Judd splits a nice hair: Intent and Stakes

[luke]

and so the discussion continues underailed by our madness

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17924.0

[Yagathai]

I am as a matchstick before a tsunami.

[Suicide King]

I've been thinking about this stakes and intent thing. In BW, as well as other games, should we always endeavor to make the stakes risky/interesting?

In many cases risky and interesting are the same thing, so to make it interesting, you often need to make it risky.

An example: A player wants his character to batter down a door. Now, usually it'd just be forte vs obstacle 3 or 4, you don't open it if you don't meet the obstacle.
At a glance, that seems pretty dull. One way to do it could be to would be to say he has to meet ob 1 to avoid damaging his shoulder.
Another way, of course, is to look past the obvious and say that if he succeeds his roll, he batters down the door before the thief escapes/the prisonguards return/whatever. That might be a little harsh though, to give only once chance for something that might be very important.

My point remains though. Should the stakes always be interesting, or is ok to have rolls that are... "fillers". Rolls that give a small advantage if they succeed, but that don't have risk. Basicly, only one side has a stake in the roll.

The problem with making every roll risky and interesting is that it might incapacitate the players. They don't dare to move, in fear of not succeeding a roll and dying horribly or suffering critical setbacks because of it.
That would be bad :)

What do you guys think?

[Judd]

What do you guys think?

I'd go for always interesting.

BORING: If you succed, you knock down the door (and if I don't say anything, I can GM fiat the thief away in time), if you fail you don't knock down the door.

But damn, that's dull. Its just dull. I don't dig it.

Okay, the PC is rolling to batter down the door before the thief get's out.

If you succeed, you catch the thief in the act in the room and it'll be Fight! time.

If you fail, you see the Thief's shadow flit out the window and your lady-love is on the floor before you, throat slit, gurgling a final good-bye unless you get the wound closed past-haste.

If you succeed, you catch the thief before he can open up your secret chest and it'll be time for some serious conflict.

If you fail the thief is standing before you with your magic item that you keep in your chest and it is blazing with power you never knew it had.


Its all about taking the situation and kickin' it up a few notches and most of all, getting your players' input so the whole table is invested in the going's on.

Rock.

Does that make sense?

[Suicide King]

It makes perfect sense and is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm playing the part of devil's advocate here, as I really want my stakes to be exciting all the time. However, my point remains:

Where is the limit? There is a line between making things interesting and incapacitating the players. Where is this line and where does it run?

[Judd]

Where is the limit? There is a line between making things interesting and incapacitating the players. Where is this line and where does it run?

Incapacitating the players?

Where do you see that?

[luke]

always as the magic question, "why?!" It clears up a lot of problems.

[ChrisG]

I think I see what you're saying--if you make every conflict high stakes, then the characters won't be able to get out the door to their apartment without having to fight for their lives. I don't think that's a huge problem, because not everything is a conflict, and needs stakes. Even the door battering example doesn't need a roll unless there's something at stake.

Unless there's the time constraint, or the player is saying "this is a big deal", then I'd just have the player batter it down. The whole "say yes or roll dice" thing.

There definitely shouldn't be filler rolls, but the solution isn't to amp up the stakes on everything (ie giving the character a hurt shoulder in addition to not getting the door open). The solution is to not roll unless there's something worthwhile at stake.

That said, I do think tests that give a small advantage have a place in the game, as linked tests. Those are great--but there, what's at stake isn't "do I get the door open", what's at stake is the conflict on the other side of the door, the one that player gets a 1D bonus for if he succeeds in busting the door open. The door test serves to heighten those stakes, by giving the player a way to say "I need all the advantage dice I can get".

[Suicide King]

Right, that pretty much put the thoughts I've been struggling with into words. I come from a background of D&D and WoD, where you roll for what your character does, no matter if it's important. That's at least the philosophy those games imprint upon you.

However, it's also something I'm chugging out the window :)

[Kudzu]

The amazing discussion in Paka's thread on The Forge has been a real eye-opener for me. It's ended a campaign (my short-lived D&D nostalgia run) and started two others. It's essential reading for anyone wanting to get the most out of their roleplaying.


Right, that pretty much put the thoughts I've been struggling with into words. I come from a background of D&D and WoD, where you roll for what your character does, no matter if it's important. That's at least the philosophy those games imprint upon you.

True. I just came off a nostalgic bout of D&D and I HATED HATED HATED that aspect of the game. Why roll if it nothing's really at risk? My players (I DM'd it) would just roll a d20 by habit as they narrated their scenes, even when it didn't matter. It's going to take a while to break them of that and get them to trust me.

But, to address the other point people have brought up here: just using the "say yes or roll" philosphy doesn't mean EVERY action is a fight to the death. Rather, it means that if there's no conflict in the action, just let the player narrate the story (quickly, quickly, then on to the conflict!). When he narrates something that you (or another player) can't just accept (i.e., an NPC or other PC desires a different outcome), have the players state their competing intents, set stakes, and then roll 'em!

[luke]

yup. The YES stuff is as equally important as the ROLL THE DICE STUFF. Because the YES stuff is the necessary color to get us to the point where we want and need to roll the dice.

-L

[ChrisG]

As an old skool railroading motherfucker DM, at first the "say yes" bit feels like giving something away for nothing. But eventually it feels so good...

[Storn]

y'know, I've been absorbing a lot of this stuff over the last couple of weeks. I haven't run much in awhile, but I get a chance to do some tomorrow night.

And it is a kinda conspiracy type game. Actually, it is Waterdeep Vice, its a drug smuggling story as the PCs try to stop the potent flow of Purple Lotus that is coming in with southern immigrants. (and no, I'm not using d20 for Forgotten Realms or BW, I"m using Savage Worlds for these particular players cause they are comfortable with SW). But any investigative scenario, and uncovering drug smugglers who want to remain under the law definitely qualifies, is in some sense controlled more tightly by the GM than other scenarios.

What I find interesting is that I wrote a bit more than I usually do. Actually, most of it is pictures of NPCs, a bit of background on Purple Lotus. But what I did write about the drug smugglers, I intend to reveal quickly and painlessly. I tried to predict at least three different ways to find out at least two clues, and left it open to Player input and whatever particular tact they might take.

It is NOT the struggle for the clues that is important... it is the clue itself.

It is the conflicts between NPCs and their motivations that have set these chain of events into play. There is a maid of a noble lady who can be browbeaten, charmed... even scried.. I dunno... but her info will get into the hands of the PCs sooner than later.

The action sequences are kinda floating. They are there to generate a bit of that Sword and Sorcery flavor (we are kinda going for a Fafhrd/Grey Mouser feel here, except they are lawmen), but the action sequences themselves are pathways to the next clue.

I ^think^ I've crafted a scenario that is tight, but open to a lot of Player input. That has swashbuckling action, but really is about some new NPCs, hopefully, some will resonate with the players.

But bottom line, I'm gonna try my best to make the pace Noirish and frantic. I'm not going to make the players roll dozens of times NOR roleplay out every aspect of a suspect's reluctance to reveal during interrogation.

To dovetail back to BW... I am going to try and graft/bolt on BITs for their characters. It won't have the same elegance as Arthra... but SW's Bennies, which I always have a devil a time awarding, are a similar mechanic. Having BITs to guide the Bennies awards I think would be really helpful.

Sorry, rambling post.

[Fourth Horseman]

I think I see what you're saying--if you make every conflict high stakes, then the characters won't be able to get out the door to their apartment without having to fight for their lives.

Its funny you say that, because the very first session I played with Abzu, where he was GMing me, my character literally stepped out his front door to go to a "meet" (it was shadowrun) and ended up getting into a firefight with some gangers trying to steal hubcaps off his car.

Not to be outdone, another character on his way to the same meet ended up plowing over a pedestrian he thought was giving him the eye with his car.

It was the beginning of a long and prosperous campaign.

In any event, was there anything at stake, plotwise, in those fights? No. And indeed, the risk of either character getting offed over triffling shit would have detracted from the overall story arc. But did playing through those fights help establish those characters? Yes, immensely.

I think we sometimes get lost in the mantra of storytelling to the detriment of character development. The sideshit does really matter, and just narrating it isn't the same.

[Bloody Tongued Orc]

After reading through this thread and several others on stakes etc. I am having a little bit of trouble understanding what is "importaint" and what isn't and why does it seem to show that its the players who are the active participant in a conflict? Can the GM decide that he wants a punk to be stealing the characters hubcaps and have this little side scene/fight even though it is while the character is on his way to the meet. Can the GM say, "OK, this is what I want to happen. I want a punk to steal the hubcaps from off of your car so your character will look cheap and stupid when he pulls up to the meet..." Can the GM present an intent that the characters have to counter with an intent of their own for a conflict roll?... "If you lose a perception roll then your hubcaps are gone and you will have to pull up to the meet making a horrible entrance as you are jeered by pedestrians all around. If you win you catch the thief red handed and can enter fight! immediately"

[luke]

Sure, but are the hubcaps important to the character's Beliefs or the situation that you've developed in game? Is looking cool part of the character's Beliefs?

-L

[Bloody Tongued Orc]

OK, so you are saying that everything that occurs in the game should be a "Big" event in some way to the characters.

<Fourth Horseman said,

<"In any event, was there anything at stake, plotwise, in those fights? No. And indeed, the risk of either character getting offed over triffling shit would have detracted from the overall story arc. But did playing through those fights help establish those characters? Yes, immensely.
I think we sometimes get lost in the mantra of storytelling to the detriment of character development. The sideshit does really matter, and just narrating it isn't the same."

So could this scene still have played itself out if that character didnt have any related beliefs? Major events happen in our lives that don't really relate in any way to our major beliefs. Sometimes we get into car accidents or fall down the stairs or have to haggle with someone over the price of an item and all of those incidents add to 'who we are'. And yet none of those things neccessarily challenged a belief. Don't you think playing out some of the small things at times can be interesting if everyone is having fun? I could be wrong because I haven't played BW yet (still waiting for it to come in the mail...hopefully today).

[luke]

Hi BTO,

We should really wait to have this discussion until after you've played BW. But I feel compelled to address what you said.

First, Rich (Fourth H) is taking a rather narrow view of the whole. Irrelevant fights are irrelevant and detract from the game. Period. He may have enjoyed his time in the spotlight, but I can tell you that it weren't no fun for the other six players. They had no investment in what he was doing. This was my fault, too. I was young and stupid when I ran those games and thought that fucking with the players was what made the game fun.

There are myriad ways to run a game, and sometimes being chased, harassed and beaten is part of the setting and mood. But it is not necessary for establishing character. Character can and will be more keenly defined in relation to the real meet of the situation -- your Beliefs, Instincts and relationships.

Also, there was something you said.


Major events happen in our lives that don't really relate in any way to our major beliefs. Sometimes we get into car accidents or fall down the stairs or have to haggle with someone over the price of an item and all of those incidents add to 'who we are'. And yet none of those things neccessarily challenged a belief. Don't you think playing out some of the small things at times can be interesting if everyone is having fun? I could be wrong because I haven't played BW yet (still waiting for it to come in the mail...hopefully today).

BW is not real life. It in no way attempts to simulate real life. BW is about creating an intense and personally meaningful story. It's about challenging beliefs, ethics and morality. It's about the consequences of your actions when pursuing those beliefs. It strives, more than anything else, to be good fiction.

As I said, sometimes getting harassed and burned is part of the story -- it helps reinforce the atmosphere or a Belief. But throwing in "real life hassles" just because "that stuff happens in real life" is one of the surest ways to kill the fun right out of your Burning Wheel game.

Trust me, the consequences of your actions in the game carry enough weight -- and there will be plenty of flak surrounding them. There's no need to have a character slip in the bathtub and break his neck just because it could happen.

-L

[Bloody Tongued Orc]

Ok, I get it now. It seems a BW player and GM need to make a whole perspective shift. The game is about Beliefs and what happens to the characters when those beliefs are challenged. There really would be no "dungeon crawl" in BW since it would be fairly irrelevant. The small things don't matter. It seems a good way to tell if an adventure idea for BW would be valid would be to ask "would this be a novel I would like to read?" Who would want to read a "dungeon crawl" novel? I have read (or tried to read) novels where an endless string of small incidents are strung together and I find myself tossing it saying "who cares if he got in that fender bender, it didnt add anything to the story".

I tried BW classic before but never followed through with it because I never made that mental shift. Now "character flaws" make sense too.

[luke]

excellent! that's what we're here for.

I look forward to hearing about your games,
-L

[Karl]

I think I see what you're saying--if you make every conflict high stakes, then the characters won't be able to get out the door to their apartment without having to fight for their lives.

Its funny you say that, because the very first session I played with Abzu, where he was GMing me, my character literally stepped out his front door to go to a "meet" (it was shadowrun) and ended up getting into a firefight with some gangers trying to steal hubcaps off his car.

Not to be outdone, another character on his way to the same meet ended up plowing over a pedestrian he thought was giving him the eye with his car.


Must be something about Shadowrun. My first session of SR ever my character gets a phone call to meet some place in the barrens. My PC agrees and hangs up the phone. GM asks "So how do you get to the meet?" I hadn't understood that the Barrens were not covered by public transit service, and I hadn't bothered to purchase a car for the character, and the rest of the team was already at the meet location. :oops: Problem? No, opportunity!

I think to my self; I'm playing a ratbastard criminal, right? And a bit of cocky one at that. So what would a cocky, ratbasdard career criminal do? Cough up hard cash for some high-end specialized shuttle service to take me out there? Call up a team member and have them drive all the way to my place and then back again? Nah, that isn't cool and cocky ratbastard criminals have to worry about the image they project or someone might think they are easy to knock over. There must be some reason for me to have taken this Electronics skill, right?. I had him walk a block over, glance up and down the street to make sure nobody was watching, and jacked a pimp set of wheels as a one-way ride to the meet.

Canon/reasonable for the setting? Er, pretty futzy there. An event materially important to even that single run muchless the entire campaign. Nope. But damn memorable, definately a tone setter, and instantly got me in the criminal state of mind. 8)

EDIT: I don't recall specific "stakes" ever even being discussed. I didn't care....because a cocky ratbastard criminal isn't going to worry about a little risk. In this case because he's worried about image the level of risk defines the reward. So bring it on! 8)