Breaking Reality from Perception

[TonyLB]

Okay, so ... starting to build some of the bridges from Capes to Misery Bubblegum.

Let me offer you a scenario.  Two conflicts are running simultaneously:  "Goal:  Defeat Major Victory" and "Goal:  Major Victory accepts defeat."

No, those are not the same conflict ... look carefully.  One of them is about events, and one of them is about the perception of events.  You can have all manner of combinations:

• Major Victory is defeated, but refuses to accept defeat.
• Major Victory refuses to accept defeat and is victorious.
• Major Victory accepts defeat, and is defeated.

The one that you almost can't have (at least without some external interference) in a comic book story is "Major Victory accepts defeat, but is then victorious."  Victory results from striving, striving results from hope ... the death of hope should (my comic book instincts tell me) guarantee failure ... unless somebody else still believes in you, of course. 

But that's just comic books.  In other genres (teen romance, for example) you can totally have the substantive victory follow the perceptual failure.  "Miaka is convinced Toji doesn't love her," followed by "Toji confesses his love for Miaka" is prime, red, dripping story meat for some types of stories.

What I'm fascinated to explore in Misery Bubblegum is precisely that disconnect between perception (on all sides) and reality.  Does it matter if you're beaten, as long as you don't feel beaten?  Conversely, will all the victories in the world make a difference if you feel that you're a failure?  What if you think you're succeeding, and you are (really) succeeding, but the one person you want most to see it (father, lover, enemy, whoever ... ) doesn't recognize it?  What does that do to you?

So here's my question to you folks:  Under what circumstances is reality actually important?  Is it only important because of how it shapes perceptions?

I mean, I think that "Miaka dies painfully," is pretty important even if Miaka's player totally won the conflict "Miaka denies the possibility of her own death," but short of that what sort of objective victories/defeats have any real impact if you can control your character's way of perceiving things independently (or somewhat independently) of them?

[Vaxalon]

Reality is an illusion, a joke played on us by our perceptions.  It only exists inasmuch as the characters agree that it does.

[Tuxboy]

So here's my question to you folks:  Under what circumstances is reality actually important?  Is it only important because of how it shapes perceptions?

Really interesting question...I have always held that perceptions shape reality much more than reality shapes perceptions. It is more of a case of who's perceptions are excepted by the "majority" that impact on reality.

For example, Misha believes that "all people that wear fur are heartless murdering animal haters" and see Yumi wearing fur, there perceives Yumi as a "heartless murdering animal hater". In reality Yumi's coat is several decades older than she is and is her last connection to her long dead grandmother, who she loved dearly. Yumi also works at a local animal shelter and has a home full of beloved pets. These facts will not impact Misha's perception of Yumi and that perception is reality to her,

So is Yumi's or Misha's "reality" more valid? I think it depends entirely on in who's head you are in when you look at it. The building blocks of reality are as individual as our perceptions.

To "borrow" from Heroquest...Your Reality May Vary!

For a more chilling real life example, If the National Socialists in Germay during the '30s had not been able to convince people that their perception of Aryans as superior  then there would have been no Second World War and no Holocaust...in that case the perceptions of some affected the reality of all...

But from a gaming perspective *points at Vaxalon's post* What he said...

[TonyLB]

Yes, but in gaming we all have a vested interest in creating ways in which those different realities collide and change each other.  In real life, yeah sure, Misha thinks Yumi's a murderer, but she's too polite to say, so nothing ever really comes of it, and that's fine.  In a game we want that disconnect to foster conflict and drama.

Hmmm ... do these arguments apply to characters or players or both?  Like, if I (the player) believe my character's a werewolf, but Jen hasn't seen any evidence of that, and therefore thinks that my character is just a human shaman ... that's much the same sort of disconnect in perceptions as the one above, right?

Do characters have a "shared imaginary space" they operate in?  How and where is is connected to the SIS of the players?

And ... uh ... damn.  I think I need to define a term.  What should we call the imaginary space that one player (or character) has that is not shared with everyone else?  "Private Imaginary Space" is most clear, but I'm not lovin' the acronym.  I hope someone thinks of something better.

Anyway ... uh ... damn.  My boys have woken up and are chattering at me, which makes my effective IQ drop a hefty fraction, and now I can't remember what I was going to say!  Something about how the private spaces of the characters can be private for the players (i.e. Your character doesn't know that Tom's character betrayed the group because you don't know that Tom's character betrayed the group) or a structure maintained within the SIS of the players (i.e. You, the player, totally know that Tom's character betrayed the group, but your character doesn't know that).  But I had a point to make about it.  Maybe it will come back to me.

[TonyLB]

Wait, wait!  I remember my point!

Actual in-game reality provides an arena for people to bump their character's private-imaginary-spaces together in!  It provides lots of fodder for the shared imaginary space of the characters, and since those events are linked into people's private imaginary spaces, the events give hints of the hidden structure beyond.

Like, say Misha comes upon Yumi bent over a hurt little kitty.  Misha gives a yelp, and pushes Yumi aside, picking up the kitty and throwing Yumi a venemous glare, before running away.  Yumi has just gotten some pretty solid evidence that Misha has some wierd, unexpected stuff in her private imaginary space ... I mean, why else would she act as if Yumi were the one who hurt the kitty, rather than that she was trying to help?

Misha and Yumi both share the same strict and literal events in their imaginary spaces:  they would both agree to the actual stuff that happened (though they would also each privatize the greater meaning of it ... Misha believes that she came upon Yumi torturing a kitty, which is clearly not something that Yumi thinks happened).

[Hans]

Do characters have a "shared imaginary space" they operate in?  How and where is is connected to the SIS of the players?

If Bobby is expelled from school for being caught with a spliff in the Boys room, the piece of information "Bobby is expelled" is not "imaginary" or "subjective" to the characters, it is a fact.   Lets call these facts in the game world Events.

The question is how do Bobby, and Darla his girlfriend, and Jim, his best friend, and Derek, his enemy, all "perceive" this Event?  There are two levels to this:

Inner State: How Character A perceives a particular situation.
Perception: How the Character B thinks Character A perceives the situation.

So, if Bobby's Inner State is one of dejection and hopelessness, that could be considered a defeat for Bobby's player.  But if Bobby's enemy Derek's Perception of Bobby's Inner State is that Bobby is smiling and taking it all in stride, that could also be considered a defeat for Derek's player. 

The PLAYERS may know both levels.  Hence Derek's player may know Bobby's Inner State, but as long as Derek's Perception is incorrect, Derek's player is still being defeated.  It is crucial that both the inner and outer levels be available to inspection by the players.  This doesn't mean they necessarily have to be openly visible.  You seem to be hinting that the Inner State should be at least somewhat invisible to other players when you say...

Actual in-game reality provides an arena for people to bump their character's private-imaginary-spaces together in!  It provides lots of fodder for the shared imaginary space of the characters, and since those events are linked into people's private imaginary spaces, the events give hints of the hidden structure beyond.

It might be fun to have the allegedly "private" Inner State be perfectly obvious to the god-like players driving the story.  It is only private within the game reality.  On the other hand, it might be fun to have the Inner State only available for inspection at will to the player of the character (perhaps written on an index card face down), but inspectable and changeable through the game mechanics by the other players.

As an example of how this could work in play:  Bobby's player has an Inner State face down in front of him.  Bobby's player knows that this Inner State is "I am the coolest kid in school and everyone likes me".  Derek's player initiates the events of Bobby getting expelled, and in that process is able to replace the current Inner State, or at least modify it, with "I am a failure, and everyone hates me."  Derek's player does this in such a way that the other players still do not know Bobby's true Inner State (perhaps he passes him a new face down index card).

But back to your original question, which was:

So here's my question to you folks:  Under what circumstances is reality actually important?  Is it only important because of how it shapes perceptions?

Now, I am assuming here we are talking about the game and game design, and not deep philosophical matters.  In a game like Misery Bubblegum, I would say that Events are only important when causing them allows the players to manipulate the Inner State and Perception of characters.  It all depends upon the Player.  And I would say there are two ways Events could work to do so. 

* Directly: The Event itself causes a desired change in Inner State or Perception. 
* Indirectly: The Event in some way restricts, enhances, modifies, or alters the capacity of a player to create desired changes.

Here are two examples, all based around Derek's player getting "Event: Derek frames Bobby for possession and Bobby is expelled":

* Derek's player's goal for the event is to restrict the options of Bobby's player in protecting Darla from Derek's advances (Indirect).  Since Bobby won't be in school, there will now be long stretches of time where Derek will have access to Darla, but Bobby won't.  So when Derek frames Bobby with that big ganja spliff in the boys room, Derek's player has won when Bobby has been expelled.  Neither Derek or Bobby's Inner States or Perceptions really matter.  All that matters is Bobby's player is going to have a harder time protecting Darla's Inner State and Perception from Derek's player's manipulation.  Note that there has to be some mechanical way in which this restriction is implemented, otherwise this kind of action is meaningless.  I look at this as like a "helping roll" in Donjon, where you could, for example, use your Leap ability, and then roll the successes over into your Attack with Longsword ability.  Someone, Derek's player's success in this Event would have to roll over either as a penalty to Bobby or a bonus to Derek for future manipulation.

* Derek's player's goal is to alter Darla's Inner State from "Bobby is wonderful" to "Bobby is a drug addled idiot" (Direct).  If this is the case, then, it doesn't matter a hoot if Bobby is expelled or not, all that matters is the Derek's Perception of Darla's Inner State, as follows:

• Darla thinks Bobby is a drug addled idiot, and makes it obvious to Derek: Derek wins big time[/li
  [li]Darla thinks Bobby is a drug addled idiot, but does not make it obvious to Derek: Derek has not won, although if he can get at Darla's real feelings, he still has a chance
• Darla thinks Bobby is still wonderful, but shows worry and concern he is a drug addled idiot to Derek: Derek wins, but the victory is tenuous, and Derek's player will need to work to cement it.
• Darla thinks Bobby is wonderful, and tells Derek so with conviction: Derek has lost.

It could be that all that would matter to Derek's player is the change of Inner State in Darla.  That is, if Darla's Inner State changed, Derek's player would consider that a victory regardless of Derek's Perception of Darla.  I think part of whether or not Derek's player could call this change a victory regardless of Perception depends to some extent on how much character identification there is in the game.  If Derek's player is really taking a high Author stance, Darla's change of Inner State may be enough in and of itself.  But if Derek's player is taking a more Actor stance, then it is Derek's Perception that is more important.

All Events that occur in the Game world, no matter how important they seem on their own merits, are ONLY important in so far as they are used to manipulate Inner States and Perceptions.  Even a character's death is only important in so far as it changes or assist in the change of the Inner State and Perception of the other characters, and in so far as it irrevocably changes the Inner State and Perception of the dead character (unless we are playing some kind of ghost story thing).   There is NO Event that is important in and of itself.  If an Event makes no change to an Inner State or a Perception, it is meaningless.

[Tuxboy]

In real life, yeah sure, Misha thinks Yumi's a murderer, but she's too polite to say, so nothing ever really comes of it, and that's fine.

Polite?  You ever talked to an impassioned animal rights activist? *L*

In a game we want that disconnect to foster conflict and drama.

Which of course will require the players to act on the information that their characters do not have which brings us to your next point...

Do characters have a "shared imaginary space" they operate in?  How and where is is connected to the SIS of the players?

And ... uh ... damn.  I think I need to define a term.  What should we call the imaginary space that one player (or character) has that is not shared with everyone else?  "Private Imaginary Space" is most clear, but I'm not lovin' the acronym.  I hope someone thinks of something better.

Looks like we would end up with a separate SIS for both the player and the character, with the Player SIS (PSIS) being shared by all by default and the Character SIS (CSIS) only existing where  "Private Imaginary Space" has been shared by consent or action of the character/s.

How about "Individual Imaginary Space"?

Do we need to consider the player's IIS in terms of a game? In gaming terms is it going to impact the process in any other way than colouring the character's IIS?

In real terms the player may want to put in a caveat that the character's beliefs are not necessarily the player's, but in general term does any Individual Imaginary Space need to be defined beyond that of the character?

And now I just can't get the image of a huge Venn diagram with the various Imaginary Spaces in constant dynamic flux out of my head.

Looks to me that in this kind of game environment reality could just be a pretty backdrop to the interplay of perceptions...

[Glendower]

... what sort of objective victories/defeats have any real impact if you can control your character's way of perceiving things independently (or somewhat independently) of them?

Different perceptions are the result of incomplete information. 

Example.  An assassin shoots, misses the King by a hair and kills his bodyguard.  -  A hero shoots and kills an assassin of the king, disguised as his bodyguard. 

Perception would differ depending on the information you have on the situation.  Gathering information after the fact puts the original action into an entirely different context.

There are movies based around this concept, forcing you to re-examine the entire movie through a different perspective that you had previously.  M. Night Shyamalan's works (The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, The Village) are all good examples of this.

Gathering this information would have an impact.  To take the earlier example, the head of the King's guard discovers that the bodyguard is an imposter.  He discovers that the "assassin" was a celebrated marksman, and had a clear shot of the king.  He discovers that the imposter had a poison hidden in his ring, and a drink he was offering the king after tasting it was laced with the poison.  He discovers this as the "Assassin" is being led to the gallows.  A man is about to be executed for saving the King. 

With information, perspectives are changed.  It's that "holy Shit!" moment.

[TonyLB]

The question is how do Bobby, and Darla his girlfriend, and Jim, his best friend, and Derek, his enemy, all "perceive" this Event?  There are two levels to this:

Inner State: How Character A perceives a particular situation.
Perception: How the Character B thinks Character A perceives the situation.

Heh ... and since "the situation" includes everyone's perceptions, the perception thing can be nested.  How does Character A think Character B thinks Character A perceives the situation?  Does Bobby trust that Darla knows him well enough to know that he's taking this seriously?  Or does he have doubts about her opinion of him?  And, of course, those levels nest infinitely.

I'm currently modelling this in the game with a sick perversion of TSoYs Keys ... you give your character keys that give you resources when someone else does something (or at least you're convinced they do).  That can be first level (Derek gets points when Bobby acts like a loser) or second-level (Bobby gets points when Darla trusts him) or whatever (Darla gets points when Bobby knows that she trusts him).  I think that will fit the bill.

It might be fun to have the allegedly "private" Inner State be perfectly obvious to the god-like players driving the story.  It is only private within the game reality.  On the other hand, it might be fun to have the Inner State only available for inspection at will to the player of the character (perhaps written on an index card face down), but inspectable and changeable through the game mechanics by the other players.

Or ... y'know ... changeable but not inspectable.  You're changing things blind.

Take a look at the perverted Keys above:  if someone takes those keys, and never tells you what they are, they put power over their characters in your hands, but no instruction manual.  You can make them happy, or make them sad, but you are (at least at first) going to be doing it largely by accident.  Eventually you might figure out what their Keys are, but by that time they'll probably have changed them.  Yes, I'm grinning with a certain malevolent glee.

Now, I am assuming here we are talking about the game and game design, and not deep philosophical matters.  In a game like Misery Bubblegum, I would say that Events are only important when causing them allows the players to manipulate the Inner State and Perception of characters.  It all depends upon the Player.  And I would say there are two ways Events could work to do so. 

* Directly: The Event itself causes a desired change in Inner State or Perception. 
* Indirectly: The Event in some way restricts, enhances, modifies, or alters the capacity of a player to create desired changes.

Oooohhh ... I like what that second one makes me think of.

If your characters perceptual system is constantly evolving and building then preventing someone from taking the next step ("I hate Bobby," to "Bobby is a loser," to "Bobby is a bad person,") is a big deal.  If Derek has gotten as far as deciding that Bobby is a loser, and then the next step on the progression is blocked ... he can't choose to add the believe that Bobby is a bad person ... that makes his current progression a dead end.  It doesn't effect the present value of his beliefs, but it steals the future return that he might have been anticipating as part of the value of his investment.

Like, if I've got Key of Masochist in TSoY and the GM gives me a ring that instantly heals wounds (bastard!) then that is very strong encouragement to me to change my character's personality ... I'm not going to be getting any more points on Masochist.  Might as well cash it in and buy something that will give me a return.

Likewise, if I'm building up to a good, solid hate-on against Bobby, and he just genuinely proves that he's a well-intentioned guy ... well, I can still hate him as much as I did before, but I'm not going to go any further.  It's a dead-end.  That doesn't require me to change my existing opinions, but it steals many of the rewards of sticking to my guns.

That might be a really powerful way to have external events impact people's internal perception.

* Derek's player's goal for the event is to restrict the options of Bobby's player in protecting Darla from Derek's advances (Indirect).  Since Bobby won't be in school, there will now be long stretches of time where Derek will have access to Darla, but Bobby won't.  So when Derek frames Bobby with that big ganja spliff in the boys room, Derek's player has won when Bobby has been expelled.  Neither Derek or Bobby's Inner States or Perceptions really matter.  All that matters is Bobby's player is going to have a harder time protecting Darla's Inner State and Perception from Derek's player's manipulation.

Oh!  But you were saying something else, equally spiffy.  Some events are important because they help cement internal changes, but others are important because they change the battlefield for all future external events.

Which, yeah, covers the whole "Miaka dies painfully" thing ... it's not meant to effect your internal state, it's meant to cut off your access to future external events and the life-changing power thereof.

Cool.  I'm stealin' that.

It could be that all that would matter to Derek's player is the change of Inner State in Darla.  That is, if Darla's Inner State changed, Derek's player would consider that a victory regardless of Derek's Perception of Darla.  I think part of whether or not Derek's player could call this change a victory regardless of Perception depends to some extent on how much character identification there is in the game.  If Derek's player is really taking a high Author stance, Darla's change of Inner State may be enough in and of itself.  But if Derek's player is taking a more Actor stance, then it is Derek's Perception that is more important.

But what if Derek's player doesn't know?  Like, with the secret perverted-Keys thing (yeah, my obsession-of-the-moment) you could have Darla take some sort of Key, and do some roleplaying about being all teary-eyed and running away to the girl's bathroom ... then Derek's player has a choice.  Does he take a Key that pays off every time he's convinced that Darla shows doubt in Bobby?  Risky business.  If he has changed her mind then the payoff is huge.  If he hasn't then ... not so much.  He just gets to sit and seethe (which would have its own sort of resources, but you know what I mean).

[TonyLB]

With information, perspectives are changed.  It's that "holy Shit!" moment.

It's also the "Awwwww..." moment in a lot of romance.  When you've been thinking "Oh, Bucky never has time for me any more, and he always seems so sad and listless ... I don't know what I did, but I can tell that he's working up to leaving me," and then you find out that what he's actually working up the nerve for is to offer you the engagement ring that he's been secretly running himself ragged at two night-jobs to earn money for ... well, it's cliched because that moment grabs the heartstrings and tugs hard.

[Hans]

Heh ... and since "the situation" includes everyone's perceptions, the perception thing can be nested.  How does Character A think Character B thinks Character A perceives the situation?  Does Bobby trust that Darla knows him well enough to know that he's taking this seriously?  Or does he have doubts about her opinion of him?  And, of course, those levels nest infinitely.

I noticed the possibility of infinite regress, and kept it just to two levels for simplicity's sake, and because I think that the infinite regress is somewhat illusory.  What Character B thinks about Character A's Perceptions, if it is important, is part of Character B's Inner State.  If it is not important, then, well, it isn't important.  It think only two levels are really necessary; what the character thinks, and what other characters think the charcter thinks.  Any kind of seeming nesting can always be collapsed back down into these two levels.

Bobby's Inner State: I am really a mixed up idiot, but Darla thinks I am cool and wonderful.
Darla's Perception of Bobby's Inner State: Bobby thinks he is a mixed up idiot, and he is.
Darla's Inner State: But I love him anyway.

I'm currently modelling this in the game with a sick perversion of TSoYs Keys ... you give your character keys that give you resources when someone else does something (or at least you're convinced they do).  That can be first level (Derek gets points when Bobby acts like a loser) or second-level (Bobby gets points when Darla trusts him) or whatever (Darla gets points when Bobby knows that she trusts him).  I think that will fit the bill.

Do you mean the player gets resources when an actual event happens in the game reality, or when their character THINKS something has happened.  Your examples seem to have several levels to them.  In the first one, Bobby acting like a loser is probably a demonstrable event in the game reality.  In the second, Darla trusting Bobby might be a demonstrable event (i.e. Darla says "I trust you"), or may simply be a Perception, maybe an incorrect.  Would I still get resources for my character's incorrect Perception?  If so, then Perceptions need to be as mechanically solid as Reality.

If your characters perceptual system is constantly evolving and building then preventing someone from taking the next step ("I hate Bobby," to "Bobby is a loser," to "Bobby is a bad person,") is a big deal.  If Derek has gotten as far as deciding that Bobby is a loser, and then the next step on the progression is blocked ... he can't choose to add the believe that Bobby is a bad person ... that makes his current progression a dead end.  It doesn't effect the present value of his beliefs, but it steals the future return that he might have been anticipating as part of the value of his investment.
[snip]
Oh!  But you were saying something else, equally spiffy.  Some events are important because they help cement internal changes, but others are important because they change the battlefield for all future external events.

Which, yeah, covers the whole "Miaka dies painfully" thing ... it's not meant to effect your internal state, it's meant to cut off your access to future external events and the life-changing power thereof.

Cool.  I'm stealin' that.

Glad you like it.  I'm having a hard time picturing actual game play here, though, so I can't see exactly how this would work.  What I was picturing was a situation where the game play consists of player's introducing Events (in a manner similar to Capes), but with each Event the player specifies what the intended outcome of the event would be, as in:

* This event will make Darla think Bobby is an idiot (actual change to a Perception or Inner State)
* This event will make it much more difficult for Bobby's player to use Bobby's traits to affect Darla's Perceptions or Inner State with regards to Bobby. (penalize a later attempt to change a Perception or Inner State)
* This event will make it much easier for Derek's player to use Derek's traits to affect Darla's Perceptions or Inner State with regards to Bobby. (assist a later attempt to change a Perception or Inner State)

What I am picturing here is a kind of game play where players can "save up" to make some change to a character's Perception or Inner State over time, through a series of events, in the same way a Donjon player can save up successes for extra dice on a later roll.  It allows a player to plan and build up to a major change that mechanically would be very difficult if attempted all at once.  However, if this doesn't match up with the kind of game play you are envisioning, then I am probably dead wrong.  Are there any threads that you can point me to that describe the actual game play in Misery Bubblegum, at least as it stands right now?

It occurs to me that a name for this extra success could be Strain.  Lets say that on the table there are some index cards that represent the relationship between Bobby and Darla, currently "The love each other".  Derek's player could introduce some event, and as a result put some Strain dice (or some equivalent) onto that relationship.  At a later time, Derek's player could then use those Strain dice to affect that relationship.  An interesting question would be are the Strain dice tied to a particular outcome or player, or are they just sitting there, once in place, and useable by ANYONE who wants to monkey with the relationship.

But what if Derek's player doesn't know?  Like, with the secret perverted-Keys thing (yeah, my obsession-of-the-moment) you could have Darla take some sort of Key, and do some roleplaying about being all teary-eyed and running away to the girl's bathroom ... then Derek's player has a choice.  Does he take a Key that pays off every time he's convinced that Darla shows doubt in Bobby?  Risky business.  If he has changed her mind then the payoff is huge.  If he hasn't then ... not so much.  He just gets to sit and seethe (which would have its own sort of resources, but you know what I mean).

How do you keep the secret keys secret?  The first time someone gains resources from the Key, would it not have to be made public?  It would seem that they are Keys with only a buyoff mechanic.  This is not necessarily a drawback.   The secret Keys could be a form of betting; each Key is a secret wager that you as a player can bring about some state of affairs in the game reality.  If you succeed at bringing about that state of affairs, you reveal the wager, and take the pay off.

One thing that would help a lot to keep the Key's secret would be if they were standardized.  That is, a Key could say something like "I get resources if Darla ends up hating Bobby".  But that could be pretty hard to implement, and there is a lot of room for judgement.  What if she just dislikes him.  What if Darla acts like she hates Bobby, but secretly is still in love him.  However, the Key could say "If Darla's Opinion (a game trait) of Bobby is set to Hatred (a specific game state), I get resources" then there is never any ambiguity over the situation.  What I am getting at is that there should be some kind of syntax or grammar (I'm not sure which is the right word) that is used to define the Keys that allows them to be unambiguous as to when they pay off.

Also, would it be interesting if, as a player, you could not arbitrarily change your character's Inner State or Perception, but had to use the mechanics to do so?  In that situation, you could have a secret Key that applies to your own character.  This could come as a big surprise to the other players!  Picture a situation where Derek's player and Bobby's player are battling it out to control Darla's Perception of their characters.  Darla's player is seemingly on Bobby's player's side, helping him out.  But, when Derek's player finally wins and triumphantly flips over his secret Key "I get resources when Darla hates Bobby", Darla's player flips over THE EXACT SAME KEY, and also gets resources.  The tricky bastard was just manipulating Derek's player into putting more effort into the win, and then coasts to an easy victory of his own.  A dangerous game, because if Derek's player ever suspects what Darla's player has for a secret Key, he could change his own secret Key to something else, and leave Darla's player out in the cold.

[TonyLB]

Do you mean the player gets resources when an actual event happens in the game reality, or when their character THINKS something has happened.

Totally the latter.  In fact, you can take resources when somebody tells you about something somebody else did.  Doesn't matter at all if they're lying.  In fact, personally, I think it's better if they're lying, and you buy it hook, line and sinker.

Likewise, say you have a Key that gives you resources when Jimmy shows that he loves you ... if you take happy resources off of that when Jimmy punches you in the face and leaves you bleeding in the gutter, who am I to judge?

Would I still get resources for my character's incorrect Perception?  If so, then Perceptions need to be as mechanically solid as Reality.

I'm not following.  Can you expand on that point?

What I was picturing was a situation where the game play consists of player's introducing Events (in a manner similar to Capes), but with each Event the player specifies what the intended outcome of the event would be, as in:

Yeah, I like that ... in the cases where something goes to formal conflict resolution.  I particularly like the idea that opposing stakes could be of different denominations:  if Bobby wins then he changes shows Darla that he cares, but if Derek wins then Bobby is grounded and can't go out to spend time with Darla in future.  There's serious strategic options there that correspond exactly with cool emotional choices choices (short-term vs. long-term, trusting Darla to remain faithful vs. needing to stay close by to keep an eye on her, etc.)

However, if this doesn't match up with the kind of game play you are envisioning, then I am probably dead wrong.  Are there any threads that you can point me to that describe the actual game play in Misery Bubblegum, at least as it stands right now?

Uh ... not really very much, no.  Every time I playtest I end up tearing the damn thing down to the foundation and starting again.

How do you keep the secret keys secret?  The first time someone gains resources from the Key, would it not have to be made public?

Why?  I don't need to approve your use of the Key ... if I know what the Key is, and you reach out and take some tokens, there are no circumstances in which I'm going to say "No, you can't do that."  So if I don't know what the Key is, and you reach out and take some tokens, it's just as good.  I was going to let you take them anyway, right?

I will admit that there is something lost when you don't get to say "You think that is a sign of trust?  You sick FUCK!" but there's something gained in being able to reveal all of these things after people have (really, as players) formulated a wrong theory about how your character ticks.

Also, would it be interesting if, as a player, you could not arbitrarily change your character's Inner State or Perception, but had to use the mechanics to do so?  In that situation, you could have a secret Key that applies to your own character.  This could come as a big surprise to the other players!  Picture a situation where Derek's player and Bobby's player are battling it out to control Darla's Perception of their characters.  Darla's player is seemingly on Bobby's player's side, helping him out.  But, when Derek's player finally wins and triumphantly flips over his secret Key "I get resources when Darla hates Bobby", Darla's player flips over THE EXACT SAME KEY, and also gets resources.  The tricky bastard was just manipulating Derek's player into putting more effort into the win, and then coasts to an easy victory of his own.  A dangerous game, because if Derek's player ever suspects what Darla's player has for a secret Key, he could change his own secret Key to something else, and leave Darla's player out in the cold.

This example is beautiful with dripping, venemous bitterness and evil.  Me likey!  I don't know whether it's something that I'm going to include in the game, mechanically, but I want to strongly support the way your mind is working at this point.

[Hans]

Would I still get resources for my character's incorrect Perception?  If so, then Perceptions need to be as mechanically solid as Reality.

I'm not following.  Can you expand on that point?

What I mean is there should be some way to unambiguously determine what the Perception is, so that you know when you can take resources.  For example, lets say I have a secret key that says "If Darla hates Bobby, I get resources".  What bits of game play interaction between the players would be a precondition for me taking resources.  Does Darla's player have to actually say the words "Darla hates Bobby"?  Is there an index card or something on the table that says Darla hates Bobby?  Is it enough that I, the player, think Darla hates Bobby, regardless of what Darla's player thinks?  And what if Darla is not a played character, but some kind of NPC?  I'm just trying to picture what would actually occur around the gaming table that would trigger my reaching out and grabbing a few tokens/dice/glass beads based on that key.

How do you keep the secret keys secret?  The first time someone gains resources from the Key, would it not have to be made public?

Why?  I don't need to approve your use of the Key ... if I know what the Key is, and you reach out and take some tokens, there are no circumstances in which I'm going to say "No, you can't do that."  So if I don't know what the Key is, and you reach out and take some tokens, it's just as good.  I was going to let you take them anyway, right?

I will admit that there is something lost when you don't get to say "You think that is a sign of trust?  You sick FUCK!" but there's something gained in being able to reveal all of these things after people have (really, as players) formulated a wrong theory about how your character ticks.

You say there are no circumstances, and I will take your word for that, because I suspect there are other game play mechanisms floating around in your head that make that true. 

You say above that when there is something to be gained when you reveal how the other players were so wrong in how they perceived your character's motivations.  I agree.  However, there is also a much higher cost if, when you finally reveal it, people go "Eh, so what?" or "What, that makes no sense at all, that's just goofy."  If I say something in Capes that others think is just stupid, they can tell me, right then and there, "Mate, that is just stupid", and either I can give them the bird, or I can say "Hey, your right, I'm tired and haven't had enough alcohol yet tonight, let me come up with something better."  But if it is all hidden, then all of that stuff gets saved up until the end.  Sure, there is a bigger "oh wow" payoff if you did cool stuff, but there is also a more crushing "so what" cost if the other players DIDN'T think you did cool stuff. 

Take the example of Capes again from another direction; in Capes, I directly reward what I think is cool, interesting, dramatic, or exciting in what the other players are doing, by competing with them on the goals and events.  Capes works because the mechanics allow this feedback to be mechanically implemented IMMEDIATELY.   You do something that challenges me, on my very next action I can step up to the challenge by staking debt or whatever.  But in what you are describing, I cannot reward my fellow players for doing stuff with their keys; only they can reward themselves.  Isn't there a danger that this can become a narcissitic activity where I am doing my own thing and really don't give a darn what the rest of you are doing?  How can you, as another player, either challenge or reward me?

That being said, if the Perception states of the characters are somehow mechanically modelled, there would never be any need for popcorn throwing (or at least rarely) regarding the use of Keys.  There could be mistakes (that is, I misunderstand the rules), or there could be cheating (that is, I take resources when I mechanically shouldn't have), but there would never be just a poor choice (I take resources when it is by no means even remotely clear that the necessary state for me to do so has occurred).  If the fact that Darla hates Bobby is somehow mechanically established (in a way analagous to the way a Goal or Event is mechanically established in Capes), then there is never any ambiguity about when to take resources. 

In this way the game could be strangely analogous to the game Clue.  My keys are like those cards in the little envelope.  All the other players are trying to figure out the exact wording of those cards by my behaviour.  But there is no chance that the cards will ever say "Mr. Lavender in the Wood Shed with a Sharpened Absinthe Spoon" because "Mr. Lavender", "Wood Shed" and "Sharpened Absinthe Spoon" are not part of the syntax that can define the secret answer in the envelope.  The universe of possible secrets is defined before the game starts.

Actually, something else just occurred to me...what if the keys were backwards, and instead of allowing me to gain resources when a particular thing happened, they require me to give resources to SOMEONE ELSE when something happens.  You say that Darla hates Bobby, starts failing in school, and shacks up with Derek, and I hand you a token.  Why?  Which element of what just happened generated that reward for you? 

* Key of Hatred: Whenever my character hates another character, I must give them resources
* Key of Failure: Whenever my character fails, I must give the player who caused the failure resources.
* Key of Bad Choices: Whenever my character is forced to make a really stupid choice, I must give the player who caused the stupid choice resources.

This could lead to a sort of Darwinian game play, where the players are responding to the noisy signals the other players are giving them in a search for resources and evolving there response to the environment as the game progresses.

This example is beautiful with dripping, venemous bitterness and evil.  Me likey! 

Hehe, I'm not often accoladed for dripping venomous bitterness.  Thank you.

[TonyLB]

But in what you are describing, I cannot reward my fellow players for doing stuff with their keys; only they can reward themselves.  Isn't there a danger that this can become a narcissitic activity where I am doing my own thing and really don't give a darn what the rest of you are doing?  How can you, as another player, either challenge or reward me?

But in order to reward themselves they must interpret your actions.  I don't really see how that can become narcissistic solo play.  They have to be constantly referring to what it is that you're doing, every time they think about those keys.

If my key was "I get points whenever I don't care about something," then yeah, I could have my character sit in a corner being completely apathetic, pluck tokens out of a bowl one after another and not connect with the other players at all.

But if my key is "I get points whenever you don't care about something," then I can't get any points without paying attention to your actions.  Yes, I may wilfully misinterpret them ("Oh, sure, he sounds passionate and invested, but that's all an act") but I can't choose to ignore you and still get points.  At the least, I need to make the effort to recast your actions into my preferred way of viewing you.

I mean ... I think I get what you're saying in theory:  this type of system removes tacit gatekeeping by the group.  It removes the popcorn defense, where players stop you from doing something that clearly violates what can be accepted.  But I'm not sure, in practice, that there could be anything that goes beyond what can be accepted.  We're talking about the human mind's ability to wilfully misinterpret the actions of another person ... are there any limits to that ability?  Is there any self-blinding denial so great that you would say "No, a person could not deceive herself that badly"?

[Eric Sedlacek]

But if my key is "I get points whenever you don't care about something," then I can't get any points without paying attention to your actions.  Yes, I may wilfully misinterpret them ("Oh, sure, he sounds passionate and invested, but that's all an act") but I can't choose to ignore you and still get points.  At the least, I need to make the effort to recast your actions into my preferred way of viewing you.

What's the motivation for not getting into an interpretive rut, the same willful misinterpretation over and over again?  Static attitudes sound very lucrative.  Why should there ever be change?