The spicey die roll - Middel Earth (home brew) Sim
David Berg:
So, Jay had this moment where he wanted to accomplish something with his character: intimidate and command the respect and obediance of an irate mob. Will he succeed or won't he? There are tons of ways Jay could have resolved this in different games. To name a few: rolling dice, drawing cards, spending points, asking GM's permission, simply declaring success or failure, voting, doing whatever he felt his character would do and letting someone else resolve it. Each of these provides a different experience. A player's mind might focus on the luck of the dice, the choice of whether to spend a needed resource, the evaluations of other players, etc.
I've played with a lot of these. While I tend to like some better than others in general, overall I'd say that sometimes I'm in the mood for the experience delivered by one method, and other times another one.
There's a unique experience to what Jay describes. You get in your character's headspace, you assess your (his) situation and options, you do the best you (he) can, and you see how the setting and its people respond, as relayed to you by the GM. Looking at that "GM as setting arbiter" and waiting for his feedback is different than looking at dice or voting on how cool your play was or any other method. Maybe it's hard to get right, maybe it's lined with potential pitfalls, maybe few will wind it worth the bother when there are other options. But it can be made to work, and when it does work, the resulting experience is something a lot of roleplayers I know really love.
Playing one game or session this way certainly wouldn't preclude you from playing another game or session using a different resolution method. I can switch between Primetime Adventures, Sign in Stranger, and old-school GM-heavy D&D2 just fine, thank you.
Separately, I also think that most games benefit from a mixture of rules and trust. There will always be judgment calls, even if they're only about when to use a given a rule. When judgment calls come up, it's important to be able to trust your fellow players' basis for judgment.
Ps,
-David
P.S. Jay, if you're still around, I think it would be instructive if you could speculate on how else your Dunedain's speech might have been resolved; and, given the way that it was resolved, what parts of the experience could have been improved, or were optimal just the way they were handled.
Callan S.:
The thing is, pushing trust basically wrecks personal evaluation of quality. Was it fun, quality play? To even form that question in mind is to distrust the assertion by others that it was fun. Pesonally I think it's healthy skepticism, but it's still distrust even with my stamp of approval. The more you work with trust the more it kills critical evaluation. Critical evaluation requires, as far as I know, atleast some level of misstrust/treating others assertions as possibly just a bunch of hype.
Quote
There will always be judgment calls, even if they're only about when to use a given a rule.
For myself, I percieve that as not being the case. The many boardgames that don't require judgement calls are evidence enough of that for me. Just noting that so as to not give any false sense of having implicit agreement from me on the matter.
Silmenume:
Hi Zac,
You have the right of it when you said that the die roll gave the moment some punch. Actually it probably gave the moment allot of punch. Which falls in line with my thread title – The Spicy Die Roll. The point of the die roll at that moment was not employed by the GM as a resolution mechanic (be it task or conflict) but rather as a dramatic device/tool.
David,
Your description of the use of the die roll, when you as GM have already decided on success, as means as assessing the degree of success matches our use exactly.
Quote from: David Berg on December 20, 2009, 08:46:20 PM
This rings very familiar to me. It's this play style that has been the source of most of my most rewarding roleplaying experiences. I basically see the core of the experience as a "what should happen" negotiation between all involved players (that is, the GM plus whichever players are acting via their characters). It's always satisfying when there's a meeting of the minds about the next step in the fiction -- what makes sense, what would be cool, what would work, etc.
I'm going to have to spend some time considering your “what should happen” description more, but right now I am going to give a tentative, but qualified agreement. “What should happen” does not mean “what will happen.” It IS satisfying when there's a general meeting of the minds but we don't want to know a forehand what is going to happen. That means there will, at times, be failure when “what should happen” doesn't. However the reason for the failure should follow the internal logic of the world even if the reason is not made explicit. The real potential of failure, i.e, player efforts that result in a failed outcome in previous play, must be an established fact of the game and not just exist as a potentiality in order for tension to exist when using this particular type of fortune mechanic. Which brings me to your next piece...
Quote from: David Berg on December 20, 2009, 08:46:20 PM
There's that moment of tension where the player goes, "Does the GM agree that this is at least plausible?" and then, "Does the GM think that this would succeed?" In a game where no one's on the same page, a "no" is usually merely frustrating, but in a group with well-shared priorities, the GM's answer arrives as The Truth. "No, these townsfolk are too incensed to listen," or, "That speech would totally make them pause and take your words seriously." Or, "Could go either way; roll some dice!"
...which (I believe) aligns with my previous paragraph. You are right that in a game where no one's on the same page, a “no” is usually frustrating. When everyone is on the same page in this style of play, a “no” typically leads to more Sim expressing opportunities - as you so ably indicated in the examples you provided.
I like what you said about the GM's answer arriving as The Truth, but I'm going to spin it just a bit. I'm going to say the GM's answer is a Fact. The nice thing about a Fact is that facts can change with further input/negotiations and yet not be in contradiction if the Facts do change. This is key. Let's say the GM says, "No, these townsfolk are too incensed to listen.” That fact is not immutable. As a player I can do or say other things that might alter that Fact. But more important is to remember that my choosing to use “spoken words” in this instance was just one form/attempt to reach a greater ultimate end (the rescue of my brother/the prevention of the secessionist movement/etc.). At the end of that night's play we will have established/negotiated a whole multitude of SIS Facts which can then be chewed on long after the end of the game session where the players deduce and infer a great number of additional (proto?) facts.
Ultimately, though, you have the right of it when you say trust is key. One simply cannot have enjoyable play without trust. Period. In Nar play I've seen it stated that the players need to know that they can trust each other when they are baring their souls during play. In Gamist play its trusting that the GM isn't (or is!) modding the rolls behind the screen or that the other players aren't misrepresenting their die rolls. It is often forgotten that in Gamist play we are not playing a computer game. When we are Exploring (as opposed to playing a computer game) the Lumpley Principle is the only arbiter. IOW for all the trappings of mechanics even with the crunchiest of systems its still at bottom us human beings all sitting around agreeing to stuff.
Quote from: Callan S. on December 28, 2009, 07:06:19 PM
The thing is, pushing trust basically wrecks personal evaluation of quality. Was it fun, quality play? To even form that question in mind is to distrust the assertion by others that it was fun. Pesonally I think it's healthy skepticism, but it's still distrust even with my stamp of approval. The more you work with trust the more it kills critical evaluation. Critical evaluation requires, as far as I know, atleast some level of misstrust/treating others assertions as possibly just a bunch of hype.
There are an awful lot of assumptions in you assertions here. Drama is recognized as a legitimate form of resolution. Thus the blanket assertion that a trust based system, which Drama resolution relies on heaviest of all, wrecks “personal evaluation of quality” is to utterly dismiss Drama resolution as a legitimate means of play. Given the Lumpley principle; all play at heart is Drama resolution in that we all must ultimately agree to the statements being made during play. “This 20 showing on this recently rolled d20 means I killed the orc. The rules say that. Does anyone disagree with my statement about which rules I am invoking or how I am applying them to this situation or the outcome of the application of the rules? No? OK. We all agree then that that 20 means my character killed the Orc. Moving on...” Lumpley Principle. I believe that Drama Resolution is getting short shrift as a legitimate and viable means of play resolution.
Also why does one need to “evaluate” quality. Unless I am mistaken role-play is a highly subjective experience. Again we come back to the Lumpley Principle and the Share Imagined Space and the great lengths we go through to make sure that all the players are indeed on the same page indicates to me the difficulty in finding the objectivity in the game. To my understanding objectivity is the artificial construct – the SIS – which we strive mightily to agree on – using the Lumpley Principle. IOW we have to work very diligently to get past our subjective states to arrive at an “objective” Fact. Since this process is so inherently subjective where does this need to (presumably objectively) evaluate quality come from? I am either having fun or I am not. I don't have to go through some measuring process to arrive at the emotional state of “fun.”
But then I am lost by the usage of the word “quality.” Can you clarify what you mean by “quality” and to what thing you are measuring the quality? For me that night's quality of play was awesome. I was told by my GM that my quality of play was one for the books – it was superlative.
The form of the mechanics and how they are employed, to me fall under color. They literally color our enjoyment of the game play experience and effect how the negotiation process proceeds in a deeply profound manner. Yet, mechanics are but one of the five elements of Exploration and as such they are a spice to the game which, as David indicated in his previous post, come in many flavors. Season to taste then! By all means! Again David has the right of it, if one does not like the particular spicing of that particular incarnation of mechanics then use a different recipe/game system. But to declare something which is used to individual taste as universally bad is, I believe, an error. I do believe that role-play does have a long and horrible history with Drama resolution, but that is a problem related to misuse born out of ignorance (not understanding the role of mechanics in Sim). People are terrified of even discussing Drama resolution which is a terrible shame especially since all role-play rests on the Lumpley Principle.
Quote from: David Berg on December 28, 2009, 04:33:17 PM
P.S. Jay, if you're still around, I think it would be instructive if you could speculate on how else your Dunedain's speech might have been resolved; and, given the way that it was resolved, what parts of the experience could have been improved, or were optimal just the way they were handled.
David, could you expand on your question, please? I'm not sure what you are looking for from me. To me the experience was optimal, but I am curious as to what it is that you are trying to uncover. If you wish do put in that link you had mentioned in one of your earlier posts.
Callan S.:
Hi Jay,
Quote
Drama is recognized as a legitimate form of resolution.
Well, for myself, that alot of people say they recognise something as legitimate doesn't mean anything in itself. Large numbers of people doesn't lend evidence toward anything. Lots of people recognised slavery as legitimate, for example. How could they believe that if it wasn't true? Well, because belief is cheap, no matter how many people are involved. That's my perspective.
Quote
Thus the blanket assertion that a trust based system, which Drama resolution relies on heaviest of all, wrecks “personal evaluation of quality” is to utterly dismiss Drama resolution as a legitimate means of play.
Does the wrecking of 'personal evaluation of quality' utterly dismiss drama resolution as a legitimate means of play? I don't think I've said this. Your drawing your own conclusion about what is dismissed. I've only said it wrecks personal evaluation of quality - I left it there for others to draw their own conclusions about what ramifications that has, if any.
Quote
Given the Lumpley principle; all play at heart is Drama resolution in that we all must ultimately agree to the statements being made during play.
The lumpley principle is about working on a semi shared fiction (semi because there is no hive mind/xerox duplication of the imagination between participants) - if you try and keep all of play within the fictional level, then I'd grant your premise.
But if I've agreed heads I win, tails I lose and tails comes up - no, I am not at that point deciding whether I feel like agreeing with the result of me losing. There is no agreeing to the result going on at that point past the coin flip. There is only the following of the result. This flows on to the fictional level of there being no agreeing to the result, because if I lose on the roll, I'm hardly gunna go 'Oh, but imagination wise my character totally pwns!'. No, fiction wise he loses too - and it's not a matter of lumpley style agreement, it's simply following the result for all participants. There is no agreement at that point, just following the result (afterward, in tying the result to further fiction, sure, LP. But not right now). So no, not all play is drama resolution at heart. Some parts of play are no more lumpley principle or drama resolution than RL gravity is an act of lumpley principle or drama resolution. The RL coin flipped. What comes after is not everyone just agreeing to the result - it is the result as much as the result of throwing a rock at a window.
Unless you try and keep all play within the fiction, in which case there are many techniques for ignoring the die roll yet acting as if it was still relevant (I remember Ron talking about these once, but can't remember the thread...)
Actually that makes me think of some (pervi?) mechanics - like if the characters have little paper houses on the gaming table, and that represents their imaginative game world house. Okay, at some point a player is blindfolded and the houses shuffled around a bit in front of him. Then the blindfolded player brings his fist down hard in front of him!
It's hardly lumpley principle when one of the paper houses is crushed, that the imaginative house is also crushed. Well, unless your way in denial of the connection between the two. The whole group trying to game that your house is fine when it's crushed in front of you? In people there's something prior to the lumpley principle, and I think it says no.
Quote
Also why does one need to “evaluate” quality....I don't have to go through some measuring process to arrive at the emotional state of “fun.”
Well, there are plenty of fun things in the world which are quite bad for you.
But beyond that, it's something like a suger to medicine ratio - 100% suger is sweet, but it doesn't make you stronger or healthier in any way. If someone wants medicine but gets swept into a trust system, they may stop evaluating whether they are getting the amount of medicine they wanted to have and so continue to play in games even where they don't get what they want.
I hope what I mean by medicine is pretty clear - it's something that confronts or challenges the actual person at the table, to put it vaguely. I'm hoping people in general just know what I mean on that.
Quote
But then I am lost by the usage of the word “quality.” Can you clarify what you mean by “quality” and to what thing you are measuring the quality? For me that night's quality of play was awesome. I was told by my GM that my quality of play was one for the books – it was superlative.
Quality is your own standards. For myself, someone else can't tell me something matched my own standards - I need check that for myself.
Perhaps it's wrong of me, but I wonder whether your acceptance of GM's 'Truth' and 'Facts' has extended outward into domains beyond those you originally decided?
David Berg:
Jay,
We've clearly had some similar gaming experiences. Almost everything you're saying, I'm nodding and going, "Yeah! It is like that!"
Quote from: Silmenume on December 29, 2009, 01:06:47 AM
It IS satisfying when there's a general meeting of the minds but we don't want to know a forehand what is going to happen. That means there will, at times, be failure when “what should happen” doesn't.
I think we agree and are just using "should" to mean slightly different things. I've broken down the process of vetting contributions to the fiction on the "resolution" page for my game Delve. See the "would", "could" and "couldn't" links (although you may have to read all the links in order for it to make sense).
Quote from: Silmenume on December 29, 2009, 01:06:47 AM
I'm going to say the GM's answer is a Fact. The nice thing about a Fact is that facts can change with further input/negotiations and yet not be in contradiction if the Facts do change. This is key. Let's say the GM says, "No, these townsfolk are too incensed to listen.” That fact is not immutable. As a player I can do or say other things that might alter that Fact.
Yeah, I like that way of phrasing it too. I think I actually used something vaguely similar in my "Establishing Setting" section from the above link.
Quote from: Silmenume on December 29, 2009, 01:06:47 AM
At the end of that night's play we will have established/negotiated a whole multitude of SIS Facts which can then be chewed on long after the end of the game session where the players deduce and infer a great number of additional (proto?) facts.
Huh. I hadn't thought about that. Are you talking about group rehash, or just individual recollections?
Quote from: Silmenume on December 29, 2009, 01:06:47 AM
Quote from: David Berg on December 28, 2009, 04:33:17 PM
P.S. Jay, if you're still around, I think it would be instructive if you could speculate on how else your Dunedain's speech might have been resolved; and, given the way that it was resolved, what parts of the experience could have been improved, or were optimal just the way they were handled.
David, could you expand on your question, please? I'm not sure what you are looking for from me. To me the experience was optimal, but I am curious as to what it is that you are trying to uncover.
Okay, well, if it was optimal, then there's not much food for musing there. I was trying to uncover some breakdown of the moments of play by type of resolution*. Like, "I decided this, the GM decided that, we agreed here, rolled dice there, looked up attribute ratings then" etcetera. I thought maybe we could figure out something interesting about how these techniques all work together. That now seems both vague and ambitious, though.
More concretely, you said one thing that have me some "non-optimal?" thoughts:
Quote from: Silmenume on December 29, 2009, 01:06:47 AM
I was irked that the GM wasn't responding to all these Charisma efforts of mine that are gift and birthrights of the Dunedain
As someone who wasn't there, I didn't know whether this was a case of:
"The GM's cheating!" or "The GM's ignoring my contribution, so I'm not empowered to play!"
or
"Wow, I thought that woud have impressed most incensed villagers. I guess these ones have some reason they're particularly pissed off." (or some other sound in-fiction logic)
Based on the rest of your account, I can guess that the latter was more the case, largely because of your group's shared priorities about stuff like sound in-fiction logic being really important. What do you think?
I also think there's something to be said for a "show, don't tell" dynamic at play, where no stats or rolls are going to win the day without some action narration of convincing quality. But I'll wait on that tangent for now.
Ps,
-David
*I mean that in the broadest possible sense: "process by which stuff enters the SIS"
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page