How can we incentivize IC failure?

[Arkandel]

A recent debate prompted me to create a new tangent to avoid derailing it.

One of the issues plaguing this hobby since its inception has to do with perceived unfairness - usually by staff. Someone succeeds because of favoritism. another is defeated because one person cheated to get ahead.

Even though these types of allegations will likely never go away, it strikes me that one of their underlying causes is that IC failure is often perceived as OOC failure, too. And I wanted to see if - and how - we can do better systemically to better distinguish between the two and ultimately incentivize conflict more than its resolution.

To get things started I don't think we (as a community) can really rely on "people being mature". Some will be, some won't be, but it's a social problem that neither code nor staff can really solve. I wouldn't spend much time debating that - but y'all can, of course.

Perhaps more interestingly though, why is IC failure so bad? Let's see:

• You want an IC position. If you don't get it, you don't get the perks of the position.
• You are in combat. If you don't win your character dies, is maimed, etc so your ability to RP them is similarly hobbled or even removed.
• You strive for an IC ruling that would affect the game's theme. If your side doesn't prevail you are barred from certain RP directions which are no longer on the table.
• Your IC opponent(s) succeed in task(s) which offer them access to perks or RP not available to you.

I expect there are more items this list could include but just as some starting questions:

1. Are any of these issues valid? In other words are these problems to be solved in the first place?
2. Assuming the answer to (1) is 'yes' for any of those items, how would you - systemically, in a game - address them so that the impact of failure is mitigated, and players don't mind losing as much?

Note that I suspect the OOC ego hit will always be there. But there may be steps to be taken to at least soften the blow if not actively reward good IC 'losers' as much as games naturally incentivize 'winners'.

What do you think?

[ZombieGenesis]

I don't think there's one answer to this question. I also think it depends on the specific situation and, more importantly, what the consequences of the IC failure are. The biggest one is character death. It was one of my biggest problems with WoD games back in the day, combat twinks luring other players into combat just to kill them.

One solution might be to simply not allow failure in places that might cripple RP on the whole. If the Elysium is the primary source of RP on a game it'd be rough to ban a character from it unless they did something horrendous, for instance. Don't allow permadeath on unless, again, something horrendous has happened. Things like that.

A lot of modern RPGs handle situations like this by having "success at a cost". If someone was going to fail at something, switch it around so they succeed...at a cost. They owe someone a favor, they suffer some sort of permanent mark of their failure, they make an enemy, or whatever. Don't let failure stop forward momentum. It might redirect it but momentum should always be moving forward.

Make sure failure is fun. A lot of players like succeeding because, well, it's fun. You win. You get to look like a badass or whatever. I think it ties into the above, something along the lines of "Sure, you fail at this but..."

I run a private game where we experiment with various ways to RP. We use a modified version of the Storypath system and it's allowed us to move RP in directions we wouldn't have ever thought of on our own, including embracing failure.

I guess, in short, I'm saying make sure failure isn't crippling, make it fun, and make sure RP keeps moving forward in some fashion or another.

[Arkandel]

@zombiegenesis Right. I think there's some stigma due to the (admittedly often terrible) players who throw fits if their characters fail at something, but there's a legitimate argument to be made.

For example if succeeding at becoming the Sheriff means you are fed regular scenes by every new character in the sphere and automatic notifications or inclusion in plots that require an 'authority figure', but if your character doesn't get the job then you just... don't, it's not unreasonable that you are bummed by it.

And it's not an easy problem to solve, either. Not every character can be the Sheriff!

[ZombieGenesis]

@arkandel In instances like that, I think players just kind of need to suck it up. As you said, not everyone can be sheriff. I mean, it's okay to be bummed if you don't get exactly what you want but, as an adult and a theoretically creative individual, find a way to move on. Keep that momentum moving forward.

Build off the RP that led to them not becoming Sheriff, find a new plot to explore, and other ways to be involved. If the player really wants to be part of that style of RP, find a way to include them. Movies invoke tropes like this all the time.

"Yup, you're now the Sheriff but guess what? The first thing you have to deal with involves a situation that <Character that lost> has intimate knowledge about. You have to work with them to solve it." Buddy cop hijinks ensue.

For me, and I could certainly be wrong, I very much think it's all about keeping that momentum moving forward.

[Lotherio]

I agree there is probably not one answer to the question.

I think part of the inherent root, as folks have pointed out in other ways for years, is that the basis of MU arises from TT RPG and in the small group environment success is generally rewarded more often than failure.

There are quite a few RP'ers out there though that see it the way I do, failure is often a chance for more story and development. This more often arises out of PrP when we ST for each other over events and big things Mu-wide. But we go to get the goods, it comes down to a couple rolls, we succeed and the day is done. We tend to forget about those times, its when we fail and have to recoup, regroup and find another solution that more story is created. This is cultivated rather than assumed by most though. Those of us who do this on Mu also have done this on TT.

I freeform my campaigns as a GM/DM. A lot of other campaigns more and more seem to take a prescribed route, the group has to deiscover the evil demons are taking over the world and eventually stop this, its the overall meta amidst which all the other adventures and sessions evolve with an end point in site. I see a lot of folks prefer this for a Mu* as well. But in my campaigns, the group is prevented with various ideas and mysteries to explore and they choose what they want. I've briefly mentioned it before but long ago during an Al-Qadim campaign I saw a random encounter suggested somewhere of 'PCs find a golden feather' and I included that while they were traversing the desert to cut time between two cities. One character took the feather and wanted to explore it and this developed into the feather belonging to a swanmay sort of being that was a member of the Court of Birds, they decided they liked the swanmay and courting ensued and they traveled to meet the Sultan of Birds the char expressed their intentions they received some crazy quest to prove themselves to the court of birds which involved a challenge that could easily be solved by flying at a time no PCs had access to flying magics (easily at least). I think they spent six months traipsing about this part of the desert in RL time (24 campaign session give or take). Most of it stemmed from series of 'lost' resolutions and figuring out how to overcome and get what they wanted for the character.

Incentivizing a loss to me is rewarded by the extension/creation of story and the development of the char. I think if this could easily be made incentive it would help. More XP to represent off-camera development to overcome the failure, more story time dealing with the loss, then that would help but ...

Folks have in the past pointed out that the incentive for failure would be a lure for folks seeking mechanical advantage, if there is a reward for failing more folks will choose to fail rather than win. I brought up once a different sort of MU based on PACE rpg by Evil Hat (which was free from their site once upon a time). I don't know the name for this genre/type of RPG system but it was based on the karma pool concepts that have floated around in various incarnations. Basically there is good/player pool and evil/GM pool, if a player needs extra successes to succeed they can take from the player pool, add it on their challenge, but this moves it to the GM pool that can be used to help NPCs rolls, bring some bad karma to the group, and other misfortune. I proposed that two players in conflict could also dice/face off, but the player that loses gets a karma point. The issue became that if created so players can do their own stories, some players would milk the system and do duels with each other so one looses to gain karma points.

I guess it comes down to culture, I think it failure is an incentive of its own as a player because I tend to have more memories and create more stories out of it. I think to help it could be incentivized in some fashion but I don't know the right balance to make it enjoyable in some way verses a new way to compete for the shiny by trying to out-loose as well.

[Ganymede]

@arkandel said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

One of the issues plaguing this hobby since its inception has to do with perceived unfairness - usually by staff. Someone succeeds because of favoritism. another is defeated because one person cheated to get ahead.

This is a little different than incentivizing IC failure. In this situation, success is determined not only in a manner outside of a player's control but also as a result of someone else's influence. The only way to incentivize anything is to give a player agency over their character's fate.

Even though these types of allegations will likely never go away, it strikes me that one of their underlying causes is that IC failure is often perceived as OOC failure, too. And I wanted to see if - and how - we can do better systemically to better distinguish between the two and ultimately incentivize conflict more than its resolution.

The Chronicles of Darkness, aka New World of Darkness 2.0, does this very well by providing a character with extra experience if they suffer a set back or choose to surrender. In other games, I have incentivized failure by providing some sort of reward if the player chooses failure; for instance, in a stressful situation in a Werewolf game, I let my players choose to voluntarily fail a frenzy roll in exchange for an XP reward (if I feel it isn't too disruptive to the game or if I think the outcome would be very funny to me).

In a way, FFG does the same with its intriguing dice system, which seems similar to Blood Bowl to me. In that case, the stats determine what you roll and who gets to choose the result form the roll, where each face gives you a certain outcome. Sometimes, choosing "Success, but with a drawback" is not as appealing as "Failure, but with a boon," or however it goes. But either way, the focus should be on giving the affected player a choice. And if given the choice, if there's a reward for failure, it may be taken strategically.

[faraday]

@zombiegenesis said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

Don't let failure stop forward momentum. It might redirect it but momentum should always be moving forward.

I agree with this.

While certainly there are some computer RPGs with permadeath, permaloss, or entire storylines/areas cut off by failure, that's generally not the case because most players don't find it particularly fun.

Even if you view MUs more like stories then games, temporary setbacks are a key part of fiction, but abject failure is something you don't generally see happening to the protagonists.

Failing forward is a good model in both cases.

Storium has an interesting system. There are no dice; instead characters have cards that represent strengths, weaknesses, and subplots (goals). They play them explicitly on obstacles to steer the outcome within the boundaries established by the GM. For example:

I like that there are consequences for a weak outcome, but it's not "you all die; story over". It's failing forward.

Where it gets messy is that each card can only be played a limited number of times. Sounds good in principle right? Forcing you to use your weaknesses? Incentivizing failure?

In practice it's just frustrating. I don't mind playing weakness cards where it makes sense for the story, but sometimes it just doesn't. Sometimes there's a challenge where one of your character's strengths makes perfect sense, but you're out of strength cards. Sometimes there's a challenge where you really want a weak outcome to make the story more interesting, but you can't.

Bottom line - I don't think you can systemize good storytelling. You can only encourage it by making failures not be the end of the world.

[kk]

I have had issues where people don't understand that playing out certain flaws gives more fun to everyone. Certain flaws. There are some sorts of flaws such as being racist which are imo better of avoided.

But if everyone is perfect there is not much of a story and the only real conflict is from outside sources as well as different viewpoints of what perfect is.

And many people prefer rp with non perfect characters.

One of the most popular peeps for rp in my current group is a deeply flawed character because people love the drama and excitement he brings to the scene and people also love how chill the player is and ooc aware he is of his character's flaws and how wiling he is to roll with the consequences of this character's flaws.

I play a character who has a hard time dealing with scars/wounds etc and I actually was given a hard time for that ooc until it was explained to another player (well meaning player who just didn't get it) that the play of the scarred character appreciated my character's reactions oocly and we rping this by consent. And that irl I was a nurse used to wound care, wound vacs and etc who doesn't share my character's flaw.

But so long as the flaw being played isn't like racism and etc - I feel like we all should take flaws ic and understand that flawed characters are sometimes the most fun characters for others to interact with. Characters are also complex, one flaw doesn't make a character totally evil.

[Arkandel]

@faraday What about the scenarios where the cost of failure isn't existential ("your character dies, RIP") but one of opportunity ("you don't get to be in the Important People group")?

One of the differences TT has over MU* is that as much as we want to consider PCs the protagonists, it's not necessarily the case. In a 5-man party the GM can ensure everyone gets their time in the spotlight but the model doesn't scale up well.

It seems to me the best case scenarios most games have managed after decades of evolving is either variations of musical chairs models so at least it's not always the same players who end up getting to play with the cool toys, or 'RP socialism' models where the Important Group {tm} isn't available for PCs at all ("the Prince is played by staff").

But to get back on point, failure in MU* leads directly to often avoidable consequences. For example non-consensual character death deprives players of a PC including identity death, loss of invested time, etc.

A question I could ask there is whether the associated stakes justify those costs; in the same example, does it actually cheapen risk sufficiently to take IC death off the table? Do (or how much) would it change the metagame if players knew going in that if they were willing to absorb some other, smaller cost their characters wouldn't die?

[kk]

@arkandel

I think that looking at importance as ic importance instead of ooc importance is a good first step. It is common on games to see ic rank as ooc rank on a game and also see ic rank as access to plot.

If there is plenty of action for the lower level characters or non ranked characters than getting a position is less of a big deal.

There is also just getting over feelings of rejection about not being as important and playing on and finding one's own fun. If one is having fun, storylines, prp, people will seek them for rp even if they are not in the circle of importance.

As players we could all help out a bit by showing attention/interest/giving rp to characters who don't hold important rank.

I sometimes notice that a highly ranked character giving sub-par rp in a scene might get way more attention than a lower ranked character who is rping their heart out.

Also always good to remember grass is greener o the other side. Being highly ranked can be rewarded with more attention, more info and more plot. But being lesser ranked is often rewarded with less drama, more freedom and more time to pursue the rp one wants to the most.

[faraday]

@arkandel said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

One of the differences TT has over MU* is that as much as we want to consider PCs the protagonists, it's not necessarily the case. In a 5-man party the GM can ensure everyone gets their time in the spotlight but the model doesn't scale up well.

It is a rare MUSH player that doesn't consider their character a protagonist. Trying to fight that is IMHO inherently futile.

MUs are most like ensemble TV series. Not every character is featured with equal prominence in every episode, but they all have their own story threads. They are all protagonists in their own right.

Trying to have a model where some PCs are inherently cooler than others (the "Important People group") is just making an economy of haves and have-nots that I think just leads to toxic behavior.

Put more broadly though, I think this philosophy means that failure doesn't lead to lost opportunities. A weak outcome and strong outcome are just different doors leading down different (not necessarily better or worse) paths in the story.

[kk]

@faraday

Yeah, to each player their character is the center of their story. They are the character who is in every scene and etc.

But not every character is the center of the over arching storyline.

Some players are fine with that and don't even want to be central. On my current active characters my characters are minions/support characters and etc and that is intentional..

But in the past I def found it hard when a character wasn't designed as support/minion and was locked out of big deal things or passed up for positions. I also found that sometimes after getting the big deal position, it wasn't all that I thought it would be.

And who is the star shifts on mushes and probably should shift around, so it it not always the same characters who are staring in the plotlines.

I found that people enjoy my minions and helpers just as much if not more than when I play more central characters.

[Arkandel]

@kk said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

I think that looking at importance as ic importance instead of ooc importance is a good first step. It is common on games to see ic rank as ooc rank on a game and also see ic rank as access to plot.
...
As players we could all help out a bit by showing attention/interest/giving rp to characters who don't hold important rank.

I of course agree.

However, and I touched on it in this thread's initial post, these are all social problems. While they can addressed through individual games' cultures, and individual problems can be curated or guided by staff, I don't think they can be solved per se. I'm not even sure they can be 'systemically addressed' either through mechanics, code or rule adjustments; it's not like you can require players to help each other out.

[kk]

@arkandel

Yeah, it cannot be enforced. But it is something that as singular players we can look at improve upon. But I think you were more looking at what mechanics could be in place to improve things.

[faraday]

@kk said in How can we incentivize IC failure?:

But not every character is the center of the over arching storyline.

See that’s where we differ. I think all PCs SHOULD have equal opportunity to be impactful to the central story. Whether they take advantage of that or are content to be in the background is up to them, but the choice should be there.

[kk]

@faraday
I prefer for every character to have a chance to be central as well. I just mean that such is not generally the case, not that it shouldn't be. I don't know how to make it the case and am content often with not being central personally.

[Arkandel]

@kk I don't understand the distinction between what you're saying and what @faraday did.

But overall an issue we may want to debate separately here is that not all players are 'equal' when it comes to their ability to impact the plot. It's not necessarily a limitation imposed by their character's nature or stats either; there is a multitude of factors that allow some to take central stage more than others. I could name available RL time to play, timezones, personality, and of course skill (in whatever way that can be measured).

As such I'd expect also that some characters are more likely to fail than others. To use factors from that short list above, if my character and yours are both trying to become the new Sheriff but I only have two hours a week to log on and you are on every night, your PC simply has a better chance of making it.

What I'd ask though is whether we can - or should - systematize so that even when I don't get to play the Sheriff the impact from 'losing' is mitigated. Is it EXP to reflect learning from the experience? Is it a consolation rank/plot inclusion staff throws my way to keep me moving? An OOC requirement from the new Sheriff's player to find a way to let my PC tag along?

[kk]

@arkandel

Yeah that was kind of my point. I don't differ from her point.

[lucidmaus]

With IC failure, there are different kinds that need to be looked at. My characters fail and fail often at a lot of things - they might have things they're good at, sure, but go ahead and put my hairdresser on a horse and see how badly that can go! Or drop my fighter into a social situation where he's expected to hold his own against nobility in the land of diplomacy and lifted pinkies. The list could go on.

There's fun in that conflict. There's fun in personal imperfection and plots designed around that kind of growth. Facilitating personal plots toward that end should always be encouraged as best as possible.

There isn't any fun in attempting to go for an IC rank against another person where the IC rank is determined via OOC means. You could view that as an IC failure where growth can occur - but, unless a person's bowed out of the race with grace to explore that growth or everyone's cool with whatever happens, there's going to be some OOC friction there.

I'd say it might be worth reviewing the IC ranks (or whatever, but this is the one thing where I find 'failure' to be unsatisfying) to see if there are better ways of navigating them - do they have to be held by PCs? Can they logically be on a rotating schedule? And, if the alternatives just aren't viable, then maybe front-loading things with: you can either get IC position or get this juicy plot hook/other position/some other tasty treat that appeals.

That just doesn't happen often in advance - and, typically, by the time the IC rank's been settled, the 'loser' isn't necessarily inclined to take the booby prize for failing.

[kk]

@lucidmaus

Yeah, agree with a lot of that and that is something to consider there is different kinds of failure.

Failure that is fully for ic reasons is easier to deal with imo that failure that is because of ooc politics. Such as being passed over for a position or plot one worked super hard on for someone who didn't put in much effort, but is favored by the right group ooc.

And def failures have levels. Such as failing a roll in a club and tripping in amusing pose vs failing and losing one's character to final death.

And there is failing at something might expect their character to fail at, such as a combat monkey flailing a social charm the npc role vs a social character who that was all they do and their one chance to shine on this plot arc failing at such.