Assuming one is using the Fortune in the Middle approach, is there any way to then offer PCs rewards for well-described actions?

In Exalted and Feng Shui, well-described actions get a bonus to their rolls. In Exalted, there's even a paragraph that seems to recommend that GM's 'cheat' slightly, to ensure that well-described stunts succeed (and now that I've spotted that paragraph, gah, it annoys me).

So, let's assume I start running a Fortune in the Middle game where I want to see a lot of over-the-top stunts and so on. How can I offer rewards for interesting stunts?

Joe.

Hi Joe,

In Over the Edge there's a very simple mechanic that gives bonus dice for "cool" actions. Basically, other than a few guidelines as to what a "cool" action is, it's just that: the cooler the more bonus dice. Sorcerer picked this up and integrated it with an explicit Fortune in the Middle system. I'm not quite sure why you see a conflict or a problem. Is it because people generally regard FitM as starting with a general intention, rolling, then determining the specifics that it doesn't seem to make sense? If that's the case, then perhaps it would be useful to note that FitM can start with a specific stated action...though what actually happened is still open to change after the dice are rolled (or cards are played, or chesthairs plucked, whatever).

The interesting thing that I picked up from playing Sorcerer was that it's much easier than it sounds to award appropriate bonuses. Before playing I was worried about getting into disputes with the players over what was cool and what was not etc etc. But during actual play, I'd say pretty much everyone at the table could tell when an idea was inspired and when it was tired. Like at one point one of the characters was wrestling on the ground with somebody and the player said "I headbutt him!" and everybody else said "Hell yeah!!" I gave him a fat bonus because, well, it just fit.

Tor

Joe,

What Tor says is basically right. Although FitM gives itself naturally to a generalized intent, it works fine in games like Sorcerer so long as the players realize that some rewriting of the described action may be necessary after the dice hit the table.

It's kind of the same thing with games that use a big list o' skills, like the WW games. These are not ideal for FitM (as we've been finding out in our current Mage game), because you kinda' have to pigeonhole yourself before the die roll. Once you say that you're going to shoot the bad guy and roll your Dex+Firearm dice, it doesn't quite follow that you could describe some other fate for the villain other than him getting plugged full of holes. But that doesn't mean that you're completely without recourse, and so long as everyone has the same understanding of how the Fortune mechanics are going to be implemented, you can still describe some pretty cool outcomes.

Of course, that's assuming you're not suffering from Whiff Syndrome (right Paul? :smile: ).

- Scott

[ This Message was edited by: hardcoremoose on 2001-12-20 00:00 ]

Hi Joe,

This was discussed in the Sorcerer forum a while ago. The problem is that people are so used to stating "what the character does" just once that they have a hard time announcing (a) the cool intent, for which they might get bonus dice; and (b) the cool actual actions once the dice have been rolled.

I hope my explanation here might be helpful.

Best,
Ron

Thanks, all. =)

Yup, Tor, I couldn't see how one could give a bonus if, typically, we started with a very general action. I'll go read OtE again. =)

And yup, Mr Moose, I mostly had WW games in mind. :smile: I've been trying to explain FitM to my playing group. One of the first stumbling blocks was pointing out how really, really specific rolls don't suit the approach quite so much. They don't allow for a lot of leeway. Typically, we play in quite detailed games (mostly because it's taken this long to realise we have a choice).

And yup, Ron, thankyou for your explanation. :smile:

Do you have any idea how well your advice works, from a marketing point of view? :smile: I'm going to buy Sorceror tomorrow. :grin:

Best,

Joe.

Joe Murphy (Broin) wrote:

Assuming one is using the Fortune in the Middle approach, is there any way to then offer PCs rewards for well-described actions?

[Example snipped.]

So, let's assume I start running a Fortune in the Middle game where I want to see a lot of over-the-top stunts and so on. How can I offer rewards for interesting stunts?

Fang,

It is very difficult to know what to do with your references to Scattershot. Since the game is not available in any form to read or playtest, your use of it to support points, or claims about its design, is not working for me.

This particular post describes an outcome (Fortune in the Middle) of a system feature - but the actual feature is inaccessible. At this point, when a particular technique is being discussed and you respond with "Scattershot does this," it really has no weight. I have no reason to disbelieve your claim, but I can't apply that claim to the discussion in any positive way either.

I am bringing this up because, after many posts, the name Scattershot is carrying quite a few claims - it apparently includes an enormous range of RPG design innovations. It's come to the point where "roll videotape" is the next step, at least in terms of my ability to grasp the claims.

I shall clarify. I'm not telling you what to do, in terms of your posts. You are free to post as you wish. Reveal aspects of Scattershot, or don't. Use it to support points, or don't. Make a statement about its attributes, or don't. Absolutely no instructions or restrictions are being laid upon you by me, regarding this issue. My goal in this post is to tell you what I can(not) make of these references to Scattershot.

If you're interested in what I'd like, or what would help me understand better, it would be the following:

1) What is Scattershot, as a role-playing game? What kind of premise, in the sense of my use in my essay, is involved? (I am not asking for design secrets; just what the back-cover text would say.)

2) Is any version of it to be made available to anyone, ever? I am not being sarcastic, but strictly literal. I asked this once before and could not understand your reply.

3) You frequently refer to "we" - is this in reference to a co-author or partner? To a publisher? Or whom?

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:

It is very difficult to know what to do with your references to Scattershot. Since the game is not available in any form to read or playtest, your use of it to support points, or claims about its design, is not working for me.

This particular post describes an outcome (Fortune in the Middle) of a system feature - but the actual feature is inaccessible. At this point, when a particular technique is being discussed and you respond with "Scattershot does this," it really has no weight. I have no reason to disbelieve your claim, but I can't apply that claim to the discussion in any positive way either.

I am bringing this up because, after many posts, the name Scattershot is carrying quite a few claims - it apparently includes an enormous range of RPG design innovations. It's come to the point where "roll videotape" is the next step, at least in terms of my ability to grasp the claims.

I shall clarify. I'm not telling you what to do, in terms of your posts. You are free to post as you wish. Reveal aspects of Scattershot, or don't. Use it to support points, or don't. Make a statement about its attributes, or don't. Absolutely no instructions or restrictions are being laid upon you by me, regarding this issue. My goal in this post is to tell you what I can(not) make of these references to Scattershot.

If you're interested in what I'd like, or what would help me understand better, it would be the following:

1) What is Scattershot, as a role-playing game? What kind of premise, in the sense of my use in my essay, is involved? (I am not asking for design secrets; just what the back-cover text would say.)

2) Is any version of it to be made available to anyone, ever? I am not being sarcastic, but strictly literal. I asked this once before and could not understand your reply.

3) You frequently refer to "we" - is this in reference to a co-author or partner? To a publisher? Or whom?

Joe- in using the "Over-the-Top" flavor of Exalted in a WoD game, I'd just transfer the mechanic itself, telling players you'll add 1-3 dice to their pool ~if~ they really wow you with their discription and quickly establish how much ~wow~ they need to provide for each dice.

One thing I've done in a similar situation as a ST is taken control of the dice, rolling them myself for their characters as they are in mid description so they can keep talking and then interrupting with a successful result, failure or an Unexpected Event that might be something of both and proceeding for there. It speeds the game up, among other factors.

So, let's assume I start running a Fortune in the Middle game where I want to see a lot of over-the-top stunts and so on. How can I offer rewards for interesting stunts?

Fang,

For what it's worth (addressing your last post), I find your contributions here extremely well-reasoned, incisive, and thought-provoking. The exchanges you and Ron have had in the past truly raised the bar in terms of the quality and depth of the analysis. I personally have no issue with any references to Scattershot, but then I'm a little paper boat on a raging torrent as far as Forge intellectual debate goes. If anything, Scattershot sounds intriguing enough that not getting a holistic view of its innovations may be a bit frustrating.

Best,

Blake

On topic -

I think that once FitM gets you away from the "dice DETERMINE the effect" to "dice INFLUENCE the effect", it shouldn't be too hard to carry that over to "and your DESCRIPTION will also influence the effect". In the specific instance cited - over the top stunts, in combat and combat-like situations - I can imagine things like "wow, great idea - you do an extra two points of damage" or "well-described - not only does your stunt work, but you've got the initative next round" and etc. If you like, come up with a number of examples of these "bonuses" and give 'em "levels", so folks know that REALLY GOOD description/ideas might get 'em, say, an immediate extra free action, pretty good ideas/descriptions yield a bonus to damage or some other benefit of that magnitude, while a clever little bit might just get you a minor plus on your next, realted action.

On Scattershot -

I share Ron's frustration at the Scattershot references, and Blake's admiration for Fang's contributions. The frustration is due to the fact that even as theory, I find it almost impossible to "see" from the Scattershot example the point Fang is trying to make - the Scattershot reference (for me) ends up making it MORE obscure, rather than clearer. Fang, I suspect that Scattershot is so clear in your mind that references to it help YOU to understand your point, but it doesn't help me. I'm left thinking I'd understand you better if you left Scattershot out of it, because that'd force you to use language and thought-patterns NOT tied to the two year process that has been your creation of the system. I guess this is a (perhaps unrealistic) fourth option to your three - discuss not without ANY basis, but rather with either: a context derived from the thread and/or the Forge in general as the basis; or a full description of the relevant Scattershot details (either directly or by reference).

The admiration is because (besides your often generaly interesting points), the glimpses I am able to get of Scattershot are DAMN interesting. Disclosure - I have a "pet system" running through my own brain that also uses 2d10. Thus my current name - the "2-20 System". Logo ripped off from d20 as much as possible without risking a law suit :smile:

On the , er, "emotional intent" of posts -

Fang (but really, this applies to most everyone, at some time or another), I can understand why Ron's post might make you feel a bit defensive. But really, it's DAMN HARD to communicate in this format, and I'm actually quite sure Ron wasn't trying to attack you, but really just has an issue (that I pretty much share) that he wants to remedy. Just a personal recommendation (again, to everyone) - always assume, unless proven VERY strongly otherwise, that the motive behind a post is . . . good, true and noble. We're all working together to communicate in a difficult medium, about difficult issues. It'll save a whole lot of time going back and forth trying to refute and/or support claims that may not have even been the posters' concern.

There's always time to write somebody off as an asshole later.

Gordon

This is my post to respond to Fang, and I apologize to Joe for the thread-within-a-thread.

Fang,

Your perception of being attacked is the central issue in your post, and it needs to be dealt with. You perceive yourself to be "accused of hiding behind Scattershot", or being picked on, or as the target of character assassination.

The same goes for your caution about posting regarding Scattershot, in that if it is a generalist game, or not Narrativist-focused, then it will not garner respect or interest. It also applies to your perception that you lose face, in some way, by not working on or not finishing Scattershot fast enough. Or to the notion that you should abandon your commitment to your family to prioritize on game design.

These are fears, not certainties. You are concerned that they would happen, and strike to defend yourself from statements that might, maybe, perhaps, be the beginning of such attacks.

The trouble is that none of these are the case. You do not lose face in that manner. No one has said, "Fang is lame because Scattershot isn’t done." No one would want you to work on it at the expense of family commitments (and if anyone does say that, I’ll kick their ass). Finally - and this is important - you cannot be certain that any aspects of its prose or design would be unfairly treated until you actually post about it. I think you’d be surprised, especially in the long term.

For instance, JAGS was on the face of it not to my tastes in role-playing. Yet I am currently preparing a JAGS game based on Marco’s description of his horror module (side note - it’s a pretty cool module). The discussion impressed and interested me - hence, I play.

I see a fine solution to the conundrum, much as Blake describes. In fact, you’ve already begun it in your post. "Scattershot is a generalist game." Cool! Now I know something that I didn’t.

Why not post a "state of the art" thread in Game Design? It doesn’t have to give away specifics of dice mechanics; your statement about Rating - 2d10 is plenty. It doesn’t have to be complete or to give away detailed design material. It doesn’t have to be polished (God knows).

The result would be one of the following:
Everyone ignores it. Worst-case scenario, they even belittle and deride it. Your worst suspicions of the Forge are confirmed. This outcome would, I think, reveal the Forge’s input and activity to be worth none of your or anyone’s time, and would not reflect badly on you or your game.
You receive responses, statements of inquiry or puzzlement, and you can enter into some dialogue about it. If you are willing to address misunderstandings as such, and not as judgments on either the game or your clarity of presentation, then a good thread could result.
Best of all, you might even get help. Artists, layout, web hosting, web design, access to Adobe Acrobat, references to printers who cut first-time publishers a break, whatever - all the punk-publishing tips that many of us have learned and used to great effect. This has nothing to do with approval. Speaking for myself, I do not have to like a game, necessarily, in order to help its author gain recognition or get the work one step closer to publishing.

Finally, you could then refer to Scattershot as a reference point, in other threads such that I (for instance) can say "Oh! I get it," and thus your three equally-uncomfortable options are bypassed.

As I stated before, I do not expect or require anything from you. You do not have to follow my suggestion, and you certainly are free to present ideas or references to Scattershot in exactly the way you’ve been doing. If, in fact, you really don’t see why I am always boggled by them, then you are under no obligation to change. Nor am I suggesting that you would be stupid or insensitive to me, or cowardly in any way, by taking that path.

My only concern is the atmosphere of fear and perceived hostility that occasionally surfaces in your posts. Therefore my final point, in hopes of finding a common ground for analogy and thereby being extra clear, is based on your comment that you have studied some martial arts, in a previous post. I have too. One of the most important lessons was, "Choose your fights." If it’s not an attack, one does not have to defend. If a person always assumes injury and strikes to retaliate, then he or she is not a warrior but a victim and victimizer, no matter how much damage they can do.

Best,
Ron

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-12-21 12:11 ]

Gordon C. Landis wrote:

On Scattershot -

I suspect that Scattershot is so clear in your mind that references to it help YOU to understand your point, but it doesn't help me.

I'm left thinking I'd understand you better if you left Scattershot out of it, because that'd force you to use language and thought-patterns NOT tied to the two year processⁱ that has been your creation of the system. I guess this is a (perhaps unrealistic) fourth option to your three - discuss not without ANY basis, but rather with either: a context derived from the threadⁱⁱ and/or the Forge in general as the basis;ⁱⁱⁱ or a full description of the relevant Scattershot details (either directly or by reference).^iv

The admiration is because (besides your often generally interesting points), the glimpses I am able to get of Scattershot are DAMN interesting.

Disclosure - I have a "pet system" running through my own brain that also uses 2d10. Thus my current name - the "2-20 System". Logo ripped off from d20 as much as possible without risking a law suit :wink:. Maybe I'm hoping your system is enough like mine that I won't have to actually put in that hard work to make mine even as close to reality as Scattershot is . . . :)

On the , er, "emotional intent" of posts -

I can understand why Ron's post might make you feel a bit defensive. But really, it's DAMN HARD to communicate in this format, and I'm actually quite sure Ron wasn't trying to attack you, but really just has an issue (that I pretty much share) that he wants to remedy. Just a personal recommendation (again, to everyone) - always assume, unless proven VERY strongly otherwise, that the motive behind a post is . . . good, true and noble. [Snip.]

To me...it still sounds exactly the same.

Damn Fang...that was pretty damn accessible. it doesn't sound the same to me at all.

I'm not sure you don't create a conflict of interest for the player (skewing slightly positive on Gamism and slightly negative on Narrativism) by making him choose between spending experience points on quality of success in the current conflict or on saving them to improve the character, with the idea that high levels of quality of success would be wrung from the Fortune part of the resolution mechanic. But I like the new posting style quite a bit.

Paul

[ This Message was edited by: Paul Czege on 2001-12-21 12:42 ]

Ron Edwards wrote:

These are fears, not certainties.

Why not post a "state of the art" thread in Game Design?

It doesn’t have to be polished (God knows).

The result would be one of the following:
Everyone ignores it. Worst-case scenario, they even belittle and deride it.

Your worst suspicions of the Forge are confirmed. This outcome would, I think, reveal the Forge’s input and activity to be worth none of your or anyone’s time, and would not reflect badly on you or your game.

As I stated before, I do not expect or require anything from you.

...ideas or references to Scattershot...I am always boggled by them,

My only concern is the atmosphere of fear and perceived hostility that occasionally surfaces in your posts.

Therefore my final point, in hopes of finding a common ground for analogy and thereby being extra clear, is based on your comment that you have studied some martial arts, in a previous post. I have too. One of the most important lessons was, "Choose your fights." If it’s not an attack, one does not have to defend. If a person always assumes injury and strikes to retaliate, then he or she is not a warrior but a victim and victimizer, no matter how much damage they can do.

On 2001-12-21 12:42, Paul Czege wrote:
I'm not sure you don't create a conflict of interest for the player (skewing slightly positive on Gamism and slightly negative on Narrativism) by making him choose between spending experience points on quality of success in the current conflict or on saving them to improve the character, with the idea that high levels of quality of success would be wrung from the Fortune part of the resolution mechanic.

And now, to the sub-thread:

On 2001-12-21 12:50, Le Joueur wrote:
Now that I have it, I am really pumped about where the design is going (actually both of us are). I could never start a ?state of the art? thread, but (everyone please give your input) would it be worthwhile to start a ?design in progress? thread? (Warning, if I were to do that, it would quickly spread out to a number of different fronts and hog a lot of bandwidth.)

I love the name "Fish or Sofa" - you should rethink that

Yeah...I gotta agree. It's an awesome title. Although you'd definitely need George Clooney for your T.V. ads:

(grungy guy): Dude...do you get into the minis? You play Warhammer? Gorkamorka?

(clooney): Nah...we play Fish or Sofa.

[ This Message was edited by: Paul Czege on 2001-12-21 13:09 ]

Paul Czege wrote:

To me...it still sounds exactly the same.

Damn Fang...that was pretty damn accessible. It doesn't sound the same to me at all.

I'm not sure you don't create a conflict of interest for the player (skewing slightly positive on Gamism and slightly negative on Narrativism) by making him choose between spending experience points on quality of success in the current conflict or on saving them to improve the character, with the idea that high levels of quality of success would be wrung from the Fortune part of the resolution mechanic.

Clinton R Nixon wrote:

Scattershot will support this sort of mechanism. Spending currency and describing it well will result in more currency for the character in a sort of "reward on your investment". Am I right, Fang?

Paul Czege wrote:

To me...it still sounds exactly the same.

Damn Fang...that was pretty damn accessible. It doesn't sound the same to me at all.

I'm not sure you don't create a conflict of interest for the player (skewing slightly positive on Gamism and slightly negative on Narrativism) by making him choose between spending experience points on quality of success in the current conflict or on saving them to improve the character, with the idea that high levels of quality of success would be wrung from the Fortune part of the resolution mechanic.

But I like the new posting style quite a bit.

This might be my last post in the "sub-thread," but we'll see ...

Fang, I think a "Design in Progress" thread would be great. Again, the degree of detail that you present should never exceed your own comfort level, and so concerns about security can at least be kept within the bounds you set.

As for your experience with private messages, I have little to say, except this. If someone is trying to make human contact with you about something that bugs them, then I hope the both of you can work it out. On the other hand, if you are being attacked or told to do anything you don't want to do, by anyone, tell'em to fuck off, and that I said so. Finally, if I'm missing the whole point about the private exchanges, then let me know.

Regarding the "Don Quixote" issue: I would like to direct the attention of anyone to the central concept of Exploration in my GNS essay. Did I originate that concept? I did not. It was originally raised as part of an alternative, competing idea by the Scarlet Jester. I was convinced that the Exploration idea was valid and necessary, even central. It changed my mind. I incorporated it in the way that made the most sense to me (not quite as the Jester's construction), and with full credit to its author. He and I remain cordial (shock! despite occasional ferocious exchanges in the past) and he even contributed a poem to one of the Sorcerer supplements.

In other words, claims that "disagreement with Ron is heresy" are false. Other points by Jim Henley, by Gareth Martin, by Gareth Hanrahan, by Ralph Mazza, by Logan, and by many others have affected and changed my views, through varying degrees of disagreement or agreement.

Again, to everyone: do not construe disagreement by me as a put-down or a silencing. It is for you to decide whether my point or counter-argument really needs to change your view, or whether you are able to provide further points or counter-argument of your own. Identifying sufficient vs. insufficient argument is discourse. It's what we do here. We all win by doing it in good faith, with courtesy, without stubbornness, and without resentment. Arguments may be refuted, but there are no "stupid people" or "losers."

Best,
Ron

Clinton R Nixon wrote:
And now, to the sub-thread:

Le Joueur wrote:

Now that I have it, I am really pumped about where the design is going (actually both of us are). I could never start a ?state of the art? thread, but (everyone please give your input) would it be worthwhile to start a ?design in progress? thread? (Warning, if I were to do that, it would quickly spread out to a number of different fronts and hog a lot of bandwidth.)

I want to encourage you to do this. As the man who pays for the bandwidth, please do. :) I'd suggest keeping the discussion in one thread, but whatever works for you.

It sounds a little like you're afraid of someone stealing your ideas. Don't worry - one thing I have noticed among Forge posters is their attention and respect of intellectual property. That sets these forums apart from a majority of the Internet masses.

I don't post as much as I'd like here because I've noticed when I do, it seems to kill a thread. (Why, I don't know.)

Ron Edwards wrote:

As for your experience with private messages, I have little to say, except this. If someone is trying to make human contact with you about something that bugs them, then I hope the both of you can work it out. On the other hand, if you are being attacked or told to do anything you don't want to do, by anyone, tell 'em to fuck off, and that I said so. Finally, if I'm missing the whole point about the private exchanges, then let me know.

So much to say, about the sub-thread, about FitM, about Scattershot, and I've got to get on a plane and go visit the parents for the holidays. Luckily I'll have 'net access there, so more in a day or three . . . but quickly:

A Scattershot thread or three would be great. I've noticed you're particularly sensitive to the IP issue, and while Clinton's point about folks on the Forge being "good" about this is quite valid - I'm not sure there's any way to prevent the kind of "idea theft" you're worried about, especially since others might really have just come up with the same notions independently. Not sure what to make of that myself, but . . . there you have it.

On the private message/Don Quixote/etc. phenomena - Fang, I understand EXACTLY. I was experiencing a similar effect - apparently I'm so "reason-able", some folks thought I just needed to be convinced of the "evil" of the Forge. It started to create paranoia in me too, so I had to send msgs to Ron and Clinton to clear the air and make sure nothing I was doing/saying was being misconstrued. It helped a lot - maybe this thread can be your "clearing the air" opportunity.

At least in my case, it's not that those private msgs don't have some valid points - they are just ultimately (it seems to me) more interested in the righteousness of their position than in working things out and maintaining communication. I'll probably periodically continue my own Quixotic campaign with these Forge/Ron/GNS nay-sayers, but . . .

My private exhange with Ron, Clinton and other Forge folks was very cordial and pleasant. With others, that wasn't always the case. Ultimately, I have to judge based on personal experience, and examples of the kind that Ron cites. When I do that . . . with appologies for speaking of those who can't/won't read and respond to what I type here, and acknowledgment that they DO make some good points . . . I can only say that the nay-sayers come across as overly-sensitive and paranoid.
Heck, out of time. I'll just say I consider this sub-thread an example of how to constructively cope with the issues of communicating in a forum, that you almost never see on places like RPG.net. To me, that says a lot about the Forge.

Gordon

I'll just say I consider this sub-thread an example of how to constructively cope with the issues of communicating in a forum, that you almost never see on places like RPG.net. To me, that says a lot about the Forge.

Gordon

I just wanted to thank people for the first thread. It was a nice thread, I loved it a lot, and I miss it. You all helped wonderfully, and got me thinking for a game to be run early in the New Year (assuming the blind drunkeness of Hogmanay doesn't kill us all).

And now that I've seen LotR (my arse is still sore), I have yet more ideas for how groups are composed of varied individuals who solve problems in different ways - arrows, axes, luck, wit...

As far as subsequent threads go, Scattershot sounds fascinating. Best of luck with it. :smile:

Joe.

Hello,

Joe, I'm hanging my head regarding the violence committed to your thread topic, and I appreciate your tolerance.

On that note, perhaps the following issue can be taken to other threads too, as people see fit.

Evidently, references or accusations are being leveled toward me, Ron Edwards, regarding practices on the Forge and treatment of others. Various Forge members have received a barrage of private messages about such things, yet none have been presented in the light of day, in public, with any opportunity for me to respond.

Site Discussion seems like a fine place for such concerns to be aired.

Best,
Ron

Quoth Fang:
"If you are free with the ‘during play’ rewards, it will almost guarantee that the players will have to resort to
affecting the story a in a fashion (because they understand about the ‘over-the-top’ genrea) that almost can’t help
but yield more of these ‘during play’ rewards, and so on."

So when you exceed the "limit" that you've set (either positively or negatively) then you HAVE to describe some effect that goes beyond the result that the dice indicate. So, say I get a success that indicates a bad wound to the leg, but in addition, I've gotten enough success to exceed our predetermined limit, so I need to narrate some other effect: say I knock him over backwards into the water trough.

But if I went below the limit, would that mean I have to narrate a negative effect? And am I correct in understanding that "experience points" as you've defined them could be used to generate an effect that would result from exceeding the limit?

One further point of clarification: say we're playing in a cinematic Robin Hood kind of game (thanks for the example), where we've set the "limit" to be quite low. So even "low quality of success" rolls will result in player narration of events in some sort of "over the top" way? But what if the limit is high, then would the same example above (I wound him in the leg!) yield ONLY that result (a wound to the leg) with no further player narration?

And is the purpose of this to create a scale that the group can adjust to its desired level of over-the-topness?

Tor

Tor-

I don't know if I've got it or not, but I *think* I do. Let's see.


Ok, let's stick with the Robin Hood example, and let's say the game mechanic is that one rolls a dice pool, beating a given difficulty. Let's further say that the max successes is 6.



Option 1: Hong Kong Action Cinema - up to 6 physical successes.

0 Successes - failure - arrow narrowly misses target
1 Success - minimal hit - arrow nicks the baddie
2 Successes - moderate hit - arrow hits him in the leg
3 Successes - substantial hit - arrow nails him solidly in the leg
4 Successes - great hit - arrow hits baddie in knee, he falls to ground
5 Successes - superb hit - arrow skewers baddie to tree
6 Successes - absolutely ludicrous hit - arrow blows through baddie's knee, then hits his pal, skewering *him* to the tree


Option 2: Historical Realism - max 3 physical successes

0 Successes - the whiff!
1 Success - minimal hit - arrow nicks the baddie
2 Successes - moderate hit - arrow hits him in the leg
3 Successes - substantial hit - arrow nails him solidly in the leg
4 Successes - as 3 + some - with the hit, he spills his quiver
5 Successes - as 3 + lots - with the hit, he yells for help, using his pals' names (important clue for party)
6 Successes - as 3 + abagachips - as 5, + everyone who saw is impressed as hell at the PC's shooting. Deference from allies, enemies quail.




I was expecting the difference to be gamism vs narrativism, but it's not really. In example 2, the player can use explicit game mechanics to find a rich way to surmount in-game obstacles.
And it's not really a change of Director Stance either, because a player could (or not) describe for each the way the external environment responds to his/her actions.

It seems more a change of "tone" - describing the way reality behaves. Scaling the game mechanics to suit the desired *feel* of the game.


Back to Tor, in my take, if a player falls below the limit, no big deal. That's just a regular success, or a failure, or whatnot.

Low or high limits don't change the magnitude of the act, but determine how the benefits work out. High limit = split the Goblin King in half with a mighty swing. Low limit = deal "realistic" damage, with good news raining from above.


Comments?
Fang, is my interpretation about right?

-Matt

Garbanzo wrote:

Comments?
Fang, is my interpretation about right?