Tragedy, A game of glory and death.

[Patrice]

Mike, can't you see how much this is connected to the bit of discussion we've been having about Proppian play? We're really walking along the same lines, though taking different aims at those.

Now to come to your point, I think you're maybe maybe mixing up two different things here. One is Conflict Resolution. When you eventually design it as "setting the victory or failure" and "knowing the outcome", what you have is a Conflict Resolution system. As such, it isnt' more or less connected to tragedy than any other Conflict Resolution system. If you intend on tragedy, there has to be something else than just the possibility of fulfillment or failure, there has to be a sense of impending doom that a Conflict Resolution system doesn't provide as such, hence your improvisational Jazz example. If you look at a system like Ghost/Echo, you'll see what I mean by "setting the victory or failure" and "knowing the outcome" as a Conflict Resolution system.

As I was thinking to tragedy myself for the Tales of the Dragon Lords system (remember our discussion there?), I've come to think of fate, doom and tragedy as a progression mechanism. In a tragedy, you know how this all will end: in blood and tears. Or maybe if you take a theme like Journey into the West, the fulfillment's the tragic ending. It's just a way to look at it. What matters is the end, the Positioning. That's why I've come to think of doom as a consequence of the Character's progression instead of a Resolution issue.

What do you say?

[JoyWriter]

That's why I've come to think of doom as a consequence of the Character's progression instead of a Resolution issue.

Hmm, do they have to be separate?
I suppose there are many ways in which their doom and how their actions resolve could remain totally unrelated, but I'm not sure if I can think of a resulting situation that I'd really want to play: Say someone has a mobile sword of Damocles hovering above them, and at the end of the game session, it will kill them. Full stop. That is progression that is separate from resolution; you set up at the start that whatever happens in-between the sword will kill them, so the game becomes about playing out the knowledge of your own death.

So while you don't have to associate them, I for one would prefer it, so that the actual events in the story in a real sense lead up to their fall. And if the events should relate to that fate then the mechanisms that decide those events should also.

Now if that is the case, then you have to work out in what directions that determination goes; do you colour the fate by the actions, the actions by the fate, or a bit of both?

Jazz is beautiful, elegant and emotive - but only if played by musician with real skill. Those unsure of what they're doing or the effect they want to achieve often blast randomly or create the wrong emotions in the listener. To turn our protracted analogy back to gaming, it strikes me that leaving things like structure and timing to chance frustrates the purpose of our tragic intentions. While I agree that each end must work in harmony with the others, the best way to achieve this is through a maestro's baton - to organise and focus the group - rather than hope each solo-artiste picks up on the other's subtle melodies or, like an earthquake, chance draws the tempo together.
[/metaphor]

You really are murmelising my metaphor you know! But it's no problem, you can almost always get more ideas from recombination, so here's another angle at what I was going for:

I suggested 3 options:
To build it into the game as an element and have it appear randomly in the course of events, the earthquake.
To set up everything on an act structure, as well as slowly tying the different fates together into a single
Use signalling and partial theme resolution guiding GM like powers to get help the players self organise the flow of events, like the Jazz thing.

But you inspired me to consider a fourth; an active conductor with specific advice rather than a predetermined rules structure.

I find that last one pretty interesting too; the first 3 are potentially compatible with GM-less play, but the fourth sets up a different role for the GM, presumably in terms of setting when people "come in" and how strongly they play their themes. I don't know quite how to set that up yet but it sounds pretty cool!

When you mentioned unlocking more substantial fates, it reminded me of Mist Robed Gate. That has a really interesting way of dealing with tension, and while I wouldn't want to take the dynamics of that game, I love the way people resist increasing the scale of conflict. If you haven't taken a look at it yet I'd really recommend it.

[Patrice]

The whole idea of doom as connected to the tragedy genre is tightly connected to Premise. That being said, I suspect it as too vague to set a real roleplaying spark in motion by itself. Stories of every genre are studded with doom, or maybe just the possibility of doom. When you consider seeming Premise-less roleplaying games, the character's death is the implied doom. It's an event that might happen as a consequence of the game mechanics at any moment, such as in the first option you offer: to built it into the game as an element and have it happen randomly. Isn't that the underlying logic of most games? What strikes me is that this underlying Premise is fully acknowledged and accepted, but never spelled out as such.

What if the possibility of doom was displayed openly? As far as my own choice for Tales of the Dragon Lords is concerned, it's actually more connected with genre than with Premise. It has to end. And every step we take gets us closer to it. The build in power escalates, and doom nears as we enter this spiral. I want to snowball doom and to connect it with all that punk madness. This conveys an implied Premise: how can we find Tanelorn? How can we find peace and halt the snowball? Is that even possible? Has one to resist or accept his fate? What would you do if rising above the mortal stock and shaking the world would mean unescapable death? This is also tightly connected to your generation game idea in the Tales of the Dragon Lords message.

Now, to get back to this message's main subject, your fourth option rejoins Mike's purpose since he's not looking (if I got it right) for a GM-less system, but for a way to have the play lay upon doom. Look at the examples he's giving in the beginning: it's almost HeroQuest, but aimed at finding out or rather deducing what might be doomed or doom in the character's introductory paragraph. Why not use that mechanics all along? Relate actions to the doom and give them modifiers accordingly. I think Mike has his own solution already covered as he posts.

Thanks for Mist Robed Gate, I'll have a look at it.

[M. Burrell]

  I certainly agree with the idea that the mechanics should always be helping a character tell a story... I would certainly not be afraid to be heavy-handed with the mechanics. Players who buy the game will be wanting to tell tragic stories that ultimately end in death.

Wisdom.

Mike, can't you see how much this is connected to the bit of discussion we've been having about Proppian play? We're really walking along the same lines, though taking different aims at those.

These ideas run parallel in my head, supporting and contradicting one another; which elements apply to which project is a distinction I hate to make until the last moment.

Anyway, I'm of the opinion that a conflict resolution system can exceed it's original remit as a basic mechanic on which the game is hung and can be re-imagined in a way that describes the genre more effectively. You've suggested there needs to be mechanical etcetera and the explicit knowledge of death/doom on the part of the players for this game to work - nothing wrong in that - indeed, it's probably the easiest route to take, design-wise: the players know what the premise of the game is and the supplementary game-tools enforce it. Everyone is entertained and we all go to bed early - be are we entirely satisfied?

I see a cleaner game; there's a Zen-like obsession I have with stripping down the unnecessary so just a functioning, efficient core remains. There needs only be one resolution tool for all actions, which also emphasises the tragic genre... As you say, I think the kernel of this is in my original post: players choose tragedy. It's an element of volition which is a hallmark of the tragic-hero (our PCs) and whatever the final form is, I hold the mechanic must contain these principals:

• 'Doom' is never certain for any character.
• All characters have a primary goal that conflicts with other character's.
• It is possible to win any conflict without invoking 'doom' on one's character.
• One has a superior chance of (or outright) victory in any conflict by choosing to invoke 'doom'.

It would be easy to say 'Doom', or 'The Tragic End', is the only End-Game possible; all characters will meet tragic fates. In my eyes that reduces the suspense of play. Despite being a tragic game I want to involve the players by saying: "You 'win' by achieving your goal, but your character may still walk away from this." The flip-side is that the swiftest path to 'victory'  is to take on some element of fated doom; a mistake or enmity that invokes the genre.

There needs to be a combination of suspenseful play, personal-choice and genre-elements to keep a game of tragedy entertaining. It's far more rewarding at the end of the day for a player to look back and see his choices as meaningful, rather than as a 'pre-determined' part of the game. Doom should be both a consequence of the Character's progression (should they choose it) and a Resolution issue.

Joywriter,
I agree with a lot of what you've said - we're on a similar wave-length. I think a mix of your third and forth options would be more suitable for this game, I had imagined GM-play. Sorry for lacking reply - my above rant has drained me. I, too, will have a look at Mist Robed Gate. Thanks.

I think Mike has his own solution already covered as he posts.

Practice, then theory; creation, then critique.

[Marshall Burns]

Look at it this way:
From what I can tell, nearly every tragic play (read: every tragic play I've read so far) essentially boils down to a common Premise: "Is achieving an ambition worth the price?" Granted, my reading in this genre is limited to Shakespeare and Sophocles, but hear me out.

If we go with that, what we want is a System that, in action, asks us that question repeatedly and with escalation. "Is your goal with this price? What about this one? And this one?" and so on.

Here's how you do that: offer an objective reward (this concrete accomplishment) with a subjective price, or a range of subjective prices, and allow the player to choose frustration of the goal (for now), or achievement of the goal (or a step along a line of ambition) with the attendant price. Given this choice, he must weigh them against each other. Since the reward is objective, and the price subjective, he cannot choose based on rational assessment of what is optimal. He must choose based on a personal, emotional, moral judgment, of what is and is not worth it, of how badly his character wants it. Therefore, in choosing, he makes a thematic statement through the character (whether he thought about it in those terms or not). The key to making this work is to make sure that the GM (or someone with suitable authority) hammers the consequences of these choices, making them echo and reverberate with awful tones that cause characters (and, if you're lucky, their players) to question themselves, their motives, and their moralities ("Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune...").

(If it seems like I'm able to rattle that off easily, it's because I've designed a game based on that exact theory.)

Mr. Burrell, I think that your earlier suggestion of "Minor Actions cost nothing except the generation of a new Fate to be added to the list. Fates are the price of Major Actions alone, with some dialogue going on between players as to whether the fate-cost is worth the gain the character would receive" seems entirely up to the task. Perhaps with some mechanic or authority modulating what new Fates are available with a particular Minor Action, and which ones can be accepted to accomplish a particular Major Action.

Seriously. Take that idea and playtest it. It has legs.

[M. Burrell]

...
Granted, my reading in this genre is limited to Shakespeare and Sophocles, but hear me out.
...
Since the reward is objective, and the price subjective, he cannot choose based on rational assessment of what is optimal.
...
Seriously. Take that idea and playtest it. It has legs.

Two more exemplar playwrights could not be found. If you're in the mood, try Thomas Kyd and John Ford - Revenge Tragedies, but good all the same.

Forgive me, but I'm failing to take your meaning on 'Objective' and 'Subjective' in this phrase. Is it that the reward is factual and set-down, but the price is unresolved and open to personal interpretation? If so, surely that is but the transition from Subjective to Objective is the same as Personal Imagined Space to Shared Imagined Space - the same as any role-play experience.

I'll write up some brief notes soon – there are still questions as to structure, timing, character generation etc that need to be answered. It has legs, sure, thousands of slimy ones that wiggle and writhe across the ocean floor.

[Marshall Burns]

The goal is objective because it's an objective the character wants to accomplish. It's the object of his desire. In the same manner that the objective of a game of chess is objective. It's something concrete, and once you've got it, you've got it (at least until someone takes it away). Essentially, it says on my character sheet (or in the history of the character in play so far) that my guy wants this: solid, demonstrable, objective.

The price is subjective because there's no solid rubric by which to guage its value. Even were the Fates to have concrete mechanical effects in the old style of "-2 on all rolls," there's still not a good method to weigh it with the goal, beyond personal & emotional assessment (which is as subjective as you can get).

Am I making any more sense yet?

[JoyWriter]

You're making a lot of sense to me, but I have studiously been avoiding suggesting that because I'm playtesting your game at the mo, and any time I try to design a price mechanic it turns into Rustbelt!

[M. Burrell]

 

The goal is objective because it's an objective the character wants to accomplish. It's the object of his desire. In the same manner that the objective of a game of chess is objective. It's something concrete, and once you've got it, you've got it (at least until someone takes it away). Essentially, it says on my character sheet (or in the history of the character in play so far) that my guy wants this: solid, demonstrable, objective.

The price is subjective because there's no solid rubric by which to guage its value. Even were the Fates to have concrete mechanical effects in the old style of "-2 on all rolls," there's still not a good method to weigh it with the goal, beyond personal & emotional assessment (which is as subjective as you can get).

Am I making any more sense yet?

Damnit, Marshall, the Semanticist within me is burning with righteous fury! "In the same manner that the objective of a game of chess is objective." Urh. But seriously, If we are to continue meaningful discussion, a separation in language between 'Objectivity' and 'Goals' would be helpful.
I do, however, take your meaning. I don't think I'd ever intended to quantify Actions with Fates other than a possible distinction between major and minor (the former having a lasting and meaningful effect on a players interaction with her character) - numeric values (or otherwise), are somewhat out of place in the 'classic' narrativist game; it hadn't entered my mind.

Going back to that initial post, the 'modulating authority' on which fates are appropriate at given times is either a GM-figure who gauges the atmosphere and turns the switch (so to speak) when she feels the time is right. Or, alternately, a structured scene-progression in the Proppian mould (an idea that has been repeating in my mind) that requires certain elements to be met before Major Fates are activated. The second option will need more thought.

It is without question that escalation is required.

[Ron Edwards]

Patrice, these yahoos are enjoying themselves by waving their degrees at one another. The question is whether this thread has done its job for you and you're done, or perhaps the later posts are helping you too. Let us know.

Marshall and M., I"m teasing you. You've posted nothing wrong or dumb, but my point is that this is Patrice's thread for his benefit. So it's his call.

Best, Ron

[Patrice]

Ron, I've sort of hijacked a bit Mike's thread at mid-point, just bouncing upon what he was offering but this is in no way my thread. I was actually backing a bit for that very reason. This is all very helpful to me but I daresay Mike is seeking an answer here (or maybe has found the help and feedback he needed? This is his to say).

[M. Burrell]

Hey Patrice, how're you enjoying your thread? Sorry we derailed it for a while with all this talk of Tragedy an' all.

Despite our long and rather embarrassing digression away from Tales of the Dragon Lords, I think this thread has really allowed me to plumb the mechanical options in my creative process and steer clear from pitfalls in design. I sit down at the drawing-table with a much more solid concept, and for that you have my thanks Marshall, Joy, Patrice et al.

M., I"m teasing you.

More than you know.

[Ron Edwards]

Pffft! Sorry guys. M., your thread, your call, so - I guess we stop here.

Best, Ron

[M. Burrell]

Your sudden intervention has jumbled the train of thought somewhat, but maybe it's best I put this aside and do some writing. But I'll keep up the dicussion if there's futher points anyone wished to make?

Besides, my degree is almost worn out from all this waving at my fellow yahoos.

Cheers,
Mike.

[JoyWriter]

Ouch, derail!
But popping my wheels back on the line:

If you want to go further on your price thing Marshal, I'd be glad to hear it, especially how it relates to tragedy. Don't let my mental blocks be yours!

I'm still stewing up the following;

how to make "conducting" meaningful in a game with heavy player authorship, something to do with the intensity they can provide to a scene perhaps (minor part vs major part or something more emotionally based?),
along with that idea whether scene framing for poignancy could become involved (fates influence scenery cuing off the influences of various players),

and wondering how to combine conflicting character goals (and tragically powerful goals at that) with the restraint required for playing a more supporting role in some scenes.