Traits in While We Were Fighting

[Peter Nordstrand]

I've thought a bit about how traits are used in While We Were Fighting (here's the link, but don't tell anyone), especially after reading the thread called "Can someone explain the true reason behind 'traits' (PtA style) to me?" I didn't want to clog up that discussion by rambling about my own game, hence this topic.

Insert Fiction Here

When designing the game I've become more and more conscious of the procedures relating to creation of fictional content. I've come to realize that how important it is to provide — how shall I put this — empty spaces in the design where players get to put in imaginary events and other details relating to the shared imagined space. Empty spaces aren't some optional color, mind you, but meaningful fictional content, which as I see it is the only reason to play.

I'll try to examine how Traits affect the introduction of fictional content by players.

Things that Make Me Powerful

I see Traits in While We Were Fighting as nothing but Positioning (defined in the glossary as "behavioral, social, and contextual statements about a character.") Their main function is to aid players when they contribute to the fictional content of play.

One needs to understand that Traits in While We Were Fighting aren't just any character component. Traits are not abilities or skills or anything else that defines what a character can do or is good at. Traits are not personality traits that describe behavior. Instead, they are nothing but items on a list of resources available to the character: Stuff that a character can use to get what he wants. This is very explicit. It would be quite appropriate to put each and every Trait in a sentence beginning with "I am powerful because ...".

I am powerful because ...
... I have a brother who is a bishop.
... I live in a fortified residence.
... I am the patron of a famous sculptor.
... I have a bodyguard of Swiss pikemen.
... I run a banking operation.

Using Traits

Traits are not meant to be an exhaustive list of every relationship, source of income, or connection that a character has. Players use traits as a reference of sorts, making it easier for them to come up with coherent (in regard to the setting) fictional content. A character may very well have a wife, eight children, and be a member of the city council even if it isn't mentioned on the character sheet.

Traits have a second function. Players are rewarded for including them in the fiction they create. Each Trait has a rating, which is added to a dice pool in conflicts of interest, increasing your chance of victory. Using the Trait "Bodyguard of Swiss Pikemen" gives you bonus dice, while being aided by just any old guard doesn't.

One effect of this is that players tend to choose to introduce Traits into the narrative. There simply is little incitement to do otherwise.

An other effect is that in important conflicts (by which I mean conflicts where a player is invested in the outcome) players almost always take an extra close look at their character sheets, trying to squeeze in as many Traits as possible. Note that there is nothing freeform about this system. You cannot just introduce new assets into a conflict out of thin air. If your guards aren't there, they cannot help you. Still, there can be discussions about whether a certain Trait applies or not in a specific situation.

Sure, in theory a player can use the same two or three traits for everything, and sometimes they do, but I have never thought of this as a problem. This may in part be due to two factors: First, player characters are often in direct conflict with each other. Second, players take turns framing scenes (inspired by Spione, by the way). The trick, if you really want to defeat another character, is to frame a scene where he is alone, but your character has a lot of resources available that add dice in a conflict. In short, it is not always up to a players if his or her favorite Traits are available or not. (Or perhaps I'm just not sensitive enough to be bothered by the whole thing.)

Design Considerations

I wonder what would happen if Traits were just a set of lists that gave no bonuses in conflict at all. Communities would still be used because of a few peculiarities in the conflict system (more people means lower target number), perhaps even more so than they are now. Wealth & status would still matter because they determine the size of a character's dice pool. Only the question of relationships remain.

Yeah, maybe taking away the ability of Traits to add bonus dice would emphasize their other functions in a way that would be beneficial. I don't know. Perhaps it is worth testing.

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hm... empty spaces. When at the grocery store, I suddenly remembered this old post over at anyway.

[Peter Nordstrand]

I see Traits in While We Were Fighting as nothing but Positioning

That makes no sense, as traits clearly have other functions in my game. I just meant to emphasize Positioning.

[Callan S.]

Hi Peter,

What process determines whether a trait applies? In contrast to Marcus' 'the pool' example, traits in that game were used when the player wanted to use them. Anytime, in other words.

[Peter Nordstrand]

Thank you for asking, Callan. Sorry for taking so long to reply.

Traits must be established in a scene for a player to invoke them. That's it. Of course, the crucial word here is established. What does it mean?

Sometimes the process is pretty straightforward. If you want the protection of your army of lawyers in a conflict, they must be present. Having them mentioned on your character sheet is not enough justification to have them appear.

This clearly relates to what I said earlier about the creation of fictional content. Together, in play, we say things about where the story takes place, and who is there, and what is going on. We compose by adding all these little pieces of fantasy. The scene framing process is extremely important when it comes to deciding which traits are available and which are not.

Is this getting too theoretical? To me this is not an abstract discussion, but perceptible real world behavior. Assume for example that I play Niccolo Manelli (detailed in in this post). It is my turn to frame a scene. I declare that we are in the courtyard of Niccolo's palace. There is a casual family gathering, with his retinue of inebriated male relatives present. Niccolo himself is present, as are all his relationships. All of this is stated verbally. Other things, such as the nearby presence of Niccolo's bodyguard goes without mention. We are in Niccolo's home after all.

All these people are there in the fiction. That still doesn't mean that they are all automatically helpful in a conflict of interest. It depends on what happens, right?

There are other instances in which a trait can be invoked. Relationships give bonus dice if you are protecting the person in question or if you are attacking him or her. If, for example, Niccolo duels with someone who insulted his wife, he gets one extra dice because he has the relationship "Wife Gisella (1)". If he himself insults her, he also gets a bonus dice. But for the trait to be invoked, fictional content must have been previously added that support its use. As Niccolo's player I am not permitted to just make up that his opponent insulted my his wife.

That's another reason why the procedures of adding fictional content is so important, and why I cannot talk about traits in While We Were Fighting without dealing with how the Shared Imagined Space is created.

This is also why it is so important that players do keep adding fictional content. If they don't, we will not be able to determine what happens next. (And that's why players of Dogs in the Vineyard sometimes deserve to be punched in the nose. They tend to state their character's intention whenever they need to say what actions he takes.)

Oh, man. Does this make sense at all to you? It is so simple in actual play.

For the Record: Some games that has inspired me in ways that relate to this discussion are Spione, Dogs in the Vineyard, Poison'd, HeroQuest, Sorcerer, and probably others.

[Callan S.]

That's another reason why the procedures of adding fictional content is so important, and why I cannot talk about traits in While We Were Fighting without dealing with how the Shared Imagined Space is created.

That's rather my point - in your example the sis 'determines' when the trait rules are actually applicable (and thus, whether the trait rules can actually affect the SIS).

In Markus' account, to play at all is to start using the rules, and to use the rules means being able to invoke bobba fett. Here the rules determine the SIS, rather than the SIS determining when the rules are applicable and then perhaps the rules change the SIS to some degree.

It might be reading you uncharitably, but are you trying to say that focusing on the current shape/situation of the SIS solves Marcus' problem? As I see it, focusing on it wont matter - the rules still allow someone to drop in bobba fett wham bam instantly. Or if your group drifts away from using the option that way, it's just sitting amidst landmines - the options still there, waiting for someone to take it. The mines are still there - only following certain trails doesn't mean the game is clear of problems.

All these people are there in the fiction. That still doesn't mean that they are all automatically helpful in a conflict of interest. It depends on what happens, right?

It's a side point, but no. Causality means nothing to pure authorship. If I were writing a book and I wanted the guards to be there, bang, they are there. Even if they were on the other side of the planet prior to that.

Whether I reduce my authorship capacity to be influenced more by the currently described events, is something you can invite me to do and I'll probably accept because it can be creatively beneficial. But that it depends on what happens, utterly, by default? No, not at all.

Actually, that's an interesting question at the social contract level - if I made the guards appear when they were on the other side of the planet prior, and then said "I don't care if you don't like it - that's my authorship!!" would I be considered a bad person? I mean here at the forge for a start? Basically if I break your causality (in the name of authorship) and I say I don't care, would I be ditched even at the aquantance level? I've got an itch at the back of my intiution that wonders if it'd be like spitting on a picture of Jesus in front of someone who's religious. Because honestly, in the name of authorship, I'm spitting on causality.

I'd delete the question, but I'm really curious. If it doesn't make sense, that's cool, just ignore

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi there,

Thank you for replying. You are not reading me uncharitably, you are just reading me wrong. ;-) I did not intend to say a word about Markus or his problems in this thread. I did find the exchange of views that he initiated quite inspirational because it brings up fundamental issues regarding traits in general, and the discussion and analysis has bearing on my own game design. Marcus' specific problem or the game The Pool does not.

While We Were Fighting handles things quite differently than does The Pool. Does that have anything to do with Marcus' quandary? No. Do I suggest that the way of While We Were Fighting ought to be transplanted into The Pool or any other game? Emphatically no.

Sorry for not being clear about that.

All the best,

[Callan S.]

Ah, gotcha. But I don't think it has bearing on your design. There are no deeper fundimental issues if there is no problem stated to begin with. Without someone stating a problem, there is nothing there at all in terms of fundimental issues. One can't both deal with fundimental issues, yet not have an initial problem to begin with.

[Peter Nordstrand]

If anybody wants to talk about traits in While We Were Fighting, let me know.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Peter,

I do. And I apologize for the delay. It's been sort of exciting in the U.S. for the past few days, and I needed to devote time to a few other threads when I could.

Best, Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Peter,

I think there might be several variables to consider, and your proposed change-to-test mixes at least two together. It seems to me that any conclusions that you could draw from such testing would be hard to assess.

I definitely agree with you about the importance of Positioning, and long experience suggests to me that although non-mechanical traits (descriptions really) are valuable, they are much more effective in play if they are tied to numbers or other mechanics of some kind.

The next paragraph does not directly address your concerns with your game. It is an example of using descriptive phrases on a character sheet for Positioning, tied to numbers, in a minimalistic way.

In Sorcerer, the "descriptors" are not much more than re-naming the generic scores, in a historical and visual way (the technique is derived from the rules of Over the Edge). If a character has Stamina 4, described as trained athlete, that explains how the character arrived at that value and also what sort of physical presence he or she gives as a first impression. It doesn't mean that doing other sorts of physical activity are penalized down from 4, nor does it mean that doing something athletic gets a bonus above 4. So the descriptor doesn't conform to the kind of Trait that Markus wrote about. However, it's not just a word on the sheet by itself; it is tied to the value, and that yields interesting results as well - someone who's trained as an athlete but only has Stamina 2 is a very different person than someone who did so and has Stamina 5.

I provided that because it's not a bad foundation for looking at more numerically-consequential Traits, especially those which "cut across" a basic resolution system in the way Markus described.

Decision 1 is whether to have Traits of that kind at all. I am mildly surprised and interested to realize my answer throughout all my game design is "no," even though I have not experienced any hassles with the technique in play.

Decision 2 is whether the Traits affect numerical values (the classic bonus), provide unique resources or associations, or permit entirely novel actions, or any combination of these three (see Burning Wheel for all three at once).

Decision 3 is whether Traits may vary in their degree of impact; e.g. yes in The Pool, no in Space Rat.

There are less tangible considerations too, including how much Director Stance a given Trait affords (calling in an NPC from "offstage" for instance), or to what extent they create expectations for playing a character's values and opinions.

Anyway, it seems to me that the first thing to test would be Decision 3, holding the other two stable. I suppose this post was a really long-winded way of saying something simple ...

Best, Ron

[Peter Nordstrand]

Thanks for your input, Ron.

Let me see if I get this right. You identify three decisions, and wisely suggest that I keep two variables stable while testing the third. I'm not quite sure about how you define Decision 2 and Decision 3, and the difference between them. This is how it is currently handled in While We Were Fighting:

Traits do affect a numerical value (Leverage) by providing a number of bonus dice equal to their rating. But do they vary in their degree of impact? I don't know. In a conflict of interest, there are no levels of victory and defeat. It doesn't matter if I win by a margin of one or a margin of five. A victory is a victory. However, the better my initial roll is the more my opponent needs to sacrifice in order to defeat me, if he so choses.

Example:

If I roll 3 success' and you roll 2, you need to take at least 1 point of sacrifices in order to have a chance of winning. If, on the other hand, I roll 5 successes and you roll only 1, you must make at least 2 points of sacrifices to have even the slightest chance of winning. In that way, there are certainly degrees of impact. However, the loser always has the option to give up, in which case the winner just achieves whatever deed he tried to accomplish in the first place.

How does this relate to your three decisions?

[Ron Edwards]

It's pretty easy.

1 - yes, there are traits (of this kind)

2 - yes, the traits affect numerical values, specifically the one you named, the degree of sacrifice required to override a loss in the face of your roll

3 - yes, traits vary in the degree to which they accomplish this, in probabilistic terms

You might be reading my post over-specifically in terms of "degree of effect," meaning familiar methods like "+3 to hit" or "+2 damage." All my #2 means is whether the traits alter any quantitative features, and all my #3 means is whether the extent this is done may differ from trait to trait.

So you come up yes on all three. The fact that the outcome of losing by 4 successes creates a different decision-space for the losing player is all you need for #2.

Best, Ron

[Peter Nordstrand]

Aha. I misread your first post. Thank you for clarifying.

[Peter Nordstrand]

Damn! Testing this is not going to be as straightforward as I had hoped. I was going to simply allow traits to each impose 2 bonus dice in conflicts. The problem is that trait ratings affect the game in other ways. Hence I need to keep the ratings for at least Wealth & Status or this seemingly simple change will have a snowball effect that I didn't anticipate. Wealth determines a character's maximum Leverage, hence the size of his dice pool. The other problematic passage is in the Characters chapter, the section about Advancement & Decline. This segmenty is entirely based on the assumption that traits have ratings that can fluctuate depending on circumstances.

I have trouble making up my mind now.

The Advancement & Decline section came about in direct response to repeated situations in playtest where one character would gain or lose money or resources in play. It was strange not to have that affect that character's rating somehow.

What am I not seeing? Suggestions appreciated.