[Pitfighter] SBP: is there anything better to roll for than success?
David Berg:
I agree with Gareth on GM fiat being a higher-level system than mechanical resolution is. When the players attempt something the GM either won't allow or really wants, it happens or doesn't accordingly. The mechanical resolution system is employed when the GM's response to an attempt is, "Hmm, could be cool either way. I'm going to switch out of storyteller mode and let some gameplay throw new elements into my story!" I think that's one of the major differences between SBP play and just, y'know, telling a story to an audience. So I still think mechanical resolution can be very important to SBP design.
Clearly the GM isn't going to take that "Let's see what happens!" stance for resolving situations that are important to the plot. (Is there a valid place in SBP play for situations that aren't important to the plot? I think there is, but maybe that's something to come back to later.) So, yeah, if mechanics aren't employed to resolve situations, they need to earn their keep in other ways or be ditched.
Here's a brainstorm of some such "other ways":
1) Coloring action attempts and outcomes. The GM determines what happens, but the mechanics determine what it looks like.
2) Resolving fictional positioning (possibly including effectiveness/resource), which feeds into subsequent situation. The GM says you win the fight, but the dice say you lost your sword, your eye, and the deed to your land. Now the next scenes aren't going to be about sniping and hacking and bossing around; they might be about going back for another deed and squabbling with nobles while your enemies gather strength, or about learning how to wrestle.
3) Adding context. Adding flashbacks, cutaways, or other fictional content that adds context to the characters' actions and the GM's outcome.
4) Manipulating the medium. Are the facts of the fiction described as if in a movie, or as if read from an ancient scroll? Do we speak loudly or quietly, all at once or in turns? Do we invoke key phrases or other rituals?
5) Developing character. Beyond what the actions and cutaways show us, is there anything else the audience ought to see or know now about your guy?
Without elegant examples, I'll be the first to admit that these sound like they could get micro-manage-y, distracting, flow-breaking, and stupid. That micromanagement is what you were talking about, right, Frank?
Here's my counterpoint. There's this quote I remember. I think it was about movie studios buying scripts and was in an intro to a Sandman collection, but I'm not sure. The quote is, "You're not paying for the story, you're paying for the way the story is told." To me, that's a big enough endeavor that there's room for players, GMs, and mechanics to all have a role.
Like, in Swords Without Master, what you can narrate is constrained by (a) the GM's situation, (b) the scene type, and (c) a die roll of "Grim or Jovial" -- and it's still super fun to describe what your character's up to. Or in PIE, where it sounds like the players may roll even for foregone conclusions just to see whether the inevitable outcome is more based on their Character, Opposition, or Environment.
I want to talk about this more, but I also want to follow Gareth's excellent suggestion of looking at systematizing GM fiat. I'm not sure whether two threads is the way to go or whether we can all keep things straight in this one. I'm open to suggestions or to playing it by ear. Please consider both topics fair game here for now. (I had a third thing about Color, but I'm deeming that too much for this one thread, and I'll be giving it a new one.)
Ps,
-David
Frank Tarcikowski:
Hi David,
I’m not sure about micromanagement, but distracting and flow-breaking, yeah, that’s what I’m cautioning against. And also, you know, that “fiction leads” vs. “rules lead” divide. Did I mention that?
I’ll tackle your points one by one.
Quote
1) Coloring action attempts and outcomes. The GM determines what happens, but the mechanics determine what it looks like.
Depending on how broadly you define “outcome”, that’s already happening in your typical SBP group with that trad game system. Within the “wiggling space” of the planned story, there is certainly room for the outcomes of single actions/conflicts or even scenes to be meaningfully determined by the rules, but “bottleneck” scenes will not have that space and in that case, whether I fail a roll or not becomes a matter of color, as Ron also pointed out above.
Quote
2) Resolving fictional positioning (possibly including effectiveness/resource), which feeds into subsequent situation. (…)
I think your examples sound suspiciously like “real consequences” and “stakes”. How about “resolving Situation insofar as it is not dictated by Story Before requirements”? For example, in my Star Wars d6 game, at one point a character even died, because the player just really had to make another attempt at taking out his nemesis, even though he had just burned his last Force Point to survive the previous attempt. The nemesis didn’t have script immunity at that point, the overall outcome of the story did not depend on whether either of them lived or died. The Alliance would suffer a setback, which would set the characters up for the next adventure, just as I had scripted it. But would the laconic scout take out the nemesis with a lucky shot? Or would he die trying? We left that to the dice, and the player had to make up a new character.
Quote
3) Adding context. Adding flashbacks, cutaways, or other fictional content that adds context to the characters' actions and the GM's outcome.
Sure, why not. Just bear in mind that non-linear narration and consistency, in the improvised context of role-playing, are natural enemies.
Quote
4) Manipulating the medium. Are the facts of the fiction described as if in a movie, or as if read from an ancient scroll? Do we speak loudly or quietly, all at once or in turns? Do we invoke key phrases or other rituals?
I’m not sure what you are saying, here. Are you saying the rules should enable players to manipulate the medium, or are you saying the designer should manipulate the medium by designing the rules accordingly? To the latter, a whole-hearted “yes”.
Quote
5) Developing character. Beyond what the actions and cutaways show us, is there anything else the audience ought to see or know now about your guy?
I’d say this is a sub-point of 1), aka Color (Character).
About systematizing GM fiat, here’s some food for thought: A rule saying, “GM, you cannot do this right now” would probably make it a different game entirely. A rule saying “GM, you can do anything but then…”, on the other hand, now that’s an idea with potential.
- Frank
David Berg:
Argh. Life got busy, and then another topic here grabbed my attention for the little free time I had today. Frank, I will respond soon. In general, what you are saying makes sense to me.
I was hoping that my brainstorm might inspire others to chime in with their own proposals! I hope my list isn't all the options we have!
David Berg:
Hi Frank,
First, to the numbered points:
1. Yup, trad task resolution colors outcomes. Does it do so optimally, though? Is pass/fail really the best kind of color? I think PIE and Swords Without Master do more.
2. Your clarification "insofar as it is not dictated by Story Before requirements" is exactly what I was working from re: positioning. Your example scout death is a particularly high-consequence example.
This strikes me as fruitful design space! What sorts of positioning are open to resolution through play?
Maybe "GM plot that's independent of character survival" and "character death is on the table" is an excellent option! As GM, did you find that to be a tough way to plot? If the GM can be flexible about time-scale, then a big part of play could be seeing how many TPKs it takes to get to the finale! "There will be a face-off at Mount Doom, but will it be your current guy or his great-great-grandson standing there?" That's probably not enough for rewarding play by itself, but it sounds like a good start!
3. I was imagining "what's been played" is a constant constraint on subsequent narration, regardless of in-fiction sequence. Have you seen that not work? I don't have much experience with this myself. I also don't know if it'd be fun. I think the players would need a lot of ammo to get good bang for their buck. You'd need more cutaway fodder and inspiration than cutaway opportunities. For that to be the case, I imagine that, during the bulk of play, players would need to be developing something they wanted to share, but couldn't in the moment. The first example that comes to mind is "inner thoughts", but there must be other options...
4. I agree that the designer should design the interaction with the medium. But that's not what I was saying. I was saying that play could take that designed interaction and tweak it. It's like the pacing dial in Delve, or Bringing Down the Pain in tSoY. Something happens, either in the fiction or at the table, and then you zoom in, or zoom out, or otherwise change your orientation. What I'm suggesting is that the field of acceptable orientation shifts may be larger than what's been explored.
Example: Baz Luhrmann's Romeo & Juliet movie. We know before we enter the theater what the plot is, but we go to find out how an MTV aesthetic is going to be applied to it, moment by moment. When will we go from naturalism to stylized jump cuts, 4th wall-breaking, and overbearing soundtrack? And then when will we go back to naturalism?
5. Yeah, probably a sub-component of the others. Just wanted to throw it out there in case focusing on it inspired anyone. I think character development really is a natural complement to a planned plot that is about something other than character development. (Which maybe all GM plots ought to be? More on that here.)
Ps,
-David
David Berg:
Gonna wait on fiction/rules-leading and systematizing GM fiat for now. I am psyched about rules that say, "yes, but" to the GM, though!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page