The Forge Archives

This thought was triggered by the connections-advancement thread, some of the Ygg threads and plain old experiance.

A lot of RPG's have mechanics for Patrons, Connections, people one knows, ect. Usually this is just a cost associated with a certian level of 'influence' of the patron. Obviously this is directed at more simulationist systems. Frex a trait based system would not have this problem.

   It has been my observation that such things tend to have very limited utility in play. Basicly if the GM has X adventure and the player has Patron Y, then the GM will insure that Patron Y cannot be used to circumvent the adventure.  For example if players have made friends with the King and are then say falsely accused of a crime then the King will say "well, I belive you, but we must let justice take it's course" or  some such, despite the fact logically the king could just dismiss such charges and no-one would care. Another example would equipment. I'm reminded of a Shadowrun scenario where a group was sent into a facilty that was known to have some unknown contamination.  The provided equiment included a sub, medical gear and a computer capable of running Hamburg, however there was no armor and really cheap environmental suits. (Compared to the other money expenditure the additional stuff would have been trivial.)  
This would not be a problem, but generally a powerful patron represents a significant investment in 'currency', but however getting a comensurate use out of them would disrupt the plot.
Sorry for the lenght.
My question is
1)Have other people noticed this?

2)Did I explain it ok?

3)If it's not a problem, why?

4)If it is a problem, possible solutions?
Thanks

I think part of the problem is a conflict between tight plotting and giving players control. When a player chooses a powerful contact, in many games that's a way of saying, "I have an ability that reaches past the plot." Unless the GM works the contacts into the plot, it could cause a problem:

Player: "What do you mean I can't get a better gun! One of my contacts is a high-level arms dealer!"
GM: "Well, err, [glancing at the adventure's plot, noting that anything beyond a revolver causes big problems] your dealer is too busy this week."

Some solutions:
a) Loosen the adventure's plot and go with more Bang-driven play*.
b) Remove contacts altogether.
c) Explicit rules that allow a Player some effectiveness, but not necessarily one that overturns the plot.
d) Group discussion before the game begins: The Players' contacts, how much can be done with these contacts, etc.

---
* See Ron Edward's Sorcerer and especially Sorcerer & Sword for Bangs.

I have noticed it, and put bluntly I think it is bad gming.  All this is is a case of the GM caring more about their plot than their players.

If a character has invested resources in a particular area it's a statement of where they want their character to shine.  By not allowing that you rob them of something, you make their participation less meaningful.

You also eventually end up with a group of combat monsters because the players know the gm probably won't invalidate those character choices.

The answer is to design looser scenarios, use relationship maps and dynamic situations.  Get away from scripted plots that don't allow for player creativity.

The Shadowrun scenario just doesn't make sense.  There is no way I could get something like that past my group, they just wouldn't believe it.

Quote from: BalbinusI have noticed it, and put bluntly I think it is bad gming.  All this is is a case of the GM caring more about their plot than their players.

If a character has invested resources in a particular area it's a statement of where they want their character to shine.  By not allowing that you rob them of something, you make their participation less meaningful.

Max hits nail squarely on head.

But you've only noticed this phenomenon in one small part of effectiveness, Damion. It happens all over. For example, my character get's a spell that allows him to see who murdered someone. If the GM (or scenario designer) want's to plot a murder mystery that he wants to last more than one scene, he'll come up with some reason why my spell won't work in this particular case. This is an actual example from a published module, BTW.

In Hero System, certain powers are even marked with a little stop sign symbol that is meant to tell the GM to beware of allowing players to take these powers, because they tend to make a shambles of certain plot types.

What is this all about? It's about RPGs using certain plots or adventure structures traditionally. Zak and Hero have it right. If you must have these sorts of plots disallow said powers. But better is to use Zak's option A. This allows the player to have a character who is effective in the manner that they want (else why take these abilities), instead of only being effective in the way that the traditional plots require.

This interestingly even applies to the power issue. In D&D there were all sorts of limits placed on characters to keep them from being so powerful as to make the traditional plot (slay the baddies) pointless. But players like to play powerful characters. Hence you have Sorcerer where characters all begin strong. This works because the plots do not revolve around the killin, but other matters.

The point? Change the way you look at what is an acceptible "plot" for a session, and you'll never look at design the same way again. Empower players to play cool characters, and then determine what sort of plots can work with that (the oft asked "what do you do?" question). Not the reverse.

Mike

Thanks for the comments.
I think there is a difference between a patron and say a presience spell. A spell has a specific mechanical effect that can be calculated in.
A patron is basicly an NPC. My point is a plot will adapt around an ability that breaks it, but will incorperate a Patron into it. (You talk to your friend the wizard who says :' Well, I can read PART of this ancient inscription for you.'). Basicly, if you didn't have the wizard connention, you'd take it to a local priest or someone else who could read part of it.
        I suppose this brings up the general issue of players spending 'currency' on things that basicly turn out to be conduits for the GM to give them information.  I wonder if any game has ever dealt with this seperatly. I.e say a player selects their spells, but they get an automatic number of special spells that don't cost them anything. These do things like 'see who murdered someone' ect. Thus players choose to recieve info in a way that fits their characther, but they didn't have to pay for it.

Does that make any sense? If it does, I bet someone here made a game that uses it. ;)

Quote from: damionI think there is a difference between a patron and say a presience spell. A spell has a specific mechanical effect that can be calculated in.
A patron is basicly an NPC. My point is a plot will adapt around an ability that breaks it, but will incorperate a Patron into it. (You talk to your friend the wizard who says :' Well, I can read PART of this ancient inscription for you.'). Basicly, if you didn't have the wizard connention, you'd take it to a local priest or someone else who could read part of it.

Heh, that's exactly what happens with the spell in the printed adventure. It says that if anyone uses a scrying spell that all they see is a cloudy black cloaked figure. If the player has n-ray vision, you can bet that the mysterious box is lined with lead. If the player has Mind reading, the thugs who might know the location of the secret lair will have a special block placed on their minds that will cause them to convulse and die if mind reading is used on them. Or the player will only get a "hazy vision", because they're druggies. And, get this, if the players want to get past the special door with the puzzle lock on it, they'll find out that it's indesructable. All things I've seen in actual play. Some made up on the spot so as to thwart creative players from circumventing the GMs precious plot.

It's exactly the same thing. The player has an ability. That ability circumvents the plot. So the plot disallows it, no matter how fakey the BS rationale (you can actually craft quite good ones, which I'd say is a prime skill for the Illusionist GM).

QuoteI suppose this brings up the general issue of players spending 'currency' on things that basicly turn out to be conduits for the GM to give them information.  I wonder if any game has ever dealt with this seperatly. I.e say a player selects their spells, but they get an automatic number of special spells that don't cost them anything. These do things like 'see who murdered someone' ect. Thus players choose to recieve info in a way that fits their characther, but they didn't have to pay for it.

Does that make any sense? If it does, I bet someone here made a game that uses it. ;)

Yep, it's called Dunjon. For one. But you knew that already. Yes, this is a brilliant way to handle this sort of thing.

Mike

Being deprotaganized in that manner has to be one of the most frustrating things that a player can experience (besides not being able to find a game at all).  It often goes hand-in-hand with a GM who, quite obviously, keeps a character from being killed at all costs, just so the character can be railroaded through the precious plot.

Very loose plotting is, IMO, the way to go.  If you dangle a sufficiently appealing carrot in front of the players they will make your plot for you.  Also, instead of cursing the existence of contacts and certain powers, it allows the GM to utilize character contacts and powers to give the characters direction and guide their momentum.

I usually have contacts be very forthcoming with information and equipment.  The object is to get the characters into the thick of things, not have them dilly dallying wondering what to do or running around looking for someplace to get their hands on specialized equipment.

The ability to improvise becomes key though.  Having a few contingency plans prepared for certain situations that you expect may take place doesn't hurt either.

-Chris

Hi folks,

I highly recommend that people develop a close, practical understanding of the Hero Wars rules. In this game, an "ability" refers to anything and everything about the character. A sword-skill is an ability; so is a Brawny adjective, so is a Relationship: Father, and so is a Wealthy adjective.

All of them work mechanically the same - same numbers-scale, same dice mechanics. Even more importantly, in Hero Wars, any roll may augment another roll - such that the Relationship above could make the Sword hit harder, or it could influence the application of one's wealth in a negotiating situation.

I cannot stress enough that the older, widespread system being referenced in this thread - attributes, skills, advantages (including things like Patron or Contact), and disadvantages - is highly flawed relative to the system in Hero Wars. There is simply no comparison.

Best,
Ron

QuoteAll of them work mechanically the same - same numbers-scale, same dice mechanics. Even more importantly, in Hero Wars, any roll may augment another roll

I really hadn't thought about a fully streamlined mechanic like that, but am definitely going to include it my own system now.

But...

It still doesn't answer the problem of plot breakers.  If a character has a mind reading spell then mystery is near impossible unless you use cheaps outs (the extra is stupid and doesn't know anything etc).  The same extends to all other plot breakers (your cousin with mafia connections is out of town).

Even in film and books you see mind reading used inconsistantly, Troi.

You can limit the influence of patrons and such like, but I don't see how mind reading and mystery can work in the one game.

QuoteI don't see how mind reading and mystery can work in the one game.

I belive that you have the answear there.  They don't.

It's about a GM knowing what abilities the characters have, and generating appropriate plots.  If the chracters have abilities that let them find the Truth rapidly, then no plot should be based around a struggle to find Truth.

Instead, knowing what happened shoul be assumed to occur quickly, and the difficult step might be, say, pursuading someone to act differently, or convincing someone else what the Truth is.

Recently, playing a superhero style game (Aberant), one player retired a mind reader character because it resulted in no fun to play, by solving most plots instantly.  That's a rather extreme case (V powerful abilities), but the point stands.

If the players take abilities that prevent the existance of mystery, then what they are saying (at lest on an unconcious level) is that they don't want "Find the Truth" style plot lines.

To get back to the original point, if the GM doesn't want to allow a particular contanct to be useful, he should say so, explicetly.  It's not difficult to say to players before character generation that you don't want arms dealer contacts, bcasue you'd rather not have a game focused on big guns.

Another way to look at it is to adjust the cost of certain patrons, so that the King may well be too costly for a starting character.  This can, however, lead into a situation of not wanting to say no, but not admiting that you don't want it - which is that root cause of the whole problem.

Stuart

If the chracters have abilities that let them find the Truth rapidly, then no plot should be based around a struggle to find Truth.

Instead, knowing what happened shoul be assumed to occur quickly, and the difficult step might be, say, pursuading someone to act differently, or convincing someone else what the Truth is.

Fantastic post Stuart.

Paul

One idea, a detective type game where the player can read minds, but the challenge is still to find the evidence to get a conviction.  "I read his mind" doesn't follow the rules of evidence :)

Another scenario idea, the mind reading player meets prisoner whose been in jail a long time for a murder he didn't commit, reads his mind and sees that he's innocent.  Many of the witnesses are dead or scattered.  Who knows who the real culprit was.  The prisoner doesn't.  The scenario is then to set things straight.

So, mystery can work with mind reading, it just is harder ...

I'd rephrase Stuart's sentiment to be more clear. A player who takes Mind Reading does want to use it, and use it to have advantage over others, and use it to "win". Presumably he has taken the ability in order that he might be allowed to use it successfully. Players are not, by taking an ability such as Mind Reading, saying that they don't want to foil evil plots through it's use. In fact they are saying just the opposite. That they want to foil such plots thusly.

So what I think Stuart is saying is that by taking such a power, the player is saying that they want to play in plots that cannot be made boringly short by the use of such a power. But then, that's not much of a statement. Nobody wants to play "boringly short" adventures.

So this really does not tell us much. You still have the same dilemma. Either you avoid such plots, or you modify them to limit the player's abilities to make them short and boring.

And I agree with most that the best way to do this is to go with the second option but use the method where you change the plot, and not the player's success. Allow them to succeed, but just change the plot or allow the player to do so, such that it does not end then and there. The first way is called Illusionism, and the second Narrativism.

Mike

Hi all - great discussion.  I just wanted to add this thought:  it is certainly possible to do the standard "you can't use your special power in this situation because of factor-x" WITHOUT "deprotagonizing"/frustrating the player.  Sometimes, powers are defined as much by their limitations as by their benefits, and if player an GM are on the same page in terms of theme and story, an opportune loss/inapplicability of a favorite power can work quite wonderfully.

But yeah, as a cure-all patch to "uh-oh, my plot is going to be RUINED", it's not my favorite experience.  Actually, it's downright unpleasant.

Gordon

I think Gordon points out something interesting. There are cases where it's seems OK to limit a character. But when is it protagonizing, and when is it deprotagonizing?

The answer seems simple. When the power is cancelled simply in order that the plot be allowed to move along and for no other reason, that's deprotagonizing. It means that the plot is more important than the character's abilities. Meaning that the story is not about the character, but about the plot. The characters are being made window dressing of.

So when can you throw in such a limit? Only when it means that the character is more interesting after doing so than before. This means that the plot "advances" due to the limitation, rather than the plot being stymied temporarily in spite of the limitation.

So, for example, if I have a thug who may know the location of the secret hideout, and I use mind reading on him, and the GM says that the thug has a seizure and dies with no information gained, that's just stalling, and deprotagonizes the character. But if, instead, the thug turns out to have a mental shield, then perhaps I've identified a potential new supervillain or hero, and the relationship with the NPC may become important. That discovery would be protagonizing.

Am I on to something? I think that the arbitrariness of the appearance of such limits can speak to whether or not they protagonize the character. Again use Illusionism or Narrativism to avoid negative effects of this.

Mike