The Forge Archives

It's been awhile since I posted my last design idea.  Some of the insistant responces that turned up with that threw me for a curve ball...like the insistance that a mechanic should not force the game world to always have a chance of various resources, like poisonous frogs "They can be hunted to extinction, you know!".

Anyway, here's the next idea, sort of streamlined version of the previous and again puts a kink in causality (this design is to support gamist play). It's rather simplistic: Players have various resources, like HP or fatigue points or any point that sounds interesting.

Okay, when the players want to do something, they, in secret to the GM but open to all other players, bid their resources. However many they want or none, if that's what they wish. The other players note their bid. Then the player says what they want to do and the GM makes a big old fiat descision about what resource costs that involved.

The thing is, only resources that are bid, can be effected by the GM's decision. For example, only if you stake all your HP or your PC's life or some less dramatic resouce like fatigue points, can the GM's call remove that resource. That is, and here's the gamble, if the GM's call actually involves the removal of any such resource. If you know your game world well, that's how you have a chance of bidding resources without actually losing them. After the GM's call has been applied (to any resources actually bid), he gets told what the player bid so he can be in on the same fun the other players had in knowing.

Why would you bid any resources to begin with? Respect. And it's deadly dull otherwise - no matter how much you pretend you were the awesome katana wielder, it's obvious you didn't bid any resources the whole time.

I really like this design, in the way it gets rid of the poisonous idea that the GM should be 'fair'. 'Fair' usually turns out to be a political push me pull you and the most important part of the game is to pay attention to those politics. This paragraph is more a rant, btw.

It also screws with causality...if the cavern collapses, shouldn't all the players HP go? Or shouldn't they run out of oxygen. Lets see...did they bid those resources? No? Okay, no, that didn't lose those. I can think of some creative reasons as to why, but I predict there will be many who would get disgruntled at having to waste their creativity to patch over an obvious causal 'flaw' in the system.

Now, Ironically I have a problem. Most often you'll see posts asking 'what attributes should I have?'. While here, I can't be stuffed making up attributes. I really feel no interest in having them, they're pretty damn dull normally (oh, higher numbers are better...wow, difficult to figure that out tactically!). Putting enough effort into them to create interesting interelations between them seems to be a distraction from the prime mechanics from above. Yet I need resources so as to enable bidding. I guess I could just have a bunch of resources (the most interesting ones, of course!) with numbers attached, for each character. It sounds simplistic, but perhaps I should wait to see if that's an actual issue in playtest, instead of getting wound up in advance.

On a side note, you might like to note the parralel between this and dogs in the vineyard, where the player, not causality, decides when the PC's important resources (like life!) are on the line. Very different reasons between the two for deciding when it happens, but exactly the same sort of player empowerment.

So if you had, like, social standing and HPs ... and you decided to bid a whole bunch of HPs on an attempted seduction ... then you risk getting yourself in for some really rough trade, but there is no risk of losing social standing?

I think I sort of like that, but I'd like to see some examples of winning and losing strategy.

It is an interesting idea, although I see some areas were potential problems might arise:

1.The "respect" thing. Actually, I don't quite see it working. If I wanted to be the best katana wielder out there, and if that was my prime priority - I wouldn't bid anything, screw respect. Why risk anything, if I can just get what I want in a more cost-effective way? I have some (absolutely random) thoughts connected with this:

-bidding resources could be the only way to gain some kind of points that actually bring you closer to some more important goal (e.g. accumulating enough of them triggers endgame, or resolves "quest").

-bidding resources gives you "experience".

-bidding one kind of resource allows regaining another kind, proportionally to the bid.

2.With such a system it could be possible to always bid a resource that logically can't be called by GM in a given situational context (provided there actually is a reason to bid anything). This means too many resource pools won't work here, and they probably should be arranged in such a way that most problematic situations to be expected in the game could possibly result in a loss of any of them. Tony's social standing vs. physical health case seems to work well here. I think that using resources representing some spiritual qualities or virtues could work fine (e.g. GM decides if potential fallout connected with dealing with the situation will be reflected in a loss of Conviction, Valor, Faith or anything).

And yes, it seems you don't need anything but resource pools for a mechanic like that.

Hi Tony,

Yes, if you bid HP, then that's the only thing your risking.

In terms of winning and losing strategy, that's question caught me by surprise for a moment. The best way I can describe it now is that this aren't the rules for a game, but the rules for deliniating the parameters of a game. Like if you were doing a polevault, these rules would be the ones that empower the player/vaulter to set the height of the stick. No real winning or losing strategies possible there, except in balancing off personal expectation of performance and desire for respect.


Hi Filip,

Quote1.The "respect" thing. Actually, I don't quite see it working. If I wanted to be the best katana wielder out there, and if that was my prime priority - I wouldn't bid anything, screw respect. Why risk anything, if I can just get what I want in a more cost-effective way? I have some (absolutely random) thoughts connected with this:

I suspect were going to see the divide between our prefered agenda's here. Forgive me a counter question, but why play with others in the first place, when you could stay at home by yourself and imagine your katana wielder in all his glory?

In my mind one thing you play with others for, is what they can contribute. What do you aim for - the group appreciation of your character and really supporting him in the dream?

Quote-bidding resources could be the only way to gain some kind of points that actually bring you closer to some more important goal (e.g. accumulating enough of them triggers endgame, or resolves "quest").

-bidding resources gives you "experience".

-bidding one kind of resource allows regaining another kind, proportionally to the bid.

See, I'm afraid of these, because they suggest the act isn't the end desired, but just a means to an end (like gathering experience to get to top level or collecting resources). Particularly the first, where it makes it sound like the endgame or quest is what's actually important about the game. If I may paraphrase an old saying, it's like treating the baby as a means to get to the bathwater.

Quote2.With such a system it could be possible to always bid a resource that logically can't be called by GM in a given situational context (provided there actually is a reason to bid anything). This means too many resource pools won't work here, and they probably should be arranged in such a way that most problematic situations to be expected in the game could possibly result in a loss of any of them. Tony's social standing vs. physical health case seems to work well here.

Oddly I thought the opposite when I read Tony's example "Aww my gawd! They could just pick stuff that would never come up, like bidding thier horses training level during a seduction!". But then I realised that the other players can/will realise that as well and go "Dude, horse training was never going to be at risk - your not impressing anyone bidding that!". But bringing this up does help pad out the game, because I think it needs some "This is the author talking to you" explanation in the game text.

Quote from: Callan S. on June 24, 2006, 08:00:33 PM
In terms of winning and losing strategy, that's question caught me by surprise for a moment. The best way I can describe it now is that this aren't the rules for a game, but the rules for deliniating the parameters of a game. Like if you were doing a polevault, these rules would be the ones that empower the player/vaulter to set the height of the stick. No real winning or losing strategies possible there, except in balancing off personal expectation of performance and desire for respect.

Okay.  I hope I don't have to establish my "street-cred" as a person who takes gambling and stepping up to challenge seriously.  Now, that having been said:  There's got to be a strategy to it.  The risk has to be in service of some possible reward.

Someone who risks their life on even a one in a million chance of saving the world is a hero.  Someone who plays a round of russian roulette just to show that they're willing to take that risk is an idiot.  Does your system require people to be idiots in that manner?

Yes, I've gotten straight to the end without any means leading to it (which is probably required).

What were Edmund Hilary's words about why he climbed Everest? "Because it was there". I dunno, was he an idiot? I take your point on the russian roulette. What I need to incorporate is the distinction between Hilary and roulette. And I'm not actually sure what that is!! Although yeah, if you think he was an idiot, I guess I will question your gambling and step on up seriousness "have you climbed Everest!?" :)

Perhaps it's simply rarity. Qualties proven only, at that point, to be in him. I mean, all the simulationist like to dream of their alpha males/females. But with gamism, at least at an intellectual test, it's actually the capacity to be an alpha at something. No made up fantasy shit, you couldn't have won it unless your to some degree, shit hot (or, poisonously, the GM let you to make sure you had fun *shuddddder!*)

But in terms of actual game currency? Well, what can I do - if using this mechanic earns something, then that something seems to be the point of using the mechanic. If they have to earn something to get to use this mechanic, well that delays the use of the mechanic (an extreme example is the shy narrativist who does four hours of play then one moral question right at the end of play).

I dunno. Why do players defend certain goals on the table in capes? Isn't it stupid to do that? Couldn't you withdraw and don a poker face, so no one knows the PC's soft points? Or if they do find them, don't react at all and deny them any responce?

Do players of capes give in and defend a cause in capes for the points, or because they 'just have to'? Kind of stupidly? Perhaps rather than an incentive, the points are more like a balm for having gone through what you just hadda do - and now a bit of payback, since you can constructively harrass the other players PC's with them.

I'm not assuming my assessment is correct. But I'd considered some sort of scene framing points, which could be used along similar lines to constructively harass other players. Thought it might give the wrong message though ('do X to get your dream scene').

Callen,

You have the beginnings of an interesting rules set.  Let me ask you a question:

Assume that I am a player in this game.  I wish to climb Mount Everest.  What will the in-game ramifications be if, after I tell the GM "I climb Mount Everest" I secretly bid 0 life instead of 10 life?  Will I succeed either way?  If so, then why risk the ten life?

Perhaps the GM could secretly assign a threshold.  If the players bid at least X resource A they succeed, otherwise they fail.  If they bid at least X+Y resource A or at least Z resource B then all of the resource bid is lost.  If you allow the GM to make Y negative then you would give him or her the power to force players to loose currency in order to succeed.

So if you wish to climb Mount Everest and bid 0 life, nothing will happen.  If you bid all your life you will make it to the top, but you won't survive the trip down.

Best,
        Bill

Callan:  Climbing Everest is about exploration and self-realization, which doesn't intersect very much with social gaming.  If Edmund Hillary had been saying "I wanted to climb Mt. Everest so the boys in the pub would think I'm cool!" then yes, without reservation, I would label him an idiot.

I've got a clearer example though:  Olympic Women's Snowboard Cross.  To quote the Wikipedia: 

QuoteThe event took place in Bardonecchia on February 17. The final race will be remembered for the fall of American Lindsey Jacobellis on the penultimate jump. Jacobellis had a commanding lead in the snowboard cross final but attempted a show-boating trick on the penultimate jump, lost her balance and went crashing to the ground only to see Switzerland's Tanja Frieden sneak past her and take the gold medal.

Jacobellis risked (and, it turns out, lost) her lead for nothing.  There are no style points in snowboard cross.  In the context of the game itself there is no possible reward for the risk she took.  Even if she had pulled off her show-boating trick and won the race anyway, that would have been a gratuitously stupid thing to do.

It strikes me that you are creating the same situation:  You are offering the context of a game mechanic, and then asking people to take risks that have no possible reward within the context of that mechanic.  I would not respect a person who took such a risk.  I'd think they were either (a) stupid or (b) ignoring the game (and thereby disrespecting their fellow players) or (c) both.

QuoteI suspect were going to see the divide between our prefered agenda's here. Forgive me a counter question, but why play with others in the first place, when you could stay at home by yourself and imagine your katana wielder in all his glory?

There is probably a divide - still, you state that this mechanic supports gamist play. In its current form I can see it supporting gamist play revolving around getting respect for being over-risky. It won't support any other kind of gamist play. E.g. it won't support gamist play revolving around getting social appreciation for doing the most effective thing.

As for your counter question - there is always different quality in solo play than in group play. Staying at home and imagining this and that means that I work on the content provided by myself. It doesn't give any opportunity to work with outside-provided content. I consider it to be enormous difference in quality, but I don't see, how it relates to player choosing to win with no risk. So...

QuoteIn my mind one thing you play with others for, is what they can contribute. What do you aim for - the group appreciation of your character and really supporting him in the dream?

Keep in mind, that group appreciation can arise from different sources. I have a feeling that appreciation arising from purpose-less risking is not very common.

QuoteSee, I'm afraid of these, because they suggest the act isn't the end desired, but just a means to an end (...)

What exactly is the end desired here? I'm not sure whether I understand it completely.

QuoteOddly I thought the opposite when I read Tony's example "Aww my gawd! They could just pick stuff that would never come up, like bidding thier horses training level during a seduction!". But then I realised that the other players can/will realise that as well and go "Dude, horse training was never going to be at risk - your not impressing anyone bidding that!". But bringing this up does help pad out the game, because I think it needs some "This is the author talking to you" explanation in the game text.

Well, if I were there, I would rather go "Cool, man, you bid your horse training on seduction attempt! If by any chance GM chooses horse training instead of charm now, you are going to get caught in flagranti by the Baron, you will try to run by jumping out the window whistling for your mount, but the horse won't be there when you need it! And as a result, your trust with horses is going to diminish a bit for some time." Consequently, I see the mechanic as a potential spring-board for generating interesting situations.

Now, if you had, say, 3 resource pools that could be logically called by the GM in just about any situation, there would always be some actual risk involved. E.g. you never know if your GM decides that the potential consequence of your failure is connected with the loss of courage, faith or love. Kind of like rock-paper-scissors, but with completely different feel. There is much potential here, I think.

Ok, this is getting a little weird so lets see if I can pin down what might be an issue.

It sounds to me, like I'm being asked something similar to 'If there's no incentive built into chess to play again (like XP or ultimate quest points), why would I ever play another game of it?'. My mechanic essentially works in issolation - which is to say, each time you use it, it's like starting up a new game of chess. A game session might have multiple uses of the mechanic, but that'd be like sitting down and having a chess session where you play five games - those games still aren't connected even though your having a chess session.

I think perhaps it's been assumed each use of the mechanic would be like a stepping stone - like if you sat down and played chess five times in a row in the expectation all the games are cumulative steps that lead to something else.

How I envision it is that you have one session containing one long play out of imaginative space - with many uses of this mechanic within that - each a game that can be won, just like each game of chess can. How much you won is rated against how little of the bid resources you lost. Pay careful note that it's tested by resources BID, not resources owned.

That's why this thread is getting weird, because I'm being either being told it's stupid to play chess/boardgames/sports, or people are assuming this mechanic is part of a greater structure 'and why would anyone use such a damn risky mechanic while making their way up that structure?'. If that is the question, I would agree 'Yes, if it were part of a greater structure then yeah, it'd be all risk for no reward/furthing yourself in the greater structure. But there is no greater structure - the only thing that can be won is already right here, right now'

Some people might see it as possible to win just with narration - thus they'll see a larger structure (with ways of winning) and think 'why would I use this mechanic inside of that structure, when it'll just hinder me with no greater reward'. They have a point, in their own case.

However, in my case I find narrative winning flacid and impotent. It has no balls.Thus, while I appreciate the construction of the shared imaginative space for all the creative danger it can produce, I see no structure in it. That's why I see alot of value in using a mechanic like mine, because I don't see any other structure I can win at. I need to introduce a solid structure - other people might not be able to understand that need, because they already see one there amongst the narration.

Like in Erick Wujcik's article, where with total narration he disarms traps while because of the narration it seems like his hitpoints are on the line. For me, there just aren't clearly on the line enough, so such disarming is rather ho-hum and flacid. I need a mechanic which demands he puts his money on the table, so to speak, if he really wants to be taking on a risk. Other people would look at that and go 'But what does he get for putting his money down? Nothing? Then why do it?'. I have a few cheeky responces for that, but I've written enough already. :)




Hi Bill,

What do you imagine the social responce from your peers would be if you bid zero HP for climbing mount everest?

Callan,

In chess, there is a measure of success: you win. Chess is a player vs. player game.

In D&D, there is a measure of success: you level up and become more powerful. Players can compare their character's level to the levels of other PCs in the party. Furthermore, the level-up grants new powers that make the player better able to overcome larger and more impressive obstacles. It's a classic "treadmill" Gamist reward system.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, your mechanic provides no tangible benefit for winning.

What if the GM presents the encounter and tells the players what the reward payoff is as a betting ratio:

GM: "There are two muscular orcs with huge bone clubs blocking your path. This encounter pays 1.5 to 1."
Player: "I bid 10 hit points!" He pushes 10 tokens into the middle of the table.
*dice are rolled and stuff*
GM: Okay, you slay the orcs. You get back 15 hit points.
Player: "I have 40 now. I level up!"

Or something like that. Hit points could drive level, rather than the other way around.

QuoteWhat do you imagine the social responce from your peers would be if you bid zero HP for climbing mount everest?

Callen,

If I could climb Mount Everest without risking HP, and no other reward was given for the risk, then my friends would call me a fool if risked HP to do it.


As this is a gamist game it has a goal.  Based on everything that you have written in this thread it seems that the goal of this game is to retain resources.

In this game, you (basically) have one strategic decision to make for each event.  You can risk resources or not risk resources.  If you risk resources, then there is a chance you will loose them.  If you do not risk resources then you will not loose them.

Thus the pure dominance strategy becomes to never risk any resources.

I believe that this is what people have been trying to tell you.


Now if there were a payoff like narrative control or better yet some actual win condition which could be approached by risking these resources, then the Nash Equilibrium would shift and risking resources would become not only a viable strategy but a necessary one.

If you need help brainstorming such a mechanic I'd be happy to help.

Best,
       Bill

Why not do away with the possibility of bidding zero resource completely? If the minimum bid is one "token" (think the Ante in poker), then the defensive strategy of not risking resources turns into a slow entropic death. In this case, you'd have to risk resources just to offset that loss by betting that eventually you'll win, and if you judge the odds/situation correctly, and place a sizable wager, then you have the opportunity to not only re-fill that slowly draining resource pool, but double, or more the size of it.

Some ideas:

• At the begining of each scene, after Scene Framing, the GM calls for bids....minimum one. Players choose which pool from which to bid.
• Gm then uses this pool to then bid against the players:
  "You stumble upon 3 orcs savagely tearing apart the farmer's house (Picks up three tokens, and adds three more from his "ORC" pool). What do you do?
• Player one: "I rush the first one, drawing my sword, and going for a lunge to the eye." GM: "That's a pretty risky maneuver, that'll cost you at minimum one more token, which pool do you want to wager on?" Player: "I bid one HP, and one Courage" (*or whatever*) //Enter resolution mechanic// "Sweet! 3 successes, *narrates cool lunge, and bloodsplatter, the other 2 Orcs suprisingly drawing their own weapons*" GM: "Ok, first success buys back your bid, the other two earn you one token each, which pools do you want to drop these 4 in?" Player: "*Character* glances at the other orcs weapons, and hopes his companions are right behind him. Considering I'm taking on 2-to-1 odds here until the rest of my party shows up, I'll drop them all in HP (*Adds 4 tokens to HP pool*), I think I'll need them!"

Namaste,
Joshua

Quote from: Adam Dray on June 26, 2006, 02:22:06 PM
Callan,

In chess, there is a measure of success: you win. Chess is a player vs. player game.

In D&D, there is a measure of success: you level up and become more powerful. Players can compare their character's level to the levels of other PCs in the party. Furthermore, the level-up grants new powers that make the player better able to overcome larger and more impressive obstacles. It's a classic "treadmill" Gamist reward system.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, your mechanic provides no tangible benefit for winning.

Your reading it wrong. Explain where you find a difference in chess and my mechanic that means that while chess has a win condition, my mechanic does not (which will help me with the games instructions). I'd prefer if you did so without comparisons to D&D like 'well, if you can't win like you do in D&D, you can't win, period'.

BTW, comparing levels in D&D is player Vs player activity. It just doesn't look like it, because most people associate player Vs player with mean spiritedness and bitchyness. You will have trouble identifying when there is and isn't a win condition, if you can't identify where player Vs player is occuring.

Quote from: Callan S. on June 26, 2006, 06:04:26 AM
Other people would look at that and go 'But what does he get for putting his money down? Nothing? Then why do it?'. I have a few cheeky responces for that, but I've written enough already. :)

I'd like to hear those cheeky responses, if they have any nuggets of substance in them.  That's exactly the question I've been asking, so I'm interested in what your answer would be.

Quote from: Bill Masek on June 26, 2006, 02:25:20 PM

QuoteWhat do you imagine the social responce from your peers would be if you bid zero HP for climbing mount everest?

Callen,

If I could climb Mount Everest without risking HP, and no other reward was given for the risk, then my friends would call me a fool if risked HP to do it.

Okay, no, what your doing isn't taking on mount everest, it's trying to take on the gaming system and in some way that you've invented, and win at that invention. You've missplaced your effort. These rules are like setting the stick for polevaulting. These is no winning when setting the stick. Set it flat on the ground if you want. Flat on the ground is not a win. It isn't anything, there is no game at this point.

Think of it as two stages -
A. Set the stick
B. Vault the stick

The gamist arena of play only involves one of these events, the latter. Imagine if you were polevaulting and bribed the crowd and the person who sets the stick, so no one interfears when you make the guy put the stick to the ground. Then you go to vault and win? Is that lame? Yes, because your going outside of the gamist arena of play. Now imagine you instead train really hard for months and win. Is that cool? Yes, because you stayed inside the gamist arena of play.

Your pointing out a flaw in the mechanic which is like pointing out the flaw in chess that 'Hey, if I reach across and punch the other player, I can win...nothing in the game stops me, what a flawed game!"

When it comes to setting the stick/making your bids with this mechanic, it is not time to become all clever ass tactical. In fact, ironically, the way to fck up gamism at this point is to try and play resource bidding cleverly. Trying to be clever when setting resources is going outside of the gamist arena, which is playing the game wrong.

Anyone who judges you for not bidding zero resources is the fool, because there is nothing to judge here - the game has not, can not start until that bid is made. You can not judge someone for a game they haven't even played yet.

Quote from: TonyLB on June 26, 2006, 11:46:15 PM

Quote from: Callan S. on June 26, 2006, 06:04:26 AM
Other people would look at that and go 'But what does he get for putting his money down? Nothing? Then why do it?'. I have a few cheeky responces for that, but I've written enough already. :)

I'd like to hear those cheeky responses, if they have any nuggets of substance in them.  That's exactly the question I've been asking, so I'm interested in what your answer would be.

Check the above post about what is the game and what isn't actual play first, because that's more important.

My cheeky responces would mostly be goading people into taking on risks. I seem to remember you talking about running capes at cons and how nobody would touch the 'Humiliate Major Victory' goal...until you started playing him like the ego he is. You made some note of how after that players would consistantly go for that goal. Why didn't they go for it before? Perhaps because it was stupid to go for that goal - what use is winning a humiliation goal compared to saving points to protect themselves?

Anyway, I'm not going to try and goad you here - it just doesn't work because technical analysis always undoes goading. If we were both at a gaming table then yeah, that street cred with gamble and strategy you didn't want to have to establish in this thread - fuck yeah, you'd have to establish it with me right here, right now. You go bidding nothing and I think your a pansy. 'Oh, but it doesn't make sense to gamble anything!'. Pansy!

Okay, I did slip to goading and it was rather mean goading (not my normal modus). But that's because here I'm pushing hard to slip through any intellectual indifference you have to get across what drives the session. And with the mechanics, yeah, setting your bids is not supposed to be part of the game. So I can NOT judge you for being foolish for setting bids above zero and while your at it, look, I'm calling you out. Imagine if you were to set your bids high and come off scot free - imagine turning to me and saying "Beat that" and imagine if I floundered and couldn't! You = Awesome, Me = Back in my box!

I like the idea of the GM specifying the pools that can be used and (secretly) setting a reserve bid that must be met before any kind of success can be achieved. Doing a Dutch auction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction) would also be interesting - that is the GM setting a high bid, and then counting down, with the winner being the player that announces they want to go for that amount first. This means that everyone hangs on to see the price fall, but then also feeling the pressure of needing to bid before the next player in order to win it, or see it fall below the unknown reserve price.

I find it intriguing that the mechanic leaves the narration up to the GM, but that suits a Gamist focus. I wonder if players will end up demonstrating their chutzpah by how little they bid?

It mimics the idea of people wanting to do something, but being unwilling to risk themselves. There needs to be some sort of reward for winning the bidding, other than success. Perhaps a replenishment of one of the resource pools, or the acquisition of points in a 'universal' pool? (hero points, game points, or whatever)

QuoteWhen it comes to setting the stick/making your bids with this mechanic, it is not time to become all clever ass tactical. In fact, ironically, the way to fck up gamism at this point is to try and play resource bidding cleverly. Trying to be clever when setting resources is going outside of the gamist arena, which is playing the game wrong.

Callen,

Please do not swear.  This is a polite forum.  That language is unnecessary and disrespectful to the people who are taking time out of there day to help you with your game.

That said I believe that I may have found the root of your problem.

You are correct that setting par for a game before you play should not always be a tactical decision.  In Go, the board size is not a tactical decision.  The number of points you play to in Hearts is likewise non-tactical.  The size of Heroscape armies is another similarly "fun based" decision.

Your first problem is that resource bidding is not setting par for your game.  It is your game.  The resource bidding is the only real strategic decision players make.  Since you do not have a victory condition and there is no way to acquire more resources, the "goal" of this gamist game will, whether you want it to or not, will become resource conservation.

Your second problem is that setting par is only a "fun based" decision if it effects everyone equally.  Otherwise it is strategic.  That pole vaulter chooses the height of her bar.  It is a strategic decision.  She wants it to be as high as she can jump over, but no higher because she will score points based on its height.

Your third problem is your assumption that optimising is some how cheating.  It is not an optimum strategy to punch someone in the face in chess.  That is an act that exists completely outside the game used to change the results of the game and is thus cheating.  On the other hand, in gamist games, players should do everything they can within the rules to win.

Can you think of any gamist game where players risk resources without any chance of reward?  Can you imagine someone going to Vegas and gambling at a casino where they could only win back the money they originally risked?

QuoteYou go bidding nothing and I think your a pansy. 'Oh, but it doesn't make sense to gamble anything!'. Pansy!

Peer pressure is never an effective tool to rely on when building games.  If you want a certain kind of game play, build it into your rules.  There is a history of roleplaying games which rely on players "playing the game like their supposed to" as supposed to following what the rules actually say.  This attitude leads to unreliable game play and a host of other problems.  If you want to learn more about the dangers of this kind of game play, read Dr. Ron Edward's article "Why System Matters".  It is available on this website.

Best,
       Bill

Callan,

If now I understand correctly how the game works, it's not chess, but rather Russian Roulette, motivated by boredom.

You have a bunch of extremely bored Russian officers, who sit in a bunker with nothing to do and a gun lying on the table. The officers desperately want some rush, but no one openly coerces the others to play the Russian Roulette. Nevertheless, the whole point is that they take risk and entertain the rest, because whoever refuses to take his turn with the gun is a boring wimp and not a real die hard Russian officer.

Did I get the mentality right here?

Quote from: Bill Masek on June 27, 2006, 03:06:33 AMPlease do not swear.  This is a polite forum.  That language is unnecessary and disrespectful to the people who are taking time out of there day to help you with your game.

Rons our moderator here and unless he decides otherwise, I have some leeway to moderate my own threads. Please respect my cultural expectations for communication rather than putting your own expectations before mine, if you decide to continue posting to this thread.

QuoteYour first problem is that resource bidding is not setting par for your game.  It is your game.  The resource bidding is the only real strategic decision players make.  Since you do not have a victory condition and there is no way to acquire more resources, the "goal" of this gamist game will, whether you want it to or not, will become resource conservation.

I want you to check out Eric's article (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/24/) and have a look at where he describes disabling traps with narration.

That sort of narration is part of my game as well. It is the arena of play. Why do you insist that my described mechanic is also part of that arena of play? Is there some way I can delinate between gamist arena rules and non arena that you can think of, that I could use here? There must be some way to deliniate, surely?

QuoteYour third problem is your assumption that optimising is some how cheating.  It is not an optimum strategy to punch someone in the face in chess.  That is an act that exists completely outside the game used to change the results of the game and is thus cheating.  On the other hand, in gamist games, players should do everything they can within the rules to win.

Is this the problem I should be looking at? That if it's in the written rules, then there's a widespread belief that it's inside the gamist arena as well? While social rules, like not punching the other guy, aren't within the written rules and thus outside the arena?

Hoo boy, if I'm taking on cultural assumption, I'm in for a bumpy ride.

QuotePeer pressure is never an effective tool to rely on when building games.  If you want a certain kind of game play, build it into your rules.  There is a history of roleplaying games which rely on players "playing the game like their supposed to" as supposed to following what the rules actually say.  This attitude leads to unreliable game play and a host of other problems.  If you want to learn more about the dangers of this kind of game play, read Dr. Ron Edward's article "Why System Matters".  It is available on this website.

Check out the G, N & S essays. The rules don't trigger a hunger for each agenda, they only support a hunger if it's there to begin with. Peer pressure is only a part of the hunger that is gamism. I wouldn't at all be surprised if people reading my game didn't get it, if they lack that hunger to begin with. I'm not worried about that (though I am worried about getting support at a forum where that hunger is perhaps lacking).

Quote from: Filip Luszczyk on June 27, 2006, 09:45:50 PM
Callan,

If now I understand correctly how the game works, it's not chess, but rather Russian Roulette, motivated by boredom.

You have a bunch of extremely bored Russian officers, who sit in a bunker with nothing to do and a gun lying on the table. The officers desperately want some rush, but no one openly coerces the others to play the Russian Roulette. Nevertheless, the whole point is that they take risk and entertain the rest, because whoever refuses to take his turn with the gun is a boring wimp and not a real die hard Russian officer.

Did I get the mentality right here?

Your example adds a game that is not there, nesting one game (russian roulette) inside a greater game (the game of life). It's not an example of how my mechanic works. There is no nesting of games.

Here's your homework: Give me examples of rules in any old game or even normal life, which are outside a gamist arena. Also give me examples of rules which are inside a gamist arena. Then we'll figure out what makes the difference between them and ensure my game has those signposts.

Callan,

As best I can tell, it's pretty much a straight up "Read the GM's mind to win" mechanic.

I bid X resources.  The GM then decides what resources the challenge is worth, and either I win or I lose.  I must be missing something, because I don't see any strategy possibilities - even if there are known constraints on what can be bid or what the GM can fiat, that just narrows the guesswork down.

What am I missing?


thanks,

James

QuoteIs there some way I can delineate between gamist arena rules and non arena that you can think of, that I could use here? There must be some way to deliniate, surely?

Callen,

A very good question.

I can think of a couple of ways to delineate gamist arena rules from non-arena rules.

Let me first take a step back though and make sure that we are on the same page when it comes to gamist games.  Gamist games are about winning.  They always have at least two sides.  These sides could be players VS GM, players VS players, players VS pre-scripted-moves, etc., but there is always some kind of competition for which the goal is some kind of victory.  If the game has an actual win condition it will be that.  Otherwise it will default to accumulation/conservation of resources.

In a gamist game, any decision which can give one side an advantage over another is a strategic decision.  This forces them into the gamist arena.  So the non-arena rules must not grant one side an advantage over another.

So when playing Poker, the decision to play 5 card stud or 7 card draw is not a strategic one and thus can be set in the non-gamist arena.  If each player could individually choose whether to play 5 card stud or 7 card draw this would become a strategic decision and force it back into the gamist arena.

So the question becomes:  How do we move your bidding rules out of the gamist arena.

What if a player decided on the total number of points which needed to be bid in every conflict.  (Who ever was the last person to real 0 points won.)  This number could not be larger then that players total and control of this number would rotate every conflict.  Everyone would have an incentive to bid.  The decision of the total number of points would not be totally outside the gamist arena, but it would be a lot further then it is now.

A second option would be to embrace the gamist arena.  What if the goal was not to conserve resources, but to deplete them.  Who ever reached 0 first won.  The GM would assign every event a maximum number of resources which could be gambled.

A third option would be to make your game non-gamist.  When building a simulationist game you have a lot less to worry about when it comes to dominance strategies and Nash Equilibriums.  You have a character, you bid resources based on what makes sense.  When you run out of resources your character dies you get a kick-ass death narration then build a brand new shiny character at full capacity and do it all again.  No victory conditions.  Resource conservation is a non-issue.

I hope this helps you delineate between gamist arena rules and non arena.  I think you have a cool core mechanic here.  All it needs is a system that properly supports it.

Thank you for not swearing.

Best,
       Bill

hey, thou this is my first post at the forge i would like to try a little 'negotiation'. the type of where you explain party A to party B and could very well turn up mistaking the approaches of both.

party A is Callan. And i might very well miss his/your point. (..hm but then my understanding/application of the at beginning introduced mechanic rather appeals to me..)



as i understood the explanation of the mechanic in the first post there are basically two intervolved games going on. game A is the game half explained in the first post and game B is a rather generic narrative game.

game A is about 'bidding' as much resource(points) as possible as long as game B is continuing (..am i mistaking you here Callan? you noted that there is no winning condition.. but to me it seems like if you 'bid' the most resources at the end (..that's what i assumed and it's where i might be wrong.. that there is an end..) of the game, you win. that btw solves the bidding 0 resources issue.. if you never bid you'll never win..).

the players amount of a certain resource in game A reflects a certain related 'character stat' in game B, and vice versa.

to gain certain results in game B you need to bid a certain amount of resources in game A.

failure in approaching goal in game B will result in loosing the bidden amount of resources in game A.

so loosing resources in game A has a consequence in the shared imagined space of game B (.."Rocks fall, everybody (who bid their HP) dies", right?..). furthermore, being limited with resources (..because they have been lost beforehand..) limits the players competence to approach goals in game B.


i think introducing resources like 'horse training' blurred that basic scheme a little bit (..if I'm right with my interpretation in the first place..). but it seems much more obvious where things are up to go if you think of resources like Hit Points or Social Standing.



i can see the one or other problem resulting from this set but i would rather not go into details as long as I'm not sure if I'm right with my understanding of how this mechanic is to be implemented in the 'game'. am i? it seems contradictionary with some posts that followed the first one, but then..

Go go go!  Storm the front!  Muppets rush in where campers fear to tread.

I like this a lot, and it makes instant sense to me.  Unfortunately I cannot say much more as any post longer than a sentence or two is giving me timeouts form some reason.

Pools must be in the articulation of them specific game.  Pirate games must have different pools or whatever than supers games, if only as expression of colour.  In this sense, characters have to be vessels containing setting-specified values.

Quote from: Blankshield on June 28, 2006, 12:39:23 AM
Callan,

As best I can tell, it's pretty much a straight up "Read the GM's mind to win" mechanic.

I bid X resources.  The GM then decides what resources the challenge is worth, and either I win or I lose.  I must be missing something, because I don't see any strategy possibilities - even if there are known constraints on what can be bid or what the GM can fiat, that just narrows the guesswork down.

What am I missing?


thanks,

James

Excellent, getting close.

Okay, if you run into situations you don't like, like 'have to read the GM's mind', assuming I know what you mean by that, then don't bid any resources. That's one thing the mechanic is supposed to cull out as the player demands.

By 'read the GM's mind' I think your refering to where the GM concocts a solution the player is supposed to guess. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's pretty lamo play.

Now think of how you can slap down that sort of behaviour by the GM, by simply not bidding. Screw his solutions, only bid when your working on your own solutions.

Quote from: Bill Masek on June 28, 2006, 01:40:15 AMIn a gamist game, any decision which can give one side an advantage over another is a strategic decision.  This forces them into the gamist arena.  So the non-arena rules must not grant one side an advantage over another.

Whoa, lets stop here and look at why you think it's granting one side an advantage over the other. We haven't begun playing yet, so there are no sides to be unevenly matched. Is it 'any decision which can give one side an advantage'? Can't I, as the game designer say 'Nope, not these decisions over here, these ones aren't about sides and don't advantage anyone, no matter how you set them' or some such? Will readers believe me/accept what I say?

QuoteThank you for not swearing.

Coincidence, I assure you.

Hi jbrandl,

Hmmm, not sure if that's what I want or what I want from a different perspective. Your kind of describing two games run in parralel which might be more on track than what I was saying, but I'm not sure yet.

Imagine this: There's a cute girl at the gaming table and for some reason she's impressed by nerdy gamist tactics. You start doing really difficult challenges in the game that you didn't have to do, to impress her. You don't have to do these stunts and they risk alot of your resources, but they gain her notice. So game A is an 'getting noticed by the chick' game and game B is the actual game. Doing well in game A (being noticed) doesn't help you at all with game B and resources. But doing well in game B does help you with game A.

The desire to be noticed by a cute chick isn't what I want as the drive, of course. I want it to be the desire to be measured by others as you step on up. Although if a cute chick were interested in genuinely evaluting my skill, it'd be pretty kewl... >:)

Humour: I have this hilarious premonition that having brought in a cute chick to the example, all the men will now get it. I wonder if I'll be right!!?

Callen,

QuoteCan't I, as the game designer say 'Nope, not these decisions over here, these ones aren't about sides and don't advantage anyone, no matter how you set them' or some such? Will readers believe me/accept what I say?

Yes you can.  But then those decisions must not be about sides and must not give one player an advantage over another.  Otherwise your game will be confusing.  You'll have the whole "this is how it should play" vs "this is what the rules actually say" Sikkim.

QuoteWe haven't begun playing yet, so there are no sides to be unevenly matched.

I strongly disagree with this.  If there is an important decision which could grant you an advantage, then it is part of the game.

Back to the poker example.

One player decides, before the game begins, whether the group plays 7 card draw or 5 card stud.  This decision is not about sides and does not give advantage to anyone.

Now lets say that each player makes this decision for themselves.  Even if the game has not started yet, players are making a very important strategic decision that will effect the outcome of the game.

QuoteImagine this: There's a cute girl at the gaming table and for some reason she's impressed by nerdy gamist tactics. You start doing really difficult challenges in the game that you didn't have to do, to impress her. You don't have to do these stunts and they risk a lot of your resources, but they gain her notice. So game A is an 'getting noticed by the chick' game and game B is the actual game. Doing well in game A (being noticed) doesn't help you at all with game B and resources. But doing well in game B does help you with game A.

I hate to say this, but it actually doesn't work like that.

In order to reap any of the benefits from these kinds of risks there needs to be something real at stake.  If you fail your fitness potential  must go down.  (Or at the very least she/they must be deceived into believing this.)

Your game does not have any real consequences to those playing it.  After the game is over you are no better or worse off if you bid well or poorly.  The risks are imaginary so the rewards will only be imaginary.

Best,
        Bill

Quote from: Bill Masek on June 29, 2006, 12:53:19 AM
Your game does not have any real consequences to those playing it.  After the game is over you are no better or worse off if you bid well or poorly.  The risks are imaginary so the rewards will only be imaginary.

The same applies to chess and all non-professional sports.  This doesn't wash; you don't have to play poker for money to appreciate the thrills and spills, or strategy and guts.

I'm surprised to see such an argument because syurely we muist all accept this activity is represnetational rather than actual, but nevertheless we find it entertaining and enjoyable.  If your argument was valid, we should not.

Quote
Your first problem is that resource bidding is not setting par for your game.  It is your game.  The resource bidding is the only real strategic decision players make.  Since you do not have a victory condition and there is no way to acquire more resources, the "goal" of this gamist game will, whether you want it to or not, will become resource conservation

Have you ever played Sim Farm?  Resource conservation  for its own sake is Not Fun.  There has to be some goal toward which resources are being conserved for this to be meaningful.

Contracycle,

QuoteThe same applies to chess and all non-professional sports.  This doesn't wash; you don't have to play poker for money to appreciate the thrills and spills, or strategy and guts.

I am afraid that you misinterpreted my meaning slightly.  You can have fun playing these games.  A lot of fun.  However, you are not going to impress your friends or women by taking risks with pretend money.  If the resources you are bidding are fake then you can not be gusty with them.

QuoteResource conservation  for its own sake is Not Fun.  There has to be some goal toward which resources are being conserved for this to be meaningful.

If you are saying that this game needs a win condition you very well might be correct.  I am not saying that resource conservation is a good goal for a game.  I am just saying that, if he does not have any other win condition and there is no way to acquire more resources and his game is gamist, then the win condition will default to resource conservation.  So he either needs to add a win condition or he needs to make it a simulationist game.

Quote from: Bill Masek on June 29, 2006, 12:53:19 AM

QuoteWe haven't begun playing yet, so there are no sides to be unevenly matched.

I strongly disagree with this.  If there is an important decision which could grant you an advantage, then it is part of the game.

Bang, okay, I think this is the sticking point.

Have you ever fooled around with level editors for computer games, like for never winter nights or 3D shooters? I remember back when I was a teenager someone in the gaming group got the editor for pools of radiance or such like. There was much excitement and I remember one comment made that was along the lines of 'Aww, wow, I could put 10000gp right in front of the spot you start at! Keeewwwlll!'.

Isn't this an example of an important descision that could grant them advantage?  Putting 10k of gold in front of the starting position is the smart move, surely?

To me, bidding zero resources is just like putting 10k of gold right at the start. Bidding resources isn't a choice you make as part of playing the game, it's a choice you make in designing the game. If it makes it any easier, consider my bidding mechanics to be a game design tool and not actually a game at all.

Callen,

QuoteBang, okay, I think this is the sticking point.

Have you ever fooled around with level editors for computer games, like for never winter nights or 3D shooters? I remember back when I was a teenager someone in the gaming group got the editor for pools of radiance or such like. There was much excitement and I remember one comment made that was along the lines of 'Aww, wow, I could put 10000gp right in front of the spot you start at! Keeewwwlll!'.

It is good to hear that we are getting closer to mutual understanding.

You bring up an interesting point.  What you are talking about is changing the rules of a game instead of making a decision in the game itself.  What you want to do is not written in the rules (source code of the program).  The same would apply to stacking the deck in Solitaire.  Or taking rules from one RPG and splicing them into another.  Basically, if you change the axioms of a game then you have a different game.

Unless I am mistaken, the bidding rule is written into the rules of your game.  Thus it is part of your game.

Now, for the remainder of this post, I am going to assume that you disagree with this.  Or, worse, you feel it validates your point. 

The availability of this kind of "game design option" you described only works in single player (or single human team) games.  Let us say that we were playing Starcraft.  You build a map where only you start with resources.  No one would be willing to play with you on that map.  You do not have this "game design option" because it requires group consent and the others would veto it.

Now let us say that instead of building the entire map, each player had the option to build their own starting area at the beginning of each game.  Whoever gave themselves the most resources would most likely win.  So everyone would always build their own starting area and give themselves as many resources as they could fit.  In this situation the "game design option" makes the game a lot less fun to play.

Quote

Callen, I have a question.  You say that this is a gamist game.  You say that the bidding mechanic is not part of the gamist game.

What strategic decisions do you make in this game and what are their payoffs?

I think you have missed the point in both the response to me and above.  I CAN impress people even when there is nothing real at stake.  I would even say this is a very broad feature in our societies as real, red-in-tooth-and-claw conflict is bad for bystanders.

The only thing that needs to be at stake is my pride.  And my performance can garner kudos in its own right, not merely because of the result.  I can demonstrate wit, cunniong, elegance, dexterity, strength, stamina, all sorts of things, in competitions that are essentially fake.  Because what they are really for is to serve as catwalk upon which to strut.

A while ago I was playing Jedi academy online; my opponent opened with a long force-jump trying for the Death From Above.  As she came in, I did nothing but deliver one perfect cut that chopped her in half, and put my sabre away.  It MEANT nothing, but nevertheless it was cool, and self-validating.  And my humiliating defeats in similar imaginary arenas are no less humiliating for being imaginary.

What really matters is that I bet my own relf-respect and prestige in the outcome simply by picking up the gauntlet, by committing myself to achieve or fail.

Quote from: Bill Masek on June 30, 2006, 03:01:48 AMThe availability of this kind of "game design option" you described only works in single player (or single human team) games.  Let us say that we were playing Starcraft.  You build a map where only you start with resources.  No one would be willing to play with you on that map.  You do not have this "game design option" because it requires group consent and the others would veto it.

Now let us say that instead of building the entire map, each player had the option to build their own starting area at the beginning of each game.  Whoever gave themselves the most resources would most likely win.  So everyone would always build their own starting area and give themselves as many resources as they could fit.  In this situation the "game design option" makes the game a lot less fun to play.

Both of these are examples of putting 10k of gold at the start. You seem to be suggesting there is some irresistable bias involved if at some point there will be other players. That if someone in the future will be your opponent, then they are already your opponent right now?

Here's a difficult question: Could you, as a player, trust even yourself to use the rules as design rules, not as game rules? Can you? Or would you slip and start giving yourself little or not so little advantages?

I can trust myself, but not out of piousness. It's because winning by bidding nothing is just simplistic and boring. I mean, it's obvious - bid nothing, win. Um, yawn! I want more complex problems than that and I know that if I treat the game design rule as a game rule, I will not get to those more complex problems. Putting 10k of gold at the start will not get me to the complex problems I hunger for - I know this!

If your not interested in more complex problems, then the design is going to look broken. Because your going to be satisfied with bidding nothing and seeing it as an interesting victory over the game. Probably an 'interesting victory' as in 'Oh, that design wasn't very clever, we proved it broken so easily!"

QuoteCallen, I have a question.  You say that this is a gamist game.  You say that the bidding mechanic is not part of the gamist game.

What strategic decisions do you make in this game and what are their payoffs?

Have you ever played narrative type gamism, like in Eric's article? Anyway, the actual tactics possible aren't important to my design right now. Yeah, I know, crazy for gamist design not to revolve entirely around such stuff. No, right now it's about empowering people to bid what they want to bid and not have force techniques applied to them in regards to that. Thus we see what they really choose to risk.

No matter how complex the tactics, my gamism is screwed up if the tactician didn't lay down the bet himself.



Contra,

Damn well put. Genuinely putting yourself/your pride on the line with these resources is what makes them matter.

Hey, I gotta question that I don't think has been addressed:  What is the consequences (to the player) of losing a gamble?

If you lose all of your characters HPs, are you out of the game?

If you lose your character's social standing, does that mean in-game disempowerment (you can no longer participate in social sections)?

Other than "They're points, they've got to be valuable," what do these points actually do for anyone, and why is it bad to lose them?

Callen,

QuoteHere's a difficult question: Could you, as a player, trust even yourself to use the rules as design rules, not as game rules? Can you? Or would you slip and start giving yourself little or not so little advantages?
...
If your not interested in more complex problems, then the design is going to look broken. Because your going to be satisfied with bidding nothing and seeing it as an interesting victory over the game. Probably an 'interesting victory' as in 'Oh, that design wasn't very clever, we proved it broken so easily!"

I am saying that even your "game design rules" need to be balanced.  The same way that Monster Rules scenario creation needs to be balanced.  The same way that any other gamist game with game creation rules needs to make damn well sure that the scenario creation system does not grant advantage to any one player.

One way to balance the rules is to require group consent.  This is why the building-the-one-sided-Starcraft-map "game design option" was not actually an option.  Other people had the power to veto it.

Let us say that you don't balance your "game design rules".  In almost every group there will be at least one (probably a lot more) person who will try to use the "game design rules" to grant themselves an advantage.  Maybe it will only be a little one.  Now everyone sees this and notices that that person has an advantage.  In the next design phase everyone will at least take as much advantage as that first person have.  Some will take more, so that they can get the same edge the first person had.  This will scale up and up until everyone attempts to acquire the most advantage possible.

QuoteNo matter how complex the tactics, my gamism is screwed up if the tactician didn't lay down the bet himself.

I agree.  That is why, in every other game when you bet, there is a chance for you to get more resources back in return for what you bet in the first place.

Why do you consider betting to be a "game design rule"?  Other then the lack of pay off, how is it different from bidding in Black Jack, Poker or The Pool?

QuoteHave you ever played narrative type gamism, like in Eric's article?

Eric was playing simulationist D&D in that article.  And sure, I've played simulationist games.  I like them.  They are a lot of fun.  They also do not have the many of the problems that we have been talking about.

If you want this to be a sim game like what Eric was playing in his Article, then many of your problems will be avoided.  Remember, if you game is not about winning, then it is not gamist.

Best,
        Bill

Quote from: Bill Masek on June 30, 2006, 02:26:44 PMLet us say that you don't balance your "game design rules".  In almost every group there will be at least one (probably a lot more) person who will try to use the "game design rules" to grant themselves an advantage.  Maybe it will only be a little one.  Now everyone sees this and notices that that person has an advantage.  In the next design phase everyone will at least take as much advantage as that first person have.  Some will take more, so that they can get the same edge the first person had.  This will scale up and up until everyone attempts to acquire the most advantage possible.

You know, I was going to ask you if you thought something like this would happen but wasn't sure I'd phrase it right.

What your describing is a trust break down, where everyone sees that mutally agreed boundries are being put asside. So everyone realises that not only are there no boundaries to protect them, but they are going to lose out if they try and maintain those boundaries rather than also cross those boundaries themselves.

However, there is a currency that counters this: In a gaming group where the people care about each other (or in a new group who are prepared to try and care about each other), the person who takes this first extra advantage, cares about the other players and what they think. That means, when they say 'Your a dick for doing that', that player gets stung - more than any mechanical penalty could ever sting. You don't get the trust break down. People stick to the boundaries because they care about what the other players think. There are plenty of game accounts out there of gaming groups just flung together at a store or someones house, where you can clearly see how they don't care about what each other think, and the behaviour that results in.

Alternatively you can get groups who care about each other, but don't care about anything except simple tactical problems. When someone 'clicks' that you could just never bid resources, other players will slap their heads and think 'of course, why didn't I think of that??'. They then put down the game as they have now 'mastered' it.

QuoteI agree.  That is why, in every other game when you bet, there is a chance for you to get more resources back in return for what you bet in the first place.

Here's a thought to consider: If gamism revolves around peer appreciation, doesn't a mechanic that lets you focus on returns allow you to ignore whether your peers are appreciating you? You can just ignore that and still get the return. So, ironically, resource betting/return systems are actually pretty good at shutting out the need to take into account peer appreciation/gamism. 'Why should I care if it's a good or lame move in someone elses opinion? I still get the points!' and the rest of the players might think 'Damn, he doesn't care that I think that was lame - dammit, I'm going for the points too!'. This is the same trust breakdown as above, yet mechanically assisted because players can keep their heads in the sand that is 'I was doing it for the return!'.

QuoteWhy do you consider betting to be a "game design rule"?  Other then the lack of pay off, how is it different from bidding in Black Jack, Poker or The Pool?

It isn't. See my example above where the player was buzzed to think of putting 10k of gold at the start with the editor. There is no difference unless the person decides there is a difference between design rule and game rule. I realise I need to clearly mark where, as designer, I think it should go. But I can only hope users put the difference in the same spot.

Quote

QuoteHave you ever played narrative type gamism, like in Eric's article?

Eric was playing simulationist D&D in that article.  And sure, I've played simulationist games.  I like them.  They are a lot of fun.  They also do not have the many of the problems that we have been talking about.

If you want this to be a sim game like what Eric was playing in his Article, then many of your problems will be avoided.  Remember, if you game is not about winning, then it is not gamist.

Most sim games seem to revolve around the narrative right to address causality - to say what would happen next. I think Eric's play was low, low stakes. But I don't think he cared about what happened next, as long as he won. For example, if he tries to disable the trap, succeeded and an icecream comes out, many simulationists would flounder and be annoyed at the 'why would that happen next? Was it magical? No? What the hell??'. While the gamist just shrugs, takes the icecream and offers it to the next monster (suspecting it to be poisoned and on the off chance the monster is lactose intollerant). From his account, I think Eric would have been okay with icecream. How about you?

Quote from: TonyLB on June 30, 2006, 10:08:08 AM
Hey, I gotta question that I don't think has been addressed:  What is the consequences (to the player) of losing a gamble?

If you lose all of your characters HPs, are you out of the game?

If you lose your character's social standing, does that mean in-game disempowerment (you can no longer participate in social sections)?

Other than "They're points, they've got to be valuable," what do these points actually do for anyone, and why is it bad to lose them?

Losing points is a measure of someones personal boast of skill. For example, if you go fishing, nothing bad happens if you bring in a small fish. But if you were prepared to say beforehand that you'd catch a big one, that's where the smaller size matters. Here losing points doesn't matter just like that small fish doesn't, unless the player was prepared to say beforehand they wouldn't lose any points. That's why the player must be empowered to bid zero resources, so they can bid zero when they don't dare to boast personal skill. It's a meaningless application of force for someone else (like a GM) to decide the player is putting resources at risk.

That said, I was thinking of being terribly traditional and that zero HP means your dead and out of the game, and losing all your points in any other resource automatically takes a small bite out of you HP. I'm not even sure if this supports what I want for the game, but I have it vaguely in mind. In terms of the social disempowerment example, no, nothing like that is planned (at a mechanical level).

Um ... okay.  Does winning stakes get you those points back?  Or, once you lose them, are they gone for good?

So as I see it this is a resolution mechanic that is pretty small scale at this point,  handles one event.   One question I have, how does it actually resolve anything?  If the player bids no resources, which you say is a valid option does this mean they fail?  In which case how is bidding no resources an option?
Your first example mentions a cavern collapsing and players surviving if they didnt bid any hp, well how did the cavern start collapsing?  Is this a ramification of an earlier failure or is this just a gm initiated event? In which case shouldnt it be the players bidding to survive the collapse?

Oh and just for clarification when matching bids with the gm do they have to match the type of resources the gm called for or is it just an amount?
And is it a pool of all the players bids vs. the gm's requirement or is it done individually.

I think what would help is if you could make up a play example of this mechanic in action.  Try this scenario.  There's a princess locked away in the high tower of the castle.  Our three heros gather to rescue her.  The GM secretly decides it would take them 800 brute points to storm the castle because of all the extra guards assigned to defend the gate.  The players bid 50 wits points to instead come up with a plan that scares the guards off allowing them to get into the castle.

So how do we know if this succeeds or not?  Is there a minimum threshold for success?  Could the players have simply bid 1 wit point or is their value in bidding more?  Does the gm assign all his points to one value or can he spread them across more than one, say a value of 500 brute points, 200stealth points and 100 wits?

A followup question would be is their a limit on point spending by the gm or can he continually throw whatever resources he wishes at the players relying on his sense of fairplay to not overwhelm them rather than any in game limit?

First of all, I don't think that Eric would go for icecream. How can you be so sure that he was a pure, 101% gamist back then, without any trace of simulationist concerns with causality, on the basis of such a short relation?

Now, to the point. I think that most of the confusion in this thread arises from a very limited view of gamism, or rather different views. Gamism is much broader in its scope than any of our personal perspectives here might suggest.

The mechanic presented will probably work just perfectly with a proper group. That said, I'm still not convinced that it would work for every gamist. It's rather suited for a very, very, very small number of gamists who realise this very, very, very specific version of gamism.

Actually, I don't quite agree that a desire for social appreciation is characteristic of the gamism as a whole. I'd even say that the "impress the girl" example wasn't an example of a gamist motivation, but of a completely out of game motivation, not connected with CA, that could just as well be realised in a different social context (I'd say that impressing the girl lays outside of even the meta-game level here, since it has completely nothing to do with the act of role-playing - it's not even "gaining social appreciation by the act of playing and winning", but simply trying to draw attention by means available; the player doesn't want to win the game - he wants to impress the girl).

I can think of a few possible drives that can result in gamist play, and there are certainly more:

-getting "an adrenalin rush"
-getting a sense of achievement
-having a desire for domination

And yes, a desire for social appreciation is there too, but (being a declared gamist myself) I'm perfectly sure that other drives can be separate from it. If it was impossible to have gamism without this social appreciation stuff, then playing only to make things go your own way wouldn't be gamist. Playing to beat on people in order to satisfy one's primal need for domination wouldn't be gamist. Even playing a computer game with the CPU, without any other participants or audience, but regardless trying to win, wouldn't be gamist. And it surely is, since such things don't fall under simulationism, and are in no way connected with addressing the premise.

"Playing to win" is gamist - but "win" might mean almost anything and the desire to "win" might arise from many different impulses. Gamist systems help to focus on a particular form of winning and stimulate specific impulses for winning.

This particular mechanic will work towards realising a specific version of gamism, but won't produce a specific effect on the players, won't motivate them to try to win in a specific way. It requires the whole group to already want to win in a very specific way. And that's all there is to it.

QuoteHere's your homework: Give me examples of rules in any old game or even normal life, which are outside a gamist arena. Also give me examples of rules which are inside a gamist arena. Then we'll figure out what makes the difference between them and ensure my game has those signposts.

Probably any rule could be just as well inside and outside a gamist arena, depending on a particular gamist player we are talking about. It's completely subjective. Since everything could potentially be the focus of gamist play, it's impossible to draw a definite border of the gamist arena in the first place.

Quote from: TonyLB on July 01, 2006, 09:37:01 AM
Um ... okay.  Does winning stakes get you those points back?  Or, once you lose them, are they gone for good?

I'm still considering how pools refresh. Currently I'm thinking at yet another personal D&D default that the resources don't refresh at all - you only ever get closer to your doom. They only refresh at the start of each session (note: Not per game world day but per real life session).

Quote from: Filip Luszczyk on July 01, 2006, 04:30:35 PM
First of all, I don't think that Eric would go for icecream. How can you be so sure that he was a pure, 101% gamist back then, without any trace of simulationist concerns with causality, on the basis of such a short relation?

Same goes for you being sure it's sim. Mexican stand off, let's move on.

QuoteActually, I don't quite agree that a desire for social appreciation is characteristic of the gamism as a whole. I'd even say that the "impress the girl" example wasn't an example of a gamist motivation, but of a completely out of game motivation, not connected with CA, that could just as well be realised in a different social context (I'd say that impressing the girl lays outside of even the meta-game level here, since it has completely nothing to do with the act of role-playing - it's not even "gaining social appreciation by the act of playing and winning", but simply trying to draw attention by means available; the player doesn't want to win the game - he wants to impress the girl).

QuoteThe mechanic presented will probably work just perfectly with a proper group. That said, I'm still not convinced that it would work for every gamist. It's rather suited for a very, very, very small number of gamists who realise this very, very, very specific version of gamism.

I'm pretty cool with that. I know that heavy system use like in capes play isn't gamist. And I've come to think many other types of heavy system use, aren't actually gamist either. The only thing I can see that is different is that peer appreciation of technique is more important than mechanical win.

The thing is, winning doesn't mean you were doing better than everyone else. Probably hard to believe. How about a variant of chess, where both sides get to roll d1000 at the start of each turn and on a 1, they automatically win. Both players play awhile and one is crushing the other player and about to checkmate his king. Bang, the besieged player rolls a 1. He wins.

Since he won, does that automatically mean he did better than the other player?

By the gods, I hope you answer no. If you do, that's an example of why peer appreciation is more important than mechanically winning.

Quote from: Caldis on July 01, 2006, 11:12:45 AMI think what would help is if you could make up a play example of this mechanic in action.  Try this scenario.  There's a princess locked away in the high tower of the castle.  Our three heros gather to rescue her.  The GM secretly decides it would take them 800 brute points to storm the castle because of all the extra guards assigned to defend the gate.  The players bid 50 wits points to instead come up with a plan that scares the guards off allowing them to get into the castle.

Whoa man, you've got some sort of 'buy a scene with points' mindset in place. I can't say anything about your example, cause it's like really out of place.

What if I revise your example: The GM silently thinks how he's going to smash the players brute points if they storm the castle. The players describe a cunning plan and make their resource bids (they put their wit resources at risk and only that resource, wit being a resource as in how much you can think before your brain fatigues). The GM says such a plan would weary the mind, hitting them for 50 of their wit points...and the plan wouldn't even avoid all fighting cause of the extra guards, so there's 50 brute points of damage too. The players take the wit damage, but not the brute damage because they didn't bid that.

In my mind, the players then think 'Nice victory, but yeah, we hid from the brute damage and it seemed pretty fair for that to happen. Next time we should also bid brute damage and come up with a plan so awesome that we don't take any brute damage, either! That'll prove how awesome we are!"

First of all, consider changing the procedure a bit. I suggest that it would work better like that:

1.The GM decides what's at stake and writes it on a scratch paper (or something).
2.Players bid openly.
3.The GM shows what's at stake and everything is resolved.

(If I understand correctly, currently its 2-1-3, right?)

That way you won't have this strange situation where players have to decide what to bid in secret from the GM, but openly to themselves. And the GM can also have some fun watching the group bidding, instead of just sitting and waiting till they announce that they are ready.

QuoteSame goes for you being sure it's sim. Mexican stand off, let's move on.

And where am I being sure it's sim, I must ask you? Maybe you mistake my point with one of Tony's or Bill's posts.

It seems to me that you simply can't accept that there might be middle ground when it comes to CA. He's either gam or sim, but can't be both? You are forgeting that there is no such thing like pure gamist (or simulationist, or narrativist, or anything) in the real world. What you say simply sounds like you wanted to pigeonhole everyone into one of the three categories, but CA's don't work like that. Keep in mind that they refer only to specific decisions in play, and using them to talk about persons or games is only a very big simplification. It's impossible to accurately analyze Actual Play using only one CA. A player could be gamist in a specific area, but sim or nar in every other, and this can shift from session to session, from game to game, and even more so when it comes to GM-ing.

So, I think you see things in Eric's article that not necessarily are there, and we have no proof that they are or are not.

QuoteI know that heavy system use like in capes play isn't gamist. And I've come to think many other types of heavy system use, aren't actually gamist either.

D&D is very heavy mechanically, but it's still gamist. It's not about heavy or rules light mechanics. It's how the mechanic is to be used by the players. Both low and high points of contact games can be gamist, if they support a particular type of gamist play.

QuoteThe thing is, winning doesn't mean you were doing better than everyone else. Probably hard to believe.

Yes, hard to believe. Because gamism is about "winning", and there is nothing more to it. Now, "winning" can mean almost anything. We've been pondering this topic on Polish forums some time ago.

So, "winning" can simply mean "achieving mechanical victory by any means available". It can just as well mean "playing with a good technique, whether it actually leads to victory or not". And it can possibly mean "playing so that you don't achieve mechanical victory", too, if the player considers something like that his way of "winning" (on Polish forums someone described a case of Call of Cthulhu player who tries to accumulate sanity loss so that his character went mad before the end of the adventure).

The thing is, it's not "winning doesn't mean" - just "winning does not have to mean".

QuoteHow about a variant of chess, where both sides get to roll d1000 at the start of each turn and on a 1, they automatically win. Both players play awhile and one is crushing the other player and about to checkmate his king. Bang, the besieged player rolls a 1. He wins.

Since he won, does that automatically mean he did better than the other player?

Yes, if you have mostly gamble oriented gamists.
No, if you have mostly crunch oriented gamists.
No, if you have gamists for whom "winning" means "being the best-looking goth kid on the chess tournament" here, and chess is only a pretext for meeting to demonstrate their goth-ness.
Yes, if you have gamists for whom "winning" means "beating on the enemy, by any means possible".
etc, etc, etc...

Does this answer satisfy you? If not, I suggest reading the GNS essays once more. Your insistence that gamism is always exactly one thing is nothing more than reducing a complex agenda to one of its possible applications.

(My, I hope that didn't sound rude or anything ;))

Quote from: Callan S. on July 02, 2006, 03:59:53 AM

What if I revise your example: The GM silently thinks how he's going to smash the players brute points if they storm the castle. The players describe a cunning plan and make their resource bids (they put their wit resources at risk and only that resource, wit being a resource as in how much you can think before your brain fatigues). The GM says such a plan would weary the mind, hitting them for 50 of their wit points...and the plan wouldn't even avoid all fighting cause of the extra guards, so there's 50 brute points of damage too. The players take the wit damage, but not the brute damage because they didn't bid that.

In my mind, the players then think 'Nice victory, but yeah, we hid from the brute damage and it seemed pretty fair for that to happen. Next time we should also bid brute damage and come up with a plan so awesome that we don't take any brute damage, either! That'll prove how awesome we are!"

Sure that's all great but I'll ask you again how does this determine success or failure of the action?  What does the bidding actually accomplish? Is victory guaranteed and the only question is how many points it costs?  Is completing the scenario with the most remaining resources points "winning" in your game?  If so that still leaves a big problem of not bidding any resources and still winning, if you win no matter what then bidding any resources is just a bad strategy.  There's no real reason to risk the points if you dont gain anything by doing so.

By your description is does also seem to depend a lot on how feasible the gm finds your plan.  The real game would become figuring out the way the gm thinks and coming up with a plan that exploits it and the bidding thing becomes an afterthought.  My impression is this isnt a bad starting point for a mechanic but it needs some refinement to make it actually useful in play.

Quote from: Callan S. on July 02, 2006, 01:41:44 AM
I'm still considering how pools refresh. Currently I'm thinking at yet another personal D&D default that the resources don't refresh at all - you only ever get closer to your doom. They only refresh at the start of each session (note: Not per game world day but per real life session).

So ... your game is designed to systematically eliminate and disempower the people who are playing it the way you want them to (by pushing them inexorably closer to their doom), while protecting and empowering the people who play it the way you wish they wouldn't?

Here's a way I think you could make this work.

Give the GM so many points for the scenario and he announces it at the beginning of the game.  In order for the players to succeed they have to match the gm's bid value but not the type of resource.  If they bid the same type as he did they lose the points, if they dont bid enough points they fail in what they were attempting and again lose the points if they match but lose nothing if the dont match.


So in our example where the players were trying to rescue the princess from the castle lets say the gm has decided this scenario is worth 1200 points.  This value could even be required to match the combined value of the players abilities if you want to make it fair but then again winning against tough odds or taking on an easy opponent can be an interesting change.  So anyways the gm has 1200 points for the whole scenario and announces it to the players, they have their points that wont refresh until this scenario is done.  The players come up with a plan to get into the castle, the first step in this scenario.  The gm decides on how many and what type of points to bid on this instance, they dont have to relate in anyway to what type of defences have been described for the castle but the type will be important later in resolution. The gm can only bid one type of resource.

So the player decide to bid their resources.  They also have to chose only 1 type and they must pool their resources.  They total their bid, come to an agreement on what type of resource and when they are ready both the players and the gm reveal the bids.  The players succeed if they match or beat the gm's bid.  They fail if they didnt' bid as much as the gm point wise.  Either way we compare the type of resource and if both the players and the gm's type match the players lose that amount.  The type of resources bid also determines the narrated effects in a sort of fortune in the middle manner.  In our example  we'll say the gm bid 200 points on brute the players bid a total of 350 on wits.   Because they've beat the gm's total they have succeeded in entering the castle and they did it by using wits so we know think up a way in which the players wits overcame the brute force of guards.

It the gm had also bid wits and both totals remained the same then the players would have lost the amount they bid but still been successful.  I 'd suggest taking the total starting from the player with the lowest bid and working up but never taking more than they've bid.  In either case the gm has used up his 200 points and can not reuse them.

Quote from: TonyLB on July 02, 2006, 03:08:56 PMSo ... your game is designed to systematically eliminate and disempower the people who are playing it the way you want them to (by pushing them inexorably closer to their doom), while protecting and empowering the people who play it the way you wish they wouldn't?

Yes. It shows just how missplaced playing a design rule is, doesn't it?

Honestly, if my mechanic was instead a to do list for getting players to organise a time they can all get together in real life, to 'play' it would mean not turning up - since turning up means 'risk' and no reward to make up for it!

The mechanic helps create something to turn up to in the first place. Over and over again in this thread though, there's the assumption there already is a game arena to play in. There isn't and you are dishonouring your fellow players by thinking there is. Once you've locked in your bids, only then does the arena exist.

Hi Caldis,

I'm not sure I have formalised victory status in mind, like other indie RPG's tend to use. As a player I want to push a rock off a cliff onto an orcs head below, to state a victory status would be to describe that result. What I want the design to focus on is the player simply describes what they do, without saying it's intent. Then they see what happens. So they might describe their PC pushing the rock and may or may not bid fatigue points while doing so. Then they see what happens. See, that's where the gamist arena is supposed to be (and only supposed to be) - guessing how the game world will work out in your favour. You can still lose and the rock thuds a foot to the left of the orc. My proposed mechanic only lets the player determine if his fatigue points were part of the bet or not.

I'm not sure I agree with you on the scope of the gamist agenda but let's ignore that for now and look at this mechanic.

It seems to me you are looking for a random resource management system that will affect what the characters are able to do in game.  Once the player has run out of resources the character is pretty much going to be useless.  It kind of works like hit points in Dungeons and Dragons except rather than being dependant on the combat system your mechanic is dependant on the players skill and luck at betting. 

The up side would be that the mechanic is more directly related to the player, the downside is that it does devalue the SIS.  What the player bid determines the result rather than the long drawn out process of how the player created the character, what type of abilities he gave the character, how well he rolled on the d20, etc.  The downside is that a lot of players get a huge kick out of all that extra stuff, unless you still have that in the game in some other manner?

Couple questions for you yet, what is the scope of an action in your game?  Would you bid for every sword swing or is combat resolved in one roll and this mechanic would only come into play when combat is over?  What are you planning to use as a resolution mechanic and how does it integrate with this?

I can see it working in the manner I've laid out above, it may even be a more intriguing mechanic than hit points or the like, I do worry it may be somewhat clunky and slow game play down for little advantage.  How do you plan to handle those concerns?

Callen,

QuoteI'm pretty cool with that. I know that heavy system use like in capes play isn't gamist. And I've come to think many other types of heavy system use, aren't actually gamist either. The only thing I can see that is different is that peer appreciation of technique is more important than mechanical win.

I believe that I have found the true source of your all the conflicts and problems.  There are misconceptions as to the goal of your game.  I do not believe that the goal of your game is actually gamist.  I believe that you goal is as follows:

The goal of this game is to create a meta-game through which a player can maximize the appreciation of others for themselves.

I do not see how the bidding system generates appreciation.  True, you can bid a lot or a little.  But so what?  Why should I care what someone else bids?  I won't benefit from it.  I won't find the experience any more or less immersive because he or she chose one number over another.  If anything, the lack of mechanical interaction seems like it would generate apathy.

That said, I think that we could tweak your bidding system slightly so that it supports your goal very well.  Let us try to find where in GNS it falls, then from there we can work on insuring that it

As stated, your goal falls outside of GNS.  Or, rather, it falls into every GNS option to some degree.  Each option can help you achieve your goal in a different way.

To make sure that we are on the same page, I am very quickly going to define GNS for you.  I believe that many of the conflicts in this thread have resulted from simple miscommunication.

Gamisim:  The player's primary goal is to win
Simulationisim:  The player's primary goal is to create player immersion.
Narativism:  The player's primary goal is to create an awesome story

Here are some ways each of the different GNS options can help you achieve your goal:

Gamisim:  In a gamist game you can have actual mutualism and altruism.  You can impress other players with your tactics.  You can take great risks and sacrifice for the group as a whole.
Simulationisim:  You can impress others with your acting skills.  When you succeed at generating immersion you create enjoyment for the group as a whole.
Narativism:  I would recommend against narativisim as it tends to be story focused, not player focused.  It is about working together to create a story everyone can appreciate, not creating appreciation for yourself.  Might be able to impress others with your story creation skills, but that's about it.

If you want to include more then one of these goals into your game that's fine.  However, you will need to prioritize them.  These goals will come into conflict with one and other.  In order to maximize the benefit that your players will achieve from your game, you must decide which goals take precedence over which.  On the other hand, you don't need to  If you only want one, that is fine as well.

Its getting very late so I am just going to wrap this up with one possibility which I could see strongly supporting your goal.

You choose to make your game gamist.  When you bid and succeed you generate resources FOR ANOTHER PLAYER.  This is the only way to generate resources and they never refresh.  Mutualism and co-operation are the only ways to become more effective.  Perhaps there is an overarching goal (the win condition) so that players can make personal sacrifices to draw closer to it.  If you have a goal then it would need to be impossible to draw closer to it (and thus win) without actually spending resources.

I am not saying that this is the only way to go.  The game Eric described was simulationist and you seemed to really like that.  There would be nothing wrong with figuring out ways to shift the system to help generate that kind of immersion.

Best,
        Bill

QuoteThe goal of this game is to create a meta-game through which a player can maximize the appreciation of others for themselves.

Yes.  However, the conclusions you go on to draw are completely spurious IMO.

And its only outside the scope of GNS in that its proposing a kinda negotiation about the terms of the local game, which is unsual in gamism, but not in its ethic or mindset, which are gamist.

I also think your breakdown of GNS is highly simplistic but lets set that aside.

I think part of what is happening here is that we are going too far too fast.  An idea was floated for consideration and comment, a whole game was not offered for examination and critique.  Attacking such as exists of the idea at the moment for not "working" is premature.  I've had this problem myself, where an idea needs commentary to develop but is hard to communicate with out a developed example.

For one thing we are mostly ignoring any link that may exist between the SIS and mechanics which will presumably exist in a developed version.  Callan mentions "like HP or fatigue points", so maybe it would pay to consider more closely something like the CHOICE to be made by electing to bet fatigue, or HP, or both, and how that would be reflected in the action in the SIS, what you would describe in play as a consequence of that choice.

Another thing that has been elided by this layer of abstraction is that presumably, charracters can die.  Thats why there is still something riding on the notional risks.  We can pose the question thus: if approached by your enemies, do you choose to run (bet fatigue) or fight (bet HP)?  In the latter case, if the price the GM demands is high, the character may die.  That is implied by the qualitative distinction between the nature of the points and what they represent, and the distinction is implied by the fact there is more than one pool of them.

Its too early to get into details of refreshing pools and the like.  The question asked was what kind of attributes characters shoulod have, if any.  Callan, do you mean trad attributes in addition to the point pools?  I think this would be an oppotunity to do something much more impressonist with whatever figures flesh out the character representation.

contracycle,

Quote

QuoteThe goal of this game is to create a meta-game through which a player can maximize the appreciation of others for themselves.

Yes.  However, the conclusions you go on to draw are completely spurious IMO.

Hence why my last post was not for you, but for Callen.  You will notice the previous line was:

QuoteI believe that you goal is as follows:

Only he can know what his goal is.  Not you.  I am making a conjecture based on what Callen has been saying.  If this conjecture is correct then the rest of the post should be useful to him.  If not he can explain his actual goals and from there we can tweak his mechanic.

QuoteAn idea was floated for consideration and comment, a whole game was not offered for examination and critique.

True.  And no one has ever offered him a full game.  However, mechanics must exist in some kind of context.  The Sorcerors Cool Rule mechanic has no place in a gamist game.  Our analysis in this game has only been as deep as necessary to explore the bidding mechanic.

QuoteCallan mentions "like HP or fatigue points", so maybe it would pay to consider more closely something like the CHOICE to be made by electing to bet fatigue, or HP, or both, and how that would be reflected in the action in the SIS, what you would describe in play as a consequence of that choice.[
...
Another thing that has been elided by this layer of abstraction is that presumably, charracters can die.  Thats why there is still something riding on the notional risks.  We can pose the question thus: if approached by your enemies, do you choose to run (bet fatigue) or fight (bet HP)?  In the latter case, if the price the GM demands is high, the character may die.  That is implied by the qualitative distinction between the nature of the points and what they represent, and the distinction is implied by the fact there is more than one pool of them.

If that the mechanic in quesion were:  "The GM says you must bid X resources total but the players get to decide how these are divided" then it would not be a problem.  (Other then the fact that it wouldn't help Callen achieve his goal.)  But that is not the mechanic.  The current mechanic allows you to bid what ever you want.  The "bidding 0 always" strategy has been the sticking point.

QuoteIts too early to get into details of refreshing pools and the like.

If you don't feel you need this kind of information then don't ask.  But if someone else feels they do then they have every right to.


Instead of arguing with people who are trying to help Callen, your energies would be better spent trying to help him yourself.  It does not matter if their comments would not help you improve his game, as long as it helps him.  If you have something to add to the mechanic or recommendations for it, please feel free to state it.  But don't waste time trying to pretend you know whose ideas are helpful and whose are not.  Only Callen can know that.

Best,
        Bill

Ooh... ooh... I got a couple of questions.

First, what guidlines do you suggest a GM should follow when deciding how many of what resources things should cost?  If her main concern is "what things would realistically cost", then dosn't this part of the system have a Simulist slant?  If her main concern is "what's best for the story" then dosn't this part have a Narritivist slant?  I'd argue that "what's fair (according to the rules of the game)" would be a gamest slant, but you've said that you want your system to be gamist without the GM having to worry about fairness, so this presumibly isn't what you're going for (or is the goal to allow the GM to make decisions based of setting or plot without having to abandon gamist play?).

Second, what guidlines do you suggest a player should follow when deciding what to bid?  Is it the same as the GM's?  Is it a pure metagame decision (such as how interested the player is in the scene?  or how confident they are about their plan?), or does it represent something in character (such as how much risk the character is willing to take?  or how much effort the character is putting forth?)?

Third, what's the point of secrecy during the "bidding"?  As near as I can figure, both the GM and the player pick a resource loss and the character loses the lowest of these two picks.  This seems like a pretty non-confrontational way to determine the cost; what's the harm in letting the GM know what I'm bidding (since she's no way to force me to lose more then I'm willing to bid anyway)?  We'd probably achieve simlar results if we just discussed and consensed on what resources should be lost (we might even achieve more satisfying results, as we both come up with factors that the other didn't consider).

Quote from: Bill Masek on July 03, 2006, 02:20:57 PM

Instead of arguing with people who are trying to help Callen, your energies would be better spent trying to help him yourself.  It does not matter if their comments would not help you improve his game, as long as it helps him.  If you have something to add to the mechanic or recommendations for it, please feel free to state it.  But don't waste time trying to pretend you know whose ideas are helpful and whose are not.  Only Callen can know that.

Indeed, Bill.  So why don't we try that, instead of proposing impossible problems about taking advantage before play even begins, for example.

It would be ingteresting to propose a situation in which the point pools are variously shared among the characters.  This seems quite a natural fit for systems that are larger than individuals, such as ships and organisaitons.   For certain classes of points, more than one, or all characters may have to agree to a bid.  The inevitabel "character group" could be defined by shared membership of a point pool.

Also.... I'm not sure that you would actually have to cease activity if you ran out of points.  There isn't any particular reason that you couldn't run up a tab with the house, as it were.  The points have not yet been attached to a representation of finite resources.  Points reflecting social status often have uses for negative values and so forth as well.

In terms of implementation, a physical realisation might be something like a deck of playing cards with suits representing 4 types of points and number representing amounts of points.  When the action is proposed, the GM consults with their ineffable wisdom and puts some cards into an envelope.  The players then gives their strategy and pushes forward cards of their own representing their bids, and then gets to see whats in the envelope.

QuoteThe current mechanic allows you to bid what ever you want.  The "bidding 0 always" strategy has been the sticking point.

When it does happen I do not think it will be problematic, it will serve instead as a representation of player interest, or in this case more precisely, disinterest.  The significance of allowing the players to control the stakes in play allows them to control the importance of the action.

Consider the case where the players travel from place to place; if they bet "half their wealth" on the journey, are they not asking to be attacked by bandits, pretty please with a cherry on top?  If they bid nothing, are they not saying "lets ignore the journey and move on to something more interesting".  The player of a knight carrying the favour of his lady may bet their life in a tournament, or not, depending on how significant the event is to them and where they want the action to go.  They are taking up the challenges they choose to, and the mechanical system allows this to expressed for all to see and respond to.

So I do not at all think that such 0-bid play is going to be the kind of non-play you think it is.  It is rather more like saying, only roll for those things that matter.  Consistent 0-bid play is not an optimimum solution becuase it will be no fun.

contracycle,

QuoteIndeed, Bill.  So why don't we try that, instead of proposing impossible problems about taking advantage before play even begins, for example.

LOL!  I say you shouldn't do something, you agree, then do it in the next sentence.  That's funny.

The line after you agree with me is a perfect example of pretending you know which ideas are useful and which are not.  In your opinion the 0 bid is not worth discussing.  In mine it is.

QuoteSo I do not at all think that such 0-bid play is going to be the kind of non-play you think it is.  It is rather more like saying, only roll for those things that matter.  Consistent 0-bid play is not an optimimum solution becuase it will be no fun.

In case you haven't been reading the entire thread, I'll summarise the problems for you.  The game is gamist but has no reward system or formal win condition.  Callen has been very specific about these things.  Because of this the goal will default to resource conservation.  As a result, 0-bid plays becomes the only viable strategy.  And you are right, it is not fun.  Which is why people have been discussing this issue with him.

Best,
        Bill

Quote from: Bill Masek on July 04, 2006, 01:49:53 PM
LOL!  I say you shouldn't do something, you agree, then do it in the next sentence.  That's funny.

Was it now.  I assume then  you laugh anyone attempts to explain something to you.

QuoteThe line after you agree with me is a perfect example of pretending you know which ideas are useful and which are not.  In your opinion the 0 bid is not worth discussing.  In mine it is.

Correct.  You are mistaken.  I folowed the explanation Callan gave, you apparently did not.

Quote
In case you haven't been reading the entire thread, I'll summarise the problems for you.  The game is gamist but has no reward system or formal win condition.

No shit.  Maybe thats because, gamism is not abouit winning, but about the demonstration of ability and guts?

QuoteCallen has been very specific about these things.  Because of this the goal will default to resource conservation. 

How can it do so, when there are no resources as yet to be conserved?  And why would anyone do so, when conserving such resources would prevent the player from the demonstration of ability and guts, which is the very purpose of play?

QuoteAs a result, 0-bid plays becomes the only viable strategy.  And you are right, it is not fun.  Which is why people have been discussing this issue with him.

The logic is poor, resting as it does on the need for a victory condition which in fact is unnecessary.

Guys could you take the squabbling to PM and leave the thread for discussing Callan's mechanic.  If he's even interested in it anymore, if not I think this thread is done, we've all given him our thoughts now it's up to him.

The thread is totally closed now.

Callan and Gareth, you guys could well have taken it to private discussion on your own long before this. Try harder next time.

Best, Ron