This is a game mechanic I developed for The Dragon's Labyrinth, my Fantasy Adventure Game.  I'm seriously considering it for Space: 2477 as well.

I'd appreciate it very much if people try and keep the conversation civil, and keep in mind -- neither game has been described as a "Roleplaying Game".  These are mechanics for these specific games and don't represent something you need to adopt for your own games. :keke:

QuoteA player who disagrees with one of the other player's narration, or a target number set for a task, can ask that the rest of the players vote on whether these elements of the game world be accepted or altered.

If the rest of the players unanimously agree on the matter, new narration or a revised target number must be given.  The player altering their narration or target number has the option of passing to another player.

A GM who can show the players they are working from notes for a pre-scripted encounter is not required to change their narration or target numbers.

A player who suggests a vote to alter elements of the game world, and not successful in doing so [game system specific penalty follows].

Constructive discussion and feedback is welcome.  

I like it. For Space 2477, would it be possible to include Style or Plausibility into the mechanic, rather than just the narration. So you could ask for votes on style, which might get accepted and then vote on plausibility, which might get accepted separately. This would help good ideas that were just not quite stylistically correct getting through with a style modification.

Having read that through, I am not sure it's a good idea. See what you think.

Without context it's difficult to add much constructively.

However, this could result in arguments at the table and 'getting back' at those who vetoed your idea etc. The latter point might happen anyhow, but as for the first (arguments in general slowing the game down), i would consider putting a time limit on the voting process - wedded to the game itself. I presume the dragon's labyrinthe deals with entering a...well, you know. How about having an in-game time limit to these votes to help stop bickering and argument with an in-game inducement?

Without more, that's the best i've got, i'm afraid.

I have to agree with Dan, without context of the GM's role and player responsibilities, it is most difficult to frame constructive criticism.

My first impressions follow with Dan's points. I would add that it seems to complicate things (again, not a problem if these are the only rules of this nature) becuse you state "Rule! Exception1, Exception2, Penalty". The rule is straight forward enough but then the exception2 requires proof. For me, it would be difficult. I do not script my games except in my head.  However, that said, this is another point fostering resentment. "I object" GM retorts "Too bad, I have the entire adventure scripted, here, in my 30 pages". In short, I do not think that fosters the play style you are trying for. I could be wrong though.

I would suggest, in stead, a number of votes that can be called per session per player (including the GM). The GM has x number of vetoes and so do the players. This is not a perfect solution but in this way, it does not structure ply in such a way that the GM will be encouraged to strictly script the entire adventure. Unfortunately, it is complex in its own way and still fosters confrontation. I am sorry but I have no solution on that front.

Bill

Quote from: Rob LangI like it. For Space 2477, would it be possible to include Style or Plausibility into the mechanic, rather than just the narration. So you could ask for votes on style, which might get accepted and then vote on plausibility, which might get accepted separately. This would help good ideas that were just not quite stylistically correct getting through with a style modification.

Having read that through, I am not sure it's a good idea. See what you think.

In these two games, and really in any RPG type game I can think of, there are 2 things being introduced by players and GM (aside from wargame style miniatures and map movement, which these games do not include):

1)  Narration.  The GM tells the players what's in a location, what Monsters or NPCs are there, what their actions are, and how things react to the actions of the players.  Players in turn tell the GM (and other players) what they're character is doing, or how they react to things the GM has narrated.  Players may ask each other question like "My character looks in the box, what does she see?" and the follow-up is more narration "She peers into the box and sees a small, crystal dodecahedron with a paint bluish glow".

2)  Game Mechanics.  The GM tells the players what they need to roll on the dice to succeed at a particular task, rolls dice for some kind of conflict, etc.  Some of this is handled by the game system like "A laser pistol does 1d6 damage" but some of it is based on the GM's discretion. "Your character dives behind the pile of cargo containers.  The Sentry Droid will get [penalty X] when attacking you".

So a player could certainly be making an objection based on style or plausibility -- and it would be based on one of those 2 situations above.

Quote from: One Horse TownHowever, this could result in arguments at the table and 'getting back' at those who vetoed your idea etc. The latter point might happen anyhow, but as for the first (arguments in general slowing the game down), i would consider putting a time limit on the voting process - wedded to the game itself. I presume the dragon's labyrinthe deals with entering a...well, you know. How about having an in-game time limit to these votes to help stop bickering and argument with an in-game inducement?

It's meant as a "fall back" rule in the game for when things are already making someone unhappy at the table.  Since all the players need to be unanimous in agreeing on wanting narration or a target number to change, it won't change if it's a pre-existing element in the game (Room #14 -- Players need to roll X to avoid the security alarm) , and there's a penalty to the player who suggests a change that doesn't happen -- I think that will prevent people from using this rule unless it's something fairly substantial.

The in-game penalty will be something along the lines of your character having a Mark Hamill moment:  "No. That's not true!  THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!"  :haw:

Quote from: HinterWeltMy first impressions follow with Dan's points. I would add that it seems to complicate things (again, not a problem if these are the only rules of this nature) becuse you state "Rule! Exception1, Exception2, Penalty". The rule is straight forward enough but then the exception2 requires proof. For me, it would be difficult. I do not script my games except in my head.  However, that said, this is another point fostering resentment. "I object" GM retorts "Too bad, I have the entire adventure scripted, here, in my 30 pages". In short, I do not think that fosters the play style you are trying for. I could be wrong though.

QuoteThe rule is straight forward enough but then the exception2 requires proof. For me, it would be difficult. I do not script my games except in my head. However, that said, this is another point fostering resentment. "I object" GM retorts "Too bad, I have the entire adventure scripted, here, in my 30 pages". In short, I do not think that fosters the play style you are trying for. I could be wrong though.

This is a game mechanic that supports one of two styles of GMing:

1) The GM having a non-illusionism / non-railroading game world with pre-scripted challenges
2) The GM having a more on-the-fly style of game that relies on them making sure the players keep on having fun

This mechanic would prevent "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies!" type situations.  It's one of two game mechanics that would also work against "Bad / Creepy GM" type situations.

It's a fall back rule though (in the same way that "rule zero" is a fall back rule) and in a group of friends having a good time, it's not something I'd expect to come up very often.

Quote from: StuartThis is a game mechanic that supports one of two styles of GMing:

1) The GM having a non-illusionism / non-railroading game world with pre-scripted challenges
2) The GM having a more on-the-fly style of game that relies on them making sure the players keep on having fun

This mechanic would prevent "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies!" type situations.  It's one of two game mechanics that would also work against "Bad / Creepy GM" type situations.

It's a fall back rule though (in the same way that "rule zero" is a fall back rule) and in a group of friends having a good time, it's not something I'd expect to come up very often.

I do not see this. It would seem that you encourage, by your "scripting: exception that a GM could literally write out everything, and in fact would be encouraged to do so. Again, it seems that your stated goal of #1 is in direct opposition to the "The GM can veto objections if he has scripted proof".

However, if it is meant as a fall back rule then it will affect pacing. The mechanism is cumbersome as described. My solution would still be as described above.

Bill

Quote from: HinterweltIt would seem that you encourage, by your "scripting: exception that a GM could literally write out everything, and in fact would be encouraged to do so.

Yes they would.  This style of gameplay is good for players who want challenges, mysteries, risk, etc.

OR they could make sure they awesome-up their players.

Quote from: HinterweltAgain, it seems that your stated goal of #1 is in direct opposition to the "The GM can veto objections if he has scripted proof".

It's railroading / illusionism if there are two doors and a player chooses the left one, but the GM switches things so they get the contents behind the door to the right.  Or if they throw out ridiculous target numbers because they want the players to fail so they can keep telling their story.

Quote from: HinterweltHowever, if it is meant as a fall back rule then it will affect pacing. The mechanism is cumbersome as described. My solution would still be as described above.

Maybe it's not described as well as it could be?

1) GM presents narration / target number
2) P1 objects
3) Ps show of hands in support
4) Not unanimous.  P1 takes penalty.
-or-
4) Unanimous.  GM has documentation.  P1 takes penalty.
-or-
4) Unanimous.  GM has no documentation.  Narration / target number changes

Objections from the players can take place in any game with or without any sort of resolution mechanic.  So those slow downs can (and do) happen for any game.  

Voting would be as quick as a show of hands, and wouldn't require keeping track of how many veto-points you'd used.  

If it was impacting on the flow of the game, the other players wouldn't keep voting in support -- so the player introducing the slow-down would be penalized.

If the player was wanting something changed the other players liked -- they wouldn't vote in support... and the player is penalized.

If they keep stopping the game to question the GM's narration or target numbers, and the GM is running a tough-but-fair scenario they have written out, or making up as they go and the other players are enjoying -- the player keeps getting penalized.

Players don't want to be penalized - - so this is only going to happen when it's something they feel strongly about, they think the GM is just making up to mess with them, and they think the rest of the group feels the same way about.

I can't imagine any of the talented, experienced GMs here having their narration or target numbers vetoed.

I CAN imagine this being something that would be helpful to a group of 10 year olds sitting down to play their first game though.

I like it...depending upon the nature of the game for context, of course.  

For some time now, I've been brewing up a similar style of voting mechanic for a narrative game, but one that doesn't relie on unanimity.  Basically, the difference between the Yeas and the Nays becomes a modifier to the roll -- more Yeas than Nays is a positive mod, more Nays is a negative mod, and a tie is no mod.

Would that sort of thing work for you?

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI like it...depending upon the nature of the game for context, of course.  

For some time now, I've been brewing up a similar style of voting mechanic for a narrative game, but one that doesn't relie on unanimity.  Basically, the difference between the Yeas and the Nays becomes a modifier to the roll -- more Yeas than Nays is a positive mod, more Nays is a negative mod, and a tie is no mod.

Would that sort of thing work for you?

!i!

That's an interesting take on it.

On one hand I think if you allowed objections for less than unanimity, you would see it happening a lot more often like Bill suggests -- and that would affect the pacing of the game.  The process of voting would take longer with any sort of point management or math as well.

On the other hand, what you're suggesting would probably be more fair to the majority of the players at the table.

I like both...depending upon the nature of the game.

Well, that's why I brought up the context of the game.

The plan I had was for a cooperative, slightly competetive story-telling game.  Ideally, calling bullshit on other players' narratives was intended to be fun, and rather the focal point of the game.  The votes themselves were the randomiser, too -- players would cast either a white lot or a black lot into a bag, then the current narrator would draw at random.  More Yeas would mean better odds for success, more Nays would result in greater odds for failure.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThe plan I had was for a cooperative, slightly competetive story-telling game. Ideally, calling bullshit on other players' narratives was intended to be fun, and rather the focal point of the game. The votes themselves were the randomiser, too -- players would cast either a white lot or a black lot into a bag, then the current narrator would draw at random. More Yeas would mean better odds for success, more Nays would result in greater odds for failure.

Yes, for that sort of game you definitely want it more granular than unanimity.  I think story-telling games in general benefit from some sort of voting mechanic because it makes the quality of the player's narrative the actual skill that affects their winning / losing the game, rather than a lot of storytelling games where it's really about dice mechanics and number crunching.

The Dragon's Labyrinth has some other voting mechanics in it, but that's more closely tied to the game system itself, so I'll wait and talk about that another time. :keke:

Quote from: StuartConstructive discussion and feedback is welcome.  

I would be reticent to use your rules.

As a GM, I do not consider myself to be the players' enemy but rather just a storyteller (I know I'll make several people cringe with this term) and adjudicator.

I like to operate behind a screen and there are certain surprises I have in store for the players. Not to "trick them" but so we can all have fun and they can find the "big reveals" awesome.

I find that being asked to show "my notes for prepared encounters" would be counter-productive to that, as well as break suspension of disbelief at awkward times. As well, my notes would have to be cleaned and properly formatted. I'm the kind of guy who scribbles lots of notes, with important piece of information next to each other. It would be awkward to show "just enough proof".

I'm also not too hot on players voting on each others narration. I've tried similar methods and voting has been a failure for me and I haven't tried since 1999.

When giving player control, I prefer more robust mechanics (similar to what's being explored by various so-called "story games". Think currency, for instance. Tangible methods as opposed to player skills involving cliques and hurt feelings.

Finally, I sense a bit of dysfunctional design. On one hand, I sense a desire for you to give tools so that the narrative is looser (thanks to player input). On the other hand, you're giving the GM incentives to carefully plot certain elements. You are running the risk that the GM will feel penalized once his adventure goes off track.

Imagine the GM has carefully planned a dungeon crawl. But while in town, the PCs use creativity and decide instead to get involved with breaking into the thieve's guild. Now, in a run-of-the-mill system, a GM might improvise (I do it all the time) but in your system, a GM might feel pressure to reign in the PCs into the dungeoncrawling adventure. Because otherwise, he's fucked for lack of preparation.

But that's just me. I still look forward to your game but hope there will be more meat around the mechanics. I just see a risk of antagonism between all the players and GM (as opposed to antagonism between characters).

Does that help?

Quote from: Consonant DudeDoes that help?

Yes, feedback is good!

Keep in mind that The Dragon's Labyrinth isn't a "Roleplaying Game" but rather a "Strategy Storytelling Game" and involves competitive play between everyone at the table.  A traditional RPG has the "no winning / losing, do whatever you want" approach.  The Dragon's Labyrinth has clear win / loss conditions, and a more clearly defined scope.  

Space: 2477 is another matter -- I'm not sure where I want it to sit on the spectrum between a traditional RPG and a Strategy Storytelling Game.