Can someone explain the true reason behind "traits" (PtA style) to me?
Moreno R.:
I tend to look at the uses of not-simulative traits from another point of view.
Sometimes, players ask me about the kind of traits you found in PTA or DitV (where you can have a trait like "blind 2d6" and it's a bonus), the traits not directly tied to the abilities of the characters, because they don't see what they represent.
My answer, usually, is that they represent the things you want to see in the story.
If a game give you some way to get bonus dice, I reason, you will. If the game give you a big fat bonus on your rolls if you say "potatoes", any player worth his salt will say potatoes every chance they get, and would have really no problem in getting that bonus every rolls they do. So, the fact that you WILL get these dice (or cards, or whatever) is not in discussion. You will get them , because you are a player and you will find a way.
What you can change, with the way you choose your traits, is what you will have to use, cite, narrate or play-act during the game, to get that bonus.
So, in DitV, you will get all the dice you earn during fallout, sure. But choosing "blind" as a trait instead of "well-dressed" means that during the story the fact that your character is blind will have a much bigger importance than the fact that he is well-dressed.
PTA traits works like this. You add a connection? You are making sure that he will appear every episode (when you need a bonus card). You add an edge, that say that you are very lucky? You will tend to solve problems using luck, not skill. The amount of cards you get don't change at all: you would have found a way to use a trait anyway. What change, is what you did to get that card. What was added (or reinforced) to the story.
Markus:
Thanks for your replies, guys. Interesting stuff! Your answers were excellent food for thought, but I'm afraid that my doubt persists. In particular, you managed to show to me some interesting ways of looking at traits and using them, but I still claim that "traits", per se, and as described in the relevant games that I know (which btw are: The Pool, PtA, and DitV), are not guaranteed to generate/represent the effects you're talking about, especially (anf this is my point) regarding their mechanical influence on the game. I'll try to be a bit more specific by replying to everyone:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on September 10, 2008, 12:17:10 PM
It's not about using the same trait over and over, so much as having to choose among them at any given instance of play. In PTA, I have three such things to choose from, and I have to use one of them. Which will it be? Mechanically, it doesn't matter whether it's Bad-ass (Edge) or Cute Alien Sidekick (Ally), but it does matter quite a bit regarding how my character deals with the situation. By "matter," I mean the character's Issue.
And that is extremely interesting. My problem with this is that for it to work, there must be an (even unspoken, but probably issue-related) "moral value ladder" implicit in the trait list. And in my opinion, by giving the player the freedom of choosing just about anything as a trait, the resulting list either could or couldn't represent relevant, moving choiches for the player. Sounds fun and functional, I'm perfectly OK with this! But the above is not just "choose three traits", it's a lot more involved and complex thing to do. It's not a part of any of the the systems as written, rather it's something that an experienced and smart player with a refined taste for "story" might attempt to do with the generic "trait" tool.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on September 10, 2008, 12:17:10 PM
What I'm saying is that Pool characters often have tacit "issues" built into their brief character sheets, which becomes most apparent when the character has seemingly-contradictory traits, and when the traits differ in their values.
Exactly! It's that "often" that bugs me, as I said above. Let me use an analogy. If I look at my bass guitar, I notice these funny 'position dots' on the neck. What's their use? Nothing strictly indispensable; they're sort of guidelines that help you knowing where you are, and mark important note intervals. Maybe not all of you are familiar with music theory, but think about it: the position dots on guitars are where they are *because of a particular musical culture*, because of what most people in the western world thinks is "musical". Now, you can still play any note on your guitar, but the position dots are there nonetheless. OK, what I'm trying to say is that I'd like to see more "position dots" spelled out in the rules regarding traits, to help me understand exactly what I should try to do with them.
I also have a couple of (still very raw) ideas about what these guidelines could be about. Please consider this example: I'm building a Pool character. As I stated in the original post, I don't have any problem with all the non-mechanical part of character creation: it's useful and puts there all the "flags" (I think that's the correct jargon word for what I mean) you need to communicate to the GM and other players. Let's focus on the mechanical part (the dice boons you get) and see what its effects are. Suppose that, following the rules, I end up with these three traits (ok, it's a lot of bonuses for a starting character, but I hope you'll see my point):
"solves problems by talking to people", +1
"solves problems by beating people", +2
"solves problems by killing people", +3
Now that's a ready-to-go moral value dilemma for you! Sounds interesting to play, isn't it? Sort of a "Dogs in the Pool" thing. I look forward to use this character, and this expectation is *caused and reinforced* by the existing mechanics. And now consider this other (perfectly legitimate) character:
"member of the order of the flame", +1
"family-inherited katana", +2
"magical cat-familiar", +3
I don't know if it's just me, but I don't feel the same power here. Sure, I'll get to talk to everybody about my cool stuff, but so what? I'd do that anyway. And I get rewarded by the system if I mention my precious sword again and again. I'm not saying that it would be a particularly desirable thing to do, but the system is pushing me toward doing exactly that, isn't it?
So a big part of the problem seems to me to lie in the fact that one cannot possibly say "traits", and expect players to immediately understand and apply in a functional way all the above concepts. Maybe a first step could be categorizing the different types of traits, further down the path started (probably, I'm not sure) by PtA by forcing you to think about edges and connections instead of just generic traits. A couple of possible ways of categorizing traits are just forming in my head, but I'm not satisfied with any of them yet.
And, there's another thing I'd like to discuss with you. I don't know yet if it's directly linked to what I said above, but it's definitely there. What does one exactly mean by "use a trait"? In the games I know, it seems to imply that you should make it clear to everyone that the trait you're invoking has some sort of relevance to the current situation. And again, I ask you which sort of desirable impact on actual play this is supposed to cause. Consider the following example.
My Elfs character has to beat a troll guard in a game of chess or he will be eaten. The match is pretty much in balance, when I look at my high Low Cunning score and start thinking quickly. Well, since it's Elfs after all, I declare that while the troll is looking elsewhere, my character quickly dips the troll's Queen in his dark beer jug, and voila, the troll's white queen now seems like a second black queen to the brute. The GM notices the other players' chuckles and grants me the Low Cunning bonus. I could do that because the system tells me how I'm expected to use my Low Cunning score; and it's something that has to bring new, thematically relevant content (Elfs do not have an "Introspective" characteristic for example, you know) to the game. In a way, the system *shapes* the game. If it doesn't, then, what's it use?
Now compare the above to this other situation: I'm playing the Pool. Same situation as above. Only that I notice that I have this "Low Cunning",+1 trait on my sheet. The system says that my trait has to be relevant to the situation at hand. I *might* add some colourful detail, but if I just state that "... and since I'm so cunning, you know, I roll an extra die" I'm basically adhering to the rules as written, and I'm getting a mechanical reward for that.
Now, I'm sure I covered all I wanted to say, but a few minor other points include:
Quote from: Moreno R. on September 10, 2008, 09:30:51 PM
My answer, usually, is that they represent the things you want to see in the story.
Sure, I'm fine with that. But I suspect that the non-mechanical part of the trait (basically, the mere fact that you've chosen and named that trait) seems to be sufficient to do that.
Quote from: Moreno R. on September 10, 2008, 09:30:51 PM
You are making sure that he will appear every episode (when you need a bonus card). You add an edge, that say that you are very lucky? You will tend to solve problems using luck, not skill. The amount of cards you get don't change at all: you would have found a way to use a trait anyway. What change, is what you did to get that card. What was added (or reinforced) to the story.
Same as above!
To conlclude: i like those mechanics that 'shape' play in a meaningful, focused way. It usually means forcing players to bring new content to the table, but I'm not sure this is all (see the 'trait usage' question above).
Pheeew, it's hard to write about abstract things in a language that is not your own... Anyway: does any of this make sense to you? Any further ideas or comments?
bye
Ron Edwards:
Hi everyone,
The text about Traits is the same for the first edition (spiral-bound, ninja-SF chick on cover) and second edition (blue book, TV on cover) of PTA. The rule is that you use "any trait" in adding cards to your draw, which is not necessarily singular nor plural. Similarly, in another paragraph it talks about spending traits (plural), but in that context it's not clear whether only a single conflict is being discussed. However, and to some extent overriding that issue, in the Introduction, it explains the limit to using traits! You can only use a given trait for free a number of times equal to your current Screen Presence in a given episode; after that, you have to spend Fanmail to use it. So although the mechanism may be different from that in The Pool, still, there is a reason to consider that you might not want to employ a given Trait in a given conflict.
Markus, you're articulating an assumption that I think needs to be dissected. The assumption might be summarized as "If the system doesn't make players do X, then it can't be relied upon, and that uncertainty is a flaw." I think this reverses the actual relationship between people and system.
No, nothing in the rules of The Pool makes anyone write necessarily-opposed, problematic, thematically interesting Traits. But hell, nothing makes anyone do anything. A person could be forced by the rules to write up all manner of Traits, for instance the Dogs-like progression you describe, and he or she could still play the character as a stupid theme-less mass.
What you describe as an uncomfortable risk, which is to say expecting people who play with you to share your agenda for play, I call a basic expectation. Simply put, I do not play The Pool with people I don't trust to do that - or more accurately, if I feel like playing Narrativist (which is most of the time), then I'm bloody well going to play with people who currently feel the same way. As it happens, a lot of people share those goals, so it's not hard; I'm not forced to stay with a tiny cadre of loyalists - all I have to do is be clear about what I want and gather up whoever's present and interested.
I submit that even with your less-inspiring Trait list, a player of that character and a GM who enjoy Narrativist play and anticipate an enjoyable evening of doing so will find a way for those Traits to be powerful toward that end. It doesn't have to be hard - the simplest way, for example, is for this particular player to play his simplistic character as a foil or support for another character who does come all riddled with problematic theme-jump-starting Traits: Porthos to D'Artagnan, for example.
"System Does Matter" means we are aided in our joint goal to do so, not that we can wind up some little toy that walks us through the automatic paces that produce Narrativist play like a sausage being spat out of one end of a sausage-making machine. At its most extreme, your viewpoint would not be satisfied with anything but such a machine.
Please let me know if I have caricatured your viewpoint rather than stating it fairly. Also, I want to repeat that I do agree with your basic point, that unconstructed Traits that can be used mechanically can be exhausting and boring in play. The reason I'm defending the Traits in PTA and The Pool (if that's what I'm doing ...) lies very deeply in the rules constraints on their use: one at a time in The Pool; (possibly) one at a time and limited in resource terms in PTA. Without those constraints, then phooey. So although this post was rather pushy, I hope it's also clear that I'm not arguing against your fundamental point at all.
Best, Ron
Callan S.:
Hi Markus,
I think I'd use a music analogy too. The first instrumental musicians were, by necessity, the craftsmen of those instruments. No one else was around to craft their instruments, that's for sure. So at that point, to love music was to innately love crafting the musical instrument from raw materials to begin with. The two were utterly intertwined and probably considered the same thing - whittling a drum from a block of wood was making music as much as drumming it is making music. The way you held the blade and cut into the wood was expression as much as the sequence you played on the drum is expression.
Clearly today, people buy guitars, trumpets, synthesizers, etc without knowing how to actually make those instruments from raw materials. It's not necessarily better than having to craft your own instrument before you can make music. But I think it shows that wanting to skip the crafting stage and cut straight to the music making (well, music training, then making) isn't anything to do with wanting a wind up instrument that plays itself. That wouldn't be a natural extension of the desire at all.
In your own guitar analogy you say you want more markers. I'm wondering if you already own a bookshelf of older RPG's? I'm imagining that you already own alot of raw material RPG's and in looking to new RPG's, you are now in the market for purchasing a premade story making instrument (For anyone else reading, no, premade doesn't mean it's rigid - it's about as rigid as the music you can play on a store bought guitar - ie, not rigid at all).
You might have been thinking indie RPG's were going to cover this, since the older games covered 'raw material to instrument, instrument to play' already and you own enough of these that if you wanted to craft your own instrument, your pretty well covered already.
( Am I way off? Ignore the rest if I am. :) )
But it's not necassarily the case - indie RPG's tend to still focus on that love of instrument crafting. Personally I really got your questions and they are the same ones I've asked many a time in my head or on forums - your questions mirror my own and I share your doubts. Unfortunately they tend to question why the authors love to craft instruments. That can't be answered and they then tend to question what you love and its validity and...ugh!
I'd say the core of your question is "Why are these games selling more raw material, when everyone already owns a bookshelf of raw materials already?" and I think that's a valid question. In defence of instrument crafters, they can see subtle yet powerful differences in two different books of raw material. But to anyone who is not currently interested in crafting their story instruments, a new book of raw material looks exactly the same as the books of raw material they have on their book shelves at home.
I think the answer to that question is that crafting the instrument and playing the instrument are so intertwined as the same act for many authors, they can't imagine someone just wanting a prefabricated instrument. Either they think crafting the instrument and playing the instrument are the same act, or to them a prefab is something cold, inert, alien and lifeless, when their crafting of an instrument is such expression in itself to them. That is why they are still selling raw materials when everyone owns a bookshelf of raw materials. That's the true reason behind 'traits'. In my estimate and all that.
Markus:
Thanks a lot, guys: your answers showed me a couple of weak/missing points in my reasoning that I couldn't see myself. Callan, I agree 100% with you. No wait, perhaps I agree 110% or more, because you understood the spirit of what I wanted to say and expanded it further, widening its scope. Yes, I understand your analogy and it was extremely useful to me. Thank you once again. Ron, Callan, your replies prompt me to replace my original question about traits with another, more general one.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on September 11, 2008, 06:51:36 PM
"System Does Matter" means we are aided in our joint goal to do so, not that we can wind up some little toy that walks us through the automatic paces that produce Narrativist play like a sausage being spat out of one end of a sausage-making machine. At its most extreme, your viewpoint would not be satisfied with anything but such a machine.
Please let me know if I have caricatured your viewpoint rather than stating it fairly.
Well, I'd say yes, you sort of caricatured it, but in a meaningful and useful way for me. And I'm tempted to respond yes, that sausage machine is a fair methaphor of what I'd consider an ideal RPG system. I think that there is one crucial point in which our expectations and assumptions about an RPG system differ, and I think it's social in nature. I'll try to explain myself a little better.
I fully agree with you that no system can *guarantee* any result. I think you could try to use the PtA rules for dungeon-crawls, and the book wouldn't bite you in the leg after all. But, and this 'but' is crucial for me, in that case you'll be ignoring a whole lot of the features of PtA-as-written.
Sure: if I choose people carefully, I can build a group of talented people that will make the most of what I give them (in terms of system specifically for this discussion), and even without me providing any 'position dots' for them. But that does not mean, in my opinion, that game designers should take what *they* know for granted, *if they want to make their games understood* by the widest possible audience. Of course, whether this is a desirable design goal or not is also a question.
Now consider Trollbabe. Ron, I hope you won't take this as an offense, but I consider Trollbabe to be the best "sausage machine" of RPGs I know as for now. And that's a big plus for me, as I explained above. Let's say this: in my experience, you have a smaller chance to go wrong with Trollbabe, *regardless of the people you're playing with*.
I'll use another musical analogy, they come natural to me. I can surely take some good players and say them "hey guys, let's play a good old 12-bar blues in G now". And they'll immediately understand what I mean, and it will also probably going to be *good* blues. In a sense, my "let's play the blues" suggestion could be viewed as "the system". But, what happens if one of the guys replies "huh? what's this thing you're talking about?". Surely in this case, I'd have done better to give them some more details *before* playing. Then, and only then, they could use the information I'd give to decide how (and even if) to play the blues with me.
I like RPGs that are as close to that sausage machine as possible, because I cannot rely (yet) on a crew of people that will give me a good session whatever we try. My point is, I can do that now as a musician, because I played a lot of blues with a lot of different people! So what I'm looking for in a system is exactly that.
It might be that I'm just seeing non-existant analogies and that I'm trying to replicate too rigidly my musical experience within the context of RPGs. But, but... I *know* that I can play a simple, focused, clearly written RPG with any smart, sensitive person with which I share at least some estethical affinities (even people who don't know what the hell a RPG *is*), and tap that special kind of power I'm searching for. I cannot do the same (well, not with the same success) if the system is not laser-beam-focused on the task of shaping *one* way of playing, because my group isn't going to have the necessary experience to mould it into something usable.
I wonder whether any of the above makes sense to someone else?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page