Topic: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
Started by: VoidDragon
Started on: 10/2/2007
Board: First Thoughts
On 10/2/2007 at 7:12pm, VoidDragon wrote:
Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
The resolution system for my game can probably best be described as Group Task Resolution. Players declare intended events, dice are rolled, and the outcome is the next event to occur, followed by a description of this by the "winning" player(s).
Now, even if a player chooses to take ownership of a PC in the game, that doesn't prevent the player from declaring events outside the character's control. There are a couple of limitations to this; events described without being backed by an actual acting character in-game generally have a lower chance of occurrence, and declaring multiple events (including character actions) ensures a lower chance of occurrence as well.
All the same, the major complaint from friends when they hear about these mechanics is resistance to allowing players to use events outside their character's control for or against any PC interest.
This is not my view. I have distaste for any system which places rules that attempt to directly regulate player intent. In fact, I see the ability to declare events outside of character control as another interface that can be used by players in the interests of their character and their goals as a positive thing. That it can be used against the interests of other characters is also useful for some types of play; but even outside those types of play I certainly would not want to limit it.
I have considered different options to try to please my friends, such as giving players veto points if they don't like events declared by other players, but I don't like these options either. I want to keep it as is.
Perhaps I'm just seeking confirmation. I feel that even a "gamist agenda" wouldn't make this mechanic undesirable. Several games my group has played have allowed players to have scene control, such as dramatic editing or vetoing fiat at cost of points. But I don't recall a situation where we have even used these mechanics. I myself tend to forget during gameplay that they exist. As the group has been busy with multiple other games, we've had no time for playtesting my own. (There are other reasons for this...)
Since I know games with similar mechanics exist (and I'm sure they do just fine), what does it take to overcome resistance to this sort of thing in a group?
-Jason Timmerman
On 10/2/2007 at 10:17pm, davidberg wrote:
Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
VoidDragon wrote:
Several games my group has played have allowed players to have scene control, such as dramatic editing or vetoing fiat at cost of points. But I don't recall a situation where we have even used these mechanics.
Um. You didn't use them... and now you want to create some of your own? Why?
What player interests would your system serve?
- Telling the story about the character that you want to tell? Sure.
- Experiencing the game world "from within" via your character? No.
- Using your character as a tool to overcome obstacles? No. Obstacles for the character aren't experienced the same way by the player when the player has the option to just will them away (or something in that direction).
Note that I did not say that all obstacle-overcoming is poorly-served by such a system. You can have all sorts of fun strategy amongst players and GM -- who gets to warp reality how much and when? (Sounds like your system might be going in this direction already?) It's just that the character-player relationship becomes very different from the "my ability to participate/succeed in this game is described by my character sheet" model. So the resistance you're encountering is hardly surprising.
As for how to overcome it? Well, I'd suggest you look at some more games that do something similar to what you're suggesting (request suggestions, and the users of these forums will rain them down upon you!) and hope to find one that gets you and your group excited. If none of them do, you may need to find a different group to scratch this particular gaming itch.
More explanations of exactly what you hope to achieve (i.e., "why is this fun?") via "declaring events outside of character control" will also help you get more useful feedback here.
On 10/3/2007 at 12:34am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
Hello Jason,
Often people, in regards to roleplay games, describe what it's not about. But this doesn't describe what it actually is, it only describes what it isn't.
I think your friends haven't heard what the 'hard to declare events outside of your PC's control' mechanic is actually for. That's why their making assumptions about what it's for, because it hasn't been said.
On 10/3/2007 at 3:54am, VoidDragon wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
Aloha David,
You've brought up another issue. Are you saying that their fears of inter-player injustice may actually be rooted in fear of losing the veil or fourth wall? Below are more direct responses to some of your points.
David wrote:
Um. You didn't use them... and now you want to create some of your own? Why?
Because I want to actually use mechanics like this. I want one that is not obscured or resource-based: a generalized mechanic that has practical use in any scene, and works just like the core mechanic. I, as a player of a PC, would like to have input and interest in scenes that my character is not involved in. And I, as a GM, would like to honor the positive creative contributions of the PC players in the group above and beyond merely their expressions of a single personality. In my opinion, it would create a more interesting game than just a single person could.
David wrote:
What player interests would your system serve?
By "interests," do you mean "creative agenda"? I suppose I could imagine any of the GNS agendas being possible in some form or another. I don't know about "serving" a particular agenda. I don't really understand the theory well enough to model a game to do that.
Instead, could I rephrase your question to be: "How might a player use your system for enjoyment?" ?
If this is the question, my first reaction would be just to say "Duh, it's used for a roleplaying game." But if I were to highlight what one could do with this system to have fun that one could not do with systems like d20 or Storyteller, then it would be adding more interesting twists of fate, luck, and accident which are not completely dependent on a DM's or ST's reserves of creativity, and playing weak characters (in any given niche) without being ineffectual.
David wrote:
Well, I'd suggest you look at some more games that do something similar to what you're suggesting (...) and hope to find one that gets you and your group excited.
I seem to be getting a lot of this type of advice here. Finding another game to play is not my goal. My goal is to develop games.
David wrote:
If none of them do, you may need to find a different group to scratch this particular gaming itch.
Just because they have concerns about my game doesn't mean I can't convince them. After I've explained what they can do with their options, they seem wary about it, but they're still willing to try it out. My goal has just been to clear the air of the concerns first, before playtesting begins.
Callan wrote:
I think your friends haven't heard what the 'hard to declare events outside of your PC's control' mechanic is actually for. That's why their making assumptions about what it's for, because it hasn't been said.
Callan,
Thanks for the input. The examples I've given my players about what they can do have been pretty dry; things like being able to declare a ricocheting bullet hits the shooter, or that a shipment of opium just happens to be coming into port today, and the like.
But I can see how this would not tell my players how they can have fun with it. I have to describe it in an interesting way to let the players know they can do interesting things with it? You're saying that maybe I have to be a better salesperson?
Perhaps I'll start writing out a few scenarios of how things might play out in a creative manner. A play-by-play account of exactly how these things happen.
Thanks to you both for your input,
-Jason Timmerman
On 10/3/2007 at 7:14pm, davidberg wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
VoidDragon wrote:
Are you saying that their fears of inter-player injustice may actually be rooted in fear of losing the veil or fourth wall?
Er, well, I'm saying that they may be afraid of losing the veil or fourth wall. Just a possibility.
As for inter-player injustice, in my experience that's usually come down to play-balancing rules specifics. Well, and, on a larger scale, agreeing on whether the players are competing or cooperating or both.
VoidDragon wrote:
By "interests," do you mean "creative agenda"? I suppose I could imagine any of the GNS agendas being possible in some form or another. I don't know about "serving" a particular agenda. I don't really understand the theory well enough to model a game to do that.
Instead, could I rephrase your question to be: "How might a player use your system for enjoyment?" ?
Well, that rephrase is absolutely accurate. But maybe a little too broad to be useful...?
I don't think theory talk is required here, per se. I'll see if I can address your thoughts directly:
VoidDragon wrote:
if I were to highlight what one could do with this system to have fun that one could not do with systems like d20 or Storyteller, then it would be adding more interesting twists of fate, luck, and accident which are not completely dependent on a DM's or ST's reserves of creativity
That sounds like a cool addition to a certain kind of game... but not all kinds of games. What I was trying to get at with my earlier takes on "serving playing interests" was the posibility that you and your players might not be playing the kind of game wherein this addition is a good thing.
As a GM, I often would like to share the burden of making up what's in the world, or describing what happens. And as a player, I often have neat ideas about stuff that could occur or be present beyond my character. So I totally understand where you're coming from. But I think there are tradeoffs involved, pertaining to the player-character relationship I mentioned earlier. Some players will be fine with these trade-offs, others won't be.
So what I mean by "is this the kind of game wherein this addition is a good thing?" is "will your players will be fine with these trade-offs?"
VoidDragon wrote:
and playing weak characters (in any given niche) without being ineffectual.
This is a perfect example of what I was talking about, where your strategic options as a player are transferred from your character description to your own in-the-moment creative abilities. It is a very different way to play, and I think it would help your pitch greatly to acknowledge this to your players and mull the implications. (For example, maybe a character generation system should be very simple and not have a lot of fine details w.r.t. effectiveness, cuz why put time into something that's going to be rendered superfluous.) I guess this is my way of saying, "Yes be a better salesperson, but in order to be a better salesperson, you should be on top of all the ways in which your proposal is different from what you've been playing."
VoidDragon wrote:David wrote:
Well, I'd suggest you look at some more games that do something similar to what you're suggesting (...) and hope to find one that gets you and your group excited.
I seem to be getting a lot of this type of advice here. Finding another game to play is not my goal. My goal is to develop games.
You know why you're getting that advice a lot? Because that is the best way to develop good games. Developing a game without being aware of the pros, cons, methods, etc. of similar games is like trying to build a bridge without ever studying how other bridges were built.
Of course, trial and error is fun too, and it's certainly understandable if you'd rather make something usable quickly rather than, y'know, do a bunch of homework first. And I know I sure as hell don't have a budget for that kind of homework. But I hope you don't think people here are saying, "Don't bother designing your own game, play someone else's." That would really surprise me. More likely, they're saying, "I suggest doing some homework."
VoidDragon wrote:
My goal has just been to clear the air of the concerns first, before playtesting begins.
Good call. Is any of this helping?
VoidDragon wrote:
Perhaps I'll start writing out a few scenarios of how things might play out in a creative manner. A play-by-play account of exactly how these things happen.
Excellent idea. I'd suggest using a scenario in which there is something at stake to be won or lost (by die rolls, player creativity, whatever) -- that should illustrate how different the thought process will be from "all my options ar elisted on my character sheet."
On 10/3/2007 at 10:47pm, Dietro wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
i'm having trouble visualizing described mechanics but i what i think is going on is that your group wants more control over actions that go over PC and NPC desires. i would say keep it resistant. to do otherwise would kind of fuel a 'gamer' mindset of trying to win or something. having some sort of 'plothole' mechanic would shut them up.
in one game i made everyone had a 'dues ex machina' stat, where they had the ability to roll for a chance to perform a deus ex machina or use it to veto someone else's DEM.
it could help. but it could not.
On 10/3/2007 at 10:49pm, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
Oh, I just realised I was reading this wrong
All the same, the major complaint from friends when they hear about these mechanics is resistance to allowing players to use events outside their character's control for or against any PC interest.
I thought they were complaining that there is resistance to players using outside events (which there is, since there's less of a chance it will happen).
Oh, this is different because before I thought they were interested in what you were interested in doing, which is a good base situation. Now it's just resistance.
Is there something you like to do that they are interested in doing as well? Emphasis on doing - were not talking about liking high fantasy, were talking what you'd do with high fantasy. They might not be the target audience of this game.
On 10/4/2007 at 8:41am, VoidDragon wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
Thanks for the quick responses, everyone.
David wrote:
As for inter-player injustice, in my experience that's usually come down to play-balancing rules specifics. Well, and, on a larger scale, agreeing on whether the players are competing or cooperating or both.
David,
I've spent much effort trying to achieve balance; before playtesting I don't think I can get any closer to this. But your other point, deciding whether PC vs. PC competition, or PC vs. nonplayer factors will be a focus of the game. The group I'm in currently are actually good sports when it comes to issues like character death. We haven't actually done much PC vs. PC in our other games, though there are of course mechanics there to do that. I don't see any reason to make a rule against it. In fact, my setting Mutaiji is about people attempting to deal with a great destructive and yet wondrous force, and one side of the game is philosophical PC vs. PC conflict on this issue, which could potentially escalate.
David wrote:
What I was trying to get at with my earlier takes on "serving playing interests" was the posibility that you and your players might not be playing the kind of game wherein this addition is a good thing.
So you think I should focus on getting across to them the kinds of games where it would be a good thing? The odd thing is, my initial gut internal feeling was that my system was just a better way to do other games; better rules for doing the things I had always tried to do (through house rules or otherwise) in other systems. I felt that the separation was drawn by my friends' reactions to my system, rather than by my mechanics themselves. But maybe the games we've been playing so far have not been my cup of tea at all.
David wrote:
So I totally understand where you're coming from. But I think there are tradeoffs involved, pertaining to the player-character relationship I mentioned earlier. Some players will be fine with these trade-offs, others won't be.
I see. So players that think more subjectively about their players will have a harder time making actions outside their characters?
Often enough, in our gaming group, a character will have something like a D&D Familiar, Mount, or Cohort. Though I believe these are described in d20 as being "NPCs" the players treat them as PCs, owned by the player to whose character they are associated. So I suppose this is at least one example I just thought of where the players in the group have taken actions outside a single personality. However, it isn't a very big detachment, as they are simply taking the role of a group: horse and rider, artificer and homunculus, captain and lieutenant. What I'm doing is blurring the line of the player's role. This role can't be completely expressed as a unit within the scene. What it seems you're saying is that for some players, this makes their role ill-defined, and perhaps harder to play. I could see that happening, and I hope to be able to teach them how to play such a role.
David wrote:VoidDragon wrote:
and playing weak characters (in any given niche) without being ineffectual.
This is a perfect example of what I was talking about, where your strategic options as a player are transferred from your character description to your own in-the-moment creative abilities.
I really like how you worded that last sentence. It seems to get across, in a positive way, a lot of what I've been saying. It puts it in a "What does this mean for me, the player?" way. Thanks!
David wrote:
It is a very different way to play, and I think it would help your pitch greatly to acknowledge this to your players and mull the implications. (For example, maybe a character generation system should be very simple and not have a lot of fine details w.r.t. effectiveness, cuz why put time into something that's going to be rendered superfluous.) I guess this is my way of saying, "Yes be a better salesperson, but in order to be a better salesperson, you should be on top of all the ways in which your proposal is different from what you've been playing."
So, rather than try and convince them that my mechanics won't hurt game balance or player interactions, instead get them convinced on the potential of them. I feel stupid just saying that I felt that certain things were getting across to them, when they probably weren't. In my head I think of the implications, but I don't formulate them into words in conversation about the game itself, and I should be doing this. They understand what I said, but they don't understand the point, which is what I'm not communicating because I haven't set down for them what the potential is.
Getting everything presentable and nailed-down would help a lot, too. I'm not exactly the best technical writer, hence my issue with formulating the ideas into words. Two of my friends have expressed interest in helping me out with the writing. They like some of the ideas, but I often talk over their heads. I've got to bring it down to earth with some examples.
David wrote:
More likely, they're saying, "I suggest doing some homework."
I'm sorry for misinterpreting your comment. But yes, some members of the forums are even more explicit in saying that I should research other games. I'm kinda low on both gaming time and money. Reading about free games isn't as much of an issue, though. It's the cheater way of doing homework. It's not as satisfying, though, and it's not as direct a learning experience about gaming.
David wrote:VoidDragon wrote:
My goal has just been to clear the air of the concerns first, before playtesting begins.
Good call. Is any of this helping?
The "give clear yet creative examples" part has helped a lot with deciding how to handle my friends' concerns. But I think the "helping me reformulate the words in my description of intent" part has helped with even more than that.
David wrote:VoidDragon wrote:
Perhaps I'll start writing out a few scenarios of how things might play out in a creative manner. A play-by-play account of exactly how these things happen.
Excellent idea. I'd suggest using a scenario in which there is something at stake to be won or lost (by die rolls, player creativity, whatever) -- that should illustrate how different the thought process will be from "all my options ar elisted on my character sheet."
Good advice. It'll take me a while to get these scenarios written down, though. Even then I'll probably have to edit it a few times before I'm satisfied.
I don't quite have time right now to adequately reply to the remaining posts, and I'm sorry. But I definitely value your opinions.
-Jason Timmerman
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 24556
On 10/4/2007 at 9:27pm, davidberg wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
Jason,
Isn't it funny how many RPG issues betwen players (or players and GMs) just boil down to communication? I had a really long exchange with a friend where I was trying to describe a system I was making, and he kept saying, "Eh, not my cup of tea," but in a way that made me think he didn't "get it". And so I'd go on and on, and he'd say, "No thanks," again, and I'd say, "but, but, but...," again, until finally he gave me a response that showed that he understood the point and essence of what I was hoping to achieve. And then he still wound up saying, "Eh, not my cup of tea," but I was finally content to drop it and say, "I should try this idea on someone else."
So, I'd say that any progress you are making here toward clarifying such communication is effort well spent!
Now a few clarifications on my part:
VoidDragon wrote:
We haven't actually done much PC vs. PC in our other games, though there are of course mechanics there to do that. I don't see any reason to make a rule against it.
Me neither. I was just trying to cover familiar sources of "inter-player injustice" -- for me, this has always been a case of one player exploiting:
a) the rules, or
b) another player's assumptions/expectations
Really, problems always boil down to (b) anyway, cuz (a) isn't bad if everyone knows everyone's trying to exploit the rules and that's how they want to play.
Various games take various approaches to defining "whether the players can/should work against each other", and when an approach is sufficiently clear, "inter-player injustice" tends not to be an issue.
Apologies if this is a total tangent and you're already on top of it, I just didn't want to leave some miscommunication hanging.
VoidDragon wrote:David wrote:
What I was trying to get at with my earlier takes on "serving playing interests" was the posibility that you and your players might not be playing the kind of game wherein this addition is a good thing.
So you think I should focus on getting across to them the kinds of games where it would be a good thing?
Uh... I think so? This is what I get for using imprecise terminology. By "playing the kind of game" I didn't mean "using a certain book or rule-set or setting" -- I meant the totality of your current players' involvement in the activity they're doing. What do they expect play to be about? How do they expect to determine and communicate what happens? What do they like about all this?
So as long as we're on the same page about that, then yes, you've accurately summed up what I think. To clarify, I think you should focus on getting across to them the kinds of play scenarios (regardless of who wrote the system being used) wherein it is fun to both play a character and alter that character's environment. I contend that for many players, said scenarios would have to be rather different than, say, "We're playing d20 and going on dangerous quests just like normal EXCEPT for this one new rule..."
VoidDragon wrote:
What I'm doing is blurring the line of the player's role. This role can't be completely expressed as a unit within the scene. What it seems you're saying is that for some players, this makes their role ill-defined, and perhaps harder to play. I could see that happening, and I hope to be able to teach them how to play such a role.
If they're open to it, then props to them, and props to you too for trying something new. If they're not open to it, well, then I hope you can all figure that out before too much blood is spilled. :)
VoidDragon wrote:
Two of my friends have expressed interest in helping me out with the writing. They like some of the ideas, but I often talk over their heads. I've got to bring it down to earth with some examples.
For me, it's much faster and more fun to talk theory and abstracts. But whenever I force myself to spell out specific examples in detail, I seem to get much more useful feedback. (If you haven't heard Ron Edwards' "write about actual play" mantra yet, I'm sure you will. Sucks for me, but he seems to have a point.)
-David
On 10/4/2007 at 10:16pm, VoidDragon wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
Dietro wrote:
i'm having trouble visualizing described mechanics
And I'm having trouble deciding how much information about the mechanics is pertinent to this discussion. Perhaps I should at least clarify that the difficulty of the events in question will be based on categories of likeliness that can easily be tied to real-world time and per-interval chance of occurrence. The scene owner uses these guidelines to arbitrate difficulty. If you have any other questions related to this issue, please ask.
Dietro wrote:
but i what i think is going on is that your group wants more control over actions that go over PC and NPC desires. i would say keep it resistant. to do otherwise would kind of fuel a 'gamer' mindset of trying to win or something. having some sort of 'plothole' mechanic would shut them up.
I don't think I understand either your description of the problem or your suggestion, but I'll try to paraphrase in response. They have plenty of control over their owned characters' intentions; perhaps more than some other games. Much like GURPS, in my system, unless certain attributes were taken during character creation, a character's morality and intentions are left up to the whim of the player. But what you mean by "resistant," and the implication that my game does not and should not fuel a gamer mindset I don't understand at all. Perhaps by "plothole" mechanic you refer to the dramatic editing I spoke of earlier? This mechanic wasn't intended to allow the introduction of any elements that cannot logically (logic as defined in relation to world) coexist with earlier elements.
Dietro wrote:
in one game i made everyone had a 'dues ex machina' stat, where they had the ability to roll for a chance to perform a deus ex machina or use it to veto someone else's DEM.
it could help. but it could not.
I had to look on Wikipedia to find out what you meant by deus ex machina, as I don't speak greek. But I never imagined it being a stat. However, it could be represented in certain settings by Luck, or to use BESM terminology, a Divine Relationship. I suppose that's an option, but not fundamental to my ideas.
-Jason Timmerman
On 10/4/2007 at 10:25pm, VoidDragon wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
Callan wrote:
Oh, I just realised I was reading this wrong
Perhaps my wording could have been better.
Callan wrote:
Is there something you like to do that they are interested in doing as well? Emphasis on doing - were not talking about liking high fantasy, were talking what you'd do with high fantasy. They might not be the target audience of this game.
I suppose I'll take that last comment into consideration when they're playtesting. If certain friends aren't liking it, they might just not be the target audience, and I should look at their comments with that consideration.
I don't know if I've been specific enough with them yet to say whether they'd be interested in doing the types of things I'd like to do. I've tended to word my system as being like other systems, and in other cases I've said something along the lines of "My mechanic may seem a bit weird to you guys at first." Perhaps this was out of modesty. I have trouble claiming that my game is new and original. But I have no problem calling it "different." In my mind, only playtesting will even show whether it's actually good or not.
-Jason Timmerman
On 10/5/2007 at 2:34pm, davidberg wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
VoidDragon wrote:
the difficulty of the events in question will be based on categories of likeliness that can easily be tied to real-world time and per-interval chance of occurrence. The scene owner uses these guidelines to arbitrate difficulty. If you have any other questions related to this issue, please ask.
Interesting. So, your goal was to allow (and incentivize) players to contribute creatively to world content... and now you're providing guidelines for that content.
What's your purpose(s) in doing that? I can think of many different ones.
On 10/5/2007 at 8:10pm, VoidDragon wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
David wrote:
Interesting. So, your goal was to allow (and incentivize) players to contribute creatively to world content... and now you're providing guidelines for that content.
What's your purpose(s) in doing that? I can think of many different ones.
The simplest answer is that if I didn't somehow limit the types of events which players could declare, then players could simply choose the event that is most beneficial to their goals. For instance, an event could be that suddenly the universe rearranges itself such that the player's character is a goddess.
Sorry I haven't responded to your last post yet. I've been pretty busy.
-Jason Timmerman
On 10/5/2007 at 9:56pm, davidberg wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
No sweat on response times. I'm gonna be offline all weekend anyway.
VoidDragon wrote:
The simplest answer is that if I didn't somehow limit the types of events which players could declare, then players could simply choose the event that is most beneficial to their goals. For instance, an event could be that suddenly the universe rearranges itself such that the player's character is a goddess.
It seems that you are still thinking from what I'll call a character-identified perspective, wherein the goals of the player are closely tied up in the goals of the character. This would make more sense to me if everyone was just playing a character who had the power to warp reality, and their ability to do so was "based on categories of likeliness", as you said.
But when the player can warp reality, and the character is one of multiple tools at the player's disposal, then I would expect the player to have goals for the character (some form of "entertain me with your story") that might not mirror (and would certainly trump) character desires. For example:
Given the opportunity to be a goddess, the character would say "Sure!" But given the opportunity to make his character into a goddess, the player would say, "Hmm, it is more fun to run through the adventures of a goddess or a mortal?" and then choose accordingly.
I'm not trying to talk you out of something, just trying to illustrate an alternative and request explanation of your choices. So, here's a question: in the system you've proposed, what is gained by keeping the characters ignorant of the mechanism by which the world is altered on their behalf?
The follow-up question: in the system you've proposed, what is gained by keeping the characters powerless over the mechanism by which the world is altered on their behalf?
On 10/5/2007 at 10:16pm, VoidDragon wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
David,
This post is in reply to your post at 1:27pm 10/4.
Your point about communication is well met. To a couple of my friends, I've been explaining a little too much math, and much too little usefulness. They're still enthusiastic, though. I guess I'm lucky there.
Regarding "exploiting another player's assumptions/expectations," the only times where I could see this being an issue are when a player is actively and consciously trying to undermine the assumptions/expectations of another player. If you can think of another situation in which this could happen, please let me know. As long as the players' individual definitions of fun in the game are compatible with each other, again, even that shouldn't be a problem. Certainly, if this is going on, either the players are competing outside their characters, which might be okay as long as it is fun for all, or one player's goals are simply to undermine another player, which I don't see as fun.
By "Playing the same kind of game," would it be more appropriate to say, "Playing the same kinds of games?" We have been playing Call of Cthulhu lately. Horror is certainly a different type of game than Adventure.
But maybe you're right. Maybe the group has been treating CoC as the same type of game as D&D, for instance:
* The GM apologizes when he kills a PC or drives a PC insane.
* I've heard comments like "CoC is about the little victories before the world ends" floating around.
So CoC has win conditons, and the GM needs to apologize for subjecting us to horror? That's not how I saw it, or how it was explained to me, but obviously that's how someone in the group chooses to enjoy it. We, as players, rejoice at the little victories. Honestly, as a player, I've remained completely ignorant of the mechanics behind some of these horrors, so I had always thought killing them was impossible. Once I had learned that they were, after we killed a tentacle monster, I found myself somehow wondering whether I wasn't playing D&D.
(This was all just a point about "same game"-ness. I didn't want to start a new thread on Cthulhu.)
David wrote:
To clarify, I think you should focus on getting across to them the kinds of play scenarios (regardless of who wrote the system being used) wherein it is fun to both play a character and alter that character's environment. I contend that for many players, said scenarios would have to be rather different than, say, "We're playing d20 and going on dangerous quests just like normal EXCEPT for this one new rule..."
I definitely agree with you on this point. At the risk of sounding sensationalist, I'll try to push the point home that "we're not playing another Dungeons and Dragons." As exemplified by the Cthulhu experience, when something is not explicitly different, the assumption is that it is the same. The more I push the point that it is different, and clarify exactly how it is, the less incorrect assumptions will be made.
David wrote:
If they're not open to it, well, then I hope you can all figure that out before too much blood is spilled. :)
I think that, at the worst, perhaps I'll have bored someone. "Spilt blood" is a bit strong a phrase for that.
David wrote:
For me, it's much faster and more fun to talk theory and abstracts. But whenever I force myself to spell out specific examples in detail, I seem to get much more useful feedback. (If you haven't heard Ron Edwards' "write about actual play" mantra yet, I'm sure you will. Sucks for me, but he seems to have a point.)
Writing will take a while on these examples. This might be due as much to "getting around to it" as to "being a perfectionist about it." A mantra that I should start using here is, "At least write something, and fix it later."
-Jason Timmerman
On 10/5/2007 at 10:29pm, VoidDragon wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
David wrote:VoidDragon wrote:
The simplest answer is that if I didn't somehow limit the types of events which players could declare, then players could simply choose the event that is most beneficial to their goals.
It seems that you are still thinking from what I'll call a character-identified perspective, wherein the goals of the player are closely tied up in the goals of the character.
I did some bolding in the above quote to help here, but yes, the ultimate and trumping goals are player goals, as you say. Even when playing a video game and knowing the future or seeing a cut scene that the characters didn't see, you can still identify with the goals of the character. In that sense, I don't see the player goals and character goals as necessarily being askew of each other.
David wrote:
So, here's a question: in the system you've proposed, what is gained by keeping the characters ignorant of the mechanism by which the world is altered on their behalf?
The ability for a character to see these events as coincidences.
David wrote:
The follow-up question: in the system you've proposed, what is gained by keeping the characters powerless over the mechanism by which the world is altered on their behalf?
The ability to play stories about characters who are not masters of their own fate, as I think I mentioned above.
-Jason Timmerman
On 10/5/2007 at 10:35pm, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
This is cross posted with Jason, but for what it's worth...
Hi David,
I think your trying to shift the mechanic to become a sort of character power, as the players are resistant to "allowing players to use events outside their character's control for or against any PC interest"
But I think you've shifted some of the goal posts with the question - you phrased it as "the world is altered on their behalf". As much as they make the shift in rules perspective more seductive, the original use wasn't about altering the world on the characters behalf, it was altering the world on the players behalf, done by the player.
To Jason, I think in looking at the question you should consider whether characters by themselves are any good at making story. Surely only a personality that likes to make a story out of his life, will do so - any other personality will just make an ass of a story.
On 10/5/2007 at 11:46pm, VoidDragon wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
Callan wrote:
To Jason, I think in looking at the question you should consider whether characters by themselves are any good at making story. Surely only a personality that likes to make a story out of his life, will do so - any other personality will just make an ass of a story.
Very likely. I agree with you in the general sense. But, as clarification, I wouldn't say that every good story in history was produced by someone who was trying to make their life a good story per se. And so it's possible to do something interesting while attempting to act according to one's goals. But you're right that it doesn't usually make for good story. Admittedly, I'm sure we wouldn't want to sit through the boring parts of even most interesting people's lives, though these things are glossed over in RPGs anyhow. It's not as if rules for "going to the w.c." even exist in most RPGs.
Besides your point, I'm also saying that even leaving peripheral and surrounding events of story up to a single GM does not make for optimal story.
-Jason Timmerman
On 10/6/2007 at 1:19am, davidberg wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
VoidDragon wrote:
I did some bolding in the above quote to help here, but yes, the ultimate and trumping goals are player goals, as you say.
I got the point without the bolding. My point was that your illustration of a player goal was "suddenly the universe rearranges itself such that the player's character is a goddess." Which is why I said that seems like character-identified thinking, and suggested an alternate situation in which the player doesn't want to improve his character's effectiveness.
If this was just me reading into your choice of example, and the example could just as easily have been, "the universe rearranges itself such that the player's character is hunted by the law", then I don't think you need the "limits based on likelihood" that we were discussing.
VoidDragon wrote:
The ability for a character to see these events as coincidences.
The ability to play stories about characters who are not masters of their own fate
Certainly nothing wrong with those. If we're not identifying with our characters, it seems a simple matter of taste, and maybe players should have the option to do it either way they want.
If we are identifying with our characters, I guess I'm just not enough of a mental gymnast to enjoy my character's reactions to events that I rig in his benefit.
Callan,
I know we're talking about altering the world on the player's behalf. Yet in all (I think?) of the situations Jason's discussed, "acting on the player's behalf" is done specifically via advantaging that player's character. If Jason hopes to get his players to shake some habits, this smells off-track to me.
On 10/6/2007 at 8:16am, VoidDragon wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
David wrote:
My point was that your illustration of a player goal was "suddenly the universe rearranges itself such that the player's character is a goddess." Which is why I said that seems like character-identified thinking, and suggested an alternate situation in which the player doesn't want to improve his character's effectiveness.
Certainly, player goals that are askew of PC goals are not only permissible but encouraged. However, as the system exists (and I think as I'd prefer it) they aren't encouraged any more than those that run parallel with PC goals. The tendency is toward parallel partially because a PC is another medium through which a player can attain their goals, and one's actions through ones character toward player goals make more sense if the character has those goals as well.
David wrote:
If this was just me reading into your choice of example, and the example could just as easily have been, "the universe rearranges itself such that the player's character is hunted by the law", then I don't think you need the "limits based on likelihood" that we were discussing.
And why not? In any case, the player has goals, and giving the player infinite control over the game would undermine the requirement for stratagic thinking in achieving even those player goals.
Excuse me if I happen to be using these CA terms incorrectly, but I'm not trying to create a game that only encourages narrativism at the expense of other CA. I'm simply trying to make a gamist-oriented game have a more interesting story. While my ideas have come a long way since conception, I'm not trying to break as big a mold as you think.
David wrote:VoidDragon wrote:
The ability for a character to see these events as coincidences.
The ability to play stories about characters who are not masters of their own fate
Certainly nothing wrong with those. If we're not identifying with our characters, it seems a simple matter of taste, and maybe players should have the option to do it either way they want.
If we are identifying with our characters, I guess I'm just not enough of a mental gymnast to enjoy my character's reactions to events that I rig in his benefit.
But the challenge and fun is in rigging them. There is strategy in choosing events carefully. If I were to simply allow any event to occur, the rigging would be a no-brainer and no fun.
I'm not trying to wholly shake the players of PC identification. If I were, I would probably steer away from character ownership altogether. It's not as interesting, to me, to have to continuously simulate a character while your goals as a player lie in events outside that character.
Speaking more in the positive, as you have suggested, let me explain why my mechanic is good for situations in which PC/owner goals parallel. Let's say a GM has acted on some PCs' behalf via GM fiat. This leaves a sour taste in the mouths of the owning players of those PCs, as well as undermining their desire to handle a challenge themselves.
Alternatively, let's say a non-GM player made creative use of a limited game mechanic to do the same. Again, outside forces act on the PCs' behalf. But this time, a player strategically and creatively overcame the situation, and gets kudos for doing so.
Despite the fact that my game is not as "different" as you have interpreted it, I still think I should take your advice in framing exactly what is different about it in order to avoid misunderstandings by and with the players.
-Jason Timmerman
On 10/6/2007 at 10:51am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
I became confused...and then gamist? Even more confused. Jason, if it is gamist, you know in gamism you don't need to sell a mechanic. Say how bishops can only move on diagnals...that's really quite odd, for example. But you don't need to sell it in chess, the other person will sell themselves when they start losing. So either the players will sell themselves on your mechanic in order to win, or they will figure some way of winning without using it (or just plain lose), which is also valid.
Does that sound like it fits the issue, or doesn't fit it at all?
On 10/6/2007 at 7:22pm, davidberg wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
VoidDragon wrote:
Certainly, player goals that are askew of PC goals are not only permissible but encouraged. However, as the system exists (and I think as I'd prefer it) they aren't encouraged any more than those that run parallel with PC goals. The tendency is toward parallel partially because a PC is another medium through which a player can attain their goals, and one's actions through ones character toward player goals make more sense if the character has those goals as well.
I was totally hoping you'd say something like that. Just wasn't sure if that was actually what you had in mind. Awesome.
VoidDragon wrote:
the player has goals, and giving the player infinite control over the game would undermine the requirement for stratagic thinking . . . the challenge and fun is in rigging them. There is strategy in choosing events carefully. If I were to simply allow any event to occur, the rigging would be a no-brainer and no fun . . .
let's say a non-GM player made creative use of a limited game mechanic to do the same. Again, outside forces act on the PCs' behalf. But this time, a player strategically and creatively overcame the situation, and gets kudos for doing so.
Sounds very coherent and well-thought-out. I've just never played in a game where I had some goal that I could pursue both with my character and with my ability to alter my character's environment, and I'm having a hard time imagining what such a goal would be.
Well, aside from the one obvious choice: "win", either versus the GM (or the world as arbitrated by the GM), or versus another player or players.
Figuring out what CA you guys have been playing with would take a lot of effort, and I don't feel entirely qualified to try. But if you all are showing up to play with the idea that there will be winners and losers, then I think your system sounds like an interesting and fun way to go about that. (And Callan's point should absolutely apply.)
If, on the other hand, no player can really lose (I'm talking about sigfnicant defeat, not just, e.g., losing one fight with few repercussions), then I am still wondering what all this strategizing that you've enabled is aimed at.
On 10/7/2007 at 4:23am, VoidDragon wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
Callan wrote:
Jason, if it is gamist, you know in gamism you don't need to sell a mechanic.
Well, perhaps I'm using the term "gamism" incorrectly, as I'm not a GNS expert. The major point of this thread is that some of my friends are concerned that the mechanics might be "abused." So getting this concern assuaged before playtesting would certainly help out. I think the suggestions I've received so far that seem reasonable are issues of salesmanship.
-Jason Timmerman
On 10/7/2007 at 4:42am, VoidDragon wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict of Interest in Element Introduction?
David wrote:
If, on the other hand, no player can really lose (I'm talking about sigfnicant defeat, not just, e.g., losing one fight with few repercussions), then I am still wondering what all this strategizing that you've enabled is aimed at.
Challenge is built in to the system as I plan it: into its roles, advancement, and scene generation. If a challenge were unlosable, then it wouldn't be a challenge. Certainly by that definition alone, players can lose.
-Jason Timmerman