narrativist story games and RPG systems separate character-driven scenes from scenes where conflict is resolved in a procedural way against the environment or versus another player.
The first place I encountered this was in the gm-less cooperative RPG Archipelago 2nd Edition (2009), where anyone at any time can tell another player “That might not be quite so easy”. This requires that player to draw one of 16 different resolution cards that might read “No, and not only does the character fail, something unrelated also goes wrong.” or “Yes, but only if the character choose to make a certain sacrifice”. A third player adjudicates the results of resolution cards for the caller and for the player called. I found these results were very close to something that I’ve always admired in the Fate Core (2013) system, where failure is instead “Succeed at a serious cost”, ties are “Succeed at a minor cost” and an excessive win is “Succeed with Style”, which I find supports leading the players to narrativist-style play.
A more recent game, Robin D. Laws' Hillfolk (2013) RPG, explicitly separates what Laws calls “Dramatic Scenes” from “Procedural Scenes”. Dramatic scenes in Hillfolk are where players conflict over the withholding or releasing of a desired emotional reward — such as gaining approval for an idea by the petitioner or inflaming the petition-granter to anger. These contrast with Procedural scenes, which have an entirely distinct conflict mechanic that use three kinds of colored tokens, bidding techniques, and the draw from a deck of cards.
Fitting its Old West theme, Jorj Dunne's Western City (2008) gm-less cooperative resolves dramatic conflicts between players using thematically appropriate poker chips, which are bid up between players with a raise, poker style, until someone can't bid any higher. The winner looses all his chips, which are then split up among the other players, leaving any remainders in the pot for the next conflict.
Jason Morningstar’s Fiasco (2009) doesn't have either a procedural scene system or a player-vs-player conflict system. Ideally all decisions about what happens are decided through table consensus or are based on what best serves dramatic necessity or the theme of the game — whether the players are trying to open a safe door or competing for the love of a supporting character. This consensual approach works great with the typical 3 or 4 experienced players.
However, I've found that playing Fiasco with larger groups, especially one-shot groups at conventions, are a bit more difficult. I personally find Fiasco easiest with a total of 3 or 4 people — or perhaps 5 if everyone is experienced. However, my local game convention requires that game must support at least 6 people to be listed and scheduled, as there are just not enough rooms at the hotel for all whom wish to game. Getting 6 people in a Fiasco game to come to a consensus can be a challenge when we need to quickly resolve a procedure or conflict. This can even happen with a smaller number of players, if there are some new to Fiasco and story games in general.
The next time this happens in a Fiasco game I am facilitating, I will suggest that we use the dice that the players have received to resolve the procedural or conflict scene Archipeligo-style, using the following traditional Fiasco-style 6xdd6 table. The establishing player(s) can roll one dice and how that might apply the subresult #1 into the story as a default. The resolving player(s) for the scene can either accept the procedural roll's default subresult of #1, or roll a 2nd dice to get one of the 6 sub-results for that option. This has not been playtested yet with Fiasco, but as it is relatively close to Archipelago I think it should work.
In many other kinds of story games, having a procedural mechanic can be very useful when the genre, theme or specific situation in the game requires suspense over drama or suspense over consensus.
In my own gm-less cooperative game design, players start with 5 dice, and bid who establishes the procedural scene, and then bid for who resolves. If more than two dice are bid, all winning dice are rolled together, and the establisher can remove any dice rolled until there are only two, and the resolver can decide which of the two dice is which for resolving the table.
On major caveat to this table — dice are random, so you can have a run of good or bad luck that can hurt dramatic needs. Even a card version of this table, which may see to be more arbitrary (i.e. less random over time as cards are revealed from the deck), I think even in the most procedural of story games it would be rare to have 36 pulls from the deck, which makes a deck just as random as dice. However, I think a deck could work well in a narrative-style LARP, making the overall odds of success and failure for everyone to be 50/50.
The table itself is licensed CC-BY — let me know if it works and is useful to you in some way, and I always welcome advice on how to simplify/clarify it.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
An area that a singular author or gm has an advantage in storytelling over a team of players is in the area of misdirection and plot twists. If the players collectively plan these in advance, the drama in the twist may suffer or even be lost in play.
Plot twists are not required in all story games, but they are essential color for many types of genres, such as the caper, noir, tragedy, soap, etc. Though plot twists may be required for these genres, for more ordinary dramas they also can serve as glue between acts — connecting together disparate plotlines, styles, or episodes of a story into a larger continuous thread.
The gm-less cooperative Fiasco (2009) accomplishes plot twists by using what they call a Tilt. The Tilt happens in the middle between the two acts of a standard Fiasco game. The player with the most dark dice picks a category, and the player with the most light dice picks the sub-category on the Tilt table, and then vis-a-versa. This results in two surprise attributes that are added to the game in subsquent play, such as Guilt: Someone develops a conscience or Deception: A secret goes public. The players then decide together when to “discover” those twists in the second act, or establish retcon (retroactive continuity) into play with a flashback scene to create the twist.
Fiasco offers two different tables, the dark and often cruelly humorous “Hard Tilt” table in the original book, and a second “Soft Tilt” table in Fiasco Companion (2011), which offers lighter, more socially-focused plot twists suitable for more light-hearted Fiasco playsets.
Fiasco rules require two plot twists at once, which is probably overkill for many story games. However, the use of multiple plot twists is particularly important for the tone of caper and noir plots, which is what Fiasco does a great job simulating. Thomas Leitch in Crime Films (2002) observes:
“ambiguity and irresolution are at the heart of Fargo’s comedy, which […] works by systematically depriving viewers of any single privileged perspective from which to interpret its outrageous events”There very few Fiasco playsets that offer their own custom Tilt table. Most notably the Star Wars spoof Lord Doomicus and His Giant Battle Planet has its own Tilt table with such thematically evocative results as an (Un)natural Disaster: Alien virus with un-expected side effects or It's Business: Embarrassment leads to rage for Lord Doomicus, and the Secrets of NIMH-like Rat Patrol, has results like Withdrawal: “We’re all getting stupider” and Retrieval: In Dr. John Sutcliffe’s soft hands.
Seeking more varieties of plot twists, I dove into a variety of sources, most notably:
- The original two Fiasco Tilt tables
- the excellent TV Tropes wiki
- a sidebar in S. John Ross’ useful The Big List of RPG Plots
- Harvey Ismuth’s comic illustration of the 42 Essential 3rd Act Twists (which led me back to Aristotle’s advice on Tragedy in Poetics).
- Johnn Four's Left Hooks: 24 Plot Twist Ideas & Design Patterns from his Roleplaying Tips blog
- Chuck Wendig's 25 Turns, Pivots, and Twists to Complicate your Story
- a variety of list of best (and worst) movie and tv plot twists,
- and and some excellent organizational advice by Stephen Morffew of Step Into RPGs, a reader of an early draft of this table.
As I comment in my Fiasco Relationships post, I believe that the best Fiasco playset tables should offer customized results that fit their theme and setting, rather than using this Generic Plot Twists table. But I've seen very few playsets to date that offer custom Tilt tables. Thus you can try using my Plot Twists table as a subsitute for the default Hard or Soft Tilt tables, or if you are a playset author, use it as inspiration for creating your own customized Tilt table.
These plot twists also may be generally useful to GMs of other story games, such as Fate Core (2013) or Powered by the Apocalypse games, or even authors of fiction. I’m currently using it as part of a cooperative game that I’m designing. The table itself is licensed CC-BY, and I always welcome advice on how to simplify/clarify it.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Ever since Gygax published the first role-playing game “Dungeons & Dragons” in 1972, RPGs & story games have largely been “setting first, character second”. This essentially means that the player is given very early on a protagonist to identify with, support and grow, within the context of larger world created by the GM. This is a powerful design principle, as it draws the players into the story and a “suspension of disbelief” using their emotional attachment to their protagonist character.
The challenge to “character second” design is that this gives the players a subset of “player agency” I call “character agency”, where they exclusively control the story as it relates to that character, except where it relates to the “setting agency” which is controlled by the GM. This can make it difficult when different players have different or conflicting goals for their protagonists, or in story play when the narration and drama require fellow protagonists to sacrifice themselves, fail, to suffer, or even die.
Most recent narrativist story game designs largely follow that model. Even Universalis (2001–2011), one of the older and more sophisticated story games, characters are typically created immediately after setting. The same is true for a number of the more popular cooperative story games such as Penny For Your Thoughts (2009), Western City (2008), Microscope (2011), Archipelago 3rd Edition (2012), Okult (2013), Kingdom (2013), etc.
Like the other story games, Fiasco (2009) also defines the broad setting and theme first, by the players’ selection of their playset. However, one of the real innovations of Fiasco is how it asks the players to first define pairs of relationships, as well as needs that are shared by those relationships — and asks the players NOT to define characters or select protagonists until this is complete. You typically will have 4-pairs of relationships on the table first, plus four shared needs, before you decide which two your personal protagonist will be connected to.
This design pattern of “relationships and needs second” is quite powerful, as it lowers “character agency” without affecting “player agency”. This is important in Fiasco, as some, or even all the characters will fail spectacularly, in support of the players creating an enjoyable narrative for the story.
I see this approach influencing other story-oriented RPGs, such as the introduction of Hx (history, sometimes called strings or debts) in Powered by the Apocalypse (2010) games, the creation of generic game aids like Backstory Cards, and game designers like Ryan Macklin recommending Decoupling Aspects from Phases in the Fate role-playing game.
In a great Fiasco playset, an evocative & scenario specific relationship is much better than a generic one. For instance: "FAMILY: The black sheep and golden child", "WORK: Business rivals in a dying industry", "FRIENDS: Coolest kid in school and fawning minion".
However, sometimes you wish to have a broader selection of relationships to draw from. I have read through 20+ playsets, looking at their commonalities, to create this more generic set of relationships, using a Fiasco-style table, to inspire players. Just roll a d6 twice. You’ll still need to fit these relationships into your setting and add some evocative color, but this table gives a broader range of choices.
I also believe that this relationships table may be more generally useful to players or GMs of other story games, such as Fate or those Powered by the Apocalypse — I’m currently using it as part of a cooperative game that I’m designing. I welcome ideas on how to simplify/clarify this table.
I’m also working on an equivalent composite table for needs/impulses/desires.