Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?

[J. Scott Timmerman]

The simplest answer is that if I didn't somehow limit the types of events which players could declare, then players could simply choose the event that is most beneficial to their goals.

It seems that you are still thinking from what I'll call a character-identified perspective, wherein the goals of the player are closely tied up in the goals of the character.

I did some bolding in the above quote to help here, but yes, the ultimate and trumping goals are player goals, as you say.  Even when playing a video game and knowing the future or seeing a cut scene that the characters didn't see, you can still identify with the goals of the character.  In that sense, I don't see the player goals and character goals as necessarily being askew of each other.

So, here's a question: in the system you've proposed, what is gained by keeping the characters ignorant of the mechanism by which the world is altered on their behalf?

The ability for a character to see these events as coincidences.

The follow-up question: in the system you've proposed, what is gained by keeping the characters powerless over the mechanism by which the world is altered on their behalf?

The ability to play stories about characters who are not masters of their own fate, as I think I mentioned above.

-Jason Timmerman

[Callan S.]

This is cross posted with Jason, but for what it's worth...

Hi David,

I think your trying to shift the mechanic to become a sort of character power, as the players are resistant to "allowing players to use events outside their character's control for or against any PC interest"

But I think you've shifted some of the goal posts with the question - you phrased it as "the world is altered on their behalf". As much as they make the shift in rules perspective more seductive, the original use wasn't about altering the world on the characters behalf, it was altering the world on the players behalf, done by the player.


To Jason, I think in looking at the question you should consider whether characters by themselves are any good at making story. Surely only a personality that likes to make a story out of his life, will do so - any other personality will just make an ass of a story.

[J. Scott Timmerman]

To Jason, I think in looking at the question you should consider whether characters by themselves are any good at making story. Surely only a personality that likes to make a story out of his life, will do so - any other personality will just make an ass of a story.

Very likely.  I agree with you in the general sense.  But, as clarification, I wouldn't say that every good story in history was produced by someone who was trying to make their life a good story per se.  And so it's possible to do something interesting while attempting to act according to one's goals.  But you're right that it doesn't usually make for good story.  Admittedly, I'm sure we wouldn't want to sit through the boring parts of even most interesting people's lives, though these things are glossed over in RPGs anyhow.  It's not as if rules for "going to the w.c." even exist in most RPGs.

Besides your point, I'm also saying that even leaving peripheral and surrounding events of story up to a single GM does not make for optimal story.

-Jason Timmerman

[David Berg]

I did some bolding in the above quote to help here, but yes, the ultimate and trumping goals are player goals, as you say.

I got the point without the bolding.  My point was that your illustration of a player goal was "suddenly the universe rearranges itself such that the player's character is a goddess."  Which is why I said that seems like character-identified thinking, and suggested an alternate situation in which the player doesn't want to improve his character's effectiveness.

If this was just me reading into your choice of example, and the example could just as easily have been, "the universe rearranges itself such that the player's character is hunted by the law", then I don't think you need the "limits based on likelihood" that we were discussing.

The ability for a character to see these events as coincidences.
The ability to play stories about characters who are not masters of their own fate

Certainly nothing wrong with those.  If we're not identifying with our characters, it seems a simple matter of taste, and maybe players should have the option to do it either way they want.

If we are identifying with our characters, I guess I'm just not enough of a mental gymnast to enjoy my character's reactions to events that I rig in his benefit.

Callan,
I know we're talking about altering the world on the player's behalf.  Yet in all (I think?) of the situations Jason's discussed, "acting on the player's behalf" is done specifically via advantaging that player's character.  If Jason hopes to get his players to shake some habits, this smells off-track to me.

[J. Scott Timmerman]

My point was that your illustration of a player goal was "suddenly the universe rearranges itself such that the player's character is a goddess."  Which is why I said that seems like character-identified thinking, and suggested an alternate situation in which the player doesn't want to improve his character's effectiveness.

Certainly, player goals that are askew of PC goals are not only permissible but encouraged.  However, as the system exists (and I think as I'd prefer it) they aren't encouraged any more than those that run parallel with PC goals.  The tendency is toward parallel partially because a PC is another medium through which a player can attain their goals, and one's actions through ones character toward player goals make more sense if the character has those goals as well.

If this was just me reading into your choice of example, and the example could just as easily have been, "the universe rearranges itself such that the player's character is hunted by the law", then I don't think you need the "limits based on likelihood" that we were discussing.

And why not?  In any case, the player has goals, and giving the player infinite control over the game would undermine the requirement for stratagic thinking in achieving even those player goals.

Excuse me if I happen to be using these CA terms incorrectly, but I'm not trying to create a game that only encourages narrativism at the expense of other CA.  I'm simply trying to make a gamist-oriented game have a more interesting story.  While my ideas have come a long way since conception, I'm not trying to break as big a mold as you think. 

The ability for a character to see these events as coincidences.
The ability to play stories about characters who are not masters of their own fate

Certainly nothing wrong with those.  If we're not identifying with our characters, it seems a simple matter of taste, and maybe players should have the option to do it either way they want.

If we are identifying with our characters, I guess I'm just not enough of a mental gymnast to enjoy my character's reactions to events that I rig in his benefit.

But the challenge and fun is in rigging them.  There is strategy in choosing events carefully.  If I were to simply allow any event to occur, the rigging would be a no-brainer and no fun.

I'm not trying to wholly shake the players of PC identification.  If I were, I would probably steer away from character ownership altogether.  It's not as interesting, to me, to have to continuously simulate a character while your goals as a player lie in events outside that character.

Speaking more in the positive, as you have suggested, let me explain why my mechanic is good for situations in which PC/owner goals parallel.  Let's say a GM has acted on some PCs' behalf via GM fiat.  This leaves a sour taste in the mouths of the owning players of those PCs, as well as undermining their desire to handle a challenge themselves.

Alternatively, let's say a non-GM player made creative use of a limited game mechanic to do the same.  Again, outside forces act on the PCs' behalf.  But this time, a player strategically and creatively overcame the situation, and gets kudos for doing so.

Despite the fact that my game is not as "different" as you have interpreted it, I still think I should take your advice in framing exactly what is different about it in order to avoid misunderstandings by and with the players.

-Jason Timmerman

[Callan S.]

I became confused...and then gamist? Even more confused. Jason, if it is gamist, you know in gamism you don't need to sell a mechanic. Say how bishops can only move on diagnals...that's really quite odd, for example. But you don't need to sell it in chess, the other person will sell themselves when they start losing. So either the players will sell themselves on your mechanic in order to win, or they will figure some way of winning without using it (or just plain lose), which is also valid.

Does that sound like it fits the issue, or doesn't fit it at all?

[David Berg]

Certainly, player goals that are askew of PC goals are not only permissible but encouraged.  However, as the system exists (and I think as I'd prefer it) they aren't encouraged any more than those that run parallel with PC goals.  The tendency is toward parallel partially because a PC is another medium through which a player can attain their goals, and one's actions through ones character toward player goals make more sense if the character has those goals as well.

I was totally hoping you'd say something like that.  Just wasn't sure if that was actually what you had in mind.  Awesome.

the player has goals, and giving the player infinite control over the game would undermine the requirement for stratagic thinking . . . the challenge and fun is in rigging them.  There is strategy in choosing events carefully.  If I were to simply allow any event to occur, the rigging would be a no-brainer and no fun . . .
let's say a non-GM player made creative use of a limited game mechanic to do the same.  Again, outside forces act on the PCs' behalf.  But this time, a player strategically and creatively overcame the situation, and gets kudos for doing so.

Sounds very coherent and well-thought-out.  I've just never played in a game where I had some goal that I could pursue both with my character and with my ability to alter my character's environment, and I'm having a hard time imagining what such a goal would be.

Well, aside from the one obvious choice: "win", either versus the GM (or the world as arbitrated by the GM), or versus another player or players.

Figuring out what CA you guys have been playing with would take a lot of effort, and I don't feel entirely qualified to try.  But if you all are showing up to play with the idea that there will be winners and losers, then I think your system sounds like an interesting and fun way to go about that.  (And Callan's point should absolutely apply.)

If, on the other hand, no player can really lose (I'm talking about sigfnicant defeat, not just, e.g., losing one fight with few repercussions), then I am still wondering what all this strategizing that you've enabled is aimed at.

[J. Scott Timmerman]

Jason, if it is gamist, you know in gamism you don't need to sell a mechanic.

Well, perhaps I'm using the term "gamism" incorrectly, as I'm not a GNS expert.  The major point of this thread is that some of my friends are concerned that the mechanics might be "abused."  So getting this concern assuaged before playtesting would certainly help out.  I think the suggestions I've received so far that seem reasonable are issues of salesmanship. 

-Jason Timmerman

[J. Scott Timmerman]

If, on the other hand, no player can really lose (I'm talking about sigfnicant defeat, not just, e.g., losing one fight with few repercussions), then I am still wondering what all this strategizing that you've enabled is aimed at.

Challenge is built in to the system as I plan it: into its roles, advancement, and scene generation.  If a challenge were unlosable, then it wouldn't be a challenge.  Certainly by that definition alone, players can lose.

-Jason Timmerman