The Forge Archives

Hello,

This post pertains primarly to the material presented in Socerer & Sword.  In Chapter 7 under the dicussion of bangs it says that fights that are merely obstacles and clues that simply point to the next clue are not bangs.  It also talks about the famous case of having a powerful NPC hire the party.  I'd like to explore these a little bit and talk about what makes both a solid 'quest' and a good story.

For example consider this situation: Suppose a character has this as their Kicker: "My wife has taken ill and the clan shamens tell me that there is no cure and that she will surely die."

Is it unreasonable/railroading to have the player learn at the top of the first session that there exists a rare and magical root to the FAR FAR north guarded by the Ice Queen of the North Wind that is said to cure any and all ailment?

Now I understand that a key difference between this and the 'NPC hires' situation is that it transfers the motivation directly to the player's character.  So the story is actually about the character's quest to save his wife rather than simply a character who is the tool of the guy who is trying to save his wife.  Are there any other differences?  Is there something 'more' required here?

As for the journey between the tribe and the root to the far far north where is the line between a good bang and a 'random encounter'.  For example if at some point the character enters 'the dark forest' is it not a good bang if the character is beset by wolves?  It seems to me that a wolf attack helps establish the fierce untamed darkness of the forest.  I can understand why REPEATED wolf attacks would be rundant but does just the single establishing wolf attack need more to it to make a 'good' bang in the sense Socerer and Sword talks about?

What about the Ice Queen herself?  Is there something killed in the story if before she will alow the character access to the root he must pass three trials?  What would seperate good story trials and space filler encounters?

I ask all this because this seems to be a pretty 'standard' simple hero tale story structure.  And goes all the way back to the Labors of Hercules and Odyseus journey home.  How does one structure a scenario that is both an epic quest and a meaningful story?  And how does Humanity fit into all of this?  Humanity and the source material of Sorcerer and Sword are something I'm still chewing over but perhaps that is another topic all together.

Jesse

Quote from: jburneko
For example consider this situation: Suppose a character has this as their Kicker: "My wife has taken ill and the clan shamens tell me that there is no cure and that she will surely die."

That's not a Kicker because there is no choice (for the player or their character). A Kicker would be more like:

"My wife has taken ill and the clan shaman tell me that she will surely die. However..." The "However..." part would be where the player says that there is a cure but it will take the character far away from his wife...or that the character's enemy offers the cure in exchange for the wife in marraige.

Choices. Either way, someone cool will happen.

Jesse,

Really good questions.

Since Jared just clarrified something for me, I'll add something about the Ice Queen's "tests"....

They'll be a wonderful part of an Author stance story if combined with a Premise.  In this way, they provide stress situations which force the characters to make choices about how they prove *their* view of the Premise.

Like the apparently rambling quests of King Arthur's knights, they all make sense once you line them up with what aspect of the knight's true personality is being revealed along an axis of "What does it mean to be a knight?"

I'm finding this who Premise thing invaluable for the screenplay I'm writing -- per Ergi's Art of Dramatic Writing -- every time a scene just feels like it's "just there" I think, "Wait, how does this prove the Premise?" fix it up to have the character make a choice about the premise one way or another, and voila -- it suddenly feels like it's part of the same movie.

So.  If the Ice Queen just tosses out some tests, whatever, we feel like we're in the middle of a very episodic cable movie where they didn't know what they were doing.  But if the quests are thematically lined up, they're going to "feel" right.

Hope this helps,

Christopher

To once again reference that darned UA game of mine (yes yes, I'll post in Actual Play eventually), I see that this is precisely what I did.  The chronicle was organized as an odyssey (in this case, a trip across the U.S.) which allowed for events that were not causally connected to each other but were linked together thematically by allowing the players to explore their characters (which was the primary goal) as well as answer the question "What are you will to sacrifice for your family?"  (The family in question was actually a pseudo-family, but I digress.)  Therefore, the various difficulties and challenges that I inserted gave the players room to answer this question through their characters, as well as seeing the effect on their characters.  So, for example, when Una was kidnapped by an insane artist who was going to torture her to death on videotape, Una got to work past her loner exterior and come to the point of accepting her need of family.  At the same time, Ayalia had to answer such questions as "Can I kill to defend my family?",  "Can I ally with the enemy to defend my family?", "Can I lie to defend my family?", all because of the situation that she found herself in.  (Example:  one of the people pursuing them found her in jail and offered to free her and help save Una IF she turned over the infant that the PCs were protecting.  Ayalia lied and said that she would.)

I will admit that most of this I am seeing in retrospect.  The theme of family developed during gameplay and was not fixed at the beginning.  I was also doing other things (like introducing players to the world of UA), so not every single stop actually advanced the family premise.  After all, we were mostly focusing on character exploration.  However, if I were to approach the same chronicle again from a Narrativist perspective, I would definitely use the same structure and would work even harder to ensure that the challenges provided were keyed into the underlying premise.

I certainly hope that this has been helpful.

I hope this is in regard to the game, Jesse.  ;-)

The key has already been pointed out, but I'll re-emphasize. Kickers and Bangs must both allow for the player to go in multiple possible directions as relates to the premise. Sure, send (force) the players up north for a little color. As long as that doesn't deprotagonize the characters with respect to the premise, and as long as you make sure that there is some other part of the event which leaves choice for the players somewhere that does pertain to the Premise.

Is that making any sense?

When in doubt, ask the players if they feel like the event leaves them room. I'll bet as soon as you think about that, though, you'll realize the answer.

Mike

My take on kickers is that they must offer the character a real choice and/or meaningful conflict of interest to be compelling and non-railroading.  Bangs may or may not offer much in the way of deep choices in terms of the story (given the example of a wolf attack, that's a physical conflict that begs for an immediate physical reaction and not many choices other than tactical ones), but they should offer the character the kind of decision that illustrates the character's values or goals.

Put another way, kickers offer choices to move the character toward the bangs, whereas bangs offer adrenaline and climactic moments.  One builds tension, the other resolves it.  These are broad descriptions, of course.  Good bangs may well incorporate secondary kicker elements that raise new plot threads to ramp up suspense and open further choices to the players.

Best,

Blake

Quote from: Blake Hutchins
Put another way, kickers offer choices to move the character toward the bangs, whereas bangs offer adrenaline and climactic moments.  One builds tension, the other resolves it.  

Hmmm. Hey, Ron, in actual play do you find it good to have Bangs in the climactic scenes, or should they develop spontaneously? I always thought that Bangs were also for rising action, and that the ultimate resolution should optimally occur only as a result of player initiated (or partially authored) scenes. I can see a Bang happening to be in a climactic scene, but they aren't for resolution in general, are they?

Interesting.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Generally I play more in the way you describe  - less and less Bangs as time goes by.

However, I find that a certain attention to "path-crossing" and other GM-generated or GM-facilitated coincidences can be very helpful as the rising action(s) occurs.

And sometimes, depending on highly personal preferences for that particular group, I use Bangs more as Blake describes them. This would be a more accentuated, NPC-decision-heavy version of the above paragraph.

I tend not to discuss those "well along in the action" GM techniques very often, because I find that groups evolve their own versions of them (a) easily and (b) in a highly tailored way. I'd prefer not to provide some kind of canonical procedure for that phase of Narrativist role-playing.

Best,
Ron

Maybe I should clarify my position and ask whether I'm operating off a misunderstanding of "bangs."  I see bangs as adrenaline-heavy action moments that demand immediate response from players, but mine tend to evolve from player decisions as much as from anything I as narrator initiate.  They're certainly not the only or best way to resolve a series/campaign/chronicle.  The most satisfying games I've experienced have ended on quieter, emotionally loaded scenes.

Best,

Blake

Hi Blake,

Sorcerer & Sword (book version) provides a refinement of Bangs from the main rules. They are instances of necessary player-character decisions. Note that the definition is intentionally "open" regarding who makes it necessary.

So Bangs can be quiet or loud, or highly conflict-resolving or highly conflict-generating. They may involve changes in geography, or the revelation of key information, or shifts in relationships, or plain old fights.

I presented loud, conflict-generating, violent examples in the main rules as this is the most easily-understood concept of a Bang, and it also matches the highly Hong Kong cinema style of play that characterized early Sorcerer.

However, I emphasize in Sword not only that other kinds of Bangs exist, but also that (for instance) a fight that does not include a relevant decision is not a Bang, and a clue that merely points the direction to another clue is not a Bang.

Best,
Ron

Cool.  Thanks.  I'll crack open my Sorcerer books and take another read to refresh my memory.

Best,

Blake

Hello All,

Okay, this has all been extremely helpful.  Let me try narrowing my question a bit because I still feel like I'm missing something.  Okay, so a fight is not a bang if it doesn't contain a revelant choice.  Now, ALL fights contain the inherent choice of fight or flee so I don't think that's what we're discussing.

A lot of films and novels use fights not as choices themselves but rather establishers or set-ups for something else.  A key character may get wounded.  Or the fight drives the protagonist somewhere specific and so on.  The problem is that the 'choice' presentation is not inherent in the EXISTANCE of the fight but rather in the outcome and the characters reaction to it.  But that is in the hands of the dice and the players.  Not necessarily a bad thing but it's not something the GM can consider when going through his list of potential 'bangs' and asking, 'Is this a bang or not?'

Consider the Fire Swamp sequence from The Prince's Bride.

In some sense the EXISTANCE of the Fire Swamp is a bang because it presents the choice: Do you risk the fire swamp or surrender?

And coming out of the fire swamp the fact that the guards are waiting for them is a bang because it presents the choice: Now that you know you can survive the fire swamp do you surrender or retreat?

However, the RUS attack, the brief altercation with the flame jet, and the lightning sand all do not present a choice per se.  What they do instead is establish two things.  1) Yes, the fire swamp is indeed as dangerous as everyone says and 2) they ARE capable of surviving it and thus the audience understands the choice presented at the end.  The scene is also used for exposition perposes but again, out of the GMs hands.

Now there are some possible misunderstandings that I'm having:

1) I'm kind of equating 'bang' with 'encounter' the only difference being is that one presents a premise relevant choice where the other does not.  It's entirely possible the the entire fire swamp sequence counts as a single bang instead of the five I'm counting.

2) I"m also thinking that if it's not a bang the GM shouldn't be including it which may be me mistaking the part for the whole again.

Thanks.

Jesse

Well, I haven't had much experience with Bangs myself, but I'm glad you've brought this up because I really didn't follow the idea completely either.

I would think that a "bang" has to more than simply a choice.  There has to be an element of adrenaline there else "bang" becomes a "whimper".

So simply choosing to go into the swamp or not may be a relevent choice but is not the bang.  The Bang would be the chase scene.

There is Wesley and Buttercup reunited and happy...then BANG...here comes the bad guys.  A chase ensues, and the best chance for escape is to fly straight into the asteroid field...oops sorry, wrong reference.

I would agree that the 3 perils of the fireswamp are not themselves bangs as presented.  They are simply action encounters.

The face down at the other side could well be.  Just when they thought it was safe to go back in the water ... BANG...more badguys.

The thing that makes these legitimate bangs in the princess bride I think is the focusing of the choice on the struggle of "what would you sacrifice for your true love".  In the last case, Buttercup is willing to sacrifice her own personal happiness to ensure (she thinks) Wesley's life.  Wesley is willing to sacrifice his happiness and life in order to preserve the illusion of his saftey so as not to shatter her emotionally (once she established she couldn't bear to think of him dead again).


What I'm having difficulty with is how to actually frame these things intentionally rather than acknowledge them in retrospect.  Is this a technique that only works with narrativist players?  It seems to me that if I frame a conflict in a way that obviously gives the players the opportunity to make Premise laden choices, that narrativist players would leap at the opportunity and my job is done.

But what about players who aren't so focused.  How can the idea of bangs be used when you as the GM don't reliably know if the players will recognize and sieze the opportunity.

Hey,

Please note my use of the term relevant choice. My use of "relevance" here is embedded deeply in Narrativist play, that is, the choice illustrates one or another aspect of the Premise in a state of judgment. It could be a matter of setting-based Premise (geography, NPC actions) or character-based Premise (a player's suggestion or crucial moment of PC psychology), whatever.

Hence "to turn right or to turn left," as such, is not included. It barely rates the use of the word "choice" in any way that strikes me as important.

Another key point is that "Bang" is a term that applies to role-playing with and among co-authors, not to author vs. audience. Therefore finding Bangs in movies and books is tricky - we should be thinking in terms of what the author is going through in inventing them, not in terms of what we as audience members go through in experiencing them. Also, role-playing itself presents further distinctions. In movies and books, a Bang and its resolution are perceived as a unit; in role-playing in particular, they are a matter of negotiation both with whatever Fortune methods are at work and with one another.

Finally, and this arises from the above paragraph and addresses Ralph's last point, a Bang is a proposition. Let's say I have Frick the big fuckin' demon attack everyone, and they know that Frick was the servant of some guy, so Frick's attack has all kinds of revelatory content about that guy and whatever other stuff is going on. (I know, that's asking a lot. Trust me. My point is that Frick is not some stupid encounter; this is a real wowser of an attack and a reason for it.)

So, they swing into action - and a great roll in the very first round of combat Banishes Frick. All done. Or conversely, say that someone remembers something really interesting that permits everyone simply to - poof - totally not have to deal with Frick.

Huh! Is the Bang "wasted"? No. Frick was not a "fight that's supposed to be really cool and last ten rounds, hopefully wounding someone real bad so I can introduce my healer NPC who can then leverage a favor from the PCs." Frick was a Bang, and whatever happens from a Bang, happens - that's story.

Some Bangs pay off big, and others don't, and that is OK. It strikes me that much of Ralph's and Jesse's concerns are valid, but also that they are rooted in a certain reluctance to go too far down this road with me, in terms of this issue.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

On an internal level I think I get what you're saying.  I'm having trouble articulating it myself which bothers me.  I get the 'it doesn't matter what the outcome' part, I'm focusing on the 'why introduce' part.

For example, in my last Deadlands game my players were heading to some tunnels beneath Dodge City.  I didn't have a map or anything like that.  It wasn't a Dungeon Crawl.  But the first thing that happend was that they were attacked by a single Ghoul.  Including this attack 'felt right' because several scenario's ago the players had to deal with a horde of ghouls and learned that ghouls aren't normally found that far west and that something had driven them there.  This 'encounter' served as a reminder of that.  It's a lot like your Frick encounter.  It wasn't totally random, it had meaning in the given context.

My problem is I'm trying to articulate the line between 'bang' and 'dungeon crawl random encounter' and 'logical ecology but still random encounter'  particularly for the fairly linear feel of pulp fantasy.  The one ghoul felt right but obviously drawing out a map and placing little pockets of 'nesting' ghouls would have just been redundant.

Things that 'feel' right but that I can't articulate why:

Having the the character attacked by wolves (ONCE) upon venturing into the Dark Forest.

Having a sorcerer's tower guarded by hideous gargoyle-like demons.

I keep going back to the two stories The Elphant Tower and The Scarlet Citadel.  (I've picked up some Fahfrd and the Grey Mouser stories but haven't read any yet).  In the first one Conan first encounters a set of lions, then a giant spider.  These two encounters don't really seem to serve any purpose other than supply a sense of 'danger' about the place.  But how many of such encounters before the thing becomes a dungeon crawl?  The BIG decision making point comes when Conan encounters the tortured elder god thing.

In the Scarlet Citadel, Conan encounters Satha, plus two or three other semi-random 'nameless' horrors before escaping.  Again, these seem to serve only to give the place an atmosphere of 'death trap.'

And yet the don't feel totally random or out of place.  I'm looking for the line and I can't quite see it.

Jesse