thread: 2006-03-06 : Unpopular Idea #2: Punish the Loser
On 2006-03-07, Matt Snyder wrote:
In fashion: Giving the loser some special say in how things go down. (See: Great-grand pappy Dust Devils, Gramma Trollbabe, Poppa Dogs, and all the kiddies.
Out of fashion: Nine Worlds. No room for losing here. I like it that way. Winners rewarded? Check. Losers punished? Check. Death spiral? Um, jury's still out. Dont' think so, but it ties into ...
Tell you how long a conflict can last: Check—the winners get to decide each time. One phase? Sure. Three phases? Ok. Just keep paying attention to those Muses.
So, the death spiral can happen, particuarly if the winner's feeling merciless AND can keep the story moving as it relates to his Muses. I have learned, however, that the reward system limits often keep winners from doing that to extremes. Pure serendipity!
This makes NinJ go "Keith Senkowski is: JOHNNY ENGLISH"
Remember how Keith just couldn't get any traction? That was a death spiral. He started with a crap hand, then couldn't compete when the going got rough.
This makes Matt S go "Not a death in sight"
That wasn't a death spiral. It was spinning wheels. He was nowhere near death -- I don't even recall anyone tinkering with his Arete or Hubris, which would lead to his death. It may not have been PLEASANT, but he wasn't at risk of losing his character due to the punishing loss.
Keith's problem was that he didn't have enough Muses firing for the situation, and he had to ride it out. He needed to either 1) better prepare his Muses 2) increase his Muses or 3) frame a situation that better fires off of his Muses.
In longer play, this seems to happen pretty well, particularly once the player gets a chance to frame a scene he's interested in, which the new edition advises doing.
This makes BL go "The one problem with 9W"
Is that it encourages picking fights with weaklings.
In Maps, which is increasingly becoming my 9W heartbreaker, I fixed this by actually having the number of conflicts be a gameable resource.
This makes NinJ go "Matt, it wasn't death..."
... but it was ineffectiveness.
Now, if you're saying that he had resources he wasn't using, or wasn't using effectively, that's another matter. My memory was that, once play started, everyone else started getting resources and he was a step behind, which meant that, when conflict was between him and other players (which was totally the game), everyone else already had more resources than he did, so they were more likely to win.
"Death" doesn't just mean your character dies (which can be totally interesting and empowering). The issue is player effectiveness.
I don't remember the details of the system clearly enough to say if Keith was just underutilizing his resources though. If he was, that's no fault of the system.
This makes Matt S go "The End ..."
I don't read "death spiral" as "unavoidable character ineffectiveness." I read it as "unavoidable character ineffectivness such that the character must leave the game."
Again: "He needed to either 1) better prepare his Muses 2) increase his Muses or 3) frame a situation that better fires off of his Muses." That's Keith needing to better utilize his resources, just like you say. Also, as Ben indicated, Keith needed to pick a fight with some weaklings. But, it's not just weaklings. It's supporting characters WITH NO RELEVANT MUSES. You can kick the crap out of Zeus, IF HIS MUSES ARE IRRELEVANT (and yours are relevant). Ben describes this as a problem. I just don't see it as a problem. (shrug) The game is rewarding exactly what I want it to reward and punish. There seems to be some kind of built-in reaction against "beating up little guys" as some kind of munchkiny behavior. I think it speaks volumes about what you're character is willing to do, and is exactly a demonstration of authority in the game.
This makes NinJ go "Yeah, gotcha, Matt."
This makes Matt S go "Ungodly typo"
Whoops, that bit about Zeus there should be "HIS MUSES *AREN'T* RELEVANT"
