Bang Types

I was asked to post a thread about Bang types here: http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=3267/

First, I want people to understand that I only categorize these for the purposes of discussion of methods for how to create each sort of bang. There's nothing in my discovery of these types that makes them inviolable taxonomies. In fact even the ones I have tend to overlap a lot. If somebody has better classifications, whether tested or no, please put them in here. Especially considering that I don't have a long list of types so far. The ones I'm listing are only ones that I've noted without digging into it a ton. I'm hoping that we can expand the list here a bit with some participation.

OK, the list:

Dilemma Bangs: probably the easiest to make examples of, since you can just grab two values out of the air, and make up a bang from those two values. This is, in fact, how you construct such a Bang - you simply find two values on the character sheet, or which you know the player is interested in investigating for the character, and create a situation in which they have to prioritize one over the other. Some caveats: despite this being easiest to make examples of, and having an easy process, in actual play it's not neccessarily the most common sort of bang. It was for me when I discovered the technique for creating them at first, but then I learned to spread things out back to a more natural distribution. Also this sort of bang tends to be used often to "hose" the character, forcing them to lose the thing that they don't prioritize higher. This isn't neccessary.

Bangs can "fizzle." Meaning that the player isn't really interested in them. But there's another way in which player response can change a bang. They can create alternate choices. So not infrequently, what seems to be a dilemma bang will be changed by the player introducing a third choice. We can think of this as player introduction of a bang (which is more commonplace than I think people expect). And I call this sort of Bang the...

Batman Bang: Batman is too cool to be hosed by a dilemma. He will choose not to have to make a choice. This is epitomized by the example I use from the movie Batman Forever, where the Riddler has Robin and Dr. Chase Meridian (Batman's current paramour), in a deathtrap, and is forcing Batman to choose between his two identities, essentially in who he chooses to save. But Bats decides to leap into the deathtrap to save both of them simultaneously. This choosing instead to put his own life at risk over having to choose between these two things.

Now, some would say that his is simply avoiding the original bang. And to an extent, that's exactly what it is. Depending on the system used, this is more or less feasible. But it should be allowed to the extent that the player escalates the stakes in doing so. And, more importantly, to the extent that the player is still revealing something about the character. Of course, if this is non-relevatory, what you have is a fizzle, if a high action sort of fizzle. Not too terrible a result.

I include the Batman Bang not as an example of one you can prepare before play, but of how Bangs often morph in play into something other than intended. This is not a bad thing, go with it.

Tri-lemma bangs, etc: It should be obvious from the dilemma bang example that you can do any number of discrete decisions that have to be prioritized. This is really just an extension of the same idea, and can be prepared by the same method. The more values the player has to have the character categorize, the more likely the bang is to "stick." But often that's simply because the player will agonize over what he sees as the two most important. Often third or further options will sorta fizzle, being seen as unimportant. But this, itself, is an interesting decision, and tells us something about the character.

On the downside, you can tend to "use up" a lot of values all at once with this sort of bang. Once you've done a particular sort of bang, often you can't do it again. Unless you do the...

Escalation Bang: this is, essentially, doing the same bang as a previous bang, but altering the stakes slightly. Note that this one should be used with caution, because it can easily be interpreted as railroading. Leading players to either rebel (trying to find third options or to make the bang fizzle), or to the players moving to a mode of play where they're just following what they see as a lead. That is, the player will start to think that you want them to choose one particular option in each choice, and will be looking to do that, instead of making up their own mind as to what to have happen.

That all said, basically you take the unselected option, and make it more important in a second round. For instance, if in a dilemma bang, a player chooses to save his family's honor by lying about something (eschewing honesty, in this case), you can come back at the player, indicating how the lie in question is now damaging the lives of some orphans or something. Now he has to choose again between his honor and lying. What's really going on, however, is that the choice is different. The second option is "eschewing honesty, even if it hurts somebody" now. So this is still a valid bang.

Don't ever repeat a bang with precisely the same values at stake (we already know how that goes, there's nothing new to be created). But with even small alterations of stakes, especially escalation, you can make the old new again.

Continued...

Comments

  • Continuing...

    Multivariate Bang: This is where the character is put into a situation where there are no clear choices to be made, but the character can choose to do "anything." Note that players will often refine these in play down to dilemma bangs, like I mention with the tri-lemmas. But the process is revelatory because the player chooses from all available values those that are most important to him for the character. The example I always give here is dropping a powerful magic item on a character. Too powerful for their "power level" if you will. The point being that the obvious choice of "Oh, I'll just keep it" is not so obvious. That may still be a choice, but loads of other choices will present themselves, the players understanding that lots of people will want the item, being able to benefit from it. So they have to choose what to support with the item.

    Another example of this sort of bang that I use is the "Rain of Toads." That is, something really odd happens, something that just can't be ignored because it's so out of the ordinary. But with no particular clue as to a "solution," what's hopefully relevatory is the direction that the characters take to address the event. Note that these can fizzle at times simply because the players may have no idea at all what to do in response. But you get the idea.

    Unary Value Bang: In most of the cases above, we create choices from multiple values. In the Unary Value bang, the choices that are created come from a single value, which the player essentially refines in play. So, for instance, the situation could be that a character is a swordsman, and he has saved a renowned sword instructor, and the instructor offers to teach him any one technique. This is somewhat of a multivariate bang, but only dealing with this one value, what he sees as important to his swordsmanship.

    - Note - I inlcude the swordsman example at this point because I want to make another point about bang creation. People often think that bangs have to be about relationships or explicit moral values, or ethical dilemmas, etc. And while that's all good and powerful stuff, any decision that tells us something about the character can be an interesting bang. If the player in question seems to really be into exploring his character's swordsmanship, then the example may well be a great bang for him. As always, what makes for a good bang is what interests the player most about the character.

    Player Instituted Bangs: Again not one you prepare for, but note that one of the most common sorts of bangs are players creating bangs for other players. In fact, if you're using bangs well as GM, players often catch on, and do a lot of bang creation themselves in play (which takes the pressure off of you to produce). Try to foster this.

    In any case, these are a special case of bang, because they often have a unique presentation. To be sure, often they're just one of the other sorts of bangs. But sometimes they're just a case where the character sets up a situation where the question is whether the PC being set up will accept something that the other PC has done, or will go against that PC. Obviously this requires a lot of group trust. But what's interesting about it is that the intra-player dynamic is strong here. It's as much about challenging players to find ways to interconnect their characters with the others as possible. Often, in fact, playful "counter-banging" will happen here, often with escalation.

    For example, one player has his character try to expell another character from a community. This creates, perhaps, a dilemma bang between accepting the expulsion (perhaps the character is offended and does not wish to stay), and trying to find a way to fight the expulsion. The "banged" player may then counter having his character threaten the first with violence - this is a choice to fight on the one hand that creates a new dilemma for the other player - does my character fight or back down.

    Indeed, this is just what the escalation mechanic in DitV does, creating this back and forth. And, again, often this is about players building trust in each other, and learning to entwine their character's stories in confrontational ways to make each other's stories more interesting.

    Multi-player Bang: this is one of the other sorts of bangs that simply hits more than one character in terms of some shared values. What's interesting is that, often times, players will have their characters react differently. These differences can cause new bangs to emerge.

    Cross-player Bangs: This is a situation where more than one character is affected by a bang, but they are affected in different ways. The choices for each are different. Depending on how disparate these differences are, the reactions to the bangs may have no effect on other players and their characters, to requiring lots of new interaction. Some of the best bangs I've seen are Cross-player Bangs that cause the characters to have to make decisions which then, further, cause more character interaction as they try to sort out their responses between themselves.

    The Raymond Chandler Bang: when you're sorta out of bangs, but still need to get the action going, then throw in the universal survival bang. As Raymond Chandler would suggest, have somebody come in guns blazing, and figure out who they are later. The thing about "combat," if done correctly, is that it automatically brings up several issues that every character has. First is the question of whether or not to fight back. Often this is not a bang for characters, many will have fight or flight obviously built in. But the specifics of the situation may dictate. Are there innocents on the scene who might get caught in the crossfire? Valuable objects in the room? And for some characters, untested in this context, the simple question of what they do is enough.

    Fallout from the fight can be more telling, however. How does one treat the wounded and captured? Or deal with being wounded or captured? What's the first priority in dealing with the fallout? Do I question a dying enemy, or treat a wounded ally first? Nothing like putting life and death on the line to find out things about a character.

    Obviously, however, you can't rely on this too much, or the answers soon become all known, and it's no longer very interesting. But when you're stuck, go for it.

    Other Omnipresent Values: there are some other values that affect everyone. For example, gender, and sexuality. When in doubt, have somebody hit on the character. If you're not sure about their sexuality or values here, have that somebody be the same sex, perhaps. Another universal value (really an extension of the survival value), is that of financial well-being. Money. While this is often over-used in terms of being a hook at times, often it's good to look at how much the character values money over other values. These are just a couple of "universal issues" that all characters have that can be made into bangs at a moment's notice, without having to check very closely with the character.

    That's not to say that they'll never fizzle! For instance, male GMs have a tendency to assume that women want to play out romantic situations probably more than they do on average. And you have to mix things up. So don't lean on these too heavily. Again, they're there for when you're sorta stuck not being able to find more character-specific values from which to craft bangs.

    Continued...
  • Continuing...

    Accidental Bangs: it should be noted that, just as bangs fizzle at times, sometimes you'll set up a situation which the player will find to be an important decision point, when you didn't intend that at all. When this happens, try to recognize these moments. Because they're key indicators about player interest that you can use later. That is, this is either something that the player didn't realize either, or you didn't read in the player (perhaps because they weren't broadcasting their interest about the subject). But some value which you now know may work for future bangs. If a bang comes up accidentally, go with it, and see where it takes you.

    Identity Bangs: these bangs challenge some value central to the character's identity by questioning whether or not the charcter even wants to have that value at all. For instance, a character grows up thinking that X is their father, only to find out that Y is their father instead. This is essentially a Unary Value, but where the character has the dilemma of chosing to think of themselves as the son of X, or changing that to son of Y. Or some sort of amalgam. The net effect of which is that the character's identity either remains the same, or changes, depending on how the player has the character react.

    Note that these are incredibly powerful bangs, and you may be messing with a player's notion of what makes the character interesting to play. One thing to avoid with bangs are employing situation in such a way as to change the character without the consent of the player in such a way that the character is no longer what the player wants to play. An example of an identity bang that doesn't have this problem is in presenting the character a chance to take on a new profession in the game. Does he want to remain a soldier down in the ranks, or does he want to take a promotion into the officer class? This tells us a lot about the character and his identity, but allows the player to make the call.

    Emergent Bang: sometimes you can come up with a situation in which it's obvious that values will be involved, but you're not sure which. This is sort of the multivariate bang, but the idea is that after you get the initial reactions from the players as to how their characters feel about the inital event, you then modify subsequent action that follows from the initial event so that bangs are created from what you see emerging.

    As an example, you might have a legislative session come into play, where a character gets to introduce some new measures. The player decides to introduce a bill to relieve the tax burdens on the peasants who he feels for. Then the GM modifies the situation by having somebody else back the bill, but only if the character also supports a bill for a war that he does not support. You take the initial reaction of the player, and create a bang from that value that he puts forward.

    You have to be careful here, too, as you don't want to prevent the player from being pro-active. That is, if they feel that you're just stomping on whatever they put out there in the name of drama, they might start to turtle up somewhat. Sometimes it's just best to let a win be a win, and not evolve it into something further.

    Win Repercussion Bangs: On the other hand, sometimes you may want to take what looks like a clear win, and confound the heck out of it. The example I give is taking a win in an election, and having the loser call out the winner for a duel. It's always easy to make bangs from the results of negative outcomes, but it can be just as easy to do it with positive outcomes as well. As above, don't always do this, no. But neither should you let a string of wins mean that the character runs out of story. Assuming there's more left that's intertesting to delve into.

    Remember, at some point a character may be "played out." We know all we really want to know about the character, his issues are resolved, and it's time to retire the character. Don't keep on banging just to keep on playing. Know when to quit.


    OK, that's it for now. Discuss.

    Mike
  • Thanks for this, Mike!

    This looks like a lot of brain-dumping, and I really appreciate the time and effort that went into this. It appears to me, though, that six of these are not really types of bangs themselves: three are player responses regarding bangs, and three are ways to apply other bangs. Not to say that player responses or ways to apply bangs are unimportant; far from it. It just seems like eight of these are things that you can prepare ahead of time, and then the other six are other things to keep in mind:

    Straight Up "Types of Bangs"
    Dilemma (or Tri-lemma) Bang
    Multivariate Bang
    Unary Bang
    Escalation Bang
    Raymond Chandler Bang
    Omnipresent Values Bang
    Identity Bang
    Win Repercussion Bang

    Player Responses:
    Batman Bang
    Player Instituted Bang
    Accidental Bang

    Ways to Apply:
    Multi-Player Bang
    Cross-Player Bang
    Emergent Bang

    Am I making sense, or talking crazy?
  • Thanks Mike. That's wonderful. I have nothing else to add right now, I've got to let this stew.
  • Someone can put this in the "Best of Story-Games" now, and avoid the Christmas rush.

    Thanks, Mike. I've been GMing with nothing but bangs (and some key NPC and generic mook stats) for going for several years, and about half of these were head-slappingly 'how did I miss that' revelations.
  • Seconded for the "Best of Story Games". Immensely useful post, Mike, and shows just why I look forward to being Banged by you so soundly each week.
  • Mike, this has so got to go into Other Worlds!
  • BOOKMARKING FOREVER.
  • edited June 2007
    This is really interesting and is probably the first Bang discussion that is useful to me.

    Edit: Identifying one sort of fizzled bang as the Batman Bang is perfect.

    I think there's also something at work about perception here. If I come up with a great dilemma, a player may see it as a puzzle to be solved or challenge to be met (how can I save both??) rather than as a way to make a statement.
  • edited June 2007
    I just want 'batman' to become a verb:

    "I totally presented this awesome bang about saving the princess versus keeping the soul-key, and the players just batmanned the hell out of it."

    (Yes, it's jargon, but it's funny jargon.)
  • I have to point out that 'batman' as a piece of jargon would not even originate with us.

    It would originate with the Superdickery website forums and...

    Legends of Batman
  • edited June 2007
    I'd hesitate to use a pop culture reference if it were not for the fact that Batman is so iconic for stubborn refusal to deal with anything except on ones own terms. q.v. control freak.

    JD, that's astute. This is always a potential issue with bangs. Probably merits it's own thread, but I'll address it below along with some other ideas. Here's the thing to start with, however... remember that with a dilemma bang that you can let the player "win" both conditions. He can both rescue the girl, and capture the villain. The bang comes when you ask... "So, who do you go after first?" Because I don't really see players avoiding making such decisions. That is, it would be rare to find a player who would say, "He does both at the same time, casting one spell left, and one spell right, to accomplish both absolutely simultaneously." Sure, there probably is some solution like this. But it's just not neccessary. If you indicate to the player that he's not chosing which way to lose, but which way to win, you can usually get them on board.

    And that's if they're not some player like myself who actually likes to see the villain get away so that I can confront him another day.

    Mark, well I'd have to rewrite this a lot, since Bang is a term copywrited by Ron Edwards. But we'll see what we can do. Further, as a technique set, unless you're willing to put some mechanics into OW to support this, I'm not sure how appropriate it is. Nudge, nudge.

    Joshua, yes, you are quite correct in your categorizations. Actually Player Bangs are really just a note that bangs can and do come from all participants, using whatever tools they have on hand to create bang situations. I note it as a type because they are different from GM bangs in that the dynamic is not exactly the same as a bang created by the GM. Actually the dynamic can be nigh the same with some groups. But it's just there to note that as the GM is usually expected to have this authority to "mess" with characters so as to create dramatic decisions, often groups don't expect that this is allowed of players. Oh, even in those groups they'll happen (often accidentally). But the point is that the group needs to have the same trust between players that they have with the GM in order for this to be accepted.

    Otherwise you get accusations of "PVP"! Egads! When what's really going on (we hope) is that the players are simply doing the exact same thing that the GM is responsible for doing - providing conflict for the character to resolve.

    This is, boiled down, the age-old question of role-playing. If you have your character do something that makes my character less fun to play, is that OK to do if you can justify it as something plausible for the character to do. And it's a rare group for which this works. At some point, no matter how much you think the player is "channeling" the character, it's the player making the decision in question, and as a player, if your character becomes less fun to play, it's very hard not to feel resentful.

    Which can all be avoided by players "authoring" at least to the extent that, amongst the plausible actions for the character to take, you select ones that make the other characters more fun to play. And this can actually include having your character do horrible things to another player's character... as long as that player finds the resulting situation one that he'll enjoy playing through.

    Because "losing" doesn't always mean that the character becomes less fun to play. Patently. In D&D, if you have to run from a fight, is the character worthless now? Often they're now more interesting, because you now have a goal to come back and win that fight the next time. Same thing with value choices. Heck, I've rejoiced at having characters lose arms in magic worlds, because I can go on a quest to get the arm back! Or, in a sci-fi world, now I've an excuse to get a bionic arm.

    Yes, there are ways to damage a character so that they become less interesting to play. And some players have higher or lower tolerances no doubt. But that's not the same as saying that there's no choices you can present to them that are interesting. If only because some of them are simply positive all over. Like the power-drop example.

    Continued...
  • Continuing...

    What are the common causes of player reluctance to accept bangs from other players or the GM? It does happen.

    I may be accused of being biased here, but "my guy syndrome" and worse "abused player syndrome" seem to be the cases where players seem to want to avoid all dramatic decisions. In the first case, the player hides behind his character because he's really anti-social, and doesn't want to have to care what the other players feel about their characters (again, if this is by agreement in some rare group it's fine). In the second case you have a player who has had GM's force their characters into making decisions. It's not so much that the character is no longer interesting to play in terms of the characters values or something (one might be able to pick up and play this character for the first time), it's that what they fear is that the GM is going to play their character for them.

    I don't overstate the case here when I say that this is akin to rape. Basically the character becomes "tainted" by somebody else having run the character instead of the player, in a manner that he would not have run the character. The character is no longer who the player wants them to be, no longer "purely" their creation in terms of them having made all of the important decisions.

    It's these players who usually object to any sort of interference, GM or no. Though sometimes they'll accept such from the GM as a "neccessary evil." From other players, however, it's a different matter - these players will brook nothing from other players that mess with their control of their character, including what decisions they have to make.

    In both these cases, we have situations that are difficult to fix with technique. But all one can do is to show the player that you really are not controlling the outcomes. There are a number of techniques to do this, most starting with giving the player more director stance power. Not the only way, but it's good therapy.

    But the point is that you don't have to avoid using bangs just because you have such a player in the group. You just have to be more careful. There's one key to this that always helps. Always allow players to reject a situation or contest. If the player knows that they're free to say that they don't want to lose a particular contest, for instance, they'll begin to understand that they're being asked to partake in contests only to increase the drama of the situation. Not in order to force them into certain situations where they lose control of their character.

    And now I've come back around to the answer to JD's question. How do you inform a player that the game isn't about "winning?" Let them win whenever they want to win. Oh, sure, at some point you may want to bring back in more social pressure to accept contests and situations... you don't want to always have it be so "wishy-washy" feeling. But if a period like that is what it takes to get the player to understand this sort of play, this is the most direct way to get them to understand that I've found.

    RPGs are a collaborative exercise. There's some extent to which the input of the GM and other players impacts the life of your character. You can't get away from this unless you just decide to write fiction on your own, or play solo. If you accept that this is the case, the usually the next step is to understand that the GM at least (and the other players if you trust them) exist in part in play to provide your character with complications. Else there's no drama in play. Conflict has to come from somewhere. Yes, it's possible to set up your own conflict, and resolve it too... but the Czege Principle points out that this isn't usually all that interesting (to downright boring). So we need to learn to enjoy the dichotomy of Player as advocate for the character's fate, and GM as advocate for drama. And understand that there's no reason that a well-intended player can't serve in this role as well through directing the actions of his character.

    As players learn to think in terms of bangs, they should understand better how to make play better for other players. Bangs are not just events that force decisions. For a bang not to fizzle, by the definition I use, it has to be of interest to the player. They have to enjoy the creative process of making the decision in question. In other words, if players are actually making bangs for each other, they're doing each other a service. In actual play where my players do this to each other constantly, play is a huge success. To say nothing of the fact that it's less work for me to keep up with moving things forward.

    Anyhow that's my perspective on players and bangs.

    Actual Play Example: So, last night Chris and Char have their characters on this improvised quest into a hellish otherworld where they had chased a foe. Now they're just sorta exploring, thinking about finding the god Akalatan, and having one character devote herself to him. Possibly. Pretty incohate this plan of theirs. Well, they run into Akalatan finally, and the god of bloody fertility basically propositions Char's character to have his child. She accepts. Chris, not content to have his PC stand by and just watch has her ask Char's character by telepathy as she's copulating with the snake god to help her kill the god just after she's been impregnated (when they assume, correctly, that he'll be vulnerable). Holy Bang - no pun intended - for Char. Does she betray the god she's having sex with and kill him to steal his power, or betray her friend and remain faithful to the god she's been thinking about devoting herself to?

    In the end, Char decided that her character was swayed by Chris' character, and together they slew this form of Akalatan (some spectactularly bad die rolling on my part contributed). Pretty ballsy, considering the lack of testosterone. Huge decisions being put out there to one player by another. My players all seem to appreciate this stuff without end.

    Mike
  • Damn, Mike, you're making me want to join the IRC game again...

    ::glancing over at the folder full of novel-writing notes and first draft chapters::

    But not THAT much...
  • I was wondering are these also considered bangs in coventional sense?

    This is just copy from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilemma

    Colorful names have been given to many types of dilemmas.
    Double bind: conflicting requirements ensure that the victim will automatically be wrong.
    Ethical dilemma: a choice between moral imperatives.
    Extortion: the choice between paying the extortionist and suffering an unpleasant action.
    Fairness dilemmas: when groups are faced with making decisions about how to share their resources, rewards, or payoffs
    Hobson's choice: a choice between something and nothing; "take it or leave it".
    Morton's fork: choices yield equivalent, often undesirable, results.
    Prisoner's dilemma: An inability to coordinate makes cooperation difficult and defection tempting.
    Samaritan's dilemma: the choice between providing charity, improving another's condition, and withholding it, preventing them from becoming dependent.
    Sophie's choice: a choice between two persons or things that will result in the death or destruction of the person or thing not chosen.
    Zugzwang: One must move and incur harm when one would prefer to make no move (esp. in chess).

    Several idioms describe dilemmas:
    "Between Scylla and Charybdis"
    "Lesser of two evils"
    "Between a rock and a hard place", since both objects or metaphorical choices are rough.
    "Between the devil and the deep blue sea"
    A dilemma with more than two forks is sometimes called a trilemma (3), tetralemma (4), or polylemma.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dilemma
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_dilemma
  • Thanks for necro-ing this. I had forgotten about it and it's exactly what I need at this exact second.
  • Snake Eyes, that is a great list and might prove really helpful! I think it depends on where a given GM gets their Bang inspirations from, but a few of those would probably help me when I'm drawing a blank in prep.
  • Firstly, thank you I was not 100%sure.

    Secondly, what do think about giving a visual language to "lemmas"?

    http://story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=1494&page=1

    Like the #12 post in the above thread using a symbol within a speech bubble to have a visual lexicon of lemmas?

    ampersand
    ( & )
    at sign
    ( @ )
    asterisk
    ( * )
    backslash
    ( \ )
    bullet
    ( • )
    caret
    ( ^ )
    dagger
    ( †, ‡ )
    degree
    ( ° )
    ditto mark
    ( 〃 )
    inverted exclamation mark
    ( ¡ )
    inverted question mark
    ( ¿ )
    number sign‌/pound‌/hash
    ( # )
    numero sign
    ( № )
    obelus
    ( ÷ )
    ordinal indicator
    ( º, ª )
    percent, per mil
    ( %, ‰, ‱ )
    pilcrow
    ( ¶ )
    prime
    ( ′, ″, ‴ )
    section sign
    ( § )
    tilde
    ( ~ )
    underscore‌/understrike
    ( _ )
    vertical bar‌/broken bar‌/pipe



    apostrophe
    ( ’ ' )
    brackets
    ( [ ], ( ), { }, ⟨ ⟩ )
    colon
    ( : )
    comma
    ( , )
    dash
    ( ‒, –, —, ― )
    ellipsis
    ( …, ..., . . . )
    exclamation mark
    ( ! )
    full stop/period
    ( . )
    guillemets
    ( « » )
    hyphen
    ( ‐ )
    hyphen-minus
    ( - )
    question mark
    ( ? )
    quotation marks
    ( ‘ ’, “ ”, ' ', " " )
    semicolon
    ( ; )
    slash‌/stroke‌/solidus
    ( /,  ⁄  )
    Word dividers
    space
    ( ) ( ) ( )
    interpunct
    ( · )
    General typography
    ampersand
    ( & )
    at sign
    ( @ )
    asterisk
    ( * )
    backslash
    ( \ )
    bullet
    ( • )
    caret
    ( ^ )
    dagger
    ( †, ‡ )
    degree
    ( ° )
    ditto mark
    ( 〃 )
    inverted exclamation mark
    ( ¡ )
    inverted question mark
    ( ¿ )
    number sign‌/pound‌/hash
    ( # )
    numero sign
    ( № )
    obelus
    ( ÷ )
    ordinal indicator
    ( º, ª )
    percent, per mil
    ( %, ‰, ‱ )
    pilcrow
    ( ¶ )
    prime
    ( ′, ″, ‴ )
    section sign
    ( § )
    tilde
    ( ~ )
    underscore‌/understrike
    ( _ )
    vertical bar‌/broken bar‌/pipe
    ( ¦, | )
    Intellectual property
    copyright symbol
    ( © )
    registered trademark
    ( ® )
    sound recording copyright
    ( ℗ )
    service mark
    ( ℠ )
    trademark
    ( ™ )
    Currency
    currency (generic)
    ( ¤ )
    currency (specific)

    ( ₳ ฿ ₵ ¢ ₡ ₢ ₠ $ ₫ ৳ ₯ € ƒ ₣ ₲ ₴₭ ℳ ₥ ₦ ₧ ₱ ₰ £ ₹ ₨ ₪ ₸ ₮ ₩ ¥៛ )
    Uncommon typography
    asterism
    ( ⁂ )
    tee
    ( ⊤ )
    up tack
    ( ⊥ )
    index/fist
    ( ☞ )
    therefore sign
    ( ∴ )
    because sign
    ( ∵ )
    interrobang
    ( ‽ )
    irony punctuation
    ( ؟ )
    lozenge
    ( ◊ )
    reference mark
    ( ※ )
    tie
    ( ⁀ )
    Related
    diacritical marks

    whitespace characters

    non-English quotation style
    ( « », „ ” )
  • act under fire 7-9 result = zugzwang
    yesss
  • Zugzwang is one of my very most favorite chess terms. I always try to maneuver opponents into zugzwang in roleplaying games. The delicious feeling as they realize they are trapped and must begin to gnaw their own limbs off is so nice.
  • I am writing up DM material for a game based on reaching achievements through group narrative.

    The game has just started and can be found

    http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?619329-Help-with-Verb-Dice

    I started writing a list of dilemmas and descriptions it currently is at 22 pages, basically just collected wikipedia material, that was outlined in the above post. It is for a game with (currently) 51 Psychological Traits as the only attributes or statistics, based on HEXACO and OCEAN psychological profiling.

    The game has 144 pre-writen achievements that have a goal, a protagonist and antagonist and a dilemma it is set in a dream-world theme and has not traditional D&D-style stats. There as well as a list of dilemmas is going to be a list of archetypes like in the Tarot or Jungian Archetypes to act as the protagonist.

    If you are interested the discussion is at http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?619329-Help-with-Verb-Dice

    If anyone is interested in giving feedback at rpgnet.com at the first link that would be great, as I feel that I have a lot of work to do, but am not sure if I am going to be much use if it is just a reference guide.

    Here is the first list of dilemmas (I have been working on it since)

    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4jje29tJgGQSVpNbGNEdklTTjJoMnhEWDFZQlItdw/edit

    You can see it is just a reference of wikipedia material currently. But I am working on several projects.

    Thank you for your time, and sorry for the thead-jack.
Sign In or Register to comment.