[Middle Earth - home brew] - last week - Repost

[Silmenume]

Hiya Gordon,

Yup, I think your initial writeup shows "failure" and "success" as fully supportive of the Creative Agenda at hand, particularly with the clarifications in the subsequent discussion.

I fear that we are not talking about the exact same thing here.  While I do agree that one can "fail" in achieving one's intentions within the SIS and that is still a completely functional Sim game, I was discussing something slightly different.  I was trying to indicate the dynamics of our group as well as our CA by trying to show what a "failure" for the group looks like.  The player's lack of success in his initial effort was not the "failure" of our group I was referring to but how he handled the Situation itself was the so called "failure."  As we have seen in this thread and as I have indicated as well, that this was a "failure" is up for interpretation, but I wanted to make sure that I was clear that the problem did not lie with the place that the Situation ultimately resolved to, but how the player handled the Situation.  The player in question said afterwards he was emotionally satisfied for having "engaged" so intensely – the player did not consider the game a "failure."  So tell me, are we on the same page?  If not let me know so we can try and come together on this!

I'd just want to stress a slightly different emphasis to the tension between the SIS and the mechanics you mention; I'd focus more on the tension between thinking in the SIS and thinking of the other players (and/or of the Creative Agenda itself).  That, to me, is the tension between your " . . .  - absolutely not!" and your "however as this is a social activity . . "  It exists in all play, but as in Sim "thinking in the SIS" (as a full and sufficient whole purpose) is a close approximation of what the Creative Agenda is, it can be particularly problematic there.

I'll buy that – especially the conclusion.  When I said that there was a tension between the SIS and the mechanics I did not mean tension is an emotional way.  Just rather that the mechanics necessarily lie outside the SIS, thus referencing them always requires a break from the bricoling in process within the SIS.  Thus if "thinking in the SIS" is a "close approximation of the Sim CA" then the employment of mechanics (because they are a meta-SIS activity) are always somehow "at odds" with the expression of the Sim CA; yet they are indispensable to play.  This was the tension I had referenced.  However, I do agree that thinking in the SIS and thinking about the other players is also a source of tension.  This does dovetail with a statement I made, I can't remember when, that Sim is "always" in a tension.  

Regarding you notion of letting the players know or speaking about this tension ahead of time – we certainly have covered this topic a number of times and it is difficult to adjudicate.  Things happen quickly and it is functionally difficult to objectively say, "Hey you aren't playing your Character X enough!"  See, we are all making subjective judgments all the time as to what "feels" like Middle Earth and what doesn't.  Everyone is going to have a slightly different interpretation, thus unless the player is stepping well out of the bounds of the nature of the source world (light sabers and revolvers in what is an essentially medieval world) such calls are extremely difficult to make.  In this case the player's actions were certainly plausible thus making such a judgment call even more difficult and shaded in grays.  The rough conclusion from the rest of us players felt that he was "acting out" more than he was "acting."

This brings me to you next section.

...but (IMO) unless it is sometimes OK to make the call in the "break SIS" direction, you're setting yourself up to be dissatisfied.

This does happen on occasion.  But the breaks happen because someone is personally emoting or reacting badly.  IOW they are freaking out or becoming too angry or their actions are apparently becoming directed at players and not their Characters etc.  There was a player, before my time, whose face, in reaction to what was transpiring within the SIS, turned a rich purple and a vein starting throbbing on his forehead.  It was something like an NPC had gone over the wall of a keep that was being attacked by Zombies or the like and the DM was describing the rending and shrieks of this NPC.  Becoming alarmed at the player's apparent condition, the GM stopped the game and asked if he was OK.  He said he was fine and that he wished to continue.  Thus it does happen, but rarely.

It's also vital (again, IMO) that the responsibility for making the call be shared - i.e., it's not just that the dwarf-player should have the desperation-option...

OK, this is where we part ways – I think.  That a player is in a desperate Situation is a hard fact of this game.  It happens all the time.  It is one of the key draws for us players at the table.  If fact, one measure of whether we feel a new player is a good fit for us at the table depends very strongly on how well such a player does respond to desperate Situations.  The whole of Middle Earth and Gandalf's gambit with the one ring was one giant desperate Situation; thus desperate Situations are a pillar of our game.  We also understand that Situations don't always work out.  Bad decision-making.  Bad luck with the dice.  Bad circumstances.  Bad communication.  Bad information.  Bad advice.  It all happens and it is the noise that happens in real life as well.  We refer to it as "The Fog of War."  Not original, but it does get the idea across.  It heightens the intensity of the game thus making the Dream that much more richer/compelling.

That a player gets in over his head is understood and expected.  That a Situation goes against a player's wishes sometimes happens.  Actually it happens all the time.  Its called conflict!  (I don't mean to sound like a pedantic mallet-head, but this particular arrangement of thoughts just clicked something in my head!)  The idea is to "struggle" towards a goal – that is where the fun lies in the struggle.  In order for that "struggle" to be "real" then the possibility for failure must also be "real."  This means that there cannot be an escape hatch when things within the SIS start to go to pot in a big way – this is where the failures are felt the most intensely.  Conversely because one can and more importantly does fail (from time to time), quick thinking is highly valued and rewarded and successes are savored that much more.  I have had Character's die and it has left me heartbroken.  OTOH I really value and play for everything I've got with my higher lever/older Characters.  Our game in not for everyone.  We recognize that fact and we make a point to tell new players that as well.  IOW we say, if you don't have fun, or if this game is too intense for you then don't worry about it – it just wasn't to your taste.  And that's OK.

I'm not sure how to express it, but bailing out because the Situation appears to be "unwinnable" is not a viable option in our game.  It would be like having "do-overs" in a hardcore gamist group.  However if we do see that a player is taking events too hard the GM will either stop the game or just gently steer the game away from that player.  I should also note that when we are "off camera" we will offer support if circumstances warrant it (so as to not distract from the player who is "on camera.")  We do break out into cheers and yells of support at nearly every game.  But to have a "Situational escape hatch" as opposed to the "Emotional escape hatch" (which we do have) would gut the game of the three things we crave: Intensity, Intensity, and Intensity.  If a player can't handle intensity then they are not right for our group and we aren't right for that player.

Disrupting the Dream does not come from facing (and failing in) desperate Situations, but rather in the failure to bricole effectively.  IOW breaks in the established history, culture, character, logic or physics (etc.) in the world certainly threaten if not damage the Dream outright.  That a player fails in a desperate Situation is not so much a threat to the Dream as a player failing or succeeding in a desperate Situation in a way that breaks with the "history" of the various social structures (cultures, mores, Character history, etc.) and relationships already established within the SIS or the source material.  Our contention was that we felt that he was breaking some of these "conventions" – but that is open to interpretation.

As you say, it's a give and take process based in trust, and it looks to me like you've got a (possibly minor) trust-breakdown here: the other players didn't trust that the dwarf player was fully engaged with the shared, social implications as he played through that scene, and subsequent discussion hasn't reestablished that trust.  Again as you point out, it can be important that an "unwillingness to consider another point of view" be displayed through the character during play.  However, I think that if that unwillingness is seen by others to be pervasive in the actual players' thought process when choosing which points of view he's going to pick for the character, then you have an issue.  Possible minor, but valid none the less.

I think you're pretty much right on all account.  I feel and some of the other players feel, to great and lesser degrees, that there is a pervasiveness in the actual player's thought process.  However, once again, we are faced with a subjective problem, as we can't get into the player's head!  Our interpretation of the player's actions was something like – I'm screwed and there's no way out of this and no one can help so what have I got to lose and I'm really steamed.  The failure in this assessment was of the Situation lay in "no one can help."  We "feel" that he either didn't trust us with being shrewd enough to be able to help him out, or he dropped us other PC's out of his assessment process entirely.  That he found the Situation hopeless speaks volumes of what he thinks about our capabilities or he didn't consider us on any level as a matter of habit.  Either way, its not good.  It also demonstrates a "certain" lack of faith in the GM as the GM does not close all opportunities for effective (Situation changing) player input.  I'll give an example.  Not too long ago I was playing one of my favorite Characters – a Dunedain.  I was with my brother, Raven, about 3 Rangers of Ithilien and a half-Dunedain.  Personally my Dunedain, Bannon (not his Elvish name) is a Character I had wanted for years.  These Characters are the iconic Race for us players in Middle Earth.  He was about 7-8 level at the time of this example and part of the back story to this Character was that I had spent 70 years searching all over Middle Earth for him.  The Character was introduced with me finding and rescuing my brother.  This bond between he and I is extremely strong as exemplified by my back-story efforts to find him.  

Here we are playing in Harrandor and there is a rebellion brewing against the Gondorian occupation.  We were all heading north back to Gondor when we came across a small town where there were about 300 males who were gathering to try and wipe out the Gondorian fort which was in the process of being raised in a nearby town.  Obviously there was no way we could directly confront these people due to their numbers, nor could we just walk away and let them massacre the Gondorian contingent in the next town.  So we decided to go in at night, steal as many horses as we can, and leave a "message" of don't be getting to big for your britches by burning a couple of buildings.  Not a great idea, but we didn't have many options.  The value of it was that the potential for loss of any life was minimized as much a possible.  We go in, my brother (a PC) got caught trying to take a hostage that would have been sent back with a verbal message and there is some miscommunication about the rally point.  In this confusion I see my brother dragged to the center of a VERY angry and large mob and the GM plays out that they are deciding that they are going to kill him.  Without a second thought I ride into the town.  I don't know what I can do against 300 armed and agitated people but I am NOT going to let them kill my brother.  (Know this, in all but the most unusual circumstances I would have died trying to cut my way to my brother against all these people)  I ride slowly and carry myself as if I was their King.  I tell the GM, "I throw my presence out."  I lock eyes with only the leader who has a sword over my brother's head.  I try to "telepathically" tell him to stay his hand, but I don't know if it works or not.  When I get as close as I can in this sea of frothing humanity I pull my King's sword out, and call in the high tongue Quenya, (which they do not speak) something like, "You are unworthy to touch a King.  Know my brother's name and fear it.  (I make up some fell sounding Elvish name knowing that while the cannot "understand" the words that the Elvish language has a way of creating images in the minds of the listeners as well as the capability (roughly) of imparting emotions.)  Any man, woman or child who touches him with malice in their hearts I now condemn to death."  I say this in the most commanding and threatening voice I have – I banged a 20.  The leader loses his sway over the crowd but they are not with me either.  I tell the leader to release my brother and he starts getting lippy with me.  I was going to argue with him when I was hit with an inspiration.  I held out my sword and pointed it toward the leader as he raised his sword to kill my brother.  I say to the GM – I crush his will.  Then I simply and quietly say aloud – "Kneel before a King."  Banged another 20!  He raised his sword up --- and fell to his knees.  As did about 20-30 of the people there.

Whew!  I will tell you this.  As a player my hands were shaking and it was very difficult holding my voice steady!  I could have lost my brother which would have been a terrible blow to my Character and to me as a player and I was facing the loss of my Character as well.

Two things here that I want to point out.  I trusted the GM in that if I came up with something that worked he wouldn't force his own story.  Had I not performed effectively there was a very good chance he would have killed the PC.  Second I trusted the other players at the table to try and back me up any way they could should it come down to it.  I didn't have to say anything to them, I just hoped in the back of my mind that they would do their best to aid me should it be necessary.  I felt that they were all burning grey matter trying to find a way through this, thus it helped fortify me make the difficult choices I had to make.  Remember this was a bad situation when we all together and had some tactical advantage – now we were all scattered, my brother was helpless and I was surrounded by several hundred angry and armed people.  What I did not do was to treat this Situation as hopeless and embark on some last desperate and futile symbolic act of defiance against fate.

Ultimately though, because of the adrenalin coursing through me and the anxiety brought on by the desperateness of the Situation - the successful conclusion was that much the sweeter!  I didn't know I had it within me to pull of something like that.  Not only was my brother's life on the line, as well as mine, and potentially the Rangers who were in the tree line, but the loss of any Dunedan would be a staggering loss to the struggle of Middle Earth against Sauron.  There are only 30 of them left and there will be no more.  There was a lot riding on the conclusion of this Situation.

I know that I've wandered a bit, but did I get any part of my idea across about player trust?

Anyway, that's my thoughts - hope there's something useful in there.

Very useful and thank you for taking the time to offer them!

contracycle – it is late so I will respond to you soon.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Jay,

Thanks for the in-depth response!  I'm gonna be much quicker here, I suspect.  When I speak of "failure" and "success" I was talking about in character issues, but I do get where you're coming from with the player issues as well.  Understanding that the two are distinct - and that the player-level assesment of failure may vary by individual - is, I'd say, important.

The only thing I see about the "desperation option" that might be more than a difference of opinion is that the deperation I mean to point at is 100% about a players' desperation to "live up" to the group contract (of making appropriate choices, considering the other players, and etc.)  That desperation needs an appropriate "out", IMO, under all agendas.  Now, a player who uses that out all the time is probably a bad fit for the group at hand, but failure to provide it at all (I say now, in retrospect) proved quite destructive to a number of games I was in years back.  And don't forget the two-way nature here - if a player isn't using the out, and the others think he or she SHOULD be, it's THEIR responsibility to offer it.

I don't know if that focus and clarification changes your response at all, but your focus on the desperation in or the "winnability" of the game Situation itself was NOT what I was meaning to look at, so the clarification seemed worthwhile.

Gordon

[Silmenume]

Hullo Gordon,

The only thing I see about the "desperation option" that might be more than a difference of opinion is that the deperation I mean to point at is 100% about a players' desperation to "live up" to the group contract (of making appropriate choices, considering the other players, and etc.)

Actually I am delighted that you brought this up!  Your phrasing has unlocked an issue that I have been worrying over for some time.  In all my ponderings, struggles and writings about Sim I have been deeply concerned about where the "variation" in Sim lay.  By analogy think of the "variation" of Gamism spanning from the Hardcore to the "Gentleman Gamist."  While both ends are Gamist, each may be unrecognizable to adherents of the other.  What does this have to do with Sim?  I think how strongly a "players' desperation (desire?) to "live up" to the group contract (of making appropriate choices, considering the other players, [staying true to the source material] and etc.)" is exactly where the variation lies.

I have been thinking for a while that the game I play in is pretty darn extreme and is the Sim analog of Hardcore Gamism.  I have been worried for a very long while that in my blindness I may have been espousing "one-true-wayism" inadvertently.  I think the degree of freedom to have recourse to an "escape hatch/desperation out" might just be that sliding scale ("variation") of Sim play.  To me to be in a game where such recourse was common would bore me snotless, yet a player who enjoys a less intense game would probably find our game much too overwhelming and not satisfying at all.  Both styles would be Sim, though not particularly compatible with each other.

The game I play in has almost or virtually no recourse to the "escape hatch/desperation out."  I would say it is hardcore Sim.  Interesting notion...

And don't forget the two-way nature here - if a player isn't using the out, and the others think he or she SHOULD be, it's THEIR responsibility to offer it.

I think you are right, but that the degree of freedom or allow ability to escape or get out of the Situation can only be defined at the local level.  The difficulty in this proposition lies in determining when to bail out another player.  I know I would be livid if someone pulled the plug on me when I (playing Bannon the Dunedain) was trying to save my brother.  Conversely at the beginning of the events in Harrandor a player Character by the name of Noone rode into town with a group of mercenaries to build the Gondorian fort.  The problem for us players was that he came off like a jack booted thug.  We all despised his Character.  He basically took over the town, conscripted the populace into labor teams and tore down their houses for source material to build his fort.  Then when we PC's (the aforementioned Rangers and Dunedain) tried to leave he had my brother clapped in irons and refused the rest of us leave.  We all felt that the player of Noone, a Gondorian agent with virtually all the authority of the Steward, was certain to drive these people into rebellion.  At one point a new Player (who was playing a man from the town) managed to escape with some horses.  In the process of stealing the horses this player found Noone's be-yooooooooooootiful black charger and in his anger and malice killed it.  Noone then commanded one of the Rangers of Ithilien to track this man down and exact justice.  This was not a happy command for this player to receive, but he set out upon it.  He found his charge but could not take him without having to kill many innocents.  Noone had by this point caught wind of a revolt brewing so sent all the Rangers to "put an end" to this nascent rebellion.  Again the PC's were not happy about this on any level whatsoever.  Yes they were playing Rangers, part of a military unit and Noone did have command authority over them, but they became Rangers to protect freedom and fight the Dark Lord not kill men seeking freedom from oppression.  The Rangers tried to "put an end" to the rebellion by trying to talk the rebels out of their designs.  They would not listen and the Players ended up having to kill all of the approximately 25 men including a player Character.  I will say again that all up player characters despised Noone and were aching to do something "bad to him," but we could not justify it.

At the end of the night I voted the player of Noone as the best roleplayer that night.  He was a despicable crap weasel and far from the type of Character that this player usually plays.  He did an awesome job of being ruthless.  Some weeks later I was talking to the player of Noone that while I that I thought he was playing a fascinating Character I wanted him dead I deplored him that much.  He took me aside and told me that he was sent down to Harrandor by the Steward to build a fort, but his primary and secret task was to find the leader of the rebellion and assassinate him.  The player by being such an ass was in effect trying to have the mountain come to Mohammad.  IOW the player was trying to flush out the rebels and have them come to him.

Now had we the authority to "escape hatch" his Character when one of us felt that he was "damaging" the Dream then this whole emotional build up and the stirring of the pot would never have occurred.  Then I would have lost the opportunity to save my brother that I wrote about in my previous post.  Why would this be bad?  Because I would have not had that intense Character defining moment and I would not have had that opportunity to push myself to the limits.  At the end of the game the GM said that in the 20+ years of gaming he had never seen a better example of what it means to be a Dunedain – and that was HUGE for me!

So can you see how the idea of this "escape hatch/desperation out" can really gut the game as well if it is not employed effectively?  I'm not saying that it should not be done, but it is a very very difficult assessment to make.  One man's mead is another man's poison.  Also much of Sim is about dealing with problems and the fallout therefrom.  Like the bricoler who needs the localized heat of an iron, but must then contend with the undesired consequence of the weight it brings.  So while what you suggest is in principle a good idea, in practice it would be very difficult to implement effectively.

I don't know if that focus and clarification changes your response at all, but your focus on the desperation in or the "winnability" of the game Situation itself was NOT what I was meaning to look at, so the clarification seemed worthwhile.

Your input was useful and I think it did change or, perhaps more accurately put, it did enlighten my understanding of Sim!  Way cool!  I'm not sure yet, but I think this is a very important piece of the Sim puzzle.