So how DO you interpret SAs?

[hyphz]

Ok, I know I've been confused about this before, but seeing OBAM and thinking about TROS in general has brought it back to my mind again.  

The original thread - and the one which (and again I'll restate, this isn't a slam, just a statement of what happened) put me off running TFOS near-permanently, was this:

For example, if we have a character who has Passion (Loyalty to King) and Drive (Defeat Evil in All Its Forms), then if I have the king tell him to go kill the evil goblins in the mountains, the player will obviously choose that.

Any GM approaching SA's as flatly as in your example is either lazy and cheating _or_ in for the surprise of a gaming career when the SAs function a little differently than he thought they would.

Now, of course, the person approaching SAs that way was me and doing something that makes me "lazy and cheating" (or even *maybe* lazy and cheating ;) ) isn't cool as far as I'm concerned.  I'm just not clear how to avoid being "flat".  

Now, my other understanding from other places was that the idea was to get the gamism-narrativism thing going by trying to set up situations where the player's SAs contradicted each other. As such, in order to maximuse bonusus and advancement they'd have to choose one over the other and rewrite the other one, so providing an advancing plot in which the player has control.  But then I see things like this (on the "unstated bits of TROS" thread):

But this is as easy as pie, for two reasons. First, if a player has "Protect the Princess" as an SA, then all you need for conflict is to threaten the Princess somehow. The players in their selection of the SAs are telling you what adventures to write them into.

This sounds pretty "flat" to me.  So I'm confused.  Is there a midpoint somewhere?  Am I taking people too literally?  What IS the right way to use SAs?
[/quote]

[Mike Holmes]

Could you post a link to the original thread that you're quoting yourself and Jake from? I think there must be some miscommunication going on.

Mike

[Ashren Va'Hale]

I say that the right way is that which is fun for you and your group.

That being said- the way I do it is I create a PC with a back story: I take the general setting, create a concept within that setting, an attitude and philospohy, then I come up with the big "why?"

For example: I was creating a character for the time right before the collapse of teh xanarium empire, I wanted to have a bladslinger, I wanted him to be a smartassed bloodthirsty bastard with the skill to back it up and a doc holiday nothing to lose syndrome. Then I tried to decide why... I was stumped at first so I went ahead and did the priorities and then it came to me. I decided he used to be in a noble family that was stripped of titles and lands by the church and empire since his brother, the immediate heir, was involved in the sale of slaves. Imbittered by his loss and the lack of justice in this ruling, the PC would be seeking revenge, since everything that mattered was taken from him he had nothing to lose. This translated into the following SA's-
Drive: Take out the bastards who stole everything from him
Passion: Hate the Xanarth and the church
Passion: Hate The Emperor and the empire
Destiny: Go down fighting those who wronged him

I made the sa's both specific in their direction but vague in their applicability. This made for an interesting character type given that the destiny might not necessarily apply to the passions- what if the Xanarth only stripped him and his family of their possessions to satisfy another noble and the borther was actually framed on trumped up charges... what if the emperor actually tried to see justice done but was hoodwinked by someone else into doing what he thought was right....
The possibilities for conflict and so forth made these sa's very fun to play with.

Hope that some how helps answer your question.
And I agree the SA protect the princess is flat, that would be better as passion: love princess so and so
and spiced up with passion: hate lord so and so, the princess betrothed.
and mixed up with drive: over come social class of peasant (so he can get jiggy with said princess)

The real beuty of the SA's shine when combined like that for me.

[hyphz]

Could you post a link to the original thread that you're quoting yourself and Jake from? I think there must be some miscommunication going on.

Sure, here you go:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4353

[Bankuei]

Hi hyphz,

I think the source of controversy is about "how to use SAs" in the sense that you can approach them in a very simplistic manner("Obey king, kill goblins.  Hulk smash.") or in a more complex manner("Loyalty to the king, but you find out his son is evil...oh snap!").  

The SAs themselves do not have to contradict each other, but I think one of the most important things that can be easily overlooked, is that the decision to follow an SA, or deny or change it is what makes a big "statement" about your character.  If conflict is simply fighting, and there's no sort of thought about whether you should follow your SAs or change them, well, then what you have is a deadlier version of D&D.

I think the point that Jake is making is that if you have SAs without any sort of conflict around them(other than "Yaay! Bonus Dice! Slash, slash!"), then you don't really have TROS going on.  Of course, if all you're doing is a one shot, you don't need to get that deep, but the real strength of SAs as a player empowerment tool comes from making those decisions.

Chris

[hyphz]

The SAs themselves do not have to contradict each other, but I think one of the most important things that can be easily overlooked, is that the decision to follow an SA, or deny or change it is what makes a big "statement" about your character.  If conflict is simply fighting, and there's no sort of thought about whether you should follow your SAs or change them, well, then what you have is a deadlier version of D&D.

I think the point that Jake is making is that if you have SAs without any sort of conflict around them(other than "Yaay! Bonus Dice! Slash, slash!"), then you don't really have TROS going on.  Of course, if all you're doing is a one shot, you don't need to get that deep, but the real strength of SAs as a player empowerment tool comes from making those decisions.

Ok, so what does it actually mean to have a "conflict" related to SAs, other than having them contradict each other?

I think this is a big deal with the "unstated bits..." thread as well... certainly several D&Ders I'd showed the game to entirely missed the significance of SAs because it's never explained, and although the rules are present their intended effect isn't.  And then, of course, they see the huge combat section...

[jburneko]

Ok, so what does it actually mean to have a "conflict" related to SAs, other than having them contradict each other?

Hyphz,

Let's simplify things for the sake of clearity.  Let's say a player has only one SA that SA is "Loyalty to the King."  Now let's say, the King asks the character to go to a neighboring kingdom to strike a secret deal with its ruler.  The King is trusting you with this quest because he knows that the ruler of the other nation is not regarded fondly by the people because he is a vicious tyrant but the King believes that a temporary alliance is necessary because of another crisis that's looming in the distance.

What does the player do?

Accept the King's request JUST because up until this point he's been utterly loyal to him?  That's not how SA's work.  They are not mandates on behavior they're just a list of current pirorities thus when they are forsaken it's a BIG DEAL.

So, yeah the player could accept the diplomatic mission add a point or two to his SA for playing in accordance with it and off he goes.

BUT

He could ALSO decide that he's realized his once just and noble king has just sold out to the dark side by attempting to ally with a tyrant.  So, the player drops the SA to zero to improve some skills and takes a new SA all together: "Clean up the corruption in my government."  He could then refuse the mission and head off to warn the people that their king almost sold them out to a tyrant.

See?  One SA, nothing contradictory about it.  But what ultimately matters is the player's view of the character's ethics.  The key is that BOTH choices are equally valid and equally compelling.  But the GM can not count on the player "doing whatever the king says" just because the player has a current SA of "loyalty to the king."  The thing for the GM to plan is situations that will make the player QUESTION that loyality.

Hope that helped.

Jesse

[Mike Holmes]

Thanks, Jesse. That's exactly it.

Hyphz, my examples were all just ideas of where to start. That is, the elements I suggested all will work to get things going, but do not represent the GM's only duties in terms of contributing to the plot. If I gave the impression that the GM doesn't have to design these well, or have follow-on data, then I am at fault for the misunderstanding.

Follow up for Illusionist or Participationist play require a complete plot. So if I start with the Passion: Girlfriend, and I simply threaten the GF in such a way as to make the player likely to do certain things, that's just fine, as long as I have some interesting plot to follow up on that. The "lazy" thing in that case would be not to have the rest of the plot ready like a good Illusionist GM would.

If I want to play Narrativist I have to make these events into Bangs instead. That is, the character is forced into the situation, but then, as Jesse points out, the situation must be such that the player has options on what sort of decision to make (so that they are creating the story). Then the GM also needs more Bangs to follow on, BTW. One Bang doth not a story promote.

So, the lazy part would be to stop just with the simple description of the problem. No, I can't just chuck the GF into danger, or that'll get resolved, and then the game is done. I have to either control the plot, or I have to make the situation such that the player can create plot.

Jake wasn't saying that threatening the GF is a bad idea. He's saying that if that's it, and you have nothing else, then the GM hasn't done his job. Do I read you right Jake?


Outside of Illusionist play in which you can use series of no-choice events, Narrativist play offers a lot of possibilities:

Conflicting SAs is a player option. If they want a certain internal conflict they can build it into the character. But it's just an option that it's quite legitimate not to take. And a GM can make existing SAs conflict, but, as Jesse displays, this is again only one option. There are lot's of ways to make decisions regarding single SAs into real decisions.

Take for instance Conscience (which is just plain easy to use for Bangs). A character with a Conscience runs into a situation where he finds a needy NPC who the character could really help out. But the only obvious way presented to deal with the situation is to steal something. Does the character's Conscience tell him that helping people is more important, or that stealing is wrong?  

How about my "simple" example of throwing the GF into danger? Let's say that the "threat" is that she's going to lose her position at the palace to a rival. But then the rival puts the moves on the PC. Now the player has two real and legitimate options. He can either spurn his former love (possibly picking up a passion for the rival), or he can stay true to the GF, and remove her threat.

Or perhaps while responding to the threat to the GF, the PC finds out that she sold him out in order to protect herself. Does the PC continue to fight for her, forgiving her, and hoping that she has real feelings for him despite? Or does he turn on her, perhaps joining the opposition?

Those are just the first two ideas that come to mind. For Narrativist play, start with the forcing element. Then add in a complication that makes it so that the character has to make some decision regarding the SA (often whether to stick with the SA at all). Narrativist play made as easy as you please.

Mike

[contracycle]

I think this is a big deal with the "unstated bits..." thread as well... certainly several D&Ders I'd showed the game to entirely missed the significance of SAs because it's never explained, and although the rules are present their intended effect isn't.  And then, of course, they see the huge combat section...

I think this is true.  Between the magic system and the insufficient explanation of SA's TROS is one of the rare cases where a second edition might not just be a reprint, no offence meant.  That said I expect that if you went to table you might get the other option Jake pointed out in the original reply, have your socks blown off.  I agree that you can play the game, mechanically speaking, without much attention paid to SA's with the GM jealously withoidling them as power ups, and it would mostly just be a gorier versoin of D&D.  I'd have to say you can have a lot of fun like that anyway, because of the specifics of the injuries and so forth.  But its also not likely that your players will refarin long from pursuiibng the SA's and then at very least they are signposting ways to set them up for bait they'll bite.  Plus, I reckon, they'll be pulling in different directions in fairly short order, both among PC's and between PC's and NPC's.  I mean, if you've got Defeat Evil In All Its Forms, and nearly anyone you know is Just a Little Bit Evil, theres going to be tears before bedtime.

Of course it just looks like bonusses in players eyes; thats what we WANT them to think.

[Jake Norwood]

I think you're right on, Mike.

Gareth-

A 2nd edition TROS is currently not in consideration, though in many ways I agree with you on parts of it being needed.

Instead we're doing two things.

The first is that future supplements, which will be more forthcoming than OBAM was, will address these issues more clearly.

The second is another project that I'll be announcing shortly, but which will in many ways be a TROS2E, but not exactly.

Jake