anyway.
A Penny for Your Thoughts
1-31-05
Several different individuals at the con asked me about stuff on my blog here. Particularly, they asked me about what should I contribute? in RPGs, referencing this post and comment thread. Apparently they think I have something in mind, about how answering how should I treat others' contributions? - IIEE, Conflict Resolution - is the easier, smaller part of designing a game.
"Contribute," by the way, just means what it usually means - saying something new and it becoming accepted. It includes saying what your character does, suggesting things for others' characters to do and them taking you up on it (it's not a contribution if they don't, you see), saying things about the environment, calling for scenes, all the whole range of good rpg contribution.
Anyhow I didn't answer them.
One of the people who asked was Ninja J. He asked toward the beginning of the con and I didn't answer. I'm going to answer him now. I don't expect anybody else to really get it, but maybe...
So, J: the Mountain Witch. There were some how should we treat each others' contributions? hitches, right? Just a few, involving how the dice work and stuff. Let's set those aside.
Throughout the game, it was clear to me that you mostly knew exactly what to contribute. Right? How did you know?
It also seemed to me that occasionally you didn't know what to contribute, and had to work hard to figure it out. Right?
What was the difference, when you knew what to contribute and when you didn't?
Furthermore: My Life with Master. I didn't see the game, but I'll bet that similarly most of the time, you knew exactly what to contribute. In fact, I'll bet that you knew what to contribute more reliably in MLwM than in tMW. (It wouldn't surprise me even to hear that in MLwM you never once had to work to figure out what to contribute - it was always right there ready for you. That's not my bet but it wouldn't surprise me.) Anyway yeah? More or less?
So let's talk - how did those two games answer what should I contribute? What was different between their answers? What was the same? What in the games made knowing what to contribute easier, and what made it harder?
(Everybody else can talk too, natch, but I really want to hear what J thinks.)
On 1-31-05, Matt wrote:
Look how everyone's bein' all polite until J answers. It's kind of cool.
On 1-31-05, Ninja Hunter J wrote:
Yeah, holy shit.
So, I don't know the answers, so you'll have to hold on while I ramble because I don't have time to edit.
My characters from the two (philosophically similar) games:
Luissa from My Life with Master:
More than human:
So beautiful, anyone will fall in love with me except when I open my eyes.
(Less than Human was that I couldn't enter unless invited, but it never really got used, maybe just once.)
When I had to do Master's bidding, it was clear how I would do it, and clear how I would fail, once I realized that deliberate, bureaucrat-like failure was the way to succeed in the game. I would go to a person, be very polite and beautiful, and then turn on them with a sad smile and a kiss on the cheek. In order to fail, I wouldn't use any of the bonus dice, acting coldly and artificially. When I was making an Overture, I was using the same features of the character. My reality check was always "Is this the most socially manipulative thing I can be doing right now, or am I breaking character because of a creative block of some kind?
Tesshu the Monkey from Mountain Witch:
Traits (or whatever they're called. It's cold outside of the bed, you know?):
- I can hear at a great distance. (failed both uses)
- I can leap very far.
- I'm smarter than you.
Fate:
Worst fear: Facing the reality and responsibility for the death of my master and lover. I was not responsible, at least not in any way that anyone would agree with, but he died because I stepped out of the room.
Most of the time, when I had to figure out what to do, I was drawing from a couple of internal sources (in descending order, it so happens):
- Is this behavior sufficiently self-destructive to distract me from thinking about my Fate?
- What would Toshiro Mifune do? (Oh, shit, I gotta make that T-shirt)
- What would the Monkey King do? (I can make a whole wardrobe!)
There was one time when I didn't know what to do and, when I figured it out, I realized Tesshu didn't know what to do, either, so it got covered up for a few minutes. It was when we were standing in the snow and my feet had literally frozen to ice and everyone was bickering about Rob's dude's betrayal. Once I realized that going forward and dying stupidly was better than standing in place and thinking about what my master would have done, I started my Final Shamble.
When I didn't know what to do, it was because I didn't know if failure would complicate matters (good! More not-thinking about my dead love!) or stop me (baaad.). Tim was almost always there with me, so it didn't usually stop me, but since the mechanics didn't reaaally support complication instead of failure, I got gunshy a few times. For instance, those frostbitten feet were my friends. I needed the exhaustion and infection they brought so that I could die when and where I did. Otherwise, it would have been really weird. Those wounds should have been a bonus because they helped me with my goal.
In MLwM, you never lose effectiveness, you gain it, and resent it. And since that's the case, you do what seems best because the worst that happens is that you'll be a bad person, and duh. The best that happens is that you gain some love and will be able to overcome the evil you've wrought by inflicting one last evil.
I think that's what really separated them.
(There was a weird thing in MLwM: I never once got the bonus die for Sincerity because my character was entirely about emotional manipulation. I couldn't take that die without violating the character integrity. I was just playing along with the character and kept forgetting to take my ubiquitous d4 for Intimacy, though. Had I been playing the game as well as my character, I would have gotten a bonus for every single thing I did.)
On 1-31-05, Ninja Hunter J wrote:
... it occurs to me that our very first conflict was a case of "What do I make of this? What can I offer this conflict that will add something that someone else can't add better?" I hadn't thought of it because no one contributed anything really significant and it faded from memory.
On 1-31-05, Ninja Hunter J wrote:
Yeah, holy shit.
So, I don't know the answers, so you'll have to hold on while I ramble because I don't have time to edit.
My characters from the two (philosophically similar) games:
Luissa from My Life with Master:
More than human:
So beautiful, anyone will fall in love with me except when I open my eyes.
(Less than Human was that I couldn't enter unless invited, but it never really got used, maybe just once.)
When I had to do Master's bidding, it was clear how I would do it, and clear how I would fail, once I realized that deliberate, bureaucrat-like failure was the way to succeed in the game. I would go to a person, be very polite and beautiful, and then turn on them with a sad smile and a kiss on the cheek. In order to fail, I wouldn't use any of the bonus dice, acting coldly and artificially. When I was making an Overture, I was using the same features of the character. My reality check was always "Is this the most socially manipulative thing I can be doing right now, or am I breaking character because of a creative block of some kind?
Tesshu the Monkey from Mountain Witch:
Traits (or whatever they're called. It's cold outside of the bed, you know?):
- I can hear at a great distance. (failed both uses)
- I can leap very far.
- I'm smarter than you.
Fate:
Worst fear: Facing the reality and responsibility for the death of my master and lover. I was not responsible, at least not in any way that anyone would agree with, but he died because I stepped out of the room.
Most of the time, when I had to figure out what to do, I was drawing from a couple of internal sources (in descending order, it so happens):
- Is this behavior sufficiently self-destructive to distract me from thinking about my Fate?
- What would Toshiro Mifune do? (Oh, shit, I gotta make that T-shirt)
- What would the Monkey King do? (I can make a whole wardrobe!)
There was one time when I didn't know what to do and, when I figured it out, I realized Tesshu didn't know what to do, either, so it got covered up for a few minutes. It was when we were standing in the snow and my feet had literally frozen to ice and everyone was bickering about Rob's dude's betrayal. Once I realized that going forward and dying stupidly was better than standing in place and thinking about what my master would have done, I started my Final Shamble.
When I didn't know what to do, it was because I didn't know if failure would complicate matters (good! More not-thinking about my dead love!) or stop me (baaad.). Tim was almost always there with me, so it didn't usually stop me, but since the mechanics didn't reaaally support complication instead of failure, I got gunshy a few times. For instance, those frostbitten feet were my friends. I needed the exhaustion and infection they brought so that I could die when and where I did. Otherwise, it would have been really weird. Those wounds should have been a bonus because they helped me with my goal.
In MLwM, you never lose effectiveness, you gain it, and resent it. And since that's the case, you do what seems best because the worst that happens is that you'll be a bad person, and duh. The best that happens is that you gain some love and will be able to overcome the evil you've wrought by inflicting one last evil.
I think that's what really separated them.
(There was a weird thing in MLwM: I never once got the bonus die for Sincerity because my character was entirely about emotional manipulation. I couldn't take that die without violating the character integrity. I was just playing along with the character and kept forgetting to take my ubiquitous d4 for Intimacy, though. Had I been playing the game as well as my character, I would have gotten a bonus for every single thing I did.)
On 2-1-05, Ninja Hunter J wrote:
Mysterious double-post returns!
On 2-1-05, Ben Lehman wrote:
I wrote a bunch about this and put it in my livejournal.
Here it is
I can't write about MLWM or Mountain Witch, having never played them. Maybe when I'm in Mass.
yrs--
--Ben
On 2-1-05, Chris wrote:
I think its really neat to see mechanics set up ways for players to contribute, as well as communicate amongst each other about those contributions without having to step out and have a big discussion.
That is, PTA's fanmail communicates approval, Mountain Witch's Trust communicates... well trust, as well as something about betraying that, Sorcerer's Humanity rolls communicate about morality to the issue being addressed, TROS's SAs communicate what the players want to be the crux of conflict for a character, etc. The group is given a means of communicating without getting caught up in the hows and whys of everything, but keep it moving as part of play.
I think the biggest shift in gaming is mechanics that serve as group communication devices more than simply means to emulate what happens in the imaginative space.
On 2-1-05, Ninja Hunter J wrote:
Chris, any system that looks like a means to emulate what happens in the imaginative space is a system that serves group communication. They just aren't designed with that in mind, so they do it badly.
'When the only tool you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.'
On 2-1-05, Matt wrote:
I'd say that what with the influence (at least partially) of WW in the 90s, there's a real vacuum of ideas where player-to-player communication is concerned. You're supposed to be in character, right? Not talking about the game like some Olympian god.
In terms of formalizing it, how about a currency for player-to-player stuff? This is me just throwing out ideas. Can anyone think of a game with a flat-out bribe mechanic? As in something like Fan Mail or TSOY's "gift of dice," but given conditionally?
Like we're playing a game, and I give NHJ a d6, saying, "if you turn your back on V's character, you can have this d6 to use later on." or better yet... "I'll give you a d6 if you take this trait on your character sheet."
Hey V: What's the Dogs method of handling player-to-player contributions like that? It doesn't fall into the yes-or-roll thing as easily. "I raise to have my character tell your character to tell you that it'd be cool if you had a relationship with the widow." Although I'd be totally impressed (and disturbed) if someone played it that way.
On 2-1-05, Vincent wrote:
So J: in the Mountain Witch, you knew what to contribute because your character was a) a real person b) in motion. Is that fair to say?
Is this the most socially manipulative thing I can be doing right now, or am I breaking character because of a creative block of some kind?
How did the game - the rules, the dice, the stats, character creation, master creation, the organization of the players and their roles - how did it tell you to always do the most socially manipulative thing?
And this is given that the rules told Rob to have Mawg always do the most [something else] thing too, at the same time. And they told Michael to have the master always do the most [something else] thing too! Every player is sitting there going "is this the most [something] thing I can be doing right now?" and it's because the game's rules and setup told them to.
How?
On 2-1-05, Vincent wrote:
Matt: Dogs doesn't have any such methods. It says "thou shalt kibitz" with no mechanical oomph. It's already obsolete that way.
I gotta say, playing the Mountain Witch has changed my future game designs. Like, PTA showed me how to do something that I thought was impossible; tMW shows me something I didn't know about before.
On 2-1-05, Tom wrote:
It sounds to me, in reading the description, that the mechanics were only secondary. What was really important was the Character Concept. In both cases, J. got an idea for a fun character he'd like to play and then used that core idea to build a character that would play to it and also made decisions based on that.
So long as he followed that model, he had no trouble making contributions -- and I'd guess that the other players accepted it, in part, because he'd explained something about his concept so other people recognized when he was doing it. I notice that the only times he talks about having trouble is when the situation was ambiguous to his concept.
I suppose mechanics that enhance your ability to realize a concept are the key pieces here. But equally important is figuring out a way to make deviations from that concept meaningful.
On 2-1-05, Vincent wrote:
Tom: "It sounds to me, in reading the description, that the mechanics were only secondary."
I agree. I think that IIEE and Resolution - commonly, "the mechanics" - are overwhelmingly about how should I treat others' contributions? I hope that doesn't surprise anybody too much by now.
Now on the other hand, character creation rules, reward mechanics, game-setup Situation-setup and scene-setup rules... It's not like J came up with his gripping Character Concepts in a vacuum. One thing, very telling, about tMW and MLwM, is that everybody comes up with a gripping Character Concept, and everybody gets to realize it.
On 2-1-05, Matt wrote:
You know, Great Ork Gods might be a good example of character-creation/game-setup rules that provide for both how to contribute and how to treat others' contributions. You have a character, which is sort of a "how I contribute" filter, and the control of one of the gods, which is a "how I react to what others say" filter.
Anyone here played it? It's pretty nifty. I'm betting there's some stuff to mine and apply to nar play.
On 2-1-05, Chris wrote:
Hi Matt-
"Like we're playing a game, and I give NHJ a d6, saying, "if you turn your back on V's character, you can have this d6 to use later on." or better yet... "I'll give you a d6 if you take this trait on your character sheet.""
I think I'm going to go take another look at the new Paranoia- it has a system for players to hand around dice as modifiers(either positive or negative). While at first I simply thought of people using them to save their rears, I realize now that it feeds in perfectly with setting up shifting alliances and factions amongst the -players- through systems of helping and harming each other's characters. I think a similar system could do wonders for WW games, particularly Vampire where folks are not necessarily working together to begin with.
On 2-1-05, Keith, Goat Master wrote:
You know it is interesting, when we started I really didn't know what to contribute. I had a concept (Don Diego of Leon) that I could get my head around, the whole stranger in a strange land thing, but I really didn't get it until Clinton revealed his Dark Fate. Then something clicked in my head and it all fell into place for me. I think the beuty of tMW is that it is the combination of your concept and the concept of the others involved that allow you to just "know" when and how to contribute.
On 2-1-05, Vincent wrote:
(Keith! Good to have you here.)
On 2-1-05, Emily Care wrote:
You know, Great Ork Gods might be a good example of character-creation/game-setup rules that provide for both how to contribute and how to treat others' contributions.
GOG is a great example, also, of how to align inter-player dynamics with inter-character dynamics, as well as creating collaborative play while still maintaining a fiercely competitive atmosphere. It solves a tricky question, too, of how to get every player gets to protagonize the other players--crossing a line that is so often taboo in rpg.
Re: Tom: "It sounds to me, in reading the description, that the mechanics were only secondary."
From reading tMW, it has seemed that there is a lot of openness in how the characters' fates come about, so that the support for the character concepts coming to fruition would be enforced by a common desire amongst the group to fulfill them, rather than by specific mechanics that bring it about. MLwM, on the other hand, seems like it creates a structure for the character concept directly through the mechanics. Was this how it came out in play?
And then, did the trust mechanic help bring about character concept realization as fan mail might in PtA? Fan mail seems like a way for the group as a whole to communicate their input about character concept as well. What is the real/most important effect of trust? Player-player communication? Player-character contributions?
On 2-1-05, Keith, Goat Master wrote:
From reading tMW, it has seemed that there is a lot of openness in how the characters' fates come about, so that the support for the character concepts coming to fruition would be enforced by a common desire amongst the group to fulfill them, rather than by specific mechanics that bring it about.
Well I know that my Dark Fate came into existence in the game in direct response to Clinton bringing his in. He effectively opened the door for me by introducing his. I don't know if it is so much a desire as a group to see the concepts come forth or if it is each person with an individual desire to bring it into play. I mean I wanted to see everyone elses come about (plus find out who had what) but my primary concern was trying to figure out what my Dark Fate was and how I could introduce it in such a way that it worked with what had already been established.
And then, did the trust mechanic help bring about character concept realization as fan mail might in PtA? Fan mail seems like a way for the group as a whole to communicate their input about character concept as well. What is the real/most important effect of trust? Player-player communication? Player-character contributions?
I think it helped bring about the concept. I adjusted my trust based upon how I felt my character felt about each of the other members of our merry little band.
As to what is most important about it, I think the communication between players. When we announced our trust and gave our rationalization for it we came to better understand both the Players and their characters (I did at least).
(Keith! Good to have you here.)
Good to be here...
On 2-1-05, Vincent wrote:
Em: Fates coming true in play is very interesting. Since we don't know each others' Fates, we aren't actively, directly, intentionally participating in anybody's but our own. Even the GM doesn't know your Fate! Consequently, my Fate comes true because I push for it, plus everybody else treats my contributions well (in no small part because of IIEE and Resolution).
Trust is subtle and sophisticated. It doesn't work as a reward like Fan Mail does. It's doing something else I haven't put my finger on. Judd decided he trusted me ZERO. Consequently, when I swore loyalty to him - as the intersection of our Fates at that moment demanded - I could neither help nor betray him. Isn't that interesting?
On 2-2-05, Jonathan Walton wrote:
Speaking of GOG and shifting alliances, Smerf, Shreyas, me and possibly some other people were hanging out in indie netgaming one day when brillance struck and we worked out the details of Unspeakable Eldritch Gods a GOG varient in which what exactly your diety was responsible was rather vague and amorphous, like the dieties themselves. It was like GOG meets tMW meets Cthulhu, with plenty of paranoia and backstabbing to go around. I sent a PM to Jack about it, but that was months ago and I never heard back. Let me see if I can dig it up, because otherwise it'll be lost to time and forgetfulness.
WARNING: Dangerously Close to Being Offtopic!
Dearest Sir,
*jiggle, jiggle* The other Unspeakable Eldritch Deities and I were examing your game Great Ork Gods. We enjoy your work, but it is not quite as preferrable as the atonal flute music that we usually dance to out in the blackness of space, beyond the farthest horizon. Being infinite creatures of selfishness, we wonder if it would not be possible to make a supplement to your work that would allow humans to take on the roles of investigators trying to track down the nefarious secrets of the mythos, all the while controlled and manipulated by the Unspeakable Eldritch Gods.
Unlike the lesser Orkish spirits, the Unspeakable Eldritch Gods do not represent concepts that can be contained in the simple minds of men. There is no "God of War." There is just "Sub-Niggurah, the Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young." As such, you are never quite sure who's attention your foolish mortal actions shall grab. Every move could be a possible danger, depending on how a given Eldritch God interprets their dominion over the world. Maybe you will get lucky and no one will seek to challange you. But maybe even the most innocent action will be impeded by a gruesome jiggling horror from out of time.
The Unspeakable Eldritch Gods, of course, would signal their interest in your mortal plot by jiggling menacingly. Human players who are not capable of jiggling in proper eldritch fashion, they could bring along a bowl of jello to shake or poke every now and then. In cases where more than one Unspeakable Eldritch God claimed domain over certain events, might I suggest a jiggle off? The entire pantheon could jiggle for one side or another, since democracy seems to be an ideal for most of you pathetic earthlings. If this game was really to reflect life in the Outer Void, I would suggest jello wrestling instead.
In any case, I sincerely hope (for your sake) that you will heed our suggestions and release such a supplement within the next few millenia. We will continue our own secret eldritch jiggling until then.
Sincerely,
Azathoth, the Nameless Horror Beyond Thought and Memory
Dancing on the Edge of the Eternal Abyss, Writhing to the Monotonous Rhythms of Ten-Thousans Broken Flutes
On 2-2-05, Matt wrote:
What I like about trust is that it prevents decision making in a vacuum. You have to think about me and my character during the game. We have to have a relationship, you and me (never mind the LJ quiz), just as our characters do, and we have a relationship with each other's characters.
Plus consider this neat tidbit: how well you know me as a person is going to influence your decision of how much trust to give me. Our real relationship influences the relationship of the characters. So cool.
On 2-2-05, Vincent wrote:
Matt: Yeah, that's something J said to me: he trusted my character because he didn't figure me for the betraying type.
On 2-2-05, Keith, Goat Master wrote:
Vincent:Matt: Yeah, that's something J said to me: he trusted my character because he didn't figure me for the betraying type.
That's interesting. My trust was strictly based upon in game actions, but after the game I felt differently. If we had played again at say GenCon I think I would have reacted differently based upon what I know about everyone involved now. I feel I know everyone better after playing the game. Weird.
On 2-2-05, Chris wrote:
"Plus consider this neat tidbit: how well you know me as a person is going to influence your decision of how much trust to give me. Our real relationship influences the relationship of the characters. So cool."
Matt- funny enough, I just realized that a similar issue appeared in a war/board game I used to play- Tenjo. Everyone is a samurai warlord, vying for land, etc- but a neat aspect of play was the ability to make alliances. Of course, due to the gamist nature of the game, alliances were made to be broken... Funny though- I never, ever broke an alliance, but a few people I played with refused to ever ally with me. It was interesting to see how without the concept of Actor Stance interceding, there was no illusions about it being a player to player trust issue, mixed with weighing odds and costs of potential betrayal.
On 2-2-05, Ninja Hunter J wrote:
All this is being filed away in my head for my eventual Renaissance Italy game.
One of the things you need for a game of alliances where someone can win is a possibility of a viable second place. See http://sissyfight.com for an example (if it's still working).
There's an interesting question here: how would Mountain Witch go if the players all knew each other well? I'd like to know what the answer is.
On 2-2-05, Keith, Goat Master wrote:
Ninja J: There's an interesting question here: how would Mountain Witch go if the players all knew each other well? I'd like to know what the answer is.
I think you would get people making Trust choices based upon personal shit. I mean I still got a player who has trouble dealing with something I did fucking 15 years ago to a character of his (actually I allowed it to happen). He gets into this funk where he won't trust what I say sometimes. Then again this is anecdotal and in another group it might not occur that way...
On 2-2-05, Ninja Hunter J wrote:
Yeah, that's my concern, too. That's a big deal. I think it also might lay it out on the table, and then you can deal with it, since it's happening metaphorically. It gives you a way to deal with it, whereas other systems don't.
I'm'a forward you what I wrote to Vincent earlier, since it came out of a conversation with you.
On 2-4-05, Emily Care wrote:
This is starting to sound like playing Diplomacy. You know how there are always these solid alliances that spring up because two people are good friends. I'd hope it would be a bit less, bleedy, than diplomacy, since there is more commitment to the story, and multiple goals. Everyone is out to bring their story into fruition, rather than just out to knife anyone they need to to get what they want.
I'd hope.
On 2-4-05, Ninja Hunter J wrote:
Yeah, since everyone has goals and isn't just playing elimination, it's much richer than what you fear.