tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post2884600863919956175..comments2023-05-27T11:14:02.426-04:00Comments on Some Space to Think: Bonus Lesson: Safe Harbor and ConsequencesAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14216103531396452644noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-58554285637510926122009-10-13T11:22:55.329-04:002009-10-13T11:22:55.329-04:00@anonymous - Even if it's not an explicit vuln...@anonymous - Even if it's not an explicit vulnerability, that speaks to a really essential bit of communication between player and GM that often goes wrong. At it's simplest: If I make a fighty guy, am I telling the GM "I want to make a guy who fights well enough that I don't need to worry about fights" or am I saying "I want to get bloodied, bring on the fights!" Both sentiments are communicated the same way (by buying fight skills) so this makes a nice explicit counterpoint to that. I'll buy fight skills AND chose "physical harm" as the kind of consequence I expect (either by taking a weakness, or just communicating that or whatever).<br /><br />Huh. This starts turning into a fascinating re-application of John Wick's "Other Hundred Points" - that may be fodder for it's own post.<br /><br />@Justin - Yoinked! To be read when my computer returns!<br /><br />-Rob D.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14216103531396452644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-12519630552800984182009-10-12T16:05:28.851-04:002009-10-12T16:05:28.851-04:00This is so close to JWalt's Geiger Counter con...This is so close to JWalt's Geiger Counter condition system. It's really simply elegant. <a href="http://bleedingplay.wordpress.com/geiger/" rel="nofollow">Check it out</a>.Justin D. Jacobsonhttp://www.johnraingame.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-22522777069285258262009-10-12T03:07:24.801-04:002009-10-12T03:07:24.801-04:00How about if you have a certain gift/niche/schtick...How about if you have a certain gift/niche/schtick, you have an automatic vulnerability in it, so if you have a bonus in martial arts, you /always/ have the chance of getting hurt in a fight. You're stating by getting that bonus that you're willing to take a downer.<br /><br />Would it help social play/consequences, or would it prevent people from wanting to play in that area? You could give people a choice from a limited list when they choose their bonus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-30947817074082951432009-10-11T22:14:25.561-04:002009-10-11T22:14:25.561-04:00Oooh, I like the implicit communication in that - ...Oooh, I like the implicit communication in that - I can see the checklist easily enough, and it's a nice implicit communication of player taste.<br /><br />-Rob D.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14216103531396452644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-53681052314834987952009-10-11T00:32:13.103-04:002009-10-11T00:32:13.103-04:00Of course, now I'm thinking about the notion o...Of course, now I'm thinking about the notion of player-authored consequence options. You're getting this somewhat with the idea that players control the color but not the effect, but I'm thinking past that, to ideas like "Fred's list of consequences that you could choose to hit him with are Sickened, Hurt, and Demoralized. Rob's list of consequences you could choose to hit him with are Speechless, Cornered, and Hurt." The idea then would be that the players are defining their safe harbors by defining the consequences that are fair game. <br /><br />Obviously there would need to be some enforcement in terms of the number and variety of options offered. But if Fred's game for Demoralized, but Rob's game for Speechless, you've got an idea of what the players are willing to get smacked with, and that's got a bit of direction-giving in and of itself.Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08362641974657304051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-41422268385359246202009-10-09T14:41:57.485-04:002009-10-09T14:41:57.485-04:00I have to say that I really like the Mouseguard pr...I have to say that I really like the Mouseguard pre-existing resolution system, too. Part of the problem is that fear of not knowing or understanding what the scope of a consequence can be.<br /><br />I have no idea what to do about the toxic environment or the he-said-she-said aspects of the game. I note that MUSHes almost always turn into high school if left alone for 5 minutes.Emilyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11069100225375930667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-52809063627617243072009-10-09T13:06:25.471-04:002009-10-09T13:06:25.471-04:00There are reasons the rules lawyers get a bad rap,...There are reasons the rules lawyers get a bad rap, but I think the fear of them has lead to some problematic design decisions (not specifically on RTA, but generally). There's an idea that social interaction will smooth over things that rules would muddy, and I think that in attempting to solve one problem, a worse one was created. That is to say, I think that bullying and metagame infighting is much more toxic than rules lawyering.<br /><br />Specifically, when rules lawyers are a problem it tends to be isolated to a specific abuse, it can be easily identified (since rules abuses explicitly must engage the rules) and corrected (since rules can be changed). In contrast, when a disagreement emerges in the social realm, it's all about feelings and he-said-she-said noise. It's hard to isolate, harder to identify and almost impossible to correct. <br /><br />Not that rules are a total panacea for social abuses. These are social games, so that risk always exists, but the hope is that system exists to provide refuge from such abuses. It's optimistic, sure, but I suspect it's possible.<br /><br />-Rob D.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14216103531396452644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1678761812929125529.post-7082503153338590932009-10-09T12:42:38.544-04:002009-10-09T12:42:38.544-04:00I really like this idea, though it's one I thi...I really like this idea, though it's one I think I need to go chew on for a while before I completely understand it. I like the narrowing of categories of consequences, and being able to select between them based on what the conflict is, because it gets people closer to being on the same page about risk and potential results. And leaving the color for the given status up to the player who's having it inflicted on them seems like a good way to keep people feeling like they have some sort of power in these situations.<br /><br />But what I'm mostly taking away from all this is the lesson about how even with explicit consent and consequence limit rules, people can push the envelope in both directions: trying to enforce higher consequences than is really allowed, trying to avoid any at all, and so forth. Kinda makes me ponder how to make large groups like MUSH playerbases largely self-policing, so that every conflict doesn't turn into requiring arbitration, without having fiddly, hugely detailed rules. I guess there's no avoiding that with rules come rules lawyers.Fadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02298465378894972915noreply@blogger.com