I've just finished the most recent incarnation of Dramatikos.  In short, it is an interactive storytelling game.  The players each use action and narration to portray one or more roles. The players weave the each other's words and actions to develop a story meant to entertain everyone.  Dramatikos is meant to be a combination between improv theater and round-robin storytelling.  As the players are both the audience and the creators in the game, the rules are meant to act as a foundation for creating and portraying characters, as well as for deciding what happens next in the story.  My goal is to have play that is a lot like freeform RPing but without the arbitrariness that can happen sans a mechanical base.

Mechanically, I don't provide a lot of checks and balances to prevent people from using the system to completely dominate play.  To what extent should I be concerned about this, and to what extent is that more of a social contract sort of thing?

Hello,

Unfortunately, there is no way to answer a "should" question like that. You have to decide what the literal experience of play is supposed to be like, and use that as the basis for the rules.

At the moment, you've only stated that there are rules of some kind. What are they like?

Best, Ron

Ron wrote:
Unfortunately, there is no way to answer a "should" question like that. You have to decide what the literal experience of play is supposed to be like, and use that as the basis for the rules.

At the moment, you've only stated that there are rules of some kind. What are they like?

Hi!
  Sounds like you have it wrapped up. if the scene time is controlled on a minute by minute basis, it will be very hard for a player to dominate a group under those guidelines. Anything else would be a social contract issue in my opinion.

If I understand correctly:

I have, say 2 minutes to "play" my Keys. I have, say, 10 Keys. And I want to win the conflict. In order to do it I have to introduce more Keys than the other side.

So, I'd probably choose Keys that are as easy to introduce in as many situations as possible, and then I'd introduce them with minimum narration. That gives me around 10-12 seconds per Key, so it there won't be too much time to provide interesting colour. And in the next conflict - repeat the same tricks. Is this the kind of behaviour you would like to prevent?

If so, I think you should explain in the rules how the game is supposed to be played and how not. If your game is not about winning, there's no point to prevent such behaviours. If players try to play that way, they actually won't be playing your game anymore. So that's their, not your problem.

But I think the game could use some additional rules. Maybe allow other players to veto narration? Or rule that the same Key cannot be introduced in the same way more than once (or once per some unit of time or unit of play) - in case of repetitive narration, it wouldn't count towards winning the conflict.

If the problem you are seeing is that a player could do the "speed talk" thing and introduce all of his Keys in every round in an attempt to win every conflict no matter how tenuous, then I think I have a simple solution for you and then something you could think about.

If you add a simple rule that no Key can be used in consecutive rounds, then the player has incentive not to try using all his Keys.  Sure, if the conflict is really important to him, he'll throw everything and the kitchen sink at it to win... but then the next round he's stuck with no Keys to use and he can't possibly win the conflict there.  I think the result of this rule will be that players will tend to use the minimum number of Keys they think it'll take to win unless the conflict is just uber-important to them.

The other thought to ponder is giving the players an incentive for losing a conflict.  If there is some incentive to lose then the player won't always be interested in winning everything.

From a design perspective, what you're doing here is essentially an auction.  As a fan of Eurogames, I see these all the time.  The key to a good auction are specific constraints and varying valuation of items.  Here's an example, taken from a game called Ra.

Imagine that there are four tiles currently available for auction:  1 of Tile A, 2 of Tile B, and 1 of Destroy Tile C.  The winner of the auction must take all the tiles.  The rules for the auction are a once-around:  in other words, you get one chance to outbid.  High bid wins.  Now, according to the rules, there are different ways to score Tile A, Tile B, and Tile C.  If I don't have any Tile C, then that last tile isn't a negative to me.  However, if you have lots of tiles that depend for scoring on your having Tile C, then you won't want to win this auction.  Unless, of course, getting a Tile A will mean more points to you....

And so on and so on.

As I mentioned before, what you're designing is an auction.  So, what are your constraints?  The only one that you mentioned is time.  Each player has X amount of time to invoke his Keys.  As Filip noted, this constraint is insufficient, as someone could simply rattle off all his Keys and say "I invoke all these."  Saying "That's not how the game should be played" doesn't help, because then how should it be played, and what can the other players point at to say that he is wrong?

What about the varied valuation of items?  You have only one "item" up for auction:  winning the conflict.  As a general rule, this is going to be equally valued by each player, so each round will essentially be the same.  Whoever has the most Keys will win.  Each time.

Certainly, you can limit by Color, but that is hard to enforce, even with explicit rules.  The Challenge mechanism from Universalis addresses this, but that requires having a finite resource to spend.

So, instead, I suggest that you consider both your constraints and your items.  Some ideas:

Are there other constraints to introduce?

Andrew suggested one:  "spending" a Key makes it unavailable for the next round while it refreshes.  As a variation, I could suggest modifying an idea from my own Legends of Alyria:  a used Key cannot refresh until a different player uses it in a conflict against the character.  The concept here is introducing a finite currency into your auction.

What about the auction format?  Currently, it looks like your setup is essentially a "once-around".  Each player gets to contribute to the scene once around the room, and then the conflict is resolved.  But is this the best format?  What about an open-ended auction, going around the room until everyone passes?  Or what about a “dollar auction”, where the top bidder wins but the top two pay?

Are there other items to purchase?

What if winning the conflict and narrating were separated?  Imagine if the highest bidder won the conflict but the lowest bidder narrated.  Or, what if the highest bidder got to choose between winning and narrating, and the lowest bidder got the other?  Are there other “items” available?  For example, what if there were meta-items available, like “Gain one Key” or “Refresh Keys”?

In closing, here’s a link to an article by Shannon Appelcline about the use of auctions in games:  Strategic Insights:  Auction Games   There may be more there than you really wanted to know, but I think that you’ll find it to be a good resource on the sorts of things that I’m talking about.

Filip wrote:
If I understand correctly:

I have, say 2 minutes to "play" my Keys. I have, say, 10 Keys. And I want to win the conflict. In order to do it I have to introduce more Keys than the other side.

So, I'd probably choose Keys that are as easy to introduce in as many situations as possible, and then I'd introduce them with minimum narration. That gives me around 10-12 seconds per Key, so it there won't be too much time to provide interesting colour. And in the next conflict - repeat the same tricks. Is this the kind of behaviour you would like to prevent?

If so, I think you should explain in the rules how the game is supposed to be played and how not. If your game is not about winning, there's no point to prevent such behaviours. If players try to play that way, they actually won't be playing your game anymore. So that's their, not your problem.

Or rule that the same Key cannot be introduced in the same way more than once (or once per some unit of time or unit of play) - in case of repetitive narration, it wouldn't count towards winning the conflict.

After the first player takes his turn, the next player who wants to do something is allowed a chance to perform an action.  In order of who wants to go next, each player gets a turn to perform an action.  This may involve playing as many Keys as time and imagination allow, but you should keep the following rules in mind:

(snip rules 1 thru 4)

5.  One Key per scene.  All the players involved in a scene can take as many turns as they need to finish it.  They can play as many Keys as they like and narrate or act out to their hearts' content.  However, a player may only use a specific Key only once each scene.

wrote:
If the problem you are seeing is that a player could do the "speed talk" thing and introduce all of his Keys in every round in an attempt to win every conflict no matter how tenuous, then I think I have a simple solution for you and then something you could think about.

If you add a simple rule that no Key can be used in consecutive rounds, then the player has incentive not to try using all his Keys.  Sure, if the conflict is really important to him, he'll throw everything and the kitchen sink at it to win... but then the next round he's stuck with no Keys to use and he can't possibly win the conflict there.  I think the result of this rule will be that players will tend to use the minimum number of Keys they think it'll take to win unless the conflict is just uber-important to them.

The other thought to ponder is giving the players an incentive for losing a conflict.  If there is some incentive to lose then the player won't always be interested in winning everything.

Gr wrote:
And so on and so on.

As I mentioned before, what you're designing is an auction.  So, what are your constraints?  The only one that you mentioned is time.  Each player has X amount of time to invoke his Keys.  As Filip noted, this constraint is insufficient, as someone could simply rattle off all his Keys and say "I invoke all these."  Saying "That's not how the game should be played" doesn't help, because then how should it be played, and what can the other players point at to say that he is wrong?

What about the auction format?  Currently, it looks like your setup is essentially a "once-around".  Each player gets to contribute to the scene once around the room, and then the conflict is resolved.  But is this the best format?  What about an open-ended auction, going around the room until everyone passes?  Or what about a “dollar auction”, where the top bidder wins but the top two pay?

Green wrote:

If so, I think you should explain in the rules how the game is supposed to be played and how not. If your game is not about winning, there's no point to prevent such behaviours. If players try to play that way, they actually won't be playing your game anymore. So that's their, not your problem.

That's what I figured.  I just needed someone else to say it.  Thanks.

wrote: So, is there any particular "munchkin behavior" you're actually worried about at this point?

Nope, wrong conclusion entirely. You're missing Seth's critical points and they're the only ones that hit the heart of the matter so far in this thread. If your game system incentivizes X, and you say, "Don't do X" and say that people are playing wrong, then your game is broke, broke, broke. For instance, The Window game system comes down to nothing but suggestions for how to play that the system does nothing to support. What happens in people's experience with actual play? Players ignore the textual suggestions and play to the system. Or you get some of each, and players angry at each other. Or you get the sort of play that the text suggests, but then you don't need the system at all.

Your system is about which player gets to say what happens, not which character wins. This means you're putting the players in direct competition with each other for the ability to modify the story, with only one winning strategy. Following that strategy isn't "munchkinism," it's doing what the system is telling them to do.

Mike

Hello everyone,

I'm a new guy here... Sorry if I'm interrupting or not following etiquette, I've presented myself earlier (qv. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19644.0)

In any case, I'd suggest in concordance with Mike's suggestion that the card game ONCE UPON A TIME shows a design flaw not unlike what has been mentioned, and you might want to check out errata regarding this. This game requires, for a player to win, that he spends all his cards in telling a story.

In my experience, I've won every single game in less than 5 minutes by massively dropping a string of cards into a quickly spun story worthy of a used car salesman. This, in effect, "knocks out" less asservite players and leaves all the room for the "large mouths". This is a possible design flaw you might want to prevent, by using for example an escalation mechanism such as mentioned in Mr. James Kirk III's RPG Design Theory : http://legendaryquest.netfirms.com/books/Patterns.zip

Regards,

Erick N. Bouchard
Quebec, Canada

This is a great thread for me at this point for me as I've been looking to develop a framework whereby the players take equal rolls as gamemaster.  The keys are an interesting concept that provide some ground rules...  It seems to be that additional ground rules may be very helpful to avoid too much domination by one player.  In addition to one's narative being restricted to "that which illustrates one's protected character's characteristics" and also by a time limit, ones narrative might also be limited to "that which illustrates the theme of the scene/session/campaign (or in the case of comic book style page/issue/story arc).

Instead of the munchkin narration: As the Five hundred orcs climb over the city walls in droves, Meric the cleric spies them and swears upon his honor that they will not hurt the children of Oatmill Orphanage upon his own death.  He waves the holy book of Avadril before him and lightning strikes down each and every orc in turn.

(which would probably be munchkin; especially if the five hundred orcs were supposed to be the big villains and the one player just ended it without all that thought)

We might add a scene specific: 1) this is an orc attack that will challenge each of the major characters and the entire town for at least several hours; the player can not munchkin in this way:

As the five hundred orcs climb over the city walls in droves, Meric the cleric spies them and recalls the children of Oatmill Orphanage are caught in the open; upon his oath to protect them, he kisses his holy book and asks Avadril to bless him in his task to protect the children.  He returns the book to his pack and sprints as fast as he can towards the orphanage.

To make this kind of restriction work, all players would have to agree to the gound rules beforehand. 

Now, at this point, I'm going to challenge the idea that the first narration is "munchkin".  Check out this AP thread.  In particular, look at the narration for Na'ir:

We cut away at this point.  When we returned, Na’ir was emerging from the Mistake, bloody and broken but still clutching the hilt of his father’s sword.  Nonetheless, he knew what he had to do.  He staggered to the remnant and entered it.  The city was full of wailing and crying as the Wail exacted its vengeance.  He groped his way to the top of the Starsinger tower, which is the tallest tower in the remnant.  Grasping the hilt of his father’s sword, he plunged it into the floor.  Then he lifted his face to the sky and called out a name.

And the stars began to fall.  And with them, they brought healing and life.

In response, the Mistake belched up a demon horde which poured from its maw, hurtling towards the remnant.  Na’ir drew forth his father’s sword, which was reforged in ice, and personally led the defense of the remnant.  He rallied the defenders, including Heka, and forced the demon horde back from the remnant.  Then, in a scene reminiscent of Return of the King, cavalry from another remnant arrived and charged.  The demon horde was scattered.  A falling star obliterated the Wail.  The remnant was saved.

And then, as Na’ir turned from the battle, a stray arrow pierced his heart.  He fell, and he died.

No one remembered him and his noble leadership.  No songs were ever sung of his sacrifice.  Indeed, he was blamed by the people for raising the Mistake against the remnant.  He was accounted a traitor to the people, and his name was dust on the winds of time, forgotten by all.

Except for us.

GreatWolf wrote:
Now, at this point, I'm going to challenge the idea that the first narration is "munchkin".  Check out this AP thread.  In particular, look at the narration for Na'ir...

Is this munchkin narration?  Not necessarily.  See, behind the scenes, there was an intense system-based struggle for this narration.  I fought for every bit of that sequences of events with the tools given to me by the game, and, as a result, there was consensus on the outcome.

So, going back to your example, why shouldn't the priest be able to blast the invading ork army to pieces?  Because there's no dramatic tension...

See, the power level of a narration isn't really important.  Instead, what you need to do is give the players the tools to create dramatic tension.  In other words, the game needs uncertainty and conflict.

Some good examples of games to look at are Universalis and Polaris.  Both are GM-less games that address the issue of conflict and uncertainty in different ways.

Sure thing.  Obviously these are really short overviews, so I'm glossing over details for the sake of brevity.

Universalis is a universal GM-less RPG.  The way it works is that each player has an equal amount of Coins that he spends to create characters, declare events, and suchlike.  In a way, it's more of a GM-ful game, actually, since the Coins are a method of distributing authority to the players.  At the end of each scene, each player gets back a few Coins.  As a result, the best way to get Coins is actually by starting a Complication, wherein players acquire dice by creating a conflict in the story.  The dice determine who wins and therefore who gets more Coins from the Complication.  So the game actually bribes the players into providing conflict and uncertainty by rewarding them with additional Coins which are used to power the game.

Polaris is currently riding high on my personal list of favorite games.  In it, you play (essentially) fairy/elvish Knights protecting a doomed society from demons.  If you're into that kind of thing, it's very cool.  Again, this is a GM-less game, ideally for four players.  Each player controls one Knight, and, during a scene starring that Knight, each of the other players takes on specific roles.  One of these roles is the Mistaken, who is responsible for providing opposition to the Knight and his goals.  All narration is free-form, but it can be negotiated through the use of specified Key Phrases.  The simplest one is "But only if..." which says "I accept what you just narrated, as long as this thing also happens."  One of these Key Phrases is "It Shall Not Come To Pass"; in other words, "Roll dice!"  The tug of war between Heart (the player of the Knight) and Mistaken provides the necessary conflict and uncertainty to drive the game.

And now, the requisite links:

Universalis (Forge forum)
Polaris (Forge forum)

I hope that this is helpful.

(Edited to fix a link)

The general principle that can be derived from both Universalis and Polaris is where the hard line parameters are.

In Universalis you can say absolutely anything you want, as long as you can afford to pay for it, AND as long as any other player doesn't interfere...because they can say anything they want also as long as they can afford to pay for it.  Disagreements between who wants to say what can be handled either by who spends the most to make it happen, or by going to the dice and who has more existing facts supporting their side to help them win.  Point being there is a very clear hard line way to resolve disagreements.  If you say something I don't like there is no doubt whatsoever as to what recourse I have (and vice versa) and the game mechanics outlines the precise procedure to follow that will get the game to a resolution that everyone who desires had input into resolving.

In Polaris you can say absolutely anything you want without any affording to pay for it limitation...BUT at any time the player who is opposed to you (i.e. representing goals opposite yours) can interfere by making a conflict out of it.  Like Universalis there is a very clear hard line way to resolve disagreements and a precise procedure that will get the game to a resolution that everyone had input on.  In Polaris the mechanic is trading key phrases.  Once the game goes to a conflict you can still say anything you want BUT you have to adhere to certain formats in how you say them.  Inherent in those formats is the idea of concessions and addendums.  In other words, I'll agree to what you say as long as you agree to what I say.  You'll agree to that as long as I agree to something else and so on until neither of us wants to escalate any further, or until one of us decides the escalation has gone too far and uses a different format to reset back to a previous state.  Ultimately at some point "and that was how it happened" embeds everything into the shared imaginary space and it becomes part of the reality of the game.

The key in any player empowered narration system, especially those that essentially let players say just about anything is:

1) clearly identify the recourse player X has when either a) player X doesn't like what player Y said, or b) player X thinks they have a way to make what player Y said better.  This means clearly identifying the following:  what can Y say that X can't question or interfere with, when can X jump in and make their own assertions, and a clear set of rules outlining which player speaks and when (and this includes what you can say when its someone elses turn).

2) whatever the rules are (Coins, Dice, Key Phrases, Cards, a fist fight out back) they must eventually get you to an ultimate resolution where a) it is clear to everyone how events played out and b) everyone who has a stake in those events had some input into them somewhere along the way (either during resolution itself, or in the lead up to resolution where they established their right to participate).

Universalis and Polaris do both of those VERY well and VERY differently without needing to rely on the old safty measure of having a GM to arbitrate.  Because there is no GM the rules have to be able to handle all necessary arbitration with precision.

If you accomplish these things, then it is very unlikely that munchkiny behavior will ever be a problem.

Sorry about the long wait.  I thought this thread was buried.  I didn't even know it was still around until I read a post at Story Games.  My fault.

Thanks for the ideas, Valamir.  They really get at the heart of the conflict I have with the rules.  It's going to take a while, but I'm going back to the drawing board to figure something out that resolves this conflict while accomplishing my goal of low-impact play.