[Lendrhald] Rat Island - player priorities

[David Berg]

Ron,

Yeah, I was just having trouble parsing the idea of "put pressure" on "unity" etc.  All of those techniques are things I've done, but not with full awareness.  I can probably do them better if I think about it in the terms you're talking about, consciously evaluating "what do the players do?" by degree of interaction and focus of investment (my paraphrase of your "unity" and "direction") in addition to evaluating general enthusiasm (which I already do; I assume anyone who doesn't do that doesn't really want to GM for others*).

At this moment, I'm out of practice.  I orchestrate fights a little more than Al did in Rat Island, but not a lot more -- as GM, I allow many of my declarations to be dictated by "what would happen".  If I've previously decided that the villain would only use his uber-badass spell if personally threatened, then I'll refuse to break the spell out early just because the PCs are bored fighting his flunkies.

Applying your categories to Rat Island, I can come up with some examples (actual and hypothetical):

1) If Joel and I had been able to keep the rats entirely away from Marc in perpetuity, leaving him to futz with the fire door at his leisure, the situation would not have required us players to interact to the extent that we did.  So this was a good threat in that it couldn't simply be handled by a subset of the group.

2) I think an immediate threat of death handles this one pretty easily.  There were a few options thrown out about ways to avoid death -- someone suggested getting onto the roof and holding a position there to cover PCs rappeling down, someone else suggested finding a way to completely bar the rats from the room we were in -- but this argument was fun interaction around a shared basic goal.  So this was a good threat in that there was a clear reason to bother with it, instead of doing something else.  This is often tricky to achieve in Lendrhald, where we place a high priority on allowing the players to explore whatever most interests them.  I expect there to be many fights where "Why don't we just bail?" is a valid question.  In the cases where one player wants to bail and another doesn't, I'm honestly not sure what to do.  As GM, I could obviously pick a direction and make it happen ("More goblins surround you, now you can't leave!"), but that messes up the whole player-determinism thing.  I'm not sure if here in this thread is the best place to ask for suggestions on this... but if you have any, I'd love to hear 'em.

3) Ah, telling players how their characters feel.    I used to do this a ton.  My buddy John loved it, but all of the crew from the Rat Island game felt their character-determination sovereignty infringed upon whenever there was even a hint of this.  I think Al's approach for keeping a high energy level (and the one I feel is "correct" for Lendrhald) was adding Color to the PCs' environment -- essentially, running with the game's large-scale goal of "feeling like you're really there".  Dust and wood chips falling from the ceiling as the rats chew through the door; an armchair that isn't quite conveniently-shaped for lifting; a fireplace too tall and open to be blocked by a desk.  I know that if I feel "really there", I can't help but respond to any dangerous situation with excitement.

I don't see any loose ends on this particular topic; please let me know if you do...

Was there a larger point you were heading toward with "Did Al manage the experience or just set it up and watch it run?", or was it just food for my own thought?  (Same questions applies for peaks and plains.)

Thanks,
-David

*as opposed to simply showing off "my world" or "my story", which I consider to be more "GMing at others"

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Dave,

Here's the larger point: if the fun and excitement that you described for this fight scene is an important point of play for you, maybe even the point, then all the dedication to the world of Lendrhald, all the dedication to the logic of the resolution methods, and all the dedication to any other traditional element of RPG rules isn't going to do you one bit of good. Your game will join the ranks and ranks of perfectly reasonable derivations of AD&D2 and Champions (perhaps mediated through their later manifestations of Shadowrun and Vampire), all of which add up to a wonderful, echoing nothing.

I was recently perusing my rulebooks for a game that came out about nine years ago, if I remember right, called Providence, written by Lucien Soulban. It was a solid Champions hack, basically, with some neat world ideas (a former prison planet, hollow world, a winged race with a caste system based on how much one's wings had degenerated), a few too many Powerz and Guildz and stuff like that, and, in all seriousness, an admirable and inspiring vision of shooting for heroism in SF/fantasy role-playing, on the model of the comics series Kingdom Come. Guess what? It had everything you've mentioned in your discussions of material for Lendrhald, not the same content, but the same game stuff. I shook my head sadly ... it was, basically, not playable, either in terms of GM effort, or in terms of player attractiveness - because all the what was there in maddening detail, but the clearly-stated what-for did not exist save for Soulban's introductory text.

That's where you're headed, it seems to me.

Best, Ron

[David Berg]

Hi Ron,

It's probably some sort of statement about where I'm coming from that after reading your description of Providence, I thought, "Dude, now I kinda wanna play that.  I'm sure I can make it playable."

I do understand what you mean about the "what for?", though.  Al and I have been flitting back and forth between two answers:

1) a particular flavor of Step On Up, where the strategic options and win conditions are 100% correlated with in-game elements and outcomes, and the "sense of really being there" adds a unique sort of intensity to the challenge.  Rat Island seems to me to be a reasonably good model for this... does it seems that way to you?  In this model, screw a pre-established setting, it doesn't matter.  But some degree of modeling realism does matter, in order to pull off that unique flavor.

2) a game which is all about the pre-established setting, which basically allows the players to explore whatever they find most cool in the gameworld, and rewards them for doing so by giving them more ability to explore more cooler stuff.  The technique for achieving these rewards would basically be tackling dangerous scenarios (including a fair number of dungeon-crawls), because (a) we find that imminent threat to the characters is a great additional incentive to participate in the "feel like you're really there" process, and (b) it's a relaibly fun form of tension and conflict leading up to the payoff.  A Rat Island game under this model would have been about getting off the island with the gizmo, which we can now use to open the secret door in some other dungeon, which would give us the key to the Orcs' underground kingdom etc. etc.

I was pretty sold on #1 for a while, until Callan started showing me how much I'd created obstacles to a working Gamist reward system, and Al admitted he wasn't actually cool with the world being ignored.  So now I'm leaning toward #2.  My plan right now includes:

A) book-cover text that includes descriptions of the setting flavor and PC niche in that (basically, normal folks pushing the frontiers of a threatening medieval world where Evil Stuff lurks in the dark woods) -- hopefully setting some expectations for, "We players agree that this is the kind of stuff we'd enjoy exploring."

B) starting the book with a short story that's basically an example of play, wherein some explorers go looking for some missing children, enter a creepy place, find a rune, and get chased off by a monster, all written with lots of description of the environment -- hopefully showing the players, "THIS is what play is supposed to look like; if you're not into that, play another game."

C) formalizing the acquisition of "Secrets" as a reward that you write on your character sheet after completing ("win" or "lose") a mission, and instructing the GM to make a campaign chart in which many Minor Secrets lead up to one Major Secret, many Majors lead up to one Ultimate, etc., to provide a cumulative experience over repeated play.  Ultimate Secrets would give players the greatest ability to affect the setting; Majors less; Minors less still.

The emphasis on setting immersion and reality-modeling resolution would remain.

Does #2 being reliably fun sound feasible to you?  Do A, B, and C all sound potentially effective, or beside the point in terms of making #2 actually happen?

Thanks,
-David

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Dave,

Sure, you could make Providence a hell of a lot of fun. So could I. That's my point - it would require making it fun to play with secondary and relatively secret skills that aren't even mentioned in the book. I call that a design flaw, regardless of the fact that this flaw defined role-playing design among the so-called industry for about fifteen years.

You described a fun event during play. I'm questioning whether the game makes that possible for anyone to be inspired to do, or whether it was fun due to specific GMing techniques which can be applied to any traditional rules-set. If it's the former, then you're on the right track with your design, but if it's the latter, then all your design is just spinning wheels with words, because the fun is all found in the GM's skillful hands. You'll have to assess that yourself.

As for your other questions, my only answer is, "I don't know." Much of what you describe is a matter of taste, and my reactions to that don't matter. Anyway, ultimately, the #1 vs. #2 is a game design choice that only you can make. My concern is only to arrive at clarity for such questions.

For instance, your #1 seems most consistent with what you described in the Rat Island fight, but what you say about it is almost incomprehensible to me ... I cannot understand why choosing #1 be dismissive of setting. Such an approach benefits greatly from setting, although not necessarily the Codex Gazzetteer Cultures Worldbook variety of setting.

So what you ultimately decide to do with #1 and #2 is up to you. But I urge that you not create false dichotomies when asking yourself such questions.

Best, Ron

[David Berg]

Hi Ron,

Crap.  I seem to be asking the wrong questions.

First, let me just clarify a few points:

- I absolutely understand what you're saying about a game design that leaves success purely up to skillful GMing being a crappy game design.  I agree wholeheartedly with this characterization, and I do not aspire to crappy game design.

- What I meant by "screw a pre-established setting" w.r.t. #1 was "screw emphasizing The World of Lendrhald".  The way I see #1, the setting's job would be to serve as cool Challenge modules.  Having any sort of consistent "here is The World of Lendrhald!" framework around those mods would be a nice bonus, but it wouldn't be integral to play working.  In #2, on the other hand, enthusiasm for The World of Lendrhald would be the reason to play.

As for my questions:
You spoke of "designing an arena for play that provided for what you actually did to make games successful".  I am having trouble figuring out how to actually implement that. 

What did Al actually do to make Rat Island successful?  To me, the answers seem to be:

1) he built a Challenge mod that contained a few goals for the players to choose between, a few threats to survive, and few puzzles to figure out.  My attempts to make these happen via the game's design have thus far consisted of writing up "instructions and helpful tips for GMs", largely of the checklist variety.

2) he helped everyone stay immersed via a large number of techniques that I have assembled into a manual (which breaks play into 3 modes and provides strict rules for what you can do while in "immersed" mode, and minor punishments for breaking these rules)

3) he ad-libbed what would be "most fun" when ad-lib was necessary, as described in his quote response above.  I don't have any brilliant thoughts on how to formalize such techniques into a game design; my first thought would be to say, "GMs, when ad-lib is necessary, keep things right near the edge of lethal."

What have I actually done in the past to make games like my #2 idea successful?

The first things that came to mind were the A, B, and C methods I listed in my last post.

I was expecting you to look at them (particularly C) and go either, "Yeah, that might make #2 happen," or, "No, that might be fun, but it seems totally insufficient to make #2 happen."

"I don't know" makes me feel like I must be looking in the wrong place, addressing the wrong concerns.

If that is the case, any further pointers on how to identify the right place to look would be appreciated.  I am having trouble seeing any forks in the road to Fantasy Heartbreaker Land.

Thanks,
-David

P.S. I hope to playtest a version of #2 soon, but it would really help my evaluations if I can separate "here's what the game as designed is making happen" from "here is what I the GM am making happen regardless of the game design".

[xenopulse]

P.S. I hope to playtest a version of #2 soon, but it would really help my evaluations if I can separate "here's what the game as designed is making happen" from "here is what I the GM am making happen regardless of the game design".

As a quick little note, one thing that might help you with this is to have external playtests--a couple of them, done by people whose first exposure to the game is when they read it to run it for the playtest. If you get a couple of GMs with different styles (you might ask about their previous game or style preferences), you might have a chance of seeing what your game delivers absent your own GM techniques.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I'll do my best. I'd like to be clear that when I say "I don't know," the strongest likelihood is simply that I'm the deficient one, rather than there being anything wrong with your questions.

I looked over the last few posts again to figure out what I can really do to help this thread. So ...

1. One small thing: the GM's consideration of "what would happen" is part and parcel of the three tactics I described above, not an alternative to them.

2. You wrote,

What I meant by "screw a pre-established setting" w.r.t. #1 was "screw emphasizing The World of Lendrhald".  The way I see #1, the setting's job would be to serve as cool Challenge modules.  Having any sort of consistent "here is The World of Lendrhald!" framework around those mods would be a nice bonus, but it wouldn't be integral to play working.

OK, full disclosure: to me, this sounds like a barrel of fun. I like it. It reminds me of Tunnels & Trolls with the style dial tuned to "setting with some or even a lot of integrity," rather than "surreal self-referential madness."

That makes it a little bit hard for me to think about option #2, because ... um, well, more full disclosure, I think the Dragonriders of Pern and the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant are among the worst, most stupid, boring-est crap ever, which is to say, a map and a cool-special-no-really-cool setting are not my thing. That doesn't mean option #2 is bad, only that it's not good for me, and so it's not really in my zone for what can make the best game design or product out of it.

So all that is to say that your A-B-C ideas might be fantastic toward the goals of #2, but I'm a rotten person to assess them. They all make me run shrieking into the night, especially C, which look like the kind of record-keeping, breadcrumb-style reward mechanics which are all the rage among a number of current designs, and which, hands down bar none, suck during play itself. This may be because I am simply not interested in #2! As long as you are simply asking me, "Ron, do you like this and think it could work," I am forced to say No. But please do not mistake that for a professional and technical critique of those features (except C, which I will concede may be wonderful for your game in some fashion depending on the other details of the system, but only playtesting will tell).

I do urge that you consider the history of role-playing products and see which ones worked for you along the goals/priorities of #2. I'm thinking of the World of Greyhawk, or the multiple early setting sourcebooks for Glorantha, or the Spherewalker's Handbook, or the Gazzetteer for the Dark Sun setting, or the setting book for Al-Qadim. These all represent subtly different takes on the same thing, I think. One might also consider Chicago by Night or Berlin in the Shadows, for Vampire.

I hope that this post explains my off-kilter, baffled posting above and also that it can be useful to you in the process of design.

Best, Ron

[David Berg]

Ron,

Ha ha ha!  Okay, I feel much better.  Thanks for the personal perspective.  I can see how #1 would be a lot of fun for a lot of players, which is why I was pursuing it pretty exclusively for several months.  And I can see how #2 simply wouldn't be someone's cup of tea.  So, yeah, I mistook your "not my bag" for a technical critique.  I'll hope to pursue feedback from other folks who are more into this sort of thing.  (Other folks, if you're reading, that's your cue!)

I've never heard the term "breadcrumb-style rewards" before, but I love it.  Al and I have had both good and bad experiences with breadcrumb rewards.  Basically, when the breadcrumbs have met our personal definitions of cool (in terms of aesthetic sensibility and neato functionality), we've loved 'em.  But mostly, we've disagreed with our GMs about what's cool, and have had to fight to stay engaged.

Accordingly, Lendrhald has, at times, been our attempt to create play full of Our Favorite Breadcrumbs, and market it to players who think, "Yeah, I like those breadcrumbs too!"

Thanks for the reading suggestions.  I'm familiar with the D&D and World of Darkness examples.  None of those share my ideas of "what's cool", but it does seem to me that they have some history of success in going, "Look!  Cool story in cool place with cool characters and cool shiny things!  Play like this!" and getting players and GMs to go, "Hell yeah!"  Obviously the players don't always get what they came for, but I think some GM prep and organization along the lines of my (C) idea makes it vastly more likely.

Happy holidays!
-David

[David Berg]

One more post before I head out for a mostly-computer-free week:
Xenopulse, thanks for the suggestion.  It struck me as such an obviously good idea that I forgot to respond.  I'll see if I can find some interested folks via Connections here or via NerdNYC where I live.

[Chris_Chinn]

Hi David,

Some games do this thing where they add a small list of color bits that get used during play that add color and help keep the fictional style consistent, without adding tons to handling time.  Capes, Spirit of the Century, The Shab-al-Hiri Roach, Grey Ranks, Covenant, and Trollbabe are some examples.  You might also want to check out John Harper's Suffering Mechanic idea here. (http://mightyatom.blogspot.com/2007/12/suffering-mechanic.html).

This kind of stuff is a bit different than older design like Over the Edge, Hero Wars/Quest, or Story Engine/Maelstrom in that instead of being a general description of your character, it covers genre cliches, events, and color which help build the expected fiction of the game.

Basically, the point is to include inspirational color bits as part of play, small enough they don't crowd out play itself, but there that players are forced to engage with it while engaging the mechanical bits.  It also makes it easy to put in the stuff you think is cool without necessarily having to harp it out and make the players read tons and tons of setting material to try to catch the feel of it.

It also lowers how much stuff the players or the GM has to keep in mind while handling mechanics, and makes it less breadcrumb reward style as much as getting the players to fall into the fictional vision you have in mind without having to have another person correct them.

Also, in terms of excellent breadcrumb reward, take a look at the different ways in which Burning Wheel rewards different kinds of Artha for different things.

Chris

[David Berg]

Chris,

Cool stuff.  Thanks.  I've been meaning to check out Burning Wheel for a long time now, I may finally buy the friggin' thing this month.

Basically, the point is to include inspirational color bits as part of play, small enough they don't crowd out play itself, but there that players are forced to engage with it while engaging the mechanical bits.  It also makes it easy to put in the stuff you think is cool without necessarily having to harp it out and make the players read tons and tons of setting material to try to catch the feel of it.

That would be fantastic if I could somehow do that without puncturing my style of immersion.  So, let's see...

Coloring Character Actions
I find "feeling like you're really there" requires "can only affect the SIS via your character" -- so, any decisions players make about "what happens" would have to be contrained to character decisions.  I've also determined that character decisions must remain the inviolate province of that player's character -- thus, I can only make them behave in color-appropriate ways if that's compatible with their own wishes.  So, checklists, suggestions, and reminders are all great, but "you must" or "if A then B" rules are pretty much out.

The Rat Island fight was supposed to be tense.  Suppose Al had looked at a list that included certain bodily responses to stress and seen "sweating" and "heart pounding".  Now suppose these had been related to certain situations -- maybe Joel being one hit away from death would have met the condition for "heart pounding", and Al gets to tell Joel that his character's heart is pounding. 

Now also suppose that Marc has a list of "high-tension responses" on his sheet, which includes something like:
failing a task - loud cursing
So his first failed effort to open the fire-trapped door, he would have been reminded to yell, "Fuck!"

Both of these would have been nice color additions to the mechanics-heavy process of combat.

Coloring Resolution Outcomes
When the characters try to do something that might or might not work, in-gameworld logic (and whatever mechanics represent this) must resolve the outcome.  Any attendant color bits can't change the outcome, but if they can better portray it, that would be spectacular.

The giant rats were supposed to come off as completely hostile and "other".  You can't parlay with them, you can't even understand why they're attacking you.  Al wanted to imply that there was something more sinister going on than "these are normal large carnivores", and perhaps he could have had a list filled with items like this:
monsters gross - 1st 4-pt wound on any rat results in ruptured cyst that sprays pus

Some other color ideas:
torn clothing - 1st damaging bite to PC leg tears away chunk of trousers, ruining them
chipped weapons - 1st PC attack missing by 1 clanks of rat's teeth, taking small notch out of weapon

Coloring Setting
As a player, I don't mind listening to the GM babble for a good long time to give me a sense of place.  That said, I like nothing better than discovery through interaction.  I've typically handled this via prep, just plopping interactive stuff into the world and flavoring it.  But maybe I could save some time by divorcing the color from the objects until the moment of interaction.

So, a list of color elements in the tower's second floor study:
writing in strange language
particular design the GM's drawn and can describe in detail
soft, rotted wood
could be slapped onto the following objects as they were explored:
biggest book on shelf
journal
desk
rather than during pre-play prep.

It also lowers how much stuff the players or the GM has to keep in mind while handling mechanics, and makes it less breadcrumb reward style as much as getting the players to fall into the fictional vision you have in mind without having to have another person correct them.

I can't figure out how to do this while leaving the players in the particular headspace that I want.  I have some hope that maybe there are more powerful options open to me than the examples I've come up with here, but I'm having trouble conceiving any.

I like the Suffering mechanic you linked, and I'd gladly use some mechanic that gave players bonuses for doing color-appropriate stuff... if said stuff would actually give them an advantage in the gameworld.  Which would turn the list of color bits into a list of effectiveness suggestions with "and this is what it looks like!" tags... and the most effective ones would just get used over and over, eventually rendering them bland...

Any suggestions about ways to drop color bits into the Rat Island fight (within my particular constraints) would be much appreciated!

[Chris_Chinn]

Hi David,

The key to color lists is that they're more generalized than what you're going with there.  A list of color elements is designed to inspire specifics, as opposed to provide them.  For example, in Trollbabe has "A useful piece of geography", Capes has, "Property Damage".   And, for the most part, color lists are not "If A then B", but mostly, "Pick from these 5 options" and one of those generalized things is probably going to fit perfectly.

The other option which some games use is to force players to add color if they want to use a certain mechanic or ability.  For example, Burning Wheel's helping mechanics demand that you explain how you're helping- you can't just go, "I help" without any explaination.  These offer more flexibility, but then, it also can leave some players stuck, especially if they're used to "I hit, I defend" kind of play, which is usually tied into dealing with mechanics with high handling time.

Either one might work for you and your system, but you should really check out some of the games that already use these methods in order to really see what they're doing and how it might apply to your game.

Chris

[David Berg]

for the most part, color lists are not "If A then B", but mostly, "Pick from these 5 options"

I was assume the picking ("B") would be prompted by an in-game occurrence ("A").  So are you describing, "If A then pick between B,C,D,E,F?"  Or are you saying the application of "B" (or C, or D, etc.) isn't prompted by a pre-defined "A"?

one of those generalized things is probably going to fit perfectly.

I see.  So it's more about providing a type of Color; and then you fill in the specific during play?

For example:
monsters gross - first 4-point hit on a monster causes
a) something nasty to gush out of them
b) ecstacy
c) something nasty inside them to become visible
d) deafening shrieks that physically affect PCs
e) dramatic death

And then when a player landed a 4-point hit on a giant rat, the GM would look at the list, pick (a) and decide "pus!"?

The other option which some games use is to force players to add color if they want to use a certain mechanic or ability.  For example, Burning Wheel's helping mechanics demand that you explain how you're helping- you can't just go, "I help" without any explaination.

You can't really do anything in my game without explanation.  The character's physical relation to his environment determines 100% of his capabilities (well, that plus the abilities on the sheet).  The Color goes down, though, when it's the same types of characters in the same types of environments over and over.  Incentivizing players to describe their characters' actions in colorful ways would be great, but I can't offer any gameworld-result rewards for that, as it fucks up causality.

Metagame rewards might be an option, though.  I currently have a system that goes, "At the end of each session, discuss what other players did to facilitate your sense of 'really being there'.  Whoever did the best gets a bonus Character Point."  Maybe this could be tied more directly to in-the-moment play?  Any thoughts?

you should really check out some of the games that already use these methods in order to really see what they're doing and how it might apply to your game.

I know.  It's a fact.  Man, I wish I had more money and more experimental gamer friends...

[Chris_Chinn]

Hi David,

Or are you saying the application of "B" (or C, or D, etc.) isn't prompted by a pre-defined "A"?...So it's more about providing a type of Color; and then you fill in the specific during play?

Yes and Yes.

But again, think wider than even that.  Who gives a damn what happens to the rats when they go squish?  Is that really the coolest part about them as monsters?   I'd probably have a list with stuff like, "The Skittering!"  "A Thousand Glowing Eyes", or "A Horde of Fur and Teeth", etc.  You'll notice that these things are general, and more than necessarily being quoted over and over, they're bits to inspire you to narrate cool stuff along those lines.

The way most games tie color lists into play is that they have a mechanical effect - you use them and you get a reroll, or maybe an extra die in your pool, or whatever.   Maybe in order to spend a luck point you have to use one of your color list bits.

The Color goes down, though, when it's the same types of characters in the same types of environments over and over.  Incentivizing players to describe their characters' actions in colorful ways would be great, but I can't offer any gameworld-result rewards for that, as it fucks up causality.

There's LOTS of ways to incentivize.  Here's three options other games have used:

1) Bonus for good color (The Pool, Exalted)
2) Penalties for bad/no color (Hero Wars/Quest)
3) Bonus for good color, but the difficulty is ramped up just a notch, so you HAVE to use the color bonus as a basic function of play (Sorcerer)

If you want to use a reward system, I recommend rewarding on the spot, every time.  It works far better for encouraging players to do whatever you're rewarding more often.  You'll have to figure out what kind of reward you're giving and how to scale it that it doesn't throw things out of wack for your design.

Chris

[David Berg]

Maybe in order to spend a luck point you have to use one of your color list bits.

Ah!  Interesting.  Find something that the player wants to do because it's effective, and then tell them they can't do it unless they provide Color.  Hmm.  I wonder if this would just feel like an imposition.  If the means of providing Color was itself fun, then it'd probably be just fine.

Maybe the skill list could come with some good color bits next to each skill.  So when you write "stealth" on your character sheet, you also write "one step ahead of prying eyes" and "moves an inch at a time" and something else.  So later, when the player goes to make a stealth roll, he looks at his sheet and sees that, and gets inspired and reminded to give some description.  This wouldn't be necessary for any of my players*; they all say things like "I'm moving an inch at a time" just as a natural byproduct of doing what they think'll be most effective.  So, this is something I could easily have missed in my design.  Thanks for continuing the dialogue!

If you want to use a reward system, I recommend rewarding on the spot, every time.

I agree that'd be most effective... not sure how to dish out metagame rewards while everyone's all immersed and focused on the imagined environment, though.  It'd have to be something really quick, like:

Marc: I have that wound to the torso, so twisting to deliver my sword stroke is agonizing.  AAARGH!
Al: Marc, +1
Marc: (writes a 1 down on his character sheet)
Joel: I try to get the rat to... (etc.)

This might work, as long as the GM refused to give Color-based bonuses to players who held up play trying to think of Color to contribute.  ("My character decides to... uh... hmm, what would look cool?" would SUCK.)

I wonder if there'd be a way to give the GM similar props...  I mean, saying, "Al, +1" to praise Al during a combat would get almost totally ignored because he's got other stuff to focus on and the +1 doesn't get him anything.

-David

*just like I didn't think of listing "the skittering!" with the monsters, because my GMs are always on top of that kind of description