This thought was triggered by the connections-advancement thread, some of the Ygg threads and plain old experiance.

A lot of RPG's have mechanics for Patrons, Connections, people one knows, ect. Usually this is just a cost associated with a certian level of 'influence' of the patron. Obviously this is directed at more simulationist systems. Frex a trait based system would not have this problem.

It has been my observation that such things tend to have very limited utility in play. Basicly if the GM has X adventure and the player has Patron Y, then the GM will insure that Patron Y cannot be used to circumvent the adventure. For example if players have made friends with the King and are then say falsely accused of a crime then the King will say "well, I belive you, but we must let justice take it's course" or some such, despite the fact logically the king could just dismiss such charges and no-one would care. Another example would equipment. I'm reminded of a Shadowrun scenario where a group was sent into a facilty that was known to have some unknown contamination. The provided equiment included a sub, medical gear and a computer capable of running Hamburg, however there was no armor and really cheap environmental suits. (Compared to the other money expenditure the additional stuff would have been trivial.)
This would not be a problem, but generally a powerful patron represents a significant investment in 'currency', but however getting a comensurate use out of them would disrupt the plot.
Sorry for the lenght.
My question is
1)Have other people noticed this?

2)Did I explain it ok?

3)If it's not a problem, why?

4)If it is a problem, possible solutions?
Thanks

I think part of the problem is a conflict between tight plotting and giving players control. When a player chooses a powerful contact, in many games that's a way of saying, "I have an ability that reaches past the plot." Unless the GM works the contacts into the plot, it could cause a problem:

Player: "What do you mean I can't get a better gun! One of my contacts is a high-level arms dealer!"
GM: "Well, err, [glancing at the adventure's plot, noting that anything beyond a revolver causes big problems] your dealer is too busy this week."

Some solutions:
a) Loosen the adventure's plot and go with more Bang-driven play*.
b) Remove contacts altogether.
c) Explicit rules that allow a Player some effectiveness, but not necessarily one that overturns the plot.
d) Group discussion before the game begins: The Players' contacts, how much can be done with these contacts, etc.

---
* See Ron Edward's Sorcerer and especially Sorcerer & Sword for Bangs.

I have noticed it, and put bluntly I think it is bad gming. All this is is a case of the GM caring more about their plot than their players.

If a character has invested resources in a particular area it's a statement of where they want their character to shine. By not allowing that you rob them of something, you make their participation less meaningful.

You also eventually end up with a group of combat monsters because the players know the gm probably won't invalidate those character choices.

The answer is to design looser scenarios, use relationship maps and dynamic situations. Get away from scripted plots that don't allow for player creativity.

The Shadowrun scenario just doesn't make sense. There is no way I could get something like that past my group, they just wouldn't believe it.

Balbinus wrote: I have noticed it, and put bluntly I think it is bad gming. All this is is a case of the GM caring more about their plot than their players.

If a character has invested resources in a particular area it's a statement of where they want their character to shine. By not allowing that you rob them of something, you make their participation less meaningful.

Thanks for the comments.
I think there is a difference between a patron and say a presience spell. A spell has a specific mechanical effect that can be calculated in.
A patron is basicly an NPC. My point is a plot will adapt around an ability that breaks it, but will incorperate a Patron into it. (You talk to your friend the wizard who says :' Well, I can read PART of this ancient inscription for you.'). Basicly, if you didn't have the wizard connention, you'd take it to a local priest or someone else who could read part of it.
I suppose this brings up the general issue of players spending 'currency' on things that basicly turn out to be conduits for the GM to give them information. I wonder if any game has ever dealt with this seperatly. I.e say a player selects their spells, but they get an automatic number of special spells that don't cost them anything. These do things like 'see who murdered someone' ect. Thus players choose to recieve info in a way that fits their characther, but they didn't have to pay for it.

Does that make any sense? If it does, I bet someone here made a game that uses it. ;)

damion wrote: I think there is a difference between a patron and say a presience spell. A spell has a specific mechanical effect that can be calculated in.
A patron is basicly an NPC. My point is a plot will adapt around an ability that breaks it, but will incorperate a Patron into it. (You talk to your friend the wizard who says :' Well, I can read PART of this ancient inscription for you.'). Basicly, if you didn't have the wizard connention, you'd take it to a local priest or someone else who could read part of it.

I suppose this brings up the general issue of players spending 'currency' on things that basicly turn out to be conduits for the GM to give them information. I wonder if any game has ever dealt with this seperatly. I.e say a player selects their spells, but they get an automatic number of special spells that don't cost them anything. These do things like 'see who murdered someone' ect. Thus players choose to recieve info in a way that fits their characther, but they didn't have to pay for it.

Does that make any sense? If it does, I bet someone here made a game that uses it. ;)

Being deprotaganized in that manner has to be one of the most frustrating things that a player can experience (besides not being able to find a game at all). It often goes hand-in-hand with a GM who, quite obviously, keeps a character from being killed at all costs, just so the character can be railroaded through the precious plot.

Very loose plotting is, IMO, the way to go. If you dangle a sufficiently appealing carrot in front of the players they will make your plot for you. Also, instead of cursing the existence of contacts and certain powers, it allows the GM to utilize character contacts and powers to give the characters direction and guide their momentum.

I usually have contacts be very forthcoming with information and equipment. The object is to get the characters into the thick of things, not have them dilly dallying wondering what to do or running around looking for someplace to get their hands on specialized equipment.

The ability to improvise becomes key though. Having a few contingency plans prepared for certain situations that you expect may take place doesn't hurt either.

-Chris

Hi folks,

I highly recommend that people develop a close, practical understanding of the Hero Wars rules. In this game, an "ability" refers to anything and everything about the character. A sword-skill is an ability; so is a Brawny adjective, so is a Relationship: Father, and so is a Wealthy adjective.

All of them work mechanically the same - same numbers-scale, same dice mechanics. Even more importantly, in Hero Wars, any roll may augment another roll - such that the Relationship above could make the Sword hit harder, or it could influence the application of one's wealth in a negotiating situation.

I cannot stress enough that the older, widespread system being referenced in this thread - attributes, skills, advantages (including things like Patron or Contact), and disadvantages - is highly flawed relative to the system in Hero Wars. There is simply no comparison.

Best,
Ron

All of them work mechanically the same - same numbers-scale, same dice mechanics. Even more importantly, in Hero Wars, any roll may augment another roll

I don't see how mind reading and mystery can work in the one game.

If the chracters have abilities that let them find the Truth rapidly, then no plot should be based around a struggle to find Truth.

Instead, knowing what happened shoul be assumed to occur quickly, and the difficult step might be, say, pursuading someone to act differently, or convincing someone else what the Truth is.

Fantastic post Stuart.

Paul

One idea, a detective type game where the player can read minds, but the challenge is still to find the evidence to get a conviction. "I read his mind" doesn't follow the rules of evidence :)

Another scenario idea, the mind reading player meets prisoner whose been in jail a long time for a murder he didn't commit, reads his mind and sees that he's innocent. Many of the witnesses are dead or scattered. Who knows who the real culprit was. The prisoner doesn't. The scenario is then to set things straight.

So, mystery can work with mind reading, it just is harder ...

I'd rephrase Stuart's sentiment to be more clear. A player who takes Mind Reading does want to use it, and use it to have advantage over others, and use it to "win". Presumably he has taken the ability in order that he might be allowed to use it successfully. Players are not, by taking an ability such as Mind Reading, saying that they don't want to foil evil plots through it's use. In fact they are saying just the opposite. That they want to foil such plots thusly.

So what I think Stuart is saying is that by taking such a power, the player is saying that they want to play in plots that cannot be made boringly short by the use of such a power. But then, that's not much of a statement. Nobody wants to play "boringly short" adventures.

So this really does not tell us much. You still have the same dilemma. Either you avoid such plots, or you modify them to limit the player's abilities to make them short and boring.

And I agree with most that the best way to do this is to go with the second option but use the method where you change the plot, and not the player's success. Allow them to succeed, but just change the plot or allow the player to do so, such that it does not end then and there. The first way is called Illusionism, and the second Narrativism.

Mike

Hi all - great discussion. I just wanted to add this thought: it is certainly possible to do the standard "you can't use your special power in this situation because of factor-x" WITHOUT "deprotagonizing"/frustrating the player. Sometimes, powers are defined as much by their limitations as by their benefits, and if player an GM are on the same page in terms of theme and story, an opportune loss/inapplicability of a favorite power can work quite wonderfully.

But yeah, as a cure-all patch to "uh-oh, my plot is going to be RUINED", it's not my favorite experience. Actually, it's downright unpleasant.

Gordon

I think Gordon points out something interesting. There are cases where it's seems OK to limit a character. But when is it protagonizing, and when is it deprotagonizing?

The answer seems simple. When the power is cancelled simply in order that the plot be allowed to move along and for no other reason, that's deprotagonizing. It means that the plot is more important than the character's abilities. Meaning that the story is not about the character, but about the plot. The characters are being made window dressing of.

So when can you throw in such a limit? Only when it means that the character is more interesting after doing so than before. This means that the plot "advances" due to the limitation, rather than the plot being stymied temporarily in spite of the limitation.

So, for example, if I have a thug who may know the location of the secret hideout, and I use mind reading on him, and the GM says that the thug has a seizure and dies with no information gained, that's just stalling, and deprotagonizes the character. But if, instead, the thug turns out to have a mental shield, then perhaps I've identified a potential new supervillain or hero, and the relationship with the NPC may become important. That discovery would be protagonizing.

Am I on to something? I think that the arbitrariness of the appearance of such limits can speak to whether or not they protagonize the character. Again use Illusionism or Narrativism to avoid negative effects of this.

Mike

Mike,

Sure seems to me like you're on to something - this is a very specific example of some of the general protagonize/deprotagonize converstaion that have gone on here in the past. I think your "more interesting without the X than with it" is a good principle here. But of course, there will be a world of disagreement about what is and isn't more interesting, defined by GNS preferences, story tastes/themes (ala Fang's "genre expectations"), and etc.

What I personally find most interesting about this specific example is that it clearly shows how what might seem "good" for providing a structure to play in/around actually ends up undermining the ultimate goals of play - UNLESS you look in a completely different place than most folks are used to looking.

Gordon

nipfipgip...dip wrote: I don't see how mind reading and mystery can work in the one game.

I think sometimes we imagine our super powers to be more powerful than they really would be realistically.

Gareth's right, MJ, these are just examples of the problem, not the solution.

Sure, if we define the power as weak before hand, then, yes, I shouldn't have any expectations of more results. But the idea that there is a "realistic" way of looking at a super power is, well, ludicrous. In Hero System, it says that if you roll high enough that you can root out any though from a charcter's memory. Am I going to change that because you feel that it's not a "realistic" portrayal of a non-existent ability? Sorry, but I think its perfectly valid.

What you are doing is simply trying to cut the bandits off at the pass. By limiting the power before hand you are trying to avoid the problem. But as Gareth points out, it's not going to work. When the player notes the deficiencies, he's going to try and find a way around them. And in any case you are assuming that the weakened version is not powerful enough to ruin a plot. But for certain plots it very will might be.

If I limit a power so much that it never really has an affect on a plot, then why would anyone want to buy it? The point is that players want to have an impact, and what you are doing is eliminating their ability to do so. Better before than after, I suppose, but still not my preferred way to handle such a situation.

As far as thins being Ilusionism, yes, I think Gareth's right in a technical sense. But it's pretty poor illusionism, IMO. Any time I make the game boring by forcing a player to listen to silly drivel, just to make a point to him that his power is going to be nigh usless in a particular situation, I have made a mistake in applying my Illusionist powers. As Gareth said, I'd be tempted to call this abuse as well. Proper application of Illusionism should, IMO, leave the player with the feeling that they have affected the plot. That's the whole point, IMO.

I'd be more comfortable, telling the player, that I needed to have the power fail in this case for dramatic reasons and working out with him a good reason why. At least he gets to participate then.

Again, this is all my preference. I understand that there are people who state that this sort of thing is their preferred mode of play. But the people who have the problem enumerated in this thread are not going to be satisfied by having their character's be ineffective as a means to ensure that the GM can promulgate a decent plot.

Mike

Well, the 'Fish out of water' is an standard theme in literature, or 'how do you cope with a situations without your powers, toys, whatever'. This adds tension and is interesting. The problem is with powers that can routinely curcumvent plots. The end result is they end up getting 'incorperated' into the plot. A poor GM will just nullify them, a good GM will just use them to give the info you'd get anyway. (The thug you capture can only divulge some info under mind probe, ect). The problem is because these powers are usually payed for based on the fact that they can curcumvent plots, despite the fact that they can't in practice. Thus they should be payed for on this basis and the GM should let players know this ahead of time.

All makes sense.

damion wrote: A poor GM will just nullify them, a good GM will just use them to give the info you'd get anyway.

damion wrote: A poor GM will just nullify them, a good GM will just use them to give the info you'd get anyway. quote]

Which has much the same effect.

Game one, my telepath suddenly can't read the thug's mind for some reason. I am deprotagonised and the time and currency I invested in that ability are wasted.

Game two, my telepath reads the thug's mind for info he would otherwise have given me anyway, by some other means. I am still deprotagonised and my time and currency are still wasted, I have gained nothing I wouldn't have had without the ability.

The answer is to allow your plot to be derailed, let go and see where you end up. Otherwise, it is entirely valid to say "ok, I'm going to be running some mystery style plots which won't work so well with telepaths in the game. Is everyone cool with no PC telepaths?" Nothing wrong with that, it's upfront and honest.

But letting someone buy an ability and rendering it irrelevant is just making player choice meaningless.

Hmm. I kinda agree with both those thoughts. One might argue that on sim terms, currency is not plot relevant but world relevant; after all it only describes a mechnical process. In which case, if you got to use your mind reading powers on plot-irrelevant matters but not on plot relevant matters, the illusion might be plausible because you were really paying to influence the objective world, which you can. OTOH, repetition makes this increasingly implausible, and fundamentally if you didn't get to use your power over an objective world to solve your problems, it wasn't very effective and wasn't worth the expense.

Gaareth is right, these are player priorities. If you prioritize Sim play, then you will often be satisfied with the Illusionist response. Moreso if the illusions are really well introduced (as they will not violate the plausibility clause; not the plot impact side).

Mike

I have this nagging itch that I feel the need to scratch...that being that IMO the term "Deprotagonize" gets slung around a little too freely. Its almost as if every instance of the player not getting his own way is "deprotagonizing". I advise caution in this, because I like the word but can easily see it heading the way of "RailRoading" as a term which everyone uses but ultimately has little value because its been misused so often.

Taking away a character's Schtick (whether it be mind reading or all of the whiz bang gadgets from the Bat Utility Belt) is not in and of itself deprotagonizing. If the result is nothing more than "whiff by fiat" than yes, I can see where that is. However, there are many legitimate uses for this tactic.

My telepath reads the thug's mind for info he would otherwise have given me anyway, by some other means. I am still deprotagonised and my time and currency are still wasted, I have gained nothing I wouldn't have had without the ability.

What Walt said. It is often the simple display of the character as effective in his Niche that protagonizes the character. Sometimes a simple matter of who comes up with the idea and makes an appropriate roll first. But in any case, it's the players decision in these cases (whether Illusion or not) that give the player the sense of protagonism.

In a Dirty Harry movie, we know he can't really lose. But there is still tension when he "rolls the dice" and shoots it out with yet another thug. And the character is protagonized.

Mike

My point was that the GM would have given me the info anyway. My telepathy is actually a gm tool, not a player one. It works when the gm wishes it to so that the gm can introduce elements to the world.

That is why it is ultimately meaningless.

What other way would Telepathy work in a Sim oriented game?

Thats a classic "GM gives info" skill/power...
the player doesn't get to determine what info gets told (maybe the depth of reading etc).
As far as GM giving info he would have learned anyway... only the GM knows that... but most of my Players in my Supers games would have found ways of getting that info out of the thug - interrogation, dangling him at 10,000 feet...
The protagonizing element of that power would be the speed of info gain.
Or even the "We got the info My way"

Its really not anymore deprotagonizing than meeting up with your Arch-Enemy Flambe' who is immune to most of your Souffle' powers (as you are to his...)

Bob McNamee

Fair question Bob, I'm not expressing myself well.

The difference as I see it is between the player having a genuine choice as to when to use the ability and the gm having that choice. If the gm allows the ability to work only so as to provide info the gm would have provided anyway, the player has no power to determine events.

If the player can use their ability, even to the detriment of the GMs plans, the GM has shared power over the gameworld with the player.

I have been in all too many games where powers such as telepathy only seemed to work successfully when the gm would have told us some other way anyway, that's not a real allowance of the ability. Real allowance is where I can derail the plot, so as to craft a plot in which I have more stake.

Protagonism does not equal giving the player the ability to derail the plot.

For most roleplayers in most roleplaying games going on right now a player who intentionally tries to derail the plot is not called a protagonist...they're called a problem.

IF the goal of the game is one of shared authority with the players than your points are valid...but moot, since in such a game, a GM wouldn't be using the tactics you're taking issue with anyway.

But for most games...why would you ever expect the GM to cede that level of GM authority to a player who has done absolutely nothing to earn it except purchase an easily abused power from a list?

In fairness to the Telepathy type Player... I had one in my old Champs game... He had two main Mental Powers (amongst other powers) :1 to create a mind link between all the heros (or as one player called it..."a +20 Plot Device for why we can plan out our attacks...) and the other was a whole bunch of Telepathy...
It was a supers game so it wasn't often used for Detective work...
...but when used... I (as GM) either had the occasional compensated opponent who could resist it, or (most commonly) just went with the flow ... and often gave out info (including at least once where I handed the brand new unseen Villains character sheets directly to the character (since with his Encephalo-Helmet he could read them up and down all the way to base origins of fears etc...)

So,, I guess I must have put a priorty of Protagonizing my players back then too (even though we didn't have the lingo for it)

Bob McNamee

It seems to me that if you want to run an adventure with a mystery plot that the plot needs to be inverted when you have mind-reading characters involved.

If you ran the same adventure with a character that simply had detective skills the whole point would be to find out whodunnit. Along the way the characters get hassled, beat up, and find clues and evidence that eventually lead them to the gal who stole the cookie from the cookie jar.

While a mind-reader can potentially discover whodunnit very quickly, they still haven't gathered any substantial proof. In most game settings, as has been mentioned before, mind-reading doesn't stand up in court. If the players just go kick arse and take names when they think they know who the bad guys are then shouldn't the characters find themselves on the bad side of the law when their only excuse for whoopin butt was peeping in on somebodys thoughts?

The mind-reader and friends should still have to gather physical evidence of the bad guys guilt if they want popular opinion to consider them good guys. That would probably involve some more mind-reading to discover where key pieces of evidence are hidden and getting hassled and beat up while trying to recover them. Ofcourse, memories being what they are, the thoughts that get read may not be fully representative of what actually happened.

If the game setting is one where the characters can dish out vigilante justice without repercussions than a whodunnit is probably irrelevent anyway. Anybody, mind-reader or not, could just go kick the arse and take the names of whoever they wanted. Proof and detective work wouldn't be necessary.

In a world where mind-reading is an accepted and natural thing than a standard mystery is just not going to cut it. I think a GM is just asking for heartache if he runs a game in that kind of setting.

This all assumes that the GM is working from a highly structured plot. Since I am firmly against pre-structured plots, consider the following a formal protest.

Pre-Structured Plots!!?? Booo! Booo!!

-Chris

I agree with Chris, this is mainly a problem in illusionist games run through pre-structured plots not leaving enough room for improv.

People have already said this more or less, but look at the adventure with telepathy (or clairvoyance or whatever). Obviously the plots isn't flexible enough to accomodate these things.

Walt mentions the similarity with skills and he's 100% right. What if I can escape the orc horde the gm had decided we'd be captured by through climbing that mountain with my brutal climbing skill? (Or a really lucky roll might suffice in some games).

If that's a problem it's because it ruins the structure of the plot. But actually, unless we're playing a board game with very strict limits on what can be done and what can't, we're not going to be able to escape this fact.

Maybe I'm biased, being used to this kind of play, but improvisation really is the way to go. Have a loose plot thought out with some elements preprepared (if you wish) to have handy ready to dispense if the characters run into them. Go with the flow, weave the story around the players rather than try to fit the players into the already created weave.

It works excellent.

The other alternative is to run a SET IN STONE adventure. One character solves the whole thing through mind control? LET IT HAPPEN. It's cool too. People will remember the adventure they solved in unde 20 minutes of play for a long time. Think of it as playing a tournament game or something.

The problem is when GMs end up in-between these positions. They change the plot, but only to keep the players in line. That's a problem. I think detailing how to correctly GM is essential for sim games.

Christopher/Palefire,

Nicely put, that was what I was trying to say but failing. Everyone else, Palefire put my point far better than I did, the essential issue is one of freedom as opposed to control. Is the game player centred or not? Do characters actually matter to the outcome?

Go with the flow, weave the story around the players rather than try to fit the players into the already created weave.

nipfipgip...dip wrote:

Go with the flow, weave the story around the players rather than try to fit the players into the already created weave.

The GM should be reactive. Of course you should throw things in for them to aim for, but they shouldn't have to if they don't want, and any plotting on how they get there should be very loose.

Facilitator's good. Its a clearer way of saying what I was thinking.

NB
Is it about time someone drew a list of the names given to the GM role over time?

It would be quite long.

No, becuase then it would have to include "bastard" ;)