[Within My Clutches] my game can be won, so they played to win it
Callan S.:
Quote
calculated that Committing now gave him the best odds of being the first player to achieve all 3 Goals, and thus chose that.
I'd hoped that, rather than being a "best" strategy, there would simply be different strategies invoking different probabilities of different outcomes, to be discovered in play. Some risks would be inevitable, but which risk you take when would be largely a matter of "what would this character do here?" I don't know for sure what sabotaged that -- the hurried circumstances of play, my setting the wrong expectations, or the rules themselves.
It's probably the hurried circumstances.
BUT, damn, he's just that cold? I know this is a player choice, but if you transpose the players method of thinking out his choices as being a reflection of the characters psych, this is a character with ice cold veins. None of it matters, he will have the world and...not a thought to whether it all burns!
If you express your genuine (not made up to provoke) reaction of how you see his character, when you transpose player method of thinking onto the character - the player might suddenly see their character come to life in someone elses eyes and thus, also in his own. Not to change the choice, but to see a living being be that single minded about winning it all.
I think if, instead of waiting for a portrayal, you see portrayal right there in the mechanics use, then your seeing the character. Even if the character didn't realise that about himself. Don't let any board gamey use of mechanics just be a meta fiction thing - it's all a reflection of character! Sometimes a very explicit reflection! Verbalise your genuine reactions to character portrayal via mechanics use and players realise they can't do something without defining their character!
Or those are my rambly thoughts, anyway!
David Berg:
Quote from: Callan S. on January 26, 2012, 10:09:21 PM
Verbalise your genuine reactions to character portrayal via mechanics use and players realise they can't do something without defining their character!
You know, I actually do that a lot when I play! "Whoa, he's not panicked with all that on the line? Is he super slick, or is he just emotionless?" For this playtest, I felt like that would have biased the results, to assert my own tastes and expectations. I would have been psyched if Melanie or Rohit (our 4th player) had said that! But they didn't.
I think a potential factor is the player/character disconnect between the mental process of choosing. The same factors apply to the choice (now/later, risk/reward), but as Dustin looked over his resources and did the math, it was as if the fiction was put on hold. Then when he reached his decision, we rolled and flipped dice until the outcome was determined, and only then was it back to the fiction for a "what happens?" that was more about product than process.
I actually wrote a part in the rules about "when you choose to Commit, author the Expectation right then" so we could see the character motives come to life. But rather than turning that into a narration, Dustin did it as accounting and proceeded to complete the other resolution tasks.
I tried to create some mid-resolution space for fiction by saying, "When you choose to Commit, narrate how you cross your Line," trying to connect the psychological commitment to a further action in pursuit of the Goal. Unfortunately, though I think the basic idea of "do something you weren't eager to do" is solid, trying to apply the Line on his sheet ("can't hurt my family's reputation" in Frenzy's case) to the present situation was simply onerous and I let Dustin hand-wave it rather than forcing him to think up some contrived way to apply it.
The Line isn't supposed to be a challenge, it's purely for help and inspiration. So maybe I need something better for that.
David Berg:
Here's the version we played, finally written up.
Rubbermancer:
I read the pdf, and I gotta say, there's nothing in there that seems to be encouraging a "play to win" mentality. My guess is, your player just wanted to win, because that's how he plays games. I don't think you should have to change your game in any way solely to make it more effective in pulling gamist gamers over to the narrativist dark side. Perhaps just rephrase a few things?
Quote
It’s all about what you want and what happens when you go after it and get it.
Players could take this to mean "Make your Goals, and then achieve them". Perhaps some re-wording will help, something that makes the game's goals more explicit from the outset. For example, "It’s an exploration of what your character wants, and of the changes he goes through in pursuing those desires."
Callan S.:
Quote
For this playtest, I felt like that would have biased the results, to assert my own tastes and expectations.
Yeah, I get what your trying to avoid. But I think your boned! You or someone has to do it.
Perhaps it's worth trying to describe the genuine responce to player system use (as if it were character thought process) in the text, with a prompt to try and think that way as often as possible. And see if a player or two engage that. It might even be worth writing in the text it's not just a side thing - that unless atleast one person at the table reacts this way, it just doesn't work out.
Quote
I think a potential factor is the player/character disconnect between the mental process of choosing. The same factors apply to the choice (now/later, risk/reward), but as Dustin looked over his resources and did the math, it was as if the fiction was put on hold. Then when he reached his decision, we rolled and flipped dice until the outcome was determined, and only then was it back to the fiction for a "what happens?" that was more about product than process.
Yeah, I think I know the mode your talking about. For awhile they dedicately absolute to math - and the creative, artistic side of thier brain has a nap!
Maybe the various options are given names and the rules prompt people to verbalise the names of options they consider, as they consider them - to stop this 'player dissapears inside themselves for awhile' thing. Though I wouldn't make that a hard rule as I think people would often forget to name options as they consider, but more like an urging in the text and a GM duty to urge, so they atleast mumble a few option names and other players/the GM can get an inside glimpse, a little bit, to the thinking process.
Just some ideas!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page