Fortune in the Middle vs Stunt Rewards

[Le Joueur]

Ron Edwards wrote:

These are fears, not certainties.

Granted.

Why not post a "state of the art" thread in Game Design?

Correct me if I am wrong, but calling Scattershot the 'state of the art' is more hubris than I can aspire to.

It doesn't have to be polished (God knows).

A statement like this comes pretty easy from someone who has a finished game.  Simply put, until I got this close to finishing the 'mechanics outline' I keep mentioning, I knew I was missing something pretty substantial according Scattershot's design specifications.  Only last week, did I find the final linchpin in the design.  Without it, it was a series of loosely connected techniques for hardly anything new in game design.

I was not seeking polish; I was seeking that 'pin.'

Now that I have it, I am really pumped about where the design is going (actually both of us are).  I could never start a 'state of the art' thread, but (everyone please give your input) would it be worthwhile to start a 'design in progress' thread?  (Warning, if I were to do that, it would quickly spread out to a number of different fronts and hog a lot of bandwidth.)  Am I too humble in thinking that this is too much an act of hubris?  (Or am I too paranoid that the relatively few 'never seen them before' ideas are too valuable to a publisher I might yet approach?)

The result would be one of the following:
Everyone ignores it. Worst-case scenario, they even belittle and deride it.

That's how it has been received everywhere else.

Your worst suspicions of the Forge are confirmed. This outcome would, I think, reveal the Forge's input and activity to be worth none of your or anyone's time, and would not reflect badly on you or your game.

Actually, I follow the idea that if everyone tells you something is a bad idea, it probably is.  The Forge would be the nail in that coffin.  I want not to be that crazy inventor who toils away on perpetual motion machines, nor to be perceived as such.

As I stated before, I do not expect or require anything from you.

Then how about offering your opinion of an unintended takeover attempt by some daring 'general system' author trying to gather his thoughts out loud on your forum?  I respect you a lot, Ron, and I am afraid that such a set of threads might propagate too much.  Many of the private messages I get are already from a number of people who disagree with the 'state of things' around here.  I seem to be something of a lightning rod (in fact, these private conversations tend to aggravate my fears).  In other forums, I have even been likened to Don Quixote for apparently being 'against' you.

...ideas or references to Scattershot...I am always boggled by them,

You are?!?  (May I ask how? Privately?)

My only concern is the atmosphere of fear and perceived hostility that occasionally surfaces in your posts.

I can assure you this has more to do with what I contend with in private messages.

Therefore my final point, in hopes of finding a common ground for analogy and thereby being extra clear, is based on your comment that you have studied some martial arts, in a previous post. I have too. One of the most important lessons was, "Choose your fights." If it's not an attack, one does not have to defend. If a person always assumes injury and strikes to retaliate, then he or she is not a warrior but a victim and victimizer, no matter how much damage they can do.

I have only studied martial arts academically, not personally, but I take your point.  On the other hand, in my defense, I think you can understand how a parent grows to feel about protecting their children (or an author of their ideas) against real, perceived, and potential threats.  Add to that the fact that I hear from pretty much everyone who has hard feelings around here, and you might see how I mistakenly perceive an attitude of conflict (perhaps I do not 'compartmentalize' enough).

I look forward to your response to the honest questions I have asked and hope that this 'sub-thread' will quickly wind down.  (My apologies for extending it.)

Fang Langford

[Clinton R. Nixon]

On 2001-12-21 12:42, Paul Czege wrote:
I'm not sure you don't create a conflict of interest for the player (skewing slightly positive on Gamism and slightly negative on Narrativism) by making him choose between spending experience points on quality of success in the current conflict or on saving them to improve the character, with the idea that high levels of quality of success would be wrung from the Fortune part of the resolution mechanic.

Actually, I really dig on this idea. It reminds me of 7th Sea's Drama Dice mechanic, in which you may spend Drama Dice to increase your rolls and perform "over-the-top" action. If you save these dice, you get to use them as experience at the end of the game, so it would see that you would get dicked on experience for performing cinematic action. Not so, though - like in Scattershot (dude, I love the name "Fish or Sofa" - you should rethink that), the act of spending Drama Dice and performing cinematic action (with a good description) results in greater awards of Drama Dice, thereby allowing cinematic action and greater experience.

What you have to look out for, though, in my experience, is applying these sorts of rewards/currency in non-beneficial ways. My example is also from 7th Sea, and my big nit-pick with the game. Drama Dice are also spent in order to do any sort of magic. In these cases, though, there is no return of Drama Dice, as the action is not above-and-beyond normal, but a standard action for the character. Therefore, it's not beneficial at all to perform magic in the game.

I think from what Fang said - and I must admit, his posts are not still completely clear to me - that Scattershot will support this sort of mechanism. Spending currency and describing it well will result in more currency for the character in a sort of "reward on your investment". Am I right, Fang?

[Clinton R. Nixon]

And now, to the sub-thread:

On 2001-12-21 12:50, Le Joueur wrote:
Now that I have it, I am really pumped about where the design is going (actually both of us are).  I could never start a ?state of the art? thread, but (everyone please give your input) would it be worthwhile to start a ?design in progress? thread?  (Warning, if I were to do that, it would quickly spread out to a number of different fronts and hog a lot of bandwidth.)

Fang - I want to encourage you to do this. As the man who pays for the bandwidth, please do. :smile: I'd suggest keeping the discussion in one thread, but whatever works for you.

It sounds a little like you're afraid of someone stealing your ideas. Don't worry - one thing I have noticed among Forge posters is their attention and respect of intellectual property. That sets these forums apart from a majority of the Internet masses.

Lastly, don't worry about being ignored or derided. It happens to all of us sometimes. I don't post as much as I'd like here because I've noticed when I do, it seems to kill a thread. (Why, I don't know.) Go ahead and take this thing by the balls and throw it out there - I bet the response would be better than you imagine.
I also imagine it would let everyone be a bit more familiar with your terminology. Like I admitted above - and this is in no way a slam - I don't understand about half of what you post. I can't quite put my finger on why - and I wish I could, so I could help - but my eyes start to swim when reading your posts. A clear-cut thread on Scattershot, and its philosophies of design might help with that a lot.

[Paul Czege]

I love the name "Fish or Sofa" - you should rethink that

Yeah...I gotta agree. It's an awesome title. Although you'd definitely need George Clooney for your T.V. ads:

(grungy guy): Dude...do you get into the minis? You play Warhammer? Gorkamorka?

(clooney): Nah...we play Fish or Sofa.

[ This Message was edited by: Paul Czege on 2001-12-21 13:09 ]

[Le Joueur]

Paul Czege wrote:

To me...it still sounds exactly the same.

Damn Fang...that was pretty damn accessible.  It doesn't sound the same to me at all.

And you know, that pretty much tells me I should skip the advice someone once gave me to be brief and to stop trying to be pedantic.  The way I wrote the first one was trying to collapse it all into as few words as possible, the second I was using my 'teacher voice,' a much longer (and I thought, boring) way of posting.  (As many people who have complained about the lengths of my posts over the months have led me to tending towards the former.  I guess its time to give up on that.)

I'm not sure you don't create a conflict of interest for the player (skewing slightly positive on Gamism and slightly negative on Narrativism) by making him choose between spending experience points on quality of success in the current conflict or on saving them to improve the character, with the idea that high levels of quality of success would be wrung from the Fortune part of the resolution mechanic.

Actually this is one of the intentional design goals in Scattershot.  For a more Narrativist game, you set the 'hard limit' low and hose everyone down with 'during play' rewards.  To 'drift Gamist,' you raise the 'hard limit' and dole out the rewards conservatively.  The Narrativist gaming groups get to play around with the 'story' as much as they like without abandoning the mechanics, the Gamists are thus shielded from having to do so.  My instructions on this particular technique use the difference in preference to stress the 'be careful who you play with' ideal.

[/quote]But I like the new posting style quite a bit. [/quote]
Pedantic it is, expect length though.  How do you advise on starting the 'Scattershot: a design in (slow) progress' thread over in Game Design?

Fang Langford

[Le Joueur]

Clinton R Nixon wrote:

Scattershot will support this sort of mechanism. Spending currency and describing it well will result in more currency for the character in a sort of "reward on your investment". Am I right, Fang?

Exactly.  With the caveat that this only occurs in the "set the 'hard limit' on 'Fortune' low and be free with the 'rewards' for Narrativist" type of play.

Fang Langford

[Le Joueur]

Paul Czege wrote:

To me...it still sounds exactly the same.

Damn Fang...that was pretty damn accessible.  It doesn't sound the same to me at all.

And you know, that pretty much tells me I should skip the advice someone once gave me to be brief and to stop trying to be pedantic.  The way I wrote the first one was trying to collapse it all into as few words as possible, the second I was using my 'teacher voice,' a much longer (and I thought, boring) way of posting.  (As many people who have complained about the lengths of my posts over the months have led me to tending towards the former.  I guess its time to give up on that.)

I'm not sure you don't create a conflict of interest for the player (skewing slightly positive on Gamism and slightly negative on Narrativism) by making him choose between spending experience points on quality of success in the current conflict or on saving them to improve the character, with the idea that high levels of quality of success would be wrung from the Fortune part of the resolution mechanic.

Actually this is one of the intentional design goals in Scattershot.  For a more Narrativist game, you set the 'hard limit' low and hose everyone down with 'during play' rewards.  To 'drift Gamist,' you raise the 'hard limit' and dole out the rewards conservatively.  The Narrativist gaming groups get to play around with the 'story' as much as they like without abandoning the mechanics, the Gamists are thus shielded from having to do so.  My instructions on this particular technique use the difference in preference to stress the 'be careful who you play with' ideal.

But I like the new posting style quite a bit.

Pedantic it is, expect length though.  How do you advise on starting the 'Scattershot: a design in (slow) progress' thread over in Game Design?

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-21 13:32 ]

[Ron Edwards]

This might be my last post in the "sub-thread," but we'll see ...

Fang, I think a "Design in Progress" thread would be great. Again, the degree of detail that you present should never exceed your own comfort level, and so concerns about security can at least be kept within the bounds you set.

As for your experience with private messages, I have little to say, except this. If someone is trying to make human contact with you about something that bugs them, then I hope the both of you can work it out. On the other hand, if you are being attacked or told to do anything you don't want to do, by anyone, tell'em to fuck off, and that I said so. Finally, if I'm missing the whole point about the private exchanges, then let me know.

Regarding the "Don Quixote" issue: I would like to direct the attention of anyone to the central concept of Exploration in my GNS essay. Did I originate that concept? I did not. It was originally raised as part of an alternative, competing idea by the Scarlet Jester. I was convinced that the Exploration idea was valid and necessary, even central. It changed my mind. I incorporated it in the way that made the most sense to me (not quite as the Jester's construction), and with full credit to its author. He and I remain cordial (shock! despite occasional ferocious exchanges in the past) and he even contributed a poem to one of the Sorcerer supplements.

In other words, claims that "disagreement with Ron is heresy" are false. Other points by Jim Henley, by Gareth Martin, by Gareth Hanrahan, by Ralph Mazza, by Logan, and by many others have affected and changed my views, through varying degrees of disagreement or agreement.

Again, to everyone: do not construe disagreement by me as a put-down or a silencing. It is for you to decide whether my point or counter-argument really needs to change your view, or whether you are able to provide further points or counter-argument of your own. Identifying sufficient vs. insufficient argument is discourse. It's what we do here. We all win by doing it in good faith, with courtesy, without stubbornness, and without resentment. Arguments may be refuted, but there are no "stupid people" or "losers."

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

Clinton R Nixon wrote:
And now, to the sub-thread:

Le Joueur wrote:

Now that I have it, I am really pumped about where the design is going (actually both of us are).  I could never start a ?state of the art? thread, but (everyone please give your input) would it be worthwhile to start a ?design in progress? thread?  (Warning, if I were to do that, it would quickly spread out to a number of different fronts and hog a lot of bandwidth.)

I want to encourage you to do this. As the man who pays for the bandwidth, please do. I'd suggest keeping the discussion in one thread, but whatever works for you.

Actually, as you can see in just this 'hijacked thread,' my discussions tend to spread out quickly.  If I am going to 'make it plain,' I would have to spread to a number of threads.  How do you think a "SCATTERSHOT:" start on all their titles would look?

It sounds a little like you're afraid of someone stealing your ideas. Don't worry - one thing I have noticed among Forge posters is their attention and respect of intellectual property. That sets these forums apart from a majority of the Internet masses.

The problem comes from the fact that I could have sworn I saw a Forge article that had been 'crawled by a search engine.  I cannot seem to find it again, but I coulda swore....

I don't post as much as I'd like here because I've noticed when I do, it seems to kill a thread. (Why, I don't know.)

I can explain it.  This sort of thing has happened to me ever since I first began posting on Usenet.  When you say something clearly and definitively, or from a position respected, people tend to go 'oh, so that's how it works' and don't bother to respond.  "As the man who pays for the bandwidth" your posts here carry the same sort of weight.  In fact, that is one of the reasons I usually spend my time posting here.  I get responses.  However pedantic I sound people here still seem able to question me.  It's a lot less silence.  (Elsewhere, it takes a fair amount of bowing and scraping to get anyone to feel confident enough to respond.)

At least that's my theory.

Fang Langford

p. s. And I'll get started on that series of articles as soon as I finish bombing the hard drive on the computer someone donated to my family.  (I just got Windows 98 for free, so I'd like to upgrade.  Now if I could only find Microsoft Excel and Word at that price, or the memory I'd need to take advantage of the 'whole package in one' offer I have for Windows 2000 Professional & Office products.)

[Le Joueur]

Ron Edwards wrote:

As for your experience with private messages, I have little to say, except this. If someone is trying to make human contact with you about something that bugs them, then I hope the both of you can work it out. On the other hand, if you are being attacked or told to do anything you don't want to do, by anyone, tell 'em to fuck off, and that I said so. Finally, if I'm missing the whole point about the private exchanges, then let me know.

Actually, its not people attacking me, its people who feel attacked.  Imagine how that would function as propaganda, having a reputation for honest disagreement without abandonment, and people begin telling all their tales of woe (real or imagined).  Good listener that I am, after a while, no matter how objective I try to remain, it starts sounding a little true (especially when practiced by a number of unrelated people).

Now I know better.

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-21 13:59 ]

[Gordon C. Landis]

So much to say, about the sub-thread, about FitM, about Scattershot, and I've got to get on a plane and go visit the parents for the holidays.  Luckily I'll have 'net access there, so more in a day or three  . . . but quickly:

A Scattershot thread or three would be great.  I've noticed you're particularly sensitive to the IP issue, and while Clinton's point about folks on the Forge being "good" about this is quite valid - I'm not sure there's any way to prevent the kind of "idea theft" you're worried about, especially since others might really have just come up with the same notions independently.  Not sure what to make of that myself, but . . . there you have it.

On the private message/Don Quixote/etc. phenomena - Fang, I understand EXACTLY.  I was experiencing a similar effect - apparently I'm so "reason-able", some folks thought I just needed to be convinced of the "evil" of the Forge.  It  started to create paranoia in me too, so I had to send msgs to Ron and Clinton to clear the air and make sure nothing I was doing/saying was being misconstrued.  It helped a lot - maybe this thread can be your "clearing the air" opportunity.

At least in my case, it's not that those private msgs don't have some valid points - they are just ultimately (it seems to me) more interested in the righteousness of their position than in working things out and maintaining communication.  I'll probably periodically continue my own Quixotic campaign with these Forge/Ron/GNS nay-sayers, but  . . .

My private exhange with Ron, Clinton  and other Forge folks was very cordial and pleasant.  With others, that wasn't always the case.  Ultimately, I have to judge based on personal experience, and examples of the kind that Ron cites.  When I do that . . . with appologies for speaking of those who can't/won't read and respond to what I type here, and acknowledgment that they DO make some good points . . . I can only say that the nay-sayers come across as overly-sensitive and paranoid.
Heck, out of time.  I'll just say I consider this sub-thread an example of how to constructively cope with the issues of communicating in a forum, that you almost never see on places like RPG.net.  To me, that says a lot about the Forge.

Gordon

[Laurel]

I'll just say I consider this sub-thread an example of how to constructively cope with the issues of communicating in a forum, that you almost never see on places like RPG.net.  To me, that says a lot about the Forge.

Gordon

Hear hear.  I think you gentlemen are doing an amazing job of working this through, and its to be applauded.  

Laurel

[Joe Murphy (Broin)]

I just wanted to thank people for the first thread. It was a nice thread, I loved it a lot, and I miss it. You all helped wonderfully, and got me thinking for a game to be run early in the New Year (assuming the blind drunkeness of Hogmanay doesn't kill us all).

And now that I've seen LotR (my arse is still sore), I have yet more ideas for how groups are composed of varied individuals who solve problems in different ways - arrows, axes, luck, wit...

As far as subsequent threads go, Scattershot sounds fascinating. Best of luck with it. :smile:

Joe.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Joe, I'm hanging my head regarding the violence committed to your thread topic, and I appreciate your tolerance.

On that note, perhaps the following issue can be taken to other threads too, as people see fit.

Evidently, references or accusations are being leveled toward me, Ron Edwards, regarding practices on the Forge and treatment of others. Various Forge members have received a barrage of private messages about such things, yet none have been presented in the light of day, in public, with any opportunity for me to respond.

Site Discussion seems like a fine place for such concerns to be aired.

Best,
Ron

[Tor Erickson]

Quoth Fang:
"If you are free with the 'during play' rewards, it will almost guarantee that the players will have to resort to
affecting the story a in a fashion (because they understand about the 'over-the-top' genrea) that almost can't help
but yield more of these 'during play' rewards, and so on."

So when you exceed the "limit" that you've set (either positively or negatively) then you HAVE to describe some effect that goes beyond the result that the dice indicate.  So, say I get a success that indicates a bad wound to the leg, but in addition, I've gotten enough success to exceed our predetermined limit, so I need to narrate some other effect: say I knock him over backwards into the water trough.

But if I went below the limit, would that mean I have to narrate a negative effect?  And am I correct in understanding that "experience points" as you've defined them could be used to generate an effect that would result from exceeding the limit?

One further point of clarification:  say we're playing in a cinematic Robin Hood kind of game (thanks for the example), where we've set the "limit" to be quite low.  So even "low quality of success" rolls will result in player narration of events in some sort of "over the top" way?  But what if the limit is high, then would the same example above (I wound him in the leg!) yield ONLY that result (a wound to the leg) with no further player narration?  

And is the purpose of this to create a scale that the group can adjust to its desired level of over-the-topness?

Tor