13 KiB
[BST] Writing a rational Chessmaster?
-
Author: u/None *
-
URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/3dktpy/bst_writing_a_rational_chessmaster/
-
Score: 11
-
Created: 2015-07-17T02:08:28
Post:
Since discovering rational fiction, I've tried to fit all my writing into the genre (as defined in the sidebar). However, I'm always drawn to include a particular sort of character in my projects: the Chessmaster, the Manipulative Bastard who has a plan for the world and achieves it by using everything and everyone, usually in ways so the pawns think they're acting in their own self-interest.
Unfortunately, in a rational universe, such systems of plots on plots seem automatically doomed to collapse. I've invented one way for it to work, but such an approach can't really apply to human brains. It's a big setback. I'm sure there are better ways.
Similarly, /u/EliezerYudkowsky made one in the form of Dumbledore in HPMOR. Except ending spoilers Again, I'm sure there are better ways.
So here's where I turn to the collective wisdom of the community. How might you implement such a trope in a rational story?
Comments:
u/alexanderwales [+15] Time flies like an arrow (32 minutes later)
The Metropolitan Man has Lex Luthor as a Chessmaster, and I tried my best to make him rational.
If you want a Chessmaster that's believable, he can't just be pulling plots out of his butt, at least not until he's already demonstrated sufficient planning and preparation to the audience (even then, use sparingly). This means getting in the Chessmaster's head; the reader should be able to see which plots are being hastily abandoned and which ones are (surprisingly) going off without a hitch. He should have contingency plans for when he fails. He doesn't have one monolithic plot that can collapse, he's got several self-contained plots that can act like crumple zones on a car if something goes wrong.
Most of what you want is that rational quality of actual cognitive effort. Think about the resources that your Chessmaster might have, then think about how he would accomplish his goals, then think about all the ways that the plan could be refined, and how it could go wrong. Figure out all the branches of plotting, then show some of them to the reader. (The biggest problem is that you want these plots to make sense, which usually means doing straightforward things. That tends to be less fun.)
u/DCarrier [+3] (6 hours later)
I suppose the problem with normal fiction is that you either have it go right from the beginning, or you have someone say what's supposed to happen and then have it go wrong. That means you can show off at most one back-up plan. Or more accurately, you can show off as many as you want, but they have to happen in series. If you want to make someone look smart, you have ten different things that happen correctly in succession. You can't do it by the more realistic method of having ten different backup planes based on different ways the very simple original plan might go wrong.
u/None [+3] (12 hours later)
I should probably throw Metropolitan Man on some kind of list. I really liked it when I tried starting it once.
u/alexanderwales [+3] Time flies like an arrow (12 hours later)
It's not for everyone, and there are things I would do differently if I had to write it again. But it was fairly well received, and I'm generally happy with how it turned out.
u/GaBeRockKing [+6] Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857 (16 minutes later)
The chess master isn't anything resembling omnipotent, but they're charismatic enough to make people think they are, so they influence people's actions by making them think they're falling for their plan if they do so-and-so.
Alternatively, the chessmasster doesn't think of everything themselves, but instead only deals with high-level planning, while teams of advisors deal with individual problems.
u/DCarrier [+1] (6 hours later)
The problem is, you can get past any Xanatos Roulette by flipping a coin or something. They might be able to predict if you'll do A or B, but they can't predict a coin.
u/None [+3] (12 hours later)
Why wouldn't you have plans for both cases?
u/DCarrier [+1] (18 hours later)
When you set things up so no matter what someone does you win, that's a Xanatos Gambit. When you set it up so it works based on what you know they'll do, it's a Batman Gambit. When you set it up based on a long series of actions that you'd never realistically be able to predict, that's a Xanatos Roulette.
A rational Chessmaster would stick to Xanatos Gambits.
u/None [+1] (18 hours later)
I don't know about Xanatos Roulette, but it sounds like you're describing Gambit Roulette.
A Xanatos Gambit is basically a Batman Gambit with a backup.
u/DCarrier [+2] (19 hours later)
It seems they renamed it. It used to be called Xanatos Roulette.
u/GaBeRockKing [+2] Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857 (8 hours later)
But they can make you think they can, so that you won't bother flipping coins.
u/DCarrier [+1] (17 hours later)
In that case you're an idiot and don't belong in a rational story. At least, not as an important character.
u/GaBeRockKing [+2] Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857 (18 hours later)
Evidently, you don't understand what a rational fic is. The villains, as well as the heroes, are smart. They can intentionally give you false information to make you draw false conclusions.
u/DCarrier [+2] (18 hours later)
They can convince you that they're psychic if they're in a setting where it's plausible that they are. They can't convince you that they can predict the result of a coin flip because they're just that good.
u/GaBeRockKing [+1] Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857 (19 hours later)
No, but they can convince you that they'll benefit more than you regardless of how the coin flips, so when you just take the option that seems to maximally benefit you, because why not, you fall into their trap.
u/darkflagrance [+3] (an hour later)
Also, a Chessmaster doesn't need to have plots for every individual, although extreme ones can. A means to access the key individuals in a network with the most influence on everyone else is enough. Littlefinger from ASoIaF is an example: true, he has wealth and mercenaries, but his chessmastering is accomplished through individual relationships with nobles he knows well, or people who have a prior connection to such nobles. Being able to predict these few people, and having general contingencies for the outcomes of chaotic situations (the tactical, spontaneous side of chessmastering) is enough.
u/Salaris [+3] Dominion Sorcerer (19 hours later)
I attempted to have some characters play this way in Forging Divinity, but I "cheated" to some extent in that the true Chessmaster characters are barely seen on-screen. It would be significantly more challenging to show all of the character's actions in detail.
I do a bit of this with Jonan, one of my perspective characters - he's sort of a fledgling at the Chessmaster game. My primary means of showing this is that he's all about gathering information - through conversation, through spies, through creatively applying his magic, etc. Similarly, he tries to control how important information is distributed; the more control he has over valuable points of data, the more leverage he has over his competition.
He's still a novice at this type of thing, which is deliberate - I want to show him growing into larger and more complex plots over time and gradually realizing how far behind the curve he is compared to characters that have had generations to plan.
I'll also recommend the Metropolitan Man by /u/alexanderwales as a higher level depiction of it.
You also get hints of this type of character later on in the Mistborn trilogy by Brandon Sanderson - spoilers for book 3
u/None [+3] (19 hours later)
Make it so the cumulative plan is one that, while it appears to be a series of plans slotting perfectly into place, is actually a final result that could have happened even if a wide variety of known or unknown unknowns had influenced the process. Alternatively, or perhaps humorously, while it looks godlike to the bystander, it's actually a colossal fuck-up, and the Chessmaster is just maintaining face while they frantically slot their plans together again out of the fragments of the old one.
u/Nepene [+2] (19 hours later)
They have to manage three forces.
The people's will. The vast unwashed masses of people who may fight, pay or watch whatever schemes. They have to consider the social views of them, what pressures there are, and how to use them. Can they raise their anger to pressure someone? Lower it to support some scheme?
Key individuals. There will be a number of key individuals whose reactions they must manipulate or predict. Politicians, warriors, mages, whatever. They should try and understand the motivations of these people and predict how they would fit into their plan.
Alternate sources of power. The death star. Kryptonite. The printing press. How does their thinking wrap around great technology? How are they evading problems and increasing their power using it, how could it be used against them?
For each group they should have spies, several plans and backup plans and goals, and the story can cover how their plans and goals influence each of those people. They don't have to consider all of them simultaneously.
u/abstractwhiz [+2] Friendly Eldritch Abomination (3 days later)
Doing realistic Chessmasters is difficult. But if I had to write a Guide For Aspiring Magnificent Bastards, it would rely on perhaps these three principles:
Grand Strategy: Clearly define your ultimate goals, and choose all your actions based on whether they advance those goals or not. If you have a sufficiently large goal that will require a lot of subsidiary steps, you'll automatically come out of it looking like a Chessmaster, for the simple reason that you're unconcerned with individual battles, as it were. You can just as easily 'lose' a battle if it moves you towards your goal. Moves that look locally suboptimal, or even like accidents or setbacks, are simply folded into your plans, because they are globally optimal (with respect to your ultimate goals). In that sense, being a Chessmaster is more about the long view and perfect focus on one's objectives than some kind of perfect predictive ability. To a great extent, this is actually how real chess players think.
Expand Your Options: You can take it for granted that for any sufficiently complex goal, there are too many variables to make perfect predictions. Something will go wrong. There's nothing for it to be keep adapting your plans as circumstances change. For this purpose, it helps to maximize your options. Someone with ten available actions is better off than someone with only two or three. Luthor in Metropolitan Man is an excellent example: his wealth gives him options that most people don't have, and the same goes for his criminal connections.
Seize Opportunities: The flip side of the previous principle. Things never go quite the way you want them to, but sometimes that's good. Keep your eyes open for random factors that improve your position, and incorporate them into your plans whenever you can.
There are probably a few more things you can put in that are specific to this kind of character. Off-hand, I can think of things like keeping your true goals secret (less opposition that way), constantly acquiring and updating intel on all the major players, and playing the various sides off against each other.
u/jgf1123 [+2] (2 hours later)
u/None [+1] (11 hours later)
[deleted]
u/None [+1] (12 hours later)
I'll look into it, thanks!