Topic: Is popcorn necessary?
Started by: TonyLB
Started on: 7/31/2006
Board: Muse of Fire Games
On 7/31/2006 at 9:47pm, TonyLB wrote:
Is popcorn necessary?
So, our very own Hans coined the term "popcorn throwing" to generally cover any out-of-game social feedback of the "Oh, what you did totally sucks, take it back," variety. And since he's, y'know, trying to dominate the world or something, I felt obliged to credit him for the meme.
First things first: I do not, by any means, question that popcorn throwing works. I do not doubt that it can have an impact in every game, from Everway to chess and well beyond. Powerful stuff, and broadly applicable. It certainly can be used to rein in unwanted behavior in Capes.
That having been said: I almost never use that ... at least I'm not conscious of doing that. It is possible that some folks who have played with me will point out that I am doing it without being aware. But for the moment, I'm content to think that I almost never use this particular tactic.
Does that say something about the groups I play with? Are they all so darn cool that I would never be tempted to do that thing? Seems ... unlikely. I do a lot of random pick-up games at conventions. I will hold up the evidence of The Magical President of Magical Paraguay to support my suspicions that I get my fair share of people wandering off into left field.
Does my lack of popcorn prowess indicate something about me? Am I afraid to offend? Again ... seems unlikely.
My theory (and one I fully expect people to disagree with) is that popcorn throwing is only one of many useful tactics for dealing with unexpected creative contributions. I am saying that you can run a good game, with normal people who are not RPG-saints, and not throw popcorn. Agree? Disagree?
A little piece of my personal agenda, like an arsenic-laced cherry on top: I am confused, personally, about when popcorn throwing is legitimate. In many (indeed, most) of the examples I perceive an attitude that it's okay to throw popcorn because everyone at the table knows that a given input is bogus. Except, of course, that clearly can't be the case. The person who contribute the input thinks it's legitimate. Are we okay with saying that when, say, four out of five players thinks something is bogus, that majority can veto the right of the minority to express herself? How about when it's only two players out of three? When does "Everybody realizes it except you, because you're stupid," become a legitimate argument for silencing a player?
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 20552
Topic 20458
On 7/31/2006 at 10:31pm, Mark Woodhouse wrote:
Re: Is popcorn necessary?
Tony, I read "popcorn throwing" as covering a whole spectrum of behavior ranging from "NO. That's dumb." to "Are you sure?" to "Could we maybe do that like this instead?"
And while it's certainly possible in theory to manage that whole spectrum of communication solely through Capes cunning reward system, it seems kinda - antisocial?
On 7/31/2006 at 11:00pm, Bret Gillan wrote:
RE: Re: Is popcorn necessary?
I agree. I feel that there are specific instances where popcorn-throwing is the only way to deal with a problem (like the gentleman who tried to introduce tentacle sex into my family-friendly Capes con game), but those moments are instances of, "Whoa! WHOA! Hold on!" like the aforementioned egregious violation of social taboos. The more I play Capes, the more I realize that "popcorn-throwing" in the past has been the group trying to browbeat individuals into towing the party line and attempting to diminish the narrative power they share with the rest of the group when there are in-game means of saying, "This doesn't interest me" (not introducing Conflicts, not providing opposition for created Conflicts) without reducing that individual's narrative power. It's worked effectively in the past, and the individuals will catch on eventually. Plus, shouting someone down leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.
So my plan is to never use popcorn-throwing again barring tentacle sex at family friendly conventions.
On 8/1/2006 at 1:53am, Hans wrote:
RE: Re: Is popcorn necessary?
TonyLB wrote:
So, our very own Hans coined the term "popcorn throwing" to generally cover any out-of-game social feedback of the "Oh, what you did totally sucks, take it back," variety. And since he's, y'know, trying to dominate the world or something, I felt obliged to credit him for the meme.
MWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!
First things first: I do not, by any means, question that popcorn throwing works. I do not doubt that it can have an impact in every game, from Everway to chess and well beyond. Powerful stuff, and broadly applicable. It certainly can be used to rein in unwanted behavior in Capes.
That having been said: I almost never use that ... at least I'm not conscious of doing that. It is possible that some folks who have played with me will point out that I am doing it without being aware. But for the moment, I'm content to think that I almost never use this particular tactic.
Shhhh....I'll tell a secret...frankly, I haven't either. There have been times when I maybe should have used it, but because of my generally overly tactful nature didn't.
First, lets get one thing out of the way; there are always moments when a person simply isn't on their toes, hasn't been paying attention, or has lost the train somewhere along the way. I think this happens more with Capes because a) things happen so fast and b) there is no one person who is responsible for keeping track of everything. This is a kind of minor popcorn worthy situation. Someone narrates Bob in New York, and someone else says "hold the phone, wasn't Bob in Savannah?" That little kernel of popcorn goes flying across the table, and the person it is lobbed at has two options:
a) *clunk, popcorn hits him in the forehead* "Crap, forgot about that, hold on...Ok, all that stuff is still valid, but he's in Savannah."
b) *snap, he chomps the popcorn out of the air in his mouth and chews* "Aha, just you wait, just you wait and see..."
I think this is popcorn throwing, but it is a kind of healthy popcorn throwing. Its roughly the equivalent of good-spirited trash talk on a basketball court. Its a kind of narrative way to keep people on their toes.
But that is not what people are thinking of when they have used the term. So let me make my definition of it clear. When I first coined the term, I coined it as an answer to a question, not as a valid technique for roleplaying. When asked the question, "What, ultimately, in the end, keeps me from narrating any old stupid thing that comes into my head, like tentacle sex or meteors crushing convenience stores?", my answer is, essentially, "Well, if you are really going to do that, then I guess the answer is popcorn throwing."
A poor but perhaps useful analogy; a guy comes to me and asks me "look, I hate my wife, I hate everything she does, I can't stand the sight of her, she smells bad to me, ack, I can't bear it anymore...what, ultimately, keeps me married to her?" and my answer is "Well, I guess, given what you said, it is the fear of a long, protracted divorce proceeding."
Here is another very poor analogy, but it makes me laugh:
"Why don't we just go ahead and launch our nuclear missles at the Soviet Union, those commie bastards?" "Mutual Assured Destruction."
"Why don't I just go ahead and narrate any old silly thing because I feel like it?" "Popcorn throwing."
I know, I know, my analogies suck. But I think it gets within the same neighborhood of the point I am trying to make which is:
1) Popcorn throwing is the ultimate arbiter that keeps gamers from doing silly things, and
2) If you actually have to throw popcorn, things are pretty much broken somewhere else.
People almost always have REASONS for saying things, as Tony points out. Most often, they say something because a) they think it is cool, or b) they think it will get them some advantage in the game or c) they think it makes sense in the moment based on their cause and effect understanding of what has been happening. Three reasons, three creative agendas...good gad, GNS!
My theory (and one I fully expect people to disagree with) is that popcorn throwing is only one of many useful tactics for dealing with unexpected creative contributions. I am saying that you can run a good game, with normal people who are not RPG-saints, and not throw popcorn. Agree? Disagree?
I would argue that any game where popcorn HAS to be thrown in a major way is probably NOT a good game; there is something dysfunctional at the core of it. It mostly likely means that people are wanting fundamentally different things, things that for some reason weren't worked out before hand, or at least not actively accepted by everyone before hand. Bret's "tentacle sex" example is the perfect example.
I perceive an attitude that it's okay to throw popcorn because everyone at the table knows that a given input is bogus.
Except in the minor examples such as the one I outline above, I don't think it is ever "OK" to throw popcorn.
From Mark's post...
Tony, I read "popcorn throwing" as covering a whole spectrum of behavior ranging from "NO. That's dumb." to "Are you sure?" to "Could we maybe do that like this instead?"
You were talking to Tony, but I'm going to answer anyway. I think your first sentence is popcorn throwing. Your second one is threatened popcorn throwing. Your third is "hey, can we share the popcorn?" The last one is perfect for most narrativist games, although I think it is, perhaps, a BAD thing in Capes; Capes thrives on adversity, not on negotiation. The first one is a sign of dysfuntion...see above. The middle one is perfectly valid, and in fact is better phrased as "Are you sure...because if you do something dumb after that wild statement I'm going to totally make fun of you, but if you do something that makes it makes sense, oh baby, you are the bomb!"
In summary, popcorn throwing, as a technique, may be valid in two circumstances:
a) you suspect a person has missed a detail, misspoken, or simply not been paying attention, and what they have said would be, when confronted, by their own admission a mistake (the Savannah/New York analogy, above). The popcorn gives them either an opportunity to correct themselves, or an opportunity to wink knowingly and build up suspense at where they are headed.
b) a person says something so incredibly outlandish and conceivably offensive compared to what has been said up until that point that you just can't keep yourself from saying "the Hell?!" (Bret's "tentacle sex" example)
Beyond those two circs, popcorn throwing is not a technique, it is an answer to a question that, maybe, doesn't need an answer. If anything, there should be LESS popcorn throwing in Capes, because Capes gives you actual game mechanics to challenge peoples seemingly popcorn worthy narrations.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 20552
On 8/1/2006 at 3:14am, Valamir wrote:
RE: Re: Is popcorn necessary?
This is a very interesting thread to me.
From this discussion, one could almost say that the primary difference between Universalis and Capes as gaming concepts is that Universalis is very focused on clearly outlining and articulating actual hard coded game mechanics for popcorn throwing (the Negotiation part of the Challenge rules covers Han's clarifications, and the Fines rules cover Tony's initial post above.) Capes, on the other hand is entirely devoid of popcorn mechanics of any kind.
The phrase didn't exist back then, but it seems to me like most of my early comments on Capes could be summarized as "hey, where's the rules for throwing popcorn?"
On 8/1/2006 at 5:05am, Andrew Morris wrote:
RE: Re: Is popcorn necessary?
TonyLB wrote: That having been said: I almost never use that ... at least I'm not conscious of doing that. It is possible that some folks who have played with me will point out that I am doing it without being aware. But for the moment, I'm content to think that I almost never use this particular tactic.
Hah, hah, hah. Of course you do, Tony. Sometimes, when someone says something, you frown and your face gets all scrunched up until they explain in more detail or change their mind. Total non-verbal popcorn throwing. I'm not saying you do it in a bad way, either. It's just that your criticism is blatantly obvious at the gaming table, even when not verbalized. Functionally, it's the same.
On 8/1/2006 at 6:43am, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Is popcorn necessary?
Andrew wrote:
Hah, hah, hah. Of course you do, Tony. Sometimes, when someone says something, you frown and your face gets all scrunched up until they explain in more detail or change their mind. Total non-verbal popcorn throwing. I'm not saying you do it in a bad way, either. It's just that your criticism is blatantly obvious at the gaming table, even when not verbalized. Functionally, it's the same.
Really? Interesting! I didn't even know I was doin' that.
On 8/1/2006 at 9:57am, Tuxboy wrote:
RE: Re: Is popcorn necessary?
I think that popcorn throwing in general is a more subliminal process than the name suggests...
Insert Quote
Quote from: Andrew Morris on July 31, 2006, 10:05:52 PM
Hah, hah, hah. Of course you do, Tony. Sometimes, when someone says something, you frown and your face gets all scrunched up until they explain in more detail or change their mind. Total non-verbal popcorn throwing. I'm not saying you do it in a bad way, either. It's just that your criticism is blatantly obvious at the gaming table, even when not verbalized. Functionally, it's the same.
Really? Interesting! I didn't even know I was doin' that.
I think Andrew's example shows that it could be, and probably is, happening without a word being said or anyone being overtly aware of it. With human beings being a profoundly social animal (yes even the anti-social ones) there are all the non-verbal signals of displeasure to go on, body language does accound for 55% of all communication after all.
Let's face it maybe Tony's frowning face is more effective that a bucketful of popcorn in the face... ;-)
On 8/1/2006 at 1:17pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Is popcorn necessary?
There's a social difference for me to popcorn throwing that I don't realize I'm doing ... or ... hrm. Lemme examine that.
If I don't consciously realize that I'm sending these signals then I also don't consciously expect other people to be picking up on them. That means that (again, consciously) I don't feel that someone who doesn't respond is ignoring or defying me.
Now unconsciously, that's a different thing. If I feel, down where I don't know about it, that the person should know better than to do what they just did, and that they should respect my inner feelings (through ... I dunno ... telepathy or something) then maybe I get all tight in the gut and don't know why. Could totally happen.
So, yeah, on examination? That's not the issue. There's no functional difference between me knowingly blaming someone for their input and expecting them to fix it, and unknowingly doing that. But that gets at the dichotomy that I think does make a functional difference. I'm going to ramble a bit more. Man, I hope this makes the kind of sense on the page that it makes in my head.
Social outcomes are greatly effected by a different dichotomy of types of popcorn throwing: There is popcorn throwing that happens because I have a problem that I think I need to fix, and popcorn throwing that happens because I have a problem that I think you need to fix. Type #1: "The heck? He lost me at that last plot twist, gotta figure it out." Type #2: "The heck? That's stupid. You should do something that isn't stupid."
Two type #1 players will both work to solve a miscue without either one expecting anything from the other. "Man, I gotta figure this out," plus "Wow, Tony looks lost ... I better clarify."
Two type #2 players will both expect solutions from the other, without either one working to solve the miscue. "The heck? That's stupid!" plus "Wow, Tony isn't even trying to figure this out. Jerk."
Does that dichotomy seem valuable?
On 8/1/2006 at 1:20pm, Bret Gillan wrote:
RE: Re: Is popcorn necessary?
Yeah, I had thought popcorn throwing was a strategy of dealing with "disruptive play" which implied to me that it needs to be consciously employed.
On 8/1/2006 at 1:57pm, Hans wrote:
RE: Re: Is popcorn necessary?
Tuxboy wrote:
Let's face it maybe Tony's frowning face is more effective that a bucketful of popcorn in the face... ;-)
Tony is the creator...his frown darkens the sun. But his smile is as a new day dawning.
On a less mystical note, this kind of thing is what I referred to as a "little kernel of popcorn, flying across the table." It either hits you in the forehead, or you snap it up and chew on it.
TonyLB wrote:
Two type #1 players will both work to solve a miscue without either one expecting anything from the other. "Man, I gotta figure this out," plus "Wow, Tony looks lost ... I better clarify."
Two type #2 players will both expect solutions from the other, without either one working to solve the miscue. "The heck? That's stupid!" plus "Wow, Tony isn't even trying to figure this out. Jerk."
This is what I was getting at with saying that if major popcorn throwing is occurring, something else has gone wrong. Little kernels may be tossed about by the first two players as a kind of narrative trash-talk and it is ultimately healthy. The 2nd two players are already in a dysfunctional relationship.
Bret wrote:
Yeah, I had thought popcorn throwing was a strategy of dealing with "disruptive play" which implied to me that it needs to be consciously employed.
Popcorn throwing is more of a result than a strategy. Now that I read about Tony's game behaviour, this seems much clearer to me. Popcorn throwing, at least in my conception of it now (whether this was originally my thinking or not I can't say, although the FAQ entry reads like it was) is a reaction that is engendered, or a consequence of a statement, not a conscious tactic used to control other people. The reaction can be overt or covert, depending on the personalities of those involved and the magnitude of the perceived offense. It is not:
"How can I keep people from saying silly things?" "Throw popcorn."
it is...
"What keeps me from saying silly things?" "Your friends will throw popcorn at you."
Can popcorn be a conscious tactic? I suppose it can, but I think it is ultimately an unhealthy one; if you divorce it from the gut reaction that is supposed to engender it, I think people will quickly recognize your artificiality, and stop taking your popcorn seriously. Its like crying wolf.
Valamir wrote:
From this discussion, one could almost say that the primary difference between Universalis and Capes as gaming concepts is that Universalis is very focused on clearly outlining and articulating actual hard coded game mechanics for popcorn throwing (the Negotiation part of the Challenge rules covers Han's clarifications, and the Fines rules cover Tony's initial post above.) Capes, on the other hand is entirely devoid of popcorn mechanics of any kind.
Unfortunately I haven't had a chance to play Universalis, so I cannot comment directly on it. However, any kind of negotiated situation (such as PTA's opening session, where you hammer out the details of the series to take place), I would say cannot, by definition, involve a popcorn throwing reaction. I say this because I think a necessary prerequisite for popcorn throwing is that a person has to say something that someone else perceives as absurd, obnoxious, or meamningless, and assert it as a fact (fact in the fiction, if that makes sense). In a negoiation mechanic, no one is asserting anything as a fact yet, so there can't be any popcorn.
I think the popcorn throwing reaction occurs in any game in which some person has the authority to narrate "fact" unconditionally. I have seen it BIG TIME in a game of PTA, as someone narrated the results of a conflict, and have had it myself as the result of narration in Dust Devils. In Dust Devils, it was Tony's first two players; I almost threw popcorn, and then said, "hey, what the heck, I'm going to run with this." In the PTA example, the two people invovled were definitely Tony's second two players; the game imploded in an extremely messy way. I think we have all seen it in more GM-centric games, generally when the GM says something and the players all sitting around scratching their heads, going "Wha?!" For some reason, Capes just makes this much more obvious to people.
On 8/1/2006 at 2:24pm, Vaxalon wrote:
RE: Re: Is popcorn necessary?
TonyLB wrote:Andrew wrote:
Hah, hah, hah. Of course you do, Tony. Sometimes, when someone says something, you frown and your face gets all scrunched up until they explain in more detail or change their mind. Total non-verbal popcorn throwing. I'm not saying you do it in a bad way, either. It's just that your criticism is blatantly obvious at the gaming table, even when not verbalized. Functionally, it's the same.
Absolutely, Tony. I've seen you do it.
Really? Interesting! I didn't even know I was doin' that.
On 8/1/2006 at 2:54pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Re: Is popcorn necessary?
Hans on Universalis wrote: I say this because I think a necessary prerequisite for popcorn throwing is that a person has to say something that someone else perceives as absurd, obnoxious, or meamningless, and assert it as a fact (fact in the fiction, if that makes sense). In a negoiation mechanic, no one is asserting anything as a fact yet, so there can't be any popcorn.
Not to turn this into a comparison contrast thread. But to clarify...this IS exactly how Universalis works...everything you say in the game is "asserting a fact" (literally, they're called "Facts" in the game) and Negotiation (which has a specific defined mechanic in the game) refers to the process of what to do when you don't like a fact someone has asserted. i.e. "no way would that ever happen", "You don't think so...ok, how about this" is an example of a Universalis Negotiation that worked. "no way would that ever happen", "well I say it would", "here's my Coin saying it wouldn't" is an example of a Universalis Negotiation that gets escalated into a full blown Challenge.
Similarly the Fine mechanic works thusly: Player 1 says something completely counter to established standards at the table. Player 2 calls for a Fine. Players vote thumbs up (in favor of the fine) or thumbs down (rejecting the need for the fine)...with the fine possibly being levying against Player 1 for his offense, or Player 2 for frivolously calling for one. Which in the context of popcorn throwing, strikes me as the equivelent of someone calling for the whole group to throw popcorn at once...which they do...either at the callee or the caller depending on who they think deserves it. The fact that the actual fine is fairly trivial in terms resource cost makes it more "popcorny" in the sense that it is really a social reinforcer.
On 8/1/2006 at 3:14pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Re: Is popcorn necessary?
I think Capes has a popcorn mechanic... or perhaps a negative mechanic. When someone says something I really dislike (ie this is stupid, obnoxious etc) I simply don't reinforce it with the Conflict mechanics. I ignore it. If it is a Conflict that they've thrown down that I think sucks. I simply don't ever roll any die on it and I don't ever claim a side. I don't invest Debt that could turn into Story Tokens. Nothing. If everyone else at the table (besides the person who dropped the Conflict) agrees with me, then the Conflict dies an ignoble death and the game continues on. If the thing I dislike is just free narration, then it is even easier to ignore. I just ignore it. There's nothing in the rules that make me give it any weight at all.
I think the notion that Capes doesn't have any "popcorn throwing" mechanics arises from the fact that games like Universalis which have such mechanics encourage the player to fight against what they don't like. Capes on the other hand seems to take the stand that you should fight what you *do* like, which engages the reward mechanic, and to ignore what you don't, which starves the offending player of resources. Probably most of us find ignoring what we don't like to be a little counter-intuitive and more passive than we like to be.
On 8/1/2006 at 4:04pm, Hans wrote:
RE: Re: Is popcorn necessary?
Valamir wrote:
But to clarify...this IS exactly how Universalis works...i.e. "no way would that ever happen", "You don't think so...ok, how about this" is an example of a Universalis Negotiation that worked. "no way would that ever happen", "well I say it would", "here's my Coin saying it wouldn't"
I'm going to change words here, to avoid confusion with Universalis; the word is assertion. An assertion is a narration which cannot be challenged by any mechanism in the rules; there is no way to make it not have happened unless the person who said it simply agrees to "take it back".
Based on that definition, then, what you call Facts in Universalis are not assertions. Since they can be challenged within the context of the game rules, it would seem that they are propositions, not assertions. It is not "This is something that happened" it is "This is something that I think happened, and will occur unless anyone challenges me." It could be that assertions (a bad name for it, I admit) don't exist in Universalis. This is not a criticism; the system intrigues me. But I think that assertions are different, at least from your brief description, from what you call Facts.
In a game like Dust Devils or PTA, assertions can be made; when I have narration rights from the high card, whatever I narrate is an assertion. There is no mechanism in the game to challenge me on it. The assumption is that I will generally stick within the conflines of the conflict stakes that were set before the cards hit the table, but even if I am doing my best, what I consider fair game and what you consider fair game may be two completely different things, and you cannot gainsay me. All you can do is throw popcorn. But BEFORE a conflict, your narrations are NOT assertions; they are closer to what Universalis calls Facts. They are propositions that people can challenge with the conflict resolution mechanic.
In Capes, narration=assertion. Even the most trivial thing said while rolling a die is an assertion; there is no middle ground, no negotiation, and no challenge mechanic. I have the capacity to completely change the meaning, import, perception, etc. of your assertions with my own, or completely ignore your assertions (as Andrew points out), but the one thing I can't do is force you to take it back. Everyone who reads Capes immediately notices this feature of Capes, which I do think is its unique, defining feature. Thus we get people asking "What keeps me from saying stupid stuff?" and my response "Popcorn throwing".
On 8/2/2006 at 5:27pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Is popcorn necessary?
Setting aside (for just a moment ... it'll be back in the next paragraph) the question of rules mechanics: Some social contracts include the absolute right to make your popcorn throwing count. In some social groups, if you complain then the action you are complaining about cannot go through until your complaints are addressed. Other people cannot just say "Okay, I get that you object, and I'm doing it anyway."
If that is your social contract, and the game mechanics don't have support for externalizing that discussion, then it has to happen at a messy, social level where it's not two people playing a game, it's one person saying "Hey, I know the rules allow you to do this ... but if you do then you're an asshat." That's a bad scene. I get that.
But some social contracts don't include any expectation that a person has a right to expect their popcorn throwing to have impact. I still throw popcorn (apparently) but I'm going to stick to my guns and say that I simply do not believe that I have any fundamental right to have people do things my way. My popcorn throwing is a signal, not an ultimatum.
If your social contract doesn't include Important Popcorn as one of the fundamental Rights of Gamers then not having a law to enforce that ... no big deal, right?
Did that make sense? It made sense in my head.
On 8/2/2006 at 8:59pm, Vaxalon wrote:
RE: Re: Is popcorn necessary?
I've seen the popcorn face, Tony, and there's this little moment... maybe it's like a face-cramp resolution mechanic.
If you make your popcorn-throwing face long enough for me to know you Really Really Mean It, then I back down. If you aren't willing to suffer the face cramps for it, then you back down.
Or something like that.