Obvious Choices

[jburneko]

Christopher,

Because, I *don't* want to decide on pre-existing outcomes or scenes is PRECISELY, why I'm asking this question.  Okay, let's talk about a specific example from real life.

A bit of background for people who weren't there: In the gothic game Christopher played with me the other player, was playing a bandit slave who wanted revenge on his abusive master.  He took his master and the local lord's daughter hostage and dragged them out in the big scary woods that everyone else is affraid to go into.

I really wanted to spring a wild wolf attack on those three because I thought it would really enhance the scary atmosphere of the woods.  But I didn't.  Why?  Because of the potential of it being reduced down to a random encounter.  The only way a wolf attack would have advanced the character's conflict was if it somehow siginficantly effected the three characters.  Maybe the bandit-master was seriously injured, or maybe the wolves carried off the lord's daughter.  Maybe the lord's daughter gets killed.  It doesn't matter.  I don't care what the outcome is as long as it holds some kind of signifance in some way that advances the conflict.

Now, here are the potential outcomes that would have rended the bang pointless:

1) The bandit-master is killed.  This would have effectively ended the PCs central conflict, thus the resolution would have accidentally come from me rather than through the player's choices.

2) The bandit-slave succeeds in killing or driving off all the wolves with narry a scratch on himself or the hostages.  This outcome reduces the bang to a meaningless random encounter.

It isn't that I'm trying to push some specific outcome, it's that I'm trying to avoid random, meaningless outcomes.

So what did I do?  I did the scene with the water spirit, which was cool in its own right.  The water spirit rose out of the water and held onto the bandit-slave.  It specifically, through dialog, ASKED him to make choices about the current conflict.  There was no way that scene could have turned out boring or meaningless.  In fact, it eventually evolved into pretty cool action scene, but that was player initiated, not GM initiated.  The combat wasn't the bang, the dialog was.

Does this make more sense?  Do you see what I'm driving at?

Jesse

P.S. My concern isn't that being enslaved by a pirate queen doesn't offer choices.  My concern is that if actual play started further back and the pirate queen attack was part of play and NOTHING of interest happens between Conan and The Queen, be it enslavement, romance, rivalry, I don't care, it's not about the SPECIFIC complication but instead Conan simply kills the queen and moves on.  The pirate attack is reduced to a random meaningless encounter.

[greyorm]

Jesse, based on the situations you are leery of and the reasons for that, I'd say the largest portion of your problem is with second-guessing the players' responses/behaviors/actions.

Your main complaint seems to be, "I can't do this, or else my players will do this awful, horrible, terrible thing!" Which, in fact, they may not.

And honestly, so WHAT if they want to kill things until its safe? What is wrong with this? That is a valid choice, too! You, personally, may not like it...but is the game really about what you want?

If the players are doing what they want, don't worry.
Just have fun.

Other than this, like Christopher, I'm kind of baffled because I don't really see a problem in what you've described as being such. Could you maybe help me out and forgive me for being dense?

Edit: We cross-posted, I see more where you're coming from now.
Here's the deal, the conflict and meaning aren't inherent in the scene, they're added by the players...surviving a vicious wolf-attack might well be important to the character AT THAT moment.

I think Christopher is correct in his analysis of the problem as being one of "what you want" (ie: non-meaningless outcomes).

The wolf attack would have highlighted the scary nature of the woods...established the theme. It establishes there IS good reason to avoid the woods...see, here's the danger! And look, here you are traipsing about without worry, you bad-ass!

It isn't that I'm trying to push some specific outcome, it's that I'm trying to avoid random, meaningless outcomes

But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I still think this is a case of pre-planning, even if you don't recognize it as such: the conflict with the Pirate Queen results in the characters killing her...you view this as a failure. So, how does the Pirate Queen fall into the relationship map? Why was she there in the first place? What is her relationship to the Stakes?

There's the meaning.

(I might be making more sense if I weren't sick. Sorry about that.)

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Jesse,

Since I'm arguing that only by having a well defined Kicker and Humanity can choices on the part of the PC be given meaning, could you please refresh my memory: what was the PC's Kicker?  Was it strong enough?  If not, was that the problem?

If I remember correctly, the Kicker was, "I'm free."  And the emotional content was going to be about what his life was going to be like being free for the first time in his life.

It seems to me a really vital choice was going to have to be made if wolves attacked.  As the only of the three in really good physical condition, he'd have to make a choice -- protect the other two (or one of them, perhaps), or flee.

Did freedom for him mean protecting himself?  Or choosing to protect others simply because he wanted to?  Or choosing to protect them and then fleeing when (if) the fight got too rough?

The issue isn't how it effects the three characters.  Just the PC.  And I'd argue it's not a matter of effect.  It's a matter of choice -- on the part of the PC.  The wolf attack would have been great -- not because it would have made the woods scary (though it would have done that).  It would have been great because it would have put the PC on the spot (while being scary) about what it means to him to be free.

Whether or not the two NPCs died would be irrelevent to that choice.  Whether or not the two NPCs died would have a lot to do with the options the PC would take next -- but that's not what the encounter's value would ride on.

The Kicker.  Humanity.  Without these two elements framing a Bang, everything does become a random encounter.  But once these two elements are in place, they provide a frame that give meaning to the PC's actions.

Best,
Christopher

[joshua neff]

And since Trollbabe got mentioned...

I agree with Christopher, Jesse, that the choices aren't obvious. And I agree with Raven that what might seem like "just another random monster encounter, where the PCs kill the monster" may actially be something more.

In one session of our Trollbabe game, Julie's character Oga has entered the tower of a sorcerer, who she has been told is evil. The first encounter in the tower is with his guardian-minion, a giant snake. Now, I had sort of envisioned a big, pitch battle with the snake--but I hadn't allowed myself to indulge in pre-planning or pre-playing & was open to whatever occured. What Julie chose to do was to have Oga knock the beast out & then leave it, because she felt somewhat sorry for the beast. Julie likes snakes, & decided she wanted Oga to reflect that.

This had echoes later when she actually encounters the sorcerer. Rather than fight him or have some sort of magic duel, she made a Social roll & intimidated him into lifting the curse he'd placed on Oga's new-found friend. So, in both encounters, Oga came up with non-lethal solutions.

The bangs may have seemed obvious before they entered play ("Oh, of course Oga will fight the snake & kill it. Of course she'll battle the sorcerer until one of them is dead or unconscious."), but they weren't obvious at all.

So, I'll side (again) with Christopher & Raven & Ron & ask, "What, exactly, is the problem?" Throw bangs at the Players, let 'em do what they want with them, & flow with the outcomes--even if the outcome is what you had expected it to be, or it's radically different.

[Mike Holmes]

Lot's of good advice here, Jesse.

Here's one more bit that I hope helps. Dare to role-play badly. I'm a big proponent of this concept. Like Sex and Pizza, there's no such thing as bad role-playing (no, I don't want to debate any of these).

My point is not that one can't have an unworthwhile session. That's possible, I suppose, under certain circumstances. But as long as you are trying, you're going to have more success than failure. Further, you aren't very trusting of your players, Jesse. It's not the GM's sole responsibility to make a game good. Assuming you have players like Mr. Kubasik in your game (or even people half as talented), you've got nothing to worry about at all. I'm sure you could just throw random encounters at him all night long, and he'd find the hidden themes in them somehow. Given that you are trying harder than this, the outcome will certainly be fine.

It isn't the sole job of the GM to assure a Narrativist environment. Players can and will contribute as well. As such, don't worry particular decisions too too much. Just go with it, and like Raven said, have fun. The way you describe your tribulations, it sounds at times like you forget to breathe at times. Just rememeber, "Inhale, exhale, repeat": nothing is going to happen that's the end of the world.

I say this all because I have the exact same apprehensions as you do about what makes for a good Bang. The difference is that I'm not going to agonize over each decision. If the game doesn't come out as a perfect work of art, oh well, I call that a limitation of the improv nature of the medium. I never expected perfect in the first place.

The best way to get better at it is to play a lot, and see what works. I'd like to think that I'm improving...

The other thing I'd like to say is that you need to quit trying to predict outcomes. Like Josh points out, do you really know what the player's are going to do? I had a scene with Josh on Tuesday night where a girl was going to be raped by a demon (or so they assumed). I figured that Josh's charater (described as, basically a good guy), would try to participate in saving her, despite the fact that she had tried to kill him once. My bad. In a very powerful moment Josh had his character just walk away. Yikes.

The point is, you never really know. Worse, is your other assumptions about the wolf encounter. That the only possible results are death or pointless success. That's just silly, and Simulationist thinking. There are about a jillion other outcomes to that encounter that are more interesting, and easy to achieve at the player's choice given the system in question. Assuming a system like Sorcerer in this situation, give the system some credit for it's Narrativist label. A "random encounter" is just an opportunity to mess with the sorcerer/demon relationship. Perhaps the payer will decide it's time to summona new, more powerful demon. Who knows what might happen.

IOW, your instincts were probably right on. You wanted tension in the forest. Well, how do you get that other than to turn up the heat (as Ron would put it). You make the forest a threatening manifestation, and the other issues at hand come to a head. Thus the tension of the forest comes to life in the reactions of the characters. Even before the cobat is resolved, you'll have your narrativist responses.

Roll too well in the encounter? Decimated the characters with your attack? Cool. Have the wolves carry off certain characters, and leave the others dying. Now the characters have a real choice. Save the ones nearby, or go after the one's dragged off. Improvise. Why would the wolves kill their prey; makes no sense? IRL, when wolves pick off a member of the pack, they carry it off first before eating. Any BS thing that puts a tough decision in the player's hands will do. And combat results are a great way to create tough decisions.

All sorts of opportunities. Consider, too, that once in a while, it's OK to use a Pseudo-Conflict (if you will) to protagonize a character. The wolf leaps out and threatens a slave (valuable property to the slaver). His defense of his goods shows his ability and values, should he win. Which in this case, he will, as we make the wolf statistically inferior. But build him up dramatically via description.

Remember, in combat, it's not a player choice to win or lose (they can only choose to try to win, or surrender), it's what he does specifically during a combat that are the Narrativist choices.

Is the wolf thing the greatest Bang created by a Narrativist GM? No. Will it ruin your game? Far from it.

Mike

[jburneko]

Okay, I get it.  As usual, it comes down to, me thinking too hard or too much about something very simple.  I think the problem is that I'm looking too abstractly like an input/output function.  Combat Occurs ==> Outcome.  What I'm NOT looking at is all the little choices that happen in the ==> part.  Does the character fight to kill or incapacitate?  What other characters does the character choose defend? and so on.  I'm not looking at the choices that arrise in the MIDDLE of combat, only what choices the actual threat of combat poses and I see little beyond fight or flight.

Thanks guys!  

Jesse

[Bankuei]

Hey Jesse,

I've been following this thread with a lot of interest, and trying to figure out a bit better the source of the issue.  I think there's a couple of things that are being entangled and it might serve well to check them out individually:

•Meaningful choice as character expression

A meaningful choice is any choice that tells you something important about that character.  If we're comparing this to movies, each scene is designed to tell you something about a character, even if its simply reasserting what a badass the hero is.  Meaningful choice is less about ability and more about motive behind actions.  

•Loaded Bangs

Some bangs seem like they have a single, obvious choice.  Being attacked usually results in self defense.    In these cases, perhaps instead of looking to express something about the PC's, you're looking to express something about another character.  

In your example, it was the forest itself being used as a character.  If you want a good movie example, watch Gladiator.  Maximus makes two meaningful choices, and one of them is loaded.  Everything else is in the new Emperor.  The entire story is about him making poor meaningful choices that lead to his downfall.

Also, loaded bangs are also the most telling bits of character expression when characters choose to do the unobvious actions.  As in Mike's example, it was more telling and shocking to have the protagonist walk away from the rape than do anything about it.

•Player conditioning

After years of D&D stock responses, many players are busy trying to figure out what they're "supposed" to do instead of what they want to do.  In this case, even when you present a meaningful choice to a player("Join me, in the darkside, my son"), they may not even consider it as an option.
In this case, its not a meaningful choice because the players did not really consider and choose from the options available, not because the GM failed to present such a choice.

Just to sum up, I think if you focus on scenes being designed around expressing characters, either NPC's or setups for the PC's to be expressed, you should do just fine.  Even if the scene doesn't involve a meaningful choice for the players doesn't mean its not a great way to demonstrate a meaningful choice for an NPC, which will in turn, cause the players to react with their own choices.

Chris

[epweissengruber]

I like to think of Hamlet not as a character who cannot act, but as one who tries to act but finds opposition and danger every way he turns.

Seth's post got me thinking about how to relate Hamlet's struggle to RPGs

Hamlet wakes up and mopes around contemplating suicide, being uncertain as to how he should proceed.  

In Backwards and Forwards, David Ball argues that Hamlet never hesitates.  His burning desire for revenge is frustrated by internal and external obstacles.  He is uncertain about the ghost's veracity, his uncle spies on him, Polonius interferes, he makes some rash decisions that get him sent to England.  He even wrestles with his humanity -- the more he gives into revenge, the more lethal he becomes.  But, at the same time, the more damage he inflicts on innocent victims.

Imagine Hamlet as a PC.  The GM keeps throwing exernal obstacles at the player to challenge his desire for revenge.  He also thinks up ways to test Hamlet's humanity.  You want to tap into your Resentment of Polonius die pool.  Ok, but next time anyone frustrates you (close friend, girlfriend, mother) you have a chance of breaking out into a violent rage.  The whole premise could be considered "What price revenge?"

Suppose your PC acts like the stereotype of Hamlet and bewails his fate.  Maybe Claudius starts exercising dicatorial power.  Gertrude's morals become even more debauched by her incestuous union (perhaps she even turns her eyes on Hamlet).  Ophelia begins to get unwanted attention from Ros. and Guil.  The PC can choose not to act, but failure to act shows what happens if you don't take the risk of paying the price that revenge demands.  If you don't get revenge, perhaps the situation will become even worse.  I wouldn't see these developments as railroading.  There is no goal that I want the PC to reach, no set denoument that must happen. However, every act (or failure to act) on the part of the PC must have consequences.   And hopefully, these consequences, whatever they may be, are related to a premise.




Sidenote: Revenge or spirit of revenge could be considered a kind of demon. In some productions of Kyd's Revenger's Tragedy, the spirit of Revenge (normally only the speaker of the prologues), becomes part of the play, actively pushing the characters into greater and greater outrages against humanity.