It's cropped up from a couple of directions. I've made a resolution mechanic (well, perhaps more of a midwife mechanic) that I'm happy with (listed in previous threads). But it just doesn't seem enough. I still feel flat about it, even though the path of forward play is now smooth.

It's a bit hard to dig at why. My theory is finally that its a lack of wunder and wunder lust. Certainly my old mercenaries AP account here involves this, my current world of warcraft play includes it too and I think most games I've gotten hooked on have - wondering about stuff then going and having a look. To define wonder a bit more in the context of this thread, it is a condition where you don't know where a item or situation will lead - it could lead to half a dozen other (interesting) things, of which each could lead to another half dozen interesting things and so on, branching out in geometrically increasing possiblities. The wonder and wander lust is the possitive frustration built up by the inability to figure out the full extent of what could happen (the possiblities are too great), and becomes an urge to explore it by simply living it.

My mechanic is clear, concise, clinically neat. Which leaves nothing to the imagintion to wonder about, as opposed to the baroque machinations of AD&D for example. Who knew what the hell was going on in that system, and more importantly, who knew what might happen!

Also I think gamism is a bit self defeating in terms of wonder. Gamism tends to tie up loose, mysterious ends - the ideal is to ensure a controlled resource environment. You might get a GM trying to add interesting possiblities, but players don't in my experience (certainly in my gamist history I don't think I've tried - it'd be silly) and run the GM dry.

My first thoughts with players contributing possiblties for gamist play, is that players will try and add ones that benefit them. I think this just has to be accepted and is par for the territory. And certainly it's reminicent of my early teenage play, where some power would be mentioned or get used and there would be this  "AWWWW! Coooooool!" as the player tried to absorb the possitive possibilties involved and failed wonderfully. It was just too cool to figure out - you just hadda use it!

But (of course) I want play to be a fruitful mental wrestling match, not a have it just your way dull fest. And I don't want it to be like reading a shopping list "Plasma pistol. Okay, it'll have +2 to hit and 10% to set target ablaze", no it should be like "A plasma pistol! I bet it sets stuff on fire too! Cool!" or whatever possibiltiey comes to mind. Also, this isn't some sacred 'players input into the SIS' conduit - were grabbing ideas of players simply as a creative resource and to trigger their wonder, not to give them any control over the game world at this level.

So, here's where I start rattling off ideas for input. I think players should be rattling off a handful of possibilities when they encounter a special item or neat scene. They might also add secondary possibilities "And the plasma would REALLY set a mummy on fire!". As usual, stick in some rewards for each one they contribute, so they can sit and constructively stew if they can't think of anything.

Next - what the hell does it do? Well first, since this isn't player empowerment, it'll most likely do nothing like what their talking about. Your supposed to think about the possiblties, not determine them. BUT I'm thinking perhaps some floating variable - like if its rolled that it doesn't set fire to a target, you roll and there's a good chance you leave a special mark next to it because it does do something, but has yet to be determined (When? I dunno and I don't like solo GM fiat). And that determination would fall in the general area of the players first estimation - so it doesn't set them on fire, but it does explode any potions the person holds, or something close. Closeness would be determined by say certain lists of effects, so if the 'set on fire' ability is in one list, if the plasma pistol actually does anything it'll be something from that very same list that 'set on fire' is on. Oh, and to make it even more wacky, add a small chance that you switch lists entirely - yes, the plasma pistol actually does an electric system shock! Who knew!?

So far I like the idea of writing a gamist roleplay game - and not actually know what the hell potential anything holds. I'd just have to play to find out! I think I'm getting at what I want here with wonder and wander lust. If you were to assist it in play, what mechanics would you use?

Hello Callan,

Wow! A topic that's really about role-playing. You just had to say the M word, but that's ok. I fully understand where you are standing and have had those questions in my head, especially as a GM.

I like a mixture of fantasy slightly washed with real-world reason. I know that the proliferation of source-books attempts to define what will happen, but unfortunately that limits imagination. I don't want to wait until the rule for flaming, barbed maces comes out in the Ampersand magazine (well, it's the only character left).

What's left is a simple way for people to imagine and create together. Its called the art of conversation. That may seem like an obvious way of behaving that everyone has full expertise; however, think about the last session you participated. There is something that has crept into the gamer world, limiting imagination and demanding obedience to the printed word. Its sick and I detest it. Its called consumer marketing.

Its time to reclaim the wonder and wander that was present in those early, poorly defined, incomplete, tangential, sketchy, ridiculous and fantastical days of RPG. I remember that it was up to me, as a player or GM, to use the simple framework to provide continuity and understanding, while everything else was made up in advance or on the fly. The role of storyteller was encouraged and I enjoyed that immensely.

That's gone.

What happens in a game pivots on agreement. The GM and players must agree on what happens. The agreement may be in advance or committed during the progress of the game. Suggestions for the outcome can come from the GM, players or even outside observers. The most important thing about what happens is that it must be fun. The description about the plasma pistol is a perfect example. I don't want an essay in a book telling me how a plasma pistol is effective in every way. That it talks about the nature of the weapon and possible dangers is something I like to read. And having the pistol described in a thematic and fictional way makes it that much more enjoyable.

I have a habit of telling the players "Its your turn. Continue the story." For the first time they look at me funny and don't understand. I explain to them that I want them to describe what happens when they attack the grimlock or try to climb down the chasm. Most of the time their first inclination is to pick up the d20 and look at their list of skills. How sad is that? Tell me what you are doing, what you think will happen and I'll make a judgment on it. If they are having fun, the other players are having fun and I'm having fun, then its great! Screw the rules.

Therefore, I think having a rule on how to determine what will happen may seem like a good idea but it will fall flat. The adoption of simulation has to stop when it encroaches upon the human condition. Please, don't simulate the interaction of friends around a table. People can tell stories without rules. RPGs foster the opportunities for gamers to open up and excel at telling stories. I fear that contemporary RPGs have evolved into multiple choice tests and there is a presumption that right and wrong answers exist. Nothing is right and nothing is wrong. If everyone is on the edges of their seats and the conversation progresses, I believe you have achieved your goal.

Suggesting guidelines for role-playing seems to be the better avenue. Hmm. How would you instruct a group of 10 year old children on how to role-play? Answer that and you've got a best-seller.

Troy

How abuot your plasma pistol comes with a batch of icons, like warning symbols.  Flame hazard, shrapnel, what have you.  Ricochet does not appear, although it does for ballistic weaps.  Then when a player rolls a success, the success determines some incidental effects, and the player can select from the listed icons what kind of secondary effect is caused.

Hi Troy,

The reason I'm adding rules, is because wonder wont be the big thing of play. There will be another big exciting thing (I'm not sure if you'd call it real roleplaying, but just roll with me), and the rules are there to help bring this wonder thing in, instead of the big exciting thing taking everyones entire time and attention and none of it going to supporting some wonder. BTW, when I say supporting wonder, you might think I'm trying to get at whats really important. No, wonder isn't really important.

Hi Contra,

I think that's the jist, except for the player choosing from listed icons. I really prefer a trial and error process, where the player finds themselves hoping for something and then they find out whether it is that or something else nifty. The way I currently imagine it being resolved, it'd be purely mechanical, but with a buttload of statistical probabilties (charts charts charts! But easily navigated) so you can't mentally calculate all the possibilities. You just have to play and find out!

I think it'd be nifty that; if it's resolved that it isn't what the player thought, there's a high chance that floating potential actually goes up to the next rank of power. And the mechanics then offer rewards for the player to again dream of potential "Aww, so it doesn't set them on fire. Aww, what if it's even more awesome...yeah, I bet it is! I bet it hits with a blast radius!!". If you miss out on the smaller possibility, it just results in an even bigger possibility.

That said - I hate the idea of charts and lots of freaking rules to write up. That's why my previous mechanics were so clinically neat. I don't want to do anything which is just flab and not what I really want. So I have to be careful with just throwing around the idea of charts (soo easy to get flabby).

I kinda meant the icons as a black box.  Hmm not the right term, something more inspirational, improvisational.  Definetely NOT just +10 damage to flammable targets, much more something extemporised from the icon.  ANYTHING fire-related, from increased damage as the boring-most outcome and at the other end setting the curtains alight which causes the villain to be so blinded by the smoke they cannot press the Doomsday button, that sort of thing.

So then, the actual outcome never loses its wonder, becuase it is improvised, but
You can control the frequency of invocation of the ability, and
The types still leave room for meaningful strategic choice

Hmmm, see, I just don't get any wonder from it being extemporised from the icon. Assuming I understand that it'd be made up by the GM or players or a mix of both. I just don't see it as anything else as making it up. Perhaps if it was sim and whoever was in charge had mentally gone through dozens of possibilties and their coresponding branches mentally, so many that he couldn't have seen the end until he reached it, I'd be in wonder at that end result. But this is intended as gamist play and I don't think anyone will really be in the mood to genuinely do that. People will just decide as they are not immersed in a thousand and one probibilities and that's not something you can just turn on and off as needed.

Did I understand you right?

NOt really.  The idea was kinda to bring in a bit of calvinballing, I guess you could say, but with a topical limit.  So, instead of a list of effects, or a complex table of results, but virtue of using a weapon (or other tool) with an associated Flame icon you the player are licensed to negotiate with the GM for special, incidental effects arising from concepts associated with the icon.  And because that negotiation is circumstantial and local, it could indeed take account of paricular conditions in the SIS, and thus avoid simple repetition.

So the idea was that it COULD produce a much greater range of effect results than a table, and would not be comprehensible like a table.  And there would still be a gamist element becuase the player will seek to employ wit and cunning to persuade the GM to grant them a useful result, while operating within the confines of the icon.  And it allows the GM the scape to translate, or be inspired by, the players proposal into "something else nifty".

Anyway, that was the thinking.

How about a left turn on that? Say instead of persuading the GM to grant a useful result, they get a flat bonus (like a dull old damage bonus like +3) but can choose to negotiate it down into an SIS effect. To be precise, what they would be doing is 'I can beat them with one arm tied behind my back' toughness show off. The GM can then assign them some sort of show off points based on how much less he imagines the SIS effect to be, compared to +3 damage, perhaps even called 'arm-tied-behind-my-back' points, that the player can accumulate through play. No mechanical effect, simply a display of how much less firepower you can use and STILL get the job done. The other players could be in on this too, assigning the points and perhaps use the average of everyones assignment. Perhaps the most points anyone can assign is the same as the bonus (so in this case, they can assign from zero to three arm behind points).

Also this has some 'born in a briar patch' potential, where perhaps they give up the +3 to set the curtains on fire, an apparently weaker effect, but it then turns out to be enough to obscure the doomsday button (or to be pedantic: The gm didn't realise the potential of the curtain smoke and when he goes to make the villains move suddenly realises there would be a thin to zero chance of the villain hitting the button).

Also, I'm kind of adverse to persuading the GM as a method of gameplay.

That seems cool.  I'm a little worried thought that it will only be used sparingly; what if you attached something like a morale mechanism such that accumulating points for style can contribute to the opponents morale breaking, or perhaps it can raise reputation.  That would give it a certain social resonance, especially if there is anything like a public duel or challenge to be resolved.

Hi!
  Well, I think that this sense of wonder comes from two pivotal moments in those old school games:
1) The constant potential to always do more than what you did before.
2) The realization of comboes. The game sort of rewarded you for learning the system well enough to use it better.
  And maybe that second one is what you need to tap into when it comes to mystery sci fi equipment.
  Maybe the wonder of it is not 'what happens when you get a cool plasma pistol,' but 'what happens when you combine a pneumtic firing chamber and an ionizing barrel' (you get plasma, no?). And its not too out of whack with a cool sci fi world., I mean on a larger scale, that is what many manufacturers are doing now (what happens when you combine an ipod and a cell phone?).
  Anyways, it sounds like you are working of some pretty inspiring foundations, keep up the good work.

So, instead of a list of effects, or a complex table of results, but virtue of using a weapon (or other tool) with an associated Flame icon you the player are licensed to negotiate with the GM for special, incidental effects arising from concepts associated with the icon.  And because that negotiation is circumstantial and local, it could indeed take account of paricular conditions in the SIS, and thus avoid simple repetition.

Essentially 'arm behind my back' points aren't supposed to be fun in and of themselves. Indeed, their supposed to be unpleasant, in that the other player has more than you have, unpleasant. He can be measured as having more skill than you, unpleasant.

I strongly wish that they are evaluated not in a solo 'do I like this' way, but as if you were in a group and one group member has more than you. Also, 'awesomeness' (as I understand it's use) isn't the primary goal here - to evaluate whether this puts awesomeness first is a kind of drift.

Dindenver: I can relate to those ideas alot, thanks for that perspective, it helps that I'm shooting for something that another designer can identify as well.

Contra: my concern is that resolution that hinges on the GM makes the GM the focus of exploration, not the game world. With 'arm behind' points, the player isn't seeking a direct advantage in play, so there isn't a 'hinge' point (GM or otherwise) for the player to examine instead of the game world. The interpretation your suggesting for must hinge on something. How can we keep exploration focused on the game world?

I've been thinking of how to get a quick test version going and - it kind of jars at the 'what does the wonderous item actually do' element. Like say were doing some hacking of a monsters HP's down (say a system as simple as you find in fighting fantasy books). If a wonderous item can do +4 damage, what happens when the player narrates something else?

Nothing? That's kind of pointless. And what about this bag of hitpoints/monster? Is the GM just going to handwave part of it's hitpoints away? That's the same as a damage bonus. Alternate bonuses (like a bonus to hit) are only that - it just becomes a 'choose your bonus' mechanism. Not terribly wonderous.

It's the double dip that's a problem - if the players can actually do something with the description, they will use it to solve their problem. Chance  to solve the problem and 'arm behind' points - double dipping. If you remove the arm points/the need to temper narration, it just becomes 'I tell everyone how I win' stuff, which is just dull.

I was thinking the 'arm behind' points could geometrically increase. So say the players narration means they only get +1 damage from their otherwise +4 wonderous device. The 'arm behind' point would be increment from 2 to 4 to 8. In this case you'd get 8 points, because the difference between +1 and +4 is three steps. That way there is quite an effect, it's just not in the game world.

A thought is some sort of 'critical upgrade' system. Where the player may come up with a +1 damage narration, but there is a small chance (roll a twenty, aye?) and gives you the 8 arm points AND does 8 damage AND perhaps the wonderous weapon has a chance of upgrading to the next step (+5 damage). That chance being higher the lower you took the bonus (so +1 would give the best chance).

Well a simple approach could be: "roll <= points dropped on d10 to gain SuperBonus".

this makes dropping points for style a gamble with a potentially significant payoff.  But I decided against this idea because its a trade of effectiveness for probable effectiveness, which I though would be too recursive for your interests.

The idea of turning dropped points into reputation effects was that this would align with the SIS, niasmuch as the player decision (drop effectiveness for bragging rights) is then reflected in the game by a character with braggnig rights, or similar.
--

Btw Joepub;

As far as the icon idea oers, I do not think you could post facto discover a property if an item; because the player is taking on the role of proposing the available possibilities, and does not have sufficient information to do so properly. But you could certainly add an icon to an item later.

So is the idea that by taking a bigger penalty (arm behind the back points) on the character's action, the player has a better chance to have his own version of the narration actually happen?  Then, combined with this, you want the players to suggest more than one possible "special narration" and somehow (either the system or the GM) determines which actually happen (either through a negotiaion, tables or charts, or a roll, etc).

If I am getting this right, perhaps you could have a erasable whiteboard on the table marked off in six sections, numbered 1 through 6.  Section 1 is labeled "player's choice" and Section 6 is labeled "GM's choice".  Before an action, the player can take a -1 penalty on his action to suggest a possible result of his action (e.g., the plasma pistol ignites the curtains) and this is quickly jotted down in Section 2.  The player can take another -1 to suggest another possible result (e.g. the target bursts into flames) which is put in section 3.  Perhaps other players (even those not involved in the action) can suggest other possible results to put in the remainng sections.  Then roll a d6 to see which result actually happens.

A recent thread on 'give' has made me realise something (though give is not a forge term and I'm refering to it and that thread as a loose reference).

I think I'm trying to keep the effects of the wonderous items narration seperate, so as to facilitate a type of give. The core issue is that I want the GM to just say as he damn well pleases. I don't want players choosing from an effects menu, nor do I want the complexities that come with the simple idea that 'the GM should be fair' or other stuff that once delved into, goes on for paragraphs, then pages, then multiple threads.

I think what I was setting up, is that the wonderous effects work from a second, largely seperate currency, because the players may not want to give. The GM may say 'nah, does nothing' and the players may simply not find that at all thrilling (and no, were not letting go of 'nah, does nothing' - this is gamism. Fails stay). In another game like DITV, if the player didn't want to explore it you'd find the players spending their resources to beat the conflict, rather than give into it and explore it.

Here, the second currency of 'arm behind' points was basically facilitating that - you don't need these points in terms of the main games currency. That means if you don't want to explore 'nah it doesn't work', you don't have to (by explore I mean figure out a way to beat this, often through trial and error). You can fall back to just the fighting fantasy combat system and still be playing, jolly and happy.

However, if you make the points important to the main game, then there is nothing to fall back to - you have to give or you've simply stopped playing. But frankly I can understand that not every 'nah, it doesn't work' is worth exploring.

There seems almost an antithesis of gamism to support here - giving in on something you can beat. But as noted, it's for a good cause - what your giving into is more interesting to explore than just beating it would be.

My current focus was to simply have two currencies which are largely issolated and thus there's an entirely seperate thing to fall back to. Any other approaches?

Side note: 'Rocks fall' does the same - you only bid resources on dangers you wanted to explore. The raised design issue of 'I never bid, I win!' - well, makes me think of the thread link I give at the start.