I hate compromises
Moreno R.:
Filip, I think that a compromise is ALWAYS reached following procedures. They can be more formal (as in "written on the game manual") or informal (as in "Paul is always the first one to suggest something because the other players are used to following his input") but groups usually don't change their habit every time they play is there is not a reason to do so.
So, I think that the difference in not in the "kind of players", as thoughtBubble suggested before, but in the kind of procedure used.
IAWA give a sort of formal procedure to do this ("suggest something good to the other guy or he will hit you with the stick"), other games don't. In the latter case, if the group has already a functional procedure to quickly reach an agreement, not only the procedure is faster, but it "feels" as a prosecution of the game, without having to step out of it, while if there isn't such a procedure, the game hangs.
I did thought of this reading your posts, because the impression I got is (correct me if I misunderstood your post) that in your group, the procedure is something like "the GM propose a compromise. People say no, they want to hear another possible compromise. This continue until the GM finds a compromise everyone agree to". If this is the case, I think it's natural that the game hangs for a lot of time: I, too, in this case, would like to "hear every choice on the menu" from the GM. It's like a waiter at the restaurant listing every dessert: you want to hear everything on the list, you don't want to choose the first one, in case there is something better later.
This is another procedure that, in my experience, work much better: one player suggest a compromise. The other (than can be the GM or not) can agree, or can suggest another one. If both agree at this point, or reach quickly an agreement, good, if not, the GM choose. The GM is not the first one to talk, he is the last. There is no "menu", the players are invited to suggest ONE compromise they like. There is no "list of choices"
You can try this procedure or another one you like more, but to solve your problem, in my opinion , you need a formal procedure to reach an agreement in your group, one that don't encourage players to hear the whole list of compromises on the Menu.
CedricP:
(well naturally in my exemple, eating a mouse could be a boring intent for the GM to choose for the snake)
Filip Luszczyk:
Cedric
Quote
Why simply removing compromises or negotiation was not a option for your group?
We did consider it a few times.
It won't work. It breaks the mini-game itself. It shifts the tactical balance of various options. As it stands, even with a strong starting disposition it's still important to protect your points. You want to win with as little points lost as possible. That way, Attack + Attack + Attack is a potentially strong, but very risky tactic. Sometimes, you want to Defend. Your opponent knows it, so sometimes he wants to Feint. Because you know he will, you try to predict his Feint and time your Attack accordingly. And so on, and so on. This is how it works. It's not possible to remove compromises without sacrificing tactical tension or entirely reworking the mini-game.
Besides, I have no problems with mixed outcomes. Mixed outcomes are good. It's how the outcome is disconnected from the mini-game that I don't like. The mini-game is solid, but it only tells us whether the outcome is mixed or not. We can't just proceed with that, however, we need to know how is the outcome mixed. This is something that we are forced to establish out of game.
It's like, if it was a video game, every now and then the game would stop and require us to manually edit the save data in order to proceed. But it doesn't even tell us its syntax!
Luke:
Hi Filip,
I entreat you once again to shift from your defensive stance and examine your own behaviors at the table. Why can't you compromise? What is that you are doing (or not doing) that elicits the hate?
However, the last word is yours, sir. The thread is yours.
-Luke
Filip Luszczyk:
Moreno,
Quote
So, I think that the difference in not in the "kind of players", as thoughtBubble suggested before, but in the kind of procedure used.
Yes. I believe that's what my opening post is about.
Quote
I did thought of this reading your posts, because the impression I got is (correct me if I misunderstood your post) that in your group, the procedure is something like "the GM propose a compromise. People say no, they want to hear another possible compromise. This continue until the GM finds a compromise everyone agree to". If this is the case, I think it's natural that the game hangs for a lot of time: I, too, in this case, would like to "hear every choice on the menu" from the GM. It's like a waiter at the restaurant listing every dessert: you want to hear everything on the list, you don't want to choose the first one, in case there is something better later.
Aha, two corrections.
First, "the group". This seems to come up in many posts in this thread, despite my clarification earlier. Apparently, there's an impression I'm talking about several games with the same group, while I'm talking about several games with varying player overlap. "Group" applies only in the "extended group" sense. We are talking about a pool of players here. We play various games in different combinations. Not all people are in every game. I'll go into more details on this environment in my response to Raven once I finally manage to get down to it.
Second, the way you interpreted it applies only to how it worked in the game I've run last Friday. It was a game with inexperienced players. Of course they couldn't choose and needed the menu - they didn't know their options in the first place. What bothers me is how they went with my (creative) suggestions rather than trying to produce something (creative) of their own, and it bothers me how the game as it is could teach them to do so as a habit. In IAWA, I'd just suggest that they default to damage if they don't have any better idea. It's a perfectly valid outcome that doesn't elicit much creative input. I only have to ask what form the damage takes, and it's generally easy to come up with that. Also, I'd make it clear that if they don't like my ideas, they can always default to damage. Sooner or later, creative ideas become a neccesity, but before that point, most players already pick it up on their own. In IAWA, it certainly helps that there are usually several complete cycles of resolution per hour, as opposed to Mouse Guard, which rarely has more than two or three conflicts per session, and uses entirely different, simple and clear test procedures for everything else.
That's with players new to the game.
With more experienced people it goes like this:
1. Somebody, generally the losing player, proposes a compromise.
2. If nobody objects, it stays.
3. Otherwise, there's some uh, oh, maybe, but no. It's this awkward moment when everyone in the game knows the other person really wants this outcome, but they are not fine with that and have to dismiss it. (Note that if it was in Dogs, somebody would just veto at this point, stating what's wrong, with no uh, oh, maybe.)
4. Then, somebody proposes a different compromise. Go to 2.
Oh, there are also rare cases when we look at our goals and consider the progress of the, and no adequate idea comes up to anybody. Conditions are generally easy to apply in those situations. It works fine, at least when it's the GM's victory. When the party wins, Conditions are usually the least beneficial option on the list. They have a significant impact on play when applied to player characters, but usually no real impact when applied to NPCs.
Quote
You can try this procedure or another one you like more, but to solve your problem, in my opinion , you need a formal procedure to reach an agreement in your group, one that don't encourage players to hear the whole list of compromises on the Menu.
Yes.
Only, I'm not convinced the menu is an obstruction in general. It's only so with novice players. Personally, I like having a menu.
I'm not sure if I like the idea about limiting the process to two proposals, especially if the GM's proposal still has more weight at all times. I had a similar formal procedure in one of my projects, but it was GM-less, and it was an entirely different game. Also, in that game, no situations that would require us to reconcile our interests that way occurred in playtesting, so the procedure was never used in practice.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page