There’s a mechanic that I hate, whenever I see it.
It goes something like this:
“When a player narrates their action in a cool or exciting way, they gain [insert bonus].” Or, even worse, if it’s paired with: “If they narrate their action in a repetitive or uninteresting way, they lose [insert penalty].”
Now, on its face, there’s nothing too objectionable about this. The incentives are very simple. We take something desirable for gameplay, having exciting narration and framing for actions, and tempt the players to go out of their way to indulge in it, because a mechanical reward is offered, and, we assume, the players want mechanical rewards. Simple enough.
However, you might already see some of the issues with it. For one, what is it that makes a certain piece of narration ‘cool’? How do we know if something is exciting, and, more specifically, exciting enough to warrant a reward? What happens if everything a player says is really cool, and they just get more power than the other players because of this? Do we have to raise the bar for that person specifically, to balance it out? What if someone’s shy? Wait, do the developers expect me to give this bonus a lot, or am I breaking the numbers if I do?
Usually, the answers start with “the GM has to adjudicate that,” and that means they end somewhere pretty messy. The impulse for this, too, is simple to understand. Suppose the other players adjudicate it amongst themselves. One of the things RPGs tend to take as given is that the players are angling for their characters to materially succeed, sometimes to the level of failure actively grinding play to a halt. That means the players have a vested interest in going “oh yeah that was definitely cool,” because they stand to gain from it. Now, that’s framed dishonestly, and obviously, most players aren’t going to be weaseling like that. But. What if they’re on the fence? What if, because of this, they decide to err on the side of getting what they want? Or, if they’re a conscientious sort, consider the opposite. Something they think might be cool, but, for fear of not thinking they’re taking advantage of things, they decide it’s not. In that declaration, they’re actively signaling less interest in the play than they’re actually having! That’s bad!
So, putting it onto the GM makes some sense. They have much less of a conflict of interest, or, rather, it comes bundled into the preexisting conflicts of interest of the GM role (which is a doozy of a topic all on its own) – the GM wants to meaningfully challenge the players, but still support their efforts to be cool and succeed, in theory. So, “you don’t get this free bonus at all times, but you do when you do something exciting and neat for the game” sounds well in line.
However. This doesn’t actually remove these concerns. The open question of, how much is too much, is still very much in play. What if the GM has high standards for what’s cool, and so the players don’t get the bonus dice the game’s math assumes they’ll have? Or, in that same scenario – what if the GM thinks to themself, “I’ve been giving this bonus die out a lot, that’s probably not right, I should raise my standards”? I’ve started thinking about [yes fatigue] and [no fatigue] as phenomena of GMing, where, when the game calls on you to say yes to a given player proposal enough times (or, to say no), GMs will end up standardizing to a more even adjudication just because they get tired of it. This is a prime example of where both can come up. If the GM needs to be asked if a given narration counts as cool enough, then, even if the game wants them to say no except for, say, once an adventure… that’s unlikely to actually be the pace they hit.
Now, obviously, I’m an advocate of communicating things. “You should get this bonus at most once an adventure” is a thing you can just say. You can lay it down as a rule, even! But I think that’s rarely something mechanics like this do, because they’re intended to be inconsistent and stochastic. A cool moment is unpredictable and unpaced, and thus, unbalanced. But, even if you discard balance concerns entirely, in my experience, the actual players at the table won’t discard those concerns, and that worrying will compound the buildup of yes fatigue and no fatigue.
And that’s not the only concept of social fairness at play here. What do you do if one player is just, better at narrating moments the group finds cool than others? If you shift standards for them to avoid unbalancing the game, that’s got a very real risk of feeling discouraging for them. But if you don’t, that’s the game specifically rewarding one player over the others for their performative ability – starting a competition it’s really not great for the social dynamic to have. And if a player is notably bad at it, or even just shy, that gets significantly worse. If they don’t get any mechanical benefit because they can’t pull it off, not only does that feel bad for them, having weaker mechanical control means they have even less control over the spotlight, pushing them into the background even more. If they do get the benefit anyway, then not only is the entire concept revealed to be silly and pointless (since, now it’s not celebrating things the table finds cool at all), it also prompts the other players to feel like they’re wasting their time for trying to make cooler-than-usual beats. If you have both a notably good-at-this player and a notably bad-at-this one at the same table, all of these effects compound. And, really, since the pitch of mechanics like these is “this way, you get more cool moments,” the ways it actively stymies people who might be awkward about that but want to try and get better are the most damning criticisms I could give of the concept.
So, yeah! That’s stunting, and I do not like it. Whenever a designer thinks to introduce it to their game, I highly recommend they consider the perverse social dynamics I outlined above and if they actually want any of that in their experience of play. (Maybe, if it’s a game about unhealthy social expectations, that can fit! But probably not.) Short showing today, but this was mostly just a personal grumble. You can all go home now.
The predictable twist
Yeah, you know I couldn’t leave it at that.
Consider, if you will, a different mechanic, with a similar shape. A player can get bonus dice, or an XP reward, or, any other [insert bonus] idea we might have had from stunting, when they take an action, if they can describe how that action makes sense. How it works, you know? Why is this time that you’ve tried to stab your opponent plausibly more effective than the last one? Riff something about chinks in the armor, whatever suits your fancy.
On the surface, that sounds very different. But in practice, I’ll argue – read everything I wrote in the previous several paragraphs. That also applies here! If a player is uniquely comfortable or uncomfortable with narrating little quirks of the world they interact with, or, say, familiar enough with how electrical engineering to bolster their Elec. Eng. roll (in this hypothetical system, skills have a strict 10 character limit to their names), then, you have the same imbalanced dynamics. If the GM gets tired of giving the bonus every time, or worried the game is getting too easy because of how frequently it comes up, that’s yes fatigue. It’s a different player skill being tested, a little, though both do end up having a core ingredient of [how well can you convince the GM to give you what you want] – but the dynamics haven’t changed. The shape of what that mechanic does, is still the same.
So, arbitrarily-adjudicated bonuses. I don’t like ’em. If you give a consistent pace to them, maybe a resource to spend as a bonus pool, that works for sure, but making it contingent on one player’s judgement of another player’s performance, that’s questionable. Make sense?
Let’s consider another scenario.
A player has a set of skills, which they roll as a dice pool on a challenge. Among their skills, they have Stalk at 2 and Slaughter at 7. (All of the skills start with S, which sounded cute to the designer but in practice is confusing for the table.) That player is currently attempting to sneak up behind and assassinate an NPC, an action that could ostensibly fall under either skill. It’s the GM’s job to declare which skill applies, based on what the player narrates they’re doing, and how.
In other words, the player has 5 bonus dice on the line based on how well they describe their actions to suit one of two overlapping skills, and both they and the GM know that.
See where I’m going with this?
Now, the thing I just described, very intentionally, looks like what a lot of RPGs do for skill systems. In fact, this example is pretty much taken wholesale from Blades In The Dark (which does not do the S thing, the skill names and numbers have been changed to protect the guilty), with one notable exception. Blades affords the players the decision of what skills are valid for a given test – ie, to analogize earlier, letting the players declare how good their stunt was. However, the GM then has their own parameters of difficulty to apply to the test – meaning, a GM could make the Slaughter roll harder and the Stalk roll easier, within those parameters. This might make the Stalk roll a better bet, despite the smaller value! But it also might not. And, even then. If it does make the Stalk roll the better choice, that’s the GM saying “no, you can’t do that stunt for a bonus” by any other name, right?
Now, let’s go one more layer.
A player declares that their character does something. No roll, no mechanics necessary, just, this is a thing that happens. The analogizable reward to the prior levels of stunting is, the thing happens. Most prominently, the thing they’re doing solves a problem or accomplishes a goal.
To that end, they explain to the GM why they think this should work. You see, nuclear reactors always have emergency shutdown buttons that can flood the irradiated material with antimatter nega-radiation to render it inert. Maybe they even cite some real-world science about that! Nega-radiation is a thing, you know. Look it up.
The GM can either accept it, or veto it, or maybe they call for a check of some sort, and we’re back on the previous layer.
In other words, a significant reward for the flow of play is shaped by the GM’s judgement of the description of the acting player. How well it lines up with [what makes sense] and [what should happen]. And, of course, if they do too much of that, the GM gets tired of saying yes, and when another player proves really timid and unable to do this much, that means they trail behind in how much they can contribute to and play the game.
This is what I called in the title the “tyranny of human intuition”, and, that might seem like an odd thing to call it, when I’ve been talking about social pressures first and foremost. And the reason for that is – I don’t actually believe in human intuition. At least, not in the context of tabletop roleplaying games.
There’s a concept that gets taken roughly as given, in my experience, in discussions of RPGs and what they do. That of the [shared world-conception]. That is, all the players, GM included, will, over the course of play, come to an understanding of the world the game is set in, and how it works. That understanding is the same to every player that possesses it, such that everyone can have an intuitive understanding of what would happen if a given action was taken in a given context. Sometimes I see this framed as the most important aspect of an RPG, even, with mechanics as a subservient tool for the purpose of creating this. (For some more detailed exploration of a few concepts ancillary to this, my ghost engine post goes into some detail there.)
Now, I don’t think this is entirely wrong. But I do think it’s somewhat wrong. Specifically in that, while people can share broad ideas with roughly similar shapes, the nature of human interpretation and understanding means perfect translation of thought between beings is impossible. There’s a reason communication is an art form. (Several, actually. Writing, conversation, arguably all art forms are in part communication.) And with an RPG, an actively social activity…
If you think you understand how something will resolve, but the GM is suffering from yes fatigue and declares it won’t work because you’ve done too much, your understanding was wrong. Any meaningful understanding of the world, then, inherently has to involve an understanding of the boundaries and habits of every other player at the table. The GM, especially, a lot of games I see give an outsized amount of adjudication power to that role specifically, but even if we take that as given. If we know the GM is prone to no fatigue, and will say yes more often to people who rack up a bunch of nos, and we know a specific player struggles to narrate things in a persuasive manner, we know that player will, potentially, be able to do things that other players couldn’t get away with, out of an impulse to throw them a bone. (And if we know the GM isn’t prone to no fatigue, we know that player very well might not be able to accomplish things other more well-spoken players could.) If we don’t understand that, we don’t have an accurate understanding of how the fictional world works and interacts with us, but if we do understand that, we’re acknowledging that the world-conception is inconsistent and influenced by social factors.
The [tyranny of human intuition], then, is putting these adjudications on the shoulder of a player role, GM or otherwise, with the baseline expectation that it’s founded on this [shared world-conception]. It’s relying on [what makes sense] or [what feels right], and thus, as influenced by social bleed… on some level, it reduces to the dynamic of stunting.
This is a common ingredient in many RPGs. I won’t say all of them, I know some definitions of RPG would take it as a necessity, but my stance on that is a hardline “nuh-uh”. (It’s always important to elevate the discourse.) And, to be clear, when I said at the beginning that stunting was a mechanic I hate, with each layer of that exploration, some of that hate dissipated. I don’t hate games that have adjudicated skill checks. (Well, I do hate some games that have those, but not because of the skill checks.) I don’t hate games that let things happen based on what [makes sense]. But I do think, on some level, a lot of the perverse social dynamics radiate outwards through the layers. And that’s something to keep in mind! The more you lean on this intuitive adjudication, the more no fatigue, yes fatigue, and the persuasive difference between individual players become pillars of how play shakes out. Lean on that too much, and tables with more of a disparity might very well have problems.
It’s something to consider some more, at least. Among other things, these dynamics get taken for granted so much that you get stunting, their worst form, quite consistently. Stunting’s an old mechanic! Games I otherwise kind of like have it! And because these factors aren’t really considered as potential risks, or things to be built around where possible, it comes up again and again. And that, I hate.
So, yeah!
Ru's Roleplay Rants 