Fuzion by the cards
J.J.
Brad Thurkettle wrote:
>
> This is primarily about the Fuzion RPG but the thoughts can be applied to
> other systems.
>
> In Fuzion task resolution involves dice rolling in combination with the
> skills and characteristics of the character involved, similar to most RPGs. I
> was interested in a system with less randomness that allowed the _player_ to
> have more control over the outcome but still keep the outcome within the
> abilities of the _character_ in the equation.
>
> I'm proposed a system where before the start of each session each player is
> dealt 5 playing cards. The cards would have their face value with picture
> cards worth 10. Then when it comes to their action rather than rolling they
> play a card from their hand, adding its value as if they had rolled a die.
> They then draw another card from the deck to replace their played card.
>
> The opposing value would be a straight 5 so overall there would be a tendency
> for more success, due to more 10 cards in a deck.
>
> [You may want to look at the Fuzion rules to see what I'm talking about with
> regard to skill resolution. They're available free on the web in Acrobat or
> HTML format from address shown at bottom of my post]
>
> [1-10 is a good range for Fuzion action resolution other systems with
> different stat/skill ranges eg Rolemaster's 1-100 may need to use 2 cards, 1
> for tens the other for units but I hope you get the idea]
>
> Problems I see include characters using low point cards for non-important
> tasks and saving their 10s for important tasks. The GM would need to rule
> when to use a card or possibly the GM can randomly draw from players cards if
> he thinks the player are abusing the system.
>
> Other options include handling the dealing of cards like variations of poker.
> Have some cards face up and some cards face down. Players won't probably pick
> on another character with a few Ten cards showing but they may volunteer them
> to search for traps! Try Indian Poker with one card exposed on the forehead,
> fun variations,
>
> Or how about wild card? or playing a Joker means you over-succeed at the
> task. (like a critical hit in some games) or maybe it means you take the
> random option and you roll dice.
>
> Can anyone see any merit/problems in using cards this way ? Have you used
> anything similar in your games ?
This is actually quite similar to Castle Falkenstein by RTG which
doesn't use dice, at all, but 2 decks of playing cards (one deck for
tasks and another for magic if someone is a magic user) you are dealt
hands and you get to pick and choose what number you use from your hand
(or something similar) when performing actions.
If this idea is appealing to anyone, see if you can pick up a used copy
of Falkenstein or browse thru it at your local shop.
J.J.
jmar...@flash.net
Brad Thurkettle wrote:
> Problems I see include characters using low point cards for non-important
> tasks and saving their 10s for important tasks. The GM would need to rule
> when to use a card or possibly the GM can randomly draw from players cards if
> he thinks the player are abusing the system.
> anything similar in your games ?
Well, it's an interesting idea. I think a better way of dealing with
players hording their tens is to give each player their own deck of 52
cards. Then make them cut to determine their outcome (shuffling each
time). Seems to give the randomness that die rolling is supposed to
give but still slants things towards success.
Brad Thurkettle
This is primarily about the Fuzion RPG but the thoughts can be applied to
other systems.
In Fuzion task resolution involves dice rolling in combination with the
skills and characteristics of the character involved, similar to most RPGs. I
was interested in a system with less randomness that allowed the _player_ to
have more control over the outcome but still keep the outcome within the
abilities of the _character_ in the equation.
I'm proposed a system where before the start of each session each player is
dealt 5 playing cards. The cards would have their face value with picture
cards worth 10. Then when it comes to their action rather than rolling they
play a card from their hand, adding its value as if they had rolled a die.
They then draw another card from the deck to replace their played card.
The opposing value would be a straight 5 so overall there would be a tendency
for more success, due to more 10 cards in a deck.
[You may want to look at the Fuzion rules to see what I'm talking about with
regard to skill resolution. They're available free on the web in Acrobat or
HTML format from address shown at bottom of my post]
[1-10 is a good range for Fuzion action resolution other systems with
different stat/skill ranges eg Rolemaster's 1-100 may need to use 2 cards, 1
for tens the other for units but I hope you get the idea]
Problems I see include characters using low point cards for non-important
tasks and saving their 10s for important tasks. The GM would need to rule
when to use a card or possibly the GM can randomly draw from players cards if
he thinks the player are abusing the system.
Other options include handling the dealing of cards like variations of poker.
Have some cards face up and some cards face down. Players won't probably pick
on another character with a few Ten cards showing but they may volunteer them
to search for traps! Try Indian Poker with one card exposed on the forehead,
fun variations,
Or how about wild card? or playing a Joker means you over-succeed at the
task. (like a critical hit in some games) or maybe it means you take the
random option and you roll dice.
Can anyone see any merit/problems in using cards this way ? Have you used
anything similar in your games ?
Cheers
--
Brad Thurkettle
bth...@links.truenorth.com
remove NOSPAM from reply address to reply
Check out Fuzion the new rpg from Hero and RTG.
http://www.best.com/~rtg1/fuzion/index.html
or
http://www.sabram.com/rtalsoriangames/site/fuzion/index.html
Jason Martin
Brad Thurkettle <bth...@nospam.links.truenorth.com> wrote:
>Can anyone see any merit/problems in using cards this way ? Have you used
>anything similar in your games ?
>
In our new Fuzion campaign we are using a borrowed idea from
deadlands, using cards to represent actions.
You use one deck and deal 3 cards per action to each a character
(making one turn = 3 fuzion turns, and allowing a recovery at the end
of each turn).
Characters act when their card comes up(counting down from ace) and
may discard a card to abort to a defensive action.
Any card conflicts are resolved by comparing SPD then REX then suite
of card in the order of - Spade -> Club -> Heart -> Diamond.
If Jokers are used Red jokers let the player draw an additional
action, and a Black joker is a wasted action.
We have found this works really well and brings a sense of suspense
back into the game that I feel the SPD chart doesn't quite capture.
Jason Martin - Security & Anti-Virus Developer
Tel : +44 (0)171 372 6666
Fax : +44 (0)171 372 2507
E-Mail : jason....@reflex-magnetics.co.uk
WWW : http://reflex-magnetics.co.uk
John H Kim
A reply to Brad concerning having PC's play cards from a
multi-card hand rather than rolling dice. From what I have seen of
_Castle Falkenstein_, the use of low-point cards for less important
tasks is an inherent part of the system. If you try to prevent
this, on what basis are the players supposed to choose their card?
There is an accepted logic that you can't attempt a trivial task just
to use up a low point card -- but if a less important task has to be
done anyhow, it is only natural that the player will use his lowest
card on it.
If you view this as a wholly undesirable feature, then you
should probably stick to dice or some other mechanic. Card-choosing
will become a primary feature of the game in a CF-like system, and
you just have to decide whether you like it that way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting sun.
jh...@columbia.edu | But Proof - Proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Columbia University | - Paul Simon, _Proof_
Matthew Colville
In article <337B6C...@nospam.links.truenorth.com>, Brad Thurkettle
<bth...@nospam.links.truenorth.com> wrote:
> This is primarily about the Fuzion RPG but the thoughts can be applied to
> other systems.
>
> In Fuzion task resolution involves dice rolling in combination with the
> skills and characteristics of the character involved, similar to most RPGs. I
> was interested in a system with less randomness that allowed the _player_ to
> have more control over the outcome but still keep the outcome within the
> abilities of the _character_ in the equation.
>
> I'm proposed a system where before the start of each session each player is
> dealt 5 playing cards. The cards would have their face value with picture
> cards worth 10. Then when it comes to their action rather than rolling they
> play a card from their hand, adding its value as if they had rolled a die.
> They then draw another card from the deck to replace their played card.
>
This is very much like Torg. In Torg you are actually dealt cards
which affect combat. You get to use them at your discretion.
IN my own RPG, which I'm working on, I condensed this idea into "Trump
Points" via which you can thwart even the GM. A player throws in his
Trump Point (you only get one per session) and he automatically succeeds.
This type of thing is, I believe, necessary in any RPG. You have an
idea of your character and the GM approves it. An opportunity arises in
the game which is *perfect* for your character. Something he would
certainly succeed at were this a film or novel. But you're afraid to try
it because the dice might go against you. So you throw in your trump
point and automatically do it.
So far, it's worked perfectly. . .flawlessly. Each player has
automatically recognized the thing thier character should *by rights* be
able to do, and was right to feel it was too important to be left up to
the dice. Often this is something important to the game, but sometimes
it's merely important to the player's Idea of his character. . .which is
how it should be.
Imagine the Hobbit. Imagine Bard Bowman. Imagine him missing. What
the hell sense would that make?? The Dragon would have won and all the
emotional energy we, the reader, had invested in the game would have been
betrayed. Trump Points simulate this.
Ross Winn
The use of cards for skill and task resolution is mentioned in New
Millenium.
Peace.
Adam Burke
<snip interesting cards system description>
> This is very much like Torg. In Torg you are actually dealt cards
> which affect combat. You get to use them at your discretion.
>
> IN my own RPG, which I'm working on, I condensed this idea into "Trump
> Points" via which you can thwart even the GM. A player throws in his
> Trump Point (you only get one per session) and he automatically succeeds.
> This type of thing is, I believe, necessary in any RPG. You have an
> idea of your character and the GM approves it. An opportunity arises in
> the game which is *perfect* for your character. Something he would
> certainly succeed at were this a film or novel. But you're afraid to try
> it because the dice might go against you. So you throw in your trump
> point and automatically do it.
> So far, it's worked perfectly. . .flawlessly. Each player has
> automatically recognized the thing thier character should *by rights* be
> able to do, and was right to feel it was too important to be left up to
> the dice. Often this is something important to the game, but sometimes
> it's merely important to the player's Idea of his character. . .which is
> how it should be.
There is a more official, commercial RPG that already does something
decidedly similar - Star Wars. In it you get a small (1 initially)
amount of Force Points, which double your roll. ("The Force, Luke,
remember the Force.")
There are attendant rules to encourage the appropriate use of Force
points :
If you use a force point just on an ordinary action, you get it back at
the end of the adventure. (This may also happen if your action fails.)
If you use a force point on an evil action, you lose it. If you're a
Jedi you'll gain a Dark Side point. (Good and evil are left to the GM
to decide, but it's a space opera game - if Darth Vader would do it,
it's probably evil.)
If you use a force point at the dramatically appropriate moment - eg.
firing a proton missile into a tiny vent to blow up a Death Star - you
get an additional point at the end of the game.
In my experience this works quite well. There are additional rules on
how many you can accumulate without being Force Sensitive, etc.
> Imagine the Hobbit. Imagine Bard Bowman. Imagine him missing. What
> the hell sense would that make?? The Dragon would have won and all the
> emotional energy we, the reader, had invested in the game would have been
> betrayed. Trump Points simulate this.
Indeed. These concepts do help a climax. (Unfortunately Force Points
do little if you roll a 1.)
--
Adam Burke
http://student.uq.edu.au/~s335783
Start every day with a smile and get it over with.
- W.C. Fields
Richard Scott
Yes, I've converted a couple of systems to cards useful as I have a bad
habit of losing dice. :)
Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)
--You were spectacular, Bob. But not very effective.
South Melbourne official when the legendary Bob Pratt failed to win
South's 1934 best and fairest despite kicking a league record 150 goals.
Isaac Askew
Matthew Colville wrote:
>
> In article <337B6C...@nospam.links.truenorth.com>, Brad Thurkettle
> <bth...@nospam.links.truenorth.com> wrote:
>
> > This is primarily about the Fuzion RPG but the thoughts can be applied to
> > other systems.
> >
> > In Fuzion task resolution involves dice rolling in combination with the
> > skills and characteristics of the character involved, similar to most RPGs. I
> > was interested in a system with less randomness that allowed the _player_ to
> > have more control over the outcome but still keep the outcome within the
> > abilities of the _character_ in the equation.
> >
> > I'm proposed a system where before the start of each session each player is
> > dealt 5 playing cards. The cards would have their face value with picture
> > cards worth 10. Then when it comes to their action rather than rolling they
> > play a card from their hand, adding its value as if they had rolled a die.
> > They then draw another card from the deck to replace their played card.
> >
>
> which affect combat. You get to use them at your discretion.
>
> IN my own RPG, which I'm working on, I condensed this idea into "Trump
> Points" via which you can thwart even the GM. A player throws in his
> Trump Point (you only get one per session) and he automatically succeeds.
> This type of thing is, I believe, necessary in any RPG. You have an
> idea of your character and the GM approves it. An opportunity arises in
> the game which is *perfect* for your character. Something he would
> certainly succeed at were this a film or novel. But you're afraid to try
> it because the dice might go against you. So you throw in your trump
> point and automatically do it.
> So far, it's worked perfectly. . .flawlessly. Each player has
> automatically recognized the thing thier character should *by rights* be
> able to do, and was right to feel it was too important to be left up to
> the dice. Often this is something important to the game, but sometimes
> it's merely important to the player's Idea of his character. . .which is
> how it should be.
>
> the hell sense would that make?? The Dragon would have won and all the
> emotional energy we, the reader, had invested in the game would have been
> betrayed. Trump Points simulate this.
I've seen this kind of thing in several homemade systems. I agree it's
a neat idea . . . but every time I've seen it used, it's been hidiously
abused . . . Maybe you have better player's than me.
Ike Askew
"Damned if I let you kill me twice!"
Manji
Matthew Colville
In article <33862E...@post.drexel.edu>, st96...@post.drexel.edu wrote:
> Matthew Colville wrote:
> > IN my own RPG, which I'm working on, I condensed this idea into "Trump
> > Points" via which you can thwart even the GM. A player throws in his
> > Trump Point (you only get one per session) and he automatically succeeds.
I've seen this kind of thing in several homemade systems. I agree it's
> a neat idea . . . but every time I've seen it used, it's been hidiously
> abused . . . Maybe you have better player's than me.
Well, I don't know the difference between the rules you've seen and
mine, but I have a suggestion:
Each Player has only *one* Trump Point per session. As a result of
this, they become fanatical about guarding them. They only use them when
it's really, really, important to the game, or thier character. Either is
fine.
As I said, it's worked great so far in my system. I don't see any
reason a good GM couldn't take advantage of it.
Jason Stokes
In article
<mcolville-170...@1cust92.max2.los-angeles.ca.ms.uu.net>,
mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) wrote:
> IN my own RPG, which I'm working on, I condensed this idea into "Trump
> Points" via which you can thwart even the GM. A player throws in his
> Trump Point (you only get one per session) and he automatically succeeds.
> This type of thing is, I believe, necessary in any RPG. You have an
> idea of your character and the GM approves it. An opportunity arises in
> the game which is *perfect* for your character. Something he would
> certainly succeed at were this a film or novel. But you're afraid to try
> it because the dice might go against you. So you throw in your trump
> point and automatically do it.
[..]
> Imagine the Hobbit. Imagine Bard Bowman. Imagine him missing. What
> the hell sense would that make?? The Dragon would have won and all the
> emotional energy we, the reader, had invested in the game would have been
> betrayed. Trump Points simulate this.
Except role-playing games are not like novels. Novels progress from a
sense of a necessary plot; role-playing games from a sense of
unpredictability. If the GM says the world will be lost if the bowman
misses the Dragon's weak spot, it's completely pointless playing the game
unless there's a chance you will fail. That's what gaming is about. The
galactic emperor *does* have a chance of crushing the rebel alliance.
--
Jason Stokes: j%stokes <at> bohm%anu%edu%au
exchange <at> with @ and % with . to discover my email
address.
Jim Henley
Jason Stokes wrote:
>
> Except role-playing games are not like novels. Novels progress from a
> sense of a necessary plot; role-playing games from a sense of
> unpredictability. If the GM says the world will be lost if the bowman
> misses the Dragon's weak spot, it's completely pointless playing the game
> unless there's a chance you will fail. That's what gaming is about. The
> galactic emperor *does* have a chance of crushing the rebel alliance.
That's what gaming is about if that's the way you enjoy playing.
Otherwise not. Not only is your larger philosophical assertion
impossible to establish as an iron law of the universe, it isn't even
true that plot points in any of their various guises remove
"unpredictability." Of three systems I know well that use plot points of
one type or other (Bond; DC Heroes; Theatrix), in none of them does the
plot point mechanism make the game "predictable." In Bond, plot points
simply increase degree of success by one level; in DC Heroes they
increase relevant values _before_ a dice roll is made, so you aren't
even sure of success; in Theatrix, the degree of success achievable by a
plot point is still up to the Director. In none of these games can you
predict
* when and for what the characters will spend them on
* whether the characters will husband them appropriately so
that plot points are available when they need them
* how the interaction of several PCs all with their own
idea of what to do with their plot points will affect
the course of the game
* what the exact results of the plot point expenditure will be
* whether the plot points spent will be "enough" to ensure
that the PCs accomplish the larger goal.
Not only that, but in Bond and DC Heroes, your antagonists (hostile
NPCs) are likely to have some version of plot points as well, and that
adds yet another level of "unpredictability." In Theatrix, NPCs have
what amounts to unlimited plot points. And if you play with the
Statement rules in effect the very nature of the story becomes
"unpredictable" by the GM himself. Plot points are also a renewable
resource of uncertain supply. In none of the games I've mentioned can
you say for sure how many you'll be getting at the end of _this_
scenario. That uncertainly definitely affects how freely you spend them.
Plot points simulate (there's that word!) those reserves of will and
strength that we all have in varying degrees to bring to bear on what
really matters to us. Note that Michael Jordan had an off night last
night, but he still made every basket he _had_ to make. Most games I am
familiar with that do _not_ have some kind of plot point mechanism
implicitly assume that everyone attacks every task with the same degree
of effort all the time -- obviously untrue.
You are absolutely entitled to your Gamist preference regarding the
possibility for PC "failure." I reject it as an absolute value -- I
reject as an absolute in my own games. Among other things, it can be
seriously impractical. Example: I create a superhero campaign with
background including locations, villains, NPC heroes, pals of the PCs
etc. At semiregular intervals, PC "failure" can mean "failing to save
the world." That means not just new PCs for everyone but starting a new
campaign world from scratch -- it's simply not worth it. To me. And
since it's my game the question of whether it's worth it to you is of no
importance. That leaves me with two options: design the opposition so
that there is no actual possibility of the PCs failing (and where is
your Gamist challenge then?) or redefine failure in a way that will not
risk the campaign as a whole. In a superhero campaign, PC "failure" can
mean that the GM had to resort to a patent deus ex machina to save the
day. The players get no hero point award for success and know in their
hearts that _they_ failed, either as players, characters or both.
Failure can mean different things in different games, and different
things to different players. What's more "what gaming is about" is
different things for different players. And plot points as a concept
don't even skew the game irrevocably toward any particular value set.
Best,
Jim
John H Kim
This is a reply on the subject of "Trump Points", which
allow players to guarantee success on certain actions (using
about one per session) -- similar to Hero Points in _James Bond_
or Plot Points in _Theatrix_. My experience is that if used
significantly, these change the flavor of the game a fair bit.
If used only rarely, they tend to get forgotten or ignored
even when they can be applied.
I agree with Jim that this doesn't make the game
"predictable" except on the very short term (i.e. the player
knows he is going to succeed when he uses one). Still, I don't
really agree with Matt's suggestion of how they are needed...
Jim Henley <jlhe...@nospam.erols.com> wrote:
>Jason Stokes <j.st...@bogus-address.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) wrote:
>>> Imagine the Hobbit. Imagine Bard Bowman. Imagine him missing.
>>> What the hell sense would that make?? The Dragon would have won
>>> and all the emotional energy we, the reader, had invested in the
>>> game would have been betrayed. Trump Points simulate this.
Hmmm. A lot of the reason why I game is that I am interested
in playing out these situations. I think it would make a hell of
a lot of sense for Bard to miss, and I would jump at a chance to
play out that scenario.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>>
>> Except role-playing games are not like novels. Novels progress from
>> a sense of a necessary plot; role-playing games from a sense of
>> unpredictability. If the GM says the world will be lost if the bowman
>> misses the Dragon's weak spot, it's completely pointless playing the
>> game unless there's a chance you will fail. That's what gaming is
>> about. The galactic emperor *does* have a chance of crushing the
>> rebel alliance.
Hmmm. While the Hobbit was predictable in some sense, I
wouldn't say that all novels progress this way. Similarly, I think
that many games can still be interesting and fun even if the end
result is predictable (i.e. you know that the heroes will save
the world).
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>Plot points simulate (there's that word!) those reserves of will and
>strength that we all have in varying degrees to bring to bear on what
>really matters to us. Note that Michael Jordan had an off night last
>night, but he still made every basket he _had_ to make. Most games I am
>familiar with that do _not_ have some kind of plot point mechanism
>implicitly assume that everyone attacks every task with the same degree
>of effort all the time -- obviously untrue.
Eh?? I don't think this is true at all -- even if you
theoretically believes this is why they are there, I have never
seen them used to represent this. Plot points universally
represent the *players* authorial presence, not the character's
reserve.
Effort tends to be handled by things like HERO's "pushing"
mechanism or GURPS's "Extra Effort". Note that these are recovered
by the *character* resting -- while plot points and hero points
are recovered at the end of the gaming session. Also, the extra
effort does not _guarantee_ success -- but simply boosts the
power.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>Example: I create a superhero campaign with background including
>locations, villains, NPC heroes, pals of the PCs etc. At semiregular
>intervals, PC "failure" can mean "failing to save the world." That
>means not just new PCs for everyone but starting a new campaign world
>from scratch -- it's simply not worth it. To me. And since it's my
>game the question of whether it's worth it to you is of no importance.
Sure. But I should note that this is an understood
predictability... When villians threaten to destroy the world,
the players know they won't succeed. This is a fairly neccessary
reassurance to many players, who wouldn't be comfortable without
at least some guarantee of success. For example, this is true
of a current game I am playing in set in an occult London in
1889 -- we know that we will succeed, our concern is doing it in
*style*.
Jason Stokes
In article <5mn2or$chq$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>,
jh...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) wrote:
> This is a reply on the subject of "Trump Points", which
> allow players to guarantee success on certain actions (using
> about one per session) -- similar to Hero Points in _James Bond_
> or Plot Points in _Theatrix_. My experience is that if used
> significantly, these change the flavor of the game a fair bit.
> If used only rarely, they tend to get forgotten or ignored
> even when they can be applied.
Actually, I've been thinking about the topic, and I've decided the idea of
"trump points" is not as bad as I first thought. I'm still not sure how
you would regulate their use, and as i rarely rely on the dice except for
combat or dramatic situations (I assume if you've got a skill and plenty
of time, you can just keep on attempting a task until you get it right --
therefore there are no "research skill rolls" in my game) they would have
limited application in my campaigns. When I call for a random roll, it's
because I really want it to be random. If I need the characters to win
(or lose) I make sure I contrive the situation so that a roll isn't
needed. However, one thing I like is that trump points remove "authorial
reality changes" from the GM's side of the table to the player's, thus
empowering them (which is nice).
cyberMessiah
On 01 Jun 1997 09:25:22 Jason Stokes wrote about "Re: Fuzion by the cards":
The Best Way to Do fuzion bythe Cards
Is NOT DO IT with Tarot cards but the similar system that dragon lance 5th age
uses -- The Saga Sytm
There are enough cards in the 5th age box set to cover lots of events, there 9
suits with around 9 cards in each.
This can be used in Fuzion Really easily
Just assingn a Trait to a suit, and Keep the Suit of Dragons for Fouls,etc.
Jim Henley
John H Kim wrote:
>
> I agree with Jim that this doesn't make the game
> "predictable" except on the very short term (i.e. the player
> knows he is going to succeed when he uses one). Still, I don't
> really agree with Matt's suggestion of how they are needed...
> I think it would make a hell of
> a lot of sense for Bard to miss, and I would jump at a chance to
> play out that scenario.
Agreed. I'm not a big enough fan of The Hobbit to even remember that
there _was_ a character named Bard Bowman in the book, but even so, the
existence of plot points doesn't remove the uncertainty of the scenario:
* Bard may run out of plot points before he gets to take his shot
* Bard may not feel he needs to spend one
* Bard, intrigued by the idea of playing out the "miss" scenario,
_declines_ to spend one. (Though this would surely be in pursuit of
metagame values <g>.)
> Eh?? I don't think this is true at all -- even if you
> theoretically believes this is why they are there, I have never
> seen them used to represent this. Plot points universally
> represent the *players* authorial presence, not the character's
> reserve.
I think this is most true of THEATRIX (where, after all, just about
_everything_ represents the players' authorial presence). Even in
THEATRIX you can spend a plot point to ignore external control for a
scene, which is rather reserves-of-willish. It is much less so in DC
HEROES, where they have to be added before the die roll, do not
guarantee success and can be used for "last ditch defense" (soaking
damage) which sure sounds like a reserve of will and strength to me.
Bond falls somewhere in the middle. There is no other procedure for
"extra effort" in the game. The rules mention using Hero Points
"authorially" (a la Theatrix' 'dramatic improv') only as an option. (But
that's not too surprising, since my firm belief is that three of the
biggest influences on Theatrix are Bond, DCH and, believe it or not, the
Marvel Superheroes Role-Playing Game.)
As always it's probably a bad idea to say something is "universal."
After all, as a thought experiment, I could design a game where "plot
points" (whatever I want to call them) _do_ represent reserves of will
and strength.
> Effort tends to be handled by things like HERO's "pushing"
> mechanism or GURPS's "Extra Effort". Note that these are recovered
> by the *character* resting -- while plot points and hero points
> are recovered at the end of the gaming session.
My bad. I pay insufficient attention to the amount of mindshare that
GURPS and HERO have in those regions of the hobby uninhabited by moi.
But see above for qualifications. Also, while BOND hero points are
gained at the end of sessions, the only official way to earn them is by
rolling a Quality 1 result on a (non-combat) action.
But let's get back to Michael Jordan. Would the GURPS or HERO "extra
effort" procedures appropriately simulate the nature of his performance
in Game 5 the other night? The baskets he did make (which were the ones
he had to) were not really more physically taxing than the ones he
missed. He didn't spend extra time on them. But every time there was a
chance that the Heat could cut the Bulls' lead to less than 10, he hit
the bucket. He missed _most_ of his other shots after the first quarter.
What's up with that?
> Sure. But I should note that this is an understood
> predictability... This [world won't go boom] is a fairly necessary
> reassurance to many players, who wouldn't be comfortable without
> at least some guarantee of success.
I agree with you. But it didn't sound like the original poster would.
Best,
Jim
Russell Wallace
> As always it's probably a bad idea to say something is "universal."
> After all, as a thought experiment, I could design a game where "plot
> points" (whatever I want to call them) _do_ represent reserves of will
> and strength.
Willpower points in Storyteller. You can spend them (in advance of
rolling) to make success in an action more likely (still not certain, but
more likely); the in-game rationale is precisely "reserves of will and
strength". I find it works reasonably well, and avoids the problem of
necessitating switching to metagame thinking in the middle of a tense
scene; I can just figure: this is something my character desperately wants
to succeed in doing, so I'll spend a Willpower point.
> But let's get back to Michael Jordan. Would the GURPS or HERO "extra
> effort" procedures appropriately simulate the nature of his performance
> in Game 5 the other night? The baskets he did make (which were the ones
> he had to) were not really more physically taxing than the ones he
> missed. He didn't spend extra time on them. But every time there was a
> chance that the Heat could cut the Bulls' lead to less than 10, he hit
> the bucket. He missed _most_ of his other shots after the first quarter.
> What's up with that?
Storyteller I think would simulate this just fine.
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Russell Wallace
mano...@iol.ie
Mark Apolinski
John H Kim wrote:
>
> This is a reply on the subject of "Trump Points", which
> allow players to guarantee success on certain actions (using
> about one per session) -- similar to Hero Points in _James Bond_
> or Plot Points in _Theatrix_. My experience is that if used
> significantly, these change the flavor of the game a fair bit.
> If used only rarely, they tend to get forgotten or ignored
> even when they can be applied.
>
> "predictable" except on the very short term (i.e. the player
> knows he is going to succeed when he uses one). Still, I don't
> really agree with Matt's suggestion of how they are needed...
> >Plot points simulate (there's that word!) those reserves of will and
> >strength that we all have in varying degrees to bring to bear on what
> >really matters to us. Note that Michael Jordan had an off night last
> >night, but he still made every basket he _had_ to make. Most games I am
> >familiar with that do _not_ have some kind of plot point mechanism
> >implicitly assume that everyone attacks every task with the same degree
> >of effort all the time -- obviously untrue.
>
> Eh?? I don't think this is true at all -- even if you
> theoretically believes this is why they are there, I have never
> seen them used to represent this. Plot points universally
> represent the *players* authorial presence, not the character's
> reserve.
I agree with you that Plot Points represent the players' authorial
presence and therein lies the root of any problem that they may cause.
If players use them with a 'gamist' mentality, ie. 'to win', then the
game will feel much different from one in which the players use such
tools as an aid to playing their characters.
What this means is that Plot Points don't kill games, Players do (to
coin a phrase). Plot Points are designed for player usage and therefore
the players will generate the kind of game that they want. If that means
that the game is unrealistic, then I would say that one needs to talk to
the players, who are the cause.
Mark
NeutronRea
What sound similiar (although I am not certain I understand) is the
concept of Karma from marvel. They were points aquired during play that
could be used to modify roles. once spent they were gone but saved they
could allow the player to make the deperate roll at the time needed. on
the other side of the coin these same Karma were spent on advancement. if
you spent all your points for every roll then your life would stay they
same. if you sacrificed then you could advance. from every change there is
another required to balance, the concept of karma in philosophy as I
understand it. another way to look at it is that the players that use
karma on every roll have a stable and eventless life, while those that
save all they can have a difficult and rewarding life. it depends on how
you play. sorry about the spelling and that is all I have too say about
that.
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <AFB8D1DF...@morat.demon.co.uk> pa...@morat.demon.co.uk (Paul Andrew King) writes:
>It is more than that. They *encourage* a 'gamist' mentality, because they
>have no game-world analogues and because they are in limited supply. From
>almost any persective there is an incentive to use them in 'important'
>actions, and thus an incentive not to 'waste' them in others.
This was our experience in the _Paradisio_ game, and the reason we
abandoned use of fate points after that game. The game was quite
lethal, and it was necessary to hoard fate points in order to preserve
the characters' lives. It was extremely difficult for the player (me) to
bring herself to use fate points for things that were important to the
characterization, but didn't involve survival. And I also spent more
time than I liked worrying, out of character, about whether I
should spend the point yet or wait until the situation deteriorated.
This decision was complicated by the fact that Shadowrun has a death
spiral, so often the most efficient place to spend a fate point is on
avoiding the *first* wound, not the killing wound. But that requires
you to try to decide, right at the start of the fight, whether the fight
is likely to be life-threatening or not.
In our current game we use other manuvers to reduce lethality, and rely
on GM fiat to maintain the limited Script Immunity, rather than fate
points--they are just too distracting.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mark Apolinski
Paul Andrew King wrote:
>
> In article <339192...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >I agree with you that Plot Points represent the players' authorial
> >presence and therein lies the root of any problem that they may cause.
> >If players use them with a 'gamist' mentality, ie. 'to win', then the
> >game will feel much different from one in which the players use such
> >tools as an aid to playing their characters.
>
> have no game-world analogues and because they are in limited supply. From
> almost any persective there is an incentive to use them in 'important'
> actions, and thus an incentive not to 'waste' them in others.
I disagree. Players have to control themselves. Take responsibility for
your actions, don't blame meta-game tools. It makes just as much sense
to say that dice 'encourage' a gamist mentality for similar reasons.
I suppose that if you are a weak-minded individual, you may not be able
to control the 'gamist' impulses that things like Plot Points generate.
But in such cases, hiding or not using Plot Points doesn't solve the
*problem*, only the symptom.
It seems to me that you're saying that one needs to be a better player
to use such systems. In that, I agree.
Mark
Jason Stokes
In article <5n1khe$5...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
> In article <AFB8D1DF...@morat.demon.co.uk> pa...@morat.demon.co.uk
(Paul Andrew King) writes:
>
> >It is more than that. They *encourage* a 'gamist' mentality, because they
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >have no game-world analogues and because they are in limited supply.
[..]
> This was our experience in the _Paradisio_ game, and the reason we
> abandoned use of fate points after that game. The game was quite
> lethal, and it was necessary to hoard fate points in order to preserve
> the characters' lives. [..] And I also spent more
> time than I liked worrying, out of character, about whether I
> should spend the point yet or wait until the situation deteriorated.
> This decision was complicated by the fact that Shadowrun has a
> death spiral, so often the most efficient place to spend a fate point
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> is on avoiding the *first* wound, not the killing wound.
I was just thinking; "Gamist Mentality" and "Death Spiral" -- has anyone
thought of collecting all these technical terms into a FAQ? I had to
figure out what "munchkin" meant just recently.
It's interesting how much specialised jargon gaming produces, isn't it?
John H Kim
This is a reply concerning "Plot Points", specifically whether
they encourage a "gamist" mentality (i.e. concerned with "winning"
through their characters defeating their enemies). It seems agreed
that Plot Points represent the players authorial presence... They
are how players write parts of the story for themselves.
-*-*-*-
However, I want to distinguish here between various forms
of these mechanics. For example, there are mechanics like _James
Bond_'s "Hero Points" or _Shadowrun_'s "Karma" which can be used only
to buy extra successes for the heroes. I would say that these
certainly encourage a gamist mentality, because the players can
represent themselves as authors only by "winning". Note that this
can reasonably merge, say, the genre of James Bond.
I would contrast this to mechanics such as Whimsy Cards from
the original _Ars Magica_. These give players the option to affect the
outcomes of play without much of an emphasis on winning. Indeed, in
some games, I have seen them used as often to *add* to the PC's
troubles as to solve them.
Plot Points from _Theatrix_ represent a sort of middle
ground. They can be used to buy successes (and frequently are in the
examples), but they can also be used to make Statements true. This
is more authorial than game-ish, but still linked to success since
making character Statements true enhances the effective expertise
of PC's.
-*-*-*-
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Paul Andrew King wrote:
>> It is more than that. They *encourage* a 'gamist' mentality, because they
>> have no game-world analogues and because they are in limited supply. From
>> almost any persective there is an incentive to use them in 'important'
>> actions, and thus an incentive not to 'waste' them in others.
>
>I disagree. Players have to control themselves. Take responsibility for
>your actions, don't blame meta-game tools. It makes just as much sense
>to say that dice 'encourage' a gamist mentality for similar reasons.
>
>I suppose that if you are a weak-minded individual, you may not be able
>to control the 'gamist' impulses that things like Plot Points generate.
>But in such cases, hiding or not using Plot Points doesn't solve the
>*problem*, only the symptom.
Hmm. Dice are almost never in limited supply where I game @-).
It's true that players control themselves, but there are things
that a GM or group can do to influence their behavior. For example,
giving experience solely for killing monsters and looting doesn't
*cause* players to become hack-and-slash, but I believe it encourages
it. Similarly, I would agree that strict adherence to mechanics can
encourage mini-maxing.
You seem to be suggesting a binary sort of division: that
players are either irrevocably committed to weak-minded 'gamism'
and the rest are unaffected.
I disagree with this on a number of counts:
1) The majority of games I have seen have an element of competition
and tactical challenge in them -- in short, "gamism". The players
can have a lot of fun overcoming the challenges which their PC's
face, and I don't think there is anything inherently weak-minded
about following these impulses.
2) There are players who generally play for the challenge of winning.
I'll call these gamist-oriented players. However, I don't think
that their impulses are _inherently_ a problem. That is, there's
nothing wrong with them as long as it doesn't interfere with
other player's enjoyment. The real problem is bad effects these
have on the game (i.e. what you call the symptom).
3) Gamist-oriented players are not a bane who simply have to be
barred from, say, story-oriented games. While they may enjoy
winning, they can also enjoy and contribute to playing an
interesting character and developing an interesting story.
4) There are several keys to this... One is that their character
should be one who action and challenge oriented -- don't kill
their enjoyment by suggesting they stretch their horizons and
play a shy and retiring academic, say. The mechanics and how
they are handled are also important -- they will by nature
minimax their points for advantage. How you as GM handle this
is critical to how much they interfere with play.
In short, I would suggest concentrating more on what
you call the "symptom" of how the player effects the game, and
less on the internal psychology of what their impulses are and
what they enjoy.
Matthew Colville
Ok, let me restate the point that started all this.
In my RPG, Trump Points are used to allow a character to automatically
succeed at an action. That's all. And each player only has one per
session. You can't 'horde' them.
So far, they've been an amazing addition to role-playing. They serve
one purpose: to allow players to suceed at actions that would be
*dramatically* appropriate.
It's amazing to me that this idea has caused so much controversy.
Imagine any movie or book you've enjoyed. . .would it have been *just as
enjoyable* if the hero had died 5 minutes into it? Would Raiders of the
Lost Ark have been *just as rewarding* if Indy had been crushed by the
rolling bolder 5 minutes into the film? Many of you seem to be answering
this question by saying "Well, it would have been kinda cool if Indy had
died in the first five minutes," which is not the point. Would the movie
have been *equally* good?
Likewise, after 2 hours of cliffhangers, if Indy had died by being
accidently shot in the back, and then the credits rolled, would you have
been *pleased?*
Of course not, don't be ridiculous. The term 'anti-climactic,' springs
to mind. You would have been pissed off and dissapointed. Arguing that
it should at least be possible for these things to happen is ridiculous.
If it would be unpleasant for everyone to have the adventure end abruptly
because someone died stupidly, why do it? If you have the *choice*
between 'everyone having a good time,' and 'everyone being dissapointed,'
why would you ever choose the second?
There is a difference between failing because it would be dramatic to
fail, and failing because the dice say so. So don't bother arguing that
what I'm saying is we should eliminate failure. Such is obviously not the
case.
Mark Apolinski
John H Kim wrote:
>
> In short, I would suggest concentrating more on what
> you call the "symptom" of how the player effects the game, and
> less on the internal psychology of what their impulses are and
> what they enjoy.
Fine, but I don't thing Plot Points are the symptom by themselves. The
whole mechanism of the meta-game tool mechanics needs to be examined.
If the GM is providing a "no-death" game contract, then there is much
less need to worry that the players will start hoarding points to save
their characters' lives.
As you say, it all depends on what sort of game the GM is running.
Mark
John H Kim
Another reply to Matt concerning use of "Trump Points" (where
each player once per session can automatically succeed at an action).
Note that I am playing using a player-as-author mechanic in a current
game, where we are using Tarot as Whimsy Cards. However, I disagree
that these mechanics are a universal good for all games...
I would also agree with Mary that this sort of mechanic is
not a very good way of instituting Script Immunity (i.e. preventing
the PC's from dying undramatic, meaningless deaths). If the players
have to depend on careful use of this one success to prevent accidental
death, it really drags the game down.
Matthew Colville <mcol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>It's amazing to me that this idea has caused so much controversy.
>Imagine any movie or book you've enjoyed. . .would it have been *just as
>enjoyable* if the hero had died 5 minutes into it? Would Raiders of the
>Lost Ark have been *just as rewarding* if Indy had been crushed by the
>rolling bolder 5 minutes into the film?
This is a nonsensical question. If Indy dies, it becomes a
completely different film: none of the subsequent action can happen,
and the remaining hour and fifty minutes would be about something
completely different. Could that other film be just as rewarding?
IMO, perhaps.
Perhaps we follow Belloq (?) outside the cave, who grabs
the idol. Establishing him as the anti-hero, we follow his Faustian
ambitions joining the Nazi's and their quest for the Ark -- which
leads inevitably to tragedy. Sure -- it's a different film. Would
it *neccessarily* be less rewarding?
If a character dies 5 minutes into the film, she is not
considered the "hero". Case in point: I think _Psycho_ is a terrific
film, and it does this pretty closely. It establishes a protagonist
(Janet Leigh) who it follows for half an hour, just as a normal
thriller would. Suddenly, she dies a meaningless death completely
unrelated to her crime. The film picks up after her death with
new characters
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
> Likewise, after 2 hours of cliffhangers, if Indy had died by being
>accidently shot in the back, and then the credits rolled, would you
>have been *pleased?*
>
>Of course not, don't be ridiculous. The term 'anti-climactic,' springs
>to mind. You would have been pissed off and dissapointed. Arguing that
>it should at least be possible for these things to happen is ridiculous.
Well, then, your mechanic is ridiculous. This exact scenario
could happen in your game if Indy's player had spent his Trump Point
to get onto the submarine when wounded instead of saving it.
Look, I agree that if you're going to run a high-fun
cliffhangers game in the style of _Raiders_, then you're going to
have to rule out accidental deaths of the star -- but I don't think
Trump Points are a good solution for this. I've run lots of
action-packed romps without them.
On the other hand, it is possible to run games which are
more dark and tragic and still enjoy them. I've played _Call of
Cthulhu_ and _Paranoia_ many times, and I think I would enjoy them
much less if they *lacked* stupid and accidental deaths. Further,
I think it might well detract from the tension and terror of the game
if I *knew* I could succeed at a critical moment.
In short, for a high-fun cliffhangers romp, I agree that you
have to rule out meaningless deaths -- but Trump Points aren't
neccessarily the best way to do that. Still, Trump Points can be
a fine addition to such a game, I suspect. However, for certain
other games, I think that Trump Points could detract from the
enjoyment.
Paul Andrew King
In article <33944A...@ix.netcom.com>,
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Paul Andrew King wrote:
>>
>> In article <339192...@ix.netcom.com>,
>> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I agree with you that Plot Points represent the players' authorial
>> >presence and therein lies the root of any problem that they may cause.
>> >If players use them with a 'gamist' mentality, ie. 'to win', then the
>> >game will feel much different from one in which the players use such
>> >tools as an aid to playing their characters.
>>
>> It is more than that. They *encourage* a 'gamist' mentality, because they
>> have no game-world analogues and because they are in limited supply. From
>> almost any persective there is an incentive to use them in 'important'
>> actions, and thus an incentive not to 'waste' them in others.
>
>I disagree. Players have to control themselves. Take responsibility for
>your actions, don't blame meta-game tools.
What exactly do you disagree with ? And why do you object do violently to
the idea that the choice of tools may influence player thinking ? Haven't
you heard the expression "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks
like a nail" ?
It makes just as much sense
>to say that dice 'encourage' a gamist mentality for similar reasons.
No it doesn't. The dice do have in-game analogues, and are not
artificially restricted. The use of dice *in itself* does little to
encourage gamist thinking.
>
>I suppose that if you are a weak-minded individual, you may not be able
>to control the 'gamist' impulses that things like Plot Points generate.
It isn't even that simple. The "proper" uses of plot points overlap quite
heavily with gamist uses. Would you consider using a plot point to avoid a
permanently crippling injury appropriate ? It would certainly makes sense
to a 'gamist'. And making effective use of them from any stance relies on
the knowledge that the supply is limited.
>But in such cases, hiding or not using Plot Points doesn't solve the
>*problem*, only the symptom.
I think it can. If the players react to a mechanic in a way you find
inappropriate it is easier and usually better to find a set of mechanics
that suit the players than to find a group of players that suit the
mechanics.
>
>It seems to me that you're saying that one needs to be a better player
>to use such systems. In that, I agree.
>
I think you are being unfair here. "Better" here simply means "inclined to
play the way Mark likes even when Mark offers inducements to play
otherwise". And of course, it's always a judgement call - and rarely a
clear one - as to whether a use is gamist or not.
Let me make a suggestion. Allow the players unlimited plot points. If
they're good enough to not use them in a 'gamist' manner then you don't
need to worry about abuse. And without the artificial constraint of a
limit, they'll be less inclined to hoard points for "important" scenes.
Paul K.
Mark Apolinski
Paul Andrew King wrote:
>
> In article <33944A...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Paul Andrew King wrote:
> >> It is more than that. They *encourage* a 'gamist' mentality, because they
> >> have no game-world analogues and because they are in limited supply. From
> >> almost any persective there is an incentive to use them in 'important'
> >> actions, and thus an incentive not to 'waste' them in others.
> >
> >I disagree. Players have to control themselves. Take responsibility for
> >your actions, don't blame meta-game tools.
>
> the idea that the choice of tools may influence player thinking ? Haven't
> you heard the expression "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks
> like a nail" ?
>
> It makes just as much sense
> >to say that dice 'encourage' a gamist mentality for similar reasons.
>
> No it doesn't. The dice do have in-game analogues, and are not
> artificially restricted. The use of dice *in itself* does little to
> encourage gamist thinking.
Plot Points *in themselves* do not encourage gamist thinking either. But
dice *and* Plot Points can be corrupted into producing *gamist* results
by the Players' use of the tool.
"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" may be
true, but the key is that everything *isn't* a nail, and even though you
only have a hammer, you have to control your impulse to treat everything
as a nail. Just because you have a hammer doesn't *make* everything a
nail.
> >I suppose that if you are a weak-minded individual, you may not be able
> >to control the 'gamist' impulses that things like Plot Points generate.
>
> It isn't even that simple. The "proper" uses of plot points overlap quite
> heavily with gamist uses. Would you consider using a plot point to avoid a
> permanently crippling injury appropriate ? It would certainly makes sense
> to a 'gamist'. And making effective use of them from any stance relies on
> the knowledge that the supply is limited.
Well, I wouldn't consider this a "proper" use of a Plot Point.
Something like this is "properly" handled by the game contract. And when
my characters use their Plot Points to gain advantages similar to this,
it *does* begin looking very "gamist." Plot Points are meant to
encourage character expression, not "winning."
> >But in such cases, hiding or not using Plot Points doesn't solve the
> >*problem*, only the symptom.
>
> I think it can. If the players react to a mechanic in a way you find
> inappropriate it is easier and usually better to find a set of mechanics
> that suit the players than to find a group of players that suit the
> mechanics.
Well, I would agree that radically altering the game mechanics might
make sense as a last resort if players are unable to use those mechanics
maturely. But isn't it possible for people to change? Shouldn't we give
a player a chance to modify their behavior instead of instantaneously
changing game systems to compensate for their behavior?
> >It seems to me that you're saying that one needs to be a better player
> >to use such systems. In that, I agree.
> >
> I think you are being unfair here. "Better" here simply means "inclined to
> play the way Mark likes even when Mark offers inducements to play
> otherwise". And of course, it's always a judgement call - and rarely a
> clear one - as to whether a use is gamist or not.
No. "Better" just means "better." I think that if we conducted an
informal survey of r.g.frp.advocacy we could easily get a consensus of
what a "better" player would be in this case that I would agree with.
> Let me make a suggestion. Allow the players unlimited plot points. If
> they're good enough to not use them in a 'gamist' manner then you don't
> need to worry about abuse. And without the artificial constraint of a
> limit, they'll be less inclined to hoard points for "important" scenes.
That's a very simplistic statement. There are levels to everything.
Allowing unlimited Plot Points would completely negate the whole purpose
of what Plot Points are for. Plot Points exist (in Theatrix) primarily
to moderate "spotlight time." If Superman and an ordinary street cop
have the same number of Plot Points, then the player of the street cop
doesn't have to worry the the Superman character will always be
outshining their character. Unlimited Plot Points would require that the
Players moderate themselves. Sure, this is possible and even desirous.
But it's also much more difficult than avoiding "gamist" impulses. It
certainly could be something to shoot for, but I don't believe that it's
a reasonable expectation for most players.
But ultimately, you're right that the final responsibility lies within
the players and not the rules. I'm glad you agree with me.
Mark
James C. Ellis
Matthew Colville wrote:
>
> In my RPG, Trump Points are used to allow a character to automatically
> succeed at an action. That's all. And each player only has one per
> session. You can't 'horde' them.
>
> So far, they've been an amazing addition to role-playing. They serve
> one purpose: to allow players to suceed at actions that would be
> *dramatically* appropriate.
>
<snippage of laments over the hero 'dying within 5 minutes' if not
provided with plot points. Oh, the horror!>
> Likewise, after 2 hours of cliffhangers, if Indy had died by being
> accidently shot in the back, and then the credits rolled, would you have
> been *pleased?*
Your approach _still_ doesn't preclude this possibility!
After "two hours of cliffhangers" it is quite likely my 'Trump Point'
would have been already blown, leaving me just as vulnerable to the
'bullet in the back'. Your argument seems to be in favour of script
immunity, not on your particular flavour of ass-saver points.
Biff
P.S. Some of us occasionally play games where we are not trying for
high drama. Get it?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
abc...@cornell.edu
John H Kim wrote:
> >enjoyable* if the hero had died 5 minutes into it? Would Raiders of the
> >Lost Ark have been *just as rewarding* if Indy had been crushed by the
> >rolling bolder 5 minutes into the film?
>
> This is a nonsensical question. If Indy dies, it becomes a
> completely different film: none of the subsequent action can happen,
> and the remaining hour and fifty minutes would be about something
> completely different. Could that other film be just as rewarding?
> IMO, perhaps.
>
> Perhaps we follow Belloq (?) outside the cave, who grabs
> the idol. Establishing him as the anti-hero, we follow his Faustian
> ambitions joining the Nazi's and their quest for the Ark -- which
> leads inevitably to tragedy. Sure -- it's a different film. Would
> it *neccessarily* be less rewarding?
>
> If a character dies 5 minutes into the film, she is not
> considered the "hero". Case in point: I think _Psycho_ is a terrific
> film, and it does this pretty closely. It establishes a protagonist
> (Janet Leigh) who it follows for half an hour, just as a normal
> thriller would. Suddenly, she dies a meaningless death completely
> unrelated to her crime. The film picks up after her death with
> new characters
Except that we're not really talking about writing movies, we're talking
about simulating genres in role-playing games. Killing off PCs 5 minutes
into an adventure seems to me to be a good way to get players to leave
your group. Eventually you'd run out of players, wouldn't you? (If you
can find players stupid enough to come back time after time when you
kill off PCs early in an adventure leaving the player to sit and spin or
at best pick up an npc while everyone else has fun playing their own
characters then good for you!) So, in a role-playing game, following
Belloq(sic) would be less rewarding because he is not a player
character.
JP
Paul Andrew King
In article <339667...@ix.netcom.com>,
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Paul Andrew King wrote:
>>
>> In article <33944A...@ix.netcom.com>,
>> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
[...]
>> What exactly do you disagree with ? And why do you object so violently to
>> the idea that the choice of tools may influence player thinking ? Haven't
>> you heard the expression "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks
>> like a nail" ?
>>
>> It makes just as much sense
>> >to say that dice 'encourage' a gamist mentality for similar reasons.
>>
>> No it doesn't. The dice do have in-game analogues, and are not
>> artificially restricted. The use of dice *in itself* does little to
>> encourage gamist thinking.
>
>Plot Points *in themselves* do not encourage gamist thinking either.
I believe that they do, at least as usually implemented.
But
>dice *and* Plot Points can be corrupted into producing *gamist* results
>by the Players' use of the tool.
>
>"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" may be
>true, but the key is that everything *isn't* a nail, and even though you
>only have a hammer, you have to control your impulse to treat everything
>as a nail. Just because you have a hammer doesn't *make* everything a
>nail.
You seem to be arguing that plot points don't encourage "gamist' thinking
because players should ignore the encouragement.
>
>> >I suppose that if you are a weak-minded individual, you may not be able
>> >to control the 'gamist' impulses that things like Plot Points generate.
>>
>> It isn't even that simple. The "proper" uses of plot points overlap quite
>> heavily with gamist uses. Would you consider using a plot point to avoid a
>> permanently crippling injury appropriate ? It would certainly makes sense
>> to a 'gamist'. And making effective use of them from any stance relies on
>> the knowledge that the supply is limited.
>
>Well, I wouldn't consider this a "proper" use of a Plot Point.
Why not ? It's exactly the sort of things they are intended for in many
games.
>Something like this is "properly" handled by the game contract.
And often, the game contract is that you have Plot Points so that you can
change a few results that you find unacceptable.
Since the problem in that case was a lack of authorial control by you, why
should a tool which gives you authorial control be inappropriate ?
And when
>my characters use their Plot Points to gain advantages similar to this,
>it *does* begin looking very "gamist." Plot Points are meant to
>encourage character expression, not "winning."
Not in most games that use that sort of mechanism.
>> >But in such cases, hiding or not using Plot Points doesn't solve the
>> >*problem*, only the symptom.
>>
>> I think it can. If the players react to a mechanic in a way you find
>> inappropriate it is easier and usually better to find a set of mechanics
>> that suit the players than to find a group of players that suit the
>> mechanics.
>
>Well, I would agree that radically altering the game mechanics might
>make sense as a last resort if players are unable to use those mechanics
>maturely.
How about simply playing a different game ? There are a lot of RPGs out
there.
But isn't it possible for people to change?
Of course. But do you want to put up with games you obviously find
unacceptable while you are trying to change them ?
Shouldn't we give
>a player a chance to modify their behavior instead of instantaneously
>changing game systems to compensate for their behavior?
>
>> >It seems to me that you're saying that one needs to be a better player
>> >to use such systems. In that, I agree.
>> >
>> I think you are being unfair here. "Better" here simply means "inclined to
>> play the way Mark likes even when Mark offers inducements to play
>> otherwise". And of course, it's always a judgement call - and rarely a
>> clear one - as to whether a use is gamist or not.
>
>No. "Better" just means "better." I think that if we conducted an
>informal survey of r.g.frp.advocacy we could easily get a consensus of
>what a "better" player would be in this case that I would agree with.
I don't think Mary Kuhner would be considered a bad player, yet she has run
into exactly this problem.
>
>> Let me make a suggestion. Allow the players unlimited plot points. If
>> they're good enough to not use them in a 'gamist' manner then you don't
>> need to worry about abuse. And without the artificial constraint of a
>> limit, they'll be less inclined to hoard points for "important" scenes.
>
>That's a very simplistic statement.
I think that it makes a lot of sense under your assumptions - and I think
that has a lot to do with why it is simplistic.
There are levels to everything.
>Allowing unlimited Plot Points would completely negate the whole purpose
>of what Plot Points are for.
If the players abuse the situation then that is - under your assumptions -
their responsibility.
Plot Points exist (in Theatrix) primarily
>to moderate "spotlight time." If Superman and an ordinary street cop
>have the same number of Plot Points, then the player of the street cop
>doesn't have to worry the the Superman character will always be
>outshining their character.
By which you presumably mean that the Cop will stand out *if* his player
spends a plot point and the Superman character's player does not.
Obviously if neither spends a point the Superman character should be vastly
more effective.
But this works the other way, too. If the Cop's player has unlimited plot
points then he can afford to use them more often, while the Superman
character's player should not need them.
This, of course, assumes that the plot points are not used as an artificial
constraint on the Superman character's powers. Unless the supply of plot
points was very great, such a limit would effectively mean that the
character wasn't Superman at all.
Unlimited Plot Points would require that the
>Players moderate themselves. Sure, this is possible and even desirous.
>But it's also much more difficult than avoiding "gamist" impulses.
Well that is your assertion, and it is certainly not obvious to me that it
is even slightly more difficult. As far as I am concerned the limited
supply - and the need to ration plot points - is far more likely to pose a
problem than the tendancy to overuse plot points. In general I am more
likely to worry that there might be a better use later - when I've run out
- than that I should have used a point for an in-game advantage.
It
>certainly could be something to shoot for, but I don't believe that it's
>a reasonable expectation for most players.
So you agree with me that the GM *should* choose tools with a regard to how
they may influence the players.
>
>But ultimately, you're right that the final responsibility lies within
>the players and not the rules. I'm glad you agree with me.
>
I don't entirely agree - I was using your assumptions for the sake of
argument. I think the real responsibility is on the GM as well as the
players, and that the objective is to have a game which all enjoy - not a
game which uses a particular mechanic.
Paul K.
Going on holiday. I will be offline for about a week and a half.
Mary K. Kuhner
>Except that we're not really talking about writing movies, we're talking
>about simulating genres in role-playing games. Killing off PCs 5 minutes
>into an adventure seems to me to be a good way to get players to leave
>your group. Eventually you'd run out of players, wouldn't you?
It's a bad idea to write lethal adventures for non-lethal genres. In
my experience, it remains a bad idea even if you provide some Plot
Points to keep the PCs alive; better to use mechanics and/or scenarios
that are not so lethal in the first place.
We tried the Plot Point approach in _Paradisio_ and it had two bad
effects.
(1) The lethality was prone to reappear suddenly if the GM or players
misjudged the use or number of Plot Points. We had at least two
instances of the "everyone dies" debacle as a result.
(2) The game felt wonky--it was clear to the player that the characters
were not capable of dealing with their opposition, and were being
enabled to do so by the Plot Points.
If Plot Points need to be used very rarely these two objections
won't apply. However, as John Kim said, then the players are liable
to forget they've got them. I'd be inclined to prefer simple player
request "Hey, that result sucked, can we retcon it?" to a point
mechanic. But different players may feel otherwise.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
James C. Ellis
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
<problems with plot points snipped>
> If Plot Points need to be used very rarely these two objections
> won't apply. However, as John Kim said, then the players are liable
> to forget they've got them. I'd be inclined to prefer simple player
> request "Hey, that result sucked, can we retcon it?" to a point
> mechanic. But different players may feel otherwise.
>
I've been in more than one campaign where plot points proved an
adequate means of providing a safety net. These cases all shared the
gamist technique of "balanced opposition", thus (generally) preventing
your problems with 'everyone dying', or 'artificial power inflation'.
Another factor that may have helped them to be effective was that the
mechanics used depended upon a hit point system, wherein a critical hit
generated a specific wound (whose lethality could vary greatly). Thus,
as long as the players were just receiving normal D&D-style hp damage,
Plot Points wouldn't preserve the character for more than one additional
blow. Whenever the vagaries of the die roll indicated a particularly
grevious strike however, the Plot Point would tone down the statistical
extremes.
And I _never_ saw a player forget his "Shit Saver Points" in the face
of such a debilitating wound :)
(Note: There were problems if a player were too aggressive in the use
of his points, but the need for them was at least seldom enough that I
never had a player run out merely trying to save his own ass. Guess both
campaigns fell into a lucky gray area where plot points could serve the
purpose.)
Biff
Mark Apolinski
Paul Andrew King wrote:
>
> In article <339667...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Paul Andrew King wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <33944A...@ix.netcom.com>,
> >> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >Plot Points *in themselves* do not encourage gamist thinking either.
>
> I believe that they do, at least as usually implemented.
Some games which use a meta-game player-empowering point-tool do
encourage gamist thinking, but some do not. This is a sure sign that
it's not the points themselves but their implementation that is causing
the shift to a gamist perspective.
Specifically, in a game like Star_Wars, Force Points can only be used to
increase one's die roll. This is definitely going to produce gamist
results like hoarding, etc.
On the other hand, in a game like _Theatrix_, Plot Points are not used
to achieve success but instead to portray one's character. There is
little or no gamist thinking.
> You seem to be arguing that plot points don't encourage "gamist' thinking
> because players should ignore the encouragement.
We seem to be trying to argue two seperate points simultaneously. Since
you specifically said "Plot Points" (which I capitalized for a reason)
so I am therefore specifically talking about the game system _Theatrix_,
and in _Theatrix_ while it is true that players new to the game
sometimes treat Plot Points in a gamist fashion, they are doing so in
error. In _Theatrix_ I have to 're-train' them to not think about Plot
Points in that way and to use them the way the rules intend. In
_Theatrix_, they have to learn to modify their behavior and not think in
a 'gamist' fashion.
> >> It isn't even that simple. The "proper" uses of plot points overlap quite
> >> heavily with gamist uses. Would you consider using a plot point to avoid a
> >> permanently crippling injury appropriate ? It would certainly makes sense
> >> to a 'gamist'. And making effective use of them from any stance relies on
> >> the knowledge that the supply is limited.
> >
> >Well, I wouldn't consider this a "proper" use of a Plot Point.
>
> Why not ? It's exactly the sort of things they are intended for in many
> games.
Again, you're arguing about meta-game player-empowering point-tools *in
general* when I am talking about a specific game system.
In any case, you say it yourself that "many games" intend that
particular usage. That means that some games do not. If the
implementation of Meta Points varies from game system to game system,
and some game systems encourage gamist thinking while some do not (such
as _Theatrix_), then it follows that the crucial difference in terms of
what is causing the shift in thinking is not the existance or
non-existance of the Points themselves but their implementation.
> >Something like this is "properly" handled by the game contract.
>
> And often, the game contract is that you have Plot Points so that you can
> change a few results that you find unacceptable.
When I say that, I mean that game systems that allow Meta Points to have
this function do encourage gamist play, but that I believe (prefer) that
the game contract be clearly defined with regards to script immunity,
and that Meta Points not be able to influence this. It seems clear that
there are two ways to eliminate the gamist encouragement that might be
generated by Meta Points, throw away the Points, or alter the rules so
they don't encourage gamist thinking anymore. You seem to be ignoring
the possibility and simplicity of the latter.
> >And when
> >my characters use their Plot Points to gain advantages similar to this,
> >it *does* begin looking very "gamist." Plot Points are meant to
> >encourage character expression, not "winning."
>
> Not in most games that use that sort of mechanism.
Again, implementation varies. It is the implementation of the Points
that may encourage gamist thinking, not the mere existance of them.
What you seem to be saying is that just having such Points in a game
will produce gamist thinking regardless of how they're intended to be
used, but your evidence doesn't prove this.
> >> >But in such cases, hiding or not using Plot Points doesn't solve the
> >> >*problem*, only the symptom.
> >>
> >> I think it can. If the players react to a mechanic in a way you find
> >> inappropriate it is easier and usually better to find a set of mechanics
> >> that suit the players than to find a group of players that suit the
> >> mechanics.
Yes, of course eliminating Points would prevent them from being abused,
just as destroying all guns in the world would eliminate the possibility
of anyone being shot. But it would be simpler to just find an
implementation of Points that don't cause this problem in the first
place.
> How about simply playing a different game ? There are a lot of RPGs out
> there.
How about simply playing a game in which Points don't encourage gamist
thinking. They exist too.
> >No. "Better" just means "better." I think that if we conducted an
> >informal survey of r.g.frp.advocacy we could easily get a consensus of
> >what a "better" player would be in this case that I would agree with.
>
> I don't think Mary Kuhner would be considered a bad player, yet she has run
> into exactly this problem.
Mary described a specific situation in which Karma Points could be used
to prevent character death. With the implementation of Karma Points
being what it is, this is a valid problem, but one solution would be to
implement a game contract in which players didn't have to worry about
their characters being killed unfairly. Then the temptation to horde
Karma would be greatly lessened. Another solution would be to re-write
the Karma rules to eliminate this temptation.
> >> Let me make a suggestion. Allow the players unlimited plot points. If
> >> they're good enough to not use them in a 'gamist' manner then you don't
> >> need to worry about abuse. And without the artificial constraint of a
> >> limit, they'll be less inclined to hoard points for "important" scenes.
> >
> >That's a very simplistic statement.
>
> I think that it makes a lot of sense under your assumptions - and I think
> that has a lot to do with why it is simplistic.
You don't understand my assumptions. Why not try verifying them first?
> There are levels to everything.
> >Allowing unlimited Plot Points would completely negate the whole purpose
> >of what Plot Points are for.
>
> If the players abuse the situation then that is - under your assumptions -
> their responsibility.
Yes. At least partially.
> Plot Points exist (in Theatrix) primarily
> >to moderate "spotlight time." If Superman and an ordinary street cop
> >have the same number of Plot Points, then the player of the street cop
> >doesn't have to worry the the Superman character will always be
> >outshining their character.
>
> By which you presumably mean that the Cop will stand out *if* his player
> spends a plot point and the Superman character's player does not.
> Obviously if neither spends a point the Superman character should be vastly
> more effective.
Not necessarily.
> But this works the other way, too. If the Cop's player has unlimited plot
> points then he can afford to use them more often, while the Superman
> character's player should not need them.
>
> This, of course, assumes that the plot points are not used as an artificial
> constraint on the Superman character's powers. Unless the supply of plot
> points was very great, such a limit would effectively mean that the
> character wasn't Superman at all.
In _Theatrix_, Plot Points *do* constrain the usefulness of Superman's
powers, sort of. But a low limit doesn't mean the character isn't
Superman. These aren't 'mana points' used to power spells or something.
> As far as I am concerned the limited
> supply - and the need to ration plot points - is far more likely to pose a
> problem than the tendancy to overuse plot points. In general I am more
> likely to worry that there might be a better use later - when I've run out
> - than that I should have used a point for an in-game advantage.
And this is something that you have yet to prove. Remember that it
depends how the Points are used. In Theatrix, it's not a question of
whether you want to save the Plot Point to 'win' later on, it's a
question of whether or not it's your *turn* to be the lead character in
the scene.
In fact, this could be a simple alternative to a Point system. Simply
require players to 'take turns.' If there are three players, A, B and C,
then when A takes the spotlight, they can't do it again until both B and
C have also. No Points and everyone gets their chance whether they're
Superman or Joe the Cop.
> So you agree with me that the GM *should* choose tools with a regard to how
> they may influence the players.
Of course, but do you agree with me that people should take
responsibility for their actions?
Mark
Mark Apolinski
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
> We tried the Plot Point approach in _Paradisio_ and it had two bad
> effects.
>
> (1) The lethality was prone to reappear suddenly if the GM or players
> misjudged the use or number of Plot Points. We had at least two
> instances of the "everyone dies" debacle as a result.
>
> (2) The game felt wonky--it was clear to the player that the characters
> were not capable of dealing with their opposition, and were being
> enabled to do so by the Plot Points.
What game system were you using? I ask because the way that Theatrix
utilizes Plot Points, they don't enable or empower the character to do
something that they are otherwise unable to do. I would say it's more
like they empower the *player*.
It might not be Plot Points by themselves, you might just need a way of
using them that prevents these problems from occurring.
Mark
David Alex Lamb
In article <339667...@ix.netcom.com>,
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Paul Andrew King wrote:
>>
>> In article <33944A...@ix.netcom.com>,
>> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >But in such cases, hiding or not using Plot Points doesn't solve the
>> >*problem*, only the symptom.
>>
>> I think it can. If the players react to a mechanic in a way you find
>> inappropriate it is easier and usually better to find a set of mechanics
>> that suit the players than to find a group of players that suit the
>> mechanics.
>
>make sense as a last resort if players are unable to use those mechanics
>a player a chance to modify their behavior instead of instantaneously
>changing game systems to compensate for their behavior?
I think an analogy from another field might be useful. I regularly see
articles in comp.risks about accidents or other failures that get attributed
to "operator error". Deeper investigation often reveals that, yes, the
operator made an error , but a major contributing factor was that the tools
were poorly designed. "Made an error" means the operator used the available
tools incorrectly -- in a way the designers didn't intend to be used in the
given circumstances. "Poorly designed" means the tools tended to lead to that
kind of error under the circumstances the operator experienced.
One example I recall very vaguely involved a flight instrument that could be
in two different "modes" - I think the example was "display rate of descent"
versus "display height above ground"; there was a subtle, hard-to-notice
indication of which mode it was in. You can imagine that someone who thought
s/he was descending slowly might be in trouble if s/he was really very low to
the ground.
The relevance to the current discussion is: yes, perhaps a mis-use of Plot
Points could be considered an "operator error" as Mark suggests, but it's a
good idea to dig deeper and find a better mechanic, as Paul sugests.
--
http://www.qucis.queensu.ca/home/dalamb/
Mary K. Kuhner
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>What game system were you using? I ask because the way that Theatrix
>utilizes Plot Points, they don't enable or empower the character to do
>something that they are otherwise unable to do. I would say it's more
>like they empower the *player*.
We were using Shadowrun.
Can you give some concrete examples of what "empowering the player"
means in this context? I don't normally feel disempowered as a player
in my games, so it's not clear to me what need is being served here.
I think a number of people are working on the basis of your example,
given a few months ago, of a PC crippled against his player's wishes;
but any use of Plot Points to fix that, you've said recently, would
be "gamist". What sort of situation *do* you forsee using them in?
The examples from the Theatrix rules which I've read (admittedly
a small part of the total rules, which I've never seen) tend to suggest
to me that the Plot Points are used to restore to the players some
of the power which that style of play naturally gives to the GM.
Just as with the use of Plot Points to reduce lethality, this
strikes me as rather roundabout. But I really need a genuine
example, preferably from actual play.
Thinking back on past campaigns, I can only think of two kinds of
situations in which I really felt disempowered. One was situations
of excessive lethality; I've already said why plot points didn't work
for me there. The other was situations where the GM was artlessly
forcing his plot against the players' wishes. I think having a limited
supply of Plot Points with which to try to balk the GM's railroad
would not feel empowering to me at all in such a situation; rather the
opposite, as it would rub in just how powerless I really was.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Jason Stokes
In article <33983F...@ix.netcom.com>, Mark Apolinski
<apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Specifically, in a game like Star_Wars, Force Points can only be used to
> increase one's die roll. This is definitely going to produce gamist
> results like hoarding, etc.
So we are agreed on something. Ok, now...
> On the other hand, in a game like _Theatrix_, Plot Points are not used
> to achieve success but instead to portray one's character. There is
> little or no gamist thinking.
Ummm... why do you need a game mechanic like "plot points" in order to
portray one's character? Isn't that role-playing?
Mark Apolinski
Jason Stokes wrote:
>
> In article <33983F...@ix.netcom.com>, Mark Apolinski
> <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, in a game like _Theatrix_, Plot Points are not used
> > to achieve success but instead to portray one's character. There is
> > little or no gamist thinking.
>
> portray one's character? Isn't that role-playing?
Look again. I didnt say that plot points are *needed* to protray one's
character. I said that in Theatrix, Plot Points are an aid to roleplay.
IMO.
Mark
Mark Apolinski
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >What game system were you using? I ask because the way that Theatrix
> >utilizes Plot Points, they don't enable or empower the character to do
> >something that they are otherwise unable to do. I would say it's more
> >like they empower the *player*.
>
> We were using Shadowrun.
Well, in that case then I agree that Karma points can be very 'gamist.'
> Can you give some concrete examples of what "empowering the player"
> means in this context? I don't normally feel disempowered as a player
> in my games, so it's not clear to me what need is being served here.
> I think a number of people are working on the basis of your example,
> given a few months ago, of a PC crippled against his player's wishes;
> but any use of Plot Points to fix that, you've said recently, would
> be "gamist". What sort of situation *do* you forsee using them in?
I see. No I don't think that Plot Points are meant to be used in that
case. That is a job for the game contract, which I thought I said at the
time.
> The examples from the Theatrix rules which I've read (admittedly
> a small part of the total rules, which I've never seen) tend to suggest
> to me that the Plot Points are used to restore to the players some
> of the power which that style of play naturally gives to the GM.
Yes, the ability of Plot Points to make Player Statements true is what I
meant by 'player empowerment.' They give some GMing power (and
responsibility) to the Player in a formalized way. I really think that
Plot Points are an advancement over such tools as Whimsy Cards (or
Storypaths) in that they allow more freedom to the player as to what
kind of intervention can be done unlike Whimsy Cards (or Torg cards)
where the player is limited to the interventions listed on the cards
they hold at the moment. The disadvantage is of course that the Player
may find it more difficult to think up intervention ideas without some
cards present to provide a 'seed', but I think of that as the higher
price for more flexibility that Plot Points allow.
> Just as with the use of Plot Points to reduce lethality, this
> strikes me as rather roundabout. But I really need a genuine
> example, preferably from actual play.
Plot Points *do not* reduce lethality. That is handled by game contract,
character skill, and player roleplay.
It may be roundabout (player empowerment via Plot Points) but a formal
arrangement of 'payment' of Plot Points helps everyone in the game to
stay on the same page. I would agree that an even higher level of
'evolution' would be one in which there were no 'points' of any kind but
merely a mutual understanding within the gaming group. But, as I've
said, I think that would be even more difficult to maintain. However,
this might be the way that gaming is headed in the future; who knows.
If your group can handle things like 'spotlight time' and making sure
that all PCs get enough attention, regardless of power level, without
using 'points' then it's probably best for you group to not use them at
all.
> Thinking back on past campaigns, I can only think of two kinds of
> situations in which I really felt disempowered. One was situations
> of excessive lethality; I've already said why plot points didn't work
> for me there. The other was situations where the GM was artlessly
> forcing his plot against the players' wishes. I think having a limited
> supply of Plot Points with which to try to balk the GM's railroad
> would not feel empowering to me at all in such a situation; rather the
> opposite, as it would rub in just how powerless I really was.
I really think the use of the word 'plot point' is confusing here. Plot
Points are specific to Theatrix and have a specific implementation that
is different from Shadowrun's Karma Points, Star_Wars's Force Points,
CORPS's ASPs, and anything else.
Which of these methods one chooses to use will have a big impact on the
feel of the game. Simply lumping all of these systems' use of 'Points'
together in a generic statement will not only fail to capture the facts
of these tools uses, but will blind people to the differences in
implementation that are responsible for the ambiance of the game.
Mark
Jason Stokes
On Sun, 08 Jun 1997 10:07:16 +0100, Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Jason Stokes wrote:
>>
>> <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On the other hand, in a game like _Theatrix_, Plot Points are not used
>> > to achieve success but instead to portray one's character. There is
>> > little or no gamist thinking.
>>
>> portray one's character? Isn't that role-playing?
>
>Look again. I didnt say that plot points are *needed* to protray one's
>character. I said that in Theatrix, Plot Points are an aid to roleplay.
>IMO.
Maybe you should think about the meaning of "need" in this context. I am
saying that Plot Points are not required nor particularly useful for
portraying one's character. I'm sorry if that came over ambigously.
--
Jason Stokes: j%stokes <at> bohm%anu%edu%au
Replace <at> with @ and % with . to discover my email address.
Being called "big penis" in the native Wik Monkan language is considered a
terrible insult. The Wik people would wonder why we keep telling each
other to go have some sex.
Mary K. Kuhner
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>It may be roundabout (player empowerment via Plot Points) but a formal
>arrangement of 'payment' of Plot Points helps everyone in the game to
>stay on the same page. I would agree that an even higher level of
>'evolution' would be one in which there were no 'points' of any kind but
>merely a mutual understanding within the gaming group. But, as I've
>said, I think that would be even more difficult to maintain. However,
>this might be the way that gaming is headed in the future; who knows.
You're right in that I've been lumping different kinds of intervention
points together inappropriately; partly because I've mainly had
experience with the Shadowrun kind. I'm still very puzzled by the idea
of using points to equalize spotlight time; I could really use a live
example here. How does it work?
In games I've experienced, inequality of spotlight time arises for
a couple of different reasons.
(1) Some players are more vocal, pushy, or outgoing than others.
(2) Some PCs are naturally central to what's happening, others
aren't.
(3) Some PCs are capable of a wider and more useful variety of
things than others, therefore getting more spotlight.
(4) Some PCs are more flamboyant than others, therefore getting
more spotlight. (Often linked to #1, but not always.)
(5) Some players are able to spend more time on the game than
others.
In one-on-one games with multiple PCs, obviously #1 and #5 aren't a
problem, but #2, #3 and #4 still happen and can still cause trouble
(I find that a character with inadequate spotlight doesn't develop
well).
Can you say anything about which of these you consider Theatrix Plot
Points to be useful for, and how they work?
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
David L. Pulver
On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Matthew Colville wrote:
> It's amazing to me that this idea has caused so much controversy.
> Imagine any movie or book you've enjoyed. . .would it have been *just as
> enjoyable* if the hero had died 5 minutes into it? Would Raiders of the
> Lost Ark have been *just as rewarding* if Indy had been crushed by the
> rolling bolder 5 minutes into the film? Many of you seem to be answering
> this question by saying "Well, it would have been kinda cool if Indy had
> died in the first five minutes," which is not the point. Would the movie
> have been *equally* good?
Of course. In that case, Indy wouldn't have been the hero. Lots of movies
start with some poor fellow getting crushed/boiled/whatever to demonstrate
the lethality of the opposition. So let's take your example: the "Indy"
character dies in the first five minutes. The next sequence? The REAL hero
of the movie recieves a letter. "Regret to inform your brother Indy has
just died seeking the Lost Ark (or whatever). Suggest you go look for
him/avenge his death/leave your life at the museum to take up archeology
to carry on where he left off." RPGs are games, not movies. Heck, suppose
you assign fate points to the players -- as GM, you'll KNOW that they have
fate points, so you'll take that into account when making the adventure
dangerous. Remember, this is roleplaying -- the players aren't WATCHING
Indy, they aren't your audience -- they are playing him! If they know they
can escape any risk by blowing a fate point, they'll take the risk --
since it isn't any risk. If a player knows he needs to roll a 10+ on 3d6
to leap the chasm of doom in game 1 (no fate points), then that player has
a very different thrill then player in game 2 (fate points) where he knows
he can succeed automatically or reroll or whatever by blowing a fate
point. If it's early in the story, you can always exercise GM prerogative
-- he falls and instead of dying, his body hits a tree root or ledge, and
he's there, unconsious, awaiting desperate rescue, or he falls into a dark
stream the players didn't see -- much more fun, and if done well, the
players will never know.
> Likewise, after 2 hours of cliffhangers, if Indy had died by being
> accidently shot in the back, and then the credits rolled, would you have
> been *pleased?*
This is a better argument. As a GM, I'd never shoot a player in the back
with a "okay, you failed your alertness roll, he hits,
you die" type situation. However, in roleplaying games, there are usually
several players who are more or less EQUAL. And yeah, if at the
cliffhanger, Indy gets it in the back, and Short Round has to pick up the
grail and run with it -- well, we give Indy's player a dying speech -- or
the chance to "open the ark/grail/whatever" and heal Indy -- heck, it
worked with Indy's father, right? Imagine Indy getting captured and shot,
not his dad -- or his girl friend -- the focus shifts slightly, the drama
is intensified as the plot changes and the GM, thinking on his feet, adds
a new complication! And afterwards, the story isn't "remember the time I
took that critical hit but blew a fate point to change the result to it
just missed me" to "remember the time Indy was mortally wounded and Short
Round had to shoot the Nazi and carry his body to safety?" If you don't
script everything in advance, you can go with the flow.
-David
David L. Pulver
> In article
> <mcolville-170...@1cust92.max2.los-angeles.ca.ms.uu.net>,
> mcol...@earthlink.net (Matthew Colville) wrote:
>
>
> > Imagine the Hobbit. Imagine Bard Bowman. Imagine him missing. What
> > the hell sense would that make?? The Dragon would have won and all the
> > emotional energy we, the reader, had invested in the game would have been
> > betrayed. Trump Points simulate this.
Well, Bard was almost certainly an NPC -- he's introduced only in
the last part of the story, he's got a magic arrow of dragon-slaying (the
black arrow) and the GM is doing all the die rolling -- the player's have
already done their bit, they fufilled the quest by spying out the dragon's
weak spot and getting the black arrow to Bard. So the GM just rolls the
dice, ignores the result (it's an NPC attacking an NPC with a magic weapon
that only the GM has any idea of what, exactly, it does) and bang, the
dragon's dead. Heck, look at it from the player's perspective. Suppose the
GM scrupulously rolled the dice, got a miss, then said "Bard expends a
fate point and rerolls / succeeds automatically" -- there goes
suspension of disbelief anyway. Or he doesn't say anything, just
rolls an obvious miss and tells the players it is a hit. What will
they think? Hey, instead of giving him a trump point,
if the GM really wanted a hit, he should give him enough skill that with
arrow+skill he can't miss -- that's more natural and logical.
But suppose Bard was a PC, Tolkein-GM had been running a Dale
campaign at the same time or whatever. Should the GM really script the
plot to that level? I mean, remember, the story isn't over until it's
over. Obviously if Bard MISSED with the black arrow, the chapter would end
-- a cliffhanger -- and the GM calls a bathroom break to let the PCs
stew and himself think. Then, in the two minutes it too me to think of
a new plot element, the arrow arcs past, Smaug toasts some more villagers,
taunts Bard, and heads off to deal with the hobbit and dwarves. Bard swims
for the floating arrow, grabs it and arrives just in time to back shoot
smaug as he's chasing invisible Bilbo around the Lonely Mountain. Or
whatever.
There is no one ending: remember, if that had happened, we'd be
saying "what if Smaug hadn't dodged -- we'd only be part way through the
story, and miss all that cool action as the invisible bilbo taunted
smuag with riddles he'd learned from golem while Bard crept up on him?"
frj
>-*-*-*-
There are also Fantasy Realms 'Destiny Points' which allow a player in
a critical situation to add 10 to a die they are about to roll. This
does not help rolls that result in a critical failure at all, but will
otherwise definitely assure the success of a non-contested action, and
may help overcome the defenses or oppositional actions of another
character (or achieve a near impossible feat). Destiny points are
countered by negative karma points, which are used to add plot twists
and personal life complications to a character.
Although they could be abused (as per the Hero Points mentioned above)
they are less likely to, since they are earned for good roleplaying on
the players part (and abuse of destiny points is not good
roleplaying). Thus players tend to save them for critical actions in
the character's life, not waste them on mundane activities or simple
situations. [A literature example that would show the use of a destiny
point would be from Tolkein's Hobbit, when an arrow is fired that is
aimed at the one vulnerable point on the body of the dragon].
Articles in regards to the use of these type of point systems can be
found on our WWW site, and have been previously published in
Interregnum APA (www.tiac.net/users/maranci/)
Joe
f...@tiqc.net
Staff Of The Fantasy Realms Roleplaying Game
_________________________________________
Joseph Teller * Kiralee McCauley * Cynthia Shettle
f...@tiac.net http://www.tiac.net/users/frj
John H Kim
This is a reply concerning Plot Points in _Theatrix_, in
response to some disagreement concerning their use. Mark suggests
that Plot Points in _Theatrix_ are used primarily to regulate spotlight
time, not to buy success. In general -- Mark, could you provide some
examples of what you consider "proper" use of Plot Points? The
examples in the _Theatrix_ rulebook are all used to benefit the PC's.
Do you have something different in mind?
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Specifically, in a game like Star_Wars, Force Points can only be used to
>increase one's die roll. This is definitely going to produce gamist
>results like hoarding, etc.
>
>On the other hand, in a game like _Theatrix_, Plot Points are not used
>to achieve success but instead to portray one's character. There is
>little or no gamist thinking.
Hmmm. I am perfectly willing to believe that there is little
gamist thinking in your _Theatrix_ group. However, I think your
contrast here is quite overstated. Plot Points are used to buy
successes: that is explicit in the rules. They can be used to aid
characterization, but so can Force Points. Note that Force Points
are intended to represent an *in-game* mystical power which the
characters can draw on.
_Theatrix_ outlines the use of Plot Points as:
"SPENDING PLOT POINTS
*Activate a Personality Trait*
- for Success in a single associated action.
- to disregard external control for one Scene.
- to perform actions that require that Trait for one Scene.
*Activate a Descriptor*
- for Success in a single associated action.
- for dramatic use of that Descriptor for one Scene.
*Activate a Statement*
- to eliminate the possibility of that Statement being wrong."
Now, I agree that these can be used to enhance characterization,
and it is significant that the player has to come up with a suitable
Trait to buy a success. However, I see that mainly as appealing to
gamist instincts -- trying to reward them with successes for playing
in character.
-*-*-*-
I was intrigued by the idea of giving the players infinite
Plot Points! What do you think would happen?
Another good test is to look at how many are used to benefit
the PC's versus how many are used to their detriment. The current
Victorian occult/horror game I am in uses the Tarot as Whimsy Cards.
I would say about 75-85% of the uses are to the benefit of the PC's,
and I would agree that this is a sign of gamism. The game in many
ways has been a mystery/puzzle that we are trying to overcome.
I will give some examples in a later post. Could you give
some examples of what you consider "proper" use of _Theatrix_
Plot Points?
Ennead
: > Let me make a suggestion. Allow the players unlimited plot points. If
: > they're good enough to not use them in a 'gamist' manner then you don't
: > need to worry about abuse. And without the artificial constraint of a
: > limit, they'll be less inclined to hoard points for "important" scenes.
: That's a very simplistic statement. There are levels to everything.
: Allowing unlimited Plot Points would completely negate the whole purpose
: of what Plot Points are for.
In other words, the Plot Points are there to *limit*
player authorial control. Isn't that contrary to _Theatrix's_
stated philosophy?
: Plot Points exist (in Theatrix) primarily to moderate "spotlight
: time."
In other words, to limit it. That is the reason for doling
out a finite number of Plot Points to the players: to ensure that
their access to authorial power is kept under control.
I can understand why someone would want to do this, but
it does bother me that _Theatrix_ chooses to describe this dynamic
in terms of "player empowerment." So you empower your players
to act as author by restricting their ability to do so? This is
pure double-speak, and it is what really gets my goat about _Theatrix._
: If Superman and an ordinary street cop
: have the same number of Plot Points, then the player of the street cop
: doesn't have to worry the the Superman character will always be
: outshining their character.
But if the street cop's player has already spent his Plot
Points (say, to ensure that his improvs are allowed to stand as
in-game facts), then it is all right for the character to be denied
spotlight time?
I just don't see this. Surely ensuring that the distribution
of spotlight time is equitable is the group's responsibility,
regardless of whether a given player still has Plot Points to spend!
: Unlimited Plot Points would require that the Players moderate
: themselves. Sure, this is possible and even desirous.
: But it's also much more difficult than avoiding "gamist" impulses.
I don't see it as nearly as difficult as trying to use
a plot point mechanic in a "non-gamist" fashion. But perhaps
people differ in what they find difficult.
The only way I have been able to play with plot points
without falling into game-think in past games has been to ignore
them completely. Ignoring them was, for me, far easier than
using them without viewing them as game resources.
-- Sarah
Ennead
In rec.games.frp.advocacy Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: I agree with you that Plot Points represent the players' authorial
: presence and therein lies the root of any problem that they may cause.
I agree with this statement, but I draw rather different
conclusions from it.
The problem with Plot Point mechanics, as I see it, is
that they force the player's authorial presence into a gamist
paradigm. By constraining and regulating the players' authorial
power through rules which demand a tactical approach, they send
a clear message: "This is a *game* and it is to be played as such."
The two approaches just do not mesh well for me. If the
game is really a game, to be played as a game, then it doesn't seem
to me that I should really have very much authorial power in the
first place. Such power detracts from the particular aesthetic
pleasure of Game.
If, on the other hand, the game is in part a story which I
am helping to create, then I don't want game rules standing in my
way. Such rules detract from the particular aesthetic pleasure of
Authoring.
If you want me to help author, then I am happy to do so,
but I don't want to make a game out of it. I take my authorial
power rather seriously, and applying gamey rules to its exertion
irritates the hell out of me.
: If players use them with a 'gamist' mentality, ie. 'to win', then the
: game will feel much different from one in which the players use such
: tools as an aid to playing their characters.
If the players do not have a "gamist" mentality, then the
game-like structure of plot point mechanics are simply an annoyance.
Why give players a limited number of points, if you are not trying
to encourage them to view the points as a resource to be marshalled
and tactically deployed, rather than as an expression of authorial
power? If you want to give the players the power of author, why not
just *give* it to them, rather than seeking to limit and control it
through the use of a point mechanic?
: What this means is that Plot Points don't kill games, Players do (to
: coin a phrase). Plot Points are designed for player usage and therefore
: the players will generate the kind of game that they want.
To generate the kind of game that I want, I need to have
a more subtle and flexible approach to player-as-author than that
provided by a plot point mechanic.
-- Sarah
John H Kim
Well, we've had a call for more discussion here... My issue
for this post is different ways of constructing player authorship
mechanics. That is: mechanics where the players can to some limited
degree automatically define something about the game world.
The idea is to get the players more involved in defining
more of how the game's story goes. Personally, I have found
Whimsy Cards to be very successful in this regard, whereas I have
not gotten good results from Plot Points.
In general, the discussion of Trump Points and Plot Points
has gotten very abstract -- I would like more concrete examples of
their use in play...
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>> The examples from the Theatrix rules which I've read (admittedly
>> a small part of the total rules, which I've never seen) tend to suggest
>> to me that the Plot Points are used to restore to the players some
>> of the power which that style of play naturally gives to the GM.
>
>Yes, the ability of Plot Points to make Player Statements true is what I
>meant by 'player empowerment.' They give some GMing power (and
>responsibility) to the Player in a formalized way. I really think that
>Plot Points are an advancement over such tools as Whimsy Cards (or
>Storypaths) in that they allow more freedom to the player as to what
>kind of intervention can be done unlike Whimsy Cards (or Torg cards)
>where the player is limited to the interventions listed on the cards
>they hold at the moment. The disadvantage is of course that the Player
>may find it more difficult to think up intervention ideas without some
>cards present to provide a 'seed', but I think of that as the higher
>price for more flexibility that Plot Points allow.
First of all, I am not convinced that Plot Points allow
greater flexibility in the first place. According to _Theatrix_,
use of Plot Points is limited to your character's descriptors/
traits and your character's Statements. You can buy a success,
"activate" a descriptor/trait, or make a Statement True.
Perhaps you use them differently in your _Theatrix_ games
than I have. Let me take an example:
We played with Storypath Cards in a _Champions_ game I was
in a few years ago. In one incident, a PC went off to meet with a
new NPC. At that point, a different player played the "True Love"
card to have the unlikely pair find themselves attracted to each
other. Could that player have done this with a Plot Point?
More importantly, would a player in your game do anything like
this with Plot Points (example)?
As another example, in the current Victorian occult/
horror game we are using the Tarot as Whimsy Cards. We were
enacting an occult ritual to entrap our primary foe -- when I
played the Tower card to rain disaster on the proceedings,
forcing the players to improvise wildly. Again, this strikes
me as the sort of thing Plot Points are unlikely to be used for.
-*-*-*-*-*-
The essence is that I don't think you need to _expand_ the
player's option of intervention. During that _Champions_ game,
the GM occaisionally gave me cards for "Anything you want" as a
reward. I don't think I ever used those cards. The problem is
that a story can go in infinite ways from any given point:
I couldn't figure out a strong reason to favor a plot twist.
The cards give direction where otherwise there would be
a nearly arbitrary choice, from my point of view.
As I see it, Plot Points also give direction -- but that
direction is restricted to certain options that tend to give
your character more spotlight time: i.e. your character
succeeding at a critical moment, or your character being right
in an assessment, or displaying his usual characteristics.
Mark Apolinski
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >It may be roundabout (player empowerment via Plot Points) but a formal
> >arrangement of 'payment' of Plot Points helps everyone in the game to
> >stay on the same page. I would agree that an even higher level of
> >'evolution' would be one in which there were no 'points' of any kind but
> >merely a mutual understanding within the gaming group. But, as I've
> >said, I think that would be even more difficult to maintain. However,
> >this might be the way that gaming is headed in the future; who knows.
>
> You're right in that I've been lumping different kinds of intervention
> points together inappropriately; partly because I've mainly had
> experience with the Shadowrun kind. I'm still very puzzled by the idea
> of using points to equalize spotlight time; I could really use a live
> example here. How does it work?
The theory is that if a character wants to use one of their Descriptors
in a dramatic way in a certain scene, the player must spend a Plot Point
to activate that Descriptor. If the player does not want to spend a Plot
Point, then they have to offer some kind of reasonable explanation as to
why the Descriptor isn't being used. Use of a Plot Point to activate
Personality Traits to 'purchase' a success in a related action is
similar in that this is supposed to call attention to the Personality
Trait (for characterization purposes, IMO).
Once you get the hang of the concept, it is surprisingly easy to spot
'Plot Points' being used in TV shows or movies. For example,
_Xena-Warrior_Princess_ uses her Chakram from time to time in a dramatic
way, but there are scenes when she *could* use it and yet doesn't. If
she used it all the time this ability would begin to dominate plots
unfairly, but the writers know this and presumably scale down the usage
so this doesn't happen. In a game, Plot Points would accomplish the same
thing, allowing other characters the opportunity to 'save the day'
sometimes, since Xena's player would have to pick their moments to
activate the Descriptor 'Chakram'.
Another example, in _Jurrasic_Park_ Mr. Hammond's granddaughter was able
to contribute to the group's survival efforts with her knowledge of
computers. If she wasn't there or didn't have that ability, the other
characters would have had to do something else in that scene to escape,
but her Descriptor and her 'Plot Point' ensured that *she* would stand
out in this particular scene. Something similar happens in
_The_Lost_World_ involving Ian Malcom's daughter's gymnastic ability.
Note that this isn't the same as the character having a particular skill
and making a skill check. The Descriptor is a yes/no, on/off kind of
Trait that either allows a certain course of action or doesn't. The
character's skill determines what Theatrix calls the 'extent' of the
success or failure, but the activation of the Descriptor ensures that
whether the character is successful or not, their actions stand out.
One use of Descriptors can be thought of as character 'schticks' ala
Feng Shui. If my character has a Descriptor like 'Trick Shot' or
'Ladies' Man', what that's saying is that I want to play a certain
character concept. What Descriptors and the Plot Point rules do is
guarantee that I'll be able to play what I've created. I'll know that
the character will always be capable of these things without having to
worry about a run of bad luck with the dice. Not that I will always
succeed, although if I think that a particular task requires success in
order to support my concept of the character, I can always spend a Plot
Point to get that success. (Note: this can obviously easily be abused by
gamist thinking. I'm not talking about succeeding just to win, but
succeeding because it's inherent to character conception. James Bond may
not succeed at everything he does, but he *always* wins in the end. It's
part of what 'James Bond' means to moviegoers.)
When my players get into combats that they can't win, they don't
generally use Plot Points to win those fights, 'cause it's very
expensive. They have learned to *turn* the situation into one that they
can win. That may mean using Plot Points to activate Descriptors to run
away, negotiate, or come up with some clever plan. Whatever, so long as
it is something that is within character concept, ie. associated with
the character's Descriptors or Personality Traits. If one is fighting a
battle and loosing, the worst possible choice is to keep fighting. One
reason that this might be easier to do in Theatrix is that in Shadowrun
you don't have 'Descriptors' written down on your character sheet. The
'schticks' that your characters have, I'm guessing, come only after
roleplaying through the events that generate them and only after lucky
rolls. In Theatrix, these schticks are *pre-defined* so the player knows
what their character is capable of and what they can rely on. (Imagine
the Descriptor 'Lucky'. Imagine *knowing* that you can rely on your
character being lucky if necessary.) In a way, in Theatrix one is not
*developing* a character through roleplay, one is *demonstrating* that
character. (Before you bring up DIP and DAS you should know that, while
Theatrix characters generally do have to start strongly as DAS, it is
normal for characters to develop and gain or loose Descriptors in play.)
> In games I've experienced, inequality of spotlight time arises for
> a couple of different reasons.
>
> (1) Some players are more vocal, pushy, or outgoing than others.
> (2) Some PCs are naturally central to what's happening, others
> aren't.
> (3) Some PCs are capable of a wider and more useful variety of
> things than others, therefore getting more spotlight.
> (4) Some PCs are more flamboyant than others, therefore getting
> more spotlight. (Often linked to #1, but not always.)
> (5) Some players are able to spend more time on the game than
> others.
>
> In one-on-one games with multiple PCs, obviously #1 and #5 aren't a
> problem, but #2, #3 and #4 still happen and can still cause trouble
> (I find that a character with inadequate spotlight doesn't develop
> well).
>
> Can you say anything about which of these you consider Theatrix Plot
> Points to be useful for, and how they work?
With #1 and #4, I personally treat Plot Point expenditures as a reason
for me as the GM to pay more attention to the PC. The player who spends
a Plot Point is in effect telling me that something important is
happening, and I respond by giving more weight to their roleplay. Also
with #4, it doesn't matter if the PC is flamboyant if, in a given scene,
they have the Descriptor 'Master Swordsman' and yet don't spend a Plot
Point. Since they're not spending, they can't show off for that scene
and have to come up with a *reason* why not. The players would
eventually figure this mechanic out and stop acting flamboyantly if they
weren't intending to spend a Plot Point for the scene, IME.
With #2, what you say is true, but even if James Bond or Xena are the
central character of the story, a supporting character or sidekick can
still have their own moments. Since such characters would, almost by
definition, be less capable than the lead, a game system that determined
everything by skill rolls would naturally favor the more capable
characters. In Theatrix, it doesn't matter how capable one's character
is. If the player spends a Plot Point, the GM's job is to make the
effort important whether or not it's successful. It's almost Pavlovian,
in my opinion, to see players activate a Descriptor, be rewarded by
attention, and sit back smiling.
Finally, in case #3, some characters have a lot of Descriptors (and
therefore have a lot of choices of what to activate) and some have few.
Since Theatrix doesn't require characters to be of similar power levels,
the only reason that such a disparity could arise is if the player
wanted to play that kind of character. Both characters will have the
same number of Plot Points, so the one with many Descriptors will have
more choices of what to activate, but both will get the same amount of
'screen time.'
I hope my explanations were adequate. You might consider asking Dave
Berkman for more information. I would expect him to have more and better
examples. Otherwise, let me know what TV shows (or movies) you
regularly watch and I'll see if I can give you some examples of Plot
Point usage from current episodes
Mark
Brad Thurkettle
Jason Stokes wrote:
>
> In article <33983F...@ix.netcom.com>, Mark Apolinski
> <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Specifically, in a game like Star_Wars, Force Points can only be used to
> > increase one's die roll. This is definitely going to produce gamist
> > results like hoarding, etc.
>
Star Wars has two point systems for players to use to affect play. Character Points and Force
Points. Force Points are the most useful but if you use them in a selfish or greedy manner then
the character may turn to the Dark Side of the Force. ('If you won't join me Luke maybe your
sister will ...') A character turned to the Dark Side becomes a GM NPC so its not in the player's
interest to abuse their Force Points.
Force Points are 'gambled' each session in that if you use them correctly - at a cinematic high
point - you can get back _double_ Force Points for the next session.
Character points allow the player to add another die to an otherwise poor roll. If not used they
can be later used to increase skills. They are awarded like experience points at the end of a
session, not pinball numbers like AD&D but single digit figures.
> > On the other hand, in a game like _Theatrix_, Plot Points are not used
> > to achieve success but instead to portray one's character. There is
> > little or no gamist thinking.
I don't know Theatrix so no comment.
Cheers
--
Brad Thurkettle
bth...@links.truenorth.com
remove NOSPAM from reply address to reply
Check out Fuzion the new rpg from Hero.
http://www.sabram.com/rtalsoriangames/site/fuzion/index.html
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
On 6 Jun 1997 14:32:21 GMT, mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu
(Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>If Plot Points need to be used very rarely these two objections
>won't apply. However, as John Kim said, then the players are liable
>to forget they've got them. I'd be inclined to prefer simple player
>request "Hey, that result sucked, can we retcon it?" to a point
>mechanic. But different players may feel otherwise.
It seems to me that plot points (ala Theatrix) are an attempt to
institutionalize a particular kind of orientation on the part of the
GM.
If the GM makes it clear at the outset that character "descriptors"
carry with them a limited authority to "write" the game setting, plot
points become somewhat redundant. Let me give you an example of what
I mean: in our Bevon-in-flames campaign, in which I was the primary
GM, our PC magi were the experts on the magic system. All other
things being equal, I referred questions on the metaphysics of magic
to them to work out. Similarly, when questions came up about the
internal divisions of authority within the Order of the Humble Knights
of Saint Michael, I referred them to the player whose character was a
Michaeline. In a sense, answering these questions was an opportunity
to expand the back-story of the character, and in the process make the
world a fuller and more detailed place.
Now there was considerable room here for GM direction when I did
this--certain things were mysteries to the players, and I worked to
keep them that way, by denying the players the right to write, as it
were. Moreover, it was a troupe style game, and while I ran most of
the games, I was not the only GM--most of the other players wore the
GM hat at least on occasion, and hence just about everyone had a
strong *authorial* stake in the integrity of the setting. I could
trust people not to power game, if for no other reason than "sauce for
the goose, sauce for the gander."
Once the game got going in this fashion, and people got used to the
greater authorial license they possessed, more local improvisations
also became a bit more common. This is how I see plot points most
typically used--the PC magi, for example, spends a plot point to
determine that there is a magical nexus occurring at such and such a
place, and that "writes" that event into the setting. The PC,
briefly, becomes the GM, in a rather limited fashion. In our game, I
often handed over the authority to "write" in this fashion, simply
without the formal plot point mechanism. With our players this was
still not a common thing, but it certainly happened from time to time.
Thus, when Mark's character performed his master work in front of the
assembled House Bevon Magi, the culmination of his rise to master
status within the House, he and I exchanged the authorial role several
times in the course of play. With the spot light on his character,
Mark determined what happened--and I intervened to give the reactions
of the NPCs, and also at a critical juncture near the end of the
event, when things went awry in a fashion Mark did not anticipate.
But for much of the time Mark was wearing both the authorial and the
immersive hat--quite a trick, and one that I personally would find
difficult to achieve. But it worked for him, and was a very
fulfilling game event. Mark reported "getting into character" very
deeply, even though he was also reporting and determining a lot of OOC
stuff too, at the same time.
What made this work was a kind of process of sharing control of the
game--player and GM being very sensitive to indirect ques about when
to step in and take control, and when to get out of the way and let
the story unfold. I'm not sure how to describe this in a more precise
fashion--but for a particular kind of player, for a particular style
of play, it can be very rewarding, and very conducive of strong,
powerful experience of character--a kind of immersion, although a
rather different way of getting there than has been yet described.
Has anyone else had this kind of experience--immersion via a rather
intimate connection of authorial and first-person technique?
All my best,
Kevin
Mary K. Kuhner
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>The theory is that if a character wants to use one of their Descriptors
>in a dramatic way in a certain scene, the player must spend a Plot Point
>to activate that Descriptor. If the player does not want to spend a Plot
>Point, then they have to offer some kind of reasonable explanation as to
>why the Descriptor isn't being used.
Are you saying that if I have run out of Plot Points, my character
cannot express his striking traits or shticks, and I must come up
with some kind of explanation why not? Say, Valentine is empathic
and has wonderful insight into what people are feeling, usually, but
in a key scene if I don't have a Plot Point to spend he has to suddenly
develop a blind spot? This sounds like it might work in a movie or
comic book, but I don't think I could accept it in an RPG. (It
explains a lot of Star Trek plots very well, come to think of it.)
>One use of Descriptors can be thought of as character 'schticks' ala
>Feng Shui. If my character has a Descriptor like 'Trick Shot' or
>'Ladies' Man', what that's saying is that I want to play a certain
>character concept. What Descriptors and the Plot Point rules do is
>guarantee that I'll be able to play what I've created.
I've got one of those characters, a Ladies' Man. Currently he can
make a pass at any woman he likes, and often does; and being rather
charming, in his obnoxious way, he quite often succeeds. It seems
to me that if I were using Theatrix Plot Points I would have to
hoard them rather carefully or risk sitting through many scenes
where my character's schtick simply wouldn't work: rather than
guaranteeing the concept, it would limit it. Note that in Feng Shui
you can *always* use your Schticks: the vast majority are either
at-will or per-round. You don't stop being a Trick Shot because
you run out of points.
>I'll know that
>the character will always be capable of these things without having to
>worry about a run of bad luck with the dice.
I just don't see how something in limited supply--and you argued earlier
that they must be limited in order to work--can insure "always capable".
It seems to me that if I were a bit too free in using them early in
the session, my character would easily become incapable later on.
Markus tried persistantly to seduce Midnight until he met her daughter,
and then he realized who he *really* wanted to seduce. But if I'd
been out of points by that time....
Do you tend to give your players so many points that they seldom run
out? If so, is this really different from unlimited points?
>The players would
>eventually figure this mechanic out and stop acting flamboyantly if they
>weren't intending to spend a Plot Point for the scene, IME.
Doesn't this lead to rather odd characterizations--characters who
are flamboyant one scene and mousy the next? It would seem to make
playing someone like Markus, who is *always* flashy, quite impossible.
(I have seen Markus be ineffectual, but he's flamboyantly ineffectual.)
I suppose this does divide screen time, but I wouldn't be willing to
pay the price. I have indeed seen characterizations like this
in TV series, but I hate them.
>In Theatrix, it doesn't matter how capable one's character
>is. If the player spends a Plot Point, the GM's job is to make the
>effort important whether or not it's successful. It's almost Pavlovian,
>in my opinion, to see players activate a Descriptor, be rewarded by
>attention, and sit back smiling.
Okay. Very different goals, so different tactics are appropriate. I
just couldn't handle this either as GM or player. I like the idea of
the GM sitting up and taking notice when I say "This is Very Important
to my character." But I would be in terror of running out of points
and missing the *really* Important Thing; and I'd also be in terror
of not having the right Descriptor on my character sheet when the
Important Thing came along. (Who would have thought it was *fatherhood*
for Markus, for goodness' sake?) I expect the GM to do this for free;
I'm not willing to cough up a point for it.
>Otherwise, let me know what TV shows (or movies) you
>regularly watch and I'll see if I can give you some examples of Plot
>Point usage from current episodes
Perhaps our difficulties in communication will be partially explained
when I say that there aren't any TV shows (I don't own a TV) and
very few movies you could use as examples. In any case I find
game examples a lot more useful than movie ones, since I don't want
or expect my games to be like movies. (There's a reason I don't see
very many movies....)
If you really need a movie example, _Star Wars_ is probably your best
bet. (My husband evilly suggests _Bob Roberts_ and _A Brief History
of Time_, two of my favorite movies in years past.)
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Filksinger
On 9 Jun 1997 23:34:36 GMT, Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
>: That's a very simplistic statement. There are levels to everything.
>: Allowing unlimited Plot Points would completely negate the whole purpose
>: of what Plot Points are for.
>
> In other words, the Plot Points are there to *limit*
>player authorial control. Isn't that contrary to _Theatrix's_
>stated philosophy?
Not necessarily. Many gamemasters I have encountered are firmly
against players having any authoritorial power whatsoever. If your
games allow players to do such things automatically, because of the
nature of the gamemaster and players, then "plot points" would get in
the way. However, many gamemasters need the encouragement to give
such power to the players, and many players need some limit, to keep
them from dominating every game they enter.
I have had considerable experience with both. One game master I had
wanted so much control that my supposedly professional, teetotalling
mercenary was required to get drunk when he said so, even though it
made no difference to the game whatsoever, because he simply wanted us
to get drunk. The same GM declared that Raid was ineffective on the
bugs in Central America, because he wanted our beds to have bedbugs,
and I brought bug spray.
OTOH, I recall players who tried to make everyone do what they wanted.
One would order the group around, and tell the GM that the group was
doing things his way, even though the supposed leader (the ship's
captain) denied it.
In both cases, plot points, as used in Theatrix, might have helped
control the situation. Instead, in both cases, the solution was to
get rid of the irritant, either by quitting the GM's group, or by
throwing out the player (even though he was one of the best players I
have ever played with, in all other respects).
Filksinger
Mary K. Kuhner
>I have had considerable experience with both. One game master I had
>wanted so much control that my supposedly professional, teetotalling
>mercenary was required to get drunk when he said so, even though it
>made no difference to the game whatsoever, because he simply wanted us
>to get drunk. The same GM declared that Raid was ineffective on the
>bugs in Central America, because he wanted our beds to have bedbugs,
>and I brought bug spray.
My suspicion is that adding Plot Points to this mix would only emphasize
the players' powerlessness; it rubs their faces in the fact that they
aren't even free to control their own characters. You need the
GM to change his orientation, but I'd be somewhat surprised if adding
a mechanic (under the GM's control, no less, since he gives out Plot
Points and can veto their use) would really help.
>OTOH, I recall players who tried to make everyone do what they wanted.
>One would order the group around, and tell the GM that the group was
>doing things his way, even though the supposed leader (the ship's
>captain) denied it.
This problem might be more amenable, though it depends on why the
problem player is a problem. If he really wants full control over the
game, or all of the spotlight, he's liable to see Plot Points as just
another tool to that end--and again, a situation where one player
has total control except when another player can spend one of a limited
number of points is not really a solution. On the other hand,
introducing the mechanic might serve as a diplomatic way to tell the
problem player what the problem is, and remind him when he slips. Worth
a try, certainly.
I played alongside such a player once; his particular hangup was that he
had a strong opinion about "how a fighter behaves", "how a priest
behaves" and so forth, and would apply all kinds of pressure to the
other players (including indirectly, through manipulating the GM) to
conform. He and I had a collision over my fighter character; I'd
designed someone who was skeptical of magic swords, thinking that
a real fighter relies on their own strength, and for some reason he
was not willing to accept this conception. (I think he was afraid
that my character would not be useful enough.)
I never found a solution to this problem, and I ended up getting so
frustrated that I left the game. I didn't try Plot Points. I did
try negotiation, appeals to the GM and other players, and stubborn
resistance. I wonder how Plot Points would have worked. The problem
player might have been tempted to use them to try to manipulate my
character: a Theatrix example would be "My character is an expert on
swords; I spend a point to Declare that the sword we just found is
a High Elven sword from Khyre's family, and of course he is obliged by
honor to carry it." The GM could, of course, overrule such uses, but
she was a relative novice and had a difficult time with player-control
issues.
It's not clear to me how I could have used the Plot Points to protect
myself. Khyre did not need to be more effective, or to have his
statements be true (making the statement "Real fighters don't use magic
swords" true would be vastly unfair to the other players). I needed
the other player to quit picking on me; Khyre needed the GM to stop
throwing in magic-to-hit creatures, on the other player's suggestion,
to "teach Khyre a lesson." I suppose I could have tried to Declare a
kensai-like ability for Khyre to hit magic-to-hit creatures, but I'd
still have been dancing to the other player's tune. I doubt most GMs
would take "No, it's not magic-to-hit" as an acceptable Statement for
a Plot Point to make true.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
John L. Jones II
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
> In article <339d1b2f...@news.sttl.uswest.net> filks...@usa.net (Filksinger) writes:
>
> >I have had considerable experience with both. One game master I had
> >wanted so much control that my supposedly professional, teetotalling
> >mercenary was required to get drunk when he said so, even though it
> >made no difference to the game whatsoever, because he simply wanted
> >us to get drunk. The same GM declared that Raid was ineffective on
> >the bugs in Central America, because he wanted our beds to have
> >bedbugs, and I brought bug spray.
>
> My suspicion is that adding Plot Points to this mix would only
> emphasize the players' powerlessness; it rubs their faces in the fact
> that they aren't even free to control their own characters. You need
> the GM to change his orientation, but I'd be somewhat surprised if
> adding a mechanic (under the GM's control, no less, since he gives out
> Plot Points and can veto their use) would really help.
This might work better if the distribution of plot point were
changed. For example, someone other than the GM could give out the plot
points (perhaps the group as a whole). They could also make a rule that
plot points *cannot* be vetoed by the GM. Of course having never used
plot points, I'm not sure what the affect will be. Still, it has to be
an improvement over the original poster's situation.
> Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
--
John L. Jones II E-Mail: bi...@nis.lanl.gov
Iacta alea est.
Gaius Iulius Caesar (circa 100 B.C. - 44 B.C.)
Mark Apolinski
John H Kim wrote:
>
> This is a reply concerning Plot Points in _Theatrix_, in
> response to some disagreement concerning their use. Mark suggests
> that Plot Points in _Theatrix_ are used primarily to regulate spotlight
> time, not to buy success. In general -- Mark, could you provide some
> examples in the _Theatrix_ rulebook are all used to benefit the PC's.
> Do you have something different in mind?
It's true that most examples of Plot Point usage will tend to benefit
the players, but I think that is due to the tone of the game. If one is
playing a 'heroic' game, then PCs succeeding will support that tone. If
one was playing in a Call_of_Cthulhu-style game and the players know and
accept it rather than trying to weasel out of horrific situations by
playing survivalist, then you might see more Plot Points spent on
Statements that are bad for the PCs.
I prefer heroic games where the PCs 'win' in the end, so it figures that
most of my players' Plot Points expenditures are for PC benefit. *But
it's not required.*
In a rip-roaring, action-movie, Feng_Shui-style genre I think most of
the Plot Point expenditures will be for Success because that is what
action heroes do. Imagine roleplaying a genre like
_Sense_and_Sensibility_ with no explosions and gunfights. What would you
spend Plot Points on here? 'Success' is no longer the goal.
Action-movie genres will emphasize Success; Pure Drama genres and Deep
character pieces will emphasize Personality traits and Descriptors.
> Hmmm. I am perfectly willing to believe that there is little
> gamist thinking in your _Theatrix_ group. However, I think your
> contrast here is quite overstated. Plot Points are used to buy
> successes: that is explicit in the rules. They can be used to aid
> characterization, but so can Force Points. Note that Force Points
> are intended to represent an *in-game* mystical power which the
> characters can draw on.
Except that the new _D6_System_ uses the same mechanics as Star_Wars
*including* Force Points (except they don't call them that) that work
the same way and *do not* represent an in-game mystical power.
> _Theatrix_ outlines the use of Plot Points as:
>
> "SPENDING PLOT POINTS
> *Activate a Personality Trait*
> - for Success in a single associated action.
> - to disregard external control for one Scene.
> - to perform actions that require that Trait for one Scene.
>
> *Activate a Descriptor*
> - for Success in a single associated action.
> - for dramatic use of that Descriptor for one Scene.
>
> *Activate a Statement*
> - to eliminate the possibility of that Statement being wrong."
One area in which Theatrix does not speak strongly enough on, IMO, is
that 'purchasing' a Success is the *weakest, most limited* use of a Plot
Point. Activating Descriptors and Statements is much more useful and
powerful, but is also more subtle and harder to comprehend (I'm not even
sure I completely understand it yet). 'Buying' successes is easy to
understand so of course that's what most new players do right away.
> Now, I agree that these can be used to enhance characterization,
> and it is significant that the player has to come up with a suitable
> Trait to buy a success. However, I see that mainly as appealing to
> gamist instincts -- trying to reward them with successes for playing
> in character.
Yes, I suppose there is some truth to this. I do seem to have to
constantly fight gamist tendancies of players.
> I was intrigued by the idea of giving the players infinite
> Plot Points! What do you think would happen?
I think that players would make *every* action they take Successful. If
they don't have to worry about saving some to activate Descriptors when
they're needed, players can go hog-wild and never have to fail at
anything. Needless to say, I don't think any storyline could survive
that.
> Another good test is to look at how many are used to benefit
> the PC's versus how many are used to their detriment. The current
> Victorian occult/horror game I am in uses the Tarot as Whimsy Cards.
> I would say about 75-85% of the uses are to the benefit of the PC's,
> and I would agree that this is a sign of gamism. The game in many
> ways has been a mystery/puzzle that we are trying to overcome.
If your players are playing occult/horror because at some level they
want to be afraid and play characters who are struggling to survive,
even though Plot Points give them the power to *not* have to struggle
but simply succeed, then I think you'll see 'proper' Plot Point usage.
However if the players simply see the occult horrors as obstacles and
the goal of the game as 'winning', you'll see poor usage.
> I will give some examples in a later post. Could you give
> some examples of what you consider "proper" use of _Theatrix_
> Plot Points?
I'll try to post some examples on a weekly basis of Plot Point usage
from my games and from TV.
_Star_Trek_ is usually a great source of examples. Whenever Geordi or
another PC suggest some kind of technological solution to the
problem-of-the-day, that's a Plot Point expenditure. Doctor Bashir or
Doctor Crusher performing another minor medical miracle is a Plot Point
expenditure.
My TimeLords group ran into a primitive tribe last night who attacked
them. One of the PCs has the Descriptor 'Smooth Talker'. Had he spent a
Plot Point to activate it, he would have been able to stop the attack at
least long enough to talk to the natives. Since he didn't, even though
another character tried, the natives didn't listen.
When Fox Mulder calls in The Lone Gunmen or tapes an X on his window,
he's spending a Plot Point.
In _Rising_Sun_, the scene where the two main characters are denied
entrance to a party by the large bodyguard-type. Bodyguard: "I should
warn you, I'm a black belt." Sean_Connery's_character: "But of course
you are." And then he incapacitates him with one blow. That's a Plot
Point expenditure, not for the success but for the show-off factor
(activating a Descriptor).
One of my favorite scenes in the James Bond film
_On_Her_Majesty's_Secret_Service_ is early on when Bond is being taken
to meet with Drako, who's daughter he's been...'seeing'. Bond breaks
from the goons, grabs the knife they were holding on him, darts into
Drako's study with the knife ready to throw. When he sees there's no
danger he whips the knife into the far wall where it hits the calender
hanging there smack in the middle of Saturday the 14th. Drako says, "But
today is the 13th." Bond says, "I'm superstitious." Plot Point,
definitely.
This is what I mean by 'characterization'. These scenes *demonstrate* a
character to an audience.
Mark
Mary K. Kuhner
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net writes:
>Thus, when Mark's character performed his master work in front of the
>assembled House Bevon Magi, the culmination of his rise to master
>status within the House, he and I exchanged the authorial role several
>times in the course of play.
>What made this work was a kind of process of sharing control of the
>game--player and GM being very sensitive to indirect ques about when
>to step in and take control, and when to get out of the way and let
>the story unfold. I'm not sure how to describe this in a more precise
>fashion--but for a particular kind of player, for a particular style
>of play, it can be very rewarding, and very conducive of strong,
>powerful experience of character--a kind of immersion, although a
>rather different way of getting there than has been yet described.
>Has anyone else had this kind of experience--immersion via a rather
>intimate connection of authorial and first-person technique?
I've seen this too. I've never seen an entire game which used this
technique--it has always (in my experience) been restricted to specific
types of scenes. The common factor seems to be that the PC is creating
or controlling something--often "creatively" in the sense of art--
and the player can therefore determine what happens from a mainly
Immersive stance. It's wonderful when it works--some of the high
points in _Paradisio_ were like this, such as Jayhawk's creation of
her computer system/soul object.
I don't know that you could make a full game out of it, though. I've
never been able to do so.
It doesn't seem to me that you could really emulate either this, or the
sharing of GM responsibility you discussed earlier, very well with a
point system. The magus players were willing to assume responsibility
for magical theory because they were given real power over it. If they
had had to spend a limiting resource every time they made a decision
about magic theory, the fluid give-and-take you describe strikes me as
unlikely. I would prefer, if I were trying to introduce novice players
to the idea of accepting Authorial power, to stake out an area that
clearly belongs to the player, and encourage them verbally to work
within it. Plot Points confuse the issue of whose turf is whose,
creating the implication that the player only has a very limited
right to improvise and the material still really "belongs" to the GM.
(They also seem as though they would cause the GM grief, due to pressure
to allow improvisations that poach on her turf.)
But I'm a low-mechanics player, especially with regard to mechanics
intended to influence roleplaying; a high-mechanics player might differ
on this.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mark Apolinski
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >The theory is that if a character wants to use one of their Descriptors
> >in a dramatic way in a certain scene, the player must spend a Plot Point
> >to activate that Descriptor. If the player does not want to spend a Plot
> >Point, then they have to offer some kind of reasonable explanation as to
> >why the Descriptor isn't being used.
>
> Are you saying that if I have run out of Plot Points, my character
> cannot express his striking traits or shticks, and I must come up
> with some kind of explanation why not? Say, Valentine is empathic
> in a key scene if I don't have a Plot Point to spend he has to suddenly
> develop a blind spot? This sounds like it might work in a movie or
> comic book, but I don't think I could accept it in an RPG. (It
> explains a lot of Star Trek plots very well, come to think of it.)
Remember that you only have to pay a Plot Point to activate a Descriptor
in a *Dramatic* scene. Valentine can still be empathic without having
any Points, but if it's a important scene like making contact with a
strange alien race for the first time, this would require a Plot Point.
If he is dominating Dramatic scenes with his ability too much, he'll run
out of Plot Points and the other characters will have a chance to do
something.
> I've got one of those characters, a Ladies' Man. Currently he can
> make a pass at any woman he likes, and often does; and being rather
> charming, in his obnoxious way, he quite often succeeds. It seems
> to me that if I were using Theatrix Plot Points I would have to
> hoard them rather carefully or risk sitting through many scenes
> where my character's schtick simply wouldn't work: rather than
> guaranteeing the concept, it would limit it. Note that in Feng Shui
> you can *always* use your Schticks: the vast majority are either
> at-will or per-round. You don't stop being a Trick Shot because
> you run out of points.
Again, Ladies' Man only has to be activated for Dramatic scenes, like
seducing a female enemy. Ordinary, non-dramatic usage for
characterization purposes is free.
Also, activating a Descriptor with a Plot Point lasts a whole scene. One
Plot Point allows you to be a Trick Shot for the entire scene.
Dramatic scenes don't (or at least shouldn't) come up so often that the
PC is running out of points.
> >I'll know that
> >the character will always be capable of these things without having to
> >worry about a run of bad luck with the dice.
>
> I just don't see how something in limited supply--and you argued earlier
> that they must be limited in order to work--can insure "always capable".
> It seems to me that if I were a bit too free in using them early in
> the session, my character would easily become incapable later on.
> Markus tried persistantly to seduce Midnight until he met her daughter,
> and then he realized who he *really* wanted to seduce. But if I'd
> been out of points by that time....
If Markus really wanted to seduce Midnight it would take only one Plot
Point and then only if this particular seduction was Dramatic. He'd have
plenty of Plot Points for use later on.
> Do you tend to give your players so many points that they seldom run
> out? If so, is this really different from unlimited points?
I think there is a big difference between a safe number of Plot Points,
a large number of Plot Points and unlimited Plot Points. My opinion is
that the more Plot Points that are available produce increasing amounts
of melodrama, with characters doing all sorts of crazy, improbable
things. A healthy number of Plot Points allows the players to spend in a
reasonable fashion yet still restrain themselves. As I've said before,
if the players had perfect self-control, then unlimited plot points
wouldn't be a problem.
> Doesn't this lead to rather odd characterizations--characters who
> are flamboyant one scene and mousy the next? It would seem to make
> playing someone like Markus, who is *always* flashy, quite impossible.
> (I have seen Markus be ineffectual, but he's flamboyantly ineffectual.)
No, they are still flamboyant, but their just not getting a lot of
screen time. "You hear a crash over from where Markus is enjoying
himself with the 7 guardsmen. What are you doing?"
> I suppose this does divide screen time, but I wouldn't be willing to
> pay the price. I have indeed seen characterizations like this
> in TV series, but I hate them.
I don't think it's as bad as you're imagining. Remember that the GM can
tailor the amount of Plot Points available.
> Okay. Very different goals, so different tactics are appropriate. I
> just couldn't handle this either as GM or player. I like the idea of
> the GM sitting up and taking notice when I say "This is Very Important
> to my character." But I would be in terror of running out of points
> and missing the *really* Important Thing;
You just need to find a balance in the number of Plot Points per episode
so that you are comfortable enough to enjoy your character yet aren't
spending them so often that the game gets ridiculous. Remember that Plot
Points are not a substitute for skill.
> and I'd also be in terror
> of not having the right Descriptor on my character sheet when the
> Important Thing came along. (Who would have thought it was *fatherhood*
> for Markus, for goodness' sake?) I expect the GM to do this for free;
> I'm not willing to cough up a point for it.
Remember that character development can alter Descriptors. I doubt that
Markus simply went from not being a Father to being one with no
development.
> If you really need a movie example, _Star Wars_ is probably your best
> bet. (My husband evilly suggests _Bob Roberts_ and _A Brief History
> of Time_, two of my favorite movies in years past.)
_A Brief History of Time_ isn't really a story in the sense that I'm
using, so I'll go with _Star Wars_.
R2D2 uses his robotic nature to hack the Imperial computer system.
Obi-Wan is a Jedi and is able to almost casually disable the tractor
beam and return to the Docking Bay without anyone noticing.
Han Solo is a Smuggler and this allows the main characters to hide
within the Millenium Falcon.
Luke is an Ace Pilot. How else can a farm boy jump into a modern space
fighter and survive when so many veteran pilots died?
Han Solo is also an Ace Pilot and navigates asteroid fields that other's
can't. (Empire Strikes Back)
Darth Vader is a Jedi and can "feel" Obi-Wan's presence and can find him
when nobody else does.
These are just some of the Descriptor activations that I can think of. I
didn't include any Success purchases mainly because it's hard to say
when something like that occurs in a movie, but I bet there were quite a
few since _Star Wars_ has a strong action-movie feel.
Note that Plot Points are not a substitute for skill. Characters can
still survive and do well without using Plot Points.
Note that Obi-Wan's use of his Light Saber (a Descriptor) in the Cantina
in Mos Eisley was not a Dramatic usage and therefore was free of cost.
Mark
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <339D85...@ix.netcom.com> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>John Kim wrote:
>> I was intrigued by the idea of giving the players infinite
>> Plot Points! What do you think would happen?
>I think that players would make *every* action they take Successful. If
>they don't have to worry about saving some to activate Descriptors when
>they're needed, players can go hog-wild and never have to fail at
>anything. Needless to say, I don't think any storyline could survive
>that.
Players are smart people, and might well come to the same conclusions
you have. Your argument strikes me as analogous to "If I give the
players infinite points to design their characters, they will design
superbeings whom I cannot challenge." This can happen, but from
practical experience I know that it doesn't always happen; players with
infinite points may choose to play quite weak characters.
Probably the players would begin by succeeding a lot, and then notice
that the resulting game was not all that entertaining. Then they would
have to look for some way of limiting their own successes to keep the
game fun. I think the usual approach would be to develop the same
kinds of esthetics that collaborative-storytelling groups have (turf limits,
spotlight sharing, etc. are issues in collaborative storytelling as
well). This would result in something that was (if the players like
collaborative storytelling) fun, but no longer much like an RPG.
However, it's possible that the players would find some other
self-imposed set of limits to keep the game more like an RPG. One
possibility is the esthetic "Don't use your Plot Points to aid your
own character." Another is "For every good thing you do, do a bad
thing." (In a group that uses no point limits for character generation,
I've seen a similar "balance good and bad" esthetic evolve.) They
might also turn to each other to provide limits (for example, allowing
one player to override another's Plot Points, or limiting the ability of
each player's Plot Points to influence other players' turf). Or
they might choose to pretend they had no Plot Points (I've seen this
happen with Karma Points when the players found them distracting).
I think you're missing an important part of the social contract here.
Players want a fun game just as much as GM's. If you set limits, they
will often push against those limits; but if you don't set limits,
the players will not tend to zoom off to infinity, because they
are smart enough to know that's not really going to be entertaining.
Instead, they will cast around for some other source of limits.
Amber characters do not design Shadows in which they are stupidly
omnipotent, generally speaking. Infinite-points games do not produce
infinitely strong characters. Games with no rules for psych lims do
not necessarily produce characters who have none.
The problem I'd have with infinite Plot Points is that none of the
solutions sound like quite as much fun to me as a regular GMed game.
But I'd be willing to give it a try, with the right players. Honestly
it sounds like more fun, in a storytelling-group sort of way, than
limited Plot Points. (Not adaptable to one player, though.)
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mary K. Kuhner
>Remember that you only have to pay a Plot Point to activate a Descriptor
>in a *Dramatic* scene. Valentine can still be empathic without having
>any Points, but if it's a important scene like making contact with a
>strange alien race for the first time, this would require a Plot Point.
How do you adjucate situations in which more than one PC spends a Plot
Point? For example, we meet the alien race, and both Valentine (an
empath) and Valerie (a xenolinguist) say, quite reasonably, "I spend
a Plot Point to deal with this situation." If a Plot Point is a pledge
from the GM to center on that character, how do you resolve this
situation? Center on both? Disallow one use? Let things take their
normal course as if the Points cancelled out?
>Again, Ladies' Man only has to be activated for Dramatic scenes, like
>seducing a female enemy. Ordinary, non-dramatic usage for
>characterization purposes is free.
Has it been your experience that spotlight matters only in Dramatic
Scenes? (Maybe I need an explanation of what a Dramatic Scene is.)
Markus, in my experience, can take up a huge amount of game time
toying with a lady who is not at all important to the plot. One of
his more charming attributes is that she's important to *him*. They
all are, at least for a bit. In a multi-player game I expect he
would be a fairly bad spotlight hog for this reason. How would Plot
Points be helpful in avoiding this? I'm imagining the GM pushing a
Dramatic Scene into existance in order to get the spotlight off
Markus--or would it be another player doing that?
Do you ever find players trying to manipulate your perception of what
is or isn't a Dramatic Scene? I have found that with scene-limited
mechanics there is a certain temptation for players to try this: for
example, if a power lasts "one scene" players may be tempted to use
various pacing tricks to extend that scene across more game-time.
>Also, activating a Descriptor with a Plot Point lasts a whole scene. One
>Plot Point allows you to be a Trick Shot for the entire scene.
Okay, good point.
>I think there is a big difference between a safe number of Plot Points,
>a large number of Plot Points and unlimited Plot Points. My opinion is
>that the more Plot Points that are available produce increasing amounts
>of melodrama, with characters doing all sorts of crazy, improbable
>things.
About how many points per session per player do you normally see spent?
How big of a backlog do your players maintain? How often does someone
actually run out?
>> Doesn't this lead to rather odd characterizations--characters who
>> are flamboyant one scene and mousy the next? It would seem to make
>> playing someone like Markus, who is *always* flashy, quite impossible.
>No, they are still flamboyant, but their just not getting a lot of
>screen time. "You hear a crash over from where Markus is enjoying
>himself with the 7 guardsmen. What are you doing?"
So Markus' player, who is out of points or unwilling to spend them, must
restrain himself from describing his characters' actions in detail, and
must shut up with the snappy reparte'? I guess I just don't see the
GM as the sole arbiter of who gets attention from the group and who
doesn't, so I have trouble imagining this working.
I am a pushy player in multi-player groups. I don't feel that I would
need GM attention in order to hog some spotlight time, unless the GM
were willing to quite literally tell me to shut up, don't say what my
character is doing, don't say what he's thinking, allow his actions
to be abstracted away.
At that point I would feel disempowered, not empowered. It might be
for the good of the group, but it certainly wouldn't be pleasant.
Maybe some sample back-and-forth from one of your games?
>You just need to find a balance in the number of Plot Points per episode
>so that you are comfortable enough to enjoy your character yet aren't
>spending them so often that the game gets ridiculous. Remember that Plot
>Points are not a substitute for skill.
If they weren't a substitute for skill--if players were really just
using them to get the GM's attention--it's not clear to me why the game
would become ridiculous. I think Plot Points are serving a double
purpose--spotlight equalization and power equalization--in your games,
but because the latter is "gamey" you're trying not to notice it.
>> and I'd also be in terror
>> of not having the right Descriptor on my character sheet when the
>> Important Thing came along. (Who would have thought it was *fatherhood*
>> for Markus, for goodness' sake?) I expect the GM to do this for free;
>> I'm not willing to cough up a point for it.
>Remember that character development can alter Descriptors. I doubt that
>Markus simply went from not being a Father to being one with no
>development.
It was a shock to his player, that's all I can say. I didn't know he
had it in him until he stood up in front of the Magistrate and said
"This girl is my daughter, and I'll stake my life to prove it."
Presumably, therefore, a player decision "I will spend a Plot Point
to make the Magistrate recognize that I really mean it" would be
questioned, because it doesn't seem to correspond to any Descriptor
that anyone knew about. (This is my usual objection to characterization
via mechanics, not at all limited to Theatrix, and probably a red
herring in the Plot Point discussion.)
I'm sorry if this comes across as baiting. Our gaming styles are almost
diametrically opposite, so it's hard for me not to criticize when
I should simply be trying to understand. I do think my understanding
of how you use Plot Points has improved, though. I wouldn't do it
myself, but it does seem to make sense, mostly, in the context of
your particular goals. I still don't think that Plot Points are
merely serving to equalize spotlight in your games, though; if they
were you wouldn't experience increased melodrama with increased
numbers of points, just increased spotlight trouble.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mark Apolinski
John H Kim wrote:
>
> First of all, I am not convinced that Plot Points allow
> greater flexibility in the first place. According to _Theatrix_,
> use of Plot Points is limited to your character's descriptors/
> traits and your character's Statements. You can buy a success,
> "activate" a descriptor/trait, or make a Statement True.
>
> Perhaps you use them differently in your _Theatrix_ games
> than I have. Let me take an example:
>
> We played with Storypath Cards in a _Champions_ game I was
> in a few years ago. In one incident, a PC went off to meet with a
> new NPC. At that point, a different player played the "True Love"
> card to have the unlikely pair find themselves attracted to each
> other. Could that player have done this with a Plot Point?
Easily. All it would take is for that different player to make a
Statement either to themself or to someone else like, "They're falling
for each other" and spend a Plot Point to make it true. The only
requirement for Statements is that they have to be In-character. Whimsy
Cards do allow players to intervene as Third-Person-all-knowing which
Statements do not.
> More importantly, would a player in your game do anything like
> this with Plot Points (example)?
Probably not, but that's not my fault. It's up to the player. If the
player wanted to they could do something like that. They could also
intervene in a different way, whereas the player in your game could
*only* intervene in ways dictated by the Storypath cards.
My point was that Storypath cards may give players ideas whereas Plot
Points don't. Players have to be *more* creative using Plot Points to
think up the possible interventions in the first place, but *if* they're
more creative, then Plot Points offer more possibilities because the
possibilities aren't limited to the cards.
> As another example, in the current Victorian occult/
> horror game we are using the Tarot as Whimsy Cards. We were
> enacting an occult ritual to entrap our primary foe -- when I
> played the Tower card to rain disaster on the proceedings,
> forcing the players to improvise wildly. Again, this strikes
> me as the sort of thing Plot Points are unlikely to be used for.
Unlikely in what sense. It's certainly a *possible* use for Plot Points.
It's also a 'proper' use for Plot Points. The only way it could be
"unlikely" is if a player doesn't *want* to do it. You could have
created the same situation in Theatrix with a Plot Point-activated
Statement.
If you think these things wouldn't get done with Plot Points then I have
to ask Why not? Your reasons aren't at all obvious.
> The essence is that I don't think you need to _expand_ the
> player's option of intervention. During that _Champions_ game,
> the GM occaisionally gave me cards for "Anything you want" as a
> reward. I don't think I ever used those cards. The problem is
> that a story can go in infinite ways from any given point:
> I couldn't figure out a strong reason to favor a plot twist.
>
> The cards give direction where otherwise there would be
> a nearly arbitrary choice, from my point of view.
Yes, well I believe I said that earlier. Plot Points are harder to use
than Whimsy Cards, no doubt. But *because* they allow more, there is *in
theory* more freedom.
> As I see it, Plot Points also give direction -- but that
> direction is restricted to certain options that tend to give
> your character more spotlight time: i.e. your character
> succeeding at a critical moment, or your character being right
> in an assessment, or displaying his usual characteristics.
The letter of the Theatrix rules doesn't limit Plot Point usage to these
things, although this is more or less how they tend to be used. I don't
think it's the System's fault if people don't take advantage of it.
Mark
Mark Apolinski
You'll have to ask Backstage Press why they designed the game this way.
As for me, I like Theatrix because it produces almost exactly the kind
of feeling I get when watching a movie. Which is what I want. As a
diceless gamemaster, I can still enjoy the feeling of excitement from
uncertainty that I get from a well-done plot twist or movie ending. No
other game system meshes with my desires so well.
Mark
Mark Apolinski
Jason Stokes wrote:
>
> On Sun, 08 Jun 1997 10:07:16 +0100, Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Jason Stokes wrote:
> >> Ummm... why do you need a game mechanic like "plot points" in order to
> >> portray one's character? Isn't that role-playing?
> >
> >Look again. I didnt say that plot points are *needed* to protray one's
> >character. I said that in Theatrix, Plot Points are an aid to roleplay.
> >IMO.
>
> Maybe you should think about the meaning of "need" in this context. I am
> saying that Plot Points are not required nor particularly useful for
> portraying one's character. I'm sorry if that came over ambigously.
You're right that Plot Points are not required for portraying one's
character, but Plot Points also serve another purpose in that they
regulate spotlight time. They prevent one character from being portrayed
so much that they eclipse another character.
Mark
Mark Apolinski
I located an email that Dave Berkman sent me not long ago that gives
some more good information about 'proper' Plot Point usage in
_Theatrix_.
- - - - - - - -
Example:
Race Bannon, ace pilot, wants to Immelman turn, barrol role between the
tightly packed squadron of German bi-planes heading his way, avoiding
loads of fire as he goes, and hook the blimp on the other side of that
mess with a dangling line and hook as passes over it.
Anyone else would be dead, dead, dead, but Race has a pilot Skill of
8.5,
with a specialty in his own heavily modified Sopwith Camel, which he is
currently flying.
The description of the action is done with such flourish, and the
eventual consequences of it are interesting, exciting, and, for your
adventure, necessary. So you are heavily inclined to provide a success.
I would also be heavily inclined to demand a Plot Point for this
outrageous stunt, spent into the Descriptor 'Ace Pilot', and despite
very
much wanting to provide a sucess, I would hand over a failure of the
Plot
Point weren't spent.
Why? Because Race is hogging the spotlight here. This is a Plot Point
moment, and I ought to be sure that this act is within character
conception (that it is Race's moment as opposed to some other
character's,
ie. he has the Descriptor), and that Race has saved a Plot Point to
carry
it off with (ie., that he has allowed others their moment in the sun,
saving something aside for this moment, *his* moment).
- - - - - - - - - - -
So apparently even if Markus is out of Plot Points, he can continue to
act flamboyantly, he'll just be much less likely to succeed. You've
said, Mary, that you've seen Markus be flamboyantly ineffectual. And so
it would be here, except that when Markus' player spends a Plot Point he
can be flamboyantly effectual.
Mark
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <339DB3...@ix.netcom.com> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
[Berkman's example--a good one--deleted]
>So apparently even if Markus is out of Plot Points, he can continue to
>act flamboyantly, he'll just be much less likely to succeed. You've
>said, Mary, that you've seen Markus be flamboyantly ineffectual. And so
>it would be here, except that when Markus' player spends a Plot Point he
>can be flamboyantly effectual.
You've said in the past that success/failure is not really the point,
and for once I'm inclined to agree with you. If Race (the pilot in
Berkman's example) gets to describe, in loving detail, his attempt to
barrel through the biplanes, hook the blimp, etc. and then doesn't
succeed, he *still* has the spotlight throughout the action. At least,
he would in games I am familiar with. The other players will shut up,
they will listen tensely, they will wait to see if Race succeeds before
even considering their own plans. That's what spotlight *is*.
(The other players might not do this if they know in advance Race
will fail. But as a GM I'd be dismayed if the other players seemed
bored.)
If I were someone playing alongside Markus, I don't know that I'd really
be comforted by the fact that he sometimes takes up half an hour of
game play in order to grandly fail to seduce someone (I recall that
Ambassador on Capitol, quite a scandal....) He's still the one
getting to *do* things, even if he doesn't succeed.
Now, in a more competitive or combat-heavy scenario this would be less
of a problem, because ineffectual characters rapidly get clobbered
in combat, and being unconscious or dead definitely does take you
out of the spotlight. But in our current game I don't think this
application of Plot Points would help me much.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Ennead
In rec.games.frp.advocacy Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: You'll have to ask Backstage Press why they designed the game this way.
: As for me, I like Theatrix because it produces almost exactly the kind
: of feeling I get when watching a movie. Which is what I want. As a
: diceless gamemaster, I can still enjoy the feeling of excitement from
: uncertainty that I get from a well-done plot twist or movie ending. No
: other game system meshes with my desires so well.
Mark --
Of course if the system works well for you, then by all
means continue to use it! I'm glad that you've had such success
with _Theatrix._
I'm not quite sure why I allowed my tone to get so heated
here. Reading it over today, it looks rather as if I had been
trying to pick a fight with you. That really wasn't my intent:
I was frustrated by your dialogue with Paul King, and some of
that irritation came out in my writing. I'm sorry if I seemed
to be goading you.
-- Sarah
Ennead
In rec.games.frp.advocacy Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
: In article <5nhf03$n42$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu> jh...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
: > I was intrigued by the idea of giving the players infinite
: >Plot Points! What do you think would happen?
I think it would end up looking like a game-y version of
Kevin's group's style, or of my group's style.
Really, any contract which allows the players some degree
of Authorial control is, effectively, a game with "unlimited Plot
Points" which are regulated by rules of etiquette and precedent,
rather than by game rules.
Of course, the rules governing the expenditure of Plot
Points are very different than those governing the exertion of
Authorial power in a troupe-style game. The end result would
therefore look quite different. I suspect it would enhance
game-as-game and subtract from game-as-world. Whether it would
push the game closer to or further from game-as-story would
depend, I think, on the way the players chose to use their points.
: It seems to me that if the players used them freely, you would end up
: with something closer, in its dynamics, to group storytelling than to
: conventional RPGs.
Possibly. I think this would largely depend on how the
players chose to use them. If the players were primarily interested
in making a good story out of the game, and so used the points
as a means of enforcing the "we all take turns" rule of group
storytelling, than it could be very similar indeed. If the
players chose to use them mainly for character purposes, though
(ensuring PC successes, gaining spotlight time, and all of the
other "allowing the character to shine" sort of uses), then I
think that it would be more like a game.
This becomes particularly clear, I think, when one considers
the role of the GM, who would presumably retain his veto power over
all uses of plot points. In the first scenario, the GM would be
acting to ensure that the individual offerings work well together
within the overall dramatic structure -- very much a shared
storytelling role. (Having done quite a bit of shared storytelling,
I think that it would have benefitted greatly from someone occupying
this role; should my household ever try another one, I'm going to
suggest it!)
In the second scenario, the GM would be acting primarily as
the arbiter of fairness, ensuring that no one used their points
to ride roughshod over the other players. This is one of the
traditional "game" roles for the GM -- the GM as referree and
arbiter of player competition.
: If each player can always make a Statement in their
: character's area of expertese true, the game-world becomes a set of
: overlapping player-ruled domains, and the main task before the players
: is to handle the interactions between domains. This is going to feel
: quite different from having a GM-provided world within whose constraints
: the PCs are operating.
Hmmm. I don't know that it definitely would. My group
came to troupe-style gaming through a long, slow process of
development from single-GM worlds. (This was before ArM, so
naturally, we didn't call it "troupe-style." We called it "shared
world.") Even before we built a shared world, the single-GM
worlds we played in would inevitably become, effectively, "a set
of overlapping player-ruled domains" as the players became
sufficiently interested in and familiar with the world to begin
to improvise within its constraints.
It was usually the case that, in time, certain parts of
the world would be unofficially "farmed out" to certain players.
Often players knew more about the areas of the world their characters
came from, for example, than the GM did, and so the GM would simply
hand over authority about those regions to the players. At other
times, the players would grow annoyed with the GM's handling of
certain dynamics within the world ("Bob, you have no concept of
how politics work at all! Given what you've told us about what
has happened, your idea of what is really going on makes more
sense. What would make _more_ sense would be...[elaboration of
other ideas]." "Wow. Yeah, you're right, that _does_ make more
sense than what I was thinking. I liked your first idea. Would
you explain it to me again?"), and so would effectively snatch
Authorial power away from the GM. And of course the phenomenon
Kevin has written about -- the player of the monk PC taking on
the burden of establishing much about his holy order, subject
to GM approval -- happened as well.
None of this made the game feel like a shared storytelling
session, though. It felt just as much like an RPG as it had ever
done. The main difference was that we all knew the world that
much better and could, when we needed more information, have a
better chance of getting it quickly and accurately.
: However, if the players didn't want to be doing group storytelling you
: would probably evolve a group esthetic on "correct" use of Plot Points,
: in order to preserve the RPG-like dynamic. It's hard to tell what that
: would look like; probably very group dependent.
I suspect it would end up looking like a troupe-style
contract. Which is to repeat: very group dependent.
: One amusing possibility is an esthetic that allowed only uses
: detrimental to the character. Our current game has some of this; if I
: say "Markus definitely succeeds" the GM may demur, but if I say "Markus
: definitely fails" the GM will always accept that.
<chuckle> Funny how that works, isn't it?
In our games, players will sometimes push for PC success,
but it is done more as a suggestion than as a claim on full Authorial
power. "Markus definitely succeeds" wouldn't go over very well, but
"I _really_ don't think that Markus should have any problems with this
task" would be taken very seriously by the GM. If the GM disagrees
with this statement, he will usually explain his reasoning; if for
whatever reason he is unwilling to explain (for example, if there
is something about the world which is hidden from the player and
that the GM wants to keep as a surprise), then a standard phrase
like "it's not going to be that easy for him in this case -- trust
me on this one" is the usual response.
"Markus definitely fails," on the other hand, is usually
accepted. There are exceptions -- when the GM decides to give
him a slight chance of success despite the player statement -- but
they are pretty rare. The more usual response, if the GM doesn't
really see why Markus _should_ fail at the task, is: "Okay. Tell
me why you fail."
: In essence I have Plot Points usable only for failures.
Oh, now. Don't you also have them for world statements?
Didn't you design some aspect of the spaceship in which one of
your characters was expert? (I've forgotten the details - sorry.)
You also effectively have them for Script Immunity (although
Mark considers SI a part of the contract, _Theatrix_'s suggested
use for Plot Points does allow for their use as a bolster to SI).
But this is silly. The entire idea of "unlimited plot
points" is utterly subversive to the mechanic's intended use,
as Mark was quick to spot. A game with unlimited plot points
is the same as a game with a contract which allows the players some
degree of Authorial control. Iron out the specifics of how the
"unlimited plot points" are to be used, and you end up with a game
contract. The Points themselves then become irrelevant, which
was the meaning of Paul's sly suggestion in the first place.
-- Sarah
Jim Henley
Ennead wrote:
>
> I can understand why someone would want to do this, but
> it does bother me that _Theatrix_ chooses to describe this dynamic
> in terms of "player empowerment." So you empower your players
> to act as author by restricting their ability to do so? This is
> pure double-speak, and it is what really gets my goat about _Theatrix._
God knows I disagree with you reluctantly, Sarah (I mean, you _are_ my
intellectual better after all <g>), but I just can't let this one pass
by. It seems to partake of a restriction/empowerment dichotomy that just
doesn't hold up. I can come up with a whole bunch of limitations -- the
piece with the horsey head moves 1 straight then 1 diagonal; the little
knobby ones move one square forward except on the first move when they
move two etc. etc. -- that _empower_ one to play a game of chess at all.
Without those limitations I just have, as the poet said,
some strange
tiny sculptures -- toys for the cat.
The Theatrix plot point rules restrict a player's authorial ability
_and_ enable it -- just think of all the rule sets where there is simply
no _question_ of author power devolving upon the players. And in an
economic sense, the use of plot points under scarcity forces the players
to make choices about which of the many imaginable uses of that power
are important to them. It's a price system.
> But if the street cop's player has already spent his Plot
> Points (say, to ensure that his improvs are allowed to stand as
> in-game facts), then it is all right for the character to be denied
> spotlight time?
Theatrix is, hard as it may be to believe, played by more than one
person. I personally don't interpret their nature and use in the same
way Mark does. I may even interpret those rules in a way that David
himself would disapprove. I figure I'm entitled, since I paid full
price.
I certainly don't believe you have to spend a plot point to get
spotlight time. For one thing, you can make nondramatic use of
descriptors at any point for characterization purposes. For another you
have a skill set to work from. Even if you don't spend a point on your
Master Swordsman descriptor you can still attack someone, says I,
because you undoubtedly have a Swords _skill_, and depending on any
number of things (relative skill and trait levels, environmental
factors, dramatic considerations et al) you may succeed in fine style.
> I just don't see this. Surely ensuring that the distribution
> of spotlight time is equitable is the group's responsibility,
> regardless of whether a given player still has Plot Points to spend!
May I stipulate that plot points are not a cure-all for issues of
spotlight time _or anything else_? This puts them in a class with every
other mechanic I've ever seen.
> I don't see it as nearly as difficult as trying to use
> a plot point mechanic in a "non-gamist" fashion. But perhaps
> people differ in what they find difficult.
It sort of depends on whether it is "gamist" for your _character_ to
want to succeed at something. I would imagine that a real "Master
Swordsman" might find himself in situations where, for what are quite
definitely intragame reasons, he very much wants to succeed at
something. Now the _player_ may well be in author mode when thinking
about that swordsman's motivations, but his thinking would not therefore
be base or gamist (keeping in mind that gamism, like every other stance,
comes in degrees and, like every other stance, is neither noble nor base
in an absolute sense).
And here's an area where some reflection has led me to be _more_ in
agreement with Mark about plot points as an aid to role-playing -- the
kinds of successes you ensure can say a lot about your character.
Consider my hoary DC Heroes example:
Catman is on the deck of a yacht with Robin strung up to the yardarm and
standing on a chair, a chair around whose leg Catman has hooked his
foot. Batman is on the dock and must, according to Catman, surrender if
he doesn't want to watch his partner swing. Batman decides to try to
throw his batarang and rope to lash Robin to the mast so that Catman
can't successfully hang him.
I submit that whether Batman spends hero points to improve his chances
or ensure success at this action tells you something different about his
character than if he saves them for pounding Catman next round when he
can close.
A hypothetical example that to me shows the real elegance of the system:
Imagine a superhero setting in which your character, The Hulk, has a STR
of 10.0 (as high as the scale goes) and a descriptor, "The madder Hulk
gets, the stronger Hulk gets." Now, any time the Hulk wants to pick up a
tank and wallop someone with it he can do so, because he has a STR of
10.0. However, ripping down the adamantium-walled base to its
foundations is normally beyond his capabilities. But, if it comes to
that point and something about the situation has really _enraged_ him,
he can activate his descriptor and bring the house down. The good player
will not try to contrive bogus anger to enable this. The bad player
will, of course, but I've already conceded that plot points do not
prevent bad play, spotlight hogs or infections in intimate regions of
one's body. (Note that in this case the descriptor can actually function
as a code phrase for activating the plot point -- Mistress Natasha would
be very pleased.)
Best,
Jim
John H Kim
This is a reply to Mary concerning spotlight-grabbing and
Plot Points. In general, I would agree that while Plot Points can
be used to regulate spotlight time, there is a significant cost
and restrictions. It seems to work well enough within the context
of the examples given (such as the genre of TV action shows, say),
but I also wonder how widely applicable it is.
Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu> wrote:
>Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>So apparently even if Markus is out of Plot Points, he can continue to
>>act flamboyantly, he'll just be much less likely to succeed.
[..]
>You've said in the past that success/failure is not really the point,
>and for once I'm inclined to agree with you. If Race (the pilot in
>Berkman's example) gets to describe, in loving detail, his attempt to
>barrel through the biplanes, hook the blimp, etc. and then doesn't
>succeed, he *still* has the spotlight throughout the action.
I agree. I can think of a number of characters who would
hog the spotlight despite or in fact *because* of being ineffectual.
For example, Sophrenia in my Gothic Horror game would constantly do
things like walk down into dark basements alone in her nightgown --
forcing the other characters to rush off to rescue her.
Similarly, Stavros in a current _Ars Magica_ game will often
grab the spotlight during discussion time despite the fact that he
is terminally ignorant. He will come up with completely off-the-wall
and stupid ideas and try to convince others of them. It doesn't
matter that he's wrong -- he is very entertaining.
-*-*-*-
It seems to me that regulation of spotlight time by Plot
Points depends on a certain attitude towards success, which I would
call "gamist". Namely, it is success which is important and which
is focussed on, and failure is overlooked and should be avoided by
the _player_.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>>
>> Otherwise, let me know what TV shows (or movies) you regularly
>> watch and I'll see if I can give you some examples of Plot
>> Point usage from current episodes
Hmmm. I don't watch any TV shows regularly right now, but
in the past the shows I would watch included _Law and Order_,
_Party of Five_, _The Tick_, and reruns of _The Muppet Show_.
I would be interested in examples of plot point usage in these
shows -- especially the first two.
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <339EF9...@erols.com> jlhe...@erols.com writes:
>Sarah wrote:
> > I don't see it as nearly as difficult as trying to use
> > a plot point mechanic in a "non-gamist" fashion. But perhaps
> > people differ in what they find difficult.
>It sort of depends on whether it is "gamist" for your _character_ to
>want to succeed at something. I would imagine that a real "Master
>Swordsman" might find himself in situations where, for what are quite
>definitely intragame reasons, he very much wants to succeed at
>something.
The difficulty is the decision "The character really wants to succeed,
but I can't afford to spend the Point here--I am going to want
it much worse further down the line." This is a particular affliction
when you have characters who want many things and want them all badly.
(Markus keeps cropping up as my example because he is exactly like
that.)
If you are willing to spend a Point every time the character *really*
wants to succeed you needn't introduce gamist thinking at all;
however, you may well run out, with various annoying consequences.
And you probably won't succeed in equalizing spotlight, because some
characters want things much more often than others. Markus is prone
to passionate loves and passionate hatreds every couple of sessions.
Valentine has a nice emotional equilibrium which has only been upset
once. Let both characters spend just when the character would feel
the need, and Markus will surely spend a lot more points (and, if they
measure spotlight, eat up a lot more time).
Even in Shadowrun, where Karma Points mainly bolstered Script Immunity,
we had a problem with a couple of characters who never spent theirs
and accumulated dozens, because they were never in situations where
an IC reason to do so appeared. (Shadowrun Karma Points are also
experience points, so these characters could, if they wanted, run their
skills through the roof--I declined to do so.)
>Now, any time the Hulk wants to pick up a
>tank and wallop someone with it he can do so, because he has a STR of
>10.0. However, ripping down the adamantium-walled base to its
>foundations is normally beyond his capabilities. But, if it comes to
>that point and something about the situation has really _enraged_ him,
>he can activate his descriptor and bring the house down. The good player
>will not try to contrive bogus anger to enable this.
Agreed. But it's not clear to me, given that you assume a good player,
why you need the bookkeeping. I've run characters with powers "only
when enraged" successfully without any point-counting limitation on
how often they can be enraged; my own gut reactions provide sufficient
limit (I think it's physically impossible to be really rip-roaring angry
for too long at a stretch). The decision "Is the character really
enraged?" is quintessentially one I'd want to make using IC criteria.
Any consideration of "Do I have enough points to spare to be really
enraged?" immediately brings game criteria thundering in.
Not that game criteria are bad, in their place. For me, this is not
the place I'd want them. And if I did have to have them, I'd rather
have a specialized form that measures Hulk's ability to sustain rage,
rather than a general form that causes me to trade off, say, rage
versus determination of world details.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mark Apolinski
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
> In article <339D90...@ix.netcom.com> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> How do you adjucate situations in which more than one PC spends a Plot
> Point? For example, we meet the alien race, and both Valentine (an
> empath) and Valerie (a xenolinguist) say, quite reasonably, "I spend
> a Plot Point to deal with this situation." If a Plot Point is a pledge
> from the GM to center on that character, how do you resolve this
> situation? Center on both? Disallow one use? Let things take their
> normal course as if the Points cancelled out?
Center on both. Valentine and Valerie are obviously dealing with the
situation in different ways, so there should be no conflict.
> Has it been your experience that spotlight matters only in Dramatic
> Scenes? (Maybe I need an explanation of what a Dramatic Scene is.)
You and me both.
> Markus, in my experience, can take up a huge amount of game time
> toying with a lady who is not at all important to the plot. One of
> his more charming attributes is that she's important to *him*. They
> all are, at least for a bit. In a multi-player game I expect he
> would be a fairly bad spotlight hog for this reason. How would Plot
> Points be helpful in avoiding this? I'm imagining the GM pushing a
> Dramatic Scene into existance in order to get the spotlight off
> Markus--or would it be another player doing that?
I get the impression from David that Dramatic Scenes are damn obvious,
so given that Markus' situation takes place outside a Dramatic Scene,
why not let him have his fun? Do what you would do ordinarily. The
Dramatic Scenes are the places where things become important to the main
plot after all.
> Do you ever find players trying to manipulate your perception of what
> is or isn't a Dramatic Scene? I have found that with scene-limited
> mechanics there is a certain temptation for players to try this: for
> example, if a power lasts "one scene" players may be tempted to use
> various pacing tricks to extend that scene across more game-time.
I suppose they might make a Statement to change the facts of the plot,
but then they'd have to spend a Plot Point to make that Statement true
in order to influence the scene anyway ("Didn't you know that she was
the Duke's mistress? Oh, that must be him now...") so it all works out.
In fact, in such a case they're helping me to write the plot, which is
what I want. So I would be glad to reward such behavior.
> About how many points per session per player do you normally see spent?
> How big of a backlog do your players maintain? How often does someone
> actually run out?
In order, 3-4, 5-6, never.
> So Markus' player, who is out of points or unwilling to spend them, must
> restrain himself from describing his characters' actions in detail, and
> must shut up with the snappy reparte'? I guess I just don't see the
> GM as the sole arbiter of who gets attention from the group and who
> doesn't, so I have trouble imagining this working.
>
> I am a pushy player in multi-player groups. I don't feel that I would
> need GM attention in order to hog some spotlight time, unless the GM
> were willing to quite literally tell me to shut up, don't say what my
> character is doing, don't say what he's thinking, allow his actions
> to be abstracted away.
>
> At that point I would feel disempowered, not empowered. It might be
> for the good of the group, but it certainly wouldn't be pleasant.
So are you saying that you believe that a single player has the right to
hijack an entire game?
> Maybe some sample back-and-forth from one of your games?
I'm still getting my new group used to Theatrix. Perhaps one day soon.
> If they weren't a substitute for skill--if players were really just
> using them to get the GM's attention--it's not clear to me why the game
> would become ridiculous. I think Plot Points are serving a double
> purpose--spotlight equalization and power equalization--in your games,
> but because the latter is "gamey" you're trying not to notice it.
I don't know how they can provide power equalization when my PCs are all
at the same power level. However, I do try to stifle 'gamist' thinking
whenever I see it.
> >Remember that character development can alter Descriptors. I doubt that
> >Markus simply went from not being a Father to being one with no
> >development.
>
> It was a shock to his player, that's all I can say. I didn't know he
> had it in him until he stood up in front of the Magistrate and said
> "This girl is my daughter, and I'll stake my life to prove it."
> Presumably, therefore, a player decision "I will spend a Plot Point
> to make the Magistrate recognize that I really mean it" would be
> questioned, because it doesn't seem to correspond to any Descriptor
> that anyone knew about. (This is my usual objection to characterization
> via mechanics, not at all limited to Theatrix, and probably a red
> herring in the Plot Point discussion.)
So at that moment Markus evolves. His Descriptors or Personality Traits
change.
> I'm sorry if this comes across as baiting. Our gaming styles are almost
> diametrically opposite, so it's hard for me not to criticize when
> I should simply be trying to understand. I do think my understanding
> of how you use Plot Points has improved, though. I wouldn't do it
> myself, but it does seem to make sense, mostly, in the context of
> your particular goals. I still don't think that Plot Points are
> merely serving to equalize spotlight in your games, though; if they
> were you wouldn't experience increased melodrama with increased
> numbers of points, just increased spotlight trouble.
With a limited number of Plot Points, even if it is a high number,
players will have to balance Descriptor activation with the purchase of
Successes. With an unlimited number of points, they won't have to worry
about balance and can buy all the Successes they want.
Mark
Mark Apolinski
Ennead wrote:
>
> You also effectively have them for Script Immunity (although
> Mark considers SI a part of the contract, _Theatrix_'s suggested
> use for Plot Points does allow for their use as a bolster to SI).
Where do you see this? I'm really interested because I don't see that
implied anywhere in the rules.
Mark
Mark Apolinski
Here are some more examples of Descriptor activation that Dave just sent
me:
Berserker Rage - Activated to allow the user to keep fighting despite
overwhelming wounds, collapsing only at the end of the combat.
Nova Effect - Activates to allow the Human Torch to create a really big
boom, afet which he's drained and unconscious.
Fast Car - Activated for an entire scene to impress the greasers, and
pick up on the head greaser's steady. This allows you to flash winning
smiles, make all the girls go soft on you, and run circles around the
boys as they chase you.
I Hate Snakes (Flaw) - Activated for a scene to allow the hero to
perform incredible feats of bravery and dexterity in order to get out of
the tomb he's trapped in, the one with all the snakes in it.
Vulcan - Activated for a scene to allow a character to survive the
deadlytrans-dimensional cloud that sucks out red corpulses for their
iron, because you've got that icky green yucky tasting blood, letting
the character guard the rear, open the vent, and save everyone in the
room.
Lassie - "What, Billy's fallen in the well, and can't get out, he's
broken his leg, and there's a bear trying to fish him up for food! Let's
go!"
-- -- -- -- -- --
I think perhaps I've been putting too much emphasis on activating
Descriptors. I've been thinking that that was the primary usage for Plot
Points, but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps it *is* that Plot Points are
going to be used mostly for Successes as a reward for roleplaying. I'll
have to do some more thinking.
But I still think that Plot Points are more versatile than cards. And I
still think that it is the Player's responsibility to avoid 'gamist'
thinking even in the face of temptation. After all, how we deal with
temptation reveals something of our inner character. Removing all
temptation does not make a person more moral.
Are you the kind of person who *needs* laws to keep them in check, or do
you have an inner sense of morality that prevents bad behavior?
Mark
Mary K. Kuhner
>The Theatrix plot point rules restrict a player's authorial ability
>_and_ enable it -- just think of all the rule sets where there is simply
>no _question_ of author power devolving upon the players. And in an
>economic sense, the use of plot points under scarcity forces the players
>to make choices about which of the many imaginable uses of that power
>are important to them. It's a price system.
I'd be happier, I think, with introducing limits on improvisation via
"territory" as a model, rather than "price". Saying "You can make up
what you like about magic theory, but leave politics alone" seems
more natural to me than "You can make up exactly four things."
"Which uses are important" is a complicated question which has both
in-game and meta-game aspects; a lot of this discussion has been trying
to separate, or sometimes confound, the two.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <339F10...@ix.netcom.com> Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>> Markus, in my experience, can take up a huge amount of game time
>> toying with a lady who is not at all important to the plot.
>I get the impression from David that Dramatic Scenes are damn obvious,
>so given that Markus' situation takes place outside a Dramatic Scene,
>why not let him have his fun? Do what you would do ordinarily. The
>Dramatic Scenes are the places where things become important to the main
>plot after all.
This makes sense, except that now Plot Points no longer control
spotlight time in the sense that I'd be interested in it--how much
time the group spends focussed on each player. If I were a player of
a different PC, and Markus (and his player) got to take up a whole
session on one of these seduction attempts, I would be frustrated.
Even as the sole player, I find Markus' tendency to suck up play time
somewhat bothersome; I may lose track of other PCs while he does his
thing. (Don't get me wrong; I enjoy what Markus does, but too much
time on one character damages the game.)
It sounds as though if you limit Plot Points only to Dramatic Scenes
(whatever they are) you can't use them to limit this particular
kind of spotlight hogging.
I recall that David tends, by my standards, to rush "non-dramatic"
scenes, so this would not be a concern for him. Markus would never
get the chance to play out a non-dramatic seduction for hours.
>> I am a pushy player in multi-player groups. I don't feel that I would
>> need GM attention in order to hog some spotlight time, unless the GM
>> were willing to quite literally tell me to shut up, don't say what my
>> character is doing, don't say what he's thinking, allow his actions
>> to be abstracted away.
>> At that point I would feel disempowered, not empowered. It might be
>> for the good of the group, but it certainly wouldn't be pleasant.
>So are you saying that you believe that a single player has the right to
>hijack an entire game?
No. My pushiness is a vice, and it's quite appropriate for the GM to
do something about it if I don't restrict myself. (Which I try to do,
unless I'm really pissed at the other players.) I'm just wondering
how it would feel to have Plot Points used for that purpose. I think
it might feel significantly worse than "Mary, knock it off and let
someone else get a word in edgewise." There's something rather
patronizing about being given a quota of opportunities to talk.
I'm used to the idea that the GM will do some social engineering to
balance spotlight: "okay, Jon, what is *your* character doing?" to
prompt the quiet player, verbal hints to the talky player. Somehow,
though, keeping score would seem to make this ruder: "I'm sorry, Mary,
you've spent your four Plot Points, so I won't listen to your
description of what your character does. Next!"
>> I think Plot Points are serving a double
>> purpose--spotlight equalization and power equalization--in your games,
>> but because the latter is "gamey" you're trying not to notice it.
>I don't know how they can provide power equalization when my PCs are all
>at the same power level. However, I do try to stifle 'gamist' thinking
>whenever I see it.
Like my tendency to stifle dramatist thinking whenever I see it, this
may possibly be an overreaction.
I'd be surprised if your PCs are all at the same power level relative
to the scenario they are in; this is almost never possible in my
experience. Over the course of the campaign my characters Vikki and
Christine have gotten about equal play time and seemed about equally
capable. However, run a combat scenario and Christine will sit on
the sidelines all game long; run a scenario involving computers and
Vikki will contribute nothing. Thus, I suspect the Plot Point thing
is allowing you to compensate for this sort of situational power
imbalance by insuring your temporarily disfavored players still get
to do something. Would you find that "gamist" or is that part of
what you mean by "spotlight"?
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
John H Kim
A reply to John Jones concerning adding Plot Points to a
game with a control-freak GM. "Filksinger" brought up the example
of a game where the GM was controlling to the point that, for
example, he declared that Raid was ineffective on bugs in Central
America because he wanted the PC's beds to have bedbugs. Filksinger
suggested that this problem would have been alleviated by use of
Plot Points.
To me, this is a bit of a moot point. In my experience,
a controlling GM simply won't go along with giving away authorial
power to the players. If Plot Points would remove his authority,
he won't implement them as mechanics.
John L. Jones II <bi...@nis.lanl.gov> wrote:
>Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>> My suspicion is that adding Plot Points to this mix would only
>> emphasize the players' powerlessness; it rubs their faces in the
>> fact that they aren't even free to control their own characters.
>> You need the GM to change his orientation, but I'd be somewhat surprised
>> if adding a mechanic (under the GM's control, no less, since he gives
>> out Plot Points and can veto their use) would really help.
>
> This might work better if the distribution of plot point were
>changed. For example, someone other than the GM could give out the plot
>points (perhaps the group as a whole). They could also make a rule that
>plot points *cannot* be vetoed by the GM. Of course having never used
>plot points, I'm not sure what the affect will be. Still, it has to be
>an improvement over the original poster's situation.
I'm not really sure what you are suggesting. If the players
can force mechanics on the GM against his will, then they can simply
overrule individual GM rulings (i.e. "That's silly, of course Raid
works on Central American bugs -- we sleep just fine.")
In my mind, the key here is in communicating to the GM, not
in the mechanics. If you convince him to cooperate in empowering
the players, then the mechanic used is secondary. If you simply
make things adversarial, then the game is going to go down in
flames.
David Rhode
Well, this thread has certainly snowballed into something way beyond
the original topic, which of course is not necessarily a bad thing. We're
touching now on storytelling vs gaming, mechanics-heavy vs mechanics-light
issues. Unfortunately, the preponderance of really eloquent, detailed,
and well-thought-out opinions seem to be coming down against
Plot/Drama/Trump/Fate points, so I thought I'd carry a spear for the other
side in this post.
First, let me get some of the basic definitions down. I am somewhat of
a 'gamist,' if I understand how that term is used. As I understand it,
that means that if a game has some sort of game mechanics or measure of
success outside of the 'role' one plays, then a 'gamist' is someone who
enjoys that OOC consideration and seeks to advance his level of power or
enjoyment in the OOC aspect as well as the IC aspect. That means that if
a game involves accumulation of experience, luck, etc, and proper
application thereof, then I probably enjoy that part of the game. I may
be misunderstanding the term 'gamist,' and of course a polite correction
would be appreciated if so.
Second, let me define 'storytelling' as being a situation where the
players of the game can affect the setting or 'universe' of the game, if
you will, in ways that the character alone could not. For example, the
player of a cyberpunk-style 'fixer' character could try to establish his
character as the head of a criminal empire by roleplaying out the slow
acquisition of power. If the player had the power to alter the story of
this universe, he could speed this process along by creating 30 loyal NPC
thugs to do his character's bidding.
(Actually, I don't think my example here quite captures what I think
'storytelling' as to merely being the passive recipient of the effects of
die rolls involves.)
Third and last, I will define a mechanics-heavy game as being one where
the player must make decisions about game mechanics that affect his
character's chances of success, and mechanics-light as one where the
player does not have to think about game-mechanics much once past
character creation. Mary Kuhner's example of Champions OCV/DCV/skill
levels decisions in a post somewhere above is descriptive of a
mechanics-heavy system (I don't think there is much debate possible on
that, although I will grant that there are systems that make HERO look
like a breeze...). An example of a mechanics-light system would be Amber
(Player: "I throw myself into the melee, my blade flashing like light off
a diamond!" GM: "Oh, First rank in Warfare? In but a few seconds, you
find yourself standing over the butchered bodies of the mutant horde, idly
flicking blood off your sword.").
Good, now that that's over, here's my argument.
Personally, I have always favored games that have a strong element of
tactics built in. Such games include GURPS and the HERO system. These
are both very much mechanics-heavy games, which encourage the player to
think about things like "how big *is* my gun?" and "am I gonna shift my
skill level to OCV or DCV this turn?" GURPS has optional cinematic rules,
the most relevant of which is that characters who have taken a lethal
wound have the option of spending an experience point to have that reduced
to a 'flesh' wound, allowing them not to be dead at an inconvenient
moment. Now, according to the preceeding posts, this would mean that
cinematic GURPS campaigns encourage 'gamist' thinking, in that players now
have to make a choice between spending earned points on improving their
character's skills and abilities (which might allow them to avoid dying
without having to spend spare points) or saving a few points for the rare
'mishap.'
There are some advantages to the GURPS system over some of the point
systems described previously, in that the tension of possible failure
still exists. The only effect of this cinematic rule is that, as long as
you have a spare point, you won't die. Of course, depending on the
situation, not dying is not the same as not failing. Example: The Dark
Lord, mortally wounded by the heroes, is teetering on the lip of the Pit
of Ultimate Chaos, clutching The Child of Light. The Elven Ranger
Brightleaf is the only character still able to move himself, after the
climactic battle, and his player states "Brightleaf charges The Dark Lord,
meaning to snatch The Child of Light from his grasp no matter what the
cost." The GM says "Roll." Brightleaf rolls 3 6's. In GURPS, that's a
critical failure. The GM says "Brightleaf trips over a small pebble and
sails into the Abyss, completely missing the Dark Lord." Brightleaf's
player says "I spend an xp." The GM says "Brightleaf trips over a small
pebble, and falls flat on his face in front of the The Dark Lord, who
chooses to leap into the abyss, dragging the Child of Light to destruction
while laughing maniacally." The player says "But according to the
Sorceress' Prophecy, the world is doomed unless we rescue The Child of
Light!" The GM says "You critically failed. Sorry." The player says
"What a crappy ending to a campaign. Wait a second... I have more xp.
Can I just spend them all to say Brightleaf managed to save the Child at
the cost of his own life?" The GM says "Nope, not in the rules. Having
failed to rescue the Child of Light, the Black Gate opens, and the Hordes
of Entropy swarm across the world, devouring every living thing, despite
your heroic efforts."
How many times has this happened to you? ;)
The point is, there are times when exploring the consequences of
failure can be rewarding and exciting, and times when failure would be
pointless and depressing. In some of the less mechanics-oriented games,
like Amber (which I am familiar with) and Theatrix (which I am not, but I
think have a good sense of with all the information presented in this
newsgroup), players do have some control over how the story plays out
apart from simply rolling dice. In games like GURPS and the Hero system,
they have fewer options. I think that allowing players in such games to
have a limited ability to control their own destinies is a desirable
thing. Even if this entails some kind of mental overhead (Ooh, ooh, I've
got one Uberpoint! Do I spend it now, or save it 'til later? Ooh, ooh!),
I think the benefits in terms of player satisfaction outweigh any risks of
encouraging 'gamist' behaviour (yeah, I definitely need a better
definition of that...). Besides, in the more mechanics-heavy games, the
players might be more tolerant and better suited to dealing with a point
system, simply because of their taste in games.
Ennead
In rec.games.frp.advocacy Jim Henley <jlhe...@erols.com> wrote:
: Ennead wrote:
: >
: > I can understand why someone would want to do this, but
: > it does bother me that _Theatrix_ chooses to describe this dynamic
: > in terms of "player empowerment." So you empower your players
: > to act as author by restricting their ability to do so? This is
: > pure double-speak, and it is what really gets my goat about _Theatrix._
: God knows I disagree with you reluctantly, Sarah (I mean, you _are_ my
: intellectual better after all <g>), but I just can't let this one pass
: by. It seems to partake of a restriction/empowerment dichotomy that just
: doesn't hold up.
Some forms of restriction can be empowering, yes.
Limits can help to focus creative energy, I recognize that.
I wouldn't particularly want to play in a game with no limits
at all; in fact, my preferred style is fairly tyrannical when
it comes to limitations related to the game world and its
strictures.
I don't think, though, that an economic model is an
appropriate way to limit and regulate authorial control. It
acts to impose a limit on _quantity,_ or on frequency, when
what are needed are restrictions on quality, or on type.
The potential problems in allowing the players authorial
control within the game are not, IMO, addressed by the solution
of the Plot Point mechanic. What the Plot Point mechanic _does_
do is to impose limits where none are needed, and where they
may actually be harmful to the desired end. This is what makes
them seem so disempowering.
: The Theatrix plot point rules restrict a player's authorial ability
: _and_ enable it -- just think of all the rule sets where there is simply
: no _question_ of author power devolving upon the players.
Well, they enable it only insofar as they introduce the
concept of player-as-author to the minds of the participants. And
yet, I know, this is much.
But then, in the same breath with which they have opened
up these vistas of opportunity to the player, they then describe
a rules system which makes it clear that, yes, this is just another
game thing. The points are _resources,_ and the GM limits their
availability, and in fact, the rules as written seem to encourage
a sort of competition between the players and the GM over their
use. Authoring here has become yet another game, a game-within-
the-game, in which the operative metaphor is one of scarcity and
hoarding, of expenditure and depletion, rather than one of bounty
and generosity, of synergy and expansion.
It seems a wrong metaphor to me, and a damaging one.
If creative authorial participation in the game feels like a
carefully-chosen investment, an expenditure of a rare and
valuable resource, then in my opinion, you just aren't doing it
right.
Creative authorial participation in the game ought, IMO,
to build on itself, perpetuate itself. It should enable the
group to come to a shared understanding of what the game _is,_
and therefore of what sorts of authoring best serve it. This
in turn reduces the risk of inappropriate authorial decisions,
which allows the players to become even more empowered.
Plot point mechanics, as I see it, actively oppose this
goal.
: And in an
: economic sense, the use of plot points under scarcity forces the players
: to make choices about which of the many imaginable uses of that power
: are important to them. It's a price system.
And that is largely my problem with it. If the players'
access to authorial power is limited in this fashion, then as you
say, they will be reluctant to use it except when it seems very
important to them. Perhaps I have a dim view of human nature,
but to my mind, this means that they rarely use their power in
ways which do not benefit them very directly and personally and
pragmatically.
I guess I just don't see how an economy of scarcity
benefits the game. Its financial equivalent certainly doesn't
do much good for people. I've been poor. I didn't like it.
And what I liked least about it was not being cold in the winter,
nor going hungry until more money floated into view, nor the fear
that if I fell ill, I would be unable to get decent medical care.
No, what I liked least about being poor was the fact that
on the very first day of strawberry season, I couldn't even _think_
about buying any, because I needed literally every cent in my pocket
for beans and rice and rent, the things without which I couldn't
survive. That denial of luxury and frivolity wore at my soul; it
hurt me in a place that neither hunger nor cold nor anxiety could
touch.
I don't see why you would want to create a false economy
of scarcity as a means of governing player authorial control.
For one thing, I don't agree with the premise that the largest
peril in allowing the players such control is that they might
use it too _often._ That does not jibe with my own experience.
In my experience, the risk of allowing players authorial control
of the setting is not that they might use it too often, but
that they might use it inappropriately. And this is a problem
which limiting the _quantity_ of points available to players
does not rectify. All it does is to ensure that if the players
_are_ using the points in undesirable ways, at least they cannot
do so very _often._ (Actually, it doesn't even do that, since
in _Theatrix,_ the GM takes on the responsibility of denying
inappropriate use of plot points through his veto power.)
If the players aren't going to use their authorial power
inappropriately, however, then I don't see why one would want
to keep them from exercising it as often as they wish. It is
not the frequency of authorial influence that causes problems
in games; the problems only arise when that power is used badly.
: > But if the street cop's player has already spent his Plot
: > Points (say, to ensure that his improvs are allowed to stand as
: > in-game facts), then it is all right for the character to be denied
: > spotlight time?
: Theatrix is, hard as it may be to believe, played by more than one
: person.
Now, now. I know that. Mark's use of _Theatrix_ differs
in many ways from David Berkman's; I expect that your own differs
in more ways still. I was curious about Mark's response, though,
because I'm still a bit unclear as to how he uses Plot Points to
govern spotlight time. His exchange with Mary is beginning to
shed some light; I am really hoping that both of them will keep
up with that dialogue.
: I certainly don't believe you have to spend a plot point to get
: spotlight time. For one thing, you can make nondramatic use of
: descriptors at any point for characterization purposes. For another you
: have a skill set to work from. Even if you don't spend a point on your
: Master Swordsman descriptor you can still attack someone, says I,
: because you undoubtedly have a Swords _skill_, and depending on any
: number of things (relative skill and trait levels, environmental
: factors, dramatic considerations et al) you may succeed in fine style.
Right. I still don't quite understand what Mark was trying
to convey about Superman and Joe Street Cop, though. The problem
he proposes seems to be one of disparate PC power levels: Superman
can obviously do more impressive things than Joe Street Cop can.
How Plot Points are used to handle this situation, though, I don't
understand. In my experience, disparate PC power levels are only
a problem if the group as a whole doesn't find less impressive
characters very interesting and therefore ignores their actions.
I don't see how Plot Points could help here. If the group is bored
by anything short of superhuman feats, then surely they will _still_
be bored even if Joe's player spends a Plot Point to ensure that
he gets spotlight time?
If, on the other hand, the group doesn't suffer from this
affliction, then I don't really see why Joe needs Plot Points to
gain the spotlight in the first place. My group enjoys playing
with extreme PC power inequities, and the characters who end up
enjoying the most interest and attention are by no means always
the most powerful.
: > I just don't see this. Surely ensuring that the distribution
: > of spotlight time is equitable is the group's responsibility,
: > regardless of whether a given player still has Plot Points to spend!
:
: May I stipulate that plot points are not a cure-all for issues of
: spotlight time _or anything else_? This puts them in a class with every
: other mechanic I've ever seen.
I don't expect them to be a cure-all. I'm just trying to
understand what they _do_ that couldn't be done better by other means.
: It sort of depends on whether it is "gamist" for your _character_ to
: want to succeed at something. I would imagine that a real "Master
: Swordsman" might find himself in situations where, for what are quite
: definitely intragame reasons, he very much wants to succeed at
: something.
Sure. And if you use the Plot Points to represent IC extra
effort -- expenditure of will, a willingness to risk pulling muscles,
what have you -- then the finite number of points even makes sense.
After all, there are only so many times one can put in "extra effort"
before it becomes clear that there is nothing really "extra" about
it, that this is merely the character's way of doing things.
Such effort is represented in our games by statements like
"I'm pushing as hard as I can, even if it means straining a muscle,"
or "I'll stay up all night, if that's what it takes," and so forth.
(Characters who do this sort of thing too often, of course, usually
do eventually hurt themselves, or make themselves ill, but that's
the peril of being an overachiever.) I don't have a problem with
the idea that a character might want to succeed so badly that he
pushes himself beyond normal limits.
Plot Points get used for a number of different things as
well, though.
: Now the _player_ may well be in author mode when thinking
: about that swordsman's motivations, but his thinking would not therefore
: be base or gamist (keeping in mind that gamism, like every other stance,
: comes in degrees and, like every other stance, is neither noble nor base
: in an absolute sense).
I don't consider gamism "base." For that matter, I can
see the player wanting his character to succeed for dramatic reasons
just as easily as for gamey ones.
("Surrender if you don't want the boy to swing" scenario>
: I submit that whether Batman spends hero points to improve his chances
: or ensure success at this action tells you something different about his
: character than if he saves them for pounding Catman next round when he
: can close.
I guess. I think that I would rather see character come
forth in more in-game ways, though. It seems to me that when a
character really, _really_ wants to succeed at something, it is
made evident by the role-play.
What if Batman's player had already used up all of his
plot points elsewhere? Would that imply to you that the character
really wasn't all that concerned about the safety of his sidekick?
Of course not. It would just mean that the player made
a tactical error in his use of Plot Points.
[the Hulk can only smash something beyond his normal
capabilities if he is really, really _peeved_]
: But, if it comes to
: that point and something about the situation has really _enraged_ him,
: he can activate his descriptor and bring the house down. The good player
: will not try to contrive bogus anger to enable this. The bad player
: will, of course, but I've already conceded that plot points do not
: prevent bad play, spotlight hogs or infections in intimate regions of
: one's body.
If the good player doesn't contrive bogus anger to enable
his character to achieve this above-and-beyond ability, then why
do you need the Plot Points? The situation here is that if the
Hulk is thrown into a raving temper, then he can achieve superhuman
feats of strength even beyond his usual ones. So why not simply
leave it at that? The points here seem a limitation designed more
to control the "bad player" than the "good one."
: (Note that in this case the descriptor can actually function
: as a code phrase for activating the plot point -- Mistress Natasha would
: be very pleased.)
"I'm really, _really_ angry here!"
"Oh, dear. All right, let me remove the cuffs."
-- Sarah
John L. Jones II
John H Kim wrote:
>
> A reply to John Jones concerning adding Plot Points to a
> game with a control-freak GM. "Filksinger" brought up the example
> of a game where the GM was controlling to the point that, for
> example, he declared that Raid was ineffective on bugs in Central
> America because he wanted the PC's beds to have bedbugs. Filksinger
> suggested that this problem would have been alleviated by use of
> Plot Points.
I'll admit that I haven't been following the discussion in its
entirety. This appears to be a bad situation. A good talk between all
the participants is probably what is needed.
> I'm not really sure what you are suggesting. If the players
> can force mechanics on the GM against his will, then they can simply
> overrule individual GM rulings (i.e. "That's silly, of course Raid
> works on Central American bugs -- we sleep just fine.")
I'm suggesting two things. One, that the distribution of plot
points be taken out of the GM's hands if necessary. Two, that the plot
points not be subject to veto power. I gathered from Mary's post that
plot points were usually subject to veto power. I find that odd, since
that seems to defeat the purpose of using them in the first place (but
as I have said previously, I've never used the things).
In any case, if the GM does not have veto power, then the players
can, as you say, overrule individual GM rulings (which would be a good
thing in this case).
> In my mind, the key here is in communicating to the GM, not
> in the mechanics. If you convince him to cooperate in empowering
> the players, then the mechanic used is secondary. If you simply
> make things adversarial, then the game is going to go down in
> flames.
Agreed.
> John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting sun.
--
Mary K. Kuhner
> I'm suggesting two things. One, that the distribution of plot
>points be taken out of the GM's hands if necessary. Two, that the plot
>points not be subject to veto power. I gathered from Mary's post that
>plot points were usually subject to veto power. I find that odd, since
>that seems to defeat the purpose of using them in the first place (but
>as I have said previously, I've never used the things).
As a GM I would find this completely unworkable.
One of my unwritten contracts with the players is "I will make sure
that the world makes sense." This is going to require me to veto a
Plot Point now and then. The player may quite innocently say "I spend
a Plot Point--the identity of the Masked Avenger is revealed to be
Joe Smith!" The player doesn't see any inconsistencies--he's aware
that there are some unsolved mysteries, but he trusts me to make them
make sense. I, however, know that my expected solutions to those
mysteries involved the Masked Avenger really being Tim Curry. I know,
furthermore, that I'm not going to be able to come up with another
solution in time to salvage the session--I would have to painstakingly
work through all the information the PCs already have, and make *sure*
that all of it still makes sense in light of the new solution. And
maybe I just won't be able to do so.
If I were playing in a Plot Point system I would insist on veto power.
I probably wouldn't use it often, but I'd use it when necessary to keep
the world consistent. I'd also use it for what Scott Ruggles calls
"art direction", because I know from experience that a world without
a consistent internal esthetic won't keep my interest as a GM. So if
you suddenly want to plunk Purple PolkaDot Wizards into the middle of
my epic fantasy setting, or invent gunpowder, I *need* to be able to say
no, just as a player needs to be able to say no if I venture "Your
character is falling in love with the villainness." It's a territorial
boundary that's required for the game to work for me.
If I can't trust the GM to use his veto responsibly, I am in the wrong
game in the first place.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
John H Kim
Hmmm. This is a reply to Jim Henley concerning the use
of Plot Points as an indicator of character personality. He
brought up the example of someone who is extremely motivated
to make a particular shot...
Jim Henley <jlhe...@erols.com> wrote:
>Catman is on the deck of a yacht with Robin strung up to the yardarm and
>standing on a chair, a chair around whose leg Catman has hooked his
>foot. Batman is on the dock and must, according to Catman, surrender if
>he doesn't want to watch his partner swing. Batman decides to try to
>throw his batarang and rope to lash Robin to the mast so that Catman
>can't successfully hang him.
>
>I submit that whether Batman spends hero points to improve his chances
>or ensure success at this action tells you something different about his
>character than if he saves them for pounding Catman next round when he
>can close.
Hmmm. Certainly if you are watching as GM, this choice
will tell you something about the player and/or the character.
But I would argue that both GM and player can see more of Batman
here if you don't give him the option of an automatic success in
his throw.
At this point, it becomes a real dilemma. Batman has no
guarantee that a throw will save that sweet young thing so dear to
his heart. (Apologies to those who don't accept the obvious about
their relationship. @-) Is he willing to take that risk or not?
With Plot Points, you eliminate (or at least greatly
reduce) the possibility that Batman could truly try to save
Robin, but fail despite his effort. For many gamers, this is
a good thing... This corresponds to the Aristotilean model
of drama, where tragedies occur because of a flaw in protagonist
(i.e. hubris). However, it also eliminates the sort of play
I am interested in.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>A hypothetical example that to me shows the real elegance of the system:
>Imagine a superhero setting in which your character, The Hulk, has a STR
>of 10.0 (as high as the scale goes) and a descriptor, "The madder Hulk
>gets, the stronger Hulk gets." Now, any time the Hulk wants to pick up a
>tank and wallop someone with it he can do so, because he has a STR of
>10.0. However, ripping down the adamantium-walled base to its
>foundations is normally beyond his capabilities. But, if it comes to
>that point and something about the situation has really _enraged_ him,
>he can activate his descriptor and bring the house down. The good player
>will not try to contrive bogus anger to enable this. The bad player
>will, of course, but I've already conceded that plot points do not
>prevent bad play, spotlight hogs or infections in intimate regions of
>one's body.
Hmmm. I have to agree with others in that I don't see
what the purpose is of Plot Points here. Why not just have the
Hulk get stronger when he gets madder? What purpose is served
by requiring the expenditure of Plot Points?
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>May I stipulate that plot points are not a cure-all for issues of
>spotlight time _or anything else_? This puts them in a class with every
>other mechanic I've ever seen.
Well, what do you consider to be the effects and purpose of
introducing Plot Points to a game?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting sun.
Mark Apolinski
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
> It sounds as though if you limit Plot Points only to Dramatic Scenes
> (whatever they are) you can't use them to limit this particular
> kind of spotlight hogging.
I suppose so.
> I recall that David tends, by my standards, to rush "non-dramatic"
> scenes, so this would not be a concern for him. Markus would never
> get the chance to play out a non-dramatic seduction for hours.
One thing I might try to do to resolve this problem would be to consider
these long seductions to be sub-plots. (After all, they do seem to be
important to Markus.) If I treat them this way then three things start
happening using Theatrix.
- One is that a seduction might now be considered to be Dramatic since
its context is now the sub-plot rather than the main plot.
- Two is that, even though Markus may need to spend a Plot Point for the
scene now, he'll be earning more Plot Points when the sub-plot is done,
ie. when the seduction is resolved one way or another. ( I suppose you
could say that One and Two cancel each other out, but hang on...)
- Three is that the other players may choose to participate in this
sub-plot and if they do *they* earn Plot Points too.
I've used something like this technique twice so far with Theatrix. Once
was in another Highlander campaign several years ago. We did a Flashback
sequence to a period in which only one of the main characters was alive,
but the other players ran NPCs for the duration of the Flashback (which
was long and involved enough to be an Episode by itself. I think it took
us eight hours of play to resove the Flashback alone.) This scene
really focussed on and elaborated on the single main character who was
present, but everyone gained Plot Points and had a great time to boot.
The second example is much more recent. In our last Episode of
TimeLords, the 'party' got separated into two groups. Each of the
groups had different problems to resolve regarding the main plot, and
each of them handled their problems in a different way. But in each part
of the story, the players who's characters weren't present played NPCs
for the characters who were. It kept the interest level high and seemed
to work well. I think it's a great technique.
> I'm used to the idea that the GM will do some social engineering to
> balance spotlight: "okay, Jon, what is *your* character doing?" to
> prompt the quiet player, verbal hints to the talky player. Somehow,
> though, keeping score would seem to make this ruder: "I'm sorry, Mary,
> you've spent your four Plot Points, so I won't listen to your
> description of what your character does. Next!"
Well, that's a very harsh and unfair depiction of how it really works.
But I think I get your gist.
> I'd be surprised if your PCs are all at the same power level relative
> to the scenario they are in; this is almost never possible in my
> experience. Over the course of the campaign my characters Vikki and
> Christine have gotten about equal play time and seemed about equally
> capable. However, run a combat scenario and Christine will sit on
> the sidelines all game long; run a scenario involving computers and
> Vikki will contribute nothing.
This is exactly what I mean. The characters in my TimeLords saga have
different specialties and sometimes different Episodes emphasize
different skills. But Plot Points are flexible enough to allow even our
computer geek to contribute to a combat if that's what the player wants.
> Thus, I suspect the Plot Point thing
> is allowing you to compensate for this sort of situational power
> imbalance by insuring your temporarily disfavored players still get
> to do something. Would you find that "gamist" or is that part of
> what you mean by "spotlight"?
I'd say 'spotlight'. The facility of Plot Points to allow 'temporarily
disfavored' players to still get to do something is another thing about
Theatrix that I find invaluable and terrific.
Mark
Mark Apolinski
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
> The difficulty is the decision "The character really wants to succeed,
> but I can't afford to spend the Point here--I am going to want
> it much worse further down the line." This is a particular affliction
> when you have characters who want many things and want them all badly.
> (Markus keeps cropping up as my example because he is exactly like
> that.)
>
> If you are willing to spend a Point every time the character *really*
> wants to succeed you needn't introduce gamist thinking at all;
> however, you may well run out, with various annoying consequences.
> And you probably won't succeed in equalizing spotlight, because some
> characters want things much more often than others. Markus is prone
> to passionate loves and passionate hatreds every couple of sessions.
> Valentine has a nice emotional equilibrium which has only been upset
> once. Let both characters spend just when the character would feel
> the need, and Markus will surely spend a lot more points (and, if they
> measure spotlight, eat up a lot more time).
Ahh! You're making an assumption that I hadn't considered. You see,
*characters* don't spend Plot Points, *players* do. They are *not* an
in-character tool, they are an *authorial* tool. The player spends the
Plot Point when they feel that a certain situation or task is absolutely
critical to character conception.
One concept I use to understand Plot Points is an analogy to the
situation of filming a movie in which an actor says their line and then
interrupts the take with, "You know, my character just wouldn't do
this." A Plot Point is a kind of a re-write in this sense.
> >Now, any time the Hulk wants to pick up a
> >tank and wallop someone with it he can do so, because he has a STR of
> >10.0. However, ripping down the adamantium-walled base to its
> >foundations is normally beyond his capabilities. But, if it comes to
> >that point and something about the situation has really _enraged_ him,
> >he can activate his descriptor and bring the house down. The good player
> >will not try to contrive bogus anger to enable this.
>
> Agreed. But it's not clear to me, given that you assume a good player,
> why you need the bookkeeping. I've run characters with powers "only
> when enraged" successfully without any point-counting limitation on
> how often they can be enraged; my own gut reactions provide sufficient
> limit (I think it's physically impossible to be really rip-roaring angry
> for too long at a stretch). The decision "Is the character really
> enraged?" is quintessentially one I'd want to make using IC criteria.
> Any consideration of "Do I have enough points to spare to be really
> enraged?" immediately brings game criteria thundering in.
Plot Points are definitely not an IC tool, so I doubt you'll be
comfortable with them. But it's not merely 'powers activate only when
enraged.' That's just a special case for the Hulk. It's really more like
'powers activate only when within character concept.' This is a decision
that virtually *has* to be made from the Author viewpoint.
Mark
John L. Jones II
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
> As a GM I would find this completely unworkable.
Really? As a player I'd find it pretty unworkable to have the GM
vetoing plot point expenditures. I'm not trying to be difficult here.
It's just that if the GM will have veto power, then I'm really at a loss
as to why one would use the things in the first place.
> One of my unwritten contracts with the players is "I will make sure
> that the world makes sense." This is going to require me to veto a
> Plot Point now and then. The player may quite innocently say "I spend
> a Plot Point--the identity of the Masked Avenger is revealed to be
> Joe Smith!"
Hmm, this is confusing. What you've described here sounds more like
Improv. I could maybe see a player saying "I spend a Plot Point-- the
identity of the Masked Avenger is revealed to me." Would that be
acceptable?
> If I were playing in a Plot Point system I would insist on veto power.
> I probably wouldn't use it often, but I'd use it when necessary to
> keep the world consistent.
That's interesting, as I really think veto power defeats the whole
purpose. Part of the problem may be that I don't typically incorporate
Improv into the games I play. Without Improv, it's not clear to me that
the problems you mention would occur.
> I'd also use it for what Scott Ruggles calls
> "art direction", because I know from experience that a world without
> a consistent internal esthetic won't keep my interest as a GM. So if
> you suddenly want to plunk Purple PolkaDot Wizards into the middle of
> my epic fantasy setting, or invent gunpowder, I *need* to be able to
> say no, just as a player needs to be able to say no if I venture "Your
> character is falling in love with the villainness." It's a
> territorial boundary that's required for the game to work for me.
Your use of the word "need" in relation to plot points is unclear
to me. My understanding of plot points does not include the ability to
drop Polka Dot wizards into the game. As for the latter example, I
wouldn't have a problem if there was a good reason for the character
falling in love with the villainous (i.e., perhaps the character
unwittingly drank a love potion or some such). Of course in that
instance I would prefer some sort of statement from the GM.
You are correct about territorial boundaries. I see the use of
veto-less plot points as providing a bit more power to the player. My
conception of the plot point is more along the lines of I succeed at
shooting the master villain, or that mortal wound turns into a flesh
wound.
> If I can't trust the GM to use his veto responsibly, I am in the wrong
> game in the first place.
Perhaps. Of course I could always counter that if I can't trust the
player to use his plot points responsibly, then I am in the wrong game
in the first place. I really think the trust issue goes both ways here.
> Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mark Apolinski
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
> Players are smart people, and might well come to the same conclusions
> you have. Your argument strikes me as analogous to "If I give the
> players infinite points to design their characters, they will design
> superbeings whom I cannot challenge." This can happen, but from
> practical experience I know that it doesn't always happen; players with
> infinite points may choose to play quite weak characters.
Perhaps you're lucky enough to have such wonderful players, but I've
just started a new Highlander campaign using Theatrix, and before we've
even begun character creation, as soon as I mentioned that they could
play any kind of Immortal they want, they all want to make 6000 year old
Immortals! We obviously have a vastly different caliber of players in
our respective gaming groups.
> Probably the players would begin by succeeding a lot, and then notice
> that the resulting game was not all that entertaining. Then they would
> have to look for some way of limiting their own successes to keep the
> game fun. I think the usual approach would be to develop the same
> kinds of esthetics that collaborative-storytelling groups have (turf limits,
> spotlight sharing, etc. are issues in collaborative storytelling as
> well). This would result in something that was (if the players like
> collaborative storytelling) fun, but no longer much like an RPG.
Unfortunately, this approach virtually guarrantees that one campaign
would have to be completely trashed before they woke up. At least for
the gamers that I can find around here.
Consider yourself blessed.
Mark
John H Kim
This is a reply to Mary concerning the use of Tarot as
Whimsy Cards. I would note that this is a fairly peculiar
situation -- so even if the style is compatible, I'm not sure
I would volunteer this as a general technique.
Chris' Victorian Horror game (the Ripper game) is largely
about various occult groups running around London in 1888 and 1889.
There was a _serious_ problem in this game which we needed to solve.
First, this was being run as a mystery -- the GM pushed that we
should figure things out, make contacts, etc. This is what I
would call a `gamist' approach in that it is success-oriented.
In retrospect, I think that the problem was that none of
the PC's had expertise in actual occult, whereas most of the actual
mysteries varied from spiritual to downright mystical. This was a
critical problem for my initial PC, who was essentially rational...
He believed in spiritualism and dangers that could come from it, but
did not really have an occult mindset (i.e. there being no such
as a "coincidence", for example).
As an example, the Pellew mysteries had people who
inexplicably killed each other within a certain room. We
investigated looking for a killer -- thinking that there was a
deliberate cause. Instead, it turned out to be more of a curse
which symbolically repeated events that happened over past
decades.
-*-*-*-
This was extremely frustrating in that the GM would push
us to pro-actively work towards figuring out the mysteries behind
his background -- but we felt completely unable to take any sort
of action in this regard. (Chris still browbeats me about
handling the Pellew affair "wrong", which rather annoys me.)
Anyhow, something had to go. Chris' solution was to
introduce an explicit symbology to the game: the Tarot.
Coincidentally he was writing a graduate studies paper on
it at the time. In an effort to simplify the symbolic
logic behind this, he began assigning a Major Arcana as
the defining symbol of different in-game figures and groups.
Further, we began using the Tarot as Whimsy Cards, thus
participating as well as unravelling the occult logic. We each
got three cards, and could play them to cause any effect which
roughly corresponded to the meaning of the card (we had a
reference book passed around to look these up). If a card
was used *not* to gain a success, Chris would replace it with
another card. As he put it -- there's nothing wrong with using
a card for your own benefit, but you only get three such uses.
More examples in a later post...
-*-*-*-
Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu> wrote:
>John H Kim <jh...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu> writes:
>> Another good test is to look at how many are used to benefit
>>the PC's versus how many are used to their detriment. The current
>>Victorian occult/horror game I am in uses the Tarot as Whimsy Cards.
>>I would say about 75-85% of the uses are to the benefit of the PC's,
>>and I would agree that this is a sign of gamism. The game in many
>>ways has been a mystery/puzzle that we are trying to overcome.
>
>Does your esthetic dislike "gamist" uses of the Tarot? Are the
>players expected to avoid uses that benefit their character? Or
>is it left neutral?
That's left somewhat neutral. The players are of differing
opinion on this point, I think.
>
>I'd like to hear a lot more about this Tarot application; it's
>something that intrigues me, but I'm a little scared to try it
>without hearing some firsthand accounts.
By all means...
Mary K. Kuhner
>But I still think that Plot Points are more versatile than cards. And I
>still think that it is the Player's responsibility to avoid 'gamist'
>thinking even in the face of temptation. After all, how we deal with
>temptation reveals something of our inner character. Removing all
>temptation does not make a person more moral.
On the other hand, a player in a recreational activity may justly
say "It's more fun to play if I'm not constantly tempted to play
'wrong'", just as a dieter may justly say "Guys, don't take me
out to the House of Desserts, it's frustrating."
>Are you the kind of person who *needs* laws to keep them in check, or do
>you have an inner sense of morality that prevents bad behavior?
It's not clear to me, and may not be clear to your players, what
uses of Plot Points are "right" and "wrong". It's clearly not as
simple as "Any use which benefits your character is wrong." That
would be an easy contract to learn, though the points might not
get used much. It's also not as simple as "Use a Plot Point
whenever your character wants to succeed at something." It's not
"Use a Plot Point whenever you really want your character to
succeed at something"--at least, I think that's the use you've
been calling "gamist". (Note that all of David's Descriptor
examples were things that allowed the character to succeed at
something, just like buying a success.)
So what is "moral" play in your sense, and what is "immoral"?
Just saying "gamist" doesn't help--the term's not well defined.
I find point-counting to equalize spotlight just as gamist
as point-counting to equalize power level, personally; apparently
you disagree.
Can you give an example of an immoral use, and a comparison
example of a moral use in a similar situation?
I will venture one--I hope you don't mind my guessing. This is
not my own standard of morality, it's an attempt to understand
yours.
Immoral: "I will spend a Plot Point to have my character
succeed, because if he fails he'll get hurt, and I don't want
that."
Moral: "I will spend a Plot Point to have my character succeed,
because success will allow him to shine."
"I will spend a Plot Point to have my character succeed, because
it would be less fun if the bad guy got away."
"I will spend a Plot Point to have my character succeed, because
that's what would happen in a movie."
"I will spend a Plot Point to have my character succeed, because
success is part of his conception."
Totally unclear to me: "I will spend a Plot Point to have
my character succeed, because I'm bored."
"I will spend a Ploint Point to have my character succeed, because
Mary's character is having all the fun."
With something this murky, even a highly moral player may be
annoyed by the attempt to choose "right" or "wrong" uses of Plot
Points--it's a lot of work, and she'll probably get criticized for
being wrong. Is your current group a bit shy of using their
points? Perhaps they aren't clear when it's "moral" and when it's
"immoral" (these words are, I think, overly strong in
the context of a recreational activity).
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
On 11 Jun 1997 18:49:20 GMT, Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
> In the first scenario, the GM would be
>acting to ensure that the individual offerings work well together
>within the overall dramatic structure -- very much a shared
>storytelling role. (Having done quite a bit of shared storytelling,
>I think that it would have benefitted greatly from someone occupying
>this role; should my household ever try another one, I'm going to
>suggest it!)
>
> In the second scenario, the GM would be acting primarily as
>the arbiter of fairness, ensuring that no one used their points
>to ride roughshod over the other players. This is one of the
>traditional "game" roles for the GM -- the GM as referree and
>arbiter of player competition.
This is just a random thought, coming from someone who is very tired,
writing late at night. Take it for what it is worth :)
I was struck on reading this on the distinction ethical thinkers draw
between FAIRNESS and JUSTICE. The one concept entails an ethic, while
the other entails a law (ideally, of course, laws should be fair as
well as just). (I'm almost certainly getting the terms wrong--
fairness isn't quite the right label, and if I were less tired the
correct one would come to me--bear with--grok the concept, not the
label :)
Mechanics, it strikes me, are in a sense rpg law, and their equitable
application during a game ensures that the game is just.
The group contract, on the other hand, can stand in for the ethical
statement prededing the mechanics. Fairness then, stems from a common
understanding of in what "goodness" inheres, in the the game. Games
which strive for justice do not need to worry so much about what the
game will "be about," since as long as everyone agrees to abide by the
mechanics and trusts the GM and other players to administer them
equitably and equally, without playing favorites, the game will be
just. Groups, like mine, that are less concerned about justice and
more concerned with achieving some common goal (whatever that might
be--it does not have to include "telling a coherent story") will
devote their energies to the contract, and less to the mechanics.
Gads. There is a truth lurking in there somewhere, but I'm not
getting at it very eloquently.
Some groups are more interested in the one than the other--where they
tend to draw the line will have a lot to do, I think, with where
people stand on this and other debates.
I'm babbling--time to go to sleep . . .
Kevin
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <5nq2kq$95s$1...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu> jh...@vanakam.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
> In retrospect, I think that the problem was that none of
>the PC's had expertise in actual occult, whereas most of the actual
>mysteries varied from spiritual to downright mystical. This was a
>critical problem for my initial PC, who was essentially rational...
You cast the problem as being specifically character knowledge--do
you think that the game would have worked with the same players, if
the characters had been occultists?
I ran into a similar but player-level problem with my _Haven Hill_
campaign. Of my three players, one was a Wiccan and well versed in
folklore; the other two were atheists with little interest in myth
(although keen gamers). I used a very loose, improvisational magic
system. The other two players eventually complained that they couldn't
compete in coming up with things for the characters to try doing
with their magical powers. The Wiccan player wasn't directly using
real-world info, but he had the right mindset--and also practice in,
for example, improvising impressive-sounding magical invocations.
We ended up working out some detailed guidelines on magic, and
spending some extra effort to develop things that the two disadvantaged
PCs knew they could do, and could do without too much fussing with
symbolism.
Are you using only Major Arcana for the whimsey cards, or the full
deck?
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mary K. Kuhner
Mark Apolinski <apol...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>We did a Flashback
>sequence to a period in which only one of the main characters was alive,
>but the other players ran NPCs for the duration of the Flashback (which
>was long and involved enough to be an Episode by itself. I think it took
>us eight hours of play to resove the Flashback alone.) This scene
>really focussed on and elaborated on the single main character who was
>present, but everyone gained Plot Points and had a great time to boot.
I think this is a good idea, and may well try it if I have another game
like _Haven Hill_ where solo scenes were very common. I didn't have
the nerve when I was running HH to ask the players to do NPCs--one of
my players was a very nervous, insecure (but good!) roleplayer and
I didn't want to scare him. But in retrospect I bet he'd have done
fine, and it would have kept the game from dragging so much when one
character had the spotlight all session long.
Doesn't apply to one-player games like _Radiant_, but it sounds like
a good general technique.
>> Thus, I suspect the Plot Point thing
>> is allowing you to compensate for this sort of situational power
>> imbalance by insuring your temporarily disfavored players still get
>> to do something. Would you find that "gamist" or is that part of
>> what you mean by "spotlight"?
>I'd say 'spotlight'. The facility of Plot Points to allow 'temporarily
>disfavored' players to still get to do something is another thing about
>Theatrix that I find invaluable and terrific.
This makes sense. It's a tradeoff--if the character has no normal
way to contribute, you will have to do something at least a bit
contrived to give him one--but you may get happier, more involved
players in return.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <33A080...@nis.lanl.gov> "John L. Jones II" <bi...@nis.lanl.gov> writes:
>Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>> As a GM I would find this completely unworkable.
> Really? As a player I'd find it pretty unworkable to have the GM
>vetoing plot point expenditures. I'm not trying to be difficult here.
>It's just that if the GM will have veto power, then I'm really at a loss
>as to why one would use the things in the first place.
The rest of your post makes it clear that I was thinking of Plot Points
used to borrow the GM's Authorial power temporarily, such as making
a Statement about the world true; you were thinking about Plot Points
used to insure a success at something that the character tries to do.
I can't think of many situations at all where a Plot Point of the second
kind would need to be vetoed; I'd willingly try a contract in which I
couldn't veto them at all, though there might be problems with, say,
the character whom the PCs don't know is a Vampire. Shooting the
Vampire with a gun ought not to work, even if the PC spends a Plot
Point, if in the game world Vampires are immune to bullets.
I would also be willing to allow the GM to veto; I'd not expect the
veto to be used often, if ever. We played three years of Shadowrun
without Jon ever vetoing a Karma Point expenditure, though I think
our contract would have allowed him to do so.
But I would not be comfortable with the first kind unless I could veto
them, because the player can't borrow my Authorial power unless he's
going to use it in a way I can stand. I can't just "trust the players"
because the players may not have full knowledge either of my
information, or of my needs in terms of world style.
Does this make my position clearer? I mostly agree with what you
said, but Theatrix also uses Plot Points in a much more tricky
way than just buying a PC success.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Mary K. Kuhner
>Perhaps you're lucky enough to have such wonderful players, but I've
>just started a new Highlander campaign using Theatrix, and before we've
>even begun character creation, as soon as I mentioned that they could
>play any kind of Immortal they want, they all want to make 6000 year old
>Immortals!
Well, why not? The hero of _Highlander_ is pretty buff himself, and
one seldom gets the chance to play a 6000 year old immortal. I'd
be considering it too, if the GM said "anything you want".
The question is, if you had let them go ahead with these characters (did
you?) would they have been omnicompetent? And if you had let them go
ahead with omnicompetent characters (I know, this is very hard on the
GM, I've tried it myself) how long would the game have lasted before the
players themselves made changes?
Some 6000 year old immortals would make better PCs than others; but
inexperienced players who have never done high-powered characters would
have to find that out by experiment, and the error part of "trial and
error" would probably be quite painful for the GM. As an example of
what the players would have to discover, with low-powered characters
you can sometimes deal with power imbalance just by niche ("he's better
than me, but there's stuff I can do anyway") but this becomes more
and more tricky near the top of the scale, so niches must be
designed more and more carefully.
>Unfortunately, this approach virtually guarrantees that one campaign
>would have to be completely trashed before they woke up. At least for
>the gamers that I can find around here.
Yup. It's a pretty long-term thing, maybe more suited to being a
thought experiment than an actual GM strategy. I think it's a useful
thought experiment, though. Whenever you are limiting something, it's
helpful to ask occasionally "Why am I limiting this? What would happen
if I didn't? What purpose does the limitation serve?" This can
sometimes reveal an assumption or habit that is no longer useful.
_Radiant_, which has been a decent success, evolved in part from its
player's desire to do a very munchkin lead character--Chernoi is
rich, she's hereditary aristocracy, she's charismatic, she was
first in her class at the Jump Academy, and she has impressive psi
talents. We decided to try this out and see if it worked--it worked
fine, since the setting readily provided appropriate challenges which
Chernoi couldn't deal with just by throwing money, influence, or power
at. To try it, we dropped the equal-points character requirement.
For other games, however, we still use a loose equal-points rule,
and need it. Having done both kinds gives some insight into what
the points are really for (for us, the main utility is managing
combat so that one character is not too vulnerable compared to
others, or too lethal compared to the setting).
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
John L. Jones II
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
> The rest of your post makes it clear that I was thinking of Plot
> Points used to borrow the GM's Authorial power temporarily, such as
> making a Statement about the world true; you were thinking about Plot
> Points used to insure a success at something that the character tries
> to do.
That's much clearer. Given their nature, it makes much more sense
for plot points of the first kind to be subject to a veto (although I
think I would prefer a more cooperative effort if there was a
disagreement).
> Does this make my position clearer? I mostly agree with what you
> said, but Theatrix also uses Plot Points in a much more tricky
> way than just buying a PC success.
I must admit that I'm not terribly familiar with the Theatrix
system (or any other diceless system for that matter). It would seem
that we are mostly in agreement here.
Ennead
In rec.games.frp.advocacy krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net wrote:
: It seems to me that plot points (ala Theatrix) are an attempt to
: institutionalize a particular kind of orientation on the part of the
: GM.
: If the GM makes it clear at the outset that character "descriptors"
: carry with them a limited authority to "write" the game setting, plot
: points become somewhat redundant.
Agreed, but I don't think that redundance is really the
largest peril in their use.
The problem, as I see it, is that by limiting the available
number of points, the system seeks to limit the frequency of player
activation of descriptors, and that this could be counter-productive.
For example, in your Bevon-in-flames campaign, if every
time the player of the Michaeline made a statement about his Order
in a "dramatic scene" (still not sure what _that_ means), he was
asked to spend one of his valuable Plot Points, it seems to me
that the player would do so far less readily. The end result
would be that he would establish _less_ about the Michaeline
Order than he would have otherwise done. Even if he had a good
idea, he might well keep it to himself, lest you demand the
expenditure of a Plot Point for the statement.
This, to my mind, defeats the purpose of sharing the
authorial burden. It also seems to imply a paradigm in which
player statements are seen as detracting from the GM in some
way (which is why they must be paid for), rather than _helping_
the GM, which is closer to my own group's experience with this
sort of play. (Really, if you wanted to make a monetary system
out of this, it would make more sense to me for the GM to pay
the _players_ for their creative input, rather than the other
way around!)
[here, we leave the issue of Plot Points and venture
into discussion of non-mechanical player authoring,
particularly in the context of a troupe-style game.
A bit digressive, but of interest to me -- you are
warned. ;)]
: Now there was considerable room here for GM direction when I did
: this--certain things were mysteries to the players, and I worked to
: keep them that way, by denying the players the right to write, as it
: were.
Just out of curiosity, Kevin, do you find that you have
to contradict or correct player improvisations rather more often
than is good for game flow?
I've been having a few problems with this lately, and
I'm wondering if perhaps a more strict division of individual
authoring responsibility might not help here. It's a pity,
because sometimes I really _like_ the way other people improvise
on my turf, but I feel that lately I've been having to veto and
correct more often than is beneficial for the game. Not only
is it bad for game flow, but it also has a hectoring, nagging
quality that I really dislike. Furthermore, I fear that it
dissuades people from improvising at _all,_ which is absolutely
not what I want.
Have you had any similar problems, or has your group
had more success in keeping distinct boundaries between player
spheres of influence?
: Moreover, it was a troupe style game, and while I ran most of
: the games, I was not the only GM--most of the other players wore the
: GM hat at least on occasion, and hence just about everyone had a
: strong *authorial* stake in the integrity of the setting. I could
: trust people not to power game, if for no other reason than "sauce for
: the goose, sauce for the gander."
<nod> Our games take place in a shared world, so everyone
has a very strong stake in keeping the world alive. Clashes still
occur from time to time, but the fact that everyone is invested
in the game world itself helps a great deal.
[Mark's scene, in which he acted as both author and IC,
and derived a deep immersion from the exercise]
: What made this work was a kind of process of sharing control of the
: game--player and GM being very sensitive to indirect ques about when
: to step in and take control, and when to get out of the way and let
: the story unfold.
I've had experiences like this, and when it works, it is
probably my favorite type of play. In my experience, though, it
only works when the participants know each other very well. I
can't imagine playing this way with a stranger and ending up with
the least bit of immersion. Even with close friends, I've found
it to be a tricky process. When it does work, though, there is
nothing like it.
: Has anyone else had this kind of experience--immersion via a rather
: intimate connection of authorial and first-person technique?
Yes. I have. It's an immensely powerful experience.
My tendency to immerse into my character history might
be seen as a related phenomenon. The strange synergy of author
and IC works in the same way when I create character history.
It is a solo endeavor, though, so that while it is perhaps less
powerful, it is also more reliable. I can almost _always_ get
the effect on my own; getting it with another participant is
much harder to manage.
-- Sarah
Mary K. Kuhner
>Ahh! You're making an assumption that I hadn't considered. You see,
>*characters* don't spend Plot Points, *players* do. They are *not* an
>in-character tool, they are an *authorial* tool. The player spends the
>Plot Point when they feel that a certain situation or task is absolutely
>critical to character conception.
I understand this (it's been clear from your descriptions) but was
responding to the other poster, who suggested that you could turn
them into an in-character technique by asking "Is this something the
character badly wants to do?" Having tried this approach with Karma
Points, I am skeptical about its success; but this doesn't bear on
Theatrix Plot Points, which as you say are definitely metagame.
>Plot Points are definitely not an IC tool, so I doubt you'll be
>comfortable with them. But it's not merely 'powers activate only when
>enraged.' That's just a special case for the Hulk. It's really more like
>'powers activate only when within character concept.' This is a decision
>that virtually *has* to be made from the Author viewpoint.
Ah-ha!
There are apparently two things wrapped up in the term "character
concept." There are the actual abilities of the character, his
schticks and skills and whatnot, and his personality, and his
background. This is what I usually mean when I say "character concept"
and as a result I was totally baffled by your paragraph above.
There is also the player's bundle of expectations about the character;
"I want to play a suave, self-confident spy" or "I want to play someone
fated for greatness" or "I want to play someone inadvertantly funny
like Inspector Clouseau." The character may or may not reflect
those expectations initially. Reluctant Heros are a good example
of characters whose self-concept is radically at odds with the
player's concept. The PC thinks he's an ordinary farmboy, but
the player wishes to experience him as a budding hero.
These are the cases where your statement about the decision having to
be made from Author make sense. A Reluctant Hero won't seek out
fame and glory and danger; his player needs to do that for him, if
his player has Authorial power (otherwise the GM has to). So if
your conception is something like that, it makes sense to use Plot
Points from Author to insure that the character develops in the
desired direction.
I didn't get this initially in large part because my games try to
discourage characters where the player's conception is very different
from the character's conception. (I.e. we are unlikely to do a
character who thinks he's very serious, but whose player and group
think of him as comic relief; and we pretty much outright forbid
Reluctant Heroes.) Thanks for pointing it out; it's a useful thing
to know about.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Jim Henley
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
> In article <339EF9...@erols.com> jlhe...@erols.com writes:
>
>
> I'd be happier, I think, with introducing limits on improvisation via
> "territory" as a model, rather than "price".
Statist! But seriously, your preference is of course unassailable as
such.
> Saying "You can make up
> what you like about magic theory, but leave politics alone" seems
> more natural to me than "You can make up exactly four things."
More natural to me is to have recourse to both approaches. But don't
forget that I'm leary of Statements and much more comfortable with plot
points as hedges against failure (luck) and aids to success (will).
> "Which uses are important" is a complicated question which has both
> in-game and meta-game aspects; a lot of this discussion has been
trying
> to separate, or sometimes confound, the two.
Sure. I'll admit, if I haven't before, that metagame issues are very
important to me, since, after all, it is metagame issues that make us
game in the first place.
When I have been a player in games that use some kind of plot point
mechanism, the decision to use them provided its own kind of rush, a
feeling of determination and a pleasant certainty that, yes, this is
what this character really wants, dammit. When using them to soak damage
in Bond or DC Heroes I got a real visceral sense of, well, dodging a
bullet. When using them to increase the chances of or ensure a success I
was infused with a "that's enough of that" feeling that I generally
found appropriate to what the character would feel in that circumstance.
Which brings up another aspect of how the putatively gamist nature of
plot points relates to the issue of modeling (not to say "simulating" .
. . ) human action and outlook. As a side issue I'll admit to a certain
amusement at what I consider to be a characteristically American
puritanism that some people on the forum bring to the idea that anything
"gamelike" might intrude on their recreation. But to me it's important
to keep in mind that human beings almost ubiquitously resort to gaming
_metaphors_ to understand their actions. I can find examples of this at
least as far back as the oldest surviving drama of Aeschylus. We've got
the game of life, the game of politics, the game of business, the spy
game, you name it. The game's afoot. It seems only natural that many of
the adventurous types who populate the census of role-playing PCs would
not infrequently figure their own situations in game terms.
In that sense, the "gamist" use of plot points to assure successes
(horrors!) strikes me as likely to be assimilable to the character's own
POV.
Best,
Jim
Mark Apolinski
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
>
> It's not clear to me, and may not be clear to your players, what
> uses of Plot Points are "right" and "wrong". It's clearly not as
> simple as "Any use which benefits your character is wrong."
Correct.
> That
> would be an easy contract to learn, though the points might not
> get used much. It's also not as simple as "Use a Plot Point
> whenever your character wants to succeed at something."
Correct.
> It's not
> "Use a Plot Point whenever you really want your character to
> succeed at something"--at least, I think that's the use you've
> been calling "gamist".
Correct. Now you see why David sounds so Zen when he tries to explain
things.
> (Note that all of David's Descriptor
> examples were things that allowed the character to succeed at
> something, just like buying a success.)
I'm surprised that you say that. The examples didn't allow the character
to 'succeed' at something, they allowed the character to *do* something.
> So what is "moral" play in your sense, and what is "immoral"?
> Just saying "gamist" doesn't help--the term's not well defined.
> I find point-counting to equalize spotlight just as gamist
> as point-counting to equalize power level, personally; apparently
> you disagree.
>
> Can you give an example of an immoral use, and a comparison
> example of a moral use in a similar situation?
See below.
> I will venture one--I hope you don't mind my guessing. This is
> not my own standard of morality, it's an attempt to understand
> yours.
I don't think a moral/immoral approach will work. Plot Point
expenditures can be 'just plain stupid', excellent and mediocre.
> Immoral: "I will spend a Plot Point to have my character
> succeed, because if he fails he'll get hurt, and I don't want
> that."
Agreed.
> Moral: "I will spend a Plot Point to have my character succeed,
> because success will allow him to shine."
I don't know what the player means by 'shine' here. If it's just to
aggrandize the character then it's not as good as creating a good scene.
> "I will spend a Plot Point to have my character succeed, because
> it would be less fun if the bad guy got away."
Less fun for whom? Again it depends on many more things.
> "I will spend a Plot Point to have my character succeed, because
> that's what would happen in a movie."
Doubtful. No one should be actively trying to simulate a movie,
although playing for genre isn't the same thing.
> "I will spend a Plot Point to have my character succeed, because
> success is part of his conception."
Depends. This is probably the one that I would be the most approving of.
> Totally unclear to me: "I will spend a Plot Point to have
> my character succeed, because I'm bored."
I don't think this is a good reason at all.
> "I will spend a Ploint Point to have my character succeed, because
> Mary's character is having all the fun."
Sounds spiteful. If so, then definitely not.
> With something this murky, even a highly moral player may be
> annoyed by the attempt to choose "right" or "wrong" uses of Plot
> Points--it's a lot of work, and she'll probably get criticized for
> being wrong. Is your current group a bit shy of using their
> points? Perhaps they aren't clear when it's "moral" and when it's
> "immoral" (these words are, I think, overly strong in
> the context of a recreational activity).
Oh, of course! I agree totally. This is why I say that it takes a while
to learn to use them well. And again, I don't usually treat them as
'moral' or 'immoral'. If I had to classify, I would probably have three
categories: Improper usage is childish or 'gamist'. Perfect usage
produces the kind of experiences you get from watching _Forrest Gump_ or
_The Shawshank Redemption_. In between is Acceptable usage. Acceptable
usage isn't gamist and may become Perfect, but usually not. What makes
it Acceptable is that it's trying to.
OK, an example from play. This example is from the very first time I
used Theatrix with my old group and I still haven't experienced anything
better. The game was TimeLords, the setting was The Old West, Deadwood
specifically. One of the NPCs I was using for 'local color' was Wild
Bill Hickock and the Episode was taking place near the time and place
where he was historically shot in the back playing poker. (In Deadwood,
actually) Unbeknownst to me, one of my players, KM, (players mind you,
not characters) had had Wild Bill as a personal hero and recognized
immediately the significance of the date and town, although he didn't
show it. (PS. Wild Bill had absolutely nothing to do with main plot of
the Episode. He was just local color. Also in this campaign of
TimeLords, the players played themselves as characters.)
After the party completed the main plot, KM contrived to save Wild Bill
from his fate (which is perfectly 'legal' in TimeLords). He and the
party waited in the saloon for the events he knew were coming. When the
shooter arrived, I gave him plenty of opportunity to tackle, restrain,
shoot or whatever, but he chose to wait. When the shooter began raising
his weapon and taking aim, I expected him to jump into action, but that
didn't happen. So as much as I wanted to accomodate KM, I judged that he
had simply blown his chance, and had the shooter fire. *Then* KM leapt
into action and tackled the shooter as he was firing. I described how
the gun went off, Wild Bill slumped in his chair, and KM's character
knocked down the shooter all at the same time. I was intending for Wild
Bill to be shot dead, but following 'good' gamemaster procedure only
described what the players could actually see.
The shooter was wrestled into submission and KM turned to Wild Bill and
made a Statement, "It's alright, it's only a flesh wound," and spent a
Plot Point. I was floored. It was perfect! I hadn't actually said he was
dead, so the Statement was consistent. It was just like watching a
movie. As Author, I had figured that he was dead, but I was happy to
learn that he wasn't. Even though I was also the GM in a diceless game
and supposedly the omnipotent and omniscient god of all, I had been
surprised by the turn of events! I've been trying to recapture that
feeling ever since. (P.S. for mechanics purposes I should mention that
KM's character's Primary Descriptor was 'Medic', which means that his
medical Statements could not be denied by any other character.)
I guess I don't have a clear 'moral' vs 'immoral' code for the use of
Plot Points. I'm really looking for a certain kind of effect that
'proper' use should generate. Therefore if a usage generates the effect
I'm looking for, it's 'proper' and if it doesn't then it's either
'improper' or 'unrealized'. I don't mind lots of 'unrealized' Plot
Points if a few of them become 'proper'.
Mark
Mark Apolinski
John L. Jones II wrote:
>
> Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> >
> > As a GM I would find this completely unworkable.
> > that the world makes sense." This is going to require me to veto a
> > Plot Point now and then. The player may quite innocently say "I spend
> > a Plot Point--the identity of the Masked Avenger is revealed to be
> > Joe Smith!"
>
> Hmm, this is confusing. What you've described here sounds more like
> Improv. I could maybe see a player saying "I spend a Plot Point-- the
> identity of the Masked Avenger is revealed to me." Would that be
> acceptable?
Actually, the player could do exactly what Mary describes. If they make
an in-character Statement 'deducing' the identity of the Masked Avenger
and spend a Plot Point to make the Statement fact, they might step on
the GM's toes.
> > I'd also use it for what Scott Ruggles calls
> > "art direction", because I know from experience that a world without
> > a consistent internal esthetic won't keep my interest as a GM. So if
> > you suddenly want to plunk Purple PolkaDot Wizards into the middle of
> > my epic fantasy setting, or invent gunpowder, I *need* to be able to
> > say no, just as a player needs to be able to say no if I venture "Your
> > character is falling in love with the villainness." It's a
> > territorial boundary that's required for the game to work for me.
>
> Your use of the word "need" in relation to plot points is unclear
> to me. My understanding of plot points does not include the ability to
> drop Polka Dot wizards into the game.
While improvising the existance of Polka Dot wizards wouldn't require a
Plot Point, there are lots of things that players can do with Plot
Points that are potentially devastating to a game world.
> You are correct about territorial boundaries. I see the use of
> veto-less plot points as providing a bit more power to the player.
More power, yes. But more responsibility as well.
> My
> conception of the plot point is more along the lines of I succeed at
> shooting the master villain, or that mortal wound turns into a flesh
> wound.
These are trivial uses of a Plot Point. They are capable of so much
more.
> Perhaps. Of course I could always counter that if I can't trust the
> player to use his plot points responsibly, then I am in the wrong game
> in the first place. I really think the trust issue goes both ways here.
I agree. I think it's a personal taste issue.
Mark