So... just a quick follow up to my previous post which drew a lot of comments.  I decided to try some version of stakes setting in my last couple of Hero System based games.  Still very new to using a formalized kind of mechanic for this... as I'd say my games tend toward what might be "vanilla nar" but I may be misusing that term.  In only one game did a player have any clue about what Stakes might mean (from discussions with Storn) and I didn't want to beat the concept to death and ruin game play.  Just thought I'd point out my perceptions of what happened:

1)  Cowboy vs. the Vampires:  I'd spoken about this game before, and it was a continuation where we'd left both players in a bad position... Cowboy nearly dead and Shih Ghost standing alone and battered vs. a much more powerful foe.  I started off the session with a discussion about stakes in general and the desire to see if they worked with our games.  I pointed out that the cliffhanger ending was a good way to engage the players in "What would YOU like to see happen?" rather than just looking the the GM to give you description to react to.  I phrased it as "If you were opening the next issue of Cowboy vs. the Vampires and hoped to read a cool story... what would that be?"  We talked about how, while it was "fair" that Cowboy could die, it wasn't really appealing for any of us as a "story" so based on the current scene... how might they see it playing out.  Shih Ghost's player debated a suicidal attack on the beast vs. fleeing... and this drove a good conversation about the character's motivation.  He was a demon hunter... but was he inclined to "defeat the demons" or was he motivated by "saving people from demons."  The player decided on the latter and so was inclined to simply go for "My intent is to get out of there, taking Cowboy to safety if possible, even though it really galls me to run away in some kind of defeat.  Living to fight later is better than ego driven suicide attacks." 

Cowboy's player was in a much worse situation, so had to gamble with higher stakes.  Knowing his character was "by the rules" out of the fight, he came up with the idea of having been infected with the blood of the vampire (there was a lot of it around) and that this enlivened him enough to use the vampire's power against him.  Cowboy was more of the "kill the monster at any cost" motivation... even the cost of himself.  I felt this was very stakes worthy saying that "You can obtain some power to continue the fight against the beast, but the cost of failure is thralldom to the beast... AND, even if you win, you might succumb to the bloodlust and become just as bad a monster as what you just defeated."  The player thought this quite cool and was totally with it.

We then went into classic task-resolution combat with basic Hero rules plus our own luck chit (a nar mechanic) added in.  It played out quite well... even to the point of Shih Ghost at the edge of killing Cowboy who was beginning to succumb to vampirism (and was defenseless) after killing the big bad.  It seemed to garner positive reviews from the players... more from Cowboy's player (who fought off the bloodlust by purging the blood... as GM I had the rational be the cybernetic systems rejected the taint... but this left him utterly helpless and near death again.) 

My POV is that stakes in this case was more of an open conversation to encourage the players to voice what THEY wanted to influence the story.  No real mechanic involved.  One player kept the stakes short term, while the other was more "this is the fate of my character here" stakes and thus the game seemed to engage him more.  It was awkward at first, but made for an ok game, as the metagaming retreated for a more immersive, traditional RPG experience after the initial conversation.

2)  Kingdoms:  My other game is with a trio, none of which have any experience with Stakes.  One is a long term Amber player... the other two have known only D&D before joining our group.  One is an avowed gamist all the way, though surprisingly has really enjoyed this game, which has as lot of freeform discussion and has been highly GM dependent on description and plot.  Since Hero has not "relationship" or "politcal resolution" mechanics... it is very much a rules-less, impromptu acting type of game that slips into Hero if a fight happens to break out (which is maybe every other session at most).  Most of this game was "GM telling story, while players listen and engage where their characters should act/speak" but I forced a stakes issue to see if it would work.  One player (his character a reincarnation of Merlin) was doing research on some ancient names he'd learned from the speaking road and an event called "the betrayal" that happened deep in the past, before the Tuatha deDanaan arrived.  When he went to make his reasearch role, I jumped out of character and said, "Ok... let's try something."  I briefly explained stakes and said, "How about this.  If you make the roll, you will find out where you can contact one of the "betrayers."  If you miss the roll, you may find out something, but worse, it will come to the attention of certain powerful people that you are actively looking for these people who you KNOW have been excised from the history of the fae."    The player thought that cool... and had a 80% plus chance to succeed... and then went and blew the roll completely.  He could have spent a Luck Chit to reroll, but said, "Nah... let's let this play out."

Now, what was cool for me was that this absolutely forced me to come up with a narrative description that fit the result... so I had to come up with something on the fly (I made up the fact that he was looking through an allies library and used a book "on loan" from Titania herself... and without protective spells, she would know what he was looking for.  That seemed cool... and the players dug it.  It actually inspired an ending "cut scene" where Titania was seen confronting Oberon who would not interfere with the Merlin's search.  This allowed me to return to a critical background point that the PC's know that Oberon and Titania are at each other's throats... and it also allowed me to show Titania meeting with another NPC (Gi'al, the Unseelie Princess, sister of a PC, ancient lover of past Merlins) to show that the two of them had reason to want to stop the PCs from finding out the story behind these "betrayers." 

There were two problems, though.  One, breaking "out of character" to issue stakes felt HORRIBLY forced and jarring to the play experience.  Two, the stakes did more to inspire MY role playing as GM than give the player's more input.  Two of the players are very passive in many ways and seem to enjoy being "told a story" where they have input.  The other, the gamist, actually seemed to enjoy the "gambling" aspect of the stakes... but after the roll, retreated to "Ok... you are the GM, tell me what happens now" and not at all comfortable narrating, or even saying, "I'd like X to happen."    It is probably a play style issue... because even after the game we had a long conversation where I asked the players "What do you want to see happen?  Where are YOU, the PLAYER looking for something, so that you have more fun, less frustration, etc."  It seems very difficult to get these three to drive things, because they do still have the "Hey, it's your game, Neil.  You tell us," feeling.  Not in a bad way, but in a "We don't want to mess with your story" kind of thing.  I really appreciate the respect, and I feel they are not comfortable breaking the "sim illusion" that I have it all planned out and ready to unfold for them. 

So... anyway... just wondering if any of you have suggestions about "soft" ways to introduce stakes... or perhaps other ways that get players to buy into a more shared storytelling environment... even if most weight will still fall on the GM's shoulders.

Well, happy to hear about the story with the cowboy/vampire part. Well I think the second playgroup and the problem you encountered with this "Hey you're the GM you tell me the story" syndrom is common for most people coming from AD&D or in my case DSA too,  the german equivilent of D&D.

It's the kind of behavior you get when you play with people who are used to play their part in the GM story, I have the same problem now with someone I plan to try sorcerer with... always the same questions concerning kickers (What, I thougt you tell me what the story is about?) and the diagram on the back (Wait a moment, everything I write down there you will include in the upcoming game?)

Most "traditional" gamers are not going to get it at the first run, but... oh boy, when they get it the often end up with some great stuff... (and I with a headache because I had to explain kickers, the diagram and especialy conflict resolution to my german friends at least 5 up to 10 times before they got it)

The problem is that most sim/gam gamers I know are used to heavy railroding or illusionism play and do not realy crasp the Idea of conflict resolution, player-centered authorship and some other funny things I found out about in the last 2 years.

So, for the first group... well it worked, if they think it was great to use this... use it, the second group... Ok, they still have this "it's your story" feeling but not in a bad way... I think you have to try it out one more time and find a natural solution... use what works best, try some new approches and as far as everyone hast fun (as in well,"that's cool... we play this out") it's ok I think.

Michael

The way I deal with the breaking "out of character" in my games is using fairly harsh Scene Framing. I call a definite 'cut' after a scene is resolved and then go into a discussion about what the players what next and get a set of Stakes from that. Then, skipping forward in time or location a lot, if need be, I frame the next scene ready to play out those stakes.

So before a scene establish stakes as you would normally. Then frame a scene right in the heart of the upcoming conflict. Then, as soon as you have resolved the conflict one way or the other, with all the attending narration, bring that scene to a definite close without delay.

A longer - and better - description is given here.

I learnt this technique from these threads, which go into more detail:

Scene Framing
Scene Framing and octaNe
[D&D 3.5] Scene framing goodness

I'm not sure if it would work 100% for your second group, but as it makes clear the difference between "in-character" and "out-of-character" play, it could help with creating a new 'rhythm' for the game, and hopefully, lead to less jarring.

Warren

Since I play with Neil, I know all these people.  I spoke to Shih Ghost's player on New Years, he had mentioned the setting of Stakes and that night has "interesting".  We didn't get into it more than that... there were other people in the room.

Just some food for thought?  Cowboy and Shih Ghost are on a "Vampire World" in another dimension.  This is a place, from what I can tell, is painted in pretty broad strokes. I suspect that gives players a lot of room to manuever.  It is almost a "Tableau Rasa" (pun intended).

Kingdoms is rooted in actual Celtic myth and all that entails.  There is not as much room to manuever.... as much of the setting is a re-defining of all those mythic elements for the game.  J's wanting to do Tuatha along some kinda Jack Kirby Lemurian SCIENCE society for his origin is an example.  That went kinda counter to the more mystical vibe of what you were doing with Seelie and Unseelie and all that.  Sifting out what YOU think as the GM as the basis for Kingdoms is a lot of the game.  Is Merlin a roman engineer a generation after Rome leaves Briton?  Or is Merlin that wacked out guy from Excaliber?  Either decision... or even a third decision, is going to have direct bearing on J's character.

I think sometimes that passitivity is waiting for you, the GM, to put your stamp of approval on complicated and nuanced re-imagings of this world that we all have some notion of.  They don't feel empowered to make those decsions.  Whereas I would be making assumptions left and right and causing you no end of grief.  <g>  Vampire World has a lot less preconcieved notions and a lot less investment by everyone at the table.  Imagine M & E, both who have a strong foundation in Celtic morays, would be like in Kingdoms?

Granted, I've GM'd 2/3rds of the Kingdom's players and have played with all of them.  Getting them to engage can be like pulling teeth.  I don't think Kingdoms is the problem.  I just think it might exasperate it slightly.

I would just keep gently giving them the "keys to the kingdom".  Keep asking them what they think should happen at event X.  What would be the cool definition of a "Red Cap" or what is a "Ogre Lorry" to them.  Be patient with them.  And sometimes, I think it is okay for the GM to entertain the players when the players don't have solid notion of direction or what to do next.  Can't be all the time, it is another zen balance issue to be sure. 

Hey, at least the Stakes went over well in that research bit. 

I think part of difficulty in introducing these player-empowering techniques into a more traditional illusionist style game is that it requires more work from the players. By giving them more power, they have to also take responsibility to drive the game, to an extent.

That's part of the reason I'm trying to introduce more nar style gaming to my group. I have less time to prep now. So, by distributing some of the GM responsibilities I'm also distributing some of the work. I need to do less prep work and I have more fun. It seems less like a chore.

This means theplayers need to be engaged and ready to play. That should be an upside, but I'm finding it difficult to achieve.

Steve

Read the Scene Framing stuff again.  Been awhile since I was at the first thread (and I completely missed the second one).

Neil, I suspect that you and I would baulk at doing this.  Like the threads sez; it "feels" like Railroading.  BUT.  I think for Kingdoms, its not a bad idea to do occasionally.  Probably not a bad idea to do it any of our games occasionally.

The funny thing was I was writing my next ep, and I started in media res.  Which is definitely a Scene Frame.

But in Kingdoms, it immediately gives those three players something to react to.

My question to Warren (and anybody else) is this.

An example in the selected threads was traveling the burning desert of somethin-or-other.  In our group, there are players who are more than happy to have the scene cut to the destination.  There are others who want that to be a 4 evenings-part arc.  Any suggestions on how to backtrack from a too sudden Scene Frame?  

I can just see me, in a game, going "hey, waitaminute!  I was interested in exploring X and you've jumped me to Y."  Or doing it to someone else.

Storn wrote:
An example in the selected threads was traveling the burning desert of somethin-or-other.  In our group, there are players who are more than happy to have the scene cut to the destination.  There are others who want that to be a 4 evenings-part arc.  Any suggestions on how to backtrack from a too sudden Scene Frame? 

I can just see me, in a game, going "hey, waitaminute!  I was interested in exploring X and you've jumped me to Y."  Or doing it to someone else.

Sorry to double post, but I just had another thought. You already do Scene Framing, to a certain extent, in all your games, unless you follow every single footstep of your character. Isn't it normally like:

GM: "OK, You are in the town of Windreach. What do you do?"
Player 1: "We need to go to the general store to pick up some provisions."
GM: "OK, The store is a small building near the middle of the town. The owner is a gruff old fellow who looks at you with contempt. 'Whadda want?'"

If Player 2 said, "Hang on, I need to go and drop off this letter first!", how would your group deal with that?

You deal with "skipping too far" with Scene Framing in pretty much the same way, although ideally before you get back "into character", as you tend to should the scene at a much more dramatic point.

daHob wrote:
I think part of difficulty in introducing these player-empowering techniques into a more traditional illusionist style game is that it requires more work from the players. By giving them more power, they have to also take responsibility to drive the game, to an extent.

That's part of the reason I'm trying to introduce more nar style gaming to my group. I have less time to prep now. So, by distributing some of the GM responsibilities I'm also distributing some of the work. I need to do less prep work and I have more fun. It seems less like a chore.

This means theplayers need to be engaged and ready to play. That should be an upside, but I'm finding it difficult to achieve.

Steve

Unfortunately... there are also players in the group who say, "God I hope I never get the gold chit.  I don't want the responsibility.  Everyone looking at me like I have to come up with something great!"  In fact, I'd say that half the group feels that way.

Storn wrote:
Since I play with Neil, I know all these people.  I spoke to Shih Ghost's player on New Years, he had mentioned the setting of Stakes and that night has "interesting".  We didn't get into it more than that... there were other people in the room.

Just some food for thought?  Cowboy and Shih Ghost are on a "Vampire World" in another dimension.  This is a place, from what I can tell, is painted in pretty broad strokes. I suspect that gives players a lot of room to manuever.  It is almost a "Tableau Rasa" (pun intended).

Kingdoms is rooted in actual Celtic myth and all that entails.  There is not as much room to manuever.... as much of the setting is a re-defining of all those mythic elements for the game.  J's wanting to do Tuatha along some kinda Jack Kirby Lemurian SCIENCE society for his origin is an example.  That went kinda counter to the more mystical vibe of what you were doing with Seelie and Unseelie and all that.  Sifting out what YOU think as the GM as the basis for Kingdoms is a lot of the game.  Is Merlin a roman engineer a generation after Rome leaves Briton?  Or is Merlin that wacked out guy from Excaliber?  Either decision... or even a third decision, is going to have direct bearing on J's character.

I think sometimes that passitivity is waiting for you, the GM, to put your stamp of approval on complicated and nuanced re-imagings of this world that we all have some notion of.  They don't feel empowered to make those decsions.  Whereas I would be making assumptions left and right and causing you no end of grief.  <g>  Vampire World has a lot less preconcieved notions and a lot less investment by everyone at the table.  Imagine M & E, both who have a strong foundation in Celtic morays, would be like in Kingdoms?

Granted, I've GM'd 2/3rds of the Kingdom's players and have played with all of them.  Getting them to engage can be like pulling teeth.  I don't think Kingdoms is the problem.  I just think it might exasperate it slightly.

I would just keep gently giving them the "keys to the kingdom".  Keep asking them what they think should happen at event X.  What would be the cool definition of a "Red Cap" or what is a "Ogre Lorry" to them.  Be patient with them.  And sometimes, I think it is okay for the GM to entertain the players when the players don't have solid notion of direction or what to do next.  Can't be all the time, it is another zen balance issue to be sure.

Hey, at least the Stakes went over well in that research bit. 

This may be taking things a little far afield, but what does the other half of the group (the ones who want the Gold Chit all the time) think about this?

All the players seem much more intrigued by the idea that what THEY want to explore is highlighted on the sheet... but this still allows them to look to me as GM to frame the scene and provide events to react to that fit their flags.

Valamir wrote:

Unfortunately... there are also players in the group who say, "God I hope I never get the gold chit.   I don't want the responsibility.  Everyone looking at me like I have to come up with something great!"  In fact, I'd say that half the group feels that way.

This may be taking things a little far afield, but what does the other half of the group (the ones who want the Gold Chit all the time) think about this?

Are there any feelings that certain individuals aren't pulling their own weight / are shirking responsibility / are selfishly unwilling to work to enhance someone else's enjoyment?  Or are the non-gold-chitters contributing so tremendously in other ways that the group doesn't really notice when they shy away from this sort of contribution?  Is the difference obvious enough that everyone pretty much knows who the gold-seekers vs. gold-avoiders are?  Or are most pretty oblivious to the distinction?

As a GM who'd like to encourage a gold-seeking mentality (in whatever mechanical form winds up working best) in order to lessen the burden of GM-ship; how does the reluctance of some to pitch in and help out effect you, and / or your attitude towards them (in or out of game)?

M had the same response I had to the whole concept... that stakes are a way for player's to wiggle out of bad stuff happening to their characters... with the belief that part of gaming is bad stuff you don't like happening.  I don't think there is any quick/easy answer to this... nor should there be.

Storn wrote:

As for Premise, Plot and Theme Flags.... I don't think Champion's disads does a great job of doing Flags in the first place.  It truly is the historical BEGINNING of the Flag in gaming... but Disads imply ONLY negative use of Flags.  Here are your GM targets to put the character through the wringer.  What about positive uses of Flags.. I wanna explore being honorable and virtuous... I want scenes where NPCs react to me in a positive light. (example, and generic, I'm not saying Me/my PC personally).  I want situations where my lady's man can get away with charm that I, as a player, am sorely lacking?  My taciturn, gruff warrior wants scenes that pull out of him his heart of gold.  These don't strike me as Disadvantages in the typical use... but they do strike me as Flags.

Or here is one that is very much me.... I want an NPC as a sounding board, a love interest, part of the weft and the woof, but who isn't going to be kidnapped and me blackmailed... I'm tired of that in comics as a storyline, enough women in refridgerators already!!!... and I don't want to be blackmailed anymore... I've had enough of that type of story.  Can I have that kinda flag on my sheet in a Champs game?

Having a NPC as a sounding board could degenerate into the player just having conversations with himself as both PC and NPC.

It wasn't that the Flag had to be "hit" in order to spend a chit... but that by tying an instinct to the chit, it simply required a bit more storytelling in the generic sense.  The chit can be used to reroll... but the player has to explain a bit more using the instinct as a rationale.  Maybe not the best idea, but again I was playing around with keeping with the Hero model of "paying for" what you get.  Not required... but where I want to start.  Or... if we returned luck chits to just White and Black... and you earn a Blue or Gold through hitting "instincts"

In this case we are changing something in basic character construction to add the "instinct" element... and if so would likely need to make it a new "required" characteristic (or whatever we call it).  Probably something along the lines of a "group build" where all players are involved in establishing each other's "Drivers."

(We've done the group character generation before and I thought it was very successful.)

The earning of Blue and Gold through "Drivers" (I like that better than instincts for this application) should be enough to "drive" the players.

Worth trying, anyhow... (though I think some would be bummed by having to earn their chits rather than drawing them randomly.)

The earning of Blue and Gold through "Drivers" (I like that better than instincts for this application) should be enough to "drive" the players.

Worth trying, anyhow... (though I think some would be bummed by having to earn their chits rather than drawing them randomly.)