Why narrate at all?

[Mike Holmes]

I think Mike is trying to be polite, and not say that he thinks it is an irrational position.  

No, to be quite clear, I don't haven't stated or implied any position as to the rationality of the position stated in the summary, and don't really care.

I do believe that Tony is rational, and have never implied anything else. If by your definition of rational that means that he only makes rational arguments, well, then I must think that the position I stated is rational, because I attributed it to Tony. In point of fact, I do think it's a rational argument (though incorrect).

I just fail to see how any of this matters to the subject at hand.

Mike

[Vaxalon]

So the answer to Tony's question upthread is "Yes"?

(I agree that it's something of a diversion)

[Mike Holmes]

So the answer to Tony's question upthread is "Yes"?

(I agree that it's something of a diversion)

Sure, if it'll get the discussion going, fine.

Mike

[TonyLB]

Oh good!  That's a relief.

Anyway, there are many particulars where my position is more elaborate than your summary, but I'll start small.

First, I do see the theoretical potential for people to do all of these crazy things.  But I consider it very much like the theoretical possibility that a person could drive their car into Central Park and start mowing down joggers.  Yes, it could happen:  there are no physical barriers.  But there is no recognizable reward for the crazy-driver, and many recognizable down-sides.  As such, despite the thousands upon thousands of drivers who circle Central Park every day, such events are rare almost to vanishing.

In the same way, I think that a lot of the examples that have been put forth ignore the constant influence of the reward system in Capes.  Theoretically, someone could violate it willfully, but why would they?  It seems that all of the examples I've heard of heavily dysfunctional play assume a player who is wilfully working exactly counter to every reward mechanism in the game.

And that's without even getting into second-order effects of the reward mechanism (which is to say the ways in which your expectation that other players are working according to the reward system allows you to make decisions that play into their desire for reward).

Does that help to explain why I think my position is a little bit more nuanced than just "It doesn't cause problems if you figure out a way to make it not be a problem"?

[Vaxalon]

I'm not convinced that the styles of play we don't like are discouraged by the reward system.  I think the reason that you haven't seen them is that you've played with courteous players who aren't terribly interested in exploring that kind of play.

[Mike Holmes]

In the same way, I think that a lot of the examples that have been put forth ignore the constant influence of the reward system in Capes.  Theoretically, someone could violate it willfully, but why would they?  It seems that all of the examples I've heard of heavily dysfunctional play assume a player who is wilfully working exactly counter to every reward mechanism in the game.

But we keep saying over and over that this is not what we're talking about.

Mike: It's about misunderstandings between players who are reasonable.
Tony: But players are reasonable.
Mike: Yes, but they still have problems.
Tony: But why would players be unreasonable?

Please, ignore the example of the bastard who drives off into central park. We're not talking about him. As I've pointed out earlier in the thread, it's a Forge Axiom that you can't stop an abusive player and should not try. This is NOT what we're talking about.

What we're talking about is people with two rational but irreconcilable differences. It's not a crazy person driving off into central park. It's a person driving into central park and not realizing that it's a place where we've agreed not to drive, if I have to use the analogy. In RPGs where to drive is not always clearly marked.

For example, when making the comics code, the subject of blood and gore does not come up. Then in play, a player narrates a horrifically blood scene, reminiscent to him of some of the stuff from Spawn. The other player says, "Agh, these characters are heroes, they don't disembowel people!" The other player responds, "Well, sure they do in stuff like Spawn and Lobo!"

"Well, can we tone it down, please; I'm not enjoying this."

"Er, I don't want to have to stick to the darn four color conventions. I want some blood!"

This sort of thing happens in these games a lot. Probably a lame example, but it's one of those things that you don't try to remember because they're ugly moments that you just want to get by and continue playing.

How rare is this? Well, again, I think it's rarer when you have a rule that says that people can so something about their disagreements. That is, such a rule tells players that they ought to be looking out for the needs of the other player to some extent. In Universalis, challenges are somewhat rare, but that's in part because the rule exists to tell people that they might be challenged.

In similar games that I've played without such rules, some players are not informed that they have to care about what the other players think, that they should just go off on whatever peregrinations that they like, and this they do, often to the detriment of the game. The Extraordinary Adventures of Baron Munchausen actually thrives on this sort of play, but still has a mechanism for trying to ensure quality (voting for the best narration at the end).

And that's without even getting into second-order effects of the reward mechanism (which is to say the ways in which your expectation that other players are working according to the reward system allows you to make decisions that play into their desire for reward).

This latter portion is an addition to your previous comments it seems to me. In any case, this is precisely what Ralph has been submitting as possibly how the game does solve this problem.

Would you elaborate on how you think that works? Does it sorta reach back to the social level of play saying to the player that if they don't try to cater somewhat to the other players that they'll be getting fewer rewards? Is that it (sorry if this is what your parenthetical is trying to say, but it's a rather torturous sentence)?

Mike

[TonyLB]

In RPGs where to drive is not always clearly marked.

Well, Mike, I think it's fairer to say "In some RPGs, where to drive is not always clearly marked."  And I'll totally agree with that.

You seem to argue (though I hate to put words in your mouth) that there is no mechanism in Capes that keeps people "on the road," as it were.  I disagree.  I went to great pains to introduce precisely such a mechanism.  It is subtle, and I grant that it may not be obvious from reading the book, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

I'm not trying to ignore the problem, or say that only crazy people fall into it.  I'm claiming that I've addressed the problem through the rules, and that for players who learn the rules well enough to see what they need to do in order to get rewarded by the system, the rules provide sufficient guidance.

For example, when making the comics code, the subject of blood and gore does not come up. Then in play, a player narrates a horrifically blood scene, reminiscent to him of some of the stuff from Spawn. The other player says, "Agh, these characters are heroes, they don't disembowel people!" The other player responds, "Well, sure they do in stuff like Spawn and Lobo!"

"Well, can we tone it down, please; I'm not enjoying this."

"Er, I don't want to have to stick to the darn four color conventions. I want some blood!"

I think I had this actual play experience.  The game did not shatter.


Now, on second- (and higher-) order responses... You're very close to what I'm saying.  I think that many of the deeper responses in Capes provide mechanical structure to what is traditionally considered social play.  So it's not so much that the rules count on people to pursue the social level of play selflessly... they parallel the social level with game mechanics, so that pursuing it is a mechanically rewarded winning strategy.  I'm not sure which of those two you were saying, and didn't want confusion.

I'll pick one example, because doing all of them would require a lecture hall atmosphere that would make for hard reading.  So let's talk about Debt.

You always accumulate Debt.  You can try to minimize it, but doing so quickly cuts into your effectiveness (by disincenting you to React).  So, if you wish to play an effective character you need to be concerned about Debt Management.  Specifically, you need to occasionally find and/or create Conflicts where you can Stake Debt, in order to get rid of it.

Staking on a Conflict does two things directly:  One, it vastly increases your chances of winning it.  Two, it vastly increases your mechanical motivation to win it.  Losing a conflict you've Staked on screws your Debt Management, and requires much more work later to manage.

Therefore, what people generally do is to find a Conflict that they as players, already really want to win, and to express their player interest through the morality of their characters.

So that's the first-order reward mechanic.  What's the second-order effect?  Well, you as a player know that everybody else at the table wants, on occasion, to Stake their Debt.  You know, moreover, that if they do Stake their Debt against you on a Conflict you're already heavily involved in opposing then there are two possible outcomes, from your point of view:[list=1][*]They win, in which case you probably get Story Tokens.[*]They lose, in which case they now have much more Debt, which makes the likelihood of their later Staking Debt on your Conflicts much higher.[/list:o]So (1) is an unalloyed good for all sides.  One side gets victory, the other side gets Story Tokens.  (2) is a contingent good... it is an increase in the long-term probability of (1).  Together, they say "Getting another player to Stake Debt, on absolutely any side of a Conflict you're heavily invested in is a good thing."

So... you're already out there doing stuff.  You're rolling dice, and contesting conflicts and all that.  Those are sunk costs.  You've already spent those resources.  

If another player chooses to Stake their debt on your Conflict, that turns your sunk costs (the effort you've already made) into prepayment on being heavily involved in a Staked Conflict.  You want that.  That makes your resources go twice as far... they do what you originally intended, and then they also go toward capitalizing on the Debt.

But there isn't enough Debt to go around.  Not all Conflicts will end with Debt Staked on them.  Some will end with tons of Debt Staked on them.  This is because of two things:[list=1][*]Players cannot generally hope to win all Conflicts on the table, and therefore will not Stake on everything, lest they lose half or more, and end up in worse case than when they started.
[*]As mentioned above, players are mechanically encouraged to Stake on those conflicts where their personal interest already lies.  And some Conflicts are, let's be honest, dead boring.  Even when every conflict is exciting and provocative, some are more provocative than others.[/list:o]So, as a player, you are confronted with a problem:  There is a scarce resource (other people's Debt) and you want to influence the spending of it as much as possible toward you.  Other players want to do exactly the same thing.  You are all competing for the same pool of scarce resources.  You are, in a very formalized and literal sense, competing for their attention and interest, because you understand that attracting their interest has a direct correlation to attracting the resources you need.


So there's one of the second-order reward mechanisms that I think stop experienced players from narrating gobbledy-gook.  Quite simply, you're a salesman.  Salesmen who spout gibberish, or abuse their customers, quickly find that other, better salesmen take the customers away from them.

Does that make sense?  Is it something you had already considered, or is it a new (to you) take on the situation?

[Valamir]

Tony, maybe it would help to do an example of a scene from beginning to end with a "typical" number of conflicts in play, players staking debt, conflicts going unstaked, people rolling up and rolling down, the various narrations that happen, players earning inspiration, players spending inspiration previously earned.  Pretty much a whole scene as it might happen with all of the mechanics detail and associated commentary to illustrate the first and second tier mechanics you've mentioned.

That way you could be sure everyone was on the same mechanical page and instead of talking ephemerals we can say "in X's conflict against Y, when B said "blah"...what if he'd have said "blah blah" instead" and there'd be a full context to refer to.

I think that would be a pretty good thread (when you have the time to write a big thorough example like that up), and likely more productive than this one has become.

[Mike Holmes]

In RPGs where to drive is not always clearly marked.

Well, Mike, I think it's fairer to say "In some RPGs, where to drive is not always clearly marked."  And I'll totally agree with that.

I don't see the difference in the two statements.

For example, when making the comics code, the subject of blood and gore does not come up. Then in play, a player narrates a horrifically blood scene, reminiscent to him of some of the stuff from Spawn. The other player says, "Agh, these characters are heroes, they don't disembowel people!" The other player responds, "Well, sure they do in stuff like Spawn and Lobo!"

"Well, can we tone it down, please; I'm not enjoying this."

"Er, I don't want to have to stick to the darn four color conventions. I want some blood!"

I think I had this actual play experience.  The game did not shatter.

But I've had this sort of experience and the game has shattered. We can't rely on our own anecdotal evidence as there are too few data points to look at.

Instead, could we stick to the arguments for why it will, or will not have the problem?

Now, on second- (and higher-) order responses... You're very close to what I'm saying.  I think that many of the deeper responses in Capes provide mechanical structure to what is traditionally considered social play.

Well, acutally I'm not aware of anything called "social play." I don't know what you're talking about here. The social contract informs play, as do all of the other levels simultaneously. IOW, all play is social play (although there may be dysfuncitonal play that's called anti-social play I suppose).  

So it's not so much that the rules count on people to pursue the social level of play selflessly... they parallel the social level with game mechanics, so that pursuing it is a mechanically rewarded winning strategy.  I'm not sure which of those two you were saying, and didn't want confusion.

It was probably a bad question.

Let my try again. What is the primary player motive in giving out rewards? Whatever the answer, why is this the case?

Therefore, what people generally do is to find a Conflict that they as players, already really want to win, and to express their player interest through the morality of their characters.

How does this follow from what you've said before? There seems to be a logical leap here that might really help us understand what you're talking about if you could make it more clear. I see that players want to manage their debt, meaning they want to win Conflicts...but how does that make them only seek out certain conflicts? Why not try to win every conflict. Or, if that's not feasible, why not try to win the first you come across?

Let's strip away all of the color of the game. Say that we play with no narration whatsoever. What, then, mechanically makes me want to win one conflict vs. another?

Together, they say "Getting another player to Stake Debt, on absolutely any side of a Conflict you're heavily invested in is a good thing."

So, in order to get them to do this, you want to make it a conflict that's interesting to the player?

There seems to be a contradiction (but it's probably just my understanding). How can you make a player want to stake debt, if his primary motivation is only doing so in cases where he can win?

So, as a player, you are confronted with a problem:  There is a scarce resource (other people's Debt) and you want to influence the spending of it as much as possible toward you.  Other players want to do exactly the same thing.  You are all competing for the same pool of scarce resources.  You are, in a very formalized and literal sense, competing for their attention and interest, because you understand that attracting their interest has a direct correlation to attracting the resources you need.

But why put resources into anything but the best bet, mechanically?

So

So there's one of the second-order reward mechanisms that I think stop experienced players from narrating gobbledy-gook.  Quite simply, you're a salesman.  Salesmen who spout gibberish, or abuse their customers, quickly find that other, better salesmen take the customers away from them.

Seems to me that the mechanical "Value" of a conflict is based on how much is invested in it, no? Let's say that we have two conflicts. One is, not so much gobbledy-gook, but just not something that you're all that interested in, but he puts in a large investment. The second is a conflict in which you think is interesting, but which has a smaller investment made in it. Which will the player back, typically?


This is me probably still not getting the interaction of how these all work in play, so I'm ready to be corrected and to understand the issues better. But right now it seems like you have a classic case of GNS incoherence. There's a gamism mechanic, but a presumption of players who want "good story." That is, you seem to presume that in driving for a good story, that players will use the system the way that you envision it, and use it yourself in play. But what if all that happens is that players grasp on to the gamism? What if all they become concerned about is how the dice fall and who "wins"?

How does your system inform the player that the narrative itself is valuable?

Mike

[TonyLB]

This thread is getting too convoluted for me (at least) to respond to more than a fraction of the open topics in a single post.  It's time for it to spawn little thread-lets.  I am closing it.  Topics that people want to still discuss should be split out into separate threads, each of which includes one (1) clearly stated question.