|
-
This book is roughly three parts. First, an introduction to a particular, and very interesting, system of analyzing drama or narratives. Then a thorough, well-made application of that system to three static / non-interactive narratives (Hamlet, Dr No and Casablanca).
Then just four or five pages on how to use that for role-playing!
And most of those brief pages are dedicated to “scenario writers”.
The advice useful at the gaming table is about half a page and boils down to something like “When you’re the GM, keep a piece of paper handy where you note player fears / down-notes as a ↘ arrow and hopes / up-notes as a ↗ arrow and you’ll see that when there are too many of the same kind in a row, player’s won’t be happy. If so, you might have to ‘throw in’ [how to do this is not clarified] moments of gratification, dominance, danger or difficulties”.
There is some GM advice sprinkled here and there throughout the analyses in sidebars.
To put this book in context, I recently encountered this diagram (it’s a few years old, but I just saw it last week and it blew my mind):
http://www.evilbrainjono.net/blog?permalink=864
It’s hard to take away anything from Robin’s Laws or Hamlet’s Hit Points that isn’t very firmly anchored to the “Participationism” green box of that diagram. Everything is about “how to ‘make a plot’ that’s satisfying to ‘your’ players”. For example: the ghost vs Horatio is presented as a so-called “non-branching obstacle”, an (often illusionist) idea that only works in that paradigm. If Horatio fails his “ghost-talking” roll, he gets no info. If he makes it, he gets the info “Will only talk to Hamlet.” Is that fun?
It’s hard for the player choices or characters to become meaningful.
All of this book’s trappings like the “hit points” in the title or calling certain Hamlet characters PCs and others NPCs are more or less just for show.
The GM wrote this story.
-
Brian Leet
United States
Montpelier
Vermont
-
Wow! I recently read this book and I entirely disagree. It is a challenging approach and doesn't fit into neat expectations. My take is that it is much more about the psychology of play than the plot or mechanics. The moments in a good story need to vary.
-
-
Yeah, that seems harsh! Although, now that I think of it, leaving up/down moments to GM whim is kinda regressive.
Could it be used for more indie games, or even players within traditional games? Something like: "My character has had it easy for a while now, so I'm going to give them a massive down beat."
Oh, and that's an awesome diagram!
-
Eric Dodd
New Zealand
Martinborough
Wairarapa
-
That is a neat diagram, though sometimes there's more gradation and variability to the answers.
As we discussed in the forums recently, an awesome railroad can be a fun time for all types of gamers, while total participation needs more people to be "on" at any one time. Personally, I'm definitely in the "no wrong answer" camp, and getting a regular group is a bigger problem.
-
-
Red Wine Pie wrote: That is a neat diagram, though sometimes there's more gradation and variability to the answers.
As we discussed in the forums recently, an awesome railroad can be a fun time for all types of gamers, while total participation needs more people to be "on" at any one time. Personally, I'm definitely in the "no wrong answer" camp, and getting a regular group is a bigger problem.
Sure, “Participationism” is a “green” box, too, and can really rock sometimes. In retrospect, I see that many of my best sessions before I found this diagram was a mix of the three green boxes—an interesting plot that the players could discover gradually, via breadcrumbs and clues, but more than half the time spent on spontaneous sidequests, both player-specific (story now style) and location/NPC–specific (sandbox style).
But I’ve often ended up in one of the “red” boxes so I’m really happy about this diagram, it sheds a lot of light on role-playing for me. I am going to try to learn the Story Now style. It’ll be a challenge, but I hope it’ll pay off.
Hamlet’s Hit Points is very well-made and thorough but applies its system to static, even time-controlled fiction (movies and theatre). It’s not at all clear how to apply it to role-playing. Even the most participationist written scenario will, as the book notes, be played with players who spend their time proportionally on different parts of the railroad in a way that’s hard to predict.
My big disappointment and regret with this book was that its application to role-playing was so hand-wavey. I’ve seldom written reviews here on the geek but since I first heard of the book here, and got it because of one other glowing review, I wanted to write a review about my own feelings since it’s literally half a page of “note ups and downs at the gaming table” and another half a page of “track the different characters, how often they get the spotlight” (good advice, but presented without much further elaboration) and nothing more for role-players here.
The symbols are neat and it’s a really cool idea. The maps are good-looking and it can be a beautiful thing, to have Hamlet or a classic movie represented graphically.
I love a lot of Robin Laws’ other books so I know he can deliver. Apparently not every time, though.
-
-
PghArch wrote: The moments in a good story need to vary.
Whether or not that is true, this book doesn’t present any constructive ways of doing so, as far as I can see.
happysmellyfish wrote: Could it be used for more indie games
As far as I can tell, it would be even harder. Probably the style this is most applicable to would be Gumshoe or CoC played in the traditional manner—players subjected to “procedural beats” while a GM-pre-written mystery is gradually info-dumped.
But even in those grim scenarios players tend to really make things harder or easier for themselves in a way that’s not obvious how to affect.
-
Brian Leet
United States
Montpelier
Vermont
-
2097 wrote: PghArch wrote: The moments in a good story need to vary. Whether or not that is true, this book doesn’t present any constructive ways of doing so, as far as I can see.
I can only describe how I interpreted and would do it. Say the adventurers are tracking an evil warlord through the wilderness. They are hoping to catch him before he entered some stronghold.
1 - The GM describes the obstacles that the terrain presents. A down note, failure is a real possibility.
2 - The players outline their tracking strategy and abilities. This is an up note because they have the anticipation of success.
3 - Making some skill rolls and role playing out the pursuit, the players fall behind. A down note.
4 - The players press on, but discover the warlord is already in the stronghold. Another down note.
- Now, at this point, as GM, I can anticipate that the players will attempt to sneak into, or attack, the stronghold. Except, I've also know how tough that is, and that they will be repulsed. The players have had two "down" notes in a row already. -
5 - The GM introduces a scene at the camp where the players recover from their chase, regain their spirits and come up with a solid plan. Perhaps he even has a wandering traveler or other resource contact the players with good news. This creates an up note.
- Now, even if the players assault the stronghold and are forced back, they won't feel like everything that has happened is just relentlessly bad.
Now maybe this is an oversimplification, and it didn't address at all the issue of dramatic versus procedural points. But, it does show a key takeaway for me. In a grueling adventure it is easy for the GM to try to create a feeling of doom and despair by just having everything the player's do fall short, even if successful. It is obvious that this isn't fun, but I think Hamlet's Hit Points gives a good new perspective on one of the reasons why.
-
-
Thanks for sharing your ideas. Thoughts and examples from the gaming table are always welcome. The book doesn’t have anything like this, which surprised me and that resulted in the review. I think it should be clearer on the tin what it is.
The other review and session thread here also has some ideas. (None of which are explicit in the book.)
-
David Crowell
United States
New York
-
The DreamPark RPG from R Talsorian Gams back in the day had a section on "plot beats" in the adventure design section that sounds similar to what you are describing for Hamlet's Hit Points.
It was based on television plots and when what sort of action, plot twist, revelation, etc occurs in the story.
It went beyond just noting what happens when and why, to explaining how this could be used to construct successful adventures.it sounds like Robin missed this part in Hamlet's Hit Points. Theory of drama and upbeats, down beats, time in the spotlight, etc is all well and good, but after I have noted it how do I use it to make a better game? And of course is it the GM's responsibility, the players' responsibility or a shared responsibility? I think that too often this type of information is presented solely to GMs and adventure writers, when it may be the players who need it most. Simple things sometimes, like if he plot requires you to fight the villain don't head the other direction and try to set up a farm instead.
-
-
davethelost wrote: …if the plot requires you to…
You are standing south of a villain. There is a mailbox here. There is a sword here.
> go east
There is no east.
> go west
There is no west.
> go south and try to set up awesome farm
There is no south.
> go north
You go north. There is a villain here.
> talk to villain
I don’t understand what you want to villain.
> say villain, hi
There is no response.
> look at villain
There is a villain here.
> sigh…
Yes?
> fight villain
You fought the villain. There is a ↗ here.
-
Jaime Lawrence
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
See Below.
Evil Bob: Lawful good since 2038!
-
My opinion of the book, though perhaps more diplomatically worded, is very similar, actually. I think Laws' ideas are firmly targeted at action roleplaying (read: D&D primarily) where character development and intrigue isn't tremendously valued. I found the book valuable as an insight into narrative structure that touches on elements of gaming, but again, it isn't a book about gaming primarily. I do, however, feel that you've been a little harsh in saying that 'there's only four or five pages' about roleplaying. The entire thing is designed as a model for you to follow in analysing your own game and there are frequent descriptions of the action in the film as though it were related to a game.
It's limited, but not useless.
-
-
Yeah, thanks for the other perspective. I’ll update my review.
I mean Robin Laws did not only the genius Feng Shui, but also Pantheon. Rune also had a lot of interesting things going on. I want to have no end of respect for him. I guess that’s why I’m so hard on him.
-
|
|
|
Posted Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:41 pm
