Topic: What Traits Do
Started by: Ben Lehman
Started on: 9/13/2004
Board: Polaris Playtest Forum
On 9/13/2004 at 7:20am, Ben Lehman wrote:
What Traits Do
This is the "No psychological traits" thread, spun off from Eero's playtest thread.
Here's what I want traits to do:
Traits are things that frame conflicts -- they provide set dressing or excuses or process but not reasons or results. In short, traits are the How and What of conflicts, but not the Why of conflicts.
When combined with some sorts of things that I would like to be traits, this is a problem. Particularly, offices that imply some sort of moral judgement (like Knight of the Order of the Stars) and pretty much all the Fates seem to me to come "pre-loaded" with what the conflict is about, rather than just how it transpires.
On the other hand, Relationships (in the Fate column), seem to function great here. For instance, if you have a relationship with Rischa, that means that she'll be coming up a lot, but it doesn't define what your relationship is. It isn't Love of Rischa, or Hatred of Rischa, or anything like that. Those are the sorts of things that can change during the game without the trait changing. The trait just says Rischa is Important.
I think that the Light traits are already fine, here. After all, the are just Things or Abilities. It's really the Ice traits that get problematic. Particularly, how can I have Fates and Drives that do not predetermine outcome?
There are two things that we can discuss here. The first is whether or not this is a worthwile goal, or whether having things like emotional content of relationship or success/failure content of destinies preloaded is a bad thing or not. The second is how to go about making the other Fates more like this, if indeed that is a worthwile way to go.
yrs--
--Ben
On 9/13/2004 at 5:49pm, Eero Tuovinen wrote:
Re: What Traits Do
Ben Lehman wrote:
Traits are things that frame conflicts -- they provide set dressing or excuses or process but not reasons or results. In short, traits are the How and What of conflicts, but not the Why of conflicts.
However, from our play, I'd say there is more. Consider a situation where a trait can only be used in a certain kind of result: like, when a sword is bid in a lover's quarrel. This puts up pressure for the players - the player who bid the trait essentially claims that he can narrate this particular combination of traits and other limitations. If the other player wants to continue bidding, he has to claim the same, and one trait more.
This was actually the main source of suspension in our bidding; can he really narrate what he claims, and if he can, surely I can figure out how to do the same. This is accentuated by the fact that the last player to bid will most likely do the narration. Then the Heart can screw the Ice Maiden's plans at the last minute by accepting a temptation that doesn't fit with the plan of narration.
I'm telling this just to give an alternative view on how the trait bidding formulates narration; from this viewpoint, it's not a problem to include motivations or anything else that limits the traits. It just makes for a tighter fit in the narration. I understand that this is not primarily how the bidding should work, but as long as the stakes table doesn't work to put any pressure on it, this is the only kind that will develop.
When combined with some sorts of things that I would like to be traits, this is a problem. Particularly, offices that imply some sort of moral judgement (like Knight of the Order of the Stars) and pretty much all the Fates seem to me to come "pre-loaded" with what the conflict is about, rather than just how it transpires.
If the players want to, any such trait can be handily bypassed as far as morality goes. If the knighthood is bid, it just means that the knight has to face his vows, not that he has to abide by them. Similarly with love or rage or other psychological traits. At least I interpreted the rules to mean that it's within the purview of the narrator to just tell about the inner conflict and tell how the knight overcomes his traits, rather than let the traits rule his actions.
I think that the Light traits are already fine, here. After all, the are just Things or Abilities. It's really the Ice traits that get problematic. Particularly, how can I have Fates and Drives that do not predetermine outcome?
By treating them as things. If a starlight sword is bid, it doesn't mean that it will prevail, it just means that it will be featured. It doesn't even mean that the knight will try to use it. The same with motivations and fates: when one appears, it's up to the narrator to decide whether the fate or the knight prevails.
On 9/17/2004 at 3:34am, Ben Lehman wrote:
RE: Re: What Traits Do
Ben Lehman wrote:
Traits are things that frame conflicts -- they provide set dressing or excuses or process but not reasons or results. In short, traits are the How and What of conflicts, but not the Why of conflicts.
Eero Tuovinen wrote:
However, from our play, I'd say there is more. Consider a situation where a trait can only be used in a certain kind of result: like, when a sword is bid in a lover's quarrel. This puts up pressure for the players - the player who bid the trait essentially claims that he can narrate this particular combination of traits and other limitations. If the other player wants to continue bidding, he has to claim the same, and one trait more.
This was actually the main source of suspension in our bidding; can he really narrate what he claims, and if he can, surely I can figure out how to do the same. This is accentuated by the fact that the last player to bid will most likely do the narration. Then the Heart can screw the Ice Maiden's plans at the last minute by accepting a temptation that doesn't fit with the plan of narration.
I'm telling this just to give an alternative view on how the trait bidding formulates narration; from this viewpoint, it's not a problem to include motivations or anything else that limits the traits. It just makes for a tighter fit in the narration. I understand that this is not primarily how the bidding should work, but as long as the stakes table doesn't work to put any pressure on it, this is the only kind that will develop.
BL> Okay, there is a disconnect somewhere. Namely, I can't see how your examples (sword used in a lover's quarrel, general pressure for trait use) contradict my statement.
Anyway, it's somewhat of a moot point. If I am reading you correctly, traits are more-or-less doing what I want them to do, with the exception that there is not quite enough escalation of pressure from the stakes.
When combined with some sorts of things that I would like to be traits, this is a problem. Particularly, offices that imply some sort of moral judgement (like Knight of the Order of the Stars) and pretty much all the Fates seem to me to come "pre-loaded" with what the conflict is about, rather than just how it transpires.
Eero wrote:
If the players want to, any such trait can be handily bypassed as far as morality goes. If the knighthood is bid, it just means that the knight has to face his vows, not that he has to abide by them. Similarly with love or rage or other psychological traits. At least I interpreted the rules to mean that it's within the purview of the narrator to just tell about the inner conflict and tell how the knight overcomes his traits, rather than let the traits rule his actions.
BL> Okay, but consider the difference between these two traits:
2) Hatred of Baxi Totec Kala, Lord of Rotting Bones
1) Relationship with Baxi Totec Kala, Lord of Rotting Bones
One of these comes pre-loading with a emotional / psychological content. One of them doesn't. For the purposes of the game, I like the one that doesn't.
Now, consider the trait:
1) Drive to Gain a Senatorial Seat
What is the #2, here?
yrs--
--Ben
On 9/17/2004 at 3:40am, Ben Lehman wrote:
RE: What Traits Do
Huh. I've been puzzling over this for about a week and, literally 5 seconds after I write that last post, it pops into my head.
The trait here is:
Deed: The Gaining of a Senate Seat
Suddenly, we don't know what this means. Did the Knight already gain it? Will he in the future? Will he give it to someone else? Will he try for it and succeed? Try for it and fail? Have it thrust upon him in a moment of political instability?
What it *does* tell us is that the acquisition of a senate seat is a part of the knight's story.
yrs--
--Ben