I hate compromises
Callan S.:
Great post Filip, I agree and nice observation/identification of the default outcome procedure!!
Yeah, when the game handballs it to the group, yet it doesn't cover an outcome that can occur in that group, it's a pretty broken procedure. I was reading through escape from tentacle city and that had solid procedure, with only one spot where you decide if an items pimped bonus applies, as a group. I knew that was a break point but couldn't quite articulate why - you've described it today in terms of there being no default outcome!
And I don't mean to lay into escape from tentacle city - I'm using it because traditional games have hundreds of break points and you can't see the forest for the trees. EFTC has a solid frame with just one single break point where it throws it to the group with no default result, so it's easier to describe.
Quote
*) 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.
Perhaps it's another nerd phalacy, that we pretend that we all think the same way and never argue?
Also I think some people revel in the idea that they are forced to agree in some way, or the game stalls because there is no default. They see it as a feature. I don't know why.
Judd:
It is interesting because it is so counter to my own DoW experiences.
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.
What occurs when the group is disagreeing on the compromise?
greyorm:
Quote
*) 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.
I suggest it depends on the group and the personalities involved. I could cite some studies about conflict resolution and personality types, esp. as they relate to history and government, but as I foresee a very good possibility of someone throwing a fit, I'll just say it may not work for your group because of the mix of people in your group.
Here's the thing: clearly it works and goes smoothly for other groups; I suggest the solution then is to figure out what WOULD work for your group rather than poo-pooing the notion itself as inherently broken. (I think such a dismissal, in fact, may be equivalent to arguing that "Gamism is broken and impossible" because your group is not Gamist oriented -- and therefore can't see how it would work because your starting play-procedure assumptions are erroneous -- or is suffering some sort of dysfunction that doesn't allow it to be functional.)
So I think we're looking at: why does it work in those other groups? Why doesn't that work in yours? What stop-gap measure is necessary for it to be functional in your group?
Filip Luszczyk:
Jesse,
Quote
When I run In A Wicked Age... negotiation takes about 2 minutes and almost no ever has to Exhaust or Injure.
Likewise. I rarely ever see anyone defaulting in IAWA. That's the beauty of the rule. And that's the point!
If one fails to come up with anything appealing enough, however, there's no buts.
Quote
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?
Yes? No? Both? Depends what sort of disagreements you mean, specifically?
Of course we were resolving conflicts between the fictional characters. However, what's "conflict between the fictional characters", actually? Fictional characters don't get into conflicts on their own, they can't even want anything on their own. Before the fictional character wants anything, real people need to establish that as a fictional fact, right?
Of course we were resolving real world disagreements. There were five real people playing a real game. Each of us had a real investment into the game, each of us had real strategic goals within the context of the game, each of us was establishing fictional stuff for real reasons. Sometimes immediate goals and reasons aligned, sometimes not. Either way, it's all necessarily between real players before we even start talking what the characters want. Players play the game, not the characters.
In that last Mouse Guard game I've run, for instance, was it between the mice and the snake? We, the real players, we were following the real manual to establish what happens. The mice had nothing to say regarding their injury, and likewise, the snake had nothing to say. Real players, motivated by their real interests, invoked a real rule to deny the real change of game variables that inform further processing of fictional content.
Now, in the context of those fictional events, was Injury appropriate? I guess so. Was that other compromise I came up with after the player's objection to Injury appropriate? Obviously. Fiction is not problematic in this case, the real world process is. It allows for some real strategic wriggling when I'm not very comfortable with it, i.e. after actual in-fiction actions have already taken place and have already been accounted for by the game mechanics. Oh, sure, the manual says the GM has the right to enforce his decision when no consensus can be reached, but in this gray area, who am I to say the player's objection was not valid? Perhaps as a player I'd object the same way myself, given some wriggle room in that particular situation, who knows? If so, I probably wouldn't be pleased to hear uh, oh, maybe, but no. After all, fiction is a flexible beast. Injury was not the only possible appropriate consequence in those circumstances, so why would I not want to wriggle for a compromise that would align with my interests better?
Nothing crucial to the overall point of the game is compromised with all that wriggling, and yet, something doesn't feel quite right about it.
Quote
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.
Unfortunately, no. In that particular conflict my character was only helping, I think? My memories are rather blurry. Pretty much everything relevant that I remember from that game is already in the first post.
That game took place over a year ago and I left it after that session, due to the general lack of setting buy-in and frustration with various mechanical issues. The group continued the campaign for the next six months or so, but I believe they houseruled that part later (setting several partial stakes for each side up front, or something like that). None of the players I've talked with afterwards had fully positive feelings about the system.
Note that our GM was quite experienced in running BE - he completed two or three campaigns before. Oddly, it seems his previous players were rather passive (emerging from a trad play culture characterized by the "GM as entertainer" and "GM as god" approaches), and largely went with the flow.
Also, note that it was the same GM who ran Mouse Guard for us, and there was another player from that BE campaign in the game. We went strictly by the book, or at least tried to. Re-reading the manual last week I noticed we missed some tangential rules the first time (nothing big or relevant to compromises, though). The campaign was the exact opposite of that BE game, i.e. fun as opposed to frustrating.
Before anyone asks, I also have a hard time recalling any specific instance of establishing compromises from that campaign clearly. Perhaps something will pop up soon? For now it all blurs, as none of those thirteen sessions was particularly distinctive. What I recall is that compromises were one of the few things that didn't go as smoothly as they should, and I recall some general uh, oh, maybe, but no. Keep in mind I don't want to say any single person was at fault - each of us contributed his share of buts.
Filip Luszczyk:
Uh, I had to deal with a little flood obstacle in the middle of answering to Jesse, and it's already getting late here, so I'll consider the remaining posts tomorrow. Perhaps the above post provides enough data to answer some of your questions, though?
I notice many of you comment on that final consensus disclaimer. To clarify: note that I'm not saying agreement is not possible, ever. What I want to say is that it's not necessarily a default state, dependend on various unpredictable and unstable conditions, shifting moment to moment. Not a very good factor to rely on. I specifically find handwaving the possiblity of disagreement fairly problematic when it comes to practical execution.
(Also, I sort of anticipated "consenting adults" arguments cropping up, as they tend to in discussions related to social level stuff. I find those instant discussion stoppers.)
It might also be worth noting that while there was about 50% overlap between BE and MG groups in question, none of those players participated in my current MG game (yet). Overall, I guess frustration with related break points and player behaviors plagues my gaming history since the very beginning, regardless of group.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page