I hate compromises
Filip Luszczyk:
Callan,
The problem I see is that as a group seems to be a massive mental shortcut, generally. All the group this, group that talk builds an impression the group is some sort of hive mind. The group, however, is composed of individuals, obviously. In practice, there is no as a group, there's always some potentially complex process involved that goes on between those individuals. Procedures referring to the group as a hive mind often leave a necessary part of the process out, or at least aren't explicit about it, assuming the group will supplement that part with a compatible component. It's certainly easier than designing instructions that would guide the individuals involved through that gap. It's not reliable, however, no more than leaving wide gaps in the rules for the individual GM to bridge, trusting that given a range of possibilities that also include wrong choices, GMs will reliably choose the way the designer intended.
Judd,
Quote
In my experience, each party states their intent and the compromise ends up being a delightful surprise, something more than we thought was going to happen when we first started the DoW.
I don't get the surprise part. It seems like a disconnect to me. Between the intent and the compromise, there's this elaborate and crunchy process of resolution. Sometimes, it produces a hopefully unambiguous outcome (i.e. one of the parties gets the stated intent). Often, it results in a compromise, and here, you do something that creates a surprise. How does the surprise tie to the preceeding mini-game? It's probably informed by some narrative cues produced throughout that part, but it seems disconnected from the mini-game itself. It's like, you go through the elaborate mini-game to produce a few narrative cues, and then you apply an entirely separate, social-level process to transform those cues into some surprising outcome.
It doesn't seem to me the surprise emerges directly from the mini-game. It seems more like a quick Tarot draw could do equally well. It seems to undermine the point of the mini-game, however fun it might be in its own board-gamey right.
Quote
What occurs when the group is disagreeing on the compromise?
When we disagree on the outcome, there's some uh, oh, maybe, but no, and somebody proposes another outcome, until one is accepted (i.e. until no one objects anymore). However, there's this uncomfortable feeling that some of us get robbed from the outcome they earned through the mini-game.
Raven,
Quote
What stop-gap measure is necessary for it to be functional in your group?
I don't think it's a matter of it being functional, but rather of it being functionally fun. Hey, we will always reach some agreement eventually, only having to reach an agreement as a separate process is not fun. It feels out of the game.
So, Dogs. The resolution in Dogs is all about reaching an agreement. In theory, we could roll the dice and manipulate them to apply narrative pressure forever. In practice, at some point, the process makes you not want to object anymore. You look at current game variables, both mechanical and fictional, and that's it, you give. It's fun. It's all in the game.
Quote
So I think we're looking at: why does it work in those other groups? Why doesn't that work in yours?
Now, I can imagine groups where it would work. The problem is, I imagine a group composed of individuals that consistently proved problematic in my groups so far.
The people I'm thinking about, and I'm going to make quite a bit of generalizations here, tend to expose little investment in the game and consequently don't seem to have a particularly strong agenda. They are often in the game primarily for social reasons, or "just to have fun" (just as opposed to what, I cannot grasp). Sometimes they stress stuff like "Story", "atmosphere" or "acting", but in practice, they seem to feel better as passive spectators than active players. It's the type that avoids reading manuals, but seems to enjoy reading fluff. They tend to be trained in what a friend recently described very accurately as GM-telling.
They don't bring much to the game, other than their amenable participation. Often, they will let a more active player take control and effectively play instead of them, while they contribute a bit of humor here or some acting there. They never employ the variety of tactical options in D&D, and they never make a strong Raise in Dogs. Oh, and they never run games on their own.
So, yeah, I notice groups composed mostly of individuals that more or less fit that general profile tend to reach agreement on a purely social level more smoothly. They also frustrate me to no end, and I tend to avoid playing with them. Over an extended period, it never works.
I guess there might be groups where it would work that don't fit that profile. What are the factors that make that possible? And, more importantly, how come we're attracted to the same designs, then?
Either way, somehow, I'm not coming across such players. I'm starting to wonder if it might be some strictly cultural thing.
Frank Tarcikowski:
Hey Filip,
I feel I either have a lot to say about this topic, or nothing at all. I am partially hampered by the fact that I don’t know Burning Empires, or Mouse Guard. I can’t really figure out how you guys play. From what you’ve written so far, my mind is painting a picture of play disconnected from the fiction, where goals are pursued by mechanical means and the mechanic applications do not really mean anything in the fiction. Where everybody only wants to push through his own ideas, where there is no shared understanding of the fictional situation and how it evolves ‘naturally’, no esthetic like-mindedness that makes you go, ‘Wow, cool!’ when someone else describes a fictional event or circumstance, or delivers an in-character line.
I don’t really feel I understand what you get out of this sort of play. To my mind, if you cannot buy into something that your fellow player brings up for a compromise, then why should you buy into the same thing just because the rules said the buck stopped with that player? How is that any better? I don’t like these ‘buck stops here’ type of rules because they take away the need to sell your fellow players on your ideas. But I don’t know if any of this is of any help to you, because we seem to have very, very different concepts of role-playing.
Probably I’m not taking the discussion down a constructive lane, so I’ll back off for now. If anybody’s interested, you might check out my thread [Liquid] Well, I just rolled the dice for show, in which a very similar discussion came up between Callan and me.
Cheers, Frank
Judd:
Filip,
You talk about the ambiguous outcomes as if they are bad things and to me, they are what makes DoW fun. That fun comes out of the context of the Duel itself and the fiction that drove the game to that point.
I am not sure how to respond to the idea that the surprise, generated from an ambiguous outcome, is disconnected from the DoW mini-game. It is the mini-game's outcome that created the ambiguity with Beliefs driving the DoW, the compromise is linked to the character. It is not a tarot draw anymore than an unconscious character whose hit points have been dropped to 0 is a tarot draw.
I'm not sure where the disconnect is here.
Judd
Callan S.:
Quote from: Filip Luszczyk on March 05, 2010, 09:13:05 AM
The problem I see is that as a group seems to be a massive mental shortcut, generally. All the group this, group that talk builds an impression the group is some sort of hive mind. The group, however, is composed of individuals, obviously. In practice, there is no as a group, there's always some potentially complex process involved that goes on between those individuals. Procedures referring to the group as a hive mind often leave a necessary part of the process out, or at least aren't explicit about it, assuming the group will supplement that part with a compatible component. It's certainly easier than designing instructions that would guide the individuals involved through that gap. It's not reliable, however, no more than leaving wide gaps in the rules for the individual GM to bridge, trusting that given a range of possibilities that also include wrong choices, GMs will reliably choose the way the designer intended.
I just totally agree - and that's because the physical evidence points exactly this way. There is no 'the group'.
But the thing is, as individuals, people can shut off their own sense of individual actions "Your all individuals!" *Crowd repeats "Were all individuals!"* and then one guy says "I'm not" which is just awesome individuality even if the guy denies it and that is piss funny!
So what do we do here when individual behaviour is to deny their individual positions, denying whatever physical evidence you can bring to bear, and their individual action is to say it's 'the group' that does things?
Frank,
You seem to read it as a binary - either there is 100% faithfulness to whatever fiction has been said and pretty much understood at the table, or everyones absolutely ignoring it and just pressing mechanical buttons?
When Ron throws bangs into his games, I'm pretty sure he's not being 100% faithful to how the fiction would have turned out. Indeed, that's what he's avoiding - just letting the fiction turn out as it will, as if his nar agenda will be supported without any human intervention. But he's not being 100% unfaithful and simply pressing a mechanical bang button, either.
Judd,
It's not ambiguous if you've been instructed to come to an unambiguous conclusion with your fellow players?
Judd:
Quote from: Callan S. on March 05, 2010, 03:22:36 PM
Judd,
It's not ambiguous if you've been instructed to come to an unambiguous conclusion with your fellow players?
Ya lost me.
What?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page