[Misery Bubblegum] If you REALLY loved me ....

[TonyLB]

In Misery Bubblegum:  Monster Manual for Conflict Resolution, we were searching for ways to connect the desires and actions of one person to the desires and goals of another, and I said ...

[L]et 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.

I want to run with that, and it's well beyond the original thread (which was nearing the end of its useful life anyway), so here we are.

Syllogisms (and if someone has a more high-school name for these I'd love to hear it) strike me as a very powerful way of linking one player's question to another, and player questions to NPC statements.  For instance, suppose Jacky is asking the question "Am I a good person?" and Heather's agenda is to make the statement "You are a loser" about whatever PC(s) look like dramatically appropriate targets.  These don't have any inherent connection, but you can easily propose a connection:  "If you're a good person then you're a loser," (a.k.a. "Nice guys finish last.")

But there are different types of questions and statements, and syllogisms have (I think) different power depending on what type of things they link.  At a minimum, I see a clear distinction between:

• Who you are:  "Am I a good person?"
• What people think: "You are a loser."
• What you do:  "I stood up for Kinsey against Heather."
• What you achieve:  "The New Kid asked me on a date."

My instinct is that the strongest of these, in terms of creating conflict, are links between the observable (What you do, What you achieve) and the other types (Who you are, What people think).  "If you stand up for Kinsey then you're a loser," and "If I'm a good person then I'll stand up for Kinsey," "If you're a loser the New Kid won't ask you on a date," and the like.

It strikes me that syllogisms could provide a mechanism for how Heather can influence what Jacky does, without (if Jacky is a PC) taking away the player choice about who they are or what they do.  You don't say "You can't be a good person," or "You can't stand up for Kinsey."  You say "If you stand up for Kinsey then you are a loser, five points."  Then, as long as the player has "Stood up for Kinsey" in her history, it's easier to apply "You're a loser" to her.  You're not applying any sort of penalty to Jacky's ability to choose, you're altering the reward and punishment system in which she makes that choice.  It gets to my sense of the atomic questions of narrativism:  Will you risk bad thing Y in order to do X?

By comparison, I'm not seeing much direct application for syllogisms that work within the same overall categories.  "If you stand up for Kinsey, the New kid will ask you on a date," for instance ... seems awkward.  It seems like it's missing a step ("If you stand up for Kinsey, the New Kid will think you're cool," plus "If the New Kid thinks you're cool then he'll ask you on a date.")  Likewise, while "If you are a good person then you are a loser," is a lovely general philosophy, it seems like it's missing a step in the middle ("If you're a good person then you'll stand up for Kinsey," plus "If you stand up for Kinsey then you're a loser,") to take it out of the realm of philosophy and into actual story.

So, two questions:  First, what should people do in order to earn the right to make syllogisms?  What should they do in order to make the right to make statements and answer questions?  Are these opposing quantities ("If you win you get the chance to make a statement, if you lose you get the chance to build syllogisms") or independent or correlated?

Second, is the "cross-categories make better syllogisms" notion so strong that it should be institutionalized in the rules?  If I say "You can only make syllogisms that cross categories" am I missing out on something crucial and valuable?

[Josh Roby]

Tony, I think you've identified two broad categories -- Identity (who you are / what people think) and Action (what you do / what you achieve).  Is it possible that PCs have Identity questions, and NPCs attach Action statements?  PC Jacky wants to ask, "Am I a good person?" and NPC Heather wants to prove, "No one will help my social victims, specifically Kinsey."  You can then combine in four potential ways:

a) If Jacky helps Kinsey, she's a good person.
b) If Jacky doesn't help Kinsey, she's a good person.
c) If Jacky helps Kinsey, she's not a good person.
d) If Jacky doesn't help Kinsey, she's not a good person.

...which isn't quite right, I admit.  In any case, it seems to me that you just need something to take the somewhat abstract statements and ground them in concrete specifics of play.

[TonyLB]

I don't know whether I buy that NPCs only attach Action statements.  The whole "You are a loser" thing is clearly in Identity, and I think that threat is the kind of thing that provides strong adversity.  Heather's threat isn't just that she will say (as an action) that you're a loser.  The threat is that she'll believe it, and so will Everyone.

(Oh, as a sideline, I do think "Everyone" needs to be a special NPC in the game, with beliefs and expectations ... No individual person needs to think that you're a loser for Everyone to believe it)

Y'know, it doesn't really make any difference to the logic, but I think that for emotional impact the statements should always begin with the Identity side of the spectrum.  So not "If Jacky doesn't help Kinsey, she's not a good person," but the logically equivalent "If Jacky is a good person then she will help Kinsey."  Doesn't that have more kick?

Also, I think the great fun of this happens only when you get more than one syllogism operating on the same end result:  "If Jacky is a good person then she will help Kinsey," plus "If Jacky is cool then she will not help Kinsey," for instance.  "But ... I want to be cool and be a good person!  Isn't being good cool?"  "Well ... No!  Duh!"

I don't get what you mean by "it isn't quite right" though.  I can totally see justification for all of those, in context ("I've been helping Kinsey out so much that she's dependent on me, but even though I know she needs to stand on her own I won't stop because it feeds my vanity ... if I want to be a good person then I won't help her out next time.")  Can you clarify what you were saying?

I'm also starting to wonder about who can make syllogisms on what attributes.  Can Heather make "If Jacky is good then ..." syllogisms if Jacky doesn't really care what Heather thinks about morality?  I'm leaning toward saying that a player has to have control of the part of the character in question to make syllogisms on it.  So Heather can make "Jacky is cool" as a (potential) piece of Jacky, under Heather's control (or take control of a pre-existing "Jacky is cool" fragment).  Then she can make all manner of statements of the "If Jacky is cool then she will pay for lunch" variety, in order to try to shape Jacky's behavior by offering the bribe of coolness.

[Josh Roby]

isnt quite right = those statements aren't reaching out and grabbing me by the throat.

If you want two syllogisms (and I agree there), is it more that both the PC and NPC have an identity statement, and they are both hooked up to a common action?

Jacky: "I'm a good person." + Heather: "Jacky is a loser." + Connection: "Helping Kinsey" yeilds:
"If you help Kinsey, you're a good person; but if you help Kinsey, you're a loser."

Whoever makes the syllogisms for a player, I think it needs to not be the player in question.  High school isn't about making demands on yourself; it's about the world making a thousand and one confusing and confounding demands on you.  IIRC, you're going GMless, so it'd be another player challenging you to decide between two identities based on your action.

[LordSmerf]

This isn't a very direct contribution to the thread, but I'm pretty sure you're mis-using "syllogism".  A syllogism is a logical argument that follows a specific form:  Universal truth, specific truth, conclusion.  For instance:

Anyone who helps Kinsey is a loser (universal truth)
Jacky helps Kinsey (specific truth)
--Therefore
Jacky is a loser (conclusion)

It seems to me what you're looking to do is generate universal "truths" for play.  I don't really have anything else to contribute at the moment because I'm still trying to wrap my head around all this, but never fear, I shall return!

Thomas

[TonyLB]

This isn't a very direct contribution to the thread, but I'm pretty sure you're mis-using "syllogism".

Yeah, I am.  Good catch!

[Josh Roby]

Jacky: "I'm a good person." + Heather: "Jacky is a loser." + Connection: "Helping Kinsey" yeilds:
"If you help Kinsey, you're a good person; but if you help Kinsey, you're a loser."

Hm.  This is just restating stakes, as I have it.

[TonyLB]

Well, in the sense of "What's at stake?" as "What's important here?", but not so much in the sense of "What's at stake?" as "What resolves on this throw of the dice?", right?

Or am I failing to understand you?

[Josh Roby]

True.  I'm talking, like, session-wide stakes as opposed to the immediate stakes of one roll.

[dunlaing]

Have you read the Secret Arts chapter of Weapons of the Gods?

I think there's some relation here. In WotG, you can converse with someone and give them either a weakness or a hyperactivity towards certain actions. Weaknesses are sticks, hyperactivities are carrots. So if Ming Na talks to Michelle, Ming Na can inflict Michelle with a weakness such that from this point on until she resolves the issue, Michelle has a mechanical penalty whenever she pursues/flirts with the New Kid. Alternately, she could talk to the New Kid and give him a hyperactivity so that he gets a mechanical bonus whenever he is ignoring/putting down Michelle.

It's a very confusing chapter, but if you have access to a copy you might want to read it.

[TonyLB]

No, I don't have WotG yet (though I hear good things).  What sort of resources do you need in order to get in someone's head that way?  Is it a conflict?  Is it something dependent on a pre-existing relationship?  Or can I just walk up to someone on the street and give them an aversion to crysanthemums?

[Josh Roby]

Weaknesses and hyperactivities, while wonky-ass terms, sound very appropriate for adolescent dramas -- how often have we seen either side of those in films and teevee shows of the same genre?

[joepub]

Hey, weaknesses and hyperactivities instill MECHANICAL modifications.


I thought the idea of beliefs/syllogisms was to set story stakes.
Were you planning to have them modify dice outcomes as well?

[TonyLB]

I thought the idea of beliefs/syllogisms was to set story stakes.
Were you planning to have them modify dice outcomes as well?

Yes I was.  The story stakes will get mechanical representation:  it's a (hopefully) clear language in which to communicate what's going on.

[dunlaing]

No, I don't have WotG yet (though I hear good things).  What sort of resources do you need in order to get in someone's head that way?  Is it a conflict?  Is it something dependent on a pre-existing relationship?  Or can I just walk up to someone on the street and give them an aversion to crysanthemums?

Oddly enough, you don't need any mechanical resources (the mechanical resources--Chi--are mostly just for the Kung Fu). You need to interact with the person (in this case by conversation) and you roll dice (I think it's resisted, but it might just be a straight roll). If you roll well enough, they gain the condition.

The answer to the last two questions is pretty complicated. You have to buy seperate techniques for different things you want to do. One of the techniques could create an aversion to chrysanthemums from nothing (although you'd also have to give the opposite to someone else). Most of the techniques either inflame an existing condition or change an existing condition into another condition. I think the standard method would be to go up to Michelle and talk to her. You then tell the GM that you think she has a Love weakness. If the GM agrees/thinks it's reasonable/likes the idea, the GM sets a low target number for your Awareness roll to spot the Love weakness that she will already have had if you are successful. This weakness has no mechanical effect. Your next move is to inflame the weakness to the point where it does have a mechanical effect.