fiction-based rule use (one fun option)
David Berg:
Here's an approach that I enjoy:
1) Everyone discusses and agrees on the state of the fiction, covering relevant details. Who's where, etc. Authority here comes from, (a) first, what the group has previously communicated, (b1) second, the GM's internal picture of the setting, (b2) also second, each player's internal picture of his character.
2) Everyone discusses intents. This player character is trying to jump the cliff, that NPC is trying to flee, etc. We modify intents if needed -- that cliff looks like a nearly-impossible jump, that NPC is too close to the blade machine to maneuver, etc. Eventually we settle on intents and announce action.
3) Having announced what everyone is trying to do, we look at the state of the fiction (as established by the Authorities in #1 above) and determine "What would happen?" In fictional circumstances with no hidden information, this has been covered already. But often, the GM knows something about the setting that the characters couldn't factor into their decisions (the badguy covered the cliff in grease!), so now that gets factored in too. "What would happen?" is now translated by the group into a range of possibilities and likelihoods.
4) We resolve "What does happen." The precision of this resolution depends on who cares, which in turn depends on the stakes. For some attempts, everyone in the group is content to look at the most likely outcome and declare it so. "The effort to climb the fairly easy tree succeeds." For other attempts, the possibility of the unlikely must be modeled! "Climbing the easy tree will save the day! Roll! Pray you don't get double 1s!"
5) Communicating the full extent of "What happened" means we're doing Step 1 again. Repeat forever.
These are the large-scale rules for how to play. The answer to "When do you use these rules?" is "Always." There are other rules, such as how we resolve "what does happen" in a few specific high-stakes circumstances (in lethal combat, roll for damage and location and shock because we care about all these things in the fiction; in climbing, roll 2d4 + a big skill modifier to represent the narrow probability range; etc.). The rule for whether or not to utilize these particular resolution rules is "if any player (including GM) cares enough about the stakes".
I'm sure this isn't revolutionary, but I thought spelling it out this way might answer some debate about "fiction first". In this case, that phrase could be used to mean, "we agree on the relevant details of the fiction first, and then resolve changes".
This may sound like a high-effort way to avoid Murk. In practice, though, once the players get familiar with who cares about what, most of the fiction-establishing discussion is concise and enjoyable. If you have a social contract that says (a) everyone's invested in supporting informed choices, (b) no one's bullshitting for personal advantage, and (c) some visual detail to the fiction is fun, then you're golden.
I think this is relevant to a lot of the ideas discussed in Callan's recent thread (even if it winds up not addressing Callan's own points). Since that thread's closed, I just wanted to post this in AP to see if any of the discussers found it useful or interesting. Sadly, all my actual AP examples of late are from my game Delve which is still in Playtest (and thus belongs in another forum).
Chris_Chinn:
Hi David,
That's a pretty good summation of the way a lot of groups deal with Murk in their rules text.
The tough part is that without a clear statement like that, people often have to hack together something based on really vague, non-procedures, "Be Tough" "Be Fair", "Be Challenging", "Be Realistic", "Be Cinematic" all poured together at the same time.
The other tough part is this:
Quote
The precision of this resolution depends on who cares, which in turn depends on the stakes
Which can change drastically depending on the creative agenda, and the game being played, and the specific game/campaign the group is playing.
For example, I'm playing Primetime Adventures with an alternate prequel story going on with some friends- there's places where we make something a challenge that fits with "It would be tough for the Jedi to stop the ship from crashing on the planet", to places where, "You have no problem defeating the guards and sneaking in... no Conflict." The unifying principle for our game, is "Would it be interesting, and would it take more than the briefest of shots on screen?" (which is, naturally informed by how Star Wars has it's genre tropes, but that's basically PTA's design feature in letting people set those things).
If we weren't on the same page about it, or trying to model some form of "Reality", I imagine step 4 would be a much crunchier affair for us.
Chris
masqueradeball:
*Hey David, I really think you nailed down a good description of how many groups play, but I have three comments:
1) When talking about "who cares" does this mean that if I am playing the game and another character is performing an action I have the right to ask that the rules be used with more precision to resolve his action, even if it doesn't effect me directly. I don't think it would be a problem if I could, I just haven't ever played or heard of anyone playing this way.
2) Subsystem, like combat, seem to demand that you care instead of giving you the option of caring or not. It seems like there would have to be various combat systems based on levels of interest to fully facilitate this style of play. Once again, not a problem in theory, just something I've almost never seen done in practice (with the exception of Burning Wheel).
3) I don't know if this in response to Callan's thread, but I don't think this fits what he was talking about with Fiction First. In this case, a fairly defined system is used to determine how the rules and the fiction feed into one another, it isn't the fictional content determining whether or not a rule is used as intended or ignored based of the players/a players aesthetic judgement, but I guess I should let Callan speak for himself.
Roger:
I'm going to quote the ineffable Vincent Baker:
Quote
The only worthwhile use for rules I know of is to sustain in-game conflict of interest, in the face of the overwhelming unity of interest of the players.
I may be getting ahead of myself, though. In your opinion, does your approach contain any rules to sustain in-game conflict of interest?
Cheers,
Roger
Frank Tarcikowski:
Hey David, the thing is, you get one group you don't even talk about it in advance and they'll be connecting in a heartbeat, just effortly understanding what this statement or that means now. And then you get another group and you state all which you wrote above clearly in advance and they nod along to it and then you start playing and nothing works out, because what they understood and what you meant were not the same at all. Some of this boils down to social skills and common sense, but a lot of it is just, you know, that ol' Creative Agenda.
- Frank
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page