The Forge Archives

Hello all.  I've just joined.  I had no idea a group of like-minded players were out here this whole time!  The following is an essay that I have in my (some-day-to-be-published) rulebook.  I hope this is the correct forum for it.  


-------------------------

Mystery, the Mirth of Role Playing
    The story is the most important part of role playing.  Without it, there is no context in which the players can interact in an authentic manner.  Role playing happens when characters exist in the story, interacting with the story, as part of the story.  The story is the stage we are playing on.  

Discovery.  It is for the joy of discovery that we love stories of every genre.  The great lure of role playing is that we not only observe, but participate in the ongoing story.  But, just as characters in a novel are confined to their own knowledge, so should PCs be confined to the knowledge of their characters.  It is therefore necessary for the Game Master (GM) to develop a boundary between what the player can and cannot know.  Granting the players semi-omniscience dulls the enjoyment of the experience drastically.     

   The solution to this problem is to unify the perspective of the player with the perspective of his character.  Do all that you can to make the player's knowledge the same as his character's knowledge.  This requires that the GM represent things to the players as he believes they would be understood by that character.  Just as our senses and perceptions of reality are never 100% accurate, so the representations that GMs give to the players must not be 100% accurate.  The GM must carefully deceive the players as much as he judges those characters to be deceived by their own perceptions.  

   Set up as a part of your gaming structure that perception is not the same as reality.  "What you think you know ain't necessarily so" should be echoing in players' minds.  Make clear to your players that everything you tell them is the perception of their characters, never absolute reality.  The characters have no access to the total truth of the matter; only the GM has that.  While most agree that this should be the case, they do not take the steps to enforce this in the game.  There are several things that help accomplish this:

To start, the GM must always analyze each player's character to determine how accurately he would perceive different situations.  Someone with a high Intuition would rarely miss someone acting anxiously, while someone with a low score would be interpersonally dense.   A very experienced woodsman will rarely misinterpret clear tracks, while someone who lived a pampered life in a city would scarcely interpret any of it well.  In between are a multitude of varying perceptive degrees.

   Second, the GM, not the player, must be the one to make all rolls (if rolls are needed) concerning things that are based on character perspectives.  Any perception rolls—rolls used for tracking, listening, interpersonal guesses, hiding, searching, etc.—should all be made by the GM.  The reason is this: what entertainment is it for the player when he knows he just rolled very well and that what the GM is telling him is going to be the truth?  For example, if a PC is searching for a trap and he rolls very well, when the GM tells him that there is no trap there, the player knows for a certain fact that there isn't one.  There is no doubt whatsoever about it.  Contrast this to the GM making the roll for the character searching for a trap.  Now when the GM tells the player that he believes there isn't a trap, neither the player nor the character can be 100% certain that there really isn't one.  The character may have good cause to believe it—he may be very confident.  But this is still different from the player knowing for certain that his character is right.   Of course, the same problem exists when players roll for these things and roll poorly.  

The common practice is for the player to have his character act as if he thinks one thing while he (the player) knows another, but it is much more fun when the player thinks the same thing as his character.  What thrill exists for the player with a thief character when trying to pick someone's pocket if he rolls very well and knows that it went perfectly?  The  fear has been stolen from that player.  What good is it for someone searching for enemies when the player rolls well and knows (with certainty) that there is no one hiding in the trees?  Isn't it much better to have that lingering doubt in the mind of the player and his character as to the complete truth? Tell the players that you will be giving them facts as their characters interpret them.  So, "there's no one over there," is synonymous with "your character cannot see anything over there."  You could also employ phrases like, "you  think such and such," "you are sure that such and such," and "you seem to recall that . . . ."  But never step out of your GM role by telling the players what is the unmediated reality.  By doing this, you are uniting player and character into the same limited perspective that makes discovery possible for the player.  The player need no longer pretend his character is discovering and learning, he really will be.  Therefore, the mist of mystery has been put back into the story for the players.  

   Next, GMs can alter reality (the world and even some systemic things).  After playing for a while in a GM's world, the player learns a good deal about his surroundings and "the way of the world."  (E.g., He knows that "the dwarves in the Kahmonn mountains are friendly only if you give a gift to the first dwarf you meet" because he has either been there or been informed from a reliable source.)  This is fine as far as that character is involved.  But, what about that player playing a different character in that same region?  This new character should know only what his limited exposure has taught him, but this isn't possible, is it?  That player inevitably has taken the knowledge received from playing in that world with former characters and is using that knowledge with this new character.  The solution has been for the player not to use the knowledge which he has gained through past characters, pretending his character is ignorant.  While this is a fair guideline to follow, it interferes with the fun for the player since actual discovery (for the player) has been removed.  Races, monsters, skills, spells, & even the history should slightly change sometimes.  The only time to make these alterations is when one or several characters have died or passed out of the story.  

For example, in a group I had, 4 out of 5 players lost their characters and had to bring new ones into the campaign at the same time (bad strokes of luck).  Two of the players had characters who used magic, and so they knew how some of the magic spheres were fleshed out.  To counter this and throw them off, I somewhat altered the magic they were using.   All the players remembered the plot, the secrets they uncovered, the enemies, etc., so I (informing the surviving player) altered a few (mostly minor) facts.  What this accomplishes is to keep the players off track as to what actually happened since they, with their new characters, have no idea what happened in the final version of reality.

   The shroud of mystery must exist not only for the player and his character but among the players themselves.  One player should not always know the perception of another player's character.  For this GMs should use the common practice of note-passing and (what we call)  "Going Deaf."  Players can have walkmans set up around the table so that whenever something is happening that their own characters are not aware of (or are aware of differently), the GM can instruct them to put on their headphones, or "go deaf."  Going deaf is used to greatly reduce (though not abolish) note passing or sending people out of the room, but it should be used carefully so that players are not left deaf for too long a time (after all, they came to play!).  While trying to separate players' perceptions perfectly is impractical (without a lot more  technology than walkmans), doing it some of the time at least will help efficiently maintain some mystery between your players and their characters.  

   As odd as it may seem, the more the GM deceives the players, the more fun he is making it for them.  Deceive them as much as our perceptions deceive us.  Let the statistically intelligent, intuitive, perceptive, and experienced characters (not players) be deceived less than others, but allow some opportunities nevertheless.  Be careful not to overdo this and have your characters be absurdly mistaken about even common situations that are so obvious that no one should be confused.  

   The task of a GM is similar to playing poker.  Just as poker players can tell an opponent's hand by his quirks, so players can tell when something real is happening (or that he's bluffing) by the GM's behavior.  GMs should do things like roll dice often, whether he is really rolling for anything or not, and pass a multitude of blank notes to confuse other players as to whether a real note is being passed or not.  The reason for this is to keep players off track as to when something important is happening.  So, doing things like rolling often or throwing irrelevant notes or appearing to take special note of a character's actions will throw off the players as to when the GM is doing something truly important.  


"Unmentionables"

   Players know something important is going on when GMs start mentioning particular mundane facts or asking specific questions.  E.g., a PC is in a tavern and the GM mentions that a man bumps into him and moves on.  Now, any veteran player knows that he's likely been pick-pocketed if the GM bothered to mention it.  But, to that character, the bump may have seemed the accident of a drunk or clumsy man.  So, if the GM determines that the character would perceive the bump innocently, then the GM should not mention the bump at all.  This is to keep the players from either using experience they have as players or having to restrain themselves from using that experience.  The same applies to a wide number of experiences: people staring at a character, a recurring person in a crowd, someone's attire . . . anything that does not occur to that character as important should not be revealed to that player.  This, like all selective GM deceptions, should be handled carefully so as not to deny the right characters the right access to knowledge.  E.g., a character who picks pockets would always pay attention to "bumps" in taverns.  

Just before a battle ensues, a GM may commonly ask, "so where are you sitting in the room?" or "are you wearing your armour?" or "are you keeping a watch—who's on watch when...?"  These questions are cues to the players that something big is about to happen.  To avoid giving these cues, the GM must either ask these questions often (especially when it's not relevant) or not ask at all and then decide for himself where people were at the moment of an attack.  

All of these steps are for the benefit of the players.  The divorce of the player/character perspective leads to a serious loss of entertainment.  Instead of having to always pretend he doesn't know certain information, the player, by this union, can think the thoughts of his character and experience both his character's doubts and the thrill of uncovering the mysteries of your story.

That's a really great essay.  I must say that I pretty much fundamentally disagree with all of its major points, but I'm a big believer in game designers taking a stand and specifying up front how they designed the game to played.  I'd recommend altering the phrasing to be more of a "for the purposes of this game you should endeavor to..." approach; rather than a "this is what's best for all roleplaying" approach.

The first way makes a clear statement about your design goals.  Acknowledges that there are other ways to play and the reader may (like myself) completely disagree with them.  However, the reader may (having been informed up front) be willing to give it a try and judge it on its own merits.  This a great thing and I heartily endorse it.

The second way (as you have now) sounds more like a manifesto of "one true way to play-ism" which is most likely going to get the reader (especially one who disagrees strongly) to shrug, toss the game aside and not look at it further.


This brings me to a key question.  Why do you percieve this kind of controlled information environment to be particularly suitable for your specific game?

As a general rule I find this style of play to be restrictive, insulting, and confining and succeeds mostly at stifling the collective creativity of the group and the ability to feed and riff off of each other while participateing in the over all game environment.  That's MY preference.  I would much rather GM a game where the players know exactly what is going on and drive their characters actions off that to deliver drama and excitement that they couldn't hope to do if they were kept in the dark.

However, I'm more than willing to concede that perhaps, for a very specific reason, for a very specific type of play, it might be both appropriate and effective to play this way.

So my question is: what specific reason and specific type of play is your game about that this sort of play style is especially appropriate and attractive for?

Hey Valamir.  I'm just a step over in Bloomington.  

Yes, I gave no other intro for the essay.  I didn't wanna throw out too much at once, so just picked one of my system's essays to post.  

My game focuses on "realistic fantasy" role playing.  So, we try and escape the "tabletop miniature game" paradigm and immerse ourselves in our characters' minds to enrich role playing.  Therefore, the methods used to keep the players' perspectives united with their characters.  Most gamers I know believe in this idea in spirit.  The essay just restates it and has suggestions for implementing it.  Yes, the essay belongs in the context of the system, not an edict for all games.  

"restrictive, insulting, and confining" ??  I don't understand how.  By working to shift the mind of the player further into his character, our experience becomes richer.  In cases when characters should not know X, the choice is this:  Either the players pretend not to know X, or the players really do not know X since the GM keeps it from them.  The players are only "in the dark" as much as their characters should be.

Quote from: Domhnall"restrictive, insulting, and confining" ??  I don't understand how.  By working to shift the mind of the player further into his character, our experience becomes richer.  In cases when characters should not know X, the choice is this:  Either the players pretend not to know X, or the players really do not know X since the GM keeps it from them.  The players are only "in the dark" as much as their characters should be.

I feel pretty much agree with what Ralph said. You'd have to pay me money to get me to play under these circumstances (or be really convincing), but I appreciate it for its clarity and decisiveness. I'll try to answer why I wouldn't want to play this way:
(1) playing this way means the players' impact on the story is pretty limited. Moving my character around, reacting to what the GM comes up with is fun for a while, but I get tired of that fast.
(2) immersion, in the sense of "in-character-thinking" (not to be confused with in-character acting) isn't especially attractive to me. I like to do it once in a while and enjoy it when I do it, but since I know the character's mind inside out (because I made it) I basically view this as me congratulating myself on the good job I did. Nice and necessary at times, but not satisfying in the long run.
Anyway, it boils down to saying that my experience becomes richer when I participate in creating stuff with others and that I gain little from "not knowing X" over "pretending not to know X".
Hope this helps, and just to make sure, I'm talking about my preferences only.

By "restrictive, insulting, and confining" I think Ralph means that if say, someone picks a PC's pocket, the player being ignorant of it and being surprised to learn of it, isn't the most you can get out of this situation.

I might be wrong and he'll correct me, but the following is one possible way of handling it:
GM: "In the busy tavern, the crowd jostles you and someone bumps your PC. At that time they take his purse without his knowledge!" (note: Yes, the GM telling the player explicitly)
Player: "Ah, but only lady moonlight, my former lover (also an NPC made up on the spot by the player), would know how to get past my quick eyed defences to do so. In fact, in turning I see her face just as she's leaving the tavern."
GM: "Indeed you do, but it seems she let you see her face. She perhaps wears a tiny smirk but then flits away quickly out the door"
PC: "Naturally, I can't let this go uninvestigated. I pursue!"

Note the full disclosure of mundane things like the purse stealing, while the more intriguing things are the ones which are kept secret (the smirk...which I find more interesting than a purse being stolen). Also note the GM like power the player was able to wield on the spot to make a NPC, and was rightly trusted to do so.

I have to say I don't do a lot of gaming like this. Not out of lack of interest, but out of old habits of mine and our group. But there are games out there that assist in this type of play and it can be quite thrilling for all involved, as the GM is entertained by what the players create...the GM also gets to explore a mystery, that players can just as easily create.

Ah well, interesting article and interesting responses.  I stringly approve of the original article, that accurately describes a large part of what I would do as a GM.  I have mentioned before that I somethimes think of characters as mobile movie cameras shooting a scene; that is, my awareness is based on this mobile perspective and feeding back only what this perspective can see.

I must say though I cannot see how this style of play can be construed as "insulting".  After all I have full consent that this is the mode we employ (for historical reasons, and rightly or wrongly).  And I would not have it any other way - its not only the IC thinking, which is indeed very appealing to me, but also that gamist challenge is reinforced in this manner.

I agree that Montag that player impact on the story is "pretty limited", but my stock response is that this is only important to some.  Noon's sample of play, frex, leaves me completely cold, and its that sort of game that I in turn would only play if paid.  However, that said, I strongly endorse further reserach into this style of play, as I hope to cannibalise procedures for use else where.

What I like a great deal about this sort of analysis is the attention it pays to presentation, that actual interchanges between the people in the room, the practical mechanics of information exchange.

I'm with Ralph on this one: this is a great essay; I disagree with it almost entirely.

Funnily enough, it represents the way we used to play. I stopped doing so because when I didn't stick to it the games were more fun. They felt fairer and they had more potential for interesting and exciting situations. Taking your example of rolling a search for traps (not that I use traps - I think they are arbitary, pointless and dull) but look at the reverse situation, imagine the player rolled low. "You can find no trap" says the GM. The player knows that there may be a trap, but also has to play his character as if there isn't. What ironic potential and what fun!

Taking your other example of pick-pocketing. I can't really understand how this is going to be anything other than irritating:

Me: I give him 75gp for the sword
GM: You can't; it's gone.
Me: What? What do you mean gone?
GM: You don't know. It's just gone.
Me: %@*&!

And then... what? If we want to get the money back we have no clue, nowhere to start, we don't even know when the money went and we have no way of finding out. Contrast this with the same situation when I know I've been pick pocketed and know my character doesn't:

Me: I reach into my pocket, and realise my purse has gone. "What?" I say "but it was here a minute ago?" I start looking around on the floor.
GM: The shopkeeper gives you a sympathetic look "You been to the Trollsong tavern?"
Me: "Yes? But how did you know?"
GM: "There's a fair few pickpockets been operating out of there lately"
Me: "Bastards! Come on lads we going thief-hunting"

And back we head to the tavern for an entertaining session of clue finding, head bashing and thief-torturing. By giving the players knowledge we are able to go straight to interesting bits of gaming rather than blundering in the dark like blind fools.

Well, thanks for your responses.  But, I must admit that I am truly lost as to some of the gamestyles you are presenting.  Do you guys mean that as you are playing, that the players can create people and situations along side the GM?  That the GM is the not sole "world narrator" that the PCs are dwelling in?  That sounds like what I am hearing, but correct me if I am wrong.  Is this phenomenon common?  I have never been exposed to that before.  You mean that as I (when a player) can decide, "This is a good spot for an orc" and then I can have one appear?  Is this fun?

If that is the kind of game you play, you are correct... this guideline wouldn't work at all (but then, none of it would match).  But, I would never enjoy a world where I could (as a player) create things.  As a player, I love discovering things and making choices in the world I am dwelling in (the GM's world).  It would feel strange and slightly godlike creating even the slightest alteration in reality.  Maybe like scribbling in my own notes in someone else's book.  

OK, so it sounds like this essay only applies to those who do not have the player-GM co-control of the world.



---------

Hi Jack, I guess we were typing at the same time.  Let me first ask if you belong in that category mentioned above where the players are co-creators of reality in their world.  If so, the discussion is already settled.  But, if not (as I suppose is the case) let me rebut by saying that we (my group) truly enjoy the harsh realism of the Secondary World, and loathe (what we call) the "contrived nudges" from GMs that keep the players knowing things that their characters would not consistently know.  

As a matter of fact, a couple of months ago, I had a player character who worked for years and years to get this one sword.  Only a few months later he lost it to a thief whom he had no way of tracking down.  He lost it forever.  Now, the reason that this is still so fun for us all is that the bigger picture is that this is a real world, and they are real people in this world.  His character had no experience whatsoever with thieves, and was totally naive about getting his precious blade stolen from his bedroom.  The player (John) is not irritated at all, he loves this because he knows that I am not holding his hand, or giving him any hints that his character would not have.  All the players know that there is an entire world filled with dynamics that they can only sometimes handle.  They would not want any arbitrary clue (that is inconsistent with their characters and the situation) pointing them in the right direction each time.  It would leave them feeling like they were being led around by the nose.  

I guess that it comes down to the overarching playing preferences.  For us, "Realistic Fantasy" brings the most enjoyment.  We enjoy the limitations of our character's perspectives and experiences.  

(Oh, and I wholly agree with you on traps, but many people still use them so it seemed a useful example.)

How about,

Quote from: Jack Aidley (Cut and paste by SR)Me: I give him 75gp for the sword
GM: You can't; it's gone.
Me: What? What do you mean gone?
GM: You don't know. It's just gone.
Me: %@*&!
GM: The shopkeeper gives you a sympathetic look "You been to the Trollsong tavern?"
Me: "Yes? But how did you know?"
GM: "There's a fair few pickpockets been operating out of there lately"
Me: "Bastards! Come on lads we going thief-hunting"

I think it mostly boils down to two matters of taste:
[list=1]

• Do you like being surprised?
  
• Do you want to have influence on the game beyond your character?
  [/list:o]
  
  SR
  --

I suggest you read some of the Forge articles (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/). Doing so will give you a better idea what people are talking about here. They can be quite dense reading, but they're well worth the effort, IMO.

-Dan Vince

QuoteWell, thanks for your responses. But, I must admit that I am truly lost as to some of the gamestyles you are presenting. Do you guys mean that as you are playing, that the players can create people and situations along side the GM? That the GM is the not sole "world narrator" that the PCs are dwelling in?

I'm not really sure where you get that impression from. It's certainly not the way I play.

Although I rather doubt you play without any kind of player-GM interaction in how the world is, think about it - have you, as player, ever said any of the following things:

"I stop a passer-by"
"Is there a tree nearby?"
"I grab a stone from the floor"
"I'll take a seat at a table" (said in an inn)

Depending on what group you play in, you're GM will allow more or less defining of the world by the players. I tend to allow things which make sense to me in the context the players are in, seems to me all the good GMs I know work in a similar way. Situations also can be created, and led, by the players through the actions of their character - I'm not sure how you could functionally play without that.

Hi Rob,

As in all things in roleplaying, there is no One True Way. I hope I'm not coming across as presenting one.

I don't think that it's about either surprise or control outside of your character, however - I think that Daniel's essay presents a way of roleplaying that de-protaganises the player characters. By removing knowledge from the players about their characters you prevent them from controlling their characters in a way that they would choose.

Oh, and Daniel - Welcome to the forge!

Jack

QuoteI'm not really sure where you get that impression from. It's certainly not the way I play.

Although I rather doubt you play without any kind of player-GM interaction in how the world is, think about it - have you, as player, ever said any of the following things:

"I stop a passer-by"
"Is there a tree nearby?"
"I grab a stone from the floor"
"I'll take a seat at a table" (said in an inn)

Depending on what group you play in, you're GM will allow more or less defining of the world by the players. I tend to allow things which make sense to me in the context the players are in, seems to me all the good GMs I know work in a similar way. Situations also can be created, and led, by the players through the actions of their character - I'm not sure how you could functionally play without that.

No, I didn' get that impression from you, Jack, but from the NOON post:

QuoteGM: "In the busy tavern, the crowd jostles you and someone bumps your PC. At that time they take his purse without his knowledge!" (note: Yes, the GM telling the player explicitly)
Player: "Ah, but only lady moonlight, my former lover (also an NPC made up on the spot by the player), would know how to get past my quick eyed defences to do so. In fact, in turning I see her face just as she's leaving the tavern."
GM: "Indeed you do, but it seems she let you see her face. She perhaps wears a tiny smirk but then flits away quickly out the door"

Here, the player placed a specific person in the tavern, and the GM went along with it.  This is quite different from your examples of common things experienced in the settings you described.  Towns de facto have those common things, and it's makes perfect sense to have them be accepted without a second thought.

Oh, and thanks for the welcome.  Looks like my first post is just getting me stoned!  No, I'm just kidding.  I love a good debate, and you guys aren't being rude at all.

Hi Daniel,

Ah, I see - I missed that in Callum's post. Sorry.

edit: << -- Please ignore this post, it's off-topic. Sorry. -->>

Quote from: DomhnallAs a player, I love discovering things and making choices in the world I am dwelling in (the GM's world).  It would feel strange and slightly godlike creating even the slightest alteration in reality.
--SNIP--
But, if not (as I suppose is the case) let me rebut by saying that we (my group) truly enjoy the harsh realism of the Secondary World, and loathe (what we call) the "contrived nudges" from GMs that keep the players knowing things that their characters would not consistently know.
--SNIP---
Now, the reason that this is still so fun for us all is that the bigger picture is that this is a real world, and they are real people in this world.

Yes, but ...  it  does  not  exist. Someone made it up. There is no "reality" worth speaking of. The "harsh realism" is something the GM (and if this was discussed before play perhaps players as well) decide to have happen. If you and your group decide to leave the power of defining the imaginary reality and the ultimate knowledge of said imaginary reality in the hands of one player only (the GM) and that's cool for everybody, then don't change it. But please avoid claiming it is more real.
It's as made up as anything else happening in that game, and the way one does distribute the power to define the imaginary places, events etc. does not make them any more or less real.
Like in your example, what really happens, is that it _feels_ more "real" to the player, if someone else is deciding "world-stuff" for him. If this feeling, which involves that the player simply forgets temporarily that the GM made it up, is what you're after in roleplaying, then go, go, go! Your essay is IMHO an excellent way to get the result you desire.

I'll post my "Realistic Fantasy" essay sometime and we'll discuss it then.

I'm sorry. Looking back I realise I've indeed gone a bit off-topic. Again, sorry. Just ignore that post, the point can easily be made again at the appropriate time.

No problem.  

BTW, it's ok to post essays, right?  I don't own a web page, or I'd just link people to that.

Hey Domhnall, good thread.

Your "miniatures paradigm" is an interesting statement.  But I don't see it as an either or thing.  Its not a question of "if players know too much, they'll treat their characters like miniatures from a top down perspective".

We call that perspective "pawn stance" around here because the player is treating their character like a pawn in a board game.  Perfectly enjoyable, but not what I was talking about at all.

Your system is promoting very heavy Actor Stance.  Its not only recommending Actor Stance but advising the GM to make sure that he not give out information that could be used for any other kind of stance.  

As I said making the game text clear on how the game is designed to be played is a very good idea.

However, I think that if the designer is going to give a specific way on how to play the game (which he should) there ought to be a specific reason way that method suits this particular game better than another.

You've suggested "realistic fantasy".  I'm inclined to ask for more information as to why you think a fantasy game is going to be more realistic by keeping information away from me as a player.

This suggests to me that you don't trust me as a player from using that information in a prudent manner to the betterment of the enjoyment of everyone at the table.  That you suspect that if you give me the information I'm going to "screw something up" and so to prevent that you simply won't give me the information.

BTW:  that's why I used the "insult" word.  Perhaps a bit too strong but an accurate choice on how I would feel if the GM were keeping information from me because he didn't trust me with it.


Take your pick pocket example.  

Your worry seems to me that if you tell me the NPC bumped into me, I'll immediately go into "alert status" demand checks to notice the thief, do an inventory to see whats missing, etc.  That suggests to me that your play experience to date has been with a very narrow range of players and your projecting that experience out and assuming thats how all (or even most) players would respond.

Let me show you an alternative.  Lets say, my character was on his way to propose marriage to a lady, and had stopped in the bar to get some refreshments.

GM:  A rather scruffy bearded chap at the bar bumps into you sloshing your drink.

Me (ooc):  Hey, what if this guy just picked my pocket and took my engagement ring without me knowing.

GM:  Ok


See, now instead of this being some "random encounter" type of event, its actually significant.  I go to see my lady, I get all worked up to propose, then just at the moment I'm about to...bam...I notice the ring's gone.  Panic sets in, oh no.  Just then she says:  "wasn't their something you wanted to ask me".

Flustered I have to play down the whole thing and try to get out of the situation.  Then maybe I'll have my character "retrace his steps" trying to figure where he might of lost the ring, at which point he remembers the scruffy guy in the bar, and bam...new source of adventure trying to chase down that ring from pick pocket to fence to pawn shop to new buyer.

So how do I feign shock and horror at finding the ring missing, when of course I knew it would be missing.  Its called acting.


Advantages of this style of play:

1) The GM doesn't have to do everything alone.  Players are ready willing and able to help make the story work.  Often times they'll have better more creative ideas that you did...simply because their are more of them and they aren't suffering from game prep burnout.

2) Definite buy in from the players.  You'll know that the "hunt the ring through the city" adventure I something I as a player will be really interested in doing and really engaged in, which will make the adventure alot of fun for everyone, including the GM.  

The alternative, is:

The GM took the ring without my knowing

"sprung" the surprise on me at the last minute (some surprises are good, like birthday presents.  Other surprises are met with all of the enthusiasm of a surprise visit from the in-laws...and their staying for 2 weeks.)

Then wants me to chase the ring around the city as part of a pre prepped adventure.  

How do you as the GM know that your adventure isn't going to met with a big "yawn" from me and the other players.  We're not into it.  We're not engaged.  It isn't interesting to us, so getting us through it is like pulling teeth for you.  Why even go there.  The best way to know for certain that your players are into the adventure is to let them help set it up.

QuoteWell, thanks for your responses. But, I must admit that I am truly lost as to some of the gamestyles you are presenting. Do you guys mean that as you are playing, that the players can create people and situations along side the GM? That the GM is the not sole "world narrator" that the PCs are dwelling in? That sounds like what I am hearing, but correct me if I am wrong. Is this phenomenon common? I have never been exposed to that before. You mean that as I (when a player) can decide, "This is a good spot for an orc" and then I can have one appear? Is this fun?

That's more extreme than what I was suggesting above.  But hell yeah.  Its ALOT of fun to play this way.  In fact, my current project "Robot & Rapiers" has essays like yours in the GM advice section that pretty much spells out how the players can go about inventing NPCs for the game.

Is the phenomenon common?  Also a hell yeah.  Its hugely common.  Not d20 level common, but there's enough folks who play like that we can design games meant to be played like that and make a nice tidy profit selling them.  

Here at the Forge you'll find concentrated doses of that sort of play.

Quote from: ValamirYou've suggested "realistic fantasy".  I'm inclined to ask for more information as to why you think a fantasy game is going to be more realistic by keeping information away from me as a player.
This suggests to me that you don't trust me as a player from using that information in a prudent manner to the betterment of the enjoyment of everyone at the table.  That you suspect that if you give me the information I'm going to "screw something up" and so to prevent that you simply won't give me the information.

uh, Ralph, where did you get that trust thing from? Daniel explicitly stated that his group likes "being in the dark", presumably because that makes it easier for them to suspend their disbelief or whatever. So where does that "trust" stuff come from?

Quote from: montaguh, Ralph, where did you get that trust thing from? Daniel explicitly stated that his group likes "being in the dark", presumably because that makes it easier for them to suspend their disbelief or whatever. So where does that "trust" stuff come from?

From the initial essay: (emphasis mine)

QuoteSo, if the GM determines that the character would perceive the bump innocently, then the GM should not mention the bump at all. This is to keep the players from either using experience they have as players or having to restrain themselves from using that experience.

There is obviously some concern about players using their experience as players in the game.  There is a whole section about players with new characters and the "problems" caused by their existing knowledge from previous characters.  

It seems there are 2 assumptions being made in this essay.  As I noted above I think its a wonderful thing to be explicit upfront about what those assumptions are.  But the two points I want to make are that:

a) the directions on how the GM should run game should be phrased so that it is clear that the recommendations only apply to the way this game should be run, rather than (as know) that this is the way RPGs are supposed to be run.  and
b) that there should be specific reasons why this particular game should be run this particular way.


The two assumptions being made are

1) that players gain more enjoyment from roleplaying the more immersed they are.  There are statements to this effect throughout the essay "but it is much more fun when the player thinks the same thing as his characteretc."  So the idea is that if players have more information than their characters they won't enjoy the game as much.

While that may well be true of Dom's players, it isn't true of me or anyone I routinely play with.  After one session of playing with a GM who used any of the recommended techniques in this essay I'd never play with that GM again.  It would rank among one of the most horrible RPG experiences of my life.  That's why I think its so great to have an essay like this in the game.  If you know what you're going to get going in, you can either decide not to play, or adjust your expectations and decide to give it a shot.  Much better than being broadsided by it unexpectedly.


2) The second assumption that is being made is the worry that if the players have more information than they should they'll use it in bad ways (clearly a concern in the above quote).

This assumption comes from alot of places.  One of the most common is pawn stance concerns of players treating the game "like a game" and making free gamist use of information.  I think this is a partial source of the assumption since Dom clearly said they were trying to move away from that "miniatures" mentality, thus lessening the game elements.

The other big source of this assumption is the idea of the "GM's Story".  Limited information limits the players ability to interfere with the GM's Story.  There's a hint of this also in the section on changing the way magic works and details about the events and world in order to "throw the players off".



So basically, the style of play being promoted in this game is very much a "treat the players as if they were their characters" approach.  

Entirely valid, but hardly universal.

Dom, I hope you discover around this site another enjoyable way to play that takes the approach "treat the players as if they and you are all co-authors of a great story"


The two points I wanted to make with regards to this essay, however, was not so much a critique of the style of play but rather:

a) My view that the essay should be rephrased so that the directions on how the GM should run the game are clear that those recommendations only apply to the way this game should be run, rather than (as now) that this is the way RPGs are supposed to be run.  and

b) that there should be specific reasons why this particular game should be run this particular way.  For this last, I mean:  What makes this particular setting or this particular genre better well suited to this particular style.

Quote from: DomhnallBut, I must admit that I am truly lost as to some of the gamestyles you are presenting.  Do you guys mean that as you are playing, that the players can create people and situations along side the GM?  That the GM is the not sole "world narrator" that the PCs are dwelling in?  That sounds like what I am hearing, but correct me if I am wrong.  Is this phenomenon common?  I have never been exposed to that before.  You mean that as I (when a player) can decide, "This is a good spot for an orc" and then I can have one appear?  Is this fun?

I'm sorry.  I know this is an unhelpful thought, but as someone who only recently (3, 4 months ago) ran headlong into the eye-opening paradigm shifts of the Forge I couldn't help reading this and thinking "Oooooh boy, you wandered into the dark alley, didn't you?"

Assimilating the Forge vocabulary can be kind of mind-bending, but I think you'll find that folks are pretty open and accepting of all styles of play, even if they're not into the same things you are.  I'd say you represent a very significant population among gamers that, for whatever reason, is not at all well represented here at the Forge.

I second the recommendation to check out the Essays section, especially the essay on Narrative styles of play, and doubly second the observation that you might find it dense reading with a lot of terminology that's unfamiliar (it's been built over several years).  Also, to see the theory in action, I would point you at the Actual Play forum -- especially to threads on games like InSpectres (though there are many others), which is a really good example of 'pure' narrative games in which the players and GM have equal story control.  InSpectres as a session is pretty tongue in cheek, but as a game design, it's very serious stuff.

Anyway, some of these theories are the sort of thing you really need to see in practice to really start to 'get' -- at least if you're me. :)  My *real* suggestion is to get one of those games and run a session of it for fun... that's where the light really starts to dawn.

Let me also say something about the "is this fun?" question:

Consider this: let's say you're a good GM, and let's say you're playing with a group of players you know very well.  I would say, not pessimistically, that if you're really firing on all pistons, you'll design an encounter or role-playing scene that everyone at the table really enjoys... the kind that they talk about for days after... about half the time.  The rest of the time it's a miss, at least for part of the group.

I'm being generous, probably, with that 50% success rate.

Now, let's say that the player themselves has a way to influence the things that happen in the story (every game has this -- in some it's easier or harder to accomplish, but every game has this. For example, any game has the ability of the player to say "I want to go see Uncle Owen." out of the blue.)

Let's say they use this ability to cause a scene that they thinks is interesting.

In theory, they can't 'miss' in the same way the GM can -- since they are causing an event that they think is interesting... well, it sort of has to be interesting to them.  There is no (or very little) chance of that GM-player discontinuity occuring and resulting in a scene where that player says "eh, whatever."

And yeah, that can be fun.  Some of my best moments GMing has been in a scene that the player led me to.

Hope the unhelpful beginning of the post moved around to some places to look around and start to see what people are talking about.  I don't know if it's the best way, but it's the way that worked for me.

Oh I also wanted to note how fascinating this part of the essay is:

QuoteAll the players remembered the plot, the secrets they uncovered, the enemies, etc., so I (informing the surviving player) altered a few (mostly minor) facts. What this accomplishes is to keep the players off track as to what actually happened since they, with their new characters, have no idea what happened in the final version of reality.

We've spent alot of time talking about the idea of game reality only existing once it is spoken and brought into play.  The whole "No Myth" idea focuses on the notion of "if it hasn't yet been said, its mutable".

Here, however, is (for me) the most interesting piece of the whole essay.  Essentially a reversal of the No Myth.  Here, things that have been said, have been "established as true" in the game world are mutable.

A truly amazing perspective and one I hope Dom will write more about.

Quote from: DomhnallHere, the player placed a specific person in the tavern, and the GM went along with it.  This is quite different from your examples of common things experienced in the settings you described.  Towns de facto have those common things, and it's makes perfect sense to have them be accepted without a second thought.

The two things really aren't as different as you think they are. In both the lady-thief and tree examples, the player is injecting something into the game world. The point is that players don't ask if a tree is nearby, they simply declare that they're going over a tree. It's not very different from creating a NPC.

Where it is different is that the tree is what I'll call a "story-neutral" object. The presence of a tree doesn't really have any significant impact on game events (usually). The presence of the thief-lady does have impact. That's the difference, not the technique itself.

I think the thing you're objecting to (or at least find unusual) is players injecting objects that have the potential to alter the GM's story.

Hi Jack,

Quote from: Jack AidleyAs in all things in roleplaying, there is no One True Way. I hope I'm not coming across as presenting one.

You certainly don't--hope I didn't come across as suggesting you do...

QuoteI don't think that it's about either surprise or control outside of your character, however - I think that Daniel's essay presents a way of roleplaying that de-protaganises the player characters. By removing knowledge from the players about their characters you prevent them from controlling their characters in a way that they would choose.

My, not-so-very-well-presented, point is that depending on taste, the players may have all the control and choice they want. I enjoy both ways of playing and while the `secrecy way' does reduce your ability to engage in elaborate planning, it certainly doesn't take away your ability to decide what your character will do. Nor does the fact that GM has kept from you that you are a pick-pocket victim stop him from responding in a way that helps play along once you do discover your purseless state.

SR
--

Quote from: DomhnallWell, thanks for your responses.  But, I must admit that I am truly lost as to some of the gamestyles you are presenting.  Do you guys mean that as you are playing, that the players can create people and situations along side the GM?  That the GM is the not sole "world narrator" that the PCs are dwelling in?  That sounds like what I am hearing, but correct me if I am wrong.  Is this phenomenon common?  I have never been exposed to that before.  You mean that as I (when a player) can decide, "This is a good spot for an orc" and then I can have one appear?  Is this fun?

Just as another example of what we're talking about, check out my post in this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10539).

And yes, it is fun, although it is definitely a different type of fun.  :-)  The example that wanders through these parts is the jazz band jamming together, with the GM being the bass player.  It's not The One Way, but it is a way.

Oh, BTW, another hello from Peoria!  Welcome to the Forge!

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

Domhnall,

I like to compare the two different styles of play to watching a supsense movie for the first time and then watching it again at a later date.  Both are enjoyable activities but they are enjoyable for differing reasons (assuming the movie is any good, of course).

The first time you watch the movie, it's enjoyment is hinged on the element of risk that creates suspense.  It's fun to watch Gothika or The Thing or whatever the first time because the adrenaline gets pumping and things jump out and make you jump and you don't know who's gonna die or when or how.  (How's that for a run-on sentence?)  It's like being a player in a game where the GM doesn't give you all the information and you are staying in Actor stance with lots of immersion.  The fun is in the fact that there is risk involved that I, as the player, do not control.  I can only control what my character does and how he reacts.  I don't control whether he lives or dies or what forces outside of him can do to him.  This can be a real rush.  It's Step On Up at it's finest, in my opinion.

The next time you watch the movie, the suspense is gone (or at least lessened).  I know who dies and who doesn't.  I know when the creepy thing is going to jump out at me.  Strangely enough, I can still enjoy the movie.  I discover interesting plot twists that I missed the first time.  I pick up on clever uses of foreshadowing that I didn't see last time because I was too hyper on my adrenaline rush.  The story gets deeper (if the movie has a story) because I'm detached enough to see and absorb more this time around.  It's like playing in a group where Narrative Control and Credibility are distributed among everyone and not just with the GM.  People tend to stay in Author and Director stances more so they can manipulate the plot and setting, not just their character.  There isn't as much an element of risk or suspense (generally) since it's harder for something to happen to your character that you don't consent to (again, generally) but there are some really, really good stories that get told.  This is a jolly good time and is all about Story Now.

Perhaps other folks won't like my analogy but it sure helps me out and it explains why I can like playing two separate ways for totally different reasons.  Sometimes I want the rush and sometimes I want the story.  Hope this helps.  Sorry about a lot of the terms I threw about.  They are generally defined in the Essays on GNS.  I highly suggest perusing them.

I think that discovery is not specific enough.  In both methods, one where only the GM presents signifcant details and the one where players can also contribute, both contributions are a surprise to most participants.  In fact, I would argue that player contributions are more surprising as the GM doesn't know what they will be, and the player usually comes up with them on the spur of the moment.  This is raw discovery on the edge of creativity.

I think the difference that Domhall, and others in other threads focus on is novelty.  When a player creates an idea, what he comes up with may surprise him, but there's no sense of novelty or outsideness.  Myself, I think this is a more than fair price to pay, because I really enjoy creating ideas.  I find the experience of novelty, especially as created by someone else, more often frustrating than enjoyable.

What a thread, all very good stuff :)  Before I continue I must tell you that I am a player in Dom's game and the "victim" of said thievery (sword stolen) that Dom mentioned further down the thread.

First let me just say that prior to playing with Dom I had GM'd and played in many games where meta knowledge was usually divulged publicly at the game table and it was presumed by all participants that such information would not affect action or outcome (in a meta sense).  It was typical style gaming as far as I was concerned.  Game notes were used at times but not to any extent that Dom had used them.  Most of the people I had played with were not Hack & Slash types and did not embrace the pawn stance as Valamir added to this discussion.  I suppose we were moderate in many respects and tried to fuse the GM's narrative, the players creative edge and story for the most part.

When I met Dom ( back in 1995 at my game store ) I was introduced to a gaming style/paradigm he has outlined in this essay.  It was IMO like a shot of adrenaline being pumped into my gaming experiences as a player and a GM.  I am a firm believer in the essay's theme, yet I understand its not for everyone.  I do see the flip side of the coin and understand why people would be resistant to Dom's position on the paradigm.  Yet I think this essay could easily be misinterpreted, or perhaps Dom has not explained some other elements of his GM'ing practices.  I believe I have a wider breadth of gaming experience than him and have seen many successes outside of paradigm, which I think maybe Dom has not had the opportunity to participate in.  Anyways this style of GM'ing is unique and it has been far better than the bulk of the RPG campaigns I had played in prior.  I have been in counteless player and GM situations alike that have taken off from creative tangents brought forth by the player.  Some of the best gaming has transpired due to these "player driven creations" as I think they have been coined.  

I do think the critics of his essay are implying that there is little to no creative synergy coming from the players that help move the story for stories sake.  I completely disagree.  Dom does his homework and it one of the best GM's around (albeit if you can first swallow the paradim pill and give it a whole hearted try).  We are free to do whatever we wish, whenever and however.  He has never stifled that element to drive story.  As a matter of fact, I wrote a very vivid character history for Ulraend, which was 100% driven by me.  It was a terrible trajedy (which if anyone is interested I'd love to post the story up for others to enjoy)  and Dom build an entire solo campaign around those 2-3 pages and in turn was able to GM me for 10-12 solo sessions before I met another player.  

As always my posts always seem lengthy, but I must add 1 short example where the paradigm shines as compared to others.   My character Ulraend ended up in a situation where I "John the Player" had to make a decision about attacking and NPC that was a close friend of the character or what I thought at the time, a fellow player.  This player had a believeable story which placed her well in the context and story that Ulraend was in at that time.  Well this is where the paradigm owned me so to speak and it was so awesome.  The other player (whom I thought was joining me in the campaign finally)  was in fact playing a shape shifting demon of sorts.  She appeared beautiful and and her story was believeable as I said and was also a PC (gg meta knowledge). So when my NPC friend says, "Ulraend she is evil and a foul creature etc. etc." and "I am your friend" I was very confused (Dom had a dark magic working on Ulraend and my mind was being taken over and toyed with.. very evil..) So I didn't know and Ulraend didn't know the best choice to make.  I was in the dark completely... anyways I ended up slaying the NPC whom I failed to recognize as my true friend and later come to find this out after the fact.  Had Dom just used 2 NPC's and not a 2nd PC things would have probably turned out "better" in that I would not have slain my friend.  Looking back with 20/20 that would have been worse because it would have closed a chapter in Ulraends life which I am playing in now.  By making a "in" paradigm choice based only upon what "John the Player" knew which was consistent with Ulraend's knowledge the game has proved better.  It has opened up many adventures for the character and has proved to be a very rich and creative experience.  

Last point, to play out of the paradigm is akin to being a juror and hearing a piece of evidence or testimony in which a judge immediately tells you the jury to strike the commments/testimony made.  To me that is a waste and the damage has already been done.  Its so much more rewarding to not know what your player doesn't know. I stand by that conviction and think its a great way to game.  This paradigm doesn't have to be stifling or detract from players contributing to the story or creating "trees" and "thieves", these elements accentuate the paradigm a great deal and make it one of the best (at least for me).  Its not a trust issue at all, its a way of enrichening the players experiences via the paradigm.


Best

John

Great post John.

In case I haven't said it loudly enough, I'm a huge fan of having a style paradigm like this and making it clear and explicit right in the game text (

Whether its a paradigm I like or not doesn't change the joy I feel when I see prospective game designers start to do this.

QuoteFirst let me just say that prior to playing with Dom I had GM'd and played in many games where meta knowledge was usually divulged publicly at the game table and it was presumed by all participants that such information would not affect action or outcome (in a meta sense).

And just for clarities sake, because I feel my earlier posts rambled around far too much, the alternative paradigm I (and others) were mentioning would be succinctly described as

"games were meta knowledge was usually divulged publically at the game table and it was expected that all participants would use such knowledge to push the story towards dramatically interesting events"

Presented not as a challenge to Dom's paradigm in any way, but just 1) in answer to his question about anyone actually playing like that and 2) to show why I'd appreciate certain phrases of the essay reworded to show more clearly that the essay is about a specific paradigm.

I really hope to hear more about this, because I've never heard of a GM who goes to this great lengths to control OOC character knowledge...headphones...altering setting details.  That's a pretty unique approach that I really want to see hashed around here.

Well, it looks like I've got a lot of reading to do.  Please keep in mind that I have never heard of a RPG that allows players to alter their world outside of choices that their Characters could make.  I'll read thru the Forge posts to learn more about this gaming style.  

I'll just add as a defense of "creativity" that there seems to be a perspective of "stiffling" the players if they cannot do the same thing that the GM does.  We don't believe that's the case at all.  The creativity of the players is just different than the GM.  The GM sets the stage for the world, and the players get to act within that world.  The joy we experience (as players) comes from our finitude--we cannot alter reality outside of the choices that the character can make.  But, the choices we can make--all the decisions which alter the cause-and-effect chain-- give true creative power to the players.  And (in our perspective) things would be ruined if players could alter things that our characters could not.

Valamir
As to the miniature/pawn thing-- I just meant that in table-top games, there is nothing/little hidden, and that's the way those games are set up to be.  I don't necessarily think that people in the "full-disclosure" paradigm de facto are not role playing their characters.

As to "trust"-- It's not like that.  I (as GM) am not keeping the absolute truth from the players because I distrust them to play wrong.  As we see it, the GM is ruining their fun if he tells them things their characters wouldn't know.  Like in John's example, I had to fool the hell out of John to make John's perspective match his characters.  This was fun for John, and it would have been far less fun if we used Full-disclosure.  

As to your thief example--  This is sounding preferential.  I still see the choice being between the 2 options:  Either the player doesn't know, or the player has to act like he doesn't know.  I trust my players completely to not use information that they shouldn't have--and it does happen that they know these things (it's impossible to keep it all from them).  But, we see it as diminishing fun to force the players to act like their ignorant.  

As to the "big yawn"-- well, remember that like reading a novel, the players do not want to know what happens in the next pages/chapters.  The players desire to Discover these things, and to exert their influence in the world as finite beings.  And, I should add that I really do work to have legitamite Cause-and-Effect in my world.  When the players do something, they start a change in the world (it's magnitude being relative to the situation).  

And, you're right, I just posted this essay from my system and didn't give any other intro.  

OK-- I hope I addressed the main points.  Looks like I've gotta educate myself as to this other style.

Hi, Daniel.  

I think you should definitely try out a more storytelling-style game where the players have traditionally-GM-only functions at some point.  However, if you're enjoying your current play then I wouldn't be in a rush -- and ultimately I think it's a matter of taste.  The forums here are for indie game design -- which means that many (if not most) people here don't like mainstream commercial RPGs and are seeking an alternative.  

I'd say the most easily available among the popular choices around here is "The Pool", by James V. West.  You can find it and numerous variants at http://www.randomordercreations.com/thepool.html   There are also many commercial systems, like Trollbabe, Universalis, and Inspectres.  

Quote from: DomhnallWell, it looks like I've got a lot of reading to do.  Please keep in mind that I have never heard of a RPG that allows players to alter their world outside of choices that their Characters could make.  I'll read thru the Forge posts to learn more about this gaming style.  

I'll just add as a defense of "creativity" that there seems to be a perspective of "stiffling" the players if they cannot do the same thing that the GM does.  We don't believe that's the case at all.  The creativity of the players is just different than the GM.

I completely agree with you about this.  There are a number of people who really want "directorial" (i.e. traditional GM) powers, but those aren't necessary for creativity and even control of story.  By controlling what my PC attempts, I can control what the story is about.  i.e. If my PC firmly decides to leave town, then the story becomes about that.  The GM can throw obstacles in her path, but that doesn't define the story -- the story is now still about her struggle to leave, which is very different than her pursuing some goal within town.  

Out-of-Character knowledge can be something of a two-edged sword.  In my experience, things like Cut Scenes or other OOC information are often used to set up expectations for what the PCs are supposed to do.  For example, information is handed out about some thief.  The expectation is then set up that I (the player) am supposed to arrange my PC to go after that thief.  If I instead ignore that information and pursue some other goal, I often find that I have broken an unstated agreement.  Really, my options for action are just as open with or without the information.  Take the example from Jack's post:

Quote from: Jack AidleyContrast this with the same situation when I know I've been pick pocketed and know my character doesn't:

Me: I reach into my pocket, and realise my purse has gone. "What?" I say "but it was here a minute ago?" I start looking around on the floor.
GM: The shopkeeper gives you a sympathetic look "You been to the Trollsong tavern?"
Me: "Yes? But how did you know?"
GM: "There's a fair few pickpockets been operating out of there lately"
Me: "Bastards! Come on lads we going thief-hunting"  

Note that if you just change this so that the GM says "Your purse is gone" instead of the player, this becomes an example of Daniel's Mystery paradigm rather than the other.  The information doesn't really empower the player so much as point him in a given direction.  By giving information about the thief, the GM is pointing in that direction -- because it is useless unless the player actively pursues the thief.

Ralph has repeatedly made two important points; Dom has repeatedly recognized the first of these, and missed the second.

The second point could perhaps be more clearly presented: why does this kind of play matter to the specific game you're trying to create?

Let me provide a perhaps elaborate illustration.

Multiverser blurs the line between player and character knowledge right from the start: you begin by creating a character who is a game version of yourself[1]. From there, you and the character diverge, but this isn't a tremendous problem ordinarily, because probably you'll note that there are some things you didn't know when you started play, so your character wouldn't know them--and anything your character does learn, you obviously know that he knows.

This overcomes a lot of problems that your paradigm can't possibly handle, like that players know that flammable materials ignited in enclosed solid vessels explode. In Multiverser, if you suddenly realize that you're in a story from a book you once read, that's great--you are permitted to use your knowledge of the book to change the story (as someone is doing right now to Prisoner of Zenda in our forum game).

But whether I tell a player details of a world about which his character is unaware is based not on whether I think the character would know, but on whether I think informing the player will enhance play; and that being the case, the reverse is also true--if not telling him will enhance play, I won't tell him.

All this leads to this example. There is an appendix in the back of the rule book about handling insanity. A lot of games handle insanity by telling the player that his character is insane and should act like it (which few people really do effectively); some create mechanics to control whether a character can act in a rational or sane manner when brought into specific situation. Multiverser recommends treating insanity entirely by character perceptions: describe to the player what his character perceives as happening around him. If he's paranoid, talk about people watching him but turning away when he looks at them. If he's terrified of rabbits, describe them as dangerous fanged creatures. If he's got a mental block against something, never describe the object, and whenever anyone talks about it use nonsense words for any word that would give the player a clue as to what they are saying. The core object at this point is to get the player to play the character the way insane people really are: they act in a manner that would be perfectly rational were the world the way they perceive it to be. Thus, in this specific situation, the fact that the referee has absolute control over the character's perceptions and through that the player's information, enhances this kind of play.

On the other hand, in one of our worlds we recommend that if the player character does not go on a particular mission, that the referee play out the mission with the non-player characters in plain sight of the player, so that he knows exactly what happened and why--it is in one sense the pivotal event of the adventure in which he is a key figure, and for it not to be played merely because the player character isn't there would be a bit silly.

The point is, you are trying to get at a very specific thing here, for which you perceive limited player knowledge as a valuable technique to achieve it. (I'm suspicious that this is a simulationist preference, but there are aspects of what has been said that suggest front-loaded narrativism; as someone, probably Ralph, has already observed, there are also points at which you seem to be rejecting gamism, but this may be opposition to more extreme gamism, and a preference for gamist play in which the limits are strongly based on character knowledge.)

I'd get to the articles, if I were you. Ron's System Does Matter, GNS and Other Matters of Role Playing Theory, and the gamism, simulationism, and narrativism pieces are important; his discussion of fantasy heartbreakers might also be of some value, although you seem to be rejecting a lot of the fantasy heartbreaker paradigm. I might also suggest my own Applied Theory, which has helped some people get past the confusion between creative agenda and techniques.

I hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

Hiya MJ,

Well, I thought that to properly address his second point, that I should enter my "Realistic Fantasy" essay.  It seems that this thread will end up far too wide in scope if I enter that here, or even begin to defend our playing paradigm in this thread.  So, I will start that new thread soon.  

I'm also having to read a lot of past threads, and learn the lingo used here.

Daniel,

One way to look at the distinction involved here is to think about suspense films.  Hitchcock had a neat way of explaining the difference between surprise and suspense:

Suppose you have a scene (in a film) where some guys are sitting around a table, talking.  A bomb goes off under the table.  BANG!  This is surprise.

Suppose you have the same scene, but the camera moves to show the audience that there is a bomb under the table, counting down to explode soon.  Now we go back to the guys talking.  Will they discover it in time?  Will they leave just in time?  This is suspense.

Now the thing is that both can be effective.  You can set up suspense differently to lead to surprise.  For example, you can have a mad bomber on the loose, and show that he's been in the building.  Now a bunch of guys go and sit at the table, and the movie music is intense and dark.  We now have a new question: is there a bomb here, or elsewhere?  This is still suspense.

Let's go one step farther.  Suppose it's the start of the movie, and we don't know about the mad bomber.  The guys are sitting around the table, and the music starts getting all suspenseful.  The camera drifts around, picking up all sorts of things -- maybe clues, maybe red herrings.  We now have a new question: what's about to happen?

When the bomb actually goes off, especially in the latter case, we are surprised.  But there was suspense anyway, because we knew something was afoot.  And now we know that from now on in the film, we should be wary, because there may be a bomb.  And so forth.

So I think if you want to build suspense without OOC information, the thing you have to do is to ensure that the characters know something is afoot.  They go into the crowded bar, and the GM keeps pointing out that folks are jostling each other, that it's dimly lit, and so on, but he also points out that a lot of folks are very heavily armed, and there's this creepy guy in the corner with a hood, and so on.  We know something is going on, and we're very wary, but we don't know yet that it's a master thief.

Once we've had our pockets picked, which we discover by surprise -- but should discover very soon after it has happened so as not to lose the suspense of the moment -- we will react differently when we enter another crowded bar.  Now we're really checking for pickpockets, but the thing is that now we want to encounter one, because we want to catch him.  Now you have a focus for the adventure, in the sense that the PC's want to catch the thief and get their stuff back, and you have built it up in terms of suspense rather than simple surprise.

Surprises without context are simply surprises, the device of the very cheap horror film: the rubber monster on a spring.  BOING!  AHHH!  But if we know that there's something bad going on, we react very strongly when the girl in the nightie goes down into the basement with a single candle to check the fusebox.  Ever seen a horror film in a theater in an inner-city black community?  John Kim and I saw Pet Semetary this way.  You get, constantly, "Don't go down there, bitch!  What are you, stupid?" and so on.  That's suspense worn right out on the sleeve.

Anyway, I don't know if this helps.

This is a truly great thread, from beginning to end.

I just wanted to throw in a kind of 'me too', or 'maybe me too', with respect to Domhnall's GMing style. One of the more successful games I ever ran, during college, used 'blind stats' and strict enforcement of actor stance. What I essentially did was to not give the players anything except their characters and descriptions of the world.

It went swimmingly well, but for one reason: I constantly talked to the players, out of game, about what they wanted, what they liked about their characters, and paid a lot of attention to what they enjoyed in play.

So what we had was a heavy-actor-stance game where everyone was heavily invested and I handled all the narrative-generating elements they wanted through (a) depriving them of information about the game system and (b) putting a huge amount of effort into constantly reinventing the world and storylines between every session so that what we were doing in play would respond to their stated needs out of game.

In other words, it was heavy-actor-stance, heavy-immersion, yet I would argue Narrativist roleplaying - but it required superhuman amounts of my time, and everyone pretending not to look at the man behind the curtain, facilitated by my depriving the players of all the resources they needed to look behind the curtain.

I think this is somewhat different from what Domhnall does but also (judging from his player's post) that it has certain things in common with it. It's a way to play and if you have lots of time it can be rewarding, with or without the blind stats, a way to get the joys of immersion side by side with some (not all) of the joys of narrativism.

But the question that the Forge has put to me about this style is: why go through all the trouble, and force the person GMing to essentially sacrifice a huge amount of his time - and the GM had better be a pretty damn good intuitive psychologist (I am) or it won't work no matter how much time he puts in - to give the players what they want without letting them know how much their desires as real people are really driving the situation? Why not do what a lot of the games around here do, with everyone driving the story together, instead?

Del and I have started trying this method more recently in the adventures he's run for Calithena, and man, if that extra shot of input I had to the story didn't fire my creative imagination as a player to the nth level.

Again, I think you can get pretty satisfying play which is both Narrativist and heavy-immersion/heavy-actor-stance, but the amount of GM work in and out of game to accomplish it, not to mention the clever use of illusionism, is pretty damn daunting and tiresome, especially if you, say, have a job you care about and other interests and relationships and all that.

Hello,

Another point which is being missed by most people posting to this thread is this:

Domhnall, you are not obliged to defend your preferred method of play here. No one is attacking it, and it is by no means any sort of inferior or secondary form.

When Ralph (Valamir) says he doesn't enjoy it or finds it insulting, he is not talking about you or anyone who does enjoy it. He's presenting that outlook for you to think about, that's all. I seriously suggest that everyone participating in this thread work hard to remove the (understandable) tendency to perceive such statements as "you shouldn't do it" recommendations. Ralph made no such recommendation.

What matters is this:

1. Does the essay accurately portray the sort of role-playing you hope to encourage in your game? I suspect the answer is "yes."

2. What rules-features of the game also encourage this sort of role-playing? Domhnall, I'm sure you appreciate that if the introductory essay says X and if the game rules instead encourage Y, that your game book will be diminished in its effectiveness. So answering this question is a big deal.

We can discuss #1 and #2 without any further brouhaha about other sorts of role-playing - and bluntly, people, I think it does a disservice to Domhnall in this thread to keep the brouhaha going. Let the man read the essays and mull.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: clehrichEver seen a horror film in a theater in an inner-city black community?

[laughing] That's so true! I use to live in downtown Detroit, and that's exactly what happened everytime I went ot the movies.

(Sorry for that drift...)

Quote from: clehrichDaniel,

So I think if you want to build suspense without OOC information, the thing you have to do is to ensure that the characters know something is afoot.  They go into the crowded bar, and the GM keeps pointing out that folks are jostling each other, that it's dimly lit, and so on, but he also points out that a lot of folks are very heavily armed, and there's this creepy guy in the corner with a hood, and so on.  We know something is going on, and we're very wary, but we don't know yet that it's a master thief.

clehrich:
If such a description were given to me as a player, I would interpret that as a telegraphed move.  It would be blantantly obvious that the thief is the creepy guy, or at least that would be the general stereotype easily picked out in that setting.  This would be divulging to much.  Why assume the players noticed whats going on in the corner?  I would make a roll behind the screen and consult their perceptive skills/stats or what have you and determine then if they by chance noticed the out of the ordinary guy in the corner w/hood.  No doubt I'd describe the room but I just can't give them freebies unless they are asking "I want to scan the room since this place looks a bit seedy".

Added:

Ron makes a good point which I didn't read prior to posting this reply to clehrich.  We all have our prefered way to play and like it for various reasons.  I have contributed to detraction from the point of matching essay with game which I believe was the purpose of the thread.  

Mourlgin

Mourlgin,

You miss my point slightly.  I wasn't thinking that the creepy guy in the corner was the thief at all.  What's telegraphed here is that there's something important to pay attention to.  But a really good sneak thief is the guy you don't notice, that fat guy next to you who's clearly mostly interested in the conversation he's having, and keeps waving that beer stein around and making big gestures to distract your attention to the wrong hand.  If you go and grab the creepy guy when you've been robbed, aren't you going to be annoyed when he denies everything?  And that's going to lead to arguments, and maybe fights.  And that happy fat guy is, like any sane person, going to duck out when the scene in the bar goes bad.  He just wants a nice drink with his pals, doesn't he?  Pity he has your purse in his pocket, of course....

clehrich

Re: surprise VS suspense.  I think I see what you're saying.  But, I would argue that the Players are not the audience, but the guys sitting around the table.  So, the more appropriate analogy here is that there's a bomb under the table, all the guys sitting around the table know that there's a bomb there, but are pretending they don't know it's there.  Now, there's neither surprise nor suspense.  There's just seeing if certain factors let them stop pretending that they don't know, so they can get out of there.  


Sean

You are correct, this takes a lot more time than a "quickie" game.  And, it also requires a lot of time talking to players (usually emails) that make sure that the players and GM are on the same page in regards to the characters' minds.  But, all this time makes the game extremely rich for us—making all that work worthwhile.


Ron

Another Illinoisian (that a word?)

No, I didn't feel attacked at all.  I expect argumentation when I come to a web board, and don't mind at all.  I do have a lot of catching up to do to learn the categories you guys use, though.
I need to learn more before I post my next Realism essay (which will more fully justify my paradigm) since the categories used here may conflict with my previous categories.

Quote from: DomhnallRe: surprise VS suspense.  I think I see what you're saying.  But, I would argue that the Players are not the audience, but the guys sitting around the table.  So, the more appropriate analogy here is that there's a bomb under the table, all the guys sitting around the table know that there's a bomb there, but are pretending they don't know it's there.  Now, there's neither surprise nor suspense.  There's just seeing if certain factors let them stop pretending that they don't know, so they can get out of there.

I don't agree.  In RPG's, the characters are the characters, but their players are the only audience there is.  And the desired effects happen upon players, not characters, who are after all only fictional constructs.  So if the players know there is a bomb, the question is whether they will have their characters leave the room in time.  The suspense generated in that case depends on whether the structure of the game -- in terms of everything from movement rates to dramatic consistency -- allows the characters to notice the bomb and leave or else leave quite accidentally.  The players are constrained by a web of system; given that web, can they get out?

I think the usual concern is that the players will bend everything in the constructed universe to bail out of the situation.  But if it's dramatically effective, why should they?  They just need to see that it's a better scene if they delay, and slowly come to some sort of realization, and then they'll want to come to a discovery of the bomb and then flee or disarm it.

Well, this comes down to a fundamental difference in playing philosophy.  Sorry to keep deferring my big answer, but I don't wanna put that out there before I read more of the old posts here.

I'm seeing a very important principle of a lot of discussions here at the Forge in the suspence/surprise discussion - particularly where Daniel writes "I would argue that the Players are not the audience, but the guys sitting around the table."

The thing is, the players are NOT the guys sitting around the table - they can't be.  The guys sitting around the table are imaginary characters.  And the players can't HELP but be the audience - they are observing play as it happens.  You can't stop them from doing so.  You can control it to some degree, with some of the techniques Daniel mentions, but that alters the details of players-as-audience, not the fact that they ARE audience (in addition to whatever else they may be in the groups' play style).

Now, acting in SOME way, and/or at SOME time, AS IF the imagined characters were real is kinda fundamental to roleplaying ("Exploration," in the model discussed in Ron's articles).  A wide variety of preferences about what ways and how much of the time we do that is to be expected.  Fun can be had in many variations of those preferences.  GNS talks about (among other things) the implications of how certain agendas impact those prefernces.

But at NO time is it true that we actually "are" the imagined characters.

I stress this not because I think it undermines or invalidates Daniel's play style in any way - I think this issue is mostly independent of play style/preference, GNS, or any of that.  Bluntly, it's not neccessary for the players to "be" the imagined characters to get the result Daniel points to - if it were, the result would not be possible, as the supposed starting state is not possible.  And the result is clearly possible, and desireable, and enjoyed by many (including me, in particular preferred variations).

I think this point is quite important to discussions here at the Forge, and is NOT about other play styles - it's about ALL play styles, INCLUDING the one Daniel's essay describes.  So - this post.  Hope it's useful - to Daniel in understanding stuff here, and to others in . . . whatever way they find it useful.

Gordon

Quote from: clehrichAnd the desired effects happen upon players, not characters, who are after all only fictional constructs.  So if the players know there is a bomb, the question is whether they will have their characters leave the room in time.  The suspense generated in that case depends on whether the structure of the game -- in terms of everything from movement rates to dramatic consistency -- allows the characters to notice the bomb and leave or else leave quite accidentally.  The players are constrained by a web of system; given that web, can they get out?  

I think the usual concern is that the players will bend everything in the constructed universe to bail out of the situation.  But if it's dramatically effective, why should they?  They just need to see that it's a better scene if they delay, and slowly come to some sort of realization, and then they'll want to come to a discovery of the bomb and then flee or disarm it.

Hmm.  I think both analogies (players-as-PCs and players-as-audience) are partly true and partly false.  Given that the players are controlling the PCs, I think it is almost assured that OOC dramatic tension won't work the way that it does in film.  In film, the bomb under the table works precisely because the audience is powerless to change it.  They are drawn to yell at the screen for the characters to realize their mistake and run, but they know it does no good.  

But in an RPG, the players control the characters.  So this sort of OOC tension has a very different dynamic than in the movie audience.  Off the top of my head, it hasn't seemed terribly effective to me when I've seen it used in RPGs.  I can role-play my way through it, but it hasn't really done anything for me.  The first example that springs to mind for me is my PC mind-controlledly walking into a trap.  It felt like a motion to get over with.  Anyone else have reflections on their experience of this?  

Remember that not all suspense is OOC suspense.  There is also in-character suspense, where both the audience and the protagonist are tensely awaiting the outcome of something.

Daniel, in my early years of GMing I've used most of the techniques you describe in your essay. Here's the problem I eventually had with them.

Let's suppose my players and I are talking about the loose ends and minor mysteries after the end of a campaign or after the conclusion of a major plot arc. I didn't see the point of keeping in-game secrets forever once play had moved on, so there would be a conversation something like this:

PLAYER 1: What I really want to know is who was the thief who took my 75 gold pieces.

ME (GM): If you really want to know, it was...

PLAYER 2: Oh, don't say it yet. I think we can figure out who it was. We discovered the gold was missing when we tried to pass the bribe to Lord DeJeune at the masquerade, right? So it had to be one of the other nobles at court.

PLAYER 1: So you think one of the nobles was actually a very accomplished thief?

PLAYER 3: Aren't they all?

PLAYER 2: Then it was somebody who didn't want to see DeJeune's silence bought. I think it was Lady Maudlin. She wanted to see her cousin Yseult embarassed by the scandal.

PLAYER 1: But it could have been Admiral Rosenthorn, who wanted to be seen as Yseult's protector, by handing over the bribe himself.

PLAYER 3: Well, we know the scandal never leaked out in the end, but we never found out why. So it could have been that, even though we didn't find anything incriminating about Rosenthorn. But do you remember the drunken scene Prince Marcus made during the Longday Dance? That would have been the perfect distraction to steal your purse, if the Prince was working in league with Lord Trevor, who we were talking to at the time.

PLAYER 2: But why would he or Trevor want to steal a lousy 75 ducats? That's like a day's drinking money for the Prince.

PLAYER 3: Gambling, maybe? Or part of one of his elaborate practical jokes that never came off?

PLAYER 1: Maybe. So, which was it?

ME: Um, actually, it was a thief you never noticed in the tavern the afternoon before the masquerade.

PLAYER 2: What? Just some random wandering thief?

ME: Oh, no, he was a very important thief, I had his background all worked out and if you'd noticed him he'd have maybe gotten you involved in a really cool plot about a lot of stuff you never found out about because didn't notice him, and then you found those invitations to the masquerade on that dead guy and Yseult asked for your help and you got involved in other stuff instead.

PLAYERS (obvious disappointment): Oh.

See, my players were proving to be rather creative, and keeping information from them because of some failed secret perception roll or because they didn't say their characters were examining some particular thing had effects kind of like the hallucinations people can get in a sensory deprivation tank. They would come up with all kinds of theories and extrapolations and explanations for things, all of them completely consistent with the limited information I'd given them, and most of them more interesting than the "real" explanation or mystery I'd had in mind. And over and over I had to tell them no, their suspicions didn't pan out; no, their looking further into this or that possibility yielded nothing; no, their plan couldn't work. (Except I couldn't just tell them, of course; they had to figure it out through agonizing trial and error.) This wasn't a problem in dungeon crawls, where if one lever doesn't open the door you just try another until you find the one that does. But in a more dynamic world, where the number of doors is infinite, it was wearisome.

I decided that in a world with (1) characters who were supposed to be exceptional individuals, and (2) magic, this didn't have to be a problem. Human perception, in the real world, is an amazing thing. Humans have been practicing linear reasoning for maybe a few million years, but have inherited from our animal ancestors about a billion years of practice with perception. (That's why programming a computer to play chess, a challenging linear reasoning task, is trivially easy, compared with programming a computer to analyze a picture of a room and find the chess board, a simple perception task.) So efficient, so important to survival, are these perception mechanisms that we often perceive patterns, and come to conclusions based on those patterns, without consciously recognizing exactly what information contributed to them. We have hunches. We sense that a person we're talking to has something to hide. We feel uneasy because some danger threatens even though we can't see anything specific that's amiss. And that's just ordinary people. Extraordinary player-character hero types, with martial training, childhoods survived by their wits on the street, priestly insight into the human soul, access to supernatural forces, great prophesied destinies, and lifetimes lived in a world of imminent peril, might reasonably be expected to do even better.

I believe it's therefore the most realistic thing in the world to tell a player, in-character, "you sense he's holding back on you," or "something's wrong and you feel that you really want to get out of this room," or "you're suddenly on edge; something's just happened and you missed it." Really, that kind of cueing is only slightly compensating for the ridiculously low bandwidth -- verbal narration -- by which the players get to perceive the world. Without that compensation, the characters are like people walking around looking at everything with one eye through a paper towel tube.

In other words, even someone who shares your philosophy of player-character immersion, as I did at that time, might choose different techniques to achieve that goal.

- Walt

Very interesting thread to read, thank you.

I would be interested in reading the original poster's followup essay, as my stumbling block was one that seems to be shared by several other people in this thread. Namely, the "Mystery" essay explains *how* you would carry out this kind of play, but not *why*.

If the reason is simply "We enjoy it", that's fine, but obviously in a final roleplaying game's text additional explanation as to how the game works when played in this stance is helpful.

Finally, not to retread covered ground, I think that one of the most interesting things about the Forge is its diversity of viewpoints. As such, I'm glad to see a new poster whose interests lie towards exclusive Actor stance, because we don't get much of that here. (I personally didn't enjoy such play, so I'm not that experienced with it.)

I think that in the long run you'll probably get more useful feedback on your work here, rather than on a forum where a majority of posters take what you're suggesting without question. Or in other words, "Okay, but why?" seems a better jumping off point for you than if we'd all said "Okay, sounds good."

Quote from: Permit me to add to what Andrew NorrisIf the reason is simply "We enjoy it", that's fine, but obviously in a final roleplaying game's text additional explanation as to how the game works when played in this stance is helpful.

It would also be helpful to consider, and explain, why the game would not work as intended if played in a different stance. That is, the reason to play it in this strict limited information actor stance may be that the game wants to encourage the feeling of being the character, but apart from that one aspect, what is lost if played a different way?

--M. J. Young

Quote from: John Kim
Hmm.  I think both analogies (players-as-PCs and players-as-audience) are partly true and partly false.  Given that the players are controlling the PCs, I think it is almost assured that OOC dramatic tension won't work the way that it does in film.  In film, the bomb under the table works precisely because the audience is powerless to change it.  They are drawn to yell at the screen for the characters to realize their mistake and run, but they know it does no good.  

This is quite true.

Quote from: clehrichMourlgin,

I wasn't thinking that the creepy guy in the corner was the thief at all.  What's telegraphed here is that there's something important to pay attention to.  But a really good sneak thief is the guy you don't notice, that fat guy next to you who's clearly mostly interested in the conversation he's having, and keeps waving that beer stein around and making big gestures to distract your attention to the wrong hand.  If you go and grab the creepy guy when you've been robbed, aren't you going to be annoyed when he denies everything?  And that's going to lead to arguments, and maybe fights.  And that happy fat guy is, like any sane person, going to duck out when the scene in the bar goes bad.  He just wants a nice drink with his pals, doesn't he?  Pity he has your purse in his pocket, of course....

This type of suspense is quite different than the type created from the movie audience metaphor.

As I have not picked up on all the terminology yet, I will attempt to crudely describe this with expectations that perhaps someone can correlate this with accepted Forge concepts.

This is setting the mood of the bar. This style of play can be affectively played within both the "immersion"  (simulationist) and several versions of the "story-telling" (narrativist) styles of play. I'll focus on the immersion styles, framed from the immersion perspective.

The GM could, secretively or openly, roll abilities, or skills, the higher the success the more nuances the character picks up which in turn influence the ammount of description given to player.

Example: Rorgue (a rogue) perception score gets rolled against the fat guy's acting (distraction and pick pocket) ability score. The fat guy narrowly beats  Rorgue. a tie. Rorgue picks up a few clues to the fat guy's tricks - the GM narrates the bar scene with suspense, the guy in the corner being a distraction, the bumping room is a distraction - instead of these distractions affecting the fat guy's roll mechanicly, they get interspersed as false clues through narration (drama). Peppered through these false clues (perceived through simulation as situations the fat guy is using to his advantage), is the clue of the "fat guy next to you who's clearly mostly interested in the conversation he's having, and keeps waving that beer stein around and making big gestures".

If Rorgue had botched his perception check, that peppered narration could be reduced to the "fat guy next to you is rapt in conversation with (describe those people)" or even a more ellaborate description of the seedy nature of the robed individual in the corner or a description of somebody bumping into you.

Perhaps if you had tied on rolls, your perception momentarily shifts to the other hand, "fat guy next to you who's clearly mostly interested in the conversation he's having, and keeps waving that beer stein around and making big gestures, nudging you with his other hand" or whatever.

If Rorgue had critically succeeded at his perception check, all the peppered descriptions would still be included, with the addition of something like, "fat guy next to you who's clearly mostly interested in the conversation he's having, and keeps waving that beer stein around and making big gestures. You notice his other hand moving toward your purse".

Crudely, this is story-telling (narrativism) _supporting_ immersion (simulation). Their is an essay around here about that I need to reread.

Quote from: Walt Freitag
I believe it's therefore the most realistic thing in the world to tell a player, in-character, "you sense he's holding back on you," or "something's wrong and you feel that you really want to get out of this room," or "you're suddenly on edge; something's just happened and you missed it." Really, that kind of cueing is only slightly compensating for the ridiculously low bandwidth -- verbal narration -- by which the players get to perceive the world. Without that compensation, the characters are like people walking around looking at everything with one eye through a paper towel tube.

In other words, even someone who shares your philosophy of player-character immersion, as I did at that time, might choose different techniques to achieve that goal.

- Walt

This could easily be translated in the technique stated above.

Example: Instead of, "you sense he's holding back on you,", you could say, "their is something in the way he's averting his eyes from you that bothers you" (which could just as easily be his failed ettiquete check (or yours), because of cultural differences, as it is his failed bluff).

Example 2: He keeps shuffling his feet in an odd way (Does he have to pee or is he withholding information?). Its up to the player to wonder, is he lieing or does he need to pee, not the GM to suggest it, or perhaps the player could suggest, "I look at his feet to see what kind of gesture he is making"? In which case a high "perception", could notice he's twisting and pressing his thighs together suggesting he really needs to pee!

"That player inevitably has taken the knowledge received from playing in that world with former characters and is using that knowledge with this new character. The solution has been for the player not to use the knowledge which he has gained through past characters, pretending his character is ignorant. While this is a fair guideline to follow, it interferes with the fun for the player since actual discovery (for the player) has been removed. Races, monsters, skills, spells, & even the history should slightly change sometimes. The only time to make these alterations is when one or several characters have died or passed out of the story."

Wow, I used to play this style of immersion but have taken up another sort of play. This is an exploration-centered form of immersion that if I remember correctly is mentioned in one of the essays around here.

P.S. I also enjoy narrativist RPGs and suggest that these type of RPGs have their own merits for a different type of play.

Also, I am no expert and I have not read the articles in a while, hopefully some one will correct me if they think I am off base in my analysis or choice of terms.

Quote from: John Kim

Quote from: clehrichAnd the desired effects happen upon players, not characters, who are after all only fictional constructs.  So if the players know there is a bomb, the question is whether they will have their characters leave the room in time.  The suspense generated in that case depends on whether the structure of the game -- in terms of everything from movement rates to dramatic consistency -- allows the characters to notice the bomb and leave or else leave quite accidentally.  The players are constrained by a web of system; given that web, can they get out?  

I think the usual concern is that the players will bend everything in the constructed universe to bail out of the situation.  But if it's dramatically effective, why should they?  They just need to see that it's a better scene if they delay, and slowly come to some sort of realization, and then they'll want to come to a discovery of the bomb and then flee or disarm it.

Hmm.  I think both analogies (players-as-PCs and players-as-audience) are partly true and partly false.  Given that the players are controlling the PCs, I think it is almost assured that OOC dramatic tension won't work the way that it does in film.  In film, the bomb under the table works precisely because the audience is powerless to change it.  They are drawn to yell at the screen for the characters to realize their mistake and run, but they know it does no good.  

But in an RPG, the players control the characters.  So this sort of OOC tension has a very different dynamic than in the movie audience.  Off the top of my head, it hasn't seemed terribly effective to me when I've seen it used in RPGs.  I can role-play my way through it, but it hasn't really done anything for me.  The first example that springs to mind for me is my PC mind-controlledly walking into a trap.  It felt like a motion to get over with.  Anyone else have reflections on their experience of this?  

Remember that not all suspense is OOC suspense.  There is also in-character suspense, where both the audience and the protagonist are tensely awaiting the outcome of something.

I would like to suggest that just as that audience is powerless to get those guys to leave the bomb table, so are the players. That is, if they maintain actor stance. For example, you as a player may know how to make gun powder, but be playing in a game world where is hasn't been invented. Does this mean that in any situation where gunpowder would be handy (quite a few to my pyro mind), it's as dull as dishwater?

Really, the techniques of Domhnall seem to be about ensuring that taking a pawn stance always means taking an actor stance. In that if you can only operate your pawn with the information it has as a character, the way you will move that pawn will be just like the character. Basing moves on character info then reflects that character in those pawn moves, making them more like actor stance moves.

If one is used to this technique, to transmute pawn stance into actor stance, I could see the OOC information release making it very dull/unpleasant. Players knowing what their characters don't would instantly reverse the transmutation, leaving it as pure pawn stance.

So this is forcing actor stance. While the other option is to ask players to adopt actor stance, seperating OOC information from character moves. Certainly, just like the gunpowder example, its possible to enjoy the PC's situation even as a player, you know an easy way out. But this pure actor stance is something the GM can't force a player to do, they have to choose to do so (and get skilled in it, as it requires some).

Quote from: Noon

Quote from: John KimBut in an RPG, the players control the characters.  So this sort of OOC tension has a very different dynamic than in the movie audience.  Off the top of my head, it hasn't seemed terribly effective to me when I've seen it used in RPGs.  I can role-play my way through it, but it hasn't really done anything for me.  The first example that springs to mind for me is my PC mind-controlledly walking into a trap.  It felt like a motion to get over with.  Anyone else have reflections on their experience of this?    

I would like to suggest that just as that audience is powerless to get those guys to leave the bomb table, so are the players. That is, if they maintain actor stance. For example, you as a player may know how to make gun powder, but be playing in a game world where is hasn't been invented. Does this mean that in any situation where gunpowder would be handy (quite a few to my pyro mind), it's as dull as dishwater?  

It seems like you're making a theoretical argument here -- i.e. I really should feel tension and excitement over OOC suspense, based on your theory about stances.  But my experience doesn't match this.  That's why I asked about experience.  Have you had bomb-under-the-table situations in real RPGs that worked to generate tension?  Can you describe them?  

For me, I can't recall that particular technique working in RPGs.  It's certainly possible to play through, but it doesn't have the emotional power for suspense the way that the same technique in movies does.  

For example, I recall at one point being hit by a mind-control device during a fight, which generated apathy in my character (Slick in the Crystal Palace campaign).  There weren't any mechanics for this -- the GM just noted to me that the device made me not care.  So my PC stopped doing stuff, even though there was fighting all around that could endanger him and his friends.  From my point of view, I felt like it sucked all the tension right out of the situation.  Now, in principle an audience member could feel tension like "Can Slick overcome the device's influence?"  Under this theory, I could be on the edge of my seat tensely awaiting word from the GM about whether I can break the device.  But in practice I just felt, well, apathetic.

Strangely enough I can remember an inadvertant experience. You see, our GM was running games that basically cloned the Gotrik and Feelix novels (sp?). He knew I hadn't read the next book along and began running a game off it.

The thing was, the previous book had a sample of that next book in it. I knew exactly what was going to happen, because essentially I'd read ahead in the script. Someone was going to have a waitress visit them in their bedroom, then ninja Skaven would attack with explosives or something and the whole place would burn down.

It was very fun!

The thing was, obviously as a player I'm expecting my PC meet conflict. I can't be surprised by running into conflict...I not only expect it, I want it. So no loss there from knowing it would happen in advance.

The next thing is that although it was a combat type of conflict, were all pretty used to those happening. I mean, someone attacking my PC isn't any more surprising if I don't know who those someones will be. Just as much as I expect conflict and suspect a good amount of combat, I already know some creature will fill those boots.

Finally, although I knew the place would burn down after skaven attack, the finer details of it were a mystery. The dice rolls might make my PC dead. My tactics can still help avoid that. If I'm a real ninja about it I might slow or stop the fire (or atleast feel that I should have, despite the GM ignoring any valid efforts...still a win, even if the GM doesn't give me credit for it).

Ultimately, most of it doesn't surprise me as a player anyway, so it's no loss to know that it will happen (or in the case of the pick pocket, has happened). In fact, it can be a refreshing change of pace instead of trying reeeeeally hard to pretend that surprise conflicts are indeed surprising.

Actually, to be frank, with my friends GM'ing technique, it was actually a bit of a relief to be able to look ahead. He just wasn't good enough at sculpting a surprise, they were often quite awful for PC and player. But when I knew what was ahead, I could just enjoy the moment instead of bracing for a potentially badly made encounter. This last point is important, as even a good GM might not be able to sculpt an interesting enough surprise encounters for older players who have a lot of gaming experience. But with shared knowledge, these older players can help get over that.

And in terms of that apathy device, it seems the agreed approach method is the real obstacle. You say you had to wait on the word of the GM? Well, it sounds like your not trusted to even suggest any valid moves your PC could still make under those circumstances, let alone just make them. A lack of trust and a mutual agreement that means you can't do anything your not trusted to do, has basically bound you into doing nothing and being bored. Let's go back to the table with the bomb under it and the players have been informed of this. There are two ways it could be handled.

1. The players are trusted to keep their OOC knowledge seperate and still act out their PC's actions. This means they are trusted to not just flee the table on flimsy excuses, but instead play it out in character.

2. The players aren't trusted and having been informed, now have effectively lost control of their character. Since they can't be trusted to keep the info seperate, they loose control of their character until the GM says they get it back.

Quote from: John KimHave you had bomb-under-the-table situations in real RPGs that worked to generate tension?  Can you describe them?

Will you take waffles for a bomb?  :-)

Valshares is at a waffle stand, in line directly after a city guard. Guard order a bunch of waffles, Valshares observes that the last waffle comes from a different pile. Valshares orders a waffle and is served from the same pile.

Christian is in a tavern where a guard arrives with a bunch of waffles and meets up with a group of guards already there. Turns out the sergeant has a habit of treating new guard units to waffles. Waffles get divvied up among the guards, eaten, and one of the guards keels over dead.

This was an intro session, Valshares and Christian hadn't even met yet.

Everybody was on the edge of their seats and from then on somebody brought waffles to every session of this campaign.

SR
--

Quote from: NoonActually, to be frank, with my friends GM'ing technique, it was actually a bit of a relief to be able to look ahead. He just wasn't good enough at sculpting a surprise, they were often quite awful for PC and player.  

While this was enjoyable, am I right in reading that it wasn't actually generating suspense or tension?  In this case it was working as a relief of tension, if anything.  Which is a valid goal, but different than the OOC-suspense technique we were talking about.  

Quote from: NoonLet's go back to the table with the bomb under it and the players have been informed of this. There are two ways it could be handled.
1. The players are trusted to keep their OOC knowledge seperate and still act out their PC's actions. This means they are trusted to not just flee the table on flimsy excuses, but instead play it out in character.
2. The players aren't trusted and having been informed, now have effectively lost control of their character. Since they can't be trusted to keep the info seperate, they lose control of their character until the GM says they get it back.  

Ah.  I've been assuming #1 here, without even considering #2.  Let's keep that assumption for a moment.  So now I'm playing my character going about his normal activity, but knowing that if I stay by the table I'll be blown up and if I wander away I'll survive.  Chances are that I'll stay be the table and be blown up, I suspect.  There wouldn't be a whole lot of tension in it for me, though.  

At this point, some players (I think) would enjoy the challenge of trying to find in-character reasons to see the bomb or go away from the table -- trying to use the OOC information to save their character, while finding sufficient excuse to do so without social disapproval.  Maybe there is tension in this approach (?).  I'm not sure.  Now that I think about it, I've often seen GMs expect this -- and indeed they are annoyed if I failed to use the OOC information.  (Like staying beside the bomb.)

QuoteWhile this was enjoyable, am I right in reading that it wasn't actually generating suspense or tension? In this case it was working as a relief of tension, if anything. Which is a valid goal, but different than the OOC-suspense technique we were talking about.

Ah, correct, it is tension relieving. But remember I described some of that tension already gone? 1. I expect conflict 2. I expect combat. Surprise from these are already lost.

Where you can gain tension from: there were still the fine details of how many and from what vectors. Consider it in terms of foreshadowing. A book or movie scene shows a gun. It pretty much foreshadows that gun being used, but the particulars of how its used are speculation. It's like if school bullies at the start of the day tell you they are going to beat you up at the end of the day. They could have just tried to beat you up at the end of the day, but this way your worrying about it all day before it happens.

Quotetrying to use the OOC information to save their character, while finding sufficient excuse to do so without social disapproval

The social dissaproval part is important to note. At this point we can see social contract is important in how this is resolved. If everyones agreed that using OOC information to then determine what (if any) valid PC behaviour would get them away from the bomb is okay, there is no social disapproval.

But what I would like to say is that the stakes here are too high. The bomb under the table is just too strong a temptation for people to cheat at this. It's cheat or stop playing because your PC is dead. Any game (board and card games even) that let you get to a point like this aren't designed well. I think that this is an entirely different 'session design that denies play' issue. Keep in mind that in the movie, if someone dies at that bomb table, the movie doesn't end for some of the patrons, so we need to 'keep the movie going' so to speak. So I'd like to talk about the bomb as if its a sleeping gas bomb.

That said and the stakes lowered, I'd say the tension is just like that of a group on screen around a table with a bomb under it (cept we switch to sleeping gas). Each player really thinks about their character and mundane behaviours they would do. The tension lies in all the mundane crap they would do, the player realises. Just like the movie plays out each characters mundane movements, so will the players mind, working through it all thoroughly to look for a way out. The player may even feel the urge to shout at his character as the tension rises, like the people watching the movie. All the while, they don't know when the bomb will go off...perhaps their character will drink enough beer in time that he'll need to use the toilet. Actually I should mention I've been running off the assumption that the actual detonation time hasn't been told to the players, it has merely been foreshadowed.

So essentially I think that its just employing forshadowing and mystery as to how or when the foreshadowed thing will be employed. And as such it still works.