[Pitfighter] SBP: the GM's role in resolution
David Berg:
Gareth, I'm with you on all counts. That scene is interactive exposition with teeth, and that's part of the meat of SBP play, rather than being filler or summary fodder.
Could you elaborate more on what you're envisioning with the below? What gets abstracted, and how might that help SBP GMing?
Quote from: contracycle on December 21, 2011, 07:18:30 AM
Now I was quite intrigued by the fairly abstracted system that was used in 3:16. Working in terms of abstract ranges, abstract threats, rather than concrete descriptions. I think I could work with something like that, and certainly the AP accounts I've seen suggest a powerful role for fictional positioning, and ionterpreting mechanics into the fiction and out again, all of which looks quite useful.
That I think provides an interesting starting point for looking at how you might design a system that was useful for this sort of play
contracycle:
Well the problem arises with the implied objectivism of conventional systems. If there is a villain declaiming a speech then there is no reason, in principle, that the villain cannot be shot. But in 3:16, the system operates explicitly against threat tokens, not described individuals, so a villainous named NPC, UNLESS represented by a threat token, is effectively out of the reach of the system. In addition, there is a clear distinction between a scene where the NPC is not so represented, and one where it is: in that case, the implicit restriction has been exolicitly lifted.
So anyway, that is pretty cliche scenario, but its one that's often cited in this kind of thing. But I think it is a useful precedent, in that it it labels things in the fiction according to the manner in which the players can systematically interact with them. In a similar light, in another thread I described some things I do to create the impression, rather than the actuality of danger. I might narrate gunfire or similar that arrivers near the characters, but which is not a rolled attack. This is all aimed at creating atmosphere and tone, rather that doing the roll-for-attack-and-then-fudge-it-away thing. Again, 3:16's abtraction allows this sort of narration as part and parcel of describing a fairly wide, generalised situation, inside of which discrete acts of system occur. In a conventional reality-modelling system, each of these should implicitly be acts of system, but not so at 3:16's level of abstraction.
On a related note, I offered the HeroWars people an abstract battle system, in which you had abstract range bands and alignment blocks, and units could move between them based on a roll against their attributes. The idea was to be able to indicate which unit was able to act against which opposing unit without fiddling about with rulers and manoeuvre points and that sort of thing. Although this was systematically complete, it would, I thought, have left more scope for narration and such rather than breaking out to a top-down, depersonalised battle system, as is usually the case.
In all of these, what I'm describing is a move from modelling to abstraction in order to capture an appropriate subjective experience, and to make a space in which the GM's authority can be introduced without the need to suspend the action of system.
David Berg:
Quote from: contracycle on December 30, 2011, 03:48:17 AM
In all of these, what I'm describing is a move from modelling to abstraction in order to capture an appropriate subjective experience, and to make a space in which the GM's authority can be introduced without the need to suspend the action of system.
Gotcha. Yeah, I think that in-fiction causality-modelling certainly can't be the highest-order logic for resolving things in SBP. That said, I think we want in-fiction causality to still show up in an important way, right? Just like we discussed with samurai and Hastings in the other thread.
That 3:16 example with the threat token is a cool option to explore. An SBP GM could use such an overt mechanism to operate the highest level of resolution, which includes, "Do we use modelling here or not?" Depending on the options in a given game, it could be as simple as "GM decides Yes or No and signals that" or as complicated as a bidding system that determines the cost of modelling or not modelling what parts of the fiction right now.
Telling the GM, "Depending on the system's output, maybe you can't manage your plot the way you want," defeats Story Before, so that's why I say "cost". Or, as Frank put it, the system could tell the GM "Yes, but" as opposed to simply "Yes" or "No".
Some games seem to take the approach of, "Yes, but pay the players for any agency you've cost them":FATE Compels: GM decides that a character's weakness applies here and now, thus stopping the character from attempting the action the player wanted. The player is then awarded useful Fate Points as compensation. (A player can bid against the GM to resist the Compel, forcing the GM to give them more Fate Points or abandon the Compel. Not sure if that fits with SBP, where we may want the GM to have unlimited points, but just thought I'd mention it.)Todd's awards of Style Points for when he takes control of someone's character in Hollow Earth Expedition.
I have mixed feelings on this. I like the fact that there is GM-player communication. I like the fact that taking agency away from players is called out as significant. I vaguely dislike the distance between the GM's action and the player's benefit -- it reminds me somehow of a bribe or a conciliatory payment, and rather loses the sense that even the GM's action which disempowers a player is actually, in itself, constructive and beneficial to the player (if not the character). I don't have any brilliant ideas for "Hey look, by holding you back I just gave you a cooler experience!" though, so perhaps that's an idle thought.
I do have some ideas for alternative awards to the above "Help You Succeed At Character Actions" points. Stuff like "your character's sub-plot gets more fully woven into the GM's main plot." I'll go into that at some point, but I want to see folks' thoughts on the above first.
David Berg:
Gareth, I just realized I have a major question here:
Quote from: contracycle on December 30, 2011, 03:48:17 AM
in 3:16, the system operates explicitly against threat tokens, not described individuals, so a villainous named NPC, UNLESS represented by a threat token, is effectively out of the reach of the system.
Does token presence/absence simply describe scene framing? ("This NPC's too far away for you to shoot.")
Or does it describe possible outcomes regardless of scene framing? (This is what I assumed in my previous post.)
If that latter, what happens when the evil NPC walks up to me to taunt me, and I want to shoot them?
- Do I shoot them and then the GM makes up some crazy reason why they don't die?
- Do I make up some crazy reason why none of my guns work right now?
- Do the GM and I brainstorm a mutually acceptable reason why I don't shoot? I explain my character's thinking and motives, and the GM changes the scene so that now actually isn't a good time to take the shot, and my character would rather wait?
- Something better? Hopefully?!
Anders Gabrielsson:
Mutants & Masterminds and Smallville have similar systems, directly (IIRC, in M&M the GM gives the players Hero points when he does things like having the villain escape without the PCs being able stop them) or indirectly (in Smallville the player gets the resources the GM expends in winning against them).
One thing that might be problematic with this type of mechanic is that it could push the players into rebelling to get the reward for having their rebellion defeated: They know they won't succeed in killing the Big Bad before the rooftop showdown, but trying will force the GM to give them goodies in compensation for frustrating them. For SBP I think I'd rather have a system that gives the players goodies when they go along with the story or which makes explicit what things they can and cannot do.
(I think that token thing from 3:16 seems like a great mechanic for this. With something similar, the GM can clearly indicate what goals are reasonable for the players in a specific scene without having to state them explicitly.
Actually, maybe that could work as a kind of bribe mechanic as well. "We can't kill the Big Bad even though he's in the scene because his marker isn't among those available, but there's this one that will give us a bonus in the inevitable showdown.")
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page