A dramatic scene needs to answer a dramatic question. In the Alice example from the book, the dramatic question is something like ‘can Alice get evidence proving the alliance between the Ambassador and the Count before the party is over?’ If Alice runs out of raises, she no longer has any currency to use to answer that question. She will have to face any consequences for failing. Once the dramatic question is answered, you should end the scene.
This doesn’t necessarily mean you have to end the scene when the character gets what they came for. In the Miranda example from the book, which poses a different dramatic question even though it is part of the same sequence, the question might be ‘can Miranda get evidence proving the alliance between the Ambassador and the Count and escape the embassy with it?’ She might spend her last raise to steal a letter that proves the conspiracy just as the Ambassador himself rounds the corner. She has no more narrative currency to use to escape the embassy undetected and must now face the consequences. This doesn’t mean you have to take away player agency. Players should always have a lot of say over how a scene ends and what shape their success or failure takes. But she can’t just make a hide check. The dice can’t save her. That’s how you build tension.
I don’t like the rules for improvised actions, but I don’t like the proposed changes either. I don’t want players looking at their character sheets during dramatic sequences. Penalties for improvising should follow from the fiction, but we already have a mechanic for that. The rules for consequences can handle improvised actions very easily.
The approach you use for a risk is how you intend to answer the dramatic question. It’s your plan. When you deviate from your plan, that’s a good time for the GM to add a consequence if it makes narrative sense. You want to switch from flirting to sneaking? The person you were flirting with is watching you. Spend an extra raise. Want to sheath your sword and draw out a pistol? Your hand is slick with the blood of the guard you just dispatched, spend an extra raise or drop your sword.
Higginbotham[A dramatic scene needs to answer a dramatic ... must now face the consequences.]
None of this is in question in my mind. IMO, you are totally correct re: the rules as written.
But, this -Higginbotham[This doesn’t mean you have to take away player agency. Players should always have a lot of say over how a scene ends and what shape their success or failure takes. But she can’t just make a hide check. The dice can’t save her. That’s how you build tension.]- I totally disagree with. Oh, I definitely agree that you shouldn't take away a player's agency. What I am saying is, the rules force you to do just that. The rules literally prevent you from giving the players agency.
While the social/interpersonal aspect of player agency is complex and gray, from a mechanics standpoint, player agency is pretty black and white. The rules are supposed to be impartial. That is how mechanics cotribute to player agency. The player does something, and the rules determine if they succeed (or degree of success), not the whims of the GM. Granted, the GM can be manipulative with this. In D&D the GM can pit a high level monster with all kinds of bells and whistles against the PCs. But, still the monster gets a limited number of activations, and it has a specific AC and attack bonus, etc. If the PCs roll really well, and/or make good choices, they can still triumph. Failing that, they can always try to escape or otherwise interact with the situation. They always have agency in that, they can always decide what their characters do, and then there is a way to resolve their attempt. And this resolution method, has a distinct objective component. Within 7th sea 2nd ED, AS have this. The GM sets out everything that raises can be spent on as the start of the round, the players roll, and then spend. Its objective. The GM isn't supposed to decrease the damage which occurs at raise 2 if the hero with a bunch of wounds rolls only 2 raises. Similarly, the GM isn't supposed to just up the damage (or have it occur earlier) if a hero rolls 6 raises. Again, the GM has a lot of control. The GM can make the next round tougher or easier. But still, this constitutes influence over the decision, not just deciding it.
That is fundamentally different from what happens in a DS. You give the example of Miranda. In what way does she have any real** control over her success or failure? At the start of the sequence, the GM will know how many raises she has. So, if she rolls 3 raises, the GM will know the answer to the dramatic question is "no" if the GM presents 4 problems, but "yes," if he/she presents 3 or less. How does Miranda have any control over this? Remember, if Miranda is presented with a problem, her only option, per the rules, is to spend a raise to overcome it. Otherwise, her attempt automatically fails. So, assuming she wants to complete her goals, its not apparent that she has a heck of a lot of options for raise expenditure. It seems like everyone arguing for the rules as written seems to be "imagining" some space in the rules where Miranda's choices could objectively save her raises? Granted, there are going to be times when Miranda should be able to predict that a certain action will have certain consquences, and that taking tact A will be tougher/more complicated than taking tact B. But, certainly, this would not be the case in all, or even most, situations. And, if it was, that would seriously hinder the GM's ability to throw in twists, turns, reveals, suprises and other sorts of things that make stories more fun/interesting. Is it possible for Miranda to overcome an obstacle by spending less than 1 raise? Not according to the rules (granted, the GM decides what costs a raise or not, but still, this doesn't solve the underlying problem). The DS presents itself as this freeform narrative space, but, in actual fact, its quite linear. Miranda has limited raises, and to actively influence the fiction she needs to spend those. And when the GM presents a new obstacle, she must spend again. There isn't a player controlled way to interact with an obstacle that translates into mechanical benefit. There is no space in there for her to circumvent the GM simply making her fail. The GM can always present one more problem, and she has to spend the raise or fail. Similarly, she almost can't fail if the GM wants to "let" her win. The GM simply just presents only as many problems as she has raises.
And, if Miranda rolls only a single raise, we could probably all agree, she fails. However, most of the time, the game will be played when heroes have 2-5 raises. So, explain to me how one plays a DS without the GM just deciding whether or not 2 raises wins, or if 3, or 4, or 5 are needed. That's the explanation you owe if you want to assert that the DS rules as written don't rob a player of his/her agency. As far as I can see, they do.
**Granted, if Miranda foolishly spends raises seducing random courtiers, winning drinking contests, or other superfluous activities, then yes, she will waste all of her raises and its her fault. But, I hardly think we want a mechanic where the only thing Miranda has control over is totally failing by having her character act like a nitwit. Also, if Miranda gets only 1 raise, ok, she fails.
Higginbotham[I don’t want players looking at their character sheets during dramatic sequences.]
I agree with you that immersion is good, and intuitive mechanics help that. However, I think not looking at a character sheet is poor metric to judge a rule by. I would rather a mechanic be otherwise good, but require occasional character sheet reference, than not require reference, and be bad. And, to be fair, my proposal is not overly complicated. Many players would not need to look at their character sheet for it, especially if they have played the character for multiple sessions. Its hardly 3.5 D&D grappling rules.
Higginbotham[Penalties for improvising should follow from the fiction, but we already have a mechanic for that. The rules for consequences can handle improvised actions very easily.]
I am not questioning the mechanics of the improvisation rules. I am questioningg their very premise with regards to DS. Again, I'm cool with improvisation as written for ASs and simple risks. You clearly have no problem with their premise in a DS. You are fine with penalizing a hero for switching from flirting to sneaking, but want to incorporate it better into the fiction, such that we don't postulate some sort of ridiculous existential angst as the reason why switching from flirting to sneaking costs an extra raise. Admirable effort, but I'm not buying it. It still has all of the negative consequences I laid out above, and the underlying premise still doesn't make any more sense. My proposal simply acknowledges the conflict between the rules consideration and the narrative consideration, and edges the point of compromise towards the narrative side.
Higginbotham[The approach you use for a risk is how you intend to answer the dramatic question.]
Yes, but again, as per my above comments, this is problematic in a DS. A DS is by its nature wide and slow, not narrow and fast. The rules consideration for the extra raise cost makes sense. Let's avoid all this rolling, make one roll and narrate our way through. But, we can't just have heroes rolling their best approach and then doing whatever they want. Enter, improvisation rules. However, no actual person is going to have difficulty switching from sneaking to flirting or vice versa presuming they have some moments to decide/adjust. Certainly if the established fiction suggested a consequence (i.e. it already makes sense someone is watching because of the situation's context) or the GM wanted to add a consequence because its GM perogative, that's fair game. But, the consequence shouldn't occur because the hero made the switch in approach. Simply no narrative grounds for that.
Higginbotham[It’s your plan. When you deviate from your plan, that’s a good time for the GM to add a consequence if it makes narrative sense.]
I think you are making a false equivalency here. Googling approach I get approach (n): a way of dealing with something. Googling plan, I get: plan (n) a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something OR an intention or decision about what one is going to do. Clearly the equivalency is between the approach definition and the latter plan definition. Yes, if plan was equal to the former definition -a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something- then it makes sense that a deviation from the plan would cost something extra. Alas, its not. Plan here is -an intention or decision about what one is going to do. Deciding that you are going to sneak in some place does not mean that subsequently flirting with some is somehow harder...unless, again, the surrounding fictional circumstances indicate otherwise. But, its not the switch that should do it.
I refrained to comment until I playtested the dramatic sequences. Now that I’ve done it, I can share my thoughts:
We understand player agency as the possibility to take meaningful decisions in a given environment – an environment protected by a kind of ‘Rule of Law’. I’d call this the ‘bourgeois democracy’ principle. (digression : I don’t think John Wick cares much about the Rule of Law approach. His approach is that of a benevolent ruler, who makes up ‘reality’ as fit, often creating an ‘illusion’ of agency. His suggestion in GM’s books since the first edition is very clear : he suggests cheating and creating multiple alternate realities. He will not only change the future based on character actions, but also the past based on player actions.
This is not inherently wrong and in small amounts it’s even necessary : after all, if you’ve thought of most of the whys in advance, then the game becomes a puzzle of players trying to outguess you. Once the players get to know you, things can become predictable. Sometimes one of their ideas is cooler than your own. And 7thSea is a game about being cool, not a gritty game which has life-like anti-climactic moments.
But you cannot get too much outside the Rule of Law if the players don’t actually want to be tricked. Ok, they trust you won’t screw them, but will they really tell you their thoughts about who’s the murderer, knowing that you could change the story to make that person the murderer ? Many players don’t like this. They want to believe they achieved something in game. I’m one of them.
So, if you’re also like me, what do you do? Well, for starters don’t get literally all the paternalistic advice of the GM section: incorporate it in your toolbox, but overdo it. That’s relatively easy to do.)
But what happens when a system has rules which require the GM to ‘cheat’ for them to work? This type of rules are useless to players who like the Rule of Law principle. Are dramatic sequence such a case ?
It’s not easy to understand what makes dramatic sequences not work as action sequences (which follow almost the same rules) and skill challenges (D&D 4th Edition’s similar mechanic, particularly after it matured). You did indeed highlight the core, but let’s compare:
Aspect
Action Sequences
Dramatic Sequences
Skill Challenges
Core Mechanic
Roll, act, roll...
Roll, act, act...
Act, roll, act...
Initial State
Mostly predetermined
Loosely predetermined
Predetermined
Duration
Variable
Fixed by #of raises
Fixed
Available Approaches
Free
Free
Partially predefined
Success Condition
Partly clear
Unclear
Clear (but can vary slightly)
Teamwork incentives
Yes
Not explicit
Yes
Each action's weight is...
Slightly variable
Variable
Slightly variable
Approach Change
Discouraged within a round, encouraged from one round to the next
Discouraged
Slightly Encouraged
Partial Success
Through consequences
Through consequences or partial results
Through consequences
I can only assume that Dramatic Sequences made some unconventional choices in order to minimise the rolling required. It’s a noble goal, particularly considering that 7thSea Second Edition’s rolling is the second most complicated rolling I’ve seen in around 20 different RPG systems. What do we lose to achieve this goal? We see 3 or 4 possible problems in the table above.
Initially, my attention was drawn to the problem Darl Loh raised: the combination of a fixed duration and lack of a predefined number of actions required to achieve success. A player could theoretically achieve the goal with one raise OR could run out of all of his/her 10 raises. This has two aspects: As said, the DM can totally make up obstacles on the fly or render one approach mute. From my experience, this wasn’t a big issue in ‘low power’ characters. The amount of raises needed was pretty clear even without adding obstacles. A player wanted for example to convice an NPC about X, and had 3 raises. I thought of one obstacle, but they smartly muted it (the lines they said doing their action smartly circumvented the obstacle). Now the character has succeeded her primary task and had just a bit off spare time to do something extra with the night (the horizon of the challenge). I warned her that she needed to spent both of her remaining raises to change approach and sneak out of the building. Then she would be left with no actions – this means that 1) she was at my mercy if something bad happened in the road, 2) she would need to convey information to the person she wanted but not ‘convince’ or anything and then 3) she wouldn’t be able to sneak back into the building unnoticed. She totally knew that and decided to go for it. That’s player agency (she decided to accept the consequences of getting caught while coming back in) but also with room for GM nastiness (I could just have her attacked at the street and it would have immediately started an action sequence).
The situation above would have been different in situations where the primary action was harder. It could have needed 3 ‘immediately logical’ steps (thus spending all the character’s raises) and I could have added a few more obstacles on top, to make her fail. But I never in my first session needed to do that. From this perspective, the dramatic sequence rules, for low power characters, are compatible with the ‘rule of law’ approach.
Another issue which worried me was how to balance the fact that some characters will do a lot of ‘small’ actions and others a few ‘bold’ ones – when each action in theory consumes the same ‘currency’ (a raise). In practice I felt comfortable handling it, mostly because I had experience from similar minor problems with D&D skill challenges. Here’s the guidance I followed:
1) Discussions between heroes don’t consume actions (unless they’re very long). The same for short and non risky conveyance of information to friendly NPCs.
2) What’s ‘short’ depends on the total duration of the sequence. Talking for 10’ to a friendly NPC (without trying to insist/convince) isn’t an action in a sequence covering a whole night, but would be an action in a sequence covering half an hour.
3) Bold actions could, of course, have higher consequences. Yes, you will achieve your goal in fewer raises, but you will have to spend raises to avoid the consequences or assume them...
Of course there’s some GM judgement in this, but I felt it was as subtle as the best of the alternatives.
Another thing that worried me was the lack of a clear mechanism for encouraging teamwork in dramatic sequences. Even the examples show characters doing each one their own thing to achieve different goals. But this seems easy to fix. I believe that if we clarify that communication between heroes (within reasonable distance and time limits) does not spend actions, we create sufficient incentives for teamworking: a hero A with a thieving approach for example could be contacted by a hero B with tempting/chatting approach who just learned that character C has something interesting that hero A could steal.
What did cause some problems, though, was the fact that the success condition is unclear. Here I think it’s worth here to make a distinction between two cases:
1) When players can just collect partial successes, and try to complete their objectives later – in another opportunity for a dramatic sequence. In this case it doesn’t matter if they don’t fully ‘succeed’ in the first dramatic sequence – they’ve advanced their agendas based on their actions and decisions.
2) When players have a ‘now or never’ opportunity, where failure to meet their objectives by the end of the sequence is a hard failure.
I did experience one such case in my sample sessions: we had a social scene where heroes both had to make alliances and advance their personal stories AND had to discover a plot on time. The players had made serious advances in all side objectives, but I did have to ‘nudge’ events to the players’ favour to push them to a partial success to the discovering of the plot, because they were simply looking elsewhere. The fact that the players use the same pool of actions to advance their own agenda and the communal challenge makes sense but it can be problematic. In these cases I suggest to subtly list any group goals early in the dramatic sequence. This is another lesson from skill challenges ;).
So, if we follow this advice, do dramatic sequences work? In my first experience I’d say mostly yes, but they’re not any more dramatic than alternatives, just different. Let’s see again the aforementioned example of a character wanting to sneak out of the house, reach the port, talk to an NPC, and sneak back in:
1. With Dramatic Sequence: I decide to not even roll, fail and get a Hero Point. I can also decide to roll. Let’s say I get 3 raises. I can sneak (1), reach the port (2), talk (free in this case) and come back (3). Then I will get caught when sneaking back in the house. There’s a tension in deciding to proceed with the action despite the consequences (even more knowing that if something happens along the road I might have to fight or I might not have enough time to even get back to the house). In the end the tension is more about deciding between 3 possible futures.
2. With skill challenges it could be a 4 successes before 2 failures challenge. There’s tension even in sneaking out. If I get caught and don’t find a way to bluff my way around it, I might totally fail my goal. But I might also do my goal without suffering any consequences. The tension here is more about taking risks and following the dice results.
I would argue that in a Dramatic Sequence the "Success Condition" is pretty clear. "I am trying to sneak into the Duke's home to steal his plans for world domination" or "I am going to masquerade as the Lady of the House in order to get the secret meeting location from her contact." The very nature of definining what the character is doing determines the Success Condition. How successful you are or how close to get to succeeding is governed by raises and might be unclear.
Thanks John for stepping in! You're right, but when the goal is to get information or uncover a plot that you don't even know it exists before starting the sequence then even the success condition could be unclear. That's where the GM needs to step in early in the sequence and give a clear hint that there is such a goal.
In other cases what's unclear is indeed how succesful you are. You might not know whether you've convinced X person or whether you've uncovered all that there is to uncover
I will second Tec Goblin here. This point is relates to one of the chief practical problems I have with how DSs work. I'm of the opinion that number of raises rolled in a DS (with the exception of extreme lows and highs) are, in actual fact, essentially meaningless. However, even if you disagree, I think you have to grant that there is inherent conflict in the intent behind DS, and their consequence mechanic. The intent behind a DS is to allow a resolution of a chunk of fiction in a fun, free-flowing manner. The mechanic is supposed to "roll with the punches" so to speak, in that the scene can go where the players and GM takes it. However, if players actually want to succeed, they are supposed to have some way to predict raise expenditure required to acheive success. The twists (and, IMO, the more fun) a scene has, the less able the players are to make this prediction. So, like Tec Goblin said, a "clear" success condition at the outset of most DSs, is not the same as every DS having a clear success condition in actual play. Its a strange Catch 22...and, I will add, my simple rule change suggestion completely negates the problem...as do the other suggestions about allowing continuing through the use of Hero and/or Danger points.
Thanks for the comments Tec Goblin. I like your Rule of Law (RoL) analogy. I partially agree with you on Mr. Wick's perspective. I agree his writings imply more concern with making a good story than providing players with "true" agency. Still, I don't think he cares nothing for player agency. For instance, Blood and Honor provides characters with incredible amounts of control over the entire narrative. Your points about action length and teamwork are great.
Of course, I do have issues, lol.
As defined by you, RoL playing requires no dice rolling. It just requires that the GM cede the fiction to the player. So, your declaration of DS's compatibility with RoL playing is misleading. Tehcnically, its correct, but your wording implies that something about the DS rules specifically enable this approach. They don't. They don't not. The rules are largely irrelevant here (other than not specifically forbidding it). Point is, a GM can offer a PC a hard choice any time he/she sees fit. If the GM's actions after the PC's decision coincide with the stated fictional consequences of that choice, he/she is taking a RoL approach. The GM abided by the heroes choice, thereby making the choice meaningful.
But, RoL style play using DSs is tangential to my point. In order to clarify, let me ask, why do we even have rules in an RPG? There are are lot of answers. But, a key, and as far as I know, universal aspect (with the exception of DSs as written) of any RPG rule is...the rule takes brief, but firm, narrative control from everyone. Think about this. Its universal. The player decides what an actor they are controlling wants to do. The actor attempts that action. Although the actor wants that action to succeed (at least in that moment), the player may not (altough usually will) and the GM may not (but will many times). It doesn't matter what anyone wants. We let the mechanic decide the outcome* or, at the very least, define the outcome's parameters.** Not so in a DS. The dice don't decide, or set parameters. The GM does. The dice likely bias the GM towards a particularly result, but only in the vaguest sense. And, as this conversation evolves, I find myself less and less certain what the dice actually accomplish in the setting of a DS. It seems like the mechanic leads to everyone pretending to "play" the game, when, in fact, they are just having a conversation, where the dice (maybe) give everyone a gestalt of how it all turns out (1 raise, "Oh crap," 3 raises, "mixed result," 6 raises, "well done").
*And if we decide to circumvent the rule, we know we are circumventing the rule, not abiding by it. Which is fine, but different than playing a DS as written.
**The best explanation of why (fundamentally) we do this, came from somebody in the powered by the apocalyse community. I am probably misquoting, but its something along the lines of, "we use rules to avoid consensus...consensus is boring." The idea being, we cede control so we are genuinely surprised. Think of the elation when you rolled that "20" that saved your butt, or that dread when the GM rolled that "20" that crushed you. And, I know, Mr. Wick hates move then roll. But, the same thing applies in an AS where the villain rolls well, and there are a bunch of brutes and a bunch of obstacles, and the PC rolls a string of 2s. Nobody at the table wanted that, but they all abide by it.
Again, if you aren't thinking about this as you play, it won't feel that way. It will feel like you are genuinely playing. You are abiding by the rules after all (an obstacle requires a raise to circumvent). Taking some of what you said...
From Tec Goblin[As said, the DM can totally make up obstacles on the fly or render one approach mute. From my experience, this wasn’t a big issue in ‘low power’ characters.
In what way wasn't it an issue? Because you didn't make up obstacles or render an approach moot doesn't mean it wouldn't be easy for another GM to do just that. In any other game, adding obstacles as play evolves might be a key component of a GM's toolbox (or maybe the primary component if you prefer to play with less prep).
From Tec Goblin[The amount of raises needed was pretty clear even without adding obstacles.]
To who? Evidently to you, but what about your players? What about unknown/unanticipated obstacles? What happens when a player does something that you know would cause a complication, but they would have no way of knowing about? Every GM knows secrets. So, does that obstacle come to fruition, and the players fail, or you, knowing that they players can't possibly overcome this obstacle, and being a nice GM, decide to just ignore that obstacle? Not really a question in any other game. Because, with any other resolution system, when a new obstacle arises, the PCs tackle like they do any other obstacle. Compare a skill challenge of PC level +X. It has a defined number of easy, moderate and hard DC skill checks, and requires X successes before 3 failures. Of course, GMs can and are encouraged to modify these parameters. However, doing so in the middle of the skill check with the intent of influencing the outcome of the challenge (whether towards success or failure) is explicitly cheating. Compare that to a DS. The GM decides the outcome of the player's roll with perfect knowledge of how well the player rolled. To make that equivalent in the skill challenge, the GM would need to be told explicitly to not decide a skill check's DC until after seeing the player's roll (or perhaps more accurately, dynamically adjust the number of successful skill checks needed to succeed as the skill challenge proceeded).
From Tec Goblin[It could have needed 3 ‘immediately logical’ steps (thus spending all the character’s raises) and I could have added a few more obstacles on top, to make her fail. But I never in my first session needed to do that.]
In this case, how are you not just deciding success or failure? Don't add obstacles = success. Add obstacles = failure. That's entirely on you. The player has literally zero say. Regardless of your decision, giving the PC a RoL compatible choice at the end, or the outset, or in the middle is tangential to the issue at hand. Namely, what the heck was the purpose of rolling those raises if the GM was just going to arbitrate the outcome anyway?
Maybe with a few clarifications I can show we don't disagree that much.
1: I didn't say John doesn't care at all about player agency. I just said he doesn't care *much*
2: I did not imply that player agency is incompatible with dice rolling.
3: I wasn't trying to prove that the Dramatic Sequences were enabling the Rule of Law principle, I was just trying to see whether they were incompatible with it.
But we have one important disagreement: I think that rules could be useful even when they're not taking narrative control over everyone. They can be useful as a guideline.
Let's see what happened in Dungeons & Dragons before we had skill challenges. Players could just roll diplomacy again and again until the DM decided it was enough, or until they succeded. There was no guidance for when enough failures are enough. There was no guidance on how to allow every player participate. That's where skill challenges stepped in and added a guidance framework to an otherwise very arbitrary judgement.
I think the role of dramatic sequences is similar: it's an (even softer) framework which would help a GM decide when a player has spent enough time/actions on something. They can slightly help a GM who wants to abide by the Rule of Law principle. They don't help as much as skill challenges but they do have the benefit of requiring very few rolls.
Is it a problem if some of the knowledge is only available to the GM? Not that much. Any combat encounter, in any RPG, could involve the arrival of additional enemies at any new round - enemies the players don't know of. If the GM wants to abide by the Rule of Law principle, (s)he has thought of these enemies in advance and of why they're there. (S)he has even presented opportunities to the players to anticipate the presence of additional enemies (or obstacles). If the GM does NOT abide by this principle, enemies can always be added to the encounter just to make it 'more interesting'. Presenting obstacles in a dramatic sequence is pretty similar. If the players want the GM to follow the Rule of Law principle and they cannot trust him/her with these decisions, then there's no other solution than going the board game way (see Mansions of Madness or Castle Ravenloft) where the GM is practically scripted.
That said, I DO realise a difference between dramatic sequences and standard combat encounters: in some games (see DnD) you have a notion of what is an 'appropriate' encounter for characters of X power. There is only so much that the DM can add to an encounter or to the difficulty of a skill challenge without getting blatantly outside the scope of the DM's rules. In 7thSea there's nothing of the sort (neither in action sequences nor in dramatic sequences). Is it needed? I'd say yes, and it would be pretty easy to come out with some guidance. After all this system is not made to scale a wide range of hero power: a hero having played 100 sessions is just twice more powerful than a starting hero.
From Tec Goblin[But we have one important disagreement: I think that rules could be useful even when they're not taking narrative control over everyone. They can be useful as a guideline.]
Good point, but how then is my modification (or the other similar proposals) not a demonstrative improvement to DSs? It keeps virtually the same structure, but retains some level of player agency. All the good without any of the bad.
From Tec Goblin[Let's see what happened in Dungeons & Dragons before we had skill challenges. Players could just roll diplomacy again and again until the DM decided it was enough, or until they succeded. There was no guidance for when enough failures are enough. There was no guidance on how to allow every player participate. That's where skill challenges stepped in and added a guidance framework to an otherwise very arbitrary judgement.]
I think we are dancing around the crux of my point. I have no issue with GM interpretation. My current favorite rules construct are the powered by the apocalypse games and their offshoots. Many moves in Apocalypse World require tons of GM (and player) interpretation. Still, there is a crucial difference from DSs. A 10+ is a success. The GM has to abide by that. In your diplomacy check example, each diplomacy check had a DC. That number was decided before the roll (and if it wasn't, shame, shame). The check succeeded or failed, and then the GM interpreted success or failure as he/she saw fit. That is my point about ceding narrative control to the dice (or whatever mechanic). DSs don't do that. The PC rolls and the GM just aribitrarily decides both what the dice outcome means, and the fictional interpretation the outcome creates. The GM is only supposed to do the latter. That's the deal ;-)
From Tec Goblin[I think the role of dramatic sequences is similar: it's an (even softer) framework which would help a GM decide when a player has spent enough time/actions on something. They can slightly help a GM who wants to abide by the Rule of Law principle. They don't help as much as skill challenges but they do have the benefit of requiring very few rolls.]
Overall agreed. By and large, I like the DS structure. But, just use my rule (or the HP/DP mod) and you get the same benefits without grinding player agency into dust.
From Tec Goblin[Is it a problem if some of the knowledge is only available to the GM? Not that much. Any combat encounter, in any RPG, could involve the arrival of additional enemies at any new round - enemies the players don't know of. If the GM wants to abide by the Rule of Law principle, (s)he has thought of these enemies in advance and of why they're there. (S)he has even presented opportunities to the players to anticipate the presence of additional enemies (or obstacles). If the GM does NOT abide by this principle, enemies can always be added to the encounter just to make it 'more interesting'.]
This RoL thing is your baby, so I guess you get to define the parameters. However, I would argue to expand your definition a bit. Right now it doesn't seem to allow for an improvisational style of play. Maybe I am interpreting it wrong, but I would suggest that its still within the RoL approach for the GM to add obstacles/bad guys even if unplanned/unanticipated as long as it makes sense within the fictional context, and isn't done out of spite or some other childish emotion. If the players are delving through Orc mountain, and the GM is improvising the whole thing, than having extra orcs show up to spice up an exciting scene seems well within the RoL bounds. Personnally, I think the RoL approach applies less to combat encounters (an extra trap or bad guy is pretty small potatoes) and more to the larger story. I see violations of the RoL approach as the GM robbing the players of something they earned through hard work, or retroactively changing the story because the PCs did something inconvenient (such as circumventing a bad guy's plot, or discovering a secret that wasn't supposed to be found).
From Tec Goblin[Presenting obstacles in a dramatic sequence is pretty similar.]
Ooooh, I'm sorry. But, no way. Worlds apart. Let's compare a skill challenge to DSs because combat is a poor example since it would be an AS, which is not at issue here. A skill challenge has a fixed victory condition from the outset. But, even were the GM to cheat, and add additional required successes, the PCs still just make skill checks. Sure, more skill checks = decreased probabilty of success, but its still probability, not arbitration. Granted, if the GM adds an additional 10 required successes, he/she is virtually guaranteeing PC failure. But, let's keep this discussion to people playing like they should be playing.
In a DS, if the GM presents 1 additional obstacle beyond the number rolled, the PC just fails. Adding obstacles in a DS couldn't be more different from a GM adding more obstacles to any scene, in any RPG, including the entire rest of 7th Sea 2nd ED. In every other system, adding obstacles decreases the probability of player success (or complete success), presumably with the benefit of increased drama. Moreover, it doesn't prevent the PC from taking meaningful action. Again, not so in a DS. The GM presents that 1 additional obstacle and the PCs are straight neutered. They have no recourse. And, the GM knows exactly what number obstacle does this. If there was some information asymetry, you could have some kind of bluffing/betting type mechanic. Ya don't. The GM just arbitrarily decides success or failure based on some sort of gesalt about the number of raises. That is bad business. Its a poor mechanic...at least that particular piece is. Like I said, the concept of DSs is good. It just needs a tweak.
I don't agree with everything you said (for example adding additional opponents to a dnd encounter until the players fail for me is the same as cheating with DS) but I do agree that your modification improves DS!
Agreed about adding the opponents until the PCs fail. To be clear, endless addition of obstacles until the players fail was never part of my examples. If we are talking player agency, seeing the PCs winning, not wanting that, and then manipulating events to expressly prevent it is taking away player agency. That remains consistent regardless of the game type or the particular rules.
My point is, in a D&D combat or skill challenge, the game master can add obstacles to an encounter, and as long as they are reasonable (of appropriate amount and level such that the players still have "good" chance of success), the GM isn't really infringing on player agency. This just isn't an issue in D&D because the structure is so different. A conscious character can always apply their skills and abilities to a situation. They never hit a wall where they run out of ways to influence the narrative. Not so in a DS. That wall pops up. So it puts a GM that wants to add an obstacle (which might really enhance the scene) in a weird catch 22 where he/she has to decide to force the player to fail, or "grant" them the win and have the new obstacle be part of something (Simple risk, AS, DS). The objectivity of the dice roll is gone.
For the sake of further clarity, let me just say, I have zero issue with GM control or interpretation in games. If I am playing a survival horror game, I want the GM to manipulate the story to make it gritty and dangerous. If I am playing anime fantasy with Exalted, I want the GM to reinforce that I can do all sorts of crazy stuff and destroy an entire army by myself. What I don't want, is the GM to just decide whether or not my roll to shoot the zombie succeeds or not. Or decide if my badass charm combo really does destroy the whole army. The roll stands alone. It succeeded or failed. Interpret from there, but the roll's result is clear. Ditto for any other setting. That is the contract DSs break, and what my suggestion, as well as the other suggestions, repair.
The thing to remember is that every Scene is designed with the Player succeeding. Their Raises determine how many Oportunities or Concequences there are at the end.
2nd ed. much like other games John has written is one of Co-operative story telling. Both the GM and Player has control over the Naritive. It is a dramatic change of thought, but one that has a potential to create truly memorable games.
I highly suggest reading both of John's Play Dirty books. While they can give the impression of only being about screwing the players they aren't. The first is about how to be a Better GM, and the second is about how to create a better Game.
Also worth looking at is Robin Law's Hamlet's Hit Points and his game Hillfolk. These are a great resource for the change in mindset.
I think you misunderstand me. I have no problem with the rules as a whole. I am specifically saying DSs don't live up to the promise of the rest of the system. I have read all of your suggested sources, and I quite like all of them. As for needing a switch in mindset, recall my endorsement of anything Powered by the Apocalypse. Those games are wildly successful by indie standards, and are very collaborative.
From Paul Titan[Both the GM and Player has control over the Naritive.]
Not in a DS!! That's the whole problem. Not to be snarky, but, have you read the rest of the thread? I have explained how the DS robs the player of their narrative control over and over again. If you find my explanations incorrect or unsatisfying, I am happy to engage your specific objections. But, I am not going to bother explaining the entire argument all over again. Especially if you just assert something which I have extensively refuted without anything to back up your argument.
From Paul Titan[The thing to remember is that every Scene is designed with the Player succeeding.]
Maybe. I don't see where this was explicitly mentioned. The game is designed to make the heroes look awesome, but the "I fail" mechanic seems to suggest the game wants its heroes to face failure as well as triumph. And, if the game intends for each scene to be created with the player destined to succeed, that's a design flaw. Don't get me wrong, we want the players to succeed a lot; probably most of the time. But, we don't want it to be a foregone conclusion. That doesn't make the game suspenseful or memorable, it makes it predictable.
From Paul Titan[Their Raises determine how many Oportunities or Concequences there are at the end.]
Maybe I am reading the game wrong, but the book's examples would seem to bely this reading. Moreover, so what? It doesn't change the crux of my argument, which is, the DS isn't really a mechanic so much, as a sequence where the GM is almost forced to steal the narrative. If the players succeeded at all the obstacles, but got less/more opportunities/consequences its primarily because of how the GM presented the obstacles. If the GM sees his player has 3 raises, and he gives 3 obstacles, the player will get zero opportunities. Its as simple as that. We need uncertaintly and reduced control on the GM's side. If the GM is able to perfectly predict the players performance (knows exactly the number of raises available) and has complete control over the outcome of their perfectly predicted performance (sole and final arbiter of presenting obstacles/consequences/opportunities), its not collaborative anymore...or, at least, its collaborative in an unnecessarily asymmetric manner. The GM becomes a benevolent dictator and the PCs his sham parliament, instead of the President with the PCs as the Congress.
In D&D a GM could hit the players with an Ancient Red Dragon when they are 2nd level. It would be unreasonable for him to do that, and his players would get tired of him. In 7th Sea a GM could ensure the failure of the DS by adding in Concequences, with the same end result.
There are choices to be made, as a GM we have All the Power, how you use it is up to you. If a GM finds that in thier game the players aren't achieving success in the DS dial back the Concequences. If it is just that GM finds the temptation to great to squash the players because the rules don't say they can't, then this isn't the game for them.
Being a GM is never easy choices, judgements, decisions and changes always have to be made. A game is a living thing and unless you are simply simply running a official Pathfinder Society modual at a offical Pathfinder Society game, the dice and the rules don't have to control the story.
I think people are worrying about how the rules can be abused to ruin the fun of the players or the GM far to much. Unless someone at the table likes doing that to others it won't happen, and if it does then there are ways to prevent it happening.
P.S. I am a great fan of the 1st ed and backed 2nd with high hopes. That being said, the book is fantastic, the character creation is fast, effective, and easy to handle, but I have not run it yet and frankly I have my own personal doubts about it actually working for my group. We will be starting our first try next Weekend.
Sorry, you are missing my point entirely. This isn't about the potential for GM abuse. Your absolutely correct. A GM can abuse GM power in any game.
This is about complete GM control of a mechanic's outcome, regardless of whether or not the GM uses that to beat the heroes down, or let them win.
From Paul Titan[In D&D a GM could hit the players with an Ancient Red Dragon when they are 2nd level. It would be unreasonable for him to do that, and his players would get tired of him. In 7th Sea a GM could ensure the failure of the DS by adding in Concequences, with the same end result.]
Not even close. Its completely reasonable for heroes to fail a DS or two. Otherwise, they wouldn't have rules for when the heroes run out of raises. The book would just tell you to never present more obstacles than the players have raises. Of course, that would be ridiculous. Just like its ridiculous to compare a GM sending an Ancient Red Dragon against 2nd level characters to a GM in 7th Sea making a 4 obstacle DS when the PCs only have 3 raises. One (guess which) is grossly outside the normative behavior expected of a GM, and the other is perfectly within its bounds. Granted, a GM in 7th Sea shouldn't add a final obstacle to every single DS, but that brings us to my point...how does a GM know when to have the PC's fail or have them succeed? Its entirely at the GM's whim. But, the same thing goes for hero success. The heroes aren't supposed to succeed just because the GM decides they do. That is not how action sequences work. The GM lays out the stuff, and then the heroes roll. They have to deal with the stuff laid out regardless of whether or not they got 1 raise, or 10.
From Paul Titan[GM we have All the Power]
Nope. If your fighter rolls a 20 he crits. If his damage puts the monster at zero hp, it dies. If you give your players a skill challenge where they need 8 successes before 3 failures, and they get 8 successes with only 2 failures, they succeed. Yes, a GM could have another monster pop up when the fighter kills the other one, or immediately stick the players with another skill challenge when the beat the first one...but again, we are talking about how we expect people to actually play the game. By and large, people don't play that way. And, like you point out, a GM that does so, will quickly be short on players. There is no such objectivity in DSs. Unless you address that specifically, you're not addressing my point. And, if you want to address this point, keep in mind this objectivity occurs everywhere else in the game (simple risk, ASs), so please don't make grandiose assertions about collaborative story-telling unless you can explain how this lack of objectivity in DSs is specifically necessary/beneficial, compared to the other portions of the game.
Let me give you an example that might drive it home. Do you recall from Play Dirty when John ended his cyberpunk campaign by having all of his players have bombs implanted in their brains, and spending the last session trying to deactivate them? Pretty awesome stuff IMO. Great advice there too. Especially for me, someone who has tended to struggle with wrapping up campaigns well. I digress...
So, let's focus on the last two character's in this session. By this point, they have decided to find out who put the bomb's in their heads, get to him, and make him disarm the bombs. They don't know who it is yet, so its not a chase, and they aren't in active combat with anyone (at the moment). Sounds a heck of a lot like a cool premise for a DS to me. Now, John doesn't specify the rules system he was using, so this is a bit of conjecture. However, since the DS mechanic is unique as far as I know, and this was presumbly played with an existing ruleset sometime in the past, let's assume whatever system he was using was a bit more traditional than 7th Sea 2nd. That means, that when John played that session, he had a lot of control over whether or not the players succeeded, but not complete control. John had to abide by the results of their rolls. If they succeeded at something, the fiction rolled forward with that as truth. Ultimately, this means that nobody knew the final outcome of that session. Sure, John had a lot of control. He could make it easier or harder to find the information needed to survive, but assuming he didn't just make it impossible to succeed, or make it a sure success by just giving it the players (which he obviously didn't), the player's input, and the dice input, had a lot of say. End result, everyone, including John, was likely in suspense as the clock ticked down. A failed roll right at the end could spell doom, while a successful one might spell salvation. A clever idea from the PCs might save the day, while being dense could destroy them. John could make it harder by throwing obstacles in the PCs way, even unanticipated/unplanned ones, but the PCs never lost the ability to at least try and tackle those obstacles. Yes, at some point, enough additional obstacles would spell certain doom. However, there would have been a degree of wiggle room; some space where John could ramp up the tension, without outright forcing failure. And, there was never a hard line where it was like, "well, you (PCs) are out of narrative resources, you can no longer impact this portion of the story by succeeding at anything."
Now, imagine if that final sequence (find the bomb maker and get him to disarm the bombs) had been run as a DS. The PCs would have rolled for their raises and spent them as the GM presented obstacles. It would probably be suspenseful for the PCs, but in a not so great way. The PCs know, "Bob has 3 raises, and Bill has 4." They know that as they spend those, they get closer and closer to losing. But, its different here. Why? Because they are looking across the table at the person deciding success or failure. I'll say it again...deciding. There is no way you can read the DS rules and not see this. If you are reading this and thinking, "I wouldn't add that eighth raise"...you are wrong. If you are reading this and thinking, "I would add that eight raise"...you are wrong. You are thinking about it the totally wrong way. You should be thinking, "Why, oh why, does the culmination of this entire campaign, and the final moment of this incredible final session come down to my decision? What lonely pedestal have I found myself on?" When that occurs, the "game" has lost the thing that makes it "game." Now its just one person telling us how it all played out.
Last night I listened to UnderDiscussion: The UnderGopher Podcast they did a two part review of both editions of 7th Sea. In it they summed up what I think the root of the problem and put it in to words far better than what I have managed to do.
The game (the DS in preticular) has a visual novel aproach heavily focused on Role playing scenes rather than problem solving. They defined the problem that I am foreseeing for my upcoming Game. It is the style of the game, the decisions made during its creation. For some they will love it, for others (myself included) they might have to house rule it in order to get it more in line with their playstyles.
I see all of you are still missing the point that the players will ALWAYS succeed unless they choose not to. The GM can throw 99 consequences and opportunities in the way but if the player holds on to one raise and takes those, they will still succeed. Having actually run the game, I think it works fine as is.
You must not be referring to DSs. Your point holds for simple risks and ASs, but not DSs. By their nature, ASs or simple risks have that 1 raise to succeed dynamic. But, DSs are set up to have multiple tasks that each require a raise to defeat. Just look at the examples in the book.
Alice gets the young noble alone and interrogates him. In the book, the example ends with the hero succedding. But, the GM would be well within his/her rights to have the noble spill the beans, and tell Alice about a letter proving some of the schemes. The letter is in the possession of another noble (named by this noble) who is at the party. The noble Alice is interrogating refuses to testify about the meeting to anyone else...he is too afraid of the count. Alice decides she needs that letter...except, its literally impossible for her to acquire the letter since she is out of raises. I suppose the GM could have another DS start, but that doesn't seem in keeping with the rules. After all, we are still in the same location, and we are still trying to answer the same dramatic question (can the heroes get evidence about the count). Sure, Alice can walk down and start a fight, and then she gets to roll agaun. But, she is in a bit of a catch 22. And, crucially, to your point, there isn't a way she could have saved a final raise to succeed at this obstacle (let's assume she was judicious in raise use and didn't spend that extra raise on interrogating him). If she had saved a raise, she wouldn't be here. She had to spend raises to get to the point where she even knows about the letter. So, no, the player can't "save" raises in a DS because each GM presented obstacle requires a raise to overcome, and in practical terms, it wouldn't be hard for a GM to come up with 4 obstacles instead of 3, or 5 instead of 4. And vice versa, it wouldn't be difficult for a GM to let things slide and present only 2 obstacles instead of 3, or 3 instead of 4. Either way, the GM decides.
From Salamanca[Having actually run the game, I think it works fine as is.]
Well, your playing experience is somewhat irrelevant. Of course it feels like it plays fine, as long as you are trying to make the game fun, the DS probably is fun. However, when you play a DS, what your players roll has very little impact on whether or not they succeed at a DS. As the GM, you are deciding that, success or failure, having full knowledge of what will make your players succeed, and what will make them fail. Your players don't have the agency in DS that they have in an AS or simple risk. They don't have the agency they have in almost any other tabletop RPG I know of. So, its not a question of whether or not it works, its a question of being fine with GM arbitration trumping the objectivity of the dice. In this case, its interesting, in that its a mechanic that robs players of their agency, but, if you don't think about it too hard, probably plays pretty well. Ignorance is bliss. But, you can also use my fix (or the others suggested), and have just as much fun, without robbing your players of their agency.
I will try to listen to the Podcast if I get a chance, but, at first blush, I tend to disagree. The mechanics of 2nd ED are less "mechanicy" than 1st ED, but the flow of the game is still pretty much heroes teaming up to bring down the villain. If we are comparing 7th Sea to Powered by the Apocalypse games, 7th Sea is far closer to Dungeon World than it is to Apocalypse World or Monsterhearts. And that dynamic changed little from 1st ED to 2nd ED. Look at the examples from the book, and tell me you couldn't replace raise expenditure with skill checks and replant the "fluff" in any d20 game book as a reasonable example of a scene run with skill checks or a skill challenge.
Regardless of whether or not we agree on this, its irrelevant to my issues with DSs. Even if I grant that the DS "has a visual novel approach heavily focused on Role playing scenes rather than problem solving" it doesn't change the asymetric power involved. When the GM gets to decide 3 raises = succeeds or fails, after seeing that I have now rolled 3 raises...we have a problem. Its the same if we are focused on who gets to say what happens in a fictional/role-playing sense, or whether we are talking about the mechanics of overcoming a challenge. Simply use my fix, or one of the others suggested, and you return to that back and forth between the GM and the player, where both have some level of power that the other can't (or is very difficult to) infringe on. The DS still plays the same with my fix, it just gives the player back the agency the rules as written take away.
Ok, switched out my workout audio book for the podcast...so, I have some comments.
Bottom line, overall they did the rules an injustice. I didn't diagree with everything, but they totally misrepresented the peice about risk. I don't know exactly what adventure they played, but it sounds like they did the equivalent of sending a 10th level D&D party against 6th level opponents. Yeah, that wouldn't feel risky, but that's not the game system's problem. You are playing it wrong.
For example, imagine this scenario. An AS begins as the Black Dragon, the flagship of the notorious and dastardly pirate Dread Ricario crashes into the PC's ship. The captain of the PC's ship orders a preemptive counterattack, and the PC's lead their marines in a close quarters charge against their pirate foes. The PCs tell the GM their approach. They don'troll yet. The GM lays out the situation.
-The PCs and their forces are outnumbered. As the PC's marines go head to head with some of the pirates, the net result is the PCs are threatened by two brute squads of 8 strength each. One squad is pirates, the other is duelists.
-Ricario, knowing the captain personally and being prepared for a pre-emptive assault, has set a trap. He has small cannons laying in ambush and filled with grapeshot. They are already lit, and diverting them is a 3 raise consequence (depending on the description, inactivating this consequence may count as the PC getting across to the Black Dragon). The grapeshot will fire at raise 4 unless a PC stops it. If it does, it will decimate the PC's force. Every PC will take 3 wounds, and many of their fellow boarders will be killed, causing the PCs to have to face another 10 man brute squad (untyped) as their forces can no longer fight it.
-Activating his trap has distracted Ricario. He rolls his strength as normal, but can't take action until raise 3, regardless of how many raises he rolls. Any PC that can get past the opposing pirates (1 raise to get across, and getting through the opposing force is a 2 wound consequence) before raise 3, can take a 1 raise opportunity to incapacitate Ricario for one round.
-Any PC that doesn't get across to the other boat by raise 3 will fall into the drink as the boats bounce against each other.
You can't tell me that a group of PCs presented with this situation aren't going to be sweating bullets as they pick up their dice. If nobody rolls at least 5 raises, that grapeshot is going to go off, and the PCs are going to be in a bad situation. If nobody can incapacitate Ricario for the round (or they are forced to choose between doing that or stopping the grapeshot) that adds whatever he rolls to the already large burden facing the PCs. Any PC that rolls less than 4 raises is going to be stuck falling between the ships. Sure, the dynamic is different than a move then roll game, but its not because the game lacks tension or risk...assumng you play it correctly.
Being that the UnderDiscussion: The UnderGopher folks are familiar with Play Dirty and Dungeon World, I was also surprised they missed another important facet of the intended 7th Sea playstyle...as Vincent Baker would admonish us..."Put your bloody fingerprints all over it." Now, in 7th Sea, we probably understand "bloody" as an Avalonian expression, as opposed to the more literal "blood" Vincent Baker is talking about in Apocalypse World. Still, the point is the same. Yes, the characters are powerful. But, so what? That's when you Play Dirty. That's when you threaten things they care about. Only a Villain can kill a Hero, but a brute can kill an NPC easy enough. Give opportunities that are too good to pass up. That's a key component of the tension in a simple risk, or AS...the players see a buffet of raise-worthys laid out before the roll. They are going to know their general chances to buy everything they want. And, the game only works if they usually can't buy everything. It works even better if they really, really want to buy everything...if each thing they can't buy is nearly as meaningful as the next. I mean, 1 wound, who gives an F. Kill the PCs lover, that's taking priority over the raise to succeed.
I do agree that some people aren't going to like that aspect where the GM lays out this whole scene, and then the PCs spend stuff to traverse it. Its not going to be as narratively smooth as something like Apocalypse World's moves snowball, but, it does empower the players to decide which things they accomplish and which they don't.
Bringing this back to DSs, I also think they played that wrong (not in a technical sense, but in "how you are supposed to play" sense). Even using the rules as written, one should easily be able to build tension in a dramatic sequence. Just do the stuff one does in any game to make stuff interesting...you make it interesting. If your sneaking into a castle in D&D and the game is exciting for you because the DC is 20, and you only have a +7, wow, I pity your experiences in "roll" playing. Come on GM, bring it a bit. Make things tense. Foreshadow. Make failure seem scary. Give the players interesting branch points, and tough choices. As I have said before, I have no doubt someone can run a tense and fun DS with the rules as written. My concern is that the rules remove player agency without giving us anything in return for taking it. Use my house rule, and suddenly sneaking in becomes even more tense. When the GM presents obstacles, he/she presents consequences along with them. When its not a default, "ok, I spend 1 raise to do X," and its a choice, "Ok, I always make it past the obstacle, but crap! Do I suffer the associated consequence and save that raise for later? This consequence sucks, but its not terrible. A later one might be waaaay worse." Its a different kind of tension than "can I roll 13 or better on a d20," but, its still tension. In this case, the uncertainty comes not from the dice roll itself, but in wondering what consequences still lie ahead as the pool of raises is depleted.
Well, you have yourself dug in and that's that. I concede you are absolutely correct. I and the 30 players I have run this for using the rules as written were obviously not paying attention when we thought it worked fine. I'll go memorize those tiny handful of rules in Apocalypse World and leave you to fix the rest of the game.
You are misreading me. I'm not dug in and unwilling to discuss. I am firm in my position, but that is because is nobody has presented a convincing counter-argument.
To be fair, your comment is the pot calling the kettle black ;-). You literally said a thing about the DS mechanic that is obviously incorrect to anyone reading the rules ("players can succeed at a DS by accepting consequences and holding onto 1 raise"), then used your inaccurate description of the rule as a jumping off point to declare you like the rules. If my reply, i.e. my understanding of the rule is incorrect...by all means, correct me. You didn't, just asserted you still like the rules, So, If anyone is dug in, its you ;-)
And, its not that I am not paying attention to your enjoyment of the rules. I am glad you like them. But, your like or dislike of the rules is irrelevant to my issue with the rules. I never said, "dramatic sequences aren't fun to play." If I had, then you win. I would be wrong. The folks at UnderDiscussion: The Undergofer said that, but I don't agree. You beat them.
But, objectively, the GM has so much control in DSs that player agency is severely compromised. This is not a necessary feature of DSs. You can play them with my suggested house rule (or the other suggestions), and the DS dynamic is essentially unchanged, except the players have their agency returned. If you and your players don't care about much about player agency, I can't make you mind it. You're not wrong for not minding it. But, your lack of concern has no bearing on whether or not its a good rule. It still violates player agency in an unecessary way. Player agency is a fundamental piece of the GM-player contract. Violating it requires good reason. If you can have essentially the same mechanic, without violating player agency, the one with player agency returned is a better mechanic for role playing games.
I'll go memorize those tiny handful of rules in Apocalypse World and leave you to fix the rest of the game.
Not sure what you are referring to. This was obviously a sarcastic dig, but it totally went over my head. I have mentioned Apcolypse World several times, but I don't recall suggesting memorization of some tiny portion of the rules, or any portion of the rules. I only reference Apocalypse World because other than it being a "move then roll" game, there are more parallels between it and 7th Sea, than 7th Sea and something like D&D or other popular games. If gave a different impression, I apologize. And, to reiterate, overall, I really like the game. I am not tryng to "fix" the whole game. Its just that the DS has a couple of discrete design flaws...flaws that are easily fixed.
Thanks to everyone for the lively and informative discussions of the "Dramatic Sequence" (DS) mechanics including both the pros and cons of Dramatic Sequence.
Send me a Private Message if you want the thread opened. This thread is locked now.
THREAD RE-OPENED (2016-0715@1915): After some private messages, I believe everyone here will behave nicely to one another. If the discussion gets heated, just step back, maybe try some "Pokemon Go" and return later. So now discussion may resume.
I thought of something that has been implicit in my arguments, but might benefit from being stated explicitly...the issue of subconcsious bias. A real world example -for those not familiar- is pharmaceutical company influence on doctors. Bottom line, the data strongly indicates two things:
1) Doctors financial, professional and personal connections with pharmaceutical companies influences what medications they give out.
2) The doctors don't perceive this influence, i.e. Doctor X doesn't think the pretty pharamceutical rep who took him to lunch, told him about drug Y and flirted with him had any influence on him giving Ms. B drug Y, instead of drug Z. It does.
I think a similar dynamic exists in DSs. The GM knows at the outset how many raises the players have. That subconsciously biases the GM's interpretation of the fiction, just like if the GM knew the outcome of a player's skill check in D&D before he/she set the DC for the check. Of course, subconscious bias is rife in tabletop RPGs. As it should be. Its a feature, not a bug. The exception to this is the dice roll. That outcome is supposed to be objective. With a DS, that objectivity is lost in the face of GM subconscious bias. Comparitively, subconscious bias plays no role in the dice roll for ASs or simple risks.
Thanks for the clarification of subjective bias. Even the genre of the game subjectively influences play style at a table.
I like my gritty games with heads flying and blood gushing and my approach to 7th Sea is more Quentin Tarantino-esque.
And yet, I think John Wick personally likes his own "subjective biases" too and baked them into the rules of 7th Sea:
QUOTING: And that’s the real secret about any RPG with a GM. The Game Master is the real author of success and failure. I’ve known this for years. Espoused it in Play Dirty.
And the solution for those who do not like John Wick's subjetive biases is to house rule as he mentioens below:
QUOTE: People always ask me how I feel about hearing GMs change the rules of games I’ve published. I always say the same thing: “Great! I’d love to see what they came up with.”
In general many players that I have been speaking about the dramatic sequence rules (now more than 30 people), nobody understood the same.
We really need a youtube video (to make it more popular) with an entire game or a transcription with the BASIC rules working to understand all the sequences. Any houserule. Really. So that thread can be enterelly solved. It's something easy. One two hours?
Finally, the real test of the game it's going to be when 11.483 tables (not gamers) try it. Maaaaaaany of them are missing.
Ps: About /rulings-not-rules/ something really related with that thread, you can read my opinion there (Mr. John Wick I'm still waithing for another reply)
John has written this game with his style of game at its core. The rules (specifically the DS) are purposely written to be interpreted by our own views and biases. Yes this vagueness will lead towards a difference of opinion regarding how to handle them, but that is by design. This is a game designed for stories, and storytelling not a game of unbiased rules. The AS is much clearer and frankly is heavily stacked in the players favour but that is because it needs to be. The DS is more fluid, and it's dice mechanic is far more vague to allow the GM the required freedom for drama and storytelling.
I personally think that we should stop worrying on the Offical way to run this. This is not a game for tournament play, there will never be an official clarification on how the DS is"supposed" to be played. We are all reading it and interpreting correctly, and it does mean every one of us will run it differently. We should stop arguing about how the rules are "broken". It is our responsibility as a GM to make changes, rulings, and decisions that reflect our own individual players.
It is obvious that the changes suggested by Darl has inspired some of us for our own changes. It is just as obvious that some of us are of the view that nothing needs changing. We should perhaps focus on how we have used the rules in our own games and offer them to others as suggestions.
Can you unpack this "AS is much clearer and frankly is heavily stacked in the players favour but that is because it needs to be." a bit. I know its a tangent, but you brought it in. Its not clear to me that the AS mechanic is stacked in the PCs favor. A GM could make any AS a nightmare for players. Case in point, see my pirate ship example above. And, assuming the AS is stacked in the PC's favor, its not clear to me why it "needs to be." Yes, a heroic game is supposed to be stacked generally in the PC's favor, but you seem to be saying this applies especially to ASs, and I am not following.
And, I would argue this- "The DS is more fluid, and it's dice mechanic is far more vague to allow the GM the required freedom for drama and storytelling."- is an incomplete statement. It implies that the vagueness, and the specific "failure" condition for the PCs in the rules as written are inseparable. If my house rule, or the others suggested, infringed on this vagueness, or impaired freedom for drama and storytelling, your point would be hard to argue. But, the proposed house rules don't. So, I request your opinion...do you think the asymetric power the DS RAW grants the GM is of some specific benefit?
First I will apologize for taking so long in answering you. Your requests for me to explain things caused me to have a knee-jerk reaction that you are being purposely obtuse. I know that is unlikely but I still needed time to try and word things without being a jackass.
The short and snarky answer to both is that it is my opinion and how I view the rules.
To be less snarky, Swashbuckling fights need to be fast and hard on the mooks. As oposed to long and hard on the characters. The rules support this from how the rounds are handled right to the death spiral.
As to the DS, I am only using my experience as a GM (30 years or so) and my running style (improvisation and giving my players the best experience and story that I can regardless of the arbitrary nature to dice rolls). The dice system with how it applies to DS requires a certain change of mind set. The Raises are not representing how successful the player has rolled for a task. They represent a currency for them to spend to change the scene. Regardless if it is for an advantage or to avoid a Concequence. They aren't needed for things that the character could easily acomplish. The GM has alot of responsibility in the DS, as the players enjoyment is directly affected on how he runs the scene. I know that I am not really defending my point of view, but I really do not feel confident enough without actually playing the game.
So as I said earlier, I will be running my first game next week. Hopefully it goes well and if not my group will be talking on how to improve our experience. I will be posting about how it went, and my feelings on the system after actually running.
No worries. A same day reply is hardly making me wait ;-)
Understood on the AS thing. Sounds like you were expressing more of a play style preference. I thought you were making a specific claim about the rules structure. So, all good.
Re: running style, I'm curious....because, reading that, I was like, "That's me too." Yet we seem diametrically opposed on this issue of DSs. So, maybe its a matter of what we do with dice rolls. For instance, I'm not a slave to dice rolls. My example below about the skill challenge is something I might do quite often...fudge a little to keep a game running. That to me is making things fun "regardless of the arbitrary nature to dice rolls."
However, I do think there is a certain sanctity to dice. For example, I have a long running Star Wars campaign. One of the PCs had a Jason Bourne meets Revan backstory where he was amnestic and trying to piece together his past. There was a particular sequence where a sniper with connections to his past attacked him. She shot him with a tranquilizing dart, but he managed to stave off its effects temporarily and track her down. The situation came to head, with his ability to stay awake and capture her hinging on the result of a single roll. I believe the PC had about a 75% chance of sucess. Frankly, I wanted him to succeed. He really wanted to succeed. He failed. But, I'm not sad that he did. It was a branch point that made for quite a fun and memorable ride. Its a path neither I or the PC would have taken voluntarily, but, I'm glad the dice made us do it.
So, that brings us back to your statement..."regardless of the arbitrary nature to dice rolls." In that case, would you have just ignored the PC's failure? After all that hard work, would you have just given in to him? Is that what you mean by the "arbitrary nature to dice rolls." Cause maybe that is the crux of where we disagree? The DS is tailor made for the GM to make that decision. Its set up for that. But, I woud offer, we should respect the dice more than that.
Your explicit statements about the DS change of mindset is correct. However, your implication seems to be, this change of mindset somehow obviates the need for objectivity in the rule itself? That, because the roll represents the PC's currency to change the scene, instead of overcoming a specific task, the issues of bias and asymmetric power that I have highlighted are less important?
For what its worth, I would argue play experience will do little to inform the main issue still under discussion. If you are making decisions about how to run an evolving DS, and those decisions are subconsciously influenced by seeing that your players have 3 rather than 4 raises, or 4 rather than 3, you wouldn't actually experience that influence. But, it will be there. Case in point, Salamanca has asserted his playtested satisfaction with the rules. But, he is no less vulnerable to subconscious bias than the rest of us. He decided which way the winds of his DSs shifted, knowing how many raises his players had. I would submit, some of his decisions would be different, had the players rolled in secret, and he didn't know how many raises they had left.
You are fond of asking some difficult questions that actually require some thought, thanks!
First off a related side note, I think the examples of play for the DS in the book is not very good. It is a game that says decisions should Matter and the DS should be well... Dramatic. Then the example of the obstacles presented seem to be fairly trivial, and not realy worth the cost of a raise. The bedroom with the two lovers was a good one though, the use of the raise or lack of one really mattered.
I am going to answer from the bottom up. The choices I make with the number of Obstacles in the DS will be decided knowing what my bias is. Depending on the scene the number will likely be decided ahead of dice being rolled. But if the group is going in recklessly and are relying on the dice to do their thinking for them I will punnish them with more Obstacles.
With your example with Star Wars. I would have left the dice as they were stand. But I wouldn't have let one throw of the dice decide the direction of the game. If the group wanted to continue to track down the charactet's identity I would ensure a clue or hint would be there so they could continue if they wanted. The players in my games always have the freedom to control direction of the game. If they don't utilize it only then will i guide the game in the directon that I belive is the most intresting.
I don't think dice rolls are sacred, and I do fudge my rolls in cases to the players favour. My throws have a nasty tendacy to roll towards kicking the group in the ass far to often.
Let me give you an situation that developed in a game I ran. The group (who at that point ruled a kingdom) came to realize that a ruler of a nearby city was going cause the whole region to go to civil war. One of the players came up with a plan to assassinate her. His plan was to use an undetectable artifact to scry her movements until she was alone, then teleport behind her, and use a "borrowed" artifact vorpal blade to remove her head. It was really well tought out with every problem covered, including his escape afterwards. The result of this one action determined if the region would be driven to war. Of course I made the decision to hand wave the result... His plan worked, despite her being a fair bit more powerful than the Character. The player had a total look of confusion on his face as he murmured "I really didn't think that would have worked", while I was describing his mother's head falling from her dead body.
And now the question... In that situation would you have made him pick up the and roll?
Your point about the obstacles gets to the heart of my question. By predeciding number of raises needed your are injecting a degree of objectivity.
Regarding the Star Wars example, we are on exactly the same page. In that scenario the PC did find clues after he woke up and ended tracking them down. My point was, that single failed roll was a branch point where the PCs ended up having different encounters, and meeting different NPCs, etc. It didn't end that storyline, just adjusted how it played out.
Upon thinking about it, agreed. Dice rolls aren't sacred. Maybe better phraseology would be to say they are worthy of respect. That's my issue with DSs. They don't respect the dice if you follow the book to a "T." Seems like you are giving the dice respect by predeciding (at least to a degree) the number of raises.
Regarding your question, I probably would have not made him roll. A couple of caveats:
1) If this scenario occured in a Powered by the Apocalypse world style game, I probably would have had the PC roll. Regardless of the roll, I would have probably had the plan succeed (at least had the head roll), but used the roll result to inform my next GM move.
2) If, the scenario was changed (say he didn't set it up as well) such that I did ask for a dice roll, I don't think I would fudge that one. But, if there was an ensuing combat, I might fudge one to two rolls to keep the player alive.
I'm only telling you that I have not enought with the two examples of the game.
Not complaining that it's "broken" or not. What I ask here it's for more dramatic sequenceexamples. But you are telling me to interpret it by myself.
I did it in a campaing. It didn`t work, even with constant improvements. Finally the story saved the day. The solution for the rules was clear: less and less throws until we made the game only narrative.
Yes! Please. Put me examples of how you use it, so I can follow your steeps at the beggining and choose my way if "nothing needs changing". It's not to critic, its to learn.
In all honesty I do not have any real examples yet. That will be changing next weekend, we will be starting our first campaign with 7th 2e. I do have concerns about the DS myself, but our current plan is I run the game with my interpretation of the rules as written. When issues come up we will change how we handle them with the next session so the we can think on how to make the game work for our group.
I still think there is a worthy distinction between subjective bias as an overarching concept, and its specific manifestation in DSs. Unless we turn the game into a board game (which I wouldn't advocate), regardless of how objective the rules are, the GM is indeed the ultimate author of success or failure. Players accept that coming in. What they don't (generally want) is for the GM to decide stuff he/she is not supposed to decide. Or, at the very least, the players want the GM to actually know when he/she is doing this. For example, we are playing a skill challenge and the GM sets a skill check DC at 15, sees a PC rolls a 14, and thinks, "Well, they already have 9 successes out of 10 needed and no failures. And Kronyak is up next with his ridiculous strength check. No sense in drawing this out...they succeed. Let's move on." We are all going to have different opinions about the GM's decision in this case, none of which are objectively better or worse. But, the crux of point here is, the GM is aware of that decision.
My contention is, due to the structure of the DS, the GM will be making a similar kind of decision in a large percentage of DSs, without realizing he/she is making that decision. At this point, that's my purpose in this conversation. I want to make people playing the game aware of that. I think its a flaw. Others disagree. But, its there, regardless of our opinions about is worth***. I think people GMing the game, and players playing it, should be aware of that, and be ok with it. Like I said above, if I'm playing a game, and my character tries to rolls to convince the villain of something, I'm happy for the GM to interpret what a "success" or "failure" actually means with regards to the fiction. I don't want the GM to decide if my roll counts as a success or failure. That's why rolled the dice. I would wager, the vast majority of people tends towards that opinion. Especially, when the player isn't getting anything in return (the game is no better) for that specific piece of the mechanic.
***Check out this video from 4:00-6:00...shattering the illusion.
So, I've been thinking on this a bit, and while I've read through the past several posts, I apologize if I'm re-treading ground as I haven't totally kept up with every post. I get the feeling we've been looking at DS wrong, and it relates back to your concerns about Players not knowing the "end" for a DS and one of Sal's comments:
I see all of you are still missing the point that the players will ALWAYS succeed unless they choose not to. The GM can throw 99 consequences and opportunities in the way but if the player holds on to one raise and takes those, they will still succeed. Having actually run the game, I think it works fine as is.
That is THE maxim of the system. PERIOD. Unless the Player decides to fail or CHOOSES to spend their Raises on something other than their original intent, it is the GM's JOB to make sure that they SUCCEED at their intent by the end of the DS.. See, I keep coming back to the "nutshell" summary of the rules:
1) Declare Intent, make Risk, define consequences, present opportunities, 2) Roll Dice, 3) Spend Raises, 4) Problem Solved? If not, repeat.
For all intents and purposes a DS is an Action Sequence where the GM simply doesn't declare the consequences up front. In an AS, all you have to do is spend at least 1 Raise on your intent to succeed (assuming pressure hasn't been applied or you don't have a competing intent,) and everything else is spent on consequences, opportunities, etc. Really, a DS isn't that different:
Klara: I want to sneak into von Heidleburg's study and snag papers proving he framed Albion.
Klara's intent is to get the papers, and she's going to do it by trying to sneak into vH's house. There are a number of consequences/challenges she might face along the way: guards, locked doors, vH's friend who she finds dreamy. Now as long as she has 1 raise left to spend, it is the GM's job to make sure eshe ends up with the papers. Now the GM can try to distract her and make it difficult. Maybe she choses NOT to spend a raise to avoid the guards and it turns into an Action Sequence while she tries to escape, but as long as she hangs onto the final raise to clinch her intent (and assuming pressure hasn't been applied to up the stakes to 2 raises,) the GM's job is to make sure that by the time the scene ends, she has those papers in hand.
That's where the Player Agency is in a DS. It's the player's choice whether they're going to succeed at the sequence or not. Success might be painful, it might end up being more trouble than it was worth, BUT as long as the player chooses to succeed - they will, and the GM is supposed to help them get there.
Thank you, @KevinKrupp, I liked your explanation, but as @DarLoh pointed out, it seems are are all now acknowledging that the GM may adjust the "Dramatic Sequence" after seeing the players total raises.
I will add another observation based on your example "Klara: I want to sneak into von Heidleburg's study and snag papers proving he framed Albion".
You said that at the end of the Dramatic Sequence in the above example: the GM's job is to make sure that by the time the scene ends, she has those papers in hand. Perfect. But that does not guarantee that a single raise is enough to escape any bad consequences if the fiction demands it.
As a GM, I would base my Dramatic Sequence by the thematic narrative of the overall arching plot, and sometimes just one Raise left at the very end may not be enough to succeed without attracting Consequences. I would create my Dramatic Sequence with a set number of required Raises to overcome all Consequences-of-Note without pressure and irrespective of what a player rolls. Of course there may be many other Opportunities and Consequences along the way. However, the GM should not reduce the threat level of a Dramatic Sequence just to ensure a happy ending if a player mis-spends Raises gained. I believe @DarLoh is highlighting this problem of bias if GMs ignore results of dice that roll foul just to guarantee happy endings.
One important reason that interactive games differ from narrative stories is the unpredictability of even the best laid plans if the dice betray you.
For once, I think my reply will be relatively short. ;-)
Kevin, you make a good point about how a dramatic sequence might be run in keeping with the overarching philosophy of the system. Your contention doesn't seem to fit with how the book describes a DS working, or how the examples show it working. Maybe the book was poorly worded, and the guidance to playtesters was to do what you described? Maybe that was the confusion between Salamanca and I when he made that statement? Maybe official playtesters can chime in?
If your contention about how they are supposed to be run is correct, you are indeed right that my concerns about player agency are negated. But, as @Cthulhu pointed out, it doesn't remove my issue of GM bias by the dice results.
As for whether or not your proposed method of running DSs is actually a good game mechanic, I will have to think about that, as the structure is markedly different from that written in the book. Just off the top of my head, it seems to make it hard for the GM to present obstacles, unless, like I suggested, the GM assumes player success, and only presents the consequences tied to a particular obstacle. Because, in the scenario you described, what happens when the player has 1 raise left, and the GM presents a locked door, but its not the "final" locked door? The player says, "Not spending a raise. I am holding on to the final raise to succeed at my intent. Get me past that locked door GM."
So I have a general question about this whole thread: Is the assumption that the characters are nowhere near one another to help out? For instance, in the locked door example....couldn't another player with more raises available 'happen by' the character at the door and offer an assist by spending a raise to pick the lock for her?
I don't know if others are assuming that. I am not. I think I see your point. Is my example dilemna above, only a dilemna if one keeps looking at it through the cardboard tube I forced you to look at the situation through? Maybe. Maybe not. In reality, I think its easy to imagine the dilemna I paint coming up with some regularity. For instance, what happens when, after the character assists, the GM presents the assisting character with an obstacle, and they too hold onto their last raise to ensure victory?
From a larger perspective, the addition of teamwork doesn't seem to obviate any of my concerns. If you see some what that its does, please elaborate.
Wonderfull ideas!
Option B), or "If you fail, it's a DP to th master", can change a lot the game. Maybe it need feedback after testing.
My most sincere congratulations, Alfredo (A.k.a. Mi mas sincera enhorabuena, Alfredo
)
A dramatic scene needs to answer a dramatic question. In the Alice example from the book, the dramatic question is something like ‘can Alice get evidence proving the alliance between the Ambassador and the Count before the party is over?’ If Alice runs out of raises, she no longer has any currency to use to answer that question. She will have to face any consequences for failing. Once the dramatic question is answered, you should end the scene.
This doesn’t necessarily mean you have to end the scene when the character gets what they came for. In the Miranda example from the book, which poses a different dramatic question even though it is part of the same sequence, the question might be ‘can Miranda get evidence proving the alliance between the Ambassador and the Count and escape the embassy with it?’ She might spend her last raise to steal a letter that proves the conspiracy just as the Ambassador himself rounds the corner. She has no more narrative currency to use to escape the embassy undetected and must now face the consequences. This doesn’t mean you have to take away player agency. Players should always have a lot of say over how a scene ends and what shape their success or failure takes. But she can’t just make a hide check. The dice can’t save her. That’s how you build tension.
I don’t like the rules for improvised actions, but I don’t like the proposed changes either. I don’t want players looking at their character sheets during dramatic sequences. Penalties for improvising should follow from the fiction, but we already have a mechanic for that. The rules for consequences can handle improvised actions very easily.
The approach you use for a risk is how you intend to answer the dramatic question. It’s your plan. When you deviate from your plan, that’s a good time for the GM to add a consequence if it makes narrative sense. You want to switch from flirting to sneaking? The person you were flirting with is watching you. Spend an extra raise. Want to sheath your sword and draw out a pistol? Your hand is slick with the blood of the guard you just dispatched, spend an extra raise or drop your sword.
Higginbotham[A dramatic scene needs to answer a dramatic ... must now face the consequences.]
None of this is in question in my mind. IMO, you are totally correct re: the rules as written.
But, this -Higginbotham[This doesn’t mean you have to take away player agency. Players should always have a lot of say over how a scene ends and what shape their success or failure takes. But she can’t just make a hide check. The dice can’t save her. That’s how you build tension.]- I totally disagree with. Oh, I definitely agree that you shouldn't take away a player's agency. What I am saying is, the rules force you to do just that. The rules literally prevent you from giving the players agency.
While the social/interpersonal aspect of player agency is complex and gray, from a mechanics standpoint, player agency is pretty black and white. The rules are supposed to be impartial. That is how mechanics cotribute to player agency. The player does something, and the rules determine if they succeed (or degree of success), not the whims of the GM. Granted, the GM can be manipulative with this. In D&D the GM can pit a high level monster with all kinds of bells and whistles against the PCs. But, still the monster gets a limited number of activations, and it has a specific AC and attack bonus, etc. If the PCs roll really well, and/or make good choices, they can still triumph. Failing that, they can always try to escape or otherwise interact with the situation. They always have agency in that, they can always decide what their characters do, and then there is a way to resolve their attempt. And this resolution method, has a distinct objective component. Within 7th sea 2nd ED, AS have this. The GM sets out everything that raises can be spent on as the start of the round, the players roll, and then spend. Its objective. The GM isn't supposed to decrease the damage which occurs at raise 2 if the hero with a bunch of wounds rolls only 2 raises. Similarly, the GM isn't supposed to just up the damage (or have it occur earlier) if a hero rolls 6 raises. Again, the GM has a lot of control. The GM can make the next round tougher or easier. But still, this constitutes influence over the decision, not just deciding it.
That is fundamentally different from what happens in a DS. You give the example of Miranda. In what way does she have any real** control over her success or failure? At the start of the sequence, the GM will know how many raises she has. So, if she rolls 3 raises, the GM will know the answer to the dramatic question is "no" if the GM presents 4 problems, but "yes," if he/she presents 3 or less. How does Miranda have any control over this? Remember, if Miranda is presented with a problem, her only option, per the rules, is to spend a raise to overcome it. Otherwise, her attempt automatically fails. So, assuming she wants to complete her goals, its not apparent that she has a heck of a lot of options for raise expenditure. It seems like everyone arguing for the rules as written seems to be "imagining" some space in the rules where Miranda's choices could objectively save her raises? Granted, there are going to be times when Miranda should be able to predict that a certain action will have certain consquences, and that taking tact A will be tougher/more complicated than taking tact B. But, certainly, this would not be the case in all, or even most, situations. And, if it was, that would seriously hinder the GM's ability to throw in twists, turns, reveals, suprises and other sorts of things that make stories more fun/interesting. Is it possible for Miranda to overcome an obstacle by spending less than 1 raise? Not according to the rules (granted, the GM decides what costs a raise or not, but still, this doesn't solve the underlying problem). The DS presents itself as this freeform narrative space, but, in actual fact, its quite linear. Miranda has limited raises, and to actively influence the fiction she needs to spend those. And when the GM presents a new obstacle, she must spend again. There isn't a player controlled way to interact with an obstacle that translates into mechanical benefit. There is no space in there for her to circumvent the GM simply making her fail. The GM can always present one more problem, and she has to spend the raise or fail. Similarly, she almost can't fail if the GM wants to "let" her win. The GM simply just presents only as many problems as she has raises.
And, if Miranda rolls only a single raise, we could probably all agree, she fails. However, most of the time, the game will be played when heroes have 2-5 raises. So, explain to me how one plays a DS without the GM just deciding whether or not 2 raises wins, or if 3, or 4, or 5 are needed. That's the explanation you owe if you want to assert that the DS rules as written don't rob a player of his/her agency. As far as I can see, they do.
**Granted, if Miranda foolishly spends raises seducing random courtiers, winning drinking contests, or other superfluous activities, then yes, she will waste all of her raises and its her fault. But, I hardly think we want a mechanic where the only thing Miranda has control over is totally failing by having her character act like a nitwit. Also, if Miranda gets only 1 raise, ok, she fails.
Higginbotham[I don’t want players looking at their character sheets during dramatic sequences.]
I agree with you that immersion is good, and intuitive mechanics help that. However, I think not looking at a character sheet is poor metric to judge a rule by. I would rather a mechanic be otherwise good, but require occasional character sheet reference, than not require reference, and be bad. And, to be fair, my proposal is not overly complicated. Many players would not need to look at their character sheet for it, especially if they have played the character for multiple sessions. Its hardly 3.5 D&D grappling rules.
Higginbotham[Penalties for improvising should follow from the fiction, but we already have a mechanic for that. The rules for consequences can handle improvised actions very easily.]
I am not questioning the mechanics of the improvisation rules. I am questioningg their very premise with regards to DS. Again, I'm cool with improvisation as written for ASs and simple risks. You clearly have no problem with their premise in a DS. You are fine with penalizing a hero for switching from flirting to sneaking, but want to incorporate it better into the fiction, such that we don't postulate some sort of ridiculous existential angst as the reason why switching from flirting to sneaking costs an extra raise. Admirable effort, but I'm not buying it. It still has all of the negative consequences I laid out above, and the underlying premise still doesn't make any more sense. My proposal simply acknowledges the conflict between the rules consideration and the narrative consideration, and edges the point of compromise towards the narrative side.
Higginbotham[The approach you use for a risk is how you intend to answer the dramatic question.]
Yes, but again, as per my above comments, this is problematic in a DS. A DS is by its nature wide and slow, not narrow and fast. The rules consideration for the extra raise cost makes sense. Let's avoid all this rolling, make one roll and narrate our way through. But, we can't just have heroes rolling their best approach and then doing whatever they want. Enter, improvisation rules. However, no actual person is going to have difficulty switching from sneaking to flirting or vice versa presuming they have some moments to decide/adjust. Certainly if the established fiction suggested a consequence (i.e. it already makes sense someone is watching because of the situation's context) or the GM wanted to add a consequence because its GM perogative, that's fair game. But, the consequence shouldn't occur because the hero made the switch in approach. Simply no narrative grounds for that.
Higginbotham[It’s your plan. When you deviate from your plan, that’s a good time for the GM to add a consequence if it makes narrative sense.]
I think you are making a false equivalency here. Googling approach I get approach (n): a way of dealing with something. Googling plan, I get: plan (n) a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something OR an intention or decision about what one is going to do. Clearly the equivalency is between the approach definition and the latter plan definition. Yes, if plan was equal to the former definition -a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something- then it makes sense that a deviation from the plan would cost something extra. Alas, its not. Plan here is -an intention or decision about what one is going to do. Deciding that you are going to sneak in some place does not mean that subsequently flirting with some is somehow harder...unless, again, the surrounding fictional circumstances indicate otherwise. But, its not the switch that should do it.
I refrained to comment until I playtested the dramatic sequences. Now that I’ve done it, I can share my thoughts:
We understand player agency as the possibility to take meaningful decisions in a given environment – an environment protected by a kind of ‘Rule of Law’. I’d call this the ‘bourgeois democracy’ principle.
(digression : I don’t think John Wick cares much about the Rule of Law approach. His approach is that of a benevolent ruler, who makes up ‘reality’ as fit, often creating an ‘illusion’ of agency. His suggestion in GM’s books since the first edition is very clear : he suggests cheating and creating multiple alternate realities. He will not only change the future based on character actions, but also the past based on player actions.
This is not inherently wrong and in small amounts it’s even necessary : after all, if you’ve thought of most of the whys in advance, then the game becomes a puzzle of players trying to outguess you. Once the players get to know you, things can become predictable. Sometimes one of their ideas is cooler than your own. And 7thSea is a game about being cool, not a gritty game which has life-like anti-climactic moments.
But you cannot get too much outside the Rule of Law if the players don’t actually want to be tricked. Ok, they trust you won’t screw them, but will they really tell you their thoughts about who’s the murderer, knowing that you could change the story to make that person the murderer ? Many players don’t like this. They want to believe they achieved something in game. I’m one of them.
So, if you’re also like me, what do you do? Well, for starters don’t get literally all the paternalistic advice of the GM section: incorporate it in your toolbox, but overdo it. That’s relatively easy to do.)
But what happens when a system has rules which require the GM to ‘cheat’ for them to work? This type of rules are useless to players who like the Rule of Law principle. Are dramatic sequence such a case ?
It’s not easy to understand what makes dramatic sequences not work as action sequences (which follow almost the same rules) and skill challenges (D&D 4th Edition’s similar mechanic, particularly after it matured). You did indeed highlight the core, but let’s compare:
I can only assume that Dramatic Sequences made some unconventional choices in order to minimise the rolling required. It’s a noble goal, particularly considering that 7thSea Second Edition’s rolling is the second most complicated rolling I’ve seen in around 20 different RPG systems. What do we lose to achieve this goal? We see 3 or 4 possible problems in the table above.
Initially, my attention was drawn to the problem Darl Loh raised: the combination of a fixed duration and lack of a predefined number of actions required to achieve success. A player could theoretically achieve the goal with one raise OR could run out of all of his/her 10 raises. This has two aspects: As said, the DM can totally make up obstacles on the fly or render one approach mute. From my experience, this wasn’t a big issue in ‘low power’ characters. The amount of raises needed was pretty clear even without adding obstacles. A player wanted for example to convice an NPC about X, and had 3 raises. I thought of one obstacle, but they smartly muted it (the lines they said doing their action smartly circumvented the obstacle). Now the character has succeeded her primary task and had just a bit off spare time to do something extra with the night (the horizon of the challenge). I warned her that she needed to spent both of her remaining raises to change approach and sneak out of the building. Then she would be left with no actions – this means that 1) she was at my mercy if something bad happened in the road, 2) she would need to convey information to the person she wanted but not ‘convince’ or anything and then 3) she wouldn’t be able to sneak back into the building unnoticed. She totally knew that and decided to go for it. That’s player agency (she decided to accept the consequences of getting caught while coming back in) but also with room for GM nastiness (I could just have her attacked at the street and it would have immediately started an action sequence).
The situation above would have been different in situations where the primary action was harder. It could have needed 3 ‘immediately logical’ steps (thus spending all the character’s raises) and I could have added a few more obstacles on top, to make her fail. But I never in my first session needed to do that. From this perspective, the dramatic sequence rules, for low power characters, are compatible with the ‘rule of law’ approach.
Another issue which worried me was how to balance the fact that some characters will do a lot of ‘small’ actions and others a few ‘bold’ ones – when each action in theory consumes the same ‘currency’ (a raise). In practice I felt comfortable handling it, mostly because I had experience from similar minor problems with D&D skill challenges. Here’s the guidance I followed:
1) Discussions between heroes don’t consume actions (unless they’re very long). The same for short and non risky conveyance of information to friendly NPCs.
2) What’s ‘short’ depends on the total duration of the sequence. Talking for 10’ to a friendly NPC (without trying to insist/convince) isn’t an action in a sequence covering a whole night, but would be an action in a sequence covering half an hour.
3) Bold actions could, of course, have higher consequences. Yes, you will achieve your goal in fewer raises, but you will have to spend raises to avoid the consequences or assume them...
Of course there’s some GM judgement in this, but I felt it was as subtle as the best of the alternatives.
Another thing that worried me was the lack of a clear mechanism for encouraging teamwork in dramatic sequences. Even the examples show characters doing each one their own thing to achieve different goals. But this seems easy to fix. I believe that if we clarify that communication between heroes (within reasonable distance and time limits) does not spend actions, we create sufficient incentives for teamworking: a hero A with a thieving approach for example could be contacted by a hero B with tempting/chatting approach who just learned that character C has something interesting that hero A could steal.
What did cause some problems, though, was the fact that the success condition is unclear. Here I think it’s worth here to make a distinction between two cases:
1) When players can just collect partial successes, and try to complete their objectives later – in another opportunity for a dramatic sequence. In this case it doesn’t matter if they don’t fully ‘succeed’ in the first dramatic sequence – they’ve advanced their agendas based on their actions and decisions.
2) When players have a ‘now or never’ opportunity, where failure to meet their objectives by the end of the sequence is a hard failure.
I did experience one such case in my sample sessions: we had a social scene where heroes both had to make alliances and advance their personal stories AND had to discover a plot on time. The players had made serious advances in all side objectives, but I did have to ‘nudge’ events to the players’ favour to push them to a partial success to the discovering of the plot, because they were simply looking elsewhere. The fact that the players use the same pool of actions to advance their own agenda and the communal challenge makes sense but it can be problematic. In these cases I suggest to subtly list any group goals early in the dramatic sequence. This is another lesson from skill challenges ;).
So, if we follow this advice, do dramatic sequences work? In my first experience I’d say mostly yes, but they’re not any more dramatic than alternatives, just different. Let’s see again the aforementioned example of a character wanting to sneak out of the house, reach the port, talk to an NPC, and sneak back in:
1. With Dramatic Sequence: I decide to not even roll, fail and get a Hero Point. I can also decide to roll. Let’s say I get 3 raises. I can sneak (1), reach the port (2), talk (free in this case) and come back (3). Then I will get caught when sneaking back in the house. There’s a tension in deciding to proceed with the action despite the consequences (even more knowing that if something happens along the road I might have to fight or I might not have enough time to even get back to the house). In the end the tension is more about deciding between 3 possible futures.
2. With skill challenges it could be a 4 successes before 2 failures challenge. There’s tension even in sneaking out. If I get caught and don’t find a way to bluff my way around it, I might totally fail my goal. But I might also do my goal without suffering any consequences. The tension here is more about taking risks and following the dice results.
Tec Goblin:
I would argue that in a Dramatic Sequence the "Success Condition" is pretty clear. "I am trying to sneak into the Duke's home to steal his plans for world domination" or "I am going to masquerade as the Lady of the House in order to get the secret meeting location from her contact." The very nature of definining what the character is doing determines the Success Condition. How successful you are or how close to get to succeeding is governed by raises and might be unclear.
John
I will second Tec Goblin here. This point is relates to one of the chief practical problems I have with how DSs work. I'm of the opinion that number of raises rolled in a DS (with the exception of extreme lows and highs) are, in actual fact, essentially meaningless. However, even if you disagree, I think you have to grant that there is inherent conflict in the intent behind DS, and their consequence mechanic. The intent behind a DS is to allow a resolution of a chunk of fiction in a fun, free-flowing manner. The mechanic is supposed to "roll with the punches" so to speak, in that the scene can go where the players and GM takes it. However, if players actually want to succeed, they are supposed to have some way to predict raise expenditure required to acheive success. The twists (and, IMO, the more fun) a scene has, the less able the players are to make this prediction. So, like Tec Goblin said, a "clear" success condition at the outset of most DSs, is not the same as every DS having a clear success condition in actual play. Its a strange Catch 22...and, I will add, my simple rule change suggestion completely negates the problem...as do the other suggestions about allowing continuing through the use of Hero and/or Danger points.
Thanks for the comments Tec Goblin. I like your Rule of Law (RoL) analogy. I partially agree with you on Mr. Wick's perspective. I agree his writings imply more concern with making a good story than providing players with "true" agency. Still, I don't think he cares nothing for player agency. For instance, Blood and Honor provides characters with incredible amounts of control over the entire narrative. Your points about action length and teamwork are great.
Of course, I do have issues, lol.
As defined by you, RoL playing requires no dice rolling. It just requires that the GM cede the fiction to the player. So, your declaration of DS's compatibility with RoL playing is misleading. Tehcnically, its correct, but your wording implies that something about the DS rules specifically enable this approach. They don't. They don't not. The rules are largely irrelevant here (other than not specifically forbidding it). Point is, a GM can offer a PC a hard choice any time he/she sees fit. If the GM's actions after the PC's decision coincide with the stated fictional consequences of that choice, he/she is taking a RoL approach. The GM abided by the heroes choice, thereby making the choice meaningful.
But, RoL style play using DSs is tangential to my point. In order to clarify, let me ask, why do we even have rules in an RPG? There are are lot of answers. But, a key, and as far as I know, universal aspect (with the exception of DSs as written) of any RPG rule is...the rule takes brief, but firm, narrative control from everyone. Think about this. Its universal. The player decides what an actor they are controlling wants to do. The actor attempts that action. Although the actor wants that action to succeed (at least in that moment), the player may not (altough usually will) and the GM may not (but will many times). It doesn't matter what anyone wants. We let the mechanic decide the outcome* or, at the very least, define the outcome's parameters.** Not so in a DS. The dice don't decide, or set parameters. The GM does. The dice likely bias the GM towards a particularly result, but only in the vaguest sense. And, as this conversation evolves, I find myself less and less certain what the dice actually accomplish in the setting of a DS. It seems like the mechanic leads to everyone pretending to "play" the game, when, in fact, they are just having a conversation, where the dice (maybe) give everyone a gestalt of how it all turns out (1 raise, "Oh crap," 3 raises, "mixed result," 6 raises, "well done").
*And if we decide to circumvent the rule, we know we are circumventing the rule, not abiding by it. Which is fine, but different than playing a DS as written.
**The best explanation of why (fundamentally) we do this, came from somebody in the powered by the apocalyse community. I am probably misquoting, but its something along the lines of, "we use rules to avoid consensus...consensus is boring." The idea being, we cede control so we are genuinely surprised. Think of the elation when you rolled that "20" that saved your butt, or that dread when the GM rolled that "20" that crushed you. And, I know, Mr. Wick hates move then roll. But, the same thing applies in an AS where the villain rolls well, and there are a bunch of brutes and a bunch of obstacles, and the PC rolls a string of 2s. Nobody at the table wanted that, but they all abide by it.
Again, if you aren't thinking about this as you play, it won't feel that way. It will feel like you are genuinely playing. You are abiding by the rules after all (an obstacle requires a raise to circumvent). Taking some of what you said...
From Tec Goblin[As said, the DM can totally make up obstacles on the fly or render one approach mute. From my experience, this wasn’t a big issue in ‘low power’ characters.
In what way wasn't it an issue? Because you didn't make up obstacles or render an approach moot doesn't mean it wouldn't be easy for another GM to do just that. In any other game, adding obstacles as play evolves might be a key component of a GM's toolbox (or maybe the primary component if you prefer to play with less prep).
From Tec Goblin[The amount of raises needed was pretty clear even without adding obstacles.]
To who? Evidently to you, but what about your players? What about unknown/unanticipated obstacles? What happens when a player does something that you know would cause a complication, but they would have no way of knowing about? Every GM knows secrets. So, does that obstacle come to fruition, and the players fail, or you, knowing that they players can't possibly overcome this obstacle, and being a nice GM, decide to just ignore that obstacle? Not really a question in any other game. Because, with any other resolution system, when a new obstacle arises, the PCs tackle like they do any other obstacle. Compare a skill challenge of PC level +X. It has a defined number of easy, moderate and hard DC skill checks, and requires X successes before 3 failures. Of course, GMs can and are encouraged to modify these parameters. However, doing so in the middle of the skill check with the intent of influencing the outcome of the challenge (whether towards success or failure) is explicitly cheating. Compare that to a DS. The GM decides the outcome of the player's roll with perfect knowledge of how well the player rolled. To make that equivalent in the skill challenge, the GM would need to be told explicitly to not decide a skill check's DC until after seeing the player's roll (or perhaps more accurately, dynamically adjust the number of successful skill checks needed to succeed as the skill challenge proceeded).
From Tec Goblin[It could have needed 3 ‘immediately logical’ steps (thus spending all the character’s raises) and I could have added a few more obstacles on top, to make her fail. But I never in my first session needed to do that.]
In this case, how are you not just deciding success or failure? Don't add obstacles = success. Add obstacles = failure. That's entirely on you. The player has literally zero say. Regardless of your decision, giving the PC a RoL compatible choice at the end, or the outset, or in the middle is tangential to the issue at hand. Namely, what the heck was the purpose of rolling those raises if the GM was just going to arbitrate the outcome anyway?
Maybe with a few clarifications I can show we don't disagree that much.
1: I didn't say John doesn't care at all about player agency. I just said he doesn't care *much*
2: I did not imply that player agency is incompatible with dice rolling.
3: I wasn't trying to prove that the Dramatic Sequences were enabling the Rule of Law principle, I was just trying to see whether they were incompatible with it.
But we have one important disagreement: I think that rules could be useful even when they're not taking narrative control over everyone. They can be useful as a guideline.
Let's see what happened in Dungeons & Dragons before we had skill challenges. Players could just roll diplomacy again and again until the DM decided it was enough, or until they succeded. There was no guidance for when enough failures are enough. There was no guidance on how to allow every player participate. That's where skill challenges stepped in and added a guidance framework to an otherwise very arbitrary judgement.
I think the role of dramatic sequences is similar: it's an (even softer) framework which would help a GM decide when a player has spent enough time/actions on something. They can slightly help a GM who wants to abide by the Rule of Law principle. They don't help as much as skill challenges but they do have the benefit of requiring very few rolls.
Is it a problem if some of the knowledge is only available to the GM? Not that much. Any combat encounter, in any RPG, could involve the arrival of additional enemies at any new round - enemies the players don't know of. If the GM wants to abide by the Rule of Law principle, (s)he has thought of these enemies in advance and of why they're there. (S)he has even presented opportunities to the players to anticipate the presence of additional enemies (or obstacles). If the GM does NOT abide by this principle, enemies can always be added to the encounter just to make it 'more interesting'. Presenting obstacles in a dramatic sequence is pretty similar. If the players want the GM to follow the Rule of Law principle and they cannot trust him/her with these decisions, then there's no other solution than going the board game way (see Mansions of Madness or Castle Ravenloft) where the GM is practically scripted.
That said, I DO realise a difference between dramatic sequences and standard combat encounters: in some games (see DnD) you have a notion of what is an 'appropriate' encounter for characters of X power. There is only so much that the DM can add to an encounter or to the difficulty of a skill challenge without getting blatantly outside the scope of the DM's rules. In 7thSea there's nothing of the sort (neither in action sequences nor in dramatic sequences). Is it needed? I'd say yes, and it would be pretty easy to come out with some guidance. After all this system is not made to scale a wide range of hero power: a hero having played 100 sessions is just twice more powerful than a starting hero.
From Tec Goblin[But we have one important disagreement: I think that rules could be useful even when they're not taking narrative control over everyone. They can be useful as a guideline.]
Good point, but how then is my modification (or the other similar proposals) not a demonstrative improvement to DSs? It keeps virtually the same structure, but retains some level of player agency. All the good without any of the bad.
From Tec Goblin[Let's see what happened in Dungeons & Dragons before we had skill challenges. Players could just roll diplomacy again and again until the DM decided it was enough, or until they succeded. There was no guidance for when enough failures are enough. There was no guidance on how to allow every player participate. That's where skill challenges stepped in and added a guidance framework to an otherwise very arbitrary judgement.]
I think we are dancing around the crux of my point. I have no issue with GM interpretation. My current favorite rules construct are the powered by the apocalypse games and their offshoots. Many moves in Apocalypse World require tons of GM (and player) interpretation. Still, there is a crucial difference from DSs. A 10+ is a success. The GM has to abide by that. In your diplomacy check example, each diplomacy check had a DC. That number was decided before the roll (and if it wasn't, shame, shame). The check succeeded or failed, and then the GM interpreted success or failure as he/she saw fit. That is my point about ceding narrative control to the dice (or whatever mechanic). DSs don't do that. The PC rolls and the GM just aribitrarily decides both what the dice outcome means, and the fictional interpretation the outcome creates. The GM is only supposed to do the latter. That's the deal ;-)
From Tec Goblin[I think the role of dramatic sequences is similar: it's an (even softer) framework which would help a GM decide when a player has spent enough time/actions on something. They can slightly help a GM who wants to abide by the Rule of Law principle. They don't help as much as skill challenges but they do have the benefit of requiring very few rolls.]
Overall agreed. By and large, I like the DS structure. But, just use my rule (or the HP/DP mod) and you get the same benefits without grinding player agency into dust.
From Tec Goblin[Is it a problem if some of the knowledge is only available to the GM? Not that much. Any combat encounter, in any RPG, could involve the arrival of additional enemies at any new round - enemies the players don't know of. If the GM wants to abide by the Rule of Law principle, (s)he has thought of these enemies in advance and of why they're there. (S)he has even presented opportunities to the players to anticipate the presence of additional enemies (or obstacles). If the GM does NOT abide by this principle, enemies can always be added to the encounter just to make it 'more interesting'.]
This RoL thing is your baby, so I guess you get to define the parameters. However, I would argue to expand your definition a bit. Right now it doesn't seem to allow for an improvisational style of play. Maybe I am interpreting it wrong, but I would suggest that its still within the RoL approach for the GM to add obstacles/bad guys even if unplanned/unanticipated as long as it makes sense within the fictional context, and isn't done out of spite or some other childish emotion. If the players are delving through Orc mountain, and the GM is improvising the whole thing, than having extra orcs show up to spice up an exciting scene seems well within the RoL bounds. Personnally, I think the RoL approach applies less to combat encounters (an extra trap or bad guy is pretty small potatoes) and more to the larger story. I see violations of the RoL approach as the GM robbing the players of something they earned through hard work, or retroactively changing the story because the PCs did something inconvenient (such as circumventing a bad guy's plot, or discovering a secret that wasn't supposed to be found).
From Tec Goblin[Presenting obstacles in a dramatic sequence is pretty similar.]
Ooooh, I'm sorry. But, no way. Worlds apart. Let's compare a skill challenge to DSs because combat is a poor example since it would be an AS, which is not at issue here. A skill challenge has a fixed victory condition from the outset. But, even were the GM to cheat, and add additional required successes, the PCs still just make skill checks. Sure, more skill checks = decreased probabilty of success, but its still probability, not arbitration. Granted, if the GM adds an additional 10 required successes, he/she is virtually guaranteeing PC failure. But, let's keep this discussion to people playing like they should be playing.
In a DS, if the GM presents 1 additional obstacle beyond the number rolled, the PC just fails. Adding obstacles in a DS couldn't be more different from a GM adding more obstacles to any scene, in any RPG, including the entire rest of 7th Sea 2nd ED. In every other system, adding obstacles decreases the probability of player success (or complete success), presumably with the benefit of increased drama. Moreover, it doesn't prevent the PC from taking meaningful action. Again, not so in a DS. The GM presents that 1 additional obstacle and the PCs are straight neutered. They have no recourse. And, the GM knows exactly what number obstacle does this. If there was some information asymetry, you could have some kind of bluffing/betting type mechanic. Ya don't. The GM just arbitrarily decides success or failure based on some sort of gesalt about the number of raises. That is bad business. Its a poor mechanic...at least that particular piece is. Like I said, the concept of DSs is good. It just needs a tweak.
Glad you like the rule. :-)
Agreed about adding the opponents until the PCs fail. To be clear, endless addition of obstacles until the players fail was never part of my examples. If we are talking player agency, seeing the PCs winning, not wanting that, and then manipulating events to expressly prevent it is taking away player agency. That remains consistent regardless of the game type or the particular rules.
My point is, in a D&D combat or skill challenge, the game master can add obstacles to an encounter, and as long as they are reasonable (of appropriate amount and level such that the players still have "good" chance of success), the GM isn't really infringing on player agency. This just isn't an issue in D&D because the structure is so different. A conscious character can always apply their skills and abilities to a situation. They never hit a wall where they run out of ways to influence the narrative. Not so in a DS. That wall pops up. So it puts a GM that wants to add an obstacle (which might really enhance the scene) in a weird catch 22 where he/she has to decide to force the player to fail, or "grant" them the win and have the new obstacle be part of something (Simple risk, AS, DS). The objectivity of the dice roll is gone.
For the sake of further clarity, let me just say, I have zero issue with GM control or interpretation in games. If I am playing a survival horror game, I want the GM to manipulate the story to make it gritty and dangerous. If I am playing anime fantasy with Exalted, I want the GM to reinforce that I can do all sorts of crazy stuff and destroy an entire army by myself. What I don't want, is the GM to just decide whether or not my roll to shoot the zombie succeeds or not. Or decide if my badass charm combo really does destroy the whole army. The roll stands alone. It succeeded or failed. Interpret from there, but the roll's result is clear. Ditto for any other setting. That is the contract DSs break, and what my suggestion, as well as the other suggestions, repair.
The thing to remember is that every Scene is designed with the Player succeeding. Their Raises determine how many Oportunities or Concequences there are at the end.
2nd ed. much like other games John has written is one of Co-operative story telling. Both the GM and Player has control over the Naritive. It is a dramatic change of thought, but one that has a potential to create truly memorable games.
I highly suggest reading both of John's Play Dirty books. While they can give the impression of only being about screwing the players they aren't. The first is about how to be a Better GM, and the second is about how to create a better Game.
Also worth looking at is Robin Law's Hamlet's Hit Points and his game Hillfolk. These are a great resource for the change in mindset.
I think you misunderstand me. I have no problem with the rules as a whole. I am specifically saying DSs don't live up to the promise of the rest of the system. I have read all of your suggested sources, and I quite like all of them. As for needing a switch in mindset, recall my endorsement of anything Powered by the Apocalypse. Those games are wildly successful by indie standards, and are very collaborative.
From Paul Titan[Both the GM and Player has control over the Naritive.]
Not in a DS!! That's the whole problem. Not to be snarky, but, have you read the rest of the thread? I have explained how the DS robs the player of their narrative control over and over again. If you find my explanations incorrect or unsatisfying, I am happy to engage your specific objections. But, I am not going to bother explaining the entire argument all over again. Especially if you just assert something which I have extensively refuted without anything to back up your argument.
From Paul Titan[The thing to remember is that every Scene is designed with the Player succeeding.]
Maybe. I don't see where this was explicitly mentioned. The game is designed to make the heroes look awesome, but the "I fail" mechanic seems to suggest the game wants its heroes to face failure as well as triumph. And, if the game intends for each scene to be created with the player destined to succeed, that's a design flaw. Don't get me wrong, we want the players to succeed a lot; probably most of the time. But, we don't want it to be a foregone conclusion. That doesn't make the game suspenseful or memorable, it makes it predictable.
From Paul Titan[Their Raises determine how many Oportunities or Concequences there are at the end.]
Maybe I am reading the game wrong, but the book's examples would seem to bely this reading. Moreover, so what? It doesn't change the crux of my argument, which is, the DS isn't really a mechanic so much, as a sequence where the GM is almost forced to steal the narrative. If the players succeeded at all the obstacles, but got less/more opportunities/consequences its primarily because of how the GM presented the obstacles. If the GM sees his player has 3 raises, and he gives 3 obstacles, the player will get zero opportunities. Its as simple as that. We need uncertaintly and reduced control on the GM's side. If the GM is able to perfectly predict the players performance (knows exactly the number of raises available) and has complete control over the outcome of their perfectly predicted performance (sole and final arbiter of presenting obstacles/consequences/opportunities), its not collaborative anymore...or, at least, its collaborative in an unnecessarily asymmetric manner. The GM becomes a benevolent dictator and the PCs his sham parliament, instead of the President with the PCs as the Congress.
You are indeed correct, but why would he?
In D&D a GM could hit the players with an Ancient Red Dragon when they are 2nd level. It would be unreasonable for him to do that, and his players would get tired of him. In 7th Sea a GM could ensure the failure of the DS by adding in Concequences, with the same end result.
There are choices to be made, as a GM we have All the Power, how you use it is up to you. If a GM finds that in thier game the players aren't achieving success in the DS dial back the Concequences. If it is just that GM finds the temptation to great to squash the players because the rules don't say they can't, then this isn't the game for them.
Being a GM is never easy choices, judgements, decisions and changes always have to be made. A game is a living thing and unless you are simply simply running a official Pathfinder Society modual at a offical Pathfinder Society game, the dice and the rules don't have to control the story.
I think people are worrying about how the rules can be abused to ruin the fun of the players or the GM far to much. Unless someone at the table likes doing that to others it won't happen, and if it does then there are ways to prevent it happening.
P.S. I am a great fan of the 1st ed and backed 2nd with high hopes. That being said, the book is fantastic, the character creation is fast, effective, and easy to handle, but I have not run it yet and frankly I have my own personal doubts about it actually working for my group. We will be starting our first try next Weekend.
From Paul Titan[You are indeed correct, but why would he?]
I want to answer this, but -and I am probably being dense- its unclear which of my statements you are referring to. Can you please specify?
Sorry, you are missing my point entirely. This isn't about the potential for GM abuse. Your absolutely correct. A GM can abuse GM power in any game.
This is about complete GM control of a mechanic's outcome, regardless of whether or not the GM uses that to beat the heroes down, or let them win.
From Paul Titan[In D&D a GM could hit the players with an Ancient Red Dragon when they are 2nd level. It would be unreasonable for him to do that, and his players would get tired of him. In 7th Sea a GM could ensure the failure of the DS by adding in Concequences, with the same end result.]
Not even close. Its completely reasonable for heroes to fail a DS or two. Otherwise, they wouldn't have rules for when the heroes run out of raises. The book would just tell you to never present more obstacles than the players have raises. Of course, that would be ridiculous. Just like its ridiculous to compare a GM sending an Ancient Red Dragon against 2nd level characters to a GM in 7th Sea making a 4 obstacle DS when the PCs only have 3 raises. One (guess which) is grossly outside the normative behavior expected of a GM, and the other is perfectly within its bounds. Granted, a GM in 7th Sea shouldn't add a final obstacle to every single DS, but that brings us to my point...how does a GM know when to have the PC's fail or have them succeed? Its entirely at the GM's whim. But, the same thing goes for hero success. The heroes aren't supposed to succeed just because the GM decides they do. That is not how action sequences work. The GM lays out the stuff, and then the heroes roll. They have to deal with the stuff laid out regardless of whether or not they got 1 raise, or 10.
From Paul Titan[GM we have All the Power]
Nope. If your fighter rolls a 20 he crits. If his damage puts the monster at zero hp, it dies. If you give your players a skill challenge where they need 8 successes before 3 failures, and they get 8 successes with only 2 failures, they succeed. Yes, a GM could have another monster pop up when the fighter kills the other one, or immediately stick the players with another skill challenge when the beat the first one...but again, we are talking about how we expect people to actually play the game. By and large, people don't play that way. And, like you point out, a GM that does so, will quickly be short on players. There is no such objectivity in DSs. Unless you address that specifically, you're not addressing my point. And, if you want to address this point, keep in mind this objectivity occurs everywhere else in the game (simple risk, ASs), so please don't make grandiose assertions about collaborative story-telling unless you can explain how this lack of objectivity in DSs is specifically necessary/beneficial, compared to the other portions of the game.
Let me give you an example that might drive it home. Do you recall from Play Dirty when John ended his cyberpunk campaign by having all of his players have bombs implanted in their brains, and spending the last session trying to deactivate them? Pretty awesome stuff IMO. Great advice there too. Especially for me, someone who has tended to struggle with wrapping up campaigns well. I digress...
So, let's focus on the last two character's in this session. By this point, they have decided to find out who put the bomb's in their heads, get to him, and make him disarm the bombs. They don't know who it is yet, so its not a chase, and they aren't in active combat with anyone (at the moment). Sounds a heck of a lot like a cool premise for a DS to me. Now, John doesn't specify the rules system he was using, so this is a bit of conjecture. However, since the DS mechanic is unique as far as I know, and this was presumbly played with an existing ruleset sometime in the past, let's assume whatever system he was using was a bit more traditional than 7th Sea 2nd. That means, that when John played that session, he had a lot of control over whether or not the players succeeded, but not complete control. John had to abide by the results of their rolls. If they succeeded at something, the fiction rolled forward with that as truth. Ultimately, this means that nobody knew the final outcome of that session. Sure, John had a lot of control. He could make it easier or harder to find the information needed to survive, but assuming he didn't just make it impossible to succeed, or make it a sure success by just giving it the players (which he obviously didn't), the player's input, and the dice input, had a lot of say. End result, everyone, including John, was likely in suspense as the clock ticked down. A failed roll right at the end could spell doom, while a successful one might spell salvation. A clever idea from the PCs might save the day, while being dense could destroy them. John could make it harder by throwing obstacles in the PCs way, even unanticipated/unplanned ones, but the PCs never lost the ability to at least try and tackle those obstacles. Yes, at some point, enough additional obstacles would spell certain doom. However, there would have been a degree of wiggle room; some space where John could ramp up the tension, without outright forcing failure. And, there was never a hard line where it was like, "well, you (PCs) are out of narrative resources, you can no longer impact this portion of the story by succeeding at anything."
Now, imagine if that final sequence (find the bomb maker and get him to disarm the bombs) had been run as a DS. The PCs would have rolled for their raises and spent them as the GM presented obstacles. It would probably be suspenseful for the PCs, but in a not so great way. The PCs know, "Bob has 3 raises, and Bill has 4." They know that as they spend those, they get closer and closer to losing. But, its different here. Why? Because they are looking across the table at the person deciding success or failure. I'll say it again...deciding. There is no way you can read the DS rules and not see this. If you are reading this and thinking, "I wouldn't add that eighth raise"...you are wrong. If you are reading this and thinking, "I would add that eight raise"...you are wrong. You are thinking about it the totally wrong way. You should be thinking, "Why, oh why, does the culmination of this entire campaign, and the final moment of this incredible final session come down to my decision? What lonely pedestal have I found myself on?" When that occurs, the "game" has lost the thing that makes it "game." Now its just one person telling us how it all played out.
Oh, I was just thinking, maybe I should move this thread to the core game rules forum? Thoughts?
Of course!
TAJ-07: Technopriest And Justicar Of 7thSea2e
Thanks!
Last night I listened to UnderDiscussion: The UnderGopher Podcast they did a two part review of both editions of 7th Sea. In it they summed up what I think the root of the problem and put it in to words far better than what I have managed to do.
The game (the DS in preticular) has a visual novel aproach heavily focused on Role playing scenes rather than problem solving. They defined the problem that I am foreseeing for my upcoming Game. It is the style of the game, the decisions made during its creation. For some they will love it, for others (myself included) they might have to house rule it in order to get it more in line with their playstyles.
You must not be referring to DSs. Your point holds for simple risks and ASs, but not DSs. By their nature, ASs or simple risks have that 1 raise to succeed dynamic. But, DSs are set up to have multiple tasks that each require a raise to defeat. Just look at the examples in the book.
Alice gets the young noble alone and interrogates him. In the book, the example ends with the hero succedding. But, the GM would be well within his/her rights to have the noble spill the beans, and tell Alice about a letter proving some of the schemes. The letter is in the possession of another noble (named by this noble) who is at the party. The noble Alice is interrogating refuses to testify about the meeting to anyone else...he is too afraid of the count. Alice decides she needs that letter...except, its literally impossible for her to acquire the letter since she is out of raises. I suppose the GM could have another DS start, but that doesn't seem in keeping with the rules. After all, we are still in the same location, and we are still trying to answer the same dramatic question (can the heroes get evidence about the count). Sure, Alice can walk down and start a fight, and then she gets to roll agaun. But, she is in a bit of a catch 22. And, crucially, to your point, there isn't a way she could have saved a final raise to succeed at this obstacle (let's assume she was judicious in raise use and didn't spend that extra raise on interrogating him). If she had saved a raise, she wouldn't be here. She had to spend raises to get to the point where she even knows about the letter. So, no, the player can't "save" raises in a DS because each GM presented obstacle requires a raise to overcome, and in practical terms, it wouldn't be hard for a GM to come up with 4 obstacles instead of 3, or 5 instead of 4. And vice versa, it wouldn't be difficult for a GM to let things slide and present only 2 obstacles instead of 3, or 3 instead of 4. Either way, the GM decides.
From Salamanca[Having actually run the game, I think it works fine as is.]
Well, your playing experience is somewhat irrelevant. Of course it feels like it plays fine, as long as you are trying to make the game fun, the DS probably is fun. However, when you play a DS, what your players roll has very little impact on whether or not they succeed at a DS. As the GM, you are deciding that, success or failure, having full knowledge of what will make your players succeed, and what will make them fail. Your players don't have the agency in DS that they have in an AS or simple risk. They don't have the agency they have in almost any other tabletop RPG I know of. So, its not a question of whether or not it works, its a question of being fine with GM arbitration trumping the objectivity of the dice. In this case, its interesting, in that its a mechanic that robs players of their agency, but, if you don't think about it too hard, probably plays pretty well. Ignorance is bliss. But, you can also use my fix (or the others suggested), and have just as much fun, without robbing your players of their agency.
I will try to listen to the Podcast if I get a chance, but, at first blush, I tend to disagree. The mechanics of 2nd ED are less "mechanicy" than 1st ED, but the flow of the game is still pretty much heroes teaming up to bring down the villain. If we are comparing 7th Sea to Powered by the Apocalypse games, 7th Sea is far closer to Dungeon World than it is to Apocalypse World or Monsterhearts. And that dynamic changed little from 1st ED to 2nd ED. Look at the examples from the book, and tell me you couldn't replace raise expenditure with skill checks and replant the "fluff" in any d20 game book as a reasonable example of a scene run with skill checks or a skill challenge.
Regardless of whether or not we agree on this, its irrelevant to my issues with DSs. Even if I grant that the DS "has a visual novel approach heavily focused on Role playing scenes rather than problem solving" it doesn't change the asymetric power involved. When the GM gets to decide 3 raises = succeeds or fails, after seeing that I have now rolled 3 raises...we have a problem. Its the same if we are focused on who gets to say what happens in a fictional/role-playing sense, or whether we are talking about the mechanics of overcoming a challenge. Simply use my fix, or one of the others suggested, and you return to that back and forth between the GM and the player, where both have some level of power that the other can't (or is very difficult to) infringe on. The DS still plays the same with my fix, it just gives the player back the agency the rules as written take away.
Ok, switched out my workout audio book for the podcast...so, I have some comments.
Bottom line, overall they did the rules an injustice. I didn't diagree with everything, but they totally misrepresented the peice about risk. I don't know exactly what adventure they played, but it sounds like they did the equivalent of sending a 10th level D&D party against 6th level opponents. Yeah, that wouldn't feel risky, but that's not the game system's problem. You are playing it wrong.
For example, imagine this scenario. An AS begins as the Black Dragon, the flagship of the notorious and dastardly pirate Dread Ricario crashes into the PC's ship. The captain of the PC's ship orders a preemptive counterattack, and the PC's lead their marines in a close quarters charge against their pirate foes. The PCs tell the GM their approach. They don't roll yet. The GM lays out the situation.
-The PCs and their forces are outnumbered. As the PC's marines go head to head with some of the pirates, the net result is the PCs are threatened by two brute squads of 8 strength each. One squad is pirates, the other is duelists.
-Ricario, knowing the captain personally and being prepared for a pre-emptive assault, has set a trap. He has small cannons laying in ambush and filled with grapeshot. They are already lit, and diverting them is a 3 raise consequence (depending on the description, inactivating this consequence may count as the PC getting across to the Black Dragon). The grapeshot will fire at raise 4 unless a PC stops it. If it does, it will decimate the PC's force. Every PC will take 3 wounds, and many of their fellow boarders will be killed, causing the PCs to have to face another 10 man brute squad (untyped) as their forces can no longer fight it.
-Activating his trap has distracted Ricario. He rolls his strength as normal, but can't take action until raise 3, regardless of how many raises he rolls. Any PC that can get past the opposing pirates (1 raise to get across, and getting through the opposing force is a 2 wound consequence) before raise 3, can take a 1 raise opportunity to incapacitate Ricario for one round.
-Any PC that doesn't get across to the other boat by raise 3 will fall into the drink as the boats bounce against each other.
You can't tell me that a group of PCs presented with this situation aren't going to be sweating bullets as they pick up their dice. If nobody rolls at least 5 raises, that grapeshot is going to go off, and the PCs are going to be in a bad situation. If nobody can incapacitate Ricario for the round (or they are forced to choose between doing that or stopping the grapeshot) that adds whatever he rolls to the already large burden facing the PCs. Any PC that rolls less than 4 raises is going to be stuck falling between the ships. Sure, the dynamic is different than a move then roll game, but its not because the game lacks tension or risk...assumng you play it correctly.
Being that the UnderDiscussion: The UnderGopher folks are familiar with Play Dirty and Dungeon World, I was also surprised they missed another important facet of the intended 7th Sea playstyle...as Vincent Baker would admonish us..."Put your bloody fingerprints all over it." Now, in 7th Sea, we probably understand "bloody" as an Avalonian expression, as opposed to the more literal "blood" Vincent Baker is talking about in Apocalypse World. Still, the point is the same. Yes, the characters are powerful. But, so what? That's when you Play Dirty. That's when you threaten things they care about. Only a Villain can kill a Hero, but a brute can kill an NPC easy enough. Give opportunities that are too good to pass up. That's a key component of the tension in a simple risk, or AS...the players see a buffet of raise-worthys laid out before the roll. They are going to know their general chances to buy everything they want. And, the game only works if they usually can't buy everything. It works even better if they really, really want to buy everything...if each thing they can't buy is nearly as meaningful as the next. I mean, 1 wound, who gives an F. Kill the PCs lover, that's taking priority over the raise to succeed.
I do agree that some people aren't going to like that aspect where the GM lays out this whole scene, and then the PCs spend stuff to traverse it. Its not going to be as narratively smooth as something like Apocalypse World's moves snowball, but, it does empower the players to decide which things they accomplish and which they don't.
Bringing this back to DSs, I also think they played that wrong (not in a technical sense, but in "how you are supposed to play" sense). Even using the rules as written, one should easily be able to build tension in a dramatic sequence. Just do the stuff one does in any game to make stuff interesting...you make it interesting. If your sneaking into a castle in D&D and the game is exciting for you because the DC is 20, and you only have a +7, wow, I pity your experiences in "roll" playing. Come on GM, bring it a bit. Make things tense. Foreshadow. Make failure seem scary. Give the players interesting branch points, and tough choices. As I have said before, I have no doubt someone can run a tense and fun DS with the rules as written. My concern is that the rules remove player agency without giving us anything in return for taking it. Use my house rule, and suddenly sneaking in becomes even more tense. When the GM presents obstacles, he/she presents consequences along with them. When its not a default, "ok, I spend 1 raise to do X," and its a choice, "Ok, I always make it past the obstacle, but crap! Do I suffer the associated consequence and save that raise for later? This consequence sucks, but its not terrible. A later one might be waaaay worse." Its a different kind of tension than "can I roll 13 or better on a d20," but, its still tension. In this case, the uncertainty comes not from the dice roll itself, but in wondering what consequences still lie ahead as the pool of raises is depleted.
You are misreading me. I'm not dug in and unwilling to discuss. I am firm in my position, but that is because is nobody has presented a convincing counter-argument.
To be fair, your comment is the pot calling the kettle black ;-). You literally said a thing about the DS mechanic that is obviously incorrect to anyone reading the rules ("players can succeed at a DS by accepting consequences and holding onto 1 raise"), then used your inaccurate description of the rule as a jumping off point to declare you like the rules. If my reply, i.e. my understanding of the rule is incorrect...by all means, correct me. You didn't, just asserted you still like the rules, So, If anyone is dug in, its you ;-)
And, its not that I am not paying attention to your enjoyment of the rules. I am glad you like them. But, your like or dislike of the rules is irrelevant to my issue with the rules. I never said, "dramatic sequences aren't fun to play." If I had, then you win. I would be wrong. The folks at UnderDiscussion: The Undergofer said that, but I don't agree. You beat them.
But, objectively, the GM has so much control in DSs that player agency is severely compromised. This is not a necessary feature of DSs. You can play them with my suggested house rule (or the other suggestions), and the DS dynamic is essentially unchanged, except the players have their agency returned. If you and your players don't care about much about player agency, I can't make you mind it. You're not wrong for not minding it. But, your lack of concern has no bearing on whether or not its a good rule. It still violates player agency in an unecessary way. Player agency is a fundamental piece of the GM-player contract. Violating it requires good reason. If you can have essentially the same mechanic, without violating player agency, the one with player agency returned is a better mechanic for role playing games.
I'll go memorize those tiny handful of rules in Apocalypse World and leave you to fix the rest of the game.
Not sure what you are referring to. This was obviously a sarcastic dig, but it totally went over my head. I have mentioned Apcolypse World several times, but I don't recall suggesting memorization of some tiny portion of the rules, or any portion of the rules. I only reference Apocalypse World because other than it being a "move then roll" game, there are more parallels between it and 7th Sea, than 7th Sea and something like D&D or other popular games. If gave a different impression, I apologize. And, to reiterate, overall, I really like the game. I am not tryng to "fix" the whole game. Its just that the DS has a couple of discrete design flaws...flaws that are easily fixed.
This no longer seems like a Discussion and seems like a Lecture. Perhaps we can end it now?
TAJ-07: Technopriest And Justicar Of 7thSea2e
THREAD RE-OPENED (2016-0715@1915):
After some private messages, I believe everyone here will behave nicely to one another. If the discussion gets heated, just step back, maybe try some "Pokemon Go" and return later. So now discussion may resume.
TAJ-07: Technopriest And Justicar Of 7thSea2e
Sorry for getting abrasive. Won't happen again.
I thought of something that has been implicit in my arguments, but might benefit from being stated explicitly...the issue of subconcsious bias. A real world example -for those not familiar- is pharmaceutical company influence on doctors. Bottom line, the data strongly indicates two things:
1) Doctors financial, professional and personal connections with pharmaceutical companies influences what medications they give out.
2) The doctors don't perceive this influence, i.e. Doctor X doesn't think the pretty pharamceutical rep who took him to lunch, told him about drug Y and flirted with him had any influence on him giving Ms. B drug Y, instead of drug Z. It does.
I think a similar dynamic exists in DSs. The GM knows at the outset how many raises the players have. That subconsciously biases the GM's interpretation of the fiction, just like if the GM knew the outcome of a player's skill check in D&D before he/she set the DC for the check. Of course, subconscious bias is rife in tabletop RPGs. As it should be. Its a feature, not a bug. The exception to this is the dice roll. That outcome is supposed to be objective. With a DS, that objectivity is lost in the face of GM subconscious bias. Comparitively, subconscious bias plays no role in the dice roll for ASs or simple risks.
Thanks for the clarification of subjective bias. Even the genre of the game subjectively influences play style at a table.
I like my gritty games with heads flying and blood gushing and my approach to 7th Sea is more Quentin Tarantino-esque.
And yet, I think John Wick personally likes his own "subjective biases" too and baked them into the rules of 7th Sea:
http://johnwickpresents.com/rants/no-dice/
QUOTING: And that’s the real secret about any RPG with a GM. The Game Master is the real author of success and failure. I’ve known this for years. Espoused it in Play Dirty.
And the solution for those who do not like John Wick's subjetive biases is to house rule as he mentioens below:
http://johnwickpresents.com/games/rulings-not-rules/
QUOTE: People always ask me how I feel about hearing GMs change the rules of games I’ve published. I always say the same thing: “Great! I’d love to see what they came up with.”
TAJ-07: Technopriest And Justicar Of 7thSea2e
In general many players that I have been speaking about the dramatic sequence rules (now more than 30 people), nobody understood the same.
We really need a youtube video (to make it more popular) with an entire game or a transcription with the BASIC rules working to understand all the sequences. Any houserule. Really. So that thread can be enterelly solved. It's something easy. One two hours?
Finally, the real test of the game it's going to be when 11.483 tables (not gamers) try it. Maaaaaaany of them are missing.
Ps: About /rulings-not-rules/ something really related with that thread, you can read my opinion there (Mr. John Wick I'm still waithing for another reply
)
Cthulhu has indeed hit upon the answer.
John has written this game with his style of game at its core. The rules (specifically the DS) are purposely written to be interpreted by our own views and biases. Yes this vagueness will lead towards a difference of opinion regarding how to handle them, but that is by design. This is a game designed for stories, and storytelling not a game of unbiased rules. The AS is much clearer and frankly is heavily stacked in the players favour but that is because it needs to be. The DS is more fluid, and it's dice mechanic is far more vague to allow the GM the required freedom for drama and storytelling.
I personally think that we should stop worrying on the Offical way to run this. This is not a game for tournament play, there will never be an official clarification on how the DS is"supposed" to be played. We are all reading it and interpreting correctly, and it does mean every one of us will run it differently. We should stop arguing about how the rules are "broken". It is our responsibility as a GM to make changes, rulings, and decisions that reflect our own individual players.
It is obvious that the changes suggested by Darl has inspired some of us for our own changes. It is just as obvious that some of us are of the view that nothing needs changing. We should perhaps focus on how we have used the rules in our own games and offer them to others as suggestions.
@Paul Titan
Can you unpack this "AS is much clearer and frankly is heavily stacked in the players favour but that is because it needs to be." a bit. I know its a tangent, but you brought it in. Its not clear to me that the AS mechanic is stacked in the PCs favor. A GM could make any AS a nightmare for players. Case in point, see my pirate ship example above. And, assuming the AS is stacked in the PC's favor, its not clear to me why it "needs to be." Yes, a heroic game is supposed to be stacked generally in the PC's favor, but you seem to be saying this applies especially to ASs, and I am not following.
And, I would argue this- "The DS is more fluid, and it's dice mechanic is far more vague to allow the GM the required freedom for drama and storytelling."- is an incomplete statement. It implies that the vagueness, and the specific "failure" condition for the PCs in the rules as written are inseparable. If my house rule, or the others suggested, infringed on this vagueness, or impaired freedom for drama and storytelling, your point would be hard to argue. But, the proposed house rules don't. So, I request your opinion...do you think the asymetric power the DS RAW grants the GM is of some specific benefit?
Darl,
First I will apologize for taking so long in answering you. Your requests for me to explain things caused me to have a knee-jerk reaction that you are being purposely obtuse. I know that is unlikely but I still needed time to try and word things without being a jackass.
The short and snarky answer to both is that it is my opinion and how I view the rules.
To be less snarky, Swashbuckling fights need to be fast and hard on the mooks. As oposed to long and hard on the characters. The rules support this from how the rounds are handled right to the death spiral.
As to the DS, I am only using my experience as a GM (30 years or so) and my running style (improvisation and giving my players the best experience and story that I can regardless of the arbitrary nature to dice rolls). The dice system with how it applies to DS requires a certain change of mind set. The Raises are not representing how successful the player has rolled for a task. They represent a currency for them to spend to change the scene. Regardless if it is for an advantage or to avoid a Concequence. They aren't needed for things that the character could easily acomplish. The GM has alot of responsibility in the DS, as the players enjoyment is directly affected on how he runs the scene. I know that I am not really defending my point of view, but I really do not feel confident enough without actually playing the game.
So as I said earlier, I will be running my first game next week. Hopefully it goes well and if not my group will be talking on how to improve our experience. I will be posting about how it went, and my feelings on the system after actually running.
No worries. A same day reply is hardly making me wait ;-)
Understood on the AS thing. Sounds like you were expressing more of a play style preference. I thought you were making a specific claim about the rules structure. So, all good.
Re: running style, I'm curious....because, reading that, I was like, "That's me too." Yet we seem diametrically opposed on this issue of DSs. So, maybe its a matter of what we do with dice rolls. For instance, I'm not a slave to dice rolls. My example below about the skill challenge is something I might do quite often...fudge a little to keep a game running. That to me is making things fun "regardless of the arbitrary nature to dice rolls."
However, I do think there is a certain sanctity to dice. For example, I have a long running Star Wars campaign. One of the PCs had a Jason Bourne meets Revan backstory where he was amnestic and trying to piece together his past. There was a particular sequence where a sniper with connections to his past attacked him. She shot him with a tranquilizing dart, but he managed to stave off its effects temporarily and track her down. The situation came to head, with his ability to stay awake and capture her hinging on the result of a single roll. I believe the PC had about a 75% chance of sucess. Frankly, I wanted him to succeed. He really wanted to succeed. He failed. But, I'm not sad that he did. It was a branch point that made for quite a fun and memorable ride. Its a path neither I or the PC would have taken voluntarily, but, I'm glad the dice made us do it.
So, that brings us back to your statement..."regardless of the arbitrary nature to dice rolls." In that case, would you have just ignored the PC's failure? After all that hard work, would you have just given in to him? Is that what you mean by the "arbitrary nature to dice rolls." Cause maybe that is the crux of where we disagree? The DS is tailor made for the GM to make that decision. Its set up for that. But, I woud offer, we should respect the dice more than that.
Your explicit statements about the DS change of mindset is correct. However, your implication seems to be, this change of mindset somehow obviates the need for objectivity in the rule itself? That, because the roll represents the PC's currency to change the scene, instead of overcoming a specific task, the issues of bias and asymmetric power that I have highlighted are less important?
For what its worth, I would argue play experience will do little to inform the main issue still under discussion. If you are making decisions about how to run an evolving DS, and those decisions are subconsciously influenced by seeing that your players have 3 rather than 4 raises, or 4 rather than 3, you wouldn't actually experience that influence. But, it will be there. Case in point, Salamanca has asserted his playtested satisfaction with the rules. But, he is no less vulnerable to subconscious bias than the rest of us. He decided which way the winds of his DSs shifted, knowing how many raises his players had. I would submit, some of his decisions would be different, had the players rolled in secret, and he didn't know how many raises they had left.
Darl,
You are fond of asking some difficult questions that actually require some thought, thanks!
First off a related side note, I think the examples of play for the DS in the book is not very good. It is a game that says decisions should Matter and the DS should be well... Dramatic. Then the example of the obstacles presented seem to be fairly trivial, and not realy worth the cost of a raise. The bedroom with the two lovers was a good one though, the use of the raise or lack of one really mattered.
I am going to answer from the bottom up. The choices I make with the number of Obstacles in the DS will be decided knowing what my bias is. Depending on the scene the number will likely be decided ahead of dice being rolled. But if the group is going in recklessly and are relying on the dice to do their thinking for them I will punnish them with more Obstacles.
With your example with Star Wars. I would have left the dice as they were stand. But I wouldn't have let one throw of the dice decide the direction of the game. If the group wanted to continue to track down the charactet's identity I would ensure a clue or hint would be there so they could continue if they wanted. The players in my games always have the freedom to control direction of the game. If they don't utilize it only then will i guide the game in the directon that I belive is the most intresting.
I don't think dice rolls are sacred, and I do fudge my rolls in cases to the players favour. My throws have a nasty tendacy to roll towards kicking the group in the ass far to often.
Let me give you an situation that developed in a game I ran. The group (who at that point ruled a kingdom) came to realize that a ruler of a nearby city was going cause the whole region to go to civil war. One of the players came up with a plan to assassinate her. His plan was to use an undetectable artifact to scry her movements until she was alone, then teleport behind her, and use a "borrowed" artifact vorpal blade to remove her head. It was really well tought out with every problem covered, including his escape afterwards. The result of this one action determined if the region would be driven to war. Of course I made the decision to hand wave the result... His plan worked, despite her being a fair bit more powerful than the Character. The player had a total look of confusion on his face as he murmured "I really didn't think that would have worked", while I was describing his mother's head falling from her dead body.
And now the question... In that situation would you have made him pick up the and roll?
So, answering top down ;-)...
Your point about the obstacles gets to the heart of my question. By predeciding number of raises needed your are injecting a degree of objectivity.
Regarding the Star Wars example, we are on exactly the same page. In that scenario the PC did find clues after he woke up and ended tracking them down. My point was, that single failed roll was a branch point where the PCs ended up having different encounters, and meeting different NPCs, etc. It didn't end that storyline, just adjusted how it played out.
Upon thinking about it, agreed. Dice rolls aren't sacred. Maybe better phraseology would be to say they are worthy of respect. That's my issue with DSs. They don't respect the dice if you follow the book to a "T." Seems like you are giving the dice respect by predeciding (at least to a degree) the number of raises.
Regarding your question, I probably would have not made him roll. A couple of caveats:
1) If this scenario occured in a Powered by the Apocalypse world style game, I probably would have had the PC roll. Regardless of the roll, I would have probably had the plan succeed (at least had the head roll), but used the roll result to inform my next GM move.
2) If, the scenario was changed (say he didn't set it up as well) such that I did ask for a dice roll, I don't think I would fudge that one. But, if there was an ensuing combat, I might fudge one to two rolls to keep the player alive.
Paul Titan,
I'm only telling you that I have not enought with the two examples of the game.
Not complaining that it's "broken" or not. What I ask here it's for more dramatic sequenceexamples. But you are telling me to interpret it by myself.
I did it in a campaing. It didn`t work, even with constant improvements. Finally the story saved the day. The solution for the rules was clear: less and less throws until we made the game only narrative.
Yes! Please. Put me examples of how you use it, so I can follow your steeps at the beggining and choose my way if "nothing needs changing". It's not to critic, its to learn.
Wolfflin,
My apologies for making you feel singled out.
In all honesty I do not have any real examples yet. That will be changing next weekend, we will be starting our first campaign with 7th 2e. I do have concerns about the DS myself, but our current plan is I run the game with my interpretation of the rules as written. When issues come up we will change how we handle them with the next session so the we can think on how to make the game work for our group.
No apologies. All here are in the same ship
My recomendation it's use the images of The Witcher 3 artbook to create the plot and send them to explore the Commenwealth.
I really wish you a wonderfull travel to Thea next week. Take notes and tell us what you find there!
I still think there is a worthy distinction between subjective bias as an overarching concept, and its specific manifestation in DSs. Unless we turn the game into a board game (which I wouldn't advocate), regardless of how objective the rules are, the GM is indeed the ultimate author of success or failure. Players accept that coming in. What they don't (generally want) is for the GM to decide stuff he/she is not supposed to decide. Or, at the very least, the players want the GM to actually know when he/she is doing this. For example, we are playing a skill challenge and the GM sets a skill check DC at 15, sees a PC rolls a 14, and thinks, "Well, they already have 9 successes out of 10 needed and no failures. And Kronyak is up next with his ridiculous strength check. No sense in drawing this out...they succeed. Let's move on." We are all going to have different opinions about the GM's decision in this case, none of which are objectively better or worse. But, the crux of point here is, the GM is aware of that decision.
My contention is, due to the structure of the DS, the GM will be making a similar kind of decision in a large percentage of DSs, without realizing he/she is making that decision. At this point, that's my purpose in this conversation. I want to make people playing the game aware of that. I think its a flaw. Others disagree. But, its there, regardless of our opinions about is worth***. I think people GMing the game, and players playing it, should be aware of that, and be ok with it. Like I said above, if I'm playing a game, and my character tries to rolls to convince the villain of something, I'm happy for the GM to interpret what a "success" or "failure" actually means with regards to the fiction. I don't want the GM to decide if my roll counts as a success or failure. That's why rolled the dice. I would wager, the vast majority of people tends towards that opinion. Especially, when the player isn't getting anything in return (the game is no better) for that specific piece of the mechanic.
***Check out this video from 4:00-6:00...shattering the illusion.
So, I've been thinking on this a bit, and while I've read through the past several posts, I apologize if I'm re-treading ground as I haven't totally kept up with every post. I get the feeling we've been looking at DS wrong, and it relates back to your concerns about Players not knowing the "end" for a DS and one of Sal's comments:
I see all of you are still missing the point that the players will ALWAYS succeed unless they choose not to. The GM can throw 99 consequences and opportunities in the way but if the player holds on to one raise and takes those, they will still succeed. Having actually run the game, I think it works fine as is.
That is THE maxim of the system. PERIOD. Unless the Player decides to fail or CHOOSES to spend their Raises on something other than their original intent, it is the GM's JOB to make sure that they SUCCEED at their intent by the end of the DS.. See, I keep coming back to the "nutshell" summary of the rules:
1) Declare Intent, make Risk, define consequences, present opportunities, 2) Roll Dice, 3) Spend Raises, 4) Problem Solved? If not, repeat.
For all intents and purposes a DS is an Action Sequence where the GM simply doesn't declare the consequences up front. In an AS, all you have to do is spend at least 1 Raise on your intent to succeed (assuming pressure hasn't been applied or you don't have a competing intent,) and everything else is spent on consequences, opportunities, etc. Really, a DS isn't that different:
Klara: I want to sneak into von Heidleburg's study and snag papers proving he framed Albion.
Klara's intent is to get the papers, and she's going to do it by trying to sneak into vH's house. There are a number of consequences/challenges she might face along the way: guards, locked doors, vH's friend who she finds dreamy. Now as long as she has 1 raise left to spend, it is the GM's job to make sure eshe ends up with the papers. Now the GM can try to distract her and make it difficult. Maybe she choses NOT to spend a raise to avoid the guards and it turns into an Action Sequence while she tries to escape, but as long as she hangs onto the final raise to clinch her intent (and assuming pressure hasn't been applied to up the stakes to 2 raises,) the GM's job is to make sure that by the time the scene ends, she has those papers in hand.
That's where the Player Agency is in a DS. It's the player's choice whether they're going to succeed at the sequence or not. Success might be painful, it might end up being more trouble than it was worth, BUT as long as the player chooses to succeed - they will, and the GM is supposed to help them get there.
Thank you, @KevinKrupp, I liked your explanation, but as @DarLoh pointed out, it seems are are all now acknowledging that the GM may adjust the "Dramatic Sequence" after seeing the players total raises.
I will add another observation based on your example "Klara: I want to sneak into von Heidleburg's study and snag papers proving he framed Albion".
You said that at the end of the Dramatic Sequence in the above example: the GM's job is to make sure that by the time the scene ends, she has those papers in hand. Perfect. But that does not guarantee that a single raise is enough to escape any bad consequences if the fiction demands it.
As a GM, I would base my Dramatic Sequence by the thematic narrative of the overall arching plot, and sometimes just one Raise left at the very end may not be enough to succeed without attracting Consequences. I would create my Dramatic Sequence with a set number of required Raises to overcome all Consequences-of-Note without pressure and irrespective of what a player rolls. Of course there may be many other Opportunities and Consequences along the way. However, the GM should not reduce the threat level of a Dramatic Sequence just to ensure a happy ending if a player mis-spends Raises gained. I believe @DarLoh is highlighting this problem of bias if GMs ignore results of dice that roll foul just to guarantee happy endings.
One important reason that interactive games differ from narrative stories is the unpredictability of even the best laid plans if the dice betray you.
TAJ-07: Technopriest And Justicar Of 7thSea2e
For once, I think my reply will be relatively short. ;-)
Kevin, you make a good point about how a dramatic sequence might be run in keeping with the overarching philosophy of the system. Your contention doesn't seem to fit with how the book describes a DS working, or how the examples show it working. Maybe the book was poorly worded, and the guidance to playtesters was to do what you described? Maybe that was the confusion between Salamanca and I when he made that statement? Maybe official playtesters can chime in?
If your contention about how they are supposed to be run is correct, you are indeed right that my concerns about player agency are negated. But, as @Cthulhu pointed out, it doesn't remove my issue of GM bias by the dice results.
As for whether or not your proposed method of running DSs is actually a good game mechanic, I will have to think about that, as the structure is markedly different from that written in the book. Just off the top of my head, it seems to make it hard for the GM to present obstacles, unless, like I suggested, the GM assumes player success, and only presents the consequences tied to a particular obstacle. Because, in the scenario you described, what happens when the player has 1 raise left, and the GM presents a locked door, but its not the "final" locked door? The player says, "Not spending a raise. I am holding on to the final raise to succeed at my intent. Get me past that locked door GM."
So I have a general question about this whole thread: Is the assumption that the characters are nowhere near one another to help out? For instance, in the locked door example....couldn't another player with more raises available 'happen by' the character at the door and offer an assist by spending a raise to pick the lock for her?
I don't know if others are assuming that. I am not. I think I see your point. Is my example dilemna above, only a dilemna if one keeps looking at it through the cardboard tube I forced you to look at the situation through? Maybe. Maybe not. In reality, I think its easy to imagine the dilemna I paint coming up with some regularity. For instance, what happens when, after the character assists, the GM presents the assisting character with an obstacle, and they too hold onto their last raise to ensure victory?
From a larger perspective, the addition of teamwork doesn't seem to obviate any of my concerns. If you see some what that its does, please elaborate.
Pages