TheRPGSite

In another thread, David R writes:

Quote from: David RI like the idea of Mearls applying these hippie techniques to his regular games. Maybe because I do this often too.

So, folks. Some of us actually have some hippie games on our shelves. Some of us actually play some of them! Or if not play, strip them for parts.

So, would be participants, I put it to you. Which hippy techniques are cool for stealing in other games? In non-forge speak terms, describe what you mean. Don't just tell me "kickers and bangs", tell me what it means.

I like:

Oracles - random character/plot/situation seed generators - yes, random tables have been round a while but it took the hippies to 'bring the awesome' such as in 'In a Wicked Age'.
Keys - character motivations as used in 'The Shadow of Yesterday' - fulfilment tied in with advancement.
Relationship Maps - the ties that bind.....

I'll let someone else explain 'Arenas' 'cause I get told off for mentioning THAT GAME.

Quote from: SeanI like oracles - random character/plot/situation seed generators - yes, random tables have been round a while but it took the hippies to 'bring the awesome'

So, are you saying they actually do bring "awesome" that wasn't there before WRT randome tables? If so, how? How does this differ from using some tables on Seventh Sanctum or the 1e DM Design Kit to brew adventure and character ideas?

Say yes or roll the dice. Obviously works better in games that have rules for rolling the dice ;) but the underlying principle is cool + 1/2.  ((and not entirely new, just expressed so susinctly by Vincent))

I think it's that oracles seem more integral to the characters in these storygames rather than an added feature. Rather than build characters then determine what drives them - have the oracles build the character - the drives/desires/tribulations determine the character created - classic sword and sorcery stuff - CONAN - guy's strong and hard for a reason.


Having WIKIs and loads of contributors towards an online oracle helps. It's the personalized character motivation that D&D players would HAVE to play out in order to advance.

shit, what's the word -'internalised' Wilderlands ?

and I'm partial to:
Bidding/Gambling - I've used it for when players want their characters to steal the limelight/gain control of the narrative during a scene

hmm, I am always surprised at what is considered new and hip...

Codes - Central ideas that define a character. I had these since 1986. Essentially, defined as 3 words (but not limited to three) that define your character's motivations;i.e. Honorable, Samurai, Perfectionist. Meant to replace and expand on alignments.

Karma - Meta-rule points to allow player manipulation of their own rolls, allow re-rolls, and manipulate plot as it applies to characters. I have had this one since about 2003. I think Marvel had this even further back and it might have been where I got the idea.

I am sure there are other parts of my games that are "hippie" but I think I am too close to it...

Oh, maybe my Free Form Magic system? Allows the players to generate "effects" based on three areas of power. So, if you had a Druid whose tribe had power of Water, Mind and Emotions you could create effects that fired chicken, made a man think he was a chicken and scare the crap out of a chicken.

How do they work? Very well. Some I have been using for 20 or more years with thousands of players and no problems.

Bill

But then you tie the Karma/Peanut Butter and the Codes/Chocolate together and pow!

if all these methods are old - why the PH34R, babes ?

Quote from: blakkieBut then you tie the Karma/Peanut Butter and the Codes/Chocolate together and pow!

I believe it was James Skach complaining about getting my Meta in his Game...

Bill

Quote from: Seanif all these methods are old - why the PH34R, babes ?

I have no fear.

I will say, very many indie game conventions turn me off. (Like "fear the GM", "supporting more than one type of player leads to incoherence", etc.)

But the Indie community is not homogeneous, and there are lots of smart folks in the Indie community. And ever some games that have some techniques I disdain can have good things to.

For example, and my contribution to this thread:
Burning Empires, which has the "fear the GM"-ish "let it ride" principle has a very useful technique call instincts. Basically, instincts are pre-defined declarations about what your character would do in given situations. This can give you free rolls or otherwise make sure that your character's behavior is followed without later vocalizing it.

I am actually quite fond of The Riddle of Steel's Spiritual Attributes. It gives bonuses to rolls for things that the character feels strongly about.
The Shadow of Yesterday's Keys is a slightly different application of the same principle (instead of giving bonuses to rolls, giving XP)


EDIT: So for those of us new here, what is meant by "hippies?" Forgies and their "hip" gimmicky mechanics?

Quote from: LancerEDIT: So for those of us new here, what is meant by "hippies?" Forgies and their "hip" gimmicky mechanics?

:heh:

I'm not sure if it began as a forge/indie criticism or a self-depricating bit of humor by indie folks, but some folks call some more out there indie gaming conventions "dirty hippy gaming." Referring, of course, to the US 60's born nonconfomist "hippie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippie)" subculture. :shrug:

I like the idea that portions of the character's personality can add to (or even substitute for) dice rolls for skills. This one goes a long way back: the first time I saw it implemented was in Pendragon. Other games that use it are Dogs in the Vineyard, HeroQuest and Burning Wheel, all in slightly different applications.

Some techniques are useful for certain adventure and campaign types, especially for character-driven games and PvP one-shots: R-maps, kickers, bangs and flags.
They won't work for every game, but OTOH neither technique will. And while they probably were in use for a long time before the Forge, the Forgies were the first ones to write it actually down and gave it fancy names for quick reference, so I still give them some props for it.

Rules-wise, I stole TSoYs keys for my current project and twisted them so that they just fuel a nice-to-have resource, not the main source for character advancement as in the exemplar. (The game is still mission-driven, not character-driven - I just wanted a small incentive to play a breathing and interesting character rather than a teflon-coated mission-solving tool.)
My rule for situative advantages (that still must float around here on first or second page) wasn't originally inspired by Forge stuff, but Elliot Wilen pointed out the similarity to Sorcerers tactical boni, and as I own the main rule-book I have to agree to this.

Quote from: HinterWeltI believe it was James Skach complaining about getting my Meta in his Game...

So have you pulled Karma then?

Quote from: Caesar SlaadBurning Empires, which has the "fear the GM"-ish "let it ride" principle has a very useful technique call instincts. Basically, instincts are pre-defined declarations about what your character would do in given situations. This can give you free rolls or otherwise make sure that your character's behavior is followed without later vocalizing it.

LOL, you can make a hell of a lot stronger case for Instincts as being "fear the GM" founded than Let It Ride because Let It Ride cuts both ways. In my estimation, especially because of the usage based advancement, players tend to want rerolls more than the GM.

Quote from: blakkieLOL, you can make a hell of a lot stronger case for Instincts as being "fear the GM" founded than Let It Ride because Let It Ride cuts both ways. In my estimation, especially because of the usage based advancement, players tend to want rerolls more than the GM.

If you say so...

I saw instincts as clarity of communication and clarity of definition, which is a GOOD way to deal with GM/player communication problems.

I see "let it ride" as the "defy common sense and assume the GM is out to get you" solution, which is NOT a good way.

Let us, for once, not have a barney over LiR.

I'm having trouble answering the larger question. I think it's because any technique can be a good or bad thing in context.

Quote from: blakkieSo have you pulled Karma then?

Actually no, I will be adding it as an optional rule in Iridium V2. I think it has merit, especially for cinematic play styles, and adds something to the system as a universal system.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltActually no, I will be adding it as an optional rule in Iridium V2. I think it has merit, especially for cinematic play styles, and adds something to the system as a universal system.

Bill

See how much pull I have? :D

But, see, then you go and do the sensible thing and make it optional to allow individual groups to determine their "cinematic-scale" preference...

Quote from: droogI'm having trouble answering the larger question. I think it's because any technique can be a good or bad thing in context.

Yeah.

Also a lot of it comes from reading APs/ discussion threads and you kind of absorb stuff, know what I mean, Ceaser Slaad ?

In the Rebuke thread that the Pundit started, I mentioned my OtE game, which I speak briefly about player contribution before and during play. Some of this came from reading APs from the Forge and discussions from Storygames (I think).

So for me at least, it's not so clear cut. It's more than just about specific techniques, although if I rummage through my campaign notes, I'm sure to find some very specific techniques and subsequent modifications to suit my crew.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: droogI'm having trouble answering the larger question. I think it's because any technique can be a good or bad thing in context.

Quote from: David RYeah.

Also a lot of it comes from reading APs/ discussion threads and you kind of absorb stuff, know what I mean, Ceaser Slaad ?

I think the quote I included in the OP should have set the context. :shrug:

But if that's insufficient, you have all the room you need in a forum post to tell me what situations you think a given technique works well it. For that matter, tell me which situations you don't think it does well in.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI think the quote I included in the OP should have set the context. :shrug:

But if that's insufficient, you have all the room you need in a forum post to tell me what situations you think a given technique works well it. For that matter, tell me which situations you don't think it does well in.

Sorry Slaad. I'll go thorugh my various campaign notes and attempt to contribute to this thread. What I was trying to say is,  giving specifics beyond what has been said by others so far, is a bit difficult for me. I'm lousy when it comes to talking about craft :D

I do think though, if one is going to use techniques from the Forge etc, IME one should test them out in one shot games and discuss them with the group before hand.

Games are all about expectations and some (if not most) of these techniques
seem to conflict with the more traditional modes of play.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RGames are all about expectations and some (if not most) of these techniques seem to conflict with the more traditional modes of play.

Well, look at the few that don't, and you have a working list. :)

That said, though I may come across as hostile to some "non traditional game" notions, I don't think the divide is as steep as some imagine. Or at the very least, is useful in specific context.

To give you one example, I'm not particularly jazzed about "setting the stakes" as a general mechanic as it exists in some Indie games. That said, I do find the topic of character death to be a sticky one in traditional games, and some players don't want to part with a character. Ever. But I really dig lots of risk engendering skin-of-the-teeth action.

To this end, I think that some variant of Ryan Stoughton's "raising the stakes" hack (here (http://esix.pbwiki.com/f/RaisingtheStakes.pdf)) could be really effective at getting player buy-in for conflicts that carry a high risk of lethality with them.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadTo give you one example, I'm not particularly jazzed about "setting the stakes" as a general mechanic as it exists in some Indie games. That said, I do find the topic of character death to be a sticky one in traditional games, and some players don't want to part with a character. Ever. But I really dig lots of risk engendering skin-of-the-teeth action.

I find a lot of the goals of "hippy" game design are good (this being one of them) -- I just don't care for how any of the ones I've seen have been implemented for the types of games I'm interested in. :)

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI see "let it ride" as the "defy common sense and assume the GM is out to get you" solution, which is NOT a good way.

I'd call that a gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding of what it does and it's full implications. Even if you don't bother looking further than the literal explaination of it.

P.S.  Barney is coming to get you droog!

Quote from: HinterWeltActually no, I will be adding it as an optional rule in Iridium V2. I think it has merit, especially for cinematic play styles, and adds something to the system as a universal system.

So it's in there, with it's got a volume knob. And now you've clearly marked the zero level for those folks that didn't realize the game was playable with Karma set to zero.


P.S. I'm just giving you the gears because apparently you are much more 'hip' than a portion of your customer base. ;)

Quote from: blakkieSo it's in there, with it's got a volume knob. And now you've clearly marked the zero level for those folks that didn't realize the game was playable with Karma set to zero.


P.S. I'm just giving you the gears because apparently you are much more 'hip' than a portion of your customer base. ;)

See, this is one of the reasons I feel the "indie" publishers are more of a club. Aspects of my games could be easily compared to their design methods but, at best, I have been run out on a rail from the Forge as "corporate" or Story Games as "soulless shill" because I talk about marketing like I am in business or some such. ;)

Anyway, I do feel some aspects of a game are very useful at reinforcing or allowing Elements that players want in their games. So, in this case, if they essentially want a "Do Over" mechanism they have it. It also serves the Element of "Character Injected Plot" which is something I believe Feats do in a far more limited way. Karma allows you to say "I swing and give a resounding thwack to the bad guys head!". I spend 3 Karma and it happens. With Feats, you take the "Cleave bad guy in the Head" Feat and use it. Some people will like the Element to be restricted in this manner, others want a more open playing field. I tend to be in the latter and design my games to be thus.

I have often been described as "more trad than trad" in terms of my design but I wonder about that sometimes. In the end, it does not bother me to be "trad" but I often wonder what you need to be "indie". My emerging theory is a focus on meta-mechanics as opposed to in-character mechanics;i.e. "I will spend 3 Karma to have the bad guy fall to the ground as I chase him" as opposed to "My character uses a Trip Spell, spending 4 Spell Points".

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI have been run out on a rail from the Forge as "corporate" or Story Games as "soulless shill" because I talk about marketing like I am in business or some such.

Did you actually get banned or did a lot of posters just give you the gears till you decided "Well f*ck this getting repeatedly abused, I'm outa here"?

QuoteMy emerging theory is a focus on meta-mechanics as opposed to in-character mechanics

Just to give you a point that maybe throws that off a bit, I prefer stuff that is centred on the character. Although I obviously give more leeway than others in that, and how it is defined to do so, I always strive to be thinking about the character or how things look through their eyes.  As such I don't care much for the idea of spending points to make another NPC fall down. I'd much prefer that I spend points in my character's name to notice a stick that'll likely trip the NPC (and they get to roll) or to 'recall' that my character did something prior like lay down a trip-trap there (points to do the spell or doing some other direction action is even better, though not entirely necessary).  Although it is semantics I think it is important semantics as RPGs are largely about seeing things from the POV of the individual you are playing. :shrug:

Quote from: blakkieDid you actually get banned or did a lot of posters just give you the gears till you decided "Well f*ck this getting repeatedly abused, I'm outa here"?

Ron warned me several times but no, no banning. It was mostly a case of the jackyls saw a lone lion and decided to tear him down. I am not really one to hang out where the general consensus is that "my type" are not welcome. I am borderline about theRPGSite just due to the "If you post here you support Pundit" vibe but that is different. And, yeah, I get my share of static here but it is usually one on one, not the consnensus of the regular posters that I should not post here. SG and the Forge, well, let's just say I have found them not very welcoming to my type. ;)

Quote from: blakkieJust to give you a point that maybe throws that off a bit, I prefer stuff that is centred on the character. Although I obviously give more leeway than others in that, and how it defined to do so, I always strive to be thinking about the character or how things look through their eyes.  As such I don't care much for the idea of spending points to make another NPC fall down. I'd much prefer that I spend points in my character's name to notice a stick that'll likely trip the NPC (and they get to roll) or to 'recall' that my character did something prior like lay down a trip-trap there.  Although it is semantics I think it is important semantics as RPGs are largely about seeing things from the POV of the individual you are playing. :shrug:

Yeah, see, this is still not an incharacter mechanic to me. It is a mechanic that you as the player are aware of but that your character is not. So, your character is not invoking an ability but you, the player, is invoking an ability to "remember" that you set a trap or, more to the point, change the plot/past.

Generally, I prefer to resolve actions with in-character abilities (would that word work better?) and not player functions.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltIt was mostly a case of the jackyls saw a lone lion and decided to tear him down.

There are pieces of jackyl in my stool. ;) Otherwise I sure wouldn't be here.

QuoteI am not really one to hang out where the general consensus is that "my type" are not welcome. I am borderline about theRPGSite just due to the "If you post here you support Pundit" vibe but that is different.

The possibility that I'm in some way supporting his innane rants bothers me far more than the jackyls do. But I get over it because I'd rather not close myself off to other POVs, POV that might get scared away from places that are more 'comfortable' for me (though I go there too, gotta have a breather).

Quote from: HinterWeltYeah, see, this is still not an incharacter mechanic to me. It is a mechanic that you as the player are aware of but that your character is not. So, your character is not invoking an ability but you, the player, is invoking an ability to "remember" that you set a trap or, more to the point, change the plot/past.

Generally, I prefer to resolve actions with in-character abilities (would that word work better?) and not player functions.

That's why I find your description of Karma fairly jarring, and to a much lesser extent clash's Luck. It's like you leapfrogged right over me down the non-character action path. Perhaps the root of the feedback from your customer base as well?

Anyway hats off for pushing the envelope a bit because of something you think will bring fun to the table, even if it takes a second pass to square it off to make it more palitable to your customer base.

Quote from: blakkieThere are pieces of jackyl in my stool. ;) Otherwise I sure wouldn't be here.

The possibility that I'm in some way supporting his innane rants bothers me far more than the jackyls do. But I get over it because I'd rather not close myself off to other POVs, POV that might get scared away from places that are more 'comfortable' for me (though I go there too, gotta have a breather).

Oh, to be sure, I still go to SG. I don;t go to the Forge mainly because they did not have a lot to offer me and apparently I did not have much to offer them. Such is life and the internet. ;)

Bill

Quote from: blakkieThat's why I find your description of Karma fairly jarring, and to a much lesser extent clash's Luck. It's like you leapfrogged right over me down the non-character action path. Perhaps the root of the feedback from your customer base as well?

Anyway hats off for pushing the envelope a bit because of something you think will bring fun to the table, even if it takes a second pass to square it off to make it more palitable to your customer base.

Here is my issue. The way you phrase it, Karma does work that way. Maybe I am not grokking your angle but it seems you are still using an out of character mechanic but phrasing it in character. This is not the same as an in-character mechanic...I feel like I have failed my communications skill check. I need to spend some Karma to reroll. ;)

Bill

I think you've mostly got it. I find the semantics helpful in getting to the 'right' headspace. Although I can do it without them it takes more effort.
*rerolls*

Quote...I feel like I have failed my communications skill check. I need to spend some Karma to reroll. ;)

Would you consider that an in-character mechanic. Not specifically with Karma, as you've written it, but some limited resource associated directly with the character that allowed rerolls?

Would your answer matter how the character gained that resources?

Quote from: blakkieI think you've mostly got it. I find the semantics helpful in getting to the 'right' headspace. Although I can do it without them it takes more effort.
*rerolls*

Would you consider that an in-character mechanic. Not specifically with Karma, as you've written it, but some limited resource associated directly with the character that allowed rerolls?

Would your answer matter how the character gained that resources?

See, I would not consider that an in-character mechanic. Simply, because the source is "I want to reroll using my Karma". If it was a spell, like "Miscommunication" and I spent spell points then it is from the character, not the player. When the player is using meta-mechanics, it is a pool of resources applied from an out of setting source. Karma has no meaning in the setting, it is a meta-mechanic.

Now, minor point to some but a big one for me, you could internalize it but making it a spell, Feat or some other action the character may do to effect the world around him but it should never be one that goes from the character to the game. For example, a character using his "Luck" pool to get a reroll is still a meta-mechanic. However, I will admit this is very borderline as I could see it as a stat and an in-character representation of the character's luck.

A good example of both sides of this issue for me is, say, a World Bending power. You could represent it as a spend x points and change plot.Period. This seems an out of character meta-mechanic. In character, you would spend your Life Energy Points to bend the reality so that fire erupts from a gas main. Really, the mechanic is the same, spend points, state effect, observe effect. However, the source that the player is using is different. The former, a meta-mechanic point that has no effect on the character in the game, the latter a "life draining" point that directly effects the character in game.

Again, I feel I have rambled without being as clear as I should be. Sorry if I am making this difficult on you.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltSee, I would not consider that an in-character mechanic. Simply, because the source is "I want to reroll using my Karma". If it was a spell, like "Miscommunication" and I spent spell points then it is from the character, not the player. When the player is using meta-mechanics, it is a pool of resources applied from an out of setting source. Karma has no meaning in the setting, it is a meta-mechanic.

Now, minor point to some but a big one for me, you could internalize it but making it a spell, Feat or some other action the character may do to effect the world around him but it should never be one that goes from the character to the game. For example, a character using his "Luck" pool to get a reroll is still a meta-mechanic. However, I will admit this is very borderline as I could see it as a stat and an in-character representation of the character's luck.

A good example of both sides of this issue for me is, say, a World Bending power. You could represent it as a spend x points and change plot.Period. This seems an out of character meta-mechanic. In character, you would spend your Life Energy Points to bend the reality so that fire erupts from a gas main. Really, the mechanic is the same, spend points, state effect, observe effect. However, the source that the player is using is different. The former, a meta-mechanic point that has no effect on the character in the game, the latter a "life draining" point that directly effects the character in game.

Again, I feel I have rambled without being as clear as I should be. Sorry if I am making this difficult on you.

Bill

How long did we spend standing there next to the cars talking about this, Bill?  It's a tough subject - partially just to get agreement on the underlying terminology, and partially because that is so hard to reach because of the difference in how people see what's in character and what is meta.

It's a very fine line.  Like I've said, you spend karma as a player, you're getting your meta in my immesrion; but you make karma an attribute of the character that has this effect or that possibility (even to the point of allowing a re-roll) and it makes it in-character.

And others might not see that same bright red line in that same place....

Say I called the reroll Second Effort? Because inspite of the lambasting he recieved in the sports press, Randy Moss was correct in his dismissing of the tired cliche of giving 100%+ all the time. :keke:

As for 'Karma' that name suggests something specific to me. Something akin to magic, a kind of divine magic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma) But I think you do bring up a valid point about how appropriate it is for the setting, that does mean something to me.

QuoteA good example of both sides of this issue for me is, say, a World Bending power. You could represent it as a spend x points and change plot.Period. This seems an out of character meta-mechanic. In character, you would spend your Life Energy Points to bend the reality so that fire erupts from a gas main. Really, the mechanic is the same, spend points, state effect, observe effect. However, the source that the player is using is different. The former, a meta-mechanic point that has no effect on the character in the game, the latter a "life draining" point that directly effects the character in game.

That's where Burning Wheel Wises work for me. One of the ways you use them is "world bending" but only where the world isn't already set. Wises are character knowledge skills. Because they are a Skill of the character, rooted in the character's "Perception" stat like all academic skills, it feels to me a lot like the character knowing stuff. But mechanically  [EDIT: one of their uses] are like Quantum physics where measuring something is what actually sets the state (which goes against "common sense" but appears to be a really accurate model of how the universe actually works, at a certain level).

Same thing with Circles. It is something very much about the character. What jobs they have previously held, what organizations they belong to, what their general reputation is. It's all about the characters. But mechanically it brings NPCs into existance.

The key IMO is that if you think about it from the character's POV it makes sense to the character. If you think about it from the game mechanics POV then it becomes mechanical. Not unlike, IMO, if you think about your character trying swinging a sword it makes character sense but if you think about it as rolling a d20 over/under some number then it becomes mechanical. That's why the semantics of how it is presented mean something to me. If your words in the rules get me thinking from the POV of the character I see it as the character would and I'm there.

QuoteAgain, I feel I have rambled without being as clear as I should be. Sorry if I am making this difficult on you.

If it was that difficult I'd just STFU, mentally write 'loonie' under your name [in ink], and move on. I've done that before here, on rare occation, just not with you....yet. :)

I'm not sure that there is any such thing as "hippie" game design since most of the forge stuff have mechanics that have been used for many years. The only real difference is the how much they focus on particular mechanics to generate specific style of play.

Quote from: blakkieSay I called the reroll Second Effort? Because inspite of the lambasting he recieved in the sports press, Randy Moss was correct in his dismissing of the tired cliche of giving 100%+ all the time. :keke:

As for 'Karma' that name suggests something specific to me. Something akin to magic, a kind of divine magic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma) But I think you do bring up a valid point about how appropriate it is for the setting, that does mean something to me.

I picked it for just that reason. It is derived from character stats so it is not a clear cut issue. I do not wish to give the impression that this is an on/off matter. It is a very blurred and graduated affair. On one end, in-character on the other, meta-mechanics.

Quote from: blakkieThat's where Burning Wheel Wises work for me. One of the ways you use them is "world bending" but only where the world isn't already set. Wises are character knowledge skills. Because they are a Skill of the character, rooted in the character's "Perception" stat like all academic skills, it feels to me a lot like the character knowing stuff. But mechanically  [EDIT: one of their uses] are like Quantum physics where measuring something is what actually sets the state (which goes against "common sense" but appears to be a really accurate model of how the universe actually works, at a certain level).

Not entirely shure I parse that 100% but I would call it in-character since it is based in the "Character skills" and the character does something, it is not the player talkign to the GM but the character performing an action in setting. And yes, that is a lot of semantics.

Quote from: blakkieSame thing with Circles. It is something very much about the character. What jobs they have previously held, what organizations they belong to, what their general reputation is. It's all about the characters. But mechanically it brings NPCs into existance.

But is it an action of the characters? I do not know BW so I cannot say. Is a "Circle" something that the player or the character invokes? If the player decides this as part of the character generation, then I would call it a meta-mechanic. If the player decides the "Circle" then the character uses it in setting, well, that is in-character.

Quote from: blakkieThe key IMO is that if you think about it from the character's POV it makes sense to the character. If you think about it from the game mechanics POV then it becomes mechanical. Not unlike, IMO, if you think about your character trying swinging a sword it makes character sense but if you think about it as rolling a d20 over/under some number then it becomes mechanical. That's why the semantics of how it is presented mean something to me. If your words in the rules get me thinking from the POV of the character I see it as the character would and I'm there.

Hmm, I think I am seeing where you are coming from. You are saying any mechanic can be in-character by switching your POV so that the rule is explained in-character.

I differ slightly. What I am saying is that the rule for using a sword is one that is meant to be used in-character to describe the swords effect int he game. It  is something that the character uses and interacts with. How it is resolved does not matter.

However, if you were to have a mechanic called "Special Player Points" that you use to guarantee a natural twenty on a roll independent of anything your character is aware of (not an effect of the sword, not a spell, not intervention of the gods) then you have a meta-mechanic. Now, you could definitely describe this effect in-character by saying it is his incredible weapon mastery or the will of the gods, a spell or the effect of the magic sword. This is possible. However, it would change the nature of the rule and force it to regenerate "Special Player Points" in-game. The sword would need a mechanism (x points per person slain with it) or the gods would need to rest or the spell would need to be re-learned.

Quote from: blakkieIf it was that difficult I'd just STFU, mentally write 'loonie' under your name [in ink], and move on. I've done that before here, on rare occation, just not with you....yet. :)

Well, I always like to check as I can be verbose and obtuse all at the same time. ;)

Bill

Quote from: James J SkachHow long did we spend standing there next to the cars talking about this, Bill?  It's a tough subject - partially just to get agreement on the underlying terminology, and partially because that is so hard to reach because of the difference in how people see what's in character and what is meta.

It's a very fine line.  Like I've said, you spend karma as a player, you're getting your meta in my immesrion; but you make karma an attribute of the character that has this effect or that possibility (even to the point of allowing a re-roll) and it makes it in-character.

And others might not see that same bright red line in that same place....

James,
Most definitely. I don't think it is a definite on or off thing though. It is one of those shades of grey kinds of things.

Karma is a great example of a meta-mechanic that can draw from in-character stats. It does not take much to say it is the "Cosmic good will" of past deeds. It is pretty easy for players to see it as a traditional character mechanic as opposed to a pool of player driven plot altering points. I really should think about a means to have them regenerate in game time...

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltJames,
Most definitely. I don't think it is a definite on or off thing though. It is one of those shades of grey kinds of things.

Karma is a great example of a meta-mechanic that can draw from in-character stats. It does not take much to say it is the "Cosmic good will" of past deeds. It is pretty easy for players to see it as a traditional character mechanic as opposed to a pool of player driven plot altering points. I really should think about a means to have them regenerate in game time...

Bill

After reading your response to monsieur blakkie, it gets even murkier in my head. Take your sword example.  There's a stat or skill or attribute that's meant to indicate how good the character is with the sword, right? But what it really ends up indicating is how much chance will end up getting involved in the success or failure determination when the character attempts to use said weapon. High skill, less chance of failure (to boil it down to some really simple terms).

It seems that what happens with something like Karma, whether in character or out, is that this element of chance is overridden, or side-stepped. Perhaps why I can see it as being OK as a specific mechanical effect is that it doesn't mess too much with that random element. For example, one could re-roll and still fail. It's when something becomes certain that it gets hinky, for me.

I'm calling it The Uncertainty Principle of Gaming - cause you know me, I like shiny terms. Mechanics, whether meta-game or in character, that remove the uncertainty of a situation will step on my buzz.  Not necessarily your buzz, not necessarily Joe Story Gamer's buzz, not necessarily Average Dragonsfoot Poster's buzz - my buzz. I think.  Right now.  As I drift off to sleep.

Eh...I'm still working on it.... :D

Quote from: James J SkachAfter reading your response to monsieur blakkie, it gets even murkier in my head. Take your sword example.  There's a stat or skill or attribute that's meant to indicate how good the character is with the sword, right? But what it really ends up indicating is how much chance will end up getting involved in the success or failure determination when the character attempts to use said weapon. High skill, less chance of failure (to boil it down to some really simple terms).

It seems that what happens with something like Karma, whether in character or out, is that this element of chance is overridden, or side-stepped. Perhaps why I can see it as being OK as a specific mechanical effect is that it doesn't mess too much with that random element. For example, one could re-roll and still fail. It's when something becomes certain that it gets hinky, for me.

I'm calling it The Uncertainty Principle of Gaming - cause you know me, I like shiny terms. Mechanics, whether meta-game or in character, that remove the uncertainty of a situation will step on my buzz.  Not necessarily your buzz, not necessarily Joe Story Gamer's buzz, not necessarily Average Dragonsfoot Poster's buzz - my buzz. I think.  Right now.  As I drift off to sleep.

Eh...I'm still working on it.... :D

See, and this is part of what I mean by meta-mechanic though. Karma is:
1. Derived from 1/2 the LUCK stat of the character.
2. Regenerates at the end of a game session (note: note in game time)
3. 1 point can be used for re-rolls.
4. 3 points to alter the story or enter a story effect (Bad guy trips allowing you to catch him).

Note, the effect is in game (You can't use Karma to get the GM to buy pizza) so is in-character but the mechanic are 1/2 out of game (regenerate at end of game session and 3 points to change the plot). So, yeah, Karma is a tricky one. However, the sword is in character, the effect, the item, the rules all deal with its effect in the setting. It will not supercede the setting rules. Karma can. It can make up = down, night into day, and alter the way the setting works.

To me, that is meta-mechanics.

As to the random element, yes, I have had play testers and customers disgruntled about that. I never thought it would have been such an issue but, meh, it was.

Bill

A game like Burning Wheel impressed me because some of those "hippy" mechanics were a way to open up communication to the GM regarding how the player viewed their character.  The push buttons to spur the character were right there.  Creating setting pieces that players will react to can be hard and giving some of that responsibility to the players seemed to be a fairly good idea.  Granted I have heard quite a bit of criticism regarding the tone of the book.  

I don't think they're necessarily needed but I think they provide a fine framework of things to keep in mind as a GM even playing different games.  Communicate with the players about what they want out of a game.  Sounds simple but it's just as easy not to do.

Quote from: HinterWelt>>> 4. 3 points to alter the story or enter a story effect (Bad guy trips allowing you to catch him).

That's where you lose me, and I agree with James that the non-random of it part of the problem. Especially since good things can come from it.

Shadowrun 3 and prior had the Hand Of God, you permanently burned your Karma Pool to avoid certain death (Shadowrun is generally a deadly if you get caught in a bad spot, like in a firefight without cover). Very expensive. Further you only got to use it once for the entire character's life. And here is another important part. It didn't get you out of trouble, the result was not a 'good' situation. It was just that you weren't dead. You got another chance to dig yourself out but you had to use your Skills and wits to do that. Oh, and you couldn't rely on the bonus dice from your Karma Pool because you just blew that away.

I can live with that. Partly because I'll hold my nose and take the lesser of the evils. I can even live with the SR4 version which only permanently burns a point of Edge (a stat bought up just like any other character stat) which is roughly the equivalent of few sessions worth of Karma (more or less because stat cost is a sliding scale) and can be reused more than once in the character's lifetime.

It's like a grading list of:
- does it just give you a chance?
- is it semantically tied to the character's abilities?
- how often can it happen?
- are the results 'good' or just 'not quite as devistating'
- is it a really 'tough' game otherwise? is this something I'll have a lot of demand for, moreso than how often it can be used? basically is it a saftey valve that'll only blow when the tension gets too much or is it something that won't let the tension build up
- does it fit the setting
- is earning the chance to do this a character thing (as opposed to a player thing like rewarding good IC roleplaying)

Quote from: GunslingerGranted I have heard quite a bit of criticism regarding the tone of the book.

"Say it with me: P-l-a-y-e-r P-r-i-o-r-i-t-i-e-s."

When the Ranting Imp shows up in the border next to a paragraph strong words are used. :) I often found myself laughing when I first read the rules.

Of course that section isn't directed at the GM at all, the audience there is largely the players, but it is understandable that's going to rub the wrong way when read by someone who is a GM because they are actually a fustrated player and/or fustrated writer. :^)  That's why the Ranting Imp is there, and the warning about the Ranting Imp back at the start of the book. "Take what [Ranting Imp] says with a grain of salt. For example 'I wish Luke would just shut up.'"

I was thinking that the game strikes many a person as anti-D&D and the ranting imp strikes people as a player/GM scorned.  Wrapping your head around something unintuitive to the games your are used to playing and being taunted by the writer.  

I largely took them as frustrations I've also had as a player/GM and easily identified with them in context.  Like caustic Sage Advice columns within the book.

The only way in which it is "anti-D&D" IMO is that it does some things differently. It removes/negates a lot of the "jerk" antisocial strategies, if not expectations, to gaming the system (badgering the DM and such).

I don't think it is coincidence that of the few people I've personally seen play BWR that actually dislike it are the people that are the most difficult to deal with playing D&D. When someone is heavily vested in being a dick to get what they want I probably shouldn't have been surprised that they find themselves lost and angry when the game doesn't provide those same opportunities.

EDIT: And IME they don't need to read the book to pick up on that.

I don't know if it counts as 'hippie' but i like the idea of only players rolling dice, the GM doesn't have to roll for anyone/thing.