[INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
Callan S.:
After chewing that over for some time I still can't see how you can say the GM decides if there are crates but also say it's not delegating to the GM, Stefoid? Instead of just going 'it don work, bro' I'm charitably trying to maybe figure out some process that's being used (implicitly or otherwise). In doing so I kind of thought of blank cheque like process. Like the player says (or would just say) "I try to gain advantage" and there, of course the GM agrees the player would do that. There, now the player has a nodule of agreement , but were not done with the resolution process yet. The player then takes the agreement they have (perhaps that's why they seem proactive - I'd almost agree you can 'have' someones agreement) and basically takes that agreement and extends it within the scope of what was already agreed. Like "So you agreed already that I'm trying to gain advantage, and gaining advantage would involve me rushing towards some objects that, if scaled, gain me advantage". Now they wouldn't say that in play, I'm just teasing out the implicit into the explicit (yeah, boobies!...wait, no, not that explicit...). Even then were not necessarily done - the process of extending out prior agreements to even more agreements can go on several times.
The initial agreement to that "I try to gain advantage" is a bit like being handed a blank cheque, but much like a real cheque you can't write just anything in it (you can't take a real life blank cheque and write 'ten cows' - it wont cash out). The process is writing out something that can be cashed out AND preferably something that itself is also a blank cheque (with it's own attendant restrictions, not all of which are possibly known).
I'm still not sure I agree with tactical, but in terms of the proactive part of the player/not delegating to the GM, here I've tried to charitably figure out a way that would be proactive, that seems to match. It all revolves around getting agreement on terms which are semantically open to intepretation (blank cheques), eg, what the heck is 'advantage' - well, too late GM, you agreed that I'd be trying to get it, soooooooo....
Well, those are my thoughts on the foundation of your question (must have strong foundations). I'd actually like to read an actual play thread about something like this bit from Ingenero or from playtests of Ingenero.
stefoid:
I just got back from playing this evening, as it happens.
It basically goes like this:
1) GM describes a scene. Maybe at this point, there are crates mentioned, but in this example, lets say not.
2) Players assesses initial situation. Decides that, with the plays he has available, a straight up shootup is not his best option -- gaining advantage and then
hammering home that advantage in subsequent rounds seems a better option.
3) players asks the GM some leading questions - what cover is available? Is there an alternate route around the area the guard is guarding, etc...
4) Maybe the answers come back negatory. Player continues to assess options. How can I sneak up or distract the guard such that I can work an advantage play into this situation?
5) player comes up with a distraction involving , I dont know... lets say throwing a rock to clatter behind the guard, momentarily diverting his attention such that the PC can draw a bead on him without having to worry about return fire.
6) lets roll and see if that worked - does the PC go into the next round with an advantage, or not?
As long as the system is flexible enough to accommodate the sort of thing going on above, it works out. The GM isnt actively trying to hinder the player's quest to work an advantage move into the situation, nor is he necessarily trying to pander to it. Its just that it isnt actually that hard to do in the first place. It doesnt require any particular wink and handshake from the GM.
I mean, if, for some reason, the guard is standing with his back to the wall in a perfectly clear area with full view of every possible avenue of approach -- if theres a good fictional reason for that setup... then the PCs quest for advantage is going to by stymied, but then thats what you would expect, right? plan B...
Callan S.:
I'm sure it does work, but what does it work as? I just don't think it works as something tactical (and so I don't enjoy it, by itself, as being tactics) - take these two examples:
1. Your RL PC figure is sitting at position 3,4 on a battle grid.
2. The GM has said "Your around the north west corner".
I just don't think there's anything tactical to the second one - if the GM can really know the exactatudes of position, then he could render it to an emperical metric (like a battlemat) and present the exact co-ordinates of the character. If he doesn't, then he is just working off his own biases and what, whether he realises it or not, he wants to pander to or hinder. Your probably thinking 'No, that's just the other guy - were unbiased when we play!'. In terms of the evidence it takes to convince me, I've just seen too much evidence over the years to believe you'd be an exception (same for myself - I'm no exception to this). Even if you were somehow an exception, if I were to play I'm probably going to be playing with that 'other guy', and from the evidence I've seen, he will play by his biases. And I've played under alot of games of that and I don't object to using bias to determine resource distribution (just because I use the word bias doesn't instantly mean 'Cast it out!!1!') - I just don't call it, by itself, tactical play.
Anyway, I've said the same thing with various angles of evidence a few times now. So I'll wrap it up there.
stefoid:
Quote from: Callan S. on May 02, 2011, 09:37:28 PM
I'm sure it does work, but what does it work as? I just don't think it works as something tactical (and so I don't enjoy it, by itself, as being tactics) - take these two examples:
1. Your RL PC figure is sitting at position 3,4 on a battle grid.
2. The GM has said "Your around the north west corner".
I just don't think there's anything tactical to the second one - if the GM can really know the exactatudes of position, then he could render it to an emperical metric (like a battlemat) and present the exact co-ordinates of the character. If he doesn't, then he is just working off his own biases and what, whether he realises it or not, he wants to pander to or hinder. Your probably thinking 'No, that's just the other guy - were unbiased when we play!'. In terms of the evidence it takes to convince me, I've just seen too much evidence over the years to believe you'd be an exception (same for myself - I'm no exception to this). Even if you were somehow an exception, if I were to play I'm probably going to be playing with that 'other guy', and from the evidence I've seen, he will play by his biases. And I've played under alot of games of that and I don't object to using bias to determine resource distribution (just because I use the word bias doesn't instantly mean 'Cast it out!!1!') - I just don't call it, by itself, tactical play.
Anyway, I've said the same thing with various angles of evidence a few times now. So I'll wrap it up there.
I think you're over-thinking it. You can have a game where the game-state is pinned by mechanics (grid system) or fiction (narrated location). It doesn't matter which as long as it remains consistent. As long as the crates that were there a moment ago don't disappear for no reason. '3,4' and 'at the northwest corner' serve equally as well. I guess what I'm trying to say is the nature of the rules don't matter, as long as they are consistent in all ways.
Whether the presenter of the situation is biased or not, the players job is to deal with the situation as it is presented as best they can. Not all games are set up fair/balanced. Some games you are always going to lose, its just a matter of how badly. Like playing the Turks in 'Empire at Arms' You aren't going to win, but that's not the point. The point is, how well do you utilize the resources you have, for the situation you are in?
Maybe what you are talking about is bias in terms of being inconsistent? Like changing an established fiction on the fly because the situation isnt going in a direction you like? OK.. so thats obviously possible, but thats a) really noticeable and b) really bad form. Not just for some notion of tactical challenge, its blatant rail-roading. Its equivilant to moving a piece on the chessboard when your opponent isnt looking.
Callan S.:
Stefoid, as I said above, if it's really consistant with its resource instantiation rules and resource interaction and position, it could be rendered to a series of written, used each time resource generation rules and derived from those, hard numbers. If it isn't possible to render those, it isn't consistant. I mean, you know that in terms of "'3,4' and 'at the northwest corner' serve equally as well.", you can't play chess with "Your queen is...in the northwest corner". I don't know how you can say they serve equally well.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page