I'm thinking of a number...
JB:
So I've been lurking here a while, but this is my first post.
I'd like to share something I've observed in regards to procedures of play in traditional games (GM, dice, etc...)
Most of these games describe mechanics which have players rolling against a target number. But after that, things become less clear. Is the target number determined according to the text, or assigned by the GM using the text as a guideline or estimate? And more importantly, is the target number disclosed to the players or is it kept secret?
I'm currently calling the latter procedure "I'm thinking of a number..." and my feeling is that the main reason for doing this is to facilitate illusionism. (The Disclosure procedure can also engender illusionism, but it's not as effective.)
So, lets go to the examples.
How it works - The GM calls for a roll. The player rolls without ever knowing what results equate to success or failure. The GM then 'narrates what happens based on the result'.
Disjunct perceptions - From my experience on 'both sides of the screen', if the text gives examples of fixed, absolute target numbers, the players assumption is that they're rolling against such, and that the die result determines a binary success/failure. However, for the GM, the die result may just provide an indication of the degree of pre-established success or failure to describe in the narration.
Frex, the PC tries to climb a wall. Climbing the wall isn't 'in the script' so the GM calls for a roll. Maybe he actually thinks, "Climbing that wall isn't happening, but roll anyway so you feel like you tried and we can get back to the plot." More likely, he just has the player roll for it without ever having a hard, fixed, target number in mind. "An 18? Well, despite your adept climbing skills, the walls are just too sheer to gain purchase."
(Are all GMs using this procedure using illusionism? No. But once you're aware of the process, you suspect, and there's not much way to 'call their bluff'.)
What it does - Simply, hidden target numbers disempower the players active use of Fate the same way hidden dice rolls disempower their passive resistance to fate mechanics. (eg, did you 'get hit' because of the luck of the dice or GM fiat?) I personally find it a little discouraging to play in games using this procedure - my first impression is that the GM is moving the target after the shot's been fired, and my second thought is 'Why bother rolling at all then? Just tell us what happens." As a secondary effect, it places the entire impetus on the GM to describe every event and puts the player in the position of doing nothing except rolling a die and asking, "Did I succeed?"
Two points:
First, some games may explicitly state whether target numbers are to be disclosed or hidden from protagonist players. (examples, anyone?) However, in my readings, the majority of texts only imply using one procedure over another. frex, in 'Serenity RPG', the authors intended procedure may be gleaned by a close reading of the 'example of play passage', but it's never stated or even implied elsewhere in the the text. (For the curious, Serenity implies ITOA#. This isn't surprising, considering the mostly unabashed illusionist-sim play the text promotes.)
Second, because so many texts are ambiguous on this point (perhaps because the author never considered there was another method - I always assumed disclosure was intended until I played in games with hidden numbers), the end-user usually uses the procedure they are most familiar with (even if the text in question is unambiguous on this point!) which may result in unintentional drift.
A note in regards to using ITOA# procedure. It tends to break down during extended task resolution, ie, combat. If the GM is 'moving the target', this will become apparent after several rolls (What? Four successes hit it last round, but now thats not good enough!?) - as such, in order to maintain the illusion elsewhere, the GM must actually set fixed target numbers and cede control to Fate in these cases, which results in combat tasks being the only open actions in the game.
My current thought is that this may help explain why combat is the 'weak link' in a lot of dominantly illusionst-sim games, and may also explain why many players favor combat over other options in regards to challenges and conflicts.
Two more things:
#1 - Procedures affect play. This is a subset of 'System Matters', but subtly different from the pure 'Mechanics' of the game.
Also, Procedures can be used to supersede Mechanics, and Procedure will be inferred, perhaps incorrectly, if not explicitly stated in the text.
The layering of the same 'resolution mechanic' w/ different procedures can produce wildly different results - eg,
Illusionist, FatE Task resolution
No illusion used, FitM Conflict resolution
#2 - I'm sure there are other 'common drifts' and examples of Procedure affecting play. Post 'em if you got 'em.
Jim
Christoph Boeckle:
Hi Jim! Welcome aboard!
What you describe so well is indeed a technique I've perceived as a huge pain in the ass in my gaming history. Even though I've indulged in it quite a bit: I had my phase were I was having players just roll a damn die and then improvising on the number. Pointless. "Roll dice and listen to the GM's story."
That's where a game like In a Wicked Age for example is very satisfying: players only roll for their characters when they are opposed by other characters. Otherwise they just succeed! First time I read that, I was immediately reminded of all those times we had rolls for climbing cliffs and jumping over holes and how that was so beside the point! I'm using IaWA as an example, but there have been a number of games before that do exactly or largely the same (Sorcerer and Dust Devils have rules for conflicts that don't involve other important characters, but I haven't used them often in either games).
The fact that we don't roll for any silly action any more takes away the "interface" which the GM could use to take narrative control for just about anything before. Even when there are rolls, those games are often quite clear about how the results have to be treated and often the texts even indicate who will be narrating.
Also, regarding your point of "extended task resolution", I follow you entirely. I've played lots of Call of Cthulhu in the past, where a character was deemed good at something if she had 80% in the skill. So, taking the rules literally, and say that I'm playing a pilot, how great are the chances that I can take off, find the other airport and land safely? Just about one in two! Roll till you fail! Bingo. (Of course, GMs would say that you only roll when it's a difficult task, but is a difficult task the same for somebody with 20% as for my pilot? If not, the seemingly linear skill grading is actually quite a steep curve!)
I think it's Burning Wheel that clearly introduced the "Let it ride" rule: one roll holds! Amen to that.
What I've observed through the years in online discussions and chance-meetings in conventions is that all this underlies a fundamental distrust in the roleplaying medium. A lot of GMs (and designers for that matter!) are convinced that if they don't take the reins, the story (or the mood, or whatever) will suck big time, because players are by nature disruptive. So it's a necessity to be illusionist. However, a lot of GMs are simultaneously convinced that a fundamental aspect of the role-playing media is that everyone is audience and creator at the same time: so suddenly, they go into pointless sequences of "RP", where a PC indulges in small talk with an unimportant NPC. That is then often considered to be the best part of the session by the two involved...
How can such a big dissonance lead to anything constructive? We can do better!
JB:
Christopher,
Thanks for the welcome. Glad to be here.
You're dead on with your description and examples as well, although we might be describing similar but slightly different things. (So maybe I didn't describe it that well after all. Thanks for the compliment though...)
But yeah, the 'roll to failure/success' is another example of this sort of mechanics being subverted by procedure. And as your examples illustrate, all that needs to be done to resolve the dissonance is to realize that something is being implied that should be made explicit.
I've seen 'roll until failure' used in play quite often, but I don't think I've ever read a passage in a primary game text that actually outlines this. Can you imagine reading, "Part IV, Task Resolution: The player rolls a dice. If the result is not pleasing to the GM, the player continues to roll until a satisfactory result is obtained." ??? I don't know that I'd want to play that hypothetical game as written, but at least it's not unclear on the issue. Nor are Burning Wheel or Wicked Age as you describe them.
To further define what I'm talking about with "I'm Thinking of a Number..." play is how the 'target numbers' are all kept secret from the players. Here's an example of 'ITOA#' in play:
Player: "I attack the orc."
GM: "Ok, roll a d20 and tell me the result."
Player: "Uh, a 12..."
GM: "Hmm. Miss."
This doesn't have to be Illusionism. Maybe the GM has 'Players must roll a 14 or higher to score a hit on an orc.' right there in his notes or on page 12 of the 'Monster Book'. But if so, keeping that 'secret' from the other players doesn't really contribute anything to the game. Compare with this example of 'GM Disclosure'.
Player: "I attack the orc."
GM: "Ok, roll a d20. You'll need to get a 14 or better to score a hit."
Player: " 12... Hmm. Miss."
When I GM, I usually use the second procedure, and I was really surprised at how much it seemed to shock some players.
Player: "You're just going to tell us the orcs AC?!?"
GM: "Yeah, why not? We're not playing 'Battleship'. You'll work it out in after a couple rolls anyway, and I've got enough to do on this side of the screen without doing basic math for all of you."
You can even take it another step, by using disclosure to specifically empower players.
The easiest thing to do is let the players narrate what happens. I like doing this, as I find it involves players more in 'the action', it's less work for me, and they often do a better job of describing results than I would, if for no other reason than they aren't trying describe the outcomes of six different actions in one go. I think it also helps raise the ratio of description to 'gamespeak' if you're into that sort of thing. I still hear, "15. Hit. 6 damage." but I'm also likely to hear, "I swing wildly but manage to score a hit on the orc for 2 damage. It's 'only a flesh wound'."
This also reduces 'PC whiff', as players can attribute failures to their opposition's competence or plain luck (good or bad) rather than a bad roll indicating character incompetence. "A 13... The orc gets his shield up just in time to avoid being decapitated!"
Another thing to do is give the players the option to consider and change their action after you declare the difficulty or target number. This works especially well if you make a point to be clear about stakes and consequences.
Player: "I want to leap across the chasm and attack the orcs on the other side."
GM: "Ok. You'll need to roll a 15. If you make it, you can attack the orcs this round. If you don't, you'll take a d6 worth of falling damage and need to take a turn to climb back up."
Player: "Ah. I don't feel like gambling on the odds I'll make the jump just to attack earlier. I'll just run down to the bridge here and be in position to attack the orcs next turn."
You do have to be careful not to railroad the players with 'walls of impossibly high difficulty numbers', but like most exercises in power, GMing is largely about restraint.
Ok, I'm having fun giving examples of 'when play goes well', but back to the point. Burning Wheel circumvents 'roll to failure' play by placing the explicit "Let it ride" rule in the text. Now it's clear that if you use 'roll to failure' in your Burning Wheel play that you're changing the game.
Likewise, all it takes to establish the 'standard procedure' about whether the GM should disclose target numbers to the other players is a single sentence of clarification. Some games already do this, but many of them just assume the reader will use the same procedure as the author without ever outlining what that procedure is.
Ok, off to my game. Cheers.
Filip Luszczyk:
Jim,
You describe one of the major reasons of my dislike for traditional games.
As I see it, many games of that sort are essentially incomplete. They offer rules for what I see as "non-resolution" that in itself only masks the fact that the actual resolution occurs elsewhere and give the players a sense of mechanical input where there isn't any. The IIEE procedure includes a gaping hole in place of the Effect part. Consequently, someone (i.e. the GM), needs to construct, consciously or not, his or her own procedure for establishing the Effect. The game simply cannot be played as written, though it is rarely apparent (I guess most people supplement the lacking rules the very moment they read and try to understand them*). Depending on how the GM decides to do it, a disconnect between the resolution procedure (as used by the players) and the way the Effect is actually determined (as handled by the GM) is likely to occur. Unless the GM introduces serious changes to the resolution procedure and makes it all explicit to the group (which pretty much amounts to creating a new game), the players are going to engage a completely different game than the one that is being played in reality. More experienced players might realize that the mechanics actually do nothing and either struggle with the GM (which is generally futile, and most often destructive, depending on social dynamics of a given group) or, paradoxically, cease playing the game and switch to participating in an elaborate storytelling exercise that the GM provides them with.
There are exceptions, of course. For example, D&D 3.0/3.5 provides clear and tight (generally), if quite detailed, procedures that list the difficulties and effects of the majority of tasks the players might attempt. Most of the time, the DM only needs to apply the procedures from the book, along with pre-assigned target numbers. Unless the DM exercises his godly powers to arbitrarily ignore or change those rules, everyone is usually at the same page as far as the resolution goes.
* This reminds me my first attempt at running a game based on a pre-existing text and the hard time I had explaining the resolution procedure to the player. None of us had played with anyone else before, and I was the only one with any previous exposure to textual explanations of role-playing game procedures. For him, who didn't internalize the "GM is always right" principle, the rules made no sense whatsoever. Myself, on the other hand, I was already coming to the game with a more or less clear picture of how it all works, based on my personal interpretation of a text. I had the text with me, lying there on the table, that was assuring me that it all indeed works. Of course, it didn't, and I've spent the following few years struggling to find a way to make fundamentally broken procedures, of that and many other similar games, work - still under the illusion that my interpretation of the procedures was correct and the source of my problems was different. It took me quite some time to realize there was no correct interpretation of those rules in the first place.
Callan S.:
Quote from: Filip Luszczyk on November 09, 2008, 01:55:05 PM
There are exceptions, of course. For example, D&D 3.0/3.5 provides clear and tight (generally), if quite detailed, procedures that list the difficulties and effects of the majority of tasks the players might attempt. Most of the time, the DM only needs to apply the procedures from the book, along with pre-assigned target numbers. Unless the DM exercises his godly powers to arbitrarily ignore or change those rules, everyone is usually at the same page as far as the resolution goes.
I don't even think they work there, except in a 'world on the brink' way. Those target numbers give players an idea of what numbers should be used - but this doesn't stop the GM using godly power/fiat every time. Basically all this sets up is a MAD situation (Mutually Assured Destruction). If the GM uses his godly fiat too much, the players leave and the game is destroyed. If the players are too picky about the numbers chosen, they will end up destroying the game over being picky. Just about every freaking number ends up risking the games collapse (that or you stick perfectly to the perscribed set of numbers and hey, why not play a board game in that case?)
I think you can play under MAD, but ugh...
Personally in my own designs I aim for a hard floor and hard ceiling in terms of numbers. The GM can pick a number between a minimum and maximum. The GM could always choose the maxium, but in this case that is legitimate play - the maximum is put there to indicate what still is valid play. All the players storming out over that just indicates bad sports. However, this goes against the usual simulationism by habit - "Surely target numbers must be able to spiral into infinity in order to fully simulate the game worlds qualities!" Nah, not at all.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page