[PBP] Damn that lucky player!

[Callan S.]

I'm running a play by post at the moment - its in the same spot where I've run games before and commented about them here.

This ones played different as I've layed out the largest reward cycle. However, this posts not about that - its about an interesting reaction I had. First I'll fill in on the structure a bit - the combat cycle is largely dice based, with a modifier (between +0 and +4 to hit) decided by the GM based on moves made (and were rolling a d20).

It's got a large dice component to avoid 'mother may I syndrome'. Like if I made that GM fiat larger and the dice effects smaller, basically you wouldn't be able to do much unless you get GM bonuses. With a larger dice component, there's a fair chance of players actively continuing play without having to go through GM fiat. So rather than requiring the GM's okay just to like, actually play anything at all, you can go with the numbers. It's more beneficial to get the GM bonuses, perhaps even saving you from losing if the odds turn against you. But there's a game there regardless.

So, the effect it had on me? Well, the player had a run of luck on the sites dice roller, wacking one monster pretty easily, then getting two natural twenties in a row, and most recently hitting and rolling max damage, splatting another. Notably this means absolutely no need for those GM bonuses to hit. I think the effect on me started after the second crit, where I just reused a previous monster description. Before that they were fairly varied. He just splat that one in one hit.

And I'm constipated, might be a way of putting it. I see putting the monsters up gets no SIS sort of action at all. Sure, it was okay before when he wasn't trying to get bonuses (probably a topic for another thread, as to why). That's because I thought it'd bite him in the ass. But now when the images and dimensions I put some effort into are brushed away by meer numbers, ugh, I don't want to give any more.

What I want is to crush him. And that was coming first and foremost when I thought of some mo fo of a multi bandsaw blade  based poltergiest just stepping in and crushing him. Yeah, I still got creative, but I can tell its not an end to me now - its a means. And no I'm not just putting up a meanie image - I layed out at the start that I determine the HP (within a stated, fixed range though). Oh, max HP I think for Mr I don't need any clever moves I'm so damn lucky!

Keep in mind when I write that, I don't hold anything against him - but I do hold something against him winning!

I'm rather glad I had set limits to the HP allocation and GM fiat is only in how much of a bonus I give (and there's no fiat anywhere else, just rules and rolls). This way I can really lay in the boot like I want to and no pissy 'oh be fair' bullshit in the way. I'm not fair in chess (following the rules is NOT fair, it's part of what you just do), nor do I want to be when Mr lucky needs a bandsaw applied to his head!

But in the other part of my headspace, man I was sooooo dry in terms of any sort of demand for creative monster making. Stuff that, it was just debilitating what happened. Why would I lovingly make something for it to be just treated that way?

And from an outside perspective, I think the rush to crush him can reduce the variety of challenges, getting two dimensional. There's room for that hippy creative streak too.

Well, I guess I wanted to say that more than ask questions about it. But it's a fun footnote.

[Filip Luszczyk]

With so strong random factor in relation to the bonuses, bonuses for clever/cool/whatever moves will not work well.

It kind of reminds me one of my attempts at running Exalted using TSoY rules (first edition), where I've been awarding a bonus die for cool stunts. One bonus die didn't make enough change there, as only two best rolls were counted and the player was rolling quite a number of bonus dice from Secrets and Pools anyway. What I got was the player gathering a big pile of dice in the final climactic scene, commenting that "I don't even stunt, what for?", and then demolishing the dreaded Mask of Winters himself with one good roll.

If you want to motivate the player, it would better if the bonuses constituted a large portion of his effectiveness (e.g. look at Wushu, and how it's impossible to get anywhere without describing cool stuff - and one could just as well reward clever moves instead of cinematic stunts there). Another option is giving out resources for clever moves instead of bonuses, and making sure these resources will be needed. This is how vanilla Exalted works, were smart players stunt not to get additional die or two (with pools of 10-20 dice being common it's not a substantial enough bonus to motivate anyone), but to regain motes of Essence and Willpower points (and character drained of Essence and Willpower is a dead character). So, what about giving out some HP replenishment for clever moves instead of bonuses to hit?

[Simon C]

Bonuses for describing "cool moves" have always left a bad taste in my mouth, for a number of reasons.  First, as you point out, the "mother may I" thing.  At a certain point, your choice as GM over whether to give out bonuses or not is gonna be the deciding factor in whether the player succeeds or not.  That's a pretty uncomfortable situation.  Putting the characvters in a tough situation, and then deciding for them whether they have a chance of getting out of it is a recipe for frustrated palayers.

Also, I don't like judging my friends' contributions to the game.  Who am I to say "that's one dice cool, but Tom, he gets three."? It makes me uncomfortable forcing my creative ideas onto the players, making them play by my rules.  We all have a stake in the game.  If someone's having fun describing what their character is doing, it feels like I'm trampling their creativity if I say "No, only one dice for that."

Another reason is that, as seems to have happened in your game, if "cool descriptions" serve a mechanical purpose in the game, as soon as there's no mechanical reason for them, the cool descriptions stop.  If someone's not inclined to describe things anyway, giving them bonus dice for it just means they'll do the bare minimum to get by.  It doesn't increase their enjoyment of the game, since you're forcing them to do something they don't want to do.  Players who enjoy doing it will do it anyway.

The last reason is that it makes narration really messy.  With a fortune-at-the-end mechanic, "cool descriptions" are always going to be a bit weird.  "I flip over his head, spinning in mid air, to kick him in the back of the head" looks a bit odd when it's followed by rolling a one.  It's dissatifying to have your description of the scene negated immediately afterwards by a bad roll.  It also leads to a weird disconnect, where sometimes moves that look really awesome, still mess up.  Rolling the dice after describing the action will always lead to slightly wonky looking combat.

So that's why I don't like it.  Sorry, I didn't realise I had such strong views until I started writing. 

For this player, the urge to crush him is an understandable one, but in the end, I think it's counterproductive.  You're just encouraging him to think of each subsequent thing as something else to smack down.  Try giving him encounters that require interactions other than rolling to hit. 

I know that you put a lot of work into those encounters, but you can hardly blame the guy for engaging with them exactly as you intended, by fighting them.  In his mind, he's exactly fulfilling the social contract.  You provide challenges, he defeats them.  I understand the frustration, but I think it's part of the satisfaction for some players - looking at what the GM has created, then smashing it up. 

[Callan S.]

Hi Filip,

Your TSOY example sounds like it'd end up a very small increase in the overall chance to sauced. In D&D for example, I've noticed even a +2 can make a change, while here its up to +4. That's a 20% bonus at its peak.

Basically the design is set so the player is already pursuing something, and uses SIS interaction to supplement that pursuit. As you say in Wushu its impossible to do anything without describing cool stuff - thus it's impossible to pursue anything, without first interacting with the SIS. In my design, pursuit comes first, then SIS interaction. In Wushu its design puts SIS interaction first, then pursuit comes second. I've only skimmed wushu, but it registered as sim promoting to me. In the end, I don't want the SIS to come first and foremost - Once Ron talked about exploration as a little wooden platform, then nar or gamism as a really alien to wood material on top, like plastic or steel. That alien desire to win should come first here.

In the end, the SIS is supposed to present adversity - but the player has bypassed that by his play choices. Sure, its not a chess like move that's done it, but just gamblers guts. In chess if I get my queen behind enemy lines but he picks her off with a pawn, his choice removes that adversity. Here the SIS is just another game piece (again, first and foremost) and he's picked it off (by his gambling moves)

At the point described I did feel disappointment - the switch to 'I want to crush him' did not come straight away. However, the disappointment lay in feeling I had to put loving effort into more imaginative creations, only for them to be removed without care or consideration, and to keep on doing so for the game. Blah! But once I considered putting loving effort into kicking his ass by cooking up an ass kicking creature (ass kicking first, SIS second), the excitement came back. But I could feel a 'gear shift' between the two.

I'll consider the HP idea for my next thing (I can't change the rules now, that would be SC breach), in order to make the SIS a more appetising supplement in the pursuit of a win.

[Callan S.]

Hi Simon,

Bonuses for describing "cool moves" have always left a bad taste in my mouth, for a number of reasons.  First, as you point out, the "mother may I" thing.  At a certain point, your choice as GM over whether to give out bonuses or not is gonna be the deciding factor in whether the player succeeds or not.  That's a pretty uncomfortable situation.  Putting the characvters in a tough situation, and then deciding for them whether they have a chance of getting out of it is a recipe for frustrated palayers.

Also, I don't like judging my friends' contributions to the game.  Who am I to say "that's one dice cool, but Tom, he gets three."? It makes me uncomfortable forcing my creative ideas onto the players, making them play by my rules.  We all have a stake in the game.  If someone's having fun describing what their character is doing, it feels like I'm trampling their creativity if I say "No, only one dice for that."

Would you like to go through what has priority with you? Like what things come before all else, what comes second, and suchlike.

I think it might help discussion, because then I can take your order of priority and switch it around. As is, it might seem that certain things are assumed to come first by their very nature, rather than simply being one arrangment of priorities.

Also, I haven't actually said I wanted 'cool' move descriptions. Filip and yourself have assumed I'm interested in cool, when I say I've given room for describing moves. Could you imagine it as a missinterpretation? What other interpretations of 'describe your move' could be in use?

Finally, I don't blame the guy - my only dissapointment was to have to have my lovingly made creations used up without care or consideration. That isn't to do with him at all - it's a result of the system (the one I chose to play - hell, I even invented it (this configuration)). That made the transition much easier.

[Simon C]

Would you like to go through what has priority with you? Like what things come before all else, what comes second, and suchlike.

I'm not sure I understand your question, sorry.  Do you mean "what is your first priority in play, your second, and so on"?

I take your point about "cool".  I guess I was using that as a convenient shorthand for... ...what? Now I'm not sure.  I guess this is an example of the "murk" that I don't like about rewarding good narration - that what is considered "good" is unclear.  Clearly "cool" isn't what you mean, and it's not really what I mean either.   So what do you mean? And how have you communicated this to the player?

I wonder.  Is "using up your lovingly made creations without care or consideration" actually part of the fun for some players, like it's a way of "beating" you? Is it saying "you put in all this work, and I'm going to smash it all up, because I'm the best at this game there ever was".  Is that a fair appraisal of one approach to a Gamist agenda? It seems a bit harsh, but then, we're in a hobby with a lot of very strange people.  Certainly I've seen that glow on a player's face when they interrupt an NPC in mid plot-exposition with a lucky arrow-to-the-face, becasue they know that I liked the NPC, and they'd just messed everything up.  It's like how when you're playing a first-person shooter, and you've got a sniper rifle, picking off bots is ok fun for a little while, but shooting other real-life players is much more fun, becasue you can imagine their surprise and consternation on the other end.  What do you think?

[Callan S.]

With priority, yes.

In terms of murk, Ron used it once in terms of a game he was designing, where he knew how to swing a psionic sword, but he didn't know when to do it. When to actually do it is where the murk lies.

There is no uncertainty of procedure in this game I laid out for the player. Its laid out like a chess or monopoly. The SIS only enters through the bonus to hit, or bonus to prowl - it doesn't enter the game through determining what procedure to use next.

One perspective that may help is to imagine you were invited to play the game, having been given the details from above. If you would accept, I could ask about why, especailly relative to the system used. If you wouldn't, I could describe it technically, but I doubt it would help.

I wonder.  Is "using up your lovingly made creations without care or consideration" actually part of the fun for some players, like it's a way of "beating" you? Is it saying "you put in all this work, and I'm going to smash it all up, because I'm the best at this game there ever was".  Is that a fair appraisal of one approach to a Gamist agenda?

My account isn't an example of that, but what you describe is like taking a piece in chess, then snapping it in two (when its the other guys chess set). Or perhaps more accurately, taking a piece, then pissing on it. Do you think that's gamist?

Certainly I've seen that glow on a player's face when they interrupt an NPC in mid plot-exposition with a lucky arrow-to-the-face, becasue they know that I liked the NPC, and they'd just messed everything up.

You might want to give a fuller account of that in another thread. It's not indicative of any agenda as yet. From reading accounts here, its probably because A: you liking it probably made the NPC one of the biggest stakes in the game, and B: Direct combat attacks are the hardest for a GM to flat out veto - everyone knows an arrow to the face is an arrow to the face. While diplomacy, as another approach, can just sputter ("Oh, yes you convinced him to do X, but that doesn't include X, Y or Z!"). In the short account, it sounded like a player hungry to affect the game at a significant level. Yes, the player probably did enjoy your reaction, but I've seen many healthy capes accounts where players enjoyed others groaning at their new destiny. Except in capes, everyone knows the system and accepts a vulnerability because of it. Did you accept your NPC was vulnerable to system use?

[Simon C]

I feel like we're talking past each other a little, and I'm getting a (probably unintended) defensive tone from your post.  My intention here isn't to attack you, or to say "you're doing it wrong". Let me know if this discussion's not useful to you, and we can wrap it up.

Lets imagine I am invited to play your game (Which, by the way, looks like fun).  My first question would be this:

From your PBP:

You can also describe your moves and get a bonus of up to 20%, determined by the GM.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  There's no description of what criterea you're using to decide what bonus "describing your moves" nets me, which means I might have quite different ideas about when this is appropriate.  For example, in Exalted, "stunt" dice are usually only awarded a few times in a session.  Players who constantly showboat for stunt dice are considered to be breaking the "spirit" of the rule, which reserves them for "special occaisions".  If I ask ask for bonuses too often, am I breaking some unwritten rule?  My perception from other games with similar mechanics is that "describe your moves" means "flashy moves will get bonuses", but flashy moves don't fit my concept of the character, or the tone of the game.  It seems like you're going for something different with this game from what I've experienced in other games.  Can you be more specific about what that is?

You might want to give a fuller account of that in another thread. It's not indicative of any agenda as yet. From reading accounts here, its probably because A: you liking it probably made the NPC one of the biggest stakes in the game, and B: Direct combat attacks are the hardest for a GM to flat out veto - everyone knows an arrow to the face is an arrow to the face. While diplomacy, as another approach, can just sputter ("Oh, yes you convinced him to do X, but that doesn't include X, Y or Z!"). In the short account, it sounded like a player hungry to affect the game at a significant level. Yes, the player probably did enjoy your reaction, but I've seen many healthy capes accounts where players enjoyed others groaning at their new destiny. Except in capes, everyone knows the system and accepts a vulnerability because of it. Did you accept your NPC was vulnerable to system use?

You're right that this probably deserves its own thread, but I'll address some of your points here.  You make a good point about how flat out combat attacks are the hardest to veto.  It's an interesting this that I hadn't really thought about, that disfunctional play so  often includes killing NPCs becasue it's a power the players have that's very clearly protected by the rules.  I don't think what I was talking about was disfunctional in this instance though, although reading it again it does sound like it.  I guess what I'm saying is that the Gamist agenda includes, in part, the satisfaction of beating a challenge, and that for some players, that satisfaction is enhanced by the feeling that there was another person behind that challenge.  Perhaps, for your player, the satisfaction is enhanced by beating the challenge set by the other player, with the minimum effort.

[Callan S.]

Hi Simon,

With the priority list I held off saying more because I don't want to add more guidance, I want to see what sort of answer I get. On murk, I made sure to use concise language. Onto the important part of it, do we share any mutual ground on murk and what it is?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  There's no description of what criterea you're using to decide what bonus "describing your moves" nets me, which means I might have quite different ideas about when this is appropriate.  For example, in Exalted, "stunt" dice are usually only awarded a few times in a session.  Players who constantly showboat for stunt dice are considered to be breaking the "spirit" of the rule, which reserves them for "special occaisions".  If I ask ask for bonuses too often, am I breaking some unwritten rule?

Not sure how to answer - couldn't I always have some unwritten rule you might break?

Do you like, perhaps, to somehow preserve the imaginary space, and looking for how I do that as well?

My perception from other games with similar mechanics is that "describe your moves" means "flashy moves will get bonuses", but flashy moves don't fit my concept of the character, or the tone of the game.  It seems like you're going for something different with this game from what I've experienced in other games.  Can you be more specific about what that is?

Well, one way of finding out is to ask me. What about other ways, could you list another way of finding out?

[Simon C]

I'm sorry, Callan, it seems like we're really talking past each other.  I don't understand what you're asking in your reply, and it seems like you didn't understand my post much either.  Maybe I misunderstood something about your initial post?

At this point I don't know how to proceed.  Maybe if you re-state any questions you still have, we can start again.  If you feel like you've got what you wanted out of this thread though, we can leave it here.

Cheers,

Simon

[Callan S.]

Hi Simon,

A couple of my questions had limited reply options - even if their not fully understood, you could just try the answer that sounds the best for each (even if it isn't perfectly accurate) and then see what gets built onto that answer. I mean, if we understood each other perfectly from the start, we wouldn't need a forge to post at, aye?

One was "Couldn't I always have some unwritten rules you could possibly break?". Would you say yes or no?

The other I need to quote you for context

It seems like you're going for something different with this game from what I've experienced in other games.  Can you be more specific about what that is?

Q. You've asked me so as to find out what that thing is. Is there any other way you could find out? Would you say yes or no?

[Simon C]

"Couldn't I always have some unwritten rules you could possibly break?".

I would say yes and no (unhelpfully).  I think it's very easy to come to the table with unwritten rules.  In general, I think they're unavoidable.  In specific instances, I think they're not.  You can be very explicit about what is acceptable and what is not, for example, in your game, you could have stated up from "you can get this bonus every round, but only the following kinds of things qualify for a bonus:"

Is there any other way you could find out?

I guess? Like, I could try various things in the game until I hit on what works (which is pretty much the definition of "murk").

Is this the response you wanted? I feel like this conversation is getting a bit abstract, when it could benefit from being a bit more concrete.

Here's the rule you wrote:

You can also describe your moves and get a bonus of up to 20%, determined by the GM.

Here's what it seems like you meant (based on your posts later in the thread):

You can also describe your moves and get a bonus of up to 20%, determined by the GM..  If you want bonuses to attacks, you need to describe the move then wait for me to assign a bonus, then roll. I can't give you the bonus after you've rolled the attack, only before. Basically the bonus is derived from moves that would seem effective, rather than just motivation or looks. Morale has some effect though.

How did you intend the player to discover the rule you were using? Was it surprising to you that the player wasn't describing moves effectively, given that the player was unaware of the rules you were using?

I feel like I'm getting a bit snippy in tone.  That's not intentional, but I am getting a bit frustrated because I can't understand the point you're getting at.

[Callan S.]

It might be good if you start a thread on those unwritten rules - I'd like to know more about why that comes to mind first, with an actual play account involved. I could have unwritten rules about who rolls the dice, or when your allowed to post - but you ask about this first, amongst a thousand other possible unwritten rules. I just have a hunch that rather than asking what rules there are, you want there to be rules about that specific area - what can be added to the SIS. Probably further talk on it would meander - a fresh post with actual play in it would be the most fruitful way to continue, I'd say.

I guess? Like, I could try various things in the game until I hit on what works (which is pretty much the definition of "murk").

Is this the response you wanted? I feel like this conversation is getting a bit abstract, when it could benefit from being a bit more concrete.

In terms of illustrating my play goals, weve gotten further. Rather than abstract, perhaps it simply doesn't fit with your own play preferences - much like most BDSM would seem 'abstract' to both of us. Anyway, weve gotten further in the illustration. I'll leave you with that for now, there's some food for thought there.

How did you intend the player to discover the rule you were using? Was it surprising to you that the player wasn't describing moves effectively, given that the player was unaware of the rules you were using?

It all seems very practical and down to earth to me. It's like trying to figure out how to make a billy cart in real life (not sure if that's the word used by Americans - little wooden, unpowered cart that you ride down hills in).

If I lay down the challenge/question of making a billy cart, no I don't have a bunch of rules to help you know the right way to do it. Yes, your wheels might snap off half way and you go for a tumble - that's part of the conflict to surmount, its not about 'oh, how did you intend us to find the right rules to use? I have road rash now!'. If my game were about billy cart making, I don't have a set of rules for what gets a bonus - try building something and perhaps I'll see the way you've surmounted the problem and think "My god, that's a great way to beat the problem!" and you get a fat bonus.

It just seems very down to earth to me - building a billy cart is a fun challenge. Playing frisbee is a fun challenge. Playing chess against an opponent who hides the best way to beat him is a fun challenge. Why does 'describe your move' suddenly hit a 'how do you intend for us to discover the rules your using?' level? Sure, the physics of a billy cart are never going to jerk me around while a GM could decide to do so. But who plays with people they don't have some trust in?

I say I'm trying to illustrate my goals, but at the same time I'm trying to figure out how to label my games so that people don't come in thinking 'that's fun' (like you mentioned) but then suddenly hit the 'you didn't tell us enough' level mid play, when it all just seems down to earth, straight forward and fun to me. I'd rather they read this label and be turned off it straight away.

[Callan S.]

I drifted a bit there. Simon, are you asking about my goals of play? Because you seem to be asking about how I meet your goals of play with the rules I'm using, and getting frustrated when you can't see how they'd meet your goal. I've been answering thinking you know your own goals, but want to find out mine by the differences of expectations between the two. I might be wrong about what you want to find out. It occurs to me we keep talking about how players are supposed to handle play, rather than why they play. Do you want to find out more about my goals for playing?

[Simon C]

Um, I don't think we're having a very productive discussion of this issue, Callan. I'm sorry, but I'm finding it really hard to work out what you want from this thread at this point.  If it's ok with you, I'm going to leave it there.  It's not an aspersion on your game, or on your style of play, just I think the issue of what we're actually talking about has got hopelessly complicated.  I'd gladly participate in a new thread where you re-state your questions.

Cheers,

Simon