The spicey die roll - Middel Earth (home brew) Sim

[Silmenume]

[Abkajud]

It sounds like you had a really great experience, Jay! It was a pleasure to read it.

I was looking at this:

I guess the point of all this was the above paragraph - the idea of play transcending the need for (or the outcome) of a mechanical resolution check

and I noticed something - the big, exciting climax of the scene happens when the die hit the table, right? And it was the die result that gave it some punch.

It's possible that I'm wrong, but my guess is that if the GM had simply "let" you succeed in that situation, it would not have been nearly as memorable. You were crapping your pants, as you said ^_^ because you knew that if ordering the firebrand around didn't work, you were screwed! I daresay that a great big source of tension in this scene was highly mechanical and metagame in nature - as deep in the scene and as deep into character as you might've been, it sounds like a big reason why this was so exciting was because of mechanics considerations, not in spite of them. I'm really glad your GM told you to roll, actually, or he might've robbed you of some of the glory of this great moment!

At the same time, I want you to know that I agree that mechanics can sometimes spoil a great moment in the game, or rather hinder the chance of a great moment really happening. I think this happens when a) the mechanics only cover things we don't care about or b) they cover them in a way we find uninteresting. If Dunedain and other characters with "Will" had "Will" as a character trait, but maybe kept it fairly general (a couple of possible modifiers, a couple sample target numbers, and leave it at that), it could be a good way to "push" a scene with your character, "bend fate" as it were ^_^ to try and break someone's resolve when nothing else would work, but without leaving that intense moment created when a Dunedain bends fate, you know?
 One thing that happens with high- and low-handling-time mechanics (how much page-flipping you have to do, how many tables to consult, etc.) is that the longer you spend outside the scene, the more the tension in the scene can cool off. If a swordfight is supposed to be really intense and meaningful, then the mechanics for that kind of situation (a meaningful one) could stand to be a bit less detailed, and certainly more intuitive and easy to remember, so you can keep all the necessary bits in your head and not have to look anything up. On the other hand, "cool" scenes, i.e. ones in which things don't get red-hot with tension and excitement, could be handled in a more complicated fashion, if you desire, without sacrificing the feel of that kind of scene. Neat!

Very cool! Thanks for sharing that great moment with us!

-- Zac

[David Berg]

Quote from: Silmenume on September 29, 2009, 02:14:25 AM

He had me roll a d20 and banged a natural 20 and the table explodes into shouts and whoops and hollers.

I do this a lot too (calling for a die roll as GM) for drama's sake.  The shaking, the die, praying for a high number, the roll, watching, the die stopping, and... result!

Of course, if I've already decided as GM that the player's attempt really ought to succeed (logically, dramatically, or both) then the actual impact of the die roll is just degree of success.  So I totally beleive your GM when he told you that the roll didn't determine the outcome.  In those situations, if my player rolls poorly, I just qualify or delay his victory with some other shit happening.  Perhaps, "The sword wielder doesn't lower his blade, but his fierce look wavers!  Speak on and roll again!"

I really think this kind of play can be common if the players and GM can just learn to trust each other on the crucial criteria for affecting the fiction.  I'm working on some cartoons to facilitate that.  If you want to bring that into this discussion, Jay, just lemme know and I'll happily post a link.

[Callan S.]

The problem with advocating that trust is that it blocks out other kinds of play (like both parties using written, transparent rules as the criteria for affecting fiction). If they trust in one game, what are they going to do in the next session with a game that's designed around transparent criteria rules? Not trust each other on the criteria (and instead defer to the rules)? No, once you've set up a trust process, it doesn't stop in a hurry - it's pretty much embeded in the social framework. And that blocks out other ways of playing.

[Abkajud]

Well said, Callan.
David, I too find Jay's post exciting, but as a rule I just don't trust GMs to honor my input unless I have mechanical backing for what I want to happen. To me, a die roll is not just emotionally relevant - it states, unmistakably, "My ideas matter just as much as anyone's. Back me up, dice!"

Besides that, it's disingenuous for a GM to try and corner the players - if you come up with a sweet way out of (or through) a dilemma, especially if it's emotionally satisfying, there should be a way for you to present your solution and make it stick. Any sort of "you'll get out of here if I SAY you do!" stuff, which some GMs pull all the time, is bad-faith play, as far as I'm concerned.

[David Berg]

So, Jay had this moment where he wanted to accomplish something with his character: intimidate and command the respect and obediance of an irate mob.  Will he succeed or won't he?  There are tons of ways Jay could have resolved this in different games.  To name a few: rolling dice, drawing cards, spending points, asking GM's permission, simply declaring success or failure, voting, doing whatever he felt his character would do and letting someone else resolve it.  Each of these provides a different experience.  A player's mind might focus on the luck of the dice, the choice of whether to spend a needed resource, the evaluations of other players, etc.

I've played with a lot of these.  While I tend to like some better than others in general, overall I'd say that sometimes I'm in the mood for the experience delivered by one method, and other times another one.

There's a unique experience to what Jay describes.  You get in your character's headspace, you assess your (his) situation and options, you do the best you (he) can, and you see how the setting and its people respond, as relayed to you by the GM.  Looking at that "GM as setting arbiter" and waiting for his feedback is different than looking at dice or voting on how cool your play was or any other method.  Maybe it's hard to get right, maybe it's lined with potential pitfalls, maybe few will wind it worth the bother when there are other options.  But it can be made to work, and when it does work, the resulting experience is something a lot of roleplayers I know really love.

Playing one game or session this way certainly wouldn't preclude you from playing another game or session using a different resolution method.  I can switch between Primetime Adventures, Sign in Stranger, and old-school GM-heavy D&D2 just fine, thank you.

Separately, I also think that most games benefit from a mixture of rules and trust.  There will always be judgment calls, even if they're only about when to use a given a rule.  When judgment calls come up, it's important to be able to trust your fellow players' basis for judgment.

Ps,
-David

P.S. Jay, if you're still around, I think it would be instructive if you could speculate on how else your Dunedain's speech might have been resolved; and, given the way that it was resolved, what parts of the experience could have been improved, or were optimal just the way they were handled.

[Callan S.]

The thing is, pushing trust basically wrecks personal evaluation of quality. Was it fun, quality play? To even form that question in mind is to distrust the assertion by others that it was fun. Pesonally I think it's healthy skepticism, but it's still distrust even with my stamp of approval. The more you work with trust the more it kills critical evaluation. Critical evaluation requires, as far as I know, atleast some level of misstrust/treating others assertions as possibly just a bunch of hype.

There will always be judgment calls, even if they're only about when to use a given a rule.

For myself, I percieve that as not being the case. The many boardgames that don't require judgement calls are evidence enough of that for me. Just noting that so as to not give any false sense of having implicit agreement from me on the matter.

[Silmenume]

i]degree of success matches our use exactly.

This rings very familiar to me.  It's this play style that has been the source of most of my most rewarding roleplaying experiences.  I basically see the core of the experience as a "what should happen" negotiation between all involved players (that is, the GM plus whichever players are acting via their characters).  It's always satisfying when there's a meeting of the minds about the next step in the fiction -- what makes sense, what would be cool, what would work, etc.must be an established fact of the game and not just exist as a potentiality in order for tension to exist when using this particular type of fortune mechanic.  Which brings me to your next piece...

There's that moment of tension where the player goes, "Does the GM agree that this is at least plausible?" and then, "Does the GM think that this would succeed?"  In a game where no one's on the same page, a "no" is usually merely frustrating, but in a group with well-shared priorities, the GM's answer arrives as The Truth.  "No, these townsfolk are too incensed to listen," or, "That speech would totally make them pause and take your words seriously."  Or, "Could go either way; roll some dice!"in this style<

The thing is, pushing trust basically wrecks personal evaluation of quality. Was it fun, quality play? To even form that question in mind is to distrust the assertion by others that it was fun. Pesonally I think it's healthy skepticism, but it's still distrust even with my stamp of approval. The more you work with trust the more it kills critical evaluation. Critical evaluation requires, as far as I know, atleast some level of misstrust/treating others assertions as possibly just a bunch of hype.Quote from: David Berg on December 28, 2009, 04:33:17 PM

P.S. Jay, if you're still around, I think it would be instructive if you could speculate on how else your Dunedain's speech might have been resolved; and, given the way that it was resolved, what parts of the experience could have been improved, or were optimal just the way they were handled.

David, could you expand on your question, please?  I'm not sure what you are looking for from me.  To me the experience was optimal, but I am curious as to what it is that you are trying to uncover.  If you wish do put in that link you had mentioned in one of your earlier postsdegree[/i] of success matches our use exactly.

This rings very familiar to me.  It's this play style that has been the source of most of my most rewarding roleplaying experiences.  I basically see the core of the experience as a "what should happen" negotiation between all involved players (that is, the GM plus whichever players are acting via their characters).  It's always satisfying when there's a meeting of the minds about the next step in the fiction -- what makes sense, what would be cool, what would work, etc.must be an established fact of the game and not just exist as a potentiality in order for tension to exist when using this particular type of fortune mechanic.  Which brings me to your next piece...

There's that moment of tension where the player goes, "Does the GM agree that this is at least plausible?" and then, "Does the GM think that this would succeed?"  In a game where no one's on the same page, a "no" is usually merely frustrating, but in a group with well-shared priorities, the GM's answer arrives as The Truth.  "No, these townsfolk are too incensed to listen," or, "That speech would totally make them pause and take your words seriously."  Or, "Could go either way; roll some dice!"in this style<

The thing is, pushing trust basically wrecks personal evaluation of quality. Was it fun, quality play? To even form that question in mind is to distrust the assertion by others that it was fun. Pesonally I think it's healthy skepticism, but it's still distrust even with my stamp of approval. The more you work with trust the more it kills critical evaluation. Critical evaluation requires, as far as I know, atleast some level of misstrust/treating others assertions as possibly just a bunch of hype.Quote from: David Berg on December 28, 2009, 04:33:17 PM

P.S. Jay, if you're still around, I think it would be instructive if you could speculate on how else your Dunedain's speech might have been resolved; and, given the way that it was resolved, what parts of the experience could have been improved, or were optimal just the way they were handled.

David, could you expand on your question, please?  I'm not sure what you are looking for from me.  To me the experience was optimal, but I am curious as to what it is that you are trying to uncover.  If you wish do put in that link you had mentioned in one of your earlier posts.

[Callan S.]

Hi Jay,

Drama is recognized as a legitimate form of resolution.

Well, for myself, that alot of people say they recognise something as legitimate doesn't mean anything in itself. Large numbers of people doesn't lend evidence toward anything. Lots of people recognised slavery as legitimate, for example. How could they believe that if it wasn't true? Well, because belief is cheap, no matter how many people are involved. That's my perspective.

Quote

Given the Lumpley principle; all play at heart is Drama resolution in that we all must ultimately agree to the statements being made during play.

The lumpley principle is about working on a semi shared fiction (semi because there is no hive mind/xerox duplication of the imagination between participants) - if you try and keep all of play within the fictional level, then I'd grant your premise.

But if I've agreed heads I win, tails I lose and tails comes up - no, I am not at that point deciding whether I feel like agreeing with the result of me losing. There is no agreeing to the result going on at that point past the coin flip. There is only the following of the result. This flows on to the fictional level of there being no agreeing to the result, because if I lose on the roll, I'm hardly gunna go 'Oh, but imagination wise my character totally pwns!'. No, fiction wise he loses too - and it's not a matter of lumpley style agreement, it's simply following the result for all participants. There is no agreement at that point, just following the result (afterward, in tying the result to further fiction, sure, LP. But not right now). So no, not all play is drama resolution at heart. Some parts of play are no more lumpley principle or drama resolution than RL gravity is an act of lumpley principle or drama resolution. The RL coin flipped. What comes after is not everyone just agreeing to the result - it is the result as much as the result of throwing a rock at a window.

Unless you try and keep all play within the fiction, in which case there are many techniques for ignoring the die roll yet acting as if it was still relevant (I remember Ron talking about these once, but can't remember the thread...)

Actually that makes me think of some (pervi?) mechanics - like if the characters have little paper houses on the gaming table, and that represents their imaginative game world house. Okay, at some point a player is blindfolded and the houses shuffled around a bit in front of him. Then the blindfolded player brings his fist down hard in front of him!

It's hardly lumpley principle when one of the paper houses is crushed, that the imaginative house is also crushed. Well, unless your way in denial of the connection between the two. The whole group trying to game that your house is fine when it's crushed in front of you? In people there's something prior to the lumpley principle, and I think it says no.

Quote

	Logged

Philosopher Gamer
<meaning></meaning>

[David Berg]

Jay,

We've clearly had some similar gaming experiences.  Almost everything you're saying, I'm nodding and going, "Yeah!  It is like that!"

the "resolution" page for my game Delve.  See the "would", "could" and "couldn't" links (although you may have to read all the links in order for it to make sense).

Quote from: Silmenume on December 29, 2009, 01:06:47 AM

At the end of that night's play we will have established/negotiated a whole multitude of SIS Facts which can then be chewed on long after the end of the game session where the players deduce and infer a great number of additional (proto?) facts.

Huh.  I hadn't thought about that.  Are you talking about group rehash, or just individual recollections?

P.S. Jay, if you're still around, I think it would be instructive if you could speculate on how else your Dunedain's speech might have been resolved; and, given the way that it was resolved, what parts of the experience could have been improved, or were optimal just the way they were handled.

David, could you expand on your question, please?  I'm not sure what you are looking for from me.  To me the experience was optimal, but I am curious as to what it is that you are trying to uncover.

Okay, well, if it was optimal, then there's not much food for musing there.  I was trying to uncover some breakdown of the moments of play by type of resolution*.  Like, "I decided this, the GM decided that, we agreed here, rolled dice there, looked up attribute ratings then" etcetera.  I thought maybe we could figure out something interesting about how these techniques all work together.  That now seems both vague and ambitious, though.

More concretely, you said one thing that have me some "non-optimal?" thoughts:

I was irked that the GM wasn't responding to all these Charisma efforts of mine that are gift and birthrights of the Dunedain

As someone who wasn't there, I didn't know whether this was a case of:

"The GM's cheating!" or "The GM's ignoring my contribution, so I'm not empowered to play!"

or

"Wow, I thought that woud have impressed most incensed villagers.  I guess these ones have some reason they're particularly pissed off." (or some other sound in-fiction logic)

Based on the rest of your account, I can guess that the latter was more the case, largely because of your group's shared priorities about stuff like sound in-fiction logic being really important.  What do you think?

I also think there's something to be said for a "show, don't tell" dynamic at play, where no stats or rolls are going to win the day without some action narration of convincing quality.  But I'll wait on that tangent for now.

Ps,
-David

*I mean that in the broadest possible sense: "process by which stuff enters the SIS"

[Silmenume]

quote author=David Berg link=topic=28778.msg272192#msg272192 date=1262371994]I was trying to uncover some breakdown of the moments of play by type of resolution*.  Like, "I decided this, the GM decided that, we agreed here, rolled dice there, looked up attribute ratings then" etcetera.  I thought maybe we could figure out something interesting about how these techniques all work together.  That now seems both vague and ambitious, though.Quote from: David Berg on January 01, 2010, 10:53:14 AM

[David Berg]

Hi Jay,

I'm still mulling where to go with this... there are fun options aplenty, but I'm trying to see if I can focus in on a design issue here.  Basically, I want to be able to tell other play groups how to find success of the type that your group and mine have enjoyed.  The cartoons are an ongoing attempt at that.  What are the keys, and how can they be communicated from text to players and then players to players?

So, before I continue in that direction, I just want to ask if that's cool with you.

Meanwhile, a few questions:

Do setting facts get firmly established during your postgame debriefs, or simply proposed as possible interpretations?  I mean, if Maglor's dead and we're never going to see him again, one player suggesting that he's been allowed into heaven is kind of a special case.  The GM can just go, "Might be true, might be false, who knows?" and it doesn't matter because it's still a cool way to look at things.  It's more or less a player saying "An NPC can be perceived as doing this!"  That's very different than the player saying, "An NPC does this!" and the GM agreeing either explicitly or implicitly (by not speaking up to the contrary).  So, just for context, I'm curious about which you guys do.

As for the GM stringing you along for emotional impact: this is one of those tricky judgment calls, where the GM's role as impartial arbiter is so open that he has to fill in the gaps with something, and that's often borrowed from other fiction.  In this case, the indeterminate nature of "how a whole bunch of angry peasants respond to a commanding guy of noble blood" allows ample leeway for pacing and tension of the suspense/action movie/novel variety.  How necessary is it that the GM do this?  How much of a tall order is it?  I have some general thoughts on the matter, but I'm wondering if you have any thoughts based on this particular game.

Ps,
-David

[Silmenume]

Hi David,

I apologize for the delay...

Do setting facts get firmly established during your postgame debriefs, or simply proposed as possible interpretations?  I mean, if Maglor's dead and we're never going to see him again, one player suggesting that he's been allowed into heaven is kind of a special case.  The GM can just go, "Might be true, might be false, who knows?" and it doesn't matter because it's still a cool way to look at things.  It's more or less a player saying "An NPC can be perceived as doing this!"  That's very different than the player saying, "An NPC does this!" and the GM agreeing either explicitly or implicitly (by not speaking up to the contrary).  So, just for context, I'm curious about which you guys do.create<

As for the GM stringing you along for emotional impact: this is one of those tricky judgment calls, where the GM's role as impartial arbiter is so open that he has to fill in the gaps with something, and that's often borrowed from other fiction.  In this case, the indeterminate nature of "how a whole bunch of angry peasants respond to a commanding guy of noble blood" allows ample leeway for pacing and tension of the suspense/action movie/novel variety.  How necessary is it that the GM do this?  How much of a tall order is it?  I have some general thoughts on the matter, but I'm wondering if you have any thoughts based on this particular game.playing<very tall order.  It takes great skill to manage such a thing successfully and not all efforts are as successful as others.

I don't know I answered your questions in a reasonable fashion.  Please let me know. I look forward to your reply.

Jay

[David Berg]

Hi Jay,

I'll assume from your response that you're happy to ponder design implications with me.

I think you understood my questions perfectly, and your responses give me a lot to work with.

Quote from: Silmenume on January 31, 2010, 03:11:48 AM

I should mention that we probably spend more time talking about the game than actually playing it.  This is not meant to say that we don't play often or enough, but rather that soooooo much goes on during a game that sorting out what happened and more importantly what it means can go on endlessly.  Mixed in with this is discussions about the source material

This also strikes me as vital to your style of fun.  Having done a fair bit of this myself, let me see if I can sum it up:

During play itself, attention is kept largely on the immediate action.  Sights, sounds, actions, etc.  There are few pauses for explanation of the people, places, events and stories that are glimpsed only partially.  When play finally ends, the players do what fans of any mysterious TV series do: they question, theorize, interpret and predict.  "Why did that happen?  Did it mean X?  I bet Y is up to Z!  Maybe when we go to A, we'll discover B!"

I've found that the energy to do this is particularly high when play-mode narrows perceptions even further (immersed in my character, I know only what he perceives), when the gameworld beyond play holds independent interest for the players (we're Tolkein fans!), and when play is a continuous campaign across many episodes (duh).

When these are all true, I find there's often an extra level of anticipation and eagerness to continue Exploring, and this winds up adding a lot to play. 

So, again, a rulebook might be wise to work this in somehow.  Or would it?  How much can or should designers try to prompt formerly emergent behaviors?  I can see two approaches:

1) Provide play rules that foster character POV.  Present an inspiring Setting (maps, histories, fiction, web links, etc.).  Provide a campaign-friendly play structure.  Then, mention somewhere that talking about the game tends to add to the fun -- but don't fight for attention with this, leave it in the class of lower-priority game instruction.  (There's only so many procedures and rules gamers will learn and remember, right?)

2) List in a prominent place in the instructions of how to play that "pre-game talk" and "post-game talk" are essential parts of the process.  Make that impossible to ignore.  Flesh it out with details on how to get the most out of such talks.

I really have no idea which would be more effective for what game.  Help!

As for the GM stringing you along for emotional impact: this is one of those tricky judgment calls, where the GM's role as impartial arbiter is so open that he has to fill in the gaps with something, and that's often borrowed from other fiction.  In this case, the indeterminate nature of "how a whole bunch of angry peasants respond to a commanding guy of noble blood" allows ample leeway for pacing and tension of the suspense/action movie/novel variety.  How necessary is it that the GM do this?  How much of a tall order is it?  I have some general thoughts on the matter, but I'm wondering if you have any thoughts based on this particular game.
Well, let's just assume that the basic situation (will the peasants listen, or kill your friend?) is going to be at least somewhat fun and interesting, even if the GM adds little flourish.  Is that a reasonable assumption? (See this post's P.S.!)

If so, my question is about the extra fun that the GM adds.  Inspired by how tense scenes in thriller films play out, the GM strings you along!  He watches you and sees your nervous energy build!  Finally, he senses the time for resolution arrives!  Do it now!

So that's the "extra" fun.  How necessary is that?

My first thought is that:
1) Sometimes the GM does it just right.  The more of that, the better.
2) Sometimes the GM doesn't bother.  With strong fictional situations, that's okay.
3) Sometimes the GM tries, but doesn't do a very good job.  That tends to be about as fun as #2.

The art of it, as it were, is being able to balance so many needs at once without stopping play.  How much of a tall order is it? A very tall order.  It takes great skill to manage such a thing successfully and not all efforts are as successful as others.

So, this here is a major design problem, in my eyes.

Ron's made some points here (some to me in my Rat Island thread, some elsewhere) about how many games rely on such "secret, highly refined" GM skills to work at all.  I completely agree that that's not desirable.  I want GMs to be able to run my "realistic" Sim masterpiece without having PhDs in Responsive Dramatic Multi-Tasking Improv.  Or, y'know, I want to give them those PhDs myself in short order.

I've played plenty of functional RPGs that have dodged this problem by changing the play experience, but none that have tackled it, keeping the play experience the same but providing tools for "extra" fun.

I've been tinkering with such tools.  I have lots of minor helpers, but no brilliant workhorses.  I wonder if anyone else has made progress along these lines?

	Logged

here's my blog, discussing Delve, my game in development

[Silmenume]

quote author=David Berg link=topic=28778.msg273109#msg273109 date=1265058913]During play itself, attention is kept largely on the immediate action.  Sights, sounds, actions, etc.  There are few pauses for explanation of the people, places, events and stories that are glimpsed only partially.  When play finally ends, the players do what fans of any mysterious TV series do: they question, theorize, interpret and predict.  "Why did that happen?  Did it mean X?  I bet Y is up to Z!  Maybe when we go to A, we'll discover B!"