Success and defeat in angles

[cappyboy]

If I'm putting this in the wrong section forgive me. It hardly seems Small Question thread turf and I'm not sure the proper respondent would see it in the mod section. Although I can see it being more relevant there. But before we get too far along in the game's life cycle and the confusion gets too ingrained, could someone please explain how the range of success and defeat is meant to be seen by angle writers? I'm not sure I get it and I'd like a clear picture before I go adding angles or writing my own.

[Irish Wolf]

Success and defeat are anything that would be considered an edge in a story. If you look in the default data none of the hype angles are either, just talking about some one or one match isn't really a success. But if you look in the action angles you'll see more of it.

 

worker A attacks worker B success for worker A defeat for worker be depending on the severity would depend on the amount off success.

 

worker A saves worker B from worker C. In the default I believe A gets a success as he made a save, C gets nothing he was attacked but saved so nothing really hurt or helped him and worker C takes a minor defeat. he was stopped from doing what he was doing but he got in a few punches to prove his point.

 

So yeah I'd say just look in the default at a few things and you can make a determination.

[lazorbeak]

<p>Minor success- a worker does what they set out to do, generally in a non-physical way, or at least not a definitive way. Taunting a loser, making them look bad in an "embarrassment" angle, or saving someone from a beatdown all provide a minor success.</p><p> </p><p>

Minor defeat- the opposite. Looking silly, embarrassed, or otherwise weak, but generally walking away with nothing hurt but pride. </p><p> </p><p>

Success/defeat- one worker clearly "wins" a physical confrontation or an angle in such a way that they do something in an angle so successfully that "minor success" doesn't cover it. Example: beatdowns, new champion attacks, revenge attacks. Non-physical example: interrupting marriage, Triple H style.</p><p> </p><p>

Major Success/Major Defeat- A worker wins or loses an angle in a way that destroys their opponent completely, such that the worker suffering the "defeat" is usually stretchered out or otherwise needs to be considered seriously injured. Examples: exiting stage assaults, locked in casket, monster unleashed angles.</p><p> </p><p>

Neutral: neither a success or a defeat- hyping up someone as a tough challenger, various minor angles and skits.</p>

[Derek B]

The Cornellverse defaults are generally a good example to start with. Most verbal spats are going to be pretty neutral, as are the more skit type deals or non-action angles that could be in a storyline. It's mostly when people get a physical upper hand on someone that there are going to be any real changes, like someone giving out a beatdown or getting the upper hand in a brawl... stuff like that.

 

In terms of how to execute the angle if you're creating one, there's an easy way to abuse the storyline system that I hope people don't use. There are no blocks on angles (unless they have been snuck in while I'm not looking!) to prevent people from just creating one where everyone comes out looking awesome... which could be used to spam things and create momentum out of nothing in storylines. Would be lame but could be done.

 

So in order to avoid that, I use a guideline that the overall outcome of each angle is neutral. For every win, there is a loss. If there are two people in an angle and one gets a major victory then the other person should suffer a major loss. It gets a little more complicated with multiple people, but I generally just add up how many steps towards winning there are and balance it with how many steps towards losing someone would get. For example, if three people were to attack one man... the one man might suffer a major defeat, the the three would only get minor victories each to balance it out. Afterall, it's three on one and if it takes the three of them to beat one guy it really isn't much of a victory. That's they way I've been using angles generally, and if you want to stick to the way the system is intended to work it's best to stick fairly close to that. It's not always perfect and there are some default angles where it isn't true, but it's a good balance and it seems to reflect life pretty well for me.

[bigtplaystew]

There's minor momentum bonuses and penalties too, correct?

[Capelli King]

yes

[Properly Promoted]

So in order to avoid that, I use a guideline that the overall outcome of each angle is neutral. For every win, there is a loss.

I really like this guideline. I'm going to use it from now on. Thanks.

[LucianCarter]

But that's not the case with default angles. There are angles where someone gets a minor success and the other person loses nothing. So why can't there be an angle where both sides get a minor success?

[Properly Promoted]

I think the guideline is good, particularly for writing angles. But the actual angle can still vary. The idea is that you are not spamming heat onto everyone in the angle without creativity. If I have a creative angle that I think legitimately gets both sides a success, I will write it that way. But this guideline prevents me from saying "Two workers have a confrontation and exchange slaps!" Major Success for both. That would have to be neutral. And I would have to be a lot more creative.

[Derek B]

But that's not the case with default angles. There are angles where someone gets a minor success and the other person loses nothing. So why can't there be an angle where both sides get a minor success?

 

If you can think of a situation, any situation, where both sides of an argument/fight come out both looking like winners then I'd like to hear you explain it to me. There are winners and there are losers in every situation and I can't quickly think of any situation where it makes sense for both sides to come out looking like winners when they go up against each other.

 

To highlight this point... storyline success isn't a measure of the quality of the segments in question (that would be mostly covered by momemtum and popularity gains/losses) but is much closer to Recent Fortunes, which is a measure of how they are actually doing in terms of credibility. As such, just as there are winners and losers (or draws) in matches, then angles should be the same. Sometimes the scale is very close and the Cornellverse defaults don't reflect it perfectly, but it's roughly how things are intended. And if you have a situation where everyone wins, then something is clearly not right.

 

Anywho... since it is a system that is open to potential abuse, I'm sure some people will do so. And it's up to them if they want to do that. But I'm always going to be around to point out how things are intended and people are always going to look for ways to get the most out of things in terms of numbers. If you (meaing: anyone ) want to do that then that's your way of playing. Personally, I've never enjoyed playing the game in terms of pure numbers which is why I've ended up pushing guys like Dermot O'Logical to the moon in the past.

[LucianCarter]

I'll go back 5 days and give you a RL example.

 

The last segment of last week's NXT (SPOILERS).

 

The Shield beat down about 8 other guys then were interupted by Big E Langston and backed off. Are you going to tell me The Shield looked bad there? They beat down 8 guys. But clearly Langston looked good too since he was the only person who gave The Shield pause. How would you handle that in game terms? Treat it as mutliple angles? That would not work because The Shield would theoretically be allied together and would not get any benefits.

 

I think it's wrong to think all feuds need to be zero sum games. The ideal goal of a feud is to make everyone come out of it looking better than they went in. I'm not saying there should be a mutlititude of angles where everyone gains. But there can be situations where multiple people come out looking good.

 

The only angle I have added to my game with mutual benefits is one I call "Talk down a menace". A good mic guy calls out a menacing guy and gives him a verbal beat down but the menace stands there and glares to hold his own. I call that a minor success for both since neither loses anything. Again, only such angle I've made but I think it's justified. I could simply write it as two angles where each gains and the other doesn't lose but that's awkward. Still, look at the taunt interview angle in the default data. One guy gains, the other guy doesn't lose. So to say it's impossible or wrong is clearly not accurate.

[gonvick]

I'll go back 5 days and give you a RL example.

 

The last segment of last week's NXT (SPOILERS).

 

The Shield beat down about 8 other guys then were interupted by Big E Langston and backed off. Are you going to tell me The Shield looked bad there? They beat down 8 guys. But clearly Langston looked good too since he was the only person who gave The Shield pause. How would you handle that in game terms? Treat it as mutliple angles? That would not work because The Shield would theoretically be allied together and would not get any benefits.

 

But the 8 guys who got beat down all clearly suffered defeats, so it still balances out. Two non-aligned sides can both be successful, but whoever they are successful against typically are defeated in some way. In this case the Shield are successful against the 8 guys they beat down and Big E Langston is successful against the Shield, but the defeat the Shield suffer doesn't necessarily outweigh the success they achieved in the attack but they would be somewhat less successful than if they hadn't been interrupted.

 

The only angle I have added to my game with mutual benefits is one I call "Talk down a menace". A good mic guy calls out a menacing guy and gives him a verbal beat down but the menace stands there and glares to hold his own. I call that a minor success for both since neither loses anything. Again, only such angle I've made but I think it's justified. I could simply write it as two angles where each gains and the other doesn't lose but that's awkward. Still, look at the taunt interview angle in the default data. One guy gains, the other guy doesn't lose. So to say it's impossible or wrong is clearly not accurate.

 

Not losing anything isn't the same thing as success. If neither guy lost anything, what did either of them gain? If nothing is gained and nothing is lost, then it seems like a neutral situation to me.

 

If you're giving someone a verbal beat down and they just stand there not selling it and don't come out of it looking any worse, I'd say that your insults are not particularly successful.

 

Likewise, if you're a menacing guy and your plan for dealing with someone insulting you is to stare them down but they continue to insult you until they decide to stop, then I'd say that your intimidation wasn't successful at all.

[Derek B]

Gonvick has it right. In the example given before, 3 guys win over 8 guys who lose... and then 1 guy would win over the 3 again. Ultimately, the 8 guys look really bad... the 3 guys look pretty good and the 1 guy looks better yet. The end result is 8 people looking bad and 4 looking good, which comes out as a net negative.

 

The angle would result in:

+ The Shield gaining a little overness (if the angle is rated high enough), a little momentum and an improvement in the success of their story if they are in one... if they're not, then they will only get the changes to overness/momentum.

+ 8 Jobbers might gain a little overness just by virtue of being on TV, might gain some momentum too.. and if they are in a storyline then they are going to suffer a defeat, so when they come out of it they're going to look even worse because their fortune in the storyline would have them looking bad.

+ Big E Langston would gain a little momentum, a little overness and his storyline success would improve.

 

There is a possible combination of Shield vs Big E Langston that could gain storyline success on both sides if they are the only ones involved. But ultimately, 8 people are being sacrificed for the success of 4. Which is what jobbers do... and the Shield shouldn't come out looking particularly good because if one guy can scare them off, they ain't looking like tough guys.

[TeflonBilly]

If you can think of a situation, any situation, where both sides of an argument/fight come out both looking like winners then I'd like to hear you explain it to me. There are winners and there are losers in every situation and I can't quickly think of any situation where it makes sense for both sides to come out looking like winners when they go up against each other.

 

I think that success and defeat depend on each person's goals in the story. I'm thinking about an Austin/McMahon "standing up to authority" type feud. McMahon gives an "easy way or hard way" speech, Austin doesn't back down, and then a third wrestler jumps Austin and beats him down.

 

McMahon should have a minor victory. He said that if Austin didn't back down, he would make him pay for that decision. He did what he said he would do, hence minor victory.

 

The third worker should be neutral. He's just a pawn in this angle. If he's number 1 contender for Austin's title, that's McMahon's doing(at least for the purposes of this storyline.)

 

But Austin's goal is to stand up to the boss. Getting a beatdown isn't a defeat, doing things McMahon's way would be. You could make an argument that it's a wash, and Austin should come out neutral, but I see it as a minor victory.

 

Either way this particular segment isn't a zero-sum game, imo.

[Derek B]

Getting beaten down is the definition of losing. Doesn't matter how you get there, you look bad if you are getting your ass handed to you, whether you meant to or not. The success of the angle would be in it's rating at the end, which is the crowd reaction to the way the characters interact. The way you frame it, Austin probably would end up coming out of everything without ever suffering anything that could be construed as a setback in terms of anything... that's the definition of wrong too.

[TeflonBilly]

I'm not saying he never suffers any setbacks. I'm saying that particular angle makes Austin come out looking good at best, break even at worst. A post-match beatdown with the same players is a defeat for Austin, because in that context he's having his victory tainted by McMahon and the pawn. I will concede that I might be overthinking it.

[LucianCarter]

and if they are in a storyline then they are going to suffer a defeat, so when they come out of it they're going to look even worse because their fortune in the storyline would have them looking bad.

 

Aye there's the rub: /if/ they are part of the storyline. One can simply set up an angle where people on opposite guys gain and other guys lose /who are not part of the storyline/. If you can do that then what's the difference between having an angle where multiple sides gain? Either way everyone in the storyline gains.

[Irish Wolf]

But the 8 guys who got beat down all clearly suffered defeats, so it still balances out. Two non-aligned sides can both be successful, but whoever they are successful against typically are defeated in some way. In this case the Shield are successful against the 8 guys they beat down and Big E Langston is successful against the Shield, but the defeat the Shield suffer doesn't necessarily outweigh the success they achieved in the attack but they would be somewhat less successful than if they hadn't been interrupted.

 

This is wrong. The 8 guys who got beat are not int he storyline. Sure they're in an angle but they aren't ina storyline so the defeats all have no effect on them because it doesn't effect their position in the story. They're just 8 nobodies who got beat.

 

You need to remember that success and defeat only go to how well you are looking in your storyline. If the angle doesn't move your story ahead. Any success or defeat marker will not effect you at all.

[Sudo_Nym]

Stone Cold and The Undertaker are battling in the ring. McMahon sends out half the locker room to break them up, but the robbers get launched out of the ring by Austin and Taker successively, and they continue fighting to a stalemate.

[lazorbeak]

I'm not saying he never suffers any setbacks. I'm saying that particular angle makes Austin come out looking good at best, break even at worst. A post-match beatdown with the same players is a defeat for Austin, because in that context he's having his victory tainted by McMahon and the pawn. I will concede that I might be overthinking it.

 

Getting beat up= defeat. That's pretty much how it's meant to be set up. Minor defeat if neither side is left on the ground. The fact that he "stood up" to the boss is irrelevant. Austin would win an angle where he whacked Vince below the belt, any time he gave him the stunner, etc., and loses angles on the occasions when Vince's schemes cause Austin to get beat up. Otherwise, Austin would never lose anything because he always looks tough and is rebellious.

 

Can't wrap my brain around the logic where the rare angle that provides minor success without minor failure leads to all parties having success.

[gonvick]

This is wrong. The 8 guys who got beat are not int he storyline. Sure they're in an angle but they aren't ina storyline so the defeats all have no effect on them because it doesn't effect their position in the story. They're just 8 nobodies who got beat.

 

You need to remember that success and defeat only go to how well you are looking in your storyline. If the angle doesn't move your story ahead. Any success or defeat marker will not effect you at all.

 

The thread is about setting success and defeat when creating angles,. That's what I was talking about.

 

The question was about a fight/argument/confrontation where two opposing sides both come out successful, not a storyline where two sides come out looking better in a particular angle. The level of success/defeat applies to everyone in an angle. It isn't just ignored because some people might not be in a storyline when it gets booked. You could run that angle with Big E Langston not being in a storyline with the Shield. Should that role not be set to successful?

 

Also, my recollection from the Developer's Journal is that angle success has an effect on Recent Fortunes. So again, it goes beyond just storylines.

 

Stone Cold and The Undertaker are battling in the ring. McMahon sends out half the locker room to break them up, but the robbers get launched out of the ring by Austin and Taker successively, and they continue fighting to a stalemate.

 

But again, you have a third side to consider. The jobbers would all suffer defeats. Austin and Taker would be succesful against that third side but neutral against each other. So a minor success for both wouldn't be unreasonable.

 

The more sides included in the angle, the more ways there are to have more than one of them come out successful. But you have to factor in everyone booked in the angle when determining if it's exploitative.

[Properly Promoted]

If the jobbers are in the angle. Otherwise, Taker and SCSA should score neutral based on it being a stalemate.

[GruntMark]

It seems like in the UT/SCSA/Jobber segment, I'd set it up all neutral.

 

For starters, the jobbers arent in the storyline, so they dont need a defeat. Its not about them. They want be featured on the PPV promos or anything.

 

Austin and UT both looked strong, but their action didnt tilt the storyline one way or the other. And its really just about them.

 

Itd be the same as the "Pull Apart Brawl" angles.

[D-Lyrium]

It seems like in the UT/SCSA/Jobber segment, I'd set it up all neutral.

 

For starters, the jobbers arent in the storyline, so they dont need a defeat. Its not about them. They want be featured on the PPV promos or anything.

 

Austin and UT both looked strong, but their action didnt tilt the storyline one way or the other. And its really just about them.

 

Itd be the same as the "Pull Apart Brawl" angles.

 

It's not about the storyline, though. It's about the angle itself. This is what a lot of posts in this thread have been missing. The people not in the storyline are still affected by the success or defeat in the angles.

 

In the angle, the jobbers got a minor defeat, because their only real purpose was to get thrown out of the ring. In the long run it won't hurt their momentum all that much, because everyone will have forgotten it happened by tomorrow, but it certainly doesn't help them at all.

 

Austin and 'Taker both get a minor success, because they beat up the jobbers together but couldn't best each other. The angle made them both look good, but not better than each other. Thus, both get a minor success (therefore pretty much neutral in storyline terms as they both received the same benefit). It's not neutral, because they looked badass compared to the jobbers, but according to the storyline (which doesn't "know" about the jobbers), they looked equal to each other.

[GruntMark]

It's not about the storyline, though. It's about the angle itself. This is what a lot of posts in this thread have been missing. The people not in the storyline are still affected by the success or defeat in the angles.

 

Derek B makes it sound like they are not.

 

The angle would result in:

+ The Shield gaining a little overness (if the angle is rated high enough), a little momentum and an improvement in the success of their story if they are in one... if they're not, then they will only get the changes to overness/momentum.

+ 8 Jobbers might gain a little overness just by virtue of being on TV, might gain some momentum too.. and if they are in a storyline then they are going to suffer a defeat, so when they come out of it they're going to look even worse because their fortune in the storyline would have them looking bad.

 

And with all due respect...I trust Derek's word over yours. The eight jobbers the shield beat up aren't negatively affected by the angle (and may actually gain momentum.)