Difference between revisions of "Talk:Nephon Sector One-Shot"

Revision as of 16:33, 27 February 2007

Old Talk

--Matts 11:58, 27 February 2007 (MST)I'm cleaning this up, since the discussion spilled out to Dogs in the Vineyard in spectacular fashion.

I want to bring up discussion about 'stakes', which is one key piece I want to preserve from DitV.

I also want to notify you guys of some changes I want to make to the Sector setting.

Explicit Stakes

I think it's safe to say that DitV is a bust. That's fine. I'm leaning towards cyberpunk or white wolf systems for the game now, probably closer to White Wolf.

I propose one key shift in how we play, taken from DitV, but with the excess confusion of the system excised: that is, I say that before any roll is called for, somebody (the GM or the player, or a negotation between them) determines the stakes, ie, the outcome of that roll.

As it stands, we say, "I'm going to climb that wall", I (the GM) say "OK," and you roll. If you fail, the consequences are assigned by me: "You didn't climb the wall", "You fell and took damage", "Your gear broke and now you're going to starve to death way to go slick willy", etc. (It's not quite this way, but bear with me.) The stakes (ie the consequences of the roll) were implicit, unknown, and entirely up to me.

What I'm proposing (and we do this a bit already) is that we negotiate the stakes before the dice are rolled. You, the player, say, "I'm going to climb that wall." I say, "That wall is dangerous, crumbly, and probably full of tetanus-inducing nails. The stakes are, do you climb the wall without suffering 4 dice damage?" Now, you may say, "man, that sounds pretty crazy", and decide not to do it; you may decide to do it anyway, damn the torpedoes. But either way, what that roll means is clear as day, and hopefully the suspense of those dice plunking down on the table is palpable.

Benefits for Players

This lets you, the players, break the mold as much or as little as you like in more rigid situations like combat. Instead of shooting someone, you can say, "I shoot the chandelier above his head," and then I respond, "OK, what's at stake is, do you hit the chandelier, bring it down on him, and render him stunned for the next round?", then assign appropriate difficulty penalties, then we roll.

Benefits for the GM

This lets me, the GM, have concrete consequences for failure that I can stick to. If I say the stakes, and players don't like them, we negotiate; if the players don't like my bottom line, they don't have to do the action, but at least it gets the argument out of the way. Once the roll has happened, the consequences are enacted, and it's as fair as it can get.

I personally think I as a GM have a hard time universally enforcing failure, and I bring this up mostly because I think I'd be a better GM with this sort of policy.

Pre-Discussion

Before we all rip into this or shower it in hosannas, a few points:

• We already do this to a certain extent; I'm just saying that I intend to do this for *every* roll. Some rolls will be easier to determine the stakes of, some rolls will be harder.
• negotiation over stakes should be welcome; as the GM, though, I aim to limit discussion so the game can still move forward. I'm still the bottom line.

Discussion

Fire away, gentlemen!

--Jason 12:40, 27 February 2007 (MST)I concur with this, though I withold my hosannas for a later time.

--Gdaze-- I'm not sure I get it so I'll just see an example next time we have gaming and there is time. I just feel it is weird if we know what might happen before we do it... But then again I didn't even try the system out so I'm not really enlightened on how it works.

--Dieter the Bold 13:26, 27 February 2007 (MST) I'm down with such a change. I'm ambivalent, but mainly because it's new. I do enjoy (most of the time) not knowing what happens if I fuck up spectacularly in terms of story, but negotiating stakes does make the story more collaborative and I can see how it would take the stress off the GM to handle all the minutae himself.

--Edmiao 15:22, 27 February 2007 (MST) Matt, you make a great point here. Many times I recall players trying to do something, failing and being very suprised by the consequences, which should have been obvious to the character if the setting had been described accurately. I recall several examples of the climbing example that you give with consequences of failure unevenly applied between settings. Also, the GM should ask the players for details on how much time they are taking. Often in roleplay settings, you have lots of time and any normal person would not climb at combat speeds, thus should get some bonuses for being careful.

--Matts 15:24, 27 February 2007 (MST)Well, if it's a casual situation, the skill test might mean something different. "Make a climbing roll to scale that surface elegantly." You can scale it success or failure, because it's an amateur-hour surface, but the successful skill test means you do it with a showboat flourish.

--Edmiao 15:33, 27 February 2007 (MST) True. Also, another thought. We don't want to get hog tied by defining everything. Some consequences are obvious. And sometimes the player says they want to do something spur of the moment without fully considering the obvious consequences. As GM it's not your job to ask players to think twice. For example, Zhi Zhi tries to pick pocket a guard. Obviously the consequences are that if she fails the guard will notice, and in that case I, as the GM, didn't think I should point out the obvious and spoil the spontenaity. In another case, when the caracters were approaching the Sontaran camp "with stealth", I asked for clarification on how fast are you stealthing to give bonuses for extra time because that seemed like an natural precaution that would be taken without thinking about it. Obviously the consequence of failure would be that they notice you, which need not be stated formally.

Setting Changes

This is still a nascent idea, but I'm thinking I'm going to change the Sector to a System, stealing from Ben's Gemini ideas. It'll be similar, though, just a little more compact.