[Dulcimer Hall] In Search of Angsty Loner Cypher Guy

[TonyLB]

I expect that they will be generating lots of facts about what they've done.  But that yes, as you pointed out, these facts will be very open to interpretation.  After all, they want them to be interpreted.  That's part of how they get their story power, by creating the circumstances that other players puzzle over.

As for why they're not Nar protagonists:  Until something is introduced into the SIS it hasn't happened.  Which means that characters that only develop in the private thoughts of their players are not developing in the game.  Which means that they are (more than likely) not answering the questions of Theme during play, they are simply reiterating the answers that they had coming into the game.

And, finally, I have my first, wholly inadequate, write-up.  Tear into it, I know I will:
Draft Rules
Character sheets
Fabricated Example of Play

[Doug Ruff]

Well, I've read this a few times now, and I think I'm beginning to understand it, so:

(1) I like the range of mechanical effects - there's some clever strategy going on here. It needs some heavy playtesting, as it's really hard to tell just by looking at it if there are any "broken" strategies.

(2) It looks like Active and Decisive have exactly the same mechanical effect, is this deliberate? At the moment, I see very little difference between the two traits, both mechanically and thematically, this seems like a lost opportunity (but may be necessary for balance or "padding" the other traits.)

(3) Re: division of Secrets, Beliefs and Theories. A better division might be between Image (stuff I know about myself, and other people know too), Secrets (stuff only I know about myself) and Blind Spot (stuff other people know about me, but I don't know about myself.) This mirrors the "Johari's Window" scheme; it also allows for moments of self-discovery (moving or consolidating traits from the Blind Spot to the Image) or denial (moving traits from Secrets or Image into the Blind Spot).

(4) Is there a maximum size to the Piles? I don't see this mentioned anywhere in game.

(5) I'm not sure how explicit this in in the text, but the whole point of the game (apart from Having Fun) is to exert influence over the other character's personalities by defining their traits for them, right?

(6) Although this is heavily suggested by the examples, it probably needs to be more explicit that consolidated traits must be directly related to the traits that they are consolidated from. Because this, in conjunction with the limit on the number of traits a character can have, is what allows indirect manipulation of a character's Secrets and Theories to influence their Beliefs as well.

(7) I'd like to see more about the role of Facts in the game. For example, are any Facts defined at the start of play, in order to set the initial tone for the game? Do Facts have any impact other than as fodder for other Traits? Can I use a relevant Fact to improve my chances during a conflict?

(8) I need to understand Trait ownership better. For example, if I consolidate some Traits to add a new Trait to your sheet, do I own the new Trait? How about if I increase one of your Traits that you or someone else owns, do I own it now? Can anyone own a Fact?

And in case you hadn't guessed already, I'm hooked... tell me more!

[LordSmerf]

<snip>
As for why they're not Nar protagonists:  Until something is introduced into the SIS it hasn't happened.  Which means that characters that only develop in the private thoughts of their players are not developing in the game.  Which means that they are (more than likely) not answering the questions of Theme during play, they are simply reiterating the answers that they had coming into the game.
<snip>

I haven't read the rules yet (later this afternoon...), but I wanted to highlight this...  I think it would TOTALLY ROCK, in bold all caps, if there were mechanical support for players of ACLGs to keep a "journal" or some other written record of what they think is going on with the character.  And then, when you finish a campaign or something, whenever the secrecy isn't needed anymore, you bust them out and let everyone read them.

"So, that's what you were thinking during that scene."  "Oh, wow, I knew he was cool, but that is totally sweet!"  "Oh man!  I didn't know that that scene had such an impact on him."

So... what do you think?

Thomas

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I'd also like to challenge you just a bit, Tony, on this point you're making.

Let's say we're playing, oh, any game in which all the characters pretty much get the same system-basis for function, and yet all of one's written attributes or whatever are purely customized by name. Over the Edge, Dogs, Capes free-form, Fastlane to some extent, HeroQuest to a larger extent than most people realize, whatever.

Let's say I get 11 dice (say, 2d10, 5d6, 4d4) to distribute across four scores, and I can name those scores whatever I want. As usual in such a game, resolution is highly Fortune-in-the-Middle, and plausibility of usage (as well as certain consequences of usage) is essentially built right there in narration.

I place my dice ...

Mysterious sudden defeat of opponent 2d6 + 1d4
Calm "take your breath away" gaze 2d6 + 2d4
Unexpected appearance 1d10 + 1d6 + 1d4
Appalling non-verbal rage 1d10

Now, all the other characters have extremely solid in-game attributes, stuff like "FBI spook skills" or "good runner." But in play, everyone rolls whatever it is they're using, and the dice resolve conflicts. The differences among the names of the scores is found only in the narration.

Is this not your angsty loner? Expressed in the system? Effective in play? ... and potentially a Narrativist protagonist with a built-in, yet functional and rather enjoyable delay in Premise expression?

Best,
Ron

[TonyLB]

That's a good challenge!  I have what I think is a good response, and it even lets me use some of my more recent ideas and terminology.

In terms of "Can this character be effective under the rules?", yes, writing up the character in that way expresses them in the rules.  They have no reduced effectiveness, and in fact are probably more effective than people who take traits like "Fast Runner" that most easily apply in limited circumstances.

But by writing up such a character you cut people out of the first step of Coaching your character ("Understand the drives, issues and limitations of the character").  This, in turn, means that they cannot functionally progress to any later steps of coaching.  In short, other players (including the GM) will not have the signals within the system to help them create the perfect adversity that will make your character shine.

Even "I'm a fast runner" gives me ideas:  "Damn!  We need to make it to the switch that deactivates the automated guns, but they're so fast that they'll gun down anyone who tries!"  If you spike that Trait with character-history or meaning (e.g. "I hadda run fast to get away from poppa when he was on a drunken bender") then I get even more grist for Coaching.  I know to have him chased by incoherent, fast, large creatures... werewolves, perhaps?

"Unexpected appearance" is an effective Trait, but not an effective signal to help other players in Coaching your character.  How am I supposed to use that to get a better grip on the type of challenges your character needs?

By comparison, the "Out" system that I wrote up, mostly on intuition, in the draft rules seems like it might become a strong way to get at such characters's weaknesses through system:  They don't want to be pushed to make an important statement about themself, and that is a weakness.  So another player can Coach them well, simply by offering something that tempts them to break out of their reticence.  Whether they accept, decline or defy, they're making a statement about their character and rising to the adversity in an important way.

Whaddya think?

[TonyLB]

Doug:  I don't know the answers to most of those questions, because I haven't figured them out yet.  I agree with pretty much everything you said, as questions.

Maximum pile-size:  I don't know.  I need to figure out the reward and punishment that people get when they run out of dice... then I'll see whether the size of the piles needs to be balanced against those of other characters, or whether it's just a factor in your strategy.

Johari's Window:  Good stuff.  I'll mention this again when I deal with Thomas's suggestion.

Facts:  Yeah, I've been thinking back to the Capes Facts thread while discussing this.  The same problems apply, but maybe they're more easily surmounted in the context of this system.

Trait Ownership:  This is something I've drafted, but firmly expect to change.  At the moment it's "If you have a plurality of traits owned by one person (i.e. two traits when you're consolidating four and the others are owned by distinct people) then that person gets it, otherwise it is the choice of the consolidator, of those that are tied".  And that stinks, but it's what I've got right now.


Thomas:  You're talking about keeping Traits secret from other players.  That would be... that could be really cool!  Yes, players would be on the honor code ("I've got a level 3 trait that applies here... honest!") but I don't think that would be a huge problem.

And this gets really interesting with the Johari's Window (discussed above) issue.  Because, clearly, it's the character's Secrets (in Doug's terminology) or Beliefs (in mine) that are under their secret control.  So the secret stuff is, really, the bits that the other players don't have access to anyway.

Okay, that's definitely something to consider.

[LordSmerf]

Actually, I hadn't had any plans to store mechanics in secret, just cool narrative stuff.  That said, secret mechanical stuff rocks, and I shall falesly claim full credit for it!

Thomas

[TonyLB]

Okay, having further considered the idea of Secret Traits, I'm liking it a lot on several levels.

Viewpoints:  It gives a distinct place in the rules for Facts... because Facts are what people need to reference in creating or bolstering their own Secrets.  Then they create more Facts, which allow them to further bolster their own Secrets.  The fun comes from how two different players, watching the facts and knowing that there is a motivation behind their creation (but not knowing what it is) can arrive at completely different sets of beliefs.

The absolute classic:  Emma.  She and Miss Bates hang about, while Emma is trying to make a match between whatsisname the geek and Miss Bates.  Whatsisname takes every opportunity to be kind to the ladies.  Emma naturally, gleefully, increases her "Whatsisname is falling for Miss Bates" Secret.  Whatsisname, meanwhile, gleefully increases his "I am courting Emma" Secret.  And both of them are gleeful because they can only see the actions of the other as proving that they both share the same secret beliefs.

The revelation of their different points of view causes a massive cascade of reinterpretation.  Oh, he wasn't framing the portrait because Miss Bates was portrayed in it, but because Emma had painted it!  Of course!


System Trickery:  The easiest way to make sure that you have facts that can be interpreted from all possible angles is to give all the players all the information they need to create such vague facts.  Once you hide any of the Traits you need someone/something else to coordinate. I am confident that it is possible to pass that responsibility off onto system structure, but it's something I'll have to keep an eye on.


Mechanics Reward/Punishment:  In some, general, sense then players are offering up facts, of various degrees of ambiguity.  If we look, for a moment, at the climactic revelations ("I love you!  I've always loved you!") then what are the possible rewards and what the possible risks?

If you make such a revelation you're basically gambling that your assessment of the other person is correct:  that they love you too.  And it strikes me that the mathematics of this are very much akin to the Prisoners Dilemma.

[*]If you confess your feelings and they are reciprocated then you've both cooperated.  Reasonable victory.[*]If you confess your feelings and they are spurned then you're hurt real bad, and the other person has a minor victory.[*]If you lie and your lie is slapped down then you both lose a little, but nowhere near as much as if you'd confessed your real feelings.[/list:u]Except, importantly, it's not simultaneous prisoner's dilemma.  I think in many ways it's sequential:  You choose whether to ally or defect, then the next player (for the most part knowing your decision) chooses whether to ally or defect and you judge that pair of decisions.  Then you choose whether to ally or defect, and pair that with his previous decision, and judge that.  And so on.

Does anyone have pointers to analysis on this variant of the game?  My search-fu fails me.

[LordSmerf]

Sequential Prisoner's Dilemma play is something I've not heard anything about.  I do however know that the typical analysis of the Dilemma radically changes when repeated with the same players over time.  I'm not familiar with all of the permutations.

Anyway, I really like the idea of part of your sheet being secret and part public.  It makes me tingle with excitement.  Especially if you can do stuff to another player's public stuff, but then they can take stuff out of the public area (that you put there) and mess with it...  Hurray!

Thomas