In reference to a post by Paul Czege, 7/22/02, Fang wrote: While I am tempted to include Solomon’s Auction as an appendix to every product, I only see it being “comfortable” in our live-action role-playing game supplements (largely because it’s best suited to play in the absence of a gamemaster or sometimes a moderator). I can see what you mean; it’s a very important point. One problem is a few of the innovations won’t function entirely well independently; a few need to be in conjunction with some others. But we are sensitive to the need to ‘hold back’ too much innovation at any given point.

Having read the Auction carefully, it simply never occurred to me that this was intended for LARPS. I don't see why, to be honest. The whole point, if I understand properly, is (1) to address a potentially serious problem before it arises, in a constructive way by providing a mechanic; (2) to propose an amicable solution mechanic that gives everyone something at the end; and (3) to keep such things from being decided by one absolute arbiter (such as a GM).

So why is this limited to live-action? Suppose [this isn't a hypothetical example] two players get into a long, heated debate about "Do we go to X or Y?" Clearly the players care --- they're not just causing trouble here, but each honestly believe that he or she has the right answer. Okay, so it seems like someone (perhaps the GM) should propose an Auction. The GM keeps out of proposing compromises and so forth, but simply runs the auction as a third party; if for some reason there's a question of conflict of interest, you choose a player who's known for objectivity and doesn't seem that wrapped up in the debate (except for hoping it will end soon). When it's over, it's over. And since this was part of the rules from the outset, nobody can say he refuses to abide by the decision.

Basically I was one of the two, and I was sure I had the right answer. If this mechanic had been part of our game, I hope someone would have said, "Hey, how about Auctioning for this?" In point of fact, I suppose that most such debates reach a point where if somebody said that, the players involved would blink, look sheepish, and say, "Uh, yeah, we're really taking the game hostage here, aren't we. What say we just compromise like this...?" Which is the ideal solution.

So in short, (1) why the LARP emphasis? and (2) why not publish some of these player-level mechanics as separate objects --- they're perfectly incorporable into lots of other games?

Hey Chris,

clehrich wrote:

In reference to a post by Paul Czege, 7/22/02, Fang wrote: While I am tempted to include Solomon’s Auction as an appendix to every product, I only see it being “comfortable” in our live-action role-playing game supplements (largely because it’s best suited to play in the absence of a gamemaster or sometimes a moderator). I can see what you mean; it’s a very important point. One problem is a few of the innovations won’t function entirely well independently; a few need to be in conjunction with some others. But we are sensitive to the need to ‘hold back’ too much innovation at any given point.

Having read the Auction carefully, it simply never occurred to me that this was intended for LARPS. I don't see why, to be honest. The whole point, if I understand properly, is (1) to address a potentially serious problem before it arises, in a constructive way by providing a mechanic; (2) to propose an amicable solution mechanic that gives everyone something at the end; and (3) to keep such things from being decided by one absolute arbiter (such as a GM).

This has to do with the configuration of 'default Scattershot.' In smaller groups, say less than 10 people, when you have a gamemaster, participants seem more comfortable with the gamemaster performing such arbitration. It stands to reason that traditional role-players will wonder why they have a gamemaster if they are making all the 'tough calls' themselves. Many of the planned supplements are targeted straight at the traditional audience; for them Solomon's Auction would be superfluous.

clehrich wrote: So why is this limited to live-action? Suppose [this isn't a hypothetical example] two players get into a long, heated debate about "Do we go to X or Y?" Clearly the players care --- they're not just causing trouble here, but each honestly believe that he or she has the right answer. Okay, so it seems like someone (perhaps the GM) should propose an Auction. The GM keeps out of proposing compromises and so forth, but simply runs the auction as a third party; if for some reason there's a question of conflict of interest, you choose a player who's known for objectivity and doesn't seem that wrapped up in the debate (except for hoping it will end soon). When it's over, it's over. And since this was part of the rules from the outset, nobody can say he refuses to abide by the decision.

There's no reason for those players to need someone else to suggest an Auction; in fact, I'd go so far as suggesting that there may be other reasons for the argument. For that matter, if they must be prompted to and moderated in an Auction, it doesn't seem likely that they will fully accept the results and 'move on.' The reasons are mostly social, but agreeing to an auction is the first step to concluding an argument; 'pushing one' probably won't have that result.

Also, the Auction is designed to settle rules disagreements (mostly in the absence of a referee). If players come to loggerheads over 'what to do,' that usually has nothing to do with rules. Flipping a coin would be almost as good a solution, but both parties have to accept that kind of arbitration. Using the Auction to solve things bordering on social is not where I intended this Technique to go.

clehrich wrote: Basically I was one of the two, and I was sure I had the right answer. If this mechanic had been part of our game, I hope someone would have said, "Hey, how about Auctioning for this?" In point of fact, I suppose that most such debates reach a point where if somebody said that, the players involved would blink, look sheepish, and say, "Uh, yeah, we're really taking the game hostage here, aren't we. What say we just compromise like this...?" Which is the ideal solution.

So in short, (1) why the LARP emphasis? and (2) why not publish some of these player-level mechanics as separate objects --- they're perfectly incorporable into lots of other games?

Well...

• Part of the idea behind a live-action role-playing game is that many times you don't have an arbitrator, referee, or gamemaster (secret deals and such); that makes Solomon's Auction an ideal solution (well, except when people abuse it - I'm still not sure if that's possible). It arose from our tests of live-action role-playing games; something was needed for when no 'uninvolved' referee was around. It works really well in any Scattershot game where there is limited or absent gamemastering.

• Actually, it'll go in anything that calls for such a lack of gamemaster. For example, the 'romance novel' Scattershot (being aimed at consenting adults) will probably carry it. It will probably show up most of the twelve core books, but only a few of the supplements (they're meant to be 'smallish') when necessary.

If you wanted to see it completely separate from a formal rules set, where do you think you found it? Help yourself.

Fang Langford (Who probably needs to go eat now; take that hypoglycemia!)

p. s. Sorry it took so long to reply, I'd lost track of time again.

Thanks Fang, that clears up most of it for me. Just a couple things (take your time, and eat something, you look thin :)

There's no reason for those players to need someone else to suggest an Auction; in fact, I'd go so far as suggesting that there may be other reasons for the argument. For that matter, if they must be prompted to and moderated in an Auction, it doesn't seem likely that they will fully accept the results and 'move on.'

Yes, it occurs to me that in the example I cited, the one where I and another player were at loggerheads, we would probably not have gotten as far as we did with the argument if we'd had this Auction possibility clearly available to us; one of us would fairly quickly have said, "You know what? Let's Auction it, okay?" If we didn't, I do think it could have been proposed to us with complete success, but you're right: when an Auction has to be proposed by a third party, you may be looking at a situation that an Auction won't solve.

Also, the Auction is designed to settle rules disagreements (mostly in the absence of a referee). If players come to loggerheads over 'what to do,' that usually has nothing to do with rules. Flipping a coin would be almost as good a solution, but both parties have to accept that kind of arbitration. Using the Auction to solve things bordering on social is not where I intended this Technique to go.

I see this for LARPs, certainly, but I honestly think that making a social-interaction-mediation thing into a fixed game mechanic constructs an alternative solution for players to seize upon. Whatever the difficulty in question --- rules, whadda we do now, etc. --- you can lean on "the rules" for a solution. And fundamentally, this is what everyone always used to say about RPG rules, right? It's "let's pretend," except that the rules keep things from turning into "Gotcha -- didn't -- did -- didn't" etc.

It seems to me that a lot of rules out there are really intended to avoid certain kinds of interpersonal problems, but few of them are capable of resolving the remaining such problems. Here's such a rule, and I'd hate to see its usage overly limited.

Hey Chris,

clehrich wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: There's no reason for those players to need someone else to suggest an Auction; in fact, I'd go so far as suggesting that there may be other reasons for the argument. For that matter, if they must be prompted to and moderated in an Auction, it doesn't seem likely that they will fully accept the results and 'move on.'

Yes, it occurs to me that in the example I cited, the one where I and another player were at loggerheads, we would probably not have gotten as far as we did with the argument if we'd had this Auction possibility clearly available to us; one of us would fairly quickly have said, "You know what? Let's Auction it, okay?" If we didn't, I do think it could have been proposed to us with complete success, but you're right: when an Auction has to be proposed by a third party, you may be looking at a situation that an Auction won't solve.

[Emphasis mine.] Well put.

I guess the most important thing to note is that only in certain Approaches does it seem proper to resort to an Auction to determine Persona choice. (It rather enforces a Self-Conscious game, doesn't it?) The Auction functions best solving player disputes, like 'what really happened,' but not Persona disputes, like 'what are we going to do.' I prefer that the latter be handled only in fashions appropriate to the social circumstance of each group (while this could include using an Auction, I will not suggest it in the products).

clehrich wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Also, the Auction is designed to settle rules disagreements (mostly in the absence of a referee). If players come to loggerheads over 'what to do,' that usually has nothing to do with rules. Flipping a coin would be almost as good a solution, but both parties have to accept that kind of arbitration. Using the Auction to solve things bordering on social is not where I intended this Technique to go.

I see this for LARPs, certainly, but I honestly think that making a social-interaction-mediation thing into a fixed game mechanic constructs an alternative solution for players to seize upon. Whatever the difficulty in question --- rules, whadda we do now, etc. --- you can lean on "the rules" for a solution. And fundamentally, this is what everyone always used to say about RPG rules, right? It's "let's pretend," except that the rules keep things from turning into "Gotcha -- didn't -- did -- didn't" etc.

It seems to me that a lot of rules out there are really intended to avoid certain kinds of interpersonal problems, but few of them are capable of resolving the remaining such problems. Here's such a rule, and I'd hate to see its usage overly limited.

I'm not sure it is that limited. I may not be communicating this at all well; isn't the difference clear between "Let's go left," "No right!" and "I hit you!" "DID NOT!" The former, a Persona dispute, will invite potentially too much Self-Conscious play using the Auction; the latter is exactly the kind of player dispute the Auction is intended for (providing situations of more Gamemasterful sharing or the absence of an arbitrator).

Do you really see Persona dispute Auctions as valuable in most Approaches? I'm not really sure it is and considering the 'deliberate design strategy' being discussed in the 'Masters' thread, I would want to de-emphasize much of such unusual Mechanix. On the bright side, you've made me realize that it should be almost inherent in the other Experience Dice Mechanix; I'll have to give thought to including it there. Thanks for the inspiration.

Fang Langford

p. s. Thin? I wish!