Conflict in the Middle - A Crossed-Wire Act

[Gregor Hutton]

Oh, point 2. Yes! If you're unsure call for a conflict becuase the mechanics are going to set a Goal, Risks and all that stuff.

I am really agreeing with everything in your post just prior to that last one too.

How I saw "Emile was a spy, and he almost got caught, and now he's interrogating this guy?" was that last time we saw Emile he was in Berlin fleeing (successfully) so ... Bang! He's back in France and interrogating Fellini to see where his bible went. And we know, wink, that your character stole it from Fellini as a goal. I figured it probably got to Fellini somehow. No idea how, just let's run with it.

Actually, I really recommend Graham Walmsley's book Play Unsafe. Its advice is just the sort of thing needed for players of Land of Nodd. I'm sure you could mine it for some really great player advice.

Anyway, it was interesting in that the player is normally under the yoke of the GM, right. But the interesting thing in that scene with Emile was that he appeared to have the power, but he doesn't really. Sure, he wasn't getting anything out of Fellini unless I said yes (perhaps I should have stuck to No!). Anyway, the point being he can't force me (the GM) to yield in any way. He has to have a conflict to do that. The advice I would have for the observers is that they must bear that in mind. Whether the GM gives the player high or low status, whether they get something or not comes out of a contest. So, call it when you see one you like.

I think your world generation stuff is bang on and the conflict stuff and economy seems fine. I'm glad to see you keeping on with developing this.

I guess the issue we had was not knowing each others preferences for calling a contest, and we had found that by the end of the game session.

[Callan S.]

Hi,

There's a GM and an 'observer' who calls for conflict rules? No one else can initiate a conflict unless they get the observers agreement to start a conflict?

That contradicts itself - to start a conflict is to disagree someone should just get something. In this set up, the player is saying 'I disagree - if you (the observer) agree with me doing that'. That isn't disagreement. To disagree is to say something like 'Stuff what you all think, I do not agree'. But with this set up its 'I'll only disagree if you do as well, observer'. In that set up, the only person who can actually initiate a conflict is the observer.

From the account it seems the players have intuitively rejected this setup

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.

Basically the players figured out where they disagreed/conflict with each other. They know they are disagreeing now - to emphasize it, they know it's right now. Not latter on, right now.

So they get into resolving it, but then they see your about to swing in with 'conflict initiation' and can see that although one (or both) of them started the arguement and then started to figure out how to resolve it with each other, your going to insist its resolved by your methods. Because they started the dissagreement/conflict, they know how they want to resolve it. And it's not by your method. That's not really by preference, it's by access - they can't initiate conflicts via the systems rules, only the observer can, so they wont use that method cause they can't.

So they resolve the arguement real quick before you can insist on that. Or even drop the arguement without resolving it, because it's better to drop it than resolve it in some way they did not choose.

The person who started the conflict/disagreed is the one who decides what process it'll take to again get their agreement. With your set up, the observer is saying 'Hey, a conflicts started BUT I know how to get your agreement better than you do, with these rules'. It's like force, like one player (often a GM) telling another player 'No, your character wouldn't do that'. Here its 'No, you don't agree that way you decided. You agree this way, using these rules, rather than whatever you have decided on'.

Probably not a very good description of what I think is going on. But basically by the time you can detect a conflict is going on, the player has already decided on a method of resolution that will get their agreement. Bringing in a second method of resolution ignores the method that would happily get their agreement.

[Gregor Hutton]

Hi Callan

You misunderstand. The only person who can call a conflict is the Observer. Period. The player cannot call anything. If there is a disagreement between the GM and the player then it's the GM's call as to what happens next, unless the (one of the) Obsrvers steps in.

[Gregor Hutton]

Oh, reading my response again it seems slightly pointed. That wasn't my intention, it was just meant to be a clarification, really.

Basically the players figured out where they disagreed/conflict with each other. They know they are disagreeing now - to emphasize it, they know it's right now. Not latter on, right now.

So they get into resolving it, but then they see your about to swing in with 'conflict initiation' and can see that although one (or both) of them started the arguement and then started to figure out how to resolve it with each other, your going to insist its resolved by your methods. Because they started the dissagreement/conflict, they know how they want to resolve it. And it's not by your method. That's not really by preference, it's by access - they can't initiate conflicts via the systems rules, only the observer can, so they wont use that method cause they can't.

So they resolve the arguement real quick before you can insist on that. Or even drop the arguement without resolving it, because it's better to drop it than resolve it in some way they did not choose.

I think you are bang on with the first paragraph I quoted, Callan. Per (player) and I (GM) knew we had reached a conflict for us, but for Paul (Observer) it wasn't at that point yet.

Paragraph 2 is a bit off target, though. Had we seen Paul (Observer) swinging in to use the conflict mechanics then we would have jumped into using them over me (the GM) picking one outcome or the other. In the absence of a contest being called I resolved the conflict with an arbitrary choice in my head. Per and I then followed up based on that outcome. Per could role-play and widdle and try to influence me in a social sense but the outcome is all in the GM's hands. So, yeah, we wanted to use the mechanics. In fact there are benefits to the GM for it to reach those mechanics (I can get coins) and for the player they can get a Goal of their choosing.

Paragraph 3 was kinda what happened but not why it happened. I guess Per and I found our feet with each other quickly and gleefully rattled through the back and forth of a rising conflict quicker than Paul had antiicipated. Is that how you saw it Paul? Per? My aim, and Per's too was to get to the mechanics, really, not avoid them.

Thanks for the feedback Callan. Do you think there's any way that more than the Observer should/could be involved in calling conflicts?

[Paul T]

Right. What Gregor said: Callan's first and third quoted paragraphs are spot-on, but not the second one.

The third paragraph also describes what it felt like for me as the observer, but I'm pretty sure wasn't an intentional tactic on Gregor and Per's part. The mechanics would have rewarded them for going to the conflict resolution--in fact, in this game, it's pretty much the GM/Narrator's goal to get this to happen whenever they narrate a scene.

Basically, this is a content-free post. I just wanted to confirm that Gregor's response is spot-on.

Thanks for the feedback, Callan! Do you have any further observations or questions? Did we answer your post, or did we miss what you were saying?

Best,


Paul

[Callan S.]

Hi,

For the moment ignoring the motives I suggested, from the account it seems like you can still talk to the observer or atleast look at him pointedly.

I know your saying you wanted to use the mechanics, but its tricky for me because in the account you didn't say 'Hey, come over here observer and start them mechanics' or some less formal version of that. It looks like you didn't want to use them to resolve the conflict, since it would have been relatively easy to call the observer in.


Here's an idea, but the examples odd so it'll probably seem wacky. Imagine the player and GM get into a thumb wrestling competition. Okay, so their thumb wrestling for awhile. And the observer has rules for running a tug of war game he can introduce to play.

A tug of war game isn't going to resolve thumb wrestling. If you guys stopped thumb wrestling and had a tug of war, yeah, the tug of war would get resolved. But the thumb wrestle would have been interupted and more importantly never resolved.

Okay, wacky example over. Would you agree a tug of war cannot resolve a thumb wrestling match? If so, what sort of conflict was brewing between players and GM? Was it different to the observers resolution rules? Perhaps as different as thumb wrestling is to a tug of war game?

Anyway, that makes sense to me. It's probably not terribly well written, though.

[Paul T]

Callan,

I'm not sure I fully understand your point, so if I missed it, let me know.

That said, I don't think your thumb-war analogy is really applicable. There is no "thumb-war" between the Narrator and the Protagonist, because they aren't on even footing. The Narrator has pretty much total power to walk all over the Protagonist, so there isn't any real contest going on, and certainly not any sort of contest that either player would want to return to and resolve.

Does that make sense to you?


Paul

[Callan S.]

Gah, now I'll know I'll lose you, cause I'm gunna rant for a second 'It doesn't have to be balanced to be competition'.

But I'll step back abit - instead of a thumb wrestling, think of haggling. Think of the narrator and the protagonist haggling with each other. Now, unless the protagonist player is being held there by gun point, he can stop haggling and just leave play, right? That means the narrator isn't in any supreme power position during this haggling.

Lets look at what Gregor said...

I guess Per and I found our feet with each other quickly and gleefully rattled through the back and forth of a rising conflict quicker than Paul had antiicipated.

The back and forth - a transaction was already occuring.

A hard question - how did they manage to start a back and forth if they didn't really want to do that?

[FredGarber]

OK.  What I see is a game design that looks like it is designed to keep the Observer interested when they're not in play.  And if the Reward for the Observer is that they might get a few Coins out of the Mechanics... then they're only going to activate Mechanics when they feel that the Players are willing to risk their Currency to get their Goal. Maybe you didn't play this way, but that's the behavior that your design enforces.

For the players, you've made their ability to narrate things very complicated.
"Say 'yes' or roll the dice" turns into :
"Say 'yes', or say 'but...' and hope the Observer decides to activate the mechanics."

I would add a mechanic where in order to say something challenging that might be a conflict, Player 1 must risk a coin.  Player 2 can choose to accept the coin, and go along with it, or not.  Player 2 can then offer a coin to state something challenging, and player 1 can accept it, or not. 
Accepting the coin means "saying yes."  If the coins aren't accepted, they go into a pile.  This pile is how the Observer can measure how involved the two people are.  Once the Observer calls for Mechanics, the pot is split between the Observer and the "attacker". That gives each Player incentives in the Mechanics:

The Observer wants the tension to build.  He wants the Players to challenge each other, and put more coins into the pot.

Player 1 wants to make challenges to Player 2. 
  If Player 2 accepts the coin, then he gets what he wants. 
  If Player 2 rejects the coin, there's a chance that the Observer will call for Mechanics,
           and Player 1 will get to split the pot with the Observer. 
  If Player 2 challenges him, then he can :
     Accept the coin, and go along with it.  He is rewarded with a coin, which he can use himself later.
     Not accept the coin, and risk the Observer will call "Mechanics!"  Player 2's challenge stands, and is not resolved.

(Player 2, of course, wants exactly what Player 1 wants, except reversed)

How does Player 1 avoid losing his coins in the pot?  By immediately making a Proposal of his own!

This drives each player to challenge each other, and keeps the Observer involved.  What do people think?

[Paul T]

Callan,

I agree that competition doesn't have to be equal to be competition. But some shared arena must exist for the competition to be at all meaningful. As a healthy adult human, I cannot have a meaningfully competitive race with a 2-year old, for example.

In this game, the Narrator effectively has total power over the Protagonist, just like a GM does in a traditional RPG. While the Protagonist's player can decide what actions he would like to take, it is the Narrator who decides how those actions turn out.

So, if your 'haggling' analogy is referring to the two players at the table, then no, the Protagonist player does not necessarily have the option to "step out". (Yes, he can quit the game altogether, but I hope that's not what you meant.)

I think that Per and Gregor started a back-and-forth and a conflict because that was what they were supposed to do in the game. As they've stated, however, they both wanted to go to the mechanics to resolve the conflict.

Then again, perhaps I'm just not getting what you're saying.

Best,


Paul

[Paul T]

Fred,

Thanks for the feedback! I'll address your points about the game as-is first.

OK.  What I see is a game design that looks like it is designed to keep the Observer interested when they're not in play.  And if the Reward for the Observer is that they might get a few Coins out of the Mechanics... then they're only going to activate Mechanics when they feel that the Players are willing to risk their Currency to get their Goal. Maybe you didn't play this way, but that's the behavior that your design enforces.

Right! That's exactly what I'm going for with the design. And in most playtests it has turned out pretty reliably to hit that target, except the one scene described in this thread. The observer is looking for that moment when the Protagonist is invested, and the Narrator is trying to find something that the Protagonist will invest in and then push him on it.

(As a sidenote--Per and Gregor, I'm pretty sure I've written as much before, but does this angle change your view of the game at all? After all, your move to resolve that conflict before I jumped in was very suboptimal, game-wise, as the longer you could stretch out that conflict, the more like you would have been to benefit from it.)

For the players, you've made their ability to narrate things very complicated.
"Say 'yes' or roll the dice" turns into :
"Say 'yes', or say 'but...' and hope the Observer decides to activate the mechanics."

Actually, I like the formulation mentioned a little ways upthread:

"Say no until you roll the dice."

I don't use those words, but that's pretty much what the "advice for Narrators" section of my game text says.

Finally, I have some questions about your suggested mechanic. It seems like a neat idea, first of all. However, I'm always a little leery of those mechanics--mechanics where you suggest something another player doesn't like, and, if you're right, you stand to get some reward for it.

My question is: what's keeping the player from just naming bad, stupid things they know the other player won't accept, thereby building up a pile of Coins and guaranteeing themselves pretty much as many coins as they can get once the observer calls for the conflict?

Put another way, are you sure that the pile of coins really measures how involved the two players are? In the scene described in this thread, there would be a whole pile of coins on the table, but I, as the observer, would have nothing to lose by waiting longer, and we would have the very same problem. As it is, I missed the moment and missed out on my chance to win some currency, which basically reinforces the behavior I want from the observer--I was penalized for screwing it up.

Finally, can you explain how Player 1 can avoid losing the coins in the pot by immediately making a proposal of his own? If he does, what happens to the coins?

It's definitely an interesting idea.

Best,


Paul

[Callan S.]

Hi Paul,

Pretty much what you said

I think that Per and Gregor started a back-and-forth and a conflict because that was what they were supposed to do in the game. As they've stated, however, they both wanted to go to the mechanics to resolve the conflict.

Is what I'm saying, but with part of it in italics to emphasise it. That's pretty much it.

On another topic entirely

So, if your 'haggling' analogy is referring to the two players at the table, then no, the Protagonist player does not necessarily have the option to "step out". (Yes, he can quit the game altogether, but I hope that's not what you meant.)

I know it's not a great situation for someone to quit the game mid way, but yes, I do mean that. Player/GM negotiation at this level is play at its thinest - since theres nothing else involved during this negotiation (nothing else that might be fun to enjoy), either the negotition is paying off or the whole activity is failing to pay off. Which means it's time to consider leaving it, we can finish that topic there

I know it's nice to stay in play, but you completely discount the option of quiting the game?

"Say no until you roll the dice."

I haven't understood this since it was first brought up in this thread. I can't parse how it works - I get "Say yes or roll" but I can't grasp this? The way I could read it is if I wanted to say yes, I can't just say yes, I still have to roll and thus potentially be saying no, even when I wanted to say yes. You can see I'm confused - could you tell us more?

[Paul T]

Callan,

OK! That's good, I suppose. I still don't understand your "hard question", but maybe it's just better to let it lie.

As for leaving the game, no, it's not really something I'm interested in considering in terms of game design. I'm interested only in what happens when people stay in the game.

As for "say no until you roll the dice", I can try to explain. The phrase is a little misleading, because it's a generalization as opposed to a hard-and-fast rule, and because it doesn't specify who the "you" is targeted towards.

The GM/Narrator in Land of Nodd _can_ say 'yes', but is most effective when saying 'no'. Basically, you can say 'yes' a few times, until you've got the situation you want set up, and then you keep saying 'no', until the observers decide to roll the dice.

So, you can say 'yes' sometimes, but in terms of the meat of gameplay, the GM/Narrator should be saying 'no'. If you are making 'yes' responses, it should only be to lead to setting up an upcoming 'no' statement. Once the GM/Narrator is saying 'no' consistently, we wait for the observer(s) to 'roll the dice'.

Does that explain it?


Paul

[FredGarber]

For the phrase "Say Yes or Roll the Dice," the person who is agreeing or rolling is the person who has been challenged.  The key to the concept is that if another player adds to the scene in a way you disagree with, you have two options: Agree to the change, or use the game mechanics to resist.  It's supposed to stop players arguing about things without engaging in the mechanics of play (which is a common problem)

I don't want to get too much into a mechanical discussion in About Play, because, well, it makes the thread no longer "About Play"
I didn't realize Player 1 and 2 have different roles.  One is the Protagonist, and one is the Narrator?  And the Narrator's job is to say "no" to the Protagonist with challenges, until the Observer notices that the Protagonist is engaged and calls "Roll the Dice?"   The next scene, players change roles, right?

So a madeup Transcript might be :
Protag: I want to get in the room with the secret maps.
Narrator: The door's locked.
Protag: I force it.
Narrator: It makes some noise
Protag.  I accept that, and kick in the door.  What's in the room?
(Observer has missed a chance to call Mechanics. The Protag obviously wasn't too concerned with sneaking in the door.)
Narrator: A young girl, in a tattered burlap dress.  She's chained to the floor, asleep.
Protag:  But they're supposed to be here...  Oh.  I look at the girl's back.
Narrator: You see the maps, tatooed on her back. She wakes up and says "Rescue me, please."
Protag: I pretend not to speak English, and copy her maps into my notebook.
Narrator: She is pleading with you, and says her older brother will reward you.
Protag: Still copying...
Narrator: She mentions her older brother's name.  It's your boss.
Protag: Drat. I keep my head down, so she doesn't see the tear as I turn to leave.
(the Observer thinks that "Do you rescue the girl or not" is a sufficient challenge that the Protag may want to spend coins.)
Observer: Roll the Dice! Do you rescue the girl or not!

Does this seem likely? 

[Callan S.]

OK! That's good, I suppose. I still don't understand your "hard question", but maybe it's just better to let it lie.

In broad terms you answered it anyway - they were doing what they were supposed to in the game.

As for leaving the game, no, it's not really something I'm interested in considering in terms of game design. I'm interested only in what happens when people stay in the game.

Um, this is more a fact of life than a game designers option. I haven't said it in terms of 'hey, as designer you could put in an option where the player just quits if they don't take the option'. What I mean is that the player is evaluating whether the whole activity is worth it. If there are sucky parts, once the sucky parts outweigh the good parts, he'll quit. Note, usually you don't see the player leave the room, but they disengage from play, leaning back in his chair, arms folded, not paying attention anymore, token interaction (ie, rolls a dice every so often). They've quit.

It's not something a designer puts in his design, it's something that forces its way in - the players evaluating if playing this game is worth it, or if he should quit. That's why I said the player is haggling with the GM - it's like haggling in a market. If they can't agree on a price the customer walks away from the stall.

*snip*
So, you can say 'yes' sometimes, but in terms of the meat of gameplay, the GM/Narrator should be saying 'no'. If you are making 'yes' responses, it should only be to lead to setting up an upcoming 'no' statement. Once the GM/Narrator is saying 'no' consistently, we wait for the observer(s) to 'roll the dice'.

Does that explain it?

I think I understand it now. But...to me, it's kind of 'say yes, or the observer rolls dice'.