Barf Forth Apocalyptica
barf forth apocalyptica => roleplaying theory, hardcore => Topic started by: lumpley on September 19, 2010, 09:23:23 AM
-
For Simon C!
It's a couple of years ago. Sebastian, then 11, is running Storming the Wizard's Tower for me and Elliot, then 8. We're trying out the Scary Monsters rules, in a modern-day setting. My character is a wizard/librarian and Elliot's is a fighter/cop. There's something that's been attacking municipal sewer workers and their representative contacts us for help.
Sebastian's created these slightly heinous undead rat things, serving a boss-necromancer of some sewery sort. He throws the first one at us and, like, crap, man. It takes a chunk out of Elliot's guy. We manage to beat it but Sebastian and I both see that I've used up too much of my spell casting resources, and Elliot's used up too much of his not-bleeding-out resources. We might be able to take another one, mmmaybe two more of these things.
"What do you do?" Sebastian says.
"Pff," I say. "We've got some tricks left up our sleeves. Let's go deeper in, yeah, Elliot?"
"Yeah!" Elliot says. "Bring it on!"
We don't really have any tricks left up our sleeves. I play the dice just as hard as I can, but Sebastian's no slouch at that himself. The next encounter is three rat-zombies working together and that gives them access to some tactical plays we just can't deal with. Elliot and I try to concentrate our fire - Elliot's guy's gunfire, my guy's magical backup - but we can't concentrate our fire AND protect my vulnerable low-endurance butt, so the end result is that they swarm us.
Elliot's guy drags my guy out of the sewers. I'm alive, the game's forgiving that way, but I'm going to be playing a different character next session while this guy recovers in the hospital.
"Oh man, I'm really sorry," Sebastian says. "I didn't know I'd just own you like that. You never even saw the sewer necromancer!"
Sebastian loves to win, but worries that he'll gloat, so apologizes instead. "There's no apologizing in Storming the Wizard's Tower!" I say.
"Oh, right. I'm not sorry! But I'm sorry."
The end.
-
Hi!
Like I said in the other thread: I buy it. As in, I can relate to that experience of play. It sounds like play I've experienced myself, more or less, and I'm not thinking "hey, you're leaving out the important bits!" or anything. The important bits are right there.
But!
The next encounter is three rat-zombies working together and that gives them access to some tactical plays we just can't deal with. Elliot and I try to concentrate our fire - Elliot's guy's gunfire, my guy's magical backup - but we can't concentrate our fire AND protect my vulnerable low-endurance butt, so the end result is that they swarm us.
Elliot's guy drags my guy out of the sewers. I'm alive, the game's forgiving that way, but I'm going to be playing a different character next session while this guy recovers in the hospital.
There are some choices happening here, right? Like, Elliot could have been like "screw your vulnerable butt, I'm outta here!" It would be highly unusual, and probably would never actually happen in the scope of normal play, but it's an allowable thing in the rules (I'm going by an old playtest version of the rules here, so I don't know this for sure). The game doesn't hit you over the head with a big "You lose" here either, right? You just keep on playing? You're choosing, as characters and as players, to stick by each other and support each other against this threat.
The choice isn't exactly a "live" option. If you choose not to stand up to the challenge, you're basically choosing not to engage with the game. But it is a choice. It's what I'd call "Phatic". We go through the motions of it being a choice, even though we all know that it's not really. Does that sound accurate?
-
The game doesn't hit you over the head with a big "You lose" here either, right? You just keep on playing? You're choosing, as characters and as players, to stick by each other and support each other against this threat.
The choice isn't exactly a "live" option. If you choose not to stand up to the challenge, you're basically choosing not to engage with the game.
Sure, but if that is a consistent mode of play for the players, if they keep making that choice not to engage the game on its own terms, then yes, you get a "You lose" moment. Because that's what the game does well and choosing not to play the game in the areas that the game does well is a CA problem. And it drags games out and makes them less enjoyable.
-
We don't really have any tricks left up our sleeves. I play the dice just as hard as I can...
Yeah. I've never seen D&D played this way. Not unless there's something to lose by pushing on.
In most instances, the players will evaluate their resources. If they feel like they have enough to go on, they will. If they're depleted of "tricks" as you call them, they won't (this is where the complaint of the '15-minute workday' comes in for a lot of D&D games - we fight till our resources are depleted, sometimes in an encounter or two, then we rest and sometimes that takes about 15 minutes).
Unless... unless there's a motivation to go on. "The mayor's daughter was taken by the necromancer! Unless we get there by midnight, she'll be turned into a demon rat!"
So, in that instance, it's a choice of "risk vs. reward".
But, pushing on just to push on, with no resources and letting the dice determine the outcome. Never seen that.
Is this what you'd consider Step On Up play? Challenging yourself despite the lack of resources to take on challenges? I guess it could depend on the system too.
-
Michael: Oh, yeah, no. In this case, it's more like there's nothing to lose by pushing on. The game's designed to reward you when you take chances, not punish you into conservative play. We're better off fighting on until we're truly beaten than ditching out as soon as it turns against us. I can say more about that if you like.
Simon: I wouldn't say either of those things, no.
Elliot's character might have abandoned mine, but that would have constituted a worse loss than we suffered. Under some circumstances, he would have been forced to abandon me; under others, he'd have had to make a cost-reward decision about it, but neither of those happened. The way things turned out, it would have been poor play, straightforwardly, for his character to abandon mine, like if he'd failed to collect rent from someone who landed on his hotel. If he chooses to do that, it's like choosing to come to poker night without bringing any nickels: it's choosing not to play at all.
Same with choosing not to go into the sewers in the first place. There's literally no other game than "we go into the sewers to fight these rat things." We can undertake prep and stuff beforehand, of course, but if I say, "no, my character has a date tonight" or whatever, that's identical to saying "I don't want to play after all." If I do that, we put the dice and character sheets away and find something else to do with our afternoon.
-
Michael: Oh, yeah, no. In this case, it's more like there's nothing to lose by pushing on. The game's designed to reward you when you take chances, not punish you into conservative play. We're better off fighting on until we're truly beaten than ditching out as soon as it turns against us. I can say more about that if you like.
That suffices. It's a difference in system and not Step On Up play. And, honestly, it's a big design flaw I see in D&D. I like that you're taking the approach that pushing on is rewarding vs. D&D's approach.
-
We're better off fighting on until we're truly beaten than ditching out as soon as it turns against us. I can say more about that if you like.
Actually, I would kind of like to hear the rationale behind this. Don't get me wrong -- I think it's great, honestly! -- I'm probably just not putting two and two together, but I'm just mainly curious what (stated or unstated) design goal that decision serves.
-
The way things turned out, it would have been poor play, straightforwardly, for his character to abandon mine, like if he'd failed to collect rent from someone who landed on his hotel. If he chooses to do that, it's like choosing to come to poker night without bringing any nickels: it's choosing not to play at all.
Huh. Ok. That is very different to D&D play I've experienced, where "press on or go home" is a pretty big part of the decisionmaking (and the game would be less fun if it wasn't). The way you're describing it does sound like it's not the same as the way I play D&D.
So, in actuality, you can't choose just to go back home. In the fiction you can though right? I mean, we imagine our characters as having that choice, we just never take it?
Also! Why is it a loss to play a different character next session? Same chance of winning, right?
-
It's a loss to play a different character next session because now I'm spreading my experience points thinner. My new character doesn't benefit from this session's play, and this character doesn't benefit from next session's. On the other hand, it's a gain to play a different character next session because maybe THAT character will have a higher endurance, or otherwise be better suited to taking on this particular problem.
Now! Elliot and I choosing together to press on, or to ditch out and go home, THAT was a choice we made. You can see it in my writeup. After that first encounter, we could have been like, "okay Sebastian, you win round 1, but we're going to go make a better plan and find a third player and get some new tricks up our sleeves and THEN we'll see." That's a risk-vs-reward decision that we made.
However, notice that then it's still all about fighting the monster, and Sebastian, our GM, is under no obligation to give us anything else to do. He'd be like, "okay, make your plan, find a third player, spend your XP and your gold, I'll be here waiting." If I'm like, "my character goes on a date," Sebastian shrugs and says "okay. Let me know when you go back into the sewers." Even if we play out the date, for whatever reason, and let my character have relationships and passions and crap like that, in the back of both our heads we're calculating how this is going to change my character's performance vs the rat zombies and future monsters.
So even when we do enact a narrative, it's only a backdrop to the actual event. The actual event is the contest, Sebastian and his monsters vs me, Elliot, and our characters. Absent that contest, there's no event at all. The narrative doesn't bring us to the table; without the contest, we don't play and the narrative evaporates.
-
What if Sebastian has the monster snatch up your new girlfriend? :) That's what I'd do.
-
He can do that if he wants, but I'm not playing obstructively so he's under no pressure to. If I'm drawing play out to avoid, y'know, playing, then I suck and he should call me on it.
Grabbing my character's girlfriend would be a tactical move, to change the tactical landscape, not to do any bullshit like testing my loyalties or whatever.
-
He can do that if he wants, but I'm not playing obstructively so he's under no pressure to. If I'm drawing play out to avoid, y'know, playing, then I suck and he should call me on it.
Grabbing my character's girlfriend would be a tactical move, to change the tactical landscape, not to do any bullshit like testing my loyalties or whatever.
Lol oh yeah!
-
So even when we do enact a narrative, it's only a backdrop to the actual event. The actual event is the contest, Sebastian and his monsters vs me, Elliot, and our characters. Absent that contest, there's no event at all. The narrative doesn't bring us to the table; without the contest, we don't play and the narrative evaporates.
Cool. Yup. I buy that. Why does the game need a backdrop? Why does that make play more fun? How does that make play more fun?
Possibly related, what are the three GM agendas for Storming the Wizard's tower?
-
And, sure enough, duh on me. :P Makes sense.
-
Jim, if you have any questions left about Storming the Wizard's Tower, pop up to the "other games" forum and ask away, I'll be happy to answer them.
Simon, a backdrop of narrative stuff - passions, conflicts - doesn't make this kind of play more fun at all, UNLESS it adds tactical complexity. When it does add tactical complexity to play, THEN it's fun (and that's how it's fun). Otherwise it's intrusive non-play. You can imagine me talking about my character's girlfriend instead of playing the game, and Seb and Elliot are rolling their eyes, or packing up, or going on without me.
Here's the GM's job in Storming the Wizard's Tower: The GM preps for each session of play. Choose someone who’ll commit to creating things for the game in her free time, when you aren’t playing.
The GM is the referee. The GM has to know the rules pretty well and has to be impartial in applying them. Choose someone who’ll learn the rules and who has a strong sense of fair play.
The GM doesn’t get to control and play a single character, but has to be all the non-characters and monsters in the game. Choose someone who doesn’t mind letting other people take the spotlight.
The GM has to make sure that everyone gets a turn and that everyone’s ideas get heard, and then has to challenge everyone. Choose someone who can hold everyone’s attention when that’s what has to happen.
-
"There is no apologizing in Storming the Wizard's Tower!" shall be my bedrock for all future explanations of Step On Up/competitive gaming.
-
Not a backdrop of narrative stuff. A backdrop of any stuff. Zombie rats (instead of "foe with X qulities"), Necromancer (instead of "Boss fight"), sewers. What part of the GM's job covers making up stuff like that?
Things like us pretending like our playing pieces are people and not playing pieces. Is there ever in-character dialogue in StWT? What for?
Abolutely, talking about your girlfriend or whatever just stinks up the place. But there's some backdrop that makes the game more enjoyable, yeah?
Also! What do you think of Luke's incredibly controversial definition of rpgs?
http://story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=10218&page=1 (http://story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=10218&page=1)
"[An RPG is] A game in which a player advocates the goals, priorities and survival (or doom) of a persona who, in operation of the game's mechanics, is confronted with one or more ethical choices."
Is StWT an rpg by that definition? (Not that it needs to be, just curious).
I'm still keen to check that this is an enjoyable conversation for both of us. I'm finding it slightly frustrating but also hugely interesting. If it's boring for you, by all means just be like "whatever Simon" and I'll be like "It's cool". Like I said, you don't owe me an explanation. Let's not be voices on the internet.
-
Things like us pretending like our playing pieces are people and not playing pieces. Is there ever in-character dialogue in StWT? What for?
Good question.
-
Yeah, the conversation's fine with me. Maybe I'll sum up my position here.
Two things. Thing 1 is the medium of play. This is in-character conversations, rat-zombies, sewers, characters, characters' girlfriends, Elliot's guy's handgun and my guy's background as a librarian-wizard. Thing 2 is story. This is loyalty, passion, jealousy, ego, then conflict across moral lines, escalation, crisis, and resolution.
1 can exist perfectly happily without 2. Up at the top of the thread is an example of lots of 1 with no 2 at all.
The Big Model doesn't draw distinctions at the level of 1, but at the level of 2. (The Big Model calls 1 "exploration," and puts it at the foundation of all play.) GNS says: does your game have passionate characters escalating conflicts to resolution, or doesn't it? Are your game's players live and active collaborators through the process of play, or is something else going on?
I think that you're looking for 2 to be the basis of 1's value, in all cases. I think that your objection to GNS is based on this. I think that in fact, no, 2 is the basis of 1's value in some cases, but not at all in others.
I can talk about the value of 1 to Step On Up play, and the value of 2 to Step On Up play. (In fact that's my favorite thing about Storming the Wizard's Tower.) but if your position is that Step On Up play is, in fact, Story Now play, we really have to sort that out first.
-
I can talk about the value of 1 to Step On Up play...
I'm interested in this.
-
I'm like, breathing a big sigh of relief. I thought I was living in crazy town!
Your distinction between 1 and 2 is crystal clear to me. So that's good. I mean, maybe I'm still confused about it, but I don't feel confused about it.
But! Just because exploration doesn't have loyalty, passion, conflict across moral lines etc. It still has things that are meaningful to us as human beings, yeah? Like, things that have ethical weight, or symbolic meaning, or emotional resonance. That's why it's fun and critical to StWT, yeah? Or is that still part of story?
But if you're saying that both exploration and story are important to Step on Up play, then we don't even have a problem, because my whole point was basically that exploration and story are important to Step on Up play. That would be funny.
Basically, what I'm saying is that I like D&D better than chess because it's fun to imagine stuff. Moreover, it's fun to imagine the specific stuff that D&D makes me imagine. Some of that stuff is: Medieval fantasy, swords and spells and things. Violence and mayhem. Weird monsters. Heroes being brave or cowardly, sticking together or splitting up. Lucky escapes, tragic deaths. Hard men with big swords conquering the unknown, or being defeated by it. I like that stuff not just randomly, but because those things are meaningful to me.
-
After thinking for a while:
Vincent, how's this for a statement, in terms of fitting with a) your understanding of the big model, and b) usefulness:
All instances of satisfying play provoke enjoyable experiences, and are meaningful on a human level. They're satisfying to us because they have a meaning we share, appreciate, and understand. "Meaning" not being used to mean "message" or "lesson" but more like "significance" or "feeling".
Some meanings and experiences are best communicated by passionate characters, escalating conflicts, and resolution, etc. Other instances of play, communicating other meanings, that stuff just stinks up the place. It doesn't help communicate the meaning, or evoke the experience at all. In fact, it actively gets in the way.
Some meanings and experiences are best communicated by challenges which the players use skill and luck to overcome, by a fair-play contest with clear winners and losers. Other instances of play, that stuff just stinks up the place. It doesn't help communicate the meaning, or evoke the experience at all. In fact, it actively gets in the way.
Does that work for you?
-
Basically, what I'm saying is that I like D&D better than chess because it's fun to imagine stuff. Moreover, it's fun to imagine the specific stuff that D&D makes me imagine. Some of that stuff is: Medieval fantasy, swords and spells and things. Violence and mayhem. Weird monsters. Heroes being brave or cowardly, sticking together or splitting up. Lucky escapes, tragic deaths. Hard men with big swords conquering the unknown, or being defeated by it. I like that stuff not just randomly, but because those things are meaningful to me.
When I play chess with my daughter it is just like your description of playing D&D above. And when I play D&D with my brother, it's all just a game that's played to win, basically a board game with a very long and colorful set of rules. :)
-
I should specify that when I say D&D, I mean early D&D, Moldvay and Metzner editions. They're very badly suited to boardgame-style play.
-
I should specify that when I say D&D, I mean early D&D, Moldvay and Metzner editions. They're very badly suited to boardgame-style play.
We definitely played it as a board game as youngsters. We've been at roleplaying for 25 years, and my brother would still prefer to play our old, ratty copy of red box "board gaming style." :)
-
Wanna start a thread about that? I can't really imagine how that works, given that a first level character has about a 50% chance of dying in any fight they get into.
-
Simon, have you seen BlueTablePainting's YouTube videos? Have a look at this D&D4 video, the important bit is the 0:33 mark.
I don't really want to start a thread about how we played D&D Red Box as a board game, but suffice to say we had minis the entire darn time, and we had no backstories, no talking in character, PC names that were on the level with "Conan II" or "Gandalfagain," but never really referenced as it was always "my guy does this or that." The players rested frequently at "nameless" town. It was pretty much a game of Heroquest, Descent, or perhaps the new Castle Ravenloft the Board Game.
(Phew, I had time to edit my post.) I forgot to mention that as GM I played as the adversary of the rest of the players. We played only published adventures, and I tried my best to kill them by sticking to the script of the adventure.
-
I'll just echo the experience of playing D&D like a board game, although in my case there was no Step on Up involved it was all Right to Dream. Characters never died, unless the player wanted to try something else or made up silly characters like Gary Gnome (pronounced Gun-nome) the gnome with an 18' pike who intentionally pole vaulted right into a dragons mouth.
-
For us it was Step on Up to the level of there usually just being one or perhaps two co-conspirators left standing in the dust as they wanted all that XP for themselves and slaughtered the other characters to take their treasures. Everyone kept coming back for more though. :)
-
Way to come to a topic late, but its interesting to me -- I never quite agreed with the whole Step on up thing as being the primary for gamist players.
My gut says Step on up is a part of roleplaying in general, regardless of which priority youre playing. Its the same thing as saying Players want (their character) to be able to make decisions that matter, regardless of the method. Like it could be a choice of a spell at the right time or making a dramatic decision with ethical consequences or whatever, its still stepping on up to me.
So I agree the rules matter - they support the ability to make choices that matter. In gamist terms you have the choice you make during character design and ongoing character improvement, which is a huge fun part of play, and also the tactical choices you make when you test that design against adversity.
Thats why I think Ron dosent get the term character 'balance' as he doesnt get the gamist thing. If the design tradeoffs are not balanced, then the player isnt making choices that matter -- the nature of the game insists that he take the obviously best performing option, which isnt a choice at all.
The GM of the Wizards Tower did make the adversaries slightly too difficult, and was apologising for the right reasons (whether he needed to?) the perfect level of difficulty to present players with is one that if they make the right tactical choices, they win, and if they dont, they loose,otherwise their choices dont matter!
-
To clarify, when I say 'design tradeoffs' above, Im talking about character design tradeoffs that the player makes.
-
I agree with the link between balance and player choice. But it is important to consider the link to fiction not just balance to ensure character has interesting choices. I'll try and explain what I mean.
When I'm looking at a equipment list and one choice is clearly better than the others I wonder why I'm being asked to choose. If I make a suboptium choice for a fictional reason I feel I am being penalized for being interesting. I'd rather all weapons were the same and I just chose a description that fitted. So here I find balance important to make my choice meaningful.
In games where the moves are well balanced but don't connect to the fiction also leave me cold. This is my perception of D&D 4e. I found that the powers choices were well balanced but didn't help me advance the fiction of my character. So while the choice was theoretically interesting, because it didn't feel connected to the character I was left wondering what the point of making it was.
So I guess I'm saying that balance helps make choices interesting, but if the choices don't connect to the fiction whether they are balanced or not is irrelevant.
-
Sure, that just means you arent playing with a gamist priority. 'step on up' is, according to Ron Edwards model of RPGs, the priority for Gamist play. Which means, I think, to rise to the challenge and take your turn to perform. Peronally I dont see the fun of a gamist RPG being terribly different to the fun of playing a strategy board game: design, strategise, execute and triumph.
I agree with the link between balance and player choice. But it is important to consider the link to fiction not just balance to ensure character has interesting choices. I'll try and explain what I mean.
When I'm looking at a equipment list and one choice is clearly better than the others I wonder why I'm being asked to choose. If I make a suboptium choice for a fictional reason I feel I am being penalized for being interesting. I'd rather all weapons were the same and I just chose a description that fitted. So here I find balance important to make my choice meaningful.
In games where the moves are well balanced but don't connect to the fiction also leave me cold. This is my perception of D&D 4e. I found that the powers choices were well balanced but didn't help me advance the fiction of my character. So while the choice was theoretically interesting, because it didn't feel connected to the character I was left wondering what the point of making it was.
So I guess I'm saying that balance helps make choices interesting, but if the choices don't connect to the fiction whether they are balanced or not is irrelevant.
-
I think balance is important, but not with the emphasis or the definition as is often used in other forums, so I am always cautious when people raise it. I think an over-emphasis on balance has hurt D&D 4e for example.
But I agree that "tactical" balance is more important where you are spending more time in a gamist approach. (Perhaps other sorts of balance, such as time devoted to characters, may be more important if the game is not gamist focussed.) I agree that the most gamist style approaches a board game, and that is why I suggest making sure the moves are interesting or have a basis in fiction otherwise you might as well be playing a great boardgames.
-
Blog on choice. Lists balance as key, but uses different language:
http://philgamer.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/the-joy-of-choices-is-making-them/