"Storytelling" mechanics in BRP (was: "Concerns about...")

[rust]

26 minutes ago, g33k said:

1. "But in reality, the Prince is actually -- ta-da!!! -- my BROTHER!"

GM. "Oh ... of course he is. And he is afraid that you want to 'neutralize' him in order to become the heir to the throne. Therefore he has secretly hired the Grimdeath Clan of assassins to 'neutralize' you first." 

[Archivist]

Yea you just end up in this endless weird escalation rodeo OR you have to enjoy conflict between the GM and players. Just my opinion. You're welcome to enjoy stuff I don't . I can believe declaration style mechanics work for some people, just not me or anyone I play with. it's not that we don't get it, it's that it doesn't work for us, which is why we like stuff like BRP, savage worlds, etc.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Archivist

[Akerbakk]

I've had success with storytelling elements in my games. Admittedly those additions are "light" - Fate points allow the best of 3 rolls for a test if declared before the roll, or 1 reroll if used afterwards. They may also be used for minor tweaks to the scene. All must be in line with the character backstory and I have veto power.

I run cinematic games with mook rules, powers, and stunts. It works for me and my group. I would rethink Fate points if I ever ran something with a grittier tone.

Since BRP is a tool kit I don't think it ever hurts to add options. Storytelling elements are just one "slider" to scratch an itch, much like mini scales or hit location tables do for strategists and simulationists, respectively. It will probably be a matter of page count and scope of options afforded for whether they should be published in BRP Essentials.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Akerbakk
Clarity

[rust]

10 hours ago, Archivist said:

I can believe declaration style mechanics work for some people, just not me or anyone I play with. it's not that we don't get it, it's that it doesn't work for us, which is why we like stuff like BRP, savage worlds, etc.

The only time I like it is when we play what we call a Monty Python game, where the most outrageous declarations are welcome. I fondly remember one where the villain got killed by a racehorse falling onto him from a cargo airliner with a damaged cargo door, just after he had defeated a herd of trained combat crocodiles in unarmed combat. But in our real campaigns - never, thank you. 

[Gollum]

20 hours ago, g33k said:

Actually, there is a substantial difference between the FP-driven vs. dice-driven transactions:  with the FP version, the player invests from a very-limited resource, and it's automatically true (unless the GM has reason for it not to be, in which case the "investment" pays off with a 100% profit of that limited resource).  This makes it a win-win for the player, gets them more-invested (seewhatIdidthere?) in the situation, but leaves the GM free to veto where it's somehow significant that theer PC be wrong despite the investment.

19 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

The two examples are absolutely not equivalent. Not at all. [...]

Of course it is different. The mechanism is different, and, so, it gives to the players a different feeling about what happens ...

But there are still a lot of similarities.

• The player doesn't know whether it will work. Even with the Fate/Story point, the GM has veto power.
• The player guides the story in a unexpected direction. It was a fight, supposed to be handled as a normal fight, and the player suddenly decides to use his Craft (Smith) skill to win.
• Dice are involved, but the player chooses the skill he wants to use. So, he surely chooses a skill in which he is very good. The randomness of the dice are really lowered.
• With the Fate/Story points, the player can win a point if the GM refuses his idea. With the skill roll, he can win an experience check at the end of the adventure.

Having said that, I'm absolutely not against Fate/Story points. They are a good tool ... In some genres of stories. But not in every genres. That is why, in my humble opinion, it would not be a good idea in a universal book like the BRP Essentials. Or as an optional rule. Exactly as it is in the big golden book. Because it does exist in the big golden book.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Gollum

[Joerg]

17 hours ago, g33k said:

I mean that, for the example under discussion, the player offers up "My character should know <X>".

In the Fate version, the player spends a point and "X" is whatever (true, false, oranges, matriarchal, has a weak hilt, etc) the player says it is (unless the GM buys off the FP), within reason.

Character should know X - to my living world sandbox approach that is fine if this is a pre-established fact, or a fact established through player activity either in game in character, or between games in contributions to the shared world that passes editorial (committee) scrutiny.

Pulling a fact out of the blue to me (in a narrator position) is a break in the narrative and world development rather than a contribution. In your example, your player would have to come up with a backstory for providing this fact. Easily done between games, highly disruptive during play.

17 hours ago, g33k said:

In the diced system, the dice decide the fact:  the character SHOULD, indeed "know <X>" but the GM (not having even considered the <X>-factor previously) leaves it up to the dice whether the player can or can't take advantage of <X>.  Implicitly, then, "X" is left up to the dice.

I wouldn't accept that "secret vulnerability" without something like that in the background information on the character. How would a Sartarite redsmith know about Lunar smithing? Provide enough pre-existing background facts (or introduce them between sessions, passing scrutiny), and I am fine with it.

17 hours ago, g33k said:

But "X" is a thing, usually a setting-thing, being diced for!

You mean like a lore or craft roll? That is about acting correctly on the vague information, not about having that information. Living world sandbox...

17 hours ago, g33k said:

Returning to the example, the player is facing a BBG with a specific weapon, and wishes to use smithying skill to declare that there is a subtle weakness or flaw in the BBG"s weapon, that the PC knows how to exploit.  The GM has not previously considered whether the culture (or the armory) does in fact have such a weakness in the weapons.  This is a story/setting issue.  Left up to the dice, it means "That culture/smith/armory DOES or does NOT have such a flaw, at the whim of the dice;" (we take it as a given that the expert smith will know either way).

In order to have this information, the character in question either has to have broken more than one of these tulwars under workshop conditions or at least having been an eye witness. Just having heard about the weakness allows to search for the vulnerability, taking several tries under lab conditions, and practically requiring a critical hit in a combat situation.

Lots of ugly metagaming with those fate point exchanges. If all players are consenting, the player may interrupt the game, inject an abstract of the backstory and provide a better write-up after the game, spending a possibly dormant background point if I allow for such a mechanism. But as an iron rule, I prefer such between gaming activity rather than during trying to get a story rolling.

17 hours ago, g33k said:

Has that clarified how I dislike "the dice deciding on a setting issue"?

Of course, the GM in a diced-resolution-only game COULD make an on-the-spot ruling...

• YES, such a weakness exists; it's an easy|normal|difficult roll to figure out how to exploit in combat.  ROLL DEM BONES!
• NO, such a weakness doesn't exist -- and you should know better, you auctorial-thieving bastard!  No roll.

Without FP's, I (as GM) need to keep making innumerable little decisions about trivial factoids like this on a constant ongoing basis (or the players would need to not pull this shit on me, 'cos I will always say no!).

I like metagaming approaches, but not during the gaming session. It is ok to do so in a break during gaming (e.g. the pizza has arrived, or I as the narrator find out that my story outline doesn't work as expected, and I am actively soliciting player contributions).

I found using a wiki which allows other players to interact with the backstories and interweave their own backstories with those of the others.

17 hours ago, g33k said:

Those who like the FP mechanism like the players' ability to add spot bits of color like this, get rewarded with some minor situational advantage (BBG has a breakable weapon!), etc.  They like the OOC cues when it goes the other way ("No, the BBG does NOT have an extra-breakable weapon, and it's important to the setting/plotline in ways that will be revealed later... and here's a reward, 'cos things just got tougher for you!")

If I am playing the fate point trading game, I am not playing the living sandbox game that I like to use RQ for.

[RosenMcStern]

13 hours ago, g33k said:

1.  - Skipping this.  I won't touch GNS theory, pro or con, with a 10 GHz LAN... Flame wars, my friend.  It's flame-wars ALL the way down!

We do not need to talk about GNS theory if we do not want. The techniques we are discussing here are not particularly favoured by GNS. However, as I signalled in the opening post, some terms (Narrativism/Narrativist) belong only to the GNS theory, and others (Simulationism/Simulationist) have been re-defined in the GNS Model. We should either avoid them completely, or use them as defined by the GNS theory, not as they "sound". In specific, Narrativism does NOT mean "game where you only narrate / where everybotdy narrates / etc.", so be careful when you use that term.

Quote

- The specific Declarations you cite (1: "But in reality, the Prince is actually -- ta-da!!! -- my BROTHER!"  2: "I pull from my back-pack -- ta-da!!! -- the famous sword Monsterbane Bossfight-Ender!") wouldn't fly with me, or any GM that I've played with.  

I think we have reached an unanimous consensus that the elements that a player can insert into the story when the rules allow him or her cannot exceed a well-defined scope, and the rest is the domain of the GM. For instance:

"My deep understanding of Quack Fu (see skill on charsheet) allows me to break weapons by hitting their weak spot with my beak" - YES
"I had kept this secret till now, but I am a master of Quack Fu and my bill can break weapons!" - NO

"When I bumped into the Bad Guy in the last scene I dropped a grenade into his pocket. I am now aiming at it". YES but the GM can obviously object/change the outcome
"A horse falls from a cargo plane, directly on top of the Bad Guy" - NO

"The Avengers thwarted our infiltration attempt, but for some reason Captain America decided to let us go" - YES (and the GM has plenty of room for finding interesting explanations for this)"
"Captain America lets us go because he is a Hydra Agent" NO. HELL, NO!!!
 

 

 

[Zit]

I'm not very found of Fate Points either. A GM should consider the players' suggestions, but I'd not like them to force me to accept how they want to alter the story. My understanding of "narrative" is that the rules, or the way to play them, do not decide if an involved skill (or Trait or whatever) does have its expecte real effect (like my sword wounds the target), but instead if it does have the intended effect on the story (I'm using my sword to sweep away an obstacle and go further). And this can be done without fate points. Letting the GM decide whether YES or NOT is arbitrary.

Quack Fu master pretends to know a weak point ? His goal is actually to defeat his foe, and hitting the weak spot is only a mean to achieve that: he uses his knowledge instead of his fighting skills to win the combat. The goal is actullay to win the contest, not to break the weapon. The GM only has to evaluate the consistency of the suggestion. Narrative rules should determine if Quack Fu Master's knowledge was sufficient to win. If he does, we can consider that he knew enough about the weakness. Nothing arbitrary. The rules says if the player's suggestion brings the story in the direction he wished.  Simulationist would determine first if he knows the weakmess or not, period, and so what ?

That's my understanding but nodody is obliged to agree with me. Or I may be completely wrong.