Drifting toward a better Sim
John Adams:
Always looking for feedback, and I appreciate the time and attention all of you have shared.
David and Contracylce: I'm pretty sure we're all in agreement about those points. I'm talking about my group, my play experience; if I seemed to shit on a whole section of the hobby, mia culpa.
I'm concerned that we haven't really hit that "aha!" moment you described David, where the players really get it and have that gut reaction. So far it's more like "Okaaaaaaay ... not sure where this is going but I'll roll with it."
Part of the problem is the lack of written rules. I passed out a draft of my re-write at the end of last night's game, so that should help. Another reason is I have avoided any serious rules discussion in order to focus on getting the fiction rolling again after several months away from the game. (Paul was out on paternity leave so we played a different game.) You don't want to come back after a break like that and spend a large chunk of time talking about rule changes. It's also hard to explain things to non-Forge folks. I've been lurking around here and reading for over a year and I barely have a solid grasp of the basics. How do you explain that, without jargon, to someone who has the same mental knots I did a year ago? I figure you don't. You show them.
Here's a semi-successful conflict from the opening scene last week. Situation: Dead and wounded are lying all over the battlefield. George/Ephriam is atop the nearby hill with the other healers etc. (Ephriam is a mage specializing in healing and bone magic.)
GM: (Describe the battle scene) As you commanded your bone golems are combing the battle field, they're coming back now carrying the first wounded.
Ephriam: OK, I set up a triage and start healing.
GM: Let's make that a conflict. Give me a Heal check, then describe what you do.
E: (A little confused) well, like I just said ...
GM: Make the roll first, tailor what you do to match the roll, OK?
E: Success. So I get the wounded into a neat line and start a triage. (Stops.)
GM: (rolls for the opposition/difficulty - failure, George wins the conflict) Great, soon you have things organized. At first the other healers avoid you, but soon it's clear you know what you're doing, and without saying a word they start helping you. You give them the aid and comfort you can under the circumstances ...
E: No! No time for comfort. You! over here ... put pressure on this. Next!
GM: Excellent!
Note that I'm still fighting old habits here, there's no need for me to describe how Ephriam does things, that's George's job, and he jumped in and did it well. I was glad he took advantage of the situation to highlight certain aspects of his character, such as his terrible bedside manner.
That conflict went on a bit further, I wasn't happy with how quickly the technique played out so I fumbled around for a way to stretch it and make it more dramatic. It was a mixed success.
Obviously, things will really take off when a player declares a conflict that surprises me. I think we might be pretty close.
Situation from the end of last night: Mark/Tusk is still armed and armored, theoretically under John/Vendal's supervision until Andy/Kenlei passes judgment on him. Tusk is guarding the 20 surviving Regents in the hospital. The clerics have healed their own first, so the Regents are stable but still wounded. He just talked to Lady Amalthea (the potential slave girl) who is resigned to live but has little hope that her people will survive for much longer. Tusk told her it wouldn't be so bad once they got to the fringes of the Empire so they could start over.
GM: The Chamberlain comes back and decrees, "The 20 surviving Regent prisoners will be given as slaves to the families of the seven Lords Blackbane and his men murdered. Kenlei, as a reward for your service take the one you personally bested in combat. (Amalthea)
Tusk: (to Amalthea) "Stretch out your neck!" I stand up and draw my greatsword.
Wow! Way to take a stand! He'd rather behead her here and now than let her be a slave.
As luck would have it, Andy is out next week so we decided to play a one-nighter of Dogs in the Vineyard. We will also be reviewing rules and hopefully finishing the re-write.
David Berg:
Quote from: John Adams on February 06, 2008, 07:11:25 AM
Ephriam: OK, I set up a triage and start healing.
GM: Let's make that a conflict. Give me a Heal check, then describe what you do.
E: (A little confused) well, like I just said ...
GM: Make the roll first, tailor what you do to match the roll, OK?
E: Success. So I get the wounded into a neat line and start a triage.
Okay, so there are some procedural things here that you'll probably iron out with practice (such as setting specific stakes for a conflict -- "I get the wounded into a line" or "I don't" -- before rolling). But what interests me most is how this will or won't accomplish "PC centered story << Plot Authority << Let players declare conflicts".
It seems to me that the important event in your example was George coming up with something he cared about for Ephriam to do. Your contribution to this "PC centered story" was providing a fertile situation for a healer character to "do his thing". The conflict resolution system's contribution was nil (which is still better than "detrimental").
Of course, the conflict was declared by you the GM, but that only makes sense given the logic you're operating under:
1) GM presents gameworld
2) player forms an intention
3) GM arbitrates (based on X*) how intention is resolved: Yes or No or Roll
If you really want to let players declare conflicts, you'd have to give them power over saying whether something is possible, impossible, or automatic. "My guy does this", "my guy can't do this", or "it fits X* criteria, so I'd like to roll!"
Think about the ramifications of doing things that way. I'd be curious to see which of them you're comfortable with, and which you aren't.
Whether or not you keep the GM as the arbiter of Yes or No or Roll (which I don't see as inherently problematic), I think a huge question continues to be:
How are you going to ensure that your players get opportunities to do things they care about? Is there some way for them to communicate this to you? If so, do you have any tools to facilitate turning that feedback into game situations? I know you've talked some about this already, but it strikes me that if every game was nothing but moments like Ephriam healing the sick, y'all'd be very happy.
-David
* I believe your play history has identified X as "what makes causal sense within the gameworld." You use the resolution mechanics when your sense of internal logic tells you "this character may ot may not be able to accomplish that." Is that correct?
I just want to point out that there are other options, such as, "how important it is to the player," "whether another player (could include GM or not) is opposed," "whether someone (everyone?) deems it a crucial Story Moment," etc.
contracycle:
Quote from: John Adams on February 06, 2008, 07:11:25 AM
Tusk: (to Amalthea) "Stretch out your neck!" I stand up and draw my greatsword.
Wow! Way to take a stand! He'd rather behead her here and now than let her be a slave.
A stand? Yeah, as long as it's SOMEONE ELSE's LIFE.
Arbeit macht frei and all that.
John Adams:
Contracycle:
It's a little more complex than that. First, he really wants this girl to live and help the remaining Regents build a new life somewhere else, so killing her is taking a strong stand. His life is already in question for attacking the Chamberlain; this action drastically reduces any chance of him getting out of this in one piece. He'll be a fugitive or dead. Also, the girl is going to willingly stretch her neck, her original hope was to die honorably and this is as close to that as she's liable to see.
Quote from: David Berg on February 06, 2008, 11:02:08 AM
Okay, so there are some procedural things here that you'll probably iron out with practice (such as setting specific stakes for a conflict -- "I get the wounded into a line" or "I don't" -- before rolling). But what interests me most is how this will or won't accomplish "PC centered story << Plot Authority << Let players declare conflicts".
It seems to me that the important event in your example was George coming up with something he cared about for Ephriam to do. Your contribution to this "PC centered story" was providing a fertile situation for a healer character to "do his thing". The conflict resolution system's contribution was nil (which is still better than "detrimental").
That's a good summation, but it seems to me the system's contribution was ...
a) provided a framework to add specific chunks of narration to the fiction (guided and informed play)
b) provided actual resolution to the rather poorly defined stakes without resort to GM fiat. The dice spoke, we accepted the results into the SIS.
c) *should have* added to the dramatic tension of the scene. I think I have some tweaks to better accomplish that.
Quote from: David Berg on February 06, 2008, 11:02:08 AM
Of course, the conflict was declared by you the GM, but that only makes sense given the logic you're operating under:
1) GM presents gameworld
2) player forms an intention
3) GM arbitrates (based on X*) how intention is resolved: Yes or No or Roll
If you really want to let players declare conflicts, you'd have to give them power over saying whether something is possible, impossible, or automatic. "My guy does this", "my guy can't do this", or "it fits X* criteria, so I'd like to roll!"
Think about the ramifications of doing things that way. I'd be curious to see which of them you're comfortable with, and which you aren't.
Let me rework your list a bit ...
1) The GM has full Content and Situational Authority (presents the world)
2) The player has broad Narration Authority over his PC (declares ACTIONS directly into the SIS, unless #3)
3) Players and the GM can declare Conflicts, putting any proposed stakes into the "Roll" category. This is subject only to the Content and Situational Authority of the GM.
So basically I'm running under Vincent's "Say Yes or Roll" rule. The only time it's acceptable for the GM to say "no" is if the declared action conflicts with Content or Situation. Even then the GM and player should work to make the declared action fit if possible.
WRT Plot Authority, the player can call for an immediate answer to any question, any stakes, and the GM is beholden to make it fit with Content and Situation if the players win the stakes. The wiff factor should be very low, I'm aiming for a technique that lets you win almost all the time if you're willing to see it through, but the cost of victory goes up, up, up as the conflict goes on.
Quote from: David Berg on February 06, 2008, 11:02:08 AM
Whether or not you keep the GM as the arbiter of Yes or No or Roll (which I don't see as inherently problematic), I think a huge question continues to be:
How are you going to ensure that your players get opportunities to do things they care about? Is there some way for them to communicate this to you? If so, do you have any tools to facilitate turning that feedback into game situations? I know you've talked some about this already, but it strikes me that if every game was nothing but moments like Ephriam healing the sick, y'all'd be very happy.
Emphatically not. The last 2 sessions were light on conflict resolution but not on conflict. Most of it was social and among the PCs discussing the situation and "how do we deal with this mess?" Those social interactions were great fun and are almost exactly what we're looking for. My only gripe is the players don't quite grasp yet that they can turn a social conflict over to the conflict resolution rules and still have excellent in-character exchanges with NPCs and with each other. That's going to take some practice and maybe a few system changes.
My take on the Ephriam conflict was that it was some good character stuff, but it wasn't a grippy conflict at all. The stakes were pretty limp and the mechanics were only half-baked.
Quote from: David Berg on February 06, 2008, 11:02:08 AM
* I believe your play history has identified X as "what makes causal sense within the gameworld." You use the resolution mechanics when your sense of internal logic tells you "this character may ot may not be able to accomplish that." Is that correct?
I just want to point out that there are other options, such as, "how important it is to the player," "whether another player (could include GM or not) is opposed," "whether someone (everyone?) deems it a crucial Story Moment," etc.
Historically, you are correct. I'm trying to get to the last "X", is it a crucial story moment? In fact, I think I have a sliding scale which will let the GM (and to a lesser extent the players) make any conflict quick and easy or long and costly depending on the perceived dramatic needs of the story.
Sorry if this seems confusing. We have to test these ideas and changes in the middle of an active campaign, so getting it right may take a while. So far I'm encouraged that the major changes have been either good or indifferent, no major screwups.
David Berg:
I see that my mention of Ephriam healing the sick distracted from my point. I wasn't trying to talk about the conflict at all; what I meant was his idea to heal the sick. So let's forget that example, and I'll ask again:
How are you going to ensure that your players get opportunities (i.e., the PCs wind up in Situations) to do things they care about? Is there some way for them to communicate this to you (the GM, who has Authority over the Setting part of Situations)? Once they communicate this to you, is there any specific way you plan to use their requests to create your Settings & Situations?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page