[Pitfighter] SBP: is there anything better to roll for than success?
contracycle:
I don't really see that. I don't see anything about this case that is different to the general case. Ideally I'd like t make things as explicit as possible, as with the flowchart things I proposed. That may not strictly be system in the sense of dice and numbers, but it is formal and overt.
David Berg:
Crap, dude, you lost me. I'm still trying to talk about this:
Quote from: contracycle on December 09, 2011, 11:55:19 AM
What I wish to flag up is that recent discussion has shifted into a framework that essentially sets the system that governs character actions and concerns at right angles to the concerns that govern plot, to stop them coming into conflict. What I'm getting at is that I think for some purposes at least, they do need to coincide. Frex, I may be that I need and want the players to worry about things like whether high ground gives them an advantage, because the plot is going to put them in a position where the high ground makes a plot point work. If the system is directing them away from that as a concern, and towards things like how stylishly they perform or how things impact their psychological state, then the significance of the high ground factor won't carry over, and the (my) goal of a sort of experiential simulation will be defeated.
Here's my thought:
1) The only character concern that I'm potentially cordoning off from plot in this thread is "do I succeed or fail?" Every other sort of concern, like "how does my attempt or success or failure make me a better samurai" is still very much on the table to be highlighted.
2) For experiential simulation, it may be important for my character to problem-solve, that is, to attempt to align the odds of success/failure in their favor through whatever means are appropriate.
3) If the group has any method to agree on which such means are appropriate (rather than, e.g., getting stuck arguing about whether high ground "would really matter here"), then the group's goals, if not the designer's, are in good shape.
4) If the designer takes the position of, "I am a combat guru and I wish to teach you all my knowledge and insights!" then setting and advice text (and links to articles) are fine for that. If the group cares, that shared knowledge becomes part of their basis for determining what happens*; if they don't care, then it doesn't. In the context of a game that is both Story Before and Participationist, I don't see any value in mandating that certain factors must be dealt with by characters specifically in order to align the odds of success/failure in their favor.
Like you, I enjoy picking times and places different from our own, and roleplaying through, "What's it like operating in these situations?"
Sometimes that's not about problem-solving at all -- in that case, I think the methods I've been exploring in this thread are perfectly supportive. If you disagree, I'd like to hear what you're seeing.
Sometimes it is about problem-solving: "Now that I'm using a rapier, does high ground matter? Ah, the book says it does, so now that's part of my tools and constraints for beating this challenge!" When I'm in the mood to do that, I don't think I'd wanna play SBP. Would you?
*And every game that looks to the fiction above and beyond the mechanics for "what could happen here?" needs such a group rationale, regardless of how many mechanical options exist. Right? A "+2 for high ground" rule still doesn't tell you whether that applies when fighting a giant on a staircase or whatever.
Quote from: contracycle on December 13, 2011, 10:40:47 AM
Ideally I'd like to make things as explicit as possible, as with the flowchart things I proposed.
If you wanna draw that, I'd love to see it. If not here, then hopefully in the upcoming SBP GM-System thread.
contracycle:
Quote
Sometimes it is about problem-solving: "Now that I'm using a rapier, does high ground matter? Ah, the book says it does, so now that's part of my tools and constraints for beating this challenge!" When I'm in the mood to do that, I don't think I'd wanna play SBP. Would you?
I think this is where we are diverging. Essentially, yes I would.
So one thing about learning-through-playing is that I know I kearn things like maps much better if I play a game on them than if I just read about them. Engaging with the game teaches you those facts as if they were true. Now say instead I want to do a game that simulates, for example, the Battle of Hastings, in some sense. The prevailing view of the battle is that the Saxons lost it when part of their force broke ranks and chased routing* Normans down the hill they were defending. In order to have the learning-from-play effect, it is vitally important that players, on either side, recognise the significance of that event when it happens. Even if the event is predetermined, it has to be among the things the players are concerned about - it has to be present as a relevant factor in the system. Otherwise, it's just a story - not an experience.
More generally, I don't really want to move away from determinations of success wholesale. I probably only need to have an influence on success for a minority of playing time. In the escaping truck scenario, the only thing I need to control is the escape of the truck - I wouldn't really want to eliminate success determination of the "can I grind this goon's face into the tyres" variety, in true Indiana Jones stylee.
For me, the question "what is it like operating under these circumstances" only comes to life when it involves problem solving. Otherwise its just tourism. You have to be working at the coalface in order to really appreciate the constraints and be able to internalise them, rather than just observe them and think "isn't that interesting".
David Berg:
Hmm. Yeah, fair enough. "Problem solving" was too broad a term for what I had in mind. I was thinking primarily of physics-based problem solving. I guess you could call "do I really want to try this, given how it will impact my Honor?" problem solving too, and in that case, I agree with you about making the simulation come to life.
With that Hastings example, let me see if I read you right:
Coming into the game, the players may not value the importance of keeping or breaking ranks. Or, even if they do get it intellectually, they won't have any experience of how it plays out. Setting info in a book may alert them to the value, but it's never going to give them the experience.
So, as GM, having plotted a major event of the Saxons breaking ranks, you want that event to hit the players with maximum impact, speaking not just to what they've read, but also to what they've been through. Accordingly, you want to be sure that, before your big plotted event, the players have definitely experienced in play that breaking ranks matters. You don't want to leave it to chance.
Correct?
If so, I agree that simulation-oriented mechanics are one way to go, but in SBP, I think we also have other good options...
contracycle:
Yes that's it. Things might get a bit fuzzier when the thing being demonstrated is not physical, but it has to be made real, it has to be a fucntional concern. I'm open to ways that might be achieved, but I don't think it likely that it can be done without addressing it in success/failure terms.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page