Exploration of conflict: The process of finding the solution to a problem, the solution being amongst the game systems rules or within the described game world.

Address of conflict: Creating, from whole cloth, that solution.

An example of creating a conflict: The GM decides there is a trap with two knobs protruding from a metal box. The left one is connected directly to some explosives. If the right one is pulled a nearby door opens.
An address of conflict: The GM decides that one of the knobs has the fingerprints of people on it, while the other is clean except for a little dust on top.

Proposed dysfunction: The GM describes the situation. The player declares they will carefully prize open the front of the metal box and look inside, to see what each knob is connected to and that this will tell them which is the right one to pull.

This thread proposes a dysfunction here, because both the player AND the GM have made an address of conflict. The dysfunction coming from the RP tradition that one of them is superior to the other. That one of them is the right answer and there is someone who is fit to judge which one is right.

Let's look further into the idea that no one is fit to judge which is superior or right. This probably sounds absurd; gamism is all about peer judgement/evaluation, isn't it? But clearly, to judge (as GM) someone else address you'll have to make your own address to gauge it by. If (as GM) you say their address just wouldn't work in the game world, what if the situation was suddenly reversed? Where you become the player and they the GM (with the same situation)…and suddenly your address of conflict 'just doesn't work in the game world'. How do you feel now that the address you were so certain of before, gets put in the 'doesn't work' box? How do you think the player felt before, when his address was treated the same way?

I'm going to suggest that address of conflict actually needs to be treated in the same way as address of premise. In that, there is no 'correct' answer.

This sounds like the absolute antithesis of gamism, doesn't it? If any answer is correct, then the player will just give any old answer and where's the challenge there? Well, let's have a look at narrativism. Does it suffer from that same problem? That if any response is valid, players just give bland, boring responces? Well from what I see, narrativism seems to promote escalation of the problem in response to this.

For example, a player is going to get into a situation where they have to decide if they kill their evil half brother. But the situation is a bit straight forward so some other cruel  player might add a fact that the evil brother protects a town of innocent people. If he dies, they will loose their protection and suffer. Thus, any answer is right, but the player will sweat even more over his address. The cruel player isn't making any answer the right one, but he is escalating the problem to new heights of difficulty.

Gamism can often does go through the same process. See Erick Wujcik's diceless essay, where his thief attempts to disable traps through sheer negotiation that no doubt involved plenty of escalation. Indeed, gamists are so robust that where a narrativist would feel force applied to his address, the gamist usually just sees more pressure being applied, more factors to think about. When his told his address doesn't work, he'll look at it in the same way as in the above example, where a player added the 'evil brother protects other people' fact. If the address doesn't work, there must be a reason it doesn't work and he needs to think out his address even more. More pressure, good!

Or the gamist cracks, just like a narrativist facing typhoid mary treatment will crack. This is NOT the frustration of something like not being able to complete a crossword, which is an exploration of conflict frustration and is (although infuriating) very healthy. Instead this is exactly the sort of frustration a narrativist will feel if the GM has already made an address of premise for the character and is now waiting for the player to second guess and ape it.

Even in a social contract where players are expected only to explore conflict, in standard systems dysfunction arrises easily as the GM (in prepping the game) will make some addresses of conflict himself. Except the GM should be fair and even and make sure each solution is suitable to the wits of the players. Otherwise it screws up the game and you can't have that! Can you imagine a narrativist thinking "Well, my character would just have to do X! Oh wait, that'll screw up the game so he can't do that.". That would be the narrativist feeling the touch of force again and they'd be pretty annoyed! And in the same way, the gamist GM is suffering from this. He has made his address of conflict, but then has to beat it up to fit the needs of an ongoing game. That's either not very fun or the GM doesn't adjust his address and it can indeed lead to a dead game. Of course for narrativism, a lot of indie games seem to ensure that play continues in some way, no matter what the address of premise. What's out there now to ensure play in not interrupted no matter the GM's address of conflict, for this type of gamism?

Synergy
I'd argue this is a common ideal of gamism. It essentially represents gamist immersion, in where a player is so immersed in the way the game works that his own address of conflict miraculously matches the game designers address and/or matches the GM's address. At the same time the player really only has the rights to explore conflict, so even though he's making an address of conflict it can still be fully rejected. However, the gamist is tempted to strive for those sweet, sweet times when they make an address of conflict and-it-works! Despite the crushing blow of their previous intelligent solutions getting rejected, when an address of theirs does match the designers/GM's address it's a high affirmation!! This isn't a moment where people just appreciate my solution! This is where I really got it right!

Which is a little delusional. After all, why is the designers/GM address of conflict right? So right that it makes your address right when they match? Really, the joy of this moment is the same as when a narrativist makes an address of premise, and everyone nods thoughtfully and absorbs it. It wasn't that your address is 'right', it's that others treated it with respect and absorbed it. That's the best you can hope for, unless in some very strange circumstances you come across the problem in real life and have a chance to try out that solution. That's the only time you'll find out how right the solution is. Otherwise what your aiming for is respect for your address, and only escalation from other players rather than their judgement as to whether it's right or wrong.

I would have thought drawing a parralel between address of premise and gamism (ie, address of conflict) would have sparked debate. But instead I'm pleasantly surprised at the silent affirmation I'm getting, since no one's arguing with it. :)

Here's a question though: Could you take a system that's designed to promotes address of premise, and reword it (but not change its structure) so it promotes address of conflict instead?

Another question: If the rules of a game don't accomidate address of conflict, does that make it a boardgame?

Hello,

I agree with all of your points and claims in full.

However, your terminology mods are driving me bonkers. Here's how I'd do it.

Premise mirrors Challenge.

Address of Premise mirrors Address of Challenge.

Force interferes with Address of Premise. "X" interferes with Address of Challenge.

I really like your insights about how "X" is expressed as a pre-fixed, non-negotiable way to solve the problem. I also think it's distasteful in Gamist play not only because there's "one way to do it," but also because if you find that one way, you get through the situation "free." Gamist play thrives on costs, just like Narrativist play does.

I really, really think "conflict" is a poor word choice because it's so easily confounded with so many other things, ranging among:

- a sense of emotional and creative betrayal among actual people
- a set of risks to characters which threaten, effectively, removal of the ongoing chance to play those characters
- situational expressions of Premise (this is the Lit 101 sense)
- differing fictional interests among the fictional characters (similar to the above but not identical)
- tactical and strategic circumstances that allow for many options

Best,
Ron

I find this thread fascinating.

It seems to me that the X which interferes with Gamism is, essentially, the "point and click" problem from the old adventure games.  When you can't figure out the programmer's solution, you would just click randomly around the screen until something happened.

yrs--
--Ben

I happily concede to Ron's change of terminology, as I have zero commitment to using the word 'conflict' and much commitment to clarity on the issue.

In terms of 'X', I think it's also interesting that it's almost always someone elses (the GM's usually) address of challenge. Since he doesn't want to back down on his own address, it really reinforces that 'one way to do it' thing.

I also think it's distasteful in Gamist play not only because there's "one way to do it," but also because if you find that one way, you get through the situation "free." Gamist play thrives on costs, just like Narrativist play does.

Callan wrote:
Another question: If the rules of a game don't accomidate address of conflict, does that make it a boardgame?

I'm tackling that same question regarding RPG/board games with Power/Evil, and I'm not sure yet what the answer is. There can be mechanisms to promote narration, for example, and consistent stories, but I think it's still an area that very much needs to be explored. The current revision of P/E also includes a mechanism for required narration that's judged by the other players, but the bonus of which cannot be denied, i.e., you try until you find something that the group agrees is cool.

As for the initial post, I do agree that it sucks when the solution to the challenge is already determined before play. My question is, can we balance being open to that because we give judgment powers to the GM with giving the player all the power? What's the middle ground, if there is one? Decision of the of the group as I do above? Primetime Adventures' Fanmail or TSoY's Gift of Dice to reward the Stepping On Up?

Hi David and Christian,

It's an interesting question. For example, the card game 'Lunch Money' has a move in it called power play. The rules for it actively encourage the player to describe the nasty move their doing to the other player. It's a bit tricky to pull off a power play, so when you do one you tend not to 'waste it' on a move that isn't interesting to you. However, regardless of the description you do the damage, there is no feedback from anyone else. For me, this lead to a 'trademark move' syndrome, where I described a move, then kept using it for every latter power play, as their was nothing to prompt me to make up a new one (and I liked my move, so why change?).

I think that is an address of challenge, prompted by what would seem to just be a traditional card game design.

However, the call to make an address doesn't come very often and when it does, there is no mechanic to prompt a new address, rather than repeating the previous address.

A gamist RPG could be said to specialise in having lots and lots of addresses of challenge. I think a game like snakes and ladders, has zero potential for an address. While a game like lunch money has infrequent address potential. Gamist RPG's are only different from lunch money in that they should contain frequent to high frequency potential for address of challenge to be made by a player. Otherwise lunch money and a gamist RPG are on the same scale, even if they are at different ends of that scale.

I have real trouble figuring out what to say here - at times agreeing and at times disagreeing.

I don't think there is an inherent problem with single-solution games.  If that is the game at hand, then what matters is the elan and vigour with which the solution is pursued.  There is no need here for a more open game IMO.  That said, it is the nature of games to be limited, and therefore implicitly restricted.  I assume that this is the problem being referred to as "getting through it for free"... as in perhaps I play chess and have the enemy king assassinated obviating the actual boardgame.  But IMO this is a pretty much inescapable problem.  A game is a subset of all interactions, it cannot be universally comprehensive.  And worse, there is no real need for a totally comprehensive game.  Chess is a (highly abstracted) game about field battles; it is not a game about assassinations.

This necessary element of rule-boundedness is missed in the discussion of Open types of gaming, IMO.  You can play a kind of free kriegspiel but there must still be rule bounded limits - the edge of the map, the forces available.  But you can create a experience which feels very free as long as those limits can be made to appear natural, to coincide with rational limits, or to simply be quite remote so the boundary's don't intrude in actual play.

Hi Contra,

I think the problem here is assuming free narration means being able to determine cause AND effect. Or at least narrate a cause and by making it compelling enough, ensure the desired effect does come about (eg, an assasinated king). It reminds me of my posts about pushing a vase off a balcony. Would it break? It's pretty compelling that it would.

However, let's look at the lunch money example. Power play does 3 damage. And it encourages you to narrate the move. Now, I'd never actually though of narrating my opponents death before during the game. But the thing is, I can narrate cutting off my opponents head and...it still just does 3 damage (and my opponent, if he still has HP, just kicks me in the head despite my narration). Indeed, my narration not taking just three damage into account is a failure on my part in giving a fitting narration (I loose some gamist respect for this, in other words).

With the vase and the balcony...surely if you push it, it has to fall. And if I describe cutting off my opponents head in a really compelling way (ie, it's just as likely to happen as that vase smashing), then surely that opponent is dead.

I think gamism suffers from old sim habits, where cause determines effect. I think rather than a protective GM, watching carefully and weeding out addresses that wont make a good game, a fixed effect is determined. This effect is like a trophy, and the address of challenge is the play that earns it. Then add some escalation mechanics (which I'm talking about in the theory split off  http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16295.0) and more than one address is needed to get that trophy.

So if the king is walking underneath a balcony, but the effect/trophy is fixed at a hurt king, you don't use the sheer compellingness of a falling vase to kill the king off before the sport warrants. But you did just hurt a king with a vase, nice move!

I'm not entirely clear why we are discussing narration per se so intently, but there is another way to use the technique.  Once upon a time I managed to get a character summarily slain by the GM, but was allowed to "talk my way out of it" if I came up with a good story/rationalisation before the end of the session.

Now this is not narration as right as right; this is narration as duty.  Its similar to the lunch money example except that in lunch money there is no authority deciding that your narration is good enough or otherwise.  In this structure, the effect is established systematically, and the cause subsequently rationalised.

I think we need to clarify what is meant by narration. It might seem were just discussing narration, stuff like describing how pretty the clouds are in the game world. But when it comes to an address of premise, you just narrate that, right? Yet that sort of narration gets alot of attention, theory wise. And it's alot different from just describing some clouds. The narration for address of challenge is as different from cloud narration as the address of premise narration is different from it. The problem may be this: For address of premise, if you don't value the other persons address of premise, it's no different from cloud narration to you. The same goes for address of challenge...you don't value it as such an address, it just looks like alot of emphasis on cloud narration.

Your example is similar, in that the survival state is preset and the cause is yet to be determined. However, the words "if I came up with a good story/rationalisation", particularly the word 'good', means it's a "don't make your own address, guess/explore for my address of challenge instead and I will allow your PC's survival".

From Are these two things incompatible?

Tony wrote:

Sean wrote: I once used a lowly Pyrotechnics spell to escape from Asmodeus' throne room, which was anti-magicked against spells 3rd level and up, but not against 1st and 2nd level spells, by making a big cloud of smoke and running.

Except (and I really don't want to undercut the wonderful memory of your foiling Asmodeus with a mere cloud of smoke) all of that works only, and exactly, when the GM allows it to work.  There are no rules either forbidding or denying Asmodeus to see through smoke... or, more likely (I don't remember all that well) there are many, many rules that show that Asmodeus absolutely would see through the smoke, and the GM seamlessly ignored those rules in favor of your creativity.

So it seems to me that what you're asking is "How do I get that thrilling feeling of having my ideas validated by the GM, who judges whether they're worthy of success, in a game where the GM has his own agenda?"  Does that sound just about right?

You're drawing two extreme viewpoints clearly:

• You can force somebody to accept your address of premise/challenge, no matter how hard they kick and scream
• You can't influence anyone to accept your address of premise/challenge, no matter how hard you kick and scream.

But aren't you excluding the middle?  In most cases, you don't have either 100% control or 0% control... you have, maybe, 20% give or take.  Which isn't everything, but isn't nothing either.  Where does that fit?

Hi Tony,

The hurdle to over come here is 'I need to have control of the game/what other people think, in order to make an address of challenge'

The middle ground is not about control at all.  It's that everyone else at the table don't have to agree with the address, just absorb the address. That's it.

Sadly the last thirty years of design seem to revolve around the idea that everyone has to agree with an address, for it to remain part of play. Can you imagine narrativist play where everyone had to agree with your address, for it to be part of play? And if they don't agree, it gets chucked and you have to make another one till you get it right? That's either sim or typhoid mary syndrome.

The problem has been that when others disagreed with an address, someone via control of the rules (usually the GM's) would get the address got turfed. This leads to the conclusion that if you want to make an address of challenge, you need to get that control. Which is a valid conclusion with this set up. If you don't have control, the address gets swept away and no one will absorb it.

But what actually needs to be enabled is disagreement without the removal of the address. Otherwise there is no way to challenge the perceptions of other players. You can say the world is round, but if that address is swept aside, then all those flat world thinkers are never going to have to deal with the idea of a round world. If the round world idea is kept in play, they can disagree all they like, as long as they aren't allowed to just dismiss the idea by having it swept out of sight and out of mind.

The big issue with gamism seems to be "But that'll just lead to dumb addresses of challenge being in play if no force can be employed."
To which I hold up the narrativist mirror:
"Just like an address of premise that suffers no force, leads to dumb addresses of premise being in play"

The only time it'll lead to dysfunctional addresses are from people who don't give a fuck about the agenda.

Callan wrote:
The middle ground is not about control at all.  It's that everyone else at the table don't have to agree with the address, just absorb the address. That's it.

Do you mean the third view can and is used in play?

I'll have to ask a question to answer it. Can and is "Everybody can have some control over whether address is accepted or not." used in narrativist play?

If we take it that gamist address of challenge mirrors narrativist address of premise, then the answer to the above question also applies to gamism. Currently my own answer to the above question is that it will not lead to healthy narrativist play.

Yes, everyone can have some control over whether an address of premise is accepted or not.  I have seen this lead to healthy narrativist play.

Okay, gotcha. Did the healthy play involve questioning the realism of a players address, to determine if it's accepted "No, your guys a priest and priests never do that" or "That's completely against how you've played Jake all this time!" or "I'm the GM and I think it'd be more realistic if Jake did (insert GM's own address of premise for Jake, here)"

Or is it more along the lines of "Ummm, yeah, but remember this guy scarred your sisters face! Your going to just let him walk away?" or even stronger "Dude, he killed a whole town! My PC Jake would never let him live! What is up with your guy!? Come on, explain again how he could let him live given these facts!". Or perhaps like "Well, that was interesting, but what if the bad guy turned out to be a woman...and pregnant? Now what?"

Also I'd like to pin how were using the word 'accepted'. When I've used it here I mean that it is kept as part of the games recorded structure. Like if you were writing down each players input into the game, 'accepted' means that it stays on the record. Not accepted would mean it would be struck from the record.

Basically that means getting crediblity for the input. But I really want to keep seperate the ideas of crediblity and peer evaluation. In that getting credibility for you own input doesn't mean others have chosen to give it positive peer evaluation/chosen to agree with it. And in the same way, if you give someone else credibility for their input, it doesn't mean you've also granted them possitive peer evaluation/agreed with them. Getting crediblity does not mean automatic success at the peer evaluation level.

You can probably see I'm leading heavily here; in seperating cred from positive peer evaluation, a challenge is created.

I don't do any of that stuff in your first few paragraphs any more.  Seriously.  Why debate what "should" happen?  Go to the rules system and figure out what does happen.

Things go like this:  "I will prove my hero's worth by saving Penny Stilton from the vile Doctor Mold's evil cheese-mold death-trap!"  "Wow!  That would be really cool!  But y'know what?  No.  You don't.  Gamma Jack flies in and saves her instead, shaming you utterly, in the following manner.  Why?  Because I've got the resources, the dice are favoring me, and I like my own idea better than yours."

I don't think this addresses your issues of Credibility vs. Peer review, and I'm sorry about that.  I get the feeling that we're coming at this from distinct, but not irreconcilabe, angles.  That makes it hard for me to know how to map my real-life experiences to the theory constructs in a way that will communicate the same thing to both of us.  I'm hoping that after a bit more talking we'll be able to address those issues without confusion.

I'm callin' it, guys. This topic is in serious need of an actual play context. Go post there and link back to this one to provide background.

Best,
Ron