Context

We played SRTeens again with the revised BoP rules. The SRTeens background, an earlier session and the link to Balance of Power rules can be found in an earlier thread.

This time I had prepared a simple character sheet and another sheet for tracking conflicts (buying dice, activating traits and convictions). We also used tokens for Power, which went a long way towards clearing the confusing jumble of dice as Power we had at the last time. We still did not have a written version of the rules available to all the players, but seemed to manage fine without.

We had a couple of real-world complications, both of which were at least partly resolved by the wondrous power of computing. First, one of our players was inconveniently located at a small and remote village. Luckily, he had a broadband connection, so we placed a laptop at one end of the table, then used Skype for audio and webcams for visuals. Second, our GM forgot the dice so we had to use a quickly contrived Excel dice-roller. Both of these did detract from the feel of sitting around the table, rolling some dice, but worked well enough for us to have a solid gaming session.

There were other disturbances, with players leaving and joining at various times. We knew that this would be the case, but wanted to play anyway. This, I think, is a telling indication of our group´s deep-seated need to play, regardless of whether we have ideal conditions, protaginizing rules or - even - anything really good to play... This time, of course, only the conditions were somewhat lacking.

Rules

In terms of a play-test of the BoP, we were reasonably faithful to the rules as found on Andrew´s website. We did use the following modfications:

1) In the one conflict that involved potential wound traits, I tried to describe the wound traits before rolling the dice, to be realized or not, based on the successes generated. The intention here was to heighten the tension during conflict.

2) Since our group has very rarely used the "gift dice" options in other games, we used a rule where, in each conflict, the winner receives one point of disposable "fan mail" Power, which could only be given to others, never used by the one who received it. The original gift dice construct might be appropriate for groups with a strong grasp of the narrative approach, but for ours - with a long tradition of resource optimizations in simulationist games - this variant seems more appealing.

Content

In terms of play content, I think that the rules served us well. We had conflicts both between the players and between the players and the GM, and all moved the story in significant if small steps. The rules essentially gave us a way out of the three-session rut of "oh no, our families have been stolen, what can we do" as one of the players initiated a conflict where his goal was to have the families returned after just two days of waiting - and the GM said "fine, simple conflict, are you willing to pay one Power for that?"

There was also a conflict which really went against the GM´s wishes but was important for the player, in order for him to realise his vision for the character. Player wanted his matrix deck illegally modified in order to do some real decking. GM felt that this was not "realistic" given the Shadowrun universe and the character´s capabilities - but that´s not really a significant point in a narrative game, is it?

Comments

Overall, I guess I have a small problem with the conflict resolution system in terms of tension and suspense. It seems that if the players really want to win the conflict, we very quickly max out on the dice that can be bought and the traits that can be activated - and then that´s that. There is nothing extra, no "extraordinary measures" that could be called upon at a prohibitively high cost, or nothing like that.

Calling out the potential wound traits during conflict did not work very well either. It can easily confuse as to what really happened and what didn´t. Also, it might be difficult to narrate a consistent resolution if the wound traits suggested are very disparate. On the other hand, I still suggest putting in something to build more tension in the spending phase, before rolling the dice.

By the end of our session and after winning all the conflicts I participated in, I had zero Power left. I think there is no provision for this in the current rules. I will not be able to participate in conflicts as the rules require spending at least 1 Power buying a die in each conflict. Thus other players cannot win conflicts with me and I will never gain any Power. What am I supposed to do in this situation?

Cheers,
Mikael

Hello!

I am really enjoying reading about the development of this game.

I'm chiming in with a theory-point:

There was also a conflict which really went against the GM´s wishes but was important for the player, in order for him to realise his vision for the character. Player wanted his matrix deck illegally modified in order to do some real decking. GM felt that this was not "realistic" given the Shadowrun universe and the character´s capabilities - but that´s not really a significant point in a narrative game, is it?

Ron wrote:

There was also a conflict which really went against the GM´s wishes but was important for the player, in order for him to realise his vision for the character. Player wanted his matrix deck illegally modified in order to do some real decking. GM felt that this was not "realistic" given the Shadowrun universe and the character´s capabilities - but that´s not really a significant point in a narrative game, is it?

Actually, it is a significant point. The "realism" issue at this point in play may have nothing to do with Simulationist vs. Narrativist desires. It may instead be about the agreed-upon, valued constraints that you guys want to share. Basically, the GM wanted to trust you guys to preserve the "Shadowrun universe" as a chassis for the thematic priorities, and this particular player didn't find that preservation to be a big deal.

If that's so, then the issue is mainly just Exploration - what features of what we're imagining are inviolate, or should be valued and preserved rather than made "story development bitch." All role-playing has to include some such features, which is why Exploration (better name: "Shared Imagined Space") is the foundation for it, the medium for Creative Agenda (when successful).

Ron wrote:
Oh well, enough theory. My real wish is that this point helps you develop the game better and maybe prevents some paragraph getting thrown in there about either (a) "The GM decides if a power is OK" or (b) "Anything a player decides is OK," both of which I think would cause problems.

Balance wrote:
I like the traditional role divisions of player and GM. However, I do want to clearly define the GM's role, limit his power, and avoid the old "Rule Zero" punt put into many rules texts.

Mikael,

Everspinner wrote: By the end of our session and after winning all the conflicts I participated in, I had zero Power left. I think there is no provision for this in the current rules. I will not be able to participate in conflicts as the rules require spending at least 1 Power buying a die in each conflict. Thus other players cannot win conflicts with me and I will never gain any Power. What am I supposed to do in this situation?

Everspinner wrote: Calling out the potential wound traits during conflict did not work very well either. It can easily confuse as to what really happened and what didn´t. Also, it might be difficult to narrate a consistent resolution if the wound traits suggested are very disparate. On the other hand, I still suggest putting in something to build more tension in the spending phase, before rolling the dice.

Everspinner wrote: Overall, I guess I have a small problem with the conflict resolution system in terms of tension and suspense. It seems that if the players really want to win the conflict, we very quickly max out on the dice that can be bought and the traits that can be activated - and then that´s that. There is nothing extra, no "extraordinary measures" that could be called upon at a prohibitively high cost, or nothing like that.

Hello

Looks like I need to rephrase nearly every significant statement in my original post. Shows you that Actual Play posts should not be typed on a mobile phone keyboard (not even the full-screen one on a PocketPC) - it is tiring and leads to overly tight sentences that try explain too much on one line.

Gaerik wrote:
1.) The first option is to always allow a player to join a Conflict with 1d4 to roll even if he doesn't have any Power.  In fact, I'd limit this option to ONLY when the player is out of Power.  This would at least allow the player to generate some Conflicts and regain a few Power points should he lose.  He obviously wouldn't be as effective rolling only 1d4 but that is keeping with the general tone of the game anyways.  If a player has spent all his Power in other Conflicts he should have to lose some somewhere in order to regenerate his Power.

Gaerik wrote:
2.) The other option is to allow the player to join via Gift Power from other players.  I don't really care for this option as a stand alone solution.  However, coupled with option #1 above, it isn't a bad idea.  Gift Power could allow a player to buy more dice and even activate Traits to increase the die size.

Gaerik wrote:

Everspinner wrote: Overall, I guess I have a small problem with the conflict resolution system in terms of tension and suspense. It seems that if the players really want to win the conflict, we very quickly max out on the dice that can be bought and the traits that can be activated - and then that´s that. There is nothing extra, no "extraordinary measures" that could be called upon at a prohibitively high cost, or nothing like that.

I'm having trouble understanding what exactly you mean here.  Don't take this as me blowing you off and saying "I don't think there's a problem."  There might very well be a problem with the rules as written.  I'm just having issues trying to pin down what you mean in order to analyze it.  Are you talking about there being no way to escalate the Conflict to make it inherently more dangerous like the Escalation rules in DitV?

Gaerik wrote:

Everspinner wrote: Calling out the potential wound traits during conflict did not work very well either. It can easily confuse as to what really happened and what didn´t. Also, it might be difficult to narrate a consistent resolution if the wound traits suggested are very disparate. On the other hand, I still suggest putting in something to build more tension in the spending phase, before rolling the dice.

Could you expand on this some more.  What specific situations came up and how were they handled and what didn't work well?  Also, could you remind me exactly how the rules you used worked?  I think they are different than what I have on my site and I'd like to get a good understanding of them and why they didn't seem to do the job.

Everspinner wrote:
The situation I originally described did actually stay within the agreed-on constraints. It was fully feasible for the character's contact to be able to supply the character with an illegal deck - in return of a serious favor, of course, to be defined and collected later. However - and I hope I am interpreting our GM's feelings correctly - our GM felt that it was "too much of the good stuff too soon and too easily", in terms of character development and the overall story. And here, I hope, I get back to the Narr vs. Sim on a bit more solid ground: I think that in a game with a narrative bent it has to be ok for the player to take control of the character's development, if the player can achieve this within the conflict rules and the background constraints, even if the GM feels they should not. Thus my feeling that the rules did indeed work really well.

Tube,

I hear you loud and clear and understand exactly where your are coming from.  You want there to be a "reason" the contact gave him a deck.  Perfectly legitimate in my opinion and here's how I think the situation should be handled within the framework of these rules.  I definately need to put this in there though and not leave it to simple implication.  Let's assume Player A wants a deck from his contact.  The GM should frame a scene that could involve this happening... anything where it could happen works from just talking to the guy to run into him in the middle of some shady deal gone bad with the opportunity to steal the deck.  Then role-play should proceed until the point where the GM and/or Player A says, "Let's resolve this Conflict."  At that point, the Conflict Resolution System kicks in like normal and everything depends on the situation and how the Spending and Rolling goes.  Note that other Players can gift the GM with Power just as well as Player A, if they think his reasoning is bogus or they don't really want him to have that deck.

The scene/situation and then the Conflict Resolution should take care of the reasoning behind getting the deck.  The Player shouldn't say "I wanna deck!  Conflict!" without even framing a scene in order to get it.  That's not the intention of the rules at all.  Does that make sense?  Am I addressing the problem you were having at all or did I miss the mark?

On the SRTeens BoP game from a players view (the farvillager one)...

1) isn't it possible for all the players to take part on any opposing side in any conflict? Fe. the "deck getting" is wayyyyy too powerfull, let's join the frying and stop it...
2) no points to participate in a conflict - how about giving each player 1 point in the beginning of the next session? Basically - this being Balance of Power - player with no points to join a conflict has used his/her Narrative power "to the max" already, so... :-o

And to my "defence" :-) getting the deck has been my characters main goal since the beginning of the game. Too bad if my wording of the narration did not convey nicely to the others well enough in the story context... :-( Live and learn.

Julle, farvillager

Gaerik wrote:
Let's assume Player A wants a deck from his contact.  The GM should frame a scene that could involve this happening... anything where it could happen works from just talking to the guy to run into him in the middle of some shady deal gone bad with the opportunity to steal the deck.

Everspinner wrote:

Gaerik wrote:
Let's assume Player A wants a deck from his contact.  The GM should frame a scene that could involve this happening... anything where it could happen works from just talking to the guy to run into him in the middle of some shady deal gone bad with the opportunity to steal the deck.

Thanks, Andrew. That opened my eyes to the fact that we could utilize more aggressive scene framing in this game as well. By "aggressive" I do not mean drastic changes in location or situation, but more the players accepting responsibility for putting in some creative effort to set up an entertaining scene suitable for achieving their goals. Your example of a shady deal gone bad is a lot better in this sense than just phoning the guy up and saying "I wanna". I think that the latter is a good sample of the lazy, let-the-GM-find-the-justification type of gaming our group is occasionally guilty of.

Please note that this is definitely not criticism on Julle. He has shown himself to be a highly creative person, both as a GM and as a player - which makes this an even better reminder that even "the best of us" can stumble into the passivity trap if we are not careful. And perhaps that late games should be avoided.

Let's start with the easy stuff.

Re scene framing: current rules do not say much about scenes and framing. Are you planning to include something about scenes later on?

One more thing that was left out from the original post: it seems that the cost of buying or modifying Convictions has not been defined. I suppose that this is merely an oversight and not a design decision, as changing Convictions seems an integral part of a living character.

1) isn't it possible for all the players to take part on any opposing side in any conflict? Fe. the "deck getting" is wayyyyy too powerfull, let's join the frying and stop it...

no points to participate in a conflict - how about giving each player 1 point in the beginning of the next session? Basically - this being Balance of Power - player with no points to join a conflict has used his/her Narrative power "to the max" already, so... :-o