Map & Key Escort/Smuggling Adventures or Scores and Scene Bangs

[Manbearcat]

How does a Scene Bang differ from Good Adventure Writing? If you're not following the theme or giving the PCs evocative choices to make, aren't you just boring your players?

It differs in a few key ways:

1) In Story Now games that feature scene-based resolution, there is no such thing as "the Adventure" or "the plot." There is a structure to play whereby provocatively framed scenes are resolved by player <> GM <> system interaction which have both immediate and downstream effects which feed into the framing of the next scene; rinse/repeat. Through that snowballing process you'll have a play experience where, as a retrospective, you'll be able to say "ah yeah, that was the Adventure/plot." But there is vanishingly small amount of "Story Before" in this alchemy.

2) Good Adventure writing is absolutely writing that gives the PCs evocative choices to make. However, the difference of a "Bang" (outside of what I outlined in 1) is that there is no deft game of Telephone being played here. There is no interpretive element. We're going straight to the players and giving them authority to provide the inciting incident or the provocative framing of the situation/scene that is to be resolved. The GM's job is then to (a) lead a functional, efficient, structured conversation that propels play, (b) play that opposition to the absolute hilt, (c) manage/render Complications/Costs and Failures (with Successes being "the player gets what they want") in accordance with the rules/agenda/principles and action resolution mechanics of the particular system involved, (d) with the whole of it leading to an evolving gamestate and fiction until all questions about the scene are resolved.

Low cognitive overhead to me is answering questions instead of raising them. If I wrote "weird/faith/obligation" on my map, I'd be pretty curious as to what I was thinking when I wrote it.

You use whatever pithy shorthand works for you for provocative, yet capable of being dynamically interpreted, obstacles/problems. You don't want the equivalent of a module box text info dump because that fails the "capable of being dynamically interpreted" litmus test. You want something that provokes the GM's creativity, hews to genre logic, and then you trust the GM to effectively render the obstacle/complication in accords with the system parameters (agenda, principles, structure, action resolution mechanics, authority distribution).

If pithy, provocative descriptors doesn't do the necessary work for you, then you develop some other methodological shorthand (that reduces cognitive workload, keeps table handling time down, yet stokes GM creativity).

 

[GMMichael]

In other words, players create their own problems, and the Scene Bang is how the GM keeps them both on-track and busy. Is that about right?

 

[Manbearcat]

In other words, players create their own problems, and the Scene Bang is how the GM keeps them both on-track and busy. Is that about right?

No.

1) A Bang is just what it says in the lead post. It’s player direct input into what their opposition will be in a scene.

2) There is no “on track” and there is no “busy” beyond the typical PCs face obstacles > players declare moves for their PCs to overcome the obstacles > we roll dice and the situation changes (rinse/repeat).

3) The GM’s job is to:

* frame each situation as the PCs encounter obstacles/problems on the map >

* play the opposition to the hilt >

* follow the rules/procedures for action resolution and create complications as the system says they should arise and continuously change the situation until the obstacle is overcome >

* rinse/repeat as you follow the PCs’ route (see the red line in the above map) and reroute if that happens at some point along the way (see the green line on the map) until the PCs make it to their destination and the conflict is over…or the PCs fail or abandon their efforts.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I very much enjoyed the session, and here are my thoughts on it:

The Obstacles/Problem generation was fun, and kept at a pretty high level. Taking turns, we'd establish a location on the map, then a kind of problem with maybe a few details, if needed. Like, I established that the park below the precinct house was a location for Gang Trouble, and we established that this gang was going to be the Grey Cloak -- ex-cops drummed out for being too brutal (which is saying something in Blades) and who have banded together to form a nasty gang of toughs. I like the juxtaposition of them being so close to their former compatriots.

However, the exact nature of the obstacle was not established -- where the Grey Cloaks running a toll for passing by the park? Were they strongarm stealing from passers-by? Don't know, that was to be establish by the GM as part of the scene framing when or if we got to that location.

What I loved most about this was the ability to choose a route -- while some of the obstacles were things that couldn't be predicted, most of them were, and it felt like it really centered our characters' knowledge of the city. This neighborhood really felt alive and familiar (which was cool because our hunting grounds are there).

Now, on to things I think might improve/provide a different experience. In keeping with the goal of very low overhead, I think I might try out the following:

When placing markers on the map, I'd maybe suggest not attaching the encounters directly to the markers. Get a list of encounters during generation, and then put the markers on the map, but only associate an encounter to the marker when it's encountered. I think this lets things be slightly more of a surprise. I'd then let the gather information rolls fix some of the encounters to a location -- like scouting the route? Say we, as players, pick out a route, and then make some checks on each (fortune style) to fix encounters -- a 1-3 would be a high challenge encounter (risky-desperate position or low effect, maybe a higher tier or large scope?), 4-5 would be a risky, and a 6 would be a controlled, or risky but we pick the encounter. A critical would flip the obstacle to a boon, maybe? This could be determined in play, merging the scouting into the score? Dunno, just some thinking I had during and after the session. I think this keeps the overhead low, stays very close to your original idea, and maybe adds some additional points of interest?

Of course, that said, I would be happy and excited to continue using the tested approach for any and all future transports. Very fun session!

 

[Manbearcat]

@Ovinomancer

Great post. Probably not too much of a surprise, your proposed amendments to the procedure are 100 % exactly what I was thinking as well. Seriously, like exactly the same.

So they’ll be site based things on the map (that are already on the map) like The Veil nightclub. But procedurally the rest would be as you’ve written above.

I think we should give those changes a spin next Transport Score.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer

Great post. Probably not too much of a surprise, your proposed amendments to the procedure are 100 % exactly what I was thinking as well. Seriously, like exactly the same.

So they’ll be site based things on the map (that are already on the map) like The Veil nightclub. But procedurally the rest would be as you’ve written above.

I think we should give those changes a spin next Transport Score.

I'd say I'm excited, but it's really a mix of trepidation and anticipation colliding and spinning out new exotic excitement particles.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'd say I'm excited, but it's really a mix of trepidation and anticipation colliding and spinning out new exotic excitement particles.

Sounds like a man with a goat problem.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sounds like a man with a goat problem.

I don't have a goat problem. I have people who have goat problems. I just have people problems.

 

[pemerton]

I can't contribute anything on BitD/FitD techniques. But I can comment on the below:

How does a Scene Bang differ from Good Adventure Writing? If you're not following the theme or giving the PCs evocative choices to make, aren't you just boring your players?

Low cognitive overhead to me is answering questions instead of raising them. If I wrote "weird/faith/obligation" on my map, I'd be pretty curious as to what I was thinking when I wrote it.

In other words, players create their own problems, and the Scene Bang is how the GM keeps them both on-track and busy. Is that about right?

This is confused.

As far as I'm aware, Ron Edwards coined the term "bang" in the context of RPGing. Here's one account he's offered:

So let's talk about Narrativist [= "story now"] protagonism and how it's established, starting with the adversity. . . .​

​

Bangs are those moments when the characters realize they have a problem right now and have to get moving to deal with it. It can be as simple as a hellacious demon crashing through the skylight and attacking the characters or as subtle as the voice of the long-dead murder victim answering when they call the number they found in the new murder victim's pockets. . . .​

​

It is the GM's job to present and, for lack of a better word, drive Bangs, in the sense of driving a nail or driving something home. . . .​

​

Bangs are not represented by many of the fight scenes or clues in traditional role-playing. Throwing mad hyenas at the player-characters is not a Bang if the only result of the fight is to wander into the next room. Nor is a clue a Bang at all if all it does is show where the next clue may be found. A real Bang gives the player options and requires his or her decision about how to handle it, which in turn reveals and develops the player-character as a hero. . . .​

​

Bangs [means] Introducing events into the game which make a thematically-significant or at least evocative choice necessary for a player. The term is taken from the rules of Sorcerer.​

There is nothing distinctive to a Bang that it be authored by the players; Edwards calls a particular sort of player-authored Bang a Kicker (see the same essay I've just quoted from - in short, a Kicker is a Bang authored by the player as part of character creation, which the GM is obliged to incorporate into the opening situation and which propels the character into the action), but @Manbearcat is using a more generalised technique - with its basis in the PbtA technique of ask provocative questions and build on the answers.

But whether a Bang is established by players or GM or by both in some structured fashion (see eg @Ovinomancer's suggestions to Manbearcat on revising the methods they used), it is certainly not about keeping the players (or PCs) on track nor about answering questions in advance of play. The whole idea of a Bang is to oblige the players to make a significant choice that will (i) reveal something about their characters, and maybe lead or provoke them into change, and (ii) will establish what happens next. Part of establishing what happens next might include fleshing out the details of some weird faith or obligation.

That notion of what happens next, and the attendant fictional details, being up for grabs is sometimes foreign to RPGers who are used to play which basically consists of the players working through a sequence of events that the GM has already made up. But it's pretty fundamental to the sort of game @Manbearcat is talking about.

 

[Manbearcat]

I can't contribute anything on BitD/FitD techniques. But I can comment on the below:



This is confused.

As far as I'm aware, Ron Edwards coined the term "bang" in the context of RPGing. Here's one account he's offered:

So let's talk about Narrativist [= "story now"] protagonism and how it's established, starting with the adversity. . . .​

​

Bangs are those moments when the characters realize they have a problem right now and have to get moving to deal with it. It can be as simple as a hellacious demon crashing through the skylight and attacking the characters or as subtle as the voice of the long-dead murder victim answering when they call the number they found in the new murder victim's pockets. . . .​

​

It is the GM's job to present and, for lack of a better word, drive Bangs, in the sense of driving a nail or driving something home. . . .​

​

Bangs are not represented by many of the fight scenes or clues in traditional role-playing. Throwing mad hyenas at the player-characters is not a Bang if the only result of the fight is to wander into the next room. Nor is a clue a Bang at all if all it does is show where the next clue may be found. A real Bang gives the player options and requires his or her decision about how to handle it, which in turn reveals and develops the player-character as a hero. . . .​

​

Bangs [means] Introducing events into the game which make a thematically-significant or at least evocative choice necessary for a player. The term is taken from the rules of Sorcerer.​

There is nothing distinctive to a Bang that it be authored by the players; Edwards calls a particular sort of player-authored Bang a Kicker (see the same essay I've just quoted from - in short, a Kicker is a Bang authored by the player as part of character creation, which the GM is obliged to incorporate into the opening situation and which propels the character into the action), but @Manbearcat is using a more generalised technique - with its basis in the PbtA technique of ask provocative questions and build on the answers.

But whether a Bang is established by players or GM or by both in some structured fashion (see eg @Ovinomancer's suggestions to Manbearcat on revising the methods they used), it is certainly not about keeping the players (or PCs) on track nor about answering questions in advance of play. The whole idea of a Bang is to oblige the players to make a significant choice that will (i) reveal something about their characters, and maybe lead or provoke them into change, and (ii) will establish what happens next. Part of establishing what happens next might include fleshing out the details of some weird faith or obligation.

That notion of what happens next, and the attendant fictional details, being up for grabs is sometimes foreign to RPGers who are used to play which basically consists of the players working through a sequence of events that the GM has already made up. But it's pretty fundamental to the sort of game @Manbearcat is talking about.

Yessir.

As you mention above, this isn't a full-blown Kicker like Dogs backstory scene at character creation, but it does have discrete player-authorship (each player gets a say) along with GM-authorship (I get my say)...so its a sort of suis generis deployment of Bang tech (kindred to Dungeon World map-making at the beginning of play, but more potent, focused, and immediate...so kind of like Dogs Kicker meets DW map-making).

If it would help people understand further what was done here and how it facilitated play, I could excerpt the session in deeper detail than has done thus far. My guess is you (pemerton) could pretty easily extrapolate the inputs and outputs of the affair, but given the confusion that we've already seen, it may be the case that anyone looking at this still has no idea how this actually facilitated play (and what kind).