[Fifth World] How might you model tracking with beads and a mancala board?

[jefgodesky]

Using the mancala board might just overthink this too much.  I had a flash of insight today.  What if instead, it just used the prisoner's dilemma?

[madunkieg]

Using the mancala board might just overthink this too much.  I had a flash of insight today.  What if instead, it just used the prisoner's dilemma?

Without some further mechanical convolution, the prisoner's dilemma is GM fiat:

GM trusts, player trusts: player succeeds
GM trusts, player does not trust: player fails
GM does not trust, player trusts: player fails
GM does not trust, player does not trust: player fails

So you see, the only variable that really gives a successful result is the GM trusting. If not, then the player's choice doesn't matter. If the player's choice doesn't matter, then why is the player bothering to play?

That doesn't mean the prisoner's dilemma couldn't be used, but it needs another layer of mechanics on top of it to complicate the situation.

[jefgodesky]

That doesn't really describe the Prisoner's Dilemma, though.  This gets more to it, if you do it right:

	GL trusts	GL betrays
Player trusts	Player wins little	Player loses big
Player betrays	Player wins big	Player loses little

[jefgodesky]

I also thought this might go well with the bet.  A play example:

For now, let's say we use coins. I'll probably come up with something more evocative later, but let's stick with that for the moment. You have beads in your relationships, you have a pool of free beads, and you have a coin. You want to go hunting, since that seems like the archetypal challenge for a game like this. You pick a place to go hunting, and the player playing that place tells you if any animals reveal their tracks to you here. Let's say a deer reveals her track there. You now face a resolution. The genius loci flips a coin and covers it without looking. You hide your coin under your hand, heads-up to indicate "Trust," meaning you agree to share the deer meat with your whole community, and offer the proper rites of thanksgiving for the deer. If the deer also chose trust, your village will have venison for dinner tonight; if not, you'll go home with nothing.

The deer has ten beads; you only have seven in your bowl, but then you also have six beads in your relationship with deer. "Okay," you say, "I follow the tracks and start to get a feel for the deer's health, weight, and age. Three beads in to gain the deer's trust."

But then the genius loci matches your bet, and raises you two beads; does that mean the deer chose "trust"? Or does he just want to compel you to trust, to screw you over? Have you offended Deer before? Might he want to punish you now?

No matter, you need to press on. You see the two beads, and raise him two more. "I keep on tracking, and find where she slept last night. Still a little warm; she must have slept late. Does she feel alright, or has she taken ill?"

The genius loci matches you again, and raises you two more! "I won't burn beads from my relationship with deer," you say. "You win." You raise your hand. "I chose 'trust' anyway. You?"

The genius loci raises his hand. "Trust!" he calls out. "You enter the clearing, and there she stands. She sees you, and stands silent and still. You draw back your bow, and shoot. She falls to the ground. You offer the appropriate thanksgiving, and prepare to take her back to the village."

Because you had an encounter with the deer (you both chose trust), you gain a bead to your relationship with Deer.

I don't know yet if that works, entirely--what happens to the beads you bet?  What makes betrayal tempting?  (I suspect that answering that first question will answer the second.)  How does this work with group effort? How does this work with multiple parties involved at once?

[madunkieg]

That doesn't really describe the Prisoner's Dilemma, though.  This gets more to it, if you do it right:

	GL trusts	GL betrays
Player trusts	Player wins little	Player loses big
Player betrays	Player wins big	Player loses little

There is a situation that doesn't sit well with this: the character betrays the deer, and the deer trusts. What does the character win that wouldn't be won on a mutual trust situation? Wouldn't it make more sense for the character to lose ( trust with deer)?

[madunkieg]

Your focus on relationships seems to be a good direction, but a hard one to work mechanically, because if it's not done with enough detail or variation, it can produce rather predictable results.

The characters benefit from each relationship they establish and strengthen, be it coyote, deer, or whatever. This can be done through learning stories or from dealing with the animal itself. In addition to knowing how to strengthen this relationship, the character also knows how to avoid hurting this relationship through rituals to appease the spirits and taboos to avoid. If the mechanic is left at that, the relationships follow a predictable pattern, always increasing.

You mentioned the divinatory uses of the Mancala board before. I could go into a rant why divination techinques don't work so well for action resolution, but I won't (though I may post it on my blog later, and I'll shoot you a link if I do). Instead, let me present you with a way to use divination in way that better relates to your game.

There are just too many spirits and too many taboos to avoid tripping over them now and then. In forager societies divination is often used by shamans to see, not the future, but the past and the spirit world, to determine what spirits are angry and why. The shaman then uses experience and learning to decide upon a course of action that the people must take.

You mentioned each animal having its own personality. Here's how to set it up using divination. The GL does a reading for the animal in secret before the adventure starts, interpreting and recording the result. That reading suggests the animal's personality and, most importantly, what sorts of things might violate its trust. With imperfect knowledge of what to do, the players may trip up.

When a taboo is broken in-game, the relationship is affected, but the player must not know which relationship or why. The GL's reading must be revealed (by replaying the reading in-game) so that actions may be taken to rectify the situation.

[jefgodesky]

There is a situation that doesn't sit well with this: the character betrays the deer, and the deer trusts. What does the character win that wouldn't be won on a mutual trust situation? Wouldn't it make more sense for the character to lose ( trust with deer)?

Actually, that situation leads you into one of the most common seeds in animist oral tradition.  Part of the pact comes from the deer's trust that the hunter will honor his sacrifice, both in terms of offering praise and thanks, but also in making good use of that sacrifice.  Especially important, the deer expects the hunter to share the meat with the entire community; he didn't give his life for one selfish hunter, he gave it for the whole proliferation of life on the land.  What does the hunter get when he betrays the deer, and the deer trusts?  The whole deer, all to himself, and he doesn't have to share with anybody.

Usually, they see the punishment following the same lines: Deer becomes offended, so no deer ever presents himself to the hunter again (or at least until he's paid for his crimes).  And what does betrayal lead to in an iterated prisoner's dilemma?  Punishment, by defecting against the other player.  This, I think, speaks well for the idea.

If the mechanic is left at that, the relationships follow a predictable pattern, always increasing.

Well, only in a comically simple and boring world where different people don't have conflicting goals, forcing you to choose between one relationship or another.   Once you add that, things get more interesting, with characters forced to balance which relationships to nurture, which to sacrifice, and how best to shift that balance as things change.

One of the earliest ideas I came up with using the relationship mechanic borrowed from FATE's Aspects and the compelling mechanic.  So your Badger totem wants you to punch that guy over there in the face (badgers have a well-known, nasty mean streak).  You can burn a bead to ignore it, or you can gain a bead with Badger by doing it.  And if that guy happens to have a daughter you've spent the past two years trying to marry?  Which relationship do you choose?

When a taboo is broken in-game, the relationship is affected, but the player must not know which relationship or why. The GL's reading must be revealed (by replaying the reading in-game) so that actions may be taken to rectify the situation.

Actually, I see that as the fundamental Fifth World story, just like the dungeon crawl gives you the fundamental Dungeons & Dragons story.

[jefgodesky]

Actually, I see that as the fundamental Fifth World story, just like the dungeon crawl gives you the fundamental Dungeons & Dragons story

I should elaborate on this, but "Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice."  I see the basic arc of most games following something of the pattern:

• Scout learns of problem emerging that threatens the community
• Shaman must figure out where problem comes from
• Brave must act to make amends to solve the problem

"The problem" will, just like in nearly all animist oral tradition, arise from the offense of other persons who decide to punish the community, so you usually have an offended person (human or otherwise), the consequences of that offense (conscious or not), and then bad things start happening.  The scout will see those things first.  The shaman will have to figure out the nature of the offense.  Then the brave will have to resolve the problem.  This has a lot of variability, just like the dungeon crawl or the Campbellian monomyth, but it still forms a general, overall structure that I think works well.

[madunkieg]

You seem to be getting more solid with your system ideas, which is a good sign. Hopefully this debate is proving helpful in the process. The overall story pattern is just fine.

The hunt, with its trust/betrayal dilemma and its known taboos, etiquette and rituals, is the very sort of predictable pattern that produces the relationship growth I referred to. It is quite different from dilemmas where characters choose which opportunity to lose, like the totem affinity/father's blessing, which is opposed dilemmas. Constant use of the latter pattern can create frustrating, isolating stories, because each choice creates a loss, which is why they're usually lynchpin decisions in literature. I think keeping the rest of the story (which will likely resemble the former, simpler pattern) unpredictable will be key to keeping the game fun.

I'm not so sure that mutual trust and mutual betrayal are minor gains or losses, because the long-term gain or loss is apparent in the mechanics and will easily be factored into the player's decision-making process, making the combination of minor short-term gain plus long-term gain seem like a major gain overall.

Of course, the prisoner's dilemma can be obscured in-game just as it is in reality. The GL could give hints that he/she will choose one way or another. The mechanics can (and probably should) be hidden, at least during play, though the players may know how they work. A bit of unpredictability would help, too. Will the deer forgive me this time if I don't share with the whole village?

[Creatures of Destiny]

You could use the mancala board with the prisoner's dilemma.

Imagine you start with a set pattern. Taking beads from the other side represents betrayal. Not taking when you can represents Trust.

So you lay out the board. You have one go each. The instigator goes first (in a hunt, usually the hunter). They can take (and thus "win" in a modern sense) or not take (so trusting). Then the other plays a turn - if they take, they betray and that can hurt the player bad (they lose lots of beads). Or they can trust too. In which case both gain.

So the hunter could take the beads as soon as deer comes up - grabbing the deer for himself.

The deer could betray the hunter by leading him to fall from a precipice or near a bear's lair (thus instigating a new dilemma, trust bear or not?).

Players could gain as many beads (or not the number, but the form of beads) that they risk.

The more beads you have, the eaiser it is to trust, but when you're down to only a few the temptation to betray (and thus net more beads) grows stronger.

Of course for such a mechanic player's are totally trusting the GM!