A skill to cultivate: Setting Stakes

[Mike Holmes]

I agree with cannot create.  but it can facilitate, make easier and do some prompting.  I think Burning Wheel does this quite nicely.

Damn, Storn beat me to it. Facilitate was exactly the word that I was going to use. Mechanics can require players to select things before hand that are meaningful to the player so that they're available for selection on the spot as stakes. Further it can give these things mechanical importance, which makes them automatically have some weight as stakes.

In the HQ game, I gave the example of Fred's character potentially risking his massive strength rating on a heroquest if he wanted a large payoff. For "heroquest moments" the mechanical size of the ability in question that's gambled is a limiter on the potential payoff, or, IOW, the mechanical size of the other stake. In any case, the ability itself is valuable in proportion to it's ability rating. So large abilities automatically have some value to them in such a process. Making them obvious choices for stakes (in fact, in this case, the only choices you have for stakes, mechanically). The "skill" in this case is merely selecting which from the list you want to gamble. Which is pretty simple, really.

Facilitation.

Mike

[Vaxalon]

Actually, Okhfels is an excellent example of the limitations of that facilitation.

When I found out how the heroquest mechanic worked, and what the risks were, I opted out of it.  The risks were too high for the reward.  I simply could not imagine playing Okfhels without his strength, or without his relationship with Isadora, or without his "Leader of Men" attribute... the higher they've gotten, the less I want to risk them.

It may have been different if I had known how the mechanic worked from the beginning, and I had been able to build up an attribute especially for the purpose of risking it later.  At this point, though, Okhfels' attributes mean more to me than just numbers on a page.

[Thor Olavsrud]

Actually, Okhfels is an excellent example of the limitations of that facilitation.

I actually see this as a marker of functional play. If, during the process of setting stakes, one side decides that the stakes are too high for the player to want to continue, that's a thematic statement too -- and a potent one. The fact that you can realize that something will deprotagonize you and then walk away from it before it does so is a good thing.

[Josh Roby]

I'm HeroQuest illiterate -- what are the typical 'winning' stakes for a HeroQuest, if the losing stakes are risking as central a character element as possible?

[Vaxalon]

Hm.

A thematic statement?  I'm not sure I follow you.

The only meaning behind it, as I see it, is that I wouldn't want to play the character anymore, if he lost the conflict.    I don't see how it says anything thematic.

Maybe I'm not understanding the meaning of "thematic" in this context.

[Thor Olavsrud]

Hm.

A thematic statement?  I'm not sure I follow you.

It's you answering the question: Is the potential outcome of this HeroQuest worth the possibility of losing the character's strength?

Assuming the Heroquest is a proposed solution to a community's problems, it's the player deciding that the potential benefit to the community is not worth the risk to the character.

And I think that's cool.

[Vaxalon]

No.

It's the player deciding that the game wouldn't be fun anymore if the character lost the conflict.  Okhfels hasn't got a say.

Okhfels would sacrifice his strength in a skinny minute if he thought it would make Isadora's dream come true.  I can keep him from coming to that place, though, by never actually presenting him with the opportunity... so I get what *I* want and Okhfels never knows the difference.

And I know that Mike would never force me to choose between playing Okhfels authentically and playing Okhfels in a way that I find fun.

[Thor Olavsrud]

I understand all that. If you look back, you'll see that I phrased everything in terms of the player. But that remains a thematic statement in my mind. You've decided what's important to you. Your character is more important than the community. At least that's my take.

[Mike Holmes]

Thor's saying that it's your decision, yes. That's narrativism, Fred. Making decisions about the characters that are interesting to the players. That's exactly what Thor is saying. You said that, as a player, that it's not worth it at the moment to risk the strength. That's a perfect example of a narrativism statement. It's precisely what the mechanism is supposed to do.

Now, that said, I was thinking precisely of an example situation in which Okfhels had to go on a quest to save Isadora. In that case you're saying that you'd at least have a tougher choice. Again, this is a case of the mechanics backing up the narrativism.

It may be that this example conflict would not interest you, because you're not interested in either of the potential downsides. But it does allow for setting up such conflicts well. In any case, what's interesting about HQ Challenges is that it's all or nothing. That is, if you win, you don't lose what you gamble, and get what you were gambling for. If you lose, you lose the ability and don't get what you were gambling for. This is very powerful. In many other cases you can "trade" things. In this case you have to choose to risk something without any guarantee of any payoff. Meaning that you're pretty much saying that the thing you're gambling is less important than the thing you're gambling for. Again, a pretty straight statement of player interests.

Which segue's nicely into the answer to Josh's question. The other stake in question is...whatever you want it to be. The in-game concept is that you're going to some magical place to follow in the footsteps of some hero or such, in order to come back with the same sort of rewards that the hero did. So if there's a myth about Sir Percival coming back with the holy grail, you, too, can go off on such a quest and get your own grail. Or reasonable facsimile therof. In practice, I simply ask players to make up myths that have as rewards things that they very much desire. So if I want a magic sword, I make up a story about some guy who got a magic sword, and go and emulate his quest to get mine. If I want to learn some spell, I make up a story of how some wizard learned a spell from a demon or something, I follow the instructions, go to the otherworld and do the same. Etc, etc.

In any case, you don't have to risk "central" character abilities. You can risk any ability you want. I used Okhfels strength as an example for the group merely because it's very high. And the rule is that the ability gained is limited by the lesser of the ability used in the "heroquest challenge" or the resistance faced. So if Okhfels faced an opponent with an equal resistance using his Strong 50 (10W2, for those in the know), he could obtain "Magic Sword 50" or whatever. If he uses his "Winning Smile 13" instead, then he can only get "Magic Sword 13" no matter what the resistance he faces (less if it's actually lower than 13).

Basically it automatically balances the rewards with how much a player has valued each ability in terms of raising it up. Which is not automatically equal to the amount the player values it now, but usually pretty close.

So, again, the system does put forth things to make as stakes. For some players, simply getting a cool magic ability or item is enough to risk otherwise "central" character abilities. All depends on circumstance.

Another point, if one were to gamble some central ability and lose it, and find the character then not fun enough to continue playing, this would be a good time to retire the character. Basically such a failure, and the statment that the failure makes, is probably a very good way to end a character. Yes, this does mean leaving the ending up to the roll of a die...the notion that narrativism means controling all of the plot is simply not true. What you control in this case, however, is very powerful in terms of making statements.

BTW, don't read this at all as thinking that I'm going to set up any such situation in play. I'd only ever go this way if you actually indicated that it would be cool. Basically the "problem" with the mechanics at this point is merely that you haven't identified anything that Okhfels needs that he's desperate enough to risk some of his big abilities on. Which is no big deal. Most characters are there most of the time. Some never go on heroquests. That doesn't mean that stakes aren't being set. Just that the mechanic in question isn't coming into play.

Mike

[Vaxalon]

I guess what I'm getting at, is that if a mechanic does not produce stakes that I'm willing to accept, then the mechanic fails in its task of assisting the setting of stakes.

As you've pointed out, I could be tempted to risk something as central as Okhfels' strength if Isadora's life were at stake... because I really couldn't see having much fun playing Okhfels if Isadora weren't in the game, too.  But that would simply be forcing my hand... which as you've said you're not interested in doing.  One of the reasons you're such a great GM is that you don't hold a player's enjoyment of the game hostage.

Now Heroquest has other ways to set stakes, in "ordinary" conflicts.  So that's the mechanic I engage.

Clearly, if the game intends to produce heroquests in one session out of a thousand, and that's what happens, then it's not a "failure" in the global sense. I'm just saying that it's not helpful to me, with Okhfels, because of the way it's structured.

Risking a smaller attribute seems impractical, because I can get a small attribute by spending just a few hero points.

[Mike Holmes]

What I'm not making clear, Fred, is that heroquests are not meant to be everyday setting of stakes. No, it doesn't do anything to help one with a coming up with "mundane" stakes. It only helps with the very high level sorts of stakes that are involved in the very specialized sorts of otherworldly conflict in question. So, no, it doesn't help with setting stakes if you as a player do not have something that you're willing to stake at that level.

As you say, HQ has other means to do this more "mundane" stake setting (basically has to do with what the expected penalties are as I stated earlier). The fact that you don't want to do a heroquest yet is actually the stake setting mechanics of the game doing their job, and relagating you to not going on any heroquests yet. If and only if we come up with a situation that's critical to you as a player where you want to make an appropriate gamble, then and only then will he go off on a heroquest.

That may never occur, and that's just fine. I think it would be just fine if Okhfels rejected the otherworld solutions for his own practical "mundane" solutions to problems. That would be an appropriate statement in and of itself. Or things might change, and you might come up with something. But, clearly, other players come up with reasons to go heroquesting all the time. So it's merely a matter of player preference and situation. Not whether the mechanics are facilitating setting of stakes.

Mike

[contracycle]

I don't buy it I'm afraid.  This seems to me to be analogous to the non-acceptable penalty, such as if a character loses an arm or something and thus becomes sufficiently altered that the player no longer finds themselves able to identify with the character.  It is in effect a form of coercive GM editing of the character sheet, or at least that is how it can feel., if the contest was presented as unavoidable.  If the contest is avoidable, and the player avoids it, then this does not imply any statement on the players part about "the community" which of course only exists as much as the character does - i.e. not at all.  Just as it is invalid to disclaim responsibility for a decision by asserting it is made by the character rather than the player, it seems to me that if the player declines to engage with the proferred contents of the imaginary space, this cannot be construed as the character adopting a position IN the imaginary space.

[TonyLB]

It's not necessarily the character adopting a position in the imaginary space.  But it is, unavoidably, the player adopting a position, in real life.

The player is saying "I will not risk this change to my (fictional) character in order to seek this benefit for the (fictional) community."  That is a statement.  It's not necessarily a statement that the character backs up, but who cares about the character anyway?  I come to the table to learn about the players.

[Vaxalon]

I hope it isn't surprising that a player values his character more than anything else in the SIS.

[TonyLB]

It's not surprising, but it is a statement.  Other people make other statements.