An exerpt from this Rifts play by post game: http://rpol.net/display.cgi?gi=15181&gn=Rifts:+Do+you+dare%3F&threadnum=4&date=1140068269

There was already some activity with a third player trying to talk to some probably sentient trees. But I figured this left the other two players waiting on that players results, so I added another event.

Callan wrote: About two hundred yards away along the edge of the forrest, there suddenly seems to be some sort of scuffle happening amongst the leaves and branches, almost like something is about to or trying to leave. That's what you (all) note at a glance.

Player of cybered gun slinger: Snake Eyes wrote: At the sound and movement indicating some kind of activity, Jesse's hands move faster that than the average eye can follow.  Two odd-looking pistols-both long, heavy weapons with a clip port in front of the trigger instead of in the grip, though one is more round with three barrels inside of a smaller cowling-are suddenly in his hands and aimed towards the scuffle.  He does not fire, though it appears that it would take almost no pressure ong the triggers to release whatever form of death these unusual pistols may unleash.
Instead, he adjusts his eyes, bringing the area into sharper focus.
OOC:  Intitiative of 31 on that draw....

Player of cyborg: Breach wrote: Still seated on the cycle Breach again activates his optic and audio systems and zooms in on the area; switching between modes to get a good view of whats going on.  His railgun is leveled at the area and his joints lock in place in preperation for the recoil.  The initial warmup of the weapon takes a fraction of a second.  Once active it emitts a slight vibrating hum that is almost inaudable.

Actually they have risked something - they have risked that the rustle in the bushes is a distraction and that they are in fact about to be attacked from the rear.  If this were one of the X-com games, or something like Pheonix Command, those statements would have cost action points to carry out and changed their facing, which would itself be systematically significant.

Its a long time since I read Rifts, but if you are not using graph paper and the system does not have AP that track such things, it will feel like nothing happened, and the change is registered in the SIS through narration rather than system.  But probably there are facing modifiers in the rules somewhere.

Callan,

Just as an idea: it looks as though the problem isn't as such that they haven't risked anything - it's that they haven't given you anything to respond to.

You could summarise the play you posted - slightly cruelly to the players - as follows:

GM: There's a rustle in the bushes.
Player 1: I describe myself I describe myself I describe myself
Player 2: I wait for something to happen.

...and it's very difficult for the GM to respond to that.

If one of the players had said "I switch to infrared view and run the resulting patterns through my lifeform-detection banks", then they wouldn't have risked much, but at least you'd have been able to move the story on.

Graham

This is early in the campaign, I take it? How about reflecting back to them your understanding of what they've written in terms of priorities and choices: e.g. "If I understand you right, Jesse is focusing on the bushes at the expense of attention to other areas; his emphasis is on not firing blindly at the noise and he trusts his reflexes to deal with the possibility that whatever's in the bushes attacks suddenly."

Anyway, charitably assume that there's constructive action, or at least *posture* in the text and try to draw it out into the light. I see two likely outcomes: 1) Player says, You got it. 2) Player says, Actually, my priority is X rather than Y. 3) (Oops! Miscounted.) Player says, "whaddaya mean, at the expense of? I'm ready for anything! You're trying to trick me, aren't you!" or words and in and between the lines to that effect.

The last is the potential pitfall, and would call for a discussion along the lines of, "Guys, my assumption in the campaign is that there's no such thing as *covering all bases equally well*. Your goal is to make the best choices given the information available to you as to where to focus and what to risk. My goal is to give you enough ongoing information and feedback that you *can* make those choices well. If you never risk anything and I don't give you a fair chance to figure out what to risk, we don't have a campaign here. If you do risk things and I do a good enough job giving you information to go on, we can have a hell of a lot of fun."

Best,

Jim

I think the concern here from the player's point of view is trying to accertain what there is to be responded to.  They have declared a 'readying' action so as to negate any surprise.  But as Contracycle mentioned, it took a fraction of their time.  A reasonable risk due to the mysterious nature of what you described. 

To spur action, concider increasing a 'dread' factor.  A reason that if they do nothing is infact to risk more harm than doing nothing.  Even if the tree was eating peasents, pulling them limb from limb, the characters may decide risk is unacceptable.  Perhaps the forest ground rustling with the movement of roots around them would add to a sense of urgency to act.  Something needs to be given to put the character in peril, mortally, ideally or spiritually.  Otherwise, sitting on the side as a witness is a far safer course of action.

-Rob

OK, maybe I'm missing something by not reading deeply enough into the subtext of the events in game, but what I see is two guys saying "more information, please."

They haven't put anything at risk because they don't know what's worth risking at this point. Is it an unearthly monstrosity, come to claim their chrome, or an over-large badger trying to shake off angry hornets? I would respond to those opponents very differently.

I'm not sure what I'd risk in that situation. I've got a ranged weapon. I'm a quick draw. When I sense something is wrong, I go into alert mode and draw my gun ... and see if something dangerous develops. What were you looking for?

-Marco

Yeah, my gut response would be you haven't given them enough to react to.

My inclination, in this kind of situation, is to assume that if you have a mysterious rustling in the bushes, of course your combat-trained characters are going to posture themselves appropriately -- guns out, sensors scanning, whatever -- and then write that into your post so you can get to the good stuff.

In other words, don't write, "you hear rustling in the bushes" and stop. Write, "you hear rustling in the bushes -- you draw your wicked kewl uber gunz of killing +3! -- and then a monster/ninja/panicked peasant/hot goth chick jumps out!! What do you do?"

Now, if the players say, "Wait! I wouldn't have drawn my gun! I'd have kept it holstered to avoid scaring off the hot goth chick, or poked around in the bushes unarmed to express that I'm curious and foolhardy, or run away screaming and waving my arms and wetting myself," then you rewind and change what happened. It's all made up, right, so nothing is "real" until all the participants agree it is (Lumpley Principle!).

Yes, I am advising that you, as GM, make the player-characters do something without consulting the players first. But in a play-by-post, it'll take forever if you consult with them over every routine action. The three essentials to avoiding deprotagonization here are
1) get to know your players' visions for their characters, so you can describe them doing the in-character thing
2) make the characters sound cool
3) never, ever make the characters do something that would penalize them -- when you temporarily take control like this, assume they do the most sensible thing (even if the players, if asked, might've done something stupid...)

BIG FAT CAVEAT: The only PBEM stuff I've ever managed to run was total freeform (i.e. unstructured Drama plus GM fiat -- whee!), with posts in the hundreds or even thousands of words, so my advice may not apply. Crunchy combat systems in play-by-post/play-by-email -- that's hard.

Hi Contra and Elindryn,

They really haven't said for themselves that their risking anything. If I were to apply some danger from behind, that doesn't turn it into a risk statement made by them. It'd be like trying to turn someone's choice in a game into a nar address.
GM "Your jobs at risk!"
Player "I work real hard at keeping it!"
GM "Umm, and you made that choice against looking after your (previously non existant, the GM is inventing her now) girlfriend, who leaves you because of all the hours your putting in. There, you made an address of premise!"

Here, I'd be doing the same thing - introducing the issue of facing after the event. Something they had not considered at all (like the player in the example hadn't thought about a toll on relationships). I don't think that makes their action an address of challenge.

Although when I started role playing years ago, everyone was always hyper and nervous - we never really discussed what bad thing could happen from any action, but with all the nerves, there was a sense from every player that for every action something quite bad could happen. Though this faded over time, as we learnt the ins and outs of roleplay in general. Perhaps the players in this game feel some sense of a nasty thing happening after any post. But I just don't see it right now. So if it's there, communication needs to be worked on.

Also, I think in games like X-com, the rules are so strongly present, that they represent a language that a player can communicate their risk by (eg, "I've been playing X-com for awhile, so I know exactly what I'm risking when I turn my guy around to cover this ground" is all said in one click of the mouse). But I think as the rules become fuzzy in wording and disconnected from each other this language deteriates, until it really doesn't communicate risk anymore. And that's what I'm working with, with Rifts. I need to rely on their words, not some half remembered facing rules tucked away somewhere.

Hi Jim,

This is early in the campaign, I take it? How about reflecting back to them your understanding of what they've written in terms of priorities and choices: e.g. "If I understand you right, Jesse is focusing on the bushes at the expense of attention to other areas; his emphasis is on not firing blindly at the noise and he trusts his reflexes to deal with the possibility that whatever's in the bushes attacks suddenly."

Anyway, charitably assume that there's constructive action, or at least *posture* in the text and try to draw it out into the light. I see two likely outcomes: 1) Player says, You got it. 2) Player says, Actually, my priority is X rather than Y. 3) (Oops! Miscounted.) Player says, "whaddaya mean, at the expense of? I'm ready for anything! You're trying to trick me, aren't you!" or words and in and between the lines to that effect.

1) get to know your players' visions for their characters, so you can describe them doing the in-character thing
2) make the characters sound cool
3) never, ever make the characters do something that would penalize them -- when you temporarily take control like this, assume they do the most sensible thing (even if the players, if asked, might've done something stupid...)

I'd always go for rewards without risk if I were playing gamist, yes. Min-maxing is pretty much preferred, no? It'd be looking for the thrill of winnning--and that means not overcommiting where possible.

-Marco

Callan wrote: ....Hi Sydney...that's some terrible advice, man! I appreciate you giving it, but your telling me that in a gamist game as GM, I should be making the optimal choices for the players, so we can get to the good part. Dude, making those choices IS the good part! :)

Hi Sydney,

Okay, that makes sense. I was thinking of getting past the obvious tactical choices that don't make for much of a Challenge ("there's a noise in the bushes!" "We draw our weapons and look!" or "A 100-ton weight is falling on you!" "We jump out of the way!"; I mean, what the hell else are they gonna do?)

Callan, as GM, you did something stupid.  You're trying to get the players to commit to action without committing to anything yourself.  It won't work.

"The bushes rustle!  What do you do?"
"We, not being idiots, wait until the GM gives us something more than a breeze in the bushes before we do much of anything.  Sheesh."

If you want them to commit to a course of action then you commit to a course of action.  It takes two to tango.  If all you're willing to do is shake some bushes then why would you expect them to suddenly go all berserk and file a whole battle-plan?  How did that suddenly become their sole responsibility?

You've given the players a chance to make their characters ready.  They've made them ready.  What do you do next?  How can you even ask that?  You release a gigantic freakin' behemoth of tortured, damned necrotic flesh, bound and penetrated with bizarre and unearthly cords of sparking, metallic technology to try to kick their asses!  Give 'em a nice hefty bonus for having been on guard, 'cuz they're gonna need it, this thing being all but immune to pain, damage and any mortal sense of fear.  Not to mention, it stinks ... not like "Hoo boy, Uncle Eddie ain't got nothing on you" but a gagging oily stench of flesh not merely rotted but grown unclean, gangrenous and mushy, that wraps its way down your throat and coats your lungs until your body feels compelled to try to vomit up not merely your lunch but your actual organs in a vain attempt to purge itself.

You do that?  I guarantee you'll see a reaction a bit more extreme than "I switch to infra-red."

In fact, I'm with Sydney:  Why the heck are you boring them with the rustling bushes as a stopping point?  Why not just grant them the optimal response, and move on to the good stuff?  Like "The bushes rustle, and your years of combat intuition tell you that it ain't no hot goth chick, it's bad news with a capital 'BAD', so you let off a stream of autofire ... and it's a good thing you do, because it gets you one free round of attack on the THING that comes half shambling, half flowing out of the woods.  Let's get positions going.  What tactics do you guys want to try?"

Hi Tony,

If you want them to commit to a course of action then you commit to a course of action.  It takes two to tango.  If all you're willing to do is shake some bushes then why would you expect them to suddenly go all berserk and file a whole battle-plan?  How did that suddenly become their sole responsibility?

You're both posting complete non-events, but you're here on this thread pretending like it's all the players, and that you had no part in creating the situation.  Here's a quote from your first post:

Callan wrote: The agenda I'm going for is gamist. But there's something about this that rubs me the wrong way. The balls in my court, as to a responce. But the players haven't actually done anything.

Yes, it's unreasonable. It relies on the assumption he was 'doing nothing', but doesn't actually question if that is true or not.

Remember various Dogs in the vineyard accounts, where someone says "Jimbo just ran around shooting people! That was crap!". If the beholder isn't willing to see a moral statement being made by shooting all those people, then for that viewer, Jimbo is doing nothing. Narrativism isn't just about making addresses of premise. It's also, of course, about hearing it.

Do you hear what I'm saying with the rustling bush, in terms of gamism?

Even if you don't and think I'm doing nothing, that's cool, I accept that. That's why I set up the exploration rules so players could move on if they just didn't get the challenge. Keep moving on until you find something like that necro flesh monster, if you want.

But not getting what I'm saying, yet STILL engaging so as to get rewards(information) at no stated risk? Yes, that's unreasonable.

Why do you find your listed responce a reasonable one? I see it this way "There's something about this that rubs me the wrong way.  The balls in my court, as to a response.  But the GM hasn't actually done anything.  All he's done is say there's a rustling in the bushes. Hmm, but I don't just feel like looking after myself and walking my PC away to find something more interesting, despite my many complaints. I'll just try and skip to the good parts of it, instead."

Callan wrote: Do you hear what I'm saying with the rustling bush, in terms of gamism?

Callan wrote: Why do you find your listed responce a reasonable one? I see it this way "There's something about this that rubs me the wrong way.  The balls in my court, as to a response.  But the GM hasn't actually done anything.  All he's done is say there's a rustling in the bushes. Hmm, but I don't just feel like looking after myself and walking my PC away to find something more interesting, despite my many complaints. I'll just try and skip to the good parts of it, instead."

Yeah right now I dont see anything wrong with what the players have done and dont see any indication of what they could have done to make it better.  Callan, could you retell the incident having them give responses more to your liking, that may help us see what you actually want from them.  After that maybe someone will be able to make suggestions on modifying your game system to promote the behaviour you want, right now it looks like a standard cautious reaction to an unknown situation.  They see no challenge so there is nothing to step up to, though there is the possibility of a challenge lurking in the bushes.

Callan, you have some image of "gamism" that I really don't understand.

What would you have done as the players?

-Marco

Listen to Tony. He's absolutely right - the players acted reasonably.

Best,

Jim

Hi Marco,

I've already said what I'd likely do and now I know you've rushed though thread without reading properly and I suspect your not the only one.

I don't blame them for what they posted - as said, I'd likely do the same actions. But even though their well within what should be expected, the lack of knowledge is crushing challenges that they just don't see.

Not even remotely.  I have no idea why you think Gamism says that "a bush rustles" requires risk-seeking behavior from the players.  It sounds like crazy-moon-language to me.  Can you explain without assuming that all good gamists already know the answer?

You're both posting complete non-events, but you're here on this thread pretending like it's all the players, and that you had no part in creating the situation.

Hrm.  That doesn't sound all that much like what I was saying.  In fact, I wasn't saying that the players should skip to the good parts.  I was saying that you, the GM, should skip to the good parts.

Callan wrote:
Risk stating, not risk seeking. For you and Caldis there's an example of risk stating right in the first post, with wouldn't involve any change to the actual actions described. I think people have zipped past that post.

Callan wrote:
1. If it's a non event for them, I expect them to go use the exploration rules.

Sorry Callan but to be blunt you have failed to express your point well enough for anyone to see it.  The best I can guess at is you want the players to guess whats caused the rustling in the bushes in their posts and somehow that will be the players risking something, maybe social cred if they guess wrong.  Still I dont see why this seemingly meaningless incident has to require the players risking something.  This seems like a set up post for the challenge that is about to come when the bad guy jumps out of the bushes, or just a psych job when it turns out to just be a puppy.  So are you saying that you want every post in the game to have the players risking something, you wont have build up scenes or exposition just constant risk?  If so you are going to need a more tightly focused rule system than Rifts.

I don't know if I could answer a pop-quiz, but let me try and rephrase what you seem to be saying, and then I'll make comments, OK?

Your "Splinter Cell" example: You would be unhappy with something like:
GM:"OK, there is this old wooden bridge ahead."
Players:"OK, We sneak across as usual. Come'on, where is the cool?"
as the players don't seem to be taking risk into account.

You also wouldn't like
GM:"OK, there is this old wooden bridge ahead."
Players:"OK, We sneak across as usual."
GM:"Guards! Yes - a whole bunch of guards" - made up on the spot - "start shooting at you!"
as the GM is making up consequences on the fly. If I understand you correctly, you are likening this to a Narrativist GM going:
GM "Your job's at risk!"
Player "I work real hard at keeping it!"
GM "Umm, and you made that choice against looking after your (previously non existent, the GM is inventing her now) girlfriend, who leaves you because of all the hours your putting in."

Which I agree, is lame. But taking the Narrativist example first, it wouldn't be lame if the players knew - or could make reasonable assumptions about - what effects their decision could have on play. Therefore, the nar GM above should go:
GM "Your job is at risk, but your girlfriend wants you to spend more time with her!"
Player "Umm... Do I lose my job or lose my girl?"
GM: "Pretty much"
Player: "OK, I work real hard at keeping my job"
GM "Right, your girlfriend leaves you because of all the hours your putting in. There, you made an address of premise!"

So taking that back to the Splinter Cell example, I think this would be better:
GM:"OK, there is this old wooden bridge crossing a river that blocks your progress. There is a manned guard post on the other side, watching over the bridge, but the river is fast-moving and freezing cold."
I bet the players won't "Sneak across as usual" when presented with something like that (assuming they have to cross the river somehow, of course). They can look at the situation, make reasonable assumptions of the outcome of each course of action and the associated risks. Therefore they can address the risk - do I risk getting dragged away and/or freezing by swimming? Do I sneak across the bridge and risk alerting the guards? And so on.

Finally, moving back to your Actual Play. I think the players are doing nothing as they have no way of assessing the challenge/risk of a rustling bush. As Tony pointed out, they have gone up an alert stage, but are waiting for more input. If, on the other hand, the players were being chased after by a bunch of savages when they noticed the rustling bush, I expect that they would have considered covering the rear to mitigate the risk of an ambush by the said savages.

If I may be so bold, I would suggest that "A bush rustles" are bad Stakes. "A bush rustles over there, but tribal savages are close on your trail." are better. Good stakes - I would suggest - are not just for Narrativists :)

Warren

Callan wrote:
Hi Marco,

I've already said what I'd likely do and now I know you've rushed though thread without reading properly and I suspect your not the only one.

I don't blame them for what they posted - as said, I'd likely do the same actions. But even though their well within what should be expected, the lack of knowledge is crushing challenges that they just don't see.

Imagine a nar game, where the GM kept taking a player off into another room when it came to the player making an address of premise, hiding it from the other players. Do you think that's a good technique? What if it's the only one the group knows?

Callan,

Not to put too fine a point on it but a player risking something in this situation would be completely stupid from a Gamist point of view.  I play with a Gamist priority almost all the time and I wouldn't have done anything at all different in this encounter thus far.  The reason is simple.  I don't know what is at stake yet and I'm not risking anything if I don't know what's at stake.  Is my character's life at stake?  Him looking cool?  Information we need?  A friendship?  Another character's life?  The information you provided didn't show them any stakes for them to gauge what they should risk... thus, they made non-posts  that are their way of asking you for clarification of what's at stake so they can determine what they're willing to risk.

I'm also a bit confused.

You refer to exploration mechanics for non-events... I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Is the example of the bridge, where they say we cross as normal, a similar event, one in which the players correctly treated the non-event of the bridge as a non-event?

In some senses I wonder if the players have in fact engaged with exploration, rather than risk, in that both those statements are quite "look at me" ones, showing off the chrome and highlighting the abilities.  If this were a movie there would have been a little click-n-lock montage to show off the hardware.  One  might say, they used the prompt of the rustling bushes to express themselves, rather than address risk.

But I do not really see the analogy between the rustle and post facto construction of situation to impose a Nar premise; it seems to me the aspects of direction and attention are implicit any time you play in the persons of individual combatants, unless specifically excepted by mechanics.

But maybe the example is obscuring rather than enlightening.  You say that other things about the recognition of challenge that strike a cord, as something I am have thought about as a problem in gamism, where challenge is not recognised.  Say you have
something like a wandering monster table with a 1 in 10 chance of bumping into a big bad in the dark forest.  After the third time the group traverse this area without anything happening, they will treat it as safe, failing to appreciate the risk they take with every trip.  So, instead of the journey feeling risky, and perhaps colourful, it feels like nothing.  Is that the kind of thing you are thinking of?

Callan wrote:
Do you hear what I'm saying with the rustling bush, in terms of gamism?

Hi Contra,

contracycle wrote:
I'm also a bit confused.

You refer to exploration mechanics for non-events... I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Is the example of the bridge, where they say we cross as normal, a similar event, one in which the players correctly treated the non-event of the bridge as a non-event?

In some senses I wonder if the players have in fact engaged with exploration, rather than risk, in that both those statements are quite "look at me" ones, showing off the chrome and highlighting the abilities.  If this were a movie there would have been a little click-n-lock montage to show off the hardware.  One  might say, they used the prompt of the rustling bushes to express themselves, rather than address risk.

But I do not really see the analogy between the rustle and post facto construction of situation to impose a Nar premise; it seems to me the aspects of direction and attention are implicit any time you play in the persons of individual combatants, unless specifically excepted by mechanics.

But maybe the example is obscuring rather than enlightening.  You say that other things about the recognition of challenge that strike a cord, as something I am have thought about as a problem in gamism, where challenge is not recognised.  Say you have
something like a wandering monster table with a 1 in 10 chance of bumping into a big bad in the dark forest.  After the third time the group traverse this area without anything happening, they will treat it as safe, failing to appreciate the risk they take with every trip.  So, instead of the journey feeling risky, and perhaps colourful, it feels like nothing.  Is that the kind of thing you are thinking of?

No, I just considered (and still consider) it irrelevant.  But since you think the phrasing is important, I'll rephrase my question.  Why do you think that "a bush rustles" from you obliges them to state risks?

Okay, can you rough in the shape of these rules for us?  Having reviewed the thread (again) I don't see them listed.  You mentioned that a third comrade is currently in the forest, talking with the trees.  Would the other two using the "exploration rules" imply changing their current position as possible quick-response back-up for her?  Would it, in short, imply leaving her?

Callan wrote:

No, I just considered (and still consider) it irrelevant.  But since you think the phrasing is important, I'll rephrase my question.  Why do you think that "a bush rustles" from you obliges them to state risks?

"You must choose between your dream job or your wife"
"I posture a bit and then look to see if it's worked itself out. Has it?"
What obliges a player to address premise?

Callan wrote: The exploration rules have a thread of thier own, stickied to the top, because I think they're so important. Here's the main thread list of the game.
http://rpol.net/game.cgi?gi=15181&gn=Rifts:+Do+you+dare%3F&date=1140499745
And here's the exploration rules own thread.
http://rpol.net/display.cgi?gi=15181&gn=Rifts:+Do+you+dare%3F&threadnum=1&date=1138354569

I just noticed I wrote in them that you can't use them in the middle of an adventure. But on the second post I wrote that these rules are a way of avoiding plot hooks if you so wish. Hoo boy, tuck into my writing! But I haven't recieved any PM's/posts asking for clarification, either.

Callan wrote: But ultimately you choose just the risk that you want and create that stake yourself.

Hi Tony,

Okay.  Your goal here is to figure out why your players are acting in a way other than what you expect, right?

Well let me offer a theory:  They think they're playing standard Rifts.  They think that your "exploration rules" (which to you are a central feature of the system, inherently changing the entire social contract of the entire game) are a side-note, and they're pretty much ignoring them.  They haven't asked for clarification on when they can be used, because they don't care, and don't intend to use them.

Because, y'know, what you've seen so far is 100% pure, uncut, bog-standard Rifts play.  The bushes rustle.  You step up a notch on defense.  You wait for developments.

I don't think you've said or done anything that would make it clear to your players that this isn't exactly what you expect of them.

Uh ... no.  The player and the GM (that's you!) work together to get the player engaged with the risk.  It takes two to tango.

They can't choose to risk their lives in pursuit of a juicy reward if all you do is rustle some bushes.  When you do something that could, conceivably, be a risk, or grant a reward ... then they can choose to engage with that as a gamble, and to risk themselves to seek the reward.

Callan wrote:

Uh ... no.  The player and the GM (that's you!) work together to get the player engaged with the risk.  It takes two to tango.

The work out process involves them leaving (exploration table) if the situation doesn't engage them and that signals to me that next time perhaps I should use a necrotic behemoth. When they DON'T leave and DON'T signal to me to try something else, but engage and expect to get something out of a situation at no risk,  that's not the tango.

Callan,
I can feel the logic of what you want...just outside my grasp. I'd like to run a bunch of very similar examples by you for "grading". Maybe that'll nail it for me.

I going to vary your actual play example. For brevity, I intend "rustle the bush" to stand in for the exact text you wrote during actual play and "posturing move" for the exact text the players wrote during actual play.

1. You: rustle the bush. They: posturing move.
This is the baseline that you're unhappy with.

2. You: rustle the bush. They: "We roll on the Exploration table. A 3. Despite the bush rustling in the wind, we can barely hear the call of the rare Tootybird to our left. But, there are no Tootybirds in this area, so it's probably a signal. We try to silently move there and investigate."

3. You: rustle the bush. They: posturing move+"We've clearly left our back exposed to attack by Retardodonts.", where the plausible presence of Retardodonts has been previously established.

4. As 3, but without the previous establishment.

5+6. As 3+4, but with a roll on the Exploration Table.

Are any of these close to what you want?
SR
--

3 or 4 is fine. With 4, they can say they think they are risking something (like leaving themselves open to being snuck up on, or even just risking looking overstrung by pulling guns on what's just a bush).

The exploration table doesn't mix into that at all. You use the exploration rules when you want to leave. It's like buying a cake - you either pay for it (state risk) or go look at another cake entirely (use exploration rules). You don't get to start eating it while stating "I only wanted to know what it tastes like!!! How can I really know if I want to buy it, unless I start eating it?".

In the talkin' and stuff thread, one player even brought something up like the above statement.

Lazzlo wrote: If we don't want to just continue past what looks to be a very interesting option or opportunity, can we not advance forward recklessly & just ask questions about things we'd like described specifically (obviously we can't SEE everything but things we're concerned about that seem missing out of the description)

Callan wrote:
3 or 4 is fine. With 4, they can say they think they are risking something (like leaving themselves open to being snuck up on, or even just risking looking overstrung by pulling guns on what's just a bush).

The exploration table doesn't mix into that at all. You use the exploration rules when you want to leave. It's like buying a cake - you either pay for it (state risk) or go look at another cake entirely (use exploration rules). You don't get to start eating it while stating "I only wanted to know what it tastes like!!! How can I really know if I want to buy it, unless I start eating it?".

In the talkin' and stuff thread, one player even brought something up like the above statement.

Lazzlo wrote: If we don't want to just continue past what looks to be a very interesting option or opportunity, can we not advance forward recklessly & just ask questions about things we'd like described specifically (obviously we can't SEE everything but things we're concerned about that seem missing out of the description)

I take it that 'can we' means 'can we do this without suffereing a penalty for it'. Since I'd been talking about a minefield example with him via PM previously, if I agreed, in that case it would mean being able to walk into a minefield without any risk of being blown up (because that's a penalty).

It feels rather to me that the risk issue is misleading; what this looks more to me like is: GM rustles bushes - "I'm offering you an encounter here, do you want one?"

And the problem was that you received neither a Yes or No response.  Is that fair?

Hi Contra,

It feels rather to me that the risk issue is misleading; what this looks more to me like is: GM rustles bushes - "I'm offering you an encounter here, do you want one?"

And the problem was that you received neither a Yes or No response.  Is that fair?

Hi Rob,

So maybe, you need some more stick & carrot. Let's say that if I state that the risk is that I might get attacked from the rear, then I get a bonus if a rear attack happens, and a penalty if it doesn't. Now it becomes tactically interesting to guess at the risk.

OK, I don't this Lazzlo guy from Adam, so I'm probably all wet, but couldn't he be talking about the same sort of thing? He does say "recklessly", which I would read as "with, I expect, a significant penalty".

Hi Callan,

Callan wrote: Then again, that's a thought. What if they aren't embracing the carrot either? They just do it for looks or something? Is that what other posters have thought of them as - kind of something you just say and not really a reward?

Side note: Looking at this now, I can see in my own past where I've gone down similar roads. I'm laying into the players in this thread, because I don't want to go soft on myself.

Rob wrote: In some of the games I play, I would consider a posturing move pure color and expect neither reward nor penalty.

Regarding the minefield:*snip*
But it seems to me that the clarity that the map brings is what you seek and I'm not sure the statement of risk you're pursuing will bring you that. That is, I think your idea of stating risk is really interesting, but not a solution to this problem. Of course, that's easy to say for me, because I don't know what would be a solution. :-(

Here's a further account of actual play, after they ignored the rustling bush and headed into the forrest. PS so you know, the rustling bush was a monster, but it was a monster trying to get out of the forrest alive. The rustling just ended when it was dragged back into the forrest.

Me wrote: You pass by ancient trunks covered in moss, their still, monolith presence surrounds you. There are no bird calls here, or apparently any animals to be seen. The ground is mossy and wet, with an occasional large centipede slithering through the undergrowth.

You pick your way over fallen logs and through thick undergrowth, but soon come across a thick cluster of vines and thorns. It reaches up about 20 feet and is so thick you can't even see through it. Looking for a way past, you follow the edge of it for about 30 feet, until you find you've ended up in a corner where another wall of thorns and vines intersects the first.

This is out of the ordinary. What's involved with this? What do you do?

Snake Eyes wrote: His eyes sweep everything around them, mainly using thermographic vision, a soft tug on the robot horse's left ear indicating that Ed should do the same.  Always alert, the 'Slinger's head jerks towards thre slightest movement.
Ed.  Are there any strange chemicals in the air?

At Jesse's question, the horse can be heard to sniif loudly, turning his head to either side to scent the area around them better.

[Private to DM (Dare Master): Molecular analyzer.  Anything?]

Me wrote: Are you betting that you can find something to help you out here? At the cost of...lost time (15 seconds), would you say? If you happen to have made the wrong bet?

Snake Eyes wrote: OOC:  Just trying to see if Ed might be able to tell us if anything dangerous is in the air.

Callan wrote: Thoughts?

Callan wrote:
Yes and no! I'm offering an encounter (the encounter clearly involving the information I haven't given and that it can be earned by paying for that with risk stated).

All I'm picking up, in my attempts to read your intentions, is that you really, really want us to sympathize with you because the terrible non-Forge roleplayers are destroying your beautiful dream.  I don't really have a productive or polite response to that.

Callan: I think you need to adopt an explicit format to posts.

Tell your players explicitly that the game you are trying to play is one where for any given action, they must state a risk. Explain to them what "risk" means in this context. Give examples. You may have already done this part, but if so, just copy and paste it as context for the following.

Enact a new format for all posts. Have posts look like this:

ACTIONS: Describe your actions/narrations. Basically write out anything you would normally have written out, and have been writing out so far, but keep it all IC.

REWARDS: OOC what you hope the result of your action is.

RISK: OOC what you're risking. See above for definition of risk. You will not receive either the REWARDS above or even benefits that might have come out of your ACTIONS (such as a drawn weapon, for example) without risking something.

ACTIONS: His eyes sweep everything around them, mainly using thermographic vision, a soft tug on the robot horse's left ear indicating that Ed should do the same.  Always alert, the 'Slinger's head jerks towards thre slightest movement.
Ed.  Are there any strange chemicals in the air?

At Jesse's question, the horse can be heard to sniif loudly, turning his head to either side to scent the area around them better.

REWARDS: Molecular analyzer.  Anything?

RISK: I spend 15 seconds doing this.

Contra,

It seems to me your risk is, or at least appears to the players, to be doubling up.  It makes no sense to expose yourself to risk only for the purpose of exposing yourself to yet more risk.  What they are trying to do with their interrogative questions is assess whether or not the situation is a) risky and b) how risky.  If they must assume risk in order to even find out a) and b), then it must either be the case that they take on unnecessary risk in what would otherwise (had they not asked the question) have been safe, or they acquire both the risks inherent to the situation and whatever they gambled to find out what the situation was.

I'm still a bit confused by the rules about stating risk.  What I think happens doesn't make sense to me, so I'll list what I think happens, and you can correct the bits I got wrong.

So - some event occurs (a rustling bush, for example).
That event has some risk inherent in it (There's a sabertooth tiger hiding behind the bush)
Players can choose to ignore the event (in which case it goes away) or...
Players can assume some risk in order to deal with the event (I leave myself open to ambush as I pay attention to the bush) and win a possible reward (xps for beating up a sabertooth tiger)

So there are 5 possible outcomes
Player ignores event - nothing happens
Player accepts risk, is not ambushed, and then kills the sabertooth tiger for xp
Player accepts risk, is not ambushed, and then gets mauled by a sabertooth tiger
Player accepts risk, has to fight off an ambush, and then kills the sabertooth tiger for xp
Player accepts risk, has to fight off an ambush, and then gets mauled by a sabertooth tiger

This seems odd to me.  Am I getting anything wrong?

Steve

Callan wrote:
Hi Bill,

I was about to say I already asked them for risk. But do you mean, that the very format of always stating the risk, would insist on them stating it? That they can dodge me with wording, but the blank after the word "Risk" is very insistant on being filled in by the player? When they leave it blank, it's quite noticable as opposed to what's happening now with the back and forth discussion (which isn't very clear).

Subtle, yet powerful! I'm gunna have to try that out!

Steve: You haven't included accepting the risk for the reward of more information.

I think because your assuming railroading/force techniques and that compensation is in order, ie "If the GM is forcing me into this monster encounter, it's unfair that I should have to accept risk just to find out more about an encounter he's dropping in my lap. So I don't have to and wont accept risk."

While I'm looking at players not at all forced to engage the encounter (remember how it was 200 feet away?), engaging it of their own free will yet shrugging off any risk acceptance while doing so.

It reminds me of something Tony said in this thread

So they switched a single notch up their defense-condition ladder (because, after all, it's not just a rustling ... it's a rustling that the GM specifically mentioned)

Callan wrote:
Your battlemap is a risk stating device, IMO. When a player moves his piece, it's so well known around the table that any particular square could mean BOOM, that it's clear he's taking on risk. I'd say the battlemap is more sophisticated than raw spoken statements of 'I take on risk X'. I think were talking about similar things. :)

Callan wrote:

I understand the conflict there. But say that reasoning is at level 5. At level 10, which overides level 5 'cause it's bigger, I see this reasoning - if I don't risk something, it's a non event. That damages the gamist agenda. So even though the level 5 reasoning makes sense, it has to be put aside for awhile to facilitate gamist play. The non optimal choice (putting a risk in place) is actually better for gamism, in the long run.