I was playing a Stargate SG-1 derived setting in a FATE-derived ruleset, with my buds Danny (GMing), Jen, Eric, Melissa and Delenn. Nice folks. Not all on the same page with me in terms of what games are about, but nice folks, and I wasn't expecting perfect synergy. I was playing the Jack O'Neill-esque character ... in fact, somebody who (IC) idolized and imitated O'Neill. That was my (explicit) excuse for playing as close to Jack (who I like a lot) as possible.
We ended up on this world where people worshipped the Guawawawaould, but didn't know they worshipped them (because, like, their Gods had gone missing or something). And there were all these times where people came to us asking for help, sorta Dogs-in-the-Vineyard-esque, like "Wow, our religion has all these funky, oppressive rules which we've totally lightened over the years, but there's still this stuff which might be about human sacrifice, and we're not quite sure where to go with it, and we're not quite sure what our higher ups have been doing, do you have any advice?" I got a real kick out of those, so I got enthusiastic when folks came to me to ask those questions. There was this whole angle of "They really need our help, but can we make them our allies, do we want to make them our allies?"
Other players (I think) read my enthusiasm, and started shunting people over to me. And so I was building up this whole picture of the world, bit by bit, and ticking off lots of people and being generally arrogant and judgmental, and it was a ball. Other people had their own things, and I shunted stuff their way as well.
Anyway, we came to the moment of crisis, where Danny revealed that, yeah, the religion was performing human sacrifices, but they had what they saw as a really good reason, in terms of holding their society together and not having outright war and all that. So I stepped up and dumped my judgment on them: "You're all scum, and idiots to boot, your Gods are not Gods, you're killing people for no good reason at all, and have been for centuries, and until you dismantle this religion I don't want anything to do with you, so shove off!" Then I went off to get drunk and have a bar-brawl, in order to give other people time to deal with their conflicts before I ordered them off planet. It was great!
But then, suddenly, everybody wanted in on that question! They're all, like "You have to change your mind!" and "Were you even listening?" and like that. Meanwhile I'm sitting there thinking to myself "Hey, I made my choice! I'm done! It's done! It doesn't stop any of you from addressing your individual conflicts, so what's your beef? You gave this question to me, and I've answered it! Deal!"
When I think back on this, I get the definite sense that there was a gap in communication ... like, I thought I had been given the authority to actually resolve the conflict, bing, bang, boom, done and over. It looked that way to me because nobody else was at all interested in putting in the effort to get entangled in the conflict. So I wasn't peeved that they were saying "You should play your character differently," it was more generally that they were fine with me being in charge of the conflict until I actually did something they disagreed with, but then they felt totally free to override me, as if we were all equal peers in addressing it. But we weren't peers! I'd put in the effort. I'd done the time. I'd earned the right. That's how I felt then, and it's how I feel now. But I think that they felt that I'd been appointed ... I dunno ... ambassador from the group, and that I therefore had to take all their opinions into account. Maybe?
So that's my big question: Do players earn the right to more authority over conflicts than their fellows? Is that a feasible way to play? Not "Am I right, were they wrong?", because I figure we were all just on different pages. But "Could you communicate the view I had, such that people would accept it?"
When I think about this, I see it a lot in other fiction. "This task has fallen to you, and if you do not find the strength to do it nobody will," and all that. It's classic. I just can't quite see how to make it work smoothly in the context of an RPG.
Tony, are you looking for suggestions on mechanical ways to handle this, or social contract ways?
Yes.
I think that the difference between those two is purely a matter of which side of the "explicit/implicit" divide you put things. My question is how to get it into System (in the Lumpley Principle sense). So I'll take either mechanical or social approaches, it's all good.
Well, the first thing I'd try is talking to them about it, obviously. Tell them what you are looking for. If they say, "cool," then figure out a way to signal in the game that you're...uhm...staking on a conflict. Maybe...uh...put it on an index card. Like...that....other...game I've played. Maybe you know what I'm talking about. But in this one, anyone who wanted to have an affect on the way the conflict plays out has got to put their name on the card right from the get-go, or they can't whine about having input when it gets resolved.
Of course, if they look at you like you've grown another head, just deal with the fact that you're the odd man out, and try getting into the swing of their preferred style. Or don't play that game with them. Your call.
But, come to think of it, you've probably already thought of this, so I'm not sure if that's the sort of stuff you're looking for.
My first response, Tony, goes along the lines of: "Gee, the Jack character came into the alien situation, applied his American standards to it and made a negative judgement, and then the rest of the group disagreed with him and tried to cajole him to change his mind? ... That's every episode of Stargate I've ever seen." Is it possible that the rest of the players thought they were playing to genre tropes?
Secondly, you saw the conflict as yours but the rest of the playgroup didn't. This is pretty textbook divergence between player conceptions of the game. Making this explicit, either through fiat ("this subplot is Tony's to resolve") or through mechanics ("Tony has bought this subplot with tokens") should be all you need to do. To my eye, it's simply a matter of saying it out loud.
I was going to write Josh's paragraph near verbatim. In fact, if I were playing the O'Neill character, and the player with the Daniel character didn't come in with his cultural relativism, the player with the Carter character with the feminine sympathy (but strict deferral), and the player with the Teal'c character with the militant "we have to save these people from themselves" stance...if the other players hadn't reacted in order to complicate this, I would have thought something gravely wrong.
I mean...don't you want the decision to be complicated by the other PCs? Can't you sieze on this as a way for your character to get into some inter-personal conflicts with the other PCs?
I'm tempted to point out that this is just your garden-variety sim/nar incoherence going on. I do think that's the case. They're "interfering with your protagonism" because "my character would." But I don't think I even have to go that far in this case. Because in play like this when I've come across similar stuff, I just take the player input like GM input creating situation to respond to. I mean the bangs they're creating for you! Do I agree with my friend, or keep to my beliefs?
I understand that you built a sense of ownership about the particular sort of conflict. But, well, perhaps they're seeing how much fun you're having with it, and they want in on that, too. The neat thing about RPGs is that I find that when you share an issue it gets bigger to accomodate (sprouting it's own new issues), rather than being taken over by the participant.
So, yeah, like folks are saying, talk about it explicitly. If, in fact, they're trying to take away your ability to make choices here, then tell them that this is a problem. If, however, they're just making the problem more complicated, then try to work with them.
Lastly...if your character is the Col. O'Neil character then doesn't that include being the team leader? I mean, the funnest thing to do, to me, would be to take in all of their arguments, and then do like Jack does and make the unpopular decision anyhow, forcing them to swallow it (or you could choose to have your character turn some different leaf). That's not deprotagonizing their characters, their characters aren't in command and have already addressed the bang that you created for them by making a decision that their characters don't think is right (dealing with it by how they try to entreat your character). That's just creating more fun tension.
If it goes the usual rout, Jack will learn that there's some mitigating event, or get over-ruled by the General, and they'll be forced to help the people anyhow. Again, not deprotagonizing, because it's the command decision that's important. The new question will be how he reacts to the new authority. Do we see the "good soldier" Jack, or the "I tried to commit suicide so I don't answer to anyone" Jack?
Mike
Quote from: Mike Holmes on December 02, 2005, 02:28:51 PMI mean...don't you want the decision to be complicated by the other PCs? Can't you sieze on this as a way for your character to get into some inter-personal conflicts with the other PCs?
Actually, I was trying to prompt them to do that sort of stuff from the get-go. I was doing all the "Screw these people if they don't value human life" stuff in the smaller circumstances leading up to the big scene. I had those conversations with each of the other players. I, in fact, said to people something very like "Okay, before we go talk to these head honchos, do any of you want to make an argument for the importance of their stupid, freaky alien ways?" I was aware enough (even back then) that if anybody had jumped to argue, I would
not have resolved the conflict without their input. It was only when
none of that player opposition materialized that I figured "Okay then, if nobody but me is interested in the conflict then it's mine to decide as I like."
So I'm not (I'm really
not) saying that I had ownership from the word "go," and anybody else who wanted to have a say was out of luck. I'm saying that at some point you say "Speak now or forever hold your peace," and those are people's choices, because if you don't then nothing ever happens. Actually, though, I don't think that choice happens all at once: I think people get a first inkling that the conflict is becoming Tony's, and then they have to wonder "Is Tony going to deal with this in a way I like?" and either get in on it or not. And as they get more and more inklings, it becomes more clear (a) what the scope of the conflict is and (b) who's involved. At every stage they get more explicit messages to either jump in or expect to have no say. Somewhere along the path (near the end), they pass a point of no return: a point where jumping in to take a hand in the conflict is no longer acceptable. The only thing you get to do is to start dealing with new conflicts that arise as a consequence of how the old one resolved.
I mean ... on some levels this is what the phrase
deus ex machina was invented to describe, wasn't it? The person who comes in to resolve a conflict at the last minute, rather than building up their involvement over a period of time.
So is it fair to say that you considered that conflict or subplot resolved, and they did not? Is this not so much a conflict of ownership as it is pacing? (Or is it maybe ownership of the pacing?)
Hrm. I don't know. Certainly the pacing enters into it, at least on my side. Things need to get resolved, and that means (or does it?) that you can't leave the same question open forever to revision.
I'd sort of been wondering whether this is (in part) dealing with a macro-scale equivalent to IIEE. Like this:
- Intent: "The stakes of this are what sort of judgment gets handed down on these people's lives and actions."
- Initiation: "Not-exactly-Jack has strong opinions on this. I'm taking questions. I want a part of this!"
- Execution: "My judgment is, you people suck!"
- Effect: "Wow ... they took that poorly. Pass me another Zat-gun!"
I thought Execution had happened, and we should be on into Effect. They seemed (always bearing in mind that I can only speak from second hand) to still think we were in Initiation.
Tony,
When I read your first post I saw one thing, now I'm seeing another. So I need a point (or three) of clarification because I'm slow:
Were the folks around the table arguing against your decision IC or OOC or part both? Were they trying to change your decision as part of their response to the effect, or were they trying to get you to pull it back so that it never happened?
I see things like this at my table sometimes, and while they can look alike they aren't. When I read your first post I thought what was going on was you made a hard character decision and then the other characters responded to it powerfully. But now I'm getting more of an image of everyone at the table trying to get you to suck back your decision rather than deal with the consequences of it.
So... um... more detail on that point, please?
Quote from: TonyLB on December 02, 2005, 02:43:56 PM
Quote from: Mike Holmes on December 02, 2005, 02:28:51 PMI mean...don't you want the decision to be complicated by the other PCs? Can't you sieze on this as a way for your character to get into some inter-personal conflicts with the other PCs?
Actually, I was trying to prompt them to do that sort of stuff from the get-go. I was doing all the "Screw these people if they don't value human life" stuff in the smaller circumstances leading up to the big scene. I had those conversations with each of the other players. I, in fact, said to people something very like "Okay, before we go talk to these head honchos, do any of you want to make an argument for the importance of their stupid, freaky alien ways?" I was aware enough (even back then) that if anybody had jumped to argue, I would not have resolved the conflict without their input. It was only when none of that player opposition materialized that I figured "Okay then, if nobody but me is interested in the conflict then it's mine to decide as I like."
OK, here's my two cents. From the original, it doesn't sound to me like much of an interesting conflict prior to your characters blow up. Interesting conflict generally comes from strong choices. As long as it's just the aliens saying "Well, we're looking for some advice on this, but we're not strongly committed either way and it's not urgent." -- well, I can easily see the other players not biting. Your strong choice for your character's reaction is what started the real conflict. It could also have been started by a strong choice by another character or a strong choice from some NPC. But this seems like the start of a conflict rather than the end.
But this is predicated on the idea that they want to have their characters go and change your character's mind. If they wanted your character to have never made his strong choice in the first place, that would be a very different thing. (A view that I hadn't considered until Brand's post.)
Because my first post might have been to vague, let me give an actual example of something I watched happen in a game once (I wasn't playing, just observing).
There is an Exalted game going on. The PCs are Solars, a perfect and niche protected circle in which each PC has some pretty clearly grounded areas of responsibility and power. There is a war on, and the mortals looking to the PCs for help are being squashed by demons. Up come some Deathknights and offer to help the PCs by defending the poor innocent mortals while the Solar off and deal with the demon king.
The Zenith (the priest caste, in charge of morality) says that she cannot allow this. She will not work with the undead, and thinks it will damage the souls of the rest of the circle if they do so. This is her decision, by game logic, social contract, niche protection, and so and so on.
It leads to a 4 hour long argument. Not, mind you, 6 hours of intense play with everyone pushing their agenda. It was 4 hours of the other players, acting through their characters, trying to convince the Zenith's player that her call was wrong and to basically change her mind and let them do it because it's easier on them IC.
The Zeniths player says, over and over again OOCly, "Look, she isn't changing her mind. This has been coming for a while and you guys knew it. You just didn't bother to say anything until now." The argument goes on, and she says OOCly "Look, if you disagree that much, have your characters go around her! You can pat her on the head and say, "yes dear" and send the army out anyway. You can have the Night caste lead her off into a room and keep her out of the way while you broker the deal, you can do lots of stuff to still make it happen." The argument goes on, and finally she says, "Look, guys, roll dice! You have social charms on your sheets that will let you rewrite my characters brain so she'll say whatever you want. Use them, I'm telling you OOCly that it is okay!"
No one rolled dice, no one sidestepped the character and made powerful decisions back, no one admitted that it should have been obvious that when they asked her opinion that what she said would be all up in her hero-role to say. It went on, and on, and on because, essentially, the other players wanted for it to "never have happened" not by retconning and rolling it back – but by forcing the Zenith and her player (IC and OOC) to say that it was the wrong decision and she should never have made it. It wasn't argument to drive story, it wasn't even argument to have good conflict, it was argument at the IC level to make the effect have never happened in the first place.
(Which, so far as I can tell, cannot possibly work.)
Quote from: Brand_Robins on December 02, 2005, 04:08:29 PMWere the folks around the table arguing against your decision IC or OOC or part both? Were they trying to change your decision as part of their response to the effect, or were they trying to get you to pull it back so that it never happened?
Oh, sorry! I see now how I was unclear. It was that second thing, where they said "No, you can't do that, do something else instead."
But I think I also agree with John, that until somebody threw something up that the players really
objected to, they didn't engage with the conflict. So on some level, maybe the problem is that they got ambushed by the objectionable thing without feeling that they'd had any time to conflict against it, so they had to dump all their conflict in quickly the moment they realized what outcomes were
actually possible (i.e. when I made my statement). It's already too late IC, so they naturally shift to OOC play.
That helps me have a lot more sympathy for them. If I'd been being pushed toward a choice between killing NPC#1 and NPC#2, and I made the choice to kill a player character then people would have good reason to say "Hey, I would have objected earlier if I knew that there was a chance that my character would be killed! You can't ambush me like that!"
I've actually seen the same thing in Dogs in the Vineyard play, because a conflict has two outcomes: the Stakes (which everyone knows up front, when they decide whether or not to be involved) and the Fallout (which only develops during play). I had a game where the following exchange (don't remember the players, sorry) occurred:
PC#1: Stakes for this conflict are "Does he take back what he just said?"
PC#2: I got no horse in that race. Count me out.
PC#1: Okay! I pull my gun and shoot him in the kneecap. "Take it back!" I order.
PC#2: Oh
hell no! You can't do that! I need to be in the conflict, NOW.
In the light of what people have said, I think that these both follow the same pattern: People think they understand the possible outcomes of the conflicts, and aren't interested ... then they suddenly come face to face with a different range of "what might happen" and they want in, all at once.
Yeah, what John said. Consider that most of these shows are not about the main characters interacting with the aliens. It's about the main characters interacting with each other, with the aliens as some colorful and occasionally provocative backdrop. The real conflict and grist of the show doesn't start when the aliens ask the question, but when Jack/Chrighton/Riker/Adama give their answer, and the other characters can respond. I mean, look at Battlestar Galactica (we should look at BSG more often). The Cylons aren't there as opposition. They're barely there as antagonists. The only real function that the Cylons serve is ratcheting up the pressure on the main characters' interactions.
Tony, you mention that you gave the other players an opportunity in a no-pressure, conversational milleu to have their characters argues with your character. Had your character already taken his stand in a public and blatant way? Was there potential for conflict in that conversation? In other words, did they have a chance to display their character's point of view through a conflict, rather than just extemporaneously explaining it top to bottom?
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on December 02, 2005, 04:34:12 PMHad your character already taken his stand in a public and blatant way? Was there potential for conflict in that conversation?
I thought I had, but that's unfortunately in the fuzzy never-land of what I remember feeling rather than any memory I have of my specific words. I can't know for certain (unless maybe one of the other participants remembers the session and posts about it here) whether I'd communicated it clearly.
QuoteThen I went off to get drunk and have a bar-brawl, in order to give other people time to deal with their conflicts before I ordered them off planet.
If it was me, I'd be annoyed that this really tasty problem had come up but now I basically had a ticking clock going with how long you as a player decide to spread this bar brawl out (and it sounds only a temporary thing), before you ordered us off planet and away from the fun thing. Sure, you wouldn't just do that to everyone if you saw them having fun...but you having exclusive choice over that still feels deprotagonising. Prolly abused player syndrome, but really, who really wants to be under the whim of someone else (unless you can control it with resources)?
That's what would push me to deprotagonise you (by arguing with your choice), because I feel I'm going to be deprotagonised. But as I said, that's just me. Now, if you gave the rest of the group control of when your character ordered everyone off planet........
Quote from: Callan S. on December 03, 2005, 02:31:30 AMIf it was me, I'd be annoyed that this really tasty problem had come up but now I basically had a ticking clock going with how long you as a player decide to spread this bar brawl out (and it sounds only a temporary thing), before you ordered us off planet and away from the fun thing.
Because nobody in SG-1 ever disobeys orders? And therefore they can't treat my ordering them off planet as just another IC complication to force them to hard choices?
Sorry, I don't buy that. Adversity does not equal deprotagonization. Quite the reverse.
Quote from: TonyLB on December 03, 2005, 08:51:19 AM
Because nobody in SG-1 ever disobeys orders? And therefore they can't treat my ordering them off planet as just another IC complication to force them to hard choices?
Reading this, and considering the example I gave above, it makes me ponder a question: Are you sure the people in your group are interested in making the hard choices? Or at least, are interested in making that particular kind of hard choice? Because if their behavior was at all like what I described above, I think a large part of it is specifically about avoiding the hard choices.
Some of that may be various forms of AGS, but some of it can also just be from a difference in approach to game. Not everyone wants to rock with their cock out, or be about push and force in game (to use Myers Briggs terminology, it's a Judging/Perceiving issue) – and when those who aren't get into game with those who are, the results are often...
Well they're pretty much exactly what you're describing.
So, does this group normally go for the strong choice, the push, the judge type? Or are they pull players who go for the compramise, the smooth game, the percieving type?
To me, the core problem of your game seemed to be "Tony wants to make an irreversible decision to conclude a conflict, and other people are trying to make that decision reversible."
This stuff about "ownership" and "earned rights" is your justification for why you should have your way. To me it seems blatantly unnessecary.
I think you're all working towards a good Narrativist outcome: You're driving towards those irreversible decisions, they're inserting their character's into the conflict and trying to represent their character's place in them well.
The problem is that words alone in the majority of situations are indeed very reversible, and thus do not make a good way to make irreversible choices. Thus, if they were accompanied by actions(Such as, I don't know, your character calls for them to be placed on a list of unfriendly societies that will take a long time to get off of.), you wouldn't run into the problem of other people reversing your decisions. Their characters could bicker about it, and expres thier extreme displeasure, but the choice has been made in story terms: Ritual sacrifice + Americn Values = Blackballed planet.
Quote from: Brand_Robins on December 03, 2005, 05:07:08 PMSome of that may be various forms of AGS, but some of it can also just be from a difference in approach to game. Not everyone wants to rock with their cock out, or be about push and force in game (to use Myers Briggs terminology, it's a Judging/Perceiving issue) – and when those who aren't get into game with those who are, the results are often...
Well they're pretty much exactly what you're describing.
So, does this group normally go for the strong choice, the push, the judge type? Or are they pull players who go for the compramise, the smooth game, the percieving type?
Of the group Tony played with, I've gamed with is Jen, whom I saw play three characters in two campaigns. Re the Brand Robins Three-Level Typology I just got done reading I wouldn't presume to speak to Jen's typology on the life level, but at the game level she seemed consistently to be ESFP - I'm really solid on the FP part, less so on the ES. The characters I saw her create were E*FPs - I'm least comfortable judging the second one.
The others I don't know.
Tony, if you were actually playing Dogs, would you expect that other PCs might contest your decision at the crux, even if your character had gotten some level of buyoff beforehand? Or would you be just as discommoded?
Best,
Jim
Quote from: Supplanter on December 03, 2005, 10:19:56 PM
Of the group Tony played with, I've gamed with is Jen, whom I saw play three characters in two campaigns. Re the Brand Robins Three-Level Typology I just got done reading I wouldn't presume to speak to Jen's typology on the life level, but at the game level she seemed consistently to be ESFP - I'm really solid on the FP part, less so on the ES. The characters I saw her create were E*FPs - I'm least comfortable judging the second one.
Doh! Replace that E with an I at the game level. At the character level, mm, also pretty I.
Sorry for the hasty typing (as it were).
Best,
Jim
Quote from: TonyLB on December 03, 2005, 08:51:19 AMBecause nobody in SG-1 ever disobeys orders? And therefore they can't treat my ordering them off planet as just another IC complication to force them to hard choices?
Sorry, I don't buy that. Adversity does not equal deprotagonization. Quite the reverse.
Dude, I said what I'd feel...I didn't say it'd make rational sense. If it's abused player syndrome then adversity can be missread as deprotagonisation. If abused player syndrome isn't something that ever crops up with them, then this idea isn't applicable.
Quote from: Supplanter on December 03, 2005, 10:19:56 PMTony, if you were actually playing Dogs, would you expect that other PCs might contest your decision at the crux, even if your character had gotten some level of buyoff beforehand? Or would you be just as discommoded?
If we were playing Dogs by the rules, this problem
couldn't happen. People jumping into the middle of a conflict is against the DitV rules. So I'm having trouble getting my brain around your hypothetical.
For those who are trying to diagnose the miscommunications in the group (who I don't even play with as a group any more), I hope that it's driving toward my original question of how/whether this could be communicated clearly. So far I'm not seeing that connection being made, so there's not much I can contribute back.
Quote from: TonyLB on December 04, 2005, 08:51:44 AM
Quote from: Supplanter on December 03, 2005, 10:19:56 PMTony, if you were actually playing Dogs, would you expect that other PCs might contest your decision at the crux, even if your character had gotten some level of buyoff beforehand? Or would you be just as discommoded?
If we were playing Dogs by the rules, this problem couldn't happen. People jumping into the middle of a conflict is against the DitV rules. So I'm having trouble getting my brain around your hypothetical.
What, the rest of the people around the table can't get up in your face telling you you have to fold? Yeah, they don't have any game-mechanical way to keep you from pushing a conflict to conclusion, but they sure can agitate against your stakes or against any individual raise or escalation. This has happened to me - fellow players assume I'm not going to go to Shooting, and I do. Oh my, there's room for a lot of social pressure to take it back or back down.
Which is pretty much what you're describing happening in your game, right? Social pressure from players to back down from a conflict, not attempts to undo your decision within the fiction?
Quote from: TonyLB on December 04, 2005, 08:51:44 AM
For those who are trying to diagnose the miscommunications in the group (who I don't even play with as a group any more), I hope that it's driving toward my original question of how/whether this could be communicated clearly. So far I'm not seeing that connection being made, so there's not much I can contribute back.
Okay, you started with three questions, right?
So that's my big question: Do players earn the right to more authority over conflicts than their fellows? Is that a feasible way to play? Not "Am I right, were they wrong?", because I figure we were all just on different pages. But "Could you communicate the view I had, such that people would accept it?"That's a "Depends," "Sure" and "Sometimes" respectively.
It's when you get into the particulars that it gets complicated. Players who reject the "No Myth" principle (implicitly or explicitly) may not find their character's attitude that malleable toward what's going on in the SIS - the story would break for them if they arbitrarily (on their view) kept their characters out of the climax. Players who have meatspace "hot buttons" may feel the social contract gives them the right to resist introducing some kinds of unpleasantness in play. (Quick hypothetical: Player A puts a lot of effort into a conflict that he decides to solve by decreeing that an offending NPC should be gang-raped.) Such players might even be formally convinceable in advance and then renege on the deal when the trigger circumstance came up. There are probably other reasons why a given play group might reject the idea. Those are just the ones I can think of.
Communicating your view and getting buy-in would be easier in advance than in the event, and easier explicitly than tacitly. It might help to explain it in terms of niche protection - this is how my character shines; please help me understand how your character shines so I can support that. If someone says, "My character can't let you get away with that," a constructive response might be, "Cool. Can we together come up with some circumstance that keeps your character from interfering? If not, can we formalize this as a conflict that I have the chance of winning so we can move on? And if it's too late to save this particular conflict, I really want us to figure out how we can formalize ownership of conflicts in the future. When I commit as much to a conflict as I have to this one, I feel a sense of ownership for it and I need to have that respected."
No guarantees that any of that works, because there's no fact of the matter about whether your character should own that conflict. It's a valid preference, though.
Best,
Jim
Mark: Oh, gotcha. Yeah. I see what you're saying.
I don't think I would, initially, be as unhappy with people contesting the explicit rules as I was with them contesting the implicit rules. If somebody says "Dude, you have to Give now," in Dogs I just give them a funny look and say "Uh ... No." Sometimes I say it with a grin, but I'm not going to feel threatened because I know that the rules have got my back.
Now if the same person kept harping on the same subject? Then I'd get twice as ticked off as I ever did in this game, because now I'm (a) having to hash the same issue out OOC and (b) feeling that our explicit agreement (in the form of the rules) has been violated. In the first game I was ticked about having to hash out the issue, but I certainly didn't think that anyone was violating any explicit rules.
But Dogs rules are not the same gradual buy-in, with options at several points, that I'm hoping to get working. You might be able to jury-rig it, if you let people Give without losing Stakes, in order to expand the Stakes in a follow-up conflict (which would allow other people to get in on the action). Like:
PC#1: Stakes are "Does he take back what he said?"
PC#2: I got no interest in that. Feel free.
PC#1: Okay, I shoot him in the kneecap. "Take it back, you yellow-bellied coward!"
PC#2: Whoa! No way! That's expanding the stakes!
PC#1: Oh? I thought it was just fallout.
PC#2: No, no. Now I need in.
PC#1: So the new Stakes are ... what ... "Does my character dominate the whole situation?"
PC#2: How about "Does your character make people respect him?"
PC#1: Sounds good to me. So I get the fallout I inflicted, plus all my dice fresh?
PC#2: Yep, and I roll in with my Calming tone, 2d10. "This ain't the way to earn nobody's respect, Brother."
In case I haven't made it clear: This thead probably would] have been in RPG Theory when that forum was still active. I think it's a lot more useful to discuss the theoretical with the strong grounding that we've got in the actual play, but I am hoping to make some general tools as well.
Quote from: TonyLB on December 04, 2005, 08:51:44 AM
For those who are trying to diagnose the miscommunications in the group (who I don't even play with as a group any more), I hope that it's driving toward my original question of how/whether this could be communicated clearly. So far I'm not seeing that connection being made, so there's not much I can contribute back.
Ah, I see, I thought you were trying to figure out what had happened and why, and missed the springboard to "How do I get the thing that I want out of game through system support." Now that its clear hopefully I can be more helpful.
Doing it by system, but not mechanics, the easiest way is probably going to be to make sure to keep clear OOC communications about not only what is happening, but where you are moving. If people around the table don't OOCly see that you're going to drop a bomb until its gone off, then they may have some right to be irked once the explosion has happened and now there is nothing they can do about it.
Really, it's not that different than the old saw with GMs of a certain type who get frustrated with their players not picking up on important clues that are "so very obvious." Certainly what you are going for may be obvious to you, but to the others at the table it might not be any more obvious than the clues a GM leaves on the railroad. Letting them know OOCly that you are taking this plot over and if they want to intercede they'd best do so quickly can yield better results. If they had known before you dropped the judgment bomb, and still hadn't bought in then clearly they have no right to -- they've forfeited it. If they did want to buy in at that point then all the scenes that folks like Josh and Mike were talking about could have been set up. They could have had their characters meet you in the hall on the way to tell the aliens to screw themselves and had a big fight then. You probably would have been less annoyed, because they would be heightening your stakes rather than trying to take them away after you'd already "won" them; and they certainly would have had more opportunity to play without feeling the hammer of doom taking away their protagonist role.
So, that's the "perfect world of lovely communications" answer. How to hardcode that into something in the games rules? Well, we've got to look at a couple things here: do you want it to be a system where once it is said it is done, or where once it is said it is still negotiable? (The difference that Ron talked about between Dogs and Polaris.) Because, in my little tiny non-designer brain, it makes sense that if you want to have a "said and done" system then you need to have some kind of mechanic for letting people know what is coming, very freaking clearly, before it comes. If, OTOH, you want a "you can fight over it even once its said" system then you can say whatever you want without warning, because people still have the ability to negotiate it out.
In your Dog's example, an experienced Dogs player should know that if they're opting out of a conflict it could get escalated to violence. If they want to stop that, they should be in it. In a Capes game, however, it would work without warning because you can always fight for control and to push things up and down. Now, I'd actually say in this context that for a new Dogs player the issue could be problematic – because if they don't know the shooty is a common result of conflicts then we're back at the "GM's really obvious clue that isn't so obvious" level. Whereas in Capes newbs don't get caught pants-down so often because they have a chance to keep kicking at it so long as they want to badly enough. (And if they don't want to badly enough, then it's their call.)
So, to try to be concise, when looking at systems for this I think the first thing we need to determine is who knows what when, and how statements of effect can be made in response to that knowledge. Once people know what is going on and have a chance to buy in on even, clear footing the choice is made. However if they do not know what is going on, clearly and not just "well you should have known" clearly, then the choice hasn't been made. At that point you can either go the hard road (too bad, it's said and done) or the cooperative road (oh, lets renegotiate).
(Which, to bring back an earlier point, may depend on what the gamers at your table want. Some people will be fine with effect being generated before they were ready for it because it gives them a chane to do something big back. Others will not because it disrupts the flow of the game in a way that reduces their enjoyment.)
I wonder whether it would help if, in addition to a system for resolving a conflict, you had a system for letting players defer a conflict.
Like, I'm about to have not-Jack tell the aliens to shove off. I say "Okay folks, I'm about to tell these guys to shove off. Anyone want to defer that?" and then people could say "What? You're gonna do that? Oh heck, no, my character comes into the room on some pretext and that interrupts you. That gets deferred."
That would, in some sense, have allowed me to maintain my "investment" (i.e. the deferrment doesn't change my mind, or change what the decision is going to be) but give people time to jump in and add their own investment in the importance of the issue (possibly even rivalling or exceeding mine).
I know that in theory that's all really one conflict resolution system, but I suspect that breaking out the pacing from the resolution would have helped me in this situation, and might help generally.
Quote from: TonyLB on December 05, 2005, 01:29:12 PM
I wonder whether it would help if, in addition to a system for resolving a conflict, you had a system for letting players defer a conflict.
Yes.
That's be awesome, Tony. How many times in various other forms of drama do we see a big thematic statement delayed by unforseen cirumstances -- and it only increases the tension surrounding that thematic statement.
Oh bloody hell. Stupid computers.
Yes, Tony, I think that would be an excellent thing. It's something like what I was thinking of when I said a call and response system -- a shout out to let people know that the bomb is coming. I currently use a social-contract level system bit in some of my games for this, and for people to call out when they need others to get more heavily into the conflict as well.
I do think that a lot of conflict resolution systems have this, implicity. But I also think that making it explicit can be useful to a lot of people -- and probably a very good tool for setting up levels of conflict in scenes.
I am trying to do something similar for a game-in-development, so here's how I'm implementing it ... ignore as much of the jargon as possible, this thing is in "jumble of partial draft" state.
Quote from: Perfect Blossom rough draftStory Goals reflect plans, plot points, or character agendas that really change the status quo of the story in major ways. To resolve them, you'll need to pursue many smaller victories along the way, pushing on to the realization of your master plan.
Story Goals are written on an index card and given to the Game Guide. On one side of the card, write the Goal Type and any clues to the nature of the Goal. On the other side, write down the Importance and the actual Goal.
Story Goals have four things you need to define when they are created.
Type – Loving, Fateful, or Painful. This affects how the Goal is resolved, what effects it can have, and how you or other players can add Chips to it.
Importance – Write this down on the back of the Goal, but don't reveal it except when you're ready to try to Resolve the Goal. This number ranges from 3 to 10, and is the number of Chips that must be accumulated on the Goal before it can be resolved. The effects of a Story Goal are limited by its Importance... (I have a table here that makes no sense without the rest of the rules: basically, it ranges from low Importance things like getting a minor power-up or resolving a subplot up to "resolve the Big Season-Long Plot")
Goal – write down what you want to have happen when the Goal resolves on the back of the card. You needn't be highly specific, but you need to at least define what kind of effect you want to have and a target (if any).
Clue – In addition, you should put 1 clue about what the ultimate goal is on the Goal card to begin with. Each time someone adds Chips to the Goal, you must reveal another clue.
Basically, you put the big things you want to have be turning points in play out there, and you have to spend Currency to power them up until they hit their Importance level. At that point, the goal is live, and can be claimed and contested. Anybody can put Chips on a Story Goal, and anyone who has contributed to it at any point automatically gets to add a character to any scene where it is contested. As it gets chips, it also becomes more clear how people want to have it go, as each contributor adds a Clue to it.
If only one player is really committed to a Story Goal, it may take a long time to "ripen", maybe even past relevancy, but if everybody is "buying in", it can "ripen" pretty quick.
Is that the sort of thing you're thinking about, Tony?
Quote from: TonyLB on December 05, 2005, 01:29:12 PM
I wonder whether it would help if, in addition to a system for resolving a conflict, you had a system for letting players defer a conflict.
Sure. You also then need a "cloture system" too, to bring deferrals to an end, either through consensus or conflict. ("Yeah, let's do this" OR "Tony wants cloture, Danny wants to prolong the deferral, [system goes here] Tony wins" OR "Since the deferral, Jen has done X, Y and Z, cementing her stake in the conflict Tony, you gotta deal with Jen now.")
Best,
Jim
Deferal exists mechanically in some games. In HQ, if you roll a tie, the contest is defered. I just went over that in another thread. Since you can cause this in HQ with Hero Points in some instances (OK well only 5%), it's similar to what you're talking about. Another example from HQ, if you're doing an extended contest, a "round" can be any duration. So you can engineer it so that the next round will not resolve for as long as you need it to go. I've never seen this done, but I'm sure it's possible.
I've seen the "tie means deferal" elsewhere, and I like it. Though I agree that giving the power to players to do so is a very interesting option.
Anyhow, to get back to the problem from the thread, I hear you saying to me at one point that you did try to point out that there was a burgeoning conflict going on, trying to show it to players. So in that case it seems like their fault for not seeing what you were up to, if they didn't get it. I mean it sounds like it was pretty plainly telegraphed not only by you, but by the GM that such a conflict was coming. So to only start to address it after a decision was made does seem a tad dense on their part.
But I'm not sure what's to be done. Do you suspect that this sort of problem will happen again? Is it just a lack of them "getting" player cues?
Mike
Quote from: Mike Holmes on December 05, 2005, 04:56:41 PMSo to only start to address it after a decision was made does seem a tad dense on their part.
Isn't the declaration of that decision a part of the address, though, and easily seen as an 'opening salvo' to be answered by other players chiming in?
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on December 05, 2005, 05:26:10 PM
Isn't the declaration of that decision a part of the address, though, and easily seen as an 'opening salvo' to be answered by other players chiming in?
I'd say, "Yes, at least in most trad RPGs in which the differentiation between conflict and task resolution is absent and social systems for determining order of play outside of combat deliberatly avoided."
Quote from: TonyLB on December 05, 2005, 01:29:12 PM
I wonder whether it would help if, in addition to a system for resolving a conflict, you had a system for letting players defer a conflict.
...
That would, in some sense, have allowed me to maintain my "investment" (i.e. the deferrment doesn't change my mind, or change what the decision is going to be) but give people time to jump in and add their own investment in the importance of the issue (possibly even rivalling or exceeding mine).
Rock on. That's a great idea, Tony. Outside of a formal mechanic to implement it (not that it couldn't be used, just because I see a lot of potential for use in games that wouldn't understand what its for), I think it'd be a great addition to the social contract of several of the games I play in.
~Mo
Here's an added thought: If player A is set up to resolve a given conflict for Stakes X ("Talk to these elders, and the possible stakes are 'how earth relates with these people') and Player B wants to defer that conflict then player B must offer additional Stakes Y ("Talk to these elders, and the possible stakes are now also whether Daniel can live with himself and continue to work with SG-1").
Or ... I don't know. Maybe that's what I'm actually talking about when I talk about "player investment" ... the stakes that people have made, for themselves, concerning a given conflict. The thing about how we treat the religious elders wasn't just about the elders, or the fate of galactic diplomacy: that stuff can get handled by people off-camera. The conflict matters when it becomes about whether not-Jack would compromise his principles in order to get along with an alien race, or whether he would stick to his guns.
Sort of like Issues in PTA, but in a more dynamic "attach as you go" way. Hrm. I get the impression that this is going to have to head over to Indie Game Design (which will involve me actually figuring out how to integrate the concept into Misery Bubblegum) pretty soon. Which is a good thing, but I don't know where it leaves this conversation.
Tony, you're playing moving target! Now I'm hearing that you didn't feel like the other players had a personal stake in the conflict's results, but wanted input into the address to that conflict. Which could be ownership of the conflict seen in another light, but does put a finer point on it. Assuming that I'm not reading too much into things.
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on December 05, 2005, 09:52:56 PMTony, you're playing moving target! Now I'm hearing that you didn't feel like the other players had a personal stake in the conflict's results, but wanted input into the address to that conflict.
Oh no, quite the contrary! I think that the players very much had personal stakes in the conflict, but were not willing to ... urgh... to put them up as stakes.
The word is being used in two different (and confusing) ways, I think. And I'm not helping. Let me try to help.
They had an
interest in the outcome of the conflict. It was important to them. It was something that would change how they played the game, and that's why they badgered me about it. If they hadn't been interested then their behavior would have been just annoying, rather than understandable.
But they weren't willing to
stake what was important to them on the outcome of a conflict. Or, rather, it certainly wasn't their first instinct: nothing in their past experience or the game system said to them that if they felt they had something to defend then they needed to put that up explicitly as something they could lose. And that (I think) is part of the reason why my attempts to say "Okay folks, here's the conflict! It'll be this thing, right here! Who's in on it?" fell flat. They had no basis for understanding me when I asked things in that way. Why would they want "in" on anything like that?
Because I wasn't thinking (and probably wasn't conveying) "Okay folks, what are you
interested in on this conflict?" I was thinking "Okay, here's what I'm putting on the line. Does anyone want to meet that ante by putting something on the line from their character too?" And if that's the question I conveyed (again, this was a while ago, so I'm not sure) then the other players would quite naturally have said "Gamble some element of my character or his destiny? Uh ... well, no. No, I'm not planning to do that. Odd question."
So, for instance, Delenn's character was some sort of anthropologist/spy. She never did make it exactly clear. It was a mystery. But, anyway, I gather that it was a big deal to her to be able to examine other cultures from a non-judgmental point of view. I think that was her
interest, though it was never explicit. And it was never explicit (in part) because she never saw any need to say "Okay, my stakes are whether the team can treat this culture in a non-judgmental way." Because, vague as the rest of it is, I know that if anybody had said that to me, I'd have been ready to deal with them on those terms. That would be such a stark difference of opinion that it would be terrific to play out.
Instead, Delenn argued out of character that I was violating her chance to deal with the cultures in a non-judgmental way. So she was (for whatever reason) still maintaining her
interest but also still refusing to put it up as
stakes by having the discussion in-character.
Quote from: TonyLB on December 05, 2005, 10:48:18 PM
Instead, Delenn argued out of character that I was violating her chance to deal with the cultures in a non-judgmental way. So she was (for whatever reason) still maintaining her interest but also still refusing to put it up as stakes by having the discussion in-character.
Yes! Hot damn Tony, that's exactly what it is, both in your example and my Exalted example.
I still think that there is a lot of good in the idea of having a "defer that conflict until I'm ready to engage you back" mechanic. I think that's hot, and I do think it could help with this if applied constructivly and consistantly.
But I think the other issue we're dealing with here is a fundemental divide in modes of play and game approach. You and I are willing to put shit up as stakes knowing we might lose and being willing to roll with that. Other players are not. They don't want to put it up as stakes because if they do, and they lose, then they've lost what they cared about. Some of this may be "must win" sillyness, but another part of it has to do with where you get your fun. As I mentioned above, folks like you and I get it from putting shit on the line, making the hard choice, and having a chance to really hit it or really fail. Other people don't, they get their fun from cooperation, from excitement, from exploration not of "do I win" but "how do I win" and so on. (Which, I'll note, can be fully functional if the conflict is only between PCs and NPCs, and needs serious social support rules to be functional between PCs.)
I'd note that there is some aspect of conflict vs task resolution idealogy going on here, or at least the ideation that backs those ideas coming out in other logical processes. If you have a conflict that you lose, you lose. But if you have a task that you fail you can try again, try another task to achieve the same result, try another task to keep the consequences of the failure from manifesting, and so on and on. It's a well known cycle: you roll to jump the gap, you fail: so you roll to cling to the edge, you get a partial success, so you roll to climb up the edge of the wall, you fail, so you roll to grab onto a ledge before you hit the bottom....
It's something that I know drives a lot of us banky. "If I'm going to fall let me damn fall." But I'm going to have to say, straight up, that it isn't just something used by GM to fiat his way into the story he wants -- it is something a lot of RPers want because it gives them the chance to never have to put it all on the line and really, really fail. Delenn, and the players in the Exalted game I talked about, didn't want to put that up as stakes because they weren't willing to lose it. For people that are unwilling to lose, and so unwilling to play, I don' t know that the deferment mechanism would work. Even then it only works with people willing to put it on the line -- eventually, just not now.
So, the question then becomes something like: how do we either a) get people who don't want to stake anything on what they are interested to stake something, or b) get around PVP conflict when no one is willing to back down or willing to stake anything.
Quote from: Brand_Robins on December 06, 2005, 12:25:10 PMBut I'm going to have to say, straight up, that it isn't just something used by GM to fiat his way into the story he wants -- it is something a lot of RPers want because it gives them the chance to never have to put it all on the line and really, really fail.
Also consider that most mainstream/traditional/antiquated games use the player character as the sole means of player credibility, so comprimising player character abilities and health compromises the player's ability to actually play the game. It is all to easy for a player to be rendered meaningless in such a situation, and so players
justifyably shun character risk because it is in a very real way player risk, as well. You're not going to fall to your death, but you are going to sit there and watch while everybody else is having fun.
Which relates directly to Brand's (a) -- rulesets need to provide and clearly convey options for player power that are divorced from player-character well-being. Risking your character should be fun, not a direct threat to your ability to continue playing.
Huh, I was going to say, "Except for Gamism!" But now that I think about it, if you asked 'em over at www.boardgamegeek.com if it was better design to have player participation curtailed by interim poor play, they'd tell you no. The goal these days with play is that every player be constantly engaged fully, including the ability to potentially come back (even if small) right up until the win/loss condition is identified. So, yeah, you're right. I think this hold's true for all RPGs.
I'd almost go so far as to say that character loss is an anti-pattern, with the exception of one-shot designs (where character loss at the end of the game does not equal inability to continue participating with the ongoing game since it's over).
Mike
Character loss is no big thing when in troupe play or with a game that specifically has replacements waiting, or makes the 'dead' player into a co-GM. I mean, I've heard of D&D groups that kept spare PCs on hand in case of character death for this very reason. As far as I can see, this is only a problem when there is one character per player and that character is the player's sole credibility tool.
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on December 06, 2005, 12:38:38 PM
Which relates directly to Brand's (a) -- rulesets need to provide and clearly convey options for player power that are divorced from player-character well-being. Risking your character should be fun, not a direct threat to your ability to continue playing.
Well, I would clarify this that rulesets need to provide so that the player can stay involved. Whether this is by keeping the character around or by giving options outside of the character is a game choice. For example, in the Buffy RPG, characters are nearly impossible to kill. The risk is over how many Drama Points you will be drained of, not over whether you will survive.
Quote from: John Kim on December 06, 2005, 03:28:55 PM
Well, I would clarify this that rulesets need to provide so that the player can stay involved. Whether this is by keeping the character around or by giving options outside of the character is a game choice. For example, in the Buffy RPG, characters are nearly impossible to kill. The risk is over how many Drama Points you will be drained of, not over whether you will survive.
Yes. Or something like Mountain Witch where, even if you do die (not easy), you still have your Trust to throw around the table, putting the Fear of You into everyone else for the rest of the game. If you can stay involved without your character's direct living presence then death is okay. If not, then you need other ways.
Um, Tony, we seem to be drifting a bit. Is this still useful to you?
Quote from: Brand_Robins on December 06, 2005, 03:35:25 PM
Yes. Or something like Mountain Witch where, even if you do die (not easy), you still have your Trust to throw around the table, putting the Fear of You into everyone else for the rest of the game. If you can stay involved without your character's direct living presence then death is okay. If not, then you need other ways.
And the ways to stay involved after character loss need to be enjoyable to you. (As opposed to Josh or Brand or whoever: the general "you".) And they're not, necessarily. Not everyone wants to be co-GM or take over an NPC etc. It's another case of "works for whom it works," Brand. ;)
Best,
Jim
Hi guys,
So sorry to have missed out on this thread! (thanks Brand for pointing me this way!)
A few weeks ago, I played in a Dogs game where both the GM and one of the players seemed very reluctant to engage the conflict mechanics, and I realized that it was the same situation both Tony and Brand are talking about. Like Tony's situation, it seems like they were interested in how play went, but were not willing to take the chance of risking losing Stakes by using the conflict mechanics. I have been calling it "Floaty Play" for the moment, since it involved no clear stakes (no clear conflicts either) and everything seemed rather nebulous until we engaged the mechanics.
"Floaty Play" also seems to be the norm for games that are usually "GM fiat + occasional dice rolling" as the standard of play. A lot of talking, with no actual resolution, unless the GM says, or someone turns to the few mechanics that are explicitly laid out for conflict resolution (usually combat), and endless back and forth until one of the players gives under the badgering or escalates to the few guaranteed inputs for players.
Chris
Quote from: Bankuei on December 08, 2005, 03:41:47 PM
I have been calling it "Floaty Play" for the moment, since it involved no clear stakes (no clear conflicts either) and everything seemed rather nebulous until we engaged the mechanics.
I may need to split this off, but it occured to me in reading this post that this type of play is also virtually guaranteed to generate player vs player frustration and tension, and not of any good type. If you are doing the "you should be able to play out the social interactions that your character is doing and have it stick without anykind of mechanical support" route, and you are unable to change someone's mind then you are being told, conciously or not, that YOU as a person are not good enough to change their mind. You aren't smart enough to find the magic button. You are the social reject you always knew you were, unable to change people's minds no matter how earnestly you plead your case.
The point at which you have PvP argue it with "if you can change the other person's mind on your own when they have their real OOC desires on the line" as your resolution system, you have pitted the players against each other directly and given both a reason to never give in. I don't think such a system is inherently dysfunctional, if both players are focused on drama and cooperation it can work, but in many cases it goes so terribly wrong....
Hi Brand,
I see it less of a personal trigger issue and more of loading the characters to conflict but not giving any support to deal with it when it arises. It's very common in games that establish splats, clans, and groups that hold conflicting philosophies and then tries to group them together as a unit. In Dogs, you have similar ideals, just no clear directions about how to play them out- so conflict is a major point of the game. For the folks I'm referring to, I think they've never had games with a functional option like that- so they probably fell into habits to avoid conflict as the method to "save play".
The endless argument comes because on some level the players want the characters to stick together, but at the same time "stay true to character", which has been loaded with more divisive elements than otherwise. Also- the fact that most games revolve around the party-hydra play means the usual method of establishing compromise in real life ("Meet me half way or I'm not going to hang around you anymore") no longer holds water. The characters are built to break away- but everything else from expectations of play to player authorship is trying to keep them together- you have a group trying to fit the round peg in the square hole repeatedly.
Conflict rules are social contract for the group to choose to do something, anything, rather than keep going back and forth - unwilling to do what would be reasonable ("characters split") or unwilling to have their characters compromise.
Chris
Quote from: Bankuei on December 08, 2005, 05:48:39 PM
Conflict rules are social contract for the group to choose to do something, anything, rather than keep going back and forth - unwilling to do what would be reasonable ("characters split") or unwilling to have their characters compromise.
RIght, I agree with that.
What I was saying is that, in addition to the problems of not having social resolution systems that are active and supported (rather than being there in theory and not in practice) you are just begging for people to get frustrated not just with each others characters, but with each other as players. Two people not willing to compromise, split, or stop talking = frustration.
Especially when it becomes about IC talk to change someone's OOC mind (a clusterfuck I've seen far too often).
Brand, that's pretty much every MUSH I've ever played on ever, right there.
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on December 08, 2005, 07:27:25 PM
Brand, that's pretty much every MUSH I've ever played on ever, right there.
Considering we used to play on the same MUs together, I'm betting we've got the same scars.
I think I may split this topic off, once I get some time to writeup a couple of actual plays about it.
Hearking back to the deferral business and the concerns over ownership, I do think some good points were made. I think in addition it is possible that a player may wish to defer engagement with a conflict because they want to set up something that will affect it before they engage directly and "tip their hand". But also, there is a big difference between deferring the resolution of the conflict ala hero wars and the way that soap operas do it.
Thw HW/HQ mechanic rolls the conflict over to another decision cycle, as it were. Thats not the same as the scene cut or the cliff hanger in soaps, in which the deferral in the conflict occurs through a change in scene and the bringing on stage of another conflict. So I think there is "deferring resolution" as well as "putting a conflict on hold". Note that time often stops ins soaps when a conflict is "held".
However, theres nothing to prevent the HW mechanic fgrom being used to "hold" whenever it defers. It seems quite plausible to me, although it would be tricky, to run two simultaneous scenes with simultaneous conflict resolutions, switching from one to the other each time a step in a conflict is determined In fact this seems so obvious now I wonder if anyone has already done this in their games?
Anyway, I think the main impediment to exercising ownership over conflicts and the like in games is the inability to talk about them. Its hard to even convey to another player what you see as a conflict, I think, in that you are describing a set of kinda presuemed hypothetical future interactions of the SIS. It would be easier and more specific to claim relationships with specific NPC's, and think the Mentor structures in some games cabn be used as a foothold for a specifically owned sun-plot or similar. But this does not resolve the problem of players exercising ownership of conf;licts that arise from play, however. I think that can be probably be addressed largely by simply naming them; establishing them as explicit objects in the game rather than implicit relationships or probablisitc projections.