Crouching causality, hidden crane

[Callan S.]

I got into the issues of the previous design thread ('Must learn crane technique') and the problem point really, really surprised me. Which is a good thing. I'm going to post the PM's here, because the issue isn't clear cut yet and I don't trust myself to summerise Brother Bloods points.

Okay, this is definately the sticking point. Where getting somewhere with this! Good.

It's just colour? Is that because it's all up to 'the GM's whim'?

Say you were at the top of a small cliff with a boulder in front of you and an evil enemy orc directly below. If you say you push the boulder over the edge, is it just the GM's whim when he says it lands on the orc? It was just his whim that it happened that way?

I'm pretty sure it is the GM's choice that it works that way. But as a player I'm pretty sure I can guess his choice - it'll fall withing a narrow range of choices. The reason it'll be inside a narrow range of choices, is that he'll be restricting himself to how a game world works.

Can you see how the GM only lets himself choose from a narrow range of results? Which means you can have an effect on the game world, more than colour, because his narrow range matches pretty well with what you expect in the real world?

If he doesn't restrict himself, I'll give up on playing with him. The game he runs is too hard for me, when you push a boulder and it falls at an angle to the earth, missing the orc (when all other rocks fall straight down), that's so bizarre its just too hard a game to play (it's too hard to plan in advance with that bizarro game world going on).

I'm pretty sure you must have GM'ed at some point in time. If I pushed a rock off the edge of a cliff in one of your games, how likely is it that you'd say 'it falls to earth at an angle!'? Seriously, give me some actual play accounts where you've made calls this crazy? You sound like a level headed, intelligent guy. Which makes that rock pretty predictable, in that it'll fall straight down.

For "GM's whim" I really mean a whim, not a judgement based on the description of the game world and the situation. What you wrote in this MP is the description of a rather traditional "GM's Fiat" system, like in a so-called "ruleless" gpg or in a game like Amber. A system in which the outcome of an action is still decided with karma, drama (and sometimes fortune) but all the "weighting" of these factors is delegated to the master. I played in similer games (I cited Amber in one of my MPs). But this is NOT what I understood from you post in the forge.  What I "read" in your posts was the description of a GM who would decide REALLY on a pure whim. as a "game feature".

I am not an English native speaker, so maybe I misunderstood the meaning of your words, but from the reactions of the other persons who answered you, I think I wasn't the only one that believed you talked about this.

After PM'ing a responce, Brother Blood sent this, which I think has most of my PM quoted.

I'll say this, for this design, the judgement the GM makes - it isn't open to debate by players. Players aren't to judge how well the GM made judgement based on the description of the game world and the situation. They don't have to do that anymore.

Does it become GM whim, in your mind, if the players can't judge how well the GM is making his judgements about the game world?

Mmmm...  I don't think this is even possible.

In a classic "GM's fiat" game, the GM is the final arbiter of any resolution. He can be restrained by a resolution system that lets him decide only a number (i.e., Ars Magica, where the GM decide the difficulty of an action, and I saw many GM decide that number only AFTER the rolls) or he can be absolutely free of written mechanics (the classic "ruleless game"), but in the end he is the one who decide "what happens", and the players know this.

So, I think it's impossible for the players to see that decision as something so impersonal to be out of their judgement. Every player always is judging the GM, giving him appraise and cheers or instead showing boredom, contraryness or even stop playing. This is what Agenda is all about, no? If there wasn't any feedback why the GM should play?

If the player in an Ars Magica game try do do something really easy, roll seven "1" and do the ubercritical roll of his life, a roll that would be enough to kill Smaug with a blunt dart, and the GM says "you failed" without any reason given to the players, I think that it' impossible for the player to not judge him.

The rules of the game could tell this (hell, the rules of A LOT of games ALREADY tell this), but it's rubbish.  The GM is always judged by the players.

Even if you write in the rules that the players can't TALK about it (and it would be a rule that would make it much worse), they would show their opinion anyway (they could sleep on the couch instead of listenung, for example).

And no game rules can take from the players the ultimate power of judgment: they can always walk away.

The GM know this, too, so (if he don't want people to walk away) his decison is never really "free".

If you read my post as originally saying the GM makes his call and the players aren't empowered to say a damn thing, then yeah, you read it right.

I think you just are trying to codify in rules a new "impossibile thing before breakfast"

At first, I reacted to your game because I found the description enterely "not fun" and "not gamist". Now that you explained it better, I see that it could be maybe fun and gamist, but only if the players and the GM will ignore (how they ALWAYS do in all the games that already have written in the rules such nonsense, so it should not be a big problem) all what you say about talking and judging.

Hope that was enough context.

Okay, the first thing I want to establish is that I think such judgement is not only possible to stop judging like this, it's something I find dreadfully dull (as much as 'conch shell' style play) and want to stop doing it. I'm not saying this to argue the point and get people to agree with it, I'm just establishing what I believe and what I'm working from. So this design isn't about trying to take away this judgement from players, it's about supporting players who have had it up to here with making this sort of judement. It's for players who want to get rid of it, cause it's just not fun for them.

However, when I say 'get rid of' what I really mean is using another form of judgement about the events, one that's focused how well ones self is progressing towards developing a winning strategy.

GM whim can have an negative impact here as well, but it's different. Like with the falling rock above - one isn't judging that it's absurd for rocks to behave that way. One is instead judging how well one is progressing toward developing a winning strategy. In this case, it'd feel like zero progress, because a fundimental principle of tactics (ie, gravity) has gone all wonky - and with it, all progression toward winning strategy. That's why I took pains in the above example to say the game is too hard, and not to say it is unrealistic.

The mechanics I presented in the previous threa, enforce a path of progression onto gameplay. Even if the GM applies whim, the players still have a path of progression. Which forfils my needs very well - rocks can fall sideways instead of straight down and bang, I'm still progressing toward a winning move. Causality can go right to hell and bang, I'm still getting somewhere with this wacked out world! FUN!

In the previous thread I was told the mechanics should tell you what's important and the mechanics presented weren't. I get the feeling that perhaps many posters wont be able to see any other type of judgement possible, even if the mechanics tried to tell what's important.

My questions: Is that an okay explanation of what I'm gunning for? And does anyone else dig it and have(or is contracyle the only guy who'll respond in the affirmative again? God, on the other hand, I hope I haven't lost him here! :( ). I'm asking this to check what assistance is possible from the forge community.

[Bill Masek]

Callen,

The latest version of the game fixes the problems of the original Rocks Falling game.

In the original, there was no reason to bid anything.

In this version there is a reason to bid.  If you win, well, you win.  If you loose, you become more effective at the cost of game currency.  The more you bid, the more you progress and the more currency you loose.  When you reach a certain point (20 of them), you have will be able to always win a specific percentage of fights.  The more often you hit that threshold, the higher the percentage of fights you will always win.

I believe that the people in your thread were seeing two problems, both of which you can easily solve without sacrificing anything of importance.

The first is the choices for when your move fails.  If a player fails, C is the best strategy and will almost always be taken.  You can deal with this a couple of ways.

First, you can ignore it.  Its not that big a problem.  Solutions A and B do not detract from the game.  Solution C is all about humility.  And martial arts is (theoretically) all about humility.  Treat it as flavor and move on.

Second, you could balance them.  Perhaps there are three pay-offs and the GM secretly orders them.  Or perhaps you keep the payoffs as is, but the GM secretly chooses 1 which will not give any payoff.

The third would involve limiting the number of total techniques a player has access to.  Once he gives up on one, that one can never be the counter to that specific move.  Thus there is a reason not to always take option C.

The other problem is easily solved.  As written (in the less then 1 page description) the actual benefit of your 20pt counter technique is easily minimised.  With a non-finite number of potential moves, each enemy could use a different move always.  Thus after 20 points worth of defeats, you will only succeed once.

This could easily be solved by limiting the number techniques, both the total number of techniques available to NPCs (and possibly players) and the number of technique each NPC can have.

You could also solve it by letting the attacked PC choose their opponents technique.

A third way would be to make it so instead of your move being the ultimate counter, it made you more powerful.  Say NPCs came in 3 levels.  Once you hit 20 points, you could always win against level 1 opponents.  When you hit 40 you could always defeat level 2s and at 60 you could always defeat level 3s.

In the current version, you have defined the number of points needed to advance, but not the amount of currency they have to spend on it.  This could lead to potential problems, such as a player always bidding 20 so they always win and loose nothing.  But simply fleshing out the rules should fix issues like that.

This version is a vast improvement over the last.  The original game had a core deficit.  This game does not.  Its still far from perfect, but that's not supprising considering its less then a page long at this point.  I am honestly supprised that you did not get more positive feedback.

One last, minor point.  I think it would be fun if you found a way to put back the "guess the gm" bit from the original.  You managed to create a fair coordination game, which is very rare in RPGs.

Best,
        Bill

[Callan S.]

Ah, that was a good reply, thanks Bill. :)

In this version there is a reason to bid.  If you win, well, you win.  If you loose, you become more effective at the cost of game currency.  The more you bid, the more you progress and the more currency you loose.  When you reach a certain point (20 of them), you have will be able to always win a specific percentage of fights.  The more often you hit that threshold, the higher the percentage of fights you will always win.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'cost of game currency'. The only cost I really intend, is a self and peer evaluative "Damn, it took me until I gained 15 XP to find the right move. It took Jim only 5! And Tom got it on the first try!! Gah, I gotta get better at this!". I've had some thoughts on a simple equation to calculate a score, where the people with the lowest average XP accumulation (on moves where they found the answer) get the highest scores. But as I noted above, I feel this wont face much of a critique "progression judgement" isn't used.

The first is the choices for when your move fails.  If a player fails, C is the best strategy and will almost always be taken.  You can deal with this a couple of ways.

I'll just note that an actual play where C used over and over isn't a problem. What I detected in the previous thread is why people would do that, and it was treating the mechanics as if they were (part of?) the arena of challenge. This is much like a sport where protective clothing is essential, yet treating that clothing as part of the arena of challenge "Look, if I don't where the protective gear, I do that much better *OOFF!* I fink I lost a toof!". But rather than losing a tooth, I think people switch away from progression judgement to realism judgement. The big problem for me there, is that realism judgement is a very natural mode for many people (it doesn't feel at all like a problem to them).

The third would involve limiting the number of total techniques a player has access to.  Once he gives up on one, that one can never be the counter to that specific move.  Thus there is a reason not to always take option C.

I'm surprised at this suggestion, because in my mind it's already there. I hadn't thought of someone using C, then going back and using the same move again. Why? 'Cause it's really counter to my sense of progression - it's regression (ewww). Isn't this idea already there? Assuming you find regression unpleasant?

Forgive me anticipation on your responce here (I'm likely wrong): I don't think the answer is for me to try and tell the player 'this is what the games about'. I think at this point, the player has to share that certain love of progression that I do as well (as much as a nar player has to have atleast some interest in addressing premise - mechanics can't fill in for that).

The other problem is easily solved.  As written (in the less then 1 page description) the actual benefit of your 20pt counter technique is easily minimised.  With a non-finite number of potential moves, each enemy could use a different move always.  Thus after 20 points worth of defeats, you will only succeed once.

Okay, first, in that case you wouldn't win once, you'd win never. The XP only racks up against each particular move.

However - the enemy doesn't decide this, the GM does. If the GM keeps doing different moves and never returns to reexamine particular moves and the players address of them, well...that's like a riddle of steel GM who starts adding stuff to the game that has nothing to do with anyones spiritual attributes. Are they interested in the players address? Though I probably do need something strong here like spiritual attributes are in TROS.

One last, minor point.  I think it would be fun if you found a way to put back the "guess the gm" bit from the original.  You managed to create a fair coordination game, which is very rare in RPGs.

I'm going to be a bit disapointing, because I'm not sure what you mean by 'Guess the GM' bit, because I think guessing the GM is in this design (so I must be thinking of something different to you). Could you elaborate?

[contracycle]

Do you mean something analogous to the following:
I entered Dungeon X to pick on goblins and level up in my style (sneaker, tank, magician).  Unfortunately it was full of Umber Hulks and I had to flee, but I nevertheless bagged enough loot to level up.  Thus, it doesn't matter that I had to flee, or why, particularly.

[Bill Masek]

Callen,

I'm not sure what you mean by 'cost of game currency'.

I'm referring to HP.  In your Must Learn Crane... thread you said,

What's at stake isn't your characters whole life, just a slab of his HP.

Hence I assume that HP is a currency which players loose and heal as the game progresses and effectively trade for growth.  (When they "loose").

I admit that this next line does not make much sense to me:

"Damn, it took me until I gained 15 XP to find the right move. It took Jim only 5! And Tom got it on the first try!! Gah, I gotta get better at this!".

I thought that you had to gain 20 XP before you got the ability.  In your Must Learn Crane... thread you said,

You have XP counters for each type of move you've experienced against you. Say its from zero to twenty. When you get to twenty, whatever move you used when you reached twenty, becomes the right move to make against that opponents move (forever onward!).

I was also under the impression, from reading your Must Learn Crane... thread that you simply accumulated XP until you hit 20, then whatever move you happen to be fighting is the one you now know.  This does not seem to be the case.  As a result, my second issue is a lot less of an issue.

However, I think that it would still be cool if there were only a finite number of Styles out there and you had some cool system for players to build them.  When all styles have a counter you move into some form of end game where the PCs resolve the original conflict.  When end game resolves you give the PCs a permanent max HP bonus and add another pile of Styles to the list.  Then start the whole thing over again.

I'm going to be a bit disappointing, because I'm not sure what you mean by 'Guess the GM' bit, because I think guessing the GM is in this design (so I must be thinking of something different to you). Could you elaborate?

In Rocks Falling... the players had a number of currencies.  Health, Stamina, Horse Back Riding, etc.  When a conflict occurred, the players secretly bid resources from one or more pools and the GM selected one pool from which all resources bid would be lost.

I personally think that a similar system would be cool.  Instead of Health, Stamina and Horse Back Riding you could use Strength, Speed and Chi.  You bid any number of resources from these pools.  The GM chooses 1 pool which will be penalized.  If the pool penalized was one which you bid nothing from then you win.  If you have at least 1 pool penalized, you loose the resources that you bid from that pool and gain XP equal to the resources that you lost.

This is only a recommendation, but this or something similar could add a lot of value to this game.

Best,
         Bill


Contracycle,

No, I was worried about something closer to the players never fighting the same monster twice.  However, if they rack up XP for each monster separately, then its a lot less of an issue.  If you limit the total number of monster types in existence it becomes a non-issue.

Best,
        Bill

[Callan S.]

Oh, I'm terrible. I forgot I had put HP on the line in the previous thread. The HP risk is kind of like the scoring system I suggested above - a way of guaging how well/terrible your doing. It's not a trade for growth.

I thought that you had to gain 20 XP before you got the ability.  In your Must Learn Crane... thread you said,

You have XP counters for each type of move you've experienced against you. Say its from zero to twenty. When you get to twenty, whatever move you used when you reached twenty, becomes the right move to make against that opponents move (forever onward!).

I was also under the impression, from reading your Must Learn Crane... thread that you simply accumulated XP until you hit 20, then whatever move you happen to be fighting is the one you now know.  This does not seem to be the case.  As a result, my second issue is a lot less of an issue.

I think I've done a bit of a mental abbreviation and it's not made things clear. When I wrote

You then go on to describe your move. The GM/other player then has absolute fiat to decide if that works out.

I mean that yes, the GM gets fiat. But if you happen to make the right move, then that move is the winning move - forever onward. I've abbreviated this, because essentially that's the end of GM fiat in my mind, because I didn't imagine a GM would try and tell me I'm wrong the next time I encounter the exact same situation and do the same move that won before. In my mind, the GM would not only give up GM fiat at this point, but be repulsed by the idea of telling me I'm wrong when for the exact same situation he told me I was won just before. But, to put it in cold text there are two ways to get the winning move.
1* Reason/guess the winning counter move. It becomes the winning counter move for that exact situation, forever. If you guess this the first time, without gathering a single point of XP, good for you, damn your good! It is the winning counter move for this situation, forever!!
2* Get 20 XP. Your move when you get 20 XP becomes the winning counter move for that exact situation, forever.

The HP further support this - the sooner you figure out the right move, the less HP damage you will take. I completely forgot about this, when people suggested taking C over and over - you just end up dead that way.

Further my scoring system above would further reinforce that figuring out the move with a low amount of XP gained would get you the most points. So death and high scores should put alot of emphasis on guessing/figuring out the right move as the thing play is about.

Also, the wording is that you have XP counters for each type of move you encounter, rather than one XP counter for use in regards to all moves you might encounter. I'll get more specific with the wording when writing the games text.

Note: The reason the 20 XP is there, is because I, like many, hate 'guess the GM's whim' games. Because you can't progress with those sorts of games, only brown nose to the GM. Or in my mind, avoid that and more functionally start playing a simulationist agenda. I lack Ron's sublime diplomacy, so - I think many GM's go personal whim because they either want simulationism or are so wrapped up in the dream they can't stand group excitement being over meta game progression*. The 20 XP system is a back up progression system, to ensure that if things have gone to GM whim, then there is still a means of progressing (and it's presense should remind and chasten a GM who's fallen a bit too much in love with the dream for the good of gamist play). But it is not supposed to be the primary means of progressing, however. Figuring out the rights moves should be (for my design, at the very least).

However, I think that it would still be cool if there were only a finite number of Styles out there and you had some cool system for players to build them.  When all styles have a counter you move into some form of end game where the PCs resolve the original conflict.  When end game resolves you give the PCs a permanent max HP bonus and add another pile of Styles to the list.  Then start the whole thing over again.

I think your suggesting a progression metric as well - a finite number of styles means a concrete way of judging how much of something you've beaten. As I understand that, I like that, that's cool. But that can be handled at a mechanical level (a fun mechanical level, mind you). I'm trying to get mechanics to engage that squishy thing called the SIS. It's pretty tricky.

I personally think that a similar system would be cool.  Instead of Health, Stamina and Horse Back Riding you could use Strength, Speed and Chi.  You bid any number of resources from these pools.  The GM chooses 1 pool which will be penalized.  If the pool penalized was one which you bid nothing from then you win.  If you have at least 1 pool penalized, you loose the resources that you bid from that pool and gain XP equal to the resources that you lost.

Wouldn't that be gaining XP for losing (resources)? Or does my mechanic seem the same way right now?

The idea of the 'rocks falls' game, was that if you were interested in measuring your own progression (and having it measured by others), to not bid would mean not being able to see your progression. You can't see your progression with engaging the game world, unless you have something bid to begin with.

Though I admit, 'rocks fall' was raw - it was kind of like going straight to sex without foreplay. Foreplay being stuff like in tunnels and trolls, where you rolling dice, going 'cool' at your good stat scores and looking up the best weapon for your stats. Entirely mechanical, but a good indicator that when you hit the SIS, you should be in the mood for some gamist loving**.


* This includes me. I can fall in love with the dream during play too. And if your at the rudder of the boat, even if you fold your arms most of the time and keep them right off the rudder, whatever direction you go was still your choice. I've seen accounts here, even from old hands, which go to some length to describe how impartial they are. All describing just how folded their arms are. But if your in love with the dream, it'll still go in the direction of dreaming, it's that simple. The 20 XP system is also there to break that hold on the rudder - players can get to 20 and grab the rudder for a moment, so to speak.

** But I think saving throws kick progression judgement in the teeth (the optional stuff Ken adds latter - so sim, IMO), so I don't draw on T&T all that much.