I've been following the updates and discussion of The Pool for some time. I have a couple of questions which are, for me , theoretical (at this point), but I ask here 'cause I want to see examples of "this is how we handled it when I ran it" as well as (hopefully) word form on high from James.

Basically, it's this: If I read the rules correctly, NPCs do not roll dice. They don't have pools. They may not have descriptions or traits. Does this mean, then, that NPCs operate on pure Drama, by GM fiat? How have NPCs been run by people who have actually played The Pool?

I understand how The Pool is supposed to be a game which encourages/supports a lot of player protagonism and other Narrativist goodies. But something seems out of balance, on paper at least.

That is, how does a GM create and run NPCs which are effective antagonists when any roll of 1 can allow a PC to (temporarily) dictate that NPC's action, or even neutralize the NPC?

The game balnce issue here is a balance between player protagonism and GM antagonism. ("Antagonism" is here meant as "ability to have NPCs vital to the PCs' stories make effective action," not in the sense of mere opposition to PC goals.)

One of the things that I like to do as a GM is create powerful, effective NPCs whose actions define the environment the PCs work within. Think of them, if you will, as the people at the heart of a Relationship Map, the Prime Movers of the backstory. Traditionally, this is done by defining NPCs the same way PCs are defined, rolling dice for them, and so on.However, If I'm reading The Pool correctly, there is nothing set up to maintian their antagonism once play begins. They, and the GM, are at the mercy of the players and their die rolls.

Again, I'd really like to hear actual play examples of how (or if it needs to be) handled at the table.

Lon

[ This Message was edited by: Uncle Dark on 2001-09-19 15:16 ]

Hey Lon,

...NPCs do not roll dice. They don't have pools....Does this mean, then, that NPCs operate on pure Drama, by GM fiat? How have NPCs been run by people who have actually played The Pool?

I run them pure Drama. And it's one of the features of The Pool that caused me to choose it as the mechanics for my current scenario. One of my personal goals with the scenario was to really push my Narrativist technique, to prep loose, so I could easily reconfigure the scenario on the fly in response to the actions of the player characters, and to make aggressive use of cutting and scene framing to drive protagonism at them. I wanted a system where I didn't have to ever roll the dice, where I could create NPC's on the fly, without worrying about their stats. It would free me up to focus on keeping the premise of the scenario and the goal of player character protagonism in the forefront of everything I did.

And I'm super happy with how well it's working.

...how does a GM create and run NPCs which are effective antagonists when any roll of 1 can allow a PC to (temporarily) dictate that NPC's action, or even neutralize the NPC?....If I'm reading The Pool correctly, there is nothing set up to maintain their antagonism once play begins. They, and the GM, are at the mercy of the players and their die rolls.

This is an excellent question. Let me quote Lon Sarver:

Uncle Dark (Lon Sarver) 02/06/01 2:02 AM

Sebastian Warfield is a character who has appeared in a few of my games. He is an assassin, but an assassin with style. He is a dandy, Oscar Wilde with a Big Ass Gun and no scruples.

The characters all had various reasons not to kill him, but all the players had the same reason: he was fun. He was low camp melodrama, self-consciously playing Iago for laughs while he stalked his prey. Having him around made the story more fun for the gamers.

This may be a key element in dickweeds that work. If the Players love having him around, the characters will come up with justifications for letting him live.

It's mostly a theoretical position on my part, because I've only run one session of my scenario so far, but I think the key to having NPC's who successfully function as antagonists is that Narrativism is collaborative. Narrativist players understand that their protagonism is established by adversity and antagonism, and they'll come up with justifications for allowing that antagonism to live and fester and grow monstrous. Always remember that you're collaborating with the players to create the story.

You also have James' modified MoV mechanic that allows the GM to stop the MoV. And beyond that, I don't think there's any reason for the GM not to just disallow a given intent that a player states prior to a dice roll when it conflicts with something significant to the scenario. Is there any reason I couldn't have told Scott, "You can't kill Korg in this scene," if it was important that Korg be alive later?

Paul

I can make a few of suggestions on how I handle things.

1. Don't be afraid to place limits on what happens during a particular MoV, but do so before the player speaks. This avoid any unfortunate "vetos", which are best avoided.

For instance, if the players are fighting your big-super-bad-guy, just tell them not to kill him now. Simple. If they're fighting a werewolf that can only be harmed by silver, say, "This is a werefolf that can only be harmed by silver." It's up to them to be creative working this fact into their MoV. Of course, don't be surprised if they "discover" another weakness :smile:

2. Stay flexible. If your players do something that throws off the relationship map, grab and eraser and change it. The whole point of using The Pool is so that things like that do happen.

3. Let them decide/discover who the big villian is.

4. If you have in mind that so-and-so should present a big challenge to them, have him show up when they're low on dice (yes, this is an evil GM trick). This will reduce their chances of the big MoV.

Paul,

Sure, go on and beat me over the head with my own wisdom!

Lon

I couldn't resist.

:)

Hurm.

I suppose one of the things (which I had not articulated to myself) that prompted me to ask was that I tend to use rules to organize NPCs and their actions, but not to limit them. Frex, I never bothered to write down what spells an NPC Magic-User had when I GM'd D&D, but I did use the rules about that class to guide what I improvised when the NPC appeared in the game.

I guess I was missing that in The Pool- rules I could use as guides and nothing more. I suppose giving major NPCs a 50-word writeup and a trait list might work the same way, if I really felt I needed it.

Lon

Hey Lon,

Perhaps I should apologize for using your own words against you. I don't want to have insulted you or undercut the importance of the issue of preserving NPC antagonism by having written a snarky response. It wasn't my intention for what I wrote to come across as me slapping you with your own words.

I do think, however, that preserving NPC antagonism is actually far less difficult in the context of Narrativism than it is in a Gamist or Simulationist context. In fact, I'd say that antagonism, as a force that drives protagonism, the enaction of a thematic statement, doesn't actually exist naturally in Gamist or Simulationist games. There is nothing in Gamist or Simulationist mechanics or social contracts that harbors and nurtures antagonism.

Like I said, I've only run one session of The Pool, but I don't think you'll have any trouble maintaining NPC antagonism. I've come to think players recognize an antagonist when they see one and play careful with their MoV's in relation to the antagonist, out of an intuition that they'll recognize when in the narrative it's appropriate to really seize the moment.

I tend to use rules to organize NPCs and their actions....to guide what I improvised when the NPC appeared in the game.

I guess I was missing that in The Pool- rules I could use as guides and nothing more.

And one of the main reasons I gravitated to The Pool for my current scenario was because I didn't at all want to have to worry about being consistent to classes, abilities, skills, or powers that might be part of a game's character creation mechanics. The important organizing factors I wanted to focus on were antagonistic actions and situations that elicit protagonistic responses. I never have to roll anything. My NPC's are names and 2 to 5 sentence descriptions. My setting is nothing the players have prior experience with that I would need to be carefully consistent about.

It worked really well for me in that first session. We'll see about next Monday.

Paul
[ This Message was edited by: Paul Czege on 2001-09-21 14:59 ]