Rocks fall, everybody (who bid their HP) dies

[contracycle]

It would be ingteresting to propose a situation in which the point pools are variously shared among the characters.  This seems quite a natural fit for systems that are larger than individuals, such as ships and organisaitons.   For certain classes of points, more than one, or all characters may have to agree to a bid.  The inevitabel "character group" could be defined by shared membership of a point pool.

Also.... I'm not sure that you would actually have to cease activity if you ran out of points.  There isn't any particular reason that you couldn't run up a tab with the house, as it were.  The points have not yet been attached to a representation of finite resources.  Points reflecting social status often have uses for negative values and so forth as well.

In terms of implementation, a physical realisation might be something like a deck of playing cards with suits representing 4 types of points and number representing amounts of points.  When the action is proposed, the GM consults with their ineffable wisdom and puts some cards into an envelope.  The players then gives their strategy and pushes forward cards of their own representing their bids, and then gets to see whats in the envelope.

[contracycle]

The current mechanic allows you to bid what ever you want.  The "bidding 0 always" strategy has been the sticking point.

When it does happen I do not think it will be problematic, it will serve instead as a representation of player interest, or in this case more precisely, disinterest.  The significance of allowing the players to control the stakes in play allows them to control the importance of the action.

Consider the case where the players travel from place to place; if they bet "half their wealth" on the journey, are they not asking to be attacked by bandits, pretty please with a cherry on top?  If they bid nothing, are they not saying "lets ignore the journey and move on to something more interesting".  The player of a knight carrying the favour of his lady may bet their life in a tournament, or not, depending on how significant the event is to them and where they want the action to go.  They are taking up the challenges they choose to, and the mechanical system allows this to expressed for all to see and respond to.

So I do not at all think that such 0-bid play is going to be the kind of non-play you think it is.  It is rather more like saying, only roll for those things that matter.  Consistent 0-bid play is not an optimimum solution becuase it will be no fun.

[Bill Masek]

contracycle,

Indeed, Bill.  So why don't we try that, instead of proposing impossible problems about taking advantage before play even begins, for example.

LOL!  I say you shouldn't do something, you agree, then do it in the next sentence.  That's funny.

The line after you agree with me is a perfect example of pretending you know which ideas are useful and which are not.  In your opinion the 0 bid is not worth discussing.  In mine it is.

So I do not at all think that such 0-bid play is going to be the kind of non-play you think it is.  It is rather more like saying, only roll for those things that matter.  Consistent 0-bid play is not an optimimum solution becuase it will be no fun.

In case you haven't been reading the entire thread, I'll summarise the problems for you.  The game is gamist but has no reward system or formal win condition.  Callen has been very specific about these things.  Because of this the goal will default to resource conservation.  As a result, 0-bid plays becomes the only viable strategy.  And you are right, it is not fun.  Which is why people have been discussing this issue with him.

Best,
        Bill

[contracycle]

LOL!  I say you shouldn't do something, you agree, then do it in the next sentence.  That's funny.

Was it now.  I assume then  you laugh anyone attempts to explain something to you.

The line after you agree with me is a perfect example of pretending you know which ideas are useful and which are not.  In your opinion the 0 bid is not worth discussing.  In mine it is.

Correct.  You are mistaken.  I folowed the explanation Callan gave, you apparently did not.

In case you haven't been reading the entire thread, I'll summarise the problems for you.  The game is gamist but has no reward system or formal win condition.

No shit.  Maybe thats because, gamism is not abouit winning, but about the demonstration of ability and guts?

Callen has been very specific about these things.  Because of this the goal will default to resource conservation. 

How can it do so, when there are no resources as yet to be conserved?  And why would anyone do so, when conserving such resources would prevent the player from the demonstration of ability and guts, which is the very purpose of play?

As a result, 0-bid plays becomes the only viable strategy.  And you are right, it is not fun.  Which is why people have been discussing this issue with him.

The logic is poor, resting as it does on the need for a victory condition which in fact is unnecessary.

[Caldis]

Guys could you take the squabbling to PM and leave the thread for discussing Callan's mechanic.  If he's even interested in it anymore, if not I think this thread is done, we've all given him our thoughts now it's up to him.

[Ron Edwards]

The thread is totally closed now.

Callan and Gareth, you guys could well have taken it to private discussion on your own long before this. Try harder next time.

Best, Ron