While GMing a diceless free form game (with some elements of Theatrix) a while back I came across one problem. I didn't want to harm the characters of the story. I could take full responsibility for having put that maniac NPC with the axe into the story and for him attacking the player characters, but I felt uncomfortable having to decide if he hit or how severe the wound from his attack would be on the poor player character. It was a dirty job I would rather delegate to dice.

Then recently someone mentioned in a thread here about narrative game play (can't find the thread now) that he had let players narrate the effect of attacks on their characters, and it had often resulted in more severe wounds than if the GM had decided the result. This got me thinking on a possibilty of using a simple dice mechanic where you define the degree of success, and leave the result up to the victim of the attack to narrate. In short the attacker describes his intent, rolls and gets a result ranging from total fumble to perfect hit (with just grazed him, solid hit, missed etc. inbetween). It's then up to the victim of the attack to narrate the result, taking into account his opponents intent, strength, skill, weapon used, his own armor and, of course, the result of the roll. What would be the effect of a good hit with a woodcutting axe swung by a scrawny psychopath in your characters side? If needed a system of GM or peer control could be added on top, where other players or the GM could challenge the result if they felt the player was either describing the result as too severe or taking it too easy on his character.

The same idea could be applied to any kind of harm that might come to your character, from falling, drowning, poison etc. It's your job to narrate the result based on input from dice and circumstances.

I would be interested in hearing others take on this, and from people who have used this or something similair in play.

Ragnar

Ragnar, are you proposing that the players are allowed to add merely color ("He gets me in the leg, there's blood all over") or to have some sort of input on game effect ("He gets me for 12 hit points, and I'm at -2 to all physical actions.")?  There's a pretty big difference between the two.

I'm proposing that they can have some input on game effect. Though, in what I have been thinking, I would do away with hit points and replace them with descriptions. The description can be as detailed and colorfull a verbal descriptions as the player feels like and a short note on the charactersheet (e.g. a deep cut from an axe in the thigh, sever head injury blurring Billy's vision etc.). Something that doesn't take to long to note down, but is enough to remind everyone of where the wound came from and the original description of it. It would be giving the players greater control over their character and how much harm comes to them.

Ragnar

p.s. I know it would be open to abuse in gamist terms, but I'm thinking of using it for a more narrativist style game.

Grossly generalizing, I have found that many people enjoy hosing their own characters, and will indeed do so far beyond what a GM would have considered doing.

... although this tendency only holds when a strong shared Creative Agenda (of whatever kind) is at work. It is one of the many benefits of CA.

Best,
Ron

I know I'm moving a little from the original topic, but please Ron, may you clarify me one point?

You say "whatever CA":

1) Does this mean that in a group where everyone is sharing a gamist CA, they will be consistently "stepping on up" by showing to others how nicely do they select effects for their characters damage?

2) In the case of a simulationist CA, would they try to choose effects that clearly resemble the accepted rules for the imaginary world they try to simulate?

3) In a narrativist CA, would they try to choose effects that promote story turns or new interesting situations?

Thanks in advance (and please, kick me off if I'm out of topic)
Arturo

Hi Arturo,

As long as we stay in the general topic, we're OK. When someone goes off on some bizarro tangent about some CA thing, though, it's time for a beat-down.

Anyway, you might want to consider that there isn't a single Gamist, who can serve as the archetype for how Gamists do things. What I'm saying is that within a Gamist context (shared value system, whatever you want to call it) among that group, hosing one's character serves players' ends in specific circumstances or applications of Gamism.

So the answer cannot be about Gamists in general. It literally cannot be; there is no single identifiable set of techniques or "ways to play" that corresponds with Gamism. It's a value system, an agenda, expressed as a set of interactions among the people, and informing the techniques-groups they like to use. But my answer works very, very well for some applications of that agenda.

It may be hard to see that if you don't enjoy playing in a Gamist fashion, whether in general (unlikely) or due to some specific ways within that mode (likely).

Now - everything I just said? Substitute the other two names in there. They fit just fine.

Finally, my overall point, stated again for clarity. Tthe only reason people try to protect their characters from harm of any kind is because they don't get their ends met during play, and they have no trust or shared sense of "why we're here" with the others playing.

It would be odd if someone didn't care whether their character got harmed at all, ever, or how. But it's equally odd to be so aversive to any harm whatsoever. However, "odd" in this sense (of wrong, "off," weird) is typical for people whose experiences with play are so badly unconstructed and wrecked as most role-players I have known.

Best,
Ron

Ragnar, let me float a variant idea for you to consider. I'd suggested this some time back on another thread, but haven't seen much done with it and it might fit well with your thoughts.

I propose a decentralized drama mechanic that works thus. Whenever there is a conflict, two of the players must represent the opposing sides. This can be two players each representing his character or a player versus the referee, or I can imagine the referee versus a leading player when the players have an interest in a conflict between opposing non-player forces. Each of the designated players describes the outcome he wants to have happen--no die rolls, no hard mechanics, just each player trying to present a picture for what should happen in the shared imagined space. Then the players vote, limited to one description or the other.

My expectation is that each designated player would want to narrate the most dramatically successful outcome for his side that he could, but that his description would be tempered by the need to win the other players to his side.  Thus colorful and interesting descriptions would be created that mix negative consequences with positive outcomes, by both sides, leading to a more interesting overall narration.

I have not tried it. In a sense it formalizes standard social contract resolution and eliminates the external authority, essentially saying that we're going to agree on one of two outcomes and that's what we'll all imagine happened thereafter.

--M. J. Young

ragnar wrote: If needed a system of GM or peer control could be added on top, where other players or the GM could challenge the result if they felt the player was either describing the result as too severe or taking it too easy on his character.

Besides, if someone DOES start playing too hard or too light, you've got the same control system that Capes has... someone gets fed up and says, "Hey, Dude... "

Thanks Ron!
I have noticed I was only trying to find examples to figure out how could it be possible to follow this kind of procedure for the different CAs. But, yes, I was really far for any kind of generallity.

Arturo

MJ: That idea does sounds interesting. I would be interested in hearing an example of how it has worked in actual play. It does sound like it's in the same vein as Polaris, from what I could gather from this thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16660.0 over at Actual Play.

I find it kind of hard to judge these kinds of ideas, both my wounding system and what MJ's idea, without testing them in play. In my head both feel sound, but like the say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."

Ragnar

Two things:

1. I've played a lot of freeform online, where every player has total control over their own characters.  That means I decide whether they get hurt and how much, whether your spell works on my character, etc.  It works very well, unless you're a highly competitive player. It polices itself, because people who never let their characters get hurt lose people to play with. Social pressure over time regulates things.

2. I think it would work well to let players narrate their own damage IF that damage has no influence on their ability to influence the outcome of future conflicts. See, in traditional games, the characters are penalized for taking damage and become less effective; it's part of that "simulating reality" thing. Even in D&D, where you don't get penalties on your die rolls, having fewer HP makes you less capable to determine the outcome of future conflicts. Since that character ability is the ONLY way to influence conflicts as a player in those games, people really don't want to get their characters hurt. Now, if how wounded your character was has no influence on your future ability to determine the outcome of conflicts--for example in Primetime Adventures--people don't have to worry about letting their characters get hurt.

Notice that in the environment I described in 1., the absence of loss of influence I talked about in 2. was also present and a big factor.

xenopulse wrote: 1. I've played a lot of freeform online, where every player has total control over their own characters.  That means I decide whether they get hurt and how much, whether your spell works on my character, etc.  It works very well, unless you're a highly competitive player. It polices itself, because people who never let their characters get hurt lose people to play with. Social pressure over time regulates things.