Quote from: MelinglorPS: Droog, DUDE. What is up with that shit? I don't know why you find John's endeavor so goddamned funny, but I personally have started threads on both Heroquest and TSoY to figure out what it is in them that works for people that I wasn't getting. Both have been a success. I'm certainly glad nobody came snickering at me into those threads.

Shemp, if I've got to explain it to you, it ain't funny. But point me to your threads and I'll compare.

Quote from: TonyLBYou're talking about stakes to find out whether other stakes are winnable?

Not exactly.  If I understand the terms correctly, I'm talking about stakes to find out how best to escalate to achieve my objectives.  It's not to find out whether the stakes are winnable but figuring out the best way to win the stakes before putting the plan into motion.  

Not every fight starts with a swing.  Some start with two opponents sizing each other up.  I'm asking how that might be done.  

The stakes might be me figuring out where is weaknesses are and if I lose, maybe he'll have my number and be more effective at fighting me off.  Does that help?

Quote from: TonyLBWell ... that seems an awful strange remove to operate at.  I'd just set the stakes as "If I win then this sonuvabitch repents his sinnin' ways and becomes a God-fearin' member of this congregation."  Then I find out whether it's possible by tryin' to do it.

Well, yes, but how are you going to try to get him to repent?  Do you only look at what you are best with to pick your strategy (where you think you'll get the most dice) or can you also figure out your opponents weak spots?  Or is that captured somewhere in the normal process?

Quote from: TonyLBI'm honestly not sure how you would interpret the results of the stakes, as you're proposing them.  If you lose, does that mean that you know that nothing, ever, could possibly sway this man?  Because ... y'know ... that's just not true.  Even if you've lost those stakes, I (your fellow Dog) can stroll in, say "My stakes are he repents," beat the snot out of the guy, shoot him in the kidney, and take his death-bed repentance.  Ain't difficult, if I'm willin' to take it that far.

Contrariwise, if you win, does that mean that you're guaranteed a victory?  Or have you just learned that it's possible ... which you knew to begin with?

No.  Maybe think about it like this.  I want to find out where he's most vulnerable to an attempt to get him to repent so I engage him in conversation to probe what's going on in his head (pick appropriate dice).

If I win, I get to know where he'll get the fewest dice to defend against my attempt to get him to repent.  If I lose, maybe he'll figure out what I'm doing and I'll get an answer that's actually where he'll get a lot of dice to defend against my attempt to get him to repent.  Does that make any sense?

Actually, I think thinking through explaining this is helping me "get it" a bit better.  

Quote from: TonyLBNope! [concerning whether there can be deferred results]

Do you consider that a feature, bug, or a little bit of both?

Quote from: TonyLBNot a term I'm familiar with, and from my plain-english reading, not a term that seems very useful for ... uh ... any game in which the character is assumed to be changeable through the course of play.  But maybe if you clarify what you're asking I can give you a better answer.

No, it has to do with how players build their character models.  It was a pretty important concept on rec.games.frp.advocacy but has also been discussed in plenty of other forums, blogs, and so on.  I thought it was a pretty common term.

From John Kim's r.g.f.a FAQ:

• DIP: "Develop-In-Play", referring to players who only have a rough character sketch which is only filled out during the campaign
• DAS: "Develop-At-Start", i.e. players who write a detailed character background/personality by the time the campaign begins

You can do Google and Google Groups search on DAS and DIP and the phrases and find a lot of conversations about the topic.  Some systems are friendlier to one approach than the other.  Systems that require you to define a lot about your character's personality and how they'll do things in the game often favor DAS.

Quote from: TonyLBThe part where you chopping my style of play up into individual, unconnected pieces makes things any more clear than my description of the style as a whole.

To me, it makes it more clear because it tells me where your style hooks into the different elements of the game.  While talking about the parts may not always do the holistic whole justice, they are a lot easier to understand than a holistic whole.  And in that particular case, you were talking about a part of how the game is fun for you and I was asking about that part.  You said, "I think they are particularly cool when everyone at the table is on the same page about what the choice is about."  That suggests to me that you can identify that as a distinct element of what you enjoy, even if it's not all you enjoy.

Quote from: TonyLBThere are elements of what you're describing in the way I play the game, but they're inextricably connected to other elements, in ways I've already described.  If you ignore those connections then you are moving further from understanding, not closer to it.

While I think the linkage is important in understanding exactly what you do, I can't imagine what you are doing without looking at the parts.  It's like trying to bake a cookie without knowing the ingredients, even though the ingredients aren't a cookie.  If you can describe the holistic whole as one giant piece in a way that makes sense to me without discussing the elements, please give it a try.  To me, that seems like trying to describe an elephant without talking about trunks, ears, tusks, and so on or telling me how to bake a cookie without discussing ingredients.

Contrary to what you are saying, I think this has been very useful for my understanding, not only about why people like it but also how to use it.

Hmm, maybe if I've got time do dig them up. Meantime, I'd say the chief difference was that I did indeed go "aha!" in the case of both those games, and see how they could produce the kind of play i would enjoy. (Haven't gotten to playTSoY yet though. . .)

Anyway, maybe you can clear at least this up:

Are you laughing at the Sisyphusian effort of the thing, as in "That poor bastard?"

Or are you laughing at the nerve of the guy, thinking that he could understand the game without actual play?

I'd say there's a subtle but important difference between the two.

Peace,
-Joel

EDIT: Damn spacebar.

I'll PM you about it.

Quote from: John MorrowThe stakes might be me figuring out where is weaknesses are and if I lose, maybe he'll have my number and be more effective at fighting me off.  Does that help?

So you want to know what kind of man he is?  Sure.  That's fine stakes.  Ask him.  Heck, ask his neighbors.  Mostly, people aren't even going to contest you on it.  They'll tell you straight up that (for instance) he's an arrogant SOB, but good in a crisis, and that the town couldn't get along without his skills as a blacksmith (and he'll never let 'em forget it!)  Why would they hesitate to gossip about their neighbors?

I'm vaguely interested in where you were going with this, as it seems (to me) awfully tangential to the things I was highlighting about what I liked in the game.

Quote from: John MorrowDo you consider that a feature, bug, or a little bit of both?

For this game?  Feature.  This is not a game about beating around the bush.  It's a game about beating down doors.

Quote from: John Morrow

• DIP: "Develop-In-Play", referring to players who only have a rough character sketch which is only filled out during the campaign
• DAS: "Develop-At-Start", i.e. players who write a detailed character background/personality by the time the campaign begins

Yeah.  Like I said ... not a very clear dichotomy in a game where you expect characters to change and evolve as a result of the events of the game:  usually I come in with a detailed character background, and then proceed to fill out the character into an even more robust form by having him react to events and change as a person.

Quote from: MelinglorI wanted to chime in about issue of the "playing privately in my own head" vs. "being on the same page with the group." I can seriously empathize with Tony's description of the first type of play.

Rather than type a lengthy reply (which I started to), I'll simply summarize by saying that a lot of the things you say you want, my group gets through either (A) in character role-playing (e.g., one character asking another why they wished for a sword and didn't bring someone back to life) and (B) post-game discussions.  The players don't sit there silently.  They talk to each other, and NPCs, in character and a lot of what you are looking to discover comes out by playing in character, and it can do so in a slowly revealed why or through an epiphany rather than just being told what's going on.

Quote from: MelinglorCorrect me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a matter of "say yes or roll the dice"? "probe to see if can get him to repent or leave" sounds a lot like the stage of asking around to get a feel for things, at which point the GM is instructed to lay bare the town's guts and let the NPCs spill whatever they feel/know about things.

Note really.  I'm talking about probing the person themselves.  A little Columbo treatment.  A sort of dry run with reduced stakes before actually laying it all on the table and going for the real objective.

Quote from: MelinglorIf you want "play on his guilt and probe to see" to be part of the conflict, though, great, go for it, and as Tony says just go for the conflict and the guilting and probing will be raises in the contest.

But what that doesn't allow is a chance to step away, go off to the side, and discuss the situation.  For example, my character might be the "face" character with the best social skills.  We identify the mark so my character goes and chats him up so we can decide which Dog has the best chance of making a change and how.  So it involves probing, regrouping, and then going for the big stakes.  Another example might be doing a "Good Cop/Bad Cop", with one Dog calling for repentance and the other Dog saying, "Hold me back cause I just wanna shoot him!"  How might that work?  (If this is explained in the rulebook, that's a valid answer -- like I said, I have a copy but I need to find it.)

Quote from: MelinglorHope that all helps. Maybe between Tony's description of what works for him and my description of what doesn't work for me (that is, real shit that has screwed up for me what are similar goals to Tony's), you can get an idea of what this thing is that you're wrestling with.

I think I understand what you are saying but there are other ways to get the sort of things you seem to be looking for, in my experience.  Maybe they wouldn't work as well as the DitV approach does for you but my group gets a lot of what you seem to be missing via in character dialog and action and some of it via post-game discussions.

Quote from: TonyLBI'm vaguely interested in where you were going with this, as it seems (to me) awfully tangential to the things I was highlighting about what I liked in the game.

I'm trying to understand how I might be able to convert my way of thinking about the game into the way the system works and it's actually been pretty helpful.  It's sort of like asking how to build a power in the Hero System.

Quote from: TonyLBFor this game?  Feature.  This is not a game about beating around the bush.  It's a game about beating down doors.

Fair enough.

Quote from: TonyLBYeah.  Like I said ... not a very clear dichotomy in a game where you expect characters to change and evolve as a result of the events of the game:  usually I come in with a detailed character background, and then proceed to fill out the character into an even more robust form by having him react to events and change as a person.

Well, that's not exactly the sort of "change and evolve" that's involved in Develop-In-Play.  It's more like letting concrete set or furnishing a home.  You've got the basics but a lot of the details aren't there.  It's not about the changes in the character or evolution but about defining who the character is in the first place.  So maybe when I start out, In know my character is a police officer who is a "good cop" and hates the mob, but I might not figure out how he manages to be a good cop or how his hatred for the mob manifests itself until I play a scene where those things are brought into play, and maybe I'll even find out that he's not such a good cop after all or maybe he hates a particular mobster but not the entire mob.  

It's very possible that the DitV are "coarse" enough (defined in sweeping terms) that I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Quote from: John MorrowI think I understand what you are saying but there are other ways to get the sort of things you seem to be looking for, in my experience.

No doubt.  But you're trying to find out what people like in this system, right?

Quote from: John MorrowI'm trying to understand how I might be able to convert my way of thinking about the game into the way the system works and it's actually been pretty helpful.  It's sort of like asking how to build a power in the Hero System.

So ... you've figured out everything that was confusing you about what people see in the system?  That was quick.

Quote from: TonyLBNo doubt.  But you're trying to find out what people like in this system, right?

Correct.  But I'm addressing the more general idea that if the players aren't talking about certain things on a player-to-player level, that they aren't interacting.  I'm good with the idea that games like DitV can foster player-to-player communication and make a better game for people.  I'm not good with the idea that if there isn't that sort of explicit player-to-player communication, the players don't do much talking or interacting.  Your point is why I opted not to do a more detailed and lengthy reply on that issue.

Quote from: TonyLBSo ... you've figured out everything that was confusing you about what people see in the system?  That was quick.

For the most part.  It helps when people actually answer questions in a way that gets to the point.  (I'm not claiming that you haven't in the past, just that I haven't gotten as useful answers from other people in the past.)

ADDED:  It's not like this is the first style discussion I've been in.  I have a pretty good idea at this point what I need to ask.

I get that there are other ways besides DitV to get that kind of "cards on the table" approach. I'll also be the first to agree that my particular game group needs a lot more constructive communication. We're getting there slowly.

What I like about games like DitV (which, admittedly, I haven't yet had a chance to play yet) and Capes (which I have played) is that they get "what's this all about?" right out there in the open. Even if a playing group has absolutely robust and healthy interpersonal communication, I see value in that. It's less trial-and-error, less prone to nobody's-fault simple misunderstandings and disconnects. When the basic thing is out there in flashing neon lights then all the nuance of individual actions within it, or of little things surrounding it, are so much easier to navgate.

"In-character dialogue and post-game discussions" are certainly one way to handle it. In my experience the former leads to endless runaround conversations that make the Council of Elrond look like a text message (this gets at one reason I like Dogs' use of dice to handle social conflict, btw). And the latter is fine in the long term but obvously doesn't solve the problem of a disconnect here, now. At most it just fixes it for the next time.

Of course your mileage may vary and all that. But those are the reasons that approach, by itself, anyway, doesn't work for me. In fact it's kinda funny, your proposed solution is pretty much how these things have been handled historically, to mydissatisfaction, so in my case it's the problem.

Quote from: John MorrowBut what that doesn't allow is a chance to step away, go off to the side, and discuss the situation.

Actually, for the record, it does. I don't have my copy of Dogs handy either, but Vincent even has a little section where he talks about "time tricks" you can pull in the context of a conflict--there's no reason the conflict has to take place moment-by-moment in "real time." You can rewind and fast-forward, whatever you want. "I go off and confer with the dogs" could be the invocing to your relationship with one or more dogs (and rolling those dice), or it could represent a new person joining the conflict and adding his dice. There's a lot of flexibility.

Anyway, that's all I got for ya right now.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorWhat I like about games like DitV (which, admittedly, I haven't yet had a chance to play yet) and Capes (which I have played) is that they get "what's this all about?" right out there in the open. Even if a playing group has absolutely robust and healthy interpersonal communication, I see value in that. It's less trial-and-error, less prone to nobody's-fault simple misunderstandings and disconnects. When the basic thing is out there in flashing neon lights then all the nuance of individual actions within it, or of little things surrounding it, are so much easier to navgate.

I can see the value in it.  I just probably don't value it as highly as you do (and others do).  

Quote from: Melinglor"In-character dialogue and post-game discussions" are certainly one way to handle it. In my experience the former leads to endless runaround conversations that make the Council of Elrond look like a text message (this gets at one reason I like Dogs' use of dice to handle social conflict, btw). And the latter is fine in the long term but obvously doesn't solve the problem of a disconnect here, now. At most it just fixes it for the next time.

I kinda like the long conversations and such, so I consider that a plus.  I'm not upset if a whole session is talking.  While the disconnect issue can be a problem, that's where a properly tuned system (one that produces the results that the players are expecting) comes in.  In the few cases where we've had game damaging misunderstandings of a situation, our normal solution is a replay of the scene with the misunderstanding corrected.

Quote from: MelinglorOf course your mileage may vary and all that. But those are the reasons that approach, by itself, anyway, doesn't work for me. In fact it's kinda funny, your proposed solution is pretty much how these things have been handled historically, to mydissatisfaction, so in my case it's the problem.

That's fine.  One person's solution is often another person's problem and vice versa.  But sometimes it helps to understand why your problem is someone else's solution.

Quote from: MelinglorActually, for the record, it does. I don't have my copy of Dogs handy either, but Vincent even has a little section where he talks about "time tricks" you can pull in the context of a conflict--there's no reason the conflict has to take place moment-by-moment in "real time." You can rewind and fast-forward, whatever you want. "I go off and confer with the dogs" could be the invocing to your relationship with one or more dogs (and rolling those dice), or it could represent a new person joining the conflict and adding his dice. There's a lot of flexibility.

Makes a lot of sense.  Thanks.