Can someone explain the true reason behind "traits" (PtA style) to me?
Ron Edwards:
Hi Markus,
Here are my thoughts on the play-experience that lies at the heart of this thread, as you described it.
Quote
Anyway, this is were my problem started. My colleague chose a trait that basically was like "daughter of Boba Fett, famous bounty hunter, +2" ...
Nothing wrong with that, huh? Well, I thought the same ..
.
I agree with you: this is in fact where your problem started. However, I suggest that it was not exactly the problem that you perceived and dealt with. I think there are two problems to consider, both of which are interesting, but only one which has been acknowledged so far. Furthermore, I think the one we've been discussing is the lesser of the two.
Here's the lesser problem: The Pool does not set hard limits on authority. Its virtue is that it opens the door of questioning these things, relative to pre-existing assumptions, rather than providing a perfect methodology for applying them. I'm used to considering that issue in terms of narrating the outcomes of conflicts, either as player or GM, but not in terms of using the traits.
However! The more serious, even central problem may lie at a more fundamental level. You and the player simply were not sharing a common imagined starting point, not in terms of how the created-plot might go (the usual fear regarding The Pool, specifically Monologues of Victory), but in terms of the raw material to work with. Basically, she introduced the imaginative factor of celebrating Star Wars into your much more Gene Wolf like, issue-rich, surreal science fantasy.
This is a serious issue. In Big Model terms, you simply didn't have the same five-component combination, and therefore what System (one of the components) was for became unreliable. When you say "nothing particularly bad per se," I disagree. A confusion at this level of play will produce multiple minor hiccups and sometimes major empty spots in the system as a whole.
At the moment of play, when she decided to use this trait right away, I think you became distracted by the interesting issue of how authority is exerted when using a trait, in particular the notion that a player can "play an NPC" to the extent of bringing him into a scene. An equally interesting and related point is whether the trait confers any decision-making authority to the player over the NPC, i.e., can she say what he does in general. Don't get me wrong: these are important and under-studied issues! However, in this case, I do not think they were especially problematic. If she indeed brought Boba himself into play for purposes of using the trait, well, why not? Have him fly off right afterwards, and the in-game effect is no different from remembering his advice in the past. Your discomfort with that idea is, I think, disproportionate to any difficulty it raises for play - but perhaps it also lies in the subcultural "weight" of Boba fucking Fett, man! rather than merely "Bounty hunter dad" as the definition of the trait. That's what I mean by the mismatch at the level of Exploration creating hiccups in applying the System.
As hiccups do, that hiccup produced further significant consequences, specifically that the real question was skipped. This real question was whether this trait, or any trait, including simple ones like "Strong," is on constant call. My argument is that in such games, no trait should ever be on constant call, as a matter of fundamental design. I've tried to outline how many of the current games have imposed limits against that. However, your advice to her basically went in exactly the other direction and emphasized how "My father is Boba Fett" was usable in pretty much any way imaginable, for anything.
So the hiccup permitted a trapdoor to open underneath you (the group as a whole), specifically, permitting any trait to be used at any time. The other players very sensibly perceived this situation as broken. After all, if all traits can be used all the time, why not just get one trait at the highest possible value? You then solved this problem-on-a-problem with a patch solution, of removing the dice-value of traits. That solution worked, but it didn't "fix The Pool," it fixed the problems inherent in your permission to use a given trait entirely at will.
Let me know whether you think this analysis makes sense. If so, then as I see it, we need to discuss how saying "no, that trait does not apply" gets factored into functional play. (Or more accurately, to extract the useful points from Creative Tension at Anyway, and to incorporate them here.)
Best, Ron
Markus:
Ron, thanks for the help. What you said makes a lot of sense to me, even though it made me understand that I failed to communicate the different... hmmm, let's say 'amounts of trouble' that each thing I mentioned caused in the session.
In particular, the central problem of not sharing a common imagined starting point was surely there, as you stated, but I was actively trying to render it unimportant. I decided that 'this guy in our fiction' was named Boba and had the same look, but it wasn't *that* one at all. I also said this prior to playing, and (my impression was that) it wasn't a confusion-generating point during play. So this wasn't exactly a 'star wars celebration', and perhaps most importantly, my 'sense of ownership' about the setting was extremely low, since it was still quite raw and undefined and I was certainly ready to incorporate just about anything into it as play progressed (except perhaps for sentient ducks, but that's another story).
But of course, the sort of hiccups you describe were definitely there even if I tried as hard as possible to go past them. I wonder whether these are unavoidable when playing with someone for the first time, or maybe there are ways to render them less likely/less important? Specific example: I know that this sort of thing never happened with Trollbabe; I'd go as far as to say that they *cannot* happen in Trollbabe. I think I know exactly why this is so, but I also wonder whether there are other ways to do the same thing.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on October 02, 2008, 06:43:53 AM
This real question was whether this trait, or any trait, including simple ones like "Strong," is on constant call. My argument is that in such games, no trait should ever be on constant call, as a matter of fundamental design. I've tried to outline how many of the current games have imposed limits against that. However, your advice to her basically went in exactly the other direction and emphasized how "My father is Boba Fett" was usable in pretty much any way imaginable, for anything.
So the hiccup permitted a trapdoor to open underneath you (the group as a whole), specifically, permitting any trait to be used at any time. The other players very sensibly perceived this situation as broken. After all, if all traits can be used all the time, why not just get one trait at the highest possible value? You then solved this problem-on-a-problem with a patch solution, of removing the dice-value of traits. That solution worked, but it didn't "fix The Pool," it fixed the problems inherent in your permission to use a given trait entirely at will.
That's exactly the big problem I perceived. I recognize that giving her the advice about how to invoke traits caused the "number 9 syndrome" (I just finished reading the thread you linked! more on this later), but the thing that bugged me was, I didn't understand how what I said to her was in disagreement with the system. (Just for sake of clarity: I showed her some examples of how she could invoke the same trait in different ways). How is *that* wrong? The crucial issue seems thus to be this one:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on October 02, 2008, 06:43:53 AM
[...] then as I see it, we need to discuss how saying "no, that trait does not apply" gets factored into functional play. (Or more accurately, to extract the useful points from Creative Tension at Anyway, and to incorporate them here.)
Exactly! That's what I was trying to do with my previous post. I'm going to re-read the thread and think about it for a couple of days before posting again... One thing is kind of spooky, however: that the discussion you linked took place while I was compiling the list in my provious post, and most of the points are absolutely identical! In particular, Valamir said a lot of the stuff I wanted to say... that's cool.
I also have a specific question for anyone listening: don't you think that a certain level of internal inconsistency could arise in systems that try to encourage (overtly or silently) more than one of the things I listed at point (d) in my previous post? I'd say that's the answer I care about most, since many systems seem to do exactly that (mutiple, often opposed reasons for choosing traits), and I'm not able to make them work for me.
thanks a lot! bye
M
Callan S.:
Quote from: Markus on October 03, 2008, 03:04:26 AM
That's exactly the big problem I perceived. I recognize that giving her the advice about how to invoke traits caused the "number 9 syndrome" (I just finished reading the thread you linked! more on this later), but the thing that bugged me was, I didn't understand how what I said to her was in disagreement with the system. (Just for sake of clarity: I showed her some examples of how she could invoke the same trait in different ways). How is *that* wrong?
As I understand what has been printed in the text, the trait mechanically can be used at basically any old time. So your advice is not wrong or in disagreement with the rule set. It's identical.
I've run a several drafts in my head, wondering how to address this - I don't know why your advice is identified as the problem, when it's identical to how the mechanics work? It's like you advised her that in chess, a pawn can take a queen - then she takes your queen, your bummed out, and your told the problem is you advised her she could do that.
There is some gulf here I have not the wit to bridge - at least not currently (need more sleep!). I'm posting 'I dunno' cause I'm sick of making drafts in my head! :)
Quote
I also have a specific question for anyone listening: don't you think that a certain level of internal inconsistency could arise in systems that try to encourage (overtly or silently) more than one of the things I listed at point (d) in my previous post? I'd say that's the answer I care about most, since many systems seem to do exactly that (mutiple, often opposed reasons for choosing traits), and I'm not able to make them work for me.
Ever seen one of those optical illusions, where the picture both looks like a young lady and an old lady? Indeed, which you see first is probably what you desire most to see?
I just agree about the inconsistancy easily slipping in. But I'd say they are popular (ie, there are many systems like that), because like the young lady/old lady picture, they appear to be exactly the thing people want to see in them. Of course, the picture doesn't really do justice to either a young lady or an old lady, and it's the same with RPGs.
Callan S.:
Yeah, saying 'I dunno' helped clear my head.
In the creative tension/number 9 post I talked about how many roleplayers, through body language or tone, try to influence someone after they make a move. In an attempt to make them not do that move again, rather than just feeling how the move makes them feel.
I think it's important to note that one can also try to influence someones move even before they've made it. You can even do this as you describe the rules to them, by the way you describe what moves are possible - emphasizing certain options, by downplaying certain other qualities, not even mentioning some qualities (repeatable use, for example), making negative faces while describing what is mechanically a perfectly valid use, or whatever. There are many methods.
You can even do it on a forum, talking about how someone will run the pool next time. Whether that's happening here in this thread, is something to consider.
Ron Edwards:
Hi Markus,
For clarity, I had to clip out your (d) from the older post and combine it with your question, so I'll put all that here for reference:
Quote
(d) How do you choose which trait to use, among the list of those your PC possess?
- I'm trying to obtain maximum (mechanical) effectiveness
- I'm trying try to reveal something new about my PC
- I'm trying to bring to the table the theme/issue that I hardwired to my PC by choosing this trait
- I'm trying to choose the trait that preserves the most stringent consequentiality/coherence of the fiction
...
don't you think that a certain level of internal inconsistency could arise in systems that try to encourage (overtly or silently) more than one of the things I listed at point (d) in my previous post? I'd say that's the answer I care about most, since many systems seem to do exactly that (mutiple, often opposed reasons for choosing traits), and I'm not able to make them work for me
Your list and your question are strongly linked to the concept of Creative Agendas and how they can clash at the table. Or to be fully accurate, how differing individual views of what the group agenda should be can result in a clashing, disconnected experience.
Since we are talking about a specific Technique (the traits concept as carefully defined above), a particular use cannot be absolutely identified with a given agenda. For instance, regarding a Legends of the 5 Rings character I liked a lot, I might want my character to be very strongly slanted toward speed, and spend various points in character creation that maximize the appropriate attributes as well as grab the particular traits (one of which gave him +2 initiative as I recall). In that case, however, my interest was for the character to be established as a scary-fast fighter, and therefore for his moral choices to center more heavily on family and love. The increased effectiveness was less of a goal in itself and more of a means to arrive at what the problematic "goal" (actually a question) might be. Therefore I don't want to give the impression that your first option under (d) is Gamist, always and forever, amen. That's why I said "strongly linked" rather than "defines" or "is."
That very point is why I think a given system can successfully encourage more than one of the items in your list, and by "successfully," I mean "doesn't threaten the coherence of a given Agenda." I do think that such a system might do well to privilege one of the items above the others, in mechanics terms. The Riddle of Steel provides an excellent example, in that using the Spiritual Attributes affords insanely high bonuses for thematically-directed play, outweighing all other choices of how points were spent during character creation or what combat option might be chosen at the moment. (This example also illustrates a minor problem with your summary of your fourth item - the theme/issue does not have to be hardwired from the beginning; it might be quite adjustable in play. This is especially the case for The Riddle of Steel, Sorcerer, Legends of Alyria, and The Shadow of Yesterday.)
If all four items were present in a system in more-or-less equal terms, however, then I know from experience that play becomes difficult in Creative Agenda terms, and subject to radical Drift in order to find what's fun "in there." That actually characterizes some games from the mid-1990s very well, especially if the reward mechanic for the game were difficult to interpret as well. I think that's the case for Legend of the 5 Rings.
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page