So I've been lurking on the Forge for a long time. I lurk because I like what comes out of the discussions here, but I have trouble getting involved in those discussions myself. I'm in over my head.

Anyway, I'm having trouble understanding Bangs. What I get about them seems really good, though, so if anyone can give me a jargon-light explanation of how to use them in my games, I would appreciate it.

Thanks!

Here's from the provisional glossary

The Technique of introducing events into the game which make a thematically-significant or at least evocative choice necessary for a player.

a means for moving from Decision to Decision on the part of the players. ... A real Bang gives the player options and requires his or her decision about how to handle it, which in turn reveals and develops the player-character as a hero.

I've run games in which player-characters encounter NPCs who may or may not become (as a result of later player-character actions) valuable allies, traitorous faux allies, or nobodies, with no obvious right or wrong answer to the players nor to the game master. Since players know up front that I genuinely have no idea how this NPC will react to the players' characters' actions -- I will simply run the NPC as believably as I can within the strictures of the campaign genre -- these encounters do not center on a trick about whether or not to trust the NPCs. Instead, they involve unscripted NPC reactions to players' decisions. Would that be a type of bang?

Doctor Xero

I've been thinking about, and trying to use, Bangs. And the more I do so, the more convinced I am that the GM cannot unilaterally create a Bang. The GM can create events and situations, but what makes them a Bang is how the player responds to them.

As Trevis quoted: "The Technique of introducing events into the game which make a thematically-significant or at least evocative choice necessary for a player."

But you can't make a choice necessary for the player. At best you can make it entertaining and hope that they'll choose to make it, rather than to address the situation as a Gamist puzzle whose solution must satisfy everyone without costing anything.

So I think that Bangs may be tightly linked to a functioning Social Contract wherein players express a desire to define their character, the good and the bad, and to enjoy and pursue them both. Without that commitment to engage in the choices, I don't think you can really present a Bang.

But I'm very unsure about this. I keep thinking that somebody might have a technique that lets you present narrativist Bangs to a gamist group.

Hello,

Quick aside for Doctor Xero: actually, that technique is called Intuitive Continuity and it may or may not be combined with Bang-driven play.

I've played with Intuitive-Continuity GMs who used our interests and actions, as players, to decide "what's going on" - but who then did not provide Bangs. The events that were significant (via player-interest becomes GM-emphasis) acted as doors to the secrets and scenes that he, the GM, decided were to become important.

The benefit of this technique, for this GM and our group, was that it didn't waste time as we had to guess what he wanted us to inquire about, and then inquire.

Bangs, on the other hand, may be utilized in Intuitive-Continuity play, but may also be utilized even if the GM has a very solid back-story and stable of NPCs and so forth. What he or she cannot have, however, is a firm idea of the outcomes of actions and scenes. Using Bangs, by definition, throws the outcomes of actions and scenes straight into the actual play itself.

Best,
Ron

But you can't make a choice necessary for the player. At best you can make it entertaining and hope that they'll choose to make it, rather than to address the situation as a Gamist puzzle whose solution must satisfy everyone without costing anything.

I hear what you're saying, Ralph, but don't you want more than just to have the characters touched by consequences?

My intuition is that you also want the players to recognize (and perhaps celebrate) that these consequences are a result of their choice, and that that is hard (perhaps impossible) to force.

What do you think?

My intuition is that you also want the players to recognize (and perhaps celebrate) that these consequences are a result of their choice, and that that is hard (perhaps impossible) to force.

What do you think?

I've seen lots of remarkably creative ways that players will game these choices, rather than addressing them. Sometimes out of character, sometimes in.

Say you present the player with the choice in your example.

They grumble out of character, saying "Man, I'd like to leave him, but I don't want to screw up your game. It really ticks me off when you railroad us like this. I sure would like to have a chance to actually effect the game world."

Then they rescue the villain, but have no emotional investment whatsoever in the scene. When the villain does bad stuff later, they feel no sense of responsibility or involvement, because they view it as an action that was forced upon them.

Does that make sense?

TonyLB wrote: They grumble out of character, saying "Man, I'd like to leave him, but I don't want to screw up your game. It really ticks me off when you railroad us like this. I sure would like to have a chance to actually effect the game world."

Tony,

I think that if you want to use Bangs to support or enhance a certain style of play, you have to make sure all the players are on board and comfortable with that style of play.

I personally think Bangs come into their own in a style of play where there is no pre-planned plot, and all the decisions players make really do matter.

In that kind of a game, you just reply to them "If you want to leave him, then leave him. Anything you choose to do is valid."

I have seen people unintentionally try to get out of feeling like they made a real choice, though, if that makes any sense. (In the example in question, some of my players might say "Great, he burns. He deserved it." and walk off.)

That kind of "I'm a heartless bad-ass" response can still lead to interesting situations, though. In the game I'm currently running, one of the PCs is essentially a body-hopping possessor ghost. Her Bang for the last session was that an old enemy showed up, with her body (repaired, alive, in decent health) in tow. The enemy walked into an ambush, sure that she'd be willing to negotiate (since he had her body hostage).

Her response? She killed him and her old body both. Classic "Heartless bad-ass" moment, but the actions that followed (she stopped treating her possessed bodies with any care at all, hopping from one to the next as soon as they were injured or worn out) showed that she had made the decision she wanted to make, that she wouldn't let someone else have a hold over her even if it meant the permanent loss of her "real" body, but it still fucked her up.

I guess my point is that it really is all about the attitude with which Bangs are approached by the players. If they're not on board, they may very well game the choice as you said. If they are on board, even a choice that makes people say "What the hell?" is going to lead to interesting play.

I agree wholeheartedly. That's pretty much what I was originally saying... that the GM cannot unilaterally make a Bang, it has to be a cooperative venture in which the GM offers a choice and the player embraces it.

Hi folks,

Right, a key point of Bangs is that all choices are ok. There are no "right" choices. Instead of seeing it as a choice "tree" like you'd get in a lot of prepared adventures, see it as a blank canvas, and the player is painting who their character is by making those decisions.

The usual difficulty that folks have in utilizing Bangs is that many game texts and GM's advice columns advise railroading, either directly or through a series of approval/disapproval clues at the table. For many groups, both the players and the GM cannot even conceive of play without there being a reward/punishment effect to every action.

This isn't to say there isn't in-game consequences, but often those in-game consequences are used to mask "at the table" punishments and rewards to drive the players into certain choices.

Players who have been conditioned to this start looking for, imagining, or projecting those "clues" when presented with Bangs. Sometimes they get really confused or angry, because they're not able to process what's happening at the table. That's also assuming the GM isn't falling into the habit of "loading" each decision presented.

Bangs are pretty easy, as long as you aren't trying to play with the stick and carrot. Playing a bit of Inspectres or the Pool is a great way to knock the habits out and train you for using Bangs.

Chris

Zak Arntson wrote: In this instance, you could grumble right back to the player, "It's not going to screw up my game. I've presented a situation for your character to react to. If you save him, or let him burn, you're affecting the game world. In fact, _how_ you perform either action affects the game world. So, what would you like to do?" That's the essence of a bang, and something the group needs to understand.

Doctor Xero wrote: There have been a few times during which, in order to keep the spirit of play necessitated by both our Social Contract and campaign genre, we have had to require a specific response.

Roy wrote:

Doctor Xero wrote: There have been a few times during which, in order to keep the spirit of play necessitated by both our Social Contract and campaign genre, we have had to require a specific response.

Can you give us an example of that? I'd appreciate a little clarification.

Roy

Oh, for an easy example, if the players and game master have decided to play a classic superhero game, then if The Batman finds The Joker hanging from a cliffside and losing his grip, no player can give in to the momentary temptation just to let The Joker fall and thereby end his murder sprees. From an A-D-&-D perspective it would be more practical to let him die, and The Batman's player might really feel like letting off steam by stomping on The Joker's fingers to encourage him to fall, but it's not something The Batman would do in the classic superhero comic books, and it violates the feel of that particular genre. If the campaign is a continuity heavy campaign (as most of ours are), once a superhero has spilled blood for pragmatic or coldblooded reasons, it changes the campaign mood and ambience permanently. So the player playing The Batman is required to respond with trying to save The Joker in such cases.

Valamir wrote: How do you as GM judge whether this is a "genre violation" that must be curtailed vs. potentially one of the most compelling moments of the campaign precisely because its a violation of the sort that will come back to haunt the hero in dramatic fashion in the future?

Thanks for expanding on that, Doctor Xero.

That's one of those sticky issues that can be a game-breaker if it hasn't been addressed in the social contract.

Roy