Hello,

I've been thinking about some things recently and I wanted to get some other opinions and points of view about something. I have been considering the Gamemaster's job of keeping things moving, framing scenes, and cutting when the scene has accomplished its goal. Having never actually played in a proper Narritivist game (though hoping to run something resembling one in the near future) I would like to get some other points of view about one specific aspect of this job.

My question is this; how do you, as GMs, have your Bangs (to use the term from Sorcerer) ready for use without having those events be leading and thus take away from the choices of the players? My understanding is that a Narritivist game is supposed to be authored primarily by the players, but if the GM is to keep the events relevant to the players, doesn't that, almost out of necessity, force the GM introduced events to "lead" the players in a certain direction?

How do you balance the need for a story relevant motivational event with the need for provding the players with as much choice as possible? Do you plan more than one Bang before the session starts? Do you plan branching Bangs to acount for the wider range of options an event gives the players? Or do you plan only the first event and then "wing" the rest?

I suspect that the answer to most of these questions will be that the ability to balance the various needs comes only with experience, but I'm hoping that some of you can provide me with good starting points.

Thanks,

Lael

Hey Lael,

Check out this thread.

Paul

Hello,

I'm glad Paul pointed to that old thread. It was refreshing to read that again. By the way, I'm still coming to terms with how to start a game without player authored kickers. If anyone has new insights into that I'd like to here them.

As to how to GM without introducing big red arrows that say, "go this way," that turns out to be a lot easier than one thinks. The key is to think up elements that are a) independent of time and space and b) (roughly) independent of order. If you don't try and second guess the players actions then the situations you put before them won't require them to try and second guess you.

My Werewolf game is currently being run off a 100% bang driven basis and my notes consist of nothing but a list of interesting elements and situations I want to include but they aren't dependent on anything particular happening.

For example, one of the things I have written down is:

Selestra's mother is pregnant.

Selestra's player has specifically stated in her character description that she has issues with her parents. When she discovered she was a werewolf, she left without any word to her parents who are obviously very worried about her. Anyway, I know that this little fact will provoke SOME kind of emotional reaction from Selestra's player. I don't know what it will be and I don't know when it will come up.

I have this as a follow up note: Possible choice between killing mother/(unborn?) sibbling and forsaking werewolf obligations?

Basically, I've jotted this down as being a conflict the player might be interested in exploring assuming her mother's pregnancy takes a promenant role in her story. If the mother's preganancy doesn't interest the player this element will be dropped. I also won't force this conflict to come into existence. I've merely jotted it down as a reminded to look for a potential opening to insert this conflict. If that opportunity does not present itself, then it will be dropped in favor of something more important.

Oh a, REAL easy trap to fall into with bang style planning is the Yes/No conflict. It's the presentation of a problem that requires the players to choose between only two options. These kinds of problems are okay, especially for quest style stories but you have to make sure that BOTH choices are exceptable choices for the players to make. For example, I have this written in my werewolf notes:

Creepy wilderness dwelling hermit wants coporate logging exec assissinated.

Basically, assuming the players come to this wilderness dwelling hermit for help of some kind (again, if it doesn't come up it will be dropped) the hermit will ask the players to assissinate this logging exec who's threatening his home in exchange for his help. This is coming dangerously close to what has been called the Bobby-G scenario. I avoid this by being prepared for the players to say, 'No WAY. This isn't worth it.' The game won't come to a screetching halt if the player's refuse to aid the old man in his bitter murderous endeavors.

Hope this helps.

Jesse

What Jesse said.

A straightforward solution is to provide the players with Bangs that have more than one reasonable outcome, but still require action:

Bang: there is a horde of evil creatures that are likely to destroy the character's hometown tomorrow.
Railroady: there is a horde of evil creatures that are here now, and attacking you.

Bang: your girlfriend has disappeared under circumstances that mean that she is likely dead.
Railroady: your girlfriend has disappeared, and you are the only one who can save her.

Bang: lightning strikes the plane with you and some terrorists in it, sending it down over uncharted waters.
Railroady: lightning strikes the plane with you and some terrorists in it, sending it down in a lake in New Jersey within swimming distance of shore.

Bang: the temple has nominated you as a candidate for the opening in the High Priest position, which entails many privileges and duties if elected.
Railroady: the temple has elected you High Priest in your absence, which entails many privileges and duties.

Bang: good ole' Sherrif Parker has been found hung out front of the grange hall one morning.
Railroady: good ole' Sherrif Parker has been shot by Black Bob who is now shooting other townsfolk down the street.

Bang: the florist has delivered orchids instead of the previously ordered roses to the wedding at the apparent behest of your mother-in-law.
Railroady: your mother-in-law dies at the wedding of a sudden aneurism.

Bang: you see a nurse who you know putting somthing in Fred's IV, and looking about nervously as she does it.
Railroady: you see some nurse putting something in Fred's IV which has a skull and crossbones on it.

These are all out of context, but the idea is, as Jesse pointed out, that in each case the characters involved should have options as to what direction to take. Even if it's just to shut up, that's a valid player decision if it means possible repercussions later. As in the case of the nurse. If the player says nothing, and something bad happens, that creates a thematic element.

The Railroady examples all are similar in that there is really only one course to take after the event has occurred.

Take the flowers example. The player can have her character Lisa get all upset about her meddling mother-in-law, or she can bottle up her rage, and unleash later on her new husband, or she can accept her mother-in-law's help as though well-intended. Or any of a number of reactions.

If the mother-in-law just dies, the characters can only sit and look shocked as the ambulance takes her away, and then grieve. Effectively you've introduced a similar plot element; the MiL has interrupted the wedding day, somehow. But in the Railroady case, the player doesn't get to choose a rout for their character to address the issue. Not good.

Really good bangs will not allow just a shrug. The bang should be designed to set the characters in motion with regards to it. Whatever motion the player is interested in examining.

Not the easiest thing to do right, but works with a little effort.

Mike

The link that Paul posted is very helpful and the other comments have really given me a much better idea what I need to be looking for. Thanks to Mike and Jesse for the insights, they are very helpful and give me much to think about.

My thanks again,

Lael

Excellent topic -- just what I needed.

I want to dig into a few statements. First, something that was presented as a kicker in the thread recommended by Paul:

"You wake up to find a dead body in you living room."

Is this a proper kicker in both of the following circumstances: A) the GM knows how the body got there and who did it, ie. everything B) the GM does not know how the body got there and is just throwing it as a hook.

That may sound like an odd question, but it's a very important one for my peace of mind.

Then onto the examples by Mike, and even if I may sound nit-picky, my interest is genuine in understanding these better:

Bang: lightning strikes the plane with you and some terrorists in it, sending it down over uncharted waters.
Railroady: lightning strikes the plane with you and some terrorists in it, sending it down in a lake in New Jersey within swimming distance of shore.

Bang: good ole' Sherrif Parker has been found hung out front of the grange hall one morning.
Railroady: good ole' Sherrif Parker has been shot by Black Bob who is now shooting other townsfolk down the street.

Daredevil wrote: Excellent topic -- just what I needed.

I want to dig into a few statements. First, something that was presented as a kicker in the thread recommended by Paul:

"You wake up to find a dead body in you living room."

Is this a proper kicker in both of the following circumstances: A) the GM knows how the body got there and who did it, ie. everything B) the GM does not know how the body got there and is just throwing it as a hook.

That may sound like an odd question, but it's a very important one for my peace of mind.

Daredevil wrote:
Then onto the examples by Mike, and even if I may sound nit-picky, my interest is genuine in understanding these better:

Bang: lightning strikes the plane with you and some terrorists in it, sending it down over uncharted waters.
Railroady: lightning strikes the plane with you and some terrorists in it, sending it down in a lake in New Jersey within swimming distance of shore.

What is the difference between these? If one of the first things the player/character will find out on leaving the plane is that its in a lake, within swimming distance of the shore, what is the difference? Or is the idea of being in a lake in New Jersey, within swimming distance of the shore repulsive? I don't understand this one.

How does the first one give the players more options than the latter? I can understand it if player have director power in their hands. If they don't, I don't get it.

daredevil wrote:

Bang: good ole' Sherrif Parker has been found hung out front of the grange hall one morning.
Railroady: good ole' Sherrif Parker has been shot by Black Bob who is now shooting other townsfolk down the street.

I have pretty much the same issue here. I don't see how Black Bob being out on town shooting people is railroady. The characters can still react in any number of ways and both things are equally forced on the characters : Black Bob shooting or the Sheriff being hung.

These questions of mine outline something that I don't quite understand in the thinking presented in this thread. In fact, it's always bugged me, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Directions, anyone?

Ayrizale wrote:

Daredevil wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: Bang: lightning strikes the plane with you and some terrorists in it, sending it down over uncharted waters.
Railroady: lightning strikes the plane with you and some terrorists in it, sending it down in a lake in New Jersey within swimming distance of shore.

What is the difference between these? If one of the first things the player/character will find out on leaving the plane is that its in a lake, within swimming distance of the shore, what is the difference? Or is the idea of being in a lake in New Jersey, within swimming distance of the shore repulsive? I don't understand this one.

How does the first one give the players more options than the latter? I can understand it if player have director power in their hands. If they don't, I don't get it.

I believe it is more a matter of subtleties. In the first the players are going down in uncharted waters. If they have directorial power then they could choose to come down near an island or simply a reef or sandbar. The hull of the plane could survive the impact in such a condition that it would make a serviceable boat. Or they might choose to try to summon a demon that would save them (in Sorcerer).

In the second case, the players are not likely to try anything of that sort. There aren't going to be islands, reefs, or sandbars. They don't need the plane to float and the shore is within swimming distance so they don't need to summon a demon.

This one may not represent direct leading on the part of the GM, but it is certainly implying that there is only one smart and easy course of action.

daredevil wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: Bang: good ole' Sherrif Parker has been found hung out front of the grange hall one morning.
Railroady: good ole' Sherrif Parker has been shot by Black Bob who is now shooting other townsfolk down the street.

I have pretty much the same issue here. I don't see how Black Bob being out on town shooting people is railroady. The characters can still react in any number of ways and both things are equally forced on the characters : Black Bob shooting or the Sheriff being hung.

Again, I believe that this is less a matter of the GM directly telling the players what to do than a matter of the players being given a very strong clue what their next course of action should be. If they find the sherif hung, then they can choose to investigate normally, they can leave and let someone else make the discovery, they can frame someone that they don't like for the murder and then "investigate" it so that it leads to that person.

In the second instance, the culprit is established, his location is established, and the players are really only given two options, fight him to save the town or run away. Now certainly there are other options that they could do, but those two are probably the ones that will jump to mindmore often than not (depending on setting and system).

But that's just how I see it. I'm sure that others will have their own opinions about the differences, and I'd like to hear them to see this from other points of view.

Ayrizale wrote:

If they have directorial power then they could choose to come down near an island or simply a reef or sandbar. The hull of the plane could survive the impact in such a condition that it would make a serviceable boat. Or they might choose to try to summon a demon that would save them (in Sorcerer).

In the second case, the players are not likely to try anything of that sort. There aren't going to be islands, reefs, or sandbars. They don't need the plane to float and the shore is within swimming distance so they don't need to summon a demon.

This one may not represent direct leading on the part of the GM, but it is certainly implying that there is only one smart and easy course of action.

The reason going down in the lake is railroady is because 'you know who' will be forced, by railroading, to satisfy the crisis.

There are many ways to approach finding a mysterious hung man, but the gamemaster will only let you sort out Black Bob, making it railroading.

Daredevil wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: The reason going down in the lake is railroady is because 'you know who' will be forced, by railroading, to satisfy the crisis.

and

Le Joueur wrote: There are many ways to approach finding a mysterious hung man, but the gamemaster will only let you sort out Black Bob, making it railroading.

This is I don't understand at all. How does telling the players that Black Bob is shooting folks down in the pub going to automatically make them go stop it, unless they have a vested interest in doing so?

How does presenting a situation equal railroading? It doesn't, unless the GM drives the play towards one solution or the situation is incredibly one-sided (but then sometimes an incredibly one-sided situation can be very likely, or dramatically appropiate).

First, I'd like to say that, having just come off a certain mailing list, I may be a little over sensitive to the way people type. But can we turn off the pilot lights on the flamethrowers and try to discuss this rather than argueing? If my own posts prior to this set a bad tone for the discussion, then I apologize. No such tone was intended. Thanks.

I'd also like to say that I'm still learning this stuff too and have not yet had the chance to actually try it is play, so my thoughts are just that, my thoughts based on theory rather than actual play.

Now on to the replies.

Daredevil wrote:
So, what if they don't have directorial power?

Daredevil wrote:
Sometimes there just is an easy, smart course of action.

Dardevil wrote: I don't see how deciding that the plane goes down is not railroading and that the shore is close by is not railroading. If anything, I'd say the opposite is true.

Daredevil wrote: This is I don't understand at all. How does telling the players that Black Bob is shooting folks down in the pub going to automatically make them go stop it, unless they have a vested interest in doing so?

Daredevil wrote: How does presenting a situation equal railroading? It doesn't, unless the GM drives the play towards one solution or the situation is incredibly one-sided (but then sometimes an incredibly one-sided situation can be very likely, or dramatically appropiate).

Le Joueur wrote: Now the other alternatives; you find a hung man, where's the lack of choice? Heck, there isn't even an obvious route to follow, much less limited choices. And over the ocean? It doesn't have to be about Director Stance, you have many choices; you could team up with the terrorists just to survive, you could capture them and wait for rescue, you could force them to paddle you back to civilization, (and on the dark side) you could have a tense running battle until help arrives, they could capture you, or you could be on the run from them, really, the number of possibilities is infinite. But none of this happens in New Jersey; if you don't 'fix the problem,' you don't get any play time (the authorities - read that non-player characters - get all the limelight) and that's 'no choice.'

Is that any clearer?

Fang Langford

Cool. It was fun watching other people pick up on the subltleties. And, yes these are out of context, so placed in certain contexts they would make no sense, or even be reversed possibly.

The point is to look at the intention of the Bang. Did you design it so that the players can only really respond in a single way? Is your intent to have the characters ony have the fight-or-flight option which is what happens in the terrorist or Bob, or monsters attack scenario? Or is it to open up the players ability to express their character's stories?


BTW, the Bang that follows the plane going down in uncharted waters is to find a desert island nearby. Do they stay? Do they go? Who rules the island, and under what system? How is that determined? How many camps are there, and is there cooperation? Many more questions to be answered than just "do we fight or flee from the terrorists?"

Now the other alternatives; you find a hung man, where's the lack of choice? Heck, there isn't even an obvious route to follow, much less limited choices.

Le Joueur wrote:

When you tell the players that Black Bob is shooting folks, who do you think is going to stop him? If the players avoid Bob, two things can happen; first, the 'story' (and probably Bob) can come looking for them (meaning they have no choice in dealing with Bob), or second, nothing else happens (is that a choice?). See, Hobson's Choice in action, either you act on Black Bob or no choice.

The same is true for the terrorists. In New Jersey, either you deal with them (as terrorists) or no choice. That's railroading.

BTW, the Bang that follows the plane going down in uncharted waters is to find a desert island nearby. Do they stay? Do they go? Who rules the island, and under what system? How is that determined? How many camps are there, and is there cooperation? Many more questions to be answered than just "do we fight or flee from the terrorists?"

Now the other alternatives; you find a hung man, where's the lack of choice? Heck, there isn't even an obvious route to follow, much less limited choices.

The point is to look at the intention of the Bang. Did you design it so that the players can only really respond in a single way? Is your intent to have the characters ony have the fight-or-flight option which is what happens in the terrorist or Bob, or monsters attack scenario? Or is it to open up the players ability to express their character's stories?

Daredevil wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: When you tell the players that Black Bob is shooting folks, who do you think is going to stop him? If the players avoid Bob, two things can happen; first, the 'story' (and probably Bob) can come looking for them (meaning they have no choice in dealing with Bob), or second, nothing else happens (is that a choice?). See, Hobson's Choice in action, either you act on Black Bob or no choice.

I completely disagree that it has to be the players that stop Black Bob. It is a situation presented to them to which they can respond in any number of ways. They can ignore it, find out why Bob is doing it, stop this from happening, help him kill the demon infested citizens ... anything. There is no reason the story has to come looking for the players either. If they just ignore Black Bob, you can craft any number of subsequent bangs from that. How about the police surrounding Black Bob while he was breaking and entering a house -- the house of your soon to be wife -- resulting in a kidnapping situation? How about Black Bob fleeing entirely, disappearing and remaining a threat to everyone? Whatever fits.

Daredevil wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Now the other alternatives; you find a hung man, where's the lack of choice? Heck, there isn't even an obvious route to follow, much less limited choices.

Yes there is an obvious action to take : find out what happened. It all depends on how you look at it -- from what perspective -- and what the players find interesting. If this (finding out about the death) is interesting to the players, then it's all good. The same could be said if the players just want a combat scene with Black Bob out on town. Hey, there's lots of players like that out there.

Hi,

Daredevil, I think that it all come down to the freedom of choice offered to the players.
In the sherif exemple, if he is found hang up, all players actions are dramatically equals. They made a choice and all choices have a chance to bring good story. For ex. they search who/how/when and that's a cool story (especially if they have authoral power) ; they do nothing, cool stuff too because they had no outside social presure to act, it's really their choice (you can always show them the consequences of thei non-action in another bang...but that's purely optional). In this hang up situation, the players are presented a situation that is less defined for sure, but witch offer much more freedom.

In the shotting exemple, much of that freedom is taken away. They don't have that many options...and some of them just kill the bang. Assuming they do nothing, if what you throw at them after is bad, what you're really saying is : you should have to stop that guy, you didn't now look at the consequences! If they do nothing and nothing happen them it's hardly a bang. So chosing this option not only limit the players, but impers you in co-authoring a good story.

And that is exactly the same for all the exemples Mike presented.

BTW, I think that playing with bang ought to be done with authoring power right in the hands of the players...that's a narativist thechnique !!


Fabrice.

I'm actually agreeing with this whole thread on most points -- it's just a few details that I don't accept. That's why I originally said I hope nobody takes it as nit-picking.

Assuming they do nothing, if what you throw at them after is bad, what you're really saying is : you should have to stop that guy, you didn't now look at the consequences! If they do nothing and nothing happen them it's hardly a bang. So chosing this option not only limit the players, but impers you in co-authoring a good story.

This thread might also help to clear things up. It relates to specifically to Sorcerer Kicker's but it has stated many times that Kickers are just the first Bang of the game.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1321

Jesse

Hi Daredevil,

You wrote:

I don't just see why the matter has to be brought "up from the table", ie. from the in-character-level to the player-level.

I'm willing to admit that there is still that something that I'm apparently not just getting in bang-thinking.

Little nicky, that may be it. I'll have to think this through once more with focus on that idea.

Thanks,

- Joachim Buchert -