Transaction, the

Transaction, the
Rawplaying

Earlier this week of #RinCon2018, I was having lunch with Marissa Kelly, Mark Diaz Truman and MadJay Brown. Like helplessly addicted roleplaying nerds do, we were talking about games and all the adjunct bullshit. I mentioned in passing the transaction, which is a term of art I toss around without realizing it (it’s even on the revised glossary I’m working on). Mark wanted details, and that inspired me to unpack that idea here.

Definition
When I mention transaction or the transaction, I’m talking about the steps players engage in to settle outcomes in the fiction. The transaction, when I say it, is a subset of the much larger conversation in which all the play takes place. It’s also kind of outside “the conversation” since any given transaction invokes internal as well as external stuff. I feel like it’s important to call it out as a specific thing, and it’s become the nugget around I understand the fundamental characteristics of any game I’m playing.

For me, the transaction is the main thing I want to master if I’m looking for mastery in facilitating any kind of make-believe game. There are formal, mechanical transactions in almost all tabletop games I can think of, but there are also predictably functional and productive transactions in all the freeform and larp spaces I’ve been in as well. Discovering or developing a game’s transaction is what makes an experience work for me.

Every game or family of games has a distinct transaction. I strongly believe that attraction to or revulsion by a game’s transaction is at the heart of many “schools” of play and folks’ play preferences in general. But I also believe that a game’s text by itself cannot define the entirety of its transaction. The actual transaction is an alchemy between the rules and the players, and mostly the facilitator since they’re usually the ones tasked with mastering the most common transaction: the ones between a player and the facilitator.

I’m going to describe a few different transactions I’ve developed, to illustrate what I mean when I say they’re distinct rituals.

Scum and Villainy/Forged in the Dark
I’ve played enough of Scum and Blades now to see that their transactions are largely identical. That makes them pretty interchangeable, easy to learn one if you know the other, and so on. The Scum transaction starts and ends whenever a player needs to resolve an action. So, like, this is not the same as me going to a Fortune Die roll or asking for a resistance test. Those are usually so small and one-sided that I wouldn’t call them transactions.

1. I present the situation, which usually includes either an obstacle to overcome or an immediate threat to deal with. “The Vignerions are on to your bullshit! Their clock filled up. So their supersoldiers lock onto the team. You’re caught inside the auction house warehouse with the security shield up.”

2. I ask the table in general (if it’s a group-wide obstacle/threat) or a specific player how they’re gonna deal with it.

a. I start in the fiction, and return to it as the players offer up actions they might roll.

i. If the action fits and is an obvious choice, I’ll stick to the established Position (controlled, risky or dangerous)

ii. If the action is not what I was expecting, I might consider changing the Position. So there’s some advantage to the players to do this.

b. If the players are stuck, I’ll offer obvious choices but always say “but I can’t tell you what to roll.”

3. The players put the chosen action’s dice out.

4. I state or restate their Position, and check in that everyone’s on the same page.

a. I’ll lightly sell my Position statement as naturally correct, because I’ve got the best perspective on the whole thing.

b. Other players might mention things I’ve forgotten (unpossible!) and I might change my mind. Mostly, though, I ask them to hold those ideas for the Effect bit down below.

5. I ask if they’re pushing for a die or if they want to hear a Devil’s Bargain.

a. If they’re pushing, they mark the stress

b. Mostly they’ll ask for a Devil’s Bargain. I’ll look at my obvious go-to Bargains: heat, use up a resource, start or tick a clock. There will probably be others but those are all easy in the moment.

i. They say yea or nay to the Bargain.

6. I ask if they’re using a Gambit. Table talk usually ensues because it’s a shared resource.

7. I ask if anyone is helping, and/or if anyone has a flashback they want to do to execute a setup.

a. If someone helps, I ask how and push them on the fictional position of that help. Sometimes they’ll withdraw the help if it doesn’t make sense.

b. Occasionally I’ll remind them that they’ve already set up due to a previous roll.

c. I’ll do the Flashback, nesting this entire transaction inside the bigger transaction: build a pool, push or bargain, ask for help, gambit, usually no Effect to speed things up, roll.

8. I state the effect level, which ends the die pool assembly. This is usually Regular, unless we’ve established the whole Job is at a higher Tier. If they’re facing something specific and new of higher Tier, this is where that fact is revealed.

a. I also check in about anyone’s relevant Fine gear in play. Fine gets you an effect level. Some playbook powers also do, but when I ask for gear that gets them looking at the playbook as well.

9. I describe what they get as Regular, then Lesser, then Greater effect levels. I’ll do this no matter what level they’ve started at, but if it’s not Regular I’ll reiterate along the lines of “so if you roll right now, it’s risky position with the lesser effect” or whatever.

10. I ask if they’re pushing for Effect. They mark stress as necessary.

11. I ask if they’re shifting position for Effect.

a. I mention again what position they ended at after step 6.

b. They decide in either direction. Usually there’s a little table talk.

12. I restate the final position and effect and ask for the roll. Super important step to solidify everyone’s buy-in.

13. If they rolled under 6, I look at the position’s table for the outcome. 6 and crits are easy.

a. If it’s higher than a 3, the very first thing I’ll say is “yup, that happened.” This is mostly for me so I don’t step on their success if there are also consequences.

b. If it’s a 4-5, I’ll read the consequence line verbatim. “Desperate says severe harm and or serious complication …hmm.” This is mostly theatrics because it puts them in a good head to resist a little later.

14. If it was risky I’ll mention earning a gambit. If it was desperate I’ll mention the XP. So important for door-prize reasons.

15. If they didn’t roll a 6, I’ll immediately ask if they want to resist.

a. I do this every time because I want the players running their stress clocks all the time.

b. Unless it’s a Controlled roll, in which case I’ve decided any resistance resists the whole consequence, I’ll also state what they’re left with even after a resistance roll. We’re running a “gritty” game and resistances almost never get you away clean.

c. Usually I’ll have two things go sideways in a complication and say the resistance roll eliminates one of them. It’s fiendish and I love this trick. “Reduce your damage level or the ticks on the Vignerion clock?” EDIT: Turns out I’m breaking the rules with this! Each consequence gets its own resistance opportunity. MY BAD.

16. If they roll to resist, I’ll immediately restate what they’re left with, and then restate their success per step 13. If they critted they reduce stress by 1. More huzzah! This is the step at which I get to really play up their badassery. This and a well-executed flashback.

17. If they trauma out, we talk about how they’re taken out of the scene.

18. I’ll check back in to make sure everyone got their gambit or XP.

Spelling it all out in excruciating detail like that sounds awful, amirite? And that’s why this is the thing I aim to master when I’m developing system mastery, so this transaction happens fast, nobody stalls out at any step of it, and there’s minimal weaseling around any given step. If stalling out does happen, that usually means the players have also mastered the transaction such that they’ve got a firmer grasp of the negotiable steps – position, effect, or resistance outcomes in this case – and that means I’ll need to evolve the transaction a bit to accommodate. That happened in our last game of Scum and so I’m thinking about what I might change going forward. Possibly nothing! But I’m thinking about it.

One thing I really want to call out is that there are little stagecraft flourishes that I’ve developed that are most certainly part of the transaction. Like I’ll underplay the Devil’s Bargain because I want to entice them into taking the die. I’ll overplay their stress track while they’re grubbing for dice and then underplay their stress track when they’re resisting. I’ll enthusiastically describe the Greater outcome level when asking if they want to push or shift for effect.

Burning Wheel
I’ve played tons and tons of Burning Wheel but it’s also been a few years. But it’s got a really specific transaction that’s worth talking about:

1. If it sounds like the player is formulating a plan, I’ll ask them for their intent. “Okay at the player level, what is it you’re trying to achieve?” Experienced players will usually state this before I have to ask.

2. Then I’ll ask them how they’re going about it. That sets the skill being used.

a. If the skill is a stretch, I need them to sell me on it.

3. I’ll ask if this touches a Belief or Instinct. This usually means I move to one of the scripted minigames (Fight!, Duel of Wits, or Range and Cover), which is a whole different transaction.

4. If it seems super easy or boring, I’ll just Say Yes at this point and we move on. This is not great play because BW’s advancement system frequently requires boring-but-easy rolls. I’ve developed this habit mostly from convention play.

5. If I’ve got an inkling of a failure consequence in mind, I’ll have them continue. If not, I’ll revisit 4.

6. I’ll think about the target number, but usually not too hard. I’m lazy so mostly I’ll just say “okay, you’re looking for 3 successes.” If they’ve chosen a skill with an established target number system (it’s a BW Gold thing) we use that. Sometimes I’ll throw in some “yikes” to make them feel better if it ends up really high.

7. The player puts together a die pool.

a. They start with the skill they’re rolling.

b. They justify each field of related knowledge (FoRK) die. I ask “and what does that look like?” each time, which usually culls big reaches. If they’re eager for a reachy die, I’ll make a note to include that in the consequence step.

c. I’ll ask if anyone’s helping.

d. I’ll swing back and ask about linked tests and situational advantages.

e. I’ll do my level best to give them a die at my own discretion, and repeat that they can both lobby for a die and I can give them a die. This is theatrical. It’s a reassurance that I’m on their side.

8. I’ll restate their intent

9. I’ll state the consequence of failure and listen for pushback. Some experienced players, and certain kinds of “I’d rather talk the GM into what I want” players will push back.

a. I’ll weigh the pushback for validity. If it feels weaselly, I’ll ask for a different skill so we can discuss different consequences.

10. I ask for artha being spent. I use tokens to track all this in BW, again for theatrical reasons. If it’s a versus test with an NPC in play, I’ll make a big show of pushing NPC artha tokens into the middle of the table first.

11. They roll and look for successes.

a. If they succeed, huzzah, I usually congratulate them.

b. If they fail, I restate the consequence and make it so.

12. I’ll mention marking their skill for stat for advancement and help them figure out what level of test it was after the fact. The chart’s in my head.

See, Burning Wheel’s transaction is quite a bit shorter than Blades/Scum. But this is just the Versus test. Versus tests are just easier than any given Scum roll, but it also requires less conversation from both the player and GM. That’s a big part, for me, of deciding if I “like” a game: does its transaction prompt good conversation?

Apocalypse World
Not all PbtA games have the same transaction but a lot of them are frequently similar.

1. We start looking at moves for one of two reasons: something they’ve done in the fiction triggers one, or the player wants to make a move and needs to shape the fiction into a trigger. This means I’m kind of acting out a perpetual validation gate, which means knowing the common moves at the very least. If there’s a move on a playbook that might get triggered inadvertently, I’ve made a note of that somewhere.

a. If they’ve stumbled into a move, I check in to make sure they’re okay making that move. Sometimes they retcon the fiction to back out of that.

b. If they’re pushing the fiction toward the trigger, I’ll make sure what they’re doing actually fits the trigger.

2. They grab a pair of dice and one of us will state what stat is getting added.

3. I’ll ask the table if anyone’s helping, usually with a reminder that they may share the consequences.

4. They roll and read the move’s rules for the result.

5. If I’m called on to cook up a 7-9 (ie Act Under Fire), I’ll look at the situation and why it’s unstable. Usually the 7-9s are self evident. Sometimes I’ll take this opportunity to recontextualize the situation, to put the players off-balance. Chaos and instability are a huge part of the AW aesthetic and this is the perfect prompt to invoke that aesthetic into the conversation.

6. If it was a 6-, I state “Okay you missed and I make a move.” I say it this way as a reminder to myself that they didn’t fail, because I fuck that up pretty easily. This is my reminder to think about it in terms of me making A Move, not necessarily A Move That Will Punish Them For Touching The Dice.

7. I’ll usually ask about highlighted stats and whether they’ve earned an XP. My players mostly forget to do this.

AW’s transaction looks like the shortest one here! But that step 1 bit is a channel I leave constantly open. That’s where the cognitive load of the game is for me, so thankfully the transaction is pretty snappy in most cases.

Final Thoughts
I feel like I’ve mastered any given game’s transaction when the mechanical steps feel fast and natural to the point that I can introduce some stagecraft to the whole process. If I’m just grunting out “roll for initiative, who hits first?” over and over, either the game’s offering a boring transaction (i.e. it asks too little of the conversation) or I haven’t actually mastered it yet.

Rawplaying Baybee
In other news: all this talk about how I work out a game’s transaction has me thinking more about that thing for which we do not yet have a word: Playing an RPG by the rules because we earnestly feel the rules produce the best experience for us.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this one ever since it came up here a few weeks ago. Most of my ideas are unwieldy, or pejorative toward other modes of play, or I’ve formulated it as an –ism which is a notoriously quick way to start a vast flame war. Gamers!

My current best idea is rawplaying. Derived from RAW, or “rules as written.” Very common term of art describing, sometimes pejoratively, what play looks like when you follow the rules as written. I felt like the bad times RAW gets spooled out are pretty easy to spot early, as they frequently come attached to “roleplaying not rollplaying” and “we never even touched the dice!”

So. Rawplaying. Try it on for size. It’s not my final answer but it’s my best idea so far.

Liked it? Take a second to support Paul Beakley on Patreon!

29 thoughts on “Transaction, the

  1. Love it all! I absolutely think the same way at the table about mastering the fundamental unit of play, the transaction, which then bleeds into the “cycle of play,” the way that the conversation spoils out across transactions.

  2. I’m loving this. I would love to have an hour to categorize each of these steps, as I have a hunch they’re amenable to it. Things like:
    – determining the applicability of a mechanic
    – quantifying a fictional situation (e.g. as a modifier)
    – lobbying for a particular mechanical interpretation (e.g. FoRK relevance)
    – calculating (e.g. summing modifiers, building a dice pool)
    – rolling dice (or other oracles, etc.)
    – updating quantities (or otherwise purely mechanical steps, like recording damage)
    – describing a quantified outcome (e.g. interpreting a 7-9)
    – asking consent to proceed (opportunities for retcon, advertising consequences ahead of time)
    – reminders of optional mechanical options (e.g. devil’s bargain)

  3. Michael Prescott oh yeah for sure, and that’s a pretty good list.

    There might be really novel points in specific games that don’t fit neatly into one of those buckets but I’d have to think hard about it. And then I’d have to think about making the bucket a smidge bigger anyway.

  4. A few I’m hard pressed to generalize, like ‘stating consequences ahead of time’.

    This list is culled from the list of behaviours I made up for my “one day I will analyze transcripts of AP to make an actually data-driven classification of play styles” project. It includes other things like, “Describing how one’s character/character action appears to others.”

  5. That sounds kind of like “settle on the agreed to fictional context, possibly over several iterations.” So like, assembling the pool in BW (forks, lobby dice, linked tests) and asking for help nearly everywhere.

  6. Rules nitpick for Blades/Scum 15c : Players can Resist every consequence of an Action Roll to either reduce/avoid it. It would be one Resistance Roll for the clock and one for the Harm.

    Obviously, you run the game the way that works for you, but you’ve drifted the rules when you offer them a hard choice rather than reduced/avoided consequences.

    Super great post breaking it down tho. Very helpful!

  7. Copied that detailed S&V transaction with an eye toward turning it into a checklist. I’m contemplating bringing it to the table soon, and having that detailed procedure will surely help avoid some skinned knees. Thanks!

  8. Regarding the comment on the transaction promoting good conversation, the part of the BW process that is gold for me is Step 7, a through e. Building the die pool, and digging into the justification for each die added can be just a torrent of beautiful fiction, expanding and coloring the action being taken. To me it’s why the end result of each transaction in BW carries with it such a strong sense of authenticity… we saw in great detail in the fiction how we got to where we are.

  9. Ariel Cayce OH OH OH. I see what you’re saying now. Roll for each consequence.

    Scum doesn’t break it out that way. It’s just “the consequence,” which I understand to be the all-in package deal: take a level 2 wound and heat goes up by one or whatever.

    I need to go look back at Blades and see if he’s more explicit there.

    Hmm but just prior to the Resistance chapter it says “a given circumstance may result in one or more consequences” and that sure sounds like they’re all separate deals.

    I’m in! Thanks for the explanation. Can’t believe I’m 8 sessions in and still discovering little wrinkles like this.

  10. Yeah, it’s on p.32 in Blades: “The GM may also threaten several consequences at once, then the player may choose which ones to resist (and make rolls for each).”

    EDIT: The text in Scum is identical, but it’s on page 36.

  11. Paul Beakley It’s the old “System (including, but not limited to, the rules) is how players agree what happens in the fiction” mantra.

    Ie., 1) the rules/game text/RAW is not the system and 2) the system is whatever means (or steps taken/required) by which the group assents that yes, Bingbong the Elf does indeed get axed in the head by the orc, including unwritten rules, steps and procedures, drift etc.

    I guess the key difference is that the CBP assumes that rolling a fortune die and saying your ship is surrounded by bounty hunter drones is part of the system because the group tacitly agrees that the GM rolling a die and saying something good or bad happens in the fiction is part of how things happen in the game, while you don’t consider it part of the transaction.

    (This is not me nitpicking or something in case if it comes across that way, I think it’s a useful new concept, I just noticed a great deal of similarity between the two.)

  12. Gregor Vuga yeah I’m seeing that as well. I do think we’re talking about similar things but maybe for different reasons. Totally compatible conclusions though.

  13. I need to read this at some length and absorb. I like the distinction between the conversation and the transaction, and the idea the transactions (not all purely mechanical) are what make up a game’s system. There’s illumination for me here, so thanks for posting. It’s interesting, and genuinely helpful to think about for both GMing and designing.

    More when I absorb…and maybe start doing more consciously some of what I do instinctively.

Leave a Reply