Here’s one problem I've had repeatedly running Accomplishments. It’s especially sorry because the Accomplishment should, imo, present the genius resolution mechanic to its best instead of making it seem awkward where it really isn’t.

Here’s the problem: players frequently didn’t get into the vibe of “I am my character as he is”, and I have trouble explaining it to them. The most prominent example:

Player: “Okay, I want to learn to swim.”
Me: “Right, so you are your character as he is, who, um, cannot swim, and I’m your instructor, trying to teach you. So it’s a misty morning. You’ve gone down to a stream outside Bridal Falls City where no-one will see you. You both undress to your underwear. (We roll the dice.) Your instructor is wading into the cold clear water. She gestures for you to follow her. (Put forth raise.)”
Player: “So, why don’t I just give? Why should I want to not learn to swim?”
Me: “Um… dunno… I guess you shouldn’t because this is meant to teach us the rules… Let’s just keep it going a little, ok?”
Player: “Ok…”
It went back and forth a little, but since the player didn’t want to escalate and didn’t have any traits of use in this particular situation, it was over quickly anyhow. It just felt… awkward.

Got any ideas on this? How can it be avoided?

- Frank

Hey Frank.

"I want to learn to swim" is a straightforward accomplishment, don't reverse roles on it. The player takes the side of the character learning to swim, the GM takes the side of the water and the waves and the PC's fear.

What you need to work out, as GM, is when an accomplishment conflict is straightforward and when it calls for reversal. As best I can tell, they call for reversal when they're moral growth, and rarely or never otherwise. "I want to learn to swim" - straightforward. "I want to learn to trust my teachers" - reverse.

Here's a technique you can use. Assume that the conflict's straightforward, with the player taking the Dog's side as normal. If a) you can easily come up with a raise against the accomplishment, and b) the player can easily come up with a raise toward the accomplishment, then play it straightforward.

Does that help?

-Vincent

Yeah, thanks, Vincent. I'm sure the conflict would have worked much better that way. Don't know where I got the notion it had to be reversed. I'll go and re-read that passage in the book.

- Frank

Just to point something out that I thought of: not every scenario of personal growth needs the 'reversal' technique. Quite a lot of them work fine in straightforward ways. Some even work either way. I think the key to it all is what does the player/character really want?

A bit of a modern example, but I think it makes my point rather well: Alfred is a smoker. The accomplishment is "I hope Alfred stopped smoking." You could play this out either way. Straightforward, it becomes a matter of your willpower versus a bunch of temptations, withdrawal symptoms, etc. Or you could reverse it, and have the player want to keep smoking while his family nags at him, laws get passed against smoking, etc.

Again, I feel the key lies in what your player really wants. Does he want to write "I stopped smoking ALL BY MYSELF!" as his new trait, or would he be much happier writing "I was forced to quit smoking"?

And a very simple way of seeing that you need to switch sides in the conflict is what you showed with this one: if the player can get what he wants by giving the first chance he gets, then you're on the wrong sides.