decoupling Reward Systems from broad-scale Story Arcs
contracycle:
Bait-and-switch? Slaughtering gameplay? Saying that "these people", roughly, shouldn't be playing RPG's at all? I have difficulty in seeing any redeeming features in that garbage.
I don't really see what more there is that hasn't been discussed to death a thousand times. I've already acknowledged that the hitherto existing methods applied to this end had down sides, but Filip is arguing that no effective methods should even be discussed.
Callan S.:
Occasionally on RPG.net I've seen threads which, summed up, seemed to me like asking "How can I stick a fork in my eye without it hurting so much?" which to me, begs the answer "Don't stick a fork in your eye?" but it's taken as being off topic or avoiding the question. But it is a possible answer. Although there may be solutions to a situation, it may possibly be that simply not doing the activity is the solution. Maybe, maybe not. To me Filip says it even more gently in simply suggesting there may be other ways more fruitful. I don't think we enact honest consideration if we don't consider that atleast even a tiny, fringe possibility of this. If it has been considered already to some degree, then I guess my last few posts weren't needed and sorry for my thread muss up. I'll leave it there, in either case, anyway.
Ron Edwards:
There's nothing we can gain from what-he-said what-I-meant what-he-meant posting.
Please talk about the stuff this thread is about. David was very, very specific about what that is a few posts ago.
Best, Ron
David Berg:
I agree with Dan that it's somewhat hard to have a purposeful game design discussion without the constraints of a specific game project. At the moment, though, rather than trying to nail the one optimal approach for a game with certain color/setting/idiom, I'd like to explore a broader realm of productive techniques.
I think one question all Story Before designs need to answer is, "So if the players don't determine what happens, what do they determine?" So many games' incentives seem to hinge on character success. You do X so you can earn points that give you a better chance to succeed when you attempt Y. To me, getting away from that paradigm is exploratory and experimental, so for now I'm interested in a wide field of what might work.
Another big question is, "How do you get the most out of Story Before?" This starts with understanding the approach's unique strengths, like the foreshadowing, dramatic timing, and big reveals you can find in planned fiction (i.e., novels and movies), as well as the unveiling and discovery of an extant creation.
I think the answers to these questions ought to connect. Like, the players need to determine something that is complementary to foreshadowing, big reveals, etc. Two possibilities that come to mind are details and impact.
Details:
The GM writes the plot, but the entire group makes it come to life. Standards are applied for what is valuable in that endeavor, whether it be genre emulation, a vision of a specific setting, certain themes, etc. Rewards ought to motivate the right sorts of contributions as per those standards. Indirectness may be necessary, as I've found "Good job, that was very Lovecraftian, here's a token" to be underwhelming.
Impact:
The GM writes events. The players maneuver their characters into positions where those events will matter greatly to them when they occur. The payoff is that, when the GM reveals that the killer was brilliantly manipulated by the inept-seeming villain from earlier, the players respond intensely in character with shock, disbelief, and outrage. "We let him go and now find out he's killed our best friend! He's been laughing at us the whole time, that sadistic fuck!" This provides the ultimate "well plotted, sir!" to the GM, as well as a huge adrenaline rush for the players.
In trying to facilitate this, there's a potential conflict between the complicity of awareness and the genuine response of surprise. How many specifics can the GM really plan and still be on target for these players and these characters? If the players know too little of the plan, they may stray off into territory where the plan won't matter to them; if they know too much, the plan may come off flat. Rewards here ought to motivate the strengthening of bonds between character and situation. I, uh, have no idea what that would look like. Drop flags for next session, strive to buy in right now?
Anyway, I hope all that babble throws some more fuel into the pot. I'm happy if this thread goes down plenty of paths of different techniques for Story Before (as long as none of them are "Consider not bothering"). Dan and Gareth, I'll reply to your thoughts shortly.
David Berg:
This was intended to address Dan's points but then got far broader. So, anyone who's reading, consider this addressed to you as well.
Hi Dan,
That Storied Age mechanic sounds like it might apply. The idea that there is a Chapter 2 that you will get to, but what you do in Chapter 1 determines when and in what position -- that strikes me as very appropriate.
My first guess is that "when" is the less important of those two in Story Before. As a matter of fact, I'd like to leave the GM free to generally dictate timing of important fictional developments. Letting a die roll delay a Turning Point for a few minutes sounds fine, but letting a whole series of resolution outcomes possibly delay it to next session sounds less suited to Story Before's potential strengths.
The more meaningfully the characters' positions evolve the better, I would think. Whether that's effectiveness scores rocketing up and down the scale, resources flooding and bottoming out, or relationships and connections being drawn and crossed out, I'd guess that you want bang for your buck here.
At the same time, all these important changes need to not change the PCs' relationship to the Story Arc.
Hmm. I wonder if GM and players could agree on character limits as part of character creation. Brainstorm:
1) Each character gets a Dynamic. The Dynamic is the type of character change the player is most interested in (game comes with list of genre-suitable Dynamics, GM refines further, then players pick?)
2) The GM and player discuss the bounds of each Dynamic. How high and low can the character go? Example: Courage. The GM sees problems only if the character gets utterly fearless, but finds total terror compatible with the intended plot, so the limits are set at Very Courageous and Ruled By Terror. The game system then moved the character around within that range.
Does that say anything about what the resolution system should resolve?
If it's about success of character actions, then it needs to also (directly or indirectly, immediately or eventually) produce changes to the character.
But maybe it's not about success of character actions at all. Maybe participationist play is that rare situation when the Play Pretend model of "someone decides" is usable. Maybe the GM decides, maybe the player decides, or maybe the player with the most points decides (with points earned for contributions to the stated aesthetic goals of play, perhaps). If the GM decides the result of every attempt, and the mechanics resolve only how that effects the character, that is at least a pretty clear statement about why we're playing.
Note: in the above example, given goals of dynamics and limits, we probably want a negative feedback mechanism, so anyone who gets Very Courageous doesn't simply stay there.
Quote from: Dan Maruschak on October 20, 2011, 12:29:01 PM
Are more structural mechanics something you're open to, or do you also want to preserve the classic paradigm of players playing characters with capabilities described in terms what they can do within a fictional world?
At this point I'm open to anything that seems like it'd work.
As for characters defined by in-fiction capabilities, I have two opposite thoughts:
1) Screw that! The mindset of, "Here I am, here's what I want, what are my options, what would work?" totally butts heads with a planned story.
2) Yes, keep it! The mindset of, "Think in character, try stuff, and discover what happens," is perfect for resonance and intense appreciation of the developments the GM unveils.
Personally, I agree with Eero that transparent and repetitive regurgitation of tropes is unappealing. And I think that's a risk if you stick players in author/director stance with limited author/director powers. The contribution channel may get a little too narrow.
Interestingly, Todd's solution in Unknown Armies is to briefly hand out director reins to a given player at a moment that spotlights their character. So that's an option.
My personal sweet spot would be if I could build a character who's a machine well-suited to the game's agenda and then just play them like a real person. I think designing such a game might be more work than the alternatives, but it'd be super cool.
Quote from: Dan Maruschak on October 21, 2011, 04:11:49 PM
I think the important thing is to keep player choices and resolution system results either orthogonal to the question of plot progress (e.g. maybe there's mechanical support for having evolving relationships but nothing that affects the character's goal: the Ringbearer is guaranteed to get to Mt. Doom, but the game is about figuring out how the Fellowship feels about each other along the way) or coordinated with it in a way that's fun (e.g. a pacing or level-of-detail mechanic . . . )
Agreed!
I think my brainstorms above fall under "orthogonal".
As for "coordinated":
Maybe if the character changes being produced dictate which plot point hits when? Like, if there are 4 PCs with 4 Dynamics and each Dynamic has two endpoints for a total of 8, then the GM devises 4 or 8 plot developments that will be triggered by hitting those endpoints. Ehn, kinda cool, but kinda not proper Story Before.
Maybe if the character changes and the plot are both pulling on the same aesthetic rope in some structured way. Something beyond just "we're all doing cinema horror and we know good cinema horror when we see it". Like, I dunno, there are Potentials within both story and character that can be Unlocked by meeting certain conditions. Like, if the group decides that Courage 3 / Loyalty 5 / Sanity 0 would be a great place to wind up, then achieving that rewards everyone involved with... uh.. crap, I don't know. With a reminder to do whatever you were stoked about, that caused you to declare that a great place to wind up, I guess. Or there could be an audience rating, some critic meter of how good the movie is. A bad rating shouldn't mean a not-fun play experience, but a great rating could be something to shoot for. The rating would have to be based on something that neither GM nor players can do alone. This idea needs more thought! Help would be most welcome!
Maybe the players can write wish lists of scenes they want to have, and helping the GM pull off the GM's vision earns them such scenes. Though "trade" and "taking turns" is no good; there needs to be synergy.
Quote from: Dan Maruschak on October 21, 2011, 04:11:49 PM
an outline writer generally knows the events in the plot but is open to being surprised by things they find out about the characters or about nuances of how particular scenes play out
That reminds me! I can't believe I haven't touched on the play -> prep cycle. It's common in my experience to have the GM's prep for session 3 react very strongly to what the players did in session 2 even if the GM is trying to tell his/her own story. I've never seen this structured in such a way that the players know this is happening and feel rewarded by it, though. Maybe at the end of session 2, the players could have earned a certain number of input points, which they can then spend on scenes or events or NPCs or objects or locations, which the GM must then include in the prep for session 3.
More generally, reminder to self: tell GMs in big letters on page one, "You get to be a control freak about these certain things over here, but not about these other things over there. If you can't enjoy being surprised, just do a reading, don't play a multi-player game."
Quote from: Dan Maruschak on October 21, 2011, 04:11:49 PM
I think generalized conflict mechanics (like with negotiated stakes or whatever) could work too
I'm actually not having any inspirations in that direction, but I'd be happy to hear suggestions.
Ps,
-David
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page