The Forge Archives

Hello All,

I've had one of those weekends where I had a lot of ideas that generated nothing but questions.  Some of these ideas and questions are a bit unfocused so I'm going to just throw them all into one post and if anyone feels they warrent a seperate thread feel free to start it.  Oh and as usual for me they deal with Narrativist Techniques.

This is sort of how my thinking has evolved. Narrativism is about producing a story of litterary merit through role-playing.  It achieves this by placing thematic resolution to a given Premise as its goal of play.  A lot of us have been experimenting with relationship maps mainly because relationship maps are a great way to push common human Premises such as love, sibiling rivalry, parnent-child relations and so on.

First of all relationship maps certainly aren't the be all end all of Narrativist planning techniques and certainly they're not very usefull for addressing more abstract Premises.  Allow me to use an example to illustrate what I mean.

I love the game SLA Industries but unfortunately it's one of those games that suffers from GNS breakdown.  In my opinion it has a brilliantly Narrativist setting that just oozes Premise.  Unfortunately that great setting isn't backed up AT ALL by it's rather simulationist system.  And finally to make matters worse the game kind of places very gamist priorities as it's recommended playing style.

All that aside I REALLY want to run a SLA Industries game that brings all that great setting meat to the forefront.  However, I'm not really sure how to plan such a scenario for two reasons.

The first is that the Premises inherint in that setting are a bit abstract.  They are things like Job Security, Gross Abuses of Comercialism, Media Sensationalism.  These more abstract Premises just don't feel like relationship map material.  Now obviously these abstractions eventually have to impact individual humans and their relationships, so a relationship map might still be in order but this is further compounded by the second problem.

The second problem is the way the game is set up to be played.  The idea is that all the players work for this company called SLA Industries.  They are basically corporate troubleshooters and they get sent out in missions that range from breaking up a bar brawl to investigating serial killers to assassinating corporate rivals.  The more loyal to the company you are the higher in security clearance you rise the more dangerous and sensitive your missions become.  This provides an easy way to get the players together, they're all part of the same troubleshooting team.  So this lead me to the second thought.

Certainly, a team/mission game set up is not by its nature antithetical to Narrativist play.  There must be fantasy novels of litterary merit that involve characters on quests.  There must be science fiction novels of litterary merit that involve characters working towards an objective.  And certainly there must be spy thrillers of litterary merit that involve a team of characters carrying out a mission handed to them by a superior official source.

So to sum up here are my two questions:

1) What are some good planning techniques for pushing more abstract Narrativist Premises such as those found in SLA Industries.  Particularly when the Premise comes from the setting rather than the characters.

2) How do you set up and run a Narrativist mission/team centric game?  Note: I'm more concerned about the mission elements than the team elements becuase I realized that I could always send each player out on their own personal missions that all somehow feed back into a greater picture.

Thanks.

Jesse

I'm going to suggest that structure might be your friend here. As in InSpectres where the players have a framework for missions (and similarly Paranoia; off to R&D!). Have a briefing, planning session, equipment procurement, travel/recon, execution, recovery, debrief, denoument. Something like that. Then the players can know where to go instead of being led through the elements. The GM can agressively scene frame based on these requirements and it will never be unexpected by the players.

A cool idea would be to allow each player one scene out of the normal framework where they can protagonize their character. Have them come up with a general concept, and then roll against some stat related to the nature of the scene, and then they can narrate that scene based on how well the roll went.

Mike

Hello,

The Whispering Vault is my top pick for Narrativist priorities embedded in a "mission" framework.

I would also point out the role of missions in the 1960s Star Trek series, in which the actual mission was almost always secondary to whatever personal or ethical concerns arose. (This could be done well, in which the mission itself yielded powerful conundrums, as in "A Private Little War" or "The Trouble with Tribbles," or badly, when a mission simply put the principals into danger and the episode degenerated into chases, as in "The Gamesters of Triskelion.")

Best,
Ron

You could build a relationship map around the people in the "home office" -- the backstabbing, favor-grubbing, and ladder-climbing that goes on among the PCs' own co-workers and supervisors. The missions themselves simply emerge as a product of the shifting power structures in their own division of the corporation.

The first is that the Premises inherint in that setting are a bit abstract. They are things like Job Security, Gross Abuses of Comercialism, Media Sensationalism. These more abstract Premises just don't feel like relationship map material.

If you don't think those Premises are relationship map material, you haven't worked in the offices I have. Gentrification's idea is sound, tho it should be extended beyond the "home office".

Job Security: It's easy to make a relationship map based on this Premise. Have all the PCs and NPC agents and their relations with their bosses and all the support staff, with the different techniques people use in nasty office-politics situations to acquire job security: Seniority, Indispensibility (only Bob knows how to do this), Performance (Bob is the best, we can't fire him), and... "Unprofessional" Factors. The last category includes all sorts of things, including "traditional" relationship-map material, like Who's Sleeping With Who, Blackmail, and Errors in the System.

Gross Abuses of Commercialism: People develop realtionships with people they do business with regularly. Who sells you your guns? As far as abuses go, if they're the only people who can supply you with stuff you need, well, it doesn't matter how annoying the person is, does it? In fact, people may result to Unprofessional Methods (like above) to get what they need at a reasonable price. This is serious relationship map material, and the relations wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the Gross Abuses.

Media Sensationalism: People who are under media scrutiny develop relationships with the reporters. These reporters are concerned with their own Job Security and Media Sensationalism is really just another form of Gross Abuse of Commercialism.

Also, don't discount the idea of including abstract entities in one's map, which could be useful for all three of the above Premises, but especially Media Sensationalism. Consider having a relationship map with abstract entities on it that the PCs don't interact with directly that much, but who have a relationship with people close to the PCs, like "The Public" or "Upper Management" or "Disenfranchised Losers". Where these entities are on the relationship map affects how, say, Joe Shmoe on the street relates to the PCs.

This, combined with the "scene" method mentioned by others, should give one plenty of Narrativist grist. Think about a James Bond movie: There's the briefing scene and the "visit to Q division" (i.e. visit to R&D) scene in nearly every movie, but it's the people who re-occur in those scenes -- like Moneypenny, M, and Q -- that make those scenes interesting. That's definitely relationship map material. It's just that in a mission-oriented game, the map isn't your only tool, like it tends to be in more Sorcerer-style "human desires" games... tho it is arguable that the Premises you mention are driven by underlying human desires, in this case the desires of the people at the top.

Quick aside: I'm not very familiar with SLA Industries at all, so I'm mostly talking in general from what's been said in this thread. Also, I'm not so much a Narrativist fan as a big fan of relationship maps. ;-)

Quote
On 2001-12-10 15:54, gentrification wrote:
You could build a relationship map around the people in the "home office" -- the backstabbing, favor-grubbing, and ladder-climbing that goes on among the PCs' own co-workers and supervisors.

Sounds like your Glengarry Glenross game. :smile:

I totally agree with the analysis of SLA, its a GREAT game with a sucky system except for the gunbunnies.

What might be a more interesting exercise for the Forge is to rewrite the mechanics as an experiment.  Lets crack open capital-letter bearing ideas like Media Sensationalism and turn them into mechnics that prompt responses, rather than just backdrop.  Up for it?  I'd be happy to provide a setting precis for those not familiar with it.

That actually was my first impression, Gareth. Why try and force a narrative premise with a Sim system? But I've noted Jesse's tendency to shy away from using narrative systems despite wanting to play narrative games. Is this need to drift systems a comfort level thing, Jesse?

I'd be interested in trying to come up with an appropriately narrativist system, but easier would be just to use a currently available one. Like The Pool, for instance, or InSpectres. I'd think that the latter could be used almost perfectly (consider Jared's GigantoCorp). The Window, or Story Engine might be good as well, or OTE.

Heck, you could even do a Sorcerer thing where your humanity stat would be based on how given over to the company you were. The demons would all be other personnel from the company or something.

Mike

Quote
On 2001-12-13 11:51, Mike Holmes wrote:
That actually was my first impression, Gareth. Why try and force a narrative premise with a Sim system? But I've noted Jesse's tendency to shy away from using narrative systems despite wanting to play narrative games. Is this need to drift systems a comfort level thing, Jesse?

Hahahaha.  You noticed that eh?  No, it's really a sad combination of circumstances.  I love the Sorcerer Mechanics and I LOVE the Story Engine Mechanics.  But I keep getting sucked in by a bunch of different games settings (I don't even want to talk about my love for Ravenloft).  And then on top of that I have a bunch of "RPG Ethics" problems.

1) I don't support the d20 assimilation of game systems.  (By the way Graveyard Greg outlined a GREAT hypothetical comic which depiced a Giant d20 hovering over a cityscape.  The caption read, "We are the D'Twenty.  You will be assimilated.  Resistance is futile!")  Anyway, I never liked the thought of GURPS conversions either.  I just don't like the idea of keeping a setting and throwing out the system for something else.  It just encourages the mindset that, "Oh, all that really matters is the setting because the players will just throw out the system anyway."  I refuse to be a part of that.

2) I'm really far more concerned with honing my personal techniques are concerned than the actual aplication of the system.  I'd rather work on my scenario design skills and in game presentation skills for fascilitating Narrativist thinking BEFORE I start relying on a Narrativist game design.  Otherwise, I'll develop the bad habit of falsely blaming the system when really my GMing skills aren't up to par yet.  Basically I want to have the human techniques down pat so that when I drop in a Narrativist engine, my games will run like well-oiled machines.

Jesse

Quote
Basically I want to have the human techniques down pat so that when I drop in a Narrativist engine, my games will run like well-oiled machines.

So, you're going to use the hammer to pound in screws until you're good at it, because it'll make you better with the screwdriver when you switch over to it?

OK, that's snarky. But life is short, and these are just RPGs. Go for it man. The first few sessions will probably be relatively mediocre (mine were disasters). So what. That's how you improve.

Wanna try it out in a "safe" environment? I'm willing to do a game online with you (man, I'm like a crack addict, always looking for a game), where you can get a safe analysis at slow speed. We could even try to recruit some real Narrativists to get better feedback.

Whaddaya say?

Mike

Quote
On 2001-12-13 14:57, Mike Holmes wrote:

So, you're going to use the hammer to pound in screws until you're good at it, because it'll make you better with the screwdriver when you switch over to it?

No, it's more like writing with a pen and notebook before writing on a computer.  Whenever I write fiction, I write it by hand first.  Why?  Because when you write by hand you can't afford to be sloppy.  You have think and consider every word before writing it down because going back and changing it is nigh impossible.  Latter I transfer it to a computer to edit but I want the core draft to be done with as much care as possible.

I view RPG scneario design in a very similar light.  I come up with scenario ideas and design almost independent of system.  I rely on character concepts and setting details for idea spring boards.  Yes, system matters in the execution of those ideas but if the ideas are shabby to begin with no supporting system is going to help.  The idea that it does is the falacy that make people who create things like 'script writing software' rich.  So many people think that if only they had the right set of tools, they'd be really great at whatever they're aspiring to do.  Tools help or hinder, but true artistic achievement has to come from within.

Quote
Wanna try it out in a "safe" environment? I'm willing to do a game online with you (man, I'm like a crack addict, always looking for a game), where you can get a safe analysis at slow speed. We could even try to recruit some real Narrativists to get better feedback.

I know the crack addict feeling.  I'm already practicing various Narrativist techniques with my Deadlands game.  But as you say not a very strong Narrativist system, although Fate Chips go a long way.  And I think there are several things built into the game that really support the game's core premise.

Quote
Whaddaya say?

Well, what game did you have in mind?  And are you talking about a PBEM or an actual on-line chat session?

Jesse

Quote
Tools help or hinder, but true artistic achievement has to come from within.

Well, who wants "true artistic achievement"? And anyway it comes from practice and hard work, IMO. How long does the world have to wait for this development? You sound like Fang who can't publish his game because it't not perfect yet. I got news, perfect will never come. Try "as good as you can do". Try now.

Well, just my opinion.

Mike

Hello Again,

I'm not shooting for perfect.  I'm shooting for my own comfortablility level.  But all this has drifited away from my original point.  My point is I really like the inherent Premises built into the setting of SLA Industires.  The system isn't going to support me so I have to do it all by scenario design and GM technique alone.  I was inquiring about advice on how to construct a scenario where the Premise is mainly embeded in the setting and how to keep the mission centric feel of the game but have it still be strongly Narrativist in style so that it doesn't just turn into gun bunny battles in an effort to achieve some company objective.  In other words I don't want the nature of the game to just be an excuse for sociopathic behaviors.

One of the suggestions given was, why not change the system?  I appreciate the suggestion but it goes against my RPG Ethics.  Mainly, that I don't support the idea that setting is everything and players will ultimately ignore the system anyway. I refuse to encourage that thinking by engaging in that very activity. That, and I've never actually PLAYED SLA Industries and the system may be surprisingly more interesting than it is on paper.  I'd like to at least give it a fair chance.

Jesse



[ This Message was edited by: jburneko on 2001-12-13 16:54 ]

Well, I don't see where ethics comes in. You bought the product, it's now yours to use in any fashion that you desire. You've done about as big a service to the designers as you can.

But, what about the other suggestions so far? Home office relationship map, structured mission play? Any comments on those ideas?

Howabout inseting a "Debriefing" mechanic like the confessional from InSpectres? That would be a really slick way to interject player power that wouldn't have to interfere with the normal resolution mechanics.

Mike

Hey Jesse,

I gotta agree with Mike on this one. I tried for years to make story a priority with what I now recognize were systems with primarily gamist or simulationist mechanics. And I was undermined by system at every turn. I know it can be done. From all accounts, Pete Seckler does it. But I've never been able to do it. And I know others who've staged heroic attempts and failed as well. It's because it's not just GM technique that's important. System reinforces a player's approach. A detailed combat system focuses players on the details of combat. To be blunt, it's not that I, as a GM, can't create and run a scenario that prioritizes story using a system that features levelling up, and experience point rewards for collecting coins and killing beasts. It's that players have histories with such systems that are far stronger than all the story-related priority-setting I can deliver. I've never been able to do it. And it's not like I didn't have the will.

Paul