Unsung: Lapse and Gift Mechanic (peanut gallery wanted)

[xiombarg]

Okay, in reference to this thread I'm curious what other people think about the Lapse and Gift mechanics in Unsung.

It's probably best to look at the latest playtest rules when trying to understand this:

http://ivanhoeunbound.com/unsung_playtest.html

Just skip to the stuff about Gifts and Lapses.

Now,  my goals with the Lapse and Gift mechanics as they stand were:

1. I wanted to set things up so that the story of a characters moral rise or fall was reasonably slow, whichever direction they went, and that going up was more difficult the further you have fallen.

2. I also wanted to have a strong feeling of co-authorship, where everyone takes an active interest in everyone else's characters.

3. I wanted to highlight the importance of morally ambiguous situations, no matter how they turned out.

4. I wanted to encourage players to be an avocate for their character's morality, without requiring it. That is, I wanted people to generally want their characters not to become less Responsible, but I wanted to make it possible for someone to embrace a "villian" role if they wanted, for contrast.

Now, within these goals, I had two major assumptions:

1. Attention on one's character -- whether one is controlling it or not -- is a reward into itself.

2. Producing surprises, particular for the person that orginally designed a character, is fun and interesting.

Now, I'm curious about two things, whether the mechanics achieve what I want, and whether my assumptons are valid...

[Ben Lehman]

I have been following this debate in general -- you might recall that I had interest in your game, but not enough internet access to play.

This time, however, I just have vague thoughts.

1. Attention on one's character -- whether one is controlling it or not -- is a reward into itself.

BL>  I would say that attention to the player is the primary (and perhaps the only) reward of RPG play -- this is obviously quite complicated, but it means that I think that you're on the right track with the benefits here.  My favorite aspect of Unsung (and I like a whole lot of it) is that it cuts straight to the chase as far as the goals of an RPG are concerned.

However.

I'm not sure whether attention on the player's character, when the player is not in control, gives attention to the player or not.  Clearly, there is some attention -- people are examining the character that the player has made.  But it is very indirect, and clearly frustrating for some (like Mike.)

Some other problems:

A lapse is a lapse -- it is by definition a moral failure.  Thus, setting up the player as the character's moral advocate is inviting frustration because -- the situation being what it is -- they will ineveitably fail in that role.  Thus, you should not be doing encouraging the player to take on the stance of a moral advocate.

Allowing wholesale control of a character means that the attention is on the actions of the other players, not the player himself, and thus lacks as strong a "benefit" kick.

Here is my suggestion:  Keep the lapse discussion and voting as is.  However, encourage the player of the lapsing character to participate  in a suggestion role, or to be quiet and let others decide.  Most importantly, change what they are deciding upon -- they don't narrate the entire lapse, they merely decide the outcome ("you shoot him in the head," rather than "you shoot him in the head because you're a rascist.")  Then, throw the ball back into the player's court -- he gets full narrative power to describe the events of the lapse, especially with regards to the character's internal dialouge and state, as long as the outcome is what was voted upon. (I shoot him in the head because I'm sick of this chickenshit waiting game.  I shoot him in the head because he looks like the man who stole my wife from me.  I shoot him in the head because I'm so tired from last night's trip to the strip club that I can't see straight.) This gives the player the joy of being the center of attention and a stronger sense of ownership over the character whilst keeping the sense of discovery.  At least, I hope so.

What do people think of this?

[xiombarg]

Ben, thank you for your long and reasoned response!

Your suggestion is very interesting. So the group decides what happens, but the player describes it, including WHY it happened. As such, it becomes an opportunity for "internal monologue" to be made manifest in play.

I like it, but I'm curious what others have to say. Especially as I'm not sure I agree with alll of Ben's reasoning -- sure it can be frustrating to be an avocate for the character's morality, but I'm not sure it HAS to be that way... It's really a matter of player attitude toward the character. Josh, for example, found it less frustrating over time...

[Mike Holmes]

Just to be clear, I don't find play frustrating. People often seem to think that my attempts to improve games must come from some sense that they are broken or something. A game can be perfectly functional and still be improved.

I've never said that the game wasn't fun. I liked playing a lot.

The only thing that I'm frustrated about is that I've been unable so far to communicate where I think the improvement could be made, or even what it is exactly that I think could use improving.

Anyhow I think that Ben's suggestion scratches the surface at being the improvement that I'm looking for, but in a fairly tangential manner. Note that in play we pretty much did do exactly what Ben suggests.

Mike

[Ben Lehman]

Ben, thank you for your long and reasoned response!

BL>  Sorry it took me so long to write it :-)

Your suggestion is very interesting. So the group decides what happens, but the player describes it, including WHY it happened. As such, it becomes an opportunity for "internal monologue" to be made manifest in play.

BL>    Group decides what happens, player decides why and how.  Now, for certain lapses (like Dana's shooting the guy in the head), how isn't that important.  But for others, I could see it matter much more.

There are some further implications of this that I realize I should address.  Giving the player full narration power for the scene of the lapse actually allows them to use the lapse to flesh out the past, give traits to their own character or other characters, and introduce plot elements of their own.  (I shoot the guy in the head because I think I recognize him as that escaped spy, but at the last moment I realize that it wasn't him.)  In doing this, it does compete with the Gift mechanic, which is in the standard rules the only way of obtaining this sort of power.  This isn't a bad thing, necessarily, it's just "further implications."

Especially as I'm not sure I agree with alll of Ben's reasoning -- sure it can be frustrating to be an avocate for the character's morality, but I'm not sure it HAS to be that way... It's really a matter of player attitude toward the character. Josh, for example, found it less frustrating over time...

BL>  It doesn't HAVE to be at all.  It just CAN be, for a certain temperment of player -- the one who is frustrated by failure.  I think that having the rules written as they are (they strongly imply that the player ought to be taking the doomed moral advocate role) sets the game up for this form of frustration.  Further, I think it's unnecessary because, in practice, it doesn't seem to come up a lot.

Perhaps just "The player of the lapsing character can participate in the discussion in whatever role lack thereof she sees fit, but is not allowed a final vote" would resolve it.

The main point of my proposal was to shift the player of the lapsing character from a defensive "people are out to get me" to a collusive "I am working with the other players to make my character cooler."  Which is, I think, what you are going for.  Any rules change which furthers that goal is, I think, good for the game.

But... I'm not a player, just a critic. :-)  Looking forward to see what they think.

yrs--
--Ben

[xiombarg]

The only thing that I'm frustrated about is that I've been unable so far to communicate where I think the improvement could be made, or even what it is exactly that I think could use improving.

Well, it might not be your own problem -- it might just be I'm having a difficult time understanding.

And, yeah, we did informally end up doing the same sort of thing as Ben suggests. But it couldn't hurt to formalize it, I think.

As for figuring out what needs to be changed -- if anything -- what about some sort of effect happening when Responsibility reaches 1, or when Responsibility would normally go below 1 but can't? Not that I'm sure what that effect would be. I admit I'm overly fond of "The Horror Revealed" so I think a "cut scene" the illustrates the characters degeneration in a more overt form among other people would be interesting...