Indie RPG elements in SR4, Who gets to tell the story? Options

[TheGothfather]

So, I've been putting a lot of thought into using some gameplay concepts from indie/story games in my SR4 campaign. So far, the houserules I've added have been both effective and well-received. I may post my full houserules to my blog in the future, but I don't really want to post a 3 page writeup on what I've changed on this forum, unless I get requests to do so.

What I would like to do, however, is pick people's brains on a couple of specific ideas, one of which I've actually implemented in my game, and one which I'm kinda toying with.

The first thing I did in my game was to shift some of the narrative control to the players. Basically, whenever a player wants his character to take some kind of action, he has to not only describe what the character is doing, but also how he does it. I just announce the threshold for the action, and he rolls. If he succeeds, then the player has essentially just narrated the action. If he fails, then I introduce some kind of complication. Sometimes, it's a simple failure at the task. Sometimes the task succeeds, but something unexpected happens. The idea is that tests are no longer necessarily made on the basis of failing or succeeding at a task, but rather succeeding or failing to get what the player wants for his character.

If you've read or played The Burning Wheel RPG, then this should look really familiar.

The other idea that I've been toying with is using Edge to allow the players to affect the narrative. Sure, they can use Edge to gain the same mechanical benefits as usual, but I thought it might be interesting if the players could also spend a point to introduce something into the story – maybe an NPC, or maybe to cause something to happen. So long as it didn't contradict anything that's already been established, I think it might be kinda cool to have a game-mechanical method of being a little more of an active participant in the story, rather than simply having to react to whatever the GM does.

Just something to spark a little discussion that wasn't about flaws in the rules, or metaplot issues.

[Cain]

I've been trying to do some similar things. I'd suggest looking at the old White Wolf game, Adventure! for ideas. Their dramatic editing mechanic works perfectly for a Shadowrun game. You'll need to refresh Edge at a higher rate, though. We did something similar in a Savage Worlds game, and it worked very well.

[DocTaotsu]

I would happily read a link or the document in full. This is something I want to include in my own game.

And yes, it'd be nice to talk about something that didn't devolve into dragons or related.

Hm... have you played Minimus? I think that it's mechanic for getting bonuses by describing extra scenes in a detail might be able to play into your Edge use idea. I'm not sure if you need to refresh Edge faster unless you want a much more cinematic gameplay. I think being able to say "The ledge is just close enough for you to reach." is on par with "I use a point of Edge to get exploding dice on my gymnastics roll." I'd be interested to see what kind of clarifying ground rules you've laid for such a use.

[TheGothfather]

Here is the link to the full contents: http://shaun.thismoderndeath.com/shauns-sh...on-house-rules/

You can also download the OpenOffice document here: http://shaun.thismoderndeath.com/wp-conten...layerpacket.odt

You'll notice that I did include a mechanic for increasing the Edge refresh through roleplaying. Also, since Edge can be regained through Exceptional Successes and Critical Glitches in RAW, adding in an RP element should make it possible to spend Edge like crazy. Giving the players one more reason to spend it should make the game fairly interesting.

Edit: I apologize for the crap formatting on the blog page. I'm sick, and I don't really feel like fixing the HTML.

[Cain]

I haven't looked at that stuff yet, but I will shortly, I promise.

However, I almost forgot: your idea of having the players narrate how they do things reminds me of Wushu, which has the Principle of Narrative Truth. Basically, the players get to not only say what they do, but how it happens and some of the result. They then roll dice to see how effective it was. For example, the player declares: "I whip out my trusty Predator, and snap two quick shots into the ganger." And, he hits the ganger. You then roll as normal. If the ganger totally soaks, you say: "He rocks back, but you can see that your shots were merely grazes." And so on.

[Dashifen]

The first thing I did in my game was to shift some of the narrative control to the players. Basically, whenever a player wants his character to take some kind of action, he has to not only describe what the character is doing, but also how he does it. I just announce the threshold for the action, and he rolls. If he succeeds, then the player has essentially just narrated the action. If he fails, then I introduce some kind of complication. Sometimes, it's a simple failure at the task. Sometimes the task succeeds, but something unexpected happens. The idea is that tests are no longer necessarily made on the basis of failing or succeeding at a task, but rather succeeding or failing to get what the player wants for his character.

I've never run SR any other way. 'Course, I do reserve the right to go in an unspecified direction on glitches and I'll step in if I think the player narrative is not appropriate to the situation. The only problem I've run into with this is that new players like to try and pre-roll but they don't know the modifiers to their pools and have to roll again. Small price to pay, however.

The other idea that I've been toying with is using Edge to allow the players to affect the narrative. Sure, they can use Edge to gain the same mechanical benefits as usual, but I thought it might be interesting if the players could also spend a point to introduce something into the story – maybe an NPC, or maybe to cause something to happen. So long as it didn't contradict anything that's already been established, I think it might be kinda cool to have a game-mechanical method of being a little more of an active participant in the story, rather than simply having to react to whatever the GM does.

I'm less receptive to this, but that may be because I generally make sure eveyone gets a little bit of time as much as I can control it. I could be persuaded, though.

[Adarael]

I'm with Dashifen on this one. I've been running games this way since about 1991 or so - basically just after I graduated from AD&D to more complex (in terms of storytelling, not rules) games, of which SR was once of the first. I mean, my instinctive reaction to most of the hip new indie game theory stuff is to go, "What, you didn't already do that?" or "Yeah, that's not news..."

Maybe I'm weird, though.

[TheGothfather]

I'm less receptive to this, but that may be because I generally make sure eveyone gets a little bit of time as much as I can control it. I could be persuaded, though.

Okay, maybe an example of how this might work would help. Not that this is necessarily the way that I'd run it, it's just an idea.

The Face PC in my game has the Moderate Addiction (Novacoke) negative quality. She's desperately in need of a fix, so she calls up her regular dealer, but, rolling a d6 against the contact's Connection rating results in the dealer being unavailable.

Now, the player doesn't want to have to deal with this - they've got a meeting with Mr. J. coming up, and the drawbacks of not getting her fix might seriously hinder how that goes. So, the player declares that she's going to run down one of her old dealers - some street thug that she used to hang out with in her younger days.

In order to do this, the player spends an Edge point, and essentially introduces a new NPC into the game. Not on the level of a real contact, although he might be able to get to that status if that relationship is built in-game.

Of course, that's not the only way things could have been handled. Maybe the character had a Knowledge: Local Drug Dealers skill that could be rolled or something. It's really just an idea.

[TheGothfather]

I'm with Dashifen on this one. I've been running games this way since about 1991 or so - basically just after I graduated from AD&D to more complex (in terms of storytelling, not rules) games, of which SR was once of the first. I mean, my instinctive reaction to most of the hip new indie game theory stuff is to go, "What, you didn't already do that?" or "Yeah, that's not news..."

Maybe I'm weird, though.

I don't really think that it's necessarily a new idea. It just seems like the common attitude about playing SR around here is that it's basically the GM's story, and the players are pretty much just reacting to things happening to them, rather than giving the players a way to be proactive in how the campaign progresses. I don't think that the way you and Dashifen and I run our games are really weird, but, from some of the comments on these boards, that style of GMing is certainly in the minority.

[Fortune]

I'm with Dashifen on this one. I've been running games this way since about 1991 or so - basically just after I graduated from AD&D to more complex (in terms of storytelling, not rules) games, of which SR was once of the first. I mean, my instinctive reaction to most of the hip new indie game theory stuff is to go, "What, you didn't already do that?" or "Yeah, that's not news..."

Maybe I'm weird, though.

When I first read the original post, I was tempted to respond with 'Is there any other way?' (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Dashifen]

Okay, maybe an example of how this might work would help. [ ... example snipped ...]

Now I got you. My first reaction was something along the lines of a player spending edge to introduce Sam, the friendly neighborhood cyberzombie, into the game. I'm still not sold, but at least we're on the same page.

I might not be subscribing to your newsletter just yet because I often use Charisma + Etiquette Extended Tests when someone needs to gain a new contact. That person they meet may not ever end up on their sheet as an honest-to-god contact, but they can fill a need for the moment. Then, knowledge skills can enhance that pool and Edge could be used as necessary as well.

[Adarael]

I don't really think that it's necessarily a new idea. It just seems like the common attitude about playing SR around here is that it's basically the GM's story, and the players are pretty much just reacting to things happening to them, rather than giving the players a way to be proactive in how the campaign progresses. I don't think that the way you and Dashifen and I run our games are really weird, but, from some of the comments on these boards, that style of GMing is certainly in the minority.

Yeah, I guess that's fair. It just seems to me like there'd be no point in GMing if it wasn't a completely collaborative affair. To use a playground analogy, I build and maintain the swings and jungle gym they play on - but they're the ones that tell me if it's a space ship or a secret fort or whatnot.

It's my job to entertain players with an interactive world, but I figure it's also their job to do awesome stuff for me to make the world interact with.

[TheGothfather]

I might not be subscribing to your newsletter just yet because I often use Charisma + Etiquette Extended Tests when someone needs to gain a new contact. That person they meet may not ever end up on their sheet as an honest-to-god contact, but they can fill a need for the moment. Then, knowledge skills can enhance that pool and Edge could be used as necessary as well.

Ah. I almost never use Extended Tests, because I don't really like them. I almost only ever use them when there's some kind of time-based complication involved, or when each roll is also opposed. I see how using Edge in the way I suggested might not work for you.

Yeah, I guess that's fair. It just seems to me like there'd be no point in GMing if it wasn't a completely collaborative affair. To use a playground analogy, I build and maintain the swings and jungle gym they play on - but they're the ones that tell me if it's a space ship or a secret fort or whatnot.

It's my job to entertain players with an interactive world, but I figure it's also their job to do awesome stuff for me to make the world interact with.

Well, we're on the same page, here.

Let me change things up a little here, since pretty much everyone in this thread agrees on how much control the players have over the story.

What happens in your games when a roll is failed? This is really just my curiosity here (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[DocTaotsu]

Yes, the GM's job is to build and maintain swings that the players play on.

Along with the spike laden napalm traps that they can fall into.

[Cain]

Well, we're on the same page, here.

Let me change things up a little here, since pretty much everyone in this thread agrees on how much control the players have over the story.

What happens in your games when a roll is failed? This is really just my curiosity here (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Depends on the situation, but once again, I like to use the PoNT from Wushu. They might have succeeded in hitting the guy, they just didn't hurt him. Or, they input the correct code, only to find there's a secondary one. Mind you, this would only happen on a failed roll.

[Rasumichin]

I like the idea of giving edge a more dramatic role, but would also agree on a need for more frequent refreshments.

One could handle this by adopting concepts from The Pool, where players are rewarded with bonus dice if the GM instead of the players decides on the outcome of a situation.

Also, the BtVS-RPG's approach towards drama points might be worth considering.
Essentially, this would run down to edge rewards when something bad and unexpected happens to the PCs (cyberware malfunctions, the plans for the corp facility turn out to be wrong, the BBEG just manages to escape even though he should normally be dead) or when the player introduces a personal crisis for his PC.

[DocTaotsu]

I like the idea of players being able to perform actions that refresh their pool in part or in whole, kinda like In Nomine...

[Dashifen]

Let me change things up a little here, since pretty much everyone in this thread agrees on how much control the players have over the story. What happens in your games when a roll is failed? This is really just my curiosity here (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

If they fail the roll then they fail to do what they intended and/or described. If they fail an opposed test, then it implies that their opponent succeeded and thus what that person intended is what occurs. For example, if someone dodges an attack then the attack occurs (the bullet was fired or the sword was swung) but the opponent jerked out of the way.

[deek]

I guess I am still in the old school GM role...as I get as much feedback and flair from the player as possible, but its still my job to tell the story. The players give me ideas and actions, and I work them into the overall story.

I think it takes a special type of group, all with the same mentality, in order for the Wushu-style to work at the table...and a GM creative enough to handle the story reins being more 75-25 in favor of the players...I know my players don't want to create 75% of the story...they want to react to what I put in front of them and have the freedom to do whatever they want...but they still want the GM to describe what is going on, even their own character's actions.

I do like the idea of Edge being used for storytelling/plot elements...but again, you have to have the right group for it to work well.

[Dashifen]

I don't think my players create 75% of the story -- probably more like a third or so.

[deek]

I'd say my players create about 1/3 of the story as well, but give me the seeds for about 75% of the stories I bring to the table...

I was just voicing my opinion on the indie rpg elements and my belief they put 75% story back on the players to bring to the table...again, I think I am more old-school in GMing...the players describe what the WANT to do, roll dice and then the GM interprets the outcome and describes the resolution.

I guess I feel that in the "indie rpg mentality" the players describe what they just did, as well as the result, they roll dice and if successful, they do exactly that, if they fail, then the GM has to come up with a description that alters the player's outcome in a way that still grants the player a success, but does not resolve the current "scene".

I just know that I have a bunch of good roleplayers, but major rules-lawyers, so gaming sessions would turn into who could take the most advantage of the open system...

[hobgoblin]

one do not create a story, the story is created when the game is being retold to a third party...

anything beyond that, stay away from me...

[Dashifen]

I guess I feel that in the "indie rpg mentality" the players describe what they just did, as well as the result, they roll dice and if successful, they do exactly that, if they fail, then the GM has to come up with a description that alters the player's outcome in a way that still grants the player a success, but does not resolve the current "scene".

I just know that I have a bunch of good roleplayers, but major rules-lawyers, so gaming sessions would turn into who could take the most advantage of the open system...

Just cause the player describes their action doesn't mean that it happens exactly as they say it though. If a player describes standing with a wide stance by a parked car, lining up his shot for a headshot on the (helmet-less) driver of the motorcycle wielding a katana and barreling toward him, taking a deep breath, holding it in, and squeezing the trigger before exhaling and then rolls dice, if the damage applied to the motorcyclist after evasive driving and damage resistance doesn't kill him, then I'll say something like an irregularity in the road surface raised the driver or unbalanced him for a moment and the shooter hit him in the shoulder rather than in the forehead. Everything the player said still happened, but the dice still determine the outcome.

It's not just combat, though (obviously). I let players describe how they walk into a room (with the appropriate Etiquette test to determine if this is appropriate for the situation). Before that, though, I tell them what they see when they open the door. If it's a wild-west themed bar and they go in dressed in chrome and leather, no matter how well they describe their bad-assery, they're still facing Etiquette penalties from the locals who don't take a shining to all these city-folk who come into town.

[Riley37]

There's another thread on sandbox style and game-on-rails style and shades in between.

Stormcrow as GM allows players to fill in details on scenery as well as their character's actions. If he's describing a bar where we have a meeting, and I come up with an idea for a color/fluff NPC who might be there, then I can say "seems like the kind of place where the bartender might be an ork who's an Elf Poser; he doesn't fool anyone with his obviously-cosmetic-surgery pointed ears, but we'll get better service if we compliment him in Sperethiel on his flower-embroidered formal frock," and if my suggestion fits his conception, he'll say "yeah, that's exactly what you all see. You compliment him, and he opens a bottle of the best snozberry-flavored absinthe he's got".

Last night's session of Stormcrow's game included a brainstorm on probable consequences of the previous session. In the previous session, the PCs attended a big counterculture festival, kinda like a late-night carnival with dance rave in one tent, drone duels in another, magical illusion art, nonlethal unarmed sparring between members of rival gangs, a free clinic, and a midnight ritual for some Initiating adepts & mages. Since this is an Occupied SF campaign, Saito's forces crashed the party with full force, killing or capturing most of the participants, including many Resistance leaders and shadowrunners. The PCs rescued the main organizer and escaped (and yes, that wasn't easy).

So the next session the GM asks to what extent the PCs become a priority topic of the JIS... and players point out details such as the possibility of the JIS having specialized microdrones programmed to attach to fleeing vehicles, every astral signature that the JIS might be able to track, ways to correlate interrogation of captives with media and Matrix scans for faces of the PCs (we change disguises often) and vehicles used by the PCs, correlations between tactics we used in the getaway with tactics used on previous runs, and generally, a metric drekload of ways that the JIS might build up profiles on the PCs. We also threw in all the ways that our PCs had taken precautions, and the metagame question of whether it feels cooler and more satisfying for the PCs to be "Public Enemy Number 1", or for them to be still all unknown. Anyways, the GM on his own would not have come up with all the JIS dirty tricks that we did.

If he said, in a later session, "The JIS has tracked you down, because they have expert anti-resistance trackers", it might not be convincing. But now, the players are ready to accept it, because we helped the GM cover all the angles!

[Blade]

kinda like In Nomine...

The "serious" american version? If so, you're missing a lot.

Back on topic, I don't think those kind of mechanisms fit correctly into a gritty cyberpunk Shadowrun. I don't want the characters to control their destiny, I don't want the characters to be able to always pull off what the players want them to do.

I feel fine using these elements in cinematic games or indie games based on this idea, but not in Shadowrun.
I guess that as for every game mechanism it has to fit into the feeling you want your game to have.