[Legendary Lives] Three games to talk about
JoyWriter:
Looking back at my pseudo-example, I think I made what I'm thinking of sound too advanced; a more mundane and incomplete version of that kind of thing would be tagging strategies with ethical connotations, like computer games are currently doing, and then having ways to let those influences play out. By giving the players with choice over this stuff and some insight into it, then their strategising can be indirectly engaging with social issues. At the same time, if there are ethical tags linked to their characters fundimental strategies, then players following those strategies will be automatically exhibiting a worldview (as systems that give people bonuses for acting in accordance with a certain concept do more explicitly).
Still no concrete real world example yet, but that method can be seen in any game that ties setting constraints and symbolism as an extra weight of decoration to the axe that someone just wants to split things with. The next stage is to insure you suggest ways for that decoration to become an active part of the system, so it's not just dead weight, but a curiously functioning additional property of the axe, which influences how you cut with it.
Ron Edwards:
Hi David,
Here's what I was thinking about when I wrote about the "bounce," for this game. After the introductory scenes, in which Ra'ed almost had sex with his dead girlfriend and in which Ctine faced off with phantom snakes, the two characters met. Ctine used Sincerity to explain to Ra'ed the help she wanted from him, to steal the Brownie device. Ra'ed used Lying to her to assure her that he would do exactly as she asked. Her roll failed. His succeeded.
What that means, fictionally, is that both characters went into subsequent play with misconceptions, Ra'ed because he didn't believe the truth she was telling, and Ctine because she believed the lie he was telling. The neat thing is that the rolls could have gone in four ways:
- Ra'ed believes the truth she tells; Ctine sees through his lie about it.
- Ra'ed mistrusts the truth she tells, thinking it's a lie; Ctine sees through his lie about it.
- Ra'ed believes the truth she tells; Ctine is fooled by his lie about it.
- Ra'ed mistrusts the truth she tells, thinking it's a lie; Ctine is fooled by his lie about it.
Each of these outcomes would generate a very different basis for the decisions each character would make, not least about what action each would take next, and also not least about what precautions or defenses or counter-moves each would (or would not) set in place for the other. Since the fourth was the case, Ra'ed went and did something overly sneaky when he didn't have to, and Ctine was too trusting. That's exactly what led to the "dark comedy of errors" that Larry was talking about.
The fun thing for me as GM is that any of the four outcomes is OK; all I have to do is scene-frame and play NPCs so as to generate more stress upon the player-characters anyway, and enjoy whatever happens, and do it again.
Now, given the later events of play, the whole thing was compounded further when Gootch successfully Lied to Ra'ed about not killing anyone on his mission, which means Ra'ed bound Asp's spirit into the machine without ever realizing it was exactly the same person who'd commissioned the machine in the first place.
So that's what I mean by "bounce," specifically that any of the four outcomes of the initial meeting scene would be functional both in story/fun terms and in practical terms, itself both in how-to-GM and what-my-guy-does-next terms.
Let me know whether that makes any sense.
Best, Ron
David Berg:
Hi Ron,
Thanks for that account. That absolutely sounds fun and functional to me.
As for the role of the game system in this bounciness...
It looks to me like you guys looked through some setting material and latched onto the specific bits of it that would help with "highly personal, neurotic, PC-centric conflicts", which in turn led to framing scenes with PCs at cross purposes. So then you have PCs trying to convince each other to do consequential stuff, with the GM (having no preconceived plot) prepared to facilitate fun from any outcome.
This sounds like a win-win to me. I'm trying to think of what would make one resolution method more "bouncy" than another in this situation, and all I'm coming up with is suspense, and accordingly, uncertainty. If we don't know who will convince whom, and we pick up some dice, and we shake them, and the rolls really will resolve some uncertainty (no 99% success rates), then we're building up some energy and anticipation! We roll! Boom! Payoff! Bounce! Right?
Conversely, a resolution system where the group just discusses "what would make the most sense here?" and agrees on the outcome... while that maintains "four different paths to different fun", picking a path isn't a "bouncy" experience.
So a game which (a) helped you frame scenes where PCs try to convince each other of important stuff, and (b) helped you roll with any outcome of said convincing, would be ripe with potential to bounce. And then (c) a fortune resolution system for "who convinces who?" would realize that potential.
Are we on the same page here?
Ps,
-David
Paul T:
It sounds like this "bounciness" in this case is some combination of rules which move the players in directions they wouldn't themselves:
1. The System produces outcomes that the players would never consider on their own (e.g. one side doesn't believe the truth AND the other trusts an obvious lie--simple negotiation might have brought such a situation back to a compromise, not allowing both sides to be mistaken).
2. The System limits options moving forwards, providing creative constraints for future input.
I think that in a lot of play, various cues provided by the game's structure help to inspire and motivate fictional input. For instance, Keys in the Shadow of Yesterday help remind players of options they might not have considered (in this situation, you could take the cowardly path and stand down... OR you could be so cowardly as to put your friend in danger... OR you could reveal that your character is no longer a coward! -- all interesting options it's easy for a player in the heat of play to forget about).
So, are we all talking about the same thing? That's how I interpret this "bouncy" concept of play, in any case.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page