How to Teach People to Accept Death and Mind Control

[Paul T]

...or, more descriptively:

"Pool Dice as Training Wheels for Conflict Resolution".

I've been thinking about playing Vincent Baker's "Art, Grace, & Guts" game, so I went and read through some of the comments made about it on his blog. One of the commenters asks him how someone can play a game where another player can kill your character, or convince your character to do something simply by saying that he wants to and then winning the conflict. Here's the comment, if you're curious:

http://www.lumpley.com/marginalia.php?entry=196&comment=5490

He points out that there is a limitation--in most cases, your character can't die without your assent. This is not uncommon in Nar-facilitating games. So, he asks, is there also a limitation for "mind control"--when another character wants to get your character to do something you don't want to do?

This is an important aspect of games that use conflict resolution--death and "mind control" are definitely possibilities. We look to the dice to see what happens. However, this often sounds really strange and frightening to those of us coming from traditional, Task Resolution-based games.

My idea is as follows:

Add a Pool-like resource to whatever game you're playing to "train" new players to get used to the idea that the dice may send their character in a direction they had not foreseen.

Let's say each player gets a pool of 10 dice or points, which refresh every session. The idea is that, any time you feel that your character might be faced with an outcome you can't accept (death or mind control), or an outcome that makes you feel really uncomfortable, you can spend as many of those dice or points as you want to increase your roll in that conflict.

Obviously, this wouldn't be necessary in any game where stakes are negotiated. But for those other games, like Art, Grace, & Guts...

Example:

--"The agent offers you an enormous bribe...if only you will tell him where the plans are been hidden. Your character has the flaw, 'Driven by greed'. We're going to roll to see if he can convince you to do betray your country."
--"No way! My guy is greedy, sure, but he wouldn't betray his country! What kind of game is this? ... I'm going to spend five dice to add to my roll."

Now, the dice or points would work like this:

   * If you succeed, you lose whatever dice you spent. You pay for escaping those consequences.
   * If you still fail, you can keep the dice (to use later).

The idea is that players get to avoid those real doozy moments that might give them a heart attack or are making them too scared to play the game at all. However, they are still quickly being trained into the idea that it isn't fiat but the conflict resolution system that is providing the outcome of those conflicts. With this safety net, hopefully the players would grow to trust the conflict mechanics and eventually by ready to play without the "safety pool"..

What I'd like to hear from you is:

a) Has this been done before? If so, where and how? If it was in actual play, how did it turn out?

b) Do you think this idea would have the effect it's designed to have? If not, why not?

c) Is this a problem worth "solving", or is it better to just tear of the bandaid and just throw people right in, head first, all the time?

Heck, maybe you think that something like this should be included in all conflictres games! If so, tell me why.

d) Or, do you think it's a terrible idea? Would it only make things worse; have the opposite effect from what it's intended for, undermine perfectly good conflict resolution systems? (For instance, would players abuse this pool to win other contests, or to kill or mind control each other? If so, how could that be avoided?)

Thanks!


Paul

[dindenver]

Hi!
  I'm hovering around "C." I am a big fan of Luck systems. But I don;t think they are necessary for "training" people on CR or Nar games.
  I think the two real fixes is:
1) Get players talking to each other about what matters to them
2) Stakes setting. It doesn't even have to be "binary stakes setting," but I feel like, especially with CR, that letting the players know exactly what is at stake is key.
  And your proposed Luck system does not really address either of those.
  In reality, Old school task-based systems were just as subject to Instant Death and Mind control, lol Sure, players had more control of how their chars initiated actions, but the GM had more control over the resolution of that action...
  As far as teaching someone, I'd say your proposal of throwing them in the deep end will work for some players, but other players will just have to be walked trough the process a couple times before they "get it."
  Good luck man!

[Callan S.]

Hi Paul,

Could you go into why players should be trained to accept mind control and such? My uneducated guess right now is because its realistic and part of the game world. That's one agenda. Am I way off?

But under another agenda, players are interested in seeing the other characters choices - the commentors example shows a player who is NOT interested in seeing that choice. He wants absolute control over it. But if your interested in seeing character choices, you know your shooting yourself in the foot trying to do this. Mind control can still be there - he could seduce her into coming to a really, really romantic spot alone with him. That's forcing her to turn up. But whether she accepts his advances under such romantic circumstances, that is left to the player to address.

[Steven Stewart]

Hi Paul,

I just wanted to chime in from some actual play expierences, that indeed the Mind Control thing is a big obstacle for many players coming from traditional gaming (at least at my table). I played recently in a game that allowed such a thing, we spoke about it before the game, during the game, and right up to the point where people got pissed off about it. It was a game breaker, to the point that player isn't interested in any game that contains that "technique" anymore. Personally, I think it was poorly worded execution of that concept which has soured him to potentialy better executed versions.

I think some folks take the mind control for granted as a technique. I think there is definetly an ease-on-in approach. Funnily enough, such players have no problem when you ask them to roll for initiative 'cause I am going to gun you down. I also think the lack of "non-combat" influence between players can be a big issue as well.

I also think that this came up in a recent thread (but one that preceeds yours by a week or two) that I asked questions regarding DiTV and this very issue, I have cut and pasted the question and Vincent's repsonse, since I think it could relevant.

My Question related to this

6: Initiating Conflicts – is it usually up to the players to determine when to start a conflict, or the GM or both? Here is an example that I am having trouble with, during one of the town write-ups one of the characters wants to have one of the players marry her to avoid her suitor. Would it be appropriate to have stakes "Does Sister Hanna convince Brother Cadmus [the Player] to marry her?" If so, can I as the GM just throw that up at the appropriate time, or should I wait for the players to initiate that?  I would be fearful that if I set stakes like that the player of Brother Cadmus might be very upset that I as a GM hoisted that on him. I think my players would get stonefaced,  and then launch into a rant that the game can't determine if their character marries somebody, stating that it is their call who their character chooses to marry. Is this something to discuss before starting the game, and get buy-in from the players on how comfortable they are with this? If we decide that the Player has ultimate authority regardless of stakes and conflicts over their characters actions, would this break down the system in Dogs? If the players can convince somebody to give up their sinnin' ways why can't that NPC convince the players that it would be in everbody's best interest if they marry her? Would it be better to have stakes like "Does Brother Cadmus convince Sister Hanna that it would be a bad idea to marry him?" And really it isn't more life changing for Brother Cadmus to marry her  than saying "does the possessed person murder Brother Cadmus in the night" but I think many of my players would object to the "getting hitched" stakes more than the "does he murder you stakes". Especially as getting married means they have to stop being a Dog, unless it's a secret marriage that no-one else knows about.   

Vincent's Response -

The way I'd do it is, "so let's roll dice, and she's trying to get you to promise to marry her. What do you think for stakes?"

In general, don't discuss anything beforehand with your players at all. It takes two sessions of real, actual play to decide what's a good raise and what's a good see, how the supernatural works, who launches what kinds of conflicts. A discussion about those beforehand will only muddy the real standards you're (as a group) creating.

The whole thread of questions really is from a traditional gamer getting into the stakes mentality. I think for sure that any work done to clarify this would be good. It seems that a lot of us old dog's misunderstand the "technique" completly, use it incorrectly in one game, and then scar people against it for a long time.

My last point, is that I don't think the mechanic perse will fix the issue alone. I think if you have a group that is solid traditional gaming, and they get this technique, that there is a big possibility that the GM will just keep "pushing" the button so to speak until the player runs out of dice.  So I think *if* you use the technique there needs to be a pretty heavy example list, some more talk about why you are doing it, some very clear and definitive instructions to GM's,  some more examples, etc.so that the GM doesn't just keep pushing the button. 

If I was going to do it all over again, I would use something akin to Inspectres, a system where the GM doesn't roll any dice. I think that easier to get your head around, if for the only reason it is so different that you have to get your head around it or you can't play.And there is the fact that the GM didn't roll the dice, the player rolls the dice, so it "feels" less like mind control, it feels rather like you lost a conflict and those are the consequences.  Whereas other systems that use GM v. Player rolling dice can easily slide into a version of task resolution without the right guidance and lead to the player being pissed again.

Is this addressing your question, or completly off base?

[Paul Czege]

Hey Paul,

With this safety net, hopefully the players would grow to trust the conflict mechanics and eventually by ready to play without the "safety pool".

I like it. I'm a big fan of mechanics that teach me to collaborate better and trust the contributions of other players. If your goal is to wean the players from the safety net, you might consider having the pool refresh to fewer dice each game session.

(For instance, would players abuse this pool to win other contests, or to kill or mind control each other? If so, how could that be avoided?)

You could limit its use to just scenes where your traits are being used against you.

Paul

[Paul T]

Paul,

With this safety net, hopefully the players would grow to trust the conflict mechanics and eventually by ready to play without the "safety pool".

I like it. I'm a big fan of mechanics that teach me to collaborate better and trust the contributions of other players. If your goal is to wean the players from the safety net, you might consider having the pool refresh to fewer dice each game session.

That's exactly what I had in mind. The pool would dwindle gradually until it was all gone.

(For instance, would players abuse this pool to win other contests, or to kill or mind control each other? If so, how could that be avoided?)

You could limit its use to just scenes where your traits are being used against you.

Another idea I had was that extra dice/bonus could only be used to avoid those negative effects (death or mind control), not to get your way in the conflict. In a game where there is a clear aggressor, this would be easy (for instance, "you can only use them in a conflict initiated by someone else against you"), but I don't know if it would work in games where both parties can be equally aggressive (for instance, in a game where if someone begins a conflict against you, you can name strong counterstakes).

Any ideas?

Thanks,


Paul

[Paul T]

Hi, Steve.

Thanks for the comments, and especially the quote from Vincent. I went and read that thread, and found it very informative, as well.

I just wanted to chime in from some actual play expierences, that indeed the Mind Control thing is a big obstacle for many players coming from traditional gaming (at least at my table). I played recently in a game that allowed such a thing, we spoke about it before the game, during the game, and right up to the point where people got pissed off about it. It was a game breaker, to the point that player isn't interested in any game that contains that "technique" anymore. Personally, I think it was poorly worded execution of that concept which has soured him to potentialy better executed versions.

This is essentially why I'm considering using a rule like this. I'm guessing that most traditional players will be scared to play a game where a conflict can make their character do something they hadn't expected them to do. They're used to the idea that a gunshot wound is "external influence" and therefore out of their hands, but a seduction attempt (or charm and persuasive arguments) isn't "external influence", and they should have full rights to decide how their character reacts. Things like courage/will checks and morale rolls fall into a middle ground, since they're often related to combat--some think they're OK and some find them distasteful.

I'm thinking that having such a pool of resources to counteract that effect might give the players enough courage to try the system. In play, the expenditure of those dice is a clear "flag" of which conflicts a player has a problem with, and which they can accept. The idea is that everyone can learn what they like and what they don't like:

If you see that player A consistently spends his points/dice on a certain type of conflict (say, seduction attempts), you know that player A is not happy with those conflicts or stakes. The real determinant would be whether player A still spends his dice/points on those conflicts by the second or third session. If he has stopped, then it's clear that he's now recognized the fun in accepting the outcome of those conflicts, and will enjoy playing in that game.

I feel that this sort of mechanic might let people "test the waters" this way and see if whatever game they're playing is for them or not. "Oh, OK, that was fun! I get it now!" or, "No, I really need to play in a system where I retain choice over this point." For instance, compare a system where some kind of points can be spent to give your character the upper hand in combat. It's quite possible that in a hardcore Sim game situation, you'd find that the players never spend those points--rather, they want to see "what would happen".

However, I don't know if it would work as I describe, so I'm asking you for your thoughts on it.


Callan,

Does that answer your question? If not, please let me know why--I think you're onto something important.


Steve,

You also mention the potential problem of a GM pushing a player until they run out of dice. This is a good point! I have to admit I'm really thinking about a situation where the GM is already on board with the idea of the game and the only the players are new, so it wasn't a concern I'd considered.

If I was going to do it all over again, I would use something akin to Inspectres, a system where the GM doesn't roll any dice. I think that easier to get your head around, if for the only reason it is so different that you have to get your head around it or you can't play.And there is the fact that the GM didn't roll the dice, the player rolls the dice, so it "feels" less like mind control, it feels rather like you lost a conflict and those are the consequences. Whereas other systems that use GM v. Player rolling dice can easily slide into a version of task resolution without the right guidance and lead to the player being pissed again.

This is very true! My first "indie" game was "the Pool", and this never seemed like a problem. We also used the "Anti-Pool" variation for player vs. player conflict, and it also worked out well: players were willing to accept a defeat because they gained a bonus by doing so. (The way I ran was that if two players were in a conflict, and both made a successful roll, they would bth lose the dice they gambled and have to roll again. However, if you were willing to "give", you would get to keep your dice AND gain an additional die.)

Thanks,


Paul

[Paul T]

Dave,

Your first point:

  I think the two real fixes is:
1) Get players talking to each other about what matters to them
2) Stakes setting. It doesn't even have to be "binary stakes setting," but I feel like, especially with CR, that letting the players know exactly what is at stake is key.
  And your proposed Luck system does not really address either of those.

You're quite right. But I'm considering this as an "add-on" to an existing system, so hopefully we would choose a system that already has the "what's at stake" issue well covered.

As for getting the players to talk, that's all good, but I don't think it's enough--at least, not if they haven't ever played a game with strong conflict resolution rules. I hope that the additional pool of resources would make it clear in play when a player had a problem accepting something--highlighting those conflicts, as it were. It would be the starting point for discussion, by showing the players *what* it is they should be talking about.

Does this make sense?

  As far as teaching someone, I'd say your proposal of throwing them in the deep end will work for some players, but other players will just have to be walked trough the process a couple times before they "get it."

That's exactly the idea. To get a player to the point where they think, "wait a minute... I'm really more interested in seeing what is going to happen here, so I'm not going to spend any points," and realize why the game is set up the way it is. If that never happens, then probably that particular game isn't for you.

I'm now thinking that for this to work, it can't just be a straight bonus. Maybe something like, "if you win the conflict due to the addition of those dice/points, you do not get your way, but you can narrate or define a different failure for your character." So, instead of "I am seduced by the princess" you could explain how you failed the conflict, but in some way that is acceptable to you.

Other options include:

a) automatic victory in exchange of the expenditure of some resource ("I'm not cool with that conflict. I spend my point. I want out.")

I feel that this isn't quite as effective. The addition of dice or some sort of bonus to the roll is effectively asking the player, "how unlikely would this (bad) outcome have to be for me to accept the authority of this die roll to inflict it on me?" That sounds more interesting to me.

b) a gain of in-game resources in exchange for accepting the stakes of failure.

That, I think, might still be "too scary" for a lot of traditional players, unless those resources were really important or obvious. I think this works fine in something the Anti-Pool variation of the Pool, for example.

Thank you, everyone, for your ideas and thoughts so far. I'd love to hear if any of these comments affect or change your original replies.

Wishing well,


Paul

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Ah, well. I think that is the 1st step to teaching this style of play. Try and really connect the stakes to the player's intentions. Something like:
"With CR, you CAN save the world with one roll, but if you fail, you lose the world. If you don't want your char to die or be the subject of mind control, de-escalate and lower the stakes."
  Really, this is what new players need to know and understand I think. So, once you comunicate that to the players, make sure the rules back this up!

  Additionally, you might want to check out "In spaaace!". In this game you lose tokens when you win a conflict, and gain tokens when you win a conflict. And you can't go below zero tokens. So at some point you have to lose conflicts in order to win them later. And the optimal strategy is to lose conflicts that don't matter to you in order to win those that do matter to you.
http://www.gregstolze.com/inSpaaace.zip
  Good luck man!

[Steven Stewart]

I'm thinking that having such a pool of resources to counteract that effect might give the players enough courage to try the system. In play, the expenditure of those dice is a clear "flag" of which conflicts a player has a problem with, and which they can accept. The idea is that everyone can learn what they like and what they don't like:

If you see that player A consistently spends his points/dice on a certain type of conflict (say, seduction attempts), you know that player A is not happy with those conflicts or stakes. The real determinant would be whether player A still spends his dice/points on those conflicts by the second or third session. If he has stopped, then it's clear that he's now recognized the fun in accepting the outcome of those conflicts, and will enjoy playing in that game.

I wrote a huge long response, but then realized perhaps I am misunderstanding something, so let me back up to a few words here. clear "flag" of which conflicts a player has a problem with and player A is not happy with those conflicts or stakes.

By "those conflicts" and "which conflicts" - are we talking the metagame concept of conflict resolution, that is the fact that a conflict can cause a character to act in a way the player didn't decide, or the specific actual act of seduction of that character in and of itself? I think that is an important clarification.

If the GM tries several different acts, like say seduction, bribery, smooth talking, cunning debate, etc. regarding several different stakes such as giving up the information to betray your country, smuggling them out of the country, promising something to them, then I would agree maybe they "get it". But if you mean the GM still pushing either of the same buttons, like using seduction over and over again, or using seduction, then bribery, then intimidation over the same stakes like betray the country, then I don't think they have "gotten it", I think they may have just surrendered to GM plot and the very thing you were trying to fix is now intrenched in their mindsets for two different techniques.

I think any system needs a one-two approach. One is clear and definite text explaining "how it works in action", extended plays example help guys like me a lot. And I don't mean one paragraph in the CR section, I mean stuff like a whole chapter of different conflicts, like in DiTV,  the more the better. The only reason I could get my head around Polaris after coming from a D20 game was listening to people playing it. If i hadn't had that, I know in our little isolated neck of the woods, we would still be scratching our heads. Not saying that the text isn't helpful, I think Ben did a wonderful job writing it,  I am just saying it was such a huge leap that I would have brought a lot of baggage with me that would impeed me. Now I normally I wouldn't bring all this up, but it would seem that you are specifically trying to develop some techniques to help the old schoolers like me ease on in.

I am reminded of the article that Ron wrote regarding early DnD and the cargo cults, etc. It is worth a read regarding the "how to play a game bit".

That stuff is way more important than any mechanic. But I think any mechanic has to stress the equality of players around the table. While the following mechanic is not thought through as much as yours, it illustrates the idea I am saying about equality of players, so focus on that bit more than the actual mechanic. 

Push-Pull -  I would give each player say 2 beans, I as the GM would have 2 beans as well. If I do something in the game then the player can spend a bean to say "no way". But then when a player says he does something I as the GM can also say "no way". (Take D20, players can intimidate the hell out of NPCs, but NPC's can't to the PCs). I think this might help get the lightbulb that the group activity is interesting stuff happening now. And that maybe perhaps illustrates in practice during the first session that "no way" can equal "cludgy story". Maybe even put in the rules if you spend both beans, go back and read the chapter on examples again. Ditch the beans when you don't need them anymore.

The Sim stuff is lost on me, I am not saying that to dismiss the arguement, just that it went over my head. I still don't have my head around that stuff yet. So I can't reply to that. Perhaps if you reword with an example?

However, I don't know if it would work as I describe, so I'm asking you for your thoughts on it.

Just want to make sure that we aren't talking past each other? Does that make sense or this taking the discussion in a place you want it go? Is this beating a dead horse that you already are aware of?

Cheers,

Steve

[Callan S.]

Hi Paul,

I think I understand you better. But you seem to be inventing a system to ween people off why they came in the first place. Say people joined the group to eat a pizza together. You then take away the pizza, but offer a mechanic where they can get it back. But slowly the pool of resources drop and eventually they wont be able to take their pizza back.

However, I'm working from the assumption that if someone is sensitive about their characters choice, their urge to play stems from a narrativist desire.

From what I understand of sim, there is the great enjoyment of the protection of input into the dream from being harmed. It's resiliency is a joy to savour. So I could imagine this being an issue in terms of how its been stated she's loyal and that just isn't changeable.

In that case, I'm still not sure a system to ween them is ideal. Clear, explicit delination of what is untouchable and what is open to change would be better, IMO, before the statement is made. Once the players made the statement with the idea it is untouchable, I don't think you can go back.

[Paul T]

Everyone,

I'm not sure whether we're talking past one another or not. I don't know have to write a detailed answer tonight, so I have another strategy to try:

-I very deliberately brought up "Art, Grace & Guts" (http://artgraceguts.pbwiki.com) in the context of this discussion, because its a game where this "problem" is very visible. In traditional players-as-a-group-and-GM games, it's less of a problem. Same is true in games with negotiated stakes. But, in AG&G, Bob can name a terrible outcome for Joe, and if he rolls well enough, it happens.

Are you familiar with that game? Go take a look, and see if my question looks any different. If it doesn't, say so, and I'll try to explain some more.

I guess I'm interested in the possibility of a mechanic acting as "protective padding". After trying the game, do you find that you want to rip off the padding and go at it "for real", or do you cringe in fear when you run out of points, no longer enjoying the game? This could be a good way to "test-drive" a game.

Does that make any more sense? Less sense?

Thanks for sticking with me!


Paul