Children of the Brain
I've started MUSHing again, on the new Amber MUSH,
Chronicles of Amber (amberchronicles). I blame
evilmagnus's damned
quote post
for this.
I've got a young nobleman of Amber -- a sorceror and a gentleman. I'm building again, more or less for the hell of it.
This morning, in the shower, I had a spectacular inspiration for what ( Read more... )
I've got a young nobleman of Amber -- a sorceror and a gentleman. I'm building again, more or less for the hell of it.
This morning, in the shower, I had a spectacular inspiration for what ( Read more... )
Which is part of my worry - that it can't simulate the fights of the books without an unreasonably large random factor.
Gerard substantially thrashed Corwin in wrestling (I'd call holding Corwin's life in his hands a 'decisive' victory).
Benedict had a slight advantage over Corwin (He was winning, but Corwin escaped through a ruse).
Corwin and Eric were closely matched both times they fought - matters were decided by slight advantages in both cases.
Corwin beat Julian pretty handily in hand-to-hand.
Given all that, and given only COM as 'the fighting stat', Gerard either had to roll really high (despite Corwin saying beforehand that he knew it was a foregone conclusion) or the scale of COM would be:
Gerard > Benedict > { Corwin | Eric } > Julian
...with Corwin rolling well, and Benedict rolling poorly. Or to put it another way, every fight in the books had loaded dice. :)
Not that all this isn't possible with the Chronicles system ... it just seems more convoluted to justify than the old WAR/STR setup. Perhaps the easy out would have been to have five stats instead of four - keeping Strength, renaming Warfare to 'Combat' and adding 'Strategy'.
Then Benedict could still be a skilled Swordsman (with a COM higher, but not crazily-higher than Corwin), and sink all those 'eldest surviving child' points into being the Strategy god.
It also means Julian doesn't have to be a Combat weakling - which doesn't really fit his 'master hunter' image - he just needs to have a significantly weaker Strength than Corwin.
Reply
Stats are problematic for a variety of reasons that AmberMUSH demonstrated in spectacular ways (and other games, albeit in different ways than the Amber linear limited-stats). It theoretically makes more sense to use a system that is geared to stakes -- what people want to get out of the scene, more or less. Think more Prime Time Adventures or Dogs in the Vineyard in orientation.
Reply
Why is that? Well, here's the thing. The actual resolution mechanic is ok, but the way it's set up is a brilliant match, because it depends on two things: framing the scene and identifying the conflict. Both of these depend on a certain clarity of OOC communication which, while not always present, is almost invariably desirable.
Scene framing is something that already happens quite naturally in MUSH, so calling it something is mostly just useful for discussion. It's the point where players say "Ok, this scene is going to be between these characters, and it's generally for _this_ purpose.". This is sort of the opposite of the old Worlds End Bar model of hoping something will happen where you can watch, and thank god for that.
Now, this sounds like it might be too rigid, and that is a genuine danger, but once there is an _idea_ that a scene is a discrete thing, it opens up to a lot of flex. The purpose of the scene might be purely conversational (a "character development" scene) and given that, it's freely open to interruptions. A scene might even have odd boundaries - two characters in a room might have a scene and when a third one shows up, it might simply continue the scene, or it might be cause for a new scene, depending upon the agendas of all parties involves.
And agendas become important for the other part of the equation: Conflict.
The PTA model does something very clever with conflicts - they're not about the _means_ of a conflict, they're about the _purpose_ of a conflict. This is a hugely, powerful notion and it impacts thing sin a couple ways.
Let's say Eric and Corwin are going to have a fight scene. Normally, the conflict would be about the fight - they'd compare stats, pose a lot, and have the outcome be shaped by the fight. This is pretty cool, but it tends to be a pretty closed system. First, the fight doesn't necessarily _mean_ anything - after the fight is over, has anything really changed? Usually not. Second, because its resolved purely in terms of stats, both _players_ are wary of the other player putting non-fun consequences on them.
"Consent" is the old school defense against that, but I think we all have visibility into why that's a problem. More subtly, there is a physical attachment to cause & effect which is not always satisfying in a literary way. That is to say, if we're having a swordfight, the only real consequences I can put on the loser are about how much I do or don't stab him.
This, as they say, can get pretty lame.
Reply
Let's take Benedict. I'm a random knight of castle Amber, but I'm in love with his ward. He's stymied me for not being good enough for her. Under normal play, my recourses are few and far between. If I call him out, he will beat my punk ass into the ground. Maybe we can negotiate something OOC, because his player's a reasonable guy, but if we do so, we're doing it despite the system.
In a conflict-driven model, I say to Benedict's player "I want to call you out in front of your ward. You are absolutely going to kick my ass. That's not even at question. If I win this conflict, I want you to kick my ass so badly that it's clear to her how much and how unreasonably you hate me." Benedict's player says "Ok, but if I win, I make you look like a complete buffoon in front of her, greatly undercutting her interest". If we're both cool with this, we know what the conflict n the scene will be. If we're not, we knock it around some, 'til we have an outcome set we're both cool with (or either side says "No, this isn't a scene I want").
Now, resolving this conflict is another issue _entirely_. Using an existing system, we just toss in things _other_ than our combat effectiveness, since that's not the question. In an ideal world, we both have some story currency based on how important the Ward is to both of us. Practically speaking, this romance is _very_ important to my character's story, but not that big a deal to Benedict's story, so maybe I have a mechanical edge. Maybe we flip a coin. The specifics aren't too important except where they're _not_ about who's a better fighter.
The benefits of this are huge. The clarity alone is gigantic, but there's also a subtle element, in that it frames losing in a more friendly light. If I lose a swordfight to you, you don't get to kill me unless that's what we _agreed_ on. You don't get to toss me in a prison out of play or otherwise make my life suck in ways _I'm_ not ok with. And once that's established, you'll find people are much more likely to volunteer ways to screw _themselves_ because, and I cannot state this boldly enough:
Losing Can Be Fun
We all know this, and we can all think of conflicts that have been awesome for reasons like this. This is me just saying "Yeah, that awesome part? That's where the system should be".
I've sort of rambled across the point here, so let me boil back down to the core mechanics I want to see on a MUSH.
1. Participants frame a scene, either organically (the see each other, start talking) or in a planned fashion.
2. Scene is played until a conflict arises, again, either organically or planned.
3. If a conflict arises in the scene, the OOC discussion is not about the means of the conflict, but the _nature_ of it.
3a. Each side of the conflict suggests how they want things to go, and agree on potential outcomes.
3b. Each side applies their mechanical "weight" to one side or another. Exact details are unimportant.
3c. Conflict is resolved and played through.
4. If any participant wishes to pursue a follow up conflict, that is a reason for another scene. Multiple conflicts in a scene will muddy it, and call into question whether or not the conflict was really the correct conflict for the scene.
Simple as that.
Reply
...in a Manly way, of course.
Reply
Truths
Incorporating some of what Scott says below, I would say that each character has "truths", which can't be controverted by a conflict, unless the player that controls the character elects to set aside a particular "truth" as part of the compromise process in resolving it.
These truths might be from a fixed list, and Feature characters would have access to truths outside of that realm. So, 'Accomplished Swordsman' might be a truth generally available, while only Benedict would have 'Greatest Swordsman' as a truth. Not all truths are created equal.
The upshot is that the truths would place initial bounds on what could and could not be set as the stakes in a particular conflict resolution.
Truths don't handle all of it, they just provide people some basic security about the sanctity of their concept. An Accomplished Swordsman can't be shown to be something other than an Accomplished Swordsman, even if he's fighting Benedict -- it's all "Benedict kicks his ass, *but*, it's clear that the Accomplished Swordsman has great skill, he's just not in the same league."
Furthermore, if both players have a certain truth in a conflict, they can say, well, it's clear that that's not the axis on which this conflict's won or lost. We're both Accomplished Swordsmen; so who cheats?
Alternately, when there's difference, it suggests a path for interpreting the results. Random's a Big Cheater, while Benedict's a Greatest Swordsman. If Random wins a conflict, it's probably bringing Big Cheater into it, and if he loses, Benedict's swordsmanship prevented Random from being effective at cheating. That sort of thing.
Regardless, characters get their "props".
(more)
Reply
Scope
This is where I become a pain in your ass and tell you that consent still has a place in things, but only to some extent.
Scope is the other thing that absolutely must be explicitly addressed here. And it's this: your consequences (i.e., your stakes) can only address the things which are owned by the players in the conflict and are "in play" in the scene. To involve a "third party" property in the stakes, the third party has to give consent or, alternately, get involved in the conflict directly.
Using Rob's example, if the servant of Benedict is an NPC and as a story property is "owned" by Rob, Rob can easily frame the conflict in terms of her reaction. If it's "owned" by Benedict, similarly, so long as he's fine about having a conflict involving his servant, the servant NPC is on the table, in play, and thus able to be risked and affected by the stakes that get set.
That said, once Benedict or Rob accept that the NPC which one of them owns is involved in the conflict, all sorts of things can happen to that NPC, because it's a "risked property" in the game. In other words, don't bring in your Pattern Sword or your Only Child or your Lavish Estate unless you're okay with something happening to it!
(There's still another valve of consent here, which is where you accept the stakes that are offered; this may be played out using a but-only-if type conversation logic yoinked from Polaris. If you're reading this and you haven't read Polaris, you're really missing out.)
But, if Benedict's servant is an NPC owned by a third party, or is an actual PC herself, we have another situation entirely. That character's reaction can't be "staked" without its owner's direct consent. Now, that owner may be perfectly happy to let the reaction (or at least the perception of information that would lead to the reaction) be dictated by how Rob and Benedict's conflict plays out. Or, she may wish to get into the conflict herself, stating a third set of stakes where neither Benedict nor Rob come out smelling like roses, but she does. Or she may simply say, "You both can have this duel, but only to prove things to each other. My character is not risked in this conflict in any way." Ownership remains sacrosanct, in this fashion -- and quite honestly, rightly so, I think. She didn't *start* the conflict, so she has no obligation to participate in it, however much we might want to encourage her to do so.
This also prevents scenes which, say, "set the whole building on fire" if there are a bunch of other players occupying that building. They've all gotta be on board with that -- though only to the extent that their own properties (their own character and other NPCs and properties they own) are risked. The building itself may have an owner who can perfectly and openly accept the risk of it getting set on fire, and that owner should be the only owner who really needs to be checked to see whether or not "I set the place on fire" can be stated as stakes. Those other occupants only affect the outcome inasmuch as the stakes can be said to be "I set the place on fire causing the destruction of all of these other guys' stuff." Maybe they'll happily let that happen, or "do it to themselves" once the fire is presented as an opportunity, but maybe not.
Anyway, the upshot of all this is that I think Rob's ideas work fine in a vacuum where there are two players and a bunch of community properties that anyone can fuck with. But once the whole large number of players, multiple ownerships thing comes into it, you absolutely still have to rely on some old and familiar tropes from our MUSHing days, or you have to provide a GM-authority who can trump folks' default ownership of story elements.
Reply
Reply
I'm largely of the belief these days that large-scale game (whether MUSH or LARP) character representation should be along conceptual lines rather than exact-statistical lines, with points invested in concept (what you term as 'legend'), as well as a certain amount of 'karma' to use as the equivalent of bid points in a conflict. A conflict is less about the exchange itself, as about the consequences -- that question of "what's changed?", that's very story-oriented. Doing this also gets away from having to have specific stats that cover specific things, interpretation of said stats, etc. It unifies a bunch of things under a single umbrella, whether "attribute", "skill", "item", or even "personality trait".
Some concepts are more potent than others and are worth more points, clearly. Benedict's "Greatest warrior in all history" is pretty much going to trump the heck out of somebody else's "Veteran soldier", say.
Reply
I had a few bad experiences with stat compares and consent way back in the day that really burned me on how conflict is handled on MUSHes and I came away from it with a personal feeling of 'well, if they care enough to push a stat compare, I'll just find a graceful or fun way to lose'. Because 'winning' didn't accomplish what I wanted from the scene. Most of the best conflicts I was a part of never involved a compare at all (and while part of this was because I was most often playing features) this leads to my next point:
Organic determination of resolution of a conflict is much easier to do when the other guy knows what to respect about your character.
I dig what Rob's saying about negotiation and then resolution - but in the context of a larger game and certainly in a public scene, it's not nearly as viable as in a 1 on 1 in a private room. When Random Guy A encounters Random Guy B and they start mouthing off and draw swords, they have nothing the can do but immediately turn to sheets to figure out who's virtual penis is mightier. ;)
But say for example Random Sorceror runs afoul of Fiona. He knows up front that Fiona is 'The Greatest Sorceress in the World(tm)' so he gives her these props. He asks her right out, "I know that I'm at a serious disadvanate struggling against you, so I'm just looking to do this thing to get away, yadda yadda". Fiona's player, respecting Player A's desire to have an out or particular accomplishment while he's respecting her schtick of TGSitW, reciprocates and works to find a way to give Player A some props in return. But this is because we have an established character at play and people have an expectation on how to deal with it.
So I guess the question is, how can you provide a character with schtick that gives them a coolness/competance factor that people can bounce off of without having to compare stats, so those kinds of compares can be minimized and left for bigger conflicts? Of course, there can only be so many TGSitW's out there, but there's got to be a way of making it EASY for the other guy to know what they should respect on your character's side while you give them the same in return.
Like Player A has a public schtick: 'Savvy Diplomat' and Player B has 'Seasoned Duelist'. They come to drawn steel and without having to even compare, A is saying 'B, I think you've got the better of me here' and B is saying, 'I'm pretty sure I can beat him, but he should be able to talk me out of it'. It's entirely possible that A has a better Combat stat, but he's KNOWN for talking his way out of things, so that's what people run with.
Anyway, just old MUSHer geeking.
Reply
Ownership is the easier one. Conflicts should be owned by a single character, usually th eone inittiating it. if someone else wants to hop in, then cool, but they must respect the gateway. Scene ownership is a pretty big deal in PTA, but I think it's a lighter necessity in a MUSH environment, just as somethign to keep in the background so that there's never a question of who can say "no". if a player who is present owns the conflict, there's no question of running to the wizards or the like.
Second, whatever the specifics of the Mechanic, they need to support the _idea_ that conflicts are a little more abstracted. Consider a theoretical model where a character sheet has four concrete stats, representing the five main arenas of conflict: Physical, Mental, Social, Creative and Magical (the exactly number and list doesn't matter as much as there _being_ a list). Each is rated, say, from 1-10, and they give, in VERY broad strokes, each character's capacity within that arena. These stats might very well be public information, because they are what inform upon the way to frame conflicts ("You're a better fighter than I am, but I'm more suave. Can we have a scene that goes _this_ way?")
All this is simple enough, but let's say that characters also have a more fluid pool of things that are important to them. How big a pool? I dunno, let's call it 10 points as a baseline, but with more room to grow. Those points are distributed between 2 and 10 things that are _important_ to you, probably defined in a freeform fashion. THese can be things like "Loves Amber", "Hate's Caine", "Restoring my family name" or even "I am NINJA". When a true conflict begins, player suggest which ones are appropriate to the conflict, and, if both players agree, it's added to their total.*
Beyond that there are a handful of trumps, concrete facts with a specific mechanical impact. Pattern initiation would be an example of this, as would certain staff-controlled facts, such as "Greatest warrior in existence" or "Mayor of Amber". What's interesting about these is that they should NEVER COME UP, at least as conflicts. These trumps exist purely to indicate what sort of conflicts should or should not be viable. As such, a conflict with benedict may _involve_ swordplay, but it will never be _about_ swordplay, because there's no conflict. Similarly, some trumps create opportunities for scenes and conflicts: Son of Brand or Pattern Initiate are gateways to certain events that are hard to explain or justify otherwise.
Note that staff has a specific responsibility, as owner of trumps, but it's one that is discrete and easily delegated. You are prop owner for amber city? Here is a stack of facts that you control and can give and take as you see fit.
Now, this is just an example system, and not without flaws, but what it does (I hope) is illustrate how easy it would be to incorporate these ideas into a mechanic.
* - An option for advance players is to occasionally allow them to _subtract_. This should be voluntary, but it means that Benedict might go "Y'know, I've got temper at 3, I'm gonna knock that off my total." Never something to mandate, but awesome as an option.
Also note, resolution might be a straight compare, or it could include some randomization (Such as adding a die roll, or flipping that many coins on each side and counting heads). Doesn't hugely matter which, as that's a flavor question, though I personally favor _some_ randomization.
Reply
Reply
It could be as simple as a blind bid. No 'truths' other than what you write in your background, but every day (say) everyone gets 1 Scene Point.
When you get into a Scene, you hash out the details of what's at stake and what will happen if one side wins or not, then both sides blind-bid Scene Points. The one who cares /the most/ about the Scene going their way gets the outcome. Both sides lose the points they bid.
Reply
For everything else, Rob's stakes idea works nicely. And on a game with GM-approved concepts and sheets, doing the adjudication for concept assignment and points is fairly straightforward. ('Concepts' are really FATE Aspects, in a way.) Your aspects are essentially a way of stating what's important to your concept, and being able to declare those and use those in a stakes-based resolution makes it easier for players to understand what's important to each other.
Reply
Reply
And, honestly, most low-grade issues are handled by the kind of good MUSHing habits we all picked up living in consent land - I will describe my action, but YOU will describe it's result.
Reply
Leave a comment