I sum up my concern in the Hogwarts 90210 Actual Play thread.  Super-executive summary:  It's more fun for someone to have an opinion ("Sydney's a double agent") than for them to share in public knowledge ("Of course she's a double agent.  We all knew that.")

Right now, Misery Bubblegum's Opinion mechanic works like this:

• When people roll their dice, some of those dice end up in their "Opinion Pool."  They can't spend their own color dice from their Opinion pool.  The only thing (initially) that they can do is to give it away, or offer it as a bribe to another player.  It's personalized Fan Mail, with some teeth for bribing folks:  "You get this die from me if your character doesn't say another word before walking out the door."
• So, because people can give their dice to your Opinion pool, you'll have dice from different people (tracked by distinctive colors) all mixed up in your pool.  You can't spend yours, but you can spend theirs.  You can either (a) spend them to give yourself an advantage (yay!), just like you'd spend your own dice or (b) give them straight back to the player they belong to (and into the pool they can spend from), in order to form an Opinion about that player's character.
• More dice can be given back (same as above) to make the Opinion stronger, both narratively ("I'm absolutely certain!") and mechanically ("This lets you reroll three points worth of dice, not just one!")
• Once you've formed an Opinion about someone you can use it to reroll dice in conflicts (to your advantage, against them, etc.).  They can also use it to reroll dice, but only by giving you another die from their Opinion pool.  So the more they play to the Opinion, the more power they give you to form important Opinions about them.  You want to pick Opinions that they're interested in exploring, so as to get the best return from your investment.

So, here it is in hypotheical action:

Corwin shows up at Flora's house.  He has amnesia, not that he's letting on about that, but he does.  He gives Flora some of his dice, because he wants to get them back into pools that he can roll from.

Flora forms opinion:  "Corwin wants the throne."  Corwin gets some dice back.  He is happy to play to that opinion, so he spends more dice using it to manipulate events.

Flora follows up with "Corwin is machiavellian and self-serving."  Corwin goes "eh."

A new player, Random, enters the mix.  He's a lot of fun, so Corwin gives him some dice.  Random forms the surprising (given the circumstances) opinion "Corwin can be a decent guy when he wants to."  Corwin finds himself intrigued.  He spends more dice.  Random increases that opinion.  Randoms sway over Corwin increases, Flora's sway over him lessens.

You touched on this briefly in your Actual Play post, but it seems to me that the danger of changing something from Opinion to Truth is that the conflict that was being driven by the Opinion will be resolved and may not be replaced with a new Conflict.  There's a risk of, at least a temporary, ratchetting down of tension in play.

Now, that's not actually necessarily a bad thing.  It may be good to have a bit of breathing space where you resolve something and then take some time to reconstruct the next conflict.  If that's something you want to pursue, then the buy-out options sounds great.  The buy-out dumpts tension in a massive resolution and provides everyone with resources to begin building a new conflict, but that's going to take some time.

If, on the other hand, you don't want that period of relaxation (well, relative relaxation, I'm sure there'll be other Opinions fighting it out out there) then it seems as if some other mechanic is called for.

I also think the idea of holding a clearly wrong opinion is kind of neat, but I would almost think it would have to be treated some other way mechanically.  A sort of denial of established truth seems like it could be kind of cool...

Thomas

TonyLB wrote:
And, also, what about opinions that are about to be proven false?  Can someone decline the offer to buy out, and keep their opinion even though it flies in the face of what everybody now knows?  That would be cool.  "By Jove, the earth is flat, and some day I'll PROVE IT!"

Doug wrote:
I'm a bit behind on the rules for this game, but isn't it still the case that something can be 'proven' and then disproven later? That the difference between an Opinion and the Truth is the difference between only a few people (or one person) having an opinion, and nearly everyone having the same opinion.

Buying out opinions might work, but you somehow already mentioned another idea:

If you're going to answer a question like that (as, for instance, Joss Whedon does very well) then the answer needs to raise lots of other, equally (or more) interesting questions.

Over in that playtest thread,

Joshua wrote:
On the whole I concur -- suspense is more interesting that knowledge.  However, the primary caveat I see to that is that knowledge is interesting when it is useful. [e.g.] If they could have used "Flavius is Gay 2d6" or whatever in some later scene....

First, off, on the "Sydney = her? = huh?" thing, I was talking about Sydney Bristow from Alias.

On the congealing Opinion into Truth, I agree completely.  The Truths need to be resources that mechanically inform later play.  I was sort of figuring that the strength of the Truth you create correlates directly to the total of Opinions that you need to offer to cash out in order to create it.  So if you want "Buffy and Spike are in a relationship" to be a big deal to the story, long-term, you can't just say "Okay, they're in a relationship now."  You've got to set it up so that, in order to say that, you've got to either confirm a lot of suspicion, or try to disabuse a lot of people of their mistaken beliefs, or both.

Spoiler Side-note:  The Buffy/Spike thing is great, because some Scoobies (particularly Xander) had two opinions, one about Buffy, one about Spike, and you clearly had to buy out one of them, but not necessarily both.  "Spike is worthless undead scum," and "Buffy only gets it on with the hero" can't both coexist with the Buffy/Spike relationship.  But either one of them can easily co-exist with that Truth, if the other opinion is trashed.

Likewise, if you want "Flavius is Gay" to be more than a blip in the story, you first have to spend the time to build up Opinion and uncertainty, so that the cost of buying out those Opinions is high.  Declaring it from a standing start would imply that it's unimportant.

Now, as to how to make these Truths inherently drive the next evolution of the story, I have some thoughts, but I think I'll listen to others for a while, before I charge on ahead any further.

TonyLB wrote:
First, off, on the "Sydney = her? = huh?" thing, I was talking about Sydney Bristow from Alias.

Tony,

This probably won't be the most helpful post you've ever had, but still.

I spent ages reading this thread, and the playtest thread, last night. I found it hard to understand the rules. After about 15 minutes, I think I understood what you were trying to do with the Opinions. I'm still not sure of the mechanism for buying out an opinion.

On the bright side, the reason I spent so long reading was because I really liked the ideas. It's incredibly powerful. I love the idea that other players can endow your character with attributes ("I think Barry is secretly gay", "I think Barry is a member of a religious cult that forbids fraternisation with the opposite sex"). And I also like the idea that I can choose which of those attributes I want to become reality.

It's very clever that everyone gets rewarded for this process: both the person who had the idea and me, for choosing which attribute I want my character to have. And I agree that, after it's been firmly established that Barry is gay, the reward process should stop. (Because, once we know Barry is gay, there's no interest in seeing him casting longing glances at men in the street)

Would you mind summarising for me - as though I'm a particularly stupid, slightly drunk player at a convention - what you're trying to achieve with these rules? And what the rules are - especially for buying out - in very simple terms?

Graham

Graham wrote:
Would you mind summarising for me - as though I'm a particularly stupid, slightly drunk player at a convention - what you're trying to achieve with these rules? And what the rules are - especially for buying out - in very simple terms?

Misery Bubblegum Playtest Alpha wrote: 1. What is the game about?

Misery Bubblegum is a game about looking at yourself through the eyes of other people.  In many games the opinions of other characters have only an indirect effect on your character (by motivating them to different actions). In Misery Bubblegum, the opinions of other people are solid, mechanical truths. These opinions have as much direct impact on what your character can do as (say) her own native abilities ... and far more impact than her opinion of herself.  At its core, Misery Bubblegum is about the breathless gamble of making yourself vulnerable. When other people can control you and hurt you then they can also free you. They can save you.

2. What do the characters do?

Characters worry about who they are and what other people think of them. They act to try to influence those opinions, or even just to discover something about themself. They try to make a life and an identity for themselves that they can be happy with.

Along the way, they learn things about themselves that may mean that they can no longer be happy being the person they first set out to become, or that they can be happy being someone they’d never imagined. That’s a good thing. It’s the corner-stone of building maturity.  Characters will often also face external problems or opportunities: they may fight the undead, or pilot gigantic fighting robots, or scheme to take over their ancestral home in the center of the multiverse. All of this is great, great stuff as long as it constantly provides new angles to examine what’s important in the game: what your character thinks of herself, what other people think of her, and what she thinks of other people.

3.  What do players do?

Players decide what characters need. They decide whether their own character needs to succeed or fail, to feel good or bad, at this stage of their quest for themself.  They also decide the same thing for every other character.

Players decide, absolutely, what their character thinks of other characters. This is their main tool for trying to give other characters what they need.

Players create fragments of situation (an enemy here, a case of mistaken identity there) and try to get other people interested enough to entangle these fragments into their own problems and goals. If the player succeeds at this then they gain more resources for putting their character through the wringer. Players make their character vulnerable, and try to get other people interested enough to confuse, hurt and (maybe) comfort the character. If the player succeeds at this then they gain more resources to create fragments of situation.

Tony,

This will be short, but...  If you want to ensure that truths only get formed about stuff people care about, how about some sort of system by which the mechanical power of a truth is related to the opinions it buys out?  Two ways this could go: 1) It's got power related to the number of dice it cost to buy, or 2) It has breadth within the game based on the specific opinions it did buy out.  Does that make sense?

Thomas

I have to agree with Doug Ruff, I don’t think the game is well served by Truth.

We like to think Truth with a capital T exists, but all we have in the real world is opinions and observations.

You may have thought that you “made it infinitely clear beyond any shadow of a doubt that Flavius was in fact gay”, but I don’t think you did. What occurred could easily be explained if someone cast an “excitable boy” spell at the right moment. There was an upper class girl (named Stephanie?) who called all of us (including Flavius) losers. I suspect she may have had a problem with Flavius which required her to “prove” he was gay. All pure conjecture, but a valid narrative that I/Glenda would have “proved” given time.

Many times have we seen “proof” that someone is a bad guy in the Harry Potter series, only to find out later that more is going on than was originally revealed. Professor Snapes is an obvious example.

Would establishing concrete “Truth” improve Harry Potter or Misery Bubblegum? Not in my opinion.

Shawn, you sound like you think you're arguing against somebody here.  If that's the case, can you make it clear who you think that is?

1of3 wrote:

If you're going to answer a question like that (as, for instance, Joss Whedon does very well) then the answer needs to raise lots of other, equally (or more) interesting questions.

So what about giving out free opinions, when a Truth is reveled? Or perhaps making up new opinions cheaper, when they build upon a Truth.

Joshua wrote:
I'm going to have to agree, here: iterative complexity beats final resolution any day.  Well, in the land of serial entertainment, at least.

Makes sense, Tony.  I might add a further goad that creating new, related Opinions right then and there happens at a discount or something, but it's just that: a goad.  Is it painfully obvious that spending your pay-off on forming new Opinions is a better buy?  Is it convenient to buy new Opinions in the heat of the moment, or is there some systemic way that those Opinions can be related to the revealed Truth?  If both of those are 'yes', then you have no need of the goad.

Joshua:  I'm inclined to think (inspired by Thomas) that the difference between creating a bunch of Opinions right now and creating a bunch of Opinions after a voluntary pause and period of relaxation is primarily a pacing issue.

The difference between creating a bunch of Opinions right now and not creating them at all, that would be much more serious.  But I don't think that a goad needs to be immediate in order to make sure that people make these connections eventually.

Particularly, I've been thinking that a good goad (liking that word!) toward further Opinions would be to have a parallel track of relationship development for Needs.  As I pointed out in the Actual Play, I think that desire and need have a very similar pattern:  having the unfulfilled desire is cool, having fulfilled the desire is not so driving.  So you could use a similar (though certainly not identical) mechanic.

What fascinates me is how Need and Opinion intertwine.  Shawn pointed to Stephanie, who was a character that I simply whipped up to be obnoxious.  He registered her as having some need that was driving her to put forth the opinion that Flavius was gay.  That's cool, how powerful that assumption is.  Likewise, the existence of the Opinion about Flavius had a substantial impact on whether Shawn decided that his character Glenda had a Need for Flavius's attention.  That kind of thing happens all the time, of course.

Now, while Opinions are bought out when they're either confirmed or denied, the Needs that interacted with those Opinions do not get bought out at the same time.  So they're sitting there, suddenly placed into a powerfully new context.  That should (I think) drive formation of further Opinions, using the new Truth as a spring-board.  Likewise, when a Need is either resolved or abandoned, the Opinions that you formed to support or restrain the pursuit of that Need don't vanish, and they will drive formation of further Needs. 

So long as it is rare for people to have the dice on hand to resolve both items at the same time, I think that this leap-frogging style (Resolve Opinion, new Opinions fostered by Need, then you resolve the Need and the new Need is fostered by the Opinions that you just formed) will do a fairly good job of tying the material together without tying anyone to anything permanently.