Tuesday, February 19, 2008

I'm an Opinionated Gamer

Over on the forum, the following thread was started:

Speaker One: Somebody asked about using Seeing to find pollution. I don't think they got a complete answer. I just read the rules on divination and realized that a Gleaning (to find something unknown or secret) does the trick. It's TN 18 so it's not easy but priesthoods in sacred places can do it to prevent the place getting fouled.

Speaker Two: You certainly can use a gleaning to get the information; however, any answer will be metaphorical.

How every under most conditions, people will not do so, they will instead use purifications on them selves first before entering a sacred area and the priesthood are likely to purify the space regularly.

Speaker One: Why would the priesthood rely solely on purification? Why do cleansings to get rid of pollution that need never be introduced in the first place? A regular scan of the population that usually visits a space (and a compulsory scan of strangers who enter) costs as little as one point of the priesthoods Spirit, they can even do people in batches to save time and resource (one of you is dirty, ok now we split you into two groups and ask if anyone's dirty in each, etc). Routinely washing people who don't need

Now no doubt you're going to pop up with some ridiculous argument that "the culture isn't like that". The hell it aint. The priests know their job and the skills and resources they have to achieve it. The most efficient way is to Glean regularly. Often enough that there is a low chance that someone entering has pollution above the Purification Rune level. Of course you encourage the locals to clean everyday, and that's their normal routine (after they take their nightclothes off but before they put their clothes on) and then make sure anyone dirty washes themselves. Small regular washings are done on the site. Every so often (daily for well trafficked sites, weekly for less well known ones) you do a Gleaning on the site itself just to make sure it isn't getting away from you.


I'm going to let you in on a little secret. This kind of thing drives me batshit crazy. There, I've said it.

Yes, the book says a "Gleaning can be used to discover basic facts or even hidden secrets of a person, place or object…" But that statement needs to be taken within context. Below is the full quote from the book:

"Gaining a magical glimpse of the past, present, or future through a Divination is a powerful form of magic much sought after by everyone from peasants to Kings. It can be so powerful, and the things it reveals so upsetting, that many Cultures (particularly Divine King Cultures) will regulate if not outright ban the use of Divinations, particularly in regard to the fate of Kings, Princes, and other powerful political or religious figures in a Culture…

There are two basic types of Divinations in the Known World, Gleanings and Foretellings. A Gleaning is a Divination performed in order to reveal information, to learn something about a person, place, or object in the past or present. A Foretelling is a predictive Divination designed to reveal something about the future fate of a person or course of action. A Gleaning can be used to discover basic facts or even hidden secrets of a person, place, or object, learn what they have done, where they have been, who made them, and so forth. A Foretelling can be used to discover what might happen to someone in the future, or the possible results of a course of action that someone is considering taking, for good or for ill."


Looking at the full text, I would rule that the result of a Gleaning would give a glimpse of the actions that earned Pollution. For instance, a successful Gleaning would show a person going to the privy, killing a hen for breakfast, slogging through mud, or saying a god’s name in anger. These are simple actions that earn a character Pollution.

Speaker One asked, "Why would the priesthood rely solely on purification? Why do cleansings to get rid of pollution that need never be introduced in the first place?..."

Because that's what priests do and have always done. A font of holy water is near the entrance to a church for a reason. A shaman cleanses himself with sage smoke for a reason. Every day Pollution happens. There is no need to Glean why or how it exists because it will be there regardless. The point is to be cleansed of Pollution before entering into a sacred space or ritual.

Speaker One said, "Now no doubt you're going to pop up with some ridiculous argument that 'the culture isn't like that'. The hell it aint."

Ridiculous? I don't think so. Remember that quote from the book? "It can be so powerful, and the things it reveals so upsetting, that many Cultures (particularly Divine King Cultures) will regulate if not outright ban the use of Divinations…"

They "will regulate if not outright ban". Guess what, the priest culture isn’t likely to use Divination to Glean the Pollution levels on every Tom, Dick and Harry that walks in its church doors.

Speaker One continues with, "every so often (daily for well trafficked sites, weekly for less well known ones) you do a Gleaning on the site itself just to make sure it isn't getting away from you."

This comment concerns me first in that it's written as if performing a Gleaning will just tell you the floors need scrubbing. Again, my interpretation of a Gleaning is that you would learn how Pollution was earned not that it was earned at all.

With the understanding that Pollution happens as an every day part of life and that certain amounts of Pollution are bound to be brought into sacred spaces, a Gleaning for Pollution is an unnecessary and out of the ordinary act of Divination.

17 Comments:

Blogger Zombie Neighbours said...

As you know spring, i remain as confused as you on this subject.

February 29, 2008 6:08 AM  
Blogger Zombie Neighbours said...

Let me expand on this.

In the prolonged discussion poster 1 has yet to explain why it would be worth while, even from a mechanicial point of view, to perform gleanings for this.

February 29, 2008 6:16 AM  
Blogger Eruditus said...

I gave up. My point through all of these conversations is "there is a difference between the world and the rules and the characters in the fiction are not exposed to the numbers and modifiers." It was met with "sure they are."

*sigh*

February 29, 2008 6:38 AM  
Blogger Zombie Neighbours said...

Hence my comment about metagaming on the forum.

February 29, 2008 7:01 AM  
Blogger Eruditus said...

Right on. now I'd like to say that "metagaming" on some level is desirable. We often take a top-down view of a game by talking about goals and story-archs and how our characters will suffer under our inscrutable hands. But I think your on target when being critical about how to handle a system and comparing it to "real life." Some games break down when "metagaming." I don't think every game works well when approaching the game from a mechanical perspective and Artesia may be one of those games (or you have to be careful in doing so).

I think there is the same term being used for two related but seperate phenomena. There is metagaming when when approaching character decisions based on mechanical elements ("My priest is going to laugh at the bandit's threat 'cause I can see that he only has 2 points of pollution and that's not going to stop my ritual") compared to metagaming where you make character decisions based on story elements and mechanics pertaining to story ("I want to gain some Sword Arcana so I am going to stab him in the head.") I think the first is silly and off-the-mark in this system but I think the second is critical to good game play.

February 29, 2008 7:17 AM  
Blogger Zombie Neighbours said...

To me, thinking, 'i want to have some more sword arcana, so i'll stab him in the head.' is also a bad sort of Metagaming.

i you think "right, my is walking the path of the sword, so it is likely that his actions would be violent, and he doesn't like this guy because it was him who burned down the village where my character, i guess my character would stab him them."

I think your on safer ground. :P

February 29, 2008 7:45 AM  
Blogger Eruditus said...

"you say tomato..." There's no difference. "...Walking the path of the sword.." is just a euphamism at this point. The goal being that it's REALLY important to make decisions based on your Arcana. I would say that it's THE main decision a player and a Guide have in determining what direction a story goes in and Arcana is the mechanic that determines that.

February 29, 2008 7:52 AM  
Blogger Zombie Neighbours said...

ok, what i was getting at is this that really you need to appreach you decission for your characters perspective, rather than what kind of experience you want him to get. The result you end up getting might be the same a lot of the time though.

February 29, 2008 8:12 AM  
Blogger Eruditus said...

Well that is where we have to agree to disagree. But that's a play-style thing. I think it can be harmful to try and approach the game from the character's perspective (caveat: all the time - sometimes it's fun and engaging, namely when your in IC discussions). Why? Well because the character doesn't really exists. It is a piece of fiction at a game. Part of a story subject to all the restrictions of the medium. What's more important to our groups is what story comes out of it and the social contract established by the players.

What does this mean? It means that the people at the table and telling a good story are far more important than character integrity. In my opinion, Character's should always conform to the needs of the group and the story not the other way around. So making decisions based on the character first may cause problems on that level.

Arcana is an important piece of that play puzzle. Look at the subtitle of the Book of Dooms chapter. It says "or why we play." The Books of Dooms is an instruction manual for what your games should be about. It should inform your every character's decisions. Instead of being reactive ("I stabbed him in the back so I get Riven Tower Arcana") it should be a proactive process ("I need Riven Tower Arcana so I will stab him in the back").

this will become more clear when you start seeing my BoD articles and my call for playtesters but basically I find games run better with solid and clear direction. That direction comes from the Arcana. What Arcana you choose during character creation tells the group what kind of story you want to tell. Sure you can make decisions that contradict that but you will find that those are cool defining moments where the character will begin the change.

February 29, 2008 8:33 AM  
Blogger Brendan said...

Regarding Spring's comments, I could not agree more. Frankly, a lot of the opinion statements made on the forums are presented as fact, as if the speaker were somehow an expert- channeling into the mind of Mark Smylie and delivering the "real" deal unto us.

@eruditus: I read your valiant responses to "Speaker One" and could tell when you had 'given up' but I hardly could fault you; You gave several thought out and respectful responses and there's no point in wearing down your keyboard on a person who is there to lecture- not discuss. Its just too bad that "speaker one" couldn't reciprocate on the politeness.

I had genuine hope that as the numbers of active forum posters increased, the expert vs. neophyte tone that pervades the A:AKW section of the forums would dissipate. Its my opinion that the thread Spring refers to in her post is a demonstration that my hopes are as yet unrealized.

March 2, 2008 3:37 PM  
Blogger Spring said...

What does this mean? It means that the people at the table and telling a good story are far more important than character integrity. In my opinion, Character's should always conform to the needs of the group and the story not the other way around. So making decisions based on the character first may cause problems on that level.

I'm feeling torn on this subject. When I play, I want to tell a good story but I also want to explore a character within that story. Yes, there are times when making decisions based on character can cause trouble, but isn't conflict a part of storytelling?

As long as the rest of the players are cool with what's going on - I think that making character driven disisions can be a good thing. I'm going to use a Burning Wheel term here - but isn't that what playing Beliefs is all about?

By saying "Characters should always conform to the needs of the group and the story not the other way around" you are saying you agree with those guys who play a cleric just because the party doesn't have one. And what happens when the needs of the group and the needs of the story aren't the same?

I think character integrity is VERY important. But that doesn't mean a character shouldn't grow and change throughout a story.

I may begin the story following the path of the Sword - a violent childhood had set me off on a path of blood. But perhaps there are moments in the story that change that. Our party is on the verge of slaughtering a camp of brigands. Their sentry has fallen asleep and is unaware of our approach. What if in character I have a moment of conflict. Perhaps I recognize someone and realize these people are only brigands because they have nothing else. I'm now acting against the party in character, isn't this conflict good for the story?

March 3, 2008 3:11 PM  
Blogger Spring said...

Bendan, you said "I had genuine hope that as the numbers of active forum posters increased, the expert vs. neophyte tone that pervades the A:AKW section of the forums would dissipate."

I think with new and different A:AKW product there will be new and different posters on the forum.

I'm also a woman of ridiculous patience and hope. :)

~ Joanna

March 3, 2008 3:13 PM  
Blogger Zombie Neighbours said...

So, yeah, basicially i agree with Spring there, that is about the right balance.

March 4, 2008 6:35 AM  
Blogger Eruditus said...

Spring said: By saying "Characters should always conform to the needs of the group and the story not the other way around" you are saying you agree with those guys who play a cleric just because the party doesn't have one. And what happens when the needs of the group and the needs of the story aren't the same?

Okay so here is the heirarchy of importance in a tabletop game:
1. Group
2. Story
3. Character integrity

1. No decision in any game should be made against the group's wants and needs. Period. You all agree ahead of time what the group's lines and veils are - their limits for content and the types of games they are interested in exploring. If one of the players says "no rape" or "no racial themes" or "no religious topics" there is no greater slight - and no faster way to make me leave a group - than to cross that line. If everyone agrees that they do not want any player-on-player conflicts, then there should be no PvP.

If there are situations where a line may be crossed it should be dicsussed right then and there. You could say "hey, I think it would be cool if we explore some tension between our character over our religious differences" after the group has said no PvP. As long as everyone is okay with that situation then the players can play that out. Doing so without the groups okay is being a bad player and you shouldn't be allowed to game with them if you continue to breech social contract.

2. Story
This becomes part of social contract. This is where we say "what is the goal here?" If the goal is to tell a good story then story should be front and center. If the goal is to "explore a specific character's personality and story" then great, but remember that you have other players to contend with. Make certain that your goals and exploration isn't trampling someone elses.

This is why you need Beliefs (in BW) and Arcana (Artesia). Beliefs and Arcana not only inform the group about the kind of game your're interested in exploring (and that might include a change in the character's lifestyle) but more importantly they help a Guide write encounters and prepare NPCs that will feed into those mechanics. If you don't have such things then your either talking about them ahead of time or the Guide is assuming what she thinks the players will like - bad news.

In my 30 years of gaming I have never come across a situation where player conflicts between group/story/character was ever made better through choosing the character over the others. Further I have seen it ruin games, ruin friendships and just cause bad feelings and shitty narrative all around.

If the other two are in line then by all means explore your character. Otherwise you will find yourself being happy with your character and your own decisions at the expense of the fun of others.

March 4, 2008 7:33 AM  
Blogger Eruditus said...

I'd like to expand on the comment about needing a cleric.

What's going on there is that the group is approaching their game, in the "cleric" perspective it happens to be a game that is focused on tactical combat. Players in that situation are all agreeing that developing a sound tactical strategy is the way they are going to have the most fun in this game. If that is the goal then, yes, that group would be foolish to not cover their bases in character types.

If you are playing a game where your telling stories about the interpersonal relationships between the character's and their community then you all agree that you have interpersonal relationships. If you fail to create said relationships then your not playing the same game as the rest of the group. This causes a dissidence and is bound to lead the other players cool stories about relationships off track. While they are talking about complicated lovers triangles your character is pulling them off to search for buried treasure.

March 4, 2008 7:42 AM  
Blogger Zombie Neighbours said...

Eruditus: I feel that you have entirely missed one very important point. Some one who is building a character, while taking the first two rules into account, you will always be able to play a character, to the hilt, without breaking the groups social contract.

Character intergraty does not have to be antagonisitic to Story or group.

Anicdote
My current groups social contract boils down to Character Intergraty is king, and this has produced a great deal of excilent roleplaying.

It should also be noted that in this vain. The aim of Roleplaying is not always classicially structured storytelling.

March 4, 2008 10:23 AM  
Blogger Eruditus said...

And thus you support my point. You've approached the topic assuming binding social contract. Character integrity isn't always at odds with story and group dynamics. When it's not that's golden. But if it isn't then it's probably because you considered group and story first.

My point has never been that it's bad, rather it has to take a back seat to the other two. Once you have said, as a group, "character integrity is king" then anything you do as a character is after considering teh group dynamics. I didn't say it couldn't be front loaded. I just said that it needs to be part of the player's decision-making.

The concerns is the groups/players that feel character integrity should be at the expense of story and god-forbid, social contract.

March 4, 2008 10:49 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home