anyway.

To bring this back around to where it started: I find the old-school renaissance thrilling. I can talk about what I find thrilling about it later, if you're interested; for now, it's just that I think we can learn some spectacular things from it and really broaden our designs, our play, and our social view. If you're like me, you're interested in what they're doing and you're excited to take part.

To do that, to engage with them at all, to even be able to read what they're writing, my story gamer friends, you'll need to set aside your instinct to commoditize, and reexamine "GM" as a powerful solution to the problem of biased judgment.

I think it's a moot point between players 1, 2 and 3. The game rules should say "look, your friends trust you to be mature about judging this and judge from your understanding of what happened in the fiction, rather than from what advantages you. Be honest, including discussing your biases."

The thing about rationing is that it assumes that I, as a player, put my guy winning over a coherent SIS. Without a mutual interest in a coherent, structurally sound SIS, none of this (role-playing) can happen. It doesn't matter what game you're playing, or whether your rules are one way or the other, we all have a mutual interest in a coherent, structurally sound SIS, and if we didn't our game would fall apart.

Trust to that.

yrs—
—Ben

I've been following these diagramed discussions with keen interest.

So, as one possible solution to bias, if we require a prerequisite step for in-fiction advantage, does that work?

By way of example:

Bob uses one of his "gos" to say "Bobnar jumps up on the dead tree stump as the trolls swarm around him".

The GM say "The trolls holler and shout and try to claw you down from that tree stump."  She rolls some dice, consults the results, and says "Bobnar takes wicked damage to his legs and hips, but they don't knock him over".

Bob's next go, he says, "Cool.  Now Bobnar gets +2 for having the high ground..."

I'm asking if this matches the moment of judgement you're talking about, without commoditizing, by way of checking if I'm following you.

Cheers.

Ben: I'd like to, but instead my experience matches Frank's.

I want to design my games so that their pressures support the players' maturity and investment, instead of demanding maturity and investment unsupported by, or even counter to, the pressures of the game.

Jason: Sure. You can solve the problem by coordinating your mechanical advantages with non-mechanical costs or non-mechanical risks, absolutely.

Oh and Ben: This comment of yours, "everyone can see the game space," I think that's sharp. It's just the kind of thing I'm talking about.

I don't know, Vincent. I think that a lot of this is getting into "what if you're playing with an asshole" territory. Designing games you can play with assholes is a bum deal.

I'm not saying that there's no important considerations here (there's a story about scene judging in Bliss Stage that gets into exactly the design problems of this sort of rule.) I'm just saying you can't enter into a system expecting that some players have goals that the place about the basic structural coherency of the SIS. That way lies madness.

yrs—
—Ben

> Designing games you can play with assholes is a bum deal.

I agree with you there! With my whole brain. That's really not where I want to go with this.

So check it. Bliss Stage.

You play an interlude action. It's 2-5 minutes, and there's a positive result for one of the pilots involved in the action, based on the events of the action. There's system for setting it up but the only system for playing it out is: Alice plays Alicenar, Bob plays Bobnar, Kate place Katenar.

1st draft rules: At the end of the action, the group as a whole decides what bonus the pilot gets based on the dominant outcome of scene.

Result: Totally lame. First of all, GM led. Second of all, mad-bad hurt feelings when people don't get the reward that they want. Lots of players jumping in and argue that they did too relieve stress! you just don't understand the relationship!
Particularly when it's their fault that they didn't.

7th draft rules: One player (the scene judge) decides what the outcome of the scene based on the dominant action of the scene without input from others.

Result: Better. Now the spiteful hatred is directed at a single target.

8th draft rules: One player (the scene judge) select a reward based on *any part* of the scene, at their discretion.

Result: Much, much better. People get shafted now, but they can internalize it as "well, the other stuff was present, but the judge didn't pick it," rather than being totally screwed.

There might be better rules at the 10th, 12th, 20th drafts. I didn't get that far. But that's an interesting thing to consider.

I'm staring at a design issue right now that involves this sort of "moment of judgment". So, thanks for the food for thought.

For myself, these days, I see the GM deciding high ground as an artistic expression.

So it's not so much a matter of dealing with bias (because a persons bias is part of their art), but making sure that the art that they are able to express through mechanics, does not block other players ability to mechanically express their own art any more than one intends as a designer (actually I'm bringing in a second radical idea here, ie that it's okay for one player to block another players ability to express art (one of which might be to kill a character). The designer just has to decide how much blocking can happen in his game, and design it to only have that much blocking (hopefully without stuffing up))

To get at some evidence for the notion I have to challenge another notion. God, I make things hard for myself.
"Someone has to read the game's fiction and draw conclusions about it."
I take issue with the word read (and previously, the word 'refer' in refering to the spoken fiction)

Take the difference between reading a book and reading tarot cards, or even better, tea leaves. The book was written by someone who had a meaning and they conveyed (or tried to convey) it through words. The tarot cards were not layed out by someone who had a meaning to convey (lets discount spirits, for now). With the tarot cards, it's pure artistic expression. Which is cool.

The thing with the spoken game fiction, is that it's like the tarot cards, it has no intended meaning in it (or if the speaker does have a meaning intended, then he should just tell the other guy to give him high ground or else). Bobnar standing on the stump has no meaning. And so it's 'read' in the same way as the tarot cards - which is to say, an artistic expression. So that's my evidence for the whole art notion from above.

Though it occurs to me just now that it might just be me that plays with the imagined space not having an inherent meaning (oh, I want to get high ground when I go on the stump, but I see my words just going into a big pile, like adding tarot cards of my choosing to the imaginative pile). Perhaps other people speak about their character climbing the stump and expect someone else to catch the meaning and act on it. I have'nt thought about this much yet. Hmmm.

Actually, jeez, imagine a game where you don't describe your characters actions - you just have a bunch of tarot like cards, and on your turn or whatever, from your hand of them, just put one or a few of your choosing onto the table...that's all you get to do. No talking about what your characters doing.

This is how all RPG play, as I know it, works in effect. Words are just tarot cards. But it still struck me as shocking idea, when it lept into my head. It just struck me and I had to post even though I'm probably posting too much.

"The thing about rationing is that it assumes that I, as a player, put my guy winning over a coherent SIS. Without a mutual interest in a coherent, structurally sound SIS, none of this (role-playing) can happen."

I think the ideal for me is when playing hard for my guy winning (or me, the player, winning) results in coherent SIS.

Hey, Rob.

Don't pretend I'm saying something more contentious than what I'm actually saying. My point is pretty trivial. You don't prioritize like I said because, if the SIS is completely unsound, there's nothing for your guy to win.

Let's say you're playing PTA. It's like, a game about fighting werewolves in a rural town in Texas. You're fighting the boss werewolf in town. It's episode 2.

Do you:
Say "I blow up the moon with my (previously unmentioned) nuclear missile so the werewolves stop being werewolves!" ?

I'm guessing, since you report having a good time playing PTA, that no, you don't say that. Because it's stupid, it violates the premise of the game, it violates the pacing of the game, and it completely disrespects everyone at the table. But it is your guy "winning." Inasmuch as there is anything left to win.

yrs—
—Ben

Ben,

Of course. I wasn't posting to refute your point, but using it as a jumping-off point. What you wrote triggered thoughts I'd been having and it occurred to me that I could use the language in this thread to clarify it.

Rob:
"I think the ideal for me is when playing hard for my guy winning (or me, the player, winning) results in coherent SIS."

Absofragginlutly!

Callan:

"Actually, jeez, imagine a game where you don't describe your characters actions - you just have a bunch of tarot like cards, and on your turn or whatever, from your hand of them, just put one or a few of your choosing onto the table...that's all you get to do. No talking about what your characters doing."

You just described the game I'm working on, even though that's not quite what I intended, that's how it plays in early playtests. And you know what? It feels like a card game. Total disconnect with the SIS, which is the big design problem I'm working on now.

Once again, Vincent delivers with a topic that is exactly what I need to move forward ...

I think the ideal for me is when playing hard for my guy winning (or me, the player, winning) results in coherent SIS.

Would this be the Impossible Thing AFTER Breakfast?

Ha ha! Call on me to act the Forge pedant, why don't you, Jim?

The impossible thing before breakfast of Forge canon is "the players control their characters and the GM controls the plot."

I think you mean El Dorado: "why can't I just play my character, and the GM plays the world, and we get story now out of it?" My answer, for which I've fought hard for a long time, with some but not absolute success, is: "sure you can, if you've got the right character and the right world."

What's the opposite of El Dorado? Xanadu? "Why can't I just play story now (or step on up) as hard as I can, and get strong investment in the game's fictional details out of it?" My answer goes along: "sure you can, if you've got the right story now (or the right step on up)."

I should add, I've never been one to make a crisis out of either El Dorado or the Impossible Thing. In fact I'm pretty sure that this is the first I've ever talked about them here. They're, like, tar on the brush, so it'd be disingenuous of me to disavow them - but I think they're plain rpg design questions, and easy ones at that, not big problems in any sort of roleplaying.

I'm struggling with this...alot.  Part of my struggle is this:

"Player 3 STRONGLY wants the game to have a reliable-but-interesting internal consistency, and doesn't care a bit whether Bobnar has the high-ground advantage.

Which player should get to judge Bobnar's position? (Hint: Player 3 should.)"
————

I'm struggling, because this sounds like a recipe for every bad old school experience I've ever had being promoted as if its a good thing.

Let me suggest what REALLY happens eventually in nearly every group I've played with that relied on a supposedly impartial party to adjudicate on the basis of "internal consistency"

We spend the next hour arguing about what is more internally consistant.

See Ole Bobnar is armed with a 3 foot long sword.  Player 2's guy has an 8 foot long Bill with a back hook.  Having the high ground is NOT an advantage to Bobnar...its a liability...big time, because #2 can attack his legs with his hook with near impunity and Bobnar'll have to bend over nearly double to defend himself.

But if Player 3 doesn't understand that...because player 3 lacks sufficient knowledge to make a correct internally consistant judgement, then Player 2 is going to rightfully feel screwed.  Not because Bobnar is getting a bonus he doesn't deserve (although maybe that) but because now the fiction in Player 2's head is all borked up with some ridiculous image of a fight scene that makes no sense.

And, what's even more common, is when neither player has sufficient knowledge (but both think they do...pretty typical) than this can go around and around ad naseum...motivated not by either player being a jerk, but by both players being equally committed to having a "reliable but interesting internal consistancy"...and legitimately disagreeing on what that looks like.

Sure...if there was a way to instantly judge who is most capable of "getting it right" for any given moment of judgement...great, fine.  But that's only possible with a long established play group who knows each other's strengths and areas of knowledge well enough to defer to whoever happens to be the resident expert on whichever subject is at issue.  Otherwise what you get is 20 minutes of resume comparison as everyone tries to convince the other guy that their 2 years of Physics class at the local community college makes them best qualified to judge the actual effects of faster than light time dialation.

I prefer techniques that can be more reliably reproduced across a broad spectrum of groups as opposed to those that can only work for a handful of special people some of the time.

I don't see how "give the moment of judgment to a player who's strongly invested in getting it right, not in one character or another coming out on top." reliably produces a good result for anyone who isn't already doing that and doesn't need the advice.

To me that sounds about as reliable as "just make shit up and hope it works".

This is a particular strength of commoditization (nice term that).  Because it means that it doesn't matter if Player #2 and Player #3 can't agree on whether Bobnar should get the high ground advantage or not.  Because the judgement no longer depends on "what makes the most sense".  Is it possible in some incredible set of circumstances for Bobnar's height to work to his advantage even faced with the guy with an 8' Bill...sure...not likely...but we could probably come up with some extreme set of circumstances where that would work.  What happens when Player 1 pays the Fate Point to get the high ground advantage is basically him saying "you know that 1 in a million chance of that actually happening...well it just happened".

Now Player 2 doesn't feel so screwed because he's no longer dealing with somebody not understanding what the "most reasonable" thing should be...instead he's dealing with the "long tail of the distribution" and...he knows that because someone paid a point to make it so.

THAT IMO, is a much more reliable (and reproduceable) way of rendering judgement acceptable to all.

Well, sure, commoditization is a good solution to the problem. Coordinate mechanical benefits with mechanical costs or risks.

The fact remains that for some groups, the GM solution works great. I strongly hold that it's because those groups carefully arrange their responsibilities and self-interests, and coordinate mechanical benefits with non-mechanical (but nevertheless entirely real) costs and risks - techniques, I'm talking about, that are available to game designers - not because those groups are magic.

Then I guess what I'm not not seeing is how those techniques are available at the design level for game designers.

Cuz they seem awfully like group level magic to me.

Actually, cool! That gives me my next post on the subject. It'll be about the different ways that the GM has to be impartial in Dogs in the Vineyard, Storming the Wizard's Tower and Apocalypse World.

Wow, good points, Ralph!

John: Cool! Perhaps give a playtest account at the forge or something? Or have you already?

Hey, Ralph:

So can you take your comment and apply it to my experience in Bliss Stage, above? It strikes me that there is a right and a wrong way to apply this sort of technique, which might include right or wrong *topics* (such as a bill vs a sword) of judgment, but that doesn't mean that the field as a whole is fucked.

yrs—
—Ben

Ralph wrote:

"We spend the next hour arguing about what is more internally consistant."

Isn't this largely dependent on the group's CA or lack thereof? The game I'm working on is aiming for a Gamist CA and I can clearly see this as a problem because in my case all of the participants have a huge incentive to grab any advantage they can, including the GM. (She's not impartial at all in my design.)

But in my limited experience with Sorcerer, I grok Ron's idea that the GM hands out situational bonus dice to recognize what has already happened at the table. The group is already invested in and approved of the statement you just made, so there should be no controversy when the GM hands you some dice.

For the Right to Dream? Dunno. I would like to think the group's commitment to the fiction would outweigh any temporary personal advantage, but my experience has been about 50-50.

Callan: I'll post after my next playtest. It's been many months since the last real playtest and I have tons of new ideas that haven't been tempered in the fire yet. I've got a plan but it will be another month before I have time to playtest. Se la vie.

I meant to point back to Ben's Bliss Stage example too, Ralph. When I say nonsense words like "carefully arrange their responsibilities and self-interests," that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Ben, I can easily see how draft 8 worked better then the previous drafts.  In the previous drafts you had a standard "the dominant outcome of the scene".  It also sounds like you had established an expectation of an impartial, dare I say, objective judgment on what that was.

In my mind, not surprising that that didn't work as well as desired.  IMO I've found the expectation of objective impartiality to be rather treacherous.  Not because we can't trust that individual to be impartial, but because two reasonable people both striving towards objective impartiality can come to completely different conclusions.  This is why most arbitrations (and IIRC most European courts)have a panel of judges.

What you've done in draft 8 is remove the illusion that someone is rendering an objective impartial judgment on what was the "dominant" outcome.  People are MUCH more willing to accept a subjective judgment that they know and expect to be subjective than they are an objective judgment that they disagree with.  The judge doesn't have to defend "I chose this outcome to reward because I thought it was the most dominant and here are my reasons".  The judge simply says "I chose this outcome to reward...because I felt like it" for whatever reason.  There's much less room to argue there.

That's what spending allowing the person who spends the Fate Point to get there way does, as well as spending Coins in a Challenge in Universalis.  I may be able to argue with your judgment, but I can't argue with the fact that you just spent a point.  Just as in draft 8 I can't argue that that outcome was in the scene...even if its not the one I wanted you to focus on.

John, no I don't think it depends on CA...although it might be flavored differently for different CAs.  Internal Consistancy is an Exploration level concern...fundamental to all CAs.

When I argue* with my DM over getting hacked by a minotaur's axe...its not because of a gamist concern that I don't want to take damage.  Its because I can't visually justify how a 7' Minotaur can effectively swing a 6' axe in a 10' tall / 10' wide corridor.  It just doesn't make sense in the fiction.

Some things are easy to judge and everybody quickly can get on the same page about what makes sense in the fiction.  But there are plenty of examples of things that aren't so easy to get on the same page about.  Not because someone want's an edge (although it can happen...masquerading as concern for internal consistancy)but because what seem reasonable can reasonably be different to different people, especially people with different areas of knowledge and different priorities about what sorts of details snap their disbelief suspenders.

* and when I say "argue" here I mean any disagreement in what makes sense that has the potential to leave one or both players dissatisfied in the outcome...whether or not it actually involves throwing dice at their head.

So at the risk of wearing out my welcome with 3 posts in a row.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see how impartial objective judgment about what is or is not internally consistant within the fiction can be encoded into design.  So I guess in that sense, Ben, yeah, I think that whole field is pretty much fucked...or at least really close to being pretty much fucked.

Its definitely been encoded in certain cultures of play...but I think that's a group level function, not a rules level function.  Further I think its a group level function that is not easily learned, is far from universally held, and is generally not transferable.  IME it relies on the unique social dynamics of those particular people at that particular time to render and accept those judgments smoothly.

IME, its great fun when it works...and a disastor when it doesn't.

From a design perspective I'm most interested in designs that use techniques that allow disparate groups to reliably reproduce the target play experience, and less interested in designs that use techniques that are only functional for a narrow select group of players.

I realize that's not what everyone is going for in their designs, but since these topics have been presented as a general discussion on how roleplaying works, I thought that bore mentioning.

You're talking about a different kind of judgment than I am, I think, Ralph. With some overlap probably, but still:

The question you're worried about, "given that Bobnar has the high ground, should his player get +2?" is not the one I'm talking about. Suppose that the game's rule is "if a character has the high ground, the player gets +2, even if that's stupid and unrealistic."

The question at hand is, "as Bobnar's taken position on the ridge of the hill, does he have the high ground?" It's more-or-less a matter of fact in the game's fiction.

From a design perspective I'm most interested in designs that use techniques that allow disparate groups to reliably reproduce the target play experience

Aha! Yes, exactly. That's exactly what I'm talking about, and going for - where the target play experience is one that you, Ralph, suppose is not transferable. I'm newly confident that it is.

When I say nonsense words like "carefully arrange their responsibilities and self-interests," that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

So I think that this may be a red herring or, at least, there is not going to be a reliable best practice with regard to whether or not people have responsibility over their own self interest. (I have a lot of theoretical blah blah to describe this, but ultimately it comes down to "well, that is my experience as a designer.")

I think that, consistently, the thing to arrange is not responsibilities and self-interests, but social expectations of self-interested versus anti-self-interested behavior, motivated with an understanding the difference between a player's fictional self-interest vs. mechanical self-interest.

yrs—
—Ben

Ralph: It's not the same as forcing someone to spend a A point to X or a B point to Y. You're not spending any resources when you judge a scene in Bliss Stage.

When someone spends resources, they expect to benefit from it. When someone is called upon to render a judgment as a service to fellow players, their attitude (and the results) are very different. It's the difference between a right and a responsibility.

Now, to be fair, there are people who can't play Bliss Stage: namely people who want all play decisions to be "optimal" and get very angry at people who they see as making "sub-optimal" decisions. But this is a very, very tiny subset of people, and I'm not particularly worried about alienating them (the same way that you're not particularly worried about alienating people who, say, don't like sword and sorcery books with Blood Red Sands.)

yrs—
—Ben

Vincent, query:

How is "if a character has the high ground, the player gets +2, even if that's stupid and unrealistic."

consistant with "STRONGLY wants the game to have a reliable-but-interesting internal consistency,"

for any case other than one where the game world is intentionally stupid and unrealistic?  In most cases doesn't an internally constant world presuppose the world is not stupid and unrealistic?

That's not computing with me.

Ben: Reverse your perspective.  Its not the same for the person spending the point / rendering the judgment.  Its the same for the person receiving the judgment.  And when I say "the same" I mean the player receiving the judgment has the same acceptance that the judgment is not meant to be "objective and impartial" (which can argued).  Rather, its meant to be "subjective because I want it that way" (which can't be argued).

And by "subjective" I mean:

"You rendered your judgment based on whatever reason you felt like using whatever standard you cared to because you have that authority".

Is functionally the same as:

"You spend your point to get the outcome to go the way you wanted for whatever reason you felt like because you have that authority".

In either case I (the recipient of your decision) can't argue* with you over whether or not your choice properly adhered to a particular standard that you are expected to uphold (such as "being internally consistant") because there is no expectation that your choice needed to be based on such a standard.

*see my use of argue above.

Again my point is that if you set the expectation that judgments will be rendered based on what is most internally consistant, you open the door to a raft of disagreement about what is or isn't internally consistant...i.e. "Your judgment is wrong...because it is NOT internally consistant in my view".

If instead the game does not set expectations that a certain debatable standard is being used, then there is less opportunity to feel that the decision is "wrong".  There may be more opportunity to feel that the decision is "not what I would want" but that's a different emotional response and has a different set of possible design solutions to account for it.

To summarise in case my rambling isn't clear:  As long as a person is expected to render judgment based on a standard and as long as that standard is debatable as to whether its being adhered to...then you're going to need something ELSE in the mix, or all you have is the same kind of situation that we've always had in roleplaying...which we've come so far in addressing these past several years, I'd hate to think we wind up back there.

As to whether we're "back" anywhere, game design will tell!

I haven't read the thread, I have read and am going off of the OP.

I've struggled with this issue a fair amount in Cranium Rats. A player could describe something that'd give a side a bonus, not necessarily their side, and that side would gain +1d in the conflict.

I limited it to +3d so we'd not spend hours on this, but I wanted it there so people would bring forth the environment and flesh out the scene (I have shoes and he doesn't, I am standing on the higher ground, etc.). The thing is, in CR you want to win, the arbitrer who gets to choose whether you'll get the bonus or not for a specific case is the only person who is not invested in that side winning/losing.

It came to be seen through Filip's help (who gamed the system as much as he could) that both he wouldn't suggest bonuses for a side he didn't want to win, and if one of his bonus-claims got rejected (for being not consistent with the scene, or not worthy of a bonus), he'd suggest another, and another, till he got to his +3.

Yes, this is also a Social Contract issue, but it intersects nicely. I think a solution I had was that each player could only provide one +1d. Perhaps each player could also only suggest one such bonus, and if it got rejected, that's it. Or something.

"You rendered your judgment based on whatever reason you felt like using whatever standard you cared to because you have that authority".

"You spend your point to get the outcome to go the way you wanted for whatever reason you felt like because you have that authority".

But, it's not functionally the same at all. I look at those things and go "nope, player who paid for it is entitled to decide things in their favor, the same as if they spent their point for a straight bonus. Player who is called upon to do it by the group isn't."

What's going on here? I say "hey, look, these two things are different and here's why" and you say "no, they're actually the same."

They're not the same. From any perspective. This is pretty clear from experience for me. I don't actually see why you would think that they would be the same.

Let's take an example pair of rules.

1) Spend a X point to get +Y on your roll. Describe why.

2) The tactical judge for the scene decides which character holds the tactical advantage, if any. That player gets +Y to their roll.

I can promise you that the vast majority of players, in the seat of the tactical judge, will not rule for their characters %100 of the time.

Additionally, and as a separate thing, I think you need to decouple "impartial" from "internally consistent." There are many possible outcomes for a given situation that are internally consistent: indeed, this is why we can use randomizers at all. The important thing in terms of the integrity of the SIS is that the outcome be an internally consistent outcome, not that it be the most internally consistent outcome.

yrs—
—Ben

I decided to make this a comment here instead of a new front-pager:

It's a well-known fact that I didn't invent the way you GM when you GM Dogs in the Vineyard. A bunch of people, encountering the game, said "but ... this is just how you GM, right? Any game." Some of these people respect Dogs for the tools it provides, others think it's moronic, like "who on earth is Vincent writing to, who don't know this stuff alread?"

In fact, I happened to look through Jadeclaw recently, of all games. Read the GMing section between the lines, and it's perfectly clear that you're supposed to GM Jadeclaw the same way you GM Dogs in the Vineyard ... it just doesn't tell you nearly as well how. You were supposed to already know how, or figure out for yourself how. I'm sure that lots of people, sitting down to play Jadeclaw, DID already know or DID figure out how. It's not that hard, it's just a way to GM.

It's also a well-known fact that Dogs in the Vineyard is very, very good at teaching GMs how to GM that way, who didn't know before. A bunch of people, encountering the game, have said "I thought it was a magical group dynamic thing, that you could have roleplaying like that. But now Dogs in the Vineyard has shown me how to get it even with my group."

(Other groups ... it hasn't worked for. That's fine too, it's not every game for every group and I have no illusions about that. It remains, only, one of the best games available for teaching a GMing style to a group who want it but can't do it by themselves.)

And finally, while this isn't a well-known fact it's I think solidly grounded, if someone GMs Dogs in the Vineyard for a while, and then picks up Jadeclaw, they're going to have a much easier time GMing Jadeclaw than if they'd HAD to figure it out for themselves. I know that in my own pre-Dogs GMing, for instance, sometimes it worked great and sometimes it didn't, but I couldn't see clearly why. I knew I was doing things differently from one time to another, but I couldn't tell which differences were making THE difference. Know I know pretty well, and have much better odds.

So now. When you GM Storming the Wizard's Tower, you need to do it a particular way, same as you need to GM Dogs in the Vineyard a particular way. Also, same as Dogs, it's not a particular way I've invented; a bunch of people, encountering Storming the Wizard's Tower, are going to be like "but... this is just how you GM, right? Any game." It is, as it happens, a way to GM old-school D&D too.

(I hope to go on to impress a lot of these people with the quality of the game's tools, but we'll see, and I surely won't impress all of them.)

And some people are going to be like "I thought that this was wholly group-dependent, I didn't know that even my group could play like this." And they'll add a whole new way to play to their group's capabilities.

I could be wrong, but this is my big plan, and I'll be very surprised if Storming the Wizard's Tower isn't equal to Dogs as a teaching tool.

Ben, I don't think you're actually reading what I'm writing.

Person 1 and Person 2 are fighting.

Person 3 is called upon to judge who has the advantage.

If person 3 is supposed to, by the rules give the advantage to whoever most reasonably and logically would have it in the fiction...and they choose to give that advantage to person #2, then they are saying "I declare that Person 2 is most reasonable and logical to have the advantage in the fiction".  Person 1 can reasonably and logically think person #3's judgment is wrong and that person #2 shouldn't have the advantage by that standard (heck person #2 can think that too).

Contrast this with:  Person 3 is supposed to, by the rules, give the advantage to whoever they want, for whatever reason they want.  NOW when Person #3 gives the advantage to Person #2...Person #1 can't say they're wrong.  It just is what it is.

Compare that to:  There is no person 3.  Person 2 just spends a Point and gets the advantage.  Again, Person #1 can't say that's wrong.  It just is what it is.

Are you really trying to say that you can't see how the fundamental emotional reaction of player 1 is, almost on every occassion, going to be radically different between 1) You're wrong. and
2) it is what it is, and that's just the way it is

Those are two very different feelings player 1 will experience with two very different response sets and two very different tools for addressing those responses.  I suspect that there are two very different brain chemistries involved in those responses based on the dramatically different way I've seen people react to those situations.

What commoditizing does, and what your draft 8 does is to remove the ability of players to be disatisfied because they think you are wrong...that your judgment is bad...that how you are passing judgment is questionable.  They may still be disatisfied...but it won't be because they think you're wrong.  And that's a HUGE psychological difference.  One ony has to reflect for a moment on the near automatic defense response people have when other people suggest they're "wrong" to realize what a huge difference that makes.

As long as you are relying on an individual to render judgment according to some standard you are open to other players feeling "you are wrong".  And that is an ENTIRELY different feeling and an entirely different reaction from "I don't like what you just did."

When you remove the standard as you did in draft 8, so that the judge can just pick and choose what outcome to reward without worrying about whether it was the "most dominant" outcome or not you are removing the "you are wrong" reaction from the equation.  Its impossible for the judge to be wrong.  He's supposed to reward whatever outcome he wants to and that's what he did.

When you commoditize and remove judgment entirely in favor of a mechanical toggle, you also remove the "you are wrong" reaction.  You chose to spend a point, I may not like it, but you aren't "wrong".  You're supposed to spend points that way, and that's what you did.

That's what I mean by its the same thing.

There is a big difference between:

"I don't like what you just did and you're wrong for doing it"

and

"I don't like what you just did, but its just the way it is"

Can I trust that we are in agreement on the huge psychological difference between those two statements?

Vincent:  I'm chomping at the bit and drooling in anticipation to see what you come up with for a teaching text.  But the issue I'm talking about isn't a "how to teach the GM how to render judgment" issue.  Its a "player response to the GM rendering judgment that they objectively disagree with" issue.  And I don't think you can teach that away.

Ben, I don't think you're actually reading what I'm writing.

Person 1 and Person 2 are fighting.

Person 3 is called upon to judge who has the advantage.

If person 3 is supposed to, by the rules give the advantage to whoever most reasonably and logically would have it in the fiction...and they choose to give that advantage to person #2, then they are saying "I declare that Person 2 is most reasonable and logical to have the advantage in the fiction".  Person 1 can reasonably and logically think person #3's judgment is wrong and that person #2 shouldn't have the advantage by that standard (heck person #2 can think that too).

Contrast this with:  Person 3 is supposed to, by the rules, give the advantage to whoever they want, for whatever reason they want.  NOW when Person #3 gives the advantage to Person #2...Person #1 can't say they're wrong.  It just is what it is.

Compare that to:  There is no person 3.  Person 2 just spends a Point and gets the advantage.  Again, Person #1 can't say that's wrong.  It just is what it is.

Are you really trying to say that you can't see how the fundamental emotional reaction of player 1 is, almost on every occassion, going to be radically different between 1) You're wrong. and
2) it is what it is, and that's just the way it is

Those are two very different feelings player 1 will experience with two very different response sets and two very different tools for addressing those responses.  I suspect that there are two very different brain chemistries involved in those responses based on the dramatically different way I've seen people react to those situations.

What commoditizing does, and what your draft 8 does is to remove the ability of players to be disatisfied because they think you are wrong...that your judgment is bad...that how you are passing judgment is questionable.  They may still be disatisfied...but it won't be because they think you're wrong.  And that's a HUGE psychological difference.  One ony has to reflect for a moment on the near automatic defense response people have when other people suggest they're "wrong" to realize what a huge difference that makes.

As long as you are relying on an individual to render judgment according to some standard you are open to other players feeling "you are wrong".  And that is an ENTIRELY different feeling and an entirely different reaction from "I don't like what you just did."

When you remove the standard as you did in draft 8, so that the judge can just pick and choose what outcome to reward without worrying about whether it was the "most dominant" outcome or not you are removing the "you are wrong" reaction from the equation.  Its impossible for the judge to be wrong.  He's supposed to reward whatever outcome he wants to and that's what he did.

When you commoditize and remove judgment entirely in favor of a mechanical toggle, you also remove the "you are wrong" reaction.  You chose to spend a point, I may not like it, but you aren't "wrong".  You're supposed to spend points that way, and that's what you did.

That's what I mean by its the same thing.

There is a big difference between:

"I don't like what you just did and you're wrong for doing it"

and

"I don't like what you just did, but its just the way it is"

Can I trust that we are in agreement on the huge psychological difference between those two statements?

Vincent:  I'm chomping at the bit and drooling in anticipation to see what you come up with for a teaching text.  But the issue I'm talking about isn't a "how to teach the GM how to render judgment" issue.  Its a "player response to the GM rendering judgment that they objectively disagree with" issue.  And I don't think you can teach that away.

Ralph: You're misunderstanding my rules (quite reasonable, as you probably haven't read them.) There are plenty of criteria for judgment in Bliss Stage. Judgment is completely non-arbitrary. It's just also non-singular. Can you see the difference between an arbitrary judgment (any answer is right) and a non-singular judgment (more than one answer is right)?

And, yes, I can see that having non-singular decisions and having commoditize are both solutions to the same problem. Indeed, they both solve it. But they're different solutions. Analogy time: a car and an airplane are both solutions to the problem of travel, but I wouldn't say that a car and an airplane are the same thing. Because they're not.

In particular, the momentary reaction I've seen to commoditized play is "you bastard! you outflanked me!" in a good-natured way (usually, though not always.) The long-term reaction is to de-emphasize the SIS in favor of commodity maneuvering.

The momentary reaction to play where one player is given responsibility to judge the outcome is "oh, man, didn't get the outcome I wanted, need to try harder next time." The long-term reaction is to develop a sense for what the other participants will reward and what they won't and play to that.

yrs—
—Ben

It occurs to me that the inability to see this may be related to Apples to Apples.

Ralph, remember in NYC how you said you hated Apples to Apples because it was totally arbitrary and there was no strategy? And I disagreed and said the strategy was there? And then I won three games in a row?

I think that this may come down to that. Apples to Apples works on exactly the sort of mechanic that Vincent and I are talking about. If such mechanics are not to your taste, I accept that (and it makes sense to me: matches your personality.) If you can't believe that an Apples to Apples style mechanic can produce fun play ... well ... there's a whole lot of fun games out there that show otherwise.

yrs—
—Ben

Small nitpick, which may actually be complementary: There are no "Fun games", there are games which we have fun playing. The fun is within us, and a certain game can bring it out.

I think "Fun game" is a short-hand for "A game many people use to derive fun from themselves using."

But yes, the name of the example may also be fitting, apples and oranges :)

I think there's a thing here with the judgment call thing, but I haven't got it figured out quite yet.

It's, like, not an issue of whether the judgment is objective or subjective, because all judgments in roleplaying are going to be subjective. It's not even who has the right to make the judgment, and why do they have that right.

It's more like, what is the purpose for making a judgment call at this time? And, am I cool with that purpose?

If I'm cool with that purpose, and I trust the guy making the judgment call (and if I didn't trust him, I wouldn't allow him to be in that position in the first place), then I'm gonna be cool with whatever the judgment is, whether or not I think it's "wrong" (read, "I would have made a different call," because that's all it really is).

In the Rustbelt, when "Advantage" is passed out by the GM in fights based on things like high ground and who's got who pinned to the wall and how hard that big sledge-hammer you're about to pummel me with is to maneuver in this hallway—the GM is doing it as part of his job to push the consequences for people's actions, good and (especially) bad, and make 'em stick.

The GM is also given total authority over giving out Advantage. I can disagree, but he doesn't have to change his mind if he doesn't want to. So, the dynamic that Ralph always champions ("We need procedures for what to do when you say something and I don't like it") is present, but it's never been an issue when I play. My players know that when I pass out the Advantage, it's because I'm thinking of action/consequence and pressure/opportunity; if I make a call that they don't like, they know that I'm doing it for what I think is best, and they (so far) trust my judgment on this.

Given that the folks I've played Rustbelt with have only been playing with me for maybe less than two dozen sessions total (including non-Rustbelt), I don't think it's a group-level magic thing.

"The momentary reaction to play where one player is given responsibility to judge the outcome is "oh, man, didn't get the outcome I wanted, need to try harder next time." The long-term reaction is to develop a sense for what the other participants will reward and what they won't and play to that."

Sure, and my point is that that short term reaction is a very different thing from "oh, man, I can't believe Ben actually thinks its possible to drive a tank through a house like that...he's totally wrong" and that long term reaction is a very different thing from me losing faith in the reliability of Ben's judgment when it comes to the capabilities of tanks.

I'm not sure why you're getting hung up on the "same thing" comment.  Again, the sameness is how both of the alternatives avoid the above.  To use your analogy, they both get you where you're going without you having to walk.  But if that just sticks funny for you, ok...skip it.  As long as we're on the same page about how they avoid the problems of having someone judge to a standard.

I have read Bliss Stage, but that was the Ignition Stage version, not sure what draft that corresponds to and that was when it first came out, so you'll have to let me know what the judgment criteria are. I suspect that they are not of a nature that would invalidate my key point—that its not the sort of judgment where someone could reasonably argue you are "wrong" by some definition of what you're supposed to do (the way it is possible to call your judgement of what was the "most dominant" "wrong" in draft 1).

As far as Apples to Apples...geez, that would have been like 3 years ago, yeah?...like BWHQ before Dreamation...2006,7?  Yeah, I totally don't care for Apples to Apples, but I don't see how that relates to the issue at hand.  Everybody is passing judgment, but its not judgment against a measurable standard.  The players are trying to judge what Item the Referee will find most appealing, and the referee is trying to judge which item relates to the description in a way that tickles his fancy the best, right?  I don't recall the referee being expected to judge based on some external criteria that could be judged "wrong".

So, essentially, the effectiveness of the Apples to Apples game...is right where I said it is...nobody says "your wrong" because there's no way for anyone to be wrong.  In other words its more like your draft 8 rule than your draft 1 rule...which means, it should work without people "argueing" over definitions.  This is distinctly different from the judgment being passed by Player 3 in the OP.  Player 3 is expected to pass judgment based on the standard of "internal consistancy"...a judgment which most certainly can be debated as being "wrong".

So...not sure why you brought it up, since it sort of exactly proves the point I'm making about the difference between those two forms of passing judgment...unless I'm terribly missremembering Apples to Apples

I could be wrong, but this is my big plan, and I'll be very surprised if Storming the Wizard's Tower isn't equal to Dogs as a teaching tool.

See, I'm totally getting this from Apocalypse World, too.  (I'm impolite and I just went and guessed where it'd be.)

Every time I read it, I go "This is the way I always used to run Ars Magica, and this is why it worked," except the game points out the places where I'd go wrong from time to time, and reminds me not to do that thing that makes it suck.  In my case that was usually making a hard move when I should have only been maneuvering just because I wanted a reaction dammit.

Reading the game is totally colouring my reading of these threads, because for the gamemaster it is all about maintaining a vision of the gameworld for the group as a whole without turning into an asshole or getting into arguments about what is where and what that means. And I totally think it will be teachable.

Great posts, Ralph! Just bang on!

Just to sound out the idea with you, a few years ago I thought of this idea: That you pay, say ten points to activate a power, but the GM can make it cheaper if he so wishes (or leave it at the full price)

The thing is here, that powers which are sympathetic with the GM's idea of the game world, are likely to be cheaper to use. The more sympathetic, the cheaper, most likely. Of course, it doesn't force sympathy to happen - a GM could say full price even when it makes sense to him, but I think in general people are just naturally inclined to ask for less for things that please them in some way. Sympathy begets sympathy. Usually, anyway.

Rather than dealing in what is "more-or-less a matter of fact in the game's fiction", it deals in what is more or less a real life sympathtic responce in the GM. Which has nothing to do with 'facts', of course.

Not challenging anything in your posts, rather just posting to see how much we match up in mutual thought?

Ben,
"1) Spend a X point to get +Y on your roll. Describe why.

2) The tactical judge for the scene decides which character holds the tactical advantage, if any. That player gets +Y to their roll.

I can promise you that the vast majority of players, in the seat of the tactical judge, will not rule for their characters %100 of the time."
With #1, your not going to see someone buy an advantage for their own character, 100% of the time, either.

They're still the same. The only difference is that in #2 you spend 0 points to get +y bonus, rather than 1 point.

Ralph:

Okay. So we both agree that these are two different ways of going about solving the same problem.

Great.

No one here is disagreeing with that.

So what's your point? Why the essays?

In play, this highlighted moment is a moment of judgment. Of interpretation. Someone has to read the game's fiction and draw conclusions about it.

I feel like this is the hinge point of Humanity checks in Sorcerer (and bonus dice), Fan Mail in PTA, Spiritual Attributes in Riddle of Steel, Beliefs in Burning Wheel, as well as the scene judging in Bliss Stage as Ben mentioned.

Which means it's a pretty important point in play, especially when tied to larger reward cycles.

I feel like this is the hinge point of Humanity checks in Sorcerer (and bonus dice), Fan Mail in PTA, Spiritual Attributes in Riddle of Steel, Beliefs in Burning Wheel, as well as the scene judging in Bliss Stage as Ben mentioned.

Which means it's a pretty important point in play, especially when tied to larger reward cycles.

Yes! That's what I was getting at. Those examples you just gave are good things not because they have rightward-pointing arrows, but because of the purposes that those judgment calls are keyed to.

It helps that the games call attention to those purposes.

Whoops. Here's the rest of what I meant to say:

Problems start arising when judgment calls are made without a clear purpose, or for an inappropriate (dependent on the reward cycle in question) purpose, or for a purpose that the other players aren't aware of or don't like or didn't buy in to. Ralph, those unpleasant old-school experiences that you mention, I'll put up ten to your one that's why they were bad.

Marshall, I'm going to see and raise you!

There is a huge difference between a moment of judgment between an aesthetic call (which is what the Humanity/Fan Mail/Spiritual Attributes) and a how-are-things-really judgement ("If the tree trunk is four feet high and my guy is fighting with weapon X and and the troll has weapon Y do I have the high ground?")

I suspect that for some folks this is going to be a squishy point, but it isn't for me.  Anyone who watches those Britain's Got Talent videos that go viral every six months knows that groups of people recognize aesthetic quality pretty fast.

Arguments about what is "real" can go on a while. (cf. String Theory)

There are different KINDS of Moments of Judgment.  The aesthetic kind; the "this is what is real" kind; and the Referee Rules kind.  (I think we all see where I'm going, yes?)

Each is judged using different standards, and each judgment made offers a different payoff.  By prioritizing one kind of judgment, I've noticed things tend to go better and faster.

For example, I have happily left big issues about "reality" in the dust.  Reality matters in the games I play, but my focus (my priority) is aesthetic judgements.  I find the games roll faster because of this.  There's no more arguing (none!) and this kind of focus reinforces the other aesthetic pleasures of the gams I play.

Vincent is suggesting (I think) that the whole "real world" moments of judgment tied to "sports referee" moments of judgment can be dragged successfully back into a kind of mix that works.  I don't doubt it—because he's really smart!

From my little corner over here I'm just offering to keep in mind that the "real world" judgment that Vincent opened his post with is of a different order of judgment from the "rules win" judgment from quote from Jonathan to the kinds of judgments one makes about Fan Mail.

There is a huge difference between a moment of judgment between an aesthetic call (which is what the Humanity/Fan Mail/Spiritual Attributes) and a how-are-things-really judgement ("If the tree trunk is four feet high and my guy is fighting with weapon X and and the troll has weapon Y do I have the high ground?")

Oh, certainly there's a difference. The difference is the purpose. Sure, they all have different colors, but that's a function of the purpose. It starts with the purpose, and everything flows from that. Am I making sense yet?

I mean, I've been looking at this old-school rennaissance thing too, and I've discovered that I used to play and GM old-school in high school. Which is way different from GMing Sorcerer and the Rustbelt (which are extremely similar from the GM's seat), and involved a lot more rulings on "what is real" than on aesthetic issues (although they were present as well). But we didn't argue much back then about the modifiers and things that I passed out, because I had a pretty good handle on why I was doing these things, and so did everyone else. Not a perfect handle, to be sure, and nowhere near the handle I'd have today, since my awareness of these issues has increased since then. We did screw it up from time to time and argue a little. Not to the point of shutting down the game, though.

Christopher.

YES, exactly!!

And perhaps more importantly, its not just that its a fundamentally different order of judgment with a completely different set of expectations.  But that each order ellicits fundamentally different emotional responses in the people being judged (i.e. having their contributions judged).

I was a bit broader in my categories, referring to "objective standards" because I think what you are calling "reality" is just one (very common) "objective standard" that gets used.  "Genre Convention" IME another one of the same mold as arguments about what behavior is or isn't appropriate in Silver Age comics can go on just as long.

Marshall, I don't doubt that purpose is a variable, but no, its not the one I was focusing on.

Marshall: you rock.

Vincent, here's a refutation of your "person three ought to decide." When we played Riddle of Steel, as a matter of course the player of the character decided whether or not his Spiritual Attributes applied and thus if he got the bonus dice.

In practice, there was no problem with this at all.

yrs—
—Ben

I get the feeling there's some sort of disagreement happening here, but I'm not sure what it is yet.

Marshal, what you wrote makes perfect sense to me.  I would never consider the differences between these kinds of judgments one of color.  Purpose - certainly - is part of it.  And might even be the whole difference, depending on how one defines purpose.

But might point was to say the differences were large—larger than even purpose.  I think Ralph is on it when he talks about how people respond to the judgments.  And that part of it too.

If I didn't make that clear, I apologize.

So, when you say there's a difference in purpose—Sure!  And when you say there's all this other stuff that flows from that purpose!  YES!  And I was simply saying that stuff that's flowing.  Huge.

Mixing them all up...  Huger still!  I haven't seen them prioritized successfully.  (As you point out from your High School example, individual priorities for judgments seem to work just fine.)

If I misunderstanding something, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on the matter.

There's a difference between a set of rules that say "I get to say whether your contribution has any mechanical impact at all (+2 bonus), at -what- point your contributions have a mechanical impact ("That's not a raise, come on man!"), and what kind of mechanical impact it has ("That was Trust Building for sure").

The first one tends to be more contentious than the other two, though, I would also say the places where I've seen it be a problem also had a lot of either adolescent social dominance games going on AND/OR social contract stuff around favoritism flying around.

There are different KINDS of Moments of Judgment. The aesthetic kind; the "this is what is real" kind; and the Referee Rules kind. (I think we all see where I'm going, yes?)

If where your going is "this is directly related to GNS," you're dead wrong.

This all rests, very firmly, at the technical level.

yrs—
—Ben

Chris: That's a nice breakdown of the types, I think. With the understanding that they can stack: a traditional GM does all three in the same sentence.

I think that these things can result in a lot of problematic play when there's not a shared set of social expectations around them. If there's a player who gets to decide who if anyone gets the tactical bonus for the scene, the group needs to be clear about which of the following is expected:
1) The player gives it to the person who gains the best advantage from it.
2) The player gives it to the who his character would want to see win.
3) The player gives it out in such a way that it tactically benefits him.
4) The player gives it out to the character who he really does believe has the tactical advantage.
5) The player gauges the group's mood and gives it to who consensus seems to arrive on.

Etc.

But establishing these expectations clearly is not impossible, either in the game itself (easy) or in the group during or before play (touchier, but definitely doable). And, once established (and provided that the group actually backs them up socially), a player will likely follow the expectations, unless they are the sort of player who cheats to win.

yrs—
—Ben

Yeah, and the reason the I mentioned social issues produce a great contention is because by their nature, they're already a sign of non-shared social expectations.

Where people have that running fine, the problems are minimal- authority over who grants what interpretation is generally accepted provided it has some level of consistency.  (The broken social stuff is consistent, just not along the stated reasons, and people get frustrated encountering those inconsistencies...)

But might point was to say the differences were large—larger than even purpose. I think Ralph is on it when he talks about how people respond to the judgments. And that part of it too.

What I'm saying is that the way people respond to the judgments is a function of A) what the purpose of the judgment is, and B) whether or not that purpose is appropriate, understood, and bought into.

Uh, which isn't to say that the "stuff flowing" isn't significant and worth teasing apart. Of course it is.

I was just clarifying my position. As to whether we disagree on that particular point, um, I dunno yet. Do we?

Personally, I'd be very surprised if any of us (a) is saying anything incompatible enough with anyone else's experiences, and (b) has managed to say clearly enough what we mean, for there to BE real disagreements.

I don't think that lining up on one side or the other of any given perceived issue is going to help anybody, especially at this early point in discussion (meaning, back here in the late first decade of the 2000s, before things really get swinging). What I hope is that (some) people bring a (new?) awareness of the game's fiction as a material consideration to their game design, and secondarily and subserviently to game criticism.

I don't mean to be drawing lines in the sand or anything. I hope it doesn't come off like that.

It's just that this thing is big on my mind right now because I'm basically redesigning the aforementioned game I played in high school from the ground up. My "position" as I put it is actually my working theory. Based on what I've seen and what I've been thinking about in working on that project, my "position" is what I think is going on.

None taken! Just a friendly perspective-reminder for all involved (including me).

Vincent:

So I am going to bite (well nibble) what does all this have to do with your reference to old school gaming? I think I have an answer forming but I am curious.

ara

Anyone want to offer any techniques for addressing these issues in play?

I'll start:
Query the fiction before attempting to change the fiction.  That means getting on the same page about "what would happen" before anything does happen.

In my experience, those moments Ralph mentioned when play stops so everyone can argue for their vision only take an hour (and get testy) once someone's committed to some fictional action or event.  Before anyone's committed, those discussions take a few seconds.  It's the difference between "I jump the pit!  What are my odds of success?" and "What are my odds of success if I jump the pit?  Okay, I'll go for it!"

Querying the fiction without making play hitchy requires further techniques.  Here's a familiar one: The GM has full setting authority, but can be overridden by the fiction itself.  That is, if the GM forgot the brick he said was in the room, but a player remembers it, then the player gets to correct the GM's mistake.

I don't know where this "old school renaissance" is taking place or who's churned out what in support of it.  All I know are my own efforts.  If anyone could clue me in I'd appreciate it.

Here's my contact with the Old School Renaissance: I read Grognardia, and I contribute to Fight On! I'm not on the inside, but there's clearly a thing going on.

I'm going to be wishy-washy and say that David makes some very good points, but I don't think it necessarily eliminates the issues Ralph has been discussing.

Establishing the fiction—-or more properly, the boundaries of the fiction—-ahead of time does, I think, go a long way in heading off the problems Ralph foresees. However, "establishing the fiction" still requires certain judgment calls, and as such, I think there's still a potential for disagreement.

And just to be clear, there's no such thing as a situation where there's no disagreement.

For me there's two important pieces.  First, make sure that the things that are likely to be disagreed about aren't the things that are inherently toxic (like whose smarter about how things really work).

And second, make sure your game answers the question...now that we have a disagreement on our hands (inevitable if you play long enough)what do we do about it.  And I'll note, for my money, I find "just work it out" to be pretty weak...more of a cop out than an answer.

Hey, Ralph:

Who decides if someone has violated at tenet in Universalis? What is the penalty for doing so?

yrs—
—Ben

I'm not sure that it is "just" work it out.  Or rather, I've seen these same kinds of disagreements come up in Primetime Adventures and Sorcerer and Dogs, and the only way to deal with them there is to "just work them out".  David's techniques would seem to me to be as useful when playing Sorcerer as they would when playing White Box D&D.

Vincent, isn't the vast majority of old-school renaissance practice party-play? I'm old enough to have been in at the very tail end of the old-school naissance (white-box D&D plus Greyhawk chapbook, the One True Way!) and about the only PvP involved thieves filching from the party, and that only after AD&D came out and Gygax identified thieves stealing from the party as "good roleplaying." I suppose occasionally we had players whose PCs had been Charmed by Nixies preferring that their Charmed PC nevertheless live, rather than his uncharmed targets. But party-play was the dominant ethos.

The predominant mode of old-school play as I understand it is not Rob, Bob and the GM, with Robnar versus Bobnar and the GM between them (that was the minis play that gave birth to D&D), but Robnar and Bobnar versus the GMnithid. In that case the GM is both operating the GMnithid AND deciding whether Robnar, Bobnar or both get the +2 versus the GMnithid.

How does that impact the case you present in this specific post? I think the case to make is for that dual role: operator of the opposition and arbitrator of the fiction's impact on the contest. That's a case that can be made, but I don't think your specific case in this post really touches the role of the GM in party-based (including old-school) play. Unless I'm missing something?

Needing to make sure I am clear: I realize that the example isn't strictly about Player 1's character versus Player 2's character in the fiction. But with party play, if Bob wants Bobnar to have high-ground advantage, chances are Rob wants Bobnar to have high-ground advantage too, since Robnar is on Bobnar's side. You can design a game such that Robnar and Bobnar are on the same side but Rob and Bob are still at a level of opposition vs. each other, but that wasn't the dominant mode of design or play when the "old school" first took students, and I don't THINK it's the dominant mode of old-school ren play, though I'm open to correction on this point.

Oh, right, I think you're right, Jim. Which means that in old school play you have a bunch of player 1s plus a GM, and the real thing is about making sure that the GM is player 3, not player 2.

Good catch.

Thanks for the links, Vincent.

Ralph and Tim, yeah, even without much riding on it, there will be disagreements, and you'd better have some way of resolving those.  In my experience this is quite easy with clearly established authorities and shared judgment criteria.  (For example, "The GM decides, based on realism," seems to work fine for groups whose players want a character POV and prioritize realism.)  Have you guys experienced something different, or just played too much with undefined/unarticulaed/unshared authorities and principles?

Jim, good point.  Having all the PCs together and collaborating is a big deal for me.

Ben, the method for dealing with disagreements in Universalis is very explicit through the Challenge mechanic. The Challenge mechanic has two parts.  Part 1: the negotiation, which is the "hey I disagree, would you mind changing that" part.  And Part 2: the bidding which is the "...no?  You won't change it?  Well here's some resources that say you will" part.

There's other nuances such as resources spent backing up previously existing facts in the fiction count double (and in Universalis only things paid for with resources count as fact so there's rarely disagreement there, and if there is that can be resolved via Challenge also).  Also other players get to support the interpretation they like better.

But the important thing is that even though Part 2 rarely ever gets used, its existance is what makes Part 1 work so well.  Without Part 2, the negotiation part is just limp wristed wrangling relying on social pressure to eventually resolve.  With Part 2, there's a much stronger motivation to reach accord.  The existance of Part 2 (what you'll see me refer to as a "backstop" in various threads) serves as an effective time limiter, a third option that both parties generally want to avoid, and a way of gauging the group opinion without relying solely on social cues.

Its a very "put your money where your mouth is" solution, not suited for all games.  But a rule that serves the function of a backstop IS suitable for all games.  IMO is a prerequisite for good design.

Case in point:  The absolute strongest rule in Dogs...the rule that I think makes Dogs work...the rule that serves as the backstop rule in Dogs...is the "go with the most critical voice at the table" rule.  There's no attempt to pretend there's an objective standard to the person's criticism, there's no requirement for their to be one.  Much less elaborate, much less mechanical than what Uni uses...but it works...and it very much doesn't rely on "just work it out".  Because when "just work it out" fails...there's instructions in the game on what to do.

So IMO quality design may start with "just work it out" but it had also better provide some backstop for when that doesn't get it done.

David: Its exactly that "shared judgment criteria" that I'm saying creates all sorts of problems.  Because once there is a criteria that is supposed to be followed, I can now accuse you of not following it.  That's what I was saying above with the difference between:

"I don't like what you're doing" and
"I don't like what you're doing...and you're wrong"

The second is vastly more toxic than the first.

Without Part 2, the negotiation part is just limp wristed wrangling relying on social pressure to eventually resolve.

Ralph, I ask this question because I am honestly unsure of your view: Do you think there is negotiation that does not constitute "limp wristed wrangling relying on social pressure?" Is all effort at suasion, in your view, a kind of emotional blackmail, passive aggression or conversational bullying? Is good-faith seeking after mutual harmony possible? If you and I disagree on a point of fiction and hash it out verbally among you, me and the GM, and the GM ends up seeing it your way, is it because you're a bigger bastard than I am? If I end up seeing it your way, does that make me your victim? Inevitably? Is your view instead that there can be good-faith disputation and bad, but that a kind of social Gresham's Law means that the bad drives out the good? You seem to be operating not just from a horror of social disfunction but from a believe in its ubiquity. I'm trying to figure out what I'm missing.

Hm. I've heard lots and lots of stuff about "the person with the biggest personality at the table winning" in RPGs. But everytime I read it, I think, "Man, I haven't ever actually seen that happen."

Then I'm like, "...wait, does that mean I'm that guy?"

Jim, in part I think this is the danger of an effort to be clear looking more extreme than intended, but I'll offer the following 3 observations...see if this answers your query.

1) Forget all notions of dysfunctional social interaction and envision a situation where you and I are in fully reasonable disagreement with neither able to demonstrate sufficient knowledge to convince the other.  Most of the time this can be resolved quite simply.  Say the issue is clearly more important to you than it is to me, I will most likely concede the point out of shear "that's what friends should do" feelings.  Say the issue is of equal but only moderate importance for each of us.  You might well concede the point simply because I conceded the last one and its your "turn" to make the sacrifice.

But now say the issue is one that we both feel quite passionate about.  One that has the potential to completely upset our ability to suspend our disbelief and engage in the fiction.  Regardless of how things get resolved, one of us is going to wind up disappointed, and potentially disengaged from play.  Its at that point where "and you're wrong" becomes a toxic layer capable of sabotaging even the best of friendships and most reasonable of people.

Simply relying on people to be mature, socially functional, adults, is IME entirely inadequate to deal with the issue at this point, because I've yet to meet a group of mature, socially functional, adults who are immune to this toxic effect.  In addition to helping with the moment to moment smooth functioning of play, backstop rules have the added benefit of diverting such toxic thoughts from the other person to a "rule", which IME is a very effective tool at defusing undesireable escalation of emotion and helps keep things from "getting personal".

2) I feel very strongly that humans are inherently hierarchal animals.  I view with great skepticism any claims by groups of people who suggest that they are immune to our innate status seeking tendencies.  Even among great friends with no malicious or manipulative undercurrent there is a high degree of subconcious score keeping going on.  You can see it in who's preference for which restaurant to eat at gets picked, for instance.  In any group there's a lead dog no matter how much the group pretends otherwise.  And there's a huge degree of ingrained tit-for-tat in human relationships.  "You picked the restaurant last time, so its my turn to pick it this time".  There's also a huge degree of paying-it-forward so to speak.  "I'll let you pick the restaurant this time, because I'm saving up my brownie points to use when we pick what movie to rent".  Most of the time this is completely invisible even to the people doing it. Sometimes its very visible.

Its no less a part of roleplaying than it is a part of all social interaction.  However, due to the immediate creative and often emotional spontaneity of roleplaying it can create more problems around the table than it does in ordinary life.  Backstop rules also help defuse this, though there are a number of different ways depending on the nature of the rule.  Some backstops defuse it by creating an artifical hierarchy that circumvents the social hierarchy (I get to have my way because I have the totem).  Some backstops defuse it by diverting the social gamesmanship into the mechanics (like the strategizing around Challenges in Uni).  Blood Red Sands actually seeks to take this tendency and turn it into a feature making its challenge rules into a blatant status oriented "mini-game"

3) I think there is also a tremendous survivorship bias in roleplaying culture that leads us to believe that the majority of roleplaying groups are more socially adept then they actually are...because the ones that aren't, imploded long ago, often driving people clear out of the hobby.  So I think its a mistake to look at...us...people who've been gaming successfully for years and presume that our level of social functionality is the "norm".

Therefor, I think good game designs should not assume "fully functional social groups" but rather "groups at the margin".  And by groups at the margin I mean those that are mostly socially functional but have a degree of "at risk" status.  That at risk status leaves them vulnerable to not effectively recovering from an issue like #1 above.  I've seen groups dissolve after some stupid thing got blown out of all proportion.

Its my believe that "just work it out" rules leave those groups vulnerable.  Alternatively "just work it out and if you can't here's a backstop to help" rules serves as a safety net for such groups...perhaps even a coaching tool.

So given all of the tremendously useful things that backstop rules accomplish, I find leaving such rules out of a game to be a poor design decision.

How's that...?

(I was forming this when Ralph replied, and trying to figure out how to make it more on topic - looks like it's right on)

I've heard lots and lots of stuff about "the person with the biggest personality at the table winning" in RPGs.

I've seen it, but.  It doesn't make for a good long term group unless combined with other forms of social manipulation or a lot of folks with poor senses of personal boundaries.

It usually creates an insular group with a serious fragility that breaks whenever the next person with a big personality enters, or, at least, draws the attraction/friendship of other members of the group and then splintering happens.  (Lots of stuff about "finding the right players" and "problem players" are also about protecting these kinds of groups -scary!)

All that aside, rules exist as tools for our play - sometimes things we're taking for granted, and sometimes for things we can't AFFORD to take for granted.  Depending on the group, different rules are going to hit different spots.

Erm, I didn't mean as a rule, I meant as a de facto explanation of what's happening. Usually as applied to "traditional" games.

Ralph, how did we get from my "player 3 should be the one whose job it is to make the call" to your "games should have a procedure for making the call," as though "player 3 should do it" weren't one?

Your example high in this thread, where the players get into a game-interrupting fight about the high ground and the +2, is based on a presumption that the players will violate the procedure if it doesn't serve their most blinkered and myopic self-interests. Your solution to this is to have a procedure? How does that stand?

wow...that's a rather bizarre interpretation of my example.

Ummm, I'll take a stab at untangling that, but if we can get all this way and that's where we wind up, I'm not sure how successful I'll be.

Firstly:  Your procedure was not expressed as "Player 3 should do it".  Your procedure was "Player 3 should do it because he STRONGLY wants the game to have a reliable-but-interesting internal consistency, and doesn't care a bit whether Bobnar has the high-ground advantage"

See all that stuff after the "because..." THAT'S the stuff that will lead to toxic argument.  That's the illusion of an objective standard (that of internal consistency) that people can disagree with.

I actually don't have a problem with "Player 3 should do it" (and nothing else) as a concept at all.  Because that lets Player 3 do it for whatever reason Player 3 pleases.  Player 2 now has no expectation that "internal consistency" is going to be the yardstick that Player 3 is supposed to use.

If that distinction isn't clear...geeze...I don't know what else I can say to clarify it.

Secondly:  "players will violate the procedure if it doesn't serve their most blinkered and myopic self-interests."  Really?  That's what you've taken away from what I've said?  All the parts where I indicate that all of the players are interested in internal consistency they just have different ideas on what will best preserve it doesn't ring true to you?  When I said that I'd make the case that Bobnar shouldn't have the high ground advantage because my weapon would turn that into a disadvantage for him...you don't believe that I'd make that case because I truly believe that that would be more "internally consistant"; that I'm just arguing out of self interest?

Hmmm, I don't know what to say to that.  I come from a culture where wargamers would routinely refuse to play you in a battle if the uniforms your minis were painted with weren't appropriate to the time period of the scenario; because that's how vested they were in the internal consistancy of the world...so maybe I just have a different perspective on how important that stuff can be and how passionate people can get about it.  Maybe you just haven't witnessed how fired up people can get about my version of what's realistic vs. your version of realistic in a way that has nothing to do with self interest and everything to do with an overwhelming desire to "get it right".

In such an enviroment leaving the decision up to player 3 because he "cares more" seems absurd to me.  You're giving responsibility to one player to "get it right" but then expecting that no one else will object when, in their view, he actually gets it wrong.  Better IMO to give player 3 the responsibility to do "whatever he feels like" because then at least there's much less to object to.

Thirdly: my solution to have a procedure has a large number of benefits to game play in general.  The benefit that specifically applies here is that when such an impasse is reached it helps defuse the emotional fallout.  If you don't like it, you can blame the rules rather than blame the other guy.  When these impasses happen (and IMO if you play long enough they're inevitable if you're playing with people who actually care about the fiction)often the best you can hope to accomplish is damage control.  Resource based procedures also let players indicate just how important a particular issue is to them by how many resources they're willing to spend on it. Even if they lose, this at least gives them the comfort of knowing they lost because someone else cared more...which is much more psychologically palatable than losing because your arguments were unconvincing.

But I think I've said everything I can say on the topic.  I know I've taken up alot of space on your blog, but most of it has been in direct response to people's questions of me rather than a desire to grandstand.  I was happy to wait for your next thread way back in post 20.

If this last post of yours was you getting a bit frustrated with my monopolizing the conversation, I can bow out.

Oh! No, I figured it out. Player 3 in my example is the GM. You don't have to work out case by argumentative case which player cares least this time. Instead, you arrange the game from the beginning so that one of its players will always be impartial, and that's the player who always makes the call.

And if occasionally that player's not impartial, by accident, tough, that's still the player who always makes the call.

...So you see why I thought that your argumentative players were (blithely) violating the game's procedure.

I've always assumed player 3 was the GM in these examples.  Let me ask it this way.

So you have player 3 / the GM making the call, always.

Is the GM making the call however he pleases?  Can he make the call because its the bottom half of the hour and he always turns to the left in the bottom half of the hour?  Can he make the call because last night he was drunk and saw pink elephants dancing in his head and that inspired him on how to make this call.

OR is the GM specifically instructed by the game rules to make the call based on what's most internally consistant at the time.

Because if the latter...then player 2 can still disagree with him on whether or not that call really was or wasn't internally consistant.

And if there's no rules based procedure for player 2 to follow when he feels that way, then the only thing he can resort to is social pressure...or just sucking it up and having his sense of the reasonable causality of the fiction violated (which is exactly the experience you don't want).

So what are the games instructions to the GM in terms of what standard to use when making the call, and what are the game's instructions to player 2 in terms of what he can do if he thinks the GM isn't living up to those standards?

That's the key...that to me is the heart and soul of good game design.  What can a player do when he thinks the GM (or another player) isn't living up to the expectations set by the game?

Having an answer other than or in addition to "just work it out" = good design.

Not having an answer other than "just work it out" = weak design.

IMO

I wish we were talking about a real game, Ralph. I've posted some real rules from Storming the Wizard's Tower, we could talk about them instead. Otherwise I'm going to do the unattractive thing where I get more and more absolute.

So: Bob gives the GM some specs for the spell Bobnar's creating. The GM comes back with a spell that Bob thinks is unrealistic, acausal. What's Bob's recourse?

Well, in Storming the Wizard's Tower in particular, the game's world's internal logic and causality isn't communally owned, it's the GM's. Bob's obligation (his "recourse") is to reevaluate, from the ground up if necessary, his own sense of how the game's world works. To bring his own sense of reasonable causality into line with the GM's. At the very least to extend the GM every benefit of the doubt.

The rules DO set this up well. Bob shouldn't be blindsided by it - I'll be very surprised if it's a problem in even one game in a hundred.

That StWT structure is exactly what I used in my example.  Ralph, the GM's judgment criteria can't be a wrangling point if (a) the whole group agrees that the GM gets final say, and (b) the GM does his best to "get it right".  Shouldn't the group be able to agree that "GM doing his best" is good enough?  In my group, this works well, and includes a collaborative spirit where the players may help the GM "get it right" without devolving into challenges.

P1: "GM, I think it'd be more realistic if Y happened, not X."
GM: "Player, it's X, because of feature A."
P1: "Okay, I see where you're coming from, but I still think Y would be better."
GM: "Does X completely destroy your ability to believe in the fiction?"
P1: "No.  But Y helps more."
GM: "Well, X happens."

If the conversation doesn't end there, the player is being a dick.  Likewise, if the player says "X does destroy my ability to believe in the fiction!" without making a good-faith effort to accommodate X, the player is being a dick.  Right?

On the other end, if the GM just says, "That's how it happens, I'm not going to help you understand why, nor will I remind you of the causal elements in teh fiction that you may have forgotten," then the GM is being a dick.  At least, in my game he is.  Apparently not in StWT...?

Vincent, do you mean the games procedure tells the group at the start of play to decide amongst them who they'll treat as being reliable and internaly consistant (ie, he is GM)? Or the group determines who actually IS reliable and internally consistant?

With the former that seems very viable. With the latter, it seems vulnerable to a shocking revelation during play.

Er, I should have marked the transition from "StWT is like my prior example" to "here's my new example, which is quite different".  Please take none of the above as applying to StWT.  Contradicting Bob's informed understanding of how the gameworld works would suck in my game (though contradicting ignorant assumptions is cool).

>  Apparently not in StWT...?

Oh, sure, the GM should say stuff like that whenever applicable. The GM in StWT shouldn't be a dick either.

Hi Ralph: Thanks for your response in 79. I have a fair amount to say and ask in response, but like you I worry that we're kind of making ourselves at home in Vincent's place. I think we're getting into some pretty deep cultures-of-play issues, and that has to count as tangential to Vincent's thing in this series.

Vincent!...that might be the key source of disconnect!

I'm sitting here simultanously shouting "Eureka at last" and being profoundly disappointed.

For me personally I can't reconcile these two things:

1) Maintaining internal consistancy / making the world seem realistic / preserving the genre tropes is very important to me and something I value highly in the game I'm about to play.

and

2) I'm willing to completely cede all responsibility and authority for doing so to someone else and 100% go whereever they lead regardless of where that is.

For me...if its really important to me, I'm going to want—expect—a say in how it goes down.  If I don't care whether I have a say, if I'm willing to just let a GM do whatever...that pretty much means its not that important to me and I'm really not into it.

Like the time I played OctaNe.  Completely ridiculously stupid plot...but because I totally wasn't into the gonzo wierdness anyway I just let it go and played along waiting for the game to end so I could go do something else.

So when you say:  "Well, in Storming the Wizard's Tower in particular, the game's world's internal logic and causality isn't communally owned, it's the GM's. Bob's obligation (his "recourse") is to reevaluate, from the ground up if necessary, his own sense of how the game's world works. To bring his own sense of reasonable causality into line with the GM's. At the very least to extend the GM every benefit of the doubt."

My reaction is "fuck that shit".  If that's my only recourse, then I can't see why I would ever want to play that game...at all. I'm not saying I'm a control freak and want to be able to say every single little thing...but if something winds up being important to me I'm going to want more than just the expectation that I have to be the one to change my mind.

I mean, here's me totally jazzed, totally into it, and totally not able to exert any influence or have any input into the very creative stuff that has me excited?  I'm Totally at the mercy of the GM's whim?  I can do nothing by rely on the GM to be a "good GM" and take care of his players? I have to put the sole responsibility for keeping me happy in their hands and hope they throw me a bone from time to time?  That sooooo does not sound in the least bit fun to me.  I didn't accept being relegated to some junior participant role even when I was a dedicated sim-head old schooler.

So yeah.  Pretty much everything I've said in this thread was predicated on the idea that if the internal causality and reality and tropes of the fiction was important to everyone...then everyone should have a hand in making them come to life.  And thus there should be a way of dealing with it when the people who have a vested interest don't agree.

If you're now saying that isn't the case...that put up and shut up is the expected player mentality to play...I guess Ima gonna take a pass.  Thanks for sticking with the thread so long though.

Yep. Both Storming the Wizard's Tower and Apocalypse World, and Poison'd too come to think of it, the players' ability to affect the game world is limited strictly to their characters' ability to.

Except that its not.

Its limited strictly to what the GM says their characters' ability to is.

Which is a very different, and IMO less fun thing, than what the group says their characters' ability to is.

Its not the actor stance I object to.  Its the dictatorship.

Nope! Remember that the GM shares your agenda. You trust the GM with this stuff (a) because you CAN trust the GM with it, and (b) in order to get good things in return.

Right now, you're like the person who doesn't see how a Dogs in the Vineyard GM can just play the town, without having planned plot points and an ending with a big reveal. Nevertheless, it's possible, and it's a whole lot of fun.

Coincidentally, Vincent, I was just today remembering that you once wrote that the most important rule in DITV is "Actively reveal the town in play." This is nothing the players can make the GM do. It's the kind of thing that some people would castigate as "not a rule at all, just advice" in a non-"indie" game. But your "a" and "b" in 96 seem to apply to it. There is a wrinkle, which is that sincere GMs new to the game can screw it up because the little voice of habit whispers, "Don't tell them that! Cause then they'll know!" But that just says that not everyone does every new thing perfectly right from the start. (I mean, I hope it's not just me . . . )

Personally I'm fine with the imaginative dictator (in terms of a gamist agenda), as long as it's understood by all were just pretending to agree with his notions of internal consistancy, in order to facilitate play, rather than actually agreeing with them.

Wow, I'm really late to this one.  I just wanted to point out that one can give players choices in judgment moments as well, which alleviates some of the issues.  You CAN do this in In A Wicked Age (through negotiation—accept the other player's judgment of how the situation turns out or take mechanical consequences); you FREQUENTLY do this in Polaris (through the key phrases—accept the other player's judged consequences of your actions or roll for the outcome); and you CONSISTENTLY do this in Beast Hunters (through the player's ability to take the GM's judgment of maneuvers or roll dice instead).