Hello again!

Playtests of Rogue continue on a weekly basis, and I think we've started to circle around mechanics that are really working and are dropping those that aren't. If you want a copy of the rules we're playtesting from, they're now available in a "text only," PDF format from idleintellectuals.com/rogue. The parts I'm talking about are handled in Chapter 1 and 3 (first pages of setting and character creation, respectively) and Chapters 2 and Chapters 3 (Narrator's role and Fortune Points). They're all clearly bookmarked in the PDF.

There are two issues that concern me presently.

1. Setting creation is a 10 point list that players add to using metagame currency ("Setting Points") at the first play session. Players have really enjoyed it, even going so far as to say its one of their favorite parts of the game, but I feel like (and some of them have commented that) it takes waaaay too long to cover 10 points AND do character creation. All told, the entire first play session can be absorbed with set up, instead of playing right away. I don't want to give any of this up - since everyone had a good time with it - but I also don't want to take 3 hours to build it all.

How can I trim setting creation but still keep a similar level of immersion in setting and character?

2. Narrative control is intended to be "stolen" quite often. One player is the Narrator, but each player gets a "Fortune Point" for every game session they attend that lets their character "Steal the Scene," and more or less narrate anything they want. One of the issues we're having is nailing down precisely how to limit Fortune Points power - right now you can do anything with them so long as you don't kill or force another PC to act, and only introduce a new item within certain parameters. One of the major questions that players have is "how much can I do with Fortune Points?" On the one hand, this has led to some awesome wild narration. On the other hand, it has led to some players not using them at all.

How can I make trading narrative control free enough to be wild, but controlled enough to get used right away?

Feel free to ask me for more detail if I'm not being clear or if the rules aren't clear - they're still in a fairly early "playtest" draft.

Thanks!

Hi Matthew,

Reading through your document, I'm even more convinced that you've got an interesting game here.  I've got some broader comments, but I think it's more productive to stick to your questions, which are excellent.

Setting Creation: Here's what I think: "Setting" is vastly less important to setting up a game than is "Situation".  Situation means the things that spur the characters into motion, the underlying conflicts in the game, and the thing that has just tipped them out of balance.  For example, in a recent Burning Wheel game I played, the setting was pseudo-Constantinople.  The situtation was all the Guilds in the city vying for power.  The King was murdered, and the blame was put on the PCs, a small merchant family, trying to escape their criminal past. 

A lot of the setting stuff doesn't matter at all.  Like religious beliefs, for example.  In a lot of games those are going to be pretty irrellevant unless the situation calls for it.

What I think is that a lot of your setting creation stuff can happen during play, if it's unimportant like that.  What's important to nail down before play starts is the situation that's going to spurr play, and any setting details relevant to that. 

When you get Dogs in the Vineyard, you'll find a really excellent situation generator in the form of "Town Creation".  I suggest you look at that model, think about the kinds of situations that will drive your desired play in Rogue, and then design a situation generator (which may look very much like your current setting generator) that creates that.

Regarding your "Narrative Control" mechanic, what function is this mechanic supposed to perform? What's it doing in your game?

Here's what I think is a more interesting direction to go: Currently you have three very interesting roles for players outside their characters.  These are a really interesting mechanic, and there's a lot of potential there (I think you could more clearly state the roles and motivations of these roles, but that's a seperate issue). I think it would be very interesting to be able to shift those roles around during play, and to make the "meta" roles of the game translate to actual roles within the fiction, so the "Boss" player's character is the boss of the others, the "Bookie" player's character fulfills a similar role in the game, and the "Narrator" (I'd change this name to "Fink" or "Nark" or "Snoop" or "Informer") player's character has a special role also, either as an informer to the Police, telling the interrogator about the group's actions (it would be interesting to structure all of play as the remembrances of a police informer) or maybe as the group's informer, information gatherer, or whatever.

Mechanics that gover your character's position in the group, and therefore your level of control of the fiction, seems like an interesting mechanic to me.

Hi Simon -

Some of this is the first time I've thought about these issues, so please bear with me if I'm not terribly focused.

On setting - I'm on a similar page with you. In my latest playtest report I mention issues that relate to situation. My current thought is; keep a similar "elements list," but make players create them in opposition to one another. For example, some folks believe that "science" and "religion" are opposed forces in reality. In a fictional world, perhaps "science" and "the rulers" are in opposition, and perhaps religion is opposed by "magic" or by nothing - maybe it just IS (and therefore isn't terribly important to the world). I think that would make sure that certain parts of setting are defined while still providing situation. I am convinced that setting has to be created at the outset, but I'm equally convinced that conflict and situation need to be part of setting.

Perhaps by letting each player choose two elements from a list of "setting" elements, and then narrating a conflict between them to create "situation" explaining how their character is embroiled in the conflict between elements, setting, situation and character would all build out of the same seeds?

For example, A player picks "Science" from the setting elements list, and decides it is opposed by "Magic." He then tells a story about how and why they are opposed, and explains why this matters to his character, like so ... "Science and Magic" (2 setting elements) are opposed because the technologists are dedicated to bringing electric power to the kingdom, but this threatens the sorcerers' monopoly on light charms (situation). Thadius Crennol (some player's rogue) is a sorcerer who's been dabbling in electrical research on the side, and his master just caught him with a ham radio! So Thad's on the run from the sorcerers, and the technologists are desperate to recruit him since he's been "inside" the wizard's lair, and ol' Thad just wants to listen to the technologist's Electronica Symphony Orchestra broadcasts."

I think I'm starting to like that as a way to combine all the setting, situation and character elements into one big wad. Do you have more thoughts?

On narrative control - The "fortune points" are in the game because there needs to be a way for rogues to "steal" the story - to run away with it and get their own way. I also wanted players to be able to say "This happens, exactly like this, and here's how I do it ..." without rolls, without anyone interfering. Its a further way to break the control of any single player over the narrative. Also, when a Fortune Point gets spent, the Narrative role is traded, at least temporarily, to another player, so its also a way to shift roles. A metagame currency seems to be the easiest way to combine all this into one.

I agree about the name "Narrator" as a name, by the way, but in digging through case studies and psychological profiles on mob members, I have yet to come up with a "mob name" for a person who tells the story - thought "Informant" is close, but would change the structure of the role entirely, and "Fixer" is another option I've consider - that's the thief who arranges immunity for the mob with the authorities and generally knows both "sides of the game." That's a maybe. I'm perusing my bookshelves now for more. And in terms of giving each "role" an in-game purpose as well - I haven't come up with an entirely satisfactory way to do this yet.

Before I say more, though, I'm wondering if you have specific ideas about clarifying the rules for these roles. Also, are you thinking that it would be better if each "meta" role was matched with an "in-game" role? Or are you thinking there would only be "character roles?" Or just ignore the issue and say what each role does with greater clarity?

Matthew,

How can I trim setting creation but still keep a similar level of immersion in setting and character?
  I think it depends on what the "hold up" is. I mean 10 questions should not take too long to answer. My guess is that the players are hashing out the answers and people are getting tripped up in the details.
  If that is the case, then it seems like maybe certain questions are answered communally in order to set the tone and get everyone on the same page, then each player can be assigned one of the remaining questions and get however much or little input they need to answer their question. The idea being that if there is a final arbiter, then a lot of the back and forth conversations can be shortened or prevented.

How can I make trading narrative control free enough to be wild, but controlled enough to get used right away?
  Grant Narrative authority. What I mean is, some rules sort of say, "go wild" but then they don't back it up with any narrative authority. Liek with Stunting in Exalted, if I describe a cool over the top move, anything can happen:
1) My character could get penalized for the complexity or unbelievability of their actions
2) I could get a small bonus
3) Nothing happens, it has the same impact as if I said, I swing my sword at the npc.
  In other words, the designers are asking me, "he, can you describe it cool for me?" But then they are not giving the ST any guidelines on how much of that coolness is taken at face value and how much is still under their strict control. That is where ditv stands up to this test, the only criteria for believability is that it matches the dice played.

  Does that help, does that make sense?

That does help. Thanks for your response!

dindenver wrote:
  I think it depends on what the "hold up" is. I mean 10 questions should not take too long to answer. My guess is that the players are hashing out the answers and people are getting tripped up in the details.

dindenver wrote:
  Grant Narrative authority. What I mean is, some rules sort of say, "go wild" but then they don't back it up with any narrative authority... That is where ditv stands up to this test, the only criteria for believability is that it matches the dice played.

Before I say more, though, I'm wondering if you have specific ideas about clarifying the rules for these roles. Also, are you thinking that it would be better if each "meta" role was matched with an "in-game" role? Or are you thinking there would only be "character roles?" Or just ignore the issue and say what each role does with greater clarity?

The "fortune points" are in the game because there needs to be a way for rogues to "steal" the story - to run away with it and get their own way. I also wanted players to be able to say "This happens, exactly like this, and here's how I do it ..." without rolls, without anyone interfering. Its a further way to break the control of any single player over the narrative. Also, when a Fortune Point gets spent, the Narrative role is traded, at least temporarily, to another player, so its also a way to shift roles. A metagame currency seems to be the easiest way to combine all this into one.

Hi Simon -

Thanks again for your response, and your directness. I'll address Fortune Points first, because I had a couple exciting thoughts today as I was tearing up my first three chapters, and I think they follow (and agree) with what you said here:

Simon wrote:
I don't buy it.  Why does there need to be a way for Rogues to "steal" the story? How does it break the control of a single player over the narrative? This mechanic speaks to me of a mistrust of your conflict resolution mechanics to do the job you've asked of them.  It also seems like a "get out of jail free" card, robbing the actions of the Rogues of consequences, since they can use this ability to freely narrate their way out of difficulty. 

There's more: As a player, I'm an advocate for my character.  I'm trying to get my character what they want, in the best way that character knows how to get it.  It's my belief that this is what drives hard-hitting, engaging and memorable play in any kind of rpg.  Free narration plays very poorly with this aesthetic, because I'm motivated to get the character exactly what they want, in the least painful way possible.  That is also probably the least interesting option.  Game mechanics exist to make stuff happen at the table that no one wants, but everyone consents to.  Your narration rule as it's currently written seems like a way around that.

Simon wrote: (As an aside, I think judging difficulties at the level of granularity you have in your game is a very difficult thing to do.  At the least I'd suggest providing two or three "standard" difficulties.)

I have to admit I haven't read the skills chapter carefully.

Your intuition is right though that your question of how to make "objective" decisions about the game fiction, and the granularity of the "Mark" in your game are connected.  Here's my take on this:

It's completely unproblematic to make judgements about the fiction in a roleplaying game.  We make these judgements all the time, and you could go so far as to say these moments are one of the fundamental acts of playing a roleplaying game (that's controversial territory though).  When I say "making a judgement about the fiction", I mean looking at what has been described and assented to by all the players, and based on that, making a judgement about which rules mechanic to invoke, or how to apply a particular rule.  This is basic stuff like "If you have the higher ground, you get +1" or "If a task is difficult, you need to roll 15 or better".

However.  Some judgements are easier to make than others.  It's easier to say "that would be hard" than it is to say "that would be exactly thishard."  The finer a judgement about the fiction needs to be and the more it relies on things that have not been stated and assented to but rather on things that have been implied or invented extemporaneously, the trickier it is. 

Games have come up with a number of different ways around this problem.  D&D 3.5 went the route of clearly defining difficulties for frequently occurring tasks.  Climbing a sheer wall is difficulty 15.  If the wall is slimy or wet, you add 5.  And so on.  Instead of making up a number, you're making easy judgements about the fiction: Is this wall sheer? Is it wet? This is stuff that's been established, or is easy to infer.  That kind of guideline is useful, but it also means that in play you'll be referring to these guidelines constantly.  There's a tradeoff there.

So for your game I think you could come up with some guidelines for setting marks that referr to easily judged aspects of the fiction.  Things like "Is the Rogue under pressure?", "Are the conditions adverse?" "Has the Rogue done this before?", and so on.  It would be great if you could come up with a short and simple checklist to cover all skills, but that might be very hard.  The Bookie's job then is to make judgements about the fiction, according to a pre-set list.

I see what you're driving at now. Yes, I think setting Marks based on existing elements of the fiction would be an excellent idea, and thank you for suggesting it. This is the direction I'm moving with character generation too - having what the player says about their character add bonuses and create situation and conflict. It only makes sense to base areas that have similar problems on similar solutions.

I think what I need to do first, for my own sanity, is pin down exactly what everyone can do during a Scene, and when, and how often. Really, this has been done for me by playtesters, but I need to codify it into the rules now. That will necessitate revising my concept of Heists. In turn, the Heist revision will require rebuilding my descriptions of common Marks and Complications and their interactions from there. That will get me back to what we're talking about here, and I think that will help a great deal in determining who gets authority when.

I think I have a direction to start working in now, though I can tell looking at the mess I've made after 3 hours of revision that I'm far from out of the woods. Thanks again for your help.

As a side note, I started reading Dogs today, and it. Is. Awesome. It struck me right away how some of its mechanics wrangle with the same issues we've been discussing. Its nice to have a model to look at for this. Loved that there was a design notes section too. Went straight to it, actually. All that and its fun to read ;)