Eating Crow: Positive Design and Mustafar

Eating Crow is when I admit a previous blog post was wrong, and why I think it was. This is a continuation a previous post. I recommend reading it. 

The Mustafar Duel is one of the big influences on Crescendo. Two brothers who have been molded by their experiences, who thought they meant the world to each other, only to discover they value their ideals more. This kind of moment should be happening in Crescendo all the time! But, in my years of playing, it has never come up since the metacurrency is dropped. 

Why?

Metacurrency is one of the chief tools of what I call Positive Design: do a thing and get rewarded for doing it! This triggers the Pavlovian response, and players then go for those kinds of actions instinctively. It’s a powerful tool. But this kind of design has a downside: it can short-circuit the soul. People just start chasing the kick. So, for a long time, I removed metacurrency rewards from Crescendo and focused on Negative Design, which allows players more inherent freedom. This sounded like a good idea. And I think Crescendo is a great game as it is in part because I focused on making the game inherently fun, without the dopamine kicks. Gameplay is smooth and easy and surprising. No session of play is like another. As it stands, Crescendo is by far the best long-form “storygame” I have ever seen.

But. There’s not even one Mustafar match, in a game about Heroes possessed by Beliefs. And that’s not how that’s supposed to work. Heroes are uneasy allies normally, or passionate friends/enemies. Crescendo not doing that experience is a critical flaw.

So what gives?

Well, it turns out I messed up. See, certain actions are just inherently unpleasant. Sticking to your Beliefs past the point of opposing another player is one of them. So the dopamine rush incentivizes you past the discomfort. And there are moments that should happen in Crescendo that are very uncomfortable. Like almost killing your brother. 

So, here’s how I changed the game. About a week before editing begins. It’s fine.

Fate Points

This is a metacurrency that can be spent to reduce the Margin during a Defy (which keeps the setting from changing in huge ways) or reduce an incoming Condition’s level, one for one. 

If you beat a Defy by 3, you can spend 3 Fate Points to make the Margin 0, instead.

So if you get a level 6 Lonely Condition (which would kill your Hero), you can spend 5 Fate Points to make it a level 1 Lonely Condition instead.

 You may cancel a Crescendo (a huge plot twist which has enormous consequences) for 8 Fate Points. Hit the Books to see what strange thing happens instead.

End of Chapter 

Go through each Belief. If there are multiple Players, go to a different Player each time. 

- Did you act on the Belief in a way that created trouble for others, particularly the other Players? If so, record a Bullet Point (a sentence in your Journal, which counts as XP for advancement) and take a Fate Point. 

- Did you act against a Belief in a way that created trouble for others, particularly the other Players? If so, record two Bullet Points. One is the action, the other is why you did it. Take two Fate Points. 

-If there are multiple Players, did your actions cause another Hero to receive a Condition? If so, take a number of Fate Points equal to the lowest level of Condition received. Write the Belief you acted upon to harm the other Hero as a Bullet Point.

- If you change a Belief voluntarily, take a number of Fate Points equal to the number of Chapters (sessions of play) you held it for.

Normally I would be reticent to allow Fate Points to be taken for acting on or against all your Beliefs. The dopamine kick would be very strong, and players would start gaming the system for Fate Points instead of actually role playing. 

But Crescendo has an answer for this: the Journal! 

You have to write the action down, forcing the more rational part of the brain to tun on alongside the dopamine lover, which is definitely one of the most human things one can do. It turns from “press button get pellet” to “I did something meaningful and here’s a pellet!” Humans are rationalizing animals. The more often you can get both halves of that existence to turn on at the same time, the better your life.

A further knock-on effect is that the Weaver can really take the gloves off. Role playing is a social activity, and giving out Conditions hits the “feel bad” center in the brain. Players, however, now have a means of lowering the sting, should they choose, using resources they earned. Defies, which can be extremely tumultuous, can be used only when the player actually wants to. Players have more control over the story… provided they mess things up themselves. From victimizing to empowerment!

Positive Design got a bad rap from me in the previous post. Not all actions are inherently pleasant, even if they’re very important to the experience, and therefore Negative Design can’t do much with them. In these cases, Positive Design can smooth over the rough edges, incentivizing actions that Negative Design simply can’t address. It’s a rough lesson to learn, but a vital one.