I'm working on a turn based RPG at the moment where the players narrate everything and the GMs job is to secretly track the progress of their competitors; essentially there are 3 attributes which all characters have to a greater or lesser degree and, on their turn, they choose an attribute to test, then narrate the outcome of that test.

The trouble I'm having is, I can't imagine that many players will choose to narrate a scene based on anything other than their strongest attribute, so they will keep making the same type of roll on each of their turns and therefore be narrating the same types of conflict or encounter; how can I encourage a bit more variety?

1) Am I just being overly critical? Will players choose an action (given that it is a completely free choice) that they are more likely to fail at, just because it makes for a better narrative?

2) Should I compensate, so that you can use a weak attribute to some kind of advantage, with a different kind of narration, e.g making it 3rd party instead of regarding yourself or another PC?

3) Should I dump the attributes out the window? If I used player-defined traits (as in DitV, The Pool, Over the Edge, etc) would the players be more likley to use them even if they were weak?

Hello,

One point that's been confirmed pretty much to my satisfaction, over the years of discussion here, is this:

It is Not Fun both (a) to propose the problem that your character faces and (b) to decide how he deals with it, and how it turns out. It's boring.

Your question seems like a subset of this concept. Basically, it's as if I, the player, would say, "I am [my character is]facing a very sexually aroused lamia," and then I have to hop right into saying "And I decide to do this!" "And it turns out like this!" "And then this happens!" In practice, this degree of narrational and creative authority is boring; it devolves into a tiring monologue and no sense of "springboarded" events.

I see it like this. If the player says "Here's the situation I'm in," then someone else ought to be involved in some way during the resolution and narration-of-outcome process. Or, if the player basically has authority over how the character deals with it (as is usually the case), then someone else probably should have had some hand, total-authority or not, in setting up the situation or immediate problem within the situation.

Now, to take up the specifics of your question, you'll find that parsing out conflicts in these ways generates a solution - the narration/creative division of labor creates options within the imaginary situations, such that using various scores will, at one time or another, make no sense, and so the character is stuck with the one that does make sense at the moment.

This is a generalized and functional way to look at the fact that, in traditional play, the GM looks at the player and says, "A jet of fire shoots at you," and you say, "I dodge!" It works. It works because one person proposed the problem, and another stated the chosen option to use. More subtly, it works because both people agree, without thinking about it much, that Dodge is among the reasonable options rather than, say, Evaluate Treasure.

The important skill is to realize why that situation works, then discover the multiple and fascinating ways it can be applied with a variety of game designs, some of which don't look like the traditional way at all.

Best,
Ron

I pretty much agree with Ron that the amount of unopposed narration you seem to be suggesting (player lays out scenario, player chooses solution, player describes result) doesn't sound very interesting to 'player' or to the rest of the group; however he neglects to mention that you don't necessarily need another person to oppose the player; if any one of those factors is taken out of the player's hands (our best mechanical tools handle solutions and outcomes; mechanically generating situations is a pretty arcane topic, as far as I can tell), it simulates opposition.

For a more concrete answer, there are several ways you can control and constrain the players' choice of attribute, without requiring the participation of other players (though I suggest that that is a good element to consider); here are some examples:

* You get a reward for choosing an attribute you haven't used recently.
* You can't use an attribute twice in a row.
* Use of an attribute depletes it.
* Use of an attribute bolsters the other attributes.
* etc.

You can do the same thing with consequences, as Dogs apparently does with negative consequences (i.e. Fallout).

I think you do have a viable issue here, and I think the alternative you might need is found by combining the previous two excellent answers.

First, if the narration revolves around the players, then create an environment where the player can narrate the solution to his problem, but the problem is narrated by another player.  Then by virtue of how the players interact determines which attributes can be used.

An example would be a pool of Fate Tokens (or other reward).  The player narrating the problem gains a Fate Token if the other player fails.  The other gains one if he succeeds.  The problem-narrator can then "bid" Fate Tokens to restrict the attribute the problem-solver can use, and the problem-solver can "bid" them to counteract that.

But as was pointed out, there are a huge variety of way to accomplish varied use in the game.

One model I had in mind was InSpectres, which I've played several times and adore; in that, the player picks a trait that is appropriate to the situation, then narrates the outcome based on the roll... so, given that there is quite a tight structure to the game, in terms of currency conversion, what I really need is a mechanism to determine what type of test is required next. I'm just worried that, if that mechanism is the other players, the opposite problem will occur, i.e. they will always target the acting player's weakest attribute. I've been toying with the idea that using attributes depletes them, but I might transfer this to the shared economy of the group, rather than burdening each individual player with their own share of it.

Another option, for those who like to gamble, is that there's a degree of risk attached to using the same attribute several times in a row. Each time you call for a Strength scene, say, you have to roll against a higher target number to avoid losing everything you've built up in this set of scenes. Sheesh, it's late... I'll have to write an example to show what I mean:

Player A tests his Will, increasing it to 3. Next, he tests his Strength, increasing it to 5. The he tests his Will again, three times in a row, increasing it to 6. However, he fails his roll in the last scene, so Will dumps back to 3 again - all that work for nothing!

Oops... I never even addressed the Big 3...

1. What is the game about?
  A group of researchers in a race against time and the competition in order to be first to make a breakthrough

2. What do the characters do?
  They use their skills in research, politcs and management to advance aspects of the project, but all the time they are draining a common pool of resources in order to get the job done

3. What do the players do?
  Before even starting play, the players choose a setting (modern history, futuristic, steam punk, fantasy) and a project (build a weapon, cure a disease, design a better stardrive/steam engine/seven league boots) then create characters suitable to both. During play a problem is narrated, the acting player rolls their skill dice and then narrates the outcome based on their success or failure, but the result also determines the reduction in their 3 shared resources of Intelligence, Budget and Deadline.

Thanks for everyone's suggestions, they have helped to sharpen this image up for me and make me think hard about what a session of the game would actually look & feel like. I've decided to make the skills change inversely to the player's results. i.e. skills improve when they fail and deplete when they succeed, so that should encourage the variety I was looking for.