HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Nov 17, 2014 0:38:13 GMT -8
Usually in RPGs, the players get input about their character's success. Sometimes it's mechanical input, other times it's narrative input, and still other times it's a blend of the two. Sometimes players get to decide how they fail, but in my experience that isn't something the system does. It's something the MC does to make players feel more involved in the game.
Why is this?
I'm asking because I asked a friend to look at a die mechanic I was tinkering with. Basically you rolled three dice and assigned them to three areas (like stats). If the die value was under your stat value, you got a success; if the die value was over your stat value, you generated some trouble related to that stat. So, for example, if the stats were Physical, Mental, and Social, die values over your stat value would generate Physical, Mental, or Social complications for your character.
My friend said it felt pessimistic, as players were essentially choosing what bad things happened to them. Which is totally fine with me. The way I see it, getting to decide the type of complications that arise from your character's actions gives you just as much control over your character as defining their success and is providing meaningful choices.
So, thoughts? Is there some psychological thing going on here that make people feel more in control when they define success as opposed to failure?
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Nov 17, 2014 3:23:34 GMT -8
I think your friend, and s/he is neither right not wrong, may be voicing a concern that emphasises a more simulationist approach to RPG's. IMHO a good RPG (regardless of system) is blend of narrative and simulationist. Such that when you succeed in real life you have a choice about how you succeed - ie: you have your own goals and criteria against which you measure success . . . Narrative in nature vis-a-vis RPG's. However, when you fail, basically, shit happens to you and that shit tends to be outside your control because it happens 'to' you - which is where a simulationist approach would tend to offer a better feel re: immersion. Eg: I decide to speed because of 'macguffin' if I succeed I get to location B on time and without incident but if I fail do I lose control of the car and crash or do I get pulled and issued a ticket? Those two failures are things that happen to me, not something I'd choose nor would these failures impact on my agency as a player . . . They're an unwelcome consequence of my agency/choices. YMMV Aaron
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Nov 17, 2014 8:18:43 GMT -8
Sometimes players get to decide how they fail, but in my experience that isn't something the system does. It's something the MC does to make players feel more involved in the game. [snip] The way I see it, getting to decide the type of complications that arise from your character's actions gives you just as much control over your character as defining their success and is providing meaningful choices. So, thoughts? Is there some psychological thing going on here that make people feel more in control when they define success as opposed to failure? I don't think it's about control or involvement at all; I think the rules are like that to prevent players from making things too easy (or too hard!) on their characters. When the GM describes complications, he/she is providing a challenge for the player to solve. If the player describes complications, he/she is then both setting up the problem and coming up with the solution. The obvious temptation is to propose complications you can think of a good solution for, but in trying to avoid that, you may set up a problem that you don't know how to solve, and then play grinds to a halt. (The latter can happen with a GM too, of course. But then at least there's another person to negotiate with, so the player still has something to do.) Even GM-less narrative games very often put the responsibility of creating difficulties for a character onto someone who's not the player of that character. (See, for example, Polaris, where this is the sole job of the Mistaken for each Heart.) I think it's difficult to come up with a satisfying challenge mechanic that doesn't incorporate input from other people. In addition to the difficulty factor, there's just something satisfying about the give-and-take of it. One possible exception is Fiasco, and maybe you can find something to pull from that game that will work for yours. In Fiasco, you expect going in that horrible things are going to happen to your character--in fact, generating those things is part of the fun. Also, you have Relationships and Needs to help you generate the kind of self-destructive behavior that your character is likely to indulge in. Maybe you can hack something like that to go with your stat dice. Call them Qualities for now; you could have a Mental Quality, a Physical Quality, and a Social Quality. If you roll well, narrate how the Quality helps you succeed in a situation, and if you roll badly, narrate how the Quality gets in your way. Hopefully this will focus the player and keep him/her from thinking about the challenge in terms of difficulty. Just some rather rambling thoughts on the subject.
|
|
willh
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 220
|
Post by willh on Nov 17, 2014 10:39:37 GMT -8
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Nov 17, 2014 18:14:57 GMT -8
Thanks for the link willh. My Life with Master is a game I keep meaning to try, but I never seem to have a chance to do so. Looking at it again, yes. The mechanic I was messing around with does allow one person to decide both the character's adversity and its resolution. Which according to the Czege Principle isn't fun.
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Nov 18, 2014 8:52:57 GMT -8
Looking at it again, yes. The mechanic I was messing around with does allow one person to decide both the character's adversity and its resolution. Which according to the Czege Principle isn't fun. Well, not fun in a game. I'm sure novelists enjoy it immensely.
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Dec 1, 2014 14:26:16 GMT -8
I wasn't familiar with the Czege Principle before; thanks for the link, willh!
On a tangentially related note, the first thing that came to mind after reading the wiki article was Fiasco (probably because kaitoujuliet already invoked it earlier). On his/her turn, a player may either set the scene or decide how it ends (well or poorly), but not both. Makes a lot of sense now!
|
|