Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Podcasts: Narrative Control - Episode 21 - Drunk Game and Con Review

Bottom of Page

1 to 17 of 17

  1.  
  1. Administrator
     

    Hi and welcome back to Narrative Control.  This episode we’re turning 21 and celebrating by getting a little drunk.  The podcast is a long one (largely due to our inebriation) and it veers from our usual format.  The first twenty minutes is a comical review of a d20 Module, The Pleasure Prison of the B'thuvian Demon Whore, which arguably couldn’t have been taken seriously even if we were sober.  The rest of the show (almost an hour) is our recap of DundraCon 2009.    We also welcome a new voice on the show, Josh Curtis, who tells us how to be an “Elite” game master.

    Also… we’ve got the explicit tag on this one for a reason.  You’ve been warned.

    Hosts: Sean Nittner, Justin Evans, and Josh Curtis.

    Length: 1:14:23

    Show Notes

    [00:27] Intro to the show.  Game module and convention review.
    [01:13] What is an Elite Game master? I guess not Sean.
    [02:08] What are we doing? A review of The Pleasure Prison of the B'thuvian Demon Whore.  Actual play!
    [20:00] What are we doing here? Celebrating our 21st episode.
    [21:18] Introducing Josh Curtis
    [22:48] Hungered for some good gaming and found it at DundraCon!
    [23:39] Review: “The Gift” – Sean’s Burning Wheel game.
    [30:00] Review: The Pajama LARP
    [31:52] Review: Deathwish, a variant of Dust Devils
    [33:28] Review: “Firefly: Lap of Luxury” – Justin’s Firefly game, using FATE mechanics.
    [34:53] Drunk morons singing.
    [35:28] Episodic Con games. Win or Fail?
    [37:38] Josh’s comparison useful backstory vs. GMs giving too much irrelevant information.
    [42:30] Review: “The Hand You’re Dealt” – Rich Taylor’s Werewolf: The Apocalypse game.
    [44:19] “Oh Shit, there I was!”
    [45:26] What else was good at the con? Not the food.
    [46:39] Review: Zar and Superhero LARP… actually mostly just bullshit.
    [48:12] Review: Zombie Cinema
    [54:32] Review “Ribbons” Justin’s Horror game, using FATE mechanics!  Eat that TMD.
    [01:07:something something] End of the show… we’re really tired. Not sure if this part is worth listening too but by this point in the editing, I got too tired to cut.

    Direct download: NC_Episode_021.mp3

  2. Member
    • CommentAuthorkothlar
    • CommentTimeFeb 27th 2009
     
    That guy Josh was the best addition to your podcast that I could ever have imagined! You should have him in every one of your episodes!

    But since I am Josh.... that probably doesn't hold much weight. Anyway, thanks for including me in the 21st episode. I had a blast participating and even more fun listening to our antics. I was surprised at how much real content we actually got to in our inebriation.

    Anyway, thanks again!
    Josh
  3. Member
    • CommentAuthorkothlar
    • CommentTimeFeb 27th 2009
     
    I forgot to mention....

    Anyone who is interested in learning to be an "Elite" game master, I will be offering free clinics at the next dundracon ($20/per person... so not really free). See you all there.
  4.  
    Member
    • CommentAuthorrenatoram
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2009
     
    I spent the whole episode hoping you were joking. But the DemonWhore module does exist, apparently.

    The blurb on the SJG site seems tongue in cheek, though... how serious was it intended to be by its author?

    Oh, and btw,
    ciao from Italy!

    I registered recently to post a long rant explaining how you got conflict resolution all wrong in that episode some time ago, but your forum knows better and ate it :-D
  5. Member
     
    Howdy renatoram! Sorry your post got eaten...by default I would simply blame Sean.

    Josh is the proud owner of the Demon Whore module, so maybe he can add some more incite as to its intent...I hear there's a video out there related to that module. So far, I've been afraid to Google it...
  6. Member
     
    Oh wait...here it is.

    ...we didn't play it quite like that...
  7. Administrator
     
    Posted By: kothlarThat guy Josh was the best addition to your podcast that I could ever have imagined! You should have him in every one of your episodes!

    I think if could just change your username from kothlar to krunk, we could work on it.

    Actually, it was a blast having you on the show and I agree, I'm surprised we got through as much content as we did.
  8. Administrator
     
    Posted By: JustinEvansOh wait...here it is.

    ...we didn't play it quite like that...

    Wow, that is just... special.
  9. Administrator
     
    Posted By: renatoramI registered recently to post a long rant explaining how you got conflict resolution all wrong in that episode some time ago, but your forum knows better and ate it :-D
    Hey renatoram, though I did program the forum to auto-delete any questionable articles (I've got to stroke my ego somehow you know) I would really like hear your thoughts on conflict resolution.

    On that note I've been thinking about how failing at conflict resolution can be narrated as winning in a task but not getting your intent. Here's an example, I've heard others make.

    Han Solo makes a circles roll to round up an old friend. He find's him a wealthy miner in the Clouds. Lando takes him in, feeds him and then promptly hands him over to Vader. Best failed roll ever. The thing here is that two good things came out of the roll. A) The story progressed and B) they character still got to be awesome. Instead of Han, who is supposed to be a smooth talking smuggler, feeling blocked by being unable to find his friend, or having his friend immediately rejects him, he felt awesome that he got the heroes out of the frying pan... and of course, right into the fire.

    This is what I strive for in conflicts... win = awesome in the way you predicted. fail = awesome in a way you didn't predict.
  10.  
    Member
    • CommentAuthorrenatoram
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2009 edited
     
    Yeah, not only that, but also the other way round. Win a conflict, then narrate some awful shit your character has to go through (all failed tasks, in a task resolution game) to win what's at the stake. You get what you want, but through more-or-less failing.

    Also, well, CR can be declined in so many ways, and most of the components are optional. The fact that the winner narrates, for example, is definitely optional. But so are stakes setting, resolution in a single roll, resolution of a long chunk of narrative, and so on.

    If I remember correctly my former post (I hope it's ok to go on here: if you prefer I'll repost it under the CR episode thread) also talked about a couple of other things.

    First: Scene Resolution. As I mentioned earlier, it's mostly an option, and really not very new. Even FUDGE (not exactly a hippie game, at its original core) has a method of resolving entire scenes with single rolls to keep the pace going. But most importantly, there are conflict resolution games that use CR to resolve entire scenes (PTA for example) but that's a special case of CR.
    Dogs in the Vineyard does not mandate the conflict to resolve a scene that is cut after the conflict (there can even be follow-up conflicts), and OTOH the conflict itself comprises many back and forth, many single actions backed by the dice, and so on.

    What really, *really* sets apart TR and CR is that the latter resolves conflicts (well, duh :) ), so if there is no conflict there should be no roll, even if the action you are performing is technically not certain or requires skill. And furthermore, the crux is *intent*. In TR you roll to se if you succed in an action, the reason *why* you are doing that is irrelevant. In CR you roll to see if you get your *intent*, and the actions you perform to get there are secondary at best.

    Secondly: DRYH, which is really a conflict resolution based system, out and out, no doubt about it.

    1) Player and opposition declare intent and possible consequences (stakes setting) but not a specific way to get there.

    2) GM tells Pain rating, Player makes decisions about influencing the outcome with dice (these are the "teeth" of this CR)

    3) Roll and see who wins (successes) and "how" (dominance). This part dictates how you get or not get what you wanted.
    If you won, the conflict is won, no fussing about that. If you say "I want to catch the fleeing nightmare", you roll and you beat the GM's pain then you caught the Nightmare. The gm does not have the authority to say "you get close, but not quite there", for example.

    DRYH uses practically "academical standard" conflict resolution as introduced in Sorcerer... :)


    There you are, long assed post posted :)
    Happy to ramble on, if you are so inclined.
  11. Administrator
     
    Thanks for including the follow up. I appreciate you re-writing it after the first post was eaten. And as for location, here's as good a place as any to talk about TR vs. CR.

    I think we were narrowing down on Task vs. Intent during the show but never quite hit it. I agree that task resolution doesn't care about intent and that is the greatest distinction between Task vs. Conflict.

    Stakes though, are very important to me. I think the greatest reason players fear failing is GM fiat. If you are told to make a jump roll to get over a chasm does the result of failing mean you fall and break your leg unable to be act until the end of the session, or does it mean you lose the villain in the chase but discover the cave people who can tell you more about himc. Players not knowing consequences (which is just the flip side of stakes) will often assume the worse, usually because they've been scarred by a vindictive (or just unimaginative) GM who couldn't give them anything better.

    Dread is great in that it is explicit. You cannot be taken out of the game until you knock the tower down. I really like this because regardless of the GM I know that my character can take any action and win or fail I still get to play.

    As for DRYH, I can read it again but I don't think even the examples they gave (of Gavin) were that cut and dry. In the book he hears clockwork soldiers banging on his door and when he answers it they attack. Instead of stating "they are trying to capture you" vs. "you are trying to get away" or even leaving the stakes undefined but resolving it with one roll, there are several rolls to notice them, beat one up and run away. I think it certainly could be played out as strict CR, but I've found that rolls are so interesting, players often want to keep embellishing on the prior outcomes. I suppose you could call that lots of mini-conflicts (who wrestles the other person to the ground, now who gets a hold of the knife, now who can plunge it into the other, etc) but I think once you get that specific intent is no longer arguable, the task becomes the intent and therefore you're back to TR.

    Happy to oblige with a long ass post of my own :)
  12. Administrator
     
    Posted By: renatoramI'm now a founding member of Janus Design ( http://www.janus-design.it ), and we published Don't Rest Your Head in Italian (Non Cedere Al Sonno), and already sold some 300 copies of it, I reckon.


    So... maybe I should shut my trap before quoting DRYH to the guy who is publishing it. Ha.

    I just read your post in the intro section.... yeah... so... um... about that Red Box.

    All sheepishness aside, it's great to have someone from the other side of the industry listening to the show and on the boards. Thanks for you input.
  13.  
    Member
    • CommentAuthorrenatoram
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2009
     
    Heh, don't get all shy now, Sean. :-D
    Industry is a bit of an overstatement, really: Janus is just a non-profit association of players of rpgs, especially indie-hippie ones. We just decided to step up and bring some indie goodness to Italy, where the language barrier was keeping most of the players in the last century (gaming wise). I got into this madness just because I loved DRYH so much that I proposed Fred to translate it... and discovered he was already in the talks with some other guys who lived a few Kms away from me! :)

    Basically, I translated all the system stuff and wrote some of the additional setting material, so yeah, I know the rules pretty in depth. :-D
    And now I'm working on don't lose your mind. Translating Fred and Ben's crazy prose is really an interesting challenge.

    You're right about DRYH not requiring to set explicit stakes, but really intent and stakes are pretty much synonimous once you boil down CR enough: you win the roll (conflict), you get your intent. *How* you get it and how much it costs depends very much on the dominance, obviously.

    Once you get a rule saying that if you win the conflict you get your intent, you already have the kernel of stakes setting and getting.

    I understand where you're coming from regarding fearing fiat, but really if there is a possibility of GM fiat you are not using Conflict Resolution, IMO.

    In A Wicked Age has conflict without stakes resolution (or setting), but has very, very precise rules about what can be obtained by winning the conflict: if you are dominating the conflict you get the stick. The losing side has to try and compromise somehow, or accept a decrease in a couple of stats.

    Returning to DRYH: rolling for tasks is not really what's intended for, though. You surely can call for a roll to resolve a very "short" or "small" conflict, like "do I get in the building", but you won't be rolling for a "stealth action", then a "burglary action" and then a "deactivate alarm action"... not only it's not really what the manual says, but your players will crash in less than two hours with that rate of rolls! :)
  14. Administrator
     
    Good points Renatorum and something worth visiting again.

    I've told a few other podcasters that the best material they could cover is their old shows and how their opinions have changed since they first recorded the episode. It seems that may yield true for us as well. Conflict resolution is still very rich soil and once we'll put a little distance between our list episode on it, I think Justin and I will probably till it again. The fans will call this re-interpretation. Everyone else will call it a hack.

    I'll let Justin jump in with a witty remark to finish that one off.
  15.  
    Member
    • CommentAuthorrenatoram
    • CommentTimeMar 8th 2009
     
    One thing I forgot commenting about: the example of the stealing of the Scroll of Anuba was *golden*, IMO.

    The thieving character performs a series of complex and risky *tasks*, but what the scene is about is really something else completely: will he get back home in time to avoid his wife becoming mad at him? Getting the scroll is secondary, and might or might not decided by the rolls, but the final outcome is not really dependant on, say, the skill and number of the guards :)
  16. Administrator
     
    Posted By: renatoramOne thing I forgot commenting about: the example of the stealing of the Scroll of Anuba was *golden*, IMO.

    Thanks, I considered that one of the useful nuggets when responding to Dave over here
  17. Member
     
    Posted By: SeanNittnerThe fans will call this re-interpretation. Everyone else will call it a hack.

    I'll let Justin jump in with a witty remark to finish that one off.


    Wait...hold on...one's coming to me...no...lost it.

    Oh, oh...here's one: We have fans? I guess I better start wearing underwear again...don't want the paparazzi getting any money shots.

1 to 17 of 17

  1.