As presented, the idea is too Scruples-y for my tastes. Put the character on the spot, with no warning. Eh. I'm starting to think, or rather this reinforces my impression that a lot of bored GMs want to poke sadistically at their players.

That isn't to say I'm against applying the idea at all, I just prefer applying it as a method of framing larger arcs.

(Speaking of Scruples, here are some of the lists it appears on over at BGG:

Throw it on the Fire: Worst Games By Year
The Worst Game in Your Collection
FIGHTS... and the games that start them
Games that can make people stop speaking to each other
Games that Bring out the Be(a)st in People
Games better suited for thought and talk rather than serious game play
"Dilemma" games -- Games in which you discuss real world situations   
Why you shouldn't play games with couples ......games that can cause divorces)

Quote from: droogRiiiight.

I expect more from you.

1. Told you so! Gaming Outpost!

2. NOW I understand why he said a while back he doesn't *get* Traveller.

Quote from: BrantaiWhenever I hear "Kicker and Bangs" I think of bangers and mash.

Awesome!  I thought I was the only one who thought that! :haw:

Quote from: Elliot WilenAs presented, the idea is too Scruples-y for my tastes. Put the character on the spot, with no warning. Eh. I'm starting to think, or rather this reinforces my impression that a lot of bored GMs want to poke sadistically at their players.

I always thought of them as part of the "Games-as-Therapy" school of design... but that's an excellent comparison to the game "Scruples".  

If you want to play RPG + Scruples, cool.  If not... then here are some techniques to avoid...

I'm loving the sour grapes here.

Before anyone dismisses these techniques as pure GM sadism, I should like to hear examples from play, rather than imagined evils. Often in these discussions that's what it's about, some imaginary bastard GM player whom nobody ever met, some sort of golem made from parts of every bad gamer you ever knew. Tell us your experiences. Save your imagination for the game table.

"Kickers" are what old-timers called "hooks". Sometimes the GM would say to the player, "if you do a character background, please put some kind of plot hook in it for us." And often the GM wouldn't even have to ask, players will put in lost brothers and evil fathers and broken friendships and mysterious objects passed down to them from their grandfather and so on.

For example, in one campaign I had several different hooks from the players: one PC was an orphan with a mysterious runed blade, another had a mother who died and blamed his father, another had a brother thought a fool who went wandering, while the fourth had a brother die by drowning while he watched and so had a fear of water. The first three got tied intimately to the plot, the fourth unfortunately I couldn't think how to fit in; but three out of four ain't bad.

"Bangs" are what old-timers call "surprises" or "dilemmas". Sometimes the session is running a bit slow and needs a boot in the arse to keep going. The aim here is not "illusionism", it's not to show the PCs that they're powerless to affect the course of events and make them inactive; rather it's to force them to make decisions so that things happen, keep things moving. In one campaign, it was modern espionage and the PCs were feeling a bit lost and without direction, nobody was taking the lead - so they asked their boss for direction, he gave them some, then went outside, got in his car - which then blew up. The stakes had been raised, they themselves were being directly attacked now and with their boss severely injured they simply had to make decisions and get things done. They had the motivations of self-preservation and revenge.

The best surprises or dilemmas are where as soon as the players get over the shock of meeting them, they say, "ah, that makes sense now" - the event or message makes other things they didn't understand fall into place.

None of this is new, it was being done since Arneson started Blackmoor.  

So there you go, some examples from play. What this has to do with that drongo Mearls I've no idea, except that like the Forgers he's constantly discovering things everyone else has known for decades and proclaiming it as his own new genius.

You should read the links Mearls provides, Kyle. There are some differences between the kicker as presented and the classic chr hook. Also, RE lays out quite carefully what his influences were and how kickers aren't his own invention.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron"Kickers" are what old-timers called "hooks". Sometimes the GM would say to the player, "if you do a character background, please put some kind of plot hook in it for us." And often the GM wouldn't even have to ask, players will put in lost brothers and evil fathers and broken friendships and mysterious objects passed down to them from their grandfather and so on.

I think those two are close.  Although I see a heavy emphasis on things "on the horizon" rather than "sometime during the campaign" for kickers, I don't see them as being too different than hooks.  Kickers are also supposed to be open-ended, and I've seen a lot of hooks that were rather closed, but that's a different matter.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron"Bangs" are what old-timers call "surprises" or "dilemmas". Sometimes the session is running a bit slow and needs a boot in the arse to keep going. The aim here is not "illusionism", it's not to show the PCs that they're powerless to affect the course of events and make them inactive; rather it's to force them to make decisions so that things happen, keep things moving. In one campaign, it was modern espionage and the PCs were feeling a bit lost and without direction, nobody was taking the lead - so they asked their boss for direction, he gave them some, then went outside, got in his car - which then blew up. The stakes had been raised, they themselves were being directly attacked now and with their boss severely injured they simply had to make decisions and get things done. They had the motivations of self-preservation and revenge.

I think there's a clear difference between a surprise and a bang.  Although bangs can work by winging it, the assumed style of play is preparing bangs before play.  You have on your little piece of paper "PC's boss dies, leaving them high and dry".  Now while you're playing, it doesn't really matter what they do in a certain sense, because you've already killed their boss... you just haven't told them yet.

I will note that I think it's a thin line between illusionism and normal preparation, but it is distinct.

Some people are in for a big shock when they notice that 4e is built upon such assumptions. More people will leave that game, because those assumptions are plain wrong.

add:

1) mearls doesn´t get how most people played RPGs in the last 30 years

2) AM is a 4e champion, a former personal buddy of CRN and a gaming outpost veteran, has recently made a historical revisionist post, lacks Wargame understanding. Coincedence?

3) Pathfinder will be directly proportional more successful as more of that wrongster ideas are in 4e

4) the next five years will be the suckymost for RPGs as a hobby.

5) Where the fuck is the Pundit? They are wrecking D&D, and he´s eating out in Buenos Aires, or somesuch.

Kyle, well, in a game of Burning Wheel using a somewhat modified version of the Burning Sands materials, I had a character who was an officer in the imperial army. I'd already pushed for a view of his side as a bit of a cross between Imperial Germany and 1960's-era America, a mix of chauvinism and idealism. The guy was constructed to embody the irony of colonizing people for their own good; he was a "promising young major" who also had a local mistress and was addicted to a local drug.

The GM dutifully threw bang after bang at the character--one no-win situation after another. There was a terrorist attack after which the mistress appeared at the site and tried to climb into an ambulance to follow a wounded person, with this explicitly framed as "if she gets on, some other person who needs the space will die". Then the character was ordered to commit a massacre to relieve a police station besieged by rioters who were trying to free prisoners who, it was made clear, were mostly a bunch of "usual suspects" rounded up. Oh, and I just remembered, had I been able to get into the station, my orders were to execute the suspects.

There was no chance to do anything with the character before he was being "tested" left and right, and utterly arbitrarily.

My experiences playing Dogs in the Vineyard and The Mountain Witch were similar.

Note I don't think these were necessarily sadism but they were unpleasant, unwelcome, and certainly inspired by the Kicker/Bang concept. Which, again, I don't reject entirely, but the presentation seems to encourage a sort of "high octane" improvisational approach that I dislike. And I agree with KingSpoom that it can easily amount to illusionism.

It´s character-exploration centered, and thusly total crap.

EDIT: It´s also bad at what´s it wants to do, as Elliot said.

Oddly, I can think of a counter-example where an experienced GM missed a chance to use a "Bang" that'd have been quite welcome. This was a 2300AD game that was summarized on RPG.net here. The GM and I had agreed that my character, Mbemba would have to deal with an NPC whose political views and academic rivalry could be a problem. Early in the preparations for the expedition, both characters embarassed themselves by getting into a spat in public, though I believe Mbemba got the better of it.

The thing is, something more could have happened, but the GM would have had to provide the impetus; Mbemba wasn't going to go out of his way to screw over a member of his expedition. It'd have been different if Suzanne had attempted a coup during a later scene, or sabotaged something for some reason.

But overall the adventure did provide some tough decisions...which although sometimes a bit transparently constructed, were (a) much less "no win" than the BW game, and (b) less in-your-face. I'm thinking of the sections "Be Careful What You Ask For" and "Endurance". What doesn't appear in the text of the latter episode was a moment when part of the team wanted to head back. Dr. Rand refused because his wife had been lost, and Mbemba had to decide what to do. What made these episodes effective aside from (a) and (b) was that the decision in each case was less of a Scruples moment than an opportunity to ensure that subsequent action, handled in straightforward manner, was character-directed and motivated.

I´m more and more confused. Is everything constructed these days?
Apart from that: It was a character-conflict-driven game, no?

So there you go.

Kyle: Thanks, that explains things to me quite well.

As long as these things aren't mechanically implemented (or called "kickers and bangs") but perhaps included as a bit of advice in the DMG, then I'm ok with it.

It sounds like classic DM strategy hyped up on Poochie.