Misery Bubblegum - Monster Manual for Conflict Resolution

[TonyLB]

So I had this little flash, reading Darcy post here about wanting a Monster Manual of typical adversaries.  My game should have this, and it doesn't even have combat rules.

But the game does have adversaries, and there are a lot of archetypes from high school as to how adversity is projected.  For instance, I could totally have "Heathers" (from the movie of the same name) as a monster-type:  Heather:  High popularity, defends with dismissal and apathy, attacks the weakest available target through deception, vulnerable to honesty and passion, appears in groups of 2-4.

I think the monster manual is a technique for what Sydney recently described on the Unistat thread:  scenario generation.  Looking at the examples that he gives of systems with scenario generation, I notice that MLWM definitely doesn't have a monster manual.  Apart from categories like "Brain" and "Breeder," there isn't much description of the types of elements that you use to make up a situation.

DitV, on the other hand, actually has a monster manual hidden throughout its pages!  It's got all these lovely subtle pointers that read "Pride can enter into Stewardship when ..." and then lists a juicy chunk of adversity.  During Town Creation you select a bunch of adversaries from the monster manual (or make up your own) and arrange them relative to each other.

So here's the manifold questions for the thread:

• I know people will be unable to resist listing monsters for a high school game.  I'll probably be unable to do so as well.
• What mechanics are needed to describe how monsters vary from one another in terms of providing adversity?  What are the important differences?
• What type of structure should they be arranged in?  Can a high school story situation be developed on a single template (as with the Town Creation rules in DitV) or does it require the ability to draw different patterns of story-connection between monsters (as with the dungeon-mapping rules in D&D)?

I expect to have a lot of input into this thread.  It's probably going to be one of those threads like in the good old days of designing Capes where I say a lot of "That's a great idea for a high school game, but not for this one.  You totally have to design that game though!"  So feel free to post something you think would work, even if you don't know whether it's what I'd do.  I'll tell ya.

[Josh Roby]

Hey, Tony.

I'm neck-deep in FLFS' Situation Building mechanics right now, and the thing that I am finding of utmost importance is linking the adversity to the PCs in a significant way.  In D&D, a monster just has to be in physical proximity -- in the same room -- in order for there to be conflict.  Not so outside of the highly-contrived dungeon setting.  Outside the dungeon, adversity needs to have a connection or potential connection to the PCs.  You see this handled in Dogs by making every named character want something from the Dogs.

So to take your Heathers example, are they predators that will want to prey on the PCs, allies that will want to support them, equals who will want to barter with them, etc?  Or it may be more worthwhile to approach it from a less explicit angle, by listing off what each type of adversity wants, and then hardwiring into the situation creation rules the overlookable fact that the PCs have the thing that the adversity wants.

[Sydney Freedberg]

I know people will be unable to resist listing monsters for a high school game. ...What mechanics are needed to describe how monsters vary from one another in terms of providing adversity?

I started brainstorming on this, and then I realized, "Tony already figured this out. It's called click-and-locks." Observe:

Popular + Bully = attacks least popular PC with sarcasm and exclusion ("Heather")
Jock + Bully = attacks least athletic PC with wedgies and locker-cramming
Popular + Mentor = picks least popular PC for makeovers and well-intentioned advice (viz Clueless)
Rebel + Brooder = sulks alone, wearing leather jacket and smoking
Jock + Brooder = scowls at you when you congratulate him after he wins big game (and boy should you avoid him if he just lost the big game...)
Popular + Competitor = most likely to succeed
Nerd + Competitor = valedictorian

etc. etc. ad nauseam. Everyone has a set of things they're good at (being popular, being athletic, defying authority, doing science) and a set of things they want (victims, disciples, to be left alone, to excell).

[TonyLB]

I'm neck-deep in FLFS' Situation Building mechanics right now, and the thing that I am finding of utmost importance is linking the adversity to the PCs in a significant way.  In D&D, a monster just has to be in physical proximity -- in the same room -- in order for there to be conflict.  Not so outside of the highly-contrived dungeon setting.

Right.  RIGHT!  Okay .... I like that way of phrasing it.  Even outside of a dungeon:  "How to apply D&D monster to player in order to create conflict:  Put monster between hero and treasure/quest, or put hero between monster and victims."

So to take your Heathers example, are they predators that will want to prey on the PCs, allies that will want to support them, equals who will want to barter with them, etc?  Or it may be more worthwhile to approach it from a less explicit angle, by listing off what each type of adversity wants, and then hardwiring into the situation creation rules the overlookable fact that the PCs have the thing that the adversity wants.

Hrm.  That's ... hrm.  Dogs has NPCs seeking out the Dogs and asking things of them, because that's what Dogs is about.  But that protagonizes people in a very specific way (a role of authority and judgment, specifically).  "How to apply Dogs NPC to player in order to create conflict:  Give NPC something they need from a Watchdog."

So ... "How to apply Misery Bubblegum adversary to player in order to create conflict: ???"

My intuition, just to throw something out there, is that it goes something like this:  "Place NPC between the player and affirming a desired belief about the character, or place character between the NPC and affirming an undesired belief about the PC."

Heather is planted squarely between Veronica (the Wynona Ryder character ... designing this game gives me an excuse to refamiliarize myself with such great movies!) and her desire to affirm that she's a good person (particularly to JD).  JD is placed squarely between Heather and her desire to affirm that her life is perfect (particularly to Veronica).  Veronica is placed squarely between JD and his desire to affirm that high school is without redeeming value (particularly to himself).

Wow, that's awfully vague by comparison with "The PCs are Dogs.  Every NPC must have some irreconcilable thing that they ask the Dogs for a perfectly understandable reason."  Long way to go ....

[Josh Roby]

Right, Tony.

Here's how I'm formulating it in FLFS: Situations are built out of Conflicts.  Conflicts are constructed of a character desire and an obstacle to that desire.  NPCs (which may or may not be people -- non-furniture sets and props qualify) can be that obstacle, at which point they're an antagonist, or the object of desire, at which point they're the victim, or involved in some other way but still attached to the PCs by dint of specifically being a character foil.

FLFS has a heavy emphasis on character exploration, though, and I dunno what Misery Bubblegum's specific emphasis is.  Your desired and undesired beliefs sound close -- you just need to put a little finer point on it and you'll be golden.

[TonyLB]

Unfortunately, I'm not so sure.  The more I think about this, the more there is to think about.

D&D Monsters and Dogs NPCs share a quality that (for instance) Sorceror Bangs do not:  They can be applied to any PC, or all of them, or some subset.  They're player independent.

A big-ass dragon swoops in to breath fire at the party.  The Mage says "Swords are no use here!  I will fight this creature of magic with magic!  Make for the bridge!" and (in certain buffed out D&D campaigns) everybody says "Sure thing!  We'll guard the hobbits!"

A big-ass dragon swoops in to breath fire at the party.  The Paladin says "Sorcery is no use here!  I will fight this creature with steel and virtue!  Make for the bridge!"  Same damn thing.

A woman comes crying and falls in the mud before the Dogs.  "Please, I beg of you, do something for my husband!  These accusations against him are false, they have to be!"  One of the Dogs says "I never could bear to see a woman cry.  It's my partic'lar weakness.  You boys go talk with the Steward, I'll deal with this," and everybody says "Sure thing!  We'll guard the hobbits!"  Same damn thing.

But that's now a Sorceror Bang (which is part of their power):  that's when a woman comes crying and falls in the mud before the Dogs and says "Brother Joseph, at last you've returned!  I've waited these many years, let suitors pass me by, let my womanhood weigh heavy on the vine, because I knew you would keep your word!" and everybody looks at Joseph like "Wow dude, it's all you!"


Now me, I like the story ammunition that applies to anybody.  You can throw them into a room of players like a hand grenade, and you're pretty much assured of hitting someone, even if you can't pick your target.  But the way I formulated things above, you're pretty well committed to targetting an individual player.  So let me try another way.  What if... what if each player figures out something they want to prove about themselves in a given session.  Like Veronica can want to prove that she's a good person.  She wants somebody to either believe that or try their damndest to refute it and fail (both as stepping stones toward believing it herself). 

NPCs, on the other hand, have an agenda of "I need to show that somebody is X."  Where X can be things like "Inferior to me" (Heather) or "Better dead than alive" (JD) or "Honest and decent" (Winifred Birkle ... poor Fred).

Now, interestingly, Veronica is going to avoid Winifred like the plague.  I mean, it doesn't prove anything if Fred thinks you're a good person!  Fred thinks Beelzebub is just misunderstood!  The more confident she is, the more Veronica is naturally going to gravitate toward people who have opposing agendas, because proving herself to them is the greater accomplishment.

What I like is that people can mix-and-match two not-exacty-opposing agendas in interesting ways:  Say you want to prove that you're tough and bad and nasty.  The GM presents three NPCs:

• Josie needs to show that somebody is a total hypocrite.
• Theodore needs to show that somebody believes in his ability to lead.
• Rex needs to show that somebody respects him for more than his sports abilities.

I see possible plots entangling the tough/bad/nasty character (who I will name Spike, because ... yeah) with any of these, in a variety of ways.  I think my particular favorite is where Spike respects Rex immensely for his sports abilities, and therefore wants to beat him up (to prove himself), while Rex just wants to get it through Spike's thick head that he's more than a jock.  That one sounds like it would be awfully plaintive, and might actually end up with both of them gaining their objective (and becoming a strange sort of friends) or both losing their objectives (and hating each other much more).

Is the distinction I'm drawing here (between targetted and untargetted story munitions) one that makes sense as I've explained it?  Does this look closer to achieving that goal?

[Saxon Douglass]

I think a mix of PC-specific and PC-irrespective is best. I think the idea of choosing something they must prove about themselves is a good one and allows both. You could have something specific like "I am better at maths than [whoeve]" while you could make it less specific by changing it to "I am better at maths than anyone else in the class" and to the "grenade" you metnion by having it as "I am better at maths than anyone else in the school". Mix that with someone who wants to prove that the other person isn't very smart for example and you have one "open" agenda and one "closed" one.

As for actually making a "Monster Manual" you could go about it many ways. The simplest solution is a mix of archetypes such as Jock, Geek or Slacker each with a bunch of ready-made goals like "I'm better at ___ than ___". A more complex soluation is listing certain character typs, each with sample lists, that you pick more than one of. So you might have an NPC choose the "Bully", "Punk" and "Joke" types/aspects/whatever. This means their particular agenda for the session or day would try and incorporate 2 or 3 of those at once. Where a bully would just give people wedgies for the heck of it the NPC outlined above would do say very theatrically trying to show people that he is a punk and bully as an example. You could have something like Sydney suggested though and take my idea one step further. You'd have 3 pairings of a Skill and Want basically. So an NPC might be good at Maths, good at Biology and good and Physics while they want to "prove" they are good at them and other subjects. It's not sounding good now that I got it out but it's an idea. Having a list of "Skills" that are static and "Wants" that change each session based on Skills sounds like an OK idea to me though. Think of it like the sims except always relating to school.

[Josh Roby]

That sounds like some good explosive ingredients to throw into a pressure cooker and shake real hard, Tony.  My only query on it is the implied preference for the player-character to succeed in their goal.  You say:

What if... what if each player figures out something they want to prove about themselves in a given session.  Like Veronica can want to prove that she's a good person.  She wants somebody to either believe that or try their damndest to refute it and fail (both as stepping stones toward believing it herself).

What happens if she fails, and it's 'proven' that she is, in fact, a pretty spiteful person?  Wouldn't it be a little more clear-minded approach to frame it as a question, "Am I a good person?" and then let the chips fall where they may?  Additionally, asking yourself questions about your own character seems to fit adolescence very well, from my vantage point.

[TonyLB]

Saxon:  Something you said (particularly, targetting the desires as "I am better X than Y") actually combined in my head with something Joshua said ... so this is sort of a response to both of you.

Joshua:  Yes, asking questions about yourself is very high school, isn't it?  I'd almost be tempted to open each session (ritually) by having each person clearly and distinctly ask their question of the group.

And the adversaries are pure antagonists precisely when the story doesn't reveal them as having any of those doubts:  when they aren't seen as sharing in that common ground.

What if... protagonists want an answer to a question about themselves ("Am I a good person?") and antagonists want to pin some statement on another person ("You are a loser")?  The antagonists would actually be forbidden from stating goals that refer to themselves.  They can't say "You are too weak-willed to resist my charms," they have to say "You are weak-willed."

Now the adversaries are almost certainly trying to answer their own questions.  It's really "Am I a loser?  No, you are a loser," or "Am I a bad person because I don't like you?  No, you're a loser," or "Am I unique?  Yes, I'm stylish and you are (wait for it) a loser."  But who cares about them, seriously?  You only realize that they were teenagers like you at some later date (like 20th high school reunion).

Okay, I kid.  I think there would be a lot of room in the system to have people really start hating (say) Cordelia, but then eventually get a better sense of why she does what she does.  What I like, particularly, is that even when you figure out why Cordie wants to prove that you're a loser ... you still don't like it.  You can understand without accepting.

[Josh Roby]

Now just pipe the reward system into answering questions about yourself, and you're good to go.

[Levi Kornelsen]

In D&D, a monster just has to be in physical proximity -- in the same room -- in order for there to be conflict.  Not so outside of the highly-contrived dungeon setting.  Outside the dungeon, adversity needs to have a connection or potential connection to the PCs. 

Ah, but high schools have their own contrivances, don't they?  You just have to be in the same dress as Heather, and conflict is created.  You just need to visibly be better in the same class as Heather, and conflict is created.

I'm not sure if this is a helpful or really meaningful comment, but it seems to me that there are conventions just as immutable that can be used to create incidental conflict, in just as many ways, in this particular artificial environment.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Hmmm. So maybe we need a three-dimensional click-and-lock. Whereas Capes had Powers/Abilities + Persona (which, n.b., are mechanically equivalent except for the "earns debt/no debt" toggle), Misery Bubblegum may need something richer, where each "monster" is assembled from

1) Motive -- what they want from the player-characters (in Tony's formulation, "I want to prove somebody is X," this is the X)
2) Means -- how they go about getting what they want (the Jock is physical, the Popular Girl/Boy is social, the Geek is intellectual, etc.)
3) Opportunity -- the arena in which they pursue what they want, which is what brings them into contact with the player-characters in the first place, which in turn controls who they try to get what they want from. (In "I want to prove somebody is X," this is how you specify the "somebody").

#3 is my little bit of innovative thinking for the day. It can be location-based things like "we're in the same class," "our lockers are next to each other," "we take the same bus to school," or "we live on the same block"; it can be activity-based things like "we're both trying out for the school play" or "we both hang out smoking behind the school." (Though these are all really a mix of location and activity, just with different emphases). It can be backstory-based too, which is perhaps the most interesting: "we were best friends in 5th grade" or "she was the first person I ever kissed" or "I am your father, really I am."

[joepub]

where each "monster" is assembled from

1) Motive -- what they want from the player-characters (in Tony's formulation, "I want to prove somebody is X," this is the X)
2) Means -- how they go about getting what they want (the Jock is physical, the Popular Girl/Boy is social, the Geek is intellectual, etc.)
3) Opportunity -- the arena in which they pursue what they want, which is what brings them into contact with the player-characters in the first place, which in turn controls who they try to get what they want from. (In "I want to prove somebody is X," this is how you specify the "somebody").

Motive, means, opportunity...
and I think there should also be a fourth:

4.) Threshhold. An antogonist will only go so far trying to prove something until they realize how cruel they're being, realize what its doing to their reputation, etc.

Each enemy could have one or more threshholds... and if one of them was hit, they'd quit their goals because it created too much internal conflict for them.

Like maybe Heather has threshholds like (moderate loss of popularity/minor put downs/moderate use of cruelty.) And if any of these things are hit, Heather ditches her current goals.

[Levi Kornelsen]

Like maybe Heather has threshholds like (moderate loss of popularity/minor put downs/moderate use of cruelty.) And if any of these things are hit, Heather ditches her current goals.

She might break off the current attack - but I'd think that incidents like this would also make her underlying hate (chance of coming back for more at another, more opportune time, or with more friends) even greater.

[Josh Roby]

Like maybe Heather has threshholds like (moderate loss of popularity/minor put downs/moderate use of cruelty.) And if any of these things are hit, Heather ditches her current goals.

Obviously Tony would need to answer this with finality, but this seems a rather Simmy distinction to make, and I can't recall any teenager drama teevee show, film, or book that has a supporting character cool down because of the consequences of her actions.  On the contrary, it's far more common for them to freak the hell out and go storming down the road of self-destruction just to pull the main character down with them.