Darl Loh: Maybe official playtesters can chime in?
As an official playtester I can confirm that there wasn't much guidance outside of some back and forth discussion between Mike Curry and myself in response to feedback, but this back and forth has helped A LOT with understanding the intent behind the game. I still strongly feel that the system is very close to being on point, but it's just not quite there, and I still wish they'd decided to include a short sample adventure and postponed the Sorceries for a later *book.
Cthulhu Netobvious: it seems are are all now acknowledging that the GM may adjust the "Dramatic Sequence" after seeing the players total raises.
Dar Loh: @Cthulhu pointed out, it doesn't remove my issue of GM bias by the dice results.
I don't get why this is an issue. Unless you can point me to a game that explicitly states "The GM must always declare the difficulty up front" there will ALWAYS be GM bias and the opportunity for GMs to make changes based on dice results in any system; isn't that why GM screens exist? Why else would the GM hide their rolls? If you're concerned about bias, I fully agree with what Netobvious said here:
Cthulhu Netobvious: 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. 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.
Succeeding, and attracing consequences in the process is kind of the point. It's the first rule of improve: "Yes, and..." Now it's a bit more complicated than that; the PC has the chance to reduce the impact of the consequences, but they might have to forgoe success to do so, or they might choose to sacrifice success for a new opportunity. The key is to always be presenting choices to the player.
Dar Loh: 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."
This brings us back to player agency and choices that lead to success with consequence. This example has two problems with it 1) you're jumping from the GM's presentation of the challenge to outcome and skipping the Player's decision for how to address challenge, and 2) you're looking at in terms of yes/no and success/failure rather than in terms of possible consequences and degrees of success (which isn't surprising considering the example in the book are IMO terrible.)
Your Example:
GM: There's a locked door, spend a raise to get through.
KLARA: Uh...no...I don't want to spend a raise.
But this isn't how this would ever actually play out in a game (at least I hope your GM isn't doing this.) A real game would look more like this:
Your Example (in Play):
GM: You turn the knob to door into H's study - it's locked.
KLARA: I want to try picking the lock.
GM: To unlock the door you'll have to spend a Raise. Do you want to do so?
KLARA: No.
GM: Then you can't get through.
Now this might work in another system where you roll for success on each action, but for 2nd Ed this would fall into the category of "bad GMing." A good GM in this system will present the hero with a "Yes, and" scenario - you can succeed, but with consequences:
The "Yes, and" Approach... (building off an example from the book)
GM: You turn the knob to door into H's study - it's locked.
KLARA: I want to pick the lock.
GM: The lock looks really old and rusty, but you could probably pick it...there's a good chance you'll need to really work your lockpicks hard and that they'll snap in the process - you'll lose your picks and it'll be really obvious that someone broke in - unless you spend a Raise.
KLARA: Hmm...I only have one Raise left and I don't want to spend it. Does it seem like there's any other way in?
GM: You could try looking for another way, but you're definitely aware that time is ticking by; it's up to you.
Now you've given the Player a choice: 1) Succeed at this moment without consequences and have no resources moving forward, or 2) accept the possible consequences and still have 'currency' for the scene. This is the "Yes, and..." approach. This is what I meant by "it is the GM's JOB to make sure that they suceed at their intent by the end of the DS" i.e. the GM should provide the PC with a path towards accomplishing their intent...that doesn't mean that it's going to be a desirable one.
Now obviously there will be some times where the only logical option is to say "no." If Klara doesn't have the proper tools to pick the lock and needs to use her hairpin, then I might tell her she'll need to spend a raise to pick the lock at all, BUT I'll also give her the option of trying to find a new (probably more difficult) way in, so that even in my "No" I'm giving her a choice.
Your contention doesn't seem to fit with how the book describes a DS working, or how the examples show it working.
I agree with you here about the examples, and this has been my biggest issue with the rules: I think they're explained very poorly. What I've described above does not match any of the examples presented in the Core Rulebook or any of the playtest materials we received, but it doesn't contradict the rules either.
Harliquinn Whiteshadow: 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've been going with this assumption to simplify the discussion, but yes another player could totally spend one of their raises to get through the door instead. As @Darl Loh said though, I don't think it changes much, rather it just means that the "group" would have more "currency" to get through the scene than they would as individuals.
Regarding bias, my issue was not with conscious GM bias. Agreed, that's GM perogative and/or group/table rules. My issue was subconscious bias, where the GM knows how well the players rolled in advance of actually playing. Now, I don't know of any game that specifically states in bolded letters that all DCs should be decided before the roll. But, every RPG I have every played seems to take it for granted that the GM knows the difficulty of a roll going in, so the GM always know whether are roll was objectively a success or failure when it hits the table. If the GM decides to fudge that, so be it. But, he/she knows that he/she fudged it. This is different than a DS where the GM doesn't know the full extent of the fictional "raise-worthys" going into the sequence, but knows how well the players rolled. In that case, the GM might fudge stuff, i.e. present more or less "raise-worthys" as the scene evolves, without ever realizing he/she is doing it. Which seems problematic to me, especially if its not necessary for the mechanic to function. Please, if you want to debate this piece more, I am totally down, but I would respectfully request you take a look above about my more extensive treatments of this issue.
Regarding your breakdown of my example, I love "Yes, and..." Its exactly what I started this entire thread suggesting. The one difference in your suggestion is, you also charge 1 raise, at some point, to ensure overall success.
The point of my example was basically semantics. My suggestion is to play DSs entirely "Yes, and..." where the player is never charged directly for overcoming an obstacle, but simply decides which consequences and opportunities associated with an obstacle, or otherwise present in the scene, to buy off, or take advantage of.
Your proposal was, play DS as explained in the book, except that the player can hold onto a single "trump raise"** that can be used ensure overall success...thereby forcing the GM to manipulate events to this end. My counterpoint was, if you go that route, the GM is essentially forced into playing the DS the way I originally suggested, and you just endorsed. Because, if they present a straight obstacle, one that requires a PC raise expenditure to overcome (not to just obviate the consequences of), it puts the GM in catch 22. So, in this case, why bother with presenting obstacles that require a raise, or have the "trump raise" (its basically a throw away raise)? Why not just do what I originally suggested, and have all raise expenditures in a DS be spent on negating consequences or taking advantage of opportunities?
@Kevin...On the issue of how well the DS rules and examples are written, what makes you think they are explained poorly? I have been running off the assumption that the rules and examples are showing us exactly how the authors intend the DS to work and to be played...if maybe on the lower end of complexity for ease of understanding. That has been my assumption all along, and at the root of my contention that the DS structure is primarily the issue, not the books wordings. The comments from those here that have some inside knowledge of the game's design seem to confirm that suspicion.
However, it seems like your experience, particularly the back and forth with Mike Curry, lends you to believe the book's wording is the issue, not the actual rules structure. Could you elaborate? Because, If the DS is actually intended to be played the way you suggest, I would have no issue with it (besides the approach change issue, but that conversation seems to be mostly resolved).
Maybe the simplest approach is to just change how we view the Dramatic Sequence and just narrate scenes like the adventure encounters of classic DnD. Thus, in 7th Sea 2e, each such scene would have a difficulty rating composed of (a) one baseline Encounter Success Condition plus (b) additional Opportunities and Consequences.
Hence, before dice are even rolled the GM sets out the quantity of Raises for a baseline successful encounter (minimum thematic Consequences but skipping all optional Opportunities). This becomes the DnD-esque "Challenge Rating (CR)".
After the roll of dice, then Player agency comes into full play, with players choosing to accept some Consequences to discover new Opportunities instead of just saving all Raises to finish the encounter free of Consequences.
I think this is a fine idea, and if the rules were written that way, we would have never had this conversation. ;-)
However, I don't think I would play it that way. I think the way you propose would be a bit more "meta" than my ideal preference. By that I mean, this method subjects the player to the endowment effect. This is a term from behavioral economics that basically says, "I likes it better, cause its mine." If a player needs 2 raises to succeed, and sees that he/she rolls those raises, well he/she just succeeded. Knowing that, the player is going to be more tolerant of consequences than he/she would be without that foreknowledge, because he/she will be reluctant to give up the success they already rolled just to avoid some bad stuff.
Is this really a problem? Well, for me it is. I like the concept of "play to find out what happens." I like when you start an RPG session or a scene, or encounter, and end up someplace you didn't really expect. Or, at the very least, you were uncertain about the outcome all the way. I like when the rules facilitate procedural generation of the fiction. I think players with the trump raise(s) won't really play the same way. I think they will just suck up whatever the GM throws at them in order to "win," and even worse, will perceive the consequences thrown at them as punishment. Ideally, I want players to be excited about consequences. I want them to seem like exciting and dramatic obstacles they must overcome, and that their action in doing so affects and drives the fiction. Moreover, I want them to see how their choices drive the consequences they face.
For instance, in Kevin's lock example, imagine the player chooses to hold onto her raise, so the picks get broken and her forced entry becomes obvious. Its easy for the GM to improv a guard finding the picked lock and show up just outside the study, ready to bust in, just as Kiara grabs the papers. The player looks for options to deal with the pesky guard, and the GM details a hiding spot, but explains that this guard seems tenacious, and the player will have to hide for a long time. She is in a time crunch to get the papers to her contact, and he may leave if she is not there on time, suspecting foul play. The player suggests some cat burglary wall climbing as an alternative, and the GM details the only climbing route puts her in view of guards in another tower, probably alerting them. The player decides that if she saves the raise now, and lets the alert go out in the other tower, she will have enough raises left to escape and meet her contact. It won't be a flawless infil, but the guards will be hard pressed to ID her if they see her from afar at night.
If you play it that way, one action flows into the next, and into the next. The player may or may not end up acheiving all or even any of their intent, but that will be based on how the scene plays out, and their tolerance for consequences in the moment, as well as their decisions as they go. Certain decisions (i.e. consequences) might shift the success condition, or obviate it, or reveal a whole new avenue. When you have "I succeed" as a trump card/predecision, I think it would interfere with this fictional flow.
For instance, imagine that same scenario. The players intent is to get into the tower and get out with the papers. Unseen and uninjured are nice, but not baked into the DS's CR which I will set at 2 here. The player rolls 4 raises, and again decides not to spend one on the door, thereby leaving herself open to discovery. However, this time, when she gets into the study, she finds that Heidleburg is one sick *bleep*. He has someone tied up in his study, and has evidently been torturing this poor soul. Maybe this was improvised by the GM. Maybe it was planned. Doesn't matter. Suddenly Kiara hears the guard just outside. She hasn't spent any raises yet. By the rules, she has to spend a blanket 2 to succeed. If she doesn't, she doesn't succeed. But that only leaves her 2 raises to potentially help this person, neutralize the gaurd, get out of there and to her contact on time, etc. I feel like that sets up this strange, meta-fictional decision space, that simply wouldn't exist if the player is tackling each situation as it comes, and deciding like their character might really decide if they were an actual person, faced with this actual situation. I also think, for most players, who, like me, have never played a "roll than move" RPG, the ability to tackle each obstacle as a discrete entity, one at a time, would facilitate understanding of the system. Furthermore, I feel like the 2 CR raises are almost wasted. They aren't exciting or interesting, because once a player has rolled, and rolled well enough to succeed, its gonna be a hard pill to swallow not to succed (aforementioned endowment effect).
@DarLoh, I think the "entitlement effect" is already baked into 7th Sea 2e rules that imply heroes always succeed unless they choose to voluntarily fail.
Contrast this to a DnD encounter of any challenge rating whereby the PCs rely on the rules just to keep the GM from throwing a TPK at them but success is not guaranteed. In DnD the CR of an encounter guides the GM to the type and number of adversarties, traps, etc, to throw at the PCs.
Similarly, we could house rule 7th Sea using CR as a guide to the depth of a Dramatic Sequence in terms of one Raise for a success but still attach several suitable Consequences before dice are even rolled. The players just need to know that one Raise held back lets them succeed at the final Intent, but escaping without Consequences may require additional Raises, how many will be predetermiend by the CR before dice are rolled. The CR may just guide the GM to the kind of Consequences to make avaliable for that party size and strength. Thus, during the playout of the Dramatic Sequence, as long as one Raise is left at the final Intent, it will succeed but may come with Consequences attached. Consqeuences do not automatically mean failure, just a less than perfect resolution of the final Intent of that Dramatic Sequence. The problem still remains though: what Consequences are suitable? @TechGoblin has an interesting table to use as a guide on page-2-post-55 of this thread and @DarLoh's rating values here page-1-post-23.
Proposing a CR is just a reminder for the GM to plan the Dramatic Sequence within the narrative themes and also suitable for existing Player Character stat blocks. It should be winnable but not free from all Consequences which can be mixed with Opportunties at different points in the Dramatic Sequence.
Finally, if here are no Raises left for the final Intent, just end the Dramatic Sequence and roll new dice to turn the finale into an Action Sequence.
7th Sea 2e in its current iteration depends heavily on experienced GMs because there are no guidelines for creating Dramatic Sequences in terms of what sort of Consequences are suitable for a particular team of PCs. Should the Consequence for refusing to spend a Raise to pick a locked door summon a Brute Squad? Should escaping though the window trigger wounds or instead offer Opportunities to glimpse an eagle-eye view of the ground below?
The problem 7th Sea 2e has is John Wick's dislike for dice rolls that adversely disrupt a storyline. But that is why interactive games differ from narrative fiction.
Regarding the "endowment effect" being baked in...your right. My issue is, the effect is different in a dramatic sequence than in a simple risk or AS. Players in a simple risk or AS are generally spending 1 raise to succeed at 1 task, much like one would make a skill check or attack roll in DnD. I get across the room. I get up onto the balcony. I convince the guard I am so and so. Its very discrete. Each individual task is usually not going to spell the difference between success or failure of a broad story objective. Moreover, the raise spent for the task is usually going to be roughly equivalent to the one spent to avoid a consequence. Avoiding 1 wound vs. getting onto the balcony, are much closer than avoiding 1 wound and finding out who the prospective assassin is over a nighttime of scouring the city.
I remain a bit confused by your advocacy for the "One Raise to Rule them all." I get the mechanics of how its supposed to work. I explained my thoughts on why I prefer my original suggestion. Even ignoring my endowment effect concern, my concern about playing the fiction procedurally remains. I'm curious if you disagree with this concern? I'm also curious if you can explain some specific benefit of the "One Raise." In my suggestion the player can still ultimately always succeed, they just must accept the consequences that arise as they push forward.
AI can see your point about a CR as a guide. Personally, I would just let the fiction guide me. If the players are infiltrating a heavily armed castle that is on high alert, a consequence ignored is more likely to summon an entire brute squad, or more likely an investigating guard that is not promptly dealt with will rapidly turn the situation into mess for the players. Infiltrating a private residence will likely draw more subtle and less dangerous problems on an ignored consequence.
It sounds like you are proposing doing a lot of pre-planning for DSs? With regards to the CR idea, are you suggesting having a table of suggested consequences for a given CR, and a suggested CR for different "levels" of player character power?
I think that's fine, but not a direction I personally would go. I like the idea behind the DS, which was to narrate a chunk of fiction with a single die roll and without needed to pre-specify a bunch obstacles and consequences (other than in narrative terms, a castle has walls, and guards, etc). Hence, my proposed house rule lets one play that same way, but without the problems with DS RAW discussed ad nauseum above. Again, I think your proposal is another good way to play DSs that fix the issues with the DS RAW. I just can't see any benefit I get as a GM doing it that way. Its more prep, and seems like it would disrupt the narrative flow for little benefit.
@DarLoh, the single Raise, I mention is meant to fit with John Wick's intention of one Raise is all you need. But I also mentioned Consequences attached. One Raise will not remove the additional Consequences attached to the resolution of the final Intent of the Dramatic Sequence. My idea of a CR for the sequence is to set aside One Raise and also attach several Consequences for the Final Intent before players even roll dice. Then, after dice are rolled, players are free to chose which Consequences to buy out with their multiple Raises as long as they keep one Raise for the finale of the Dramatic Sequence to ensure they succeed at their original Intent. If the Players end the scene with just one Raise left at the end, the CR brings out the Consequences attached to this finale and the players cannot accuse the GM of premonition since the CR had pre-established those end-of-scene Consequences before dice were rolled.
Understood on the intent behind the 1 raise. If that's your only reason for the single raise, I would argue it might not be the best. #1, for the stuff I have laid out above. #2, I think there are conflicting intents from Mr. Wick here. The description of playing a DS seems to fit better with my method. By RAW, Mr. Wick clearly doesn't intend a single raise to "win" the DS. You are right that the single raise seems to be a general theme across the rules. A lot of people seem to read it as Mr. Wick always wanting the heroes to succeed. I think he is being a bit more devious. I think he wants GMs to challenge players, and place consequences and opportunities in front of them that are too tempting pass up. I think that is the more important underlying methodology, and I think that fits better with my method.
You are right that having pre-planned consequences gets the GM off the hook for manipulating things. However, I don't know how much that will be an issue playing my way, assuming the GM is being reasonable. If the GM states or implies the consequences of ignoring a...consequence, the heroes can't very well get angry when it happens. And, in either my scenario or yours, the consequences are going to seem reasonable or not. I mean, if you pre-plan 10 raises worth of consequences that are overly harsh upon reaching the finale (especially if the consequences are not foreshadowed), I'm not convinced the players are going to be any happier about it just because you wrote them down beforehand.
Darl Loh:
Maybe official playtesters can chime in?
As an official playtester I can confirm that there wasn't much guidance outside of some back and forth discussion between Mike Curry and myself in response to feedback, but this back and forth has helped A LOT with understanding the intent behind the game. I still strongly feel that the system is very close to being on point, but it's just not quite there, and I still wish they'd decided to include a short sample adventure and postponed the Sorceries for a later *book.
Cthulhu Netobvious:
it seems are are all now acknowledging that the GM may adjust the "Dramatic Sequence" after seeing the players total raises.
Dar Loh:
@Cthulhu pointed out, it doesn't remove my issue of GM bias by the dice results.
I don't get why this is an issue. Unless you can point me to a game that explicitly states "The GM must always declare the difficulty up front" there will ALWAYS be GM bias and the opportunity for GMs to make changes based on dice results in any system; isn't that why GM screens exist? Why else would the GM hide their rolls? If you're concerned about bias, I fully agree with what Netobvious said here:
Cthulhu Netobvious:
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. 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.
Succeeding, and attracing consequences in the process is kind of the point. It's the first rule of improve: "Yes, and..." Now it's a bit more complicated than that; the PC has the chance to reduce the impact of the consequences, but they might have to forgoe success to do so, or they might choose to sacrifice success for a new opportunity. The key is to always be presenting choices to the player.
Dar Loh:
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."
This brings us back to player agency and choices that lead to success with consequence. This example has two problems with it 1) you're jumping from the GM's presentation of the challenge to outcome and skipping the Player's decision for how to address challenge, and 2) you're looking at in terms of yes/no and success/failure rather than in terms of possible consequences and degrees of success (which isn't surprising considering the example in the book are IMO terrible.)
Your Example:
GM: There's a locked door, spend a raise to get through.
KLARA: Uh...no...I don't want to spend a raise.
But this isn't how this would ever actually play out in a game (at least I hope your GM isn't doing this.) A real game would look more like this:
Your Example (in Play):
GM: You turn the knob to door into H's study - it's locked.
KLARA: I want to try picking the lock.
GM: To unlock the door you'll have to spend a Raise. Do you want to do so?
KLARA: No.
GM: Then you can't get through.
Now this might work in another system where you roll for success on each action, but for 2nd Ed this would fall into the category of "bad GMing." A good GM in this system will present the hero with a "Yes, and" scenario - you can succeed, but with consequences:
The "Yes, and" Approach... (building off an example from the book)
GM: You turn the knob to door into H's study - it's locked.
KLARA: I want to pick the lock.
GM: The lock looks really old and rusty, but you could probably pick it...there's a good chance you'll need to really work your lockpicks hard and that they'll snap in the process - you'll lose your picks and it'll be really obvious that someone broke in - unless you spend a Raise.
KLARA: Hmm...I only have one Raise left and I don't want to spend it. Does it seem like there's any other way in?
GM: You could try looking for another way, but you're definitely aware that time is ticking by; it's up to you.
Now you've given the Player a choice: 1) Succeed at this moment without consequences and have no resources moving forward, or 2) accept the possible consequences and still have 'currency' for the scene. This is the "Yes, and..." approach. This is what I meant by "it is the GM's JOB to make sure that they suceed at their intent by the end of the DS" i.e. the GM should provide the PC with a path towards accomplishing their intent...that doesn't mean that it's going to be a desirable one.
Now obviously there will be some times where the only logical option is to say "no." If Klara doesn't have the proper tools to pick the lock and needs to use her hairpin, then I might tell her she'll need to spend a raise to pick the lock at all, BUT I'll also give her the option of trying to find a new (probably more difficult) way in, so that even in my "No" I'm giving her a choice.
Your contention doesn't seem to fit with how the book describes a DS working, or how the examples show it working.
I agree with you here about the examples, and this has been my biggest issue with the rules: I think they're explained very poorly. What I've described above does not match any of the examples presented in the Core Rulebook or any of the playtest materials we received, but it doesn't contradict the rules either.
Harliquinn Whiteshadow:
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've been going with this assumption to simplify the discussion, but yes another player could totally spend one of their raises to get through the door instead. As @Darl Loh said though, I don't think it changes much, rather it just means that the "group" would have more "currency" to get through the scene than they would as individuals.
Regarding bias, my issue was not with conscious GM bias. Agreed, that's GM perogative and/or group/table rules. My issue was subconscious bias, where the GM knows how well the players rolled in advance of actually playing. Now, I don't know of any game that specifically states in bolded letters that all DCs should be decided before the roll. But, every RPG I have every played seems to take it for granted that the GM knows the difficulty of a roll going in, so the GM always know whether are roll was objectively a success or failure when it hits the table. If the GM decides to fudge that, so be it. But, he/she knows that he/she fudged it. This is different than a DS where the GM doesn't know the full extent of the fictional "raise-worthys" going into the sequence, but knows how well the players rolled. In that case, the GM might fudge stuff, i.e. present more or less "raise-worthys" as the scene evolves, without ever realizing he/she is doing it. Which seems problematic to me, especially if its not necessary for the mechanic to function. Please, if you want to debate this piece more, I am totally down, but I would respectfully request you take a look above about my more extensive treatments of this issue.
Regarding your breakdown of my example, I love "Yes, and..." Its exactly what I started this entire thread suggesting. The one difference in your suggestion is, you also charge 1 raise, at some point, to ensure overall success.
The point of my example was basically semantics. My suggestion is to play DSs entirely "Yes, and..." where the player is never charged directly for overcoming an obstacle, but simply decides which consequences and opportunities associated with an obstacle, or otherwise present in the scene, to buy off, or take advantage of.
Your proposal was, play DS as explained in the book, except that the player can hold onto a single "trump raise"** that can be used ensure overall success...thereby forcing the GM to manipulate events to this end. My counterpoint was, if you go that route, the GM is essentially forced into playing the DS the way I originally suggested, and you just endorsed. Because, if they present a straight obstacle, one that requires a PC raise expenditure to overcome (not to just obviate the consequences of), it puts the GM in catch 22. So, in this case, why bother with presenting obstacles that require a raise, or have the "trump raise" (its basically a throw away raise)? Why not just do what I originally suggested, and have all raise expenditures in a DS be spent on negating consequences or taking advantage of opportunities?
**card game reference, not political ;-)
@Kevin...On the issue of how well the DS rules and examples are written, what makes you think they are explained poorly? I have been running off the assumption that the rules and examples are showing us exactly how the authors intend the DS to work and to be played...if maybe on the lower end of complexity for ease of understanding. That has been my assumption all along, and at the root of my contention that the DS structure is primarily the issue, not the books wordings. The comments from those here that have some inside knowledge of the game's design seem to confirm that suspicion.
However, it seems like your experience, particularly the back and forth with Mike Curry, lends you to believe the book's wording is the issue, not the actual rules structure. Could you elaborate? Because, If the DS is actually intended to be played the way you suggest, I would have no issue with it (besides the approach change issue, but that conversation seems to be mostly resolved).
TAJ-07: Technopriest And Justicar Of 7thSea2e
I think this is a fine idea, and if the rules were written that way, we would have never had this conversation. ;-)
However, I don't think I would play it that way. I think the way you propose would be a bit more "meta" than my ideal preference. By that I mean, this method subjects the player to the endowment effect. This is a term from behavioral economics that basically says, "I likes it better, cause its mine." If a player needs 2 raises to succeed, and sees that he/she rolls those raises, well he/she just succeeded. Knowing that, the player is going to be more tolerant of consequences than he/she would be without that foreknowledge, because he/she will be reluctant to give up the success they already rolled just to avoid some bad stuff.
Is this really a problem? Well, for me it is. I like the concept of "play to find out what happens." I like when you start an RPG session or a scene, or encounter, and end up someplace you didn't really expect. Or, at the very least, you were uncertain about the outcome all the way. I like when the rules facilitate procedural generation of the fiction. I think players with the trump raise(s) won't really play the same way. I think they will just suck up whatever the GM throws at them in order to "win," and even worse, will perceive the consequences thrown at them as punishment. Ideally, I want players to be excited about consequences. I want them to seem like exciting and dramatic obstacles they must overcome, and that their action in doing so affects and drives the fiction. Moreover, I want them to see how their choices drive the consequences they face.
For instance, in Kevin's lock example, imagine the player chooses to hold onto her raise, so the picks get broken and her forced entry becomes obvious. Its easy for the GM to improv a guard finding the picked lock and show up just outside the study, ready to bust in, just as Kiara grabs the papers. The player looks for options to deal with the pesky guard, and the GM details a hiding spot, but explains that this guard seems tenacious, and the player will have to hide for a long time. She is in a time crunch to get the papers to her contact, and he may leave if she is not there on time, suspecting foul play. The player suggests some cat burglary wall climbing as an alternative, and the GM details the only climbing route puts her in view of guards in another tower, probably alerting them. The player decides that if she saves the raise now, and lets the alert go out in the other tower, she will have enough raises left to escape and meet her contact. It won't be a flawless infil, but the guards will be hard pressed to ID her if they see her from afar at night.
If you play it that way, one action flows into the next, and into the next. The player may or may not end up acheiving all or even any of their intent, but that will be based on how the scene plays out, and their tolerance for consequences in the moment, as well as their decisions as they go. Certain decisions (i.e. consequences) might shift the success condition, or obviate it, or reveal a whole new avenue. When you have "I succeed" as a trump card/predecision, I think it would interfere with this fictional flow.
For instance, imagine that same scenario. The players intent is to get into the tower and get out with the papers. Unseen and uninjured are nice, but not baked into the DS's CR which I will set at 2 here. The player rolls 4 raises, and again decides not to spend one on the door, thereby leaving herself open to discovery. However, this time, when she gets into the study, she finds that Heidleburg is one sick *bleep*. He has someone tied up in his study, and has evidently been torturing this poor soul. Maybe this was improvised by the GM. Maybe it was planned. Doesn't matter. Suddenly Kiara hears the guard just outside. She hasn't spent any raises yet. By the rules, she has to spend a blanket 2 to succeed. If she doesn't, she doesn't succeed. But that only leaves her 2 raises to potentially help this person, neutralize the gaurd, get out of there and to her contact on time, etc. I feel like that sets up this strange, meta-fictional decision space, that simply wouldn't exist if the player is tackling each situation as it comes, and deciding like their character might really decide if they were an actual person, faced with this actual situation. I also think, for most players, who, like me, have never played a "roll than move" RPG, the ability to tackle each obstacle as a discrete entity, one at a time, would facilitate understanding of the system. Furthermore, I feel like the 2 CR raises are almost wasted. They aren't exciting or interesting, because once a player has rolled, and rolled well enough to succeed, its gonna be a hard pill to swallow not to succed (aforementioned endowment effect).
@DarLoh, I think the "entitlement effect" is already baked into 7th Sea 2e rules that imply heroes always succeed unless they choose to voluntarily fail.
Contrast this to a DnD encounter of any challenge rating whereby the PCs rely on the rules just to keep the GM from throwing a TPK at them but success is not guaranteed. In DnD the CR of an encounter guides the GM to the type and number of adversarties, traps, etc, to throw at the PCs.
Similarly, we could house rule 7th Sea using CR as a guide to the depth of a Dramatic Sequence in terms of one Raise for a success but still attach several suitable Consequences before dice are even rolled. The players just need to know that one Raise held back lets them succeed at the final Intent, but escaping without Consequences may require additional Raises, how many will be predetermiend by the CR before dice are rolled. The CR may just guide the GM to the kind of Consequences to make avaliable for that party size and strength. Thus, during the playout of the Dramatic Sequence, as long as one Raise is left at the final Intent, it will succeed but may come with Consequences attached. Consqeuences do not automatically mean failure, just a less than perfect resolution of the final Intent of that Dramatic Sequence. The problem still remains though: what Consequences are suitable? @TechGoblin has an interesting table to use as a guide on page-2-post-55 of this thread and @DarLoh's rating values here page-1-post-23.
Proposing a CR is just a reminder for the GM to plan the Dramatic Sequence within the narrative themes and also suitable for existing Player Character stat blocks. It should be winnable but not free from all Consequences which can be mixed with Opportunties at different points in the Dramatic Sequence.
Finally, if here are no Raises left for the final Intent, just end the Dramatic Sequence and roll new dice to turn the finale into an Action Sequence.
7th Sea 2e in its current iteration depends heavily on experienced GMs because there are no guidelines for creating Dramatic Sequences in terms of what sort of Consequences are suitable for a particular team of PCs. Should the Consequence for refusing to spend a Raise to pick a locked door summon a Brute Squad? Should escaping though the window trigger wounds or instead offer Opportunities to glimpse an eagle-eye view of the ground below?
The problem 7th Sea 2e has is John Wick's dislike for dice rolls that adversely disrupt a storyline. But that is why interactive games differ from narrative fiction.
TAJ-07: Technopriest And Justicar Of 7thSea2e
Regarding the "endowment effect" being baked in...your right. My issue is, the effect is different in a dramatic sequence than in a simple risk or AS. Players in a simple risk or AS are generally spending 1 raise to succeed at 1 task, much like one would make a skill check or attack roll in DnD. I get across the room. I get up onto the balcony. I convince the guard I am so and so. Its very discrete. Each individual task is usually not going to spell the difference between success or failure of a broad story objective. Moreover, the raise spent for the task is usually going to be roughly equivalent to the one spent to avoid a consequence. Avoiding 1 wound vs. getting onto the balcony, are much closer than avoiding 1 wound and finding out who the prospective assassin is over a nighttime of scouring the city.
I remain a bit confused by your advocacy for the "One Raise to Rule them all." I get the mechanics of how its supposed to work. I explained my thoughts on why I prefer my original suggestion. Even ignoring my endowment effect concern, my concern about playing the fiction procedurally remains. I'm curious if you disagree with this concern? I'm also curious if you can explain some specific benefit of the "One Raise." In my suggestion the player can still ultimately always succeed, they just must accept the consequences that arise as they push forward.
AI can see your point about a CR as a guide. Personally, I would just let the fiction guide me. If the players are infiltrating a heavily armed castle that is on high alert, a consequence ignored is more likely to summon an entire brute squad, or more likely an investigating guard that is not promptly dealt with will rapidly turn the situation into mess for the players. Infiltrating a private residence will likely draw more subtle and less dangerous problems on an ignored consequence.
It sounds like you are proposing doing a lot of pre-planning for DSs? With regards to the CR idea, are you suggesting having a table of suggested consequences for a given CR, and a suggested CR for different "levels" of player character power?
I think that's fine, but not a direction I personally would go. I like the idea behind the DS, which was to narrate a chunk of fiction with a single die roll and without needed to pre-specify a bunch obstacles and consequences (other than in narrative terms, a castle has walls, and guards, etc). Hence, my proposed house rule lets one play that same way, but without the problems with DS RAW discussed ad nauseum above. Again, I think your proposal is another good way to play DSs that fix the issues with the DS RAW. I just can't see any benefit I get as a GM doing it that way. Its more prep, and seems like it would disrupt the narrative flow for little benefit.
TAJ-07: Technopriest And Justicar Of 7thSea2e
Understood on the intent behind the 1 raise. If that's your only reason for the single raise, I would argue it might not be the best. #1, for the stuff I have laid out above. #2, I think there are conflicting intents from Mr. Wick here. The description of playing a DS seems to fit better with my method. By RAW, Mr. Wick clearly doesn't intend a single raise to "win" the DS. You are right that the single raise seems to be a general theme across the rules. A lot of people seem to read it as Mr. Wick always wanting the heroes to succeed. I think he is being a bit more devious. I think he wants GMs to challenge players, and place consequences and opportunities in front of them that are too tempting pass up. I think that is the more important underlying methodology, and I think that fits better with my method.
You are right that having pre-planned consequences gets the GM off the hook for manipulating things. However, I don't know how much that will be an issue playing my way, assuming the GM is being reasonable. If the GM states or implies the consequences of ignoring a...consequence, the heroes can't very well get angry when it happens. And, in either my scenario or yours, the consequences are going to seem reasonable or not. I mean, if you pre-plan 10 raises worth of consequences that are overly harsh upon reaching the finale (especially if the consequences are not foreshadowed), I'm not convinced the players are going to be any happier about it just because you wrote them down beforehand.
Pages