[Rifts PBP] I look at it. What do I get?

[Callan S.]

An exerpt from this Rifts play by post game: http://rpol.net/display.cgi?gi=15181&gn=Rifts:+Do+you+dare%3F&threadnum=4&date=1140068269

There was already some activity with a third player trying to talk to some probably sentient trees. But I figured this left the other two players waiting on that players results, so I added another event.

About two hundred yards away along the edge of the forrest, there suddenly seems to be some sort of scuffle happening amongst the leaves and branches, almost like something is about to or trying to leave. That's what you (all) note at a glance.

At the sound and movement indicating some kind of activity, Jesse's hands move faster that than the average eye can follow.  Two odd-looking pistols-both long, heavy weapons with a clip port in front of the trigger instead of in the grip, though one is more round with three barrels inside of a smaller cowling-are suddenly in his hands and aimed towards the scuffle.  He does not fire, though it appears that it would take almost no pressure ong the triggers to release whatever form of death these unusual pistols may unleash.
Instead, he adjusts his eyes, bringing the area into sharper focus.
OOC:  Intitiative of 31 on that draw....

Still seated on the cycle Breach again activates his optic and audio systems and zooms in on the area; switching between modes to get a good view of whats going on.  His railgun is leveled at the area and his joints lock in place in preperation for the recoil.  The initial warmup of the weapon takes a fraction of a second.  Once active it emitts a slight vibrating hum that is almost inaudable.

The agenda I'm going for is gamist. But there's something about this that rubs me the wrong way. The balls in my court, as to a responce. But the players haven't actually done anything.

I think the idea of just rendering the game world is out of place. If I just figure out what they would see - well, is there anything else I can give for free?

On the other hand, I don't want them saying stuff like 'well, with my infra red eye mod, my character would see x'. They're not here to tell me how the game world causality works and for me to absorb that into my dream or something.

Typing that out has helped me think about it. I think what's missing is not so much that they haven't done something, but that the players haven't declared that they're risking anything. Not even a small risk, like saying they think they'd see something, which would mean looking a little silly if they are incorrect about that statement. Well, perhaps 'little' is up for debate - the scale of social feedback can be unpredictable (even if it's just what the player thinks the social feedback level is).

How does it appear to other forge members?

[contracycle]

Actually they have risked something - they have risked that the rustle in the bushes is a distraction and that they are in fact about to be attacked from the rear.  If this were one of the X-com games, or something like Pheonix Command, those statements would have cost action points to carry out and changed their facing, which would itself be systematically significant.

Its a long time since I read Rifts, but if you are not using graph paper and the system does not have AP that track such things, it will feel like nothing happened, and the change is registered in the SIS through narration rather than system.  But probably there are facing modifiers in the rules somewhere.

[Graham W]

Callan,

Just as an idea: it looks as though the problem isn't as such that they haven't risked anything - it's that they haven't given you anything to respond to.

You could summarise the play you posted - slightly cruelly to the players - as follows:

GM: There's a rustle in the bushes.
Player 1: I describe myself I describe myself I describe myself
Player 2: I wait for something to happen.

...and it's very difficult for the GM to respond to that.

If one of the players had said "I switch to infrared view and run the resulting patterns through my lifeform-detection banks", then they wouldn't have risked much, but at least you'd have been able to move the story on.

Graham

[Supplanter]

This is early in the campaign, I take it? How about reflecting back to them your understanding of what they've written in terms of priorities and choices: e.g. "If I understand you right, Jesse is focusing on the bushes at the expense of attention to other areas; his emphasis is on not firing blindly at the noise and he trusts his reflexes to deal with the possibility that whatever's in the bushes attacks suddenly."

Anyway, charitably assume that there's constructive action, or at least *posture* in the text and try to draw it out into the light. I see two likely outcomes: 1) Player says, You got it. 2) Player says, Actually, my priority is X rather than Y. 3) (Oops! Miscounted.) Player says, "whaddaya mean, at the expense of? I'm ready for anything! You're trying to trick me, aren't you!" or words and in and between the lines to that effect.

The last is the potential pitfall, and would call for a discussion along the lines of, "Guys, my assumption in the campaign is that there's no such thing as *covering all bases equally well*. Your goal is to make the best choices given the information available to you as to where to focus and what to risk. My goal is to give you enough ongoing information and feedback that you *can* make those choices well. If you never risk anything and I don't give you a fair chance to figure out what to risk, we don't have a campaign here. If you do risk things and I do a good enough job giving you information to go on, we can have a hell of a lot of fun."

Best,


Jim

[Elindryn]

I think the concern here from the player's point of view is trying to accertain what there is to be responded to.  They have declared a 'readying' action so as to negate any surprise.  But as Contracycle mentioned, it took a fraction of their time.  A reasonable risk due to the mysterious nature of what you described. 

To spur action, concider increasing a 'dread' factor.  A reason that if they do nothing is infact to risk more harm than doing nothing.  Even if the tree was eating peasents, pulling them limb from limb, the characters may decide risk is unacceptable.  Perhaps the forest ground rustling with the movement of roots around them would add to a sense of urgency to act.  Something needs to be given to put the character in peril, mortally, ideally or spiritually.  Otherwise, sitting on the side as a witness is a far safer course of action.

-Rob

[Russell Collins]

OK, maybe I'm missing something by not reading deeply enough into the subtext of the events in game, but what I see is two guys saying "more information, please."

They haven't put anything at risk because they don't know what's worth risking at this point. Is it an unearthly monstrosity, come to claim their chrome, or an over-large badger trying to shake off angry hornets? I would respond to those opponents very differently.

[Marco]

I'm not sure what I'd risk in that situation. I've got a ranged weapon. I'm a quick draw. When I sense something is wrong, I go into alert mode and draw my gun ... and see if something dangerous develops. What were you looking for?

-Marco

[Sydney Freedberg]

Yeah, my gut response would be you haven't given them enough to react to.

My inclination, in this kind of situation, is to assume that if you have a mysterious rustling in the bushes, of course your combat-trained characters are going to posture themselves appropriately -- guns out, sensors scanning, whatever -- and then write that into your post so you can get to the good stuff.

In other words, don't write, "you hear rustling in the bushes" and stop. Write, "you hear rustling in the bushes -- you draw your wicked kewl uber gunz of killing +3! -- and then a monster/ninja/panicked peasant/hot goth chick jumps out!! What do you do?"

Now, if the players say, "Wait! I wouldn't have drawn my gun! I'd have kept it holstered to avoid scaring off the hot goth chick, or poked around in the bushes unarmed to express that I'm curious and foolhardy, or run away screaming and waving my arms and wetting myself," then you rewind and change what happened. It's all made up, right, so nothing is "real" until all the participants agree it is (Lumpley Principle!).

Yes, I am advising that you, as GM, make the player-characters do something without consulting the players first. But in a play-by-post, it'll take forever if you consult with them over every routine action. The three essentials to avoiding deprotagonization here are
1) get to know your players' visions for their characters, so you can describe them doing the in-character thing
2) make the characters sound cool
3) never, ever make the characters do something that would penalize them -- when you temporarily take control like this, assume they do the most sensible thing (even if the players, if asked, might've done something stupid...)

BIG FAT CAVEAT: The only PBEM stuff I've ever managed to run was total freeform (i.e. unstructured Drama plus GM fiat -- whee!), with posts in the hundreds or even thousands of words, so my advice may not apply. Crunchy combat systems in play-by-post/play-by-email -- that's hard.

[Callan S.]

Hi Contra and Elindryn,

They really haven't said for themselves that their risking anything. If I were to apply some danger from behind, that doesn't turn it into a risk statement made by them. It'd be like trying to turn someone's choice in a game into a nar address.
GM "Your jobs at risk!"
Player "I work real hard at keeping it!"
GM "Umm, and you made that choice against looking after your (previously non existant, the GM is inventing her now) girlfriend, who leaves you because of all the hours your putting in. There, you made an address of premise!"

Here, I'd be doing the same thing - introducing the issue of facing after the event. Something they had not considered at all (like the player in the example hadn't thought about a toll on relationships). I don't think that makes their action an address of challenge.

Although when I started role playing years ago, everyone was always hyper and nervous - we never really discussed what bad thing could happen from any action, but with all the nerves, there was a sense from every player that for every action something quite bad could happen. Though this faded over time, as we learnt the ins and outs of roleplay in general. Perhaps the players in this game feel some sense of a nasty thing happening after any post. But I just don't see it right now. So if it's there, communication needs to be worked on.

Also, I think in games like X-com, the rules are so strongly present, that they represent a language that a player can communicate their risk by (eg, "I've been playing X-com for awhile, so I know exactly what I'm risking when I turn my guy around to cover this ground" is all said in one click of the mouse). But I think as the rules become fuzzy in wording and disconnected from each other this language deteriates, until it really doesn't communicate risk anymore. And that's what I'm working with, with Rifts. I need to rely on their words, not some half remembered facing rules tucked away somewhere.



Hi Jim,

This is early in the campaign, I take it? How about reflecting back to them your understanding of what they've written in terms of priorities and choices: e.g. "If I understand you right, Jesse is focusing on the bushes at the expense of attention to other areas; his emphasis is on not firing blindly at the noise and he trusts his reflexes to deal with the possibility that whatever's in the bushes attacks suddenly."

Anyway, charitably assume that there's constructive action, or at least *posture* in the text and try to draw it out into the light. I see two likely outcomes: 1) Player says, You got it. 2) Player says, Actually, my priority is X rather than Y. 3) (Oops! Miscounted.) Player says, "whaddaya mean, at the expense of? I'm ready for anything! You're trying to trick me, aren't you!" or words and in and between the lines to that effect.

Your first paragraph really helped me figure out a different perspective and some of my responces to Contra/Elindryn. But I think that rather than trying to tease it out or figuring out their past priorities, I should be just flat out dare them "So your going to leave your rear exposed, to cover this thing?". If that's not what they mean, I prompt them to tell me what their risking. If they don't want to risk anything, then they'll get no type of reward, regardless of how this moment in the situation turns out. And the discussion makes the risk/reward connection pretty explicit. Basically the same as your saying, but more provocative (which avoids certain issues of risk obscurement).



Hi Gains,

Your concentration on wanting to know what the thing is before you put anything at risk - isn't that bypassing the 'find out what it is' challenge that was presented? Their saying "Information, please" is like a kid doing the seeking in hide and seek saying "Information on where you are, please!". I think this AP example is akin to calvin balling, because it implies a certain causality of 'if I look at it, I should see more' to bypass the challenge presented.



Hi Marco,

I get the reward in drawing guns and covering the patch of ground, system wise. But what would you look for - to just get that reward, or get the thrill of earning that reward by risking some sort of penalty?



Hi Sydney,

1) get to know your players' visions for their characters, so you can describe them doing the in-character thing
2) make the characters sound cool
3) never, ever make the characters do something that would penalize them -- when you temporarily take control like this, assume they do the most sensible thing (even if the players, if asked, might've done something stupid...)

Apart from #2, that's some terrible advice, man! I appreciate you giving it, but your telling me that in a gamist game as GM, I should be making the optimal choices for the players, so we can get to the good part. Dude, making those choices IS the good part! :) Not being able to get enough information - that is an issue, but rather than being an issue of 'the games not getting to the good part', I'm making the game revolve around this issue because I think it's meat that makes a good game.

Perhaps 'the bushes rustle' has just been used too often as a teaser technique by GM's to introduce encounters in a dramatic fashion, to actually be seen as an issue/information challenge in itself.

[Marco]

I'd always go for rewards without risk if I were playing gamist, yes. Min-maxing is pretty much preferred, no? It'd be looking for the thrill of winnning--and that means not overcommiting where possible.

-Marco

[Sydney Freedberg]

....Hi Sydney...that's some terrible advice, man! I appreciate you giving it, but your telling me that in a gamist game as GM, I should be making the optimal choices for the players, so we can get to the good part. Dude, making those choices IS the good part! :)

Okay, that makes sense. I was thinking of getting past the obvious tactical choices that don't make for much of a Challenge ("there's a noise in the bushes!" "We draw our weapons and look!" or "A 100-ton weight is falling on you!" "We jump out of the way!"; I mean, what the hell else are they gonna do?) to get to the meatier tactical stuff, but, obviously, you guys value all those choices. Got it. Allow me to revise my terrible advice:

Get "standing orders" from the players about certain generic tactical situations: Archie always goes first, Bob and Candace follow behind and give cover; if we hear something and can't make out what it is, we draw weapons and cover it but one of us always watches for a flank attack in case it's a distraction; if we go into a bar, we always scope the place out and sit with our backs to the wall near an exit; that kind of stuff.

Then, when you have a "bushes rustle" situation, you as GM already know what they're going to do, so you don't have to hold up the whole game for them to post "I draw my gun and wait!"; but instead of you making their choices for them, it's based on their "standard operating procedure," so they get to benefit from their own smart stuff (e.g. "two of us always check out the noise while the third one always watches for an ambush from another direction") or suffer from their own stupid stuff (e.g. "we open fire randomly in all directions").

[Callan S.]

Hi Sydney,

Okay, that makes sense. I was thinking of getting past the obvious tactical choices that don't make for much of a Challenge ("there's a noise in the bushes!" "We draw our weapons and look!" or "A 100-ton weight is falling on you!" "We jump out of the way!"; I mean, what the hell else are they gonna do?)

I think you have a prominant point; what the hell else are they going to do?

Well, they could have a lateral brain wave and think 'well, if this is an obvious action, then it's boring and meaningless play - I should introduce risk so as to make the choice meaningful'. But really that isn't going to happen and I don't and shouldn't expect it - it's a pretty big step. Indeed, thinking over my own gamist history, I don't think it's something I've usually done myself.

I don't blame them for what they posted - as said, I'd likely do the same actions. But even though their well within what should be expected, the lack of knowledge is crushing challenges that they just don't see. It's like some mister McGoo cartoon, where he walks inside a military base because with his blindness, the guards present no threat to him at all. But at the same time, the players are getting the reward for these challenges by pushing the 'obvious' answers. I can understand players not wanting to take up a challenge, but this is different. Gamism is usually seen as pretty robust, but this is a tremendous weak point where it can become flat and boring. "That's just hack and slash" sticks out in my mind as a regular attitude, yet now that I look at it in these terms then it is a self forfilling prophesy. If your not willing to see the myriad risk in such play, then it is not there and such play really is boring (or a 'beer and pretzels/old school thing to do sometimes' event).

Jim's post helped me out with the idea of the teasing out of a risk/daring them. But while thats one way to solve the problem, I think 'what the hell else are they going to do' proves to be a real gamist issue, in terms acts that entirely undercut the priorities of play, yet are entirely understandable and even easily accepted.

On Standard Orders
Sorry to be negative twice, but I think the standard orders might not work. Imagine narrativist play where you put contingencies in, in advance "If faced with a choice between my work and my relationship with my wife, I put my wife first. If this comes up, continue the game, taking that into account".

Actually, I can imagine that nar example working (though its quite different in feel), because it contains the essential components that make it a significant choice. Did you have that in mind with the standard operating procedure - that the procedure would make nods to what the players see as inherent risks involved with it. And thus by using it, the players are saying 'we take on risk', which is pretty cool!

Game design thought: Perversely, it gives me an idea. Such generated operating procedures easily match and replace standard rules. So while a normal rule might say "If you charge, you get +2 to hit and -2 to AC' here the operating procedure could have reward and inherent risk generated by players and encoded into the procedure, rather than the book having that. And the book rules would help your group write up those procedures. The perverse part that at a game world level, the procedure is supposed to protect characters, but at a meta level, players are using it to inject risk into the game. Just a side thought, no comment required!

[TonyLB]

Callan, as GM, you did something stupid.  You're trying to get the players to commit to action without committing to anything yourself.  It won't work.

"The bushes rustle!  What do you do?"
"We, not being idiots, wait until the GM gives us something more than a breeze in the bushes before we do much of anything.  Sheesh."

If you want them to commit to a course of action then you commit to a course of action.  It takes two to tango.  If all you're willing to do is shake some bushes then why would you expect them to suddenly go all berserk and file a whole battle-plan?  How did that suddenly become their sole responsibility?

You've given the players a chance to make their characters ready.  They've made them ready.  What do you do next?  How can you even ask that?  You release a gigantic freakin' behemoth of tortured, damned necrotic flesh, bound and penetrated with bizarre and unearthly cords of sparking, metallic technology to try to kick their asses!  Give 'em a nice hefty bonus for having been on guard, 'cuz they're gonna need it, this thing being all but immune to pain, damage and any mortal sense of fear.  Not to mention, it stinks ... not like "Hoo boy, Uncle Eddie ain't got nothing on you" but a gagging oily stench of flesh not merely rotted but grown unclean, gangrenous and mushy, that wraps its way down your throat and coats your lungs until your body feels compelled to try to vomit up not merely your lunch but your actual organs in a vain attempt to purge itself.

You do that?  I guarantee you'll see a reaction a bit more extreme than "I switch to infra-red."

In fact, I'm with Sydney:  Why the heck are you boring them with the rustling bushes as a stopping point?  Why not just grant them the optimal response, and move on to the good stuff?  Like "The bushes rustle, and your years of combat intuition tell you that it ain't no hot goth chick, it's bad news with a capital 'BAD', so you let off a stream of autofire ... and it's a good thing you do, because it gets you one free round of attack on the THING that comes half shambling, half flowing out of the woods.  Let's get positions going.  What tactics do you guys want to try?"

[Callan S.]

Hi Tony,

If you want them to commit to a course of action then you commit to a course of action.  It takes two to tango.  If all you're willing to do is shake some bushes then why would you expect them to suddenly go all berserk and file a whole battle-plan?  How did that suddenly become their sole responsibility?

As Contra noted, they have changed their facing. This entails a risk of not covering their rear.

However, I need THEM to say they are taking that risk. Or any old risk they can imagine being involved with the situation (they might have been thinking there is some sort of risk, but I don't know until they say it). Not a battle plan - risk. Otherwise it's a complete non event, posting wise.

Actually, I'll underline that - Complete Non Event. So much so that you can think of it as a kind of pseudo GM, pushy wimp power. Say we were playing some sort splinter cell inspired roleplay and I describe an old wooden bridge ahead. And a player goes "Oh, I just sneak across as usual", with not a mote of concern on their face/without thought of risk. In fact, if asked, they would say the bridge is boring and they would prefer to face a behemoth of necrotic flesh. And since I can't turn what they do into an address of challenge, they get their way. Ie, if the bridge ends up squeaking and alerting guards, the player never contemplated any risk associated with the action before, so they never took on this risk. It's just the GM adding guards. Non event. It's like where in my pseudo nar example from above, where the GM adds the girlfriend split up after the player chooses to pursue his job. It doesn't turn it into an address of premise. And they just repeat their 'non event power' until they get what they want, pushy wimp style.

[rant]So no, Tony, it wasn't stupid. What happens is if I decide to go splinter cell on your ass, you get back in your player chair and take it, or leave the game! I'm not interested in any 'I'd rather something else happens, so I'm taking the GM hat and taking us to what I think is good stuff, by obliterating anything I don't like' BS. You don't get the GM hat, it's mine mine mine! What you get is to choose if you play in the game or not. That's it! And frankly, I never got to really see how you'd handle the old rustling bush...most gamists I know with any skill (yes, this is baiting) know there is ALWAYS risk involved. In fact, the greater part of gamism is NOT avoiding risk, but learning just where it's hiding (without getting burned!) - and I see that task being thoroughly avoided here! (further baiting)[/rant]

I needed to get at what I care about with that rant, so it's impassioned and a bit demented (your not one of my players, clearly). Though I admit I did enjoy saying 'If I decide to go splinter cell on your ass'... :)

I'd also like to add that there are various options built into my game beyond 'like it or leave it'. There are hard rules for exploration, ie 'These locations don't interest me, so I use these rules to indicate I'd like new locations offered (also, nothing bad can happen to players until they decide to step into these locations - ie, take on the risk)'. That's the tool I have explicitly given players to use if they want to say 'Rustling bushes? Ah, screw this, I move on!'

Really, if the rustling bushes are boring, why are they responding to them at all? Why not post about yawning and studying their navels? Well, because they don't want to get gacked while flat footed. I think the players aren't bored with this, they see something there, they just didn't have the right systematic or social prompting for them to express what risk they are taking on in their reaction. Even upping it into a nasty behemoth doesn't guarantee the player will accept the risk of that creature. I think, anyway.

[TonyLB]

You're both posting complete non-events, but you're here on this thread pretending like it's all the players, and that you had no part in creating the situation.  Here's a quote from your first post:

The agenda I'm going for is gamist. But there's something about this that rubs me the wrong way. The balls in my court, as to a responce. But the players haven't actually done anything.

Here's a response I would consider quite reasonable from your players:  "There's something about this that rubs me the wrong way.  The balls in my court, as to a response.  But the GM hasn't actually done anything.  All he's done is say there's a rustling in the bushes."

Do you think that would be an unreasonable complaint?