About
Commentary and processes of J C Lawrence:
systems architect,
contrarian,
theorist,
sailor,
hacker,
virtual world designer,
linux-user,
aquarist,
disquisitor,
cat breeder,
raconteur,
game designer,
ludophile,
bibliophile,
numismatist,
speculator and
theologiser
License
Negotiated dissection
Attempting a taxonomy of negotiation:
Open Negotiation
Free-form done through conversation and persuasion. Open Negotiation is unbounded/unconstrained and is frequently only incidentally related to direct/current in-game concerns (what tokens are where, what permissions are granted etc) and is generally much more interested in establishing consensus on mutual policies and long-term collusive patterns. Diplomacy is perhaps the titular grandfather of Open Negotiation in game design. The key elements are primary focus of the negotiation is to persuade another player to pro-actively collude (Will you do XYZ for me?), and while the focus of the negotiation is informed by the game, the majority of the negotiation content is meta to the game details.
Simple Negotiation
Frequently tactical and usually directly informed by and concerning current game specifics and the disposition of specific game tokens. The most common forms are simple requests for permission or abeyance. May I do QRS? or If I do ABC will you not attack me? The key element is direct focus on and discussion of game particulars (and thus a rather tactical focus). Questions of policy and long-term collusive patterns are not part of Simple Negotiation.
Implicit Negotiation
In short, where moves are offers. Moves, independently arrived at by the players, without discussion, for negotiative patterns due to common understandings of collusive self-interest which emerge from the game-play. Gun-boat1 no-press2 Diplomacy is the great-grand-daddy here. More recently Wabash Cannonball has epitomised this model3.
Personal views
I am generally not a fan of Open Negotiation in games, rather like Simple Negotiation as (exemplified by such games as Lords of the Spanish Main, Quo Vadis and Traders of Genoa) and adore Implicit Negotiation (eg Wabash Cannonball, Pampas Railroads, or King of Siam).
- Diplomacy where the identity of the players is known only to the GM/Judge. ↩
- Players can’t communicate with each other, they can only write orders. Much negotiation still occurs, but via orders which suggest cooperation between players. The most frequent form of such a move-as-offer are support orders which suggest a future move or alliance to a potential ally. Support into/or around Switzerland are the most famous in this regard. ↩
- eg Capitalisation actions are usually either (mute) requests for a partner or an attempt to sunder a too-successful partnership. ↩
Existentially reliant parasites
A while back Jacob Butcher finally categorised me, You like negotiation games! He’s right of course and I especially like them when the negotiation is implicit instead of explicit, or to quote a more recent conversation with another friend, Where your moves are offers.
I love that idea. Moves are offers. Adorable. Juicy. It is likely that single characteristic, married tightly to a raw game theory core1, is what has so attracted me to Wabash Cannonball. Moves as offers.
So I’ve been thinking for about a week now, mulling around ideas surrounding moves as offers and trying to see what sort of game could be wrapped on that skein. The working concept, which is weak, is a game in which each player has 1/Nth of a limited resource in the game and every move they either offer (partial) access to their stock to one or more other players, or exploits the access that others have offered while also offering access in return. All terribly vague, but the core sense is a sort of dance of offers and engagement and commitment and perhaps even betrayal. The obvious comparables are So Long Sucker and Intrige, but I’d like something far more implicit than those fine stalwarts, as well as far more implicit than explicit.
So far I’ve come up with…nothing. Which is fine for this stage as the thought toy has been delightful, but I’d would like to tangible realise this idea. Sadly inspiration has fled. Still, the thought toy is so charming, so very Mary Poppins in every possible very nearly perfect way.
- I introduced a new chap to the SVB gaming group on Tuesday, a rather RPGish sort. Mid-way through the chat he said, “Oh, you’re a game theory guy!” Uhh, yeah. So I taught him King of Siam and Wabash Cannonball. ↩
Effusive incoherence
I’m not getting to play with Muck & Brass as much as I’d like lately — Lords of the Spanish Main is occupying too much of my attention — so a little disclosure seems in order: Rules for Muck & Brass!
I also give you the brief graphical evolution of Muck & Brass:
Comments