Misery Bubblegum - Monster Manual for Conflict Resolution

[TonyLB]

Okay, folks, sell me on why we need any of these to be separate.  I'm going to go as far into Devil's Advocate mode as I can here, and make the argument that we don't need any of these things.  But, really, this is by way of a question:  I'm not yet seeing the appeal of these.  You do, and I trust you guys to have some good reasons.  Let's get them out there for everyone to contempalte.

So, devil's advocate:  Let's say Heather is there to provide adversity of the "You are a loser" school.  In Sydney's formulation, that's her Motive.

Why do we need to represent Means?  Her Means for hurting you is to say "You are a loser."  It's motive and means.  Obviously she has to be popular.  The head of the computer-club (which I was, so I can say this!) cannot call anyone a loser.  She is a popular girl, and her opinion on who is a loser bears weight.

Why do we need to represent Opportunity?  Her Opportunity for hurting you is to say "You are a loser."  Any time when that could be said, and hurt (i.e. you slip in the cafeteria and spill things on yourself) she's there.  How could she not be there?

Why do we need Threshold?  Her Threshold is ... hell, I'm with Joshua.  It's fictional High School.  There are no thresholds.  Heather will never get tired, and she will never get embarrassed, and she absolutely will not stop until you are a loser.

[Calithena]

What you're saying makes sense to me, Tony. If they're pure adversity, you just need

- who they are (name, 'popular girl')
- the kind of adversity they present for you
- the mechanical measure of #2

So Heather, Popular Girl, Wants Everyone To Think You're A Loser, 6d6 (or whatever). That's almost as short as Goblin, HD 1-1, HP 3, AC 7 - just the way I like my adversity, short and sweet and to the point. Just different material to engage with here.

Earlier on this thread I got this funny idea. You know how in fantasy games we often break things down into physical, magical, and social conflict? Well: jocks compete physically, nerds compete mentally, and normal kids, popular or otherwise, compete sociosexually.

[joepub]

Fair enough.


I was just suggesting that they have motives and venues for initiating a conflict... and that maybe some would have motives and venues for EXITING those conflicts too?

Like realizing that you're in over your head?



That was where the thought was coming from. But good point - and it would probably be a counterproductive mechanic.

[Levi Kornelsen]

You do, and I trust you guys to have some good reasons.  Let's get them out there for everyone to contempalte.

Okay, let me see if I can do that.

In school-style stories, there are plenty of times where a villainous Heather is defeated publicly, only to return in greater strength for a serious showdown.  Escaltation through confrontation, that kind of thing.

The example that springs to ming for me is in the book Ender's Game, where the main character drives off a bully (Bono, I think) over and over, with escalation each time - in the end, the bully brings a group of large friends to ambush the main character, alone, in the shower, and beat him, and things wrap up there.

That's the thing I think could use addressing.

[TonyLB]

The difference between one round of back-and-forth in an ongoing conflict (Bono smacks Ender around in the hallway) and the closure of the entire conflict, finished, done with.  Yes?

That's a good point.  In D&D terms there's this lovely little "They're out of HPs now, so they're not adversity any more" mechanic, but the breaking point is nowhere near as clear in high school.  Conflict is not often (Heathers example notwithstanding) resolved by the opponent being physically unable to continue the fight, but by being sapped of drive, or reputation, or ... well, generally story importance.

[Levi Kornelsen]

The difference between one round of back-and-forth in an ongoing conflict (Bono smacks Ender around in the hallway) and the closure of the entire conflict, finished, done with.  Yes?

That's a good point.  In D&D terms there's this lovely little "They're out of HPs now, so they're not adversity any more" mechanic, but the breaking point is nowhere near as clear in high school.  Conflict is not often (Heathers example notwithstanding) resolved by the opponent being physically unable to continue the fight, but by being sapped of drive, or reputation, or ... well, generally story importance.

That's the stuff. 

There are already all these lovely tropes of how this conflict escalates, moves, and can end - finding ways to put those to work for your game strikes me as a good thought, though how to model them, or whether they should be 'modeled' at all in rules terms, is an entirely different matter.

[Josh Roby]

The reason why you "need" a venue or means for the adversity to express is because planning that out is part of the scenario generation that you want to use this monster manual for.  That is, if your monster manual is just a list of archetypes that could be used, then you don't need anything outside of a title and a general description.  However, if you want this to be a tool to generate scena... okay, I'm changing the wording.  However, if you want this to be a tool to generate situation, you need a means to go from that generalized name-and-description into a very concrete and specific expression of that adversity and how it will be expressed in your game at your table.

That said, I don't think the best way to do this is a list of archetypes and their typical means of action.  As you pointed out Tony, you can start with the archetype or even the statement that they want to make and then elaborate details until you have a moderately fleshed out character with which to express that adversity.  I think you sitting down and formalizing that procedure would be far more useful than a big ol' list.  Town Creation rules, except it's School Creation rules.

[Sydney Freedberg]

I'm not advocating a "threshold" mechanic, either, at least not separate from any "story importance hitpoints" characters have generally. But, the other stuff, I stand by.

Okay, folks, sell me on why we need any of these to be separate

First and foremost: combinatorics. Even if there's no real mechanical difference among the moving parts, as with Capes click-and-locks, "one from column A, one from column B, one from column C, go!" is easy for players to do and creates exponentially more options than "choose one thing from this list."

Now, to smack you upside the head until you remember high school better:

The head of the computer-club (which I was, so I can say this!) cannot call anyone a loser.

Say whaaat?

Head of computer club: "Now, Lenny here, he appears to think that you can program a PQRN in  BOBOL without a SWZZK card!"
Rest of computer club: "No SWZZK card? With a BOBOL PQRN? What a moron! Hahaha! Snort!"
Non-computer types (e.g. me) overhearing: "What'd that mean?"
Lenny: "I'm such a loser!" [uncontrollable sobbing]

The head of the computer club can call anyone else in the computer club a loser and have it stick. The difference between him and Heather is that she can call (almost) anyone in the school a loser and have it stick, because, objectively speaking, she has qualities everyone appreciates regardless of subculture, to whit, she's rich and she's hot.

Let's say Heather is there to provide adversity of the "You are a loser" school.  In Sydney's formulation, that's her Motive....Her Means for hurting you is to say "You are a loser."  It's motive and means.....Her Opportunity for hurting you is to say "You are a loser."  Any time when that could be said, and hurt (i.e. you slip in the cafeteria and spill things on yourself) she's there.  How could she not be there?

Of course you can think of it that way; and if you like the simplicity, go for it. But if you want to make this a little crunchier -- and I like crunchy -- think about it this way:

Let's say Heather, the Popular Girl, and Tony L.B., the cruel autocrat of the computer club, and -- uh, need another name -- Joshua the hulking He-jock all have the same Motive, namely "prove somebody (not me!) is a big loser." (Each of them could have different Motives, of course: "I want to prove somebody is my weak-willed groupie," or "I want to prove somebody can become cool by being like me," or "I want to prove somebody is better off dead," or even "I want to prove somebody, somewhere, in this freakin' school is basically decent, please, God.")

Of course all of them can say "you are a loser." But saying it isn't enough. They have to assert their authority to label you that way,  which means they have to express their superiority relative to the target's in a particular domain -- which means what that domain is, and the relative strengths of attacker and target in that domain, really matter:

Heather's weapon is her appearance: she's sexy, well-dressed, totally together. That weapon is going to slam a zit-faced dork with his shirt-tail hanging out, but it may do only glancing damage to another put-together girl, and then only if the target makes a momentary slip ("Are your stockings really purple? Wow. That's so individual of you.")

Josh's weapon is his physical prowess: He can cram you into your locker with your underpants wrapped around your head. That's a slamdunk (literally) against Mr. Dork, and even against a popular but unathletic kid -- though that target may retaliate socially, of course: see how the domains matter? It's not such a sure thing if the target is Smoking Jack, the crazy biker kid in the black jacket who hangs out smoking behind the gym all day and picks his teeth with a bike chain.

Tony's weapon is his knowledge: he can deluge you in acronyms and fluster you with facts. His weapon's a little more limited than the others', though: You have to care about this domain of knowledge -- if only because you want to get through your computer class -- before he can hurt you with it. So that's a whole separate level of distinction beyond Means and Motive.

So let's talk Opportunity. Heather can hurt anyone, anywhere, at any time: Everyone acknowledges her coolness, so everyone can be hurt by it, and everyone will notice when someone else is hurt by it. Josh the Jock's scope is a little more limited: He probably can't physically attack you in the presence of a teacher, for example, although he can outshine you in the presence of the coach if for some stupid reason you try to compete athletically. Nerdy Tony's scope is more limited, still, because most people in school just don't care -- in fact, his assertions of knowledge are going to make him look like a dork, for them -- but among those who do care, his power is absolute.

So far, this is all about Venn diagrams of overlapping and concentric social circles, but social groups tend to hang out in defined places together, which gives you something concrete to hang Situation on. Tony's going to rule the computer lab and maybe the AV room when they're showing Star Wars. Josh Jock's gonna get you in the halls and on the athletic field. Heather can get you anywhere, but her natural domain is the cafeteria, where everyone has to gather and be seen every day.

And then there's the additional wrinkle that some of these people may have connections to you outside of school, which gives them additional Opportunities if nothing else. Maybe Calvin Hobbes has to walk the same route to school as Josh Jock, every freakin' day. Maybe Mary Jane Watson can make Peter Parker feel lovesick every time she pops her head over the fence.

Interesting tactical bit: Means are most effective when attacker and target are dissimilar, right? The cool girl can put down the dorky guy easily, not the other cool girl; the jock can locker-cram the wimp, not the other jock. But Opportunity tends to match like with like: The Jock's most likely to run into other Jocks, or would-be Jocks; the computer nerd is most likely to hang with other nerds in the computer lab.

[Sydney Freedberg]

P.S.: To engage in ubergeekness myself:

The Computer Club president is like a high-altitude anti-aircraft SAM battery: You're screwed if you get in range, but you can avoid him easily. The Jock is like a B-52 bomber: He can pound you flat, but you can see him coming, and there are places you can hide. The Heather is like an F/A-22 stealth fighter with supercruise, beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles, and side-scanning ground-attack radar: She can get you anytime, anywhere, before you ever realized she was there.

See the differentiation? See how tactical crunch can drive story? A simple, undifferentiated system just can't do that.

[TonyLB]

Sydney, are these categories meant to be fixed and objective?  Or are they patterns that emerge from iterating the basic question "Whose opinion do you care about?" across each individual student?  If a Goth-writer-chick really, genuinely, doesn't care how people see her ... well then, she's invulnerable to even a Heather.  And if a whole bunch of Goth-writer-folk really, genuinely, don't care how the "norms" see them, but care intently about how they are seen by people inside their own clique, then they're invulnerable to attack from without (but intensely vulnerable to betrayal from within).  And, in fact, this is geekdom's great defense:  it helps people to not care about the opinions of people who don't care for them.

But this isn't because the Goth-writer-chick is fundamentally immune to a Heather's charm.  If, for some reason, she begins to care about Heather's opinion then she can be hurt by Heather's scorn as easily as the neediest social climber.  If the Goth-writer-chick falls for some cute guy and Heather (cunning little thing!) notices this and offers to help her become popular and catch the new kid's eye ... well, you guys know how this ends, right?  Hope leads to vulnerability, pain and growth.  Despair and apathy lead to safety and stasis.

Are we disagreeing, or on the same page?

[Sydney Freedberg]

Sydney, are these categories meant to be fixed and objective?  Or are they patterns that emerge from iterating the basic question "Whose opinion do you care about?" across each individual student?

The latter, the latter, a thousand times the latter.

Even as a convenience for game design, I'm aesthetically opposed to "gee, being Athletic, Smooth, and Smart are important in my game, so I guess those are my three Stats, plod plod plod." A single core mechanic that imposes no predefined categories on reality, but which the players can use to define such categories on the fly to reflect what matters to them, is absolutely my Holy Grail.

But!

A universal mechanic that treats everything the same runs the risk of blandness -- the HeroQuest effect, where it's entirely up to narration to distinguish your "Foot Soldier - 17" from your "Son of Jarl Karl - 17 " from your "Uncomfortable boil on buttocks - 17."  (N.B. I'm not a HeroQuest player, so I'm simply citing the problem some people report with this game). Even Capes and Dogs in the Vineyard, where most things on the character sheet are player-defined and mechanically interchangeable, carve out special, mechanically distinct niches for things that need special emphasis, like Debt and Drives for Capes or Escalation-Fallout-Stats for Dogs. Mechanical crunchiness stimulates interesting narrative.

So, if I can now get down from this theoretical high horse and discuss the actual application at hand:

You can absolutely do Misery Bubblegum with one core mechanic iterated between each pair of significant characters, the mechanic for "how much power do I give this person's opinion of me?" -- where the weight granted the person's opinion is the only mechanically defined element, and the specifics of what that opinion is about are left entirely to narration. That's tremendously powerful already, and there's probably enough crunch in it to satisfy me.

Further, you can probably do your "Monster Manual" as a pure list of suggestions for narration, with no mechanical differentiation. After all, the various sins in Dogs aren't mechanically distinct (until they rise to the level of Sorcery, that is), they just get expressed as higher or lower levels of Demonic Influence, differently worded Traits, and different narration.

So I'm not suggesting you give characters an "Athletic" stat or define the 16 standard locations in a typical highschool and their social significance. But what I am suggesting (and what I took a stab at with the Power vs. Loyalty distinction in apocalypse girl) is that you try to figure a few essential distinctions and give them mechanical support. You don't gain much by defining "Goth" vs. "Geek" vs. "Jock" vs. "Beatnik" ad nauseam. But maybe you do gain something from distinguishing (as an off-the-cuff example) the "Breadth" vs. "Intensity" of emotional effects in some way that you can mechanically differentiate (a) what happens when the narrow clique of Goth poets all turn on each other in mutually assured destruction from (b) what happens when Heather struts into the cafeteria and every single person there feels just a little bit less good about themselves.

[TonyLB]

Well, let me propose another way of building significance:  linking items together.

I was watching the recent Peter Pan movie (which is totally a proto-teen drama).  Peter has a question he's trying to answer:  "Am I loved?"  Wendy has a question:  "Am I growing up?"  And, on their own, neither of those questions is tremendously interesting.  They don't engage each other.

But Peter proposes a syllogism:  "If you love me then you won't grow up."  Which, of course, also implies its contrapositive: "If you grow up then you don't love me."  And then things get absolutely freakin' brilliant.

And, of course, once that link is in place "I'm growing up" is not a markedly different statement from "I can fight pirates."  The implications make them different.  I think that you can analyze the Heather-vs.-Goth thing in much the same way:  Heather can say "You are a loser" all she wants if that has no implications that the Goth chick cares about.  But when somebody proposes "If you are a loser then New Kid won't like you," then suddenly "You are a loser" takes on different meaning.

[Arcadian]

I personally like the idea of linking things together. I'm not sure of the scope of the game, as in is it meant to be a lengthy play or a short time with specific goals.  If it is the latter then what the "monsters" do against the protagonists, (or protagonist vs protagonsists) could be relevant to the characters.  I.E. computer club pres has a goal, that's to feel accepted and in charge of his niche. Antagonists (or other protagonists) have a goal of mainly "make others feel bad" or "make myself feel better" with each class of antagonist having specific means that that is acheived.  Heathers need to make others feel bad to assure themselves of their place, anything they can do to make another person feel bad achieves their goal.  Thus against computer club pres if she makes him feel like he is no longer accepted or in charge of his group she is rewarded.   The role of the antagonists would mainly be to undermine the goals of the protagonists.  I achieve (my goal) by making you fail at (your goal). 

If players take on differeing roles then their goals may come against each other.  Computer club president may actually achieve his goal by ostracizing goth writer in front of the computer club, if his goal is to "feel accepted and in charge".  In this instance protagonists are against each other, but that is sometimes the nature of the high school jungle.

[joepub]

Are teachers, parents, and principals monsters too?





So, would a Heather gain a bonus to alienating enemies... for all other Heathers around? That sort of thing?



Because I imagine some antagonists rely solely on strength in numbers, while others probably rely on opportunity, and others on other circumstances.... etc...

[Sydney Freedberg]

Well, let me propose another way of building significance:  linking items together....[into] a syllogism:  "If you love me then you won't grow up."  Which, of course, also implies its contrapositive: "If you grow up then you don't love me."  ....when somebody proposes "If you are a loser then New Kid won't like you," then suddenly "You are a loser" takes on different meaning.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Take that, run with it. Go!