in-game Biases.

[permacultureguerilla]

In cyberpunk and a lot of other games, I see slang terms and odd phrases to describe when something happens or that's the nature. There are indeed games that ask a certain class of character about another class of character. So, then, we have lots of biases developed in the game.

Every game that wants colour should have biases. But I haven't seen any real complex ones. Ones that seem to entangle both what category a person falls under, and the superstitions or cues that relate to them specifically.

So I'd say that the best way to address it is not in a section for each certain class of character's opinions, but a list of biases by itself.

Example . . .---------------------

1) Greymare as hocus-pocus . . .

Anyone of the Seelie court referring to Greymare as hocus-pocus has become somewhat of a swear, especially to the Sidhe.

Pooka have been known to ramble on and on about Greymare they've encountered, while Eshu stories seem to leave others asking if the mystery was really embedded in Greymare. Redcaps generally downplay the idea as best as they possibly can, and Sluagh tend to hear the word, and say . . . "What about it?"

The common argument is that disbelief in Greymare is just Banality talking. But such disbelief doesn't discount one's belief in the magnifiscent. So the argument doesn't always hold sway.

--Now you could make a system about social penalties or gains that would ensue to your character if Greymare is mentioned to be involved . . .

-------------------------------

Changeling is just one example. But for those whom are willing to make their games fairly complicated, this could certainly add realism.

In our reality, there are biases for just about anything under the sun. So it wouldn't be ideal to make a bias list for a game "as realistic as possible," before wasting too much time.

I would like to see how a game feels with a category that lists biases that way. Have you seen one?

[simon_hibbs]

I think such things are best presented in an 'in-character' kind of way. RQ (and now HeroQuest) has a the "What my father (or priest/shaman/etc) told me" introductions to the different cultures that explain each cultural or religious world view. This includes biases, such as "Who are our enemies", Who are our friends", and attitudes towards various kinds of foreigners and religious rivals or allies.

Issaries are working on an updated and expanded collection of these as a downloadable pdf. Should be available on their site (www.glorantha.com) soon.


Simon Hibbs

[contracycle]

Actually I'm not that keen on the in-character method; when in narrative format, it always leaves in some doubt as to to whether I am meant to take it as True or rather 'a perspective'.  HW/HQ's format is much stronger, making it quite clear what sort of informnation is being conveyed in what context.

[Lxndr]

Hm.  I like the in-character narration because of those same reasons - you aren't sure whether or not to take it as True.  :)

[Fade Manley]

The game I'm working on has relationships between the various groups as one of its major themes, so I currently have these written up a bit like the way it's done in Changeling: each group has a few lines of opinion, mostly IC, about their attitude towards each other group. However, I also discuss species relationships--and issues like why various groups mistakenly believe certain things about other groups--in another section of the game, to try to give both IC and more objective explanations for these things. I found it wasn't useful enough to present group X hating group Y, and the favor being returned, without also taking the time to explain why they take each other in that way, especially if members of each group might not be aware of these reasons.

I'm not sure what the first poster meant about listing biases, still; in the sense that you put all the biases in one area, rather than dividing them by group? It seems simplest from a player's point of view to arrange most biases by whichever people are expected to have them, for quick reference, as players in many games only really need to keep track of the appropriate prejudices and opinions of their own group.

[John Kim]

I think such things are best presented in an 'in-character' kind of way. RQ (and now HeroQuest) has a the "What my father (or priest/shaman/etc) told me" introductions to the different cultures that explain each cultural or religious world view. This includes biases, such as "Who are our enemies", Who are our friends", and attitudes towards various kinds of foreigners and religious rivals or allies.

I'm not a big fan of this approach, though I'm not sure why.  I think in part that it tends to treat attitudes as a sort of dogma -- i.e. you are told what a character of that group believes ("X are our friends") but not why you believe it.  

I'd also say that it isn't really in-character, but rather pseudo-in-character.  That is, a character is not expected to encounter word-for-word a document or speech as given.  Fully in-character documents are as the character sees them.  For example, the Laws of the Camarilla in Vampire are word-for-word what the characters learn, I think.  Fully in-character documents are nice, but it is cumbersome to convey large amounts of information through them.  Aberrant tried it, and I sort of liked it but it meant there was a severe lack of organization.

[simon_hibbs]

I'm not a big fan of this approach, though I'm not sure why.  I think in part that it tends to treat attitudes as a sort of dogma -- i.e. you are told what a character of that group believes ("X are our friends") but not why you believe it.  

I don't agree, the naratives often contain justifications. These are summaries however. For more detail you would need articles on history, mythology, etc, but summaries are precisely what was asked for.

I'd also say that it isn't really in-character, but rather pseudo-in-character.  That is, a character is not expected to encounter word-for-word a document or speech as given.

They're explicitly presented as the actual words of the person they are purport to be from. Of cousre not every Orlanth boy gets exactly the same speech from their uncle, or whoever, but is that realy such a big deal? Why?


Simon Hibbs

[John Kim]

I don't agree, the naratives often contain justifications. These are summaries however. For more detail you would need articles on history, mythology, etc, but summaries are precisely what was asked for.  

On reflection, I think that my issue is actually with the request.  You are right: the question of this thread is presenting a summary of biases separate from history, mythology, and other background.  On reflection, I think I don't like this approach, though.  

By calling them "biases" and putting them in their own section, this implies that they are irrational and wrong.  I generally prefer my character to have a rational point of view.  Others may call this "biased", but that is simply because of their own biases.  The game may describe behavior in society, for example, but should (for my tastes) avoid labels of whether it is rational or biased.  

I'd also say that it isn't really in-character, but rather pseudo-in-character.  That is, a character is not expected to encounter word-for-word a document or speech as given.

They're explicitly presented as the actual words of the person they are purport to be from. Of cousre not every Orlanth boy gets exactly the same speech from their uncle, or whoever, but is that really such a big deal? Why?

Well, because who the speaker is matters.  That is, if I was told that speech by my crazy uncle who I hate, that colors how my character regards what was said.  If it was the tribal chief, then it will be important what my character thinks of him and authority in general.

[permacultureguerilla]

Thanks. So if I might summarize the discussion:

First, if I am to have a rulebook with an "opinion" category, the rulebook should be completely narrativist.

I suppose that's merely a differentiation between "we're not telling" and "it's unknown." Not everyone can be right, but every player wants to be, so the narrator leaves specific answers to the GM.

I would rather opinions by themselves than under each class, because it can be a whole complex world in itself. "A says that x wants b, but c was told that d likes f. That could be only because f is a's y" Lol. etc etc.

Then I try to generally divide opinions regarding different subjects, maybe some under specific classes. Although it's not really split accurately, because the opinion "ball" is really a knot that stands on its own.

PS, I'm kind of shocked at a forum with such intelligent responces.

[simon_hibbs]

Well, because who the speaker is matters.  That is, if I was told that speech by my crazy uncle who I hate, that colors how my character regards what was said.  If it was the tribal chief, then it will be important what my character thinks of him and authority in general.

But that applies to any in-world source of information. Depending on your character's personal situation and attitudes, your response to the information will differ. Surely that's a good thing?

Simon Hibbs

[John Kim]

Well, because who the speaker is matters.  That is, if I was told that speech by my crazy uncle who I hate, that colors how my character regards what was said.  If it was the tribal chief, then it will be important what my character thinks of him and authority in general.

But that applies to any in-world source of information. Depending on your character's personal situation and attitudes, your response to the information will differ. Surely that's a good thing?

Well, yes, it is definitely a good thing that my response to the information will vary depending on the speaker.  The tricky case, in my opinion, is nominally "in-character" speeches to represent biases.  

We should probably pick some specific examples to debate.  However, my general impression of this approach is that the speech isn't intended to be a particular in-character document.  Rather, it is aimed to actually represent the culture as a whole.  The speaker is an everyman, and the speech is intended to represent a whole culture.  I think a problem I have with this is that cultures don't have a single voice.  

I feel that if there is going to be a summary which gives an overview of the culture, it should be external.  Even better would be having the issues of the culture (i.e. "biases") intertwined with all the rest of the information. i.e. If you're writing a Victorian game, all of the information should be done in a somewhat Victorian style and from a Victorian point-of-view.

[simon_hibbs]

I feel that if there is going to be a summary which gives an overview of the culture, it should be external.  Even better would be having the issues of the culture (i.e. "biases") intertwined with all the rest of the information. i.e. If you're writing a Victorian game, all of the information should be done in a somewhat Victorian style and from a Victorian point-of-view.

So summaries should be external (third person?), but it's better not to have summaries at all and instead scatter it throughout the main source material.

Can't say I agree personaly, but tastes differ.


Simon Hibbs

[John Kim]

So summaries should be external (third person?), but it's better not to have summaries at all and instead scatter it throughout the main source material.

Can't say I agree personaly, but tastes differ.

You say scattered, but I would say rather organized by subject.  i.e. What different cultures think about the elves should be in the "Elves" section, together with the rest of the information about them.  Doing so affirms the potential truth to this -- that is, what the dwarves think of elves is relevant information for someone trying to form an unbiased opinion about elves, rather than being clearly useless information relegated to a "biases" chapter.   This as opposed to putting a "truth" about elves in the elves section and having a separate section for biases.

[permacultureguerilla]

I agree with you, John. But naturally the elf player should know what his friends are telling him about dwarves so that he knows his own group best. Not only that . . . but about trees, dogs, etc. And now the elf section would include whatever relations people give about the trees / dogs in relation to elves. This can get out of hand real quickly. So I guess that my theory was about putting biases when describing objects in the game as well as creatures. It's more dispersed this way.

Naturally, each bias leads to another. Elves think this about rocks, dwarves disagree, and that affects elf and dwarf opinions about each other.

To me: It seems now, that the most organized way to make biases would be to repeat biases in all sorts of ways all throughout the book. Simply because of viewpoint: Not to mention the roguish estranged wanderer who doesn't have real particular allegiances. How do we predict everything she learns.

I think it would be a good idea on an internet-based game that you rewrite the information allover the place (the reader knows where to skip if they want to). You would be rewriting a great deal of things again and again in different areas, slightly different each time. Because it's not being printed, you're not worried about supplies, and the data for text is not to worry about. It's not as time consuming as trying to conceptualize. In some ways, such a strategy may seem like an excuse to create a huge game with not actually that many concepts. But I'd feel it wouldn't be sufficient otherwise.

Because I'm focusing on a word based system, biases would be like: "Elf General Opinion: Dwarf as Miner. Dwarf Distaste Opinion as Dwarf Miner. Dwarf Recognize Elf Bias to Dwarf" etc etc. That's not the whole parlance, just in the mechanic.

I guess I'm also saying an internet-based rulebook can benefit from a lot of what would seem like jargon.

Also, we get written opinions. What about illustrations? Surely we have narrative illustrations. Why not, like known culture, we depict biases through pictures: An elf child draws a mean 'ol dwarf picking on her friend. A dwarf father draws gold as beautiful as it can appear; rather than just showing an actual dwarf and elf, and an actual dwarf mining.

On a side note: Thinking about Tolkien and his original conception of his species. I think that our modern role playing games tend to pick up Tolkien's trends, but they're not so often picking up his strategies (I'm not rushing it of course. There's lots to be explored in one trend).

Example: I imagine Tolkien thought to himself, before conceiving dwarves, that a creature lives in mountains. Naturally, has stocky build; therefore making its way by mining; therefore producing its culture in responce to the resources of mining; therefore being used to pickaxes which makes them so prone to wield normal axes. And same thing so forth with other species.

We use Tolkien's themes but we don't often ask the same questions that he did. Making a millieu is just impossible when combining different elements. You actually have to start it like any planet, and fast-forward-evolve it with every detail you can put.

Anyone wanting to further that topic, I suggest putting a link to a new thread. I brought it up, anyhow. I hope I'm helping progress on the issue.

[simon_hibbs]

You say scattered, but I would say rather organized by subject.  i.e. What different cultures think about the elves should be in the "Elves" section, together with the rest of the information about them.  Doing so affirms the potential truth to this -- that is, what the dwarves think of elves is relevant information for someone trying to form an unbiased opinion about elves, rather than being clearly useless information relegated to a "biases" chapter.   This as opposed to putting a "truth" about elves in the elves section and having a separate section for biases.

I would have thought that what elves think about dwarves would be much more appropriate to a document about elves.

If I ask the question "What do I ned to know to play an Elf", I realy want just a few documents, not a whole bunch of references to other documents that are mainly about other things. Reading 'For information on Elven attitudes to Dwarves, see the Dwarf supplement, etc, etc, etc' would not endear me to the author.

Also, nobody here has suggested _removing_ such material from other locations. I explicitly stated I was talking about summaries. Normaly summaries are supplemental to main text. Such a summary could never replace more fully realised treatments of elf-dwarf relations, for example.


Simon Hibbs