Quote from: Doctor Jest;598596Maybe, but you'd have to shift the focus quite a bit and make some system changes. As written, the game rewards making compromises* rather than taking hard line approaches. Also, drama points are a consolation for not getting what you want, id be concerned about making not achieving goals systemically rewarded. Sounds like you'd want it to do the opposite in those cases. I think other systems could do this better.

I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion in regards to what drama tokens do, because I don't view them as a consolation, but instead part of the economy of moving the drama along.  I concede for the sake of drama, I get a token, which I can use for any number of things -- forcing a scene I'm in, blocking someone from forcing me, rushing into a scene I'm not part of, etc. Granting a petition is not a zero-sum action, I get something in exchange for giving. I can also use those points to help other players force, duck, or rush.  And I get that point even if the other party had no drama points; it comes out of the common pool.  Then, at the end of the game, the number of drama points affect my chance of getting a bennie, which in turns allow further action in the game.

In fact, the easiest way to "prime your pump" and start amassing tokens to do all of that high level work is to start conceding.  Diving in and getting emotionally involved and not drawing a hardline against every petition is how you build up a pool of tokens to work with.

QuoteNow, if you want to play espionage agents who are in love with each other... now you're cooking

This system would be appropriate for something like the relationships between the principal characters in Burn Notice, for example. Or Alias. Or Nikita. Those are filled with frought, dramatic relationships.

I think people are misunderstanding the word "conflict" here as being some kind of aggression between the PCs, when it doesn't need to mean that (although it's by no means precluded), it means a Dramatic Conflict in the way it happens on a TV drama show. Dramatic Conflicts can occur without being adversarial. Romances, for example, are frought with dramatic conflicts involving two people who are very much on the same side. A dramatic conflict is just where dramatic tension has a chance to resolve.

* in fact, if you manage to resolve a dramatic conflict in a way that both PCs get what they want, no drama points change hands... and it's possible no one will be happy with the outcome, and again no points change hands... well technically, they both get one from the other.

This is, in fact, one of my biggest complaints about social conflict mechanics, is that they always have clear winners and losers and social conflicts are rarely that cut-and-dried. They're usually much more about give and take and compromise. There's more win-win and lose-lose and other combinations (partial win - partial lose) than clear win-lose situations in social conflicts, and no other system captures that. That this system is at least trying is a positive step. The system is designed to make a clear simple mechanic to encourage complex relationships and dramatic tension that end more frequently in a complex state of compromise more often than one winner/one loser, much more like real life.

I think your dislike of social conflict mechanics might be coloring your view of my approach.  The game is meant to play out dramatic conflicts between the players' characters -- that conflict could be simply something with emotional stakes, like "I want Andy to admit to Bryan that he was wrong," or it could be something that ends in a practical result, such as, "I want King Justinian to recognize my character as an equal and accord me status during my visit to his court."  The game even flat-out says that favors granted as part of a petition are okay.

The reason why Hillfolk and the Drama System intrigue me is because it's not just about battering an enemy into submission, using a combat system where Strength is replaced by Charisma and Constitution is replaced by Willpower or something, but about setting up an economy which rewards give and take, compromising and then in turn succeeding.  That's interesting to me, because it's nuanced.  

But with that said, there's nothing to preclude the introduction of mechanics like starting token pools, or a discount for blocking a petition if it's Dishonorable (to go back to Legend of the Five Rings) for Lion characters, or a free token to spend in actions involving Blackmail for cunning bastards, etc.    That's my point.  You're free to disagree, and until I play the system in the raw I'm not going to fiddle with it, but I don't rule out the idea that a little more "game" in the exchange of currency in the form of distinguishing between characters doesn't intrigue me.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;598680I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion in regards to what drama tokens do, because I don't view them as a consolation, but instead part of the economy of moving the drama along.  

Consolation prize is how Laws described them on his blog, which is where I got the term.

But your right it encourages you to give as well as take. That's the point.

QuoteI think your dislike of social conflict mechanics might be coloring your view of my approach.

No, I just think your approach is going the opposite way the design goals of Drama System, which is explicitly stated multiple times that it's designed to get out of the way of the roleplaying. You want it to have more influence in the roleplaying. That's contrary to the design goals.

QuoteThe game is meant to play out dramatic conflicts between the players' characters -- that conflict could be simply something with emotional stakes, like "I want Andy to admit to Bryan that he was wrong," or it could be something that ends in a practical result, such as, "I want King Justinian to recognize my character as an equal and accord me status during my visit to his court."  The game even flat-out says that favors granted as part of a petition are okay.

Sure, but both of those things are emotional stakes, so I fail to see the distinction.

QuoteBut with that said, there's nothing to preclude the introduction of mechanics like starting token pools, or a discount for blocking a petition if it's Dishonorable (to go back to Legend of the Five Rings) for Lion characters, or a free token to spend in actions involving Blackmail for cunning bastards, etc.    That's my point.  You're free to disagree, and until I play the system in the raw I'm not going to fiddle with it, but I don't rule out the idea that a little more "game" in the exchange of currency in the form of distinguishing between characters doesn't intrigue

I do disagree. Not only do I think that complicates things mechanically, it also constrains the current free for, nature of the roleplaying, both of which I think are contrary to the stated design goals of the game, and it's those goals I want to accomplish "where the dice fall away and the game is just all about character", like those times, it tells us, where everyone is "on" and the roleplaying is awesome, and personality mechanics interfere with that in my view.

And technically there are some personality mechanics in the whole Dual Nature of the character, they just don't influence who gets what they want, except insofar as players are incentivized to either bring that inner conflict into play or favor one side of it over the other in the xp and Bennie system. I think that is more than sufficient.

Quote from: Sigmund;598656I get what you're saying re: the negotiation angle, but I'm thinking of a system that means a situation isn't resolved in one go. It's the back and forth. Sure, your opponent gets rewarded for compromising, but then that reward can be used against you for the next phase of the negotiation, so it would be a balancing act... a strategic one, where the player would have to decide where to give in to get the resources so that they could fight tooth and nail for what they really value. This is also where pre-knowledge of what your opponent values most would give a player the edge, especially if the opponent doe not have similar knowledge. This would add value other than "this is the adventure I have prepared, so you superior sends you on this mission" to espionage and investigation. Just thoughts though.

I don't know, after I get a chance to play it I may have some more thoughts on this though.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;598713No, I just think your approach is going the opposite way the design goals of Drama System, which is explicitly stated multiple times that it's designed to get out of the way of the roleplaying. You want it to have more influence in the roleplaying. That's contrary to the design goals.

I disagree about it being contrary to design goals, but then again, I also think it's just a matter of time -- heck, it might even come up  very soon -- that somebody takes Drama System in the direction I'm talking about as an experiment or as part of the normal evolution of the system if it takes off.  Hillfolk is the first iteration of what I consider a pretty interesting direction for resolving conflict, and just as Esoterrorists was the first iteration of Gumshoe, which would later produce Trail of Cthulhu and Night's Black Agents, which have done marvelous things with what started out as a simple means of dealing with investigative games.

Rather than just rule out this direction, I'd like to see somebody play with it, or play with it myself, before simply dismissing it.  You're free to do so, but it's clearly not your thing any way.

So someone explain to me how when I'm thinking about whether to spend or receive Drama Points during an exchange, I'm actually roleplaying the character in question.  It seems more like designing dialogue, in other words, not Roleplaying Vic Mackey or Claudette, but Shawn Ryan.

Quote from: CRKrueger;598752So someone explain to me how when I'm thinking about whether to spend or receive Drama Points during an exchange, I'm actually roleplaying the character in question.  It seems more like designing dialogue, in other words, not Roleplaying Vic Mackey or Claudette, but Shawn Ryan.

Not really.  You're roleplaying your character, Player B is roleplaying her character, but scenes are split into two types according to this framework: dramatic and procedural scenes.  In a procedural scene, you and Player B are having your characters gather clues to a mystery, fight some orks, sneak past the guards at the gate, whatever.  (Most RPGs have plenty of rules for handling the procedural stuff, and are, in fact, mostly procedural games.)  In a dramatic scene, your character (let's call them Alex) wants something from Player B's character, who we'll call Beatrix -- Alex wants Beatrix to forgive him for killing her father, or wants Beatrix to back him at the next tribal council.  Alex is the petitioner, Beatrix is the granter.  What they want could be a purely emotional payoff, it could be a favor, or it could be something physical, that doesn't matter.  A lot of this will tie into existing character relationships, which are either shaped during chargen or during play, or by the player's envisioning of the character's personality and its poles (such as a man of war vs. a man of peace, or in Vic Mackie's case, his self-serving nature versus his loyalty to his allies.)

Or let's talk about it in terms of The Shield.  The Strike Team is falling apart and Shane is thinking about going off on his own.  Mackie approaches Shane to make sure Shane's not going to go off the reservation.  Mackie is the petitioner, Shane is the granter.  If Mackie gets Shane to agree to stay with the rest of the Strike Team for a little while longer, then Mackie gives Shane a drama token, because Shane gave up ground.  If Shane refuses, then Shane gives Mackie a drama token, to reward Mackie for trying.  Later on, once Shane has gone out on his own and blown things up (like he did when he got in with Antwan Mitchell) and comes back and tries to get Mackie to help him get out of trouble, and hints that if Mackie doesn't help, Shane will give state's evidence, then Shane is the petitioner, Mackie is the granter (although if Mackie, during the course of that roleplaying scene, gets Shane to hand over the evidence, it could be that both of them petition and grant.)

Drama System does two things: one, it formalizes what's going on in dramatic scenes in the petition/granter framework (and I'm only stating the basics -- the book fleshes this out pretty considerably into all of the possible permutations), and two, it recognizes that in many dramatic scenes in RPGs, players are hesitant to compromise or even cede their positions, so it incentivizes compromise and ceding position by putting the token/bennie economy behind it.  In real life, we compromise and give ground all of the time; but in an RPG scene, we tend to be much more risk adverse.  By putting the token economy behind it, it rewards players for not taking extreme positions and not moving from them.

Does that make sense?

Quote from: CRKrueger;598752So someone explain to me how when I'm thinking about whether to spend or receive Drama Points during an exchange, I'm actually roleplaying the character in question.  It seems more like designing dialogue, in other words, not Roleplaying Vic Mackey or Claudette, but Shawn Ryan.

It would depend, IMO, on whether you are thinking, like a game player, of what would benefit you and your character, or attempting to think about how the character would approach the situation for purely in-game rewards. Then,as i understand it, either way the actual resolution of the system is to actually role-play in-character to resolve the situation. It just seems to me to be a way to reward RPing out situation that might otherwise be glossed over in favor of getting to the "fun stuff", like haggling for a bit of gear. or negotiating for something in-game. At least this is how I see it, and would use it if it can be used that way. Of course, it wouldn't be for every bit of gear, only perhaps the important bits. I could totally see it being used to convince "Q" to let me use the submarine-car, frex. I'm not, myself, big on RPing whether Bob hit on my character's girlfriend or what to do about it, but to each their own

Yeah, it makes sense, but in that example, the roleplaying scene between Shane and Mackey is not isolated due to the DramaPoint economy.  Since the DramaPoints only go from character to character, then I not only have to roleplay Shane, but I have to step outside Shane as Chris to decide how I want to play the scene with regards to how many DramaPoints I have and whether I want to surrender any or receive any.

Also, I think the "petitioner/granter" is too simplistic an axis for really modelling excellent Movie/TV drama, which is what this system is supposed to do.  Take for example, the Shane/Lem scene from Shield, or the Carrie/Brody interrogation a couple weeks ago on Homeland.  There is much more going on there on multiple levels, far more then can be defined by a standard Conflict Resolution System for interpersonal conflict, which is really all this is.

Going back to the RPing part, let me give another Shield example, the Shane/Lem scene. Shield Spoiler:

Spoiler

In this scene, Shane and Lem are talking.  Shane is trying to get Lem to run, Lem can't take it anymore. Shane then decides to kill Lem with a grenade, making it look like a gang hit.

Now if I was actually roleplaying that interaction, with another character, and both of us were RPing from the point of view of Shane and Lem, then there are no limits.  Shane could kill Lem, Lem could kill Shane, they both could decide to kill Cavanaugh, both turn on Mackey, get Ronnie - kill Cavanaugh and Mackey and go on a bankrobbing spree to finance retirement in a non-extradition country.  When players get together, all kinds of stuff happens - some of it so weird you wouldn't believe it if you weren't there - just like real life (no one would have believed Argo for example, if it didn't actually happen).
With a system like this, the characters are straitjacketed by the player's concerned about the Drama.  When Shawn Ryan and the writers were writing the Shane/Lem scene, I'm sure they empathized with the characters, they may have been crying a river for all I know, but what they weren't doing was roleplaying from the point of view of Shane and Lem.  When I set a scene by declaring Petitioner and Granter and I tie in a DramaPoint economy that must be managed, I'm applying metagame constraints that exist outside the character, Shane has no clue that he's the Petitioner, he doesn't know what a DramaPoint is.
By specifically modelling itself to create dramatic scenes, the system is placing its players in the shoes of screenwriters, not in the shoes of their characters.  Which is fine if you like that sort of thing, I just don't see the applicability to the roleplaying experience.

Quote from: CRKrueger;598862Yeah, it makes sense, but in that example, the roleplaying scene between Shane and Mackey is not isolated due to the DramaPoint economy.  Since the DramaPoints only go from character to character, then I not only have to roleplay Shane, but I have to step outside Shane as Chris to decide how I want to play the scene with regards to how many DramaPoints I have and whether I want to surrender any or receive any.

Also, I think the "petitioner/granter" is too simplistic an axis for really modelling excellent Movie/TV drama, which is what this system is supposed to do.  Take for example, the Shane/Lem scene from Shield, or the Carrie/Brody interrogation a couple weeks ago on Homeland.  There is much more going on there on multiple levels, far more then can be defined by a standard Conflict Resolution System for interpersonal conflict, which is really all this is.

Going back to the RPing part, let me give another Shield example, the Shane/Lem scene. Shield Spoiler:

Spoiler

In this scene, Shane and Lem are talking.  Shane is trying to get Lem to run, Lem can't take it anymore. Shane then decides to kill Lem with a grenade, making it look like a gang hit.

Now if I was actually roleplaying that interaction, with another character, and both of us were RPing from the point of view of Shane and Lem, then there are no limits.  Shane could kill Lem, Lem could kill Shane, they both could decide to kill Cavanaugh, both turn on Mackey, get Ronnie - kill Cavanaugh and Mackey and go on a bankrobbing spree to finance retirement in a non-extradition country.  When players get together, all kinds of stuff happens - some of it so weird you wouldn't believe it if you weren't there - just like real life (no one would have believed Argo for example, if it didn't actually happen).
With a system like this, the characters are straitjacketed by the player's concerned about the Drama.  When Shawn Ryan and the writers were writing the Shane/Lem scene, I'm sure they empathized with the characters, they may have been crying a river for all I know, but what they weren't doing was roleplaying from the point of view of Shane and Lem.  When I set a scene by declaring Petitioner and Granter and I tie in a DramaPoint economy that must be managed, I'm applying metagame constraints that exist outside the character, Shane has no clue that he's the Petitioner, he doesn't know what a DramaPoint is.
By specifically modelling itself to create dramatic scenes, the system is placing its players in the shoes of screenwriters, not in the shoes of their characters.  Which is fine if you like that sort of thing, I just don't see the applicability to the roleplaying experience.

I think you make good points. I also think it's just as applicable to the RPing experience as any other game system is. This system, as I understand it so far, is simply about RPing a specific facet of the RPG potential. I see it as no different than when folks RP a combat, while also using the combat system. I do agree with you that it would encourage more metagame thinking about this specific facet of the RPG than most other games do currently. I don't see how it would actually get in the way of RPing in the game any more than any other sub-system though. It might guide the RPing to a different conclusion than than what would occur without the sub-system, but that's the point of using it. I have yet to ever see a situation RPed the exact way I believe it would go if I and the other players were actually in that situation anyway. It's hard to completely forget that your character is only a character and isn't actually risking death, disaster, or injury in the various situations they find themselves in. Seems to me that used sparingly, this subsystem might actually build greater investment in certain facets of most RPGs. Then again, I don't think I'm viewing it the same way it seems to be intended.

So, what are people impressions of this game after three years? I'm considering acquiring it but I'm not so sure yet.