Musing on the Nature of Character in RPGs

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer

This is one of the Keeper's Principles in The Beyond:




(because I'm typically quite aggressive in my framing and pace) This is one I was really focusing on trying to accomplish in our opening foray. I wanted your scenes and Helena's scenes to feel languid, safe, but with the prospect of danger looming just beyond eyeshot; lurking but out of sight.

So a few questions:

1) Did you feel this in your scene at the police precinct? If so, how did that orient you toward Rattlesnake and to the scene at large?

I think we're still orienting to the play structure for The Between in that the difference between an Information move and a Day move was kinda unclear. I think, on reflection, that Rattlesnake going to the precinct house maybe should have been a Day move first, because there was the potential for danger and probably should have required me to outline what I thought was at stake there -- ie, how I thought it could go bad (this is part of making a Day move). I think I was oriented to the precinct house as a place where things could indeed go wrong, but the nature of the moves made downplayed that a bit structurally. Not that we did it wrong, but I think we did it a little bit wrong. And I think that's important because of the next question.

2) If you would have failed your Information move (rather than the 7-9 that you got that gained you the doll Clue but put it on you to make it useful), I would have likely responded with a combo of the Keeper Move "Have an Official Show Up (to interfere)" and "Put the Hunter in Danger" (the Constable was an official). I would have escalated and brought your pistol into it (some kind of local ordinance against open carry).

Would you (as Rattlesnake) have let the Constable disarm you or would you have escalated the situation? Why or why not (what would have been your thinking/orientation to the evolved situation) and what would that have said about Rattlesnake and your subsequent play of him?

This one is complex. For one, had Rattlesnake's ability to carry his Colt been threatened, I would have been upset in the moment because there wasn't really a set up that this was on the table and it's going directly after the one playbook move I selected at creation -- to have the Colt and be a very dangerous shot with it. This was something foundational to the concept of my character, especially with the XP trigger to "use violence to solve something." I can't say exactly what would have happened, but I think I probably would have challenged it.

When I considered this question, though, and looked at my initial reaction, I went through a few things, so I can't say the above would be certain. I considered that it's your job as GM to put things like that under threat, and that I would have had the opportunity to deploy the Janus Mask or to continue play trying to defuse it (likely starting a Day move), so I backed off a bit. However, as I stepped even further back, I looked at the concept that The American is clearly meant to be armed in London, and the time period it is set allowed people to be armed, especially in genre work. And, given the Day Phase is supposed to be slightly less dangerous (although you can definitely get into a pickle), it would seem that such a move would be counter to the genre logic and also, occurring without an attendant soft move to set it up well, would, I think, be hard move that wasn't called for in the fiction. After analysis, and stepping away from my initial reaction, I think that this move would have been something that should be challenged as outside genre and too hard for the setup, especially since it targets a playbook move and would have taken that move off the table for use in a long-term fashion (ie, such an ordinance would have made carry require a move to even enable and would have established this for the game until, possibly, play was made to get an exception from a higher authority).

Now, all that said, I certainly think there was a space for a similar move. Looking up Victorian arms laws just now, turns out you could own one freely, but carrying it on the streets required a fee. So a move that questioned if I had paid such a fee would have been in keeping, because then the result would be I could say I had and make that move and find out. And, if not, there's a quick resolution to remove it -- basically I can see this inflicting a condition that could be removed through the various ways to remove conditions.

 

[Manbearcat]

Alright, a lot to unpack and comment on here. I'm pressed for time, so this is going to be less focused than I'd like:

* On Day GMing in The Between, my read of the structure of play, GMing, principles, and the specifics of each is the Day shouldn't lead with conflict/threat. If it turns into conflict/threat, that is fine, but, in many ways, it should be like Free Play/Info Gathering in Blades. So if you go to see the precinct of the upper east side, the Constable doesn't automatically (a) aggressively hate yankees, (b) want to issue a citation or enforce an ordinance, (c) have some other kind of bone to pick with your character or affiliation. It may turn into that, but the initial moves made are going to be The Information Move and not The Daytime Move. We're looking for clues. If we stumble into conflict/threat, that is because action resolution has precipitated it or the GM has made a soft move in framing downstream of a lot of action resolution (eg a haunting) and you jump in whole hog.

So that is going to be my handling of the Day phase. Pretty much universally you guys will make Information Moves until action resolution/scene transition triggers a soft/hard move that either outright escalates things or portends a threat.

* On "taking their stuff away", I'm of varying mind on this depending on the game. I'm going to throw a bunch of thoughts out here on this that likely won't be coherent, but it will give anyone who is interested in commenting on them a chance to digest it and do so at their discretion:

- Dogs in the Vineyard has a Fallout option of removing a Belonging from your character sheet. This might very well be your gun. The fallout is not opt-in, but the choice to remove a Belonging (because it makes sense for what transpired in the scene where it occurred or because it is transformative growth or ablation of a character) absolutely is. I love this.

- Apocalypse World's "activate their stuff's downside" and "take away their stuff" is (obviously as its the original) the originator of the stuff-effery in this family of games. HOWEVER...VB also has this to say about "stuff":

"The worst way there is to make a character’s life more interesting is to take away the things that made the character cool to begin with. e gunlugger’s guns, but also the gunlugger’s collection of ancient photographs—what makes the character match our expectations and also what makes the character rise above them. Don’t take those away."

Now, The Beyond has no analogue here, but the ethos is still sound broadly. What I will say is that when I run these games, I challenge their stuff, I put pressure on it, to see what they will do (what they will escalate for...what they will fight for...what they will back down from).

I'm not going to outright take away their stuff as well (eg a hard move where the stuff is just gone...that is terrible...its like the worst kind of spell or component filching in D&D or other blocks related to gear). I'll put them in a spot and we'll see where it goes. Further, it its something that is fundamental to the character (eg an American's Colt or a Fighter's Signature Weapon in DW or a Gunlugger's Guns), then its just going to be temporary. It will be an inconvenience that they can overcome (by getting them back). And then we'll find out how they go about overcoming that inconvenience.

- When its PC build-related (eg you've dumped currency into this thing), it absolutely becomes more sensitive and that is sensitive 2 ways; to the player in question and to the game balance overall. I'm much less apt to do this in a game with sensitive conflict balance that is predicated upon everyone having their build-widgets. Further, if a player doesn't like the move made, that is time for a conversation to be had. Keeping the meta-line open is extremely important. If the move made by the GM to challenge this or that either sucks or is in violation of an earned win or a sacrifice of gain (this happened the other day in our Blades game...the Crew had several Scores in a short interval against The Ministry of Preservation...in all but 1 of them, they forfeited Rep in order to keep it a secret from TMoP that it was the Crew...I erected a Downtime Faction Move that gave them a catch 22 offer of great gain with unpleasant strings attached or a major faction consequence with tMoP....I was CORRECTLY called on this...because it was an absolute violation of (a) their forfeited Rep to prevent faction loss and (b) the wins that came with those Scores...so I retracted the move...It had slipped my brain that they forfeited Rep on those earlier Scores...easily enough fixed though).

So a move that feels controversial to a player (it could be controversial for a myriad of reasons) needs to be able to be challenged by a player.

However, there is significant daylight between putting something under pressure/in the crosshairs vs just taking it away. Those are very different things in the actual play and the abundance of great Story Now play is about putting pressure on those things exactly (whether its your brother, your colt, your orientation toward your order, etc). However, outright taking build-stuff away is terrible (for all of the reasons mentioned) without conflict > action > resolution > consequences dictating it. And opt-in ameliorates things tremendously (eg you have a choice of this cost or that cost).

* Finall, on ordinance/laws in Victorian Era London; We're being inspired by the setting, not governed by it. This is our own instantiation of the time and the place. We will obviously have certain setting and genre constraints, but I definitely don't feel like gun laws are part and parcel to that. Anything that has to actively be looked up is likely the litmus test for this. I can imagination a dozen different instantiations of arms ordinance for the city at large and for individual ordinances. And then I can imagine local constables doing whatever the eff they want because they don't like Yankees (which we would find out through play) or letting the Yankee carry their Colt openly and without a peacebond (or something) when it is forbidden by others because they just loooooooooooove the Yankees tales of the wild west and are smitten by their garb and accent. It could go in wildly different directions based on where play actually went (framing > player move made > move resolution result).

When I was GMing that scene, the Side Character in question (The Constable) was being run off of 3 words; Veneer, Understaffed, Seducible. The law itself didn't come into it. I mean you walked into the precinct and walk on the street without being accosted...so maybe there is some malleable FKR-ish law that The Constable can choose to enforce or not based on who the enforcement is being enacted upon. That seems like a good place to start for me (which is where my brain was at the time...law is very local in the wards and its easily skirted, or co-opted, arbitrarily enforced or not). That is a conflict-rich environment and the typical cognitive workspace I assume when I run Story Now games. Things are firm enough for framing and action declarations and malleable enough for dynamic fallout and evolution of scene/setting/character.

---

That got away from me! Metric eff-ton of words for anyone to respond to at their leisure.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Alright, a lot to unpack and comment on here. I'm pressed for time, so this is going to be less focused than I'd like:

* On Day GMing in The Between, my read of the structure of play, GMing, principles, and the specifics of each is the Day shouldn't lead with conflict/threat. If it turns into conflict/threat, that is fine, but, in many ways, it should be like Free Play/Info Gathering in Blades. So if you go to see the precinct of the upper east side, the Constable doesn't automatically (a) aggressively hate yankees, (b) want to issue a citation or enforce an ordinance, (c) have some other kind of bone to pick with your character or affiliation. It may turn into that, but the initial moves made are going to be The Information Move and not The Daytime Move. We're looking for clues. If we stumble into conflict/threat, that is because action resolution has precipitated it or the GM has made a soft move in framing downstream of a lot of action resolution (eg a haunting) and you jump in whole hog.

So that is going to be my handling of the Day phase. Pretty much universally you guys will make Information Moves until action resolution/scene transition triggers a soft/hard move that either outright escalates things or portends a threat.

* On "taking their stuff away", I'm of varying mind on this depending on the game. I'm going to throw a bunch of thoughts out here on this that likely won't be coherent, but it will give anyone who is interested in commenting on them a chance to digest it and do so at their discretion:

- Dogs in the Vineyard has a Fallout option of removing a Belonging from your character sheet. This might very well be your gun. The fallout is not opt-in, but the choice to remove a Belonging (because it makes sense for what transpired in the scene where it occurred or because it is transformative growth or ablation of a character) absolutely is. I love this.

- Apocalypse World's "activate their stuff's downside" and "take away their stuff" is (obviously as its the original) the originator of the stuff-effery in this family of games. HOWEVER...VB also has this to say about "stuff":



Now, The Beyond has no analogue here, but the ethos is still sound broadly. What I will say is that when I run these games, I challenge their stuff, I put pressure on it, to see what they will do (what they will escalate for...what they will fight for...what they will back down from).

I'm not going to outright take away their stuff as well (eg a hard move where the stuff is just gone...that is terrible...its like the worst kind of spell or component filching in D&D or other blocks related to gear). I'll put them in a spot and we'll see where it goes. Further, it its something that is fundamental to the character (eg an American's Colt or a Fighter's Signature Weapon in DW or a Gunlugger's Guns), then its just going to be temporary. It will be an inconvenience that they can overcome (by getting them back). And then we'll find out how they go about overcoming that inconvenience.

- When its PC build-related (eg you've dumped currency into this thing), it absolutely becomes more sensitive and that is sensitive 2 ways; to the player in question and to the game balance overall. I'm much less apt to do this in a game with sensitive conflict balance that is predicated upon everyone having their build-widgets. Further, if a player doesn't like the move made, that is time for a conversation to be had. Keeping the meta-line open is extremely important. If the move made by the GM to challenge this or that either sucks or is in violation of an earned win or a sacrifice of gain (this happened the other day in our Blades game...the Crew had several Scores in a short interval against The Ministry of Preservation...in all but 1 of them, they forfeited Rep in order to keep it a secret from TMoP that it was the Crew...I erected a Downtime Faction Move that gave them a catch 22 offer of great gain with unpleasant strings attached or a major faction consequence with tMoP....I was CORRECTLY called on this...because it was an absolute violation of (a) their forfeited Rep to prevent faction loss and (b) the wins that came with those Scores...so I retracted the move...It had slipped my brain that they forfeited Rep on those earlier Scores...easily enough fixed though).

So a move that feels controversial to a player (it could be controversial for a myriad of reasons) needs to be able to be challenged by a player.

However, there is significant daylight between putting something under pressure/in the crosshairs vs just taking it away. Those are very different things in the actual play and the abundance of great Story Now play is about putting pressure on those things exactly (whether its your brother, your colt, your orientation toward your order, etc). However, outright taking build-stuff away is terrible (for all of the reasons mentioned) without conflict > action > resolution > consequences dictating it. And opt-in ameliorates things tremendously (eg you have a choice of this cost or that cost).

* Finall, on ordinance/laws in Victorian Era London; We're being inspired by the setting, not governed by it. This is our own instantiation of the time and the place. We will obviously have certain setting and genre constraints, but I definitely don't feel like gun laws are part and parcel to that. Anything that has to actively be looked up is likely the litmus test for this. I can imagination a dozen different instantiations of arms ordinance for the city at large and for individual ordinances. And then I can imagine local constables doing whatever the eff they want because they don't like Yankees (which we would find out through play) or letting the Yankee carry their Colt openly and without a peacebond (or something) when it is forbidden by others because they just loooooooooooove the Yankees tales of the wild west and are smitten by their garb and accent. It could go in wildly different directions based on where play actually went (framing > player move made > move resolution result).

When I was GMing that scene, the Side Character in question (The Constable) was being run off of 3 words; Veneer, Understaffed, Seducible. The law itself didn't come into it. I mean you walked into the precinct and walk on the street without being accosted...so maybe there is some malleable FKR-ish law that The Constable can choose to enforce or not based on who the enforcement is being enacted upon. That seems like a good place to start for me (which is where my brain was at the time...law is very local in the wards and its easily skirted, or co-opted, arbitrarily enforced or not). That is a conflict-rich environment and the typical cognitive workspace I assume when I run Story Now games. Things are firm enough for framing and action declarations and malleable enough for dynamic fallout and evolution of scene/setting/character.

---

That got away from me! Metric eff-ton of words for anyone to respond to at their leisure.

I have no issues with anything you said here. My issue with your quick question above was that you were suggesting that there was a law possibly preventing open carry that the constable would make noise with. THAT -- there being a law -- is a long term, large scale, hard to resolve issue and that is what I was objecting to.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

This is precisely why I dont like generic systems. Or, I should say picking a generic system and just applying whatever skin fancies my table at the time. I love the variety of ways different games come at role play and gaming. I have a long running thread over at Paizo called systems are a journey, not the destination. It may have some interest in diving further into even more differences.

LOL! Laughing because...

"This is precisely why I DO like generic systems. I love the variety of ways a player can come at the game. ..."

Interesting how two people can have COMPLETELY opposite 'vibes' from the same 'thing'.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[payn]

Hiya!

LOL! Laughing because...

"This is precisely why I DO like generic systems. I love the variety of ways a player can come at the game. ..."

Interesting how two people can have COMPLETELY opposite 'vibes' from the same 'thing'.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Totally. There are times I wish I found the ultimate system I could run anything with and be happy. For some reason I just cant do it.

 

[Manbearcat]

I have no issues with anything you said here. My issue with your quick question above was that you were suggesting that there was a law possibly preventing open carry that the constable would make noise with. THAT -- there being a law -- is a long term, large scale, hard to resolve issue and that is what I was objecting to.

Collection of thoughts for you (or anyone) to respond to:

* No matter the situation with local or London-wide ordinances or local law enforcement douchebaggery or corruption, it would only be a thing for the Day phase of play (the Night phase is framed directly into the action of the Threat so whatever setting emerges from our Day phase wouldn't be an input into Night phase framing). Does that mitigate your concern or not-so-much?

* There are three frames of mind on the equation of "I'm imbued with a latent curse that turns me feral/savage" + "I'm trying to escape my past/fate on the other side of the ocean amidst a group of exotic monster hunters" + "I chose Fastest Gun in the West so I have persistent advantage when it goes to guns" + "I'm an American going into the precinct, wearing my low slung holstered Colt, and asking the Constable and his Deputy about the recent murders" + "violence resolution as xp trigger" + "reveal a treasured memory from the States during an intimate moment with another character xp trigger" (these latter two potentially being at tension during any given conflict):

One frame of mind is:

- I selected Fastest Gun in the West so when I go to guns I expect to be reliably capable of dispatching my foes.

- I selected Fastest Gun in the West because I want the temptation of escalating to violence with the related looming Sword of Damocles that goes with having a low slung Colt holstered on my hip where everyone can see it. Its symbolic for my curse. Surrendering to it is a savage, easy thing to do...but neither my enemies nor myself will escape the wrath of my succumbing to it. Can I keep it holstered? Can I escape its power over me?

- A combination of both of the above.

Knowing you, I would expect its the last answer (a combination of both where you're at severe tension of escalating to violence vs controlling that urge and resorting to intimacy and vulnerability instead).


So two questions:

1) If it is indeed the last one, wouldn't an ordinance around the gun be just the thing to test this dichotomy of succumbing to easy, savage violence vs controlling the curse of your blood and the cold steel on your hip...and adds another layer to it (an externality that attempts to wrest your decision from you...perhaps one American might deem that as a glorious boon...another American might see that as the easy way out with)?

2) As a GM, when I see a player make a move like the above (a foreigner who just waged a violent war of insurrection within the last century) to go to a law man and attempt to make friendly and squeeze some information out of the precinct's personnel...my radar is immediately ticked toward "this person wants law enforcement to be a potential Threat or a potential Side Character and we'll figure out (a) which they are and (b) , if Threat, what that looks like (with the selection of Fastest Gun in the West and the chilling, big ass Colt on their hip being a thing)?"

Then, of course, if they don't like the result, they always have the Janus Mask (a limited use resource which will end up retiring your character if you use it enough) to fall back on.


What do you think about (1) and (2) above both as (a) the player of the character and (b) the character itself.

Finally, if (2) is a correct read, is the "misread" (of the implication in the character playbook choices + action declaration) basically "I don't want gun laws to be a potential persistent input into framing or consequences during The Day Phase of play...I just want succumbing to violence vs maintaining control and intimacy motif...your consequence of a 6- move becoming a potential, persistent input into Day scene-framing makes my PC life difficult in a way that I didn't invite (eg - mean to signal)."


@prabe , my guess is that your of a similar mind to @Ovinomancer on this. That my last paragraph I've written above is where you might fall if this was an output of action resolution and then a subsequent input on conflict framing? I would be curious what your better half would feel if I complicated her Day Phase life with a OMG WITCHCRAFT albatross around her neck becoming a potential persistent input into Day phase framing as the result of a 6- move (supernatural counselling or ritual or dark entity conflict - all xp triggers - + her character's Quarters, theme, and motif)?

I'm curious what others think on this. I'm particularly curious about the reality that this playbook move selected is an important part of build currency:

Is a gunslinger's weapon (selected build currency) or a Warlock's divination's (same) fair game to become potential complications during a phase of play where conflict is not inherent (but manifests as an outgrowth of action resolution or the accretion of PC moves that bring conflict/threat into the fold). Or is that generally no bueno? What if the game is agnostic about that and the premise of the game and the character isn't specifically about "how many enemies can you dispatch with your Colt and how well can you dispatch them" (or in the Warlock's case "how much good council can you receive and provide from your divinations?").


This is pretty complicated stuff and the straight-forward answer is "if the player sincerely isn't pleased by the move and doesn't feel the game is serviced by it...CONVERSATION OVER...pick a different move." But that analysis is the sort of "find the fun" analysis and I'm looking for a deeper dive.

 

[prabe]

@prabe , my guess is that your of a similar mind to @Ovinomancer on this. That my last paragraph I've written above is where you might fall if this was an output of action resolution and then a subsequent input on conflict framing? I would be curious what your better half would feel if I complicated her Day Phase life with a OMG WITCHCRAFT albatross around her neck becoming a potential persistent input into Day phase framing as the result of a 6- move (supernatural counselling or ritual or dark entity conflict - all xp triggers - + her character's Quarters, theme, and motif)?

I ... wouldn't have huge problems with laws complicating carrying firearms, in a setting that had them. I wouldn't be super-happy building (like the equivalent of spending build-points on) a character around having guns and having it be impossible in the setting of the game to use guns. If I had set out to build a character around the sort of push-pull you're describing, I might be a little miffed to have that yanked out from under me, as well.

I'll have to speak to my wife about your question/s about her and her character.

 

[Manbearcat]

I ... wouldn't have huge problems with laws complicating carrying firearms, in a setting that had them. I wouldn't be super-happy building (like the equivalent of spending build-points on) a character around having guns and having it be impossible in the setting of the game to use guns. If I had set out to build a character around the sort of push-pull you're describing, I might be a little miffed to have that yanked out from under me, as well.

I'll have to speak to my wife about your question/s about her and her character.

That is what I figured.

"Impossible" isn't correct though (I feel like this might be an instance of "the glass is 1/18th full prabe showing up to the party!" ). Sub in "potentially complicated in framing or consequences in some scenes in the Day phase of play" for "impossible."

How do you feel about it now? Are you able to bridge the difference? You may not be able to...it may be that this potential complication in framing or consequences looming in the Day phase of play may yield you feeling "cognitively captured" by the prospect? My guess is that (knowing you), you may feel a bit captured by the prospect of that complication looming and it may spoil play-at-large for you. I'm also guessing that you are not alone in that emotional or cognitive orientation.

 

[prabe]

That is what I figured.

"Impossible" isn't correct though (I feel like this might be an instance of "the glass is 1/18th full prabe showing up to the party!" ). Sub in "potentially complicated in framing or consequences in some scenes in the Day phase of play" for "impossible."

How do you feel about it now? Are you able to bridge the difference? You may not be able to...it may be that this potential complication in framing or consequences looming in the Day phase of play may yield you feeling "cognitively captured" by the prospect? My guess is that (knowing you), you may feel a bit captured by the prospect of that complication looming and it may spoil play-at-large for you. I'm also guessing that you are not alone in that emotional or cognitive orientation.

"This isn't a great idea now" or "this might have consequences you don't want" aren't "impossible" unless they are A) inordinately severe and B) always on. That's the sort of thing that can plausibly come up in just about any game. The problem I see is if someone's character options are getting nerfed--which doesn't seem to be the intent or the effect you're talking about.

 

[Manbearcat]

"This isn't a great idea now" or "this might have consequences you don't want" aren't "impossible" unless they are A) inordinately severe and B) always on. That's the sort of thing that can plausibly come up in just about any game. The problem I see is if someone's character options are getting nerfed--which doesn't seem to be the intent or the effect you're talking about.

How about a specific example.

You chose Heirloom Weapon in our DW game. In our play it came to pass that your blade was sort of a nexus for spirits; kind of a purgatory where the slain now resided.

On 4 separate occasions (because you took this ability), I either framed a conflict around it (the Exarch of Death demanding your spirit-saturated blade due to offense taken at your lack of progress in its bargain with your companion at the outset of play) or doled out "spirits/dimension-based" consequences as a result of move resolution.

When the first one of those came up, how did you feel about it? As play progressed, did that "thematic specter hanging over play" (to be as dramatic as possible), make you feel that either (a) the ability was nerfed or (b) you were getting more than you bargained for when you took the move (eg - "turn their move back on them" isn't a GM move you feel particularly inclined toward emotionally or cognitively...it just feels crap)?

Or did you feel something else about each of those instances and the accretion of them as play progressed.

And, through that orientation (your own, the player), did that transmit to Toru's orientation; "this blade is a burden I'll be pleased to be rid of" (and so he rid himself of it later)?