Stakes, counterstakes, and brokenness
Feb. 10th, 2008 11:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mneme posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
labcatsI started this with the idea that counter-stakes (as are done in WGP (With Great Power), and, I think, some other conflict resolution systems -- where someone (the GM, in all examples I know of) adds an "and if you don't, Y happens" rider to a character's stakes) are broken. Which is more or less true, but why they're problematic points out other issues that need to be addressed in stakes-driven conflict resolution systems (or possibly stakes-driven auction-based conflict resolution, of the mold of WGP, DitV (Dogs in the Vineyard), and TSoY (The Shadow of Yesterday)).
The basic problem is one of false opposition. While the system has said that if you don't get X, Y happens, this doesn't always make sense on a narrative level. Morever, even if you initally thought the opposition was reasonable actions that make sense in terms of preventing you from achieving your primary stake can be nonsensical in terms of causing the counter-stake (which can cause conflicts to drag on--as while the actor may be willing to yield their primary stake, they don't thnk it make sense that the game state would result in their counter-stake -- so the conflict drags on, and on, and on).
Of course, there are two ways to deal with this. First, given a "narrate your loss" rule, somone yielding in a conflict for mechanical reasons can add enough narration to make the counterstakes reasonable. However, this is essentially flawed--it makes the counterstakes in that scene a "kicker" that don't really flow out of the narative; a deus ex machina of the worst sort. The other possibility doesn't share this flaw, but certainly complicates things: just have a rule that every potentially conflict-winning action (in many systems, -any- action in a conflict, but not every) must have as part of its description how it would accomplish all the goals it stands to win. This is probably the best solution -- but it certainly complicates things, and how enforcable it is is an open question.
Of course, this points out a more central issue, one that affects all stakes-auction systems, not just opposed stakes ones. Specifically, in order for these to work consistently, you -must- have a "that's stupid" rule -- you -must- be able to refuse naration on a bid as not working for you (and that all narrative must work as part of accomplishing the stakes). Otherwise, the game, however well it works on a mechanical level, can be inadverdently subverted on the more important narrative level, the very one the rules are intended to support.
In a way, of course, this is a special case of the "all games exist in a social context" rule, but on the more specific level, it's often a very important (often included, but sometimes merely implied or worse, not) meta-rule needed for conflict resolution to work.
Now, whether opposed stakes can work? An interesting question; I'm inclined to think that TSoY's approach of looking at the stakes/intents/actions themselves in context to see whether they are opposed or perpendicular is the superior one, but -if- one makes sure that all bids are properly formed (ie, they reasonably move toward all required results), it's possible -- if probably not optimal.
The basic problem is one of false opposition. While the system has said that if you don't get X, Y happens, this doesn't always make sense on a narrative level. Morever, even if you initally thought the opposition was reasonable actions that make sense in terms of preventing you from achieving your primary stake can be nonsensical in terms of causing the counter-stake (which can cause conflicts to drag on--as while the actor may be willing to yield their primary stake, they don't thnk it make sense that the game state would result in their counter-stake -- so the conflict drags on, and on, and on).
Of course, there are two ways to deal with this. First, given a "narrate your loss" rule, somone yielding in a conflict for mechanical reasons can add enough narration to make the counterstakes reasonable. However, this is essentially flawed--it makes the counterstakes in that scene a "kicker" that don't really flow out of the narative; a deus ex machina of the worst sort. The other possibility doesn't share this flaw, but certainly complicates things: just have a rule that every potentially conflict-winning action (in many systems, -any- action in a conflict, but not every) must have as part of its description how it would accomplish all the goals it stands to win. This is probably the best solution -- but it certainly complicates things, and how enforcable it is is an open question.
Of course, this points out a more central issue, one that affects all stakes-auction systems, not just opposed stakes ones. Specifically, in order for these to work consistently, you -must- have a "that's stupid" rule -- you -must- be able to refuse naration on a bid as not working for you (and that all narrative must work as part of accomplishing the stakes). Otherwise, the game, however well it works on a mechanical level, can be inadverdently subverted on the more important narrative level, the very one the rules are intended to support.
In a way, of course, this is a special case of the "all games exist in a social context" rule, but on the more specific level, it's often a very important (often included, but sometimes merely implied or worse, not) meta-rule needed for conflict resolution to work.
Now, whether opposed stakes can work? An interesting question; I'm inclined to think that TSoY's approach of looking at the stakes/intents/actions themselves in context to see whether they are opposed or perpendicular is the superior one, but -if- one makes sure that all bids are properly formed (ie, they reasonably move toward all required results), it's possible -- if probably not optimal.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-12 12:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-15 08:13 am (UTC)When I played WGP with you at DexCon (or was it Dreamation?), there were several points in the climactic conflict where I had no problem, in theory, with me losing my stakes, and you winning your counterstakes -- but, in practice, I just could not find it believable that what you had narrated would result in that combination. I did not believe that you winning your counterstakes made any narrative sense. For that reason, and only for that reason, Giving was not an option for me.
What ought I to have done? Said, "Er, Michael, I'd like to give, but can you please rephrase so that giving makes sense to me?"
no subject
Date: 2008-02-16 03:45 pm (UTC)Precisely! Since what I was describing as each panel made sense to me as potentially leading to my getting my Stakes for the page--that's how I always play, the text even goes into it in the "How to Pencil It" sections on pages 65, 68, and 70--the failure was that I hadn't made that sense clear.
If I was not communicating that sense clearly enough, then it's a communication problem, rather than a rules problem. Sorry about that, I do get tongue-tied from time-to-time.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-15 08:15 am (UTC)A game is broken if it is inevitable that adhering to the game's rules will undermine the contract of play between players -- if the rules, as written, don't work as a storygame, even with social rules to add glue and allow the players to "agree" to share a game.
If it's not clear, my conclusion was that "counter-stakes" (and games that use them) aren't inherently broken -- that following the (sometimes unstated) basic rule of how stakes work works for them as it does for regular stakes game.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-15 08:41 am (UTC)A story game's rule is broken if by following -you- are made to end up breaking -my- belief and commitment to the game's story (for arbitrary but reasonable values of you and me).
Taking things out of story games for a moment, a game's rule is broken if following it causes the players to not have the kind of fun (which isn't the right word; "activity" is closer, since a game doesn't have to be "fun", it has to be what the players are playing the game for) the game is intended to support. Shadowfist's rules (as much as I like them) are broken because it's trivially easy to have games that take unreasonable (5-9 hours) of game time. Munchkin, similarly, is broken for large numbers of players because the game quickly becomes an exercise in repetition, as it quickly becomes obvious that nobody can win without hours of self-similar play beforehand.