thread: 2009-07-27 : Resolving Player Conflicts by Reconciling Their Interests
On 2009-07-28, Joshua A.C. Newman wrote:
The Poison'd example is much more compelling in this instance. The option is a real option, given to the player, that mimics the options the character has. It also means that you can opt to have the tar beaten out of your character if that's the kind of player you are.
So, let's see. Let's look at the objectives of the different players:
Protag Players:
1. Experience the beauty of the world.
2. Act according to your character's nature as it evolves. (This is shorthand for a lot of fun stuff and is almost certainly where most of the fun is as a Protag player.)
World Player:
A. Build the world on the horizon of the characters' perception.
B. Reveal the world at every opportunity.
C. Faithfully represent the actions of World Characters according to their natures as they evolve, erring on the side of evolution and flexibility according to the active fiction (this is part of B but has particular implications).
D. Integrate the speculation of the players while keeping an eye on continuity
A. is a technical tool. It doesn't come in conflict with anything.
1. and B. are almost always in sync. Times when it's not are when there's a natural threat that is a risk to explore, like a storm or whatever. In that rare case, representation of the world represents a conflict with exploring it, but usually the Protags want to look and the World Player wants to show.
2xD are almost always in sync. The WP wants to know what the characters are like. The players want to do things out loud. Conflicts I've had with these objectives are where the Protag player doesn't know any more than the World Player.
2xC is typical conflict: people want incompatible things and are willing to take some risk and/or use some force to get it.
2x2 is another realm for conflict with similar issues.
The 1xB conflict can be as simple as, "Are you damaged by the sand in your gears from the sandstorm you decided to watch?" or as complex as, "Do we manage to keep our ship's course in this typhoon?" There needs to be a straightforward way of measuring that risk, taking it, and taking consequences. A WP being able to apply "Hurt" or "Lost" according the fictional constraints is OK by me. It's not OK to apply "duped". That's in the player's realm.
The 2xC conflict is another matter. These will be over questions of the characters' sovereignty, moral stances the characters are taking, stuff like that. To my mind right now, these consist of risks the players give each other.
E.g.
Me: I need that book. Without it, Amudat won't be able to read the future and will die.
You: No, if Amudat lives, she will kill my crops.
then,
Example 1:
Me: I stab your face! (Roll. Stabbing will happen unless you do something in response)
You: I run away! (roll. You doesn't succeed)
(You get stabbed and are Hurt, which means you can't defend yourself or help others until you're Healed. We figure out if you're willing to risk becoming Maimed or Dead to hold onto the book.)
(i.e. the threat is some sort of linear mechanical hurt)
OR
Example 2:
Me: I stab your face!
You: I stab your face!
(both roll, whoever wins gets the book, both see how badly hurt they are)
(i.e. the threat is the fictional ownership of the book, possible mechanical consequences)
OR
Example 3:
Me: I stab your face!
You: I give you the book as soon as your reach for the knife,
Me: Oh, uh, thanks!
You: What will you do about my crops?
Me: Um... what *can* I do?
You: It's your responsibility now. Without the crops, my town will die.
Me: Let's find another way.
(i.e. there is no real threat. Solutions other than "Let's find another way" are sought gamely, but not by necessity.)
The way we've been playing has largely been 3. It is unsatisfying to me. It states that the easiest thing to do is to not force anyone to do anything, which is exactly the opposite of the challenges in human existence.
This is contrary to how I was thinking about the rules before, which is example 1.
The strength to either inflict risk or mitigate ones own* is, I think, the amount of discovery of the world the characters have done. There's the base stuff about the world the players know ??? the characters themselves ??? but their saturation in the world should be a bigger factor.
What I'd like to happen is that the risks are implicit but obvious from the situation. That's the great benefit of numerical, mechanical risk ??? it's not incumbent on the GM to declare how hurt a character is.
I don't think any other interests need reconciliation. So the question is how to be able to interact intimately with one's own character while that character is at odds with some element of the world (including another character) and not revert to authority swapping.
* probably only one of these is interesting, or they might be interesting in different situations.
...
Carsten, where are you? Are there cons around you we might know about? You question is kind of like asking if driving a van is still driving when you're used to driving a sedan.
