Ygg take 3

[Lance D. Allen]

With the issue on Grendel's being nabbed by the Sorceress' spell, I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that a roll was made for it. So long as such a thing is made with a consistent roll (even if it's nigh impossible to resist), I don't think anyone will really mind.

Also, on the issue of awareness checks: Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. The trick is to know when, and to advise on these instances in your rules. If the GM still wants to make awareness checks for every little detail, that's their bag, but the rules ought to advise that awareness checks should only be made (assuming they're made at all by the rules of the game) when the outcome is reasonably in doubt, and really matters. A paladin shouldn't have to make a check to see if he noticed the elf take a shot when he was specifically watching the elf, for example. In that case, it's not reasonably in doubt, nor does it incredibly affect the outcome of the scene. (Example taken from tonight's D&D game)

That's my take. For what it's worth, I think it was a very interesting scene, even though the mechanics of it need to be seriously gone over and clarified.

[Valamir]

I guess you notice how split I am about this. On one hand I WANT to empower the players enhance their characters and the scenes, on the other I don't want to rely on such a method of play exclusively. Somehow there has to be a crutch for players who aren't used to it, or for other reasons are unable to fully utilize their freedom.

Ok.  I think I can give you some really good advice here.  Probably if you've been talking to Ron you've already gotten some of this advice so this may just be reinforceing...but its so important it bears repeating.

I understand EXACTLY what you're saying about your players needing a crutch, but in all honesty I think thats just a natural reaction to being introduced to something new.

Three things:

One:  your ultimate goal is to design a game that encompasses the really cool imagery you've come up with (and I do like the stuff you have in the example in this regard) and brings that into actual play rather than just letting it sit in the rulebook and cover art.  You need to recognize that traditional game mechanics with NOT accomplish this, no matter how much flavor text you put in the rule book.  If it did your typical traditional game play would be full of this sort of imagery.  From your other threads I know you've found them not to be which is why you want to make this game in the first place.  My point is, if you limit yourself to doing things the way they do it, your results will be the same.  Imagery, color and flavor will be introduced sporadically at best depending entirely on the individual groups abilities with no real assistance from the rules.

Two:  By making rules that DO support your goal from the game, you're right, you may be leaving some players behind who don't like or can't handle the new style of play.  However, don't sell your players short.  Just because you've never seen them play in a more radical player empowered setting don't make the mistake of assumeing they can't.  Also, recognize that there is no possible way to make a game everyone will enjoy.  There may be players (some of whom may be your friends) who won't like, and won't do it.  You have a choice to make.  You can either pursue your goal of creating an indie RPG that will satisfy you even if that means leaving a few of your current players behind;  OR you surrender to the temptation of "catering to the masses" and try to provide "crutches" to keep people comfortable.  In which case I doubt you will see your vision realized.

Three:  Download Inspectres, Download the Pool, Download Soap and play these games with your current group.  All of these game have a much higher than "traditional" degree of player empowerment and all of them do it without any crutches.  There is no saftey net in any of these games.  I'd probably start with InSpectres since it maintains the most traditional trappings.  Each of these achieve their player empowerment in very different ways so you can see some of the vast variety of non traditional mechanics that are available to you.  By playing them with your group you can see for yourself player power in action.  Maybe they won't go over well.  Maybe your players really wouldn't like this style of play (nothing wrong with that), but don't assume they wouldn't until you try it.  Maybe some of them will finish a game with slack jawed amazment salivating for more.  Thats how many of us wound up here on the Forge to begin with.

In this way Palladium is better. The rewards for good roleplaying can often outweigh that of defeting monsters. They both use an XP system, but because of the focus is different in XP, so will the focus also shift in actual play.

Rewards are the single most important feature of your game.  It IS possible to reward character relationships.  Witness Hero Wars.  In a simple example, I'm fighting a monster with my sword.  The monster is threatening Sherina the love of my life.  I can take my positive modifiers for my love of Sherina and add them to my ability to fight the monster.  Here is an ingame reward for developing relationships as important character attributes.  Pendragon is one of the first games to do this with its "Passion" traits.  

It similiar is possible to reward imagery and color in a game.  I'm working through some ways to do that in a game I'm making now.  A very basic rough idea would be to have no spell descriptions at all in your game.  Rather have a list of basic spell effects (Like your "detect magic").  Then have each magic user create a theme for their character.  Colors, sounds, shapes, iconography, etc.  When a player casts a spell, the effects are the effects, but let them explain the pyrotechnics in a way that fits within their theme.  If you the GM agree they did a good job and the effects were very cool award them (fate chip, XP, get out of jail free card, whatever).  In this way you can keep the effects within your desired parameters while still tapping the player's creativity.

[Le Joueur]

Grendel: I ready my sword.

GM: You pull your sword from it's scabbard. Do I need to
mention there is little light other than Brokk's torch?

This minor exchange actually brings up a profound question with far reaching consequences for its design.

Is this the sort of game where if a player doesn't specifically say "I ready my sword" than it isn't ready?

I was thinking that Grendel actually says that as a way to announce his intent to the other players rather than for the GM. The confirmation from the GM is a little confusing here I agree. But from my POV it's only Grendel showing the other players that his character is really intent of settling this a violent way.

To my thinking the above is the perfect time to begin using 'turn sequencing¹.'  Toss the initiative rules; if the players know to "announce [their] intent" regarding the inevitability of physical conflict ("intent of settling this a violent way"), that makes the best start point for 'initiative.'  Why have any other?²

Fang Langford

¹ Turn Sequencing is when play switches to 'round 1,' 'round 2,' and et cetera, the most notable meta-game feature held over from the oldest of role-playing games.

² This is what Scattershot does.  If you look at the example, there was no stop for an 'initiative roll.'  One drew his sword (I'd have given another action, unless the player chose to hold that action); the next, on his turn, casts a spell; the third chooses a positioning move; then the 'monster' goes.  What could look more natural?

You might say that no initiative roll was needed in this case, but I think I can make a solid argument that it is not needed in any case based on what went on here.  And even 'monsters' can be the ones that precipitate combat.

It's exactly things like initiative rolls that turn 'I draw my blade of deadly might from it's sheath' into simply 'we attack, where's the initiative dice?'  The main reason, I think, for doing away with them.

[Christoffer Lernö]

Grendel: I ready my sword.

GM: You pull your sword from it's scabbard. Do I need to
mention there is little light other than Brokk's torch?

This minor exchange actually brings up a profound question with far reaching consequences for its design.

Is this the sort of game where if a player doesn't specifically say "I ready my sword" than it isn't ready?

I was thinking that Grendel actually says that as a way to announce his intent to the other players rather than for the GM. The confirmation from the GM is a little confusing here I agree. But from my POV it's only Grendel showing the other players that his character is really intent of settling this a violent way.

To my thinking the above is the perfect time to begin using 'turn sequencing¹.'  Toss the initiative rules; if the players know to "announce [their] intent" regarding the inevitability of physical conflict ("intent of settling this a violent way"), that makes the best start point for 'initiative.'  Why have any other?²

It's a neat idea Fang, and I've been toying with it since you mentioned it. In practice while GMing I often tweak the initiative stuff. Sometimes I completely leave it out and sometimes just to have some arbitrary order in which actions are made.

Still, there is one issue to resolve though. If I keep the abstract combat together with the specified one, difference in initiative (assume you roll it every round) will have a role in "simulating" certain parameters in an extended battle situation. I mean, you could explain that you're simulating some things by rolling for the order in which one performs one's attack rolls. This can probably be incorporated in some other manner, but I can't think of a really good one straight away.

Incidentally I wrote my example deliberately leaving the option open to remove initiative rolls altogether.

Incidentally I seem to remember some early games (was it ol D&D?) only had an initiative roll more or less to check if the monsters got a free attack or if the players did. After that you just alternated between letting all monsters attack and letting all the players attack.

From there it got increasingly more complicated, but not necessarily more accurate.

[Christoffer Lernö]

With the issue on Grendel's being nabbed by the Sorceress' spell, I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that a roll was made for it. So long as such a thing is made with a consistent roll (even if it's nigh impossible to resist), I don't think anyone will really mind.

Yes, actually a roll for every situation to give the player a chance, although possibly less than one-in-a-million does help softening the blow. That way you can feel that: "at least I got a chance".

A paladin shouldn't have to make a check to see if he noticed the elf take a shot when he was specifically watching the elf, for example. In that case, it's not reasonably in doubt, nor does it incredibly affect the outcome of the scene. (Example taken from tonight's D&D game)

God I hate it when bad GMs make you roll for those things.

That's my take. For what it's worth, I think it was a very interesting scene, even though the mechanics of it need to be seriously gone over and clarified.

Thanks, I'm working on it (incidentally I'm working on other matters too, like seriously trying to improve my Chinese. Considering I actually pay for my tuition I really should try to prioritize that a little, so everyone, if replies are a little slow at coming it's not because I don't intend to reply, I'm just postponing it a little)

[Le Joueur]

You really got the idea!  I just want to parse it out finely, so you can see that you do.

Grendel: I ready my sword.

I was thinking that Grendel actually says that as a way to announce his intent to the other players rather than for the GM. But from my POV it's only Grendel showing the other players that his character is really intent of settling this a violent way.

To my thinking the above is the perfect time to begin using 'turn sequencing.'  Toss the initiative rules; if the players know to "announce [their] intent" regarding the inevitability of physical conflict ("intent of settling this a violent way"), that makes the best start point for 'initiative.'  Why have any other?

It's a neat idea Fang, and I've been toying with it since you mentioned it. In practice while GMing I often tweak the initiative stuff.

Try thinking about what you 'tweak' and consider making these 'tweakers' into common rules so that anyone can 'tweak' their own initiative (and not by 'tweaking,' technically) without dice to reflect the in-game situation.  I find that making that available to the players has their characters behaving in a more verisimilar fashion regarding their chances in choosing to start a battle.

Sometimes I completely leave it out and sometimes just to have some arbitrary order in which actions are made.

My opinion is that there is always an "arbitrary order in which actions are made" to use instead of rolling, if only you look hard enough.  The Scattershot techniques will talk quite frankly about how to look for those various factors in accords with the orientations being practiced in play.

Still, there is one issue to resolve though. If I keep the abstract combat together with the specified one, difference in initiative (assume you roll it every round) will have a role in "simulating" certain parameters in an extended battle situation. I mean, you could explain that you're simulating some things by rolling for the order in which one performs one's attack rolls. This can probably be incorporated in some other manner, but I can't think of a really good one straight away.

The problem here is I think you need to consider why you "assume you roll every round."  Such a roll will not be 'simulating' but replacing "certain parameters."  I think the loss of those "parameters" is one of the chief things that makes role-playing game combat with initiative rolls "every round" detrimentally abstract.  Instead of "simulating some things by rolling" (a contradiction in terms, a simulation would not abstract to a die roll), in Scattershot we chose to have the players take those "some things" into account as 'advantage' they hold over their opponents in battle.

If you want an example of how to "incorporate" those "things" in another manner, take a look at Scattershot's "Combat Advantage" section; it briefly covers during-battle situations that confer an advantage that takes the place of "order in which one performs one's attack rolls."  Added to the how a character can forfeit all of their upcoming actions gives abstract, combat mechanics that 'attacking in different order' feeling without varying the 'around the table' turn-sequencing.

Incidentally I wrote my example deliberately leaving the option open to remove initiative rolls altogether.

I'm glad you did.  It looks much better that way.  I wish you luck in addressing the concerns you took for granted as situations that were 'simulated' with 'rolling every round' in a new and non-random fashion.  I think it only increases a players sense of 'controlling their character's destiny.'  (Instead of having that control ripped away by with whims of misshapen dice.)

Fang Langford

[Walt Freitag]

With the issue on Grendel's being nabbed by the Sorceress' spell, I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that a roll was made for it. So long as such a thing is made with a consistent roll (even if it's nigh impossible to resist), I don't think anyone will really mind.

Yes, actually a roll for every situation to give the player a chance, although possibly less than one-in-a-million does help softening the blow. That way you can feel that: "at least I got a chance".

Wow, I really disagree strongly here. Here's a clear-cut choice between game play that preserves a sense of wonderment, and game play that preserves a sense of fairness. Which did you say you wanted?

The feeling that "at least I got a chance" is antithetical to wonderment. It's a bone you're throwing to reassure the players that the world is indeed governed by knowable rules and controllable by means of those rules. Every effect has its cause. Dragons aren't primal forces representing the fundamentally uncontrollable, they're just reptiles that are really really really hard to hit. Magic doesn't break the rules of nature; if a spell takes effect faster than a charging swordsman can deliver a blow, there must be a reason for it, some combination of situational variables and causality and honest random chance that explains why it happened that way. Meanwhile, that sense of wonderment you were after has sprouted wings and is getting away fast...

Did the sorceress on the throne succeed in stopping Grendel without having to roll for it? Unfair! Did she perform the preparation for her action (note that it's just assumed that preparation was required in the first place) during out-of-game description time, the same out-of-game time the player-character was not allowed to act? Unfair!

Did what the player wanted to happen not happen? Was the player not given narrative power to interpret what did or didn't happen, or why? Did something happen to the character that makes him look ineffective? Deprotagonizing! That is to say, by the rules of character-centric narrativism, Unfair!

Even inside your example, a player is reacting that way. "Deathlight? No, impossible! Only humans can use demonic magic!" In other words, Unfair!

Good. Keep following those cries of "Unfair!" in whatever direction they seem loudest, and you'll find your path. The formula you're looking for is this: screw fair and the horse it rode in on.

In The Empire Strikes Back when Han Solo gets a quick-draw blaster shot at Darth Vader, drawing on his core skills and his primary emotional connections to the story, did he have a one in a million chance to succeed? Not a chance. Did that deprotagonize Han Solo? Perhaps, but it was more important at that point to protagonize (antagonize?) Darth Vader.

So, if you must reduce this to a theory, creating a sense of wonder means protagonizing your setting. Every rule that restricts what can and cannot happen deprotagonizes your setting. Every million-to-one "well, at least you allowed a roll for it, so it's not unfair" die roll you allow deprotagonizes your setting. Rules that can be relied upon to be fair are like the cages in a zoo. Whatever's inside those cages -- characters, situations, events -- is inevitably diminished.

This argument could certainly justify the more free-form approach that others have urged you to consider. But that's not what I'm suggesting. (In my mind, rules governing metagame control over the narrative are like removing the zoo animals from their cages, but putting the spectators inside armored vehicles. It's just a different kind of cage.) What I'm suggesting is that you make up all the simulationist rules you want, but then feel free to (no, obligated to) break them whenever your goal of fostering a sense of wonderment requires it.

Which brings us 'round to Ron's excellent question (to paraphrase): are there ways to make the system actually help in this process? As things currently stand, a poor GM using this approach will produce only disaster. Poor setting designers likewise. It's common as dirt for old-school modules to be full of rules exceptions such as effects that the players could not create themselves using the system rules. "This wall is impervious to all magic" and the like. Trouble is, these effects were misused to protect puzzles instead of to create wonderment, a fact so obvious to the players as to destroy any chance of wonderment systemwide.

What I'm imagining, in a vague way so far, is a system of metagame rules akin to a complete narrativist game system that is executed in secret and entirely by the gamemaster. This system uses its hero dice or whatever to regulate the GM's (or setting designer's) use of rule exceptions in such a way as to increase their effectiveness while minimizing the adverse effects, such as by keeping the GM on the right side of the fine line between "protagonizing the setting" and arbitrariness. For example, the system could give free-form attributes to parts of the setting ("The Old Forest is Semi-Sentient, Pathless, and Energy-Sapping") and rules exceptions occurring there would each have to tie into an attribute, perhaps with a die pool roll to determine a cost for the exception, paid for out of a limited currency whose starting value would represent the overall "wonderfulness" of that place. A player's direction-finding magic spell is countered by the GM drawing upon the "Pathless" and "Energy-Sapping" attributes of the forest, and if the GM pays the cost the dice determine, the player's magic fails. In other words, let's consider "protagonizing" setting and situation using the same metagame design techniques that have already proven effective at protagonizing characters.

(Hell and damnation! You've all tricked me into coming up with an idea that has the dreaded quality too good to pass up. This means I'm going to have to take my own tilt at the fantasy system windmill now, something I've avoided the temptation to do for twenty-odd years. Crap! Crap! Crap!)

- Walt

[Valamir]

Walt its really a shame you're on the other side of the country from me, cause I'd love to play with you.  I don't know how many threads you've posted to now that my reaction was "yeah, what he said", but this is another one.

Wonderment is lost because the setting is deprotagonized...that's seriously profound.

Wonderment can be preserved by protagonizing the Setting...thats just genius.  I don't know where it would lead, but its gotta lead somewhere interesting.

[Christoffer Lernö]

One:  your ultimate goal is to design a game that encompasses the really cool imagery you've come up with (and I do like the stuff you have in the example in this regard) and brings that into actual play rather than just letting it sit in the rulebook and cover art.  You need to recognize that traditional game mechanics with NOT accomplish this, no matter how much flavor text you put in the rule book.

Yes, but still there definately are differences from one system to another. Some grant more freedom than others. But point taken.

Two:  By making rules that DO support your goal from the game, you're right, you may be leaving some players behind who don't like or can't handle the new style of play.

I've checked out soap, the pool and inspectres. They prove an interesting counterpoint to traditional rpgs, but I don't personally feel like: "OH YEAH! This is the stuff I want for my game", I want to preserve a more traditional style of GM refereed play, but... open holes in the rules where you have freedom of expression within certain guidelines.

Maybe you're right and all I have to do is to play/gm these games, but I don't really have that option at the moment (studying abroad in a country where I'm struggling to learn the language) otherwise I'd make use of that advice.

We're sliding into a more theoretic discussion here, but shouldn't it be possible to use good stuff from both worlds?

I mean even in a very mechanical system like D&D you have to free-form stuff not covered by rules, so despite it's nailed-down mechanic in combat there's plenty of freedom when you move outside of those situations.

Here Fang points out that you can help that along by making such transitions very clear and explained in the rules. Likewise, isn't it possible to say that "here and here and here are special situations where the player can author the outcome within these parameters"?

In fact, aren't there already some game who actually does that? Does it have to be either pure traditional or purely like Soap?

It similiar is possible to reward imagery and color in a game.  I'm working through some ways to do that in a game I'm making now.

Yes, wasn't there a suggestion by someone (you?) to make the spells work differently depending on how well the spell was described and how imaginatively they were figured out?

But what if you introduce a potentially good new player who is shy and at first holds back a lot. That person might not dare to come up with a lot of ideas and end up being punished for not being involved enough. It's a very significant drawback I feel.

[Christoffer Lernö]

For example, the system could give free-form attributes to parts of the setting ("The Old Forest is Semi-Sentient, Pathless, and Energy-Sapping") and rules exceptions occurring there would each have to tie into an attribute, perhaps with a die pool roll to determine a cost for the exception, paid for out of a limited currency whose starting value would represent the overall "wonderfulness" of that place.
A player's direction-finding magic spell is countered by the GM drawing upon the "Pathless" and "Energy-Sapping" attributes of the forest, and if the GM pays the cost the dice determine, the player's magic fails. In other words, let's consider "protagonizing" setting and situation using the same metagame design techniques that have already proven effective at protagonizing characters.

WOW that's TOO COOL. That would provide the GM with a good way to measure when the players have broken enough ground to actually "beat" the setting.
Usually the problem is that when one "protagonizes" the setting it tends to be a "Ok, now I decide the players can't do anything about this", and you have to decide when to shift to a "now the players are powerful enough to actually resist the effects"
Because of the change was arbitrary, on would feel one was either being too nice to the players (by shifting too early) or too mean (by shifting too late).

What I think you are suggesting is to actually quantify this so that the GM can tell exactly when that transition should occur. And THAT is a good idea I haven't seen done before. Will you let us all use it? Please? ;)

[contracycle]

Bing.  Lightbulb moment - protagonising setting.  I love this so much.

Incidentally, it was mentioned in the Dramatica article - about how the setting like "driving storm" takes over the confrontational role filled by the supoprting cast.

I propose we reconsider a setting thread - an active discussion of manipulating and protagonising setting, and how and to what end such an idea can be used.  I think several people have been groping toward a concept which walt has neatly packaged for us.

[Valamir]

Does it have to be either pure traditional or purely like Soap?

Nope, absolutely not.  And the best reason why it shouldn't be like that is because that isn't what you're going for.  But by exploring some of the options that are out there that are more bleeding edge you can see that there is NOTHING in a tradiitional game that HAS to be there because "that's the way RPGs are done".

Once you're over that hurdle (and it sounds like you might be) you can then begin the process of choosing what aspects of a traditional game you WANT because you like them and what aspects you can change by introducing something less traditional.  

But what if you introduce a potentially good new player who is shy and at first holds back a lot. That person might not dare to come up with a lot of ideas and end up being punished for not being involved enough. It's a very significant drawback I feel.

I think that's a fear that isn't really warranted for many reasons; not the least of which is if the person is shy and not greatly participating but is still having fun, who are you to say they're playing wrong.  But ultimately it the GMs job to make sure that every player has an adequate share of the spotlight, so if players with strong personalities are being too dominant its just a matter of making a point to pay attention to the wall flowers.  I've seen GMs totally ignore the shy players except to tell them what to roll when their initiative comes up.  I've also seen GMs put the boisterous players on hold to spend five or ten minutes asking pointed questions to the more reserved player about what they want and what they are doing.

Also a key is that you should not punish lack of participation, but rather reward desired participation.  Thats a significant difference.

[Walt Freitag]

Okay, I've started a Protagonising Setting thread in RPG Theory. Thanks for the enthusiastic reaction!

Also I think the discussion as it relates specifically to Pale Fire's game should continue here.

- Walt