Stakes, consequences - situation vs "no myth"

[aramis erak]

I’m working through this as well so I’m not sure how relevant the following is.

There’s a strain of advice that basically goes as follows:

If the character has a statement about their values, let’s say ‘just at all costs’, then it’s the GM’s job to pressure that. At all costs? Really? What about now? Even now?


So if I’m playing Grasshopper and we had such a statement (maybe even informally), then the Spider bringing in the Grasshoppers brother is applying the pressure.

At the extreme this is framed as saying it’s the GM’s duty to bring it and it’s actually a failure of their role if they don’t. The player is saying they want exactly the type of situation where their brother is in peril.

The thing about BW Values: You only get three. You can change them. It is indeed the GM's job to put those items into play and challenge them.

When GM's do this, BW/BE/MG players learn quickly to write ones they actually want to play on. Values are a key source of Artha, and Artha is key to BW/BE advancement. (Indirectly - by allowing some of the tests at cannot pass to actually have a chance... since Artha doesn't count in total roll when checking for advancement difficulty.)

Set playable ones, you get artha, you get to advance with less failure. Ideally, one is short term and gets you that persona instead of fate by concluding it. One is usually mid term - a few fate along the way, and a persona when resolved.

BW is all about its skinnerian behaviorist mechanics.

 

[thefutilist]

This all seems right.

This seems right too.

(Just to confirm: by "indexing" you mean *the GM drawing on the player's statement of value/flag/etc to apply pressure.)

This sounds like it's true, but I haven't internalised it into my thinking to the same degree as the previous two bundles of quotes. If you've got an example in mind, I'd be interested?

The Show down example you gave is covered by the other points, although it is relevant. I’m not sure if I’m just stating something really obvious here or whether my thoughts are a bit incoherent.

Verly wasn’t a particularly complex character but one of the emergent themes around her became something to do with idealistic/utopian thinking V something like the facts on the ground.

In session 3 she came and riled everyone up with her dream, led an ill fated war party, sang some songs about hope and the importance of resilience, and then fled in the middle of the night. The thing is, from verly’s point of view she genuinely wasn’t fleeing responsibility. From my point of view, she maybe was, in some ways a piece of naughty word that gets let off because she’s charismatic and in the moment anyway, sincere

In session 6 she did make a difference and I think did make things better. Notably she failed all her rolls for singing and very specifically shifted the balance of power because she thought the assassin was hot. Which gives us a really cynical thematic statement.

The other very important thing about session three is a lot of this important stuff emerged because of the play between mine and @deleuzian_kernel characters. Especially the ending scene between them. I don’t think any of that would be served by thinking more formally about what was at stake.


Eh this might all just be half baked. It makes me realise that a lot of the framing around, hitting the issues, starts to make less when you assume any kind of genuine antagonism between different player characters.

The gift stuff you laid out is interesting because upon reflection I don't actually disagree with Luke. I need to chew on that.

Lastly. I have lots of thoughts about slay but I also think we only dipped out toes in. Do you read the instructions as 'make the character such that they might appeal to the other player/character, but then in play just follow your intuition. Or do you read the text such that trying to make them stay is something you're always doing? or is this is a false division. My reading is the former.

 

[pemerton]

Do you read the instructions as 'make the character such that they might appeal to the other player/character, but then in play just follow your intuition. Or do you read the text such that trying to make them stay is something you're always doing? or is this is a false division. My reading is the former.

Really interesting question. And I'm not sure. Because who the character (Lover) is itself is something that unfolds through play, because of the way the prep works (ie fairly sparse at the beginning).

 

[thefutilist]

Really interesting question. And I'm not sure. Because who the character (Lover) is itself is something that unfolds through play, because of the way the prep works (ie fairly sparse at the beginning).

In play as far as I can recall my decisions and process was as follows.

The lovers attributes were: wanton, approved, open-hearted, knowledgeable.

I had a picture of her as being tenacious and scrappy.


One of the first moves I made with her was thinking about how to do start of session exposition. Which is when I came up with them being a bit reluctant to share some of the deeper details, whilst she was was ready to no matter what. The next obvious step from there was that she’s morally condemning the situation.

Then the fact that one of the mechanical options is ‘take them with you’ gave me the idea that she (a) wanted to get out of this place she saw as morally wanting (b) wanted to be a knight or travel with you because she saw you as a bad ass hero.

I think her attitude would have changed (and maybe did a bit), during play depending on her evaluation of you as a person.

---

Here’s a thing. Do the lovers attitude serve the same function as threat moves? I think they do and much like in AW it seems appropriate to shift gears up to, whatever I decide play, if you’re feeling it.

 

[pemerton]

The lovers attributes were: wanton, approved, open-hearted, knowledgeable.

<snip>

Here’s a thing. Do the lovers attitude serve the same function as threat moves? I think they do and much like in AW it seems appropriate to shift gears up to, whatever I decide play, if you’re feeling it.

Coming back to this after the passage of a few weeks:

You're probably right, although I hadn't thought of it that way until your post.

Can you elaborate on the "if you're feeling it"? In particular, is this a fair paraphrase of your post:

If you're feeling it - that is, are intuitively situated "inside" the fiction - then you can move out of strict situational play, into "what I decide" play, without spoiling the game.​

And this would be because when you're intuitively situated inside the fiction, then you're building on, and/or expressing, the situation. You're not just making stuff up Grasshopper vs Spider style.

 

[thefutilist]

Coming back to this after the passage of a few weeks:

You're probably right, although I hadn't thought of it that way until your post.

Can you elaborate on the "if you're feeling it"? In particular, is this a fair paraphrase of your post:

If you're feeling it - that is, are intuitively situated "inside" the fiction - then you can move out of strict situational play, into "what I decide" play, without spoiling the game.​

And this would be because when you're intuitively situated inside the fiction, then you're building on, and/or expressing, the situation. You're not just making stuff up Grasshopper vs Spider style.

Yeah I’m on board with that, I think you’ve put it in a better way than me.