Conflict in the Middle - A Crossed-Wire Act

[Paul T]

This past August, I had the chance to spend some time in Scotland. During my time there, I saw many beautiful places, and took the chance of contacting some gamers through this forum. To my relief, they weren't creepy, smelly, or too brain damaged. Instead, they were fun, friendly, warm-hearted people who invited me into their home, cooked dinner, introduced me to Polaris, and then even helped me playtest a game I've been working on. (To Per, Gregor, Joe, and Malcolm, thank you once more!)

I'm posting here because of an interesting issue that came up during the game. In this design, play is separated into distinct scenes, each one involving two players: a Narrator (GM-type figure) and a Protagonist (a player character). Uninvolved players essentially handle the game mechanics, deciding when they enter play so as to resolve an existing conflict*. In our playtest, there were three players, which meant that in any given scene, there was only one "bystander". That player's most important role was in deciding _when_ the game mechanics come into play.

What cropped up was an interesting problem. In two scenes where I was the uninvolved player, I hesitated to introduce the game mechanics, feeling uncertain whether a conflict was developing or not. I assumed that I could wait a little more, until the conflict escalated or became more clear, and then make my call. Those scenes weren't terrible, but there was clearly some confusion at the table, and we ended up closing both scenes without using the mechanics at all (which was fine, but not the most desirable outcome).

Our discussion post-game revealed the point of confusion. (I'm hoping that the players will chime in if they disagree with my analysis, by the way! Or perhaps they might just be able to give a different perspective.)

In those scenes, the two players, seeing that I was hesitating to "call for the conflict", decided that I was uninterested in that conflict, and would move on to developing something else. (This was interesting: there was quite a bit of body language going on, where they would narrate the characters saying or doing something, then glance at me expectantly to gauge my reaction! Unfortunately, at the time, being unsure what that meant, I ignored it, interpreting it as some kind of request for approval from myself as game designer.)

From my perspective, however, it seemed like they were dropping the developing conflicts (or resolving them) before I had a chance to call in the mechanics. I felt like I couldn't really "grab on" to anything--the moment a conflict was starting to get interesting, the two players playing out the scene would "change the subject". The result was a certain deflation of the focus of the scene and the tension of the story.

This got me to thinking: It seems like we were expecting the mechanics of conflict resolution to enter play at different stages of the conflict itself. Kind of in the same way that "Fortune-at-the-End" means that the mechanics (of "Fortune") come into play later in the scope of resolution, here we were looking to engage the mechanics at different times.

It seems to me that when the two players glanced at me at the table, there were thinking, "OK, here's a juicy conflict! Will he call in the mechanics?" And when I didn't, they felt that I just wasn't interested, or felt let down, and started looking for something else.

For me, however, the experience went something like: "OK, I can see a potential conflict beginning to develop. Will both sides push harder, committing to this conflict? Let me wait and see." When they glanced at me, I was thinking, "Yeah! OK, go for it! What happens next?"

So, as I see it, we crossed wires a bit because we were expecting (or were used to?) the mechanics engaging at a certain point during the narration of a developing conflict, and for me that point was further along than it was for the other two players.

I'm finding this hard to explain, so I hope this is making sense. Perhaps another example might help: Imagine a few groups that play Burning Wheel and resolve arguments between _the players_ through a Duel of Wits. (The ever-popular "Duel of Wits or shup up, now!") One group might resort to the Duel the minute a disagreement rears its ugly head, another might only call in the mechanics after they see that people have been arguing for 5 minutes, and yet another group (perhaps one that enjoys those arguments) might begin a Duel only when everyone has run out of arguments and is purely butting heads, with nowhere left to go.

Does this make sense? I'm suggesting that in the same way that Fortune can be involved at different points during conflict resolution, conflict resolution itself can enter play at different stages of the narration of a conflict.

My question is:

-Who else has seen this as an issue in play? How did you deal with it?

And, also:

-Are there any game designs out there that address this issue directly? Or perhaps game designs that challenged your idea of where the mechanics come into play?

I'd also be particularly interested in hearing about games where this sort of disconnect was unpleasant, and rubbed you the wrong way. If so, did you learn to adjust to it, or did it spoil your enjoyment of the game?

Thank you!


Paul T.


*: A little more detail on the system: The Narrator and Protagonist play out a scene in fully freeform roleplay until the uninvolved player decides to call to engage the game mechanics. The game is structured so that the uninvolved player is rewarded for choosing a moment that is significant enough for the Protagonist to spend some currency, which the uninvolved player hopes to gain. In addition, there is a risk of losing resources for a player who chooses poorly (calls for the mechanics at a time where the Protagonist is not seriously invested and chooses not to spend any resources on the conflict).

Another Note:

I also didn't expect the problem we experienced in play because I didn't think players would be concerned about the uninvolved player's opinion. As the designer, I expected to see people playing out scenes however they wanted, and let the uninolved player come in with the mechanics whenever they wished to. So, that was an eye-opener.

[Gregor Hutton]

Ah, awesome, you've posted!

Cool, Paul pretty much has it covered. I felt there is maybe some crossover on the talks people have been having recently about Acts of Evil.

My feeling is that in a scene almost any time is a good time to say "let's go to the mechanics" but someone has to do it. Pretty much in all the scenes we were all diving into meaty stuff, but what Per and I thought was great for us didn't hit a sweet spot for Paul. So it broke down when he was the observer. Hmm, help!

Here's my AP of the game.

[Per Fischer]

Thanks for posting this, Paul, very interesting.  Let me note a couple of thoughts (I was one of the players).

To me, conflict in a roleplaying game is when two different parties want different things - when a player meets opposition to what he is trying to negotiate into the shared fiction and somebody opposes it. Therefore it felt strange when a conflict was apparent in a scene and left unresolved - a bit like coitus interruptus - because in this case my opponent (Gregor) didn't have the authority to simply say "you can't have that! Conflict."

Yes, I think both Gregor and I thought Paul was not interested in the conflicts we created and therefore we tried to maneuver into other conflicts - but there's wasn't a mechanic/meyhod other than calling the conflict to show Paul appreciated it (Paul could have just told us, of course, or gestured, but I seem to remember that he didn't look over-enthusiastic with some of the situations in the game.).

We've suggested some mechanical ways to change this "vacuum", but Paul didn't feel they pulled his game in the right direction, which is totally cool.

What about the scenes where either Gregor or I were narrators, and you were an active part in a scene? What was different, and did you think we called for conflicts too early for example?

Per

[Paul T]

Gregor,

Thanks for posting in this thread. I'm very happy to have your input, and your AP was awesome (as well as helpful).

My feeling is that in a scene almost any time is a good time to say "let's go to the mechanics" but someone has to do it. Pretty much in all the scenes we were all diving into meaty stuff, but what Per and I thought was great for us didn't hit a sweet spot for Paul. So it broke down when he was the observer. Hmm, help!

I don't know if this helps or muddies the waters, but it wasn't a case of not being into, or not enjoying, the scenes that were taking place. It just felt like my identification of the conflicts was lagging behind yours--by the time I became aware of the conflict, you were already switching gears and it was too late. I had missed the moment.

Perhaps it is a personal preference thing--I was looking for more action/narration before going to the mechanics. Perhaps it's a skill issue--maybe you two have played many games in this vein (which I never have) and thus are more apt to identify conflicts quickly. Perhaps it's a personal thing--you two are familiar with each other's play and thus could communicate a lot more with fewer words, whereas I, not knowing either of you really well, wasn't sure what exactly was going on at the table. Any of those ring true for you?

(A small digression: it wasn't my intent as the designer for the observer's interest to be a factor in the decision to call the conflict. Rather, the observer is rewarded for looking for a moment when the Protagonist is maximally engaged. So, that's what I was going for.)

Thanks!


Paul

[Paul T]

Per,

I'm glad to have you participating in this thread as well! Fantastic! Everyone's on board.

It's really interesting to see how different our perspectives are on this game. It looks like we were all coming to the game with very different assumptions about how it was "supposed" to work (scare quotes applying to me just as much as to you two, just to be clear).

To me, conflict in a roleplaying game is when two different parties want different things - when a player meets opposition to what he is trying to negotiate into the shared fiction and somebody opposes it. Therefore it felt strange when a conflict was apparent in a scene and left unresolved - a bit like coitus interruptus - because in this case my opponent (Gregor) didn't have the authority to simply say "you can't have that! Conflict."

That's exactly what felt strange to me, as well. I was also expecting Gregor to say, "you can't have that!", but I was waiting for him to say it through narration, whereupon, if you seemed keen to fight for it, I would have called for the conflict to take place.

Yes, I think both Gregor and I thought Paul was not interested in the conflicts we created and therefore we tried to maneuver into other conflicts - but there's wasn't a mechanic/meyhod other than calling the conflict to show Paul appreciated it (Paul could have just told us, of course, or gestured, but I seem to remember that he didn't look over-enthusiastic with some of the situations in the game.).

I'm really curious now. Why did you think it was important to try to maneuver into conflicts I would find interesting? As the designer, my only intent was that you look for conflicts that you find interesting, and my job as the observer is merely to identify them. Is there something in the text that suggests this, or is it something you've learned to do while playing other games? This suprised me--it wasn't something I expected to see!

We've suggested some mechanical ways to change this "vacuum", but Paul didn't feel they pulled his game in the right direction, which is totally cool.

Some of your suggestions, while excellent, would take the game in a different direction--a direction that's been done better by other games. However, a few of the suggestions could work. I haven't implemented them yet because I haven't had time for another playtest, not because I didn't like the ideas. So, they're still stewing around in my head. I'm just "on the slow track", as it were.

What about the scenes where either Gregor or I were narrators, and you were an active part in a scene? What was different, and did you think we called for conflicts too early for example?

Well, it didn't bother me too much, but yes, I did find myself wishing that the scenes had been allowed to go on for a little longer. I felt like we were lacking some narrative "meat"; the conflicts felt embryonic at best, not yet fleshed out. But the mechanics work just fine if they come into play too early, so I let them take place when they were called--that's how I see the game as being played: each group finds their own natural rhythm. But, yes, I found myself really wishing it hadn't been such a quick affair in the first two scenes, wishing that the circumstances had been developed a little further and that the crux of the scene had been developed a little further. In both scenes, it seemed like the frame was cut before we got to the action, to use a film analogy.

Cheers,


Paul

[Per Fischer]

Regarding whether the conflicts were interesting or not - when I roleplay and engage in a conflict (ie: there is opposition as to what gets established in the shared fiction) it's BECAUSE I find it interesting. I see no reason to have an un-interesting conflict. So, when  Gregor and I landed in conflict, we found it interesting, assuming this goes for Gregor as well - but conflict wasn't called, which I thought was because Paul as the observer didn't "ignite" on the conflict in question, that he wasn't interested in that particular conflict. I came to that conclusion exactly because it wasn't identified. That's what I meant by there's no mechanic to say, for example, "Conflict identified, interesting, go on and let's see if we can get it more meaty"-kinda stuff.

I don't know if that clears anything up or not?

Per

[Paul T]

Per,

I think we're understanding each other. Let me just check that you didn't misread me:

My question wasn't "why would maneuver into conflicts YOU find interesting" but, rather, "Why did you try to maneuver into conflicts that _I_ (Paul, the uninvolved player) would find interesting", as opposed to conflicts that you and Gregor found interesting?

This is actually one reason the observing player doesn't get to decide what the conflict is about--I want the Narrator and Protagonist to go with what they're into. The observer is just trying to get some Coins out of the deal when it happens.

Does that clarify my question in the previous post?


Paul

[Paul T]

Per,

My apologies about the double post, but I just saw something I felt I should comment on. It may help further clarify what I'm trying to ask, as well. Let me quote something from your post one more time:

Yes, I think both Gregor and I thought Paul was not interested in the conflicts we created and therefore we tried to maneuver into other conflicts - but there's wasn't a mechanic/meyhod other than calling the conflict to show Paul appreciated it (Paul could have just told us, of course, or gestured, but I seem to remember that he didn't look over-enthusiastic with some of the situations in the game.).

This is the bit I'm trying to ask you about. You're describing a situation where you and Gregor were looking for cues from me--information communicated by me--to create the scene and conflict therein.

In my mind, however, I was not involved at all (since I was not participating in the narration). From where I was sitting, I was waiting for cues and information from the two of you. After all, you were the people involved in the scene! Maybe that was the problem--you were looking for cues from me, but I was looking for cues from the two of you? That would explain why things weren't moving along as much as they might have...

(By the way, I just read the "Acts of Evil" discussion at http://www.ashcanfront.net/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=56&page=1#Item_0, and I have to say it sounds like the same issue. "Say no until you roll the dice" would seem to summarize my GM advice for Land of Nodd, at least in my head. So, Gregor, thank you for bringing that up!)

Best,


Paul

[Per Fischer]

Maybe that was the problem--you were looking for cues from me, but I was looking for cues from the two of you? That would explain why things weren't moving along as much as they might have...

That might be it

But why didn't you think, say for example, the conflict arrived at in the torture scene was a cue? Or how do you see the active players in the scene providing cues? Or is that just a social contract thing in your view?

Very interesting since a couple of us are going to play Acts of Evil, probably next week.

Per

[Paul T]

Per,

The torture scene was most definitely a conflict! In that situation, I just hesitated. I wasn't yet sure where you two were going with the scene--was Emile trying to get a name out of Fellini, or was that just a setup for some other conflict? By the time I knew that was the crux of the scene, Fellini had blurted out my character's name, and it was too late to call for the conflict--it had already been resolved.

Perhaps if I had had the opportunity to game with you two before, and had known you better, I would have called for it earlier. Lacking that experience, I really wasn't sure where you were going with the scene until, as I said, it was too late.

As I mentioned, I also wonder whether you two simply know each other well enough to communicate with just a few words. I was in unfamiliar territory with two other players I didn't really know! Perhaps, if that is the case, it just wasn't quite enough for me to catch on--you two knew each other well enough to read where the other was going, but I couldn't quite see it yet.

As for the cues I'm looking for from the players, it's commitment to the conflict by both parties. What I mean by commitment is two things:

1) Having a character within the fiction take action in order to move towards the object of their desire (ex: Emile asks Fellini to admit he didn't write the Mass), and

2) That character doesn't immediately give up when faced with opposition, thereby demonstrating that the player is willing to see this conflict come into play (ex: Fellini replies, "Never!").

Does that make sense? Is there a logical flaw in looking at it this way that I'm getting hooked up on?

Finally, there's no reason why the Protagonist (or any of the players) can't step out of character for a minute and say, "I want this as a conflict!" I added that note to the "advice" section of the rules immediately after our playtest.

Best,


Paul

[Gregor Hutton]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this.

Basically, I felt I had reached an impasse in some of those scenes where I was the GM. I turned the screw on Per, he reacted back, and I got to the point where I was thinking "damn, we need to know if this guy breaks, or not". We didn't get a contest, so... do I just, uh, stop?

In hindsight I maybe should have just picked a line in the sand and said "hey, I want a conflict here".

But that would have papered over the cracks as I now see them. I think the observer can have a vital role in judging when there is a conflict or not. The thing is that as GM in Land of Nodd I can do whatever the hell I like, and the player can't do a damn thing about it. They get to control their character (sure, let them think that) but if the GM can just pick a winner and how things turn out then I think the player doesn't have any power at all. He can't even call a conflict with me if I hose him. Which is where the observer comes in. The observer can stop me and call a conflict on the terms that they want. The player then, at last, gets their input since they set a goal. Reacting to that goal the GM and the observer in turn set Risks. Now if the GM wishes to set horrendous risks the observer has the opportunity to set much lower risks on his side. And an interesting meta-game of punishing a harsh GM can set in, which I think is quite cool.

But anyway, the set up with the GM having ultimate power, and able to force just about anything in the fiction, is kept in check by the observer. But the observer has to be aware of that. As much as watching the story he has to be mindful that we shouldn't "overshoot" or "undershoot" a scene.

Paul, you felt that the scenes you were in were "undershot", while we felt other scenes were "overshot". That's fine, I think a group will find their feet in play and react to under and overshooting to get it right over time.

The question is whether you can have a scene without a conflict. I wonder if that's just pointless dialogue? I'd be tempted to say there must be a conflict, even if the goal and risks are small. In fact, better to have smaller goals and risks than large ones (i want peace in europe... oops, if he gets that goal the campaign in borked).

Anyway, my other answers to points in the thread, which I e-mailed to Paul, were...
-----
Basically, I wasn't looking to please you in my role-playing (I look to please myself) but we were looking for you to call our conflict. I
felt I was coming out the other side of the conflict before you felt it was "warming up" if that makes sense.

Oh, never gamed with Per much before (maybe never before Land of Nodd). I've know him a while but we've always seemed to miss out on gaming together (even when at games conventions in the same building).
-----

Which is to say that I had reached the decision point in a conflict and I felt it was needing a decision made. Being the GM, and with the power to do so, I made one. We then went on and found more conflicts, and the same happened too.

Considering Per and I had never gamed before we found our feet and conflicts pretty well. But I guess we maybe have similar gaming preferences?

Hope this helps?

Does anyone else reading have any questions? I'm sure there's stuff we're not vocalising to the watching crowd?

[Paul T]

Gregor,

I basically agree with everything you wrote here, and I'm glad you did. Your brief analysis of the system itself (the long paragraph beginning with "But that would have papered over...") is pretty much exactly how I see the game working.

In addition, there's the issue (which didn't really come up in our brief game) of a sort of Step On Up situation, as we discussed earlier:

If a given player ends up with a large pile of Coins, the challenge for the other players becomes, "can we get this player to care enough to spend those Coins?" In that situation, the other players begin trying to find some sort of conflict and suggested Goal that will really get the "target" player fired up. This is a neat dynamic, which I saw more of in the very first playtest of the game.

When it comes to scenes without conflict, I have a few thoughts about it.

-In the context of this system, a Narrator is playing to gain more Coins. An unexciting scene without conflict penalizes the Narrator, since she has no chance to win any game currency. In this sense, a cutoff point is "necessary", both to keep the game from stalling and to drive the Narrators to create conflict in their scenes. The danger of getting cut off must be real. Does this make sense?

-In the context of roleplaying more generally, I'm not convinced that scenes without conflict are always bad. There's been all the discussion of "sequels", for instance, over at Story Games... and in the first playtest we had a great scene that was essentially a dream sequence. We took it to conflict and it felt kind of forced. I think we all would have been happy just to say "cut".

I think that ideally every scene (or at least the vast majority of scenes) in this game will end in conflict. But for those two reasons, I included an option for ending a scene without going to the cards. We had problems in the two previous playtests without that option.

Per and Gregor: Do you think that, with a little more gameplay, we would have "found our groove", or do you think something was seriously awry to such an extent that this problem might have kept cropping up?

In particular, one aspect of that scene which comes to mind is: The Protagonist was the character who was in power in this scene, by pretty much any definition, he held the reins. At some level, it felt like he was bound to get what he wanted one way or another. Does that make it harder to "spot" conflict?

...

No one else has commented to answer my more general questions, which is kind of disappointing. Maybe I should ask again:

What other games deal with this issue? ("This issue" = the timing of game mechanics within the narration of a conflict) Are there any designs out there that have interesting properties in terms of this question? Any more relevant APs?

Best,


Paul

[Gregor Hutton]

Hi Paul

Yes, I think we would have found our groove, because, hey, it was obvious there was a disconnect in those scenes where it fell down. Being reasonable people we have discussed why that was so. If it weren't for the fact we're on different continents we could happily have continued play and been aware of the need for communicating when we all think a conflict has been reached ("Hey, call it!" say the participants), or not ("Go on, more!" says the observer).

However, what we've discovered you should make people reading the rules aware of. Just so they don't have to find it out for themselves too much. After all we've done the work they should share in the acquired wisdom.

I really think that a scene should have conflict. And as I recall it's not necessarily the player with the player character who's scene it is, right? I mean, on my turn I can either choose to play and pick a GM, or choose to GM for another player. That's right isn't it? So, I'm a bit fuzzy on what that does to the economy of these coins. If I choose to GM (to get coins, right?) and I don't get a conflict I'm a bit pissed.

For really driving the fiction I think a conflict is good, otherwise we're just throwing colour out there and where do we call the scene? And getting to a conflict has the coolest things in Land of Nodd: Goals and Risks. They were the bit I really liked. Someone says: Oh, I want this, and then we're saying ...but the risk is this or that. Pick your poison.

Finding conflict is pretty subjective to me. My mind is abuzz with a hundred things that we could conflict over in any one of those scenes, and I guess the observer is trying to pick a meaningful and interesting one, really. That's not always the case, but at least they can try.

I would recommend you pick up 1001 Nights, Paul.

And to agree with Paul's question: What other games deal with this issue? ("This issue" = the timing of game mechanics within the narration of a conflict) Are there any designs out there that have interesting properties in terms of this question? Any more relevant APs?

[Paul T]

Gregor,

In reverse order:

I've never played 1,001 Nights, but I am aware of it, as well as the "question" mechanic, which is brilliant. I am not keen on including it as an option for the observer, since it cuts the Protagonist out of the process altogether--in that case, the observer and the Narrator would have pretty much full control over what happens. I think leaving the naming of the Goal in the Protagonist's hands is really important.

Is there some other aspect of 1,001 Nights that's relevant to this game? Let me know!

(Sidenote for Gregor: However, I am considering using the "questions" format for the Desires--either allowing players to have more than one at a time, or allowing players to name the other characters' Desires, or something like that. I totally agree with you about Desires needing more of a mechanical angle. I'm just waiting for more playtesting to see which direction to take that in. Since I only get to playtest maybe twice a year, my process is really slow!)

You're absolutely right about the Goals and Risks being the heart of the game--there's very little to the game at all, and they are the fun part. The way I've seen the game go so far is kind of like this:

-The Narrator throws some situation at the Protagonist.
-The Protagonist struggles, picking something to fight for.
-A story contest is called for, and suddenly things spiral wildly out of the Narrator's control and the Protagonist is faced with some tough choices.

I really like this aspect of the game.

In the original write-up, a scene simply did not end until a contest was called. Ever. The problem with that was: it meant the most boring scenes were the longest ones, and would take up the most game time.

As the system is written right now, everyone is encouraged to get to the conflict. If they do, we get the fun "story contest" action, and everyone wins--the Protagonist gets a chance to get what they want, and the observer and Narrator most likely win some Coins. However, there's an option to end scenes without conflict. This is so that play doesn't stall; it serves mainly to cut out boring play and penalizes the Narrator (and everyone) for creating that boring play in the first place. It's my hope that this mechanic would "train" a group over time to get rid of boring scenes altogether. I have yet to see whether that works, though.

You're absolutely right about one thing: the game and the text need to address the issue we came across. Esentially, the system rewards everyone when there's hot conflict (unless I've missed something, which is possible!). So, it should gravitate towards that as often as possible, and everyone wins when that's happening. So far, so good. All the players' play goals are aligned.

However, I hadn't considered the issue of _skill_. (That's not quite the right word, but I hope you understand what I mean:) There we were, playing, and I wanted to call the conflict just as much as you did, but I just didn't quite get what was going on and before I could you two had wrapped it up. I'm not sure I've made this clear before, so if I haven't, this is important and I don't how or why I left it out: in that scene, I was just lost in the fiction you were narrating. I couldn't quite follow what was going on--Emile was a spy, and he almost got caught, and now he's interrogating this guy? Huh? Why? What's going on?

Maybe I should have waved a hand and asked, out-of-game? Not sure.

Anyway, is there some advice or rule in there that should be put in? Or does the game text already cover this? Several things Per has written suggest that he may feel the game text, if followed, already wouldn't lead to such a situation. (If you're going to take a look, it's basically the last two pages of the document, as well as the footnote on the previous page, "Advice for Protagonist Players".)

I think the text already says this, but should I make it explicit a la Vincent Baker ("Say no until you roll the dice")? Or is this an issue that wouldn't be covered by that advice?

(Another side-note: As the number of players increases, this problem practically disappears, since whoever calls it fastest gets it. With three players, though, it's up to one participant. But even in the playtest with )

[Paul T]

Per and Gregor,

A couple more questions:

1. Do you think that the power dynamic presented in the "torture" scene might be responsible for some of the "murkiness"? I mean, as an observer, there I was waiting for the Narrator to throw some adversity at the Protagonist, but he had actually put the Protagonist in a position of power! When the Protagonist has pretty much full control of what's going on, it's hard to locate adversity. In many ways, I was expecting Fellini to blurt out some terribe truth or threaten to blackmail Emile, or may for ninjas to burst through the door.

2. What sort of advice or wisdom can we distill from this hiccup we experienced in our game? I'd be tempted to write that "you should call for conflict even if you're unsure of what's going on--the mechanics will clarify things"... but that actually seems like bad advice in some ways. In particular, I'm the only player in all playtest thus far who waited too long. Most of the time, people call for it too early (particularly if there is more than one observer in a scene). That's what made me start thinking about this being an issue of game style in the first place.

And, of course, the questions about 1,001 Nights as well as any other games that deal with these issues are still out there.

Thank you for all the feedback thus far!

Best,


Paul