[Dulcimer Hall] Crypto-romance Character Development

[TonyLB]

I get to call on your dice from this trait. Or I can use your dice to support my own agenda against other people.

I love this, by the way.  Great insight.

Player A creating a perception about Character B isn't just a way to influence Player B:  It's a means of gaining leverage against Character C, who also has opinions about B.

[Doug Ruff]

Of course, there has to be the option to refuse the bonus, which is an out-and-out bribe.

Why?

Deprotagonism.

Which isn't as good a one-word answer as your one word question, so:

If I name a trait on you, I'm telling you what your character should or could be. If I name a trait on you and you can't choose not to use it, I'm telling you what your character is. My instincts (which may be wrong) tell me that that's a bad thing.

Of course, by giving you (as a player) a Bribe to get you to act (as a character) the way I want, I'm just giving you enough Narrative rope to hang yourself with. But I think that's a lot more fun than me out-and-out telling you how your character should behave.

[TonyLB]

Ohh... yeah, I see.  If the reward is strictly linked to certain behaviors (i.e. "You've got this trait now, and it will be used against you any time you try to violate it") then that would be bad, yeah.  Then you've got other players compromising your ability to use the character as a tool to contribute to the game.  Worse, you're pointedly creating SIOA rules with a high benefit for rules-lawyering them.

I was thinking more about this alternative:

[*]Player A may write down (at any time) a Perception about Character B.[*]Player A has some finite, renewing resource.[*]Player A may, at any time, give Player B some of that resource.[*]This reflects Player A's conviction that Character B has acted in accord with the Perception.[*]Player B is welcome (indeed, encouraged!) to disagree with that assessment.  But they can't give back the resource, and tactically wouldn't want to anyway.[/list:u]I think that this leaves Player B with complete freedom to contribute what they want to the game.  But it (a) allows Player A to explicitly show a certain (probably very biased and unfair, by design) interpretation of Player B's contribution and (b) allows Player A to alter the reward structure within which Player B decides what to contribute.

In this case, Player B is still not permitted to refuse the bribe.  Does this strike you as being deprotagonising?

[Doug Ruff]

I think we're looking at the "bribe" in slightly different ways.

To me, the resource you are talking about is the bribe.

So B can refuse the bribe (which I'm imagining as extra dice) but they can't slide it back across the table. The dice sit there, waiting for B to get into enough trouble so that they have to roll them.

A doesn't get to use the dice until B has rolled them at least once. He can add more dice to a trait to sweeten the deal, but if B holds out, those dice are wasted for both players (unless they are "resolved" off of that trait somehow, by bringing the trait into conflict with another trait.)

So, keeping the dice in front of the player isn't deprotagonising, but forcing them to use them is.

[TonyLB]

Ah.   I think I'm recommending much the same thing, except with a "first taste is free" alteration which cuts down on the book-keeping, and makes for (I think) a subtler interaction.

Option #1:  Player B gets an "Obnoxious Weasel" trait.  He gets one Cool Token any time he acts like an Obnoxious Weasel.  Until he deliberately chooses to act like an Obnoxious Weasel, he gets nothing.  When he wants something, he has to clearly and irrefutably act like an Obnoxious Weasel.

Option #2:  Player A says (of some action of character B) "Wow!  You were totally an Obnoxious Weasel.  Here, have a Cool Token!"  Player B gets the token whether he was deliberately acting like an Obnoxious Weasel or not.  If he wants more tokens then he knows that acting like an Obnoxious Weasel (to Player A's satisfaction) is the way to get them.  But that's still (a) his choice, and (b) a subjective judgment to be made by Player A.


I'm offering Option #2 for consideration.  Does Option #1 match what you're offering for consideration?

[Doug Ruff]

Yes, it does, except that the player doesn't get a token for later use, they get the bonus there-and-then. And the player has declare that they are an Obnoxious Weasel, which means that they have given some power to the player who named the Trait in the first place.

The reason for wanting this is that it prevents a player from picking the traits they want to focus on, to the exclusion of all the others. It leads to more pressure, where the player needs an extra 3 dice now and don't have any reserves to rely on.

Option #2 is interesting, but you're going to have to address player reticence - some people are much better than others at dishing out rewards. This is just an offhand theory, but I think that subjective judgements like this work better when there is a GM - unless there is a mechanical reward for giving Cool Tokens, people are likely to forget to do this or get into arguments ("why didn't you give me a Cool Token?")

I also think that Option #1 works better when you move outside of "personality" traits. What if the trait wasn't Obnoxious Weasel, but something like Trained by Ninja?

Because, if you want to offer a bribe to someone, you've got to make it look like a good deal. What would you rather have on your character sheet, Obnoxious Weasel or Trained by Ninja?

(Actually, I know you'd be happy to use either, but bear with me.)

So, you've got a player in a tight spot, maybe they're trapped in a building with the guards searching for them... then you offer them a 2- or 3- point bribe like "Secret Member of  Ninja Sect". Which if they choose to take, they can use again and again in the future. Odds are, they'll bite, which gives you an advantage over them.

So, I'm considering your Option #2, but I want you to buy into Option #1 more heavily. (This is beginning to sound like the game itself!) Go on, I'll give you 3 dice if you take it....

[Shreyas Sampat]

This might be my skewed perception talking, but I feel as if you can derive this effect with a less baroque system.

For instance, you can have the simple rule that "You can only gain benefits from others' perceptions of you while they remain misperceptions. As soon as someone has real insight into your behaviour, you no longer benefit from their opinion of you."

So, each time that you do something really Reckless and get a token or it, that token is worth less and less; by the end, you're not being Reckless in a manipulative and false fashion, but rather because it's actually a part of you (cemented mechanically as a trait that you can use constantly, but others are able to take advantage of).

The intention here is that you pick the misperceptions that you want to act in accord with, but if you go too far, then they become true and you take an effectiveness hit, so you have to switch tacks.

[TonyLB]

Doug:  I'm pretty thoroughly bought into Option #1 already.  I do like it, and I like the immediacy that it gives to the question of "do I compromise my comfort zone for this character's self-image, in order to achieve my goals?"  It's got a lot of the feel of DitV escalation, that way, and I like that.

The question I'm pondering over right now (without really forming any conclusions yet) is "Who has the authority to judge whether an SIS action is sufficient to constitute a use of a Trait?"

Suppose Player B has a "Trained by Ninja" trait (either on his own sheet as a bribe, in Option #1, or on Player A's sheet as an expectation in Option #2).  Player B narrates hacking into a computer system.  Player B feels (for whatever reason) that this falls under his Ninja Training.  Player A does not.

In my understanding, Option #1 says that Player B gets the bonus (whatever it is).  He has authority to judge whether the SIS element "computer hacking" applies to the game-mechanic element "Ninja Training".  Option #2 says that Player B does not get the bonus (whatever it is).  Player A has authority to judge.

I hope it's obvious why I don't want any option where the rules fail to make clear whose authority is paramount.


Shreyas:  I'm not really seeing how that's less baroque.  Aren't you going to need rules to define whether something is a misperception, whether it's a real insight, and to assign credibility to judge those things?  That sounds (to me) like a bigger can of worms than what we're tackling here.

[Doug Ruff]

The way I see it, the Trait only comes into play when Player B actually picks up the dice and rolls them.

That's the joy of it. Player B could be hacking computer subsystems, walking on ricepaper and karate-chopping guards all this time, and as long as he's using his own dice for it, that's fine. How he earned any of this is a mystery.

It's only when he uses the dice invested by player A in the "Trained by Ninja" Trait that it actually cements.

Which is why, if player A is clever, he'll observe what player B likes his character to do, and offer him Bribes that reflect this. It's another version of creating interesting conflicts for other players to gain more Story Tokens.

(For those of you who aren't TonyLB and haven't bought his excellent game, that's a Capes reference. Promotional Message ends.)

[TonyLB]

Okay, so you're proposing that Player B has authority to decide what SIS elements accompany the rules-mechanic of using "Trained by Ninja".  A cogent, clear demarcation of authority.

Pro:  Player B has the ability to predict more outcomes surrounding his character.  If he needs those dice, he knows that they're there for him.  This means that he, personally, is more empowered in regards to his own character.

Con:  Player A loses any direct ability to predict or control the outcome of his placing the bribe.  It is bread cast upon the waters, purely in hope that it will have some effect on Player B's SIS behavior.  Player B could put on a neon bikini, perform a Fred Astaire dance number, and take the dice, saying that he learned it from Ninjas.  Strange ninjas, but that's for him to say, after all.  This means that Player A is less empowered in regards to other characters.


Now the disempowerment is irrelevant if Player A only wants to use this as a tool to get resources by accurately judging what Player B wants to do.  In that instance he doesn't care about the narrative power, he cares about whatever resources he gets by having another player take his bribe.

But I would like the tool to also be usable to allow players to influence each other through reward schemes.  If Player A puts forth "Trained to kill" then he's trying to nudge Player B in a particular direction.  I think that would be really cool.  And that's why the issue of disempowering Player A with regard to Player B's choices worries me.

[Doug Ruff]

Good point - that's not what I intended, but that's because I wasn't clear.

B still has to use "Trained by Ninja" in a manner which is "appropriate" for the trait.

What I wanted to emphasise was, if player B narrates sneaking up on someone, that doesn't in itself require him to accept the Trait from player A. That only happens when he chooses to accept the dice as well.

A far as judging what counts as an "appropriate" use of the trait, that's always going to be a subjective judgement. And I guess that your point is that you want this to be handled by the system, so that you don't have competing subjective judgements.

I think I have the answer for this. Remember that if player B accepts the dice from player A, he is allowing player A to exert control over his character later. Therefore, although player B chooses whether or not he wants the extra dice from the Trait, player A gets to say whether or not using the dice in that way is OK.

So, I've offered your character a 3-point Bribe in the form of a "Trained by Ninja-3" Trait. You haven't used it yet. At some point, your character tries to break into a secure computer network, and you want the extra bonus. So, you ask me whether you can use the trait for this. I say that, no, I saw your training as being more traditional and I don't want you to be a cyber-ninja. You don't get the dice, but this means that I don't (yet) have any control over your character.

Later, you want to sneak up on an unsuspecting guard and knock him out. Again, you want the 3-dice bonus, so you ask me if you can activate the trait. I agree (how could I not?) and from now on, you can use that 3-point trait whenever I think it's appropriate for you to be able to use "Trained by Ninja" as a Trait. I also get 3 dice to use against you if I end up in a confict against you, and you will not get those 3 dice to use against me. 'Cos that's why I gave them to you in the first place.

Now, this does mean that from now on, you have to rely on me not being an asshole and vetoing legitimate uses of the "Trained by Ninja" Trait. But the final choice is mine, even if you don't agree with it. Because those 3-dice represent a limited form of GM-Power that I have over your character.

(And if I'm not reasonable, this works against me in the long run, as other people won't want to accept my Bribes.)

Now, if you want things to get really interesting, perhaps those 3 dice could be used as GM-power in other ways...

PS, in the example above, you could have tried to sneak up on the guard without asking for the dice. If so, then I get no GM-Power and you might be a Ninja, but I don't know for sure. See how it works?

[TonyLB]

So are you envisioning that accepting the bribe would imply that character B undeniably is a ninja, or merely that there is evidence to suggest that he might be a ninja?

I'd lean toward the latter.  Given the espionage motif, I could think of some really fun ambiguities if Player A could add a Trait like "Double Agent" to Character B, and Player B could have fun riding the ragged edge of "enough evidence to convince character A, but not enough to convince anyone else".  Or where, in a murder mystery, every Player has a different suspect (as represented by "Murderer" perceptions which get more or less reinforced by player actions).

[Doug Ruff]

Hmmm, that's tricky.

When player A places the bribe in front of player B, he's indicating that player B might be a Double Agent.

Even if player B doen't accept the bribe, it stays in front of him and hangs there like an accusation.

If B accepts the bribe, then or later, he's given player A some dirt on him. I'd say that, at that point, either player B is a Double Agent, or he appears to be Double Agent (maybe he's been framed?)

Where this gets tricky is that, once the trait is activated, it can be used again. So in order to keep getting the advantage from Double Agent or Murderer, player B has to keep acting like one... actually that's not a design problem, that's fun.

Remember that, if there is a mechanism for resolving traits, the Double Agent trait can disappear off the sheet later. So it's best not to assume that traits are 100% accurate.

[TonyLB]

Ah, yes... a second, more permanent stage of character development!  Here's a thought about how that could work:

The bribes hang about in one form when they're the perception of Character A about Character B.  And both players profit from playing around with those perceptions.  

But then, when a perception has been sufficiently reinforced, it becomes strategic for one side or the other (or both) to put forth a Conflict, the Stakes of which are something like "Let's set this to rest."  The perception then becomes something else (not quite sure what, yet):  Winner gets to define what it is, and profit from it as the game goes on, loser gets some large one-time lump-sum payout.  Everybody wins, because they maintained and increased the tension of the game.

Players can choose between (and mix) equally viable strategies which give them different opportunities:

[*]Rapidly build up perceptions and misperceptions, resolve them to mine the resources, then start again from scratch (as in "Alias")
[*]Build up perceptions, then keep them at a fever-pitch of tension (never quite proved, always incredibly likely) indefinitely (as in "Moonlighting")
[*]Build up contradictory perceptions, support each of them in turn, but never let any of them resolve, keeping a balance of confusion that means constant profit no matter how the character acts (as in "Witch Hunter Robin")[/list:u]Still have to figure out what perceptions/bribes would turn into when they are resolved, and why it would be a valid choice but not the valid choice.  But this is starting to get juicy!

[Bill_White]

Doug mentioned distributing little bits of GM-power among the players, and this got me thinking:  Tony's been talking about characters as super-competent super-spies, which put me in mind of a coteries of James Bond types.  But what if the characters are more like a Mission:  Impossible team?

[This comes back to character development in a bit, so bear with me.]

Imagine there are 3 players.  Each player starts with 3 dice in front of him.  There's a larger pool of dice in the middle of the table, but it's finite in size--let's say 3 + 2 + 1 = 6 dice.

So a game could start with one player acting as the Undersecretary for Exposition:

Player A:  "We've got a really bad one here..." [proceeds to lay out in bare bones from tough situation that requires the team, e.g., "Nuclear terrorists have infiltrated a secure location and are planning to blackmail the government of a friendly power into freeing their leader."]

Player B:  "Uh...I pass."

Player C [temporarily taking on the role of the Director of the Agency in order to propose his character, who will become the Jim Phelps-like "operator" for this mission]:  "Mr. Secretary, I've got just the man for the job.  He's a Hard Man Who Can Make Tough Calls [self-reported trait], Knows the Area Like the Back of His Hand, and Has Superb Planning Skills.  I'm talking about Link--Shane Link."

Player A [pushing a die from the center in front of Player C]:  "Link?  But isn't he a Sociopath With A Callous Disregard for Human Life [projected trait]?"

Player C:  "Mr. Secretary, he's the only one who can do it."

Some byplay now occurs in which the players agree upon a sequence of "mission objectives," i.e., goals, that must be achieved in order for the mission to succeed.  As "operator," Player C takes the lead here--he's taking up the GM-function of "adventure planning," but very much in an in-character way.

Each mission objective starts out as "impossible," but we know that the team will achieve them--the only question is what they will have to do, and what they'll be willing to take in the way of "comebacks" in order to achieve them.  

Now Players A and B get to propose characters to fill out the mission team:  "She's a Freshly Trained Agent with Excellent Language Skills and a Black Belt in Karate"; "He's a Crack Shot who is a Master of Disguises and a Nuclear Scientist."

Player C, as Operator, now assigns characters to Mission Objectives.  Each player gets to scene-frame and describe the character's actions, moving toward a point where task resolution is called for.  Can we reverse the TN ordering so that harder tasks have higher TNs?  This lets you say, "On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is trivially easy and 7 is absolutely impossible (and 4 is too close to call), how hard is this task?"  This seems more intuitive than the opposite directionality.

Each player starts off with three dice for the entire mission.  You say you're trying to accomplish a task and set its TN.  When you roll to try to achieve a task, you either succeed or fail.  If you succeed, you add the TN (not your roll!) to "your side" for control of the narration of the resolution of the mission objective.  Notice that this means that each objective will require at least two task rolls to gain control of.  If you fail, you can either (a) try again until you run out of dice, or (b) accept comebacks (like civilian deaths, blown covers, or enemy counteraction) to increase one of your rolls (probably the highest).

But here's where other players can help you.  By pointing to one of your existing traits, or making up a new one, they can push a die from the pool in the center to in front of you.  You can use it or not, as you choose, but if you use it, you're indicating that there's evidence that the trait applies (i.e., you include it in the narration).

In any case, the trait is "reinforced" and eventually players can decide to make an objective "critical" in the sense that it resolves the trait in favor of one of them or the other:  the loser gets to narrate, the winner gets control of the bonus die--or something like that.

So, to sum up: there's a finite pool of bonus dice that depends on the number of players.  As the campaign progresses, resolving traits gives control of bonus dice to different players.  

Something like that?

Bill