[Space Rat] Femme babe action at GenCon
Markus:
Ron, thanks a lot for this reply. I have so much to say that I'll just do it step by step. One word of caution however: most of the stuff in my reply below is extremely theoretical; perhaps a bit too theoretical, I'm afraid. It's true, I'm kind of exploiting the Actual Play forum as a kind of "plz school me on RPG theory" forum lately. I only hope that these discussions are useful and/or entertaining to other people here as they are for me!
Most of what follows is really what I intended to say from the first moment I decided to delurk here at TheForge, but I didn't have neither the vocabulary nor the concepts to express it clearly. I'm not sure that I really got it yet, but consider this just my first attempt at asking this stuff clearly.
Oh, and there's another caveat: those reported below aren't fully-formed concepts yet, but just a tangled mass (mess?) of different ideas. I don't think I'll ever manage to put them in proper form by myself, so, if anyone is interested, please join in! So, let's start:
(1) The purpose of trait scores
Just for clarity, the very broad issue I'm trying to understand here with your help is what kind of effects are linked to the presence/absence of numerically different scores attached to different traits. I'll try to summarize my current understanding on this specific subject, which was definitely influenced by Ron's reply above.
There is only one thing that I'm reasonably sure of so far, that is, if you have trait scores in a system, then players should also have a rationale for choosing between traits, which must *not* be connected to those scores. So, three different scenarios seem to be possible:
[Just a quick side-note: when I wrote 'if you have trait scores...' above, I must confess I almost deleted the word 'trait', so that it would have been 'if you have scores...'. Right now, I cannot say if 'trait' is needed at all or not in that sentence... But for god's sake, let's try to answer to one question at a time].
(I) Several games provide that rationale directly as part of the system. For example, one relatively common mechanical/thematic scheme seems to be the "kinda-like-Faust" dilemma: different scores are accessible, but they are linked, for example, to specific actions which can be put in a ladder, based on a non-mechanical variable (usually that's some sort of moral value ladder).
(II) Other games do not provide such an 'external' rationale, and this leaves (in my opinion) only two options regarding trait scores in those games. The first one is simply not using trait scores, as seen in SpaceRat. The second one, which I didn't see until Ron's "Used to Be/Is Now" example above, is that the game does employ trait scores, but they also serve a different purpose altoghether *in addition* to the mechanical one.
(III) Then, there are games which do have traits, trait scores, but no additional/external purpose/rationale for either assigning those scores during chargen, or choosing between them during play.
And now comes the difficult part. Although most systems call "traits" the mechanical elements used for achieving (I) and (II) above, I find that in practice, they're different as day and night. In "Type(II)" games, traits are mostly a *descriptive* tool. Using them during play involves the *celebration*, for lack of a better term, of the fictional elements represented by that trait, *as already established* either during chargen, or by the system itself.
In Type(I) games instead, when you choose between traits during play, your choiche is mostly influenced by that non-mechanical, perhaps even non-stated value ladder, which in turn implies the score you'll use mechanically as an almost secondary consequence.
So I feel that in those Type(II) games, traits are mostly "premise reinforcement" tools, whereas in Type(I) games, traits are "premise creation" tools. In Type(I) games, I see traits as useful and functional, and I know what to do with them.
I'm currently struggling with Type(II) games, but I think I'm almost there. The trick seems to lie in understanding them as positioning tools, as Ron suggested in previous threads.
My problem with Type(III) games is that I really don't know what to do with traits, neither at chargen nor during play. The Pool could be an example of a Type(III) game, but I think there are a lot more around, some of which are extremely succesful games. No, I won't name any, simply because I'm not *that* sure I'm right; this is just intended as a platform for costructive discussion, not a "defend this game from unjust accusation" competition.
Oh and when above I say that "I don't know what to do with traits", I don't mean that I suddently forgot how I use them in more structured, Type(I)/(II) games. Rather, I mean that I have too many options open, including deciding which *type* of significance giving to trait scores. In my view, that's not much less work than designing a whole system from scratch.
[And, yes: I hate to always use ThePool as a negative example. More on that in this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=26918.0 , to which I'll respond asap].
Pheew, that was difficult stuff! I wonder if it makes any sense to someone else.
(2) "At the table" use of traits
Ron, your example was *extremely* helpful. So helpful that I just can't believe that I could never find something like that in any game text. I mean, you described specific, absolutely non-abstract techniques that are almost necessary to make good use of traits. Some of those are indeed extremely intuitive, and I also used them in my games. But others definitely aren't (for instance, your suggestion about how to build a functional dialogue between GM and players about the pertinence of a trait). My impression is however that the specific techniques you described are *not* implicitly linked to the word "trait". I say this because in some games, slighlty different procedures than those you described (or a sub-set of them) are explicitly prescribed.
So this becomes a broad question to all games designers passing by: when you decided to use 'traits' in your game, did you intend to cause "at-the-table" effects such as those described by Ron? Or, did you intended to achieve something different? My point is that in either case, you should describe it all in more detail. One can't just write in a game "oh, and you have traits, which give you bonuses if they're *applicable*" and expect it to produce any foreseeable effects in play. And if that's true, why do we need traits at all?
I have a lot more questions on this subject, but I'd like to have a 'reality check' first, waiting for some replies and comments.
thanks a lot!
M
Ron Edwards:
Hi Markus,
You wrote,
Quote
I'm kind of exploiting the Actual Play forum as a kind of "plz school me on RPG theory" forum lately. I only hope that these discussions are useful and/or entertaining to other people here as they are for me!
That's what the Actual Play forum is for! Really. I've said it a hundred times and no one believes it. The GNS and RPG Theory forums are still active at the Forge. They were not "shut down," but folded into this one.
Quote
There is only one thing that I'm reasonably sure of so far, that is, if you have trait scores in a system, then players should also have a rationale for choosing between traits, which must *not* be connected to those scores.
I think that concept needs to be modified a little. I suspect you are thinking that any attention to the quantitative score automatically translates to effectiveness-increasing strategy, and then that automatically translates to diminution of the Shared Imagined Space. (There may also be a little Gamism-phobia at work here; I don't know if that applies to you, but it has certainly shown up in similar discussions with others.)
You're on the right track, though. My refinement of that statement would be that using Traits, scores and all, needs to be integrated with the imagined fiction just as much as the "core" resolution and reward mechanics. This is a tricky deal because as we're using the term here, we're not merely talking about descriptive components on the character sheet (that could be anywhere), but rather a very specific mechanic that operates as a cross-cutting modifier to the usual devices of resolution.
I think that integrating them into the fiction absolutely requires that they play a role in Positioning, which applies to all three Creative Agendas, not just Narrativism. To put it in movie terms, if we were talking about something like Kill Bill, and if we were using a system like The Pool, then the hero's "Expert swords-woman" Trait is rated very highly. My point is that this does not impair or operate at cross-purposes to her protagonist-actions, but rather acts as a reinforcer for specific sorts of actions that we are saying will be highly consequential (more chance of success), as part of being that protagonist. With other actions, the player is forced to rely only on GM gift dice and that character's Pool. With sword-ish actions, she basically has two or three permanent Gift dice.
I'm not seeing how that somehow undercuts any aspect of resolution mechanics, theme, or Creative Agenda of any kind.
Quote
And now comes the difficult part. Although most systems call "traits" the mechanical elements used for achieving (I) and (II) above, I find that in practice, they're different as day and night. In "Type(II)" games, traits are mostly a *descriptive* tool. Using them during play involves the *celebration*, for lack of a better term, of the fictional elements represented by that trait, *as already established* either during chargen, or by the system itself.
In Type(I) games instead, when you choose between traits during play, your choiche is mostly influenced by that non-mechanical, perhaps even non-stated value ladder, which in turn implies the score you'll use mechanically as an almost secondary consequence.
So I feel that in those Type(II) games, traits are mostly "premise reinforcement" tools, whereas in Type(I) games, traits are "premise creation" tools. In Type(I) games, I see traits as useful and functional, and I know what to do with them.
That's interesting and defensible, but it seems overly artificial to me. For instance, I had no idea with my character Kakita Gan whether his scary-fast duelling expertise would be either a problem or a solution relative to the events of play. I only knew that refining that aspect of the character into its most perfect state (given the options for character creation) created opportunity for it to be consequential in some way. Even if it simply meant that his greatest adversity would be in another realm of performance entirely.
Still, in terms of "truth at the table," which is to say how people experience play in a particular instance, I think your distinction is valid.
Quote
My problem with Type(III) games is that I really don't know what to do with traits, neither at chargen nor during play. The Pool could be an example of a Type(III) game, but I think there are a lot more around, some of which are extremely succesful games. No, I won't name any, simply because I'm not *that* sure I'm right; this is just intended as a platform for costructive discussion, not a "defend this game from unjust accusation" competition.
I think your issue is pretty easy to address. First, Type III is actually Type II that was picked up and played by an audience who knew what to do with it - no, how to use the Traits is not "in" the game, but since the people who knew and liked Type II simply used them as such, much as I described in this thread, there turned out not to be a Type III in practice. In other words, your II/III distinction is not between games but between game texts. We are really just discussing how to use Type II.
You also wrote, regarding my advice and descriptions for how Trait-use is taught,
Quote
My impression is however that the specific techniques you described are *not* implicitly linked to the word "trait". I say this because in some games, slighlty different procedures than those you described (or a sub-set of them) are explicitly prescribed.
That's correct but it's especially relevant to Traits (as we have defined them in your parent thread) because they operate orthogonally to the "basic" resolution system. When that's not the case, there's no double-decision-making involved, so the teaching process has a much more straightforward arc.
Quote
So this becomes a broad question to all games designers passing by: when you decided to use 'traits' in your game, did you intend to cause "at-the-table" effects such as those described by Ron? Or, did you intended to achieve something different? My point is that in either case, you should describe it all in more detail. One can't just write in a game "oh, and you have traits, which give you bonuses if they're *applicable*" and expect it to produce any foreseeable effects in play. And if that's true, why do we need traits at all?
I'm interested in the answers too. I really want to stress that many, many of the games that use "Traits" do not qualify for this question because we are really talking about a very particular mechanic. Descriptors in Sorcerer do not count, for instance. Whereas some games use that mechanic but do not call them Traits, as with Spiritual Attributes in The Riddle of Steel and Muses in Nine Worlds.
Best, Ron
Markus:
Hi Ron,
this is just a quick reply to say that your answers were much appreciated, and they prompted me to re-read with more attention some specific passages of your essay on narrativism. And... I'm finding a lot of sections that seem like the transcript of some of the discussions we've had here lately (only clearer, and in better form). I don't have anything significant to reply yet, but I have this good feeling that I'm "beginning to understand". So the bottom line is... thanks a lot!
M
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page