I hate compromises
Filip Luszczyk:
I hate compromises.
I immediately started to hate compromises the first and the last time I played Burning Empires. We've spent 40 minutes or so playing out DoW. Then, we consulted the manual for the outcome. And the manual said, basically: it's a compromise, you all have to agree on the outcome yourself. And it gave us some vague guidelines to do so. And we've spent another half an hour negotiating the compromise.
First, over half an hour of in-game, in-character debate. Next, over half an hour of out of game, out of character debate to decide the outcome of the former.
WTF? If we're supposed to just agree what happens between us like, you know, consenting adults*, then why do we reach for the dice in the first place?
I mean, sure, that DoW was sort of fun in a board-gamey way. The problem is, how long was the manual, 600 pages? It's all crunchy as hell, we spend 40 minutes on a heavily tactical mini-game, and how does it all affect the game at large? Disproportionately, at least. All we learn is that now we have to agree on the outcome ourselves.
What if we can only agree to disagree? After all, we resort to the rules specifically to resolve our conflict of interests. The rules, however, refer us back to our social agreement. Bullshit, I say.
Case two, Mouse Guard.
The difference between Burning Empires and Mouse Guard is that while the former offers very vague guidelines for compromises, the latter offers pretty concrete guidelines. Basically, depending on the degree of compromise, there are several options to choose: follow-ups, partial goals, twists or conditions of varying severity. Cool, I think, I can work with that.
The problem is, we still have to agree, as a group, on any given compromise. It's right there in the rules. Like it wasn't enough that we've all agreed to play by those rules in the first place. We have to reaffirm our agreement every single conflict. Incidentally, this is pretty much the only part of the game that requires such reaffirmations. Everything else is nicely board-gamey: options, options, options. At any other point it's generally clear who makes a choice and the rest of the group just deals with it. Incidentally, play proceeds smoothly that way.
Compromises? No. They barely ever go smoothly.
The typical scenario when I play as a player: the game gives me a compromise, so I scan the list of options for a given degree of compromise, I pick whichever I find good, and I propose it to the group - and the group sometimes buys it, but often counter-proposals follow, and often the GM is like uh, oh, maybe, but no. It goes like that for several minutes before we finally settle on the outcome.
Last weekend, I've run a game of Mouse Guard myself. So, the party kills the snake, but I get to choose a compromise. I scan my list of options, and the manual tells me I can Injure them. Great! You're Injured! One player, however, points out we all have to agree on the compromise as a group, and the group is like uh, oh, maybe, but no. Uh, you guys just fought a fucking dragon-thing, and barely won, leaving it for death, but you don't find injury an appropriate consequence? Oh, ok, another option, then...
So, a long-term twist it is, the snake, once it recovers, will swear revenge and follow the party. Cool, I'm satisfied with the outcome. What I'm not satisfied is the process of getting there.
If it was a single versus test insted of a full-blown tactical conflict, the manual would just give me the choice to apply condition or twist, and the group would have to deal with that. None uh, oh, maybe, but no.
Case three, IAWA.
Back when it was still Art, Grace & Guts, I've read the manual on the wiki and I was like, negotiation? No, that's plain dumb. It will never work. We're going to argue forever.
However, the (arguably) complete version of the manual came out, I played the game, it all worked fine. In IAWA, if we can't agree on the proposed outcome, somebody just defaults to damage. There's never uh, oh, maybe, but no. Damage it is, and we move on.
Slick.
I feel that compromises in Burning Something and Mouse Guard lack this crucial factor. There is no default outcome. There is no Stick. The system breaks when it's difficult for the players to reconcile their interests. Which is, like, every second conflict?
But other than that, I find Mouse Guard working very well.
I'm currently looking for a way to implement the Stick in Mouse Guard. It's tricky. Conditions seem like the most obvious way to go, but there are only five of those and they can't accumulate. Consequently, it could produce situations when defaulting to conditions would not be possible.
*) Actually, since when it's common for consenting adults to agree on anything just like that? The entire history of the world seems to deny the reliability of this notion, lol.
Frank Tarcikowski:
Hi Filip,
Would you like to discuss the issue of having to agree on something versus having the rules say (who says) what happens? In that case, I could add my experience and opinion, which you may find quite controversial. Or would you rather stick with the question about Mouse Guard? I'm afraid I don't have anything to contribute to that.
- Frank
Filip Luszczyk:
I'm fine with both, as long as we avoid stepping into the trad wilderness.
jburneko:
Filip,
I'm running BE right now. Our DoW take about 20 minutes and our compromise process takes about 5. When I run In A Wicked Age... negotiation takes about 2 minutes and almost no ever has to Exhaust or Injure. I'm not entirely sure our group is magical.
Are you sticking solely to conflicts being between the fictional characters? Or are you somehow trying to use this mechanics to reconcile player-to-player real world disagreements? The details of our DoW usually make it really obvious what a fair compromise in the fiction looks like.
Like I remember having a Psychic Duel where I was trying to mind control one the PCs into allowing the character to join the ranks of the Inquisition. I won but she scored a compromise and said, "Okay but he has to start at the bottom like any new novice would." Done and Done. Made total sense, no discussion.
Could you give an exact example of DoW that look a particularly long time? In particular can you remember what each side was asking for specifically? One or two details about what was said during the actually volleys would be helpful as well.
Jesse
Luke:
I'd also like to point out that page 115 gives the GM power to enforce compromises on intransigent players.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page