Sharks With Lasers On Their Heads!!

[pete_darby]

Errrmmm.... about to reply about mediocrity, but I feel it would be another thread again.

Oh well, I'm sure you'll let me know!

In Keith Johnstone's Impro, he talks about three fears that will lock an actor up from improvising: psychosis, obscenity and mediocrity.

Fear of revealing your insanity (or even any part of your psyche), or your filthy mind (which is really a subsection of the previous), or that you're "not good enough" shuts down the spontaneity that is the delight of good impro.

If you create a supporting atmosphere where it's acceptable to express crazy, dirty, even apparently dull stuff, the floodgates open.

Johnstone emphasizes that, especially for psychotic or obscene thought, the actor should always have the option of saying "I'm not saying that!" What he was fighting against was the syndrome where people would say "I can't think of anything" where they meant "I daren't say what I'm thinking."

Getting kind of back to the thread, when people get worried that they can't play "The West Wing RPG" because their ability to improvise dialogue isn't as good as the TV writers... so what? You've got a spontaneity and involvement with the dialogue that the writers and actors on The West Wing will never have. WW writers manage to capture the feel and emotion of people in written scripts that have to be memorised by a different person, then cut about by another... since the only audience role players have to satisfy is the writer/actors, they can indulge themselves in spontenaiety and involvment to a level that TV writers and actors would be jealous of.

So yeah, if it helps to loosen people up, don't think "It's got to be as good as ER!", just "I'll be happy if we beat the level of Shortland Street..."

And it's irking me that people are still claiming that a level of authenticity that they don't demand from combat in action adventure games is needed from courtroom and medical dramatic systems...

[Bruce Baugh]

And it's irking me that people are still claiming that a level of authenticity that they don't demand from combat in action adventure games is needed from courtroom and medical dramatic systems...

Yeah, I agree with this a lot. I suspect that anyone who makes a good human-scale drama game that captures atmosphere without straining for all the technicalities is going to have to do a lot of telling some people to buzz off. :)

[Marco]

And it's irking me that people are still claiming that a level of authenticity that they don't demand from combat in action adventure games is needed from courtroom and medical dramatic systems...

Hmm...

I'm *not* claming that--but I am claiming that the content of each session needs to be at roughly the same level of abstraction to engage me. That means that if you can describe your great feint and spin and stab move, I'm cool with it, even if it's unrealistic.

If you roll some dice and say "surprise tactic at the bench" I'm not.

In a classic court-room drama, where the court actions are the focus of the story, the drama comes the clever way the defense finds the defendant innocent despite appearing overwhelmingly guilty at first. It comes from showcasing the defense's conviction and so on.

If 12-angry men happens without the conversation there's nothing there. If it happens with the conversation, you don't need dice (IMO).

Not the same for medical stuff (IMO as well)--but the focus of the drama in medical shows comes from questions of competence and risk taking (doctors) and survival (patient) so that'd do pretty well with a standard resolution system (IMO too, yeah?).

-Marco

[Ian Charvill]

And it's irking me that people are still claiming that a level of authenticity that they don't demand from combat in action adventure games is needed from courtroom and medical dramatic systems...

Yeah, I agree with this a lot. I suspect that anyone who makes a good human-scale drama game that captures atmosphere without straining for all the technicalities is going to have to do a lot of telling some people to buzz off. :)

I have a real suspicion that the trick here is to permit players to improvise details of law and have them made true by the roll.

"But your Honour, I refer you to O'Flaherty vs Mednitz"
[roll]
"Objection dismissed"

In general, if we're dealing with fantastic rather than sensationalist elements (and I was definitely focussing on sensationalist elements before) then I would say cop, law and medic shows are strong candidates for non-lasered shows.

[As an aside, I wouldn't denegrate the quality of writing on Buffy or Angel, but Mutant X...]

[contracycle]

[As an aside, I wouldn't denegrate the quality of writing on Buffy or Angel, but Mutant X...]

Thats OK, I'm here to do it.

"But your Honour, I refer you to O'Flaherty vs Mednitz"
[roll]
"Objection dismissed"

Nope. This is dead in the water IMO - of what significance is O'Flaherty vs. Mednitz?  Did I have to think about it?  Was I cunning?  No - I thumbsucked and rolled dice. Dull dull dull.  It seems to me that you are describing is merely motion, not conflict.  If this was a movie scene, we would see the heroes poring over their reference library or ringing up old contacts who might be able to point them in the right direction.  Thus, when they finally pull O'Flaherty vs. Mednitz out of the bag in actual court, it has the quality of being a triumph, an expression of the characters and player prowess and ability.  Anything else and its just fluff.

Perhaps I've been a bit strong; I could imagine a situation in whch the ability to do what you describe is one of several tools available to the player and is a known part of the action, but only when set in a context in which some significant decisions are already established as framing the exchange.

[pete_darby]

[As an aside, I wouldn't denegrate the quality of writing on Buffy or Angel, but Mutant X...]

Thats OK, I'm here to do it.

"But your Honour, I refer you to O'Flaherty vs Mednitz"
[roll]
"Objection dismissed"

Nope. This is dead in the water IMO - of what significance is O'Flaherty vs. Mednitz?  Did I have to think about it?  Was I cunning?  No - I thumbsucked and rolled dice. Dull dull dull.  It seems to me that you are describing is merely motion, not conflict.  If this was a movie scene, we would see the heroes poring over their reference library or ringing up old contacts who might be able to point them in the right direction.  Thus, when they finally pull O'Flaherty vs. Mednitz out of the bag in actual court, it has the quality of being a triumph, an expression of the characters and player prowess and ability.  Anything else and its just fluff.

Perhaps I've been a bit strong; I could imagine a situation in whch the ability to do what you describe is one of several tools available to the player and is a known part of the action, but only when set in a context in which some significant decisions are already established as framing the exchange.

Uhuh, because "I refer m'lud to  etc. etc. prima facie coitus interruptus" happens in real life law all the time, but rarely on the screen. I'd go as far as to say that on TV, 90% of law is decided by passion, not legal precedent.

The other 10% is decided by dirty underhanded backrom deals...

[pete_darby]

And it's irking me that people are still claiming that a level of authenticity that they don't demand from combat in action adventure games is needed from courtroom and medical dramatic systems...

Hmm...

I'm *not* claming that--but I am claiming that the content of each session needs to be at roughly the same level of abstraction to engage me. That means that if you can describe your great feint and spin and stab move, I'm cool with it, even if it's unrealistic.

If you roll some dice and say "surprise tactic at the bench" I'm not.

In a classic court-room drama, where the court actions are the focus of the story, the drama comes the clever way the defense finds the defendant innocent despite appearing overwhelmingly guilty at first. It comes from showcasing the defense's conviction and so on.

If 12-angry men happens without the conversation there's nothing there. If it happens with the conversation, you don't need dice (IMO).

Not the same for medical stuff (IMO as well)--but the focus of the drama in medical shows comes from questions of competence and risk taking (doctors) and survival (patient) so that'd do pretty well with a standard resolution system (IMO too, yeah?).

-Marco

As with any genre, their comes a time when you realise that, say 12 Angry Men and Ally MacBeal are from entirely different sub-genres, and any particular session should decide which one they're playing in...

And 12 Angry Men is a freeform, no arguments. But in a standard court drama, where the arguments are used to sway the Jury, and the law is just one tool in the box.

I'm looking probablyat more of a toolkit for games rather than a standalone game. The toolikt being staging tips and rules for, in this case, trial by jury, taking US/UK legal dramas as points of reference.

(thinks: there's a webpage of "trials for writers" with just tha tsort of stuff somewhere, I'm sure... I know there's one for autopsies, so wh ynot surgery...)

So the GM, and possibly the players, would go in with a general idea of what should and should not be permitted in a court room, but the drama is not in the interpretation of the law, in the same way the drama of, say, a lightsaber battle isn't about the technical skill of the combatants (which has increased in the Star Wars movies as time has progressed) as much as the battle of wills between the duellists (which, as I lose sympathy with the characters, becomes dramatically trivial). It's a battle for the hearts and minds of the jury, with the judge allegedly seeing fair play.

Now, going back to my favourite system, Hero Wars seems to have just the right rules set to deal with this (extended contests, player nominated aims, enhancements from supporting traits), which should be supported, as in combat, with colourful descriptions.

And in lawyer shows, only about 10-20% of each show is taken up with the actual trial: the rest is office politics, preliminary hearings, arbitration, a whole host of different sorts of contest, each of which can have a material effect on the outcome of the court scene, handled in Hero Wars with long term effects of defeat in quick contests.

Example: early arbitration scene between litigants. Say it's a nasty divorce case.  Now, I'm pretty sure that, on TV, no-one ever settles in arbitration. Not permanently, anyhow. So it's a straight one side against the other contest. Each side may have greatly differing desired outcomes (He wants her money from the business she runs, she wants to see him in court to drag his name through the dirt), the bargaining / persuasive skills of each sides lawyers are the acting skills, and enhancements come from passions on either side, technical expertise, intimidation skills, carry overs from previous relevant contests (Has our heroine lawyer just been screwed in her divorce settlement? Guess she'll have to use that to enhance the ex-wife's case; pity her client's the husband...), even, if you're feelling old fashioned, the relative merits of each position in law, however we're interpreting that in this weeks' episode.

As with most enhancements in Hero Wars, creative use of traits for enhancement is rewarded, and it's the justificaitons from players that make for a lot of the fun of the game.

Simple contest, after enhancements are done, one roll. If the loser suffers complete defeat, they settle, or cave before the court hearing. anything less, it's see you in court with another chunky modifier for the court extended contest...

[Marco]

Sure. Roll some dice. Get an outcome--no problem. But if that's the *exciting* action of the game, I'm going to want more content there. A lot of Ally McBeal (and I've seen more of it than ... well ... anyway ...) wasn't about court-room manipulation.

But when it *was* the *content* was based on the speeches the characters made. They'd draw a clever analogy or make a surprising point. That isn't captured in losing persuasion points (you can say getting run through the chest with a sword isn't captured by losing damage points but being run through doesn't require the person doing the describing to be clever).

12 Angry Men is an extreme case, perhaps Reversal of Fortune is too. But if you replaced Ally McBeal's *on screen* action with a voice over that said "and then he pulled a clever move and the judge dismissed the case" I think one can reasonably argue that it wouldn't be the same.

-Marco

[pete_darby]

And it's irking me that people are still claiming that a level of authenticity that they don't demand from combat in action adventure games is needed from courtroom and medical dramatic systems...

Yeah, I agree with this a lot. I suspect that anyone who makes a good human-scale drama game that captures atmosphere without straining for all the technicalities is going to have to do a lot of telling some people to buzz off. :)

I have a real suspicion that the trick here is to permit players to improvise details of law and have them made true by the roll.

"But your Honour, I refer you to O'Flaherty vs Mednitz"
[roll]
"Objection dismissed"

In general, if we're dealing with fantastic rather than sensationalist elements (and I was definitely focussing on sensationalist elements before) then I would say cop, law and medic shows are strong candidates for non-lasered shows.

[As an aside, I wouldn't denegrate the quality of writing on Buffy or Angel, but Mutant X...]

I think the trick will be remembering that, on TV law cases are arguments with lots of rules of engagement, but most can be reduced to simple principles.

Like no leading questions, no speculation from the witness, basically nothing too sneaky. At least make it look like you're sticking to the facts.

And another thing... remember that the jury always hears the stuff that gets objected to and sustained. It certainly affects them. But it can also the reduce the credibility of the lawyer indulging in these tactics, and pisses off the judge, who can have you removed for contempt...

In Hero Wars terms, abuse of court rules is a high bid. very risky, but if you can pull it off...

I think those details, precedents, etc. can be dealt with in pre-trial scenes, the results feeding into bonuses which can be increased if introduced at the right time.

But IIRC, isn't all this precedent stuff what happens in the pre-trial hearing to see if a trial goes ahead anyway? And this is TV Law... there's always a trial.

[Marco]

I think the trick will be remembering that, on TV law cases are arguments with lots of rules of engagement, but most can be reduced to simple principles.

Like no leading questions, no speculation from the witness, basically nothing too sneaky. At least make it look like you're sticking to the facts.

And another thing... remember that the jury always hears the stuff that gets objected to and sustained. It certainly affects them. But it can also the reduce the credibility of the lawyer indulging in these tactics, and pisses off the judge, who can have you removed for contempt...

In Hero Wars terms, abuse of court rules is a high bid. very risky, but if you can pull it off...

I think those details, precedents, etc. can be dealt with in pre-trial scenes, the results feeding into bonuses which can be increased if introduced at the right time.

But IIRC, isn't all this precedent stuff what happens in the pre-trial hearing to see if a trial goes ahead anyway? And this is TV Law... there's always a trial.

There's no question you could model it. Sure--but would it have the same appeal as a combat system modeling combat? For me, I think it would not.

I think for most gamers, Combat Systems a reasonably good job of adjudicating a sword fight with some sort of mental imagry at a low level of abstraction (individual blows or a flurry of parries and then a strike for damage). Even when the imagry somewhat fuzzy, the content of the strike ("I lost 8 hp. I have 12 left") is pretty concrete.

In the case of a trial, your simulation might show a give and take of advantage and disadvantage--but that's not (for me) what made it interesting to watch. It was how *I* reacted to the points the characters were making.

A simulation like Hero Wars will not make those points for the player. And if those points are made the system isn't really necessary (IMO).

-Marco

[pete_darby]

There's no question you could model it. Sure--but would it have the same appeal as a combat system modeling combat? For me, I think it would not.

I think for most gamers, Combat Systems a reasonably good job of adjudicating a sword fight with some sort of mental imagry at a low level of abstraction (individual blows or a flurry of parries and then a strike for damage). Even when the imagry somewhat fuzzy, the content of the strike ("I lost 8 hp. I have 12 left") is pretty concrete.

In the case of a trial, your simulation might show a give and take of advantage and disadvantage--but that's not (for me) what made it interesting to watch. It was how *I* reacted to the points the characters were making.

A simulation like Hero Wars will not make those points for the player. And if those points are made the system isn't really necessary (IMO).

-Marco

Well, it looks like we're at the "agree to disagree" stage until I can put up some actual play on this... I just like to say that the drama, for me, is in the give and take of the argument, and how it affects the protagonists. What ideas are presented are interesting mostly in how they affect the drama, not in and of themselves.

To go back to combat again, the loss of hit points is, in itself, fairly undramatic, and, I would say, more abstract than concrete. A loss of 12Hp is a loss of 12 Hp. A swingeing blow to the head is pain.

We've got into the habit of either assigning the colour ourselves, or living wihout it.

The magic is in the colour and, as you say, if you can describe the combat, why do you need a system?

And to take combat further, in games like Dust Devils and TRoS, we've got combat enhanced so that it means something dramatically in realtion to the characters. The same goes for Sorceror and magic. I'm proposing to give it a whirl to do the same for interpersonal verbal conflicts.

[Bruce Baugh]

The kind of disagreement we're seeing here - is it a matter of picking maneuvers and rolling dice, is it a matter of allowing players to create references, etc. etc. etc. - is precisely what always scuttles this kind of venture, in my experience. The Forge's collective willingness to bull ahead and do what someone finds interesting regardless may prove a real asset in getting anywhere. (No insult there - it takes that willingness when everyone agrees on the problem and/or desirable thing but not how to get there.)

[Mike Holmes]

Well said, Bruce.

And to take combat further, in games like Dust Devils and TRoS, we've got combat enhanced so that it means something dramatically in realtion to the characters. The same goes for Sorceror and magic. I'm proposing to give it a whirl to do the same for interpersonal verbal conflicts.

I think this sounds like a valid model.

In a medical game, I've seen enough ER to be able to randomly spout "I need a CBC, chem seven, and a chest x-ray, stat!" I have no idea if any of that would pertain to the wound the GM had rolled before me, but if, like in ER, it didn't really matter what the wound was (and it matters less to me as an RPG player because I've no medical professionals in the audience to ameliorate), but instead what the resolution meant in terms of my character's SA Destiny: to become chief surgeon, well, I think we have a game there.

Might not be a game for Marco, but it might well satisfy Jack and John.

Mike

[Marco]

No no--that would satisfy me just fine. What I don't want is an *argument* decided by the dice and tables or whatever when the subject of the argumet in the point of the game.

If we're trying a case I don't care if the game follows protocl much at all. But I if the action is to resemble a standard court drama, my interest isn't in the tactical positions of each side but the arguments they make.

The prosecutor gets up and and makes a cast-iron case.
The defense shoots it full of holes.
The prosecutor brings in a perfect wittness.
In a brave move the defense discredits him.

But if the above is all there is, I don't care. For that kind of action the "how" is real important to me.

Not so for a medical game. I don't care "how" they save the patient--just give me a visual and I'm cool.

But for debate and persuasion, I wanna hear the argument.

-Marco

[John Kim]

Not so for a medical game. I don't care "how" they save the patient--just give me a visual and I'm cool.

But for debate and persuasion, I wanna hear the argument.  

Actually, I'm in agreement with Marco.  I think one of the key differences is that legal arguments often have moral and ethical meaning.  It might be obscured by technicalities, but frequently there is a basic ethical choice which underscores legal disagreements.  For example: how do we weigh the rights of individual citizens vs protecting the general public?  

Now, certainly, moral and ethical issues also come up in medicine.  And it is equally true that I wouldn't want them abstracted away.  Particular medical procedures, though, usually don't have such implications as part of how they operate.  On the other hand, judges and juries are swayed by meaning and morals, not just technical issues.