[IaWA] Breaking Bad Habits
lumpley:
Troels, this isn't a general purpose rules discussion thread, nor am I making general recommendations. I'm giving targeted rules restrictions to people who're having specific problems playing the game, to reveal some of the breadth of the rules.
If one of them doesn't work for you, that's because it's not for you. The thing to do is to go "huh, that's not for me," not argue that it's wrong.
-Vincent
Troels:
OK. But I'm not trying to argue that it's wrong, I'm trying to get it. It feels like I'm missing something potentially important with these Best Interests.
In any case I'll go away now and come back if this gets a thread of it's own.
Yours, Troels
Mike Holmes:
Well, and to play Devil's advocate for Vincent, I think he's not saying that nobody should persue the Best interests. I think what Jesse is trying to say is that the Best Interests might not be something that the character even realizes... but the player does. Meaning that instead of being a direct advocate for the character to obtain their Best Interests, we're supposed to be creating stories that center around what we as players believe are the character's Best Interests.
And I think that's a good model. I'm just not sure that the rules support it.
A lot of this text reads to me like, "Well, I know the game didn't support everything in the most functional way possible, so just don't play the way it supports for you. Be a better player."
Akin to the "rules" in The Window that tell you what good play is, but which behaviors at not supported in any way mechanically. Not that bad, I think IAWA is a pretty good game, and generally does what it sets out to do. I think that it falls down slightly here and there, however.
And, sure, I'll admit that this might only be a problem for a player like myself. How can I be certain that others will have the same problems that I have with it?
But... I'm not a good player. I do what the system promotes in very lazy fashion. And so, for me, the system has a little problem here. Let me get into specifics:
#1 This one isn't very controversial, but along with Jesse's advice it does feel to me like "Don't make the character you would make, and play them to the hilt, instead make a character that'll make you play so that the system doesn't have problems." Will that be fun for me?
#2 I get what you're saying in terms of positive outcome stakes. But... the stakes are always set the instance a resolution begins. If you want the ring, and narrate to get it, and I say, "Oh no you don't," the stakes are that if you win, you get to negotiate for the ring with the stick. I mean a player could, if they wanted, change these stakes at this point, and negotiate for something else... but why wouldn't they be focused on getting what it was that they were attempting to get in the first place?
More to the point... we never once did set stakes. So we were all good players in this regard. We were, in fact, disappointed by the fact that we could not resolve anything, without resorting to repeating a contest, or getting it through negotiation.
#3 I think this is a good idea. But it is a change to the rules. Narrow construction says that any right that is not given to any one player specifically is had by all. As it reads, the player can call his shots on forms. You're saying to restrict this to only the GM. Good call, but you can't fault us for not having played this way from the rules.
#4 Same thing here, I think. Moreover, I'm skeptical that this will really help. This is, actually, a related and important point. If you narrate me out to a desert isle and hungry, etc, then on my next turn I simply narrate a sudden return and in good health. There doesn't seem to be any way to make results, other than the mechanical ones, stick. So that's why I think you get a focus on the mechanical results. Or, at least, that was my experience. This relates to what you said in the other thread about promises, that you'll want to have some way to secure a promise. Like what? Let's say I take a hostage to enforce my will. How does that actually stop another player from betraying me? He'll simply narrate how he attacks me by surprise (or does stuff such that I'm not aware), negating my ability to even potentially kill the hostage. Not that there's any way I can kill the hostage on his turn. On my turn, if I want to kill the hostage, he'll intervene. But, note, I don't have to take a hostage to be this dangerous, I can merely threaten the player. "If you don't do that, I'll try to kill your favorite NPC." Mechanically it's identical, and I don't need him to acceed to it in negotiation.
#5 Not sure how this is going to help. But they don't sound like bad ideas.
Anyhow, I think the problem is that my monkey-brain sees gamism here, and so I play it that way. I want to beat the other players to getting my character's Best Interests resolved in his favor, and prevent the other players' from doing so, and claim victory. All the above is very "Game Theory' and I just can't turn that part of my brain off.
I get the feeling that I'm going to get a "well it's probably just not the right game for you" response here... But I think there are solutions to this problem.
Mike
Alan:
Quote from: Mike Holmes on April 18, 2008, 07:12:15 AM
#1 This one isn't very controversial, but along with Jesse's advice it does feel to me like "Don't make the character you would make, and play them to the hilt, instead make a character that'll make you play so that the system doesn't have problems." ....
#2 ....if you win, you get to negotiate for the ring with the stick. I mean a player could, if they wanted, change these stakes at this point, and negotiate for something else... but why wouldn't they be focused on getting what it was that they were attempting to get in the first place?
#3 I think this is a good idea. But it is a change to the rules. Narrow construction says that any right that is not given to any one player specifically is had by all. As it reads, the player can call his shots on forms. ....
HI Mike,
I'll speak from my own experience with the game. When I first read it, I immediately envisioned Best Interests as something story-related, not the goal the character would be aware of. I believe the whole point of Best Interests, as a part of the system, is to give the players a lynch pin for something to drive for -- not the characters. In my play experience, I've designed great characters that I wanted to play _and_ which had Best Interests they were not aware of. In fact the tension between their awareness and their best interests was part of what made it cool. I think you're "makes it feel like" paraphrase is way off base from the actual intent and function.
And Best Interests _are_ part of the system. You can't say "they're not part of the system cuz they don't have a mechanic." They do -- it's right there in character creation and part of our agreement with the group is that you'll use those as one of your main tools of play.
About #2 -- why negotiate for something other than what you started out for? Cool story outcome. A desire to have cool events happen that can drive your character toward his best interests or away from them or just make a cool situation. Maybe instead of getting the ring, I get to capture my opponent and lock him in a cell. Especially if the character is not aware of any best interests involving the ring....
Re #3 -- to me narrow construction has always included group approval of a player's choice of Forms. In any game I've played, I've always been ready to support someone who spoke up and objected to a choice of Forms that did not match action described. While I've never seen anyone game forms to the point where someone wanted to veto, I do regularly see players ask the group "do you think these forms work?"
lumpley:
Mike: #2: You missed my point. My point is: resolve grabbing the ring in the first round. Don't leave the ring ungrabbed until final negotiation, don't even leave it ungrabbed until round 2. By the end of round 1, somebody's grabbed the ring, decisively. Go into round 2 with the ring no longer up for grabs.
#4: Wait! What's this business about turns? You don't take turns. You never get to just narrate whatever you want.
The rest, yeah, pretty much what I'm saying is, try playing the game by these (stricter but fully compatible) rules, instead of by the full rules, until you get the hang of it.
-Vincent
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page