Many times, a group must choose one of the events or actions that are contradictory or even mutually exclusive. This may imply that computers decide several things to do based on their personal values and motivations, or that the players decide which plot is the most interesting to play (especially with more shared types of campaigns), or even choices. covering both CI and OOC Decision (for example, when PC motives reflect the interests of players).
The choice to make seems to have a major effect on the narrative, such moments of decision making can easily be as important, or even more important than the main mechanics of a game (and the corresponding mechanical balance).
Why I am not satisfied with the use of simple voting
A simple approach to this decision-making process is direct democracy – a man, a vote. However, this tends to amplify the differences in preferences observed over the long term. For example, if two players and two PCs prefer the sneaky approach, the other social and the other direct fight, ten out of ten encounters will be handled sneakily, which means that with 50% After the vote, the Stealth duo gets 100% of "the most fun approach" (of their PoV), while the other two players and their PCs represent the remaining 50% of the vote, while getting 0% of the preferred approach.
A second disadvantage of this straightforward direct vote is that, although everyone's preferences are stable and known, different issues may still be of different importance to different people. For example, the social can really want to civilly manage the encounter with the imperial satrap, but be much more willing to accept a brute-force solution or an assassination when it comes to dealing with the local pirate captain. Yet a simple and separate vote on each question does not reflect this nuance.
Some would say, "So negotiate, like people in parliament!" This is an improvement over the simple vote. . . in theory. However, I want to reduce the oversights and inflections often associated with promises and negotiations in practice. For that, I'm looking for a way to use auction mechanisms to quantify the relative value of a given choice for a given player and / or character, by adding structure and transparency to those negotiations.
Auction mechanisms as they are currently envisaged
All long-term participants in a group who must constantly make decisions (players or characters) are given an equal number of points. Let's say 10 to each participant (or 100 to each – as long as it's the same number). When the group meets the metaphorical branch of the road, participants can take points in their pools and "drop" them into a "box" that matches a given decision, hoping that the choice of the "box" who has the most points wins. & # 39 ;.
In this way, a person who does not really believe in a decision can spend little or no points, which allows him to have a greater influence on a hypothetical future decision that is subjectively more important. Conversely, a person who is committed to a given decision can do much to help the party choose it now and sacrifice their influence in the future.
Finally, the group of points is supposed to regenerate gradually – p. Ex. 20% of the departure reserve for each big fork of the road encountered. The maximum number of points accumulated can be limited or not.
Nuances of which I am not sure
Some aspects of the process can be handled differently, and I'm not sure of the pros and cons of each way of doing things. I'm going to write a few that I noticed, but I'd like to know who I miss and maybe who I miss. implications I may have disappeared.
- Are everyone's offers visible or only revealed when all offers have been launched? Closed bids appear to be the fastest, but also the most sensitive games, which is a reduction in transparency.
- The points spent on a choice that has been "defeated" by another choice are lost or refunded. Refunds seem intuitively likely to produce a "pendulum" effect, but waivers seem to encourage all-or-nothing bidding.
- Are there several bidding rounds? Obviously, this does not make sense for closed bids. Another trick also encourages all-or-nothing auctions, while multiple risks make the process too long.
- What is the relationship between the seed pool, the pool refresh rate, and the maximum number of points that can be stored in the pool (or the absence of points). If I understand correctly, the rate of regeneration should be roughly comparable to the expected average arithmetic importance of a choice, and I suspect that for optimal performance, the value of the starting reserve should be equal to half of the maximum value. But is there any reason to prefer a given ratio of the starting / maximum pool to the average choice / regeneration value? Intuitively, an uncapped pool seems dangerous because of the hoarding potential, but is it the case – or is it easy to do to automatically correct itself by other function switches? Are there any other advantages or disadvantages of a given size of the pool ceiling or the lack thereof?
I currently think that the best configuration is an auction open to several rounds, and that we look at the refund of lost points.
What answers am I looking for
I am looking for more information on the pros and cons of various auction subsystem configurations or the reasons for choosing specific combinations of features. I am also interested in learning mathematical / mechanical techniques that I may not be aware of that would be useful to me in my quest for a more quantified and transparent approach to nuanced and proportional decision-making.
I am do not looking for vague ideas without mechanical techniques. I do not seek disdainful answers of the type "speak like humans". The arguments to completely abandon the auction method should not be based on emotions, but rather on the fact that it would be overall worse than the simple majority method, which is often a flaw in role play groups ( that it is a CO or an OOC).