Heroic Narratives, Or I Love Champions But...

[Scott Ruggels]

10 minutes ago, pawsplay said:

To be clear, I have played a number of mostly tactical superhero games that do handle all three of those issues fairly elegantly. Not through fiat.

That’s fine! That’s what they were built for. It may be in the citation of Steve Peterson above is apt in that Champions was built as an anathema tonlinear narrative structure. 

[Spence]

3 minutes ago, zslane said:

Right. All of those things are examples of writer's fiat, imposed on the story to maximize pre-determined, desired dramatic outcomes.

 

And a well designed system could allow the players and GM to add dramatic outcomes that would have been a writers domain if it were a book. 

 

4 minutes ago, zslane said:

In order to experience the genre as a game, you may have to sacrifice those conventions that force outcomes and that would strip players of agency (and the consequences that would and should logically follow from it).

 

I am reading this to mean that by following the setting conventions you believe that players are sacrificing their agency. 

I don't comprehend this.  Following a settings conventions is the heart of role playing and has nothing to do with sacrificing a players agency, rather a player that agrees to play in a RPG setting has already agreed to follow the conventions of the setting. 

 

A player that makes a Lawful Good Holy Paladin of the Ultimate Good God is not surrendering their agency because they re required to stop another PC from murdering a merchant just so they can loot the wagon.  By making a Dudley DoRight character for the setting that player has agreed to play that character.  Just like the murder-hobo can't really complain when the Dudley DoRight Paladin slaps them down. 

If you don't like the setting and that settings conventions, then pass on the game.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

1 hour ago, Spence said:

And a well designed system could allow the players and GM to add dramatic outcomes that would have been a writers domain if it were a book.

Matter of opinion, right there. 

 

1 hour ago, Spence said:

I am reading this to mean that by following the setting conventions you believe that players are sacrificing their agency. 

I don't comprehend this.  Following a settings conventions is the heart of role playing and has nothing to do with sacrificing a players agency, rather a player that agrees to play in a RPG setting has already agreed to follow the conventions of the setting. 

 

A player that makes a Lawful Good Holy Paladin of the Ultimate Good God is not surrendering their agency because they re required to stop another PC from murdering a merchant just so they can loot the wagon.  By making a Dudley DoRight character for the setting that player has agreed to play that character.  Just like the murder-hobo can't really complain when the Dudley DoRight Paladin slaps them down. 

If you don't like the setting and that settings conventions, then pass on the game.

Following conventions has nada to do with role-playing.  Role-playing is playing your role, regardless of if that role is conformist or non-conformist.  The guy who brings The Gunisher to a session of The Justice Team isn't not role-playing because of it.  He's just not following conventions and it's fine to say no to that but it's still role-playing. 

 

RE the paladin, it depends.  If Sir DoRight's player cannot choose to not stop Dirkas Thief, that's a loss of agency.  If Sir DoRight cannot choose to not stop Dirkas but his player can choose to do things that the player knows will let Dirkas do his dastardly deeds without DoRight knowing, that's not loss of agency. 

[Greywind]

37 minutes ago, pawsplay said:

 

"Pushing is for heroes and important NPCs (including enemies."

 

Following both rules, I'd say, particularly as the GM, that a villain could/would only push when trying to save their own life.

[PeterLind]

>If I was the GM?  I would Ask the players what sort of campaign they want for next time, or if any one else wants to run. Then shelve the campaign on my book shelf when I get home. <

 

My answer is that, for some of that stuff, I would not require a roll for success.  First, in regards to investigations/planning, if the players seem to be working out a pretty well-thought out plan of operation, I will allow for a certain amount of success without them having to roll dice.  Second, if there is a failure, then it will just mean that the narrative moves along.  The characters might be put at a disadvantage this time around, but the game itself moves on.  Third, as far as unbeatable, god-like bad guys are concerned, I am going to build into a scenario a way to foil their plan without necessarily having to defeat them in combat.  In other words, as a GM I am going to treat the players fairly and impartially.  I am not going to put them into a no-win scenario.  Anyways, all of this can be handled with your gamemastering style, how you adjudicate what the player's do, how you adjudicate die rolls, and how you move the narrative along.  Just my two cents .. .

[Scott Ruggels]

24 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Matter of opinion, right there. 

 

Following conventions has nada to do with role-playing.  Role-playing is playing your role, regardless of if that role is conformist or non-conformist.  The guy who brings The Gunisher to a session of The Justice Team isn't not role-playing because of it.  He's just not following conventions and it's fine to say no to that but it's still role-playing. 

Thank you for making my point.   Role playing is playing a role. The quality of that role is dependent upon the skill and the depth the player puts into it. Certainly the background and the intended tone of the campaign influences, but it’s ultimately the player’s creation. 
 

24 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

 

RE the paladin, it depends.  If Sir DoRight's player cannot choose to not stop Dirkas Thief, that's a loss of agency.  If Sir DoRight cannot choose to stop Dirkas but his player can choose to do things that the player knows will let Dirkas do his dastardly deeds without DoRight knowing, that's not loss of agency. 

Bingo!

[Scott Ruggels]

14 minutes ago, PeterLind said:

>If I was the GM?  I would Ask the players what sort of campaign they want for next time, or if any one else wants to run. Then shelve the campaign on my book shelf when I get home. <

 

My answer is that, for some of that stuff, I would not require a roll for success.  First, in regards to investigations/planning, if the players seem to be working out a pretty well-thought out plan of operation, I will allow for a certain amount of success without them having to roll dice.  Second, if there is a failure, then it will just mean that the narrative moves along.  The characters might be put at a disadvantage this time around, but the game itself moves on.  Third, as far as unbeatable, god-like bad guys are concerned, I am going to build into a scenario a way to foil their plan without necessarily having to defeat them in combat.  In other words, as a GM I am going to treat the players fairly and impartially.  I am not going to put them into a no-win scenario.  Anyways, all of this can be handled with your gamemastering style, how you adjudicate what the player's do, how you adjudicate die rolls, and how you move the narrative along.  Just my two cents .. .

And that is a smart way to handle it.  The dice come out if there is a chance for failure. The skill roll can be more of an indicator of that character’s ability to perform a task. It would only have to be rolled or under stress, or if contested, or if the player insists. I may toss a single D6  to determine the quality of the results behind the screen, assuming a success but how good of a success. 

[PeterLind]

Yes that sounds great.  Something like this:  When the heroes are investigating something, consider putting your useful information/clues into tiers.  "We search the apartment."  This kind of thing will result in obtaining some useful information, if it is there, regardless.  However, something hidden might be discovered with a successful die roll.  Hence, the game doesn't stall just because of a bad roll.  Just my two cents and I am sorry if this is a slight divergance . .

 

To get to the main point.  IMO, the genre emulation can be readily handled through role-playing.  On one hand, we have the players and what is called "player agency."  On the other hand we have the GM, and the course of the game, the "narrative", whatever you want to call it.  If I have things correctly, the basic purpose of a HAP/metacurrency would be for the players to start taking on the GM's role, and to start determining the narrative.  I am not persuaded, yet, that this is really a necessary thing, but I remain open to some kind of optional rule that will make things fun and interesting at the game table.

[Ninja-Bear]

1 hour ago, Scott Ruggels said:

Thank you for making my point.   Role playing is playing a role. The quality of that role is dependent upon the skill and the depth the player puts into it. Certainly the background and the intended tone of the campaign influences, but it’s ultimately the player’s creation. 
 

Bingo!

I agree too that role playing is role playing. So how being tied to dice any more or less role playing? Or in other words how is strictly going by dice rolls any more or less valid than using HAPs? Answer-it isn’t as long as the group want me it in the game.

[Greywind]

Going out on a limb here, but honestly, if a GM creates a situation/scenario where the only possible success relies on a crap shoot to win, then that GM is an f'n idiot. And no amount of dice "adjustments" through HAPs or any other means will ever change that.

[Ninja-Bear]

19 minutes ago, Greywind said:

Going out on a limb here, but honestly, if a GM creates a situation/scenario where the only possible success relies on a crap shoot to win, then that GM is an f'n idiot. And no amount of dice "adjustments" through HAPs or any other means will ever change that.

No he he’s creating drama and role playing experience. Huge wink here! But seriously if you are adjusting the villains and or scenario to be fair then how is that different than HAPs? 

[Greywind]

A lot different.

 

As a GM I run the villain. If I wrongly evaluated the opposition level of my villain to the point where the players have no chance, then I do have an obligation to make necessary adjustments. Unless I want the campaign to end and the players to lose any interest in continuing. It is one thing to adjust a villain on the fly or have something happen randomly in the game that gives the heroes a chance or a necessary breather. It is entirely another to influence a die roll or out-and-out altering the result to suit someone else's agenda.

 

All my die rolls to-hit and damage have long been done in the open where the players can see.

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

And that is a smart way to handle it.  The dice come out if there is a chance for failure. The skill roll can be more of an indicator of that character’s ability to perform a task. It would only have to be rolled or under stress, or if contested, or if the player insists. I may toss a single D6  to determine the quality of the results behind the screen, assuming a success but how good of a success. 

 

That is another form of fudging, simply one which the GM applies rather than the players using some in-game metacurrency.  "Turning failure into success" should not be a freebie.  After much great planning and gaming, we have the perfect setup to prevent Mechanon's Kill All the Humans Maguffin.  Hawkeye is in place, braced and set, makes that perfect shot and...rolls an 18.

 

So we can depressingly put all the character sheets in the binders, their tales only half told.  Or we can figure out a way to Fail Forward.  Maybe that's a Hero Point.  Maybe it's just a GM call.  I'd look for an option to succeed, but not a perfect success, perhaps one which grants Mechanon new options ("an arc of power from the antenna strikes Mechanon - he glows brightly...then vanishes"), or even more power, or some such, ideally drawn from prior campaign events.  The danger is defeated for today, but a true victory will require further action by the heroes.

 

6 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

No he he’s creating drama and role playing experience. Huge wink here! But seriously if you are adjusting the villains and or scenario to be fair then how is that different than HAPs? 

 

Again, another way to fudge.

 

5 hours ago, Greywind said:

A lot different.

 

As a GM I run the villain. If I wrongly evaluated the opposition level of my villain to the point where the players have no chance, then I do have an obligation to make necessary adjustments. Unless I want the campaign to end and the players to lose any interest in continuing. It is one thing to adjust a villain on the fly or have something happen randomly in the game that gives the heroes a chance or a necessary breather. It is entirely another to influence a die roll or out-and-out altering the result to suit someone else's agenda.

 

All my die rolls to-hit and damage have long been done in the open where the players can see.

 

If you change the odds of hitting or the amount of damage, how does that make rolling them in the open any more transparent?

 

A lot of these examples are simply placing the responsibility for preserving the narrative in the hands of the GM, rather than allowing the players some of that agency.  Did someone mention "writing a story" earlier?  I know many players would consider being scripted by the GM to be in that vein.

 

Sometimes, some on the fly adjustment (aka fudging) is necessary to manage the game. 

[Greywind]

47 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Sometimes, some on the fly adjustment (aka fudging) is necessary to manage the game. 

 

But not by the players. If the players want to be doing that then they'd be running the game.

[PeterLind]

> That is another form of fudging <

 

Perhaps another way to put it is that the GM is using a die roll to determine a degree of success.  This is not fudging, which is to ignore or modify a die result.  I suggest that this is more in line with the GM's role, as a judge and a storyteller, to determine the result of a player's action in game.  

[Spence]

10 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Matter of opinion, right there. 

 

Following conventions has nada to do with role-playing.  Role-playing is playing your role, regardless of if that role is conformist or non-conformist.  The guy who brings The Gunisher to a session of The Justice Team isn't not role-playing because of it.  He's just not following conventions and it's fine to say no to that but it's still role-playing. 

 

RE the paladin, it depends.  If Sir DoRight's player cannot choose to not stop Dirkas Thief, that's a loss of agency.  If Sir DoRight cannot choose to not stop Dirkas but his player can choose to do things that the player knows will let Dirkas do his dastardly deeds without DoRight knowing, that's not loss of agency. 

 

10 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

Thank you for making my point.   Role playing is playing a role. The quality of that role is dependent upon the skill and the depth the player puts into it. Certainly the background and the intended tone of the campaign influences, but it’s ultimately the player’s creation. 
 

Bingo!

 

Completely wrong. 

 

Roleplaying is a cooperative venture where players and the GM work together to build a story.

 

If a person agrees to a story and builds a character for that story and then deliberately deviates and performs actions designed to undermine the game.  They are not roleplaying. They are little s*its screwing with people.  They are not honest.  Liar comes to mind.

 

In roleplaying you agree take on a role within a story.  If you do not intend to actually play the role, then don't lie about it.  Either work with the rest of the group and design a more appropriate character or elect to skip that game.

 

You can call anything roleplaying if you want.  But I can't defend by calling dirtbags that deliberately destroy games for fun roleplayers. 

I understand the current fad where any a$$hatery is "cool" and "rad" because players are the all.  But they aren't.  Players are expected to play within the bounds of the game like anyone else.  A garbage player is just like a garbage GM. They soon find themselves alone without a game.

 

We wouldn't do well in the same games I expect.  I have walked out of games as a player and as a GM because of these kinds of nonRoleplayers, and I  expect it will happen again.

 

Sorry for what became a rant, but I have really gotten fed up with the "players can do anything and everyone just needs to suck it up" mentality that has infected gaming like a virus.

 

If you want to play a backstabbing thief, then make one and find a game that needs a backstabbing thief. 

 

But if no such game is available don't smile, make a different PC with the intention to lie to everyone and play your new PC as that backstabbing thief. 

 

If you can't find one, then try being a GM.

 

Deliberately misleading the table so they can get their jollies is not roleplaying.

 

 

 

[Greywind]

57 minutes ago, Spence said:

 

 

Completely wrong. 

 

Roleplaying is a cooperative venture where players and the GM work together to build a story.

 

If a person agrees to a story and builds a character for that story and then deliberately deviates and performs actions designed to undermine the game.  They are not roleplaying. They are little s*its screwing with people.  They are not honest.  Liar comes to mind.

 

In roleplaying you agree take on a role within a story.  If you do not intend to actually play the role, then don't lie about it.  Either work with the rest of the group and design a more appropriate character or elect to skip that game.

 

You can call anything roleplaying if you want.  But I can't defend by calling dirtbags that deliberately destroy games for fun roleplayers. 

I understand the current fad where any a$$hatery is "cool" and "rad" because players are the all.  But they aren't.  Players are expected to play within the bounds of the game like anyone else.  A garbage player is just like a garbage GM. They soon find themselves alone without a game.

 

We wouldn't do well in the same games I expect.  I have walked out of games as a player and as a GM because of these kinds of nonRoleplayers, and I  expect it will happen again.

 

Sorry for what became a rant, but I have really gotten fed up with the "players can do anything and everyone just needs to suck it up" mentality that has infected gaming like a virus.

 

If you want to play a backstabbing thief, then make one and find a game that needs a backstabbing thief. 

 

But if no such game is available don't smile, make a different PC with the intention to lie to everyone and play your new PC as that backstabbing thief. 

 

If you can't find one, then try being a GM.

 

Deliberately misleading the table so they can get their jollies is not roleplaying.

 

 

 

 

Been there. Suffered that. Had an individual who loved being a spoiler for the other players. Ended up where he was shut out.

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, PeterLind said:

> That is another form of fudging <

 

Perhaps another way to put it is that the GM is using a die roll to determine a degree of success.  This is not fudging, which is to ignore or modify a die result.  I suggest that this is more in line with the GM's role, as a judge and a storyteller, to determine the result of a player's action in game.  

 

The rules indicate that the die roll in question failed.  Revising that ignores or modifies the result of the die role.  It is quite consistent with the role of judge and storyteller.  This does not change the fact that it is fudging the rules which determine the result of a player's action in game.

 

That does not mean it is "bad" or "good" for the game.  Some players may feel that this override of 'G' in favour of 'RP' is appropriate.  Others may feel it cheapens any victory gained through planning, strategy, tactics and good die rolls.

 

That is no different than whether a hero points/game metacurrency mechanic is "bad" or "good" for the game.  It is different, in that the metacurrency is presumably part of the rules of the game, where changing the results of the dice as rolled is an override of those rules.

 

Looking specifically at Hero, "an 18 always fails" is one of the rare rules that don't say "unless the GM rules otherwise", or "subject to common sense, dramatic sense and game balance" or something similar.

[PeterLind]

>The rules indicate that the die roll in question failed.<

 

Perhaps a slight misunderstanding here.  Scott's quote, "I may toss a single D6  to determine the quality of the results behind the screen, assuming a success but how good of a success," is not based on a failed die roll.  Instead, this is a way to adjudicate a degree of success in situations where the GM determines that there is no chance of failure, and thus a skill roll is not required to be made.  

 

EDIT: Otherwise, I generally agree with your comments.  

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

4 hours ago, Spence said:

 

 

Completely wrong. 

 

Roleplaying is a cooperative venture where players and the GM work together to build a story.

 

If a person agrees to a story and builds a character for that story and then deliberately deviates and performs actions designed to undermine the game.  They are not roleplaying. They are little s*its screwing with people.  They are not honest.  Liar comes to mind.

 

In roleplaying you agree take on a role within a story.  If you do not intend to actually play the role, then don't lie about it.  Either work with the rest of the group and design a more appropriate character or elect to skip that game.

 

You can call anything roleplaying if you want.  But I can't defend by calling dirtbags that deliberately destroy games for fun roleplayers. 

I understand the current fad where any a$$hatery is "cool" and "rad" because players are the all.  But they aren't.  Players are expected to play within the bounds of the game like anyone else.  A garbage player is just like a garbage GM. They soon find themselves alone without a game.

 

We wouldn't do well in the same games I expect.  I have walked out of games as a player and as a GM because of these kinds of nonRoleplayers, and I  expect it will happen again.

 

Sorry for what became a rant, but I have really gotten fed up with the "players can do anything and everyone just needs to suck it up" mentality that has infected gaming like a virus.

 

If you want to play a backstabbing thief, then make one and find a game that needs a backstabbing thief. 

 

But if no such game is available don't smile, make a different PC with the intention to lie to everyone and play your new PC as that backstabbing thief. 

 

If you can't find one, then try being a GM.

 

Deliberately misleading the table so they can get their jollies is not roleplaying.

 

 

 

You are wrong.  You are wrong because you are conflating "role-playing" and "not being a jerk while role-playing". 

[Ninja-Bear]

4 hours ago, Greywind said:

 

But not by the players. If the players want to be doing that then they'd be running the game.

Why? The game is cooperative is it not? 

[Scott Ruggels]

12 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

No he he’s creating drama and role playing experience. Huge wink here! But seriously if you are adjusting the villains and or scenario to be fair then how is that different than HAPs? 

 

Back from the con, and not having to type on an iPhone.   Having an adventure or plan come down to one roll may be dramatic, but it's not very smart, In the provided scenario of  it all depending on Hawkeye-expy to make a clutch shot at the buzzer, to take down Mechanon is poor planning on the heroes part.  You have a table full of heroes who can do something.  Never  every make a plan that is dependent on one  die roll for a win.  Mechanon usually needs a whole team to beat on him to take him down, and that needs the active cooperation and participation of most if not all of the characters present. Everyone should get a chance to deliver that finishing blow, not just The Hawkeye expy, who could blow his roll.  What's the fallback plan, then?  There had better be one. 

 

 The difference between HAP, and Fudging the rolls is that the HAPs are player controlled, and the Fudged die rolls  or poor but internally consistent decisions by the villains are secret from the players, and so the emotional tension is not diffused for the players, and the perception of the stakes is not changed.   The GM is basically stage managing things for the players to move through the situation presented, to provide a fun experience, and for me the fun is keeping the players players, and NOT having them make authorial decisions outside of their roles are active participants in trying to solve the situation I have presented to them.

[Scott Ruggels]

5 hours ago, Spence said:

 

 

Completely wrong. 

 

Roleplaying is a cooperative venture where players and the GM work together to build a story.

 

Okay... I think here we have the  point of diametrical opposition.

 

I , as a GM, am not here to present a story, but as to present a world, and a situation, even tactical problem, for my players to solve.  I present puzzles, moral quandries, travelogue, and character interaction, as well as combat, for players to inhabit characters in that world to interact with and adress the situation presented in character.  A story is what the players tell afterwards, as in, "No shit, there I was,  thought I was gonna die!"

 

5 hours ago, Spence said:

 

If a person agrees to a story and builds a character for that story and then deliberately deviates and performs actions designed to undermine the game.  They are not roleplaying. They are little s*its screwing with people.  They are not honest.  Liar comes to mind.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Spence said:

 

In roleplaying you agree take on a role within a story.  If you do not intend to actually play the role, then don't lie about it.  Either work with the rest of the group and design a more appropriate character or elect to skip that game. 

You can call anything roleplaying if you want.  But I can't defend by calling dirtbags that deliberately destroy games for fun roleplayers. 

I understand the current fad where any a$$hatery is "cool" and "rad" because players are the all.  But they aren't.  Players are expected to play within the bounds of the game like anyone else.  A garbage player is just like a garbage GM. They soon find themselves alone without a game.

 

They are just dicks.  You do run into them, especially if you run open tables at public events or conventions.  As a GM you have to take a firm hand and nip that in the bud.  As for your "home" tables, you need to be able to trust your players, which is why most game groups add in new players sparingly if, at all, because Roleplay at its core depends on trust, so that people can be open with their performances.  I make it clear at the start, the party, or group has to be a team, so no asshole loners or  Chaotic Evils in the party.

 

5 hours ago, Spence said:

 

 

We wouldn't do well in the same games I expect.  I have walked out of games as a player and as a GM because of these kinds of nonRoleplayers, and I  expect it will happen again.

 

You may be right, in that I am concentrating on my character, his perceptions of the world presented around him, and his relationships with the other party members. I am not there to ruin the other player's fun, but if I as a player see railroad tracks, I am stepping off at the next station.

 

5 hours ago, Spence said:

 

Sorry for what became a rant, but I have really gotten fed up with the "players can do anything and everyone just needs to suck it up" mentality that has infected gaming like a virus.

 

If you want to play a backstabbing thief, then make one and find a game that needs a backstabbing thief. 

 

But if no such game is available don't smile, make a different PC with the intention to lie to everyone and play your new PC as that backstabbing thief. 

 

If you can't find one, then try being a GM.

 

Deliberately misleading the table so they can get their jollies is not roleplaying.

 

 

 

 

I do not know what triggered the rant, but I am sorry for your poor experiences. I do think we need to get the thread back on track for the discussion, here, but I can see where the split lies.

[Scott Ruggels]

4 hours ago, Greywind said:

 

Been there. Suffered that. Had an individual who loved being a spoiler for the other players. Ended up where he was shut out.

 As it should be.  Playing 5e on Role Playing it took us about a year to find a stable player group, after kicking all the spoilers, asshats, and  control freaks out of the group, usually after three sessions a piece.  The GM (not me) had the patience of a saint, but We have a good, stable group.

[Scott Ruggels]

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Why? The game is cooperative is it not? 

 It is cooperative in the sense, we all want to have fun at the table.  But which side of the GM's screen a person is sitting determines  the final authority about control of the narrative, or in my case, situation. Players do not get a veto on GM dice rolls.