Narrativist Missions

[Le Joueur]

Mike Holmes wrote:

jburneko wrote:

Tools help or hinder, but true artistic achievement has to come from within.

You sound like Fang who can't publish his game because it's not perfect yet. I got news, perfect will never come. Try "as good as you can do". Try now.

Oh, Mike.  You've seen me try to express myself on the Forge.  Do you honestly think I can bang out a rough draft of Scattershot's mechanics in twenty minutes?  I could if I had a whole day maybe, but I don't, I prize my family (and my job) more highly than that.

I'm not trying to perfect anything, but after the fourth time you go, "Oh, I forgot to mention damage in the paragraphs on combat," I gotta stop and go back and change it.  When that leads to remembering I forgot to write about the differences between activated, magnitude, and resource statistics back in the ability ratings section, I have to throw out the whole draft and go back and fix the outline I started with.  And that takes a week in the little spurts I get to work on it.

I'm not trying for the Sistine Chapel here, but I think it's important that the engine turns over before I send it off the lot.  My partner, co-writer, editor, and wife (all in one person, can't beat that) agree.

I think I can understand how Jesse might feel too.  If you have never done something, but it sounds really cool and you don't have anyone in your neighborhood who knows how, how do you approach it?  Some people like to dive right in, but some of us like to sit on the side dangling our feet in until their comfortable, then slip progressively in as we become ready.

Many people I have corresponded with contrast with my opinion about needing to write 'how to game' instructions into Scattershot, saying, usually, that gaming can only be learned by exposure to the practice.  If that's true then it holds for Narrativism as well; you can't learn it until you've played it with people who know how.  Obviously, I disagree.

Let people take to things at their own pace.  Jesse seems to value Narrativism highly and perhaps does not want to have a hard experience to start with.  Good show!  That is just another way of doing it.  Haranguing either of us isn't likely to help get us to our goals, but it might estrange us to you; is that what you want?

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-13 18:29 ]

[jburneko]

Paul and Mike I get what you're saying.  It's like the difference between combat in 7th Sea and combat in D&D.  7th Sea combat is meant to be descriptive and over-the-top and the system backs that up 100%.  D&D is far more tactical and wargamey and it backs that up.  When I play 7th Sea my imagination goes wild and I'm bouncing off the walls and swinging on the chandeliers.  When I play D&D I'm hard pressed to even think of those things because my mind's too busy working out what is tactically feasible.

As such I HAVE considered converting SLA Industries to Story Engine.  It gets me no closer to supporting the Premise but at least it would down play the gun bunny emphasis of the system.

As far as the home office relationship map idea, I kind of like it.  I would have to think a little bit about how to make it work.  For SLA Industries it's almost perfect because there's almost such a relationship map provided in the core rulebook.

I've read InSpectres but I admit not very thuroughly nor did I understand it very well.  However, you're right in that it's worth taking a look at and mining ideas from it since it's sort of in the same vein as SLA Industries.

One thing I've been thinking about since Ron's mention of Three Musketeers and my recent analysis of Raiders of the Lost Arc is that I've been mistaking the prioritization of Premise with 'looseness' of scenario design.  So I've kind of come up with these ideas of Points of Premise.

The idea is that you basically design your game using more traditional methods.  Scene structures, flow charts, location encounters and so on.  But you go over those elements and make sure you identify Points of Premise that is points were the conflict in the scene invokes the Premise or not.  If it does the definitely insure that the 'adventure' as you've planned it does not require some specific addressing of that Premise.  This is how you design your missions.

Now basically once you've basically removed the Premise from the 'adventure' portion of your campaign or at least insured that the nature of adventure doesn't interfere with the Premise, you then chain the adventure's together with Points of Premise.  

For example for SLA Industries I see a sort of escalating sense of moral confusion as the source of horror in the game.  In the beginning the missions would be fairly straight forward with a very black and white morality.  But as the players achieve this missions they gain both noteriety in the eye of the media as well as recognition for their loyalty to the company.  Soon the company starts entrusting the playes with missions that are increasingly 'grey' in morality.  These are effectively the first Points of Premise.  How strong is your loyalty to the company?

At this point the game may shift directions, the party may split up.  It doesn't matter.  This is the point of co-authoring.  Hell, members of the party may become enemies.  Those who remain loyal to the company may be asked to hunt down those who have gone renegade.

And so on....

Just my latest set of ideas on the matter.

Jesse

[contracycle]

Hey, you know the idea of using Company people as demons is both quite cunning and TOTALLY appropriate to SLA.  There are hints in the text that Mr Slayer, CEO of SLA Industries, is indeed the devil after all (trust me, it is not as crap as this sounds by a LONG way).

As for thoughts that the system may be less sucky than it looks... I'm afraid you are in for bitter disappointment.  This is D&D length of combat turn stuff; for any given fire action you will need to know:
- the kick rating of the round (including suppression)
- how many rounds are actually fired
- how many rounds strike the target
- calculation of the penetration of each round
- determination of actual damage thresholds.

I can't advise against it strongly enough; I think you're going to have a REALLy uphill struggle trying to get player noses out of the ammo + armour trough.

[contracycle]

Muahahahaha!!!  It's all coming together .
I think I can really see how to do SLA with sorceror - bear with me.

[contracycle]

OK.  This borrows some string from Conspiracy X's bow.

Briefly, I will break down the elements of the setting which can be realised as demons to semi-duplicate the basic class structure of SLA character design.

Ebons, Brain Wasters and Necanthropes should have the Ebb as a combo Inconspicuous/Parasite demon with TellTales surrounding grisly organic stuff, and powers involving Boosts, Armour, Hint and the like.  The DeathSuit IS the demon, no question about it.  Needs and Desires will be suitably grisly and arcane; good opportunity to play mind games about the White.

Frothers should have their drug addiction(s) as Parasite or Possessor "demons", also mostly in the Boost line but possibly also Cover (for UltraViolence).  Telltales would be OD's, bloodshot eyes, and well frothing at the mouth.  Their Needs and desires are those of the addictive agent.

WraithRaiders could have their tribal culture fleshed out a bit; they could have totem spirits and the like which never manifest physically and observably but act as Boosts and Cover (worshipping the hunter-god type stuff).  Their telltales would be rituals, talismans, etc.  Needs and Desires would arise from similarly obscure alien culture.

Stormers (all varieties) have their own BODY as a demon.   Stormers are too thick to be fully in control of their own emotions and so on; the "demons" they will deal with will arise from their own biology and perhaps their handlers (as Passers/Agents, see below).  The telltales are the obvious: musculature, claws, punk hair.  The Needs and Desires are the stormers own suppressed/truncated emotions.

Lastly, we get the mundane humans.  For them we have "structure as demon" and turn the divisions of SLA, bureacratic procedures, and manufactured articles as demons.  These will be their boss or contacts as SLOPs, contacts in the Shiver Units or Cloak Division, that sort of thing.  Articles would be things like the funky vehicles and battle suits - something like the DogeyBone armour could have technical telltales (like the "AK clack") and Needs and Desires based on fuel consumption and so on, weird engineering, and so forth (which might neatly take care of ammo - have to think about it).  Hmm, Domino Dogs...  The finance chip would also make a good Parasite, as a "smart object".

Further, humans have Inconspicuous (?) or Passer demons which are contacts, agents, informers, that sort of thing called Strings.  A String is a thing you Pull to make shit happen.  The kinda shit that can happen when you Pull a String depends on the nature of the string and its individual properties; however most of them will indicate personal contacts in the heirarchy of SLA Industries.  TellTales would be things like, oh, bureucratic records, unusual expenses, etc.  Needs and Desires would be the kind stuff the PC needs to do to keept their String sweet.  You might take Cloak Division as a String and be required to go out and whack some folk at their request, no questions asked.

Not sure how Ron has tackled "monsters" in ...Sword; whatever, thats how would treat the carnivorous pigs, Carriens, Manchines and the various psychos.  Probably.  A number, like the Psychos, might be better represented as passer demons - their Needs and Desires hit the fucked up psychology of the World of Progress nicely.

Hey... maybe the TV itself could be a demon...  hmmm....

"OrangeKrush - its the only thing.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming on the Alien Sex Channel..."

[contracycle]

... and it could be called "demonSLAer" :wink:

http://www.nightfall.co.uk/ for anyone interested and unfamiliar.

[Marco]

On 2001-12-13 17:49, Paul Czege wrote:
Hey Jesse,

I gotta agree with Mike on this one. I tried for years to make story a priority with what I now recognize were systems with primarily gamist or simulationist mechanics.  ...
Paul

Hi Paul,
I've had exactly the opposite experience. I've done almost all my role-playing in Hero and GURPS (and similar) since I got my hands on Champions (we used Autoduel-Champions for modern day roleplaying before Danger International came out--anyone remember that?)

I've found that generic, simulationist systems work very well for our groups and I consider myself story oriented (both as a GM and player). I have a few observations I'll share on this.

1. Systems like, let's say, Hero don't have a lot of player-motivating mechanics (especially after character generation). If you just fix Xp at a certian set amount per session you'll never have to worry about players stepping out of character in pursuit of 'more points.' There also aren't forced alignments or specific character types to worry about (usually).

2. Game themes like Gross Comercialization and Abuse of Power and such are worked in as part of the world--the setting. You're asked to sell Frosty-Pop. Frosty-Pop causes cancer and gross mutation. What do you do? In this mode the GM is simply constructing a world (a 'simulation') and weaving into it his themes. To the players they may be background or the predominant fulcrum of the campaign as the players see fit.

3. Look to the characters for the stories. The players make their characters--most of these systems have rules for creating backgrounds. Use them. After the first introductory adventure, create your continuing story based on what the players put together (you can certainly use Narrativist techniques if you want--but that's up to you). I'm not suggesting that you merely recycle the character's backgrounds from game to game--just that the continuing game involves them doing what they do (if a character is a gambler, an adventure can feature a showdown with bluffing ... a wager ... etc.)

In games like Call of Cthulhu, for example (an excellent game IMO) there's usually less attention paid to the background of the character than in systems like Hero or GURPS.

-Marco

[Paul Czege]

Hey Marco,

Systems like, let's say, Hero don't have a lot of player-motivating mechanics (especially after character generation). If you just fix Xp at a certian set amount per session you'll never have to worry about players stepping out of character in pursuit of 'more points.' There also aren't forced alignments or specific character types to worry about (usually).

I'll admit, I never thought to fix experience points to a flat amount. It's an interesting idea. And I can see it as a step in a productive direction. I think you're right, if I were to gut a game of reward mechanics that conflict with story as a priority, I could probably accomplish it, especially now that I've run and played games using narrativist systems, and come to understand the linkage between adversity and character protagonism, and how to control story through scene framing, without railroading or having pre-conceived the outcomes of scenes, and how to drive story through re-inventing and re-justifying the actions of NPC's during play, rather than trying to maintain them according to some preconceived notion of who they are. But I have to think, if it took experience with narrativist systems to teach me that, and I'd have to gut a system like AD&D or Hero of reward mechanics that conflict with story, and scale down the over-wrought detailness of the combat system to keep it from manifesting as the focus of play, which I wouldn't have to do with a narrativist system, like Story Engine perhaps, then why would I bother, when I could use a narrativist system? I think my point to Jesse still stands, use the right tool for the job, you don't learn anything from using the wrong tool.

Paul

[Mike Holmes]

Marco,

First, Jesse has stated that he wants Narrativist play. I don't think this is in dispute. The systems that you cite (as well as JAGS) are distinctly Simulationist. We can argue that all you want, but what it means is that there is nothing in those systems that actively promote story. If you can cite some mechanic that I'm unaware of I'll recant that (and be very surprised). I made an argument similar to yours a while ago where I said that such Simulationist games are Premise neutral. What I meant was that such Sim games do not go too far out of their way to interfere with a Narrativist Premise, but they do nothing to aid it either.

But even having made the argument, I realize that it is a tad shakey. What we're advocating here is a drift. The Simulationist details will inform the players that they're supposed to be paying more attention to bullets than plot. Now, you as the GM and the players can agree to ignore these details and play more Narratively, but that begs the question why use that system in the first place. Especially when there are other systems that do Narrativism primarily and actively promote this style of play.

In your case, I think that you like Simulationism first, and Narrativism second. Which is pretty much where I stand, BTW. So we can see that it can be fun to play that way. But I don't think that this is what Jesse is really looking for. For him I believe that he'd have more fun with a purely Narrativist system as that would cater directly to the style that he is looking for. And be easier to contend with as well.


Fang, I understand the idea of wanting to do a good job and immerse oneself slowly. Lets put it this way, though. Jesse is smart, and, I believe, a better GM than he thinks he is. And he's been researching Narrativism for quite a while now. Months at least, and probably more than a year. I think that he is far more ready than I was when I first forayed into Narrativism, and he has the direct support of the people who are doing the leading edge research into the field. I'd say that he's passed basic training a long time ago, and he's moved on to advanced degrees (to mix my metaphors).

If he's not ready, who is? He's about as ready as he can get until he has more actual experience under his belt. Nothing, and I mean nothing, teaches like doing.

Go for it, man!

Mike

[Marco]

Hi Paul,
Well, I certianly wouldn't stand in anybody's way of using the system they choose to--but with Hero and GURPS both (and remember, I'm suggesting using these systems) the reward mechaic is merely "you get points for playing." Sure, they suggest that the GM give out *a few more* points if the players as a group went up against a really tough foe--or fewer points for bad roleplaying--but ultimately the player gets about 1 to 4 points for adventure (which is like 1 to 3 play sessions) so just handing out 2pts a session isn't *gutting* the reward system (in fact, the reward system for one of those games suggests that more points be given out for 'good roleplaying' while it's entirely subjective, how can you argue with rewarding that?)

For what it's worth, I've always sort of assigned experience (in these games) based on how I and the players want the characters to progress--not on how well anyone played. And I always give the same amount to the whole group. As I recal reading the rules there's nothing in there that makes this unusual.

As for being the wrong tool? Not at all. If none of your players enjoy tactical combat and you *have* to have combat in the game then yeah--you're going to want to change something (like using mass-battle rules or quick-kill NPC rules or whatever). But in all the GURPS/Hero gaming I've done I've played in many games where there was no combat at all--so it obviously didn't become the focus of the game: that's clearly up to the partcipants.

As for relationship maps, re-assigning NPC motivations, or whatever--those are GM techniques--not system rules.

Whether a game is the right tool for the job is a matter for *everyone* invovled to decide on--not simply the GM. I consider myself primarily 'story oriented' (I'm often bored by long stretches of combat if there's drama or story advancement involved) and I'm not playing to 'simulate reality' (or whatever) or for the 'experience of being-there' per se, but the system mechanics of The Window, for example (and I consider it a very interestingly designed system) wouldn't suit me as a player despite the fact that it tries to get out of the way and focus on story.

-Marco
[ Full Disclosure: I wrote a generic gaming system. It's called JAGS (Just Another Gaming System) and it's here:
http://jagsgame.dyndns.org ]

[Marco]

On 2001-12-14 11:38, Mike Holmes wrote:
Marco,

First, Jesse has stated that he wants Narrativist play. I don't think this is in dispute. The systems that you cite (as well as JAGS) are distinctly Simulationist. We can argue that all you want, but what it means is that there is nothing in those systems that actively promote story. If you can cite some mechanic that I'm unaware of I'll recant that (and be very surprised). I made an argument similar to yours a while ago where I said that such Simulationist games are Premise neutral. What I meant was that such Sim games do not go too far out of their way to interfere with a Narrativist Premise, but they do nothing to aid it either.

But even having made the argument, I realize that it is a tad shakey. What we're advocating here is a drift. The Simulationist details will inform the players that they're supposed to be paying more attention to bullets than plot. Now, you as the GM and the players can agree to ignore these details and play more Narratively, but that begs the question why use that system in the first place. Especially when there are other systems that do Narrativism primarily and actively promote this style of play.

In your case, I think that you like Simulationism first, and Narrativism second. Which is pretty much where I stand, BTW. So we can see that it can be fun to play that way. But I don't think that this is what Jesse is really looking for. For him I believe that he'd have more fun with a purely Narrativist system as that would cater directly to the style that he is looking for. And be easier to contend with as well.


Fang, I understand the idea of wanting to do a good job and immerse oneself slowly. Lets put it this way, though. Jesse is smart, and, I believe, a better GM than he thinks he is. And he's been researching Narrativism for quite a while now. Months at least, and probably more than a year. I think that he is far more ready than I was when I first forayed into Narrativism, and he has the direct support of the people who are doing the leading edge research into the field. I'd say that he's passed basic training a long time ago, and he's moved on to advanced degrees (to mix my metaphors).

If he's not ready, who is? He's about as ready as he can get until he has more actual experience under his belt. Nothing, and I mean nothing, teaches like doing.

Go for it, man!

Mike

Hi Mike,
I'm talking about 'story-oriented' play--not Narrativist play. And I wasn't answering Jesse, I was answering Paul. The distinction is that I'm not *at all* claiming that Hero is Narrativist or could in any way promote a Narrativist Premise.

I can't do that because the definitions of those things are circular--but I see no drift whatsoever in using GURPS to tell a heavily themed story ... including one in which the players have a heavy influence on what happens.

Jesse suggested Narrativist Premises of "Abuse of Power" (or whatever). Broken out from some of the terminology those are simply 'story-themes' in the story that's being instantiated during play (I have to say instantiated so it's not confused with 'created'). I see nothing drifty about using Hero or GURPS for that.

-Marco

[jburneko]

Hey Contra,

Your conversion of SLA -> Sorcerer was very impressive.  I think that with myabe the exception of Ebons and Frother's you'd have eleminiate the actual Sorcerery rules.  That is, these people have their demons pretty much fixed.  But maybe not I'd have to think about it.  I will definitely keep your conversion notes on hand should I decide to go in that direction.

Jesse

[Mike Holmes]

Well Jesse will have to decide whether or not he agrees with your analysis, Marco. BTW, I have always agreed with you that neutralizing point systems goes a long way towards making a Sim game more Premise neutral. It's something that I would suggest under any circumstances. But I do see a difference. That's a debate for another thread, however.

Anyhow, there is yet another argument for going over to the Narrativist systems that Jesse is interested in playing now; and argument that has nothing to do with the relative effectiveness of the systems vis a vis stories. And that is that if he intends to use such systems, he would be better off getting practical use employing them now as a form of practice. He'll never get adept with using the specific mechanics of The Pool, for example, playing GURPS. If he plays some other system, that's time that he could have used learning the system that he actually wants to be playing.

Jesse, if The Pool were the only RPG that you had possession of, how long would you wait to play it? Would you study it a lot first to be sure you had everything right before jumping in and actually playing? Well, I sure wouldn't.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-12-14 13:02, jburneko wrote:
I think that with myabe the exception of Ebons and Frother's you'd have eleminiate the actual Sorcerery rules.  That is, these people have their demons pretty much fixed.  But maybe not I'd have to think about it.  I will definitely keep your conversion notes on hand should I decide to go in that direction.

I think that a lot of the sorcery would be summoning and binding the "normal" people of the company. How many toadies do you have bound to you, and can you satisfy all their desires before they do something like rat you out to the higherups. I like the idea of summoning creatures that have abilities like "supply procurement" and "presentation preparation".

Hmmm... Angel.  Wolfram & Hart?

Mike

[Le Joueur]

Mike Holmes wrote:

I understand the idea of wanting to do a good job and immerse oneself slowly. Lets put it this way, though. Jesse is smart, and, I believe, a better GM than he thinks he is. And he's been researching Narrativism for quite a while now. Months at least, and probably more than a year. I think that he is far more ready than I was when I first forayed into Narrativism, and he has the direct support of the people who are doing the leading edge research into the field. I'd say that he's passed basic training a long time ago, and he's moved on to advanced degrees (to mix my metaphors).

That depends entirely on who he has to play with.  If he has a crew of ready-to-be-Narrativists, I actually concur with your point.  But what if he's surrounded by dyed-in-the-wool Gamists?  Or worse ready-to-be-Narrativists who have severe cases of "turtle-like play tactics" (if I can lift a quote from Ron's essay)?  What then?

He would not only have to make drill sergeant, but get his teaching degree and a therapist license at the same time, and you have him doing it all by correspondence course.  We have no words from him to go on.  I can't begin to imagine what motivates his caution, but I hardly think sending him into the breach when he's uncomfortable about his command of the material is necessarily a good idea.  In a small town, a few gaming enemies made while bumbling can end your career (I know, I was a lucky one), why don't we ask him for his story?

If he's not ready, who is? He's about as ready as he can get until he has more actual experience under his belt. Nothing, and I mean nothing, teaches like doing.

All alone?

Fang Langford