Vector Theory #17: Neutral Filters
A bit of extra thought has reminded me of filters that don't necessarily change things for the better or worse.
In a game like A Penny for my Thoughts, filters play a fascinating role.
At first, all Narratons are in complete flux. Nothing is known about their path, their wavelength or their polarity. But this resolves quickly.
The polarity is quickly set by the "Facts and Reassurances" sheet; this quickly defines the type of story that can be expected in the session. The general path of the game is also known at the start of play, when everyone is handed their questionnaire sheets.
We don't have predefined mirrors to deflect the paths in any specific direction, but these may arise in the course of play (as shown later).
The first part of the game applies the first batch of filters to set the initial wavelength through their memory fragments.
With this basic structure in place, players move into the next phase of the game where they face the questions of the questionnaire.
At each question, a scene is set, and player face a series of choices that build up toward an answer to the question. These choices provide players with a pair of options for their character's story. These options are provided by the other players in the group, and when a player is confronted by such, they MUST follow a story path through one of these options. They must pass their Narraton through a filter produced by another player, and these filters don't make things better or worse they simply change the story.
No loss of hit points, no bonus equipment, just a simple choice that makes better narrative sense in the mind of the player.
.png)
Comments
The question: what is the difference between mirrors and neutral filters? Do filters always affect the character as a person somehow, but mirrors don't necessarily?
Secondly, it seems you're being pretty careful to present both 'traditional' examples as well as specifically story-focused examples. Your terminology, however, almost entirely revolves around story as such. So, it seems to me that straight up "D&D as wargame" super old-skool play might be less well described by vector theory, because the 'filters' and the resources they affect are 'the game' in that instance, rather than something that affects story.
Or are you using 'story' and such terms more generally to mean 'the stuff that happens' and I've been reading too much hippy-gamer hoopla? :)
I didn't realise I was doing that, but you're right.
I've basically just described filters as sharing the same general characteristics as mirrors, while they are actually meant to work quite distinctly.
Mirrors should have an influence over where the story is going. They literally deflect the path of the story in new directions.
Filters should manipulate the way story events are presented and how easy they are to overcome.
Going back to my combat spectrum analogy, and applying it to something like D&D...
...at the end of a combat, in the treasure gathering phase the players get a range of items to boost their abilities in key parts of the spectrum (maybe better armour to increase their resistance to hit-point draining effects, maybe better weapons, maybe new spell-flinging magic items). The players gain as a new capability for the character, and this changes they way they'll approach future conflicts.
A filter doesn't change the actual conflicts, where they might arise, or how those conflicts affect the ongoing story. Subtractive filters simply reduce a characters options at a future point of the game (or reduce their ability to use certain options), while additive filters simply increase a characters options (or increase their ability to use these options). Neutral filters don't change the story, they simply reduce some available tools while enhancing others (with an overall zero gain).
With this in mind, filters purely affect the game mechanisms. Mirrors purely affect the story path. The two should have no real overlap in their functions.
As a follow-up to this, I was completely wrong about "A Penny for my thoughts". It has nothing to do with filters at all, there are no game mechanisms to change...nothing becomes easier or harder within the game, it changes in relevance to the story at a purely subjective level. Two players throw up mirrors in another's path, and the third player chooses which of these mirrors will deflect their character's story.
In this interpretation, old style D&D and module design tends to follow a series of filters along a predetermined adventure path. Newer styles of game offer intriguing ways for mirrors to be thrown up into a path. The outcome isn't known from the start because no-one can be sure which mirrors will be encountered (in fact many of the mirrors won't even be conceived until a later point of the story).
At the moment, this seems to make more sense in the overall scheme of things.
I suppose my next question would be, is it materially different when you have 'vaguer' systems of conflict resolution? Like, someone is just rated "competent" at whatever? Or do the filters just lose their color distinctions?
Also, are you familiar with otherkind dice? I've been reading about them recently, and they seem flippin sweet, but I'm having trouble fitting an otherkind dice conflict into your theory. Or are they just a way of producing mirrors on the fly?