[Pitfighter] how I learned to push my GM plots into play
David Berg:
Jamie,
That makes perfect sense to me. I remember taking home the Cyberpunk 2020 game in high school, making a badass assassin character with monowire and a synthetic demon face, and getting all psyched to basically play Hunter Rose Grendel... and then I wound up as part of a 'tac team trying to unravel the mega-plot of some evil corporation while shooting it out with their henchmen. Gah. Not thwarted Story Now per se, but definitely a thwarted vision.
Totally agreed on Montsegur, though I'm surprised by that point about BE. Isn't it part of the GM's job to engineer intersections between the characters' Beliefs and the Vaylen's agenda (via the FONs' Beliefs)?
As for being up front about the expectations of play, that's certainly what I do now! In a recent D&D3 game with strangers, I delayed the beginning of play by asking, "So, are we gonna be in tough fights where we really need to strategize perfectly, and the character stuff is take it or leave it, or are we gonna roleplay a lot and maybe hand-wave some fighty stuff, or some combo, or something else?" The GM seemed surprised by the question, quickly replied "that second one", and everyone else nodded. I think this helped the game.
That said, though, I think it's interesting how a lack of awareness of this issue can still be somewhat bridged by simple interest in each other's domains. In Pitfighter, I really wanted the players to be excited about their characters, and the players really wanted to engage with my setting. Our techniques to achieve that were sorely underdeveloped, but the will to try totally saved us. "Dave seems stoked about these badguys, I guess I'll make a character who's got a personal angle on them." "John wants to play a power-hungry character, let me tie my conspiracy to his town's government."
Roger,
Quote from: Roger on November 14, 2011, 01:43:55 PM
Did you ever try revealing your plots to the players prior to play?
Like, revealing what was going to happen? Hell no! That would defeat the whole purpose! "Okay, guys, here's where I reveal to your characters that big secret I already told you; try to act surprised!" That sucks ass.
If you mean revealing what play was going to be about, as in, "This campaign will be about discovering who wants the doomsday weapon, and why, and how to stop them," that might have been a good idea. I didn't do it because I didn't realize it might be necessary. My instincts were to let the players slowly and organically discover the doomsday plot, and I didn't question my gut.
Ps,
-David
Web_Weaver:
Quote from: David Berg on November 14, 2011, 03:50:54 PM
Jamie,
Totally agreed on Montsegur, though I'm surprised by that point about BE. Isn't it part of the GM's job to engineer intersections between the characters' Beliefs and the Vaylen's agenda (via the FONs' Beliefs)?
By my reading its all about the GM playing the FON's to the hilt and although there is a mechanical influence up to the meta game it is not supposed to be direct "defeat the Vaylen plot lets make a plan" play.
IMO It would play out like M1244 but with a mechanical gear allowing the mechanics to shift up a scale and influence whether a siege takes place. So you don't know what is going to happen at a meta plot level before hand, and you don't directly steer it either.
I have never actually played it however, but have devoured the book (its so lovely, and the Graphic Novels) and that is how I would play it.
Because BE is adversarial it is just a way of making sure the meta plot skews towards the direction of the current winning side, with neither the players' or the GM's hand on the tiller.
I think many confused BE games are exactly like the game you describe, players trying to influence outcomes at a higher scale than they should be focused on with added confusion when the lower outcomes don't mesh with the higher ones.
David Berg:
Burning Empires is an interesting game. I played one full phase a few summers ago. The GM did indeed simply play his FONs to the hilt. One of them didn't even know his actions were benefiting the evil Vaylen invaders!
But there was also the FON who was clearly engaging in military schemes on the Vaylen's behalf, and there was the occasional color scene of some border guard getting hulled. Without those, the sense of purpose and consequence and drama for the player characters' endeavors would not have been nearly as high.
I think there's a feedback loop: you get spooked about the Vaylen, you write Beliefs that you think will accomplish things to thwart Vaylen efforts (even though the rules don't distinguish between thwarting and non-thwarting successes), and then your Beliefs drive the content of play toward being concerned with the Vaylen. I think this is vital. If my power-hungry corporate character had been trying to take over the colony for purely selfish reasons rather than to save it from invasion, I think it would have been flat, and the other players would have cared about my scenes a lot less.
That kind of fragmentation is one thing my Pitfighter game steered clear of. When you spend most of your time interacting with the GM plot that underlies the whole campaign, you're always going to have that larger context present, lending oomph and relevance to what happens. It's aligning that oomph and relevance with player decisions that's been the tricky part.
Thinking back on earlier play, I think part of what inspired me to focus Pitfighter on a single plotline was previous disunity in other games. Unconnected dungeons, solo side-quests, etc.
The fact that you can't just go ahead and directly influence higher-scale events in Burning Empires before all the Maneuver and Phase rules let you -- I see a parallel there to the fact that you can't unravel a Plot Situation Before GM's plot before they're ready for it.
Both approaches need:
clarity up-front about the rules by which the large scale is resolved (BE Phase mechanics, Pitfighter GM fiat)clarity about the constraints imposed thereby (no fictional outcomes can defeat the Vaylen before their Dispo=0, or defeat Dave's badguys before Dave's ready)participant willingness to help manifest those constraints in the fiction
That last point is a matter of personal perspective. My friends who are veterans of Burning Wheel say they don't feel like they're playing to the mechanics, but it sure looks to me like they are, and I know I whiff a lot if I try to "just play my character". To enjoy playing with them, I find that I need to look at mechanical facts as situational facts -- "Well, if the rules say I can't find this dude right now, even though I was just friggin' talking to him, then... I guess... ah, he must have darted into a side tunnel to sneak-attack the badguys!" I suspect that my Pitfighter players overcame some of my awkward Force moments with similar mental efforts. "The last pirate to leave the ship could have knocked some lantern oil onto a lit cannon fuse; that's why the boat's on fire!"
I actually don't find it more strange or difficult to extend the spirit of "I'm going to give this a good solid shot and see what it can deliver" to GM fiat than to a ruleset. In either case, if it turns out to suck, I'll stop.
I've gotten awfully tangent-y here, but I think there may be some takeaways for the SBP design thing I'm working on. If so, links shall follow.
If anyone wants to talk about the conclusions from my initial post, I'm still game.
David Berg:
Oh! And here's another key to the degree of success I achieved with Pitfighter: respect character sovereignty.
Burning the boat and killing the NPC and laying waste to every path except the one that led to my story wasn't always good play, but, in my group, it was always preferable to mind-control. The players always kept control over their characters thoughts, feelings, and attempted actions. No amount of wanting to drive the characters toward my plot ever led me to start a sentence with, "You feel a sudden desire to..."
Having character sovereignty as an inviolable principle influenced my GMing greatly. "It's not okay to just do whatever you want to make your plot happen" may have been the foundation of my will to improve my techniques. Further, the idea that every character's mind was outside my jurisdiction meant that I didn't prep plot based on what they would think. That's not to say I didn't make any assumptions about what they would think. But most of my assumptions were stuff like, "They'll stay invested in saving the world even when it looks pretty hopeless," and, "They'll take the obvious route to Grey Island."
I never based my plot plans on an assumption about a personally important or potentially character-defining choice or attitude. No planning for Ben's character to sell the party out to the Mandragons (which he did) or for She-Dragon falling for Metalstorm (which she didn't).
David Berg:
For context, the system we used in Pitfighter was:
Formal: Basically AD&D2 combat, saves, skills, and advancement. Except every 5 levels your weapon leveled up so I could draw some ridiculous 5-bladed sword or something, and you got an extra damage die.
Informal: Dave's running the show, but won't violate certain principles. No mind-control, no deathtraps without warning, no violating fictional plausibility... probably others I can't come up with right now.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page