So... been playing Champions/Hero since 1st Edition.  Come a long way over the last 25 years... but still find the core task resolution, combat system to be the most flexible and effective for what kind of games I like.  That being said, even at it's 5th Edition Revised status... this is still a System that is old school, early '80s based... Nar mechanics and such like Outcome Resolution (not just task resolution) just aren't part of it.  To me, though... Hero is plenty flexible to allow for "bolt on" constructs that provide this missing functionality.  I took Fate Chips from Deadlands and modified them into a Luck Chit system for Hero that is much more a metagame mechanic for player/Story interaction than a character level mechanic for number and dice.  It works fabulously.

Stakes are another matter.  I like the idea of "intent" being key (Not just "I'm trying to kick down the door" but "I want my character to just blow through this door to demonstrate his power over things that would top an normal man!") and that has become part of our game.  Don't just way WHAT you are trying to do, but WHY you are trying to do it.  Stakes... as much as I can figure out from posts here... take that to a new level.  Setting very clear "IF X then Y" outcomes.  I find this to be rather stark and unsettling from an "in play" experience... and I think I know why.

As GM... I still want to be surprised.  I still want to see a dice roll happen... and THEN, figure out in plot/theme/Story terms how it plays out.  More so... I still want that Sim aspect (most often in combat or other task res situations) in terms of "I don't know how this will play out... let's see... and the outcome could very well turn on a simple success or failure of a task resolution that didn't seem significant until AFTER the scene played out as a whole."

I hope this is making sense, but essentially... I don't want to have a X or Y option set ahead of time... because I see an outcome as a series of connected task resolutions... not a single resolution.

That being said... I do think Stakes have a place... but I see them more in a broad sense.  Instead of "I beard the vampire in it's lair... win or lose" but "If you choose to pursue the vampires into their own lair, understand that we are entering a Sim arena.  Once combat starts, we are going to let the tasks play out to whatever conclusion takes place... which we will then adjust and continue the game/theme/Story using those results as a springboard."    Essentially, the Stakes are hidden... but from everyone, because we won't know how successful or catestrophic the scene turns out to be until it plays out.  Still there are stakes... players know they could "lose" and that negative repercussions will occur.  Essentially, Stakes are broadly set right before they kick open the door... but after than, we kind of Sim the combat out, then figure out repercussions as a group afterwards.

My question and or point being... is this a legitimate use of the concept of "Stakes"... one that I think is flexible and adjustable for even an old system like Hero... and does anyone else do anything similar?

I can give a perfect example of an in game situation of this if needed... but I'm trying to get a feel for whether anyone considers it acceptable to mingle Nar like Stakes with Sim-like task resolution... or am I bastardizing things in an ugly, unnecessary way.

Everyone else can come on and give you the proper answer with their smarty-brains, but I can tell you how I use these kinds of things.

I used to only call it "stakes" when I'm doing some kind of conflict (rather than task) resolution. In task resolution the stakes are often harder to nail down, as the assumed result is simply "you fail at what you're trying to do." However even in task resolution there can be some stakes set. The most obvious example that comes to mind is the "What happens if you fail your jump roll to jump from the roof of one building to the roof of another in the middle of a fight?" That's a task, right? And yet, there can be a lot of friction over what happens if you fail. Do you fall the whole distance while your enemy shoots at you? Do you stop just at the edge of the building without making the jump? Do you get to make an acrobatics check to grab the ledge of the opposite building and pull yourself up while being shot at? Do you make it anyway because the GM doesn't want you to die?

A lot of this stuff is handled by the rules in some games (Spycraft 2.0 is really damn clear about what happens on failed Jump checks), and by the social contract in many others. However, because it often comes down to "whatever I'm thinking at the moment, which you may not be thinking at the moment" there can be confusion. There can also be negation of player choice -- if they fail the roll and you (GM) save their ass anyway, well then there wasn't even a task being attempted -- just an empty roll.

So in that sense stakes can be set for even task resolution. Having a clear idea of what actually happens when you succede and fail can be a very good thing, and avoid the whole "but I wouldn't have jumped over the gap if I knew I would fall into the uranium stockpile!" argument.

In many games I also do something like you talk about with the meta-scene framing. I call it setting the stage, and I use it to let players know what they are risking in this scene. I find it makes a big difference to say something along the lines of "if you lose this fight, all you're risking is being put in a death trap" before a scene than if I say "if you lose this fight you are risking death." Players will use different tactics, fight more or less hard to win, and so on depending on how they feel about that general sense of expectation. I don't set what will happen for sure, win or lose, ahead of time -- but I do give them some sense of what is being risked.

Actually, your post, Brand, and others I've been reading sparked a thought on how to address my own question.

Would it be legitimate to say that...

"Conflict Resolution (something I've called Outcome Resolution) = Stakes tension"

"Task Resolution = Uncertainty tension."

That the unspoken (in many cases) social contract of Task Resolution is that the player is allowing the GM to make the call on what happens... but arguments (as you noted) come up because players don't realize that they've agreed to this, thus argue about the "plutonium pile." 

Thus the addition of Stakes is really allowing the PLAYER to say, "I'm not comfortable with uncertainty, I want a clear thematic/Story choice with clear stakes at this point."  This takes the game into a different realm for that scene or event.

Now, clearly this interpretation is coming from my own experience, biased to decades long Hero playing (other systems as well, but Hero primarily) so that I see the Task Res = Uncertainty as the default position of the game... with ConRes = Stakes being the "special situation" position.  Others, I'm sure, could say that a game can be Stakes based by default.  I'm not comfortable with that, but I'd certainly accept it as legitimate.

To my mind... the division I set above is very much appropriate as a "bolt on" to Hero or other games.  If the group is comfotable with Uncertainty as default... you only need an appropriate metagame mechanic to allow for a clear "we are stepping into Stakes territory" communication... IMO one that limits the number of times you can do this as a player (GM could propose Stakes whenever) so that the players treat Stakes moments as precious commodities.

hmmmm... I think I like this a lot... and your input above really helped clarify something for me.  Thanks again, Brand.

I have talked to Sim players and GMs in the past who have put forward the idea that in a lot of Nar and Gamist play, people roll dice when they want to take control of the game for their character/story, but that in some (only SOME) Sim play you roll to give up control of the character/story. Sometimes this leads to GM fiat and/or ouija boarding issues -- but sometimes it does so in a functional way because it is what people want.

So, if you want to follow the logic of that, I'd ask where it leads you? If you're rolling for uncertainty, then in times when players do not want to be uncertain do you still make them roll? Or do you set stakes when they want to know the possible results, but not set stakes when they want to be surprised?

For example, in my ongoing Truth and Justice game I have once or twice had a player say to me, "I need to win this. I don't want to roll, I just want to win and move on." We've worked out a system where I allow this, and in exchange get a black chip – which I can cash in later for a "you lose, no roll, just lose" later in the game. When she wants to win, she does, but knowing it will cost her a loss later on. When she wants to "see what happens" we roll the dice and use the system as normal. Believe it or don't, it works brilliantly with this group.

In the two year long Exalted game that I just finished running, there were several times where one player or another would step away from the general Nar stance of the game and say something along the lines of "I don't know what to do. I want to roll one of my virtues and figure it out." Often this was in response to another character attempting to manipulate them in one way or another, and for whatever reasons the players were happy to roll dice in order to give up control of the decision rather than stepping up and addressing premise by making the decision themselves. Sometimes this was a ouija board issue ("I really want to sleep with the hottie, but can't admit that to the group"), but other times it was because of two equally fun options that the character just couldn't decide between. To make it work we had to know – before the roll – what a win or loss meant. Without knowing that the roll was just random dice hitting the table ("I rolled 4 successes! What does that mean?" "I have no clue, I don't even know what you were rolling for…").

On the other hand, we would frequently end up in combats in which the task-by-task resolution was not clearly stake-set before the swing because we were just going with the flow of what happened and liked to surprise each other back and forth with our stunts. Because of the degree of cooperation this worked in the group, despite the fact that other points of the game could be very much based around using game to push stakes. It was, in fact, almost the opposite of a lot of RPGs – we pushed the plot with social and magical issues, and combat was the part where we just handwaved a lot because it wasn't so important to push there.

I think it comes down to... as other's have put it... "Know what you are rolling for before you pick up the dice."  Thus the situation is quite issue specific as you describe above.

In a Hero example, there could be a variety of ways rolls could play out... most often with the "I missed the roll... what happens" falling into the uncertainty tension/GM decision mode.

I try to backflip over the attacker to make a surprise attack on them.  If they make the roll, rules clearly state a bonus.  If they miss the roll, rules got nothin' and the GM has to decide.  "You flip over, but land badly, stumbling backward so that you can't attack and your opponent can get first attack next phase!"  Often enough... with short term tactical results... this kind of thing happens all the time and no one notices the GM decision/giving up control aspect of the situation.

Or "I try to backflip over the attacker."  GM - "What do you hope to accomlish by this?"  Player - "I want to get the drop on them, getting my sword at their neck so that if they move, they risk death!"  Ok... suddenly we are in stakes territory.  The GM can counter with... "To do so will be a roll at -5, so you have a decent chance of failure, but get a huge bonus normally outside a simple acrobatics roll.  If you fail, though, the attacker gets a free shot... no to hit roll, just do damage as they reverse their sword so you land on it!"  Now you've got something warranting Stakes.

I could actually use a "I just win" chit mechanic like you promote above though I would require more than "I just win."

Example:  Last night we had two players tackle a coven of Vampires in their lair.  They did pretty well, killing a couple, avoiding others, then taking out one of the big bads before the rest could return home to confront them.  They then managed to crack the seal on a warded room, realeasing the truly Big Bad whom the rest of the vampires had trapped and would tap for power (their sire.)  I'd figured this might happen, and though beaten up a bit, likely the two PCs could have beaten the sire who was just as interested in punishing his progeny as taking out the heroes.  Then the dice struck.  One of the progeny made a suicide attack on a PC... and the dice went her way.  She rolled a natural critical hit (a 3 on 3d6, not all that common) and just tore him in half in one shot.  Suddenly the Big Bad only had one PC to face... and though he did his best (tricking the ancient one who'd never seen a gun into getting shot with three holy water bullets) it wasn't quite enough to finish the old guy off, and the last attack by the PC (a sword shot that could have been the finishing blow) missed due to bad tactics by the player and a bad roll.  All luck chits used up (for GM and players both) and we'd been simming this fight for the most part... but all of us realized that just killing off the heroes and saying, "You lose... big bad wins..." wasn't an appropriate story/theme/plot way to end it... so we left it on a cliff hanger with one PC bleeding out and another at the mercy of the ancient sire. 

To have a "I win" mechanic that could then be turned around for an "I lose later" mechanic would have worked here.  Or maybe it worked... it wasn't a perfect ending... but at the same time, to be able to just "I win" the big bad could have felt like a cheat.  I dunno.  Instead, my plan is to sit down with the players and say, "While your characters were left in a bad way... to put in mildly... I still see plot/story/theme ideas that could move forward.  What do you guys think?  Where do you want to go with this?"  Discuss options and player desires and story ideas... and then move ahead when we next play.  This is unstructured and without a mechanic... but it still gets at what we want at our table.  Intense, often gritty combat that can have unexpected and bad results... but not so much that players feel unsatisfied and character's go unfulfilled in theme/concept. 

Back to my original post... the players entered the fight with the knowledge that it was an extreme risk and not a guaranteed success... but the six or seven possible outcomes I now see possible in moving forward are more interesting (to me) than a Stakes bases win/lose two option concept that might have been used. 

Hiya,

I think this topic isn't a Creative Agenda thing at all. I think it has to do strictly with how much of a given "series" of fictional events gets resolved by a given roll ... a scale thing.

Like you, I'm a Champions veteran from the way-back. I faded away from it in 1994 or so. And boy, do I know what you mean about having rolls be consequential. A lot of my goals with Sorcerer, for instance, were built from how we approached our rolling in Champs.

What I'd really like to see is that in-game account that you offered a couple posts back. I'd also like to see holding off on the Creative Agenda talk, at least for a while, because I really do think this is a Techniques discussion and not especially relevant to CA except in an internal way (one CA at a time, not comparative).

Best,
Ron

Another example of Hero based rolls and whether they could be "Stakes" or "Uncertainty"

KS: Lore of Atlantis - Standard scenario... I have a 14-, I roll... 10!  Made it by four.  What do I find out?  (Now GM has the authorship of what they learn, based on how well the roll was made and where they want the info to lead.)

KS: Lore of Atlantis - Stakes scenario... I ha ve a 14-.  I want to find solid information on the deep origins of the Lemurian Snake Idol and it should tell me why Dr. Destroyer is so keen to get his hands on it!"  GM, "Ok, you get a -3, and if you miss the roll not only do you not find out the information, but you fall under an ancient curse that causes you to obsess and covet the idol yourself in the most paranoid state of mind!"

Now we have something very different.  I think both are appropriate, depending on the desires of the group and the situation in the game.  Getting comfortable with the idea of Stakes could allow characters to request "vague" stakes even, like, "We are going in after the Vampires... but if we lose, I don't want this to be the death of my character."  GM can counter with, "Ok, but if the risk is not so extreme, than if you win, the victory will not be clean or final!"   This is more of  a "win/win" type of situation, rather than "You fail if you lose.  More like, a negotiation of "If I get X that I want, you can have Y that you want."  THAT concept of stakes I'm much more comfortable with than a win/lose, zero sum game type of situation.

Ron wrote:
Hiya,

I think this topic isn't a Creative Agenda thing at all. I think it has to do strictly with how much of a given "series" of fictional events gets resolved by a given roll ... a scale thing.

Like you, I'm a Champions veteran from the way-back. I faded away from it in 1994 or so. And boy, do I know what you mean about having rolls be consequential. A lot of my goals with Sorcerer, for instance, were built from how we approached our rolling in Champs.

What I'd really like to see is that in-game account that you offered a couple posts back. I'd also like to see holding off on the Creative Agenda talk, at least for a while, because I really do think this is a Techniques discussion and not especially relevant to CA except in an internal way (one CA at a time, not comparative).

Best,
Ron

Or to put it more succinctly...

"Is it appropriate to mix Stakes resolution and Taks resolution not only in the same game or session, but in the same scene or imagined event?"

Brand_Robins wrote:
For example, in my ongoing Truth and Justice game I have once or twice had a player say to me, "I need to win this. I don't want to roll, I just want to win and move on." We've worked out a system where I allow this, and in exchange get a black chip – which I can cash in later for a "you lose, no roll, just lose" later in the game. When she wants to win, she does, but knowing it will cost her a loss later on. When she wants to "see what happens" we roll the dice and use the system as normal. Believe it or don't, it works brilliantly with this group.

Hi Neil,

Simming the combat out then figuring out repurcussions as a group latter isn't like the stakes used in conflict resolution. Conflict resolution involves the group figuring out what a pass and fail will mean, then the dice decide if a pass or fail happen. Simming out the combat is rolling a bunch of dice, then the group may use that to varying degrees as a springboard to decide happens next. In this case rolling the dice is much like watching a scene in a movie, then hitting stop and the group instead decides what happens next, in their collective imaginations. Basically the dice don't resolve anything, they just provide inspiration. In conflict resolution, they definiately resolve stuff!

RDU wrote: That the unspoken (in many cases) social contract of Task Resolution is that the player is allowing the GM to make the call on what happens... but arguments (as you noted) come up because players don't realize that they've agreed to this, thus argue about the "plutonium pile." 

Thus the addition of Stakes is really allowing the PLAYER to say, "I'm not comfortable with uncertainty, I want a clear thematic/Story choice with clear stakes at this point."  This takes the game into a different realm for that scene or event.

My first and still main concern with Stakes is that at the extreme it can result in "GM - Ok... Dr. Destroyer has threatened to destroy the world."  Player "I roll to stop him."   Ok... entire adventure comes down to a single "1-3 you lose, 4-6 you win" roll.  That is the negative piece of Stakes I really have to overcome to be comfortable with the concept... and yes, this is a technique question.

Ron wrote:
I think this topic isn't a Creative Agenda thing at all. I think it has to do strictly with how much of a given "series" of fictional events gets resolved by a given roll ... a scale thing.

Callan wrote:
I think what your really worried about is a player who doesn't take on some of the burden of co-authorship themselves and rips through story proposals from you with CR, thinking that it's purely up to the GM to provide entertaining risk. I think these players do exist in abundance, but mostly because they are used to years of play where they had no control - ie, their arguements about the plutonium would be ignored.

Ron wrote:
Hiya,

I think this topic isn't a Creative Agenda thing at all. I think it has to do strictly with how much of a given "series" of fictional events gets resolved by a given roll ... a scale thing.

Like you, I'm a Champions veteran from the way-back. I faded away from it in 1994 or so. And boy, do I know what you mean about having rolls be consequential. A lot of my goals with Sorcerer, for instance, were built from how we approached our rolling in Champs.

What I'd really like to see is that in-game account that you offered a couple posts back. I'd also like to see holding off on the Creative Agenda talk, at least for a while, because I really do think this is a Techniques discussion and not especially relevant to CA except in an internal way (one CA at a time, not comparative).

Best,
Ron

I think that's the price to pay for co-authorship - if they just aren't excited by your story proposal, they'll just get it out of the way with one roll. It's not a bug, it's a feature of co-authorship - the other players actually control stuff like this.

I think what your really worried about is a player who doesn't take on some of the burden of co-authorship themselves and rips through story proposals from you with CR, thinking that it's purely up to the GM to provide entertaining risk. I think these players do exist in abundance, but mostly because they are used to years of play where they had no control - ie, their arguements about the plutonium would be ignored.

KS: Lore of Atlantis - Standard scenario... I have a 14-, I roll... 10!  Made it by four.  What do I find out?  (Now GM has the authorship of what they learn, based on how well the roll was made and where they want the info to lead.)

KS: Lore of Atlantis - Stakes scenario... I ha ve a 14-.  I want to find solid information on the deep origins of the Lemurian Snake Idol and it should tell me why Dr. Destroyer is so keen to get his hands on it!"  GM, "Ok, you get a -3, and if you miss the roll not only do you not find out the information, but you fall under an ancient curse that causes you to obsess and covet the idol yourself in the most paranoid state of mind!"

All this is reminding me immensely of Bringing Down The Pain in The Shadow Of Yesterday. The neat wrinkle there is that it's retroactive, in a sense. You can be cooking along, resolving huge amounts of stuff with conflict rolls, and then suddenly decide "No. That roll, there, was not enough detail and attention to be worthy of this outcome. Let's get serious!"

Which is a handy technical capability for just about any game and set of preferences, I'd think.

RDU wrote: My first and still main concern with Stakes is that at the extreme it can result in "GM - Ok... Dr. Destroyer has threatened to destroy the world."  Player "I roll to stop him."

Alan wrote:
Like Ron said, this is about scale.  Just because a technique calls for stakes on a roll, doesn't mean that _any_ size of stakes are acceptable.  If both GM and players want a more meaningful build up to some big stakes, then they should stop and think of smaller stakes for intermediate rolls.  Also, everyone at the table may decide that they're playing a game where "destroy the world" will never actually happen.

Alan wrote:

RDU wrote: My first and still main concern with Stakes is that at the extreme it can result in "GM - Ok... Dr. Destroyer has threatened to destroy the world."  Player "I roll to stop him."

Like Ron said, this is about scale.  Just because a technique calls for stakes on a roll, doesn't mean that _any_ size of stakes are acceptable.  If both GM and players want a more meaningful build up to some big stakes, then they should stop and think of smaller stakes for intermediate rolls.  Also, everyone at the table may decide that they're playing a game where "destroy the world" will never actually happen.  In a case like that, they can all admit that ultimate destruction is just not on the table and look for something else to win or lose.

Totally on-board with a whole techniques -vs- agenda thing;

Personally, I consider Dogs in the Vineyard to be a hybrid between task and conflict resolution. You set your stakes, but it's not about a single roll determining the results. Suddenly you have task resolution going on in rapid-fire back and forth.

Dog: "Begone back whence you came, foul demon!" 5, 6

Demon: "No. <laughs evilly as it shrugs off the Dog's command>" 6, 6

Demon: "Die! <lunges at the Dog, claws ripping>" 4, 3

Dog: "By the power granted me by the King, I defy you! <grabs the demon's wrists>" 7

Dog: "And by your name abjure you, Beelzebub!" +6

Demon: "Eeeargh! <it's form begins to shred> 4, 4, 5

etc.

That was 3 separate tasks resolved within the conflict. The Dog failed to banish the demon once because it "blocked". The demon attacked, but the Dog Layed on Hands and was able to turn the blow. His second attempt to banish the demon was notably more successful, bolstered by the Layed on Hands, and Calling the True Name. Depending on the Stakes, the demon may be banished, or it may come back, but that's beside the point. Multiple task resolutions within a conflict resolution is still quite possible.

Now, the Dogs system isn't necessarily what you want, as you've said you're fond of Champions. But the principle remains the same. As an example:

Conflict: Beard the vampire in his own lair
Stakes: If you win, his taint will lessen and the people will breathe a sigh of relief. If you fail, he will take retribution on those you love most.

Now, instead of rolling a die to see if they win or lose, you send them in with the whole Champions system backing them, and fight it out as normal. All of a sudden, they realize they can't win; One hero bleeding out, and the other at the Elder's mercy. So he says t'hell with it, grabs his buddy, and flees. They've failed. So now the wounded heroes are racing to try to get to their loved ones in time to save them from the Elder vampire's vengeance, and you've got a lot more going on. It's not pass/fail, it's interesting consequence/interesting consequence.

Ok... I began to reply to all this, but then got quite riled up about this whole stakes thing (which I'm liking less and less) and just wanted to respond the point below.

Doug wrote:
[Or to put it another way: are we talking about the scale of individual conflicts relative to the setting, or the scale of conflicts relative to the story?

Wolfen wrote:
Totally on-board with a whole techniques -vs- agenda thing;

Personally, I consider Dogs in the Vineyard to be a hybrid between task and conflict resolution. You set your stakes, but it's not about a single roll determining the results. Suddenly you have task resolution going on in rapid-fire back and forth.

Dog: "Begone back whence you came, foul demon!" 5, 6

Demon: "No. <laughs evilly as it shrugs off the Dog's command>" 6, 6

Demon: "Die! <lunges at the Dog, claws ripping>" 4, 3

Dog: "By the power granted me by the King, I defy you! <grabs the demon's wrists>" 7

Dog: "And by your name abjure you, Beelzebub!" +6

Demon: "Eeeargh! <it's form begins to shred> 4, 4, 5

etc.

That was 3 separate tasks resolved within the conflict. The Dog failed to banish the demon once because it "blocked". The demon attacked, but the Dog Layed on Hands and was able to turn the blow. His second attempt to banish the demon was notably more successful, bolstered by the Layed on Hands, and Calling the True Name. Depending on the Stakes, the demon may be banished, or it may come back, but that's beside the point. Multiple task resolutions within a conflict resolution is still quite possible.

Now, the Dogs system isn't necessarily what you want, as you've said you're fond of Champions. But the principle remains the same. As an example:

Conflict: Beard the vampire in his own lair
Stakes: If you win, his taint will lessen and the people will breathe a sigh of relief. If you fail, he will take retribution on those you love most.

Now, instead of rolling a die to see if they win or lose, you send them in with the whole Champions system backing them, and fight it out as normal. All of a sudden, they realize they can't win; One hero bleeding out, and the other at the Elder's mercy. So he says t'hell with it, grabs his buddy, and flees. They've failed. So now the wounded heroes are racing to try to get to their loved ones in time to save them from the Elder vampire's vengeance, and you've got a lot more going on. It's not pass/fail, it's interesting consequence/interesting consequence.

It's not pass/fail, it's interesting consequence/interesting consequence.

Stakes bring a calm, flatness to these peaks and valleys... you avoid the bad stuff... but you don't get the really good stuff either.  Like going through life on Prozac.  No thanks...

Stakes bring a calm, flatness to these peaks and valleys... you avoid the bad stuff... but you don't get the really good stuff either.  Like going through life on Prozac.  No thanks...

Valamir wrote:

There's no rule that says stakes have to be binary with the good being good but not great and the bad being bad but not horrible.

i.e."If you lose the Vampire will go after your loved ones, but if one of you actually dies or falls unconcious during the scene the Vampire will have ripped the identities and locations of those loved ones from your mind and have a head start in getting to them". 

disagree that Stakes help immersion.  I think they are completely anti-immersion.  Instead of Vector talking with Taurus over the need to build intra-solar shuttles ... we have Storn negotiating with Neil about the game world ramifications for character and setting.  Not immersive at all.  I'm not saying it can't work... just that I wouldn't call it immersive.

RDU wrote:
There is no way I could have set stakes, because I don't really know them until things are over and I'm sorting out a logical direction to go.

Mark wrote:
Well, one of the neat things about stakes-setting is that you, the GM, don't have to come up with everything based on your read of the situation and players. You ask the players what they're willing to have at risk. Stakes-setting (at its best) isn't something that one player does all alone, it's negotiated with the whole group.

Storn wrote:

Intent and Stakes help frame the role playing and story creation.  They do NOT take its place.  We've been taking games to a Metagame discussion at the table  for years now... why should this bother you now?

RDU wrote:
This might be your interpretation... but in the threads I've been reading here, I've yet to see anyone say "We set the stakes then role played out the argument"  It's all been... set the stakes, roll the dice, I WIN!  Not a single "Actual Play" example has sounded like role playing to me... it all sounds like dice-moderated-plot-scripting for the most part. 

RDU wrote:
This might be your interpretation... but in the threads I've been reading here, I've yet to see anyone say "We set the stakes then role played out the argument"  It's all been... set the stakes, roll the dice, I WIN!  Not a single "Actual Play" example has sounded like role playing to me... it all sounds like dice-moderated-plot-scripting for the most part. 

I think the reason it comes off in many AP posts as a "roll and done" is because most of the time we focus on procedural elements and the reactions of the players around the table, and don’t fully explain or recount the action of the fiction or the moment to moment flow of play. However, I know that in my games stakes and conflicts have led to more character acting and immersion – not less.

Neil,

I think I'm also seeing the disconnect between you and Storn.

What Stakes do, in Storn's view (I think) and in many others as well, is lets the players know what's being risked.

Win: Vampire's gone, and we cheer!

Lose: Vampire goes after our families?? Holy crap, we really don't want to lose this one. We're really, really interested in not losing this one, because it's our families at stake, man! Instant increase in player investment when they know what's at risk, and they care about it. They still don't know what's going to happen, but they're a lot more interested in finding out.

And here's disconnect two, as I see it; I reiterate, again, that stakes are not pass/fail. They don't set up rewards or punishment, they set up situations. Situations require all sorts of more roleplaying and investment. A little bit of narration isn't going to cut it when you've got a new situation. It's not pre-scripting, it's bangs and kickers. Everything is just as uncertain as it was before, the only difference is that the players have the situation set up for them, so no time is wasted on dull kicking around trying to figure out what to do next.

Also, stakes shouldn't be used for everything, but they should be more frequent than climax scenes and full sessions. Here's a somewhat overdone example...
Also crossposted with Valamir; I agree with what he says totally.

Situation: Your buddy's out and bleeding, and you've used up all of your tricks. The vampire is going for your buddy to finish him off.
Stakes: If you manage to stop the vampire from getting your buddy, he's gonna go after you, and you're not much better off. If you don't stop him, your buddy may end up being a night-stalking bloodsucker too!

Option 1: I stop him!
Situation: Oh crap, now he's after me, I'm boned!
Stakes: I can grab my buddy and run, but he said earlier in the fight that he knew where my mother lived, and he'll go after her. If I try to fight him, we could both end up dead, or worse!

Option 2: I can't stop him!
Situation: Oh, this isn't good. My buddy's a vampire now too, and is struggling to control himself!
Stakes: I can just grab him and run (I still can't take out the elder) and hope he can control his urges long enough to figure a way out of this, or I can do the best thing I can, and stake my buddy now while he's still too weak to attack me back. Oh, the angst!

As Valamir points out, there's often more than one choice, so I'm oversimplifying a bit as well. The stakes don't necessarily have to be cut and dried, unless you're playing a conflict-res system that says that the stakes cannot change once the conflict has begun. The idea, especially as a bolt-on thing, is to give an idea of what is at risk and increase player investment while setting up another interesting situation. Not every moment of Roleplaying can be high tension, nor should it (at least, that's my view) but bangs and situation-creating-situation helps keep things moving and allows the tension to be maintained and built when you need it to be.

In the end, if you still cannot wrap your head around using stakes, then simply.. Don't. It's a tool, not a rule, and should be used the best you decide to improve your gaming experience.

Crossposted with Brand, I think his example supports what I'm trying to say, at least somewhat. Especially note his last point; Actual Play isn't always the best gauge of the intricacies of the play at the table, as it's usually more of an overview with impressions and questions.

Cross posting with others...

Valamir... thanks for the Game of Thrones example.  While I would have preferred Theon becoming shark-food (I love those books and hate that character) what you described does make sense to me... but also goes counter to the way much of the "win/lose" dynamic has been stated in other threads.  Your stakes are not "win/lose" but "win/win" for the player who is interested in both outcomes... plus your Stakes are open... guidelines... which a lot of others have posted as "wrong" because they see stakes as contractual with "either X or Y and you can't change them after they've been agreed upon."

Wolfen:  I do agree that clarifying what is at stake is a good thing... making some intent more clear... we've done that for years in our games without a mechanic or rule for it... but again it is the win/lose bit that bugs me.  If either option is "cool" for the player, even though the character has to be role played to think it's bad... that is one thing... but if you truly want to win/lose... then the PLAYER has to lose.  The PLAYER has to be disappointed and pissed off because losing sucks.  Losing is losing.  In the vampire example, losing is not "Oh cool, now I get to role play trying to save my family" losing is "That's it, you lost.  Character is dead.  Your last ignominious end is having your spleen eaten while you are still alive.  Nobody is saved, you FAILED!" 

Basically, if stakes are truly a gamble... then the PLAYER has to feel bad when they lose... otherwise it is not a gamble, it is simply clarifying some player desires for things they'd like to see happen. 

Another example... just to clarify my concern on stakes lessening the fun...

Example:  In combat, one character was fighting the villain with whom he turned out to have a genetic connection.  He'd learned this and dreaded what it meant about his future.  The villain kept coming after him because he was now a personal threat.  The PLAYER, not just the character, became desperate in the big battle, when the villain just kept getting up and coming after him again and again... so that when the moment came where the villain was down... the PC went over the top.  Attacked the body... totally immolated the villain in desperation... the PLAYER was desperate and tense and emotionally tied to the moment just like the character...

... and then after it was over... the player was like "Oh my god.... what have I done?  I was  hero... but I totally lost it.  I crossed the line and didn't even realize it!  This changes everything!"   It actually took weeks for the repercussions to sink in with the player... and it was a brilliant and campaign altering moment.  It happened because we let things play out in a moment by moment, task resolution, inside the skin of the charater moment... with GREAT uncertainty about what would happen.

Stakes would have utterly destroyed this.  If we'd had a metagame moment where I said, "Ok... you want to utterly destroy your foe... if you fail... or if you succeed, but..." it was possible we could have hashed out BEFORE HAND this exact ending... but it would have been greatly reduced in impact.  The power of the moment came from the PLAYER and the character really, emotionally feeling the impact of their actions... instead of a cold, abstract, calculated... "Hmmm ok, doing that would mean I cross the line so we'll then have scenes of contrition and soul searching afterwards."  

One moment was an epiphany... but Stakes would have turned it into just another scripted scene.  I would like to see how knowing the outcome either way would enhance the thrill of play because it seems to abstract and distance the player from the moment.  The thrill of success comes because the uncertainty of absolute failure also exists.

Whoops.. Brand, not Valamir.  I gave out the wrong credits there.  Three cross-posts confused me.

Two things:

WHY in the world should a player ever feel bad during roleplaying? I mean, occasionally it happens, but this is a condition to be avoided. Roleplaying is supposed to be fun (and a big finger to alla youse freaks who think otherwise!) and fun SHOULD include the agony of uncertainty and even failure. Sometimes the characters have to die. But the player should never, ever leave a session feeling BAD. The following is the sort of thing you should expect to see when a character dies, IMO.

"Man, I'm so bummed! My character got totally pasted, but wow, was it an awesome scene. One more point of damage and I'd have taken out the villain, but at least I weakened him enough for your character to finish him off. The last part where everyone gathered around my character as he died.. Man, I almost cried. I can't wait to see what happens next!"

Basically, the way I see it, there shouldn't really be any such thing as the player losing. So long as the player has fun, is interested in the game, and has some memorable scenes to take home, it is and should be win/win.

Second thing, I want to point out again that explicitly setting stakes is, for the most part, a tool, not a rule, again barring games that specifically say otherwise. You shouldn't always pause to set stakes. Especially because, and this is important, there are ALWAYS stakes. Whenever there's an important decision to make, there's a "win" condition and a "lose" condition. The only difference is whether or not it's explicit. Sometimes, it's better when it's explicit, and sometimes it's not. Even in games like Dogs, where the stakes are set up ahead of time, the details will end up with extremely strong situations. Frex, my character Br. Thaddeus had alla these dice for gunfighting. But he'd never killed anyone. He sentenced a few people to death over the course of our play, and he felt somewhat bad about that, even though he knew it was the right thing, but he'd never shot and killed anyone. I was totally waiting for this to happen. I *wanted* it to happen. BUT under no circumstances would I have allowed the stakes to be "Does Thaddeus shoot and kill this person." Had my GM suggested it, I would have rejected it and suggested something else.. Because I'd be playing to the hilt to never have to kill, so that when it did happen, it would be unexpected and I'd be able to react and roleplay on the fly.

In your example, the stakes were there, if not explicit.

Situation: The villain just keeps coming for you, again and again.
Stakes: If you don't defeat him, he'll just keep coming. The connection between you means that he has to. If you do defeat him decisively, you can end it, finally.

Notice that there's nothing that says "annihilate him completely". The player knew what was at stake; The villain continuing to come for him or not. He did what seemed best in the moment to win those stakes, answering the question "What is it worth?" decisively, but then opening himself up for self-doubt later. It may not have been conscious, pre-determined or explicit, but the stakes were there.

Wolfen wrote:
WHY in the world should a player ever feel bad during roleplaying? I mean, occasionally it happens, but this is a condition to be avoided. Roleplaying is supposed to be fun (and a big finger to alla youse freaks who think otherwise!) and fun SHOULD include the agony of uncertainty and even failure. Sometimes the characters have to die. But the player should never, ever leave a session feeling BAD. The following is the sort of thing you should expect to see when a character dies, IMO.

"Man, I'm so bummed! My character got totally pasted, but wow, was it an awesome scene. One more point of damage and I'd have taken out the villain, but at least I weakened him enough for your character to finish him off. The last part where everyone gathered around my character as he died.. Man, I almost cried. I can't wait to see what happens next!"

Basically, the way I see it, there shouldn't really be any such thing as the player losing. So long as the player has fun, is interested in the game, and has some memorable scenes to take home, it is and should be win/win.

Hi Neil,

Let me focus on one aspect of your response here:

if you truly want to win/lose... then the PLAYER has to lose.  The PLAYER has to be disappointed and pissed off because losing sucks.

Crioss posted

Wolfen wrote:
Two things:

WHY in the world should a player ever feel bad during roleplaying? I mean, occasionally it happens, but this is a condition to be avoided. Roleplaying is supposed to be fun (and a big finger to alla youse freaks who think otherwise!) and fun SHOULD include the agony of uncertainty and even failure. Sometimes the characters have to die. But the player should never, ever leave a session feeling BAD. The following is the sort of thing you should expect to see when a character dies, IMO.

"Man, I'm so bummed! My character got totally pasted, but wow, was it an awesome scene. One more point of damage and I'd have taken out the villain, but at least I weakened him enough for your character to finish him off. The last part where everyone gathered around my character as he died.. Man, I almost cried. I can't wait to see what happens next!"

Basically, the way I see it, there shouldn't really be any such thing as the player losing. So long as the player has fun, is interested in the game, and has some memorable scenes to take home, it is and should be win/win.

Notice that there's nothing that says "annihilate him completely". The player knew what was at stake; The villain continuing to come for him or not. He did what seemed best in the moment to win those stakes, answering the question "What is it worth?" decisively, but then opening himself up for self-doubt later. It may not have been conscious, pre-determined or explicit, but the stakes were there.

Tommi wrote:

As for Neil, maybe you dislike director/author stance? One player of mine does. He doesn't want to control things beyond his character.
Do you play immersively?

xenopulse wrote:
Hi Neil,

Let me focus on one aspect of your response here:

So basically you want to gamble with the player's enjoyment of the game. That's interesting. In your perfect game, players would frequently be pissed off and be unhappy about losing (because if they never lost, the risk of the gamble would disappear). Do I get that right? That's what I get from your statement that win/win stakes are flat, so let me know if I'm misreading you here. In short, your game sees anti-fun as a necessary element to get maximum fun moments at other times (maybe like in sports where people get really upset when they lose; players and fans alike).

Now, I've played that way, in fact, my current old-school hardcore Gamist AD&D 2e group plays this way. You know what that does to me? It disconnects me from my character. Immersion, or emotional involvement or whatever we may call it, is dramatically reduced after a few times of being pissed off. Why? Because I don't want to get angry over a game. It's an unpleasant feeling. My investment in my characters since my first one died has sunk intensely. I don't actually care anymore. My character could get maimed or killed tomorrow, and I'd smile and roll up a new one, because my investment in the character is close to zero. It becomes a pawn for winning in certain circumstances, but I won't get involved enough that it'll ruin my fun.

So, I think there is a difference in play styles and personalities. From my viewpoint and personal experience, I enjoy stakes where I can live happily with both outcomes. I will still prefer one outcome and fight hard for it, be sure of that, and there's excitement in trying to get my way. But I'd rather have "preferred/still cool" outcome choices rather than let myself get upset more and more until I stop caring.

In summary, I can see where you're coming from and why the possibility of being mad at an outcome on a player level can be more exciting to you (like a very involved sports fan is at hir favorite team's loss), but it's not everyone's cup of tea, and it doesn't mean that having two acceptable outcomes to a stake makes the resolution completely unexciting.

(Cross-posted with others)

I wanted to get this a bit more back on topic..

Wolfen posted...

Situation: Your buddy's out and bleeding, and you've used up all of your tricks. The vampire is going for your buddy to finish him off.
Stakes: If you manage to stop the vampire from getting your buddy, he's gonna go after you, and you're not much better off. If you don't stop him, your buddy may end up being a night-stalking bloodsucker too!

Option 1: I stop him!
Situation: Oh crap, now he's after me, I'm boned!
Stakes: I can grab my buddy and run, but he said earlier in the fight that he knew where my mother lived, and he'll go after her. If I try to fight him, we could both end up dead, or worse!

Option 2: I can't stop him!
Situation: Oh, this isn't good. My buddy's a vampire now too, and is struggling to control himself!
Stakes: I can just grab him and run (I still can't take out the elder) and hope he can control his urges long enough to figure a way out of this, or I can do the best thing I can, and stake my buddy now while he's still too weak to attack me back. Oh, the angst!

RDU wrote:
And I'm not sure I expect others to be mad and angry... but to tell the truth, I do want others to learn to handle disappointment.  To find that happy medium of "bummed I died, but that was a cool scene!" is exactly what I'm after... but maybe my play experience is different.  I see players get so caught up in their character that even a minor set back is the end of the world and the go off and sulk or hate the game... and I think stake settings is a way for them to avoid learning how to live with disappointment.  I actually DO want to encourage a certain level of objectivity... so that they feel the pain... but bounce back quickly, learning to work with adversity to build something greater rather than minimizing risk and adversity.  Build a better story by suffering loss.   No pain no gain, if you want a cliche.  That which does not kill me makes me stronger?  Get knocked down, but I get up again? 

I guess fun isn't always the right word... but "real" might be.  If things are always positive and good... it doesn't seem "real" to me and thus THAT is when I lose interest.  You have to suffer a bit for things to be real... not the character suffer, but the player as well.  Not a lot... you learn to objectify and distance yourself enough not to be miserable, but you still feel the pain enough to keep you caring.

Replies:

Neil, you're right that my last example was a little softer than what a lot of other people are talking about. So lets try another example.

Primetime Adventures game, setup something like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The Hunter is trying to stop a truck full of demons from getting into the city and doing mass mischief. We play back and forth the Hunter tracking down the truck and catching it just outside the city, barreling down a mountain road at 65mph. The Hunter's player says "I want to stop the truck and kill every single demon on board -- and I'm going to do it Indiana Jones style, leaping onto the truck, climbing about, having fights." I respond, "Cool, if you win they get stopped. If you lose you get your ass kicked, you get dumped bleeding in the road, and they all make it into the city before anyone else has a chance to stop them."

At that point we go to conflict resolution -- which in PTA is one play of the cards to determine who wins and who loses. About 1 minute later we know that the player lost. (Lost bad, I monkey stomped him.) At that point we know what is going to happen -- but it hasn't happened yet. We just know where we have to get to. We actually spend the next 15 minutes playing it out, with the hunter leaping from car to truck and climbing about and gettind dumped below the truck and clinging onto the undercarriage and getting shot three times and killing a half-dozen demons, and then getting shot with a shotgun at close range and blown off the back of the truck. It was all crazy, fast action with everyone in the group tossing in things like "and then the guy should try to shoot him, but get kicked right through the wall of the truck so that the freaking Toys R Us backwards R goes falling down the mountain!"

Similar things happen in our social scenes. We get to crisis, and figure out who is going to win and who is going to get to narrate -- but then we all play it out as a group with the person that won having final say over what can and can't get into reality. (Basically the winning player gets to do with the rest of the scene what the GM would normally do -- recasting and renarrating people's statements, telling them they can or can't do that, etc.)

This type of resolution does lose the "blow by blow" tension -- but that's because its set up to determine the outcome of conflicts not tasks. Other games that use stakes (Dogs in the Vineyard, HeroQuest, The Shadows of Yesterday) all can still use the stakes and the blow by blow. Either way you can still roleplay out and describe lots and lots of stuff. The only real difference is that you know before you start what it takes to win, what it takes to lose, and what happens (in general, if not specific) if both happen.

Now, for a different issue. A lot of people here are focused on the "fun win, fun loss" element of things. I am too. Lots of us are very focused on cooperation, fun on all sides, and playing nice. However, this doesn't mean that you have to set up stakes that make people happy about losing. A lot of other folks on the Forge don't play nice like that.

TonyLB should be the one explaining this, but he and his group have sometimes used stakes setting as a way to bone each other. He once described it in terms something like, "I figure out what the player wants for the character, then make it as hard for them to get it as I can. I take everything they want, and try to take it away from them." He'll also frequently say things like "When setting stakes as a GM make the stakes for the characters losing things that SUCK." The reason this is functional play, and not Tony being an ass, is because of stakes and contested mechanics (and because he is targeting the character for the suck, and not the player).

If a GM just FUBARS you all the time when you have no ability to know what is coming, or to stop it, then it's the old railroad again. However, if you can say, "If I win this roll then I get X" and negotiate fairly the "if I lose this roll then I lose Y" so that Y is something that sucks but does not ruin the game for you, and the GM has to live with the results of the roll like anyone else, then suddenly you can get into a position where you can push and push back HARD and still have the game come out fair. Games like Capes and Polaris, as a matter of fact, work very well when played like this.

So there are times when using stakes can let you push harder than any other time. If you can get the players to agree to the stakes, knowing what happens when they lose, then they have to take it if they lose. It was their call, and now they've blown it. This is in direct contrast to a game where the players don't know what they are risking, don't know what it will take to win or lose or what will happen if they do, and then get (rightfully) pissed when the GM herds them into a corner of invisible walls and crushes them with the toe of his boot.

RDU wrote:
Now.. THIS use of stakes I can totally grok with... but it really seems to be to still be very GM generated.  The GM is essentially saying, "A Metagame moment:  Here is how I see the scenario playing out in different so you guys are all fully on board with where I'm thinking."

This does NOT seem to be "Player: I want X" so "GM: Ok, you risk Y"  That is very different, IMO.

Brand_Robins wrote: TonyLB should be the one explaining this, but he and his group have sometimes used stakes setting as a way to bone each other. He once described it in terms something like, "I figure out what the player wants for the character, then make it as hard for them to get it as I can. I take everything they want, and try to take it away from them." He'll also frequently say things like "When setting stakes as a GM make the stakes for the characters losing things that SUCK." The reason this is functional play, and not Tony being an ass, is because of stakes and contested mechanics (and because he is targeting the character for the suck, and not the player).

Brand_Robins wrote:

At that point we go to conflict resolution -- which in PTA is one play of the cards to determine who wins and who loses. About 1 minute later we know that the player lost. (Lost bad, I monkey stomped him.) At that point we know what is going to happen -- but it hasn't happened yet. We just know where we have to get to. We actually spend the next 15 minutes playing it out, with the hunter leaping from car to truck and climbing about and gettind dumped below the truck and clinging onto the undercarriage and getting shot three times and killing a half-dozen demons, and then getting shot with a shotgun at close range and blown off the back of the truck. It was all crazy, fast action with everyone in the group tossing in things like "and then the guy should try to shoot him, but get kicked right through the wall of the truck so that the freaking Toys R Us backwards R goes falling down the mountain!"

Similar things happen in our social scenes. We get to crisis, and figure out who is going to win and who is going to get to narrate -- but then we all play it out as a group with the person that won having final say over what can and can't get into reality. (Basically the winning player gets to do with the rest of the scene what the GM would normally do -- recasting and renarrating people's statements, telling them they can or can't do that, etc.)

This type of resolution does lose the "blow by blow" tension -- but that's because its set up to determine the outcome of conflicts not tasks. Other games that use stakes (Dogs in the Vineyard, HeroQuest, The Shadows of Yesterday) all can still use the stakes and the blow by blow. Either way you can still roleplay out and describe lots and lots of stuff. The only real difference is that you know before you start what it takes to win, what it takes to lose, and what happens (in general, if not specific) if both happen.

Now, for a different issue. A lot of people here are focused on the "fun win, fun loss" element of things. I am too. Lots of us are very focused on cooperation, fun on all sides, and playing nice. However, this doesn't mean that you have to set up stakes that make people happy about losing. A lot of other folks on the Forge don't play nice like that.

TonyLB should be the one explaining this, but he and his group have sometimes used stakes setting as a way to bone each other. He once described it in terms something like, "I figure out what the player wants for the character, then make it as hard for them to get it as I can. I take everything they want, and try to take it away from them." He'll also frequently say things like "When setting stakes as a GM make the stakes for the characters losing things that SUCK." The reason this is functional play, and not Tony being an ass, is because of stakes and contested mechanics (and because he is targeting the character for the suck, and not the player).

If a GM just FUBARS you all the time when you have no ability to know what is coming, or to stop it, then it's the old railroad again. However, if you can say, "If I win this roll then I get X" and negotiate fairly the "if I lose this roll then I lose Y" so that Y is something that sucks but does not ruin the game for you, and the GM has to live with the results of the roll like anyone else, then suddenly you can get into a position where you can push and push back HARD and still have the game come out fair. Games like Capes and Polaris, as a matter of fact, work very well when played like this.

So there are times when using stakes can let you push harder than any other time. If you can get the players to agree to the stakes, knowing what happens when they lose, then they have to take it if they lose. It was their call, and now they've blown it. This is in direct contrast to a game where the players don't know what they are risking, don't know what it will take to win or lose or what will happen if they do, and then get (rightfully) pissed when the GM herds them into a corner of invisible walls and crushes them with the toe of his boot.

TonyLB wrote:

Brand_Robins wrote: TonyLB should be the one explaining this, but he and his group have sometimes used stakes setting as a way to bone each other. He once described it in terms something like, "I figure out what the player wants for the character, then make it as hard for them to get it as I can. I take everything they want, and try to take it away from them." He'll also frequently say things like "When setting stakes as a GM make the stakes for the characters losing things that SUCK." The reason this is functional play, and not Tony being an ass, is because of stakes and contested mechanics (and because he is targeting the character for the suck, and not the player).

Not really.  I totally go after the players.

An example that has been repeated (in demonstration games) so often that I have laminated cards with these stakes printed on them:  I play Major Victory, self-righteous defender of justice.  Some poor sap plays the Iron Brain, angry, bitter villain.  We take maybe ten seconds getting into character ("Curse you, Major Victory!  At last I will have my revenge!") and then I introduce the first stakes:  "If I win this then I prove that Justice will always lead .... to Victory!"

For the full effect you have to imagine it with me looking the other guy square in the face, giving an easy, arrogant grin and flashing the "V for Victory" sign with my fingers.  This is totally "I will make your character a pathetic loser, and you can't stop me!" territory. 

The other player reliably responds by taking a deep breath, glaring at me as if I'd just pissed on their dog, and then looking through the set of pre-printed stakes that they can offer in response.  They get an evil grin, and they chuckle, and that is how I know that they have flipped to "Humiliate Major Victory."  They play it and I take a deep breath and respond "Oh, that is never going to happen!" and away we go.  Lots of very heated dice rolls ensue as we pursue those goals.

So I really like stakes where winning is good and losing sucks.  I think they make for fun, intense conflict (and they encourage, as you say "Bummer, I died, but it was cool" scenes).  And they work really well with explicit conflict resolution.  And ... I don't really know whether I'm saying stuff that's obvious or revealing, so I'll stop here and wait for feedback.

RDU wrote:
No thanks, IMO... but again, I wonder what Storn would say, though I don't think he'd like this.  I dunno.

RDU wrote:
Above is a way of saying that the game is all about creating animosity between players... to create and me vs. him attitude... thus losing does suck and you might as well be playing poker for money and laughing when you take their paycheck.

TonyLB wrote:

RDU wrote:
Above is a way of saying that the game is all about creating animosity between players... to create and me vs. him attitude... thus losing does suck and you might as well be playing poker for money and laughing when you take their paycheck.

Well, part of what makes it work in the games I play that way is that the person who loses is the one who gets the resources.  That whole "Beat me down and I get stronger" thing makes some people a lot happier with taking a savage beating.

So it's less like laughing when you take their paycheck and more like beating them soundly, then paying them for the privilege.

But, as Brand says, it might well not work for your group.  I like his description of the "crazy fucking gleam" though.  Oh yeah.  I know that gleam.

Weird.

I've never really on board with Tony's playstyle either. I'm just not as competative as he seems to be.

However, how is wha t he said much different than:

Just seems like Stakes give the players too much ability to avoid anything unpleasant or bothersome at all.  To me, stories have unpleasant and bothersome moments... that's what makes the up moments and resolutions so satisfying.  That's what makes the role playing experience "real."

RDU wrote:
Man, now I know why I stayed away from these boards for so long.  Sick. 

daHob wrote:
Weird.

I've never really on board with Tony's playstyle either. I'm just not as competative as he seems to be.

However, how is wha t he said much different than:

Just seems like Stakes give the players too much ability to avoid anything unpleasant or bothersome at all.  To me, stories have unpleasant and bothersome moments... that's what makes the up moments and resolutions so satisfying.  That's what makes the role playing experience "real."

Hob

Brand_Robins wrote:

RDU wrote:
Man, now I know why I stayed away from these boards for so long.  Sick. 

Niel, you're over reacting.

If Tony's style isn't for you, then you don't play that way. Simple as that.

It's no sicker than those of us who enjoy sparing or martial arts and like to wrestle. Or for that matter those who like football or chess. In all of these games and sports you have rules, have people trying to win, and in many of them actually have people slamming into each other physically. (Combat chess anyone?)

There is no beat down, as everyone is using the rules, everyone is there to have fun. It's a mental wrestling match, that is all.

Certainly I have seen sick stuff in RPGs, but not from Tony and not from people who play with Tony. In fact most of the sick shit is from those who conceal their motives behind social games and passive-agressive controls, not those who openly admit they like to compete.

I have one question, the example with Major Victory from Tony is played as a part of a Capes demogame... right?

At least I hope so, because this would explain a lot.

I like HERO, Champions, have a lot of HERO books and think the system works fine... but if you want to introduce Stakes you should under no circumstances do it Capes Style.

In Capes, I think this is a very good move, as far as I understand the game (and I love this game too... and not only because it has Superheroes in it). Sometimes Capes just screams for a little bit of adversity between the players, after all you have to get them moving... and it does its job wonderfull, after all... you get story token, inspiration and whatever for doing all this. Ok, there is no GM and everybody knows what he's in for.

In HERO I prefer to use stakes in the form of pre-combat/scene talk, something along the lines of hard scene-framing combined with grouptalk about how they wish the scene to move along. Then I would tell them, what the worst thing is that could happen and go from this... and then... well, play that little scene.

Well, it's a little late here and I had a hard day...

Michael

Hisho wrote:
I have one question, the example with Major Victory from Tony is played as a part of a Capes demogame... right?

At least I hope so, because this would explain a lot.

I like HERO, Champions, have a lot of HERO books and think the system works fine... but if you want to introduce Stakes you should under no circumstances do it Capes Style.

In Capes, I think this is a very good move, as far as I understand the game (and I love this game too... and not only because it has Superheroes in it). Sometimes Capes just screams for a little bit of adversity between the players, after all you have to get them moving... and it does its job wonderfull, after all... you get story token, inspiration and whatever for doing all this. Ok, there is no GM and everybody knows what he's in for.

In HERO I prefer to use stakes in the form of pre-combat/scene talk, something along the lines of hard scene-framing combined with grouptalk about how they wish the scene to move along. Then I would tell them, what the worst thing is that could happen and go from this... and then... well, play that little scene.

Well, it's a little late here and I had a hard day...

Michael

RDU wrote:
What you state is very close to a the model I was asking about at the beginning.  Stakes as "scene framing"  with the "Just so you know, here is the worst that can happen" talk.  Great way to put it.  What I was wondering is whether or not this was a legitimate use of Stakes... or is Tony's model the "true" model and this is some other kind of technique?

Brand_Robins wrote:
The thing about Stakes is that they tend to get set depending on the game you're playing and the people you're playing with. You may notice in my play examples above that the stakes in HeroQuest were a little softer than those in Prime Time Adventures, despite being with the same (basic) group. In HeroQuest what I really did was set up a "if you lose now he'll start another contest, and you'll be at a big penalty in it" stake. In PTA I set up a "if you lose you lose hard, but still have a chance to save the city from death later on." That's because the way the two systems use Stakes, the scale and mechanics of their conflict resolution systems, are slightly different.

Big difference between dealing with something unpleasant in order to achieve a longer term goal and being "beat down" for someone else's pleasure.  Short term pain for long term gain is very different than playing a game where the object is to make someone else your bitch.

I'd really like Storn to comment on this... because this is the exact kind of thing that I do NOT think would work in our group

Incorrectly assigned flags may be something like in Champions with Disadvantages... A player may put down "Secret ID" on their sheet... because it "fits" the character... but have no desire to role play out things like having a snoopy reporter chasing 'em around.  Thus a GM hits on a flag, but the player thinks the GM is "boning" them.

Big difference between dealing with something unpleasant in order to achieve a longer term goal and being "beat down" for someone else's pleasure.  Short term pain for long term gain is very different than playing a game where the object is to make someone else your bitch.

Incorrectly assigned flags may be something like in Champions with Disadvantages... A player may put down "Secret ID" on their sheet... because it "fits" the character... but have no desire to role play out things like having a snoopy reporter chasing 'em around.  Thus a GM hits on a flag, but the player thinks the GM is "boning" them.

RDU wrote:

What you state is very close to a the model I was asking about at the beginning.  Stakes as "scene framing"  with the "Just so you know, here is the worst that can happen" talk.  Great way to put it.  What I was wondering is whether or not this was a legitimate use of Stakes... or is Tony's model the "true" model and this is some other kind of technique?