Actually I suppose this isn't really an issue about rolling dice, more of identifying with characters. There came a point in our playtest[/URL] last night (while fighting the fire spiders) when we both wanted to reach for the dice. In the moment of danger we wanted to be Link and Trammo and enjoy the same sense of risk that they felt.

The thing is though... its meant to be a story telling game. I'd rather see outcomes based on the story priorities of players rather than dice. I suppose I could have it that the winner of the dice roll gets to take over narrating, but Im already pleased with my current "switch" mechanic which involves negotiation and consensus among players.

So the thing is - how can I get the narrating player to feel "oh, oh! Link might not make it this time!" but still guarantee that Link will make it if that's important to my story.

Actually the roll-to-narrate thing isn't that bad I guess, because while Link is apparantly risking his life Im simulataneously risking my narration rights so there's a kind of identification. Hmmm...

Well that's my problem. When things get intense for my character how can I enjoy that same feeling? And especially how can I create "apparant" danger and risk in the story (for example by rolling dice), but still ensure my own intended outcome?

My idea so far (and I'd be really grateful for advice or alternatives) is that the dice roll determines whether or not I have to incorporate an other player's trapping into my story. So that way I still retain narration rights (Link beats the baddies in just the way I'd intended) but now I have to incorporate an element of another player's theme into my story.

So when Link faces off the fire spiders the risk involved is, Does Link's victory stay "pure", or do I have to incorporate a reminder of someone else's story into it?

Tony

IMO, hollow risk seems kinda pointless. I mean, why bother? You can just skip it entirely and concentrate on other story elements. And limit risk situations to those somehow alter the character.

Now, that's with regards to life-risk situations.

But what if the system was tooled in such a way as to not actually risk the existence of a character except when appropriate? The character can be "defeated", but not killed under normal circumstances. I'm thinking that may allow for some dice rolling without actually risking the continuation of the character.

And hell, might be a halfway decent way to add complications to the characters life. Such as being defeated by something leads to a phobia of it, or a desire to pursue a rematch, etc. While defeating something might lead to it's twin wanting revenge ;)

So with the above, the risk is not the life or death of the character and its continued existence, but an alteration in the character. With minor battles and such, having only minor alterations, major battles, having major alterations.

It might also risk absolute control over the character by the player (is that inline with Narrativist stuff? GNS hasn't fully crystalized for me yet).

This of course, may just be what you're saying...

Hey Tony,

tony188 wrote: So the thing is - how can I get the narrating player to feel "oh, oh! Link might not make it this time!" but still guarantee that Link will make it if that's important to my story.

To head in the opposite direction of some of these suggestions, you don't really need Fortune mechanics to create tension and uncertainty. I've been running Nobilis for weeks, and there's been plenty of uncertainty that has nothing to do with dice.

There are some differences, though, in the way Fortune and Fortune-less systems handle these kind of situations. Fortuneless systems can't really create uncertainty in simple individual actions, like dice rolls can. For example, if Bob wants to jump over a trench, and the only outcomes you're concerned about are A) he succeeds, in some capacity, or B) he fails, in some capacity, a Fortuneless system doesn't give you much to create tension with. With dice, there's a chance that Bob could fail really badly, but in a Fortuneless system it either happens or it doesn't based on the interaction between players (including the GM).

Where Fortune-based systems create the feeling of danger through player-dice antagonism, Fortune-less systems often create danger through player-player antagonism. For instance, if you don't really have a reason to trust that the GM/other players won't do horrible things to your character, the feeling of danger is heightened. If another player might use narrative control to have Bob fall into the pit and break his leg, all of a sudden, there's that feeling of danger again. However, in a Fortune-less game, if the social contract says that "everyone has to be nice to each other's characters" then that won't work very well. It's fine if there's no character death (without that player's approval?), but there needs to be a real risk of something bad happening, otherwise you won't get that tension.

Another way to do Fortune-less tension is to draw out these interactions so they're no longer so clear-cut and simple. Take this example:

EXAMPLE wrote: PLAYER 1: Bob's going to try to jump over the pit.

PLAYER 2: It's a pretty big pit. How are you going to jump it.

PLAYER 1: Well, I'll back up about 20 paces, get a running start, and try to go horizontal in mid-air, to try and catch onto the other side in case I don't make it over completely.

PLAYER 2: Okay, Bob does that, but, as he's launching himself into the air, his foot slips on the wet grass and he starts over the pit at an awkward angle. It looks like you might not make it. Are you panicking?

PLAYER 1: Hell yeah. I'll try to swing my feet out behind me, to straighten myself out, and stretch to grab hold of the undergrowth on the edge of the far side.

PLAYER 2: Okay, you land into the other side hard, knocking the wind out of you as your chest hits the top rim. With your feet kicking against the dirt wall of the pit side, you manage to hook your fingers into the grass and thorny weeds on the surface. They're ripping up, however, and you're beginning to slip down. What do you want to try now?

Etc.

Tony,

You've rediscovered an age-old insoluble problem. Can we make something risky and not risky at the same time. The answer is no.

But..

What you can do is allow the results of resolution to be bad, but not terminal. Essentially the principle is that resolution failure should not ever prevent the story from gong forward, but should instead mean further and worse conflict for the charcters. This can be probematic with some sorts of resolutions hence the proposed FitM, which makes it easier to be rid of the problem.

I often liken this problem to the problem of movies. Watching Raiders of the Lost Ark, did you enver think that Indy woudn't make it to the end of the film? But, OTOH, weren't there scenes where it was still tense and you worried about what would happen to him? How can that be? Because tension is formed when the protagonist might not win, not when he might die. Note that Indy loses about half the time. Does combat failure mean death? No, it means capture.

AS long as the character can fail, there is tension. Just make sure that the form of the failure means something significant (so that it doesn't negate the failure and thus detract from the ternsion of future conflicts), but that form also creates further avenues for progress of the plot. That at the very least, the plot is not stalled by the failure. Does Indy getting captured mean that he's done? No, it means that he's taken inside the villain's lair, and now has to figure out how to escape.

Note that if death is normally the outcome of failure, changing it to something else has the effect of lessening tension. The mechanics should make it clear that such poor results as death are not even possible with the system.

This is not to say that characters can never die. Far from it. But just that it should only occur when dramatically appropriate, and probably at a climactic point.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:
I often liken this problem to the problem of movies. Watching Raiders of the Lost Ark, did you enver think that Indy woudn't make it to the end of the film? But, OTOH, weren't there scenes where it was still tense and you worried about what would happen to him? How can that be? Because tension is formed when the protagonist might not win, not when he might die. Note that Indy loses about half the time. Does combat failure mean death? No, it means capture.

AS long as the character can fail, there is tension. Just make sure that the form of the failure means something significant (so that it doesn't negate the failure and thus detract from the ternsion of future conflicts), but that form also creates further avenues for progress of the plot. That at the very least, the plot is not stalled by the failure. Does Indy getting captured mean that he's done? No, it means that he's taken inside the villain's lair, and now has to figure out how to escape.

Mike

Been working away at this, trying to define what I want dice-rolls to do, or not do. Hopefully that will help me recognise what I'm looking for when I find it.

You should not have to calculate the in-game risk of a character’s actions as a basis for the roll.
That would involve a set of rules which would have to be negotiated at the start by all the players. Then I have the problem of trying to make rules to cover the situations I want to get my characters into without giving away too much about the story you want to create. I love the idea of “make-your-world-and-play-in-it” systems, but this one is very much about story. Basing the dice roll on game world risk would tie things up over rules-generation rather than story generation.

Me: Ok Harry is trying to disarm the bomb. Does his science skill gimme an extra dice?

Jules: Uhhh… lemme see, what did we decide about proficiencies again?

Success or failure should reflect the consensus of the group. The game is very much about consensus, negotiation and sharing between players. I don’t want dice as a means of escaping that and I also don’t want the group to be “at the mercy” of someone’s dice roll.

Me: (insanely excited) Ok so if I roll a ten then its because Harry pulled the wrong wire and the solar-nuke blows the whole world apart!!

Jules: (less excited) uhhh… wait a second.

Dice rolls should not become the favoured system.
Im pleased with my “switching” mechanic and think it does a great job. If dice rolls are to be useful to players then it also means limiting when you can do them so they don’t become the core mechanic with players.

My current dice idea is as follows:

When the Acting player describes situations that are outwith the game-world then other players may protest and insist that the Acting player keeps his story within the confines of the game-world.

Tony: Then as he gazes at the sight of the full moon, Harry's fingers lengthen into claws and dark hair sprouts out all over his face.

Jules: Woah! You didn't say we were going to have were-wolves in this game, you should have at least have asked if we could have "Supernaturals" or something when we made the game world.

The Acting player may choose to roll dice in order to be allowed to keep his story as it is. He takes a number of d10 equal to his Theme-Strength and rolls them. His target number is the number of players in the game; if any of the dice roll equal or lower than the number of players, then the dice roll is a success.

Tony: Ok, my Theme-Strength is three, and there are two of us. So I get three dice and need to roll a 1 or a 2 on any of my dice[rolls]

Jules: Hardluck, 5, 9 and 4. I guess Harry isn't a were-wolf. Or at least not yet...

If the dice-roll is a success then the acting player can continue as he hoped. If its a failure the he must amend his story to fit the game world.

In later turns the Acting player could attempt the same roll in order to get his way. Tony could try and make Harry become a Werewolf in future turns. However being successful once does not entail automatic success thereafter - the game-world is not permanantly modified by a dice roll. For example Tony would need to roll everytime he wants Harry to transform into a werewolf as werewolves are not an accepted part of the game-world he helped create.

Well, its a start. By rolling against the number of players I'm kind of involving them in the roll. More players (and hence more people to placate) makes for a harder roll. Also rolling dice = to my themestrength is good. My Theme-strength is a reflection of how much the other players value my ideas, and the extent to which they've trusted me to let them tell their stories. So getting more dice requires working better with the other players.

The roll resolving changes to the game world is good - I didn't have a way for altering the game world once play had begun (dont even have a way for creating it as yet!) and it doesn't really change anything, just temporarily lets you cheat in order to tell your story better.

Also rolls shouldn't happen too often as it would be much easier to just create the gameworld the way you want it at the beginning. More of a "I've just had a cool idea, can I roll for it" thing than a "I want to do something, can I roll for it"

As for the actual probability in the dice rolls... ummm well its just a filler mechanic for now I guess! Theme-Strength is interacting with the number of players, but I'll need to actually figure out the maths involved and, more importantly, what maths do I actually want?

Tony

I've tried out my current use of the dice, Im using them to govern what players can introduce to the story. Basically if a player introduces something that seems foreign to the gameworld (or to the internal logic of the game so far) then other players can insist that she roll to be allowed to do it. As I'd hoped, this keeps things working cohesively in the game world but also leaves room for sudden flashes of inspiration. Importantly it also allows a player to defy the logic of the world for the sake of "story". In one case a character looked like he could be ending up in two places at the one time so another player asked for a roll. Craig made the roll so it was accepted into the story. Story logic was overcome for the sake of a good story. The dice do seem to add tension and fun as I'd hoped.

Anyway I'd like to take the opportunity give my very sincere thanks to everyone who took the time to read this thread and comment. I didn't do post-by-post replies to you all simply because you were all so damn clear and smart in what you wrote that there wasn't much I could do except greedily eat up everything you said!

Anyhow I shall now try...

Thoth

IMO, hollow risk seems kinda pointless. I mean, why bother? You can just skip it entirely and concentrate on other story elements. And limit risk situations to those somehow alter the character.

Now, that's with regards to life-risk situations.

But what if the system was tooled in such a way as to not actually risk the existence of a character except when appropriate? The character can be "defeated", but not killed under normal circumstances. I'm thinking that may allow for some dice rolling without actually risking the continuation of the character.

And hell, might be a halfway decent way to add complications to the characters life. Such as being defeated by something leads to a phobia of it, or a desire to pursue a rematch, etc. While defeating something might lead to it's twin wanting revenge ;)

Have you read any of the "Fortune in the Middle" threads here at the Forge? (Try the search function at the top and select 'all terms.') One manifestation of FitM (another good search term) is that such a roll, which is supposed to raise tension until the dice stop, potentially complicates as opposed to ends Link's story. All that is really necessary is recognition of the fact that you don't need to allow rolls to be able to end the game, if they simply introduce graded levels of complications, I believe you get what you're looking for.

Where Fortune-based systems create the feeling of danger through player-dice antagonism, Fortune-less systems often create danger through player-player antagonism. For instance, if you don't really have a reason to trust that the GM/other players won't do horrible things to your character, the feeling of danger is heightened. If another player might use narrative control to have Bob fall into the pit and break his leg, all of a sudden, there's that feeling of danger again.

This is not to say that characters can never die. Far from it. But just that it should only occur when dramatically appropriate, and probably at a climactic point.