The Forge Reference Project

 

Topic: the balance of power - brainstorming
Started by: Matt Wilson
Started on: 7/17/2005
Board: RPG Theory


On 7/17/2005 at 12:05pm, Matt Wilson wrote:
the balance of power - brainstorming

Hey.

So if you've ever played Primetime Adventures, you know about Budget, which is my response to what I always considered a daunting task as GM, which is providing the right amount of adversity for the player characters. There are very few games that don't leave the amount of toughness totally up to the GM, and I'm thinking that for most games, in all three GNS categories, the wrong amount of adversity can really mess things up. Unfortunately, all you get from most games is some advice that says "this should be about right."

And that seems always to lead to threads about 'oh, damn, I made the villain too powerful and had to fudge a roll."

Of course, as Ron pointed out in an actual play thread, a big part of the trick to combatting tough GM choices in PTA is that there's no consequences on the character sheet. The player sees no reduction in the ability to participate. Vincent did something similar with Dogs. You can be shot to bits and dying, but the effect on your sheet is totally up to you. I think MLwM is kind of like that too.

Okay, but let's say, then, that game conflicts do in fact impose penalties on the sheet in front of you, and no buts about it. Now we're back to "if I misjudge, your ability to shape the story is unfairly impaired."

So after that long setup, here's what this thread's all about: various ways to complete the sentence, "it's functional in play for the GM to assign adversity levels in a game where conflict loss affects character ability if..."

I'll kick it off with this idea that's been rolling around in my head: Character impairment is offset by new temporary abilities for the player. Suppose you lose a conflict like in TSOY and you're down to a -3 penalty. That gives you 3 more gift dice, or it gives you three 'fact tokens' or something.

Any ideas out there?

Message 15993#170453

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Matt Wilson
...in which Matt Wilson participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/17/2005




On 7/17/2005 at 1:43pm, xenopulse wrote:
Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

For completeness sake, I proposed a system in this thread that does the exact same opposite of giving players penalties: it always gives players currency when they let their characters become hurt, persuaded, or seduced. That goes along with what you said about being rewarded for losing a conflict.

As to your question, we could say:
- if the player already has other, equally viable means to shape the story (e.g., player characters are only one way yo play; players can also (use some currency to) negotiate story elements or take control of NPCs, or maybe they play a troupe and can switch characters)
- if what doesn't kill you makes you stronger (reward XP for losing - this is like a Gamist way of auto-adjusting difficulty levels)
- if there are different ways of addressing conflicts through the character and not all of them are affected by the penalty.

Forge Reference Links:
Topic 15040

Message 15993#170455

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by xenopulse
...in which xenopulse participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/17/2005




On 7/17/2005 at 3:44pm, matthijs wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

What Christian said. Plus:

- If the players have equal power in deciding character effectiveness. If the GM can set any adversity level, but the players can say "yeah, and due to my magic spaceship pilot ninja expertise, I can actually go FTL" and match that level. Easiest done with limited resources on both sides - both GM and players have some sort of Budget, in effect.

Message 15993#170475

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by matthijs
...in which matthijs participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/17/2005




On 7/17/2005 at 4:56pm, timfire wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

-- when the penalty is thematically or genre-wise appropriate.

-- When the penalty plays into some larger design goal.

I'm thinking of The Mountain Witch here. In tMW, the effect of the mechanical penalty incurred by damage has on play is that it decreases the character's already fragile independance. Wounded characters become more and more dependant on other characters helping them out. This dependcy increases the trust-related tension between characters.

Speaking generally, I think its also significant that tMW has mechanics (Trust) that can be used to negate the mechanical penalty inposed by damage.

Message 15993#170480

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by timfire
...in which timfire participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/17/2005




On 7/17/2005 at 5:13pm, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Hi Matt,

First, I'd also like to note that on the flip side- uncontrolled "bonuses" also can cause disruption- though many more games are fearful/wary of that than of uncontrolled penalties.  Note how many games warn against handing out magical devices or powers, but have no problem handing out penalties.  HeroQuest's "damage" for failing contests without an equivalent for earning bonuses is a pretty clear example.

That said- Penalties work when:

They increase the tension

Trollbabe's injuries reduce the number of rerolls you can apply to a contest, but they also increase the stakes of losing.  L5R's & the Solar System's Wound tracks also increase tension- because each wound level has more than one hit- the tension is increased when you are close to falling into a worse penality (such as being 1 box, or wound away).  Compared to normal hitpoints, where there is no penalties along the way, this works better as a tension device.  And compared to normal wound tracks, it doesn't instantly equate to a death spiral.  Overall, tension is increased whenever the stakes go up (like gambling double or nothing), or when the chance of taking a penalty increases.

They force alternate tactics

When one ability is crippled, having other abilities that can be applied allow folks to start being creative in play.  Both HeroQuest and Dogs are good at this- because you have to get creative to bring in other bonuses (or even "bad traits") in order to maintain effectiveness.

They force game specific goals

As Tim noted, penalties can force actions to make up for it, or you can force actions to heal.  For example, in D&D, the "8 hour rest" becomes necessary as spellcasters use up their resources, mostly as a "just because" mechanic, compared to TSOY's "social kickin' it" way of refreshing pools.  For one game idea I had, I wanted the only means of healing to be through relationships- which is a way of forcing certain kinds of interactions in play.

All that said, the key things that need to be well understood in terms of penalties (or bonuses, currency in general)
- Duration (just once, a pool, for X amount of rolls/time, until remedied, forever)
- Range & Accuracy (makes things harder/easier, makes things impossible/automatic)
- Ease of Negation (make one successful/failed roll, player controlled conditions, GM fiat, no negation possible)
- Options (Decreases/Increases player options?)
- Handling (how hard is it to remember to apply?  How hard is it to calculate? To keep track of?)

Chris

Message 15993#170483

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Bankuei
...in which Bankuei participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/17/2005




On 7/17/2005 at 5:38pm, Matt Wilson wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

timfire wrote:
I'm thinking of The Mountain Witch here. In tMW, the effect of the mechanical penalty incurred by damage has on play is that it decreases the character's already fragile independance. Wounded characters become more and more dependant on other characters helping them out. This dependcy increases the trust-related tension between characters.

Speaking generally, I think its also significant that tMW has mechanics (Trust) that can be used to negate the mechanical penalty inposed by damage.


Hey Tim:

I like the reasons for applying penalties. I'm all for that. In fact, I want that in my next game. But how do you moderate the GM's ability to inflict those penalties? That's really what I'm after here, control over the level of adversity. What in TMW, for example, keeps the GM from just asking for roll after roll after roll until the player fails? Can the GM assign a difficulty level? If so, what keeps him or her from abusing that, either intentionally or not?

Message 15993#170485

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Matt Wilson
...in which Matt Wilson participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/17/2005




On 7/17/2005 at 5:54pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Matt wrote:
I like the reasons for applying penalties. I'm all for that. In fact, I want that in my next game. But how do you moderate the GM's ability to inflict those penalties? That's really what I'm after here, control over the level of adversity. What in TMW, for example, keeps the GM from just asking for roll after roll after roll until the player fails? Can the GM assign a difficulty level? If so, what keeps him or her from abusing that, either intentionally or not?


Hold on, Wilson.

What prevents the banker in Monopoly from sliding money to himself and his friends?

If you try and write rules to prevent abuse, you will fail. I promise. Just write clear guidelines. Look at how I specifiy how the GM sets difficulty in TSOY:

http://www.anvilwerks.com/src/tsoy/book1--rulebook.html#types-of-ability-checks-and-how-they-work

You could abuse that, but if you did... well, I doubt playing any game would be fun with you. See my point? You can't stop a-holes from being a-holes. Don't try to write your a-holes into the corner.

Message 15993#170486

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Clinton R. Nixon
...in which Clinton R. Nixon participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/17/2005




On 7/17/2005 at 7:09pm, Nathan P. wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

"it's functional in play for the GM to assign adversity levels in a game where conflict loss affects character ability if..."

...there's a floor to how low character ability can go, and that floor preserves some amount of effectiveness.

I think the classic (for Indie games, at least) floor is "you can't kill a character without that players permission." A more traditional one might be that you always get to roll one dice for somethign you have a skill in, or whatever. But I'm sure you could insert a floor, probably in combination with other things mentioned in this thread to serve your design goals - like, spaceship pilots can never lose the ability to fly a spaceship, or something, if thats what yours games about. Or you can't have a lower blowing-up-heads rating than your love-your-mother rating. Or whatever.

Message 15993#170489

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Nathan P.
...in which Nathan P. participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/17/2005




On 7/18/2005 at 12:33am, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

I think the key concept here is that the loser of a conflict doesn't lose opportunities to shape play thereafter. The two general ways that come to mind are

1) compensation, which folks have talked about already: when defeated, if you lose some of X, you gain some of Y (e.g. XPs, or story tokens for the loser in Capes)
2) mutation, which I don't think we've addressed particularly: when defeated, you don't lose any X, but X is changed into a form you might not have chosen had you won. (Dogs does this much of the time, though not always). For example, you could go into a battle with the Trait "I am the leader of a mighty army +13" and come out of it with the mechanically equally powerful, but thematically rather different "I am seeking absolution and revenge for the mighty army I led to its annihilation +13." Or "I trust my wife +4" to "I think I'm going to have a serious discussion with the milkman +4."

Message 15993#170511

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Sydney Freedberg
...in which Sydney Freedberg participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/18/2005




On 7/18/2005 at 12:36am, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Which gives me a tiny nubbin of an idea for a "damage system," actually. If you lose a conflict, then you can choose (1) reduce a trait you previously created for your character, which means your character will be less effective - or - (2) let the winner assign your character a trait, which will increase your character's effectiveness but not necessarily in ways you're going to like. (This latter is basically Tony Lower-Basch's Misery Bubblegum design).

Message 15993#170512

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Sydney Freedberg
...in which Sydney Freedberg participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/18/2005




On 7/18/2005 at 1:32am, timfire wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Matt wrote: I like the reasons for applying penalties. I'm all for that. In fact, I want that in my next game. But how do you moderate the GM's ability to inflict those penalties? That's really what I'm after here, control over the level of adversity. What in TMW, for example, keeps the GM from just asking for roll after roll after roll until the player fails? Can the GM assign a difficulty level? If so, what keeps him or her from abusing that, either intentionally or not?


You know what, I think I see what you're trying to get at.

The reason the penalty works in tMW is because the players REAL mechanisms for afffecting play---Trust points and character Fates--aren't hindered by the negative penalty. I guess its similar to what xenopulse said:

xenopulse wrote: - if there are different ways of addressing conflicts through the character and not all of them are affected by the penalty.


Is that what you were going for?

Message 15993#170517

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by timfire
...in which timfire participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/18/2005




On 7/18/2005 at 6:41am, bcook1971 wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

I like systems where the GM can take things too far, and the players have some system-supported way of "cheating."

• Sorcerer - self-mastery.
• DitV - set limited Stakes; assign benign or story-enhancing Fallout.
• BW - spend Artha to tweak results.
• TSOY - Gift of Dice; BDTP; spend Pools for bonus dice.
• Universalis - spend Importance worth of tokens to strike Facts from the play log.

You want to see 'em tremble, but not bawl.

Message 15993#170536

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by bcook1971
...in which bcook1971 participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/18/2005




On 7/18/2005 at 8:09am, matthijs wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Matt wrote: "it's functional in play for the GM to assign adversity levels in a game where conflict loss affects character ability if..."


...when ability reaches a specified lower limit, the game state changes.

For example: A zombie game where the GM tries to damage the protagonists, so they can't effectively fight the zombies. However, if he goes too far (due to an overly successful roll, for example), protagonists die and become Intelligent Master Zombies, now with the ability to control other zombies and help the protagonists.

For example: When the GM kills one of the characters, that character's player becomes the GM, and the GM enters play with a low-effectiveness character.

Message 15993#170541

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by matthijs
...in which matthijs participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/18/2005




On 7/18/2005 at 12:45pm, Technocrat13 wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

I tackled this directly as I was working on FH8.  Matthijs said something close to what I did, what with "limited resources on both sides."

So, my response is;

... when the GM has to earn the authority to impose penalties.

In FH8 every NPC, every mob of NPCs, every opposition that the PCs might face always starts with the same exact statistics.  If the GM wants to bump up the power of the opposition he has to spend a resource.  To earn more of that resource he has to provide the players with the opposition that they've asked for. 

While FH8 dosen't have a system that calls for the GM to impose direct penalties on the PCs, I think the idea is the same.  If the GM cannot impose a -X penalty on your roll unless he expends a point of resource for every point that goes into X, AND the GM has to earn those resources by way of giving the players what they want, then you've got functional play.

-Eric

Message 15993#170564

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Technocrat13
...in which Technocrat13 participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/18/2005




On 7/18/2005 at 1:30pm, Matt Wilson wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

wrote:

The reason the penalty works in tMW is because the players REAL mechanisms for afffecting play---Trust points and character Fates--aren't hindered by the negative penalty. I guess its similar to what xenopulse said:

xenopulse wrote: - if there are different ways of addressing conflicts through the character and not all of them are affected by the penalty.


Is that what you were going for?


Yes! Although I still want to know: can you as GM in TMW choose how hard to make a conflict? Are there such things as "Easy/medium/hard" conflicts? Or is it more like Trollbabe? If you do have that ability, how much control over the game can it give you?

Message 15993#170574

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Matt Wilson
...in which Matt Wilson participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/18/2005




On 7/18/2005 at 2:26pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Hiya,

I'd like to suggest that The Mountain Witch, Trollbabe, and Primetime Adventures all share a feature which renders the "easy/hard" construction of skill tests in traditional role-playing obsolete. This feature has been an informal part of role-playing for a long time, and I've always used it more-or-less as a litmus for whether I wanted to play with a given group or not.

It can be found as a necessary but unstated assumption in The Pool. If you don't use it in (say) Over the Edge, the game is unplayable. It's an explicit feature in Dust Devils, Universalis, Dogs in the Vineyard, and Hero Wars, and frankly muddled by changes in the latter to HeroQuest.

Which is ... conflicts are settled by rolls. It doesn't matter how much "damage" you take or how "hard" it was, if a character loses, the conflict is resolved against the character's interests.

Further, without the presence of such a conflict-of-interest, there is no roll. At all. You could suggest that your character jumps over a mountain, and the group all looks at you like, "shut up." You could suggest your character fixes the nuclear reactor, and if it's not a conflict in the sense I'm talking about, then he just does 'cause he's a nuclear-fixer guy. Doesn't matter if it's "hard" to do.

At first this might look all loosey-goosey and consensual-story, but it's not. It's actually strictly vicious in practice - always roll when it matters, and eat the roll (relative to other system issues like Currency mods and so forth) once it's made. It's exactly the opposite of the duplicitious Golden Rule of the Storyteller system.

So ... basically, the GM in The Mountain Witch cannot keep throwing oni devils at the player-characters in order to keep them from entering the Witch's castle gate. Because if they win the roll, then that conflict is solved. All narration must abide by the standard that they do, indeed, enter the gate. Hell, the person who narrates might even state that 100 more oni show up and get slaughtered, just as a piece of the narration (these games vary in terms of how much you can add along the way; TMW is quite generous, whereas Trollbabe isn't).

Matt, I think this concept accounts well for your questions. Do I need to parse it out a bit more? I'm thinking maybe that real Actual Play examples are called for.

Best,
Ron

Message 15993#170589

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

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/18/2005




On 7/18/2005 at 3:17pm, Miskatonic wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Ron, could you elaborate on how this varies in Hero Wars vs. Hero Quest? I'm familiar with both texts but don't know what you're referring to. It would probably serve to clarify your larger point. (To me, at least.)

Message 15993#170612

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Miskatonic
...in which Miskatonic participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/18/2005




On 7/18/2005 at 3:50pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Hi Larry,

Difficulty target numbers in Hero Wars struck me as essentially conflict-based in terms of impact on the cultural and magical problems of Glorantha. The more significant the problem, the more Ws are involved. Within each plateau, frankly, the difference between (say) 5 and 15 really isn't a representational issue, more of a "fully in this plateau" or "barely there" indicator.

HeroQuest is marred throughout with a nearly fetish-like fascination with representational scale ("how many masteries in 'large' does an elephant have") and with skill-oriented difficulty. I've written before how infuriating I find the very first system example, when Mr. Puma leaps into a tree to avoid being seen by a merchant ... and the text gets all wrapped up in what the tree rolls based on how big and tall it is.

That is crap. It's crap for all the reasons Matt is discussing in this thread. The real conflict present is between Mr. Puma and the merchant, and should be rolled in that fashion. At most the tree should be an augmenter for one or the other. I blame the resurgence of RuneQuest grognard influence in the development of HeroQuest, which I think did serious damage to the clarity of the text and the game itself.

Best,
Ron

Message 15993#170628

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

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/18/2005




On 7/18/2005 at 5:46pm, timfire wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Matt wrote:
Yes! Although I still want to know: can you as GM in TMW choose how hard to make a conflict? Are there such things as "Easy/medium/hard" conflicts? Or is it more like Trollbabe? If you do have that ability, how much control over the game can it give you?


What Ron said, but also this -- while there are things the GM can do to modulate the... let's call it the "toughness" of a Conflict, because of the profound impact of Aiding (aka Trust) on resolution, the true "difficulty" is largely decided by the players. 3 or 4 characters working together with Trust will literally whomp anything the GM can throw at them. But if the characters don't spend Trust to Aid one another, then they end up having a hell of time defeating enemies.

This goes back to the idea that the players' real mechanism for affecting Conflicts, Trust, isn't hindered (much) by the damage-related penalty. The damage-related penalty only hurts characters when they are alone.

Now, what can happen is the GM can continue pushing conflicts even after the players all run out of Trust, at which time he has the advantage. But unless he has a good reason for doing that(*), it becomes very hard to hide the fact that he's just being a jerk.

(*) There are good reasons for doing that, but that topic isn't really relevant to this discussion.

Message 15993#170665

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by timfire
...in which timfire participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/18/2005




On 7/18/2005 at 6:59pm, chadu wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Sydney wrote:
Which gives me a tiny nubbin of an idea for a "damage system," actually. If you lose a conflict, then you can choose (1) reduce a trait you previously created for your character, which means your character will be less effective - or - (2) let the winner assign your character a trait, which will increase your character's effectiveness but not necessarily in ways you're going to like. (This latter is basically Tony Lower-Basch's Misery Bubblegum design).


The #1 you mention is essentially the damage system for all the PDQ-based games found here:
Dead Inside
Monkey, Ninja, Pirate, Robot: the RPG
Truth & Justice (just released)

Message 15993#170687

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by chadu
...in which chadu participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/18/2005




On 7/18/2005 at 7:02pm, Sydney Freedberg wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Cool. I gotta check those out, now. But the thing I was trying to get at was the idea of giving players a choice: take "damage" as reduced effectiveness -- the tradition HP/wound penalty/etc. model -- or as reduced control -- allowing someone else to partially define your character. ("I win, now you care about X!")

Message 15993#170688

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Sydney Freedberg
...in which Sydney Freedberg participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/18/2005




On 7/18/2005 at 7:14pm, chadu wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Sydney wrote:
Cool. I gotta check those out, now. But the thing I was trying to get at was the idea of giving players a choice: take "damage" as reduced effectiveness -- the tradition HP/wound penalty/etc. model -- or as reduced control -- allowing someone else to partially define your character. ("I win, now you care about X!")


Putting those together in a single damage system isn't a bad idea. Not at all.

In T&J, I have them as two separate systems: damage -- as noted above -- and as one of the ways characters get Hero Points ( Revoltin' Developments.)

CU

Message 15993#170690

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by chadu
...in which chadu participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/18/2005




On 7/19/2005 at 2:41am, Matt Wilson wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

wrote: Matt, I think this concept accounts well for your questions. Do I need to parse it out a bit more? I'm thinking maybe that real Actual Play examples are called for.

Yeah, I get it. I forgot about the 'what's done is done' approach.

But here's what's still missing: in HeroQuest or Hero Wars or hell a ton of games out there, what keeps you from making the roll in the first place exceedingly hard? Why not make every roll exceedingly hard? I think 'use common sense' or 'follow these guidelines' is unsatisfactory.

PTA's budget is definitely a big reaction on my part to what I'm talking about there, a concept prevalent in RPGs that I think is unequivocably stupid: GM has limitless power and is advised not to use it. "You can have the opposition be a difficulty of one million, because you're the GM, but don't do that because it would be unfun."

It's crap. It needs to go away forever.

The players have to have a resource at their disposal that, as Vincent says, makes it so that the GM doesn't have to pull punches. Make the difficulty a million, and give the players the opportunity to play a veto card, or allow the GM to make it a 10^6 difficulty only once per game session. That's what I'm after.

TMW has the nice trump card of Trust. Cool.
In Trollbabe, there is no way, really, for the GM to get carried away with conflict difficulty. All you can do is add one more required roll, and that's really drowned out by how easy it is to gain more rerolls.
In Dogs, adversity is created randomly via the en-masse NPC creation, and there's tons of loopholes in conflicts that allow players an out.
PTA has budget, and I'm kind of stuck with variants of budget right now in terms of game design, and maybe that's okay, but I'm wondering how else we can do what all these games are doing.

Message 15993#170764

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Matt Wilson
...in which Matt Wilson participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/19/2005




On 7/19/2005 at 3:35am, bcook1971 wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

But here's what's still missing: in HeroQuest or Hero Wars or hell a ton of games out there, what keeps you from making the roll in the first place exceedingly hard? Why not make every roll exceedingly hard?


Sounds like player assent. I'm sure you're familiar with Vincent's insight to "negotiate Stakes toward a viable Give." To include in a rules manual, it'd be an explicit definition of a kind of SC; but that should do it, without any need for further mechanical refinement.

Of coure, if you wanted to, you could implement the idea with coins and a system of exchange, for example. That could make it more tangible and economic.

Message 15993#170768

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by bcook1971
...in which bcook1971 participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/19/2005




On 7/19/2005 at 1:17pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Hi Matt,

I agree with you, and I think it comes down to a much larger question of where "scenes" come from and where "conflict" comes from - in terms of real people talking. The issue of "difficulty" (making the roll hard) is an artifact of how these things are constructed in traditional role-playing, and once you alter the basic ("meta," whatever) system, this issue tends to dry up and blow away.

If I do say so myself, I think Trollbabe solves the problem by specifying who says scenes start and stop, and who says conflicts begin. For those of you who know the game, you know that both of these are (a) formalized and (b) rather nuanced in practice, within the formalization.

There are certainly other solutions, such as the turn-order approach taken by Universalis, Capes, and PTA. These work as well or better, despite intense gamer-culture resistance to the idea of "taking turns."

The one really painful feature of Sorcerer's current system is that whole "roll against however many dice the GM feels like" part, when an opposing character is not specified. Vincent solved this neatly in Dogs by calling this roll "the demons" and assigning it a fixed amount - a sneaky and effective feature which eludes most users' understanding, if the Actual Play posts are anything to go by (they keep thinking he's talking about, you know, demons). In practice, when playing Sorcerer, I usually use 1-3 dice, which isn't much, for such rolls, essentially mimicking Vincent's solution informally. Also, such rolls are very rare, because they must be real conflicts but other characters are not involved.

I think this'll be a big discussion topic at GenCon this year. I even have a diagram which might help, but it works best in real-people conversation.

Best,
Ron

Message 15993#170797

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

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/19/2005




On 7/19/2005 at 1:35pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Matt wrote:
The players have to have a resource at their disposal that, as Vincent says, makes it so that the GM doesn't have to pull punches. Make the difficulty a million, and give the players the opportunity to play a veto card, or allow the GM to make it a 10^6 difficulty only once per game session. That's what I'm after.


Remove the GM and let the IS determine the opposition autonomously.  Like playing solitaire.

All of these proposals, it seems to me, disempower the GM in favour of a rules-constrained approach to constructing opposition.  So, why not simply automate the whole process and use the GM purely as an animator-come-administrator of what amounts to system-generated opposition.

Message 15993#170806

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/19/2005




On 7/19/2005 at 2:51pm, Matt Wilson wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Ron:

Cool. Yeah, I'm looking forward to beer + that topic.

Gareth:

So, why not simply automate the whole process and use the GM purely as an animator-come-administrator of what amounts to system-generated opposition.


Yeah, I think if you disempower the GM completely in terms of written rules, that's what he or she becomes. Universalis is kind of like that when one person kind of takes an alpha position to keep play moving. And maybe more games will go that way. I have something slightly different in mind, but I'd have to detail the specific game more in order to explain it.

Message 15993#170843

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Matt Wilson
...in which Matt Wilson participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/19/2005




On 7/19/2005 at 5:10pm, Sean wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Gareth - there is a big 'what's the GM for' issue that comes up here.

But I don't agree with you that good GM constraints on providing conflict/adversity/opposition render the GM role meaningless. On the contrary, I find these rules really, really liberating as GM, at least taking Dogs as my example. Because when you don't have these rules, when you leave it to 'judgment', the GM is effectively playing against himself, and has to ask all these questions about what's 'fair' and 'realistic' (get thee behind me, Satan!) in order to give the players a fun time. It's a big hassle. Even when you do a good job, maybe your monster rolls a crit in the final encounter, and then you're like 'gosh, should I have used an Ogre? Was I being a dick or was that fair?'

If the system does that for you you can ask the question about whether the system provides a good level of adversity or not and how instead, letting yourself enjoy playing the game in play.

Message 15993#170897

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Sean
...in which Sean participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/19/2005




On 7/19/2005 at 7:08pm, Miskatonic wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Brainstorming, eh? Here are some half-baked ideas I've come up with while reading this thread:

Difficulty cards. The GM draws a hand of cards with "difficulty" numbers each session. (e.g. 1,1,2,1,2,1,1,5,3,1) He can play any of these he chooses when the players face a conflict. Similar to PTA's budget, but a different tactile approach.

GM-less auto-cards. As above, except cards are drawn from a face-down deck.

GM-less Plot path. There is a FIXED sequence of "difficulties," probably corresponding to rising interest-climax-resolution.

Chrono path. As plot path, but defined by real-time moments during the game session. (e.g. everything becomes "climax" difficulty forty minutes before the end of the session)

Where I use "difficulty," I'm developing a vague awareness of the concept Ron is describing, but do not yet grok. I may just need to play more of the games referenced.

Message 15993#170946

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Miskatonic
...in which Miskatonic participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/19/2005




On 7/19/2005 at 8:16pm, Adam Dray wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

In Verge, players set the difficulty themselves, based entirely on the amount of risk they're willing to take on. The player rolls his dice, and the GM rolls the risk dice the players gave him.

Then if the player wins the conflict, the player rolls his dice again and the GM rolls his dice again, and the difference is the player's reward -- except that it's reversed. That is, the GM's dice margin of success (MOS) minus the player's MOS is the reward.

The more risk the player takes ("gives" is more accurate), the more rewards the player gets. The GM never sets the risk level for any conflict.

Message 15993#170965

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Adam Dray
...in which Adam Dray participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/19/2005




On 7/19/2005 at 10:40pm, spawky wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Hello,

With regards to assigning difficulties, as a GM, I hate the traditional GM task procedure of first having to assign a difficulty value for a given task/foe, then deciding how bad the effects are and then how long they'll last afterward. And in the middle, I'm second guessing and riding herd on the dice to make sure it doesn't break the game. This is a balance of power that, to me, translates down into: by virtue of my traits and skills, the GM says that I win or lose. So, like the original poster, I've been seeking alternatives to the one-sided balance of power. Many alternatives are unusable given my particular group's preferences. I can't stray too far from traditional gaming, though there are a wealth of things that could be tried.

So I'm going to try the option presented in SteveD's There is No Spoon (and also There is No Try, There is No Yellow Spandex, etc) where the diff is the pc's relevant stat. (aka the roll-under option.) With apologies to those who've already seen it...In a nutshell, if you want to make a perception check to pick out the north star, you just roll vs your perc stat (with no bonuses or penalties.)

(There's no penalty for thick clouds and no bonus for clear skies. If you can't see it or you wouldn't know which one it was, there's no point rolling.) To resolve a roll, you look at the kinds of successes indicated by the dice; which tells the strength of result and you narrate according to social contract expectations, genre, etc. Any opposed rolls each have their success levels compared and likes cancel. One side will have more successes of some kind than the other and you narrate a flurry of action and then the final result.

The point to all that was that the diff is built right into the trait in the first place. A 3 trait on a d6 is a 50-50 outcome. So your trait IS your balance of power in that area. If your GM is undeservedly throwing foes at you who are consistently (say) twice your ability level, then you'll know it. There's no need for a meta-mechanic to keep things on a certain budget or within a certain genre/expectation besides discussion and agreement (aside: nothing wrong meta's...my group just doesn't like that sort of mechanic.)

Caveat: Seems like it'll work good for us but I have yet to playtest it. I haven't heard anything bad from anyone who's tried the original system...(insert evil laugh) but of course, I have adapted it a bit from SteveD's original.

Spawky

Message 15993#170985

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by spawky
...in which spawky participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/19/2005




On 7/20/2005 at 5:06am, Miskatonic wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Ron wrote:
That is crap. It's crap for all the reasons Matt is discussing in this thread. The real conflict present is between Mr. Puma and the merchant, and should be rolled in that fashion. At most the tree should be an augmenter for one or the other. I blame the resurgence of RuneQuest grognard influence in the development of HeroQuest, which I think did serious damage to the clarity of the text and the game itself.


Ron,

Thanks. Okay, I understand the mechanical difference here, then. I think I'm getting lost where the value judgment comes in. I'm seeing two schools of (accidental?) thought. There is apparently some subtlety, perhaps happening "above the rules," that I'm not seeing.

So the "HeroQuest" approach necessarily leads to the dysfunctional "Crap, I hosed the players," situation Matt describes, whereas the "Hero Wars" way results in satisfying gameplay? Always/usually/sometimes? I would like to be able to chalk this up to "Ron et al. have got X amount of actual play experience that validates this, so it must be right," but I don't think that will be useful to developing this interesting piece of theory that's emerging.

Terminology might be good, so it doesn't look like we're bashing on HeroQuest specifically, and simplify phrases like, "In TMW, Trollbabe, and PTA..."

"Spawky,"

I'm with you that setting difficulty ratings for task resolution systems is my least favorite GM-task. Sick to no end of games that include a handy full-page table of common situations so you can grind the game to a standstill while you try to figure out the "appropriate" level.

I am unclear as to whether the distinction established in this thread exists solely within these slick recent conflict res systems, or if it holds true for "old-fashioned" task resolution as well.

Message 15993#171020

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Miskatonic
...in which Miskatonic participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/20/2005




On 7/20/2005 at 5:56am, John Harper wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

For Danger Patrol, I'm doing three things to address this issue:

1) What's done is done. Conflicts are settled by the system. No one player can force another to test again and again until they fail.

2) Pre-made characters. All of the heroes and villains for the current series are made cooperatively by the group before play begins. So all those "difficulty numbers" are set at that time.

3) Random characters. Before each chapter in the series, the heroes and villains go into a pile and everyone draws blind for a character. The hero your villain hosed last chapter just might be your character now.

Imagine a game of Dogs without a formal GM where the group as a whole sits down and makes the town, the townspeople, and the Dogs, draws to see who plays what, and then goes to it. That's kind of what I'm after. I think it sidesteps the issue of "too much responsibilty" when being a GM.

Message 15993#171022

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by John Harper
...in which John Harper participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/20/2005




On 7/21/2005 at 8:58pm, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

We appear to be offering examples of systems that determine how difficult the referee is allowed to make a situation, so let me toss Multiverser's General Effects Rolls into the mix.

The primary use of these rolls is to guide the referee in understanding outcomes where resolved actions don't necessarily answer that question. A popular example is a character who on encountering a local population fires a gun into the air, hoping that the loud noise will have some desired effect. Given the game's task-based resolution mechanic for character actions, I can resolve whether in fact he can fire the gun into the air; but how do I know the reaction of the natives?  I roll a GE roll.  At the one end, the outcome is stated to be far better than anything the character could have hoped; at the other end, it's far worse than he might have feared. Along the range between we find varying degrees including a neutral point. Based on that roll, I as referee determine what happens based on my perception of what the player through his character wishes would happen.

The same process is frequently used in scenarios. In a game situation yesterday, it had been established that armed soldiers were searching the countryside for the player character, and that one of them had come to the door of the house where he was staying. When he decided he wanted to dive into this as a battle rather than try to escape, I used a general effects roll to determine how many soldiers were going to hear the gunfire of the fight and respond, knowing that he wants it to be enough that it will be a wild battle but not so many that he's guaranteed to lose.

Since the question your posing seems to be very much on the order of how the referee fills in the unwritten parts of the scenario, that would be how Multiverser would handle it. It would be entirely different if the player decided to free a comrade from prison, and I had already determined how many guards were at the prison and how they were organized.  In that case, GE rolls might impact enemy organization and response time, but not numbers and abilities.

Does that fit your thoughts?

--M. J. Young

Message 15993#171327

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by M. J. Young
...in which M. J. Young participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/21/2005




On 7/21/2005 at 9:43pm, John Harper wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

Interesting, MJ. I used to do something similar when I ran Godlike to represent the factor known as "friction" in special forces speak.

How is a GE roll made? Is it an unmodified die roll? If there are modifiers that skew the result one way or the other, who is responsible for applying those modifiers? Are there any system checks on the person applying the modifiers or when a GE roll can be made? Is scale part of the system (as in, how "big" the effect of a GE roll is -- one person or a whole tribe)?

Sorry for the rapid-fire questions, but I'm curious.

Message 15993#171332

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by John Harper
...in which John Harper participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/21/2005




On 7/29/2005 at 12:17am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Re: the balance of power - brainstorming

John wrote: How is a GE roll made? Is it an unmodified die roll? If there are modifiers that skew the result one way or the other, who is responsible for applying those modifiers? Are there any system checks on the person applying the modifiers or when a GE roll can be made? Is scale part of the system (as in, how "big" the effect of a GE roll is -- one person or a whole tribe)?

O.K., let me see if I can parse these questions and answer them.

How is a GE roll made?

It's three ten-sided dice added together. This creates a stiff bell curve in which the extremes are one in a thousand but there's fair variation within the middle of the range.

There's an alternate scale for 3d6, but it eliminates a lot of the results, particularly the end points.

It's compared to a chart that has verbal descriptions of what it means, with such things as "barely good enough" and "not desired but generally favorable result" and "as bad as expected". It doesn't matter who rolls the dice. Usually the referee interprets the roll into game events, although 1) sometimes he will question the player to help figure out what the character really did want and 2) on extreme rolls (particularly at the good end) he'll use a lot of player input to figure out what happened.

Is it an unmodified die roll?

Yes and no.

Before the roll, the referee has the right to remove one die from it and replace it with a fixed number--usually 1, 5, or 10. This is done if the referee thinks that the situation is such that only the good side or the bad side should be available (e.g., a general effects roll to determine the king's gratitude after you've rescued his daughter, or one to determine whether there's anything to grab when you're sliding down the face of the bottomless canyon or something), or for what's called a "safe" roll that eliminates the extremes (I can't remember using this). That's entirely at the discretion of the referee, but so is whether to call for a roll at all.

In the main, though, the modification is made in the interpretation. That is, if I roll "not thwarting but generally unfavorable result" as referee I have to figure out what that means in the context of the character's current situation. If he's trying to pick the lock to the safe, it probably means that the security guard has just been heard coming down the hall. If he's hanging from a limb over a ravine, it probably means that he just heard the limb crack. If he's in a plane that's already plummeting toward the water below, he probably didn't find a parachute.

If there are modifiers that skew the result one way or the other, who is responsible for applying those modifiers?

The referee decides what kind of roll is required, and what it means.

Are there any system checks on the person applying the modifiers or when a GE roll can be made?

No, but in the nature of the game it's hard to imagine any way that the referee could abuse his power. Remember, if you kill the player characters they just keep going in another world, so most of them aren't really afraid of death.

Generally, a GE roll can be made only when there's a question the referee has to answer for which the answer is not at all certain and will have an impact on the player's situation. They're used for all sorts of things, such as whether anything happens during the night while you're asleep, how quickly events move around you, what kind of mood a non-player character happens to be in at the moment, and just about anything else for which there's no obvious roll (attribute and skill checks) but an answer is needed.

Is scale part of the system (as in, how "big" the effect of a GE roll is -- one person or a whole tribe)?

Interestingly, when we changed the title of the game from its original working title to Multiverser, we realized that we had discovered something very central to the game: it is always about the player character, and revolves around the player character completely. Thus the GE roll is always about what he wants to have happen that is outside his control, but that can be anything.

For a large-scale example, I have a player currently in Ruritania. That's a fictional Germanic province that appears in several nineteenth century short stories, including a Sherlock Holmes piece and the famous Prisoner of Zenda. He was in the Zenda story, saved the kingdom, and is now a member of the local nobility in 1899. Of course, he, being a verser from the twentieth century and a history buff, knows that by the early twentieth century Otto Von Bismarck's efforts managed to force all of these little Germanic states into one unified Germany. That means it must have happened to Ruritania--but because Ruritania is fictional, no one knows when it happened. He began preparing Ruritania's defenses to withstand Germany's inevitable assault. I rolled a GE roll to determine how much time he had before Ruritania became the next target. So in that sense, it was about international affairs--but only because these international affairs would have an impact on the player character.

It is possible for a couple of really bad GE rolls following a magic botch to mean that an entire universe has just exploded and been completely obliterated. I've never seen it happen, but the odds are about one in a million and I'm waiting.

On the other hand, a lot of my GE rolls are really about little things, like whether the store has the item you want at a good price, or do you find a dry place to camp.

Of course, it's always connected to what that character wants and fears, so even when it impacts the entire universe it does so through that connection.

I hope that helps.

--M. J. Young

Message 15993#172228

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by M. J. Young
...in which M. J. Young participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 7/29/2005