Credibility for the Player

[Mike Holmes]

To continue the analogy, are the Rules then the Trading Floor upon which we mutually decide to bargain? SEC guidelines?

Mike

[Callan S.]

To continue the analogy, are the Rules then the Trading Floor upon which we mutually decide to bargain? SEC guidelines?

Mike

Hmmm, I don't think the rules of a game are the rules of trading. They are the currency itself.

"I'll look for the assassin"
"Okay, you have to pay me a one successful spot check"

"I want that treasure"
"Okay, you have to pay me one standard rules combat with orcs!"

Thinking on it, the rules create a currency that the GM can ask for, to pay for the requests of players. If there were no rules, the GM's might have to ask for somthing else, like really cool descriptions. But probably because 'cool' is subjective, having a lot of rules makes a more solid currency to ask for.

Why ask for currency of any type? Probably because when players invest something...anything into an RP world, it brings that world to life a bit more.

As to what the rules of trading are...I think that is as variable as RL market trading rules (which can be poker game like in body language reading and control, etc), when they bargain.

EDIT: I've heard people mention a thing called a social contract. I think that's what determines what the trading floor guidelines are.

[Mike Holmes]

No, I'm talking about actual textual rules. Like, "If you hit, roll 3d6 damage". That sort of thing. These are presumably agreed to before the negotiating begins, and so form a framework for the negotiations to some extent. Where does that fit in the model?

Mike

[Callan S.]

No, I'm talking about actual textual rules. Like, "If you hit, roll 3d6 damage". That sort of thing. These are presumably agreed to before the negotiating begins, and so form a framework for the negotiations to some extent. Where does that fit in the model?

Mike

I'm not sure I quite get the angle your trying to investigate and so I'm having trouble figuring out how to answer it.

I mean, I was talking about textual rules as well. Basically it's one negotiation stacking onto another...okay, we'll play this system. Okay, what do you think about being hit with 3D6 damage in this system?

It's akin to deciding the market place to go to, deciding what currency to work in (real money, or gold, or goods). And then getting down to cutting a deal amidst all that.

So, system is sort of the marketplace you work in, its rules are the particular currency/goods that marketplace uses.

I suppose rules do form a framework for the negotiation, as you can't really start dealing in rules from another system (not casually anyway). But only a framework to the degree that these are the ones were working with. The dynamic and sometimes quite odd mix which is a RP session means this rules can come in at all sorts of odd times, because of the users. Which makes it more about them being a currency in use by users than about them really forming any framework.

I dunno if that answers anything except to me.

[Mike Holmes]

I guess that's what I'm saying. That the chosen system is negotiated first, and then generally colors all later negotiations. As such it seems like a distinct phenopmenon. For example, nowhere else is so much agreed to all at once. Hence why changing systems is so momentus.

Mike

[Callan S.]

I guess that's what I'm saying. That the chosen system is negotiated first, and then generally colors all later negotiations. As such it seems like a distinct phenopmenon. For example, nowhere else is so much agreed to all at once. Hence why changing systems is so momentus.

Mike

Yeah, that would be dead on! Each system is like a different market place (a real market rather than a super market). In fact, each system might be more like the difference between markets in different countries. All sorts of different goods, different currencies, different bargaining customs, etc.

But I think the actual trading guidlines are part of social contract, not rule set. Remember all the movies where some dude in it wont bargain with the local merchants, he just pays what they ask and it pisses them off because he doesn't trade? In other words he's doing his own thing when the custom is otherwise. The market, its currency (or in RPG's, its rules) and such can't stop him and don't influence this at all. Really it should be about him holding to a social contract.

[Mike Holmes]

I think that's true of market's too, however. One can, for instance, cheat another trader in a market. The social level is always there, too, enforcing all "lower" contracts via the overall social contract.

Mike

[Harlequin]

There's an angle of this analogy (which is lovely, BTW) which seems to me to be being lost in the detailing of it, and deserves more attention - in fact my intuition says that it might be the core of the whole analogy and its usefulness.

The existence of (a) a rules system, and (b) any specific rule within that framework, as bargaining aids, is a vital one.  They provide process, and streamline that process.  We could work through every orc encounter, and every swordfight, using from-scratch negotiations, based on our background and shared image of the scene.  It would work; indeed, Vincent and Emily's Adventures in Improvised System are one account of an exceedingly functional take on this mode.  However, for most of us (I'm in awe and envy of Vincent and Emily's game), the costs in time and immersion-loss of reestablishing the basis of negotiations far outweigh the advantages we might get by always using the most apt economic mode for the transaction at hand.  

It's like switching between Capitalism and Communism as one becomes more appropriate to the moment.  In fact, I suspect the proper place of "rules system" in this analogy is as an economic theory.  The choice to play D&D3E is analogous to the choice to use capitalist theory to govern our trading, instead of communism. (Universalis is definitely communism.  And Amber is benevolent fascism, and nevermind that that's not an economic system.)  But the point is that this kind of switching is simply not practical in running most countries; you'd need a high level of enlightenment about the function of an economy, in every citizen, before it would be remotely feasible.

Most of the time, what we want is a set of rules which circumvent the process of continually reestablishing the basis of trade.  We want that because we value expediency, consistency, and immersion in play over considerations of play.  And that's where the rules come in.  They provide that framework.  A longsword always does 1d8 base damage... that way we no longer need to agree on this "value" in currency, we can start from market value and work on more interesting parts of the negotiations.  Who has the credibility to say how much damage a longsword does?  Well, we don't need to answer that - by choosing this ruleset, we already apportioned out that cred.  Let's skip to the "who has the credibility to say that you hit the orc?" part, and even to the "will you let me use situational modifier X to help me hit that orc?" phase of the negotiations.

A high number of Points of Contact means a very regulated market.  Most negotiations will head rapidly toward the detail negotiations (okay, which color of BMW do you want to buy?).  Note that this doesn't necessarily mean less negotiation overall, merely a change in focus.  The NYSE could be considered "highly regulated" in the sense that it supports basically only one interaction: I give you money, you give me shares.  They then cover a thousand negotiations a minute - pull that off with barter, I dare you.  Lower the Points of Contact, and you (have to, get to) negotiate from a more fundamental level - are you sure you want a BMW?  Are you sure you want to buy a car, and not a bicycle?  Are you sure that you want to buy, rather than being awarded it for scholarly merit and displaying respect for your ancestors?

Players who enjoy the negotiating process, who enjoy reapportioning credibility, are more likely to enjoy the latter.  The Pool is huge here.  Players who don't enjoy reapportioning credibility during the game, who would rather apportion it to begin with via the choice of system and of GM, will be uncomfortable with this environment, and prefer to go play GURPS instead.  Which brings it down to a matter of taste, of course, but one which is orthogonal to GNS or other preferences.  (Notwithstanding that Nar play may be supported better by more flexible assignments of credibility, and Gam play by more rigid definition - that could just be due to the fact that nobody's come up with a good set of crunchy Premise mechanics yet, where one rolls to generate Ethical Tension Successes by beating the Literary Appropriateness Target Number.)

Can we do more than say that it's a matter of taste?  I'm not sure.  Certainly, that taste seems to be linked to comfort issues - a nervous new player will have trouble delivering a game-changing MoV, and the gamers who move to high-negotiation-level systems seem to (IMO) generally be ones who've become sophisticated with rigid-credibility systems first.  But again, this could just be due to prevalence of the latter.

Perhaps it simply reflects the duality between immersion in the play, and analysis of the play, and says nothing more.

- Eric

[Callan S.]

That's F'n dead on!! :)

It also explores and details the idea bloody well!

I can't really add much because it said it all.

Well, except this: How many games actually support or encourage in their main books, such negotiations?

I'm asking because I think often, in a lot of peoples individual situations, it takes a few hard knocks before people begin to intuitively include it in their game. Sadly sometimes those knocks mean people leaving the hobby forever.

Particularly when the rules say 'To hit an orc, roll X'. It doesn't really suggest to anyone that you can negotiate so that when your character swings from a chandalier, they or the chandalier will hit...or atleast getting a coolness bonus to hit (for example). The rules just suggest you use the rules, not negotiate. But then we begin to negotiate, with those rules as currency. That's a turn around!

[Valamir]

Universalis is definitely communism

THAT would be an interesting discussion perhaps on the Uni board Eric, so it doesn't derail this one.

From my perspective the game is solidly free market capitalism inspired directly from the pages of Adam Smith.

[Harlequin]

Don't think it'd derail much, Ralph - I know Uni only by exposure on these boards.  I defer and agree.

Noon - Many systems at least have a 'bonus die' mechanism which provides the starting point for negotiations.  Sorcerer, Exalted, etc.  More sophisticated levels of negotiation?  Umm... I'll think on that one.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

One candidate for those more sophisticated levels of negotiation is the "moral center" of certain game designs.

In Sorcerer, the GM is the final arbiter of when Humanity checks or Humanity gain rolls are made.

In Dust Devils, the GM determines whether the character's Devil applies as a bonus or as a penalty in a particular conflict.

Since in both cases, these mechanics are absolutely central to the Premise(s) of that particular group ...

And since the GM's "authority" is only to-be-obeyed insofar as the group generally agrees to abide by it, in the long run ...

... then I think that "negotiations" about these judgments are both (a) relatively invisible, because to the observer in the short-term it simply looks as if the GM has the power, period; and (b) extremely personal and extremely social, as they concern heartfelt aspects of play.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Wow. I'm more than satisfied with all of this. I almost wish that there was some dissent so that we could challenge it a bit, but maybe it's all actually so obvious now that we've got it out there.

Thanks everyone. I'm not suggesting closing the thread, but I'd only expect it to continue if someone had something really new to add or if someone wants to dissent.

Mike

[Harlequin]

Here, here.

I did have one thought, though.  My copy of MLwM is in the mail (I hope), but based on Actual Play accounts, I might hold it up as an example of what I asserted nobody had yet done - a highly-regulated negotiating environment, with distinctly Narrativist bias.

Am I correct in observing that (except possibly for the Horror Revealed rules) credibility is fairly fixed in MLwM, with only a small set of types of transactions allowed, a fixed order of scenes, and many other constraints on the credibility negotiations?  Most of those rules, in fact, seem to be examples of "let's increase the level of market regulation" used to an excellent end.  And yet, other than the bits about Gamism creeping in, in the form of players "sequestering" their Connections, the game seems tremendously Narrative in bias.

In fact it feels like one could make a case that although MLwM is highly Narrativist, it even (through good focus regarding Colour and Situation) heavily regulates the core Nar negotiation: "What's our Premise?"  For that matter, it even takes out of the negotiating pool the equally basic question to all RPG forms: "How will this game end?"  Very, very regulated.

Which could explain why it's doing so well and why it merited inclusion on Costikyan's 300 list... MLwM, per this analysis, could be exploiting a niche previously largely vacant.

[One could make a case for Baron Munchausen and the like in this category, as well... but I think the fit is much weaker.]

- Eric

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I think similar fits with My Life with Master include Wuthering Heights, Le Mon Mouri, Otherkind, Extreme Vengeance, and The Dying Earth.

Of these, only the last has received any sort of distributorship and/or convention presence (in the U.S. at least; Wuthering Heights has done so France under its native title, Rene). And the text/presentation of The Dying Earth is a bit too ... how shall I say ... apologetic and a bit stifled in terms of making its essential play-features available to the reader with brevity and enthusiasm.

Given a physical, social, and textual presentation like My Life with Master, in my view, any of these games would be a runaway seller*/player, like MLWM.

Best,
Ron

* My use of "sells" and "sales" differs considerably from the use employed by retailers and most RPG publishers. My use includes profit to the game creator and a high chance of actual play by the purchasers.