The Forge Reference Project

 

Topic: Points and abilities
Started by: Ron Edwards
Started on: 1/25/2002
Board: Scattershot


On 1/25/2002 at 7:26pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
Points and abilities

Hi Fang,

I have a number of Currency questions about Scattershot.

Here's one, admittedly from the basic grognard school of thought, but still genuine.

If starting character points are unlimited, then why are skills sensu stricto rated in cost according to their "difficulty" to learn?

As opposed merely to taking the abilities that seem just right for the character, case closed? That would seem to be the purpose of having no point caps. So ... why any cost to abilities at all? (Hero Wars, for instance, has no such thing in character creation, although it does come in regarding character development.)

The current construction implies that the "points themselves" are entities of note or worth or importance during play, but as far as I can tell, they aren't - after character creation, those points basically evaporate as game items.

Best,
Ron

Message 1308#12267

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ron Edwards
...in which Ron Edwards participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 1/25/2002




On 1/26/2002 at 7:38am, Le Joueur wrote:
[Scattershot] Points and abilities

Yeah, I get this a lot. "What's the point?" "Why have points with no cut-offs?"

Ron Edwards wrote: I have a number of Currency questions about Scattershot.

Tut, tut! If I remember my class on Currency issues, Currency has to do primarily with 'soy bean trading' between different components of the game, like characteristics. In Scattershot's character creation there isn't any way to do more than even the most superficial 'cashing in,' and even then the exchange rate is one-to-one.

Ron Edwards wrote: Here's one, admittedly from the basic grognard school of thought, but still genuine.

If starting character points are unlimited, then why are skills sensu stricto rated in cost according to their "difficulty" to learn?

Advertising. (And it's not supposed to seem like the learning complexity, if anything it would relate to how hard they are for the 'untrained' to practice.) Remember the sinister Uncle Fang? Well, he's hidden a fair amount of design and mechanical efficacy balancing behind the smokescreen of difficulty rankings with the abilities (we'll use skills in these examples, but it applies to everything).

Each ability has a number of facilities, things like 'usual' scope, time needed, subject limitations, opportuniy requirements, and so on. Two abilities, with everything else the same, have a difference of efficacy when, say, their realm of subjects is different. Say comparing Throwing and Shuriken. A person with Throwing can certainly throw shuriken for effect, but not vice versa. That would make Shuriken a rank 'easier' than Throwing right? If all else were equal, it would, but all things aren't equal. Shuriken are exceptionally better combat projectiles, thus a rank 'harder;' the two cancel out. It works that way all the way up and down Scattershot's point system.

Remember how I said "advertising?" Well, since one of Scattershot's primary design concerns is the guise of traditionality, I couldn't very well have separate 'prices' for all kinds of skills. So I just called the lowest cost skills 'Easy,' next up was 'Intermediate,' you get the picture.

Instead of changing the cost for each level and since raising a rating 1 point only costs 1 point, I simply gave them different 'starting levels.' Easy is 11 plus points spent, Intermediate is 10 plus points spent and et cetera. I could have just as easily said that all skills start at 12 and that easy skills cost 1 point, Intermediate skills cost 2 points, and so on; and then have people add points to customize their ratings. Doing it the way we do allows us to subtly limit how 'low' the 'simpler' skills can go, have more range for the more effective skills, create simplicity in presentation, and have a certain traditional 'feel.'

It turns a little strange when we took superpowers and spells into playtest. The playtesters didn't really like 'Incredible' rank powers that started out at 6 or so, plus points spent. What did fly was calling all superpowers Difficult and giving a number of different 'buy in costs.' For spells, instead of just a wide variety of unrelated choices, the playtesters liked our arranging them into 'colleges' (I forget what we called them) that also collected the 'imperfect' versions of spells into ranked lists. (Imperfect spells would have greater limitations of range, quantity, flexibility and such; obviously using a more 'perfected' spell 'holding back' allows 'imperfect' spell emulation.) It all looks really complicated, but the players liked it and at the end of the day the prices wound up being exactly the same.

Ron Edwards wrote: As opposed merely to taking the abilities that seem just right for the character, case closed? That would seem to be the purpose of having no point caps. So ... why any cost to abilities at all? (Hero Wars, for instance, has no such thing in character creation, although it does come in regarding character development.)

Because points are for when 'you care enough to spend the very best.'

I know that almost all past games (that have them) have used points to create some kind of functional, mechanical, or efficacy balance. (The texts of Scattershot even promote the idea of players setting 'challenge limits' and 'competing' to see who can make the most interesting characters, if they want.) That's not what we're doing in Scattershot. Technically? It's actually a very subtle niche-protection mechanic.

You see, since the points work out as an imperfect measure of efficacy, whenever they get clustered together, you can tell that the character's creator wants that aspect to be one of the character's signature elements. In keeping with ideas based on niche protection, but not limited to ideas like specialized character classes or formalized archetypes, Scattershot uses an 'outed' practice of being careful about concentrations of points. It comes out quite a complicated technique on paper, but the premise is fairly easy to imagine. Simply look for patterns and bring it up to the group so the group can avoid trumping a single player's favorite aspects (which actually becomes one of the central character creation techniques - ask me about the Sine Qua Non stuff later).

This also leads to a lot of the techniques for dealing with significantly different character efficacies (which are completely unavoidable when passing from one niche's favorite realm to another's). Ultimately, it even allows us to explain how to deal with broad-ranged efficacy deficiencies (like the infamous Lois and Clark example).

Ron Edwards wrote: The current construction implies that the "points themselves" are entities of note or worth or importance during play, but as far as I can tell, they aren't - after character creation, those points basically evaporate as game items.

Probably because I haven't done the character creation/evolution stuff justice or pulled in the more Gamist use of the Critical Junctures.

The section of character creation carries all the instructions for point-wise character development (or evolution as we call it because, in some cases, points can be moved out of one ability into another depending on character concept changes). Remember Experience Dice also translate into character development points using a vague 'gambling' system. Take however many Experience Dice you want to 'gamble,' roll and total them. Compare this total to; 6 gets you 1 point, 10 gets you 2 points, 14 gets 3, 18 gets 4 (and so on for each 4 more in total, get 1 more point; this works out to about a 1 in 6 chance of getting 1 point for each die you 'put up'). As Scattershot Transitions more towards Gamism (where I hear detailed character development mechanics are usually ascribed), Experience Dice are meant to be more rare of animals, something to be horded for emergencies and for character development (and for other reasons I haven't noticed yet).

When Scattershot gets more Gamist, the nature of the Critical Juncture mechanic changes. Instead of stressing the narrative consequence of the outcome (since that tends to color on moral, ethical, or thematic issues related more to Narrativism), it instead calls for the result to cause pointwise changes in the victim. Much like using character points to improve a character, Telling Blows force the victim to 'lose' these points (often by the acquisition of disadvantages).

Another mechanic I frequently forget to relate is that players can spend points on having Experience Dice (at the beginning of play and later). This and a few other ideas we are considering work to tie the value of Experience Dice tightly to the character point scheme (and this is a character currency issue we haven't solved to our satisfaction yet). The more Scattershot Transitions towards Narrativism, the more importance there is on working with Experience Dice (because of their use outside of Mechanical play and how they can empower a player in terms of their character's narrative impact). When Transitioning towards Gamism the stress falls more on their incarnation as and interaction with character points. In Simulationism they serve as a constant (imperfect) measuring system of efficacy usable in estimating the features that the players might be exploring as well as providing at least some verisimilar advancement mechanics (the role in Simulationism is something I am still trying to justify in the GNS, it's hard since I don't subscribe to the theory directly and must constantly translate my ideas into the vernacular); both Experience Dice and character points have a de-emphasized role in Simulationism (outside of niche protection issues involved with avoiding deprotagonizing characters in any venue).

Fang Langford

(Who never attended Julie-Grognard and has never been anywhere near Grensandwich Village or to New Amsterdam. I'm strictly a Rogue Scholar.)

Message 1308#12311

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Le Joueur
...in which Le Joueur participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 1/26/2002




On 1/26/2002 at 9:01pm, RobMuadib wrote:
Ability Limits and Powers

Fang

Thought I would ask this question again, as it probably got lost in one of my longer responses in a earlier. I agree with your assertion that no cut offs for typical Abilities is self-limiting, because of the diminishing returns gained in chance of Success, for each rating. That is for Ratings who measure your Acting/Opposing Ability.

However, this obviously doesn't apply to Powers and such where your Power is mapped to the UE, which provides a geometric increase in effectivness for each point gained. For example, what's to stop me to get a say a Power of 300 in my energy blast (able to vaporize the moon in one shot or whatever.), this could be pretty jarring when the other guy made Batman, or more cruely Hawkman:). The only solution would seem to campaign power limits?

Or to take a Geas spell that can 2.5 billion people, etc.

Rob Muadib

Message 1308#12320

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by RobMuadib
...in which RobMuadib participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 1/26/2002




On 1/26/2002 at 11:09pm, Le Joueur wrote:
RE: Ability Limits and Powers

RobMuadib wrote: I agree with your assertion that no cut-offs for typical Abilities is self-limiting, because of the diminishing returns gained in chance of Success, for each rating. That is for Ratings who measure your Acting/Opposing Ability.

However, this obviously doesn't apply to Powers and such where your Power is mapped to the UE, which provides a geometric increase in effectivness for each point gained. For example, what's to stop me to get a say a Power of 300 in my energy blast (able to vaporize the moon in one shot or whatever.), this could be pretty jarring when the other guy made Batman, or more cruely Hawkman:). The only solution would seem to campaign power limits?

Or to take a Geas spell that can 2.5 billion people, etc.

First of all, a Power of 300 costs 290 points (there are alternative mechanics that would make the cost 60 points with some limitations). The issue here is the economy of scale. Consider the fact that to have an attribute at barely superhuman levels only costs 5 points. Even a difficult skill at the 'normal' maximum costs only 5 points. What about 290 or 60 points? This kind of concentration of points (since the Invoked Rating of the superpower using this Power will, itself, costs no more than 5 points) is clear notification to the rest of the group that here is a character who is 'defined' by Power and all that entails. If the rest of the group 'buys into' this idea without raising any concerns, then it is likely that they are 'fine with it.'

If the group consensus of the game's intent allows this character then there is no problem. Of course, if players are going to create characters with this much power disparity, then they probably have some idea of how the game's narrative will handle it. As in the infamous example of Lois and Clark, you have this kind of disparity. Even though it is scripted, I believe you can imagine what kind of 'an understanding' would function to keep Superman's superpower efficacy from creating an unpleasant game. Having the focus on 'human level' interactions that are colored and dignified by occasional superpowered interactions set the tone for the game. This indirectly de-emphasizes the superpowers, just the way that the participants will have planned it.

It was exactly these kinds of examples that prompted me to remove the cut-offs in the first place. How could you emulate the Avengers if one player can't play Hawkeye because he has too few points. Or Green Arrow of the Justice League (an interesting parallel we plan to make use of in our setting)? The examples are innumerable. Scattershot presents: Universe 6, the World of the Modern Fantastic will obviously need a great deal of discussion on how to handle these issues of group concensus, and I hope someday to be able to express it.

Fang Langford

Message 1308#12322

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Le Joueur
...in which Le Joueur participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 1/26/2002




On 1/31/2002 at 3:28pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Points and abilities

Hi Fang,

I've been turning your point about group consensus over in my mind for a couple of days, and I keep coming a-cropper on this issue:

If standards are being set on point totals (either overall or toward individual abilities or sets of abilities) via group consensus, then we are still talking about point limits.

In other words, to say, "Scattershot does not use point limits during character creation" is not accurate. It certainly does not use them in the traditional fashion of text-set point-totals, but they are there via another method.

I suggest that the introductory text for character creation present this fairly and simply: "Point totals for character creation are set for specific instances of play and involve some interaction and decision-making among the members of the group."

Further, a larger issue does crop up, namely the problem with consensus decision-making in the first place - it does not resolve actual disagreements. Agreeing not to disagree universally fails, when the disagreement "matters" to anyone involved. Hence, what resolution mechanisms do you see being acceptable in Scattershot, beyond dissolving the group/play?

Best,
Ron

Message 1308#12542

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ron Edwards
...in which Ron Edwards participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 1/31/2002




On 1/31/2002 at 6:14pm, Le Joueur wrote:
Almost but Not Quite

Ron Edwards wrote: If standards are being set on point totals (either overall or toward individual abilities or sets of abilities) via group consensus, then we are still talking about point limits.

In other words, to say, "Scattershot does not use point limits during character creation" is not accurate. It certainly does not use them in the traditional fashion of text-set point-totals, but they are there via another method.

Ah, yes. This whole matter revolves on my defensive nature. How do I talk about Scattershot to hardened, traditional, point-based game players? I have to tell them 'there are no limits.'

The above quote is technically true; Scattershot doesn't use point limits, but it does permit them. Even when the players opt for point-challenges, this is does not become a hard limit. Point-challenges is one of the ways available for Scattershot to Transition to Gamism. Ultimately the game, and the techniques involved in playing it, are designed in the absence of point limitations.

Ron Edwards wrote: I suggest that the introductory text for character creation present this fairly and simply: "Point totals for character creation are set for specific instances of play and involve some interaction and decision-making among the members of the group."

I could never do that because it leaves a huge footprint saying 'use point limits' in the minds of the players. It also seems to foster overly traditional play, character-creation-wise.

Point-challenges are intended to be included only as an addendum to the techniques of Advanced stage mechanics. Sort of an 'oh, by the by, if you are more comfortable with it, players may set point-challenge limits during character creation.' The only hard rule is 'the gamemaster is not allowed to place any limitation on the number of points a character design uses.'

Ron Edwards wrote: Further, a larger issue does crop up, namely the problem with consensus decision-making in the first place - it does not resolve actual disagreements. Agreeing not to disagree universally fails, when the disagreement "matters" to anyone involved. Hence, what resolution mechanisms do you see being acceptable in Scattershot, beyond dissolving the group/play?

In regards to the point-challenge limits? I can't really conceive of an on-going disagreement. Once the group has conceived of its point-challenge policy, the issue is closed, isn't it? (The characters get created and cut-offs become moot.) If no one can agree on a specific point-challenge, since the mechanics are not bound by them, what harm is there in avoiding them?

When I say 'group consensus' in terms of point-challenges, I mean that the group has concluded a guideline that most of them will follow. By the very nature of Transition, Scattershot will be heavy with text talking about creating, supporting, enforcing, and if necessary, abandoning overall consensus. As I have stated elsewhere, I believe that in order for a game to Transition and remain focused, consensus is critical. This means there must be some explanation of how to 'sense' when Transition is appropriate, how to experiement with it, and most importantly, how to tell what works. If there is no overall consensus, there is no focus and the game doesn't work. Right?

No, I don't think writing this will be an easy task. I'm not even sure I can do it.

Fang Langford

Message 1308#12564

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Le Joueur
...in which Le Joueur participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 1/31/2002




On 1/31/2002 at 7:01pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Points and abilities

Hi Fang,

Looking over that last post, I see a certain dance going on between what will ideally happen, what can be encouraged to happen, and what can reasonably be expected to happen. I think that in practice, to be useful, some things are just gonna have to be nailed down.

Perhaps I should clarify one point before going on - when I am talking about disagreements, I am talking about in reaching consensus. Therefore, the consensus itself cannot "prevent" disagreement, as it hasn't happened yet - and I submit, cannot happen just because it "should." Groups fizzle and break apart at this stage very easily.

Also, a group may share a common vision regarding modes of play (ie Narrativism, level of critical juncture, etc), yet members may still disagree strongly about such things as power-levels and competency-levels. It strikes me as very, very problematic to hand a group a set of point-cost rules, say, "Make up characters, oh, and there are no point limits," and expect that the default will be seamless - unless something else is going on: some kind of dialogue, some kind of discussion, some kind of establishing of "values" of play-components among the players.

Even people who are disinclined to say "I make Joe Bob with a bezillion points in everything!" may be uncomfortable with the idea that someone could do such a thing. I think that "rules" sensu lato that at least designate sensible ranges for abilities, given a setting or type of story, are there for a reason.

Let's go to the videotape. You've run Scattershot quite a lot, and here you are, with the last group you played with using the point-cost character creation method. What did you tell them before they started to play? Did you tell them the setting or type of story? (E.g. "A Robin Hood type adventure") If so, did they simply hop in and make up characters tuned to that scale and scope of play, with no further guidance or dialogue? If there was dialogue, did you act as final-arbiter? If the dialogue was with one another rather than with you as final-arbiter, what did it consist of?

Tell us how it happens, with players, in actual play. If there's a way that "no point limits" actually works, and if you as GM or designer are not providing a "personal approval stamp" on that way, then I'd like to hear about it in detail.

Best,
Ron

Message 1308#12569

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ron Edwards
...in which Ron Edwards participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 1/31/2002




On 1/31/2002 at 7:52pm, Marco wrote:
No limits ...

Hi,

I've heard people talk about playing GURPS or Hero with no limits--I've even run games where the point totals for different characters were vastly different. However, I'd have problems with using either of those systems in a limit-less fashion most of the time.

A few notes:

1. Anyone can drop points (and play Hawkeye in The Avengers)--some systems include meta-game effects (which cost points) that will do things to protect those characters (i.e. Hawkeye is just as hard to kill as Thor because he has purchased a clause which says only attacks which are likely to knock him out can be leveled at him). Under those conditions the characters are "equal."

2. Often I *like* playing low power-scale characters but I don't want to be overshadowed by the gamers in the group who like high-powered ones. Since their like for high-powred characters is just as legitimate what do we do to compromise? Each play medium characters netiher of us like?

3. In traditional point-based games (which I happen to count as my favorites) often where I've spent a lot of points may not have much to do with what I want my character to be doing. That is, it might be *misleading* to the GM.

4. Since you are using point costs and some concept of "balance" judging from the Shuriken example, I would wonder whether or not you're putting a lot or a little effort into play-balance? If you don't balance things carefuly then the limited point pools won't work well (i.e. you'll get certain limited types of preferred character designs from players almost regardless of their GNS preferences).

I'm interested in seeing how those problems got resolved in practice as well.

BTW: Your endeavor with Scattershot does sound very interesting and you have some very cool ideas.

Something that I feel is overlooked far too often are large lists of cool ideas--especially those that interlock in an interesting fashion. Free form character design like Over The Edge is great for some types of character realization (Risus might even be better) but the part of me that considers character genreation an art isn't satisfied by those systems.

-Marco

Message 1308#12574

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Marco
...in which Marco participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 1/31/2002




On 2/1/2002 at 12:05am, Le Joueur wrote:
Pretty Harsh Criticism

I considered responding point by point, but I respect Ron's disinclination towards how it can destroy an overall message. As far as I read his post he has basically three issues.

The first I believe arises from the misconception that Scattershot's mechanics are the bulk of it. Far from it, I consider the mechanics the least of the three parts we plan to include. Aside from the genre-dependant material, there is the yawning absence of Scattershot's techniques. By far the largest of the components of the system, the techniques answer most of the questions he poses in his article.

Unfortunately for as fully as I have fleshed out the mechanics, I am far behind it with the techniques. I am hoping that nearly all of the consensus difficulties he has raised will be addressed largely by Scattershot's technique section on 'starting' a game, and especially by the examples. I realize there is a mechanical solution to what he describes, but I do not believe that would be anything but unwieldy in the rigid components of this 'Generalist' system.

I believe much of his problem stems from the fact that the material he's asking for varies a great deal, from genre to genre. Like examples, the genre-dependant material is yet forthcoming. This is just the mechanics, nothing more.

One of the reasons I was originally reticent to put this stuff up in the first place is because it is so unfinished. The mechanics were the easiest part by far. The techniques I don't even have all in one computer, much less in a readable form; everyone will have to be patient. Soon I will begin discussing 'chunks' of the techniques, but at this point I am far from even an outline of what I want to cover. I invite everyone to participate in the discussion of these techniques, because I see that as probably the only way I will be able to put my thoughts into an easy-to-assimilate form.

Second, I believe I have had a fair degree of difficulty describing another side to the 'power shift' or sharing ideal of Scattershot gaming. With comments like "What did you tell them?" and "Did you tell them the setting or type of story?" it is clear that Ron is implying that the gamemaster starts the process, creates the setting, or chooses the type of story. While that is a fine way to play, I do not intend Scattershot to 'start' with that perspective. (Nor do I plan to make it even difficult, I want it all, baby.)

In comments like "did they simply hop in" and "with no further guidance or dialogue," it is clear that the implied gamemaster is a pedagogue. While that might work in a classroom setting, and does make up a significant portion of traditional gaming, I do not see it as impossible under the type of gaming I am outlining in Scattershot. But it would do an injustice to my idea of 'shared gaming' to use it as the form to start with. (This was one of the toughest decisions we made about the techniques.)

Control issues between the gamemaster and players are highlighted by comments like "final-arbiter," "designate sensible ranges," and "personal approval stamp." Looking over the whole of Ron's article, I must conclude I create my own personal games completely backwards.

You see; it is the rare occasion that I "tell them the setting or type of story." In fact, it's largely the opposite; they tell me the setting and the type of story. In Scattershot I am trying to formalize either party "telling" this to the other party. By publishing a background heavy with examples and containing explicit discussion of genre expectations for the "type of story," the people playing Scattershot will come together with a common starting basis. That way the players can come to the gamemaster and say, "We want to play Universe VI but with heavy noir trappings and story structure," and both will know exactly what is being proposed.

There have been a number of times when a player or two have come to me with fully completed characters, begging for adventure. I don't think it my place, even as gamemaster, to dictate "sensible ranges" or give my "personal approval stamp." To me gamemastering is about facilitating whatever they throw at me. That's why I am so fond of the Lois and Clark example; I never would have conceived of a game about reporters in a superheroic world, especially with the power inequity. But darned if I couldn't see twenty ways to make it work as a game. That's what I am talking about when it comes to sharing; I let the players 'make up the world' sometimes (I'm just the gamemaster).

While we're on the topic of leaving tradition behind....

Let's talk about one of Uncle Fang's old swayback nags, Scattershot's point system. Here's another one of those 'bait and switches' I have written into the mechanics. Sure, I calls 'em points, and sure they look like they work just like points, right up until you get to that nagging 'no point limits' thing. It just don' look right, do it?

That's because they're not really points. Sure, that's what I calls 'em, and that's how they look, but it's all smoke and mirrors. It's actually a class-based character generation system. Remember D & D, from waaayyy back? What was there, seven classes? Were they balanced? Not exactly; but many people began using informal methods to keep all their players feeling adequately efficacious.

Then people started 'enhancing' it. There were multi-classed characters (does anyone remember dual-classed humans?), there were secondary proficiencies and on an on. (I dropped out of A D & D around the time of Monster Manual 2.) Here you have 'more chunks;' a fighter/thief/magic-user could do a number of different things, but it didn't really do much for how the players were feeling, those same informal methods carried on.

So how is Scattershot a class-based system?

Around that time Champions really got going. The whole hero system, make your own character up, whole cloth. The efficacy grail in hand, right? Well, not quite. Every game of Champions I ever played in had a number of 'common' character types; the brick, the esper, the stealthy spy-type, were these a result of the rules? Not really, just another informal method (to classify characters as a tool) to keep players feeling 'effective.' It's funny how a class-based system has been slowly sliding towards interchangeable units of ability and a point-based system showed signs of archetyping.

What the players really needed was something that gave their characters a feeling of value.

I've seen, and been awed by, a lot of current 'garage' games that create 'screen time' and plot-influencing mechanics to help get all the players to feel that their characters had adequate 'value' in the game. As much as I'd like to pursue something like that, I see them falter when it come to reaching those 'old school gamers' that have been revealed as my "lurking desire."

So what does that have to do with Scattershot? Well, for one thing, every product will practically begin with Exemplars. These will (as best as we can) be the archetypes of genre for the book that they're in. Not only that, but in a fashion vaguely similar to Shadowrun, they will allow Scattershot to be picked up and played right away. (Let's not forget, Palladium has been doing this for years; heck theirs even come with equipment lists.) I'll be putting the Chapter List for Scattershot up here one of these days soon, but until then remember, the second time the book comes around to characters, it goes into some depth on how to create them from scratch.

Remember Scattershot's 'Fat Points?' In Champions, it takes five points to raise an attack one dice in damage (roughly equivalent to raising a Rating in Scattershot one point). In GURPS, if memory serves an initial one-point Stat increase costs ten points (to Scattershot's one). Why are Scattershot's 'points' so big? Because they're not points, they're 'particles' of character class.

Five points in any Stat makes your character superhuman in that respect. (Heck, it doesn't take more than six points in any Invoked Rating to raise it to superhuman.) As soon as you put hardly any points into a character you can already see what kind of character it might be, the same way that Champions characters had informal 'classes,' only quicker.

Marco talks about putting points 'where they might be misleading' because it didn't have much to do with 'what he wanted to do with his character.' Unless I am mistaken, would this be an example of the 'academic paradox' I see in a lot of other systems. (Ron, maybe you can help me out here, you have the real world experience.) Let's say Marco wants to play a character much like Marvel Comics' The Hulk. Scientist becomes super-powered Mr. (green-)Hyde.

In most games I have found, no matter how much value the player places on Bruce Banner's scientific knowledge, they'd be a fool to spend hardly any points there, but I would, and I think Marco would too. (This is where you can help, Ron, if you had to put your academic acumen on paper, would it be a) few points, b) more than a few, c) many; use whatever system you choose.) Sure, those points might look misleading to a gamemaster at the once-over, but who stops with the once-over? Me, I'd pull Marco aside and point out that he's spent like half of his total points on Banner's academic qualifications; does this mean he wants a collegiate game? "No," he might say, "they're just there 'in case.'"

This gives me, as the gamemaster, a whole legion of possibilities where I can instantly pull non-player characters out of, who are connected to Marco's character. This kind of connection enhances Banner's significance in the game whenever I choose to use it, so those points are far from wasted. (This would probably be overlooked if Marco had to be careful 'how he spent his points,' as he might if there were a limit everyone was shooting for.)

Now let's say Marco, said "hey, yeah, that'd make a great game," instead. Then I'd have to tell him to 'take it to the players.' If they all like college, I'm off. (Or maybe everybody likes Lois' player's idea of a journalism-based game for Lois and Clark, either way, it gives me a background that means something to the players.)

Ultimately with all the Exemplars in the front of the book, and all the sample characters in the genre-specific mechanics listings (Didn't I mention that? For example, in the superhero book's laundry list of powers, every one of them is demonstrated by a capsule description of a character, hero or villain; these populate the world.), players should be hard-pressed to not compare their characters to that many examples. Comparison breeds contrast and the contrasts are the most important things the group needs to know to be comfortable with each others' characters in play.

At least that's the plan.

Fang Langford

p. s. I need some time to find the VCR, Ron. So what say we roll the tape in a few days, okay? (That being the third issue, I really gotta get outta here tonight.)

Message 1308#12592

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Le Joueur
...in which Le Joueur participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/1/2002




On 2/1/2002 at 2:19am, Paul Czege wrote:
RE: Points and abilities

Hey Fang,

Nice post.

Every game of Champions I ever played in had a number of 'common' character types; the brick, the esper, the stealthy spy-type, were these a result of the rules? Not really, just another informal method (to classify characters as a tool) to keep players feeling 'effective.'

Do you think this was the result of social contract stuff, negotiated niche selection, "Don't step on my shtick and I won't step on yours," or an outgrowth of the game's mechanics, certain power combinations just fall together based on a limited range of initial choices the player confronts, "When you focus on DEX it makes sense to do (blank) and (blank)?" And which of these two are you pursuing with Scattershot?

For example, in the superhero book's laundry list of powers, every one of them is demonstrated by a capsule description of a character, hero or villain; these populate the world.

This is very old school, and I like it quite a bit. Back in the day, you'd have your own game world that wasn't Greyhawk, but you'd drop the Keep (from Keep on the Borderlands) onto it. You'd put the Village of Hommlet onto it. You'd have the tarrasque somewhere. Maybe you'd create your own version of Mordenkainen because you needed a powerful wizard for a specific scenario of your own design. There was no pressure to maintain faithfulness to a published setting or to historical accuracy, or to be comprehensive in what you used. It was pick and choose from what you had available. It will be impressive if you pull this off with Scattershot. The trick will be avoiding the perception that you're providing a setting.

Paul

Message 1308#12598

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Paul Czege
...in which Paul Czege participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/1/2002




On 2/1/2002 at 2:19am, Marco wrote:
Ok ...

I'm taking your word for it.

Your ideas are no stranger to me--and, since I'm as "old-school" as you're likely to find here, if you can convince me--you've got it made.

I do belive this is the first time I've ever seen Ron accused of implying "gamemaster is a pedagogue," though.

I still don't have a firm grasp on what will happen when a real-world group of players (i.e. non-theorists with at least some power-gamer desiers, in-group rivalries, and/or vastly different styles than one another) wil do with it. Your solution sounds a little like peer-pressure to me but it's obvious you've got something more elegant in mind.

As you probably know, I've got a multi-genre game with a supers system. It's point based--I'm quite aware of the "archetype" idea (in fact, JAGS has lists of gener specific archetypes with specific rules--and, more and more, meta-game rules--to flesh them out in various world books).

That's the perspective I'm coming from. We looked hard at supers-archetypes and decided that (as Ron feels about "genre") they were so muddy as to be unquantifiable. Some characters stood out as paragons of the archetype--but others were blurry.

It'll be interesting to see what you do with it (where does the character who is both faster than normal and stronger than normal--to the same degree--fit into the archetype?)

-Marco

Message 1308#12599

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Marco
...in which Marco participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/1/2002




On 2/1/2002 at 5:41pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Points and abilities

Great posts all around, everyone. This is a real meeting of minds. (Damn! Paul, me, Marco, Fang. Talk about a variety of approaches and standards.)

Fang, you're right that my proposed questions did take the classic "GM proposes, player disposes" as the foundation. But my question still stands, which perhaps better phrased, is, "How is Scattershot presented in practical play such that its goals, rather than those of point-crunchers, are achieved?" But wait! Read the next paragraph.

I am perfectly willing to accept that the answer lies in the techniques rather than the mechanics and will wait patiently for all that to emerge. I hope that this thread has emphasized what specific issues "better be there" in those techniques.

Of course, I would like to get a preview, especially in terms of instances of playtesting, whenever you get the time to present it.

[One of the sub-issues that emerged in the discussion concerned spending Bruce Banner's points, and I agree with every argument Fang presented. I think it is very interesting that Champions, 1st-3rd editions only, required no point cost for scientific or any other professional expertise - only for their application to super-powered stuff like computer or sec-system hacking. It was one of my favorite features of the system which, among much else, was jettisoned for the uber-Sim 4th edition.]

Best,
Ron

Message 1308#12635

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ron Edwards
...in which Ron Edwards participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/1/2002




On 2/1/2002 at 7:32pm, Marco wrote:
The problem isn't uber-sim ...

Hi Ron,

RE: The hulk

I wonder if you're addressing the detail of Champs 4th into science skills, their presence at all, or the way points get disbursed making it a bad-gamist-payoff to buy a bunch of science skills? You talk like you're addressing the "Sim-issue" but Fang is talking about the "mechanics" issue (if I spend all my super-hero points on nuclear physics I won't be a super-hero).

That, I don't think, is a Sim issue at all. It's a mechanic issue pure and simple.

At least one way to address it is to separate normal-guy stuff from power-stuff (that's what JAGS did for that very reason). That way you can be the Banner-hulk guy without having to "be a fool to spend hardly any points there" (not that I disagree with Fang's statement in general).

Of course that creates other problems (how do I play a super-powered ninja if I can't buy extra "normal stuff") but there are degrees of solutions for these as well.

-Marco
[ For that matter, Fang's Turn-A-Telling-Blow-into-some-game-event mechanic (which I think is brilliant) seems purely Sim to me: yes, it's meta-game but it seems like just a run-of-the-mill dramatist mechanic--which could be either Nar or Sim. ]

Message 1308#12647

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Marco
...in which Marco participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/1/2002




On 2/1/2002 at 11:16pm, Le Joueur wrote:
RE: Points and abilities

Marco wrote: I still don't have a firm grasp on what will happen when a real-world group of players (i.e. non-theorists with at least some power-gamer desiers, in-group rivalries, and/or vastly different styles than one another) wil do with it. Your solution sounds a little like peer-pressure to me but it's obvious you've got something more elegant in mind.

Make no mistake, we will be putting in a whole mess of 'techniques for negotiating' the (insert game feature of choice), founded on the idea of 'no surprises' from the 'infra-genre' created for the game. Explicit, pre-character generation, genre expectations are what Scattershot's techniques are all about. It's a lot more complicated than just giving (or fighting over) development point limits.

Marco wrote: As you probably know, I've got a multi-genre game with a supers system. It's point based--I'm quite aware of the "archetype" idea.

That's the perspective I'm coming from. We looked hard at supers-archetypes and decided that (as Ron feels about "genre") they were so muddy as to be unquantifiable. Some characters stood out as paragons of the archetype--but others were blurry.

It'll be interesting to see what you do with it

That's the trick then. We don't do archetyes; never planned to. We're doing Exemplars (as in examples, it's in the dictionary, really). They will look a lot like archetypes (if we're doing our jobs), but we won't be 'under the gun' for our impressions of the archetypes.

Marco wrote: where does the character who is both faster than normal and stronger than normal--to the same degree--fit into the archetype?

You mean like Captain America? Or are we talking even more powerful? (I need some examples or relative measures.)

Fang Langford

Message 1308#12661

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Le Joueur
...in which Le Joueur participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/1/2002




On 2/1/2002 at 11:20pm, Le Joueur wrote:
On Critical Junctures and Telling Blows....

Marco wrote: For that matter, Fang's Turn-A-Telling-Blow-into-some-game-event mechanic (which I think is brilliant) seems purely Sim to me: yes, it's meta-game but it seems like just a run-of-the-mill dramatist mechanic--which could be either Nar or Sim.

I'm not inclined to agree. The Critical Juncture mechanic, I think, suits all modes depending on how it is applied.

For example, to the Gamist, it creates an extra challenge deciding how far they can 'push' things without racking up more point-based disadvantages (unlike the usual Hit Point loss). In that application, a Telling Blow forces you to adopt more mechanical disadvantages, such as losing the use of your hand. Mechanics are closely enforced for 'how severe' the result is and the character creation/evolution mechanics provide the tools to make those changes. I am thinking that either the gamemaster or group vote will be there to make sure you've 'penalized' yourself well enough.

For the Simulationist, it opens up the possibilities of what a blow that bad would do to your exploration, especially making it a lot more verisimilar than '8 points of damage.' This application allows a fair amount of detail (which should be able to satisfy the most strict of Simulationist's hunger for verisimilitude, after all, they are the ones supplying the detail) without the appendage of critical hit tables that never quite seem to fit the situation.

For the Narrativist, it calls for them to create a 'turn of events' for their character and can be quite cleverly used to illustrate their theme. This application doesn't really require a point-based result, but instead takes the lead of the person playing the recipient (the character whose life will be changed after all), the author of that character.

I actually think it fails when it comes to how I understand Dramatists play. From what I have read, I would expect them to want the gamemaster (the purveyor of story) to create the detail that arises as a result of a Telling Blow (to properly put it into their Dramatic context). Sadly, I have not come to any ideas how to satisfy this type of desire (I can only hope that Dramatists feel fortunate in being empowered with their character's fate and don't feel left out.)

I believe Critical Juncture is only as meta-game as you want it to be. In the gamist example, it isn't any more meta-game than picking a nasty disadvantage off a list, nothing motivates it to have a greater impact aside from efficacy for them. For Gamists and Simulationists, I don't see it as needing to be anything more meta-game than a critical hit table (that takes a little more creativity).

But thank you for the vote for what I have always considered one of Scattershot's 'clever bits.'

Fang Langford

Message 1308#12662

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Le Joueur
...in which Le Joueur participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/1/2002




On 2/1/2002 at 11:26pm, Le Joueur wrote:
It's Coming, It's Coming, It's Coming (3 right?)

Ron Edwards wrote: But my question still stands, which perhaps better phrased, is, "How is Scattershot presented in practical play such that its goals, rather than those of point-crunchers, are achieved?" But wait! Read the next paragraph.

I am perfectly willing to accept that the answer lies in the techniques rather than the mechanics and will wait patiently for all that to emerge. I hope that this thread has emphasized what specific issues "better be there" in those techniques.

Yes, sir! Actually, this was always on the list (wherever that got to) of things to work out before play.

One thing that has emerged so far, that can be related sans example; nobody seems interested in 'crunching numbers' or munchkinism when there are no point cut-offs. Sure you may get an uber-character or two at first, but I already have a practiced technique for that one; 'Give Them Enough Rope.' After that, my experience has been they settle down. (Well, technically there was that string of campaigns founded on that premise. But since everyone bought into it, it never seemed a problem. The other players went from having the uber-character save them to watching him 'get his just desserts' and back.)

Ron Edwards wrote: Of course, I would like to get a preview, especially in terms of instances of playtesting, whenever you get the time to present it.

I am looking forward to doing something this weekend. Probably only one of the most recent games as my campaign notes are quite scattered (pun intended).

Ron Edwards wrote: One of the sub-issues that emerged in the discussion concerned spending Bruce Banner's points, and I agree with every argument Fang presented. I think it is very interesting that Champions, 1st-3rd editions only, required no point cost for scientific or any other professional expertise - only for their application to super-powered stuff like computer or sec-system hacking. It was one of my favorite features of the system which, among much else, was jettisoned for the uber-Sim 4th edition.

Believe it or not, I musta missed that rule. (Or was that the one that read terribly patronizingly like 'not that it will matter....') When I first conceived of Free Skills, I thought similarly. But then later it seemed to imply that those same skills were of no value. Kind of deprotagonizing way back during character creation, don't you think?

Because of the 'size' of Scattershot's points (read that, 'particles of character class'), I couldn't place as much weight on these skills as a single point would, nor could I make them worthless. 5-for-1 was the compromise we came up with. (And later, when I extended it to the rest of the mechanics it seemed perfect for 'character' and inferior spells and useless powers and...you get the idea.)

The trick of it is Scattershot treats the Character Sheet as a contract with the group. On the one hand, everyone expects you to 'play your character,' so it's there to prevent certain types of General play abuse. On the other hand it not only tells the gamemaster what kinds of situations you desire to showcase your effectiveness (or where they can mine for narrative elements in a pinch), it also tells the other players what to expect from you. (Scattershot's Character Sheet has more than just entries for the mechanics on it.) On the third hand, because of the 'particles of character class' effect, anyone can immediately see your realms of efficacy and it makes negotiating 'niche protection' much easier.

Wait, that's three hands...

Fang Langford

Message 1308#12663

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Le Joueur
...in which Le Joueur participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/1/2002




On 2/2/2002 at 5:24pm, Marco wrote:
RE: On Critical Junctures and Telling Blows....

Le Joueur wrote:
I actually think it fails when it comes to how I understand Dramatists play. From what I have read, I would expect them to want the gamemaster (the purveyor of story) to create the detail that arises as a result of a Telling Blow (to properly put it into their Dramatic context). Sadly, I have not come to any ideas how to satisfy this type of desire (I can only hope that Dramatists feel fortunate in being empowered with their character's fate and don't feel left out.)


Man, those poor Dramatists ... (on The Forge, anyway)

The Dramatist (under GDS) *is* the Narrativist or the Simulationist under GNS. It's someone who is in the game for the story. They might want:

1. To pick what they think suits the story best (in terms of theme)
2. To pick what's most 'dramatic' to the other participants.
3. What explores the GM's story best (in which case many of the outcomes might be equally desirable).
4. Something that lets them demonstrate their character (which, being story-oriented, will fit the story)

What Dramatist doesn't do is prescribe *how* the player is interested in exploring story--it tends to assume that the player and the group has either figured that out (i.e. they're not dysfunctional) or should probably work on it more (which is why GDS *isn't* about game-design).

So the idea that it fails for the Dramatist would be like saying:

It fails for the Narrativist player.

--or--

It fails for the Sim-player who is interested in the experience of a story (rather than the Sim-player focused on simulation of a reality).

Since it does neither, it isn't Narrativist or Simulationist--it's both. It isn't just Narrativist (which is what I guess I was really getting at).

-Marco
[Note: a really GM-oriented dramatist might *ask* "hey, is it better for me to go down here--or have Stormbringer break?" If a player asking that sounds dysfunctional, I'm speechless. ]

Also Note: I'm talking about a character with Super Strength and Super Speed. (i.e. stronger and faster than Captain A.)

I'm not sure if your Exemplars are simply plotted points on a graph or something else.

Message 1308#12680

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Marco
...in which Marco participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/2/2002




On 2/2/2002 at 5:36pm, Marco wrote:
RE: It's Coming, It's Coming, It's Coming (3 right?)

Le Joueur wrote:
One thing that has emerged so far, that can be related sans example; nobody seems interested in 'crunching numbers' or munchkinism when there are no point cut-offs. Sure you may get an uber-character or two at first, but I already have a practiced technique for that one; 'Give Them Enough Rope.' After that, my experience has been they settle down. (Well, technically there was that string of campaigns founded on that premise. But since everyone bought into it, it never seemed a problem. The other players went from having the uber-character save them to watching him 'get his just desserts' and back.)


I'm unclear on this--I could play unlimited-pts Champions if I wanted to--with a social contract if that'll work for my group. What else does Scattershot bring the table that over Champs 4th with no-points?

Also: who is getting their "just deserts?"

Mind you: the techniques section might, alone, justify the existence of the game. Formalizing social contracts might well be a better balancing mechanism than point totals--but social contracts also have loopholes and the law doesn't work well on it's spirit but rather its letter ...

-Marco

Message 1308#12682

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Marco
...in which Marco participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/2/2002




On 2/2/2002 at 6:11pm, Le Joueur wrote:
RE: On Critical Junctures and Telling Blows....

Marco wrote: Also Note: I'm talking about a character with Super Strength and Super Speed. (i.e. stronger and faster than Captain A.)

So we're talking about super soldiers? Stronger, faster, better than everything than human without having 'powers?' This isn't an archetype, its a group of them. If the character focuses on implements, you get some of the various weaponsmiths. If not, you get someone like Wonder Man. Just saying that their stronger and faster, isn't enough information; I hate to point it out, but strength and speed are all the Hulk has. (And I am ceasely tired of hearing his foes say, "how can anything so big, move so fast?")

Marco wrote: I'm not sure if your Exemplars are simply plotted points on a graph or something else.

If that's the case, then what is any pregenerated character? I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Fang Langford

Message 1308#12688

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Le Joueur
...in which Le Joueur participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/2/2002




On 2/2/2002 at 6:53pm, Le Joueur wrote:
RE: It's Coming, It's Coming, It's Coming (3 right?)

Marco wrote: I'm unclear on this--I could play unlimited-pts Champions if I wanted to--with a social contract if that'll work for my group. What else does Scattershot bring the table that over Champs 4th with no-points?

Well for one thing, a combat system that, by being simpler, doesn't become more important than the characters in it (or at least not as much). I haven't seen the fourth edition, but it used to have a really sophisticated system for 'who goes when' with no attempt to look at 'who had the upper hand.' When I've played it, the game's combat tended to be focused on phases, dice, and OCV/DCV, rather than what's going on in the gameworld.

Also, in Scattershot, there will be techniques that are unnecessary in Champions (because it has a point cut-off mechanism) to serve a player's interest in being valuable to the game (by doing it in ways other than attempting to give everyone equal efficacy mechanically). Scattershot "[brings] to the table" the "social contract," instead of making you create your own.

Besides that, Champions is a 'superhero' game, Scattershot is a generalist system with accent on fusing genres. And then there's all that Transition stuff. If you have your own social contract and only want to play superheroes, Champions is fine.

Marco wrote:
Le Joueur wrote: The other players went from having the uber-character save them to watching him 'get his just desserts' and back.)

Also: who is getting their "just desserts?"

The uber-character whose been given 'enough rope' (as in 'to hang themselves').

Marco wrote: Mind you: the techniques section might, alone, justify the existence of the game. Formalizing social contracts might well be a better balancing mechanism than point totals--but social contracts also have loopholes and the law doesn't work well on it's spirit but rather its letter ...

God I hope so (the 'justification').

The whole spirit/letter thing is chiefly why I call one thing mechanics (as in meant to be taken by the "letter") and another techniques (meaning to be taken by the "Spirit")

Fang Langford

Message 1308#12691

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Le Joueur
...in which Le Joueur participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/2/2002




On 2/5/2002 at 11:04pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
Dubious Return

Well, Fang, I'm going to rain on the parade, sorry.

All I have read so far is that the points system is useful insofar as it indicates to the GM and other players what the character is about. How do the actual statistics not do this themselves? You say that throwing shurriken is hard, I say its easy. What does it matter? I can look at the character sheet and see that Will's got it at 14. He must be interested in using it I guess, seeing as he put it down. In fact, Marco's argument goes double here. What if I take a hard science skill just to round out the character? It'll have a lot of points in it, more than an easy skill. How does the difficulty of the skill relate to my interest in using it in a game? I might feel that I should not take that skill so that the game doesn't accidentally go off in the wrong direction. You say that you'd confer with the player as to why it's on the sheet? Then why look at the points at all. Just mandate a chat about the character, and that will handle things better, anyhow.

Heck, what this argues for is a system where you rate your skill whatever you want and then assign a second value at whatever level you like to indicate how much you'd like to see the game revolve around that skill. If you have these" techniques" for allowing players to limit themselves reasonably, how do these points tell them when they've reached that limit? Seems like extra work for a dubious return.

Mike

Message 1308#12773

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Mike Holmes
...in which Mike Holmes participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2002




On 2/6/2002 at 2:15am, Marco wrote:
And ...

Hi Mike,

And if you decide to play with the option of limited points then you're going to be looking for some kind of "blance" no matter what.

It was mentioned that GURPS STR cost 10 for the first point but only 1pt in scattershot. That's fine so far as there are no limits--then everything might as well be 1pt--but if there are limits then you have to ask what stats are worth in relation to skills ... etc.

In a perfectly "balanced" system, points would be tokens of *relevance* in the game--that is--if nuclear science was never important--for the LIFETIME of the character--it'd be free. Obviously we don't have this kind of precience (and the players will try to use their skills anyway).

However, we can make guesses: In 1st Edition Champs there were no rules to be a phycist--all you did was bust up bank robberies (I'm being facetious--but making a point). The writiers knew (pretty well) how good the powers were *in a fight.*

That turned out to be a pretty good measure of what they were worth *in the game*--until you got to Mind Control. Mind Control is arguably more useful outside of combat than in--and it tends (IME) to wreck non-combat encounters if it's too subtle and powerful.

The idea that balance either can't be attained or isn't a worthy idea (I saw someone refer to it as an 80's-thing) is rediculous--if you pay points for something you should get what you pay for.

Mike is right--if points are tokens of relevance (not, as you said, particles of character class), then you should simply pay some percentage (out of 100, probably) based on how often you want it to come up.

-Marco

I may be in the vast minority--but I love points--I love crunchy chargen. There's something almost artistic in working out a character--working within a conception of give and take--and being rewarded for it with a cleverly made (IMO) character.

Message 1308#12784

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Marco
...in which Marco participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/6/2002




On 2/6/2002 at 4:17am, Le Joueur wrote:
RE: Dubious Return

Mike Holmes wrote: Well, Fang, I'm going to rain on the parade, sorry.

First of all, to be utterly clear, I love rainy days!

Now, back to our regularly scheduled response.

Mike Holmes wrote: All I have read so far is that the points system is useful insofar as it indicates to the GM and other players what the character is about.

That and as generated for mechanical results from MIB numbers in resolution. Does it need any further function? (Personally, I think that if it had more function, it might begin to overshadow the gaming done with it.)

Mike Holmes wrote: How do the actual statistics not do this themselves?

How about them? That would work except advantages and disadvantages don't have ratings. As I will demonstrate below (and since we are using an illusion of 'compare a die roll to a number' type of mechanic), doing it this way offers a little obfuscation.

Mike Holmes wrote: You say that throwing shuriken is hard, I say its easy. What does it matter?

Not much really, the skills lists exist primarily for point challenges. If desired, players could simply treat all skills as 'Intermediate' and buy from that point. It has been suggested that in absense of the laundry lists, this would be Scattershot Light. (And actually I suggested Shuriken was Intermediate, and it only matters a point either way. Believe it or not, there is a fair market of people who find it difficult to make a character without something like a 'laundry list' to choose from.)

Mike Holmes wrote: I can look at the character sheet and see that Will's got it at 14. He must be interested in using it I guess, seeing as he put it down.

It is true that at the 'low end,' points matter mostly in broad comparison (Will has a 15 point character, Xavier has a 20 point character; better be careful not to let Xavier's steal the show.) Points become more of an issue in 'higher power' games (the shuriken example only costs 3 points).

Mike Holmes wrote: In fact, Marco's argument goes double here. What if I take a hard science skill just to round out the character?

Well, all of the 'hard science' skills fall onto the Free Skill list. You could have 5 'hard sciences' for a single point. Add to that the fact that (as far as we have determined) most people won't even bother taking it unless it comes at a high level, so even as Free Skills they begin with Ratings like 12 or 13, it doesn't take many points to reach 'expert levels.'

Mike Holmes wrote: It'll have a lot of points in it, more than an easy skill. How does the difficulty of the skill relate to my interest in using it in a game?

It doesn't, difficulty is about Opportunity of use and efficacy. Skills that 'get used' infrequently are 'cheaper;' skills that 'do more' are more expensive. Calling them 'Easy,' 'Intermediate,' and 'Difficult,' is subterfuge for this kind of pricing. It's the same as calling them target numbers; actually they are predetermined modifiers on a static number used for the comparison (as discussed elsewhere in this forum).

The limited Opportunity issues raised by Free Skills illustrate the other side of the issue. You have 5 'hard sciences' for the same cost of a Shuriken skill of 11. You must play carefully to get into situations where any of the 'hard sciences' come into play (offering a roll), whereas properly equipped, Shuriken is usable any time you have a target who needs hurting.

Mechanical items on the character sheet are (in our design-house jargon) player empowerment appliances. A player may use them to 'take over' non-mechanical play where they apply. Making oneself these opportunities is a challenge for the Gamist (I think).

Mike Holmes wrote: I might feel that I should not take that skill so that the game doesn't accidentally go off in the wrong direction.

Since these mechanics are player empowering appliances, they are to be used only as inspiration by the gamemaster. If you are running the game specifically by the character's mechanical write-ups, you're 1) missing a lot of technique-based material also on the character sheet, and 2) placing perhaps more accent on the character's numerical efficacy than may be necessary (it depends on the group you are playing with). Either way, if it becomes obvious very quickly it will also be obvious what you are doing; if not, it must suit the group.

All this will become much clearer when I delve into the Sine Qua Non character creation/management techniques shortly. They discuss the process of actually making the character, what should be paid attention to and what to gloss over (these change depending on what kind of play you're looking for, hence they are 'techniques').

Mike Holmes wrote: You say that you'd confer with the player as to why it's on the sheet? Then why look at the points at all. Just mandate a chat about the character, and that will handle things better, anyhow.

Many people have frequently commented they do not have time for these kinds of conferences. Having character points on a character sheet makes checking for the need (as opposed to compelling it) very quick. Unexpected point concentrations become red flags and pursuing those alone cuts down on the handling time of character creation for the gamemaster.

One thing your 'use the actual statistics themselves' technique suffers from is, for example take eight skills; 10, 12, 11, 14, 9, 11, 10, and 15, all relatively close together. In Scattershot they'd cost something like 1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1, and 6; ignore the 1s and you only need to look at the third, fourth, and last (and the list as a whole, hence the 1s). The third is obviously Difficult, but worth spending up. The fourth must be important even though Easy and the last near vital, both Difficult and expensive. 'Using just the statistics' adds a lot of 'noise' to the observation.

Mike Holmes wrote: Heck, what this argues for is a system where you rate your skill whatever you want and then assign a second value at whatever level you like to indicate how much you'd like to see the game revolve around that skill.

You are a very good designer. That's exactly what we've done. Except due to Transition issues, the 'second value' was something we never managed to put a mechanic to. Instead we have the Sine Qua Non technique. Sine Qua Non means 'without which, not;' simply, it means the things so fundamental that, in changing them, you get something else. In the technique's easiest form, you ask the player what are the first three things they thinks of when considering their character and what are the last three things that they would want anyone forget about the character.

In longer form, in breaks things into those things which 'define' the character and are intractable to any other than the player. Those things important about the character that may be subject of change by external circumstances, and the rest is 'decoration.' The first rank, the actual Sine Qua Non, while not simply being things only reflected by mechanics, must be addressed and respected; this would be a high 'second value.' The last rank, the 'decorations,' would be the lowest 'second value.' Doing it this way allows a player to place importance on things no mechanical system could hope to cover completely. For example, in a romance novel game, the expectation of 'falling in love' can be in a character's Sine Qua Non, but a point-based mechanic of love would detract from the 'feel' of the game.

So yes, we do have a 'second value' placed on things reflecting how much the player wants play to revolve around them (it's just not limited to the mechanical aspects listed on the character sheet).

Mike Holmes wrote: If you have these "techniques" for allowing players to limit themselves reasonably, how do these points tell them when they've reached that limit? Seems like extra work for a dubious return.

Are you talking about the 'challenge limits?' If the players, as a group, choose to have a challenge limit, it becomes a matter of (after the bidding) each making the best character they can within that limit (right now we are testing letting the gamemaster join, to making specific non-player characters who participate, but are limited to only the scenes the players orchestrate).

And you are quite right, it is of extremely dubious return. Were it entirely a mechanical system, there would be so little justification for such that I almost couldn't justify it myself. Heck, looking at it that way, you begin to see the argument for going totally systemless. Play whatever you like, make up your abilities as you go. You make a good argument for that.

But if you want consistency, then you're gonna need character write-ups. Write-ups have limited value unless there's a way to ensure at least the appearance of impartial conflict resolution (between gamers, not game constructs). One of the most familiar ways to that is dice. When you have dice, you probably need ratings This was laid at our feet at about Scattershot's birthday when a friend of mine said he couldn't play in my games; I said just make up a character. He said he couldn't without a system. Soon we were asking ourselves, "why couldn't we create our own game?" 'Beat me on a twenty-sided dice' became 'Fish or Sofa.' 'Fish or Sofa' became the most god-awful collection of optional rules and special exceptions that I couldn't even remember it all, and I was the creator/gamemaster.

Teaching new players about 'how to game,' illustrated a need for rules and not-rules. These became the mechanics and techniques. Differing play styles demanded mechanics to support the panoply and techniques to describe when they applied. This lead to Transition.

This lead back to the original player (or rather to players like him, the traditionalists) who started us down this road. It turned out that many of these traditional players were not very comfortable with a game where 'you just take whatever abilties you want' with total abandon. Points (or as I think of them, fundamental particles of character class) became a 'comforting mechanism' for them and served as a passive niche protection system. Does it have a huge value to the whole of the game system? Not really. What it does do is provide the most concrete of foundation upon which to illustrate the techniques. It comforts traditional 'build your own character' players and yet provides them a 'runway' to launch them into new styles of gaming through Transition. Would Scattershot suffer in the absense of them?

Only in my opinion.

Fang Langford

Message 1308#12789

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Le Joueur
...in which Le Joueur participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/6/2002




On 2/6/2002 at 6:39pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
Skeptical

Still not buying it.

First, are difficulties based on learning difficulty or on pertinence to the game? I can't see them being both. If they are the first, then they have the problem that I mentioned earlier. If they are the second then I still maintain that they are of very limited usefulness considering that one can just refer to the stats themselves.

Also, for either, aren't the difficulties or pertinences going to differ from game to game? I would assume that you would have different levels listed in each of your setting books, at he very least. But that still would not suffice as a game that was set in, say, a "modern" cops setting would have very different pertinences for a group that wanted to play sneaky detectives versus one that wanted to play a SWAT team.

You can't get away from the fact that a skill will be as pertinent in play as the scenario dictates, or, in shared play (BTW, stop throwing that out there like we don't get it, we do) as the players dictate. Either way, you do not know how important particular skills will be before hand. I can see those dirt cheap science skills being the most important skills in the game (I've certainly run games where that was true). By placing pertinence values on these things aren't you forcing these values on your players? "Oh, Bob has a lot of points in Rifle skill (which happens to cost a lot), he must want to do a lot of combat."

Then you backtrack and say that there will be techniques that will help define a character in terms of play direction. Great! Why need any mechanical method, then? Or, if one is needed, why not relate it to the players scores. I really find it hard to believe that a player or GM needs a statistic assigned to another statistic that is generated based on the game designers priorities to tell him that the statistic in question is important to the player. Either the player will say so, or the statistic should sufice.

And don't go off claiming that what I'm asking for is a systemless game. Not in the slightest. If I were into that crap I'd be off with the collaborative storytellers doing whatever it is that they do. All I'm saying is that if you're not going to limit spending they you should take advantage of the opportunity to reduce everyone's workload (and the potential dissaffection of those math haters out there) and just skip that step. It seems to me that the system would work just fine without it.

As far as niche-protection, the system doesn't actually limit players, so they can easily tromp on into each others niches. At least with a limited point game, you can only tromp so far. As to why "character types" show up in Champions, perhaps its becuse the books give tips on building those types, and suggest them. Informal archtypes. Nothing magic about how points work that make this happen. Even in a totally archtype-less game we'd still impose our own learned archtypes and make characters based on labels. Or, perhaps we could get beyond that and make more realistic characters. Either way, I don't see your particular granularity level as being any better than any other for this purpose.

But, then I'm sure that you'll tell me that I'm just not seeing it all together, and that the techniques will all make it clear. Sure. I guess we'll have to wait. But lets just say that I remain extremely skeptical.

Mike

Message 1308#12841

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Mike Holmes
...in which Mike Holmes participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/6/2002




On 2/6/2002 at 9:59pm, Le Joueur wrote:
Skepticism is a Feature, Not a Bug, for Us

Mike Holmes wrote: Still not buying it.

'atsa fine, we no selling it yet, boss.

Mike Holmes wrote: First, are difficulties based on learning difficulty or on pertinence to the game? I can't see them being both. If they are the first, then they have the problem that I mentioned earlier. If they are the second then I still maintain that they are of very limited usefulness considering that one can just refer to the stats themselves.

It's not both. The first is an intentional illusion, a crutch for 'crusty old gamers.' I don't know if I can explain this any better; they are intentionally of limited usefulness. Expanded usefulness would have the mechanics begin to overshadow the rest of the game. Likewise, if the usefulness of the point system were greater, it would overshadow people who will choose to refer to the stats. It's actually supposed to play either way; one shouldn't overshadow the other, play it as you like.

This is how we handle some of the Transitional material; point-based games are often stereotyped as Gamist mechanisms. Gamists can play by the points however it is comfortable, without trashing the system. Simulationists (with some accent on verisimilitude) can, just as easily, play it by the ratings 'straight' without forgoing large chunks of 'usefulness.'

Mike Holmes wrote: Also, for either, aren't the difficulties or pertinences going to differ from game to game? I would assume that you would have different levels listed in each of your setting books, at the very least. But that still would not suffice as a game that was set in, say, a "modern" cops setting would have very different pertinences for a group that wanted to play sneaky detectives versus one that wanted to play a SWAT team.

At the least? Yes, that's the plan. The difference between "sneaky detectives" and "SWAT team" is more complicated than that. I am not going to go into detail in a 'points' thread, but the "SWAT team" would be played out of either the cinematic or superhero products (and be shades different in both), and the "sneaky detectives" would be in either the 'consulting detective' or 'romance novel' products (or any supplements therefore designed). "Modern cops" is too vague for us to base a single product in for exactly the reasons you list.

Mike Holmes wrote: You can't get away from the fact that a skill will be as pertinent in play as the scenario dictates, or, in shared play as the players dictate. Either way, you do not know how important particular skills will be before hand. I can see those dirt cheap science skills being the most important skills in the game (I've certainly run games where that was true). By placing pertinence values on these things aren't you forcing these values on your players? "Oh, Bob has a lot of points in Rifle skill (which happens to cost a lot), he must want to do a lot of combat."

I can't respond to this except to say that you seem to be oversimplifying. This goes something like, Forcing: "These are the only skill costs, use them or buy someone else's game," Offering: "These are some skill costs we think are appropriate to the genre, don't forget to check out the section on customizing both the genre and the costs, if you want," and Abdicating: "Make up your own costs, we think you should do all the work."

We aren't pressed for space, so we have the luxury of not having to dictate costs or skip them entirely. So much so that we include a solid list as a starting point for people who need it, as well as information about how the costs change when the genre does. Even so, we are only talking about a single point cost difference of one either way (and by weight, few skills come out to either Easy or Difficult, the bulk - more than half - land in Intermediate range).

If a game seems like it is going to skew so that a few 'dirt cheap' skills will frequently carry the day, I should hope that the players realize this before play or they might feel betrayed. When that can happen, I hope that, if specific point costs are important to the group, they will take the time to 'adjust' the genre (and point costs) to suit. Really, it seems like you are making a big deal out of something that sounds quite unusual; a group of people who place a lot of personal value on point total mechanics who aren't willing to give the point cost-adjusting mechanics equal attention.

As I described in the Sine Qua Non vignette earlier, the mechanics and point totals alone are not meant to make such a potent message about the character. (As I have said, this is of intentionally limited usefulness.) On the other hand, I think that the point cost mechanics would be a disservice if they made no statement at all. To me, a coherent game requires that all character creation/evolution mechanics should at least contribute (without dominating) to the statement of 'who the character is.'

Mike Holmes wrote: Then you backtrack and say that there will be techniques that will help define a character in terms of play direction. Great! Why need any mechanical method, then? Or, if one is needed, why not relate it to the players scores. I really find it hard to believe that a player or GM needs a statistic assigned to another statistic that is generated based on the game designers priorities to tell him that the statistic in question is important to the player. Either the player will say so, or the statistic should suffice.

I don't believe it should be all or nothing. Your repetitive use of the term statistic makes this hard to respond to. Let me assume you meant you "find it hard to believe that a player or GM needs a development point level assigned to player chosen ability that is generated based on the game designers priorities (suggested starting points for Ratings) to tell him that the player selected rating in question is important to the player."

You sound like you are assuming we are expecting people to play it both ways, we don't. People who are most comfortable with point-based games have found the points a good system, people who look at things in absolute terms (full rating scores) won't probably be using the points to make characters anyway. (And yes, basically we are including two separate and different techniques.) The difficult part to explain is how the game will have each group focus in on one or the other.

This has to do with the principle of 'staying focused' during slow Transition. A Transitional game could not be played in all its forms simultaneously, but neither should it 'skip' parts because they don't all work at the same time. Our compromise is to make the different parts of no particular drastic importance so that groups not using them will not feel a gaping absense. This forces our mechanics to look a little 'blurry' by themselves.

Mike Holmes wrote: And don't go off claiming that what I'm asking for is a systemless game. Not in the slightest. If I were into that crap I'd be off with the collaborative storytellers doing whatever it is that they do. All I'm saying is that if you're not going to limit spending they you should take advantage of the opportunity to reduce everyone's workload (and the potential dissaffection of those math haters out there) and just skip that step. It seems to me that the system would work just fine without it.

That's good. That's how it's designed. Out of the several 'points of focus' accomodated in Scattershot, we appear to be talking about two clearly designated groups. The first group likes points, they will 'get into' the techniques about challenge limits, group limits, using point-based disadvantages caused in combat and so on. The second are people who don't, and they won't even look at the suggestions about limiting points or counting them out during combat.

These two groups will have cues in the techniques sections for which things they might consider, I hardly think that one game can satisfy both groups at the same time. Our mechanics are the 'platform' which all groups will have in common. That means the mechanics alone cannot enforce point limits, nor can they require point use (but you can't write a mechanic that says "don't use any of the mechanics").

You may have noticed the reduced emphasis on point spending in the mechanics; I can understand that, as a member of one of these two groups, you might argue that the points are unnecessary altogether. That would cut out a whole segment of our audience and severely limit the Tranistional flexibility we intend on. Play it without the points; it is not only a valid way of playing it, we describe and promote it.

I'm sorry that I took a weak opportunity to 'step up on the soapbox,' with the systemless commentary. I did not intend to put words into your mouth. I am just quite fond of the reasoning that lead us to the place we are now, and I like to go on about it. (You have noticed my pechant for useless designer note tangents?)

Mike Holmes wrote: As far as niche-protection, the system doesn't actually limit players, so they can easily tromp on into each others niches. At least with a limited point game, you can only tromp so far. As to why "character types" show up in Champions, perhaps its becuse the books give tips on building those types, and suggest them. Informal archtypes. Nothing magic about how points work that make this happen. Even in a totally archtype-less game we'd still impose our own learned archtypes and make characters based on labels. Or, perhaps we could get beyond that and make more realistic characters. Either way, I don't see your particular granularity level as being any better than any other for this purpose.

Our system does prevent niche invasion, but our mechanics are not the entirety of our system. It is a system of mechanics and techniques. Champions did hint at 'character types;' it did so in only the most informal way (back in the early editions, I have much to catch up on there), we formalize that in the techniques. In early Champions there was magic in how the points did that, the guidelines were sparse, the examples possessed of maybe too much character, how the points were related to the "informal archetypes" in any way was subtle magic to me.

I believe you are right about the natural proclivity towards 'house archetypes.' We just take it a step farther and provide suggestions (we even call the Exemplars to proclaim their relationship to actual archetypes).

And I agree, I don't see our "particular granularity level as being any better than any other for this purpose." Or any worse. So what's the problem? Does it bother you that there is additional material for other styles of play? Perhaps because the mechanics are designed to be common to all styles we are promoting, that there isn't enough there for any individual style that you are familiar with. I don't know. I am not even sure I am putting this all that well. Would it be clearer if I sidetracked the upcoming technique articles and instead began the thread on our design specifications and goals?

Mike Holmes wrote: But, then I'm sure that you'll tell me that I'm just not seeing it all together, and that the techniques will all make it clear. Sure. I guess we'll have to wait. But let's just say that I remain extremely skeptical.

Your skepticism is one of the most important tools I have for clarity of vision. Without skeptics and nay-sayers, I would never have discovered half the theories I consider central to my works. Please remain skeptical, it's for the best and I thank you for it.

I had to pull this aside:
Mike Holmes wrote: (BTW, stop throwing that out there like we don't get it, we do)

I know you do Mike. I know most of the people currently reading the Forge do. This is, so far, Scattershot's only home on the Web, and I am not going to let myself be surprised when people who are not familiar with these ideas are directed to this forum. Forgive me for going into that kind of detail, I am not trying to demean anyone who is currently reading this. I just tend to write with a wider audience in mind.

Fang Langford

Message 1308#12855

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Le Joueur
...in which Le Joueur participated
...in Scattershot
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/6/2002