to see it.  The best I can guess at is you want the players to guess whats caused the rustling in the bushes in their posts and somehow that will be the players risking something, maybe social cred if they guess wrong.  Still I dont see why this seemingly meaningless incident has to require the players risking something.  This seems like a set up post for the challenge that is about to come when the bad guy jumps out of the bushes, or just a psych job when it turns out to just be a puppy.  So are you saying that you want every post in the game to have the players risking something, you wont have build up scenes or exposition just constant risk?  If so you are going to need a more tightly focused rule system than Rifts.

[Warren]

I don't know if I could answer a pop-quiz, but let me try and rephrase what you seem to be saying, and then I'll make comments, OK?

Your "Splinter Cell" example: You would be unhappy with something like:
GM:"OK, there is this old wooden bridge ahead."
Players:"OK, We sneak across as usual. Come'on, where is the cool?"
as the players don't seem to be taking risk into account.

You also wouldn't like
GM:"OK, there is this old wooden bridge ahead."
Players:"OK, We sneak across as usual."
GM:"Guards! Yes - a whole bunch of guards" - made up on the spot - "start shooting at you!"
as the GM is making up consequences on the fly. If I understand you correctly, you are likening this to a Narrativist GM going:
GM "Your job's at risk!"
Player "I work real hard at keeping it!"
GM "Umm, and you made that choice against looking after your (previously non existent, the GM is inventing her now) girlfriend, who leaves you because of all the hours your putting in."

Which I agree, is lame. But taking the Narrativist example first, it wouldn't be lame if the players knew - or could make reasonable assumptions about - what effects their decision could have on play. Therefore, the nar GM above should go:
GM "Your job is at risk, but your girlfriend wants you to spend more time with her!"
Player "Umm... Do I lose my job or lose my girl?"
GM: "Pretty much"
Player: "OK, I work real hard at keeping my job"
GM "Right, your girlfriend leaves you because of all the hours your putting in. There, you made an address of premise!"

So taking that back to the Splinter Cell example, I think this would be better:
GM:"OK, there is this old wooden bridge crossing a river that blocks your progress. There is a manned guard post on the other side, watching over the bridge, but the river is fast-moving and freezing cold."
I bet the players won't "Sneak across as usual" when presented with something like that (assuming they have to cross the river somehow, of course). They can look at the situation, make reasonable assumptions of the outcome of each course of action and the associated risks. Therefore they can address the risk - do I risk getting dragged away and/or freezing by swimming? Do I sneak across the bridge and risk alerting the guards? And so on.

Finally, moving back to your Actual Play. I think the players are doing nothing as they have no way of assessing the challenge/risk of a rustling bush. As Tony pointed out, they have gone up an alert stage, but are waiting for more input. If, on the other hand, the players were being chased after by a bunch of savages when they noticed the rustling bush, I expect that they would have considered covering the rear to mitigate the risk of an ambush by the said savages.

If I may be so bold, I would suggest that "A bush rustles" are bad Stakes. "A bush rustles over there, but tribal savages are close on your trail." are better. Good stakes - I would suggest - are not just for Narrativists :)

Warren

[Marco]

Hi Marco,

I've already said what I'd likely do and now I know you've rushed though thread without reading properly and I suspect your not the only one.

I don't blame them for what they posted - as said, I'd likely do the same actions. But even though their well within what should be expected, the lack of knowledge is crushing challenges that they just don't see.

Imagine a nar game, where the GM kept taking a player off into another room when it came to the player making an address of premise, hiding it from the other players. Do you think that's a good technique? What if it's the only one the group knows?

Erm, no. I read everything you've written. Including your quote. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't have any feeling as to whether taking someone off to another room would be good *or* bad. It could increase the tension because I, at the table, don't know what's going to happen with the acting character's actions. It would, I'd think, be unusual--but I have no problem with it.

Basically if you don't blame the players for their actions and would do the same thing yourself in their place then you should be asking yourself what *you* are going to do differently. Since you are clearly not doing that, I think there is a disconnect between what you want and what you are willing to do to get it.

-Marco

[Andrew Cooper]

Callan,

Not to put too fine a point on it but a player risking something in this situation would be completely stupid from a Gamist point of view.  I play with a Gamist priority almost all the time and I wouldn't have done anything at all different in this encounter thus far.  The reason is simple.  I don't know what is at stake yet and I'm not risking anything if I don't know what's at stake.  Is my character's life at stake?  Him looking cool?  Information we need?  A friendship?  Another character's life?  The information you provided didn't show them any stakes for them to gauge what they should risk... thus, they made non-posts  that are their way of asking you for clarification of what's at stake so they can determine what they're willing to risk.

[contracycle]

I'm also a bit confused.

You refer to exploration mechanics for non-events... I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Is the example of the bridge, where they say we cross as normal, a similar event, one in which the players correctly treated the non-event of the bridge as a non-event?

In some senses I wonder if the players have in fact engaged with exploration, rather than risk, in that both those statements are quite "look at me" ones, showing off the chrome and highlighting the abilities.  If this were a movie there would have been a little click-n-lock montage to show off the hardware.  One  might say, they used the prompt of the rustling bushes to express themselves, rather than address risk.

But I do not really see the analogy between the rustle and post facto construction of situation to impose a Nar premise; it seems to me the aspects of direction and attention are implicit any time you play in the persons of individual combatants, unless specifically excepted by mechanics.

But maybe the example is obscuring rather than enlightening.  You say that other things about the recognition of challenge that strike a cord, as something I am have thought about as a problem in gamism, where challenge is not recognised.  Say you have
something like a wandering monster table with a 1 in 10 chance of bumping into a big bad in the dark forest.  After the third time the group traverse this area without anything happening, they will treat it as safe, failing to appreciate the risk they take with every trip.  So, instead of the journey feeling risky, and perhaps colourful, it feels like nothing.  Is that the kind of thing you are thinking of?

[Lord_Steelhand]

Do you hear what I'm saying with the rustling bush, in terms of gamism?

It's April 1st already?  What happened to March?  I have to, on some level, assume this is some sort of joke, satire, or troll - not sure which.  Of course, it is PBP so maybe the players are expected to take directorial action <even though Rifts is not made for such> in order to expedite the encounter resolution.

Let me see if I understand the CA aspect of this situation. 

Question: "You hear a rustle in the woods.  What do you do?"

Sim Answer: "The bushes of Xia Ling only rattle when the Tua Lan is moving from the Courts of Heaven to the Next World!  It will surely bear the treasure we come for, the lost Phial of Ortar Juice that will save King Mindor the Trance-known!  We must move swiftly, my cohorts, or all is lost!"

Narr Answer: "I try and overcome my fear of bushes to stand my post, and prove I am worth a damn."

Gamist Answer: "I shoot the bush!  Init 25, To-Hit 18 (modded to 34 by cyberwear), Damage 64 (blasting,fire,irritant,area effect).  XPs, please?

Otherwise, I think this is waaaay too much discussion of two guys simply wanting to know what's coming next.

[Callan S.]

Hi Contra,

I'm also a bit confused.

You refer to exploration mechanics for non-events... I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Is the example of the bridge, where they say we cross as normal, a similar event, one in which the players correctly treated the non-event of the bridge as a non-event?

Currently all the bridge examples I've given are where the players treated the bridge as a non event when it should be treated as an event.

In some senses I wonder if the players have in fact engaged with exploration, rather than risk, in that both those statements are quite "look at me" ones, showing off the chrome and highlighting the abilities.  If this were a movie there would have been a little click-n-lock montage to show off the hardware.  One  might say, they used the prompt of the rustling bushes to express themselves, rather than address risk.

I wonder this as well.

But I do not really see the analogy between the rustle and post facto construction of situation to impose a Nar premise; it seems to me the aspects of direction and attention are implicit any time you play in the persons of individual combatants, unless specifically excepted by mechanics.

Fair enough. How about this, my character observes two flies crawling up a wall. One gets to the top first and the GM declares that my character made a bet that that one would 'win' and my PC has gained 50 gold. Or the GM declares that my PC bet on the other one and I lose 50 gold (same thing). Did I, as a player, really do anything? I don't think so. The 50 gold is just an event that happened after the flies, it isn't actually connected to anything I have done.

But maybe the example is obscuring rather than enlightening.  You say that other things about the recognition of challenge that strike a cord, as something I am have thought about as a problem in gamism, where challenge is not recognised.  Say you have
something like a wandering monster table with a 1 in 10 chance of bumping into a big bad in the dark forest.  After the third time the group traverse this area without anything happening, they will treat it as safe, failing to appreciate the risk they take with every trip.  So, instead of the journey feeling risky, and perhaps colourful, it feels like nothing.  Is that the kind of thing you are thinking of?

I think that's dead on! If I'm reading your right, after awhile, because they percieve no risk (I assume they don't know it's a 10% chance), they aren't making any statement (through their heading into this area) that they are willing to take on a risk. Way off?  Thanks for weighing in with this example!



Hi Tony,

No, I just considered (and still consider) it irrelevant.  But since you think the phrasing is important, I'll rephrase my question.  Why do you think that "a bush rustles" from you obliges them to state risks?

"You must choose between your dream job or your wife"
"I posture a bit and then look to see if it's worked itself out. Has it?"
What obliges a player to address premise?

Social and system feedback, usually. I've already noted there really needed to be more of both. But the actual content - dream job Vs wife, for example, doesn't ensure any particular agenda will be engaged. Nor does a rustling bush or necrotic behemoth.

Okay, can you rough in the shape of these rules for us?  Having reviewed the thread (again) I don't see them listed.  You mentioned that a third comrade is currently in the forest, talking with the trees.  Would the other two using the "exploration rules" imply changing their current position as possible quick-response back-up for her?  Would it, in short, imply leaving her?

The exploration rules have a thread of thier own, stickied to the top, because I think they're so important. Here's the main thread list of the game.
http://rpol.net/game.cgi?gi=15181&gn=Rifts:+Do+you+dare%3F&date=1140499745
And here's the exploration rules own thread.
http://rpol.net/display.cgi?gi=15181&gn=Rifts:+Do+you+dare%3F&threadnum=1&date=1138354569

I just noticed I wrote in them that you can't use them in the middle of an adventure. But on the second post I wrote that these rules are a way of avoiding plot hooks if you so wish. Hoo boy, tuck into my writing! But I haven't recieved any PM's/posts asking for clarification, either.

On the quick responce back up: So, you think they might have been staying there, because there was some sort of risk to her/the third companion? That'd be cool and just what I'm looking for if they said that and that player accepted it.



Hi Andrew and Warren,

Here's my conclusion. I can't, by stating a risk, make you accept it. Thus, I don't create stakes, the player does when he accepts a risk. I can offer a whole bunch of risks for you to choose from if you like. But ultimately you choose just the risk that you want and create that stake yourself. That's the sweet spot, when you'd dare to step on up and take a risk of your naming.

Once you realise it's the player who creates the stake, then you realise a player who is looking to clarify what stakes are there, is in an impossible position. He's looking for a stake only he's in a position to create. As long as he spends his time looking, he's failing to create what he's looking for.

This is what I've concluded from looking at this AP.

[Marco]

No, I just considered (and still consider) it irrelevant.  But since you think the phrasing is important, I'll rephrase my question.  Why do you think that "a bush rustles" from you obliges them to state risks?

"You must choose between your dream job or your wife"
"I posture a bit and then look to see if it's worked itself out. Has it?"
What obliges a player to address premise?

What obliges the player to address premise is the player's engagement with the premise. I think this is what you are missing en toto. These could be the two biggest gamist guys on the planet and they could still be looking for a challenge to engage with. You don't seem willing to describe a happy outcome that begins with nothing but a rustling bush and moves to your action--I think that is because there isn't one.

There is no challenge to address there. The PCs can't make things appear (the players cannot narrate a necrotic behemoth appearing) so, by definition, you, as the GM, are on the spot for this. You keep doing this over and over. Your wooden bridge is a perfect example: there is no guard, no clear challenge--no nothing. So nothing happens.

You want player actions to create some situation of risk and reward but you aren't willing to do anything and you, as the GM, are in the director's chair. I think that's a catch 22 that you need to find your own way out of (most people go with the necrotic behemoth--but you don't like that).

Give the players the ability to create challenges and maybe they'll do it. Either that or you have the task of setting up the challenge yourself (or using a mechanical method someone else has made to construct challenges both you and the PCs are aware of).

-Marco