[Fir Bolg] Fortune (near or maybe at) the Start, and GM Fiat.

[Simon C]

Fir Bolg is this project that I'm kind of unable to let go, even though I don't really think of myself as a game designer.  It's a mostly gamist supporting game set in a kind of mythic Ireland, inspired by Slaine comics and Irish myth, but trying to avoid dumb stereotypes.  The mechanic is a kind of "Fortune at the Start" thing, or at least "Fortune very near the Start".  Characters have four stats, which each provide a number of dice (each stat uses a different colour).  At the start of the scene, you roll all your stat dice, and count any roll above four as a "success".  Successes can be spent to activate "Gifts", the powers and abilities of the character.  For example, the Gift "Beguiling Ways" costs two "Cunning" successes (i.e. two rolls of four or more on dice from your Cunning stat).  "Beguiling Ways" makes NPCs trust your character as they would a close friend, accepting their word, and trying to help them.

Scenes are resolved like this: First, the players and the GM frame the scene.  Every scene needs a "consequences of failure".  This is what will happen if the PCs don't activate any Gifts.  It's kind of like stakes.  The players are aware of the consequences of failure.  Possible scenes could be: "Befriend the hostile villagers or spend a night in the cold" "Follow the Sorcerer quickly and quietly, or you won't find his lair" or "Find a way across the marsh quickly, or the zombies will catch you".  After the scene is framed, the players roll their stat dice.  Thene there's a kind of vague phase where everyone kind of explores the scene, saying what their character is doing, and the GM describes the reation of the NPCs and the world.  At any point, the players can spend successes to activate a Gift.  Then the GM and the players decide if that Gift will resolve the scene, or if another Gift is required.  The text at the moment strongly advises letting almost any Gift resolve the scene, although possibly with consequences unforseen by the players.

Here's what I like about this system: 

"Gifts" are flags, but they're kind of "flags with teeth".  They don't just say "here's what I want to do in the game", they're literally the only things your character an do in the game.  If your character has the "Speak with Dead" Gift, you're going to be resolving a lot of scenes by talking to the dead.  That's cool.

It feeds really nicely into a tactical combat system, which works exactly the same except stats are rolled every round.  The combat's not firing on all cylinders at the moment, but it's close, and it's mostly about tweaking some Gifts, rather than any fundamental problems.  But that's not what this post is about.

Here are some potential problems:

Resolving scenes is essentially GM fiat.  Sure, you have these Gifts that say what effect your character has on the scene, but it's often up to the GM whether that works.  The game advises that it almost always should, but I can see the potential for a lot of murk.  Consider the first example scene: "Befriend the hostile villagers, or spend a night in the cold".  Imagine two characters approaching this scene.  The first has enough successes to activate his "Beguiling Ways" Gift, which is clearly relavant, and should be successful.  The second character can only activate her "Speak with Dead" Gift.  Can this positively resolve the scene? Maybe she can speak with the ancestors of the village, and learn secrets that help somehow.  Or maybe she can pass on messages to dead loved ones, performing a valuable service for the village.  This kind of creative reinterpretation of Gifts is what's cool about the game, but it can also be problematic.  What if the villagers fear witchcraft? Who gets to say if the character can learn useful information from the dead? Leaving it up to the GM seems problematic to me, because it's pretty much GM fiat.  On the other hand, letting the players decide kind of undermines the Gamist agenda that's supported so well by the combat system.  Am I making a Narr game by mistake?  I guess it feels like this is a great way to decide the way in which a scene is resolved, but it's kind of weak on deciding if that method is successful or not. 

Kind of tied into this is the issue of narration rights.  Who gets to describe what happens? What happens after the player pushes forward the dice required for activating the Gift and says "I call forth the spirits of this place, demanding to know the names of long lost relatives"? Does she continue "The ghosts rise like mist from the ground, whispering the names of two cousins who left years ago. We go into town, claiming to have news of these long lost cousins." Can she then say "The town is eager for news, welcoming us in to hear the lies we spin." Or is this scene played out more as a back and forth? "I'll summon up some of their dead ancestors, I want to find out the names of some people who've left the village", GM: "Ok, sure, two cousins left a while ago, before this person died.  There's no word on them having returned" Player: "I'll pretend to have news of these two people, and hopefully the townsfolk will be eager to hear about them. Does it work?"

Currently the text is vague about narration rights. I can see either way working, although one is better tied to the GM fiat approach, and the other works better for the player empowerment approach.  Is one better than the other? Do I need to clarify this? What happens when the GM and the player (or two players) have really different ideas about whether something would work?

In an ideal world, I'd playtest this to see how it worked out with actual players.  I suspect that each group would find their own comfort level about narration rights, and that the GM fiat issue would only come up in groups where there's a strong difference of opinion about how Gifts work.  But playtesting is not a practical option for me at the moment, so instead I'm posting here.  Is there danger down the tracks for me? Is my game all agenda confused? Am I trying to nail a crunchy gamist combat engine to a fluffy narr scene resolution system? Is that a bad thing? Do I need to nail these things down, or can I leave them vague?

N.B. You can make my day by PMing me, and asking for a copy of what I've written so far, complete with an extensive list of Gifts.  I don't know that that level of knowledge is required for this thread, but I'd be flattered by the attention.

[Callan S.]

With "Befriend the hostile villagers, or spend a night in the cold". The GM writes that down, but does not tell the players, only describing the scene and local area

The players then activate their gifts, describing how they do so and say "And that wins me - " and they say what it wins them.

But since they don't know the stake the GM's written, will they actually match up with that - or does the nature of their gift send them in another direction? It's hard see the main issue of a scene AND overcome it with your gift.

NOW, don't lose that second direction. Sure, it's losing, and say that, but whatever it did win them, follow that and set up new situations and hidden stakes. That rewards trying, IMO, and will take exploration to crazy places you didn't think of "Speak with dead wins me a still sun warmed open tomb to sleep in!"

I'm thinking of some of the meandering adventures I've had in computer sandbox games, after zigging instead of zagging, and how I'd end up in funny little places because of it. In a way it was kind of win/win - if I zagged, I win the battle (yay!), if I zig, I find another really odd little battle to get into (chance to redeem my loss somewhat, too).

[Simon C]

I like that creative use of Gifts can take the game in weird directions, and that's something I'm trying to preserve, but I'm worried about "Speak With Dead wins me this ancient artifact" and the like - players making extraordinary claims about their successes.  Now this isn't a bad design, it's just not what I'm after.  That's why what's possible is layed out at the start of the scene.  So, at most, the players can claim that as a success.  What you're suggesting works as a game,  but it's not the game I'm making.  What I need is some concrete rules for deciding what the players can and can't claim, or failing that, some good guidelines for leaving it up to the group.

[Callan S.]

I hadn't thought of that, but then again I had imagined players trying to beat the scene you had challenged them with. A player who is inventing powerful items for himself isn't interested in your challenge, as I'd see it. That's not an issue of narration, that's an issue right at the starting social contract level - he's not just declining your challenge, he's ignoring it.

Why would they invent the artifact? You didn't challenge them to circumvent (in advance) any latter challenges you give. I'd be incline to think the hypothetical player is using this tactic to actually avoid a game with an emphasis on tactics (ironically).

[Simon C]

Sure.  I see what you mean.  Why would a player do that? I guess that the real problem is not players who are using the rules to totally circumvent the challenge of the game (though that's a problem too), it's players who use the rules to beat the challenge far better than all the other players.  Here's a sample of how I imagine a scene being played out:

The challenge is to get into the hill fort without the guards stopping them.
Player One rolls well, and he activates his "Salmon Leap" Gift.  He describes his character powerfully jumping over the wall, into the back of the fort.  He's in.
Player Two rolls great.  She activates her "Lying Tongue" Gift.  This makes NPCs believe one lie she tells them.  She tells the guards at the front gate she's the new captain sent from Herculanum, and they welcome her inside.

Now that's an example of the game working well.  Sure, Player Two is ostensibly in a better situation than Player One, not only being inside the camp, but also having the cooperation of the guards.  But the game explicitly gives the GM licence to make the consequences of the PCs success different depending on how they succeed.  So the lie might get the PC in trouble later, when the real captain shows up.  The character who jumped the fence will face no such problems.

But what if Player Two told the guards she's the new Queen, come to rule them all? And she orders them to leave the fort to her? Within the Gift description, that's possible, barely.  It's not that she's getting away with something she shouldn't, or circumventing the challenge, it's that she's grabbing the spotlight, making the other PC's actions irrelevant, and kind of running roughshod over the plausibility of the setting.

Is all that's required here a "don't be dumb" veto power for all players?  On the whole, I'm not against rewarding creative use of Gifts, but it makes some Gifts fantastically useful, compared to others.  Perhaps I need to adjust their costs comensurately?

[Rafu]

"Fortune at the start", uh? You really got me thinking, and excited. First and foremost, however, since you're aiming for "gamism", please define the "conflict" that you want competition to be about:

- players cohoperating VS. GM?

- player VS. player with a "referee" kind of GM?

- "indirect" player VS. player, competing to "beat" an antagonistic GM?

- ... etc.

[contracycle]

Maybe this is solvable through setting specification?

Aria had this interesting idea for establishing "social determinants" which were essentially philosophical or ideological positions held by a culture.  Perhaps something similar could be constructed for settlements and factions and so forth, which could link into the kind of things you can claim.  That would at least provide some sort of framework for communicating plausibility between GM and player.

Another issue which I think is related is the presence and existence of magic.  If magic is nebulous and ill defined, then players have effectively been licensed to use similar vague definitions in their arguments.  Maybe laying down the law in axiomatic terms as to what can and cannot be done long the lines of raising the dead may help.

Its possible laying the onus of rationalisation on the player may help; that is, the player must construct a reason or argument that the GM finds convincing and is willing to say yes to.  This runs the risk of being a game of guess the GM's mind, but need not be negative if done in the right spirit.

I think you are essentially looking at an authority problem, who has the authority to define the world.  Your present structure, in wanting to always allow players to succeed, has handed them the authority to change the world to meet their needs.  You need to establish systematic limits on what can be changed.

You might also want to look at Chris Engle' Matrix games,which rely on an argument, a pitch, from the players for every action, as to how it occurs and whether it succeeds.  Aria is interesting for articulating societal structure to a limited degree; HeroWars/Quest exploits an ambiguity inherent to symbols in interesting way to define a setting.

[Eero Tuovinen]

This sounds like an interesting game! My thought on the original problem:

Put all the Gifts on cards. Now, give the GM a deck composed of all the Gifts of all the characters in the group. Make up some rules for how many cards the GM will draw for a given scene.

Now, when the GM thinks up the situation to be resolved, he has to make use of all the Gifts he drew from the deck - these are the Gifts that will resolve the situation. For a harder scene, perhaps several of the Gifts are needed, perhaps in a specific order or combination. For an easier scene, just any one of the Gifts drawn will be sufficient. The number of relevant Gifts and the way they are arranged into the situation can be made into an adventure framework of some kind.

Any Gift not drawn may be used, and will always have a chance of providing some secondary resource, but will not ultimately resolve the situation. If any such Gift is activated, the narration will make it clear that the Gift isn't helping, but will also give a hint about what would help - so if a hero tries to bash the witch with an axe, and the axe breaks, perhaps the witch will then proceed to brag about how he fears no living man. Then the players can go and use that necromancy gift to defeat him, at the cost of losing one Gift activation for "nothing".

Something like that, anyway.

[Callan S.]

But what if Player Two told the guards she's the new Queen, come to rule them all? And she orders them to leave the fort to her? Within the Gift description, that's possible, barely.  It's not that she's getting away with something she shouldn't, or circumventing the challenge, it's that she's grabbing the spotlight, making the other PC's actions irrelevant, and kind of running roughshod over the plausibility of the setting.

Bold mine.

Do you think she's not circumventing the challenge? Personally I it's entirely possible to be completely disinterested in your challenge, yet come up with a solution that appear in line as if they are interested. A solution that's overkill - ie, its a tactic to kill any latter challenges because that person just isn't interested in anyone giving them a challenge (and yet wont go find another group...grrrr).

Are you sure your not trying to design around someone who doesn't give a crap about challenges?

It's possible that a player does want to engage the challenge and uses over kill, out of enthusiasm. I've got some ideas, but I think that question is one to think about for a moment.

[Simon C]

Hey Eero, thanks for your kind words.

I think the idea I'm coming around to is that this game could support either a Narrativist or a Gamist agenda, but not both at the same time (obviously), and that which one it best supports is entirely up to how the GM arbitrates this issue.  On the one hand, allowing the players to narrate their successes is really exciting to me, as I can see lots of options for the players to take the game in directions they want.  It's cool to me that the Gifts act as flags which say "this story will be about my character doing this stuff, and the consequences of that" and they follow through on that, by making sure that your character is doing that, no matter what.  On the other hand, I think a group with a Gamist agenda could very easily approach this in a manner similar to what you suggest, Eero, saying "these are the Gifts that can successfully resolve this scene, let's see if you can pull it off".

Is it wise to leave the game open to being played both ways? Can I write a "dial" into my game, so you can set it at "Gamey" or "Narrish" depending on the group?

One idea I'm kind of in love with at the moment, but I'm a little apprehensive about, is using TSoY Keys as the advancement system.  I can see this working well with the scene resolution system, because it ties what the characters are trying to "win" pretty closely to what's important to the story.  Players will be trying to "win" in ways which hit their keys, rather than in optimal ways.  Do you think Keys are suitable for the kind of dual modes of play I was talking about above? One thing I like about Keys is they're kind of robust to gaming.  If people are playing to "win" from their Keys, it tends to just make the game run better.  Would it work that way in my game?

Contracycle, what you're saying is interesting.  Can you describe the idea more clearly?  I'm sort of getting the idea that while resolving scenes, players would also be trying to hit other objectives, which are tied to social values.  That's a cool concept to me.

Rafu, technically I'm not sure if this is Fortune at the Start.  The fortune comes somewhere after Intent, but before Initiation, so it's kind of "Fortune closer to the start than most games".  You ask a good question.  I guess the kind of Gamist competition I was talking about was the same one that's popular in D&D, which is "soft" competiton against the GM and the other players - you're trying to make your character the most effective at beating the challenge set by the GM. 

I'm really excited by the opportunites this style of fortune mechanic presents.  I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes.

[contracycle]

Contracycle, what you're saying is interesting.  Can you describe the idea more clearly?  I'm sort of getting the idea that while resolving scenes, players would also be trying to hit other objectives, which are tied to social values.  That's a cool concept to me.

OK, well, I can't really because its more of a suspicion I have that something like this might work rather than something I have seen as a design or in action.  But the Matrix games I mentioned have a similar problem for RPG purposes which I have been chewing over for a while.  The problem is summarised for me by the phrase "China enters the war", because of a game about a medieval civil war in Korea which suddenly got internationalised by that argument.

It seems to me that systems like this need really really strong explicit boundaries, so that you can allow a free-for-all within the boundaries.  And these are not so much boundaries on the game world, although it does need to be bounded, as boundaries to the challenge proper.  And thats where I think integration with social values may be useful not least as setting reinforcement.

If the queen and apparatus are essentially a entities in your game frame, a nominal item in the background, it has little real presence in the players minds.  The queen is not a person but a title.  Thus, with little or no definition, no precedent to contradict, no expectations to disappoint, it seems reasonable to think, I can pose as the new queen.  However if they had previously played a game in which they had been active agents in a regal succession, that personal experience would give them reasons to find the idea that you can simply walk up and claim to be the new monarch implausible.

I think therefore that the queenship is either in the game or not in the game; and if they are not interacting with it, then its not in the game.  Because the problem they are dealing with is not about the queenship, the queenship is out of bounds for resolving this problem.  Now I recognise the problem here in that your whole idea was to throw open the ways problems could be solved, but I think you need some mechanism for restricting the range and scope of possible resolutions.  I think a gift like lying tongue needs some implicit or explicit limitation to the effect that the lie must be plausible to the hearer, must not massively contradict their expectations.  It's only a lie, not brainwashing.  I think that by articulating the setting, you thereby establish those expectations and precedents such that the players are aware of them and can exploit them appropriately, or inappropriately.

Another thing is that with reference to setting issues different results might arise from a lie that is believed.  If the garrison had something like a "loyalty to the regime" stat this would prompt actual players resolving actions to consider the relationship between the lie and the garrisons loyalty. Now even if they believe the lie, they may not welcome the new queen with open arms; maybe they are so loyal to the old regime that the throw the pretender in the dungeons right away.  The problem as posed arises, I think, because the monarchy and society are essentially null values that can be seen any way you like; as I result the intent of the lie (command the loyalty of the garrison) was confused with the effect of the lie (convince the garrison).  The implications of successfully convincing the garrison may well not lead to commanding their loyalty, but that may not be apparent if the setting is nebulous.

[Rafu]

Is it wise to leave the game open to being played both ways? Can I write a "dial" into my game, so you can set it at "Gamey" or "Narrish" depending on the group?

I've got some pretty radical idea on the topic... well, more of a binary switch than a "dial", actually.
But more on this later. First, I'll read through the material you wrote so far.

[HighmoonMedia]

Simon, do you have a draft of the stuff you got so far?

Because I read "Fir Bolg" and "mythic Ireland" and I was tingling with excitement already, so I want your game, dude.  :-)

[Simon C]

Yeah, PM me your email address, and I'll send you a draft.  It's pretty rough at the moment, so I wouldn't know if it's playable, but I'd be interested in any feedback.  It's playing pretty fast and loose with the Irish stuff too.  I just liked the names, really.  I wanted a setting that was mythic and heroic, but not at all wuxia.  You might find my approach to setting a bit dissapointing, depending on what you're after.  It's less "this is what's here, this is what's there", and more "These are the colours you can paint the background with".

[Rafu]

Back am I.
Nice, really nice - the combat part too.

So... You want "gamism", but you may also accept "narrativism" as a (customizable) alternative... Either way, you need to take "GM fiat" out of the figure, as much as possible.
The key, if you ask me, lies both in how the "framing of the scene" is performed and in how "scene resolution" is determined.

This actually evolves into two "separate" games, Narrativist Fir Bolg and Gamist Fir Bolg, that happen to share most rules - but not all of them. (You actually want nicer names... What do the Old Irish words for "storyteller" and "master strategist"/"war chief" sound like?)


"Narrativist" Fir Bolg (or the game of story-swapping)

GM and players take turn "framing" scenes, not very different from Primetime Adventures. Or, you can get rid of the GM altogether.
"Succeding" or "failing" at the scene/task is not the focus; how the heroes succeed or fail is the focus.
No "story" has been planned in advance, no amount of preparation is involved. Players can go wherever they wish, thus the exact details of how a scene is concluded usually point straight to what scene comes next.

At the onset of a scene, the GM narrates (or, if you go for no GM, then the player who "framed" the scene also narrates), until a Gift is activated. A player activating a Gift immediately turns narrator, remaining in charge either until another player activates yet another Gift, or until he narrates the solving of the task at hand and everybody agree with him to bring the scene to a close.
A player, however, can only activate a Gift when a possible "hook" to that Gift is mentioned by the current narrator: if a dead body was said to be there, you can activate an appropriate Gift and speak with the ghost - otherwise, you can't.

In this variant, combat resolution may be de-focused and streamlined... or not at all. That's ok, since players have no need to resort to combat if not fully willing to do so.


"Gamist" Fir Bolg (or the game of story-swapping)

"Creating a story" is not the concern: actually, it doesn't matter at all. Everything is pre-ordained, since "solving" the current scene is the focus.
The GM plans an "adventure" by writing down a set of scenes on separate sheets of paper. This "frames" the scene, including their setting and possible outcome (always a set of two alternatives: success or failure). She also includes a list of Gifts that can "solve" the scene without a fight (special conditions and exceptions may be stated, such as: "posing as an authority figure won't fool the guards, posing as a trader or other harmless traveler will"), a list of Gifts give the players hints to which ones are the decisive ones, details relevant to a fight if a fight is at all possible (some scenes can't be solved by escalating to a fight, since there are no opponents to fight).
Each scene leads one of two other scenes, depending on the outcome (success or failure), in a "plot" (color, mostly) which can't be changed mid-game.
The GM is supposed to show the players a scene's details immediately after it's over (so everybody knows the GM was "fair").
Care must be taken to make combat very hard and lethal, so that players have to think twice before growing a habit of always escalating as the quick solution to each and every scene.