Vincent Baker on mechanics, system and fiction in RPGs

[pemerton]

So taking this at face value would seem to lead the sort of dilemma that was described.

The rulebook is crystal clear. I've already quoted it upthread!

Going aggro is . . . for direct threats when the character can and will follow up with violence. . . . Bluffing counts as seducing or manipulating, using the threat of violence for leverage. It’s legit for you to ask the player whether the character’s bluffing before letting her make the roll. (p 197)​

And p 194 even has a worked example:

Wilson corners Monk. “I scream at him, shove him, call him names. ‘Stay THE <HELL> away from Amni, you creepy little <person>.’ I’m going aggro on him.” “Cool,” I say. “Do you pull a weapon, or is it just shoving and yelling?” “Oh, yeah, no, it’s just shoving and yelling.” “Well, that’s fine,” I say, “but if he forces your hand, he takes 0-harm. I’m pretty sure that’s what he’s going to do. Do you want to roll for it anyway? Do you want to bring a weapon to bear after all? Oh hold on — I think you’re actually using the threat as leverage, you’re manipulating him, not going aggro. Want to roll+hot for that?” “Oh!” Wilson’s player says. “Yeah, yeah, that makes sense. Right on.”​

There's no dilemma.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The rulebook is crystal clear. I've already quoted it upthread!

Going aggro is . . . for direct threats when the character can and will follow up with violence. . . . Bluffing counts as seducing or manipulating, using the threat of violence for leverage. It’s legit for you to ask the player whether the character’s bluffing before letting her make the roll. (p 197)​

And p 194 even has a worked example:

Wilson corners Monk. “I scream at him, shove him, call him names. ‘Stay THE <HELL> away from Amni, you creepy little <person>.’ I’m going aggro on him.” “Cool,” I say. “Do you pull a weapon, or is it just shoving and yelling?” “Oh, yeah, no, it’s just shoving and yelling.” “Well, that’s fine,” I say, “but if he forces your hand, he takes 0-harm. I’m pretty sure that’s what he’s going to do. Do you want to roll for it anyway? Do you want to bring a weapon to bear after all? Oh hold on — I think you’re actually using the threat as leverage, you’re manipulating him, not going aggro. Want to roll+hot for that?” “Oh!” Wilson’s player says. “Yeah, yeah, that makes sense. Right on.”​

There's no dilemma.

There is. We are having this writer's room meta negotiation before the events even take place, and the player has to decide whether they're willing to follow through with violence before the character has. You might not see that as an issue, but it is not surprising at all that some do.

 

[pemerton]

There is. We are having this writer's room meta negotiation before the events even take place, and the player has to decide whether they're willing to follow through with violence before the character has. You might not see that as an issue, but it is not surprising at all that some do.

What's the dilemma? All you're telling me is that you want to be able to delay establishing an intent until the GM has made every move they might make. That's a preference, but not a dilemma.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What's the dilemma? All you're telling me is that you want to be able to delay establishing an intent until the GM has made every move they might make. That's a preference, but not a dilemma.

Whether it is a dilemma, obviously depends on one's preferences. But what I want is the moment the character has to decide the thing and when the player has to decide the thing to be in sync, and I want to avoid having meta discussions about it.

 

[FrogReaver]

@ Everyone

I think we all agree that the player is making a decision between following through with violence before the character has to make that decision. As with most of these discussions the issue really seems to be the value judgement around whether this mechanical to fictional process is good. Whether it emphasizes/elides the right details and with whether the rules' imposed structured causality are a good match in design - meaning they work they way they are meant to. (*Paraphrased from the quotes below - quoted from the OP)

What's obvious to me is that these particular rules aren't working as they are meant to, at least not for a significant number of people. So in the context of this thread I think it's fair to judge it by the words below - for these people the game isn't working the way it's meant to, thus the right details aren't being emphasized and elided, thus for them it's a bad match in design.

*RPG design involves making choices about how these different elements of the character in the game rules relate to the fictional character - eg which details are emphasised and which elided? which things are quantified, and which left qualitative?​

In play . . . your rules impose a structured causality upon your game's fiction. If they were a good match in design, then in play the game works the way you meant it to. If they were a bad match in design, then in play the game doesn't work how you intended. Bold barbarian warriors maximize their armor and when they go into battle it's a matter of grinding ablation, not decisive action; your grim & gritty noir detective has to carry an assault rifle because a .38 won't kill a dude; the team of morning-cartoon superheroes bicker, bean-count their resources, and wind up working for the highest bidder.​

 

[pemerton]

@FrogReaver: The player declares that they put their gun to the other character's head, shouting "Do what I say or you're dead meat!" They other character doesn't do what they've been told to do. When do you think the decision to pull the trigger gets made. Now? Now? Now? Or maybe now?

EDIT, in case it's not clear:

I think we all agree that the player is making a decision between following through with violence before the character has to make that decision.

No we don't.

 

[kenada]

Whether it is a dilemma, obviously depends on one's preferences. But what I want is the moment the character has to decide the thing and when the player has to decide the thing to be in sync, and I want to avoid having meta discussions about it.

I’m trying to follow this reasoning, but I’m having trouble. If a particular action declaration is unclear or incomplete, are you arguing for not asking clarifying questions because that would result in a “meta discussion”?

It’s fine if that’s your preference, but I don’t read this example as “writer’s room”. It looks very similar to when a player declares they want to make a Perception check without any more detail than that, and the DM has to ask them what or how they’re searching to adjudicate the action declaration.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@FrogReaver: The player declares that they put their gun to the other character's head, shouting "Do what I say or you're dead meat!" They other character doesn't do what they've been told to do. When do you think the decision to pull the trigger gets made. Now? Now? Now? Or maybe now?

After the threatened person has responded.

 

[FrogReaver]

@FrogReaver: The player declares that they put their gun to the other character's head, shouting "Do what I say or you're dead meat!" They other character doesn't do what they've been told to do. When do you think the decision to pull the trigger gets made. Now? Now? Now? Or maybe now?

EDIT, in case it's not clear:
No we don't.

The EDIT helped. Thanks!

You are pointing to an example where it is clear IMO. Do you think every use case is that clear? That none of the counterexamples provided by others above are less clear?

I have some additional thoughts as well. They tie back into what you've labeled currencies, but I think this detail needs nailed down first.

 

[pemerton]

After the threatened person has responded.

What does response mean here?

Let's have a look at Go Aggro (from AW p 193):

When you go aggro on someone, roll+hard. On a 10+, they have to choose: force your hand and suck it up, or cave and do what you want. On a 7–9, they can instead choose 1:

• get the hell out of your way
• barricade themselves securely in
• give you something they think you want
• back off calmly, hands where you can see
• tell you what you want to know (or what you want to hear)​

So the threatened character caves and does what you want: if the player now declares that they shoot them, that's a new move (Going Aggro again, most likely, and the rules describe how to handle that.

Or the threatened character doesn't do what you want - they stand there, waiting to see if you are going to follow through. When and how does this get resolved?