[Poison'd] Burning down Cartegena
Eero Tuovinen:
Actually, Dogs has rules for those things mentioned. Or rather, folks read procedures into how the game is represented, as indicated by their personal backgrounds. For example, in this case:
The rule for moving between towns is that it happens off-stage, with the GM narrating a bit of it, except for some minor color players provide when they go through the experience mechanics. Oh, and the players of course choose where they're going. Getting to the next town, for example, is not an issue, as the GM advice/rules make it clear that the game is framed in terms of towns, not in terms of travel between towns; the omission of travel rules from the otherwise detailed GMing rules implies that travel shouldn't even get any scene time.In relationships the tenor of the relationship is determined by the players of the characters involved. If they disagree ("No way, we're just friends."), that's part of the relationship, too. Conflicts have whatever impact they have as the rules allow on all this, well documented.Whether the above stuff is in the rules or not is actually not pertinent for the actual group playing the game; if they share enough expectations with Vincent to realize that's how it works, then they find the game functional and will not miss the rules in question. On the other hand, if there were a group that missed the cues in the text and actually invented some other procedures for doing the abovementioned things, they might or might not hit on anything that worked.
My point being: the success of Poison'd will not be gauged by whether Vincent was aware that he was leaving an issue for the group to solve; the success will depend on whether individual groups are actually comfortable, ready and willing to insert the undefined system in the spots where things are left unsaid. This does not depend on having a functional creative agenda as far as I can see, as it has much more to do with the group's expectations and experiences with one another. It might go many ways:
If the group came to a place where they need to find out whether Cartagena burns and got stumped for procedure, they might start flipping through the rulebook to find a place where its explained. When they can't find that place, what are they going to do? Depending on the people, they might get into an argument or invent a decision for themselves; regardless, they would probably be mystified and frustrated if they felt that this was something important.Meanwhile, another group might play the game and not even notice the lack of such rules. Perhaps they would instinctually assume that whoever opens his mouth and starts narrating would make that call; I know that this would be likely and natural with me.
Now, the difference between Vincent's examples from Dogs and with the Poison'd situation might be said to exist in the strangeness factor, simply enough: even if we can't speak for individuals, we might hazard that if Vincent insists on not providing any clues, some players might be more mystified by some omissions than others. Thus it might be a smart move to explicitly tell the reader of the rules that you're leaving something for the group to suss out if they're something that the group would expect to have. Even better, clarify it for them whether you're thinking of pre-game agreement or case-by-case agreement, here. Alternatively, write your rules within a paradigm where the players never even expect to have the rules for whatever it is that is lacking. I did this with my zombie game by writing the rules into a boardgame-rules booklet; nobody ever expects strategic advice in boardgame rules, so I could leave out all rpg advice on those grounds without anybody starting to wonder whether they're supposed to speak in character or whatever.
As an alternative example, consider how some games have combat chapters that basically just say that you should use the basic conflict resolution system for doing combat. Why is that chapter there in the first place if there are no special combat rules? It's there simply because otherwise players with traditional expectations might not realize how to use the existing rules for running combats, of course. This is the same principle: even when you don't have rules or don't have any extra rules, you still might need to point out in an educational manner how a person might use what exists (such as the rule on page X or the procedures the group already has) to make do.
So yeah, I guess that what I'm saying is that Vincent's question is a matter of rules writing, not of rules design. You don't need to write any rules at all for a roleplaying game (there is plenty of rpg material to prove that point), but whether players will be able to play it successfully depends on how successful they are in combining their own knowledge with what you do write. Some groups are virtually incapable of playing a game with firm rules as they already have so strong and functional group-based system procedures; another group might be very open-minded and willing to follow the rules, and thus would get lost without rules for many specific points. What's more, that latter group won't even need rules necessarily, as long as you do tell them that there are no rules available and that they're supposed to determine things for themselves.
To put the above into a short answer, I agree with Darren! The game text should provide enough context for the group to arrive into a functional social arrangement that may be used for any procedural points that may rise: is this going to be a game with a strong GM who makes the calls? Are we all going to have separate stories, so that each player should get to decide on the minor details in his own story? Is there some beat where the spotlight moves from player to player, so that when it's your turn to narrate you get to make the calls? Should the group decide amongst themselves how they're going to determine things where the rules don't make any calls; if our group doesn't have such dynamics, should we make some before starting to play? I would certainly hope that whichever of the above and other possibilities you're going to use, you'd be telling the readers about it as well!
lumpley:
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on March 05, 2008, 01:51:08 PM
Thus it might be a smart move to explicitly tell the reader of the rules that you're leaving something for the group to suss out if they're something that the group would expect to have. Even better, clarify it for them whether you're thinking of pre-game agreement or case-by-case agreement, here.
Yeah, that's where I'm going to (try to) go with Poison'd's text. We'll see whether I can amply communicate it in the space I've got, but that's where I'll try to go.
-Vincent
Valamir:
Quote
To put the above into a short answer, I agree with Darren! The game text should provide enough context for the group to arrive into a functional social arrangement that may be used for any procedural points that may rise: is this going to be a game with a strong GM who makes the calls? Are we all going to have separate stories, so that each player should get to decide on the minor details in his own story? Is there some beat where the spotlight moves from player to player, so that when it's your turn to narrate you get to make the calls? Should the group decide amongst themselves how they're going to determine things where the rules don't make any calls; if our group doesn't have such dynamics, should we make some before starting to play? I would certainly hope that whichever of the above and other possibilities you're going to use, you'd be telling the readers about it as well!
Yes that's it exactly (which is also the exact point I made on the Anyway thread, also).
Dog's actually does this pretty well, I think...although I admitt I might be confounding what's actually in the book with the many many online discussions I've read...but I think that in addition to "say yes or roll the dice", Dogs also instructs the group to abide by the aesthetics of the most critical person at the table (which is a pretty simple and elegant bit of social engineering). Also, I believe the text includes (and not just on-line) a good bit of instructions to the GM on how to deliver the town and the NPC wants to the players...proactively, don't play "hide-the-clue" etc. Which also provides strong guidance on what play looks like.
I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with in the Poison'd text to convey those sensibilities and provide the context for decision making.
Quote
Exactly, some key differentiation.
Now that differentiation is extremely local to Poison'd.
Is it a secret, or are you willing to share? I, for one, would be very interested in what (for Poison'd) makes "I kill Joe the Cook" a mechanical rules thing (spend 3 Xs before a fight to kill an NPC), and what makes "I burn down Cartegena" not a mechanical rules thing.
I look in the rules and find one, I'm gonna expect to find the other...because to me at least, they look like exactly the same thing..."I do something that has a lasting effect that other NPC-type people wouldn't want me to do" (Joe the Cook isn't going to want me to kill him, and Joe the governor of Cartegena isn't going to want me to burn his town down)...so if killing NPC Joe is 3 Xs, why isn't burning Cartegena...30 Xs?
Understanding that dividing line might be key to unlocking the whole puzzle of how to play Poisn'd differently from other games.
lumpley:
It's not a secret, but I don't have any idea whether I can articulate it. I mean, I design games as a statement about fiction; I design them to articulate something I see about the underlying structure of a particular kind of fiction, especially as relates to its own creation. That means, I'm afraid, that when the rules don't specify between failing and succeeding to no advantage, that IS the articulation.
The "most critical player" rule in Dogs is in the text, yes, but it wasn't in the original edition. I added it when it became obvious that lots and lots of people thought that "as a group, over the first few sessions, you'll come to an understanding about what counts as a valid raise" meant "make whatever raises you want, rolling dice for traits no matter how desperate a stretch, and nobody can tell you no."
-Vincent
Eero Tuovinen:
Shooting from the hip (and assuming that Vincent's not being coy and he's really having trouble verbalizing the difference), it seems to me that the difference between Joe the cook and Joe the governor probably has to do with one being a member of the ship's crew (and, in a larger context, one of the seafaring men), while Cartagena is just some town out there. Perhaps the book simply needs some sentences about how it focuses on things on the sea and on the ship, with the rest of the world being so much set dressing and not quite "real" as far as the system is concerned. I'd imagine that something like that would move in my head if I was making a game about isolated, violent men on a ship. As I understand it, the big deal about leisure is that it allows characters to interact with the world outside the ship, which isn't usually that possible.
Then again, not having read the game, what do I know.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page