fiction-based rule use (one fun option)
Callan S.:
It depends on what you mean by freedom, David. Quite often in RPG's currently, they have rules who's words are in no way objectively measurable - they rely on someones interpretation. Usually a GM. So basically your trying to be creative, but then because of this subjective rule wording, someone else can step in and mess or fiat your creativity. That's just annoying. That's like some artist having a boss standing over them and telling them when they 'created wrong'. It's just really annoying. I think that too.
On the other hand, if you have 5 karate points but it takes 6 karate points to do a flying, spinning roundhouse to the head, then you know you just don't have the karate points. You know that before you even set out to be creative - you don't set out to be creative but then have someone pop out of the blue and say nuh uh as they interpret some weasel worded rules. You know from the start you just don't have enough points. So you have absolute freedom in the sense that you know exactly what you have to work with creatively and can use what you have to its utmost, if you so wish.
So it depends on what you mean by freedom. Do you really want complete freedom? Or do you just want to know the exact size of the sandbox you have to work within, then simply go to town as you will within that sandbox, without any surprise 'Nuh uh, can't do that!' coming up?
Quote
* a) watch for certain conditions: "If Fred hasn't been in a scene in a while," "If Larry's scene has come to a natural conclusion," "If the group is getting bored," etc.
* b) when the conditions are met, take action: "Work toward revealing the monster," "Escalate what's at stake," "Reveal a new piece of information," etc.
This isn't what I'm asking - I'm asking what options do the rules grant a player (GM or otherwise) to manipulate game currencies? If any? Rather than 'If fred hasn't been in a scene for awhile' I want to know what game points the GM is granted the power to manipulate, upon his thinking someone hasn't had a scene in 'awhile'?
This is all resting on the big assumption that atleast some of gameplay arises from game currencies. That they aren't just ignored or treated as an adornment - that people are using them as one of their sources for inspiration in speaking fiction. Which in turn means rules which grant you the ability to change currencies grant you an ability to change the gameplay. As much as the rule grants you the capacity to change the currency.
Some groups are practically allergic to using currency as a source of inspiration. Fortunately these groups are just long time gamers. I'm pretty sure most people who have never roleplayed before are just fine with using the currency as a source of fictional inspiration.
The quoted wording above just isn't important to system design, except where the person is granted currency manipulation options, based on their judgement. Either that, or the above wording expects the person to work around the systems design and get things done without the games currencies/get things to work despite the game system. Yet another 'Herbie the great GM' text.
I really see zero value in such wording alone. I like to think of me printing 'If the games not fun, make it fun!' alone on a sheet of paper, and charging $5 for the paper and $3 for the PDF. Sounds worthless? The quoted words, by themselves, are just as worthless. They just tell you to do things all by yourself, and act as if you should pay money for that. How many RPG's are out there, being bought right now, which, with alot more flowery text, simply say 'if the games not fun, make it fun!'?
Without the words also granting you a mechanical tool you use to that affects further gaming, to me they are just wank. The ruleset has to provide some sort of mechanical support in running the game, otherwise it's like my worthless 'fun' game from above. Another stone soup design, where if the end result tastes great, it's because of all the ingrediants the end user group put in, not because the design itself has any taste to it at all.
Bah, I go on and on. Rather than the IF statements, I want to hear the THEN statements 'then you have five scene points you may spend on options X, Y and Z'...
Callan S.:
Quote
The ruleset has to provide some sort of mechanical support in running the game, otherwise it's like my worthless 'fun' game from above.
No, not support. It has to be the game, for it to have any worth. That's what I should have said.
The rules being the actual game doesn't preclude fiction at all. When the rules grant you options X, Y and Z you can reference the spoken fiction, as you've heard it, and base your X,Y, Z choice off of it. But if you want the fiction itself to be the game - well then no written text can help or change or grant you any value to the way you play, as far as I can tell.
Possibly an unnecessary foot note.
David Berg:
Callan,
Interesting stuff. I think I'm following you. Can you give me an example (real or hypothetical) of rules for manipulating game currencies to achieve something akin to the effects I mentioned ("if Larry's scene wrapping up" -> "reveal monster")?
I'll give it a shot:
Each player has a budget of 5 tokens they can use to push their scenes forward, introducing new facts or demanding new NPC responses. Once these 5 tokens are spent, that player's scene is over.
Once a player's scene ends, the GM sets up a scene for the next player to the left. Each scene has certain requirements ... In the last scene of the first round of scenes, the GM must spend at least one of his Threat points on the game's primary monster. The more Threat points allotted to a given threat, the more options that Threat has for attacking the PCs.
Is that what you had in mind?
Also, I'm curious if you've played Dead of Night and whether that covers any/all of these important bases. I also recommend Burning Empires, I think you might enjoy it -- the currency movement there is pretty pervasive.
Ps,
-David
Callan S.:
Quote
Each player has a budget of 5 tokens they can use to push their scenes forward, introducing new facts or demanding new NPC responses. Once these 5 tokens are spent, that player's scene is over.
This is spending points to prompt new fiction as far as I can tell.
Instead, something like you can spend a token if you wish after reflecting on what fictions been spoken and if you want to (not someone else or what the 'group' wants), to add a 1d4-3 'Old girlfriend shows up' modifier onto the other characters rolls. (forgive the clunkyness of the 1d4-3 here...)
Okay, now the first thing here is that I'm designing this with it in mind that player with the token decides this on his lonesome, simply listening to what is said and consulting his own muse on whether to take the option or not at that point. Alot of gamers demand no one take a mechanical option unless it's cool with the 'whole group'. It depends if your devoted to the latter.
Second, basically this is taking an option from which new fiction can arrise. Which old girlfriend? How is she influencing him? Emotions? Outright physical sabotage (spiking his drink?). And if a four is rolled, somehow she's boosted him? How?
And yet at the same time it's modifying the rolls and affecting how the game currencies shift. And as those currencies shift, they trigger more fiction inspiration. So it's not just working at the fictional level, like if we just said an old girlfriend shows up. And it's not just working from a mechanical level, where like if we just slapped on a 1D4-3 modifier. And it's not just spending tokens to prompt more fiction. It's currencies and fiction intermingled. Player consults fiction on whether they take a mechanical choice (and say they do), then mechanical choice inspires further fiction - which players consult on whether they take a mechanical choice - and so on and so forth.
Finally I have a bit of trepidation about your 'introducing new facts' from above. It has recently occured to me that some gamers get quite metagamey at this - it's not that they are hearing made up fiction, or what their character, with it's limited perceptions, is percieving (and thus with limited perceptions, can be wrong). It's instead an actual fact between GM and player, and for the GM to go back on this fact is the GM being dishonest. As if this fact is a concrete agreement between them. Now I'm not saying you couldn't have a design where that is the case. But we need to be clear on whether it is, or whether it's a 'fact' or a fact.
Quote
Once a player's scene ends, the GM sets up a scene for the next player to the left. Each scene has certain requirements ... In the last scene of the first round of scenes, the GM must spend at least one of his Threat points on the game's primary monster. The more Threat points allotted to a given threat, the more options that Threat has for attacking the PCs.
Not really what I'm thinking of, as it has procedural gaps through it. Who decides when a scene is over? Who or what decides when it's the last scene of the first round?
Looking past scenes and onto the monster : If the monster has some sort of list of attacks and the GM's spent a threat token to unlock attack C, well...nothing has happened yet, at a fictional level. It's merely unlocked capacity. There is no fictional level to it, and there is no currency level to it (it's been unlocked, but the attack has not affected other currencies yet). Not saying you can't have this in your design, but to me it's a book keeping moment where the game has not 'moved along', as nothing has happened. If something else were to happen at both a fictional and currency level, like you both unlock and launch the attack at the same time, cool. You know, like it bursts out a tentacle and lashes out with it. A big swinging tentacle - it might inspire the fiction in other players minds that it smashed some stalegmites or something (which would only matter in terms of fiction/currency intermingling if the player had some option along the lines of using a free piece of stalegmite. But I'm getting ahead of myself).
Quote
Also, I'm curious if you've played Dead of Night and whether that covers any/all of these important bases. I also recommend Burning Empires, I think you might enjoy it -- the currency movement there is pretty pervasive.
I'm in Australia, which makes my prefered purchasing method - at a brick and morter store, conflict with being able to get these titles. I don't like mobile phones and I don't like ordering online - just my quirks. Have asked at the city store about some indie titles and gotten a "Dogs in the what??" responce. Though that was awhile ago - perhaps I might try again at some point soon. So no, haven't played dead of night or BE. And in terms of currency movement - well, I don't enjoy it for it's own sake. Like I don't enjoy a book not missing any of it's pages. I just kind of expect it.
David Berg:
Those girlfriend and tentacle examples are great; they nicely illustrate a positive synergy between game currencies and fiction. I'm having some trouble teasing out methods to use beyond those examples, though.
Would you be willing to construct an example of ending one scene and beginning another scene that also utilizes the above-mentioned synergy? I think that'll help me figure out how to better relate your points to my own experience playing and designing.
Thanks,
-David
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page