It is currently Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:32 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: EoS: PA spending & counter bid
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
Seanachai wrote:
And there's always the storyteller's ability to counter-bid.
I'm not quite sure I like that idea, but let's hear it from others. For me, PAs are the player tool. If the referee could bid them over, they would lose their dramatic effect.

Also, what to do with player-player conflict where both can spend PAs? My solution would be that PAs cancel each other and you can't spend more than one. In effect, by one PC can spend a PA to win over other PC, but if the other PC also dishes out a PA, then we roll and there's no bidding war.

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: PA spending & counter bid
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:39 am
Posts: 346
Location: Orange County, California
The counter-bid was the idea expressed in another thread for social combat.

See: viewtopic.php?f=42&t=556

It is also used in the very narrativist game, Dogs in the Vineyard.

So far in EOS we have:

1. Players have a metagame resource (Drama/PA points).
2. They can spend it to introduce story elements. Sometimes this might be in order to achieve an intention and other times it might just be for flair or flavor.

What's the limit? In other games (see Cortex games like Serenity, Battlestar Galatica RPG) it is usually described as a cosmetic change: a sword hanging over the mantle the player can grab, an NPC already introduced by the referee is actually a contact of the player.

But in EOS we have made mention of introducing characters, changing the disposition of named characters toward the players, and many other things that can really change the storyline.

We have then three options. The first is to leave it up to the referee to saw whether it the element is too much or too important to be bought. The problem here is that you have player who has already thought of something very creative and has decided he's willing to give up his valuable metagame resource for it - so it must be important to him.

The second option is to introduce a spelled-out limit ("Can use it to do this, but not do this"). Players would have to remember this usage or else get their hopes dashed. The problem here is that the points may not do what the player originally intended them to do. In the end he might feel the same way as he did in option 1.

The third option is to introduce the limit as a game within the game. The player may end up not getting what he wants, but with the bidding game, he'll always get something. Like with tests, he may not achieve his full intention, but a compromised failure will feel better than getting a "No, you can't".

Here's a brief sketch of what I was thinking.

    1. Players spend Plot Points to introduce elements. These elements serve to reach some sort of goal. If this has the potential of changing the story dramatically, the storyteller has the option of countering it.
    2. When the storyteller counters he is asking the player, "This is a very important change that will alter the story significantly. How important is this to you?"
    3. The player answers by bidding an additional Plot Point. Each time he "raises", he is telling the storyteller how important this element is to him.
    4. Once the player has put forth the Plot Point and described the element, it is an established part of the story. As long as it fits the context the story (no circus clowns in Middle Earth), the storyteller shouldn't say no.
    5. However, if the storyteller counters, it means the element has not achieved the player's intention.
    6. The player has the option of raising again until he or the storyteller concedes.
    7. If the storyteller "folds" then the player gains all of the elements he has introduced and achieves the intention. He loses the PA points he bid. If the player folds, he loses none of the Points but gains all of the elements he has introduced.

I think this is an adequate risk-reward break down. Here's the court room example again:

Seanachai wrote:
GM: The twelve jury members begin to mumble among themselves. They clearly aren't convinced the cardinal is guilty.
Matt: I spend a Drama point. One of the jury members is Leon, the brother of one of the victims. He catches my character's eye. His face says, "This cardinal has to get justice!"
GM: Interesting. (Puts out a Drama point token to counter-bid)...but you also see that one of the cardinal's goons has also found his way onto the jury. You recognize him from the fight in the courtyard.
Jon: What do we do guys? We can call him out right now.
Matt: No, it's too dangerous, and I have 1 Drama left. I spend another Drama point. Leon also recognizes the cardinal's guard.
GM: Sorry, Matt, but (puts out another Drama point) the jury foreman seems under direction from the cardinal's man. He stands and delivers the "Not Guilty" verdict. You can see Leon can barely hold back his rage. Go ahead and take back your Drama points - but Leon and the cardinal's man are now characters you can interact with.
Jon: Perhaps justice will be had!


Thoughts?

_________________
"Remember it well, then... this night, this great victory. So that in the years ahead, you can say, 'I was there that night, with Arthur, the King!' . . . For it is the doom of men that they forget."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: PA spending & counter bid
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Seanachai wrote:
The counter-bid was the idea expressed in another thread for social combat.

...

Thoughts?


I dislike this idea.

The referees job in a narrativist game is to frame the scene and introduce complications. There should be no metagame resource spend required for the referee to do this. The players drive the plot through their PA choices and descriptions.

If the referee introduces a new plot arc and none of the players pick up that plot arc and turn it into a PA then that plot arc is dead. The referee is to abandon it (and stop wasting everyone's time).

When metagame resource is finite, if the referee can effectively veto the results of a metagame spend because the player has no more resource with which to back it up, then that will simply be frustrating for the player.

I mean would we contemplate the referee vetoing PA choices? The referee can encourage, the referee can point out potantial issues, but veto? I'm not sure about that. Vetoing a metagame resource feels like a similar issue to me.

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: PA spending & counter bid
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
Well, then again the referee should have some vetoing powers. If the PA is too vague, then it should be vetoed until it becomes specific enough to be a useful in the game.

Also, there should IMO be some limits indeed what could be done with spending PA points. You can't make the six fingered man to be your friend. You can't make the femme fatale to love you. And you can't just spend a point to have all your troubles resolved.

I don't think a bidding war is a solution though.

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: PA spending & counter bid
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:39 am
Posts: 346
Location: Orange County, California
Ian.Plumb wrote:
I dislike this idea. ...The referees job in a narrativist game is to frame the scene and introduce complications.

higgins wrote:
Well, then again the referee should have some vetoing powers. ... You can't make the six fingered man to be your friend. You can't make the femme fatale to love you...I don't think a bidding war is a solution though.


OK, if you guys don't like the biding game-within-a-game, then we're left with just saying no. It should be explained then that a storyteller says no to a scene change when it threatens an established story "fact" - ie. something that has already happened "on screen". For example, if the storyteller has already introduced a character dislikes the characters, a Drama/PA point doesn't change that.

In fact, it's kind of like improvisation games you play in theater class. In improv games you can't say No or change what someone has already set up - all you can do is say, "Yes, and also..." or "Yes, however..." This is actually what I was imagining with the bid game. The storyteller was never vetoing the player's idea or use of Drama/PA. It was just adding a complication to it that the player was allowed to respond to.

Perhaps it would also be easier to word it in the upcoming document as a cooperative exercise. This just came up on another thread and Michael says it nicely:

Michael wrote:
... a player can use Drama to pretty much bring about any minor change he desires. For major changes he has to tell the referee the gist of what he wants to achieve, but specifics are then implicated by the referee. "I want to have an opportunity to have a word with the king", would be an example of a major change (unless the character did regularly converse with the king anyway). The player could use Drama to kinda "order" the situation from the referee, but actual implementation and exact details are still up to referee discretion. No matter how many points the player is willing to spend.

I feel that this is necessary so that the referee retains a modicum of control over the story. Without it, the players could spend a lot of Drama to completely upturn any given constellation in the campaign.

_________________
"Remember it well, then... this night, this great victory. So that in the years ahead, you can say, 'I was there that night, with Arthur, the King!' . . . For it is the doom of men that they forget."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: PA spending & counter bid
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:06 am
Posts: 1495
Location: Vienna, Austria, Europe
Just a quick reply here:

I think that bidding mechanics are great - for Narrativist games. In a Narr-Sim hybrid, I feel that the referee putting forth some token that the player gets if he excepts something for his character is too firmly in the Narr camp. I wouldn't like to see such a mechanic in EoS.

_________________
My real name is Michael; use it, if you like.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: PA spending & counter bid
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
Grettir wrote:
I think that bidding mechanics are great - for Narrativist games. In a Narr-Sim hybrid, I feel that the referee putting forth some token that the player gets if he excepts something for his character is too firmly in the Narr camp. I wouldn't like to see such a mechanic in EoS.
I'm in full agreement. Which works great for FATE does not necessarily work for EoS.

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: PA spending & counter bid
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Seanachai wrote:
OK, if you guys don't like the biding game-within-a-game, then we're left with just saying no. It should be explained then that a storyteller says no to a scene change when it threatens an established story "fact" - ie. something that has already happened "on screen". For example, if the storyteller has already introduced a character dislikes the characters, a Drama/PA point doesn't change that.

...

I feel that this is necessary so that the referee retains a modicum of control over the story. Without it, the players could spend a lot of Drama to completely upturn any given constellation in the campaign.


It should be the players policing each other. The referee is just one vote at the table. The referee can state why he doesn't like the outcome of a particular metagame spend but its up to the others at the table to say whether it's in or not. At least that's how I see it.

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: PA spending & counter bid
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:06 am
Posts: 1495
Location: Vienna, Austria, Europe
Seanachai wrote:
I feel that this is necessary so that the referee retains a modicum of control over the story. Without it, the players could spend a lot of Drama to completely upturn any given constellation in the campaign.
Ian.Plumb wrote:
It should be the players policing each other. The referee is just one vote at the table. The referee can state why he doesn't like the outcome of a particular metagame spend but its up to the others at the table to say whether it's in or not.

In almost all cases I'm all for the referee just being one more participant at the table with no right to lord it over his players, but I'm a bit worried in this instance: It might well be asking too much of many referees demanding that they go along with whatever the players pitch them; especially in the instances when players implement major changes themselves, the balls could easily be too curved for many referees. That's why I proposed that major changes are only outlined by the player spending the Drama but fleshed out by the referee in such a way he is comfortable with but that is still in the spirit of the player's wishes.

After all, we should not forget the referee is not just at the table to ensure that the players enjoy themselves, but also to enjoy himself as well.

_________________
My real name is Michael; use it, if you like.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: PA spending & counter bid
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Grettir wrote:
It might well be asking too much of many referees demanding that they go along with whatever the players pitch them; especially in the instances when players implement major changes themselves, the balls could easily be too curved for many referees. That's why I proposed that major changes are only outlined by the player spending the Drama but fleshed out by the referee in such a way he is comfortable with but that is still in the spirit of the player's wishes.


Fair call -- I'm all for that.

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: PA spending & counter bid
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 2:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:39 am
Posts: 346
Location: Orange County, California
OK, so in summary, what I'm hearing is that even the most narrativist of us doesn't think it's a good idea for EOS, but we seem to agree that there should be some explicit wording/suggestions about how ST should adjudicate how players alter the story through Points.

As long as the social contract of the table recognizes that they don't get to completely re-work the scene just by dropping a Drama/PA, then we should all be happy - and it might be that my players (who are fans of Dogs in the Vineyard-style engines) may even want to do the bid game.

Mark another loss for Seanachai but another victory for the game! ;)

_________________
"Remember it well, then... this night, this great victory. So that in the years ahead, you can say, 'I was there that night, with Arthur, the King!' . . . For it is the doom of men that they forget."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: PA spending & counter bid
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Seanachai wrote:
Mark another loss for Seanachai but another victory for the game! ;)


Given that we're driving this through PA spends perhaps we need to consider some-sort of mechanism that takes in multiple spends. If I, as a player, can add a Complication to another player's interaction -- surely they can counter-spend to veto it? I mean they might already have a big scene in mind that heads in a particular direction, the complication might really put a spanner in the works...

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: PA spending & counter bid
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
Ian.Plumb wrote:
Given that we're driving this through PA spends perhaps we need to consider some-sort of mechanism that takes in multiple spends. If I, as a player, can add a Complication to another player's interaction -- surely they can counter-spend to veto it?
I'd handle it one PA for one aspect. So, if one PC wants to complicate something, he can spend a PA and the other can also spend a PA to cancel it, but then that issue is off the table. If the first PC wants to complicate things further then he's being a jerk, but he also needs to pick another aspect he goes for.

Or could that be the rule? First counter bid blocks any further complications via the PA use?

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: PA spending & counter bid
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Ian.Plumb wrote:
Given that we're driving this through PA spends perhaps we need to consider some-sort of mechanism that takes in multiple spends. If I, as a player, can add a Complication to another player's interaction -- surely they can counter-spend to veto it?


higgins wrote:
I'd handle it one PA for one aspect. So, if one PC wants to complicate something, he can spend a PA and the other can also spend a PA to cancel it, but then that issue is off the table. If the first PC wants to complicate things further then he's being a jerk, but he also needs to pick another aspect he goes for.

Or could that be the rule? First counter bid blocks any further complications via the PA use?


What about if another player agrees with the first player, and also puts in a PA spend for the same Complication? It sound like people ganging up, but in the end it does help the referee determine how much emphasis to put on this Complication in the scene. This could be a way that players, or the referee, introduce "PA stubs" into the game -- things that could become the basis for a PA, if a player really wants to take it up.

For example, I spend a PA point in order to bring a particular NPC into the scene. Another player also has a use for that NPC being in the scene so they put forward a PA point as well. Nobody vetoes, so the referee comes up with a reason for the NPC being there -- the idea for a backstory at least -- and that NPC is added to the scene.

The scene plays out, the presence of that NPC somewhat complicating the scene for one or more of the players. One of the players decides that they want to know why that NPC happened to be at the right place at the right time -- so they create a PA around this. The referee now knows that the player is interested in the backstory, so the referee fleshes it out and provides the necessary hooks in later scenes to work out the details.

But if nobody builds the PA around that NPC then the backstory idea simply gets noted with the NPCs details and the character filed away, the Complication limited to the scene.

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: EoS: PA spending & counter bid
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:39 am
Posts: 346
Location: Orange County, California
higgins wrote:
So, if one PC wants to complicate something, he can spend a PA and the other can also spend a PA to cancel it

I'm surprised you said this given that you were unhappy with idea of points not being able to accomplish anything (which isn't what bidding was about).

I would follow the improv rule: If a PC pays a Point, that Complication is there. The storyteller has the right to say, "Yes, however..." so that it might not achieve the full intention, but the element should exist in the story now - at least at some compromised level. Other players also have this right assuming they spend a Point as well.

Scenario: Liam has PA: Win Princess Gwyneth's heart through gallantry. Jon is playing Liam's overly jealous character who has always been overshadowed by his brother's accomplishments. In one scene they are returning to the palace after defeating the evil duke Bellemont.

GM: You're standing in the lobby waiting for the princess to show up. Her handmaidens look at you enamored and yet also repulsed by the blood still on your gambesons.
Jon: I spend a Point. Gwyneth sees me first just as she hears one of the maidens say, "I heard it was sir Jon who slew the Duke!"
Liam: What the...? Really? No way! I spent a Point - that doesn't happen!
GM: Sorry, Liam. You see Princess Gwyneth enter. Just as she does so, her gaze first falls on the bloodied and bold Jon. You see a handmaiden lean over to whisper something in her ear. Her eyes go wide and she sees Jon almost as if for the first time.
Liam: Fine - in that case I spend a Point as well. As Jon bows, he falls on his as--
GM: Sorry, Liam, you can't use Points to directly affect other players like that. You could spend it to turn the conversation in your favor though.
Liam: OK, then for my point, I want the truth of who really killed the duke to be brought up.

_________________
"Remember it well, then... this night, this great victory. So that in the years ahead, you can say, 'I was there that night, with Arthur, the King!' . . . For it is the doom of men that they forget."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group              Designed by QuakeZone