So, are we settled on Dominant, Daring, and Desperate? Is that certain to be in the final version? No chance of returning to Controlled, Risky, and Desperate?
So, are we settled on Dominant, Daring, and Desperate?
So, are we settled on Dominant, Daring, and Desperate?
I agree with Andrew here, but dont care what its called in the end. I will still use Controlled, Risky and Desperate, or the german versions in my Game.
In the Episode 4 thing I’m watching, John Harper was referring to the middle level as Difficult. Or, I was misinterpreting him using a normal word “difficult” as a technical term “Difficult”.
I feel alliteration has a cost for being more confusing, and a benefit that does not balance the cost of being more confusing.
Yeah, I don’t think alliteration does anyone any favors in this case.
I fail to see what is confusing about alliteration in general or in this specific case.
Christopher Rinderspacher Trying to remember words that all start with “D” is not as easy as words that all sound distinct and separate. Maybe this is not a problem for you. In which case, that’s lovely. I find it more difficult to get the words parsed out and separate, especially when I’m in a hurry or talking and processing fast while running an improv-heavy game.
I changed Controlled and Risky because they’re a bit misleading.
– Every roll is risky, or you wouldn’t be rolling.
– You don’t need a “controlled” situation to be in a dominant position. I found that some players were using this position too infrequently when it was called Controlled.
But I’m open to further revision of the position names.
(And yes, I’m using Difficult for the middle position right now in my games)
Hm. I would think difficulty would be a function of the factors more than the context (potence, quality, scale.) Urgency and consequence is more the focus of the context.
I felt that “risky” communicated that the standard default situation was that you stand to win or lose considerably by the outcome, where “controlled” didn’t have as dire consequences and “desperate” was very clear that if you lose it here, bad stuff happens.
Andrew Shields There is actually evidence that alliteration is helpful in learning and remembering chunks of information; see, e.g., http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/2/200.abstract or http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0346251X0500014X
Maybe your confusion is merely anecdotal or due to some other (personally correlated) factor?
Both dominant, daring, and desperate are positive assertions of characters’ relationship to the situation; they say as much about the situation as the characters. That emphasizes player empowerment IMHO. Risky really only says something about the situation and controlled is much weaker than dominant, both with respect to the character’s disposition as well as describing the situation. A well controlled situation can very well be a very difficult one to keep that way, whereas dominance implies relative ease.
Christopher Rinderspacher I am content to accept that you feel my difficulty with alliteration is personal and it is a mnemonic tool.
I hope that you are content to accept that it is a precious and cloying affectation to me, and that it is more difficult to quickly put my finger on the right word when it comes time to set context at high speed so as not to slow the process of mechanizing character action in working with players.
And we’re both content. I’ve offered my input, and I don’t feel entitled to getting my way on this or anything. I just really don’t like alliteration in game traits, and academic papers are unlikely to sway me from that position. This isn’t just about retention, it’s also about rapid differentiation.
FWIW I do like Difficult more than Daring.
Or, you could keep the alliteration and go for “Diner”, “Drive-In”, or “Dive” for your positioning.
It’s ALL of this anecdotal at this point. Point me to the peer-reviewed journal of Blades in the Dark Studies.
I also feel compelled to mention that pedagogical research generally indicates that alliteration is helpful for remembering similar things, not things you want to differentiate.
For the record, the alliteration is coincidental. I merely chose three words that capture the meanings I want.
.
The Thesaurus comes up with the goods:
*Dominant*: assertive, self-assured, self-possessed, authoritative, forceful, domineering, commanding, controlling, bullish; informal feisty, not backward in coming forward, pushy
Daring: bold, audacious, adventurous, intrepid, venturesome, fearless, brave, unafraid, unshrinking, undaunted, dauntless, valiant, valorous, heroic, dashing; confident, enterprising; madcap, rash, reckless, heedless
Desperate: last-ditch, last-chance, last-resort, last-minute, last-gasp, eleventh-hour, all-out, do-or-die, final; frantic, frenzied, wild, straining; futile, hopeless, doomed, lost.
I would even be happier with low, medium, and high risk as categories. I get wanting to squeeze flavor into every corner, but sometimes utility can outweigh that, and clarity is really important.
I didn’t mind what came before because it fit in a pattern. Finish this sentence: the situation is: controlled, risky, desperate. I have heard enthusiasm that the sentence has changed to “You are:” for dominant, daring, or desperate (though “difficult” totally doesn’t work with that.)
“You are:” Cool, Steady, Desperate.
“You have:” Advantage, Maneuvers, One Shot.
Ugh, those are kind of terrible. Really, though? I felt like Controlled, Risky, and Desperate did a fine job.
As for how “dominant” the top spot is, you are no more likely to succeed than on a “daring” roll. The consequences for failure are somewhat mitigated, but for many people encountering this game for the first time, they’ll be distressed by how rare it is that they succeed without complications anyway. Reduced severity of complications will not likely make them feel they are “dominant” in a situation.
You can look back through the community and see how often newcomers to the game really struggle with the difficulty of succeeding without complications. Those coming from apocalyptic traditions positively delight in failure and complication and think it is awesome when everything falls apart around their characters, but that is not a universal approach to gaming, or one that satisfies all players.
So, as we look at flavor compared to mechanics, I’d be slow to put too much faith in the odds of unmitigated success for the top context. The complications are less severe, but they are just as likely to occur.
One thing is certain: I am not not now, nor shall I ever be, designing a game to satisfy all players. :-p
Also: statistically, Dominant / Controlled is more likely to succeed, since it has no failure outcome at all. A 1-3 is effectively a re-roll with all of your dice, which is a very large bump to chance of success.
I totally agree that a game cannot be designed with everyone in mind.
I think the nuance of “no success but no additional negative consequence” and “no success and an negative consequence” does not really reflect on success so much as lack of consequence for not succeeding.
Regardless, that attempt is blocked. You can escalate for another attempt, but the initial attempt is not statistically more likely to succeed; it’s over and it didn’t end in success. Unless I’m missing something there.
When we started playing with the first quickstart characters were getting 1 or 2 actions in a round because I was letting them escalate and try again in the same round. I think it was a good move to make that escalation happen in the next round, as a second attempt modified by the failure of the first.