fiction-based rule use (one fun option)
Callan S.:
David,
Quote
Unfortunately, it is not obvious to me how this would interact with any sort of currency. Care to explain? I don't know what "crisis of faith - wisdom: 1d4-3" might mean in this play context.
Well, the church, if the ball is taken up, ends up with a wisdom penalty. Yep, I hadn't said who it's assigned to, your right. Also I've gone and assumed we have a stat called 'wisdom'. This depends on what actual numbers your going to have in the game, and the name given to them. Here I'm assuming characters have a stat called wisdom, for examples sake.
Anyway, since were going for a crude example, just have any player have a chance of getting it. Perhaps even count the GM as one player, and if he randomly gets it, he assigns it to an NPC of his choice (crude, as he might assign it to one that'll not be involved in game - if I were writing out rules, this is where I'd leave a note to myself to work on this further, latter on).
The thing is, in the end if the ball is taken up, a 'crisis of faith' modifier is assigned. Now other players or that player ask themselves why would he suddenly have a crisis of faith on seeing the church? Had he given up his faith in former years? In the past did he attack people of this faith in a war, but now without the war he fears them? I mean, to me ideas/fictional speculation starts to form about it.
Though thinking on it, crisis of faith may be too internal a fiction, as compared to old girlfriend shows up. So perhaps the crisis fiction needs to be changed to a more externalised fiction. Heh, old priest who watched the PC grow up as a child, shows up?
Anyway, what stats does Delve have? Perhaps I could make up an example if you tell me a few of the numbers Delve uses, and what they are named?
Quote
As for the second example, my specifics might have been distracting. The Father Alvaro game was very much about character development for its own sake. The group cared how he was affected by this experience. My question was more about the style of procedural guidance used to end one scene and begin another. I found it functional, but there were no currencies involved (that I can see), and the issue of "Do we know what's at stake YET?" (and thus, "Should we employ the resolution procedures yet?") got muddy at times.
I'm maybe not getting what you wanted?
You already describe "Let's see how he reacts when he sees the robot that's been built to replace his friend Pegg!". Your already setting up a scene.
On top of doing that, my procedure says to determine two things that will get wrecked, each of which will piss off five or more NPC's.
Quote
"Do we know what's at stake YET?" (and thus, "Should we employ the resolution procedures yet?") got muddy at times.
You just made what's at stake. The two things that will piss of a bunch of NPC's. 1. You decided to have a scene. 2. The rules told you when you've decided to have a scene to invent two things, of which atleast one will get wrecked and the wrecking of either will piss off a bunch of NPC's.
And there is no resolution system except that the player portrays his character. Now you said he either laughs it off or breaks down. Okay, I didn't outline that at this point the GM decides, which thing get wrecked (or if both get wrecked). One or the other must get wrecked.
So we have the start of the scene, because your already thinking "Let's see how he reacts when he sees the robot that's been built to replace his friend Pegg!". I mean, if your thinking that, you've already decided to start a scene, haven't you?
On currencies, just name four or so that are used in PTA or Delve. I'll tie them in and write out this example in a better draft.
On ending a scene - I don't know. We have a bunch of reactions to work with now already?
See, with this
"Let's see how he reacts when he sees the robot that's been built to replace his friend Pegg!"
It's not just setting a scene, your kind of pushing the characters buttons.
See, we can have a procedure that simply picks up after the one of the two things have been wrecked and NPC's pissed off.
Like it says 'Take the thing that was wrecked. Consider how it relates to the button you tried to press on the character, and whether the wreckage and actions of pissed off NPC's could either A: Push another button of the character or B: push the same button (preferably A if you can manage it, but B is okay). Once you find that, repeat the procedure from above - determine two things that could get wrecked that would piss off five NPC's, etc. Repeat about ten times, sessions done! If desired by the majority, in the next session pick up from the fictional wreckage from the last session!
As I said above, tell me some currency names either from PTA or Delve and I'll work them in, rather than just invent my own currencies from thin air, that you might not relate to.
Callan S.:
Just to clarify this
Quote
And there is no resolution system except that the player portrays his character. Now you said he either laughs it off or breaks down. Okay, I didn't outline that at this point the GM decides, which thing get wrecked (or if both get wrecked). One or the other must get wrecked.
Procedure is: The player portrays character. The GM just decides which of the two things gets wrecked (or if both do). The connection between the two is that if the GM finds it fun to draw upon the character portrayal in making his decision, he does. If he doesn't find any fun connection, procedure is he just has to choose one or the other (at random, if necessary).
I think this is a radical departure from alot of what of roleplayers seem to use, so I'm noting it. Alot of roleplayers seem to use "It doesn't matter if you find it fun or not, you choose the one that makes sense!'. When of course there are billions of versions of 'what makes sense' on two legs, walking around on this planet. Or so I estimate.
David Berg:
Callan,
Thanks for the explanations, I think I get it now.
1) Passing the ball gets someone an attribute penalty. Now the decisions of whether to introduce and accept "church" are informed by more than just aesthetic preference and fictional inspiration -- there's also a currency to consider. To me, this doesn't look like a great example of the synergy you described earlier, but I know we're just making stuff up out of thin air here, so maybe we just haven't developed it enough yet.
2) You're right to point out that my PtA example already has plenty of functional processes going on, and doesn't call out for more procedural guidance. I was hesitant to introduce an example of floundering play, because I'm fuzzy on the actual rulebook instructions, and any given snafu might actually be addressed.
The reason I omitted game currencies from my example is that PtA doesn't really have any. "This session, my character is the focus of attention; next session, yours is," is really the only quantity that's measured and tracked.
My main point was that the procedures for (a) setting a scene, (b) forming and identifying a scene's conflict/question, and (c) declaring "time for the next scene" are all participant judgment calls with no mechanical weight. It works for me, because I never get tired of coming up with "what I think would be cool here" and suggesting that to the group. But if I'm not inspired, there's no mechanical synergy (or mechanics, period) to fall back on. If everyone looks at "issue: obsolescence" and at "situation: aging priest on ship with new robot" and no one has an idea for a scene, the game would die.
So, I'm not asking a question about PtA at all; rather, I'm wondering if you can envision a way to make a game that addresses what PtA addresses (individual character issues, with multiple characters, in a TV-like framework), but using mechanics that demonstrate your synergistic principle.
I'm sorry that I just keep saying, "Hey Callan, do more work to clue me in!" I'm hoping that it's fun and not a chore.
If it'd help for me to mkae up some stats, just let me know.
Ps,
-David
P.S. I suspect Sorcerer or Shadow of Yesterday would be better examples, but alas, I don't know those games very well. (Actually, tSoY's dynamic of "I need to refresh my Reason stat, so I'll set a scene where I'm engaged in a chess match with a worthy opponent" might be a good example of a strong interaction between mechanics and scene-framing. But I don't know what you do in that scene besides refresh your pool, so it might just amount to "if you want to refresh your pool, narrate how.")
David Berg:
Marshall,
I think we all agree that instructions should be clear, and I'd rather not discuss what presentation is clearest in this thread. If you start a new thread about that, I will totally jump all up in there with comic books and bullet points.
I think we all agree that there should be standards for contributing, too. It's just a question of who establishes those standards and how they're communicated. (Good rulebook: "GM, pick a key, and tell the band of players what key you picked, and make sure they know how to play in that key." Bad rulebook: "GM, pick a key.")
Quote from: Marshall Burns on September 28, 2010, 07:28:09 AM
The best trick is to leave the gaps for intuitive leaps in places where they don't require everyone to leap in the same direction. In other words, put them in places that are served by individual and perhaps-diverging creative perspectives.
I love this when it gets down to fictional specifics or emergent strategies. I hate this when it's a question of "What is this rule telling us to do?" I'm not sure which was being discussed.
Ps,
-David
Callan S.:
Hi David,
Quote
1) Passing the ball gets someone an attribute penalty. Now the decisions of whether to introduce and accept "church" are informed by more than just aesthetic preference and fictional inspiration -- there's also a currency to consider. To me, this doesn't look like a great example of the synergy you described earlier, but I know we're just making stuff up out of thin air here, so maybe we just haven't developed it enough yet.
Well, you have to remember that your working from a blank fictional slate in looking at this. Your not mid game. Perhaps some character prior to this quoted the bible, and you get curious and this option comes up. So you bring in the church. But then another guy gets the penalty - so why did he get it? And let's say he fails a roll because of the penalty, why did that happen? Is it connected to the bible quote, the church? Is there a subtext story building up here? Well, building up as in were inventing it? For failing at the task, how does the character feel with his crisis of faith? How he feels might inspire someones location choice, etc.
Quote
My main point was that the procedures for (a) setting a scene, (b) forming and identifying a scene's conflict/question, and (c) declaring "time for the next scene" are all participant judgment calls with no mechanical weight. It works for me, because I never get tired of coming up with "what I think would be cool here" and suggesting that to the group. But if I'm not inspired, there's no mechanical synergy (or mechanics, period) to fall back on. If everyone looks at "issue: obsolescence" and at "situation: aging priest on ship with new robot" and no one has an idea for a scene, the game would die.
I've observed this very same thing, I'm really glad you brought it up! What I would quibble about is how you say it works for you, but then you say your not always inspired. It might be time to say 'It works some of the time' instead of 'it works'. You do get tired and run out of inspiration. We all do - it's natural. Except [advert]a complete reversal happens, were we try to get inspired not because it's fun, but for the sake of the continuing game. In other words instead of the game working for us, we start working for the game[/advert]
Of course that's an advert so not really a discussion thing, but hey, atleast you can dismiss it as an advert as I'm not pretending I'm discussing on that!
The big issue I see is how you describe 'no inspiration=game dies'. This is bigger than the synergy - it encapsulates the synergy.
To me, what this means is that nothing happens. This provides no further fictional grist to the mill, which means a complete and terminal stall.
I feel kind of furtive as I describe this, like I'm showing some thing amongst fake watches and jewelry under my jacket.
The thing is, could you stand the idea of roleplay that goes for stretches at a time on pure mechanics with no fictional input from anyone? Perhaps even ending the game purely by the the mechanical procedure saying it's done? By imagine, I mean can you imagine liking it? Not in a huge way, but like you might enjoy playing some board game with others?
Because as you said, the inspiration runs out sometimes. That's normal. But with RPG's which rely exclusively on fictional inspiration on what to roll next for anything to happen next, this produces a terminal stall. And most traditional RPG's are written that way.
What if you had 'out of ideas, roll on these amusing charts until you do, or you get to the wrap up the session chart'. You might be rolling for some time, without any fictional input as the inspiration isn't there. BUT these charts atleast let play move forward, if mechanically, providing bits and pieces of fiction. Fiction which may ignite inspiration at a latter point.
Or does it sound anathema and horrible to go pure mechanical for stretches at a time? I've certainly had some old hands bitch at me about the idea of going hardcore, but that was gamism so maybe it doesn't apply here.
To me, I see no way past the inspiration gap except via mechanical play for a time. OR you start forcing yourself to get inspired for the sake of continuing the game - ie, you start working for the game, rather than the game works for you.
I think this terminal inspiration stall is a bigger issue than the currency synergy. But how you solve it is how you implement currency synergy, if at all. So I need to talk about the bigger issue before I can talk about the smaller ones inside.
I can see no other way past the inspiration gap that isn't mechanical, except to start working for the game. This is discussion as perhaps I'm missing something. Though I wont entertain any arguements which say it works, which are just prettied up versions of 'work for the game - the games not there to work for you'. I'm anticipating Mr Burns writing one of those :p
So what do you think - is mechanical the only functional way past a inspiration gap? Or is there some way I just haven't seen?
And sorry for not answering the currency synergy directly - if I seem sucky for it, fair enough. Perhaps I could have somehow. I dunno.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page