So now that I am trying to make fuller use of this gaming resource, I have a question that I was puzzling over in Solipsist. (If you haven't seen it, and you probably haven't, you can download a PDF extract).
In Solipsist when you attempt an action you can have one of three results.
- It fails
- It succeeds perfectly (and you narrate the results)
- It succeeds, but not as you intended (and someone else narrates the results)
Now before you get to the actual results you can spend points (Infestation) to alter the outcome, bringing it closer to the optimal result (2). If the result is 3, it succeeds but not as you expected, you get more points instead. So when the story doesn't go quite as you intended you accumulate infestation that you can spend later.
But when you succeed perfectly you don't get any infestation, your reward is the control of the story. This all makes perfect sense in the setting of the game, but I am wondering if it makes sense mechanically. It means that the more you succeed perfectly the less resource you have to spend on future actions (which I guess makes sense too, you can't be perfect all the time), but it also feels a bit to me like you get rewarded for not doing so well.
My first thought was that you could get a single point of infestation as a bonus for a perfect success, but then I realised that any result where you had to spend 1 infestation to get a perfect success became free (spend 1, get 1), so that an initial result of 1 or -1 was just like a 0, and a 2 was like a 1 had been before ... 1 infestation away from success (spend 2, get 1 back), which seems like a pointless change.
So should I just abbandon the concept of a reward for a perfect result other than narrative control, or is there some other way I could make it work?
I think winning control of
Submitted by Andrew Kenrick on Wed, 05/09/2007 - 11:20.
I think winning control of the narrative is reward enough for success - the reward is that you get to describe what happens to your liking, and engineer the situation to be more favourable to you in the future.
But the more you win, the less chance you have of winning as you lose infestation, and the more chance people who have been losing have of winning - this seems like the right balance to me! Gives everyone the chance of winning!
Well I'm happy with that too
Submitted by David Donachie on Wed, 05/09/2007 - 11:38.
Well I'm happy with that too if it turns out to be acceptable to people playing it. We didn't do enough changes in the first playtest to be sure (spent too much time on the character creation), but I'll pay attention to it in the second.
I think this is a general issue in any game where narrative control is on on offer but there is some sort of expendable mechanic involved. A success rewards you in game with the narrative control, but the system doesn't necessarily do the same.
Solipsist RPG, on its way ... eventually
Oh, I think...
Submitted by Gregor Hutton on Wed, 05/09/2007 - 12:16.
...that there are times when you don't want it to happen perfectly though. You are deliberately aiming to get someone else narrating (and collect your reward of Infestation).
You have a choice:
The other players then have the option, I guess, of giving you a perfect result and denying you the infestation, giving you the infestation and doing something with the control of the outcome, or failing you?
I think giving mechanical reward as well as control makes the perfect answer too desirable.
I'm with Andrew, it sounds
Submitted by Geoff Hall on Wed, 05/09/2007 - 12:51.
I'm with Andrew, it sounds like a good balance to me, both thematically AND mechanically. It also, as Gregor notes, makes for an interesting choice. Do you relinquish control when you could grab it in your favour in order to gain points for use at a later, and potentially more crucial, time or do you take control now to try and set things up to be more favourable for you down the line? I like it.
~Geoff
Dread Fuzzy Blog
I totally agree about it
Submitted by David Donachie on Wed, 05/09/2007 - 13:59.
I totally agree about it being in character.
A perfect control result means you are clinging on to your balance, doing enough to get what you want but not too much, which is a difficult thing.
A negative result means giving in to your obsessions, especially if you could have spent infestation to prevent it but didn't do so. After all giving in to obsessions is fun! This is doubly true because the easiest way to achieve perfect control is not to trigger too many of your obsessions ... i.e. only to give in a little bit.
But that does bring me to another conundrum. The more extreme the change you want to make, the more obsessions you can trigger without getting a negative result. This means that the bigger and wilder the effect the more out of control you can be and still get a perfectly controlled and balanced result. That may not be quite right ....
Solipsist RPG, on its way ... eventually