I think I've identified one of the fuzzy points in my stakes/setbacks notion: sometimes you end up winning and still suffering a loss. That is, Luke gets the Death Star blowed up real good, but also loses Biggs and (temporarily; one might argue it was just color) R2D2 in the process. A real setback would be *failing* to blow up the Death Star. The losses are instead sacrifices, made (one could successfully argue) in order to *ensure* the success. Once again, the real question in movie and book type fiction is never *truly* "will the main characters succeed" but "*how* will they succeed." You just have to make the latter suspense so convincing that your audience can successfully forget that it's not the former. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:24:22PM -0600, Karen J. Cravens wrote: >Once again, the real question in movie and book type fiction is never >*truly* "will the main characters succeed" but "*how* will they succeed." >You just have to make the latter suspense so convincing that your audience >can successfully forget that it's not the former. The actors and script-writers and directors don't forget, though. I think that's a key difference between RPGs and statically-presented fiction: the tension comes from a _genuine_ absence of knowledge about how the story's going to turn out. I think you that to do otherwise you need players who are prepared to take a much more professional attitude towards the game than is usual, and I'm not sure that it's necessarily a good thing even if you have them. -- Roger, gaming grognard Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Roger Burton West wrote: RBW>The actors and script-writers and directors don't forget, though. I I'm not so sure. At least in the script-writer's case, I imagine it's quite possible to get sufficiently caught up in your story that you can at least push to the back of your mind the fact that it *does* have to work out at the end. (Certainly that would explain some bad stories, where it looks like the writer *didn't* have a clue how to make it work at the end, and then was too in love with the midplot to change it so it made sense.) And only the first reading counts for the actors and directors, since after that you're just someone who already knows how the story goes. RBW>think that's a key difference between RPGs and statically-presented RBW>fiction: the tension comes from a _genuine_ absence of knowledge about RBW>how the story's going to turn out. I think you that to do otherwise you I'm not sure which you mean... in an RPG the players (at least) have a genuine absence of knowledge, and in fiction the reader/viewer does too. Or do you mean in the RPG there's an absence of knowledge about whether the story's going to turn out well or badly? If the latter, I don't like that tension, because it's not real if there's no chance of failure, and if there's a chance of failure some of your games are going to, well, fail. RBW>need players who are prepared to take a much more professional attitude RBW>towards the game than is usual, and I'm not sure that it's necessarily a RBW>good thing even if you have them. I dunno about that, at least if it could be made to work right. Basically, the notion is just to eliminate story-breaking rolls. I don't want to remove the risk of things going (badly) wrong, I just want to channel it into *interesting* ways things can go wrong. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 05:43:44PM -0600, Karen J. Cravens wrote: >On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Roger Burton West wrote: >RBW>think that's a key difference between RPGs and statically-presented >RBW>fiction: the tension comes from a _genuine_ absence of knowledge about >RBW>how the story's going to turn out. I think you that to do otherwise you >I'm not sure which you mean... in an RPG the players (at least) have a >genuine absence of knowledge, and in fiction the reader/viewer does too. In _some_ fiction, though not I think in quite a lot of it. Have you seen _Armageddon_? Were you in the slightest doubt about whether the Earth would be saved? Have you read any romance novels? The tension there is all about _how_ things will turn out right, not _whether_ they will. >Or do you mean in the RPG there's an absence of knowledge about whether >the story's going to turn out well or badly? If the latter, I don't like >that tension, because it's not real if there's no chance of failure, and >if there's a chance of failure some of your games are going to, well, >fail. Which lets you tell an interesting story about the failure. I rate that tension as more important than avoiding the occasional unhappy ending. Now, there are some situations in which I as GM will just rule "it works, no need to roll". The conveyor operations in the I-Cops game, for example, which basically serve as the bookends on a single scenario - I may well write up a "conveyor goes horribly wrong" scenario at some point, but I'm unlikely to run it based on a die roll. >I dunno about that, at least if it could be made to work right. >Basically, the notion is just to eliminate story-breaking rolls. I don't >want to remove the risk of things going (badly) wrong, I just want to >channel it into *interesting* ways things can go wrong. I think I see what you're getting at, but I think it's potentially a very heavy mechanical structure to deal with something that I'd approach as a matter for normal GM fudging. -- Roger, gaming grognard Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Roger Burton West wrote: RBW>In _some_ fiction, though not I think in quite a lot of it. Have you RBW>seen _Armageddon_? Nope. RBW>Were you in the slightest doubt about whether the Earth would be RBW>saved? Have you read any romance novels? The tension there is all RBW>about _how_ things will turn out right, not _whether_ they will. Actually, I was thinking one of the two asteroid movies (_Deep Impact_?) at the time ended up with the Earth not being entirely saved. But I didn't see either one. (I see one or two movies a year, plus one or two more kids' movies. And I don't watch TV, and I hardly even read fiction anymore. So there's a moderate chance I don't know what the heck I'm talking about.) RBW>Which lets you tell an interesting story about the failure. I rate that RBW>tension as more important than avoiding the occasional unhappy ending. Sometimes. Problem is, when the failures happen, it tends to be less than spectacular, and it tends to be the hero's (okay, let's be honest: Carl's character's) *fault*. Which would be okay if it were for a good reason, but "Oops, I missed" doesn't generate the angsty sort of failure that makes good stories. RBW>Now, there are some situations in which I as GM will just rule "it RBW>works, no need to roll". The conveyor operations in the I-Cops game, for RBW>example, which basically serve as the bookends on a single scenario - I RBW>may well write up a "conveyor goes horribly wrong" scenario at some RBW>point, but I'm unlikely to run it based on a die roll. And that's what it comes down to... say you've got a superhero game, and you've got your convenience-store-robbery-gone-wrong with a hostage situation (it'd work for a cop game or whatever too), do you just not roll for the good guy to take out the bad guy? That's where it gets all weird for me... kind of anticlimactic on the one hand, but on the other hand for anything other than a pretty gritty game you're really going to have trouble fitting failure in. RBW>I think I see what you're getting at, but I think it's potentially a RBW>very heavy mechanical structure to deal with something that I'd approach RBW>as a matter for normal GM fudging. See, that's the problem I have with it... I don't really want normal GM fudging, I want good die rolls. But I don't *want* a heavy mechanical structure, and that's what I keep coming up with. Because I'm not a game designer, for one thing. Of course, my complaint about most games *is* the heavy mechanical structure, so maybe that isn't the problem. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Bill Hamilton wrote: BH>So, it's not really a "I want this, and am willing to sacrifice this," BH>situation. It's more of a "I want this, and need X points to do it. I BH>don't have enough points; how many points do I get if I sacrifice Y?" No, it's both. It's "I want to destroy the Death Star. I'm willing to risk getting killed in the process." Now, the GM might allow that sort of thing, or not. It's the big climactic scene and all. Or he might renegotiate: "Are you willing to risk getting killed *before* you succeed?" Which only works, story-wise, if Han or some other PC can do the job. And if the GM doesn't have a big "I am your father, Luke" scene planned down the road. Thing is, if you're using a conventional system, what *does* happen if Han can't do the job, and the GM has planned two more movie... er, campaign arcs around the character, and Luke's player blows his X-Wing Dodge roll while Darth Vader's shooting at him? -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 11:12:31PM -0600, Karen J. Cravens wrote: >Thing is, if you're using a conventional system, what *does* happen if Han >can't do the job, and the GM has planned two more movie... er, campaign >arcs around the character, and Luke's player blows his X-Wing Dodge roll >while Darth Vader's shooting at him? * Artoo takes one for the team. All right, say we're using a strict simulation engine and he takes a "vehicle destroyed" level of hit. * Luke ejects and sneaks around on the surface of the Death Star. Or he's definitely dead like all his buddies. * The GM starts to tell a story about how Luke's friends cope without him. Leia gets to kick arse. I think the problem here is just that level of advance planning you suggest - it's not workable in a realistic setting unless there's some form of probability fudging going on. The absence of it is just what gives normal gaming its tension - "yes, I really can get killed here and I don't have a contract for the next ten episodes". I regard that as a good thing. -- Roger, gaming grognard Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Karen J. Cravens wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Roger Burton West wrote: > > RBW>I can't see my gaming groups taking this seriously, I'm afraid. "Sorry, > RBW>Mary, you know I love you, but I need a sixteen-point risk to stop the > RBW>Evil Emperor and you're it." > > Well, then, it's quite simple: Your gaming groups are clearly > dysfunctional. > > (Do I have indie cred yet?) Nope. You have to write a long, indecipherable essay with lots of made-up technical terms first. :P -Bill Hamilton ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Bill Hamilton wrote: BH>Nope. You have to write a long, indecipherable essay with lots of made-up BH>technical terms first. :P Oh yeah. Also, I forgot to cuss. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Roger Burton West wrote: RBW>I can't see my gaming groups taking this seriously, I'm afraid. "Sorry, RBW>Mary, you know I love you, but I need a sixteen-point risk to stop the RBW>Evil Emperor and you're it." Well, then, it's quite simple: Your gaming groups are clearly dysfunctional. (Do I have indie cred yet?) -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 11:17:50PM -0600, Karen J. Cravens wrote: >Well, then, it's quite simple: Your gaming groups are clearly >dysfunctional. No, _your_ groups are dysfunctional, with knobs on and no returns. :-) -- Roger, gaming grognard Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Karen J. Cravens wrote: > I think I've identified one of the fuzzy points in my stakes/setbacks > notion: sometimes you end up winning and still suffering a loss. That > is, Luke gets the Death Star blowed up real good, but also loses Biggs and > (temporarily; one might argue it was just color) R2D2 in the process. A > real setback would be *failing* to blow up the Death Star. The losses are > instead sacrifices, made (one could successfully argue) in order to > *ensure* the success. So, it's not really a "I want this, and am willing to sacrifice this," situation. It's more of a "I want this, and need X points to do it. I don't have enough points; how many points do I get if I sacrifice Y?" > Once again, the real question in movie and book type fiction is never > *truly* "will the main characters succeed" but "*how* will they succeed." > You just have to make the latter suspense so convincing that your audience > can successfully forget that it's not the former. I'm not sure about that. I'm reading the Dresden Files novels (again) and I never questioned if he would succeed in the long term. The question through the books is always what succeeding will cost him, and how much more trouble he's in afterward. -Bill Hamilton ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:05:53PM -0600, Bill Hamilton wrote: >So, it's not really a "I want this, and am willing to sacrifice this," >situation. It's more of a "I want this, and need X points to do it. I >don't have enough points; how many points do I get if I sacrifice Y?" I can't see my gaming groups taking this seriously, I'm afraid. "Sorry, Mary, you know I love you, but I need a sixteen-point risk to stop the Evil Emperor and you're it." >I'm not sure about that. I'm reading the Dresden Files novels (again) and >I never questioned if he would succeed in the long term. The question >through the books is always what succeeding will cost him, and how much >more trouble he's in afterward. "Is this success worth what I had to do to get it?" is certainly a valid question to be asking. R -- Roger, gaming grognard Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Roger Burton West wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:05:53PM -0600, Bill Hamilton wrote: > >> So, it's not really a "I want this, and am willing to sacrifice this," >> situation. It's more of a "I want this, and need X points to do it. I >> don't have enough points; how many points do I get if I sacrifice Y?" > > I can't see my gaming groups taking this seriously, I'm afraid. "Sorry, > Mary, you know I love you, but I need a sixteen-point risk to stop the > Evil Emperor and you're it." True, but it makes sense for the sacrifice to be related to the conflict going on. Going back to Star Wars references, in ROTJ Luke couldn't sacrifice his friends on Endor when he was taking on Vader and the Emperor. But he could get some points by giving in to the dark side a bit, and get more by losing his mechanical hand. These points, along with some more for whining a lot, get invested in turning Vader to the Light Side. And then the player gives up his character's newly redeemed father to kill off the Emperor, because that's the only thing related to the conflict that is available to him. I don't know if I would enjoy playing this sort of system, but I think it's workable. -Bill Hamilton ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
