So I had this little flash, reading Darcy post here about wanting a Monster Manual of typical adversaries.  My game should have this, and it doesn't even have combat rules.

But the game does have adversaries, and there are a lot of archetypes from high school as to how adversity is projected.  For instance, I could totally have "Heathers" (from the movie of the same name) as a monster-type:  Heather:  High popularity, defends with dismissal and apathy, attacks the weakest available target through deception, vulnerable to honesty and passion, appears in groups of 2-4.

I think the monster manual is a technique for what Sydney recently described on the Unistat thread:  scenario generation.  Looking at the examples that he gives of systems with scenario generation, I notice that MLWM definitely doesn't have a monster manual.  Apart from categories like "Brain" and "Breeder," there isn't much description of the types of elements that you use to make up a situation.

DitV, on the other hand, actually has a monster manual hidden throughout its pages!  It's got all these lovely subtle pointers that read "Pride can enter into Stewardship when ..." and then lists a juicy chunk of adversity.  During Town Creation you select a bunch of adversaries from the monster manual (or make up your own) and arrange them relative to each other.

So here's the manifold questions for the thread:

• I know people will be unable to resist listing monsters for a high school game.  I'll probably be unable to do so as well.
• What mechanics are needed to describe how monsters vary from one another in terms of providing adversity?  What are the important differences?
• What type of structure should they be arranged in?  Can a high school story situation be developed on a single template (as with the Town Creation rules in DitV) or does it require the ability to draw different patterns of story-connection between monsters (as with the dungeon-mapping rules in D&D)?

I expect to have a lot of input into this thread.  It's probably going to be one of those threads like in the good old days of designing Capes where I say a lot of "That's a great idea for a high school game, but not for this one.  You totally have to design that game though!"  So feel free to post something you think would work, even if you don't know whether it's what I'd do.  I'll tell ya.

Hey, Tony.

I'm neck-deep in FLFS' Situation Building mechanics right now, and the thing that I am finding of utmost importance is linking the adversity to the PCs in a significant way.  In D&D, a monster just has to be in physical proximity -- in the same room -- in order for there to be conflict.  Not so outside of the highly-contrived dungeon setting.  Outside the dungeon, adversity needs to have a connection or potential connection to the PCs.  You see this handled in Dogs by making every named character want something from the Dogs.

So to take your Heathers example, are they predators that will want to prey on the PCs, allies that will want to support them, equals who will want to barter with them, etc?  Or it may be more worthwhile to approach it from a less explicit angle, by listing off what each type of adversity wants, and then hardwiring into the situation creation rules the overlookable fact that the PCs have the thing that the adversity wants.

TonyLB wrote:
I know people will be unable to resist listing monsters for a high school game. ...What mechanics are needed to describe how monsters vary from one another in terms of providing adversity?

Joshua wrote: I'm neck-deep in FLFS' Situation Building mechanics right now, and the thing that I am finding of utmost importance is linking the adversity to the PCs in a significant way.  In D&D, a monster just has to be in physical proximity -- in the same room -- in order for there to be conflict.  Not so outside of the highly-contrived dungeon setting.

Joshua wrote: So to take your Heathers example, are they predators that will want to prey on the PCs, allies that will want to support them, equals who will want to barter with them, etc?  Or it may be more worthwhile to approach it from a less explicit angle, by listing off what each type of adversity wants, and then hardwiring into the situation creation rules the overlookable fact that the PCs have the thing that the adversity wants.

Right, Tony.

Here's how I'm formulating it in FLFS: Situations are built out of Conflicts.  Conflicts are constructed of a character desire and an obstacle to that desire.  NPCs (which may or may not be people -- non-furniture sets and props qualify) can be that obstacle, at which point they're an antagonist, or the object of desire, at which point they're the victim, or involved in some other way but still attached to the PCs by dint of specifically being a character foil.

FLFS has a heavy emphasis on character exploration, though, and I dunno what Misery Bubblegum's specific emphasis is.  Your desired and undesired beliefs sound close -- you just need to put a little finer point on it and you'll be golden.

Unfortunately, I'm not so sure.  The more I think about this, the more there is to think about.

D&D Monsters and Dogs NPCs share a quality that (for instance) Sorceror Bangs do not:  They can be applied to any PC, or all of them, or some subset.  They're player independent.

A big-ass dragon swoops in to breath fire at the party.  The Mage says "Swords are no use here!  I will fight this creature of magic with magic!  Make for the bridge!" and (in certain buffed out D&D campaigns) everybody says "Sure thing!  We'll guard the hobbits!"

A big-ass dragon swoops in to breath fire at the party.  The Paladin says "Sorcery is no use here!  I will fight this creature with steel and virtue!  Make for the bridge!"  Same damn thing.

A woman comes crying and falls in the mud before the Dogs.  "Please, I beg of you, do something for my husband!  These accusations against him are false, they have to be!"  One of the Dogs says "I never could bear to see a woman cry.  It's my partic'lar weakness.  You boys go talk with the Steward, I'll deal with this," and everybody says "Sure thing!  We'll guard the hobbits!"  Same damn thing.

But that's now a Sorceror Bang (which is part of their power):  that's when a woman comes crying and falls in the mud before the Dogs and says "Brother Joseph, at last you've returned!  I've waited these many years, let suitors pass me by, let my womanhood weigh heavy on the vine, because I knew you would keep your word!" and everybody looks at Joseph like "Wow dude, it's all you!"

Now me, I like the story ammunition that applies to anybody.  You can throw them into a room of players like a hand grenade, and you're pretty much assured of hitting someone, even if you can't pick your target.  But the way I formulated things above, you're pretty well committed to targetting an individual player.  So let me try another way.  What if... what if each player figures out something they want to prove about themselves in a given session.  Like Veronica can want to prove that she's a good person.  She wants somebody to either believe that or try their damndest to refute it and fail (both as stepping stones toward believing it herself). 

NPCs, on the other hand, have an agenda of "I need to show that somebody is X."  Where X can be things like "Inferior to me" (Heather) or "Better dead than alive" (JD) or "Honest and decent" (Winifred Birkle ... poor Fred).

Now, interestingly, Veronica is going to avoid Winifred like the plague.  I mean, it doesn't prove anything if Fred thinks you're a good person!  Fred thinks Beelzebub is just misunderstood!  The more confident she is, the more Veronica is naturally going to gravitate toward people who have opposing agendas, because proving herself to them is the greater accomplishment.

What I like is that people can mix-and-match two not-exacty-opposing agendas in interesting ways:  Say you want to prove that you're tough and bad and nasty.  The GM presents three NPCs:

• Josie needs to show that somebody is a total hypocrite.
• Theodore needs to show that somebody believes in his ability to lead.
• Rex needs to show that somebody respects him for more than his sports abilities.

I see possible plots entangling the tough/bad/nasty character (who I will name Spike, because ... yeah) with any of these, in a variety of ways.  I think my particular favorite is where Spike respects Rex immensely for his sports abilities, and therefore wants to beat him up (to prove himself), while Rex just wants to get it through Spike's thick head that he's more than a jock.  That one sounds like it would be awfully plaintive, and might actually end up with both of them gaining their objective (and becoming a strange sort of friends) or both losing their objectives (and hating each other much more).

Is the distinction I'm drawing here (between targetted and untargetted story munitions) one that makes sense as I've explained it?  Does this look closer to achieving that goal?

I think a mix of PC-specific and PC-irrespective is best. I think the idea of choosing something they must prove about themselves is a good one and allows both. You could have something specific like "I am better at maths than [whoeve]" while you could make it less specific by changing it to "I am better at maths than anyone else in the class" and to the "grenade" you metnion by having it as "I am better at maths than anyone else in the school". Mix that with someone who wants to prove that the other person isn't very smart for example and you have one "open" agenda and one "closed" one.

As for actually making a "Monster Manual" you could go about it many ways. The simplest solution is a mix of archetypes such as Jock, Geek or Slacker each with a bunch of ready-made goals like "I'm better at ___ than ___". A more complex soluation is listing certain character typs, each with sample lists, that you pick more than one of. So you might have an NPC choose the "Bully", "Punk" and "Joke" types/aspects/whatever. This means their particular agenda for the session or day would try and incorporate 2 or 3 of those at once. Where a bully would just give people wedgies for the heck of it the NPC outlined above would do say very theatrically trying to show people that he is a punk and bully as an example. You could have something like Sydney suggested though and take my idea one step further. You'd have 3 pairings of a Skill and Want basically. So an NPC might be good at Maths, good at Biology and good and Physics while they want to "prove" they are good at them and other subjects. It's not sounding good now that I got it out but it's an idea. Having a list of "Skills" that are static and "Wants" that change each session based on Skills sounds like an OK idea to me though. Think of it like the sims except always relating to school.

That sounds like some good explosive ingredients to throw into a pressure cooker and shake real hard, Tony.  My only query on it is the implied preference for the player-character to succeed in their goal.  You say:

TonyLB wrote: What if... what if each player figures out something they want to prove about themselves in a given session.  Like Veronica can want to prove that she's a good person.  She wants somebody to either believe that or try their damndest to refute it and fail (both as stepping stones toward believing it herself).

Saxon:  Something you said (particularly, targetting the desires as "I am better X than Y") actually combined in my head with something Joshua said ... so this is sort of a response to both of you.

Joshua:  Yes, asking questions about yourself is very high school, isn't it?  I'd almost be tempted to open each session (ritually) by having each person clearly and distinctly ask their question of the group.

And the adversaries are pure antagonists precisely when the story doesn't reveal them as having any of those doubts:  when they aren't seen as sharing in that common ground.

What if... protagonists want an answer to a question about themselves ("Am I a good person?") and antagonists want to pin some statement on another person ("You are a loser")?  The antagonists would actually be forbidden from stating goals that refer to themselves.  They can't say "You are too weak-willed to resist my charms," they have to say "You are weak-willed."

Now the adversaries are almost certainly trying to answer their own questions.  It's really "Am I a loser?  No, you are a loser," or "Am I a bad person because I don't like you?  No, you're a loser," or "Am I unique?  Yes, I'm stylish and you are (wait for it) a loser."  But who cares about them, seriously?  You only realize that they were teenagers like you at some later date (like 20th high school reunion).

Okay, I kid.  I think there would be a lot of room in the system to have people really start hating (say) Cordelia, but then eventually get a better sense of why she does what she does.  What I like, particularly, is that even when you figure out why Cordie wants to prove that you're a loser ... you still don't like it.  You can understand without accepting.

Now just pipe the reward system into answering questions about yourself, and you're good to go.

Joshua wrote: In D&D, a monster just has to be in physical proximity -- in the same room -- in order for there to be conflict.  Not so outside of the highly-contrived dungeon setting.  Outside the dungeon, adversity needs to have a connection or potential connection to the PCs. 

Hmmm. So maybe we need a three-dimensional click-and-lock. Whereas Capes had Powers/Abilities + Persona (which, n.b., are mechanically equivalent except for the "earns debt/no debt" toggle), Misery Bubblegum may need something richer, where each "monster" is assembled from

1) Motive -- what they want from the player-characters (in Tony's formulation, "I want to prove somebody is X," this is the X)
2) Means -- how they go about getting what they want (the Jock is physical, the Popular Girl/Boy is social, the Geek is intellectual, etc.)
3) Opportunity -- the arena in which they pursue what they want, which is what brings them into contact with the player-characters in the first place, which in turn controls who they try to get what they want from. (In "I want to prove somebody is X," this is how you specify the "somebody").

#3 is my little bit of innovative thinking for the day. It can be location-based things like "we're in the same class," "our lockers are next to each other," "we take the same bus to school," or "we live on the same block"; it can be activity-based things like "we're both trying out for the school play" or "we both hang out smoking behind the school." (Though these are all really a mix of location and activity, just with different emphases). It can be backstory-based too, which is perhaps the most interesting: "we were best friends in 5th grade" or "she was the first person I ever kissed" or "I am your father, really I am."

where each "monster" is assembled from

1) Motive -- what they want from the player-characters (in Tony's formulation, "I want to prove somebody is X," this is the X)
2) Means -- how they go about getting what they want (the Jock is physical, the Popular Girl/Boy is social, the Geek is intellectual, etc.)
3) Opportunity -- the arena in which they pursue what they want, which is what brings them into contact with the player-characters in the first place, which in turn controls who they try to get what they want from. (In "I want to prove somebody is X," this is how you specify the "somebody").

joepub wrote: Like maybe Heather has threshholds like (moderate loss of popularity/minor put downs/moderate use of cruelty.) And if any of these things are hit, Heather ditches her current goals.

joepub wrote: Like maybe Heather has threshholds like (moderate loss of popularity/minor put downs/moderate use of cruelty.) And if any of these things are hit, Heather ditches her current goals.

Okay, folks, sell me on why we need any of these to be separate.  I'm going to go as far into Devil's Advocate mode as I can here, and make the argument that we don't need any of these things.  But, really, this is by way of a question:  I'm not yet seeing the appeal of these.  You do, and I trust you guys to have some good reasons.  Let's get them out there for everyone to contempalte.

So, devil's advocate:  Let's say Heather is there to provide adversity of the "You are a loser" school.  In Sydney's formulation, that's her Motive.

Why do we need to represent Means?  Her Means for hurting you is to say "You are a loser."  It's motive and means.  Obviously she has to be popular.  The head of the computer-club (which I was, so I can say this!) cannot call anyone a loser.  She is a popular girl, and her opinion on who is a loser bears weight.

Why do we need to represent Opportunity?  Her Opportunity for hurting you is to say "You are a loser."  Any time when that could be said, and hurt (i.e. you slip in the cafeteria and spill things on yourself) she's there.  How could she not be there?

Why do we need Threshold?  Her Threshold is ... hell, I'm with Joshua.  It's fictional High School.  There are no thresholds.  Heather will never get tired, and she will never get embarrassed, and she absolutely will not stop until you are a loser.

What you're saying makes sense to me, Tony. If they're pure adversity, you just need

- who they are (name, 'popular girl')
- the kind of adversity they present for you
- the mechanical measure of #2

So Heather, Popular Girl, Wants Everyone To Think You're A Loser, 6d6 (or whatever). That's almost as short as Goblin, HD 1-1, HP 3, AC 7 - just the way I like my adversity, short and sweet and to the point. Just different material to engage with here.

Earlier on this thread I got this funny idea. You know how in fantasy games we often break things down into physical, magical, and social conflict? Well: jocks compete physically, nerds compete mentally, and normal kids, popular or otherwise, compete sociosexually.

Fair enough.

I was just suggesting that they have motives and venues for initiating a conflict... and that maybe some would have motives and venues for EXITING those conflicts too?

Like realizing that you're in over your head?

That was where the thought was coming from. But good point - and it would probably be a counterproductive mechanic.

TonyLB wrote: You do, and I trust you guys to have some good reasons.  Let's get them out there for everyone to contempalte.

The difference between one round of back-and-forth in an ongoing conflict (Bono smacks Ender around in the hallway) and the closure of the entire conflict, finished, done with.  Yes?

That's a good point.  In D&D terms there's this lovely little "They're out of HPs now, so they're not adversity any more" mechanic, but the breaking point is nowhere near as clear in high school.  Conflict is not often (Heathers example notwithstanding) resolved by the opponent being physically unable to continue the fight, but by being sapped of drive, or reputation, or ... well, generally story importance.

TonyLB wrote:
The difference between one round of back-and-forth in an ongoing conflict (Bono smacks Ender around in the hallway) and the closure of the entire conflict, finished, done with.  Yes?

That's a good point.  In D&D terms there's this lovely little "They're out of HPs now, so they're not adversity any more" mechanic, but the breaking point is nowhere near as clear in high school.  Conflict is not often (Heathers example notwithstanding) resolved by the opponent being physically unable to continue the fight, but by being sapped of drive, or reputation, or ... well, generally story importance.

The reason why you "need" a venue or means for the adversity to express is because planning that out is part of the scenario generation that you want to use this monster manual for.  That is, if your monster manual is just a list of archetypes that could be used, then you don't need anything outside of a title and a general description.  However, if you want this to be a tool to generate scena... okay, I'm changing the wording.  However, if you want this to be a tool to generate situation, you need a means to go from that generalized name-and-description into a very concrete and specific expression of that adversity and how it will be expressed in your game at your table.

That said, I don't think the best way to do this is a list of archetypes and their typical means of action.  As you pointed out Tony, you can start with the archetype or even the statement that they want to make and then elaborate details until you have a moderately fleshed out character with which to express that adversity.  I think you sitting down and formalizing that procedure would be far more useful than a big ol' list.  Town Creation rules, except it's School Creation rules.

I'm not advocating a "threshold" mechanic, either, at least not separate from any "story importance hitpoints" characters have generally. But, the other stuff, I stand by.

TonyLB wrote: Okay, folks, sell me on why we need any of these to be separate

The head of the computer-club (which I was, so I can say this!) cannot call anyone a loser.

TonyLB wrote: Let's say Heather is there to provide adversity of the "You are a loser" school.  In Sydney's formulation, that's her Motive....Her Means for hurting you is to say "You are a loser."  It's motive and means.....Her Opportunity for hurting you is to say "You are a loser."  Any time when that could be said, and hurt (i.e. you slip in the cafeteria and spill things on yourself) she's there.  How could she not be there?

P.S.: To engage in ubergeekness myself:

The Computer Club president is like a high-altitude anti-aircraft SAM battery: You're screwed if you get in range, but you can avoid him easily. The Jock is like a B-52 bomber: He can pound you flat, but you can see him coming, and there are places you can hide. The Heather is like an F/A-22 stealth fighter with supercruise, beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles, and side-scanning ground-attack radar: She can get you anytime, anywhere, before you ever realized she was there.

See the differentiation? See how tactical crunch can drive story? A simple, undifferentiated system just can't do that.

Sydney, are these categories meant to be fixed and objective?  Or are they patterns that emerge from iterating the basic question "Whose opinion do you care about?" across each individual student?  If a Goth-writer-chick really, genuinely, doesn't care how people see her ... well then, she's invulnerable to even a Heather.  And if a whole bunch of Goth-writer-folk really, genuinely, don't care how the "norms" see them, but care intently about how they are seen by people inside their own clique, then they're invulnerable to attack from without (but intensely vulnerable to betrayal from within).  And, in fact, this is geekdom's great defense:  it helps people to not care about the opinions of people who don't care for them.

But this isn't because the Goth-writer-chick is fundamentally immune to a Heather's charm.  If, for some reason, she begins to care about Heather's opinion then she can be hurt by Heather's scorn as easily as the neediest social climber.  If the Goth-writer-chick falls for some cute guy and Heather (cunning little thing!) notices this and offers to help her become popular and catch the new kid's eye ... well, you guys know how this ends, right?  Hope leads to vulnerability, pain and growth.  Despair and apathy lead to safety and stasis.

Are we disagreeing, or on the same page?

TonyLB wrote: Sydney, are these categories meant to be fixed and objective?  Or are they patterns that emerge from iterating the basic question "Whose opinion do you care about?" across each individual student?

Well, let me propose another way of building significance:  linking items together.

I was watching the recent Peter Pan movie (which is totally a proto-teen drama).  Peter has a question he's trying to answer:  "Am I loved?"  Wendy has a question:  "Am I growing up?"  And, on their own, neither of those questions is tremendously interesting.  They don't engage each other.

But Peter proposes a syllogism:  "If you love me then you won't grow up."  Which, of course, also implies its contrapositive: "If you grow up then you don't love me."  And then things get absolutely freakin' brilliant.

And, of course, once that link is in place "I'm growing up" is not a markedly different statement from "I can fight pirates."  The implications make them different.  I think that you can analyze the Heather-vs.-Goth thing in much the same way:  Heather can say "You are a loser" all she wants if that has no implications that the Goth chick cares about.  But when somebody proposes "If you are a loser then New Kid won't like you," then suddenly "You are a loser" takes on different meaning.

I personally like the idea of linking things together. I'm not sure of the scope of the game, as in is it meant to be a lengthy play or a short time with specific goals.  If it is the latter then what the "monsters" do against the protagonists, (or protagonist vs protagonsists) could be relevant to the characters.  I.E. computer club pres has a goal, that's to feel accepted and in charge of his niche. Antagonists (or other protagonists) have a goal of mainly "make others feel bad" or "make myself feel better" with each class of antagonist having specific means that that is acheived.  Heathers need to make others feel bad to assure themselves of their place, anything they can do to make another person feel bad achieves their goal.  Thus against computer club pres if she makes him feel like he is no longer accepted or in charge of his group she is rewarded.  The role of the antagonists would mainly be to undermine the goals of the protagonists.  I achieve (my goal) by making you fail at (your goal). 

If players take on differeing roles then their goals may come against each other.  Computer club president may actually achieve his goal by ostracizing goth writer in front of the computer club, if his goal is to "feel accepted and in charge".  In this instance protagonists are against each other, but that is sometimes the nature of the high school jungle.

Are teachers, parents, and principals monsters too?

So, would a Heather gain a bonus to alienating enemies... for all other Heathers around? That sort of thing?

Because I imagine some antagonists rely solely on strength in numbers, while others probably rely on opportunity, and others on other circumstances.... etc...

TonyLB wrote:
Well, let me propose another way of building significance:  linking items together....[into] a syllogism:  "If you love me then you won't grow up."  Which, of course, also implies its contrapositive: "If you grow up then you don't love me."  ....when somebody proposes "If you are a loser then New Kid won't like you," then suddenly "You are a loser" takes on different meaning.