The Forge Archives

Archive => RPG Theory => Topic started by: Le Joueur on November 18, 2002, 02:55:15 AM

Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Le Joueur on November 18, 2002, 02:55:15 AM
Hello,

My name is Fang Langford and I'm an intrepid explorer, this is my cat Schroedinger.  I just got back from a lengthy journey; I have some things I need to share with you.  I'm glad you could make it; I've got some simply amazing news.  I need your help, though.  There are things I have seen that I scarcely believe; worse, I don't have words to explain much of it.  That's where you come in....

Let me back up a moment and start from 'the beginning.'  As you know, many of us have been searching for El Dorado, the lost city of gold (the truly impossible thing).  When stated simply, it is clearly impossible, a city built of gold (player choice directing a gamemaster created story).  The hardest work of all regarding the legends of El Dorado has been done by Professor Ron Edwards.  It is his work, in fact, which truly enabled us to separate the myths from the clues for the first time in history.

Of late, I had been going over the writings of many of the previous explorers, pondering not so much what they said ('a Simulationist game with a Narrativist gamemaster') as what their saying of it meant.  I know a lot of Professor Edwards' work centers on the idea of not differentiating between players and gamemasters; crucial, if I may say, to the perfection of his Narrativism.  Tonight, I break with that idea completely.  This is because of what I saw earlier today, or rather, what I think I saw.

It's been a long hard road, these last few months; I've had a lot of difficulty due to the lack of popularity of my own theories and ideas.  That's why I'm appealing to you; I can't finish this work alone.  I can't even describe it; that's my problem.  If I've any hope of communicating my discovery, I must rely upon your help to make my findings communicable.  What have I found?  Why, El Dorado itself (the 'impossible thing').

I was traveling out in the fringes of explored territory.  I visited Intuitive Continuity, the realm first thought to contain El Dorado, after crossing the decrepit 'many roads to Rome.'  (I took a short detour into the area I named Dynamic Status Quo, even though that is more of a description of what is done there rather than where it is.)  I visited for a time with members of the Narrativist commune and stopped briefly at the main village of the Simulationists (I always marvel at how clearly laid out it appears when you consider it from Professor Edwards' SSSCC model).  I didn't stay there long as the language barrier often has gotten me into nearly deadly trouble with the natives.  (Had a bit of a run in recently due to the language barrier; that actually contributed to tonight's epiphany.)

We eventually set up camp near the evidence of the Gamist's migration.  (I still can't get over the fact that I've never actually seen a group of Gamists.  Oh, there are converts here and there, but I've not encountered an actual group of them.)  While I was pouring over the notes I had made here recently, I stumbled on something quite by accident.  I was looking at the map of the whole region, such as they are, and contemplating the recent survey taken by the Right Honorable Walt Freitag, specifically the copy given me by Ralph "Valamir" Mazza.  I was looking at an area he'd marked 'concentration' when the epiphany hit.

The biggest problem I've encountered with the Simulationists has to do with the word "realism."  Sometimes it bleeds out into 'simulation' or as I've attempted to call it 'emulation.'  In more diplomatic moods, I've even tried to term it 'verisimilitude.'  Somehow I'd always missed the point.  I notice you've been eying Schroedinger here, quite the specimen, isn't he?  It was when he leap out of the tree onto the table which I was considering the maps on, when everything came together.  Let's give the nice man a demonstration shall we Schroedinger?

Here, Schroedinger, get in your box; cute play on words isn't it?  Well, let me turn the box around.  See this sign?  I know it's in French, I got the idea from a painting in the Scott McCloud collection.  It translates roughly to "There is no cat."  The painting is of a pipe and says, "This is not a pipe;" and it's true, the painting isn't a pipe, it's a painting of a pipe.  The same principle applies here.  This box contains nothing; there is no cat.  There isn't even a box; it's all in your imagination.  This is the "Myth of 'reality' in gaming."

Everyone argues about how realistic it is, or how good of a simulation it is, when in fact it isn't either.  It's just frilly words about invisible concepts that have no real basis in reality.  However, all these words are used in common life to refer to things that are real.  I think the painting in McCloud's collection is 'the treachery of images' or something like that.  That's exactly what's going on here.  No matter how hard we try to believe that what happens in the game has as much causal 'follow-through' as reality (and Erwin Schroedinger pretty much disproved that one too), it doesn't.  It couldn't, all the components are fictional.  They aren't real.  Even if 'what is beyond that curtain' is predetermined by the gamemaster, it isn't any more real than my cat here; sorry about leaving you in the box so long, Schroedinger.

Mr. Mazza's example of concentration was the big clue for me.  Especially when I considered the work M. J. Young had done with it.  Sorry, I'm babbling, aren't I.  I guess I'm just too excited.  Are you following me so far?  Good; I'll need your help articulating this more clearly to the others.

Back to the jungle, so there I was clearing up after my 'chance meeting' with Schroedinger here.  I was putting my maps back in order when I set the Freitag insert back down on an unexplored (or should I say under-explored?  I believe some of our junior members say they've been there) section when a minor error resulted in my epiphany.  Y'see usually people place the bodies involved in such a way that you see a clear flow, a river if you will, leading out of the jungle to the ocean (the player/gamemaster models).  Well, the Freitag/Mazza interpretation of this particular area landed 90° out of alignment.  What I had always taken as an ox-bow lake (a common feature along twisty rivers on broad, flat floodplains) was shown to actually be a bend in a second river entirely.

Let me explain.  Up 'til now, everyone searching for El Dorado has gone up the sacred river, seeking it in some hidden tributary.  Well, looking at the map thus, I realized we needed to search for another river entirely.  We immediately decamped and began to cut our way into the brush and lo and behold, a second stream.  Not wishing to return with only such controversial evidence, we immediately placed our canoes and paddled upstream.

Sure enough, it lead right to El Dorado.  It was so obvious I could see how easily it had been missed.  The lay of the land was perfect for the 'myth of reality' to completely send everyone off its track.  Alas, in our haste to return, we became so helplessly lost that we failed to survey the route.  I know this all sounds completely unreasonable, but hear me out.  I need help mounting a second expedition.  Get that Lerno chap, I think he's been there; he's right on track with the 'effect first' stuff, I just don't think he knows it.

I know everyone will think me mad, but I've seen it with my own eyes; you've gotta help me.

More information?  Certainly.

Up 'til now everyone has looked at Professor Edwards' comments about 'player actions' and 'gamemaster defined story' as though they referred to the same thing, the 'myth of reality.'  The idea that both are somehow interacting with some entity outside of themselves that was unique and in some ways unassailable.  It wasn't until I had to take Jonathan to task over the 'unreality' of characters that I even conceived of this expedition.  Rather than use a arbitrary compass to guide us, I fell upon using Intuitive Continuity to lead us back.

Here's what I found:obscures their presence as the method players used to 'indulge' themselves.

Gamemasters are nothing like that.  Many times it's said they have 'the world,' but that is by far, the worst misleading thing that could be said.  It is clear from the Freitag/Mazza interpretation, that said world is not at all concrete, sensible, causal, or in any way consistent or real.  It quite simply doesn't exist (until it is created).  (The cards in the game of concentration 'in game' are as backless as Schroedinger's cat is alive or dead.)[/list:u]
And that's both where the confusion lays and the path to El Dorado.

Hearing people again and again contemplate gamemaster Narrativism with player Simulationism made me realize that most people sense the difference between these two parties.  The fact that they want to apply the same model differently to both underscores that each is operating in a different fashion.

Until the recent work of Professor Edwards regarding Illusionism really sank in, I had no idea why.  With it, we really do see a gamemaster who's doing one thing with players who are pretty much up to something else entirely.  What's been wrong all this time is applying a single model to both.

I, myself, make the same error with the Avatar-Swashbuckler-Joueur-Auteur Scattershot model, except someone in my naiveté manage to only talk about player behaviour.[/list:u]How does all of that relate to El Dorado?  If you realize that these are two separate and distinct rivers, you can find your way right to the door of the fabled city.specifics of 'his story' arise.  I unconsciously ceded some of this 'authoring' to the entire group when I created Scattershot's Genre Expectations; some of them include the archetypical 'plot' written completely abstractly.)

(What does this mean?  It means I'm going to have to create a whole 'nother model just for gamemasters.  It means that I'm going to have to create terminology of the preference of player-Approach gamemasters follow.  It means I have a lot of explaining to do.  It means I need a lot of help working out the specifics of this idea.  It means that this post has gone on far too long.  It means I need to get to bed.  It also means I'm so happy you guys helped me get this far and I appreciate however much help you can give me to get 'the rest of the way.')

(Finally, it means I'm glad you read this far; you're the greatest.)[/list:u]Fang Langford
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Christoffer Lernö on November 18, 2002, 04:39:41 AM
Just a thought. Although these abstract, unlabled events can be planned in advance they are mostly sketched out in chunks.

I do remember how delighted I was at reading the Dream Park RPG which had adventures explicitly divided into Climaxes, Resolutions, Developments and so on. I made a few games which only was a what that RPG referred to as a "beat chart", with these events laid out.
However, that quickly became a railroading story with some plotplots pre-loaded. Because it was all one big chunk. I do recommend flipping through Dream Park for it's insights on what plot elements you should throw in.

Efficent play of the type I think we are discussing still involves only designing "as much as you feel like" at a time, and then being ready to throw out that the instant it doesn't work with what you want to do.

For example, you were thinking that there were going to be werewolves out in the woods, but they went out too early in the game looking in the woods, so it would spoil the excitement to have them hunted now. Instead you let them come back without seeing anything special and switch to them playing with a ouija board and attracting ghosts.

It might seem that such a twist would be giant change, but if you only had worked out a story of "well they're gonna be chased by werewolves and stuff", then changing the story 90 degrees just because "it is more dramatic that way" isn't a problem.

At this point you had only really created an intro chunk "party, the find werewolves in the forest and get hunted". Since they went out before the party, you simply switched the story. The threat isn't the woods now, but something living in the house. So the story becomes "party, using oujia board to reveal the ghosts in the house". A new chunk.

Once the ouija board reveals the ghosts you might create a small chunk "ghostly effects scaring everyone, someone goes missing". And so on.

But maybe you're saying something different Fang?

Maybe you mean that the scenarios I'm switching between are really concrete implementations of a single meta-scenario: the intro-revelation-scares-first hints at the true horror-etc etc remains the same in both cases.

In that sense you could say that a typical horror story already has all of this pre-written. The pacing is this and this, the range of events are these and these.

If we zoom out, then will there always be somewhere where such a game can be considered to be made up by abstract components? I don't know for sure.
Title: an obligatory SGR reference
Post by: RobMuadib on November 18, 2002, 05:39:16 AM
Fang

Hey, read through your post here (you did have a bit too much fun elaborating on your mental models as generated by your perusal of the various thread, if I do say so myself.)

But, I think what you are ultimately getting at is a good idea. It mirrors just a bit of the thinking I have been doing with regards to expanding my SGR stuff.

To expand it even further. I think power/responsiblity is an all important axes which to consider. By concentrating the power  for an SGR mode in one person, you necessarily limit the power/responsibility of the other players. You create two different games, one played by the players, and one by the GM. This is fundamental to a games design as represented by it's language. I would go so far as to say the distrubition of power is the most important thing to consider in terms of GNS type stuff. It affects how an invidual player "can" prioritize his GNS decisions.

The players play to the GM's game, in the case of Story/Illusionist type play, the GM is working on directing or weaving the actions of the other players into a satisfying story. If they go along with them, things are good, where his reward is to actually achieve his S fix, and have that S fix reinforced/validated by the other players. The players are essentially trying to figure out what the GM is doing via his Show and Tell act, while doing their thing GNS thing from character perspective.

Anyway, I definitely think you have a good idea here. GNS has primarily addressed the "player" perspective and not enough attention has been considered, at least for design purposes, on the idea that reserving the power to one player, makes it a totally different game for him.

(Narrativism, as evidenced in most N games around, is kind of screwy since it covers the opposite side of the Story element, where all the players have more say in shaping and dealing with S, and are playing the game in a much more similar way. Where Dramatism/Illusionism is the more traditional method, with the Story element focused on the GM player, who effectively is playing a rather different game, or approach to the fundamental Story element entertainment.)

HTH
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: C. Edwards on November 18, 2002, 06:53:11 AM
Howdy Fang,

QuoteAn El Dorado gamemaster doesn't fall for the 'myth of reality,' he plans his 'story' abstractly. He uses Origins, Precipitating Events, Mystiques, Moving Clues, Crises, Climaxes, and Resolutions without labeling them. A complication isn't Suzy or Bonnie or Chicken pox, it's simply a complication in complete abstraction. He can plan out all the turns of the story, in great detail if he wants, as plain abstractions. He then takes this 'gamemaster story' and feeds it to the players. It is from indulging their interests, their 'labels,' and their desires - just like described in Intuitive Continuity - where the specifics of 'his story' arise.

Not to poop on your epiphany but I guess I naively assumed that most people approached GMing in this manner, at least on a visceral level.  Of course I don't see it as the GM feeding the players "his story".  It's the GMs story algorithm or framework, but the players' decisions are what give meaning, in every sense, to its unfolding.  If we were to lay out Cinderella as one of these abstract story frameworks with appropriate labels on complications and dramatic climaxes, etc. would it resemble the story of Cinderella? Would it have any meaning?  The players may ONLY be supplying desires to the GM so that the specifics  may be generated, but what is that if not player empowerment?  The players interests and desires ARE the story.  They are the direct cause of events based upon a very limited (because GMs are not universal Turing machines) palette of possibilities.

So, If I've just described El Dorado, then yes Fang, I think you've found it, and here I thought it was just an old brickyard.  

Of course, game systems with a substantial amount of simulationist mechanics make running a game in this manner difficult, at least if the GM isn't prepared to throw out a good deal of those mechanics that apply to what happens on his side of the screen.  I'm not talking about fudging dice rolls either.  I'm talking about manipulating time and space in a manner that conflicts with the understanding of "how things work" on the player side of the screen.  This is where Illusionism is born I think, different standards for different sides of the screen.  But since, in El Dorado:
Quotesaid world is not at all concrete, sensible, causal, or in any way consistent or real. It quite simply doesn't exist (until it is created)
, the manipulation of time and space is a non-issue.  I think that a system that doesn't require, or one that openly embraces, different standards for player and GM is the only way to reach El Dorado and avoid the realm of Illusionism.

My primary experience with this is d20 and AD&D.  Played by the book the game is a strategic exercise in foe smiting and power grabbing (levels/items) with, as Mr. Adkison says, " story too, if you're so inclined.."  The "El Dorado Model" can't function properly without putting the players decisions and desires at the very top of  the pyramid.  Putting player desires foremost is difficult in such systems because simulationist mechanics try to impose causal structure on an imagined construct that must remain inconsistent and flexible to accommodate those desires.

Here is an analogy and comparison to help illustrate how I see El Dorado:
(Illusionism) A race that is decided by the voice of the announcer (GM).
(Railroading) A race that is decided by the structure of the race track (Plot).
(El Dorado) A race that is decided by the actions of the drivers (Players).

One of the reasons I appreciate the work you're doing with Scattershot is that it lays out many of the pieces that a story framework can be built of in an understandable manner that is geared towards RPGs.

-Chris
Title: The Beat of Jungle Drums
Post by: Le Joueur on November 18, 2002, 10:42:25 AM
Thanks for replying Christoffer,

Quote from: Pale FireJust a thought, although these abstract, unlabeled events can be planned in advance they are mostly sketched out in chunks.
Ah!  But the 'size of chunk' is probably a good indicator of how far you are from El Dorado; the smaller they are and the closer together, the closer you are to the fabled city.  Conversely, and suggestive of 'other gaming,' when the 'chunks' get really big (even to the point of only having one, 'the whole game') you get away from this goal.

Quote from: Pale FireI do remember how delighted I was at reading the Dream Park RPG which had adventures explicitly divided into Climaxes, Resolutions, Developments and so on. I made a few games which only was a what that RPG referred to as a "beat chart", with these events laid out.

However, that quickly became a railroading story with some subplots pre-loaded. Because it was all one big chunk. I do recommend flipping through Dream Park for its insights on what plot elements you should throw in.
Yes!  That's it.  A game that focuses on 'beats' or the rhythm of the tension spiral gets right at the heart of what I'm mostly failing to describe.  These are those mysterious drum beats you hear as you cut through the trackless jungle surrounding the city.  (I worry, that you idea of subplots is completely off the mark; I'll speak to that in a later post.)

Quote from: Pale FireEfficient play of the type I think we are discussing still involves only designing "as much as you feel like" at a time, and then being ready to throw out that the instant it doesn't work with what you want to do.

For example, you were thinking that there were going to be werewolves out in the woods, but they went out too early in the game looking in the woods, so it would spoil the excitement to have them hunted now. Instead you let them come back without seeing anything special and switch to them playing with a ouija board and attracting ghosts.

It might seem that such a twist would be giant change, but if you only had worked out a story of "well they're gonna be chased by werewolves and stuff", then changing the story 90 degrees just because "it is more dramatic that way" isn't a problem.

At this point you had only really created an intro chunk "party, the find werewolves in the forest and get hunted". Since they went out before the party, you simply switched the story. The threat isn't the woods now, but something living in the house. So the story becomes "party, using oujia board to reveal the ghosts in the house". A new chunk.

Once the ouija board reveals the ghosts you might create a small chunk "ghostly effects scaring everyone, someone goes missing". And so on.
You're right on the mark with "efficient play."  There doesn't seem to be anything in the description of El Dorado that a 'gamemaster story' needs to be preplanned or front-loaded.  It simply is 'the work of the gamemaster.'  One of the examples that I took to be a sketch of the route into El Dorado was the suggestion that a gamemaster could take all that was played and rearranges the back-story to create significance.  I didn't see it at the time, but thinking about it in abstracted terms, it works perfectly well as El Dorado.  (That would be the gamemaster, to himself, going, "Yeah, and I'll take that guy they left to visit and change him into the 'must-see, gateway character.'")  So retro-story construction is just as suited to El Dorado as any other kind of gamemaster 'story' creation.  What makes it El Dorado is that the gamemaster is working from a 'symbolic language' perspective and letting the player's choices create the detail for those symbols.

You example is then problematic.  An El Dorado gamemaster is not thinking in terms of werewolves and forest, but perhaps as a 'supernatural threat' in a 'dangerous locale.'  You do have the "too early" part right; that would be 'listening to the drumbeats' of the game to sense when to put in the 'mysterious chase scene.'  I can see the 'myth of reality' as a ghost in your statement "come back without seeing anything special."  There isn't any 'come back,' that's just detail that gets supplied by the players.  That's why deciding "Well, they're gonna be chased by werewolves and stuff" is pretty much outside of El Dorado (unless you chose the 'chased' part and they supplied the 'werewolves' part – perhaps during character or game creation).

Quote from: Pale FireBut maybe you're saying something different Fang?

Maybe you mean that the scenarios I'm switching between are really concrete implementations of a single meta-scenario: the intro-revelation-scares-first hints at the true horror-etc etc remains the same in both cases.

In that sense you could say that a typical horror story already has all of this pre-written. The pacing is this and this, the range of events are these and these.

If we zoom out, then will there always be somewhere where such a game can be considered to be made up by abstract components? I don't know for sure.
I think you've pretty much got it here, what you need to do to 'catch the glint of gold' is learn to shuffle the 'size of chunks' you're working with.  Is it a chase scene?  Or is it a 'chase scene that results in the deprivation of the scene's central character of something they'll desire the return of?'  Not every game will be made of such abstract concepts and choices; abstract gamemaster/detailed players is the heart of El Dorado, not every type of play.

Thank you for bringing up a useful example and introducing 'chunk' theory.  I really must give you my appreciation for reminding me of 'beat theory,' does anyone know of any other games that make use of 'beats?'  (Was it only Dream Park that used 'beats?')  I look forward to having you along on the next expedition to El Dorado; perhaps we'll bring something back to prove that it exists.

Fang Langford
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Ron Edwards on November 18, 2002, 10:54:42 AM
Hello,

Keep talking, folks, I'm listening.

I'm also smiling in a sinister fashion, but I'm listening.

Best,
Ron
Title: Of the Player and of the Gamemaster
Post by: Le Joueur on November 18, 2002, 11:20:59 AM
Welcome to the discussion Rob,

Quote from: RobMuadibTo expand it even further, I think power/responsibility is an all important axes which to consider. By concentrating the power for an SGR mode in one person, you necessarily limit the power/responsibility of the other players. You create two different games, one played by the players, and one by the GM. This is fundamental to a games design as represented by its language. I would go so far as to say the distribution of power is the most important thing to consider in terms of GNS type stuff. It affects how an individual player "can" prioritize his GNS decisions.
Well, I haven't had a chance to explore the region around El Dorado yet, but I suspect that it may be possible to 'disperse' the power of 'authorship;' it's really too soon to tell.  I've got to mount a better expedition and do a decent survey.  (And determine whether I have, indeed, found El Dorado and not simply a glinting city.)

The central point I am trying to make is that models like the GNS are of no use.  The GNS is clearly meant (and bends over backwards) to include both players and gamemasters.  To find El Dorado, that simply cannot be the case.  If anything, gamemasters must be trafficking in a 'whole different language' than the players.  People have sensed this in the past with the remarks of 'Narrativist gamemasters and Simulationist players.'

Even the seminal work on Congruence attempted to describe this condition, unfortunately in the vernacular of the GNS.  What the work on Congruence missed was if 'both sides' speak incomprehensible languages, there will be no conflict.  If the gamemaster is thinking, "Time for a major confrontation with the recurrent villain" and the players are thinking, "we'll never know when the Nazi Commander will show up next," they aren't going to conflict over mode.

This highly stresses the importance of preferential interaction.  If a gamemaster is of the Lookatmyart tribe, he isn't going to deal well with players from the Whatwecando tribe.  A model for understanding El Dorado play will need to account, not only for the mode of each 'side of the table,' but for how they interact and prefer each other.  For example, one of the best matches for players of the Whatwecando Tribe (often called Gamists) is a gamemaster from the Biggerproblemyet tribe, but he must be careful not to let the Whatwecandozers realize that 'the myth of reality' exists (even though it is inescapable).  A Lookatmyart gamemaster is probably best suited to players from the Welikestory tribe (commonly known, possibly erroneously, as Dramatists).

Quote from: RobMuadibThe players play to the GM's game, in the case of Story/Illusionist type play, the GM is working on directing or weaving the actions of the other players into a satisfying story. If they go along with them, things are good, where his reward is to actually achieve his S fix, and have that S fix reinforced/validated by the other players. The players are essentially trying to figure out what the GM is doing via his Show and Tell act, while doing their thing GNS thing from character perspective.
I'm pretty sure this is taking the meanings of the GNS completely out of the prescribed application and I'd appreciate it if you didn't mangle other people's theories like that in this thread.

However, one type of gamemaster that suits some of the relationships described in the new Illusionist model thread would be one from the Weaveastorylater tribe.  I believe these gamemasters have been hamstrung in the past by a failure to acknowledge the 'myth of reality' in the game, trying to fit some kind of background narrative to that created by the players.  It isn't until this kind of gamemaster realizes that the whole background narrative should be imagined as having any concrete presence, that they begin to approach El Dorado.

Quote from: RobMuadibAnyway, I definitely think you have a good idea here. GNS has primarily addressed the "player" perspective and not enough attention has been considered, at least for design purposes, on the idea that reserving the power to one player, makes it a totally different game for him.
See that's a bad way of looking at the GNS.  It is most certainly designed to be applied to both players and gamemasters together.  That is why it is useless in the search of El Dorado.  (In fact, could be the primary reason it has taken this long to see any sign of that fabled city.)  If you must address players with a model, may I humbly suggest the Scattershot Model; one of its strengths is it adds an Avatar mode (similar in some ways to immersive play) which I should have realized was no way that a gamemaster could play.

I'd like to thank you for giving me an opportunity to discuss the connection between the differing approaches of the players and the gamemaster.  I hope it makes my nascent idea more clear.  I'm still looking forward to people who can sum it up much more succinctly than I to speak.  As you're working on the SGR model again I encourage you to consider addressing the potentially polar expression of game elements (commonly called story) in terms of players, who give it detail, character, and specificity, and the gamemaster who may examine things in a wholly symbolic and abstract fashion.  It is when these two reach their polar opposites and find a comfortable way to play together (by fooling each other with supposed ignorance of the other's expressions) that play quite innocently wanders into El Dorado.

Fang Langford
Title: Perhaps a Native Guide
Post by: Le Joueur on November 18, 2002, 12:21:18 PM
Welcome aboard Chris, your help may prove invaluable.

Quote from: C. Edwards
Quote from: Le JoueurAn El Dorado gamemaster doesn't fall for the 'myth of reality,' he plans his 'story' abstractly. He uses Origins, Precipitating Events, Mystiques, Moving Clues, Crises, Climaxes, and Resolutions without labeling them. A complication isn't Suzy or Bonnie or Chicken pox, it's simply a complication in complete abstraction. He can plan out all the turns of the story, in great detail if he wants, as plain abstractions. He then takes this 'gamemaster story' and feeds it to the players. It is from indulging their interests, their 'labels,' and their desires - just like described in Intuitive Continuity - where the specifics of 'his story' arise.
Not to poop on your epiphany but I guess I naively assumed that most people approached GMing in this manner, at least on a visceral level.  Of course I don’t see it as the GM feeding the players "his story".
Without that 'feeding' it does not approach El Dorado.  What make El Dorado impossible is the idea that players make game directing decisions (based on the 'reality' of the game) and the gamemaster 'controls' (or "feeds," as you put it) where the game goes, exempli gratia, its 'story' (by controlling the 'reality' of it).  This is clearly impossible because (short of a coincidental desire to 'go the same way') you can't have two independent parties directing things.

What I've realized is that if the gamemaster works only in terms of abstracts and symbols (leaving the 'reality' behind), they can effect very concrete control over the game without 'getting in the way' of the players' detailed and specific choices, decisions, and control.

Quote from: C. EdwardsIt’s the GMs story algorithm or framework, but the players’ decisions are what give meaning, in every sense, to its unfolding.  If we were to lay out Cinderella as one of these abstract story frameworks with appropriate labels on complications and dramatic climaxes, etc. would it resemble the story of Cinderella? Would it have any meaning?  The players may ONLY be supplying desires to the GM so that the specifics may be generated, but what is that if not player empowerment?  The players' interests and desires ARE the story.  They are the direct cause of events based upon a very limited (because GMs are not universal Turing machines) palette of possibilities.
That's a very well worded description of what I am talking about (a bit high on borrowed terminology, but not from fields I'm unfamiliar with).  However, you may have thought this has always been the practice, what has gone before immediately trips over the 'myth of reality.'  Few gamemasters who practice this are very articulate of their use of symbolic thought in place of concrete imagery.  When they speak, the clumsily discuss 'changing the world' and fall into a linguistic trap that can always be shown to be impossible.  "If you change the world, then player decisions are without value."

Until you realize that there is no world to be changed, you can avoid this linguistic trap.  Once you realize that an El Dorado gamemaster (Is that El Doradan?  I don't know enough Spanish) supplies the structure of story, and the players invest it with value and specifics, you can see how 'both can be in control.'  I know I've used similar techniques to give games the thematic unity I prefer whilst playing with effectively 'kill it and move on' Gamists.  I've found they like the 'escalating threat' ladder created by my application of Schroedinger's gaming principles (what I call playing without the 'myth of reality') and are compelled to fondly refer back to my games the more I lay on the thematic continuity; it's like they like theme without prioritizing it.

Quote from: C. EdwardsSo, If I’ve just described El Dorado, then yes Fang, I think you’ve found it, and here I thought it was just an old brickyard.
That's been the other thing impeding the search; those who go there either can't describe it or don't realize it.

Quote from: C. EdwardsOf course, game systems with a substantial amount of Simulationist mechanics make running a game in this manner difficult, at least if the GM isn’t prepared to throw out a good deal of those mechanics that apply to what happens on his side of the screen.  I’m not talking about fudging dice rolls either.  I’m talking about manipulating time and space in a manner that conflict with the understanding of "how things work" on the player side of the screen.  This is where Illusionism is born I think, different standards for different sides of the screen.  But since, in El Dorado:

Quote from: Le Joueursaid world is not at all concrete, sensible, causal, or in any way consistent or real. It quite simply doesn't exist (until it is created)
The manipulation of time and space is a non-issue.  I think that a system that doesn’t require, or one that openly embraces, different standards for player and GM is the only way to reach El Dorado and avoid the realm of Illusionism.
I disagree.  First of all, you aren't really talking about Simulationist mechanics, but emulation mechanics.  Even then, it remains a non-issue so long as you don't let your gamemaster thinking be overwhelmed by the effort to emulate.

I believe that using the "different standards" language is going to go right down the same road to hell as has been traveled so many times before seeking El Dorado.  What I'm really describing would be an emulation mechanical game with the addition of a symbolic gamemastering layer.  They aren't different, not unless you free the gamemaster from the traditional role of adjudicating the emulation.  The gamemaster will be playing the 'emulation game' as much as the players, what happens is when he considers 'what to add to the mixture' or 'what direction things must appear to go,' he relies upon an additional symbolic language to 'control the game' while depending on the players to personify that 'control.'

Quote from: C. EdwardsMy primary experience with this is d20 and AD&D.  Played by the book the game is a strategic exercise in foe smiting and power grabbing (levels/items) with, as Mr. Adkison says, "story too, if you‘re so inclined..."  The 'El Dorado Model' can’t function properly without putting the players' decisions and desires at the very top of the pyramid.  Putting player desires foremost is difficult in such systems because Simulationist mechanics try to impose causal structure on an imagined construct that must remain inconsistent and flexible to accommodate those desires.
Again, I'm not making this very clear.  The players' decisions must occur at the 'foundation of the pyramid.'  Without that firm, concrete foundation, the basis of 'player control' will seem contrived.  Everything that actually occurs in the game must be built upon this foundation or the manner of player control won't exist.  Likewise the pinnacle must be the representation of the gamemaster; a pyramid has no shape if it is merely a foundation, it is the apex that gives it the identity as a pyramid.  (And again the problem you're highlighting is the emulation mechanics, beyond those - if I am understanding correctly - is Gamist supporting mechanics.)  Unlike Egyptian pyramids, those in El Dorado are formed out of any kind of material (instead of uniform, consistent stone).  The gamemaster is not 'in control' of what makes up the structure, only that it adheres to a geometric form (using a 'why not put that here' approach).

Quote from: C. EdwardsHere is an analogy and comparison to help illustrate how I see El Dorado:
    (Illusionism) A race that is decided by the voice of the announcer (GM).
    (Railroading) A race that is decided by the structure of the race track (Plot).
    (El Dorado) A race that is decided by the actions of the drivers (Players).[/list:u]
I'm not sure if that makes any useful example.  Let me try:IllusionismRailroadingEl Dorado
Quote from: C. EdwardsOne of the reasons I appreciate the work you’re doing with Scattershot is that it lays out many of the pieces that a story framework can be built of in an understandable manner that is geared towards RPGs.
Thank you, I guess I have been groping around for a way that the whole group could 'take control' of this 'symbolic language' in order to create the games they desire.  This whole discussion gives me a much better grounding in how to present the 'lesser shared' version of Scattershot.

Thank you for offering your experience, you are an invaluable resource for the next expedition due to your familiarity with the territory.  Hopefully, we can get past our linguistic complications and reveal the fabled city to all.

Fang Langford
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Sylus Thane on November 18, 2002, 12:58:41 PM
Telegram

Dear Fang,
Been living in El Dorado for awhile now. (stop) The weather is great and the natives are lovely. (stop) I've gotten to speak the language rather fluently. (stop) Hope you find your way here. Hint; The way isn't all by river, hope you brought your hiking boots and a machete. (stop) Beware the simulationists, they look friendly but I wouldn't turn your back on them.(stop)

Don't follow the beaten path,
Sylus (stop)

End Telegram
Title: Telegram
Post by: Le Joueur on November 18, 2002, 01:15:41 PM
Sylus! (stop)
Expected to here of such.  (stop)  Send guide immediately.  (stop)  If guide cannot speak GNS, come yourself.  (stop)

Oh, and I love the humor, don't  (stop).

Fang Langford
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Mike Holmes on November 18, 2002, 02:20:36 PM
I strongly suspect that you are in an Iron Pyrite version of the lost city of gold, Sylus. Partly that's because I thnk we've still not seen it as such. But perhaps I am mistaken. That said, it's almost a certainty that if it's ever found, that it will be inhabited; I mean if you found a city of gold, would you leave?

Fang, I think we are doomed to walk about in the jungle outside of El Dorado. Let me explain. As we proceed up your river, it becomes entangeld with the GNS river in the swamps just outside the city....

Sorry, I have to drop the metaphor here. Or rather adopt some new ones.

It has to do with the chunk theory that you have. As the chunks get smaller, we get closer and closer to El Dorado. But you'll also find that the effort level increases and increases in order that each does not just become a Simulationist result individually (the GM has to constantly consider the potential thematic impact of each). As this happens, the GM drops out more and more cases replacing them with Sim play, until he has no story left, and is playing Sim again. It's like the speed of light. As you get closer and closer it becomes asymptotically more difficult to go faster. As the chunks of play get smaller, the effort of keeping them all Nar neccessarily increases as well. To a point where the GM is just not going to be able to function.

But not all is lost. This jungle just outside of the city is pretty interesting (hence my recent suggestion that we just call it El Dorado, and camp there comfortably). That is, as long as one plays in this format for at least part of the game, a continuing sense of a story can be maintained. Let's call this the Marco Sense after it's most ardent supporter. I propose that this sense of a story is, for many, many players, even players who claim to like Narrativism, sufficient to make good play.

So, I propose that El Dorado is, in fact, a fiction, as are all perfect things. And instead, I suggest that you join me in the jungle where El Dorado is supposed to exist, and pick up the gold bricks that do indeed exist. We can take turns throwing them at the Narrativists that have gone over the edge of the precipice into the land of metagame.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that this jungle isn't a place that hasn't been tracked before. I hear of this man named Skarka who's theories about the place seem identical upon close reading...And then there's Professor Edwards' "Vanilla Narrativism" which is a part of the jungle that hangs out over the precipice. It's also not far away, and perhaps overlaps at times.

Mike
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: joe_llama on November 18, 2002, 02:32:17 PM
Sure, chunks. Most of my ideas for games are built around chunks. My current game concept is strictly composed of a finite number of scenes.

In addition, my game design theory revolves around game elements. Here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1553) is where it all started for me. Progress has been made but have come to a stop lately (new job). It seems to me more and more that this universe reveales itself to be discrete rather than continuous.

Fang, I think it's time you also check Dramatica (http://www.dramatica.com/theory/index.html) again.

Best regards,

Joe Llama

Edited in: oops. just noticed someone put a new thread about the subject. anyway, i still think it's a good and unused resource.
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Sylus Thane on November 18, 2002, 03:27:28 PM
Message sent by secure messenger. Do not attempt to interrogate as messenger does not speak GNS

Dear Fang,
I am unable to come myself as I am currently exploring some ruins outside the city that may lead me to a better understanding of a time known as the Dawn of the Magi.

After consulting with the locals, a culture known as Players, and their spiritual class known by a strange ancient word pronounced Gee'Em, it was decided after much negotiation that you would be allowed to visit. Unfotunately for now you will not be allowed to know the way, but led in secret, until such time as you can discover the path for yourself.

Some words of advice before you arrive. One, you will need to remember that Players do not speak GNS, but an old tongue known as Straightforward. This speach allows them to talk in a simple manner that is easily understood by any Gee'Em so that they may translate it to the higher powers that be. And two, do not expect to be given the answers, but instead shown the way to finding them yourself. Don't worry, I'll be here to help. I've discovered that I've been speaking Straightforward for so long now that I find GNS somewhat baffling anymore. No offense is meant towards the illustrious Professor Edwards, his research in cracking that ancient code has been invaluable, but I feel that finding the Rosetta Stone that will enable to truly crack Straightforward is just around the corner.

Please follow the guide as he will lead you here, but do not try and mark your way as it constantly changes, you would just invariably lose yourself later when trying to retrace your steps. Hope you arrive soon and eagerly await in hearing of your adventure here.

Sylus Thane Esq.
Explorer on the Rim

P.S. Please tell Professor Holmes that it definitly isn't pyrite that I look upon. Though it may not be gold in his eyes either. Treasure is in the eye of the beholder. If you have open eyes you will see it sparkle all around you. Of course it is inhabited, but you will find the natives friendly and understanding, and they smile at our ill understanding ways while gently prodding us towards the right path.
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Walt Freitag on November 18, 2002, 03:45:40 PM
Well, well, well.

Shall I point out, my dear esteemed Professor Fang, that my very first post on The Forge amounted to shouting "hey guys, El Dorado's over here!"?

No, I shall not, because you make some excellent points concerning the inadequacy of the directions to same that I've attempted to provide. In particular, I'm willing to entertain the theory that attempting to give those directions in GNS terms is and has been doomed to failure. That initial post asserted that GNS doesn't describe my play; for a long while I was convinced that I was wrong; recently I've come to suspect that I was partly right (though still wrong in many of the original particulars).

You've also raised an issue that I hadn't begun to examine yet: though the techniques in question have been discussed many times before, most recently under the general heading of "reality-in-flux" and within the context of Illusionism, the issue of what is actually done with those techniques has barely been touched. Examples, necessarily kept simple, have focused on avoiding specific turns of events that suck or of forcing a specific desired event. The idea of the story-in-the-abstract being decided separately from the specifics offers the potential for a more detailed model.

Quote from: My new theory of why and how GNS misses El Dorado
As was recently clarified in a recent discussion of some misleading wording in the GNS definition of Narrativism, all GNS modes are about "some priority NOW." GNS does not examine the outcome of play (that is, the fictional sequence of events actually generated by means of play), either as a consequence of GNS mode decisions (because any mode can lead to infinite different types of outcome) or as a motivation affecting GNS mode decisions (because GNS does not address motivation at all).

Outcome-based decision-making is the other river.

In El Dorado the GM's priority is not anything NOW. The GM's top priorities relate to the outcome. El Dorado GMs (and perhaps most GMs overall) prioritize the generation of outcomes with particular qualities, including, in many cases, narrative structurual qualities. A GM who decides to introduce a "complication" is making a narrative structural decision. Whether or not the players or the GM want a complication right now is irrelevant; the GM is acting on the perception that the narrative outcome needs a complication to happen. Just about any complication will serve the basic structural purpose, whether the specifics originate from the GM or from the players, so the GM has the option of deciding on the specifics based on a secondary priority (such as what's the most probable or what best invokes a theme) -- which is intCon play -- or allowing the players' desires to dictate them -- which is your El Dorado play.

Here's where my past directions to El Dorado always got sidetracked: trying to pinpoint which GNS mode the GM behavior resulting from the decision to "add a complication" falls under. Is it Sim because complications are an expected part of the nature of the genre-world being explored? Is it Narr because complications can lead to addressing Premise? Is it Gamist because complications add challenge? The new hypothesis is: we usually can't tell, and it's irrelevant anyway. Sure, whatever decisions the GM makes in play can be shown ultimately to be most consistent with one of the GNS modes. But that tells us no more about how the GM is making such decisions than pointing out that the observable behavior of a novelist at a typewriter can be categorized into typing letters, typing punctuation and spaces, and hitting the carriage return tells us how a novel is written.

Because it limits its domain to observable behavior, GNS lacks the resolution to usefully describe GM decision-making when the top decision-making priority is creating specific qualities in the outcome -- because the apparent GNS mode of such decisions is undeterminable, accidental, or the result of secondary considerations. Which is why on the GNS map El Dorado is somewhere in a big murky gray area in one corner of Simulationism where the only marking on the map is, "here be dragons."

However, keep in mind that the specifics have to interface with abstract structure somewhere. The specifics of the outcome might arise from the players, but at some point their in-play decisions either will or will not be consistent with the abstract plan. Some sort of force must be applied to rule out inconsistent outcomes, or else the plan must change (in which case it's really not a plan at all).

I've occasionally talked about tools to facilitate reality-in-flux play. One example, I recall, was tables of encounters organized by the purpose the encounter is expected to serve in the narrative rather than (or in addition to) the usual divisions by locale. "Complications" would be one possible table heading. Looking back on the ideas I've considered, they fall into two main categories: scripts for instantiating a particular chunk of abstract story, and rules for piecing the abstract story together on the fly (specifically, assembling smaller abstract pieces into larger ones) that facilitate coherent narrative structure in the whole. The encounter tables would fall into the first category. (In your El Dorado play, these wouldn't be used by GMs because the players' would be control of that process).

So, count me in on your expedition. A few things I'm loading on my pack mule:

- A field guide to fractals. This will come in handy should it turn out that abstract story structure is best conceptualized using self-similar chunks of different scales organized hierarchically, rather than by attempting to break it down into a chain of any particular size of chronologically-contiguous chunks (which leads to, or at least aggravates, the problem Mike Homles describes). A single "complication" chunk can be a one minute scene ("Going somwhere, Solo?"), or half of the movie ("That's no moon, it's a space station!"), the latter scale containing myriad complications of its own.

- A copy of the book "Strong Magic" by Darwin Ortiz. A book about stage magic that doesn't contain a single trick. It's all about performance, and applicable to any type of performance. The running theme: everything that's important about a performance exists only in the mind of the audience.

- A laptop PC with satellite Internet access and a browser set to the Jan Murray (Hamlet on the Holodeck) Web site. (http://web.mit.edu/jhmurray/www/HOH.html) The jungles around El Dorado is where one is apt to come face to face with the Interactive Storytelling Problem, a dangerous beast that's particularly voracious when feeding on time or money. Links from the site may provide some clues to its nature.

- Some food for your cat, since you never bring any; you just put him in the box and claim that he doesn't exist so he doesn't need to be fed, which I think is just cruel. The food, being sealed inside tin cans, doesn't exist either, so it's perfect for Schroedinger.

Walt
Title: The Tortoise and the Speed of Light
Post by: Le Joueur on November 18, 2002, 04:53:28 PM
Hi Mike,

Quote from: Mike HolmesIt has to do with the chunk theory that you have. As the chunks get smaller, we get closer and closer to El Dorado. But you'll also find that the effort level increases and increases in order that each does not just become a Simulationist result individually (the GM has to constantly consider the potential thematic impact of each). As this happens, the GM drops out more and more cases replacing them with Sim play, until he has no story left, and is playing Sim again. It's like the speed of light. As you get closer and closer it becomes asymptotically more difficult to go faster. As the chunks of play get smaller, the effort of keeping them all Nar necessarily increases as well. To a point where the GM is just not going to be able to function.
Actually, I've been receiving a few PM remarks.  My above presentation over-stresses the Sim-Nar thing.  I think the gamemaster-abstraction/player-specificity thing works to support any kind of player priority in El Dorado.  (It doesn't fit the GNS because the GNS talks about individual "instances of play" - even when those are long - they don't include 'the whole game' which when the 'chunks' are purposefully collected into.)

And you are right, when you get closer to the speed of light, the vision of El Dorado disappears.  However, I don't think we need to break the 'chunks' down to syntactic elements.  (Ultimately the abstract symbolic parsing would get to "subject section: article, noun, preposition, article, adjective, predicate section: verb, adverb, direct object, indirect object.)  I think the whole point of El Dorado is similar to "number 2" play style over in the companion Illusionism thread; players are, well...playing and the gamemaster is 'making it cool.'  The whole 'chunks' thing is the 'compass' for finding El Dorado, not the location itself; there are other necessary ingredients (none of which is an absolute solution unto itself, avoid excesses of any kind).

Quote from: Mike HolmesBut not all is lost. This jungle just outside of the city is pretty interesting (hence my recent suggestion that we just call it El Dorado, and camp there comfortably). That is, as long as one plays in this format for at least part of the game, a continuing sense of a story can be maintained. Let's call this the Marco Sense after it's most ardent supporter. I propose that this sense of a story is, for many, many players, even players who claim to like Narrativism, sufficient to make good play.

So, I propose that El Dorado is, in fact, a fiction, as are all perfect things. And instead, I suggest that you join me in the jungle where El Dorado is supposed to exist, and pick up the gold bricks that do indeed exist. We can take turns throwing them at the Narrativists that have gone over the edge of the precipice into the land of metagame.
In the suburbs of El Dorado?  I'll buy that for a dollar.  It still would be doing the impossible and I try to think of six impossible things before breakfast every day.

Quote from: Mike HolmesOn the other hand, I'm pretty sure that this jungle isn't a place that hasn't been tracked before. I hear of this man named Skarka who's theories about the place seem identical upon close reading...And then there's Professor Edwards' "Vanilla Narrativism" which is a part of the jungle that hangs out over the precipice. It's also not far away, and perhaps overlaps at times.
Sorry, I haven't had the opportunity to read the works of esteemed college Skarka.  I believe that I did see something like the Vanilla Narrativist encampment to one side (chanting "it's impossible, it's impossible"), but I only saw the backs of their heads.

Good points all, Mr. Holmes; my regards to Watson.  Glad to have you aboard.

Fang Langford
Title: A Dramatica Development
Post by: Le Joueur on November 18, 2002, 04:57:09 PM
Hey Joe, whattaya know (always wanted to say that),

Quote from: joe_llamaFang, I think it's time you also check Dramatica (http://www.dramatica.com/theory/index.html) again.
Couldn't parse Dramatica for role-playing games; from what I saw, you're right, that was another one of my influences here with 'chunk' theory.  The actual Dramatica is of limited value for gamemastering, but should be considered a valuable resource in 'chunk theory.'

Thanks for pointing it out.  I need to get a chance to go over it again.

Fang Langford
Title: Pack All You Best Tools
Post by: Le Joueur on November 18, 2002, 05:33:42 PM
Ah the inestimable Mr. Freitag,

Quote from: wfreitagShall I point out, my dear esteemed Professor Fang, that my very first post on The Forge amounted to shouting "hey guys, El Dorado's over here!"?
Yeah, I saw that (and by the way, I have no accreditations, Sir Fang will have to do), but was unable to help for I could not understand you message.

Quote from: wfreitagNo, I shall not, because you make some excellent points concerning the inadequacy of the directions to same that I've attempted to provide. In particular, I'm willing to entertain the theory that attempting to give those directions in GNS terms is and has been doomed to failure. That initial post asserted that GNS doesn't describe my play; for a long while I was convinced that I was wrong; recently I've come to suspect that I was partly right (though still wrong in many of the original particulars).

You've also raised an issue that I hadn't begun to examine yet: though the techniques in question have been discussed many times before, most recently under the general heading of "reality-in-flux" and within the context of Illusionism, the issue of what is actually done with those techniques has barely been touched. Examples, necessarily kept simple, have focused on avoiding specific turns of events that suck or of forcing a specific desired event. The idea of the story-in-the-abstract being decided separately from the specifics offers the potential for a more detailed model.
Alas, that is at the heart of what makes the impossible, not only possible, but also likely.  It was exactly the "reality-in-flux" issue that allowed me to overcome my prejudice of the 'myth of reality' and first see this possibility.

I like the way you put that "the idea of the story-in-the-abstract being decided separately from the specifics."  It is by performing this 'separation' that allows the two apparently contrasting 'controls' of El Dorado to coexist.  Yes, I think that may be the way to put it.  Thank you very much.

I've abbreviated your theory to underscore a critical point:

Quote from: wfreitag
Quote from: My new theory of why and how GNS misses El DoradoHere's where my past directions to El Dorado always got sidetracked: trying to pinpoint which GNS mode the GM behavior resulting from the decision to "add a complication" falls under. Is it Sim because complications are an expected part of the nature of the genre-world being explored? Is it Narr because complications can lead to addressing Premise? Is it Gamist because complications add challenge? The new hypothesis is: we usually can't tell, and it's irrelevant anyway. Sure, whatever decisions the GM makes in play can be shown ultimately to be most consistent with one of the GNS modes.
That's why El Dorado can be populated by any of the GNS modes and why they're irrelevant.  The gamemaster is making El Dorado decisions that are, at their heart, 'neutral' to modes specifically to meet, and accentuate, the modal needs.

Quote from: wfreitagHowever, keep in mind that the specifics have to interface with abstract structure somewhere. The specifics of the outcome might arise from the players, but at some point their in-play decisions either will or will not be consistent with the abstract plan. Some sort of force must be applied to rule out inconsistent outcomes, or else the plan must change (in which case it's really not a plan at all).

I've occasionally talked about tools to facilitate reality-in-flux play. One example, I recall, was tables of encounters organized by the purpose the encounter is expected to serve in the narrative rather than (or in addition to) the usual divisions by locale. "Complications" would be one possible table heading. Looking back on the ideas I've considered, they fall into two main categories: scripts for instantiating a particular chunk of abstract story, and rules for piecing the abstract story together on the fly (specifically, assembling smaller abstract pieces into larger ones) that facilitate coherent narrative structure in the whole. The encounter tables would fall into the first category. (In your El Dorado play, these wouldn't be used by GMs because the players' would be control of that process).
These are all critical to a functioning, and neither drifted or Illusionistic, El Dorado game.  Right now, I'm at a loss how to proceed in creating one (hence the call for help).  Perhaps, when Enlightenment wears out, we could write El Dorado as a group effort.  I'd be happy to take the lead the group effort, but additions like this will be crucial.  (I even have a suggestion, how about an over-the-top serial adventure type game where you play explorers seeking some fabled lost city in the Amazon jungle a hundred years ago?)

Quote from: wfreitagSo, count me in on your expedition. A few things I'm loading on my pack mule:

- A field guide to fractals.
- A copy of the book "Strong Magic" by Darwin Ortiz.
- A laptop PC with satellite Internet access and a browser set to the Jan Murray (Hamlet on the Holodeck) Web site. (http://web.mit.edu/jhmurray/www/HOH.html)
- Some food for your cat
What a fabulous list of gear.  I'm going to have to pursue these in private research before we set out.  Thanks again Walt, you've proven an invaluable resource; glad to have you aboard.  Now I think the only role missing is the whiny skeptic who we need to keep saving from the various jungle threats only to be betrayed by him at the city.  (Did I say that?)

Sir Fang Langford
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: C. Edwards on November 18, 2002, 07:21:47 PM
Sir Fang wrote:
QuoteThat's why El Dorado can be populated by any of the GNS modes and why they're irrelevant.

This begs the question: Can a group consisting of persons subscribing to various combinations of GNS modes actually reach El Dorado, and if so, will they be happy?
Personally, I think they can reach it, but once there the same factors that caused conflict amongst the party on the journey to El Dorado may end up being the ruin of the fabled city.  Or at least result in all members of the expedition being banished back into the stygian depths of the jungle.

The honorable Mr. Freitag wrote:
QuoteHowever, keep in mind that the specifics have to interface with abstract structure somewhere. The specifics of the outcome might arise from the players, but at some point their in-play decisions either will or will not be consistent with the abstract plan. Some sort of force must be applied to rule out inconsistent outcomes, or else the plan must change (in which case it's really not a plan at all).

I've occasionally talked about tools to facilitate reality-in-flux play. One example, I recall, was tables of encounters organized by the purpose the encounter is expected to serve in the narrative rather than (or in addition to) the usual divisions by locale. "Complications" would be one possible table heading. Looking back on the ideas I've considered, they fall into two main categories: scripts for instantiating a particular chunk of abstract story, and rules for piecing the abstract story together on the fly (specifically, assembling smaller abstract pieces into larger ones) that facilitate coherent narrative structure in the whole. The encounter tables would fall into the first category. (In your El Dorado play, these wouldn't be used by GMs because the players' would be control of that process).

These are issues that I'm attempting to handle with a very structured format in the design of Omega Point which, quite to my delight, is turning out to be an rpg/board game hybrid where, of course, imagination takes the place of the game board.  The system will (hopefully), with player input, determine the length of a scene and the elements (such as complications) in a scene.  Every segment (session) consists of a certain number of scenes per character, decided on by the players, and the game itself will have a countdown mechanism (based on reaching the Omega Point) that determines when the game is over and who "wins".  One key thing is that an in-game situation won't necessarily have to be resolved in a traditional rpg manner.

There will be cards that can be drawn based on certain factors that determine setting based Complications (equivalent to Walt's encounter chart in effect), and these along with the categorized character goals of protect/find/destroy/learn/change (with specifics determined by the player) are used by the Moderator to help create the specifics of all that "cool stuff" that happens.  There is much more to it, but what I've mentioned should help illustrate what I'm trying to accomplish - which is turn the system itself into the story framework, letting it handle the often treacherous and mind-boggling parts so the GM can work on all that "cool stuff" and the players can concentrate on playing their characters and, since there are elements of gamism involved, trying to win.

It may not be a key to the city but it should at least end up as a guided tour.

-Chris
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Mike Holmes on November 19, 2002, 10:55:50 AM
Chris,

What you posted sounds a lot like what Fang posted for his Iron Game Chef entry; check it out if you haven't.


What I see here is a description of a Macro-Mode of gaming. As Fang said, sorta outcome based. But I see it a in terms of actual play. That is, part of El Dorado is the feeling that we're in a relatively objective world, and also that there is a story emerging from the characters' actions. So it's not really outcome, but what happens in play.

When I say Macro Mode, what I mean is the particular mixture of GNS decisions. That is, in El Dorado play, there will be lots of Sim instances of play by the players, and lots of maneuvering by the GM to present his Narrativist decisions in such a way as to continue to support the players Sim play. Or at least the appearance of Sim play. That is, the players are making Narrativist decisions; they just tend to be presented with well constructed retroactive motivations.

Which is to say that the players are using a common form of player illusion. That being that they present their decision only after the retroactive assignment has occured. Thus:

"I want to see Coronado get all action-heroish. He tries to jump the chasm."

This does not use player Illusion.

"Coronado thinks that the city is across the chasm, so he tries to jump it."

This does.

This sort of illusion seems simple and common, and it is, because we're all used to playing in Actor stance. In which case that's perforce how an action is presented (there is no underlying player motive other than to play the character "accurately"). So when employing Actor stance, we are all knowledgable in how to present such illusion. In fact, the idea that Author Stance is "illegal" in some games has has meant that many people have become quite adept at hiding it, I'd wager.

Thus, we are unaware whether or not the player has "Authored" the response or not in such play, often.

This is not to say that allowing such a revelation as to player motive is bad. It really doesn't disturb play much at all, IMO. My point is not that El Dorado play is enhanced by player illusion (preferences will differ on that point I am sure), but rather that when playing El Dorado play, you tend to see this a lot. Or, rather, you don't. The player tends to just have stimuli that make it so that his response can either be Sim or Nar; one cannot tell.

IOW, there is a mix of player instances of play that is actually Sim and Narr. What makes it El Dorado is that the Narrativist instances tend to be subtle and seem to look just like the Sim ones. This is Walt's congruence thing. When playing Sim:char, or Narr, the only difference is whether or not the issue being decided on is "morally compelling" to the players. And this will, of course vary from decision to decision. Not all can be completely compelling. And in any case, the reacions will often be internal.

This is not really an uncommon style of play at all, of course. What we're talking about is a range of frequency of certain kinds of GNS decisions, and when they occur in terms of player (non-GM) play. Hence Macro-Mode.

I thnik it's useful to talk in terms of such macro modes. That is, I think we already do so, and not recognizing such leads to confusion. For example, in Narrativist play, we say that many of the instances of play are Narrativist. Well, isn't that contradictory? What I think we're saying is that the Narrativist Macro Mode is composed of a lot of Narrativist decisions, and proabably some Sim ones, with few or no Gamist ones. That's just hypothetical. The point is that it makes sense to look at these macro modes. And El Dorado is one, IMO.

I should mention that this is not new. Walt, Ron and others have worked through a bit of this on other threads dealing with "what is an instance of play", and atomic decision making.


The only other consideration is what exactly Fang is proposing in terms of his Illusionist technique. It seems to be a Flexible technique, in that you change the world to fit the characters actions to make them seem like story. But I'm kinda at a loss as to how it's new at all. I mean isn't that the technique that we always use when making use of this sort of Illusionist technique? What would be an example of such a technique that did not consider the world to be in a "wave state" before it was encountered? In all cases, something is changed behind the scenes and presented as though that's "the way it always was". I'm having trouble thinking of any Illusionist technique that doesn't work that way.

So is this just a matter of degree? That all things are considered non-permenant, a opposed to just some? Because it was in about 1982 that I "discovered" that there didn't have to be any objective permenance to anything in a game. Only the appearance of permenance. So perhaps I've been doing this so long, that it seems incomprehensible that anyone would be so inflexible as to refuse to change a game world "fact" if changing it would improve the game in any way.

Or, IOW, yes, I wholeheartedly support this method of play. It's what I've been using the term Illusionism to refer to, well, since I've used it. Or am I missing something more revelatory about the proposed method?

Where my play has developed of late, is the acceptance that players may be authoring, and not to question that. Even to encourage that to the extent that it does not interfere with anything like their personal senses of Immersion or any of that. That trust of the players has been the last step, for me on the road to the Macro-Mode of play that I'd call El Dorado.

Mike
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Christoffer Lernö on November 19, 2002, 12:31:24 PM
Ooo, I just love this expedition Professor Langford. Thanks for inviting us all.

Let's see if I can make some contributions:

[disclaimer:The only time I GM and feel I'm truly in el Dorado is when I GM horror. On the other hand I've played in a few el Dorado games]

The chunks
I think you're not 100% right about the chunks prof. Or you are right in one way and not in the other.
What I mean is you can make the chunks as long as you like (by stringing small ones together) as long as you are willing to throw them away. Abstract chunks and filled chunks (chunks where the player have determined the meaning of the abstract idea) can be just as heavy a luggage.

The problem is, the longer chunks you make, the less likely you are to throw it away. It's very easy to stray from el Dorado if you carry a long string of chunks, especially if you invested time in thinking them up. So that warning is definately needed.

Tools
If GM and Players are doing two different things it's only logical that they should use different rules. Walt has already been onto the angle of having tools to create story.

Let me add to that adding another category: tools to retcon and fudge.

Here's an example: Let's say you are GM and you and your players are following the same in game rules. Now the best story is that POW that shot takes out the bad guy and he falls into the gene-goo so he can return later as a monster.
Only, in these rules with so and so many hitpoints the bad guy couldn't die that easy. Or he wouldn't drown or some other problem due to mechanical limitations.

Of course, it's all good drama and everyone enjoyed the scene so no one complains. Still there is this general feeling that the GM fudged the rules there for some drama.

See the illusion cracking?

The same thing becomes a problem even if you don't fudge the rules: You don't let the guy die and fall into the gene-goo. Instead you let the characters run in and do pure overkill to be sure the bad guy is dead. The stomp him to the ground, pee on him and then throw him in a meat grinder.

Instead of that dramatic scene the characters became murderers and butchers. Welcome to GM hell.

So another tool to help find el Dorado seems to be rules that allow GM editing of scenes for more drama. For this tool to work, it has to be a much more delicate and painless instrument than fudging rolls or ignoring rules.

We're talking about rules that allow you to take any abstract chunk and follow it no matter what. No game mechanics in the way to "make decisions that affect the plot".

...

Well that sums up my contributions for the night. I wish I could have stayed longer, but it's already 1:27 a.m. according to my watch. Time to roll out my sleeping bag and blow out the lamp.

G'night professor.


Best Wishes,

/Christoffer
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Jake Norwood on November 19, 2002, 01:08:39 PM
This doesn't apply to anything, really, but I've never had so much fun reading a thread that I didn't really get.

Jake
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Daredevil on November 19, 2002, 01:25:34 PM
(a bearded, dirty traveller emerges from the deep jungle -- somehow, he doesn't quite look like a native. Indeed, it is one of the thought-to-be-lost explorers of the beaten path to El Dorado!)

That chunk approach is what I've been using for years. That's at the root of why I've always defended my view that story/sim concerns CAN exist in the same game. I didn't realize it was worthy of such a commotion, though.

Also, consider Relationships Maps (an obscure method of drawing maps by the one theorist Edwards)! Are they not very similar to this chunk-based approach?

The most recent expedition towards our elusive city of gold defined its objective as (and I quote:) simply: player choice directing a gamemaster created story. Hmm. I'm not sure if that is the defination we've used in the past threads discussing this same journey.

The comparison to Schrödinger's Cat was excellent, as well as were the comments on realism. Something long overdue, I think. Realism is so passe, I feel. At least, the term realism is very, very inappropiate for what we're doing. I'm sure there is room under the collective umbrella of simulationism for some kind of hard-core emulation of a virtual world, but that's not what many Simulationists want to be doing.

My definition of El Dorado is slightly different. In an El Dorado game, I don't want the (realistic) flow of cause and effect (as understood within the gameworld) to be affected maliciously by the narrativist desires of both the gamemaster and the player. Yet, I want to empower the game with narrativist ideas so that our foray into this virtual reality of the game is not an empty one, but a meaningful one. But it is important to note that I don't think the causality -- the naturalism -- of the in-game is adversely affected by player discussion/action based on OOC knowledge outside the game. The player exists in the OOC world. The character exists in the IC world. For all actions of the character, there must exist a reasonable IC cause, no matter if the decision to initiate said action comes from an OOC decision of the player (in fact, where else can it originate from? I point to the non-existant cat in the box!) As long as there exists such a reason, the naturalism is sustained and the Sim angle is covered. Then the game, the "focus of the camera" and the decisions of the players, should aim for narratively meaningful outcomes.

I don't know, maybe I found my El Dorado in some of the tributaries of the Narrativism river. As I know that I've found it -- having lived there -- but I have just not used its specific flavor to empower the design of a game.

A note on separating the GM from the GNS paradigm. I think this idea bears thought, certainly. Perhaps we could look at the GM as a being outside and above of the GNS concerns, which glue the players to the game and control their decisions within it, as a director who must understand and cater to the specific GNS desires of those who play in his game.

As another side-note, I think Jake may have already stumbled pretty damn close to El Dorado with his Riddle of Steel. So, I just find it perfectly fitting and appropiate what he said in his post on this thread!

Just some preliminary thoughts for the new visitors to our wild region. Welcome to the jungle and beware the Southern Mountains, they're frought with peril.

- Joachim Buchert -
Title: I'll Take a Number 2 with a Side of "Macro-Mode,"
Post by: Le Joueur on November 19, 2002, 01:55:21 PM
Hey Mike,

Real cool commentary!

Quote from: Mike HolmesWhat I see here is a description of a Macro-Mode of gaming (as Fang said, sorta outcome-based), but I see it in terms of actual play. That is, part of El Dorado is the feeling that we're in a relatively objective world, and also that there is a story emerging from the characters' actions. So it's not really outcome, but what happens in play.

When I say Macro-Mode, what I mean is the particular mixture of GNS decisions. That is, in El Dorado play, there will be lots of Sim instances of play by the players, and lots of maneuvering by the GM to present his Narrativist decisions in such a way as to continue to support the players Sim play. (Or at least the appearance of Sim play, the players are making Narrativist decisions; they just tend to be presented with well-constructed retroactive motivations.)

["Player Illusion" stuff snipped; I haven't anything to add there, except it reinforces the idea that El Dorado may not shoulder Author Stance well and Director Stance at all.]

...I think it's useful to talk in terms of such Macro-Modes, I think we already do so, and not recognizing such leads to confusion. For example, in Narrativist play, we say that many of the instances of play are Narrativist. Well, isn't that contradictory? What I think we're saying is that the Narrativist Macro-Mode is composed of a lot of Narrativist decisions, and probably some Sim ones, with few or no Gamist ones. That's just hypothetical. The point is that it makes sense to look at these Macro-Modes. And El Dorado is one, IMO.
Very much on target.  Although I am not that comfortable using GNS terminology, I respect your take on it.  There's something at odds using "specific instance" terminology to discuss an outcome-based perspective, but I realize you're using a common (though discomforting) form of shorthand.

Quote from: Mike HolmesThe only other consideration is what exactly Fang is proposing in terms of his Illusionist technique. It seems to be a Flexible technique, in that you change the world to fit the characters actions to make them seem like story. But I'm kinda at a loss as to how it's new at all. I mean isn't that the technique that we always use when making use of this sort of Illusionist technique?
It isn't.  I guess in my rush to present a 'travelogue' I overlooked stating that we had walked right over El Dorado without noticing.  I began to see the glimmer of it back with Jesse's "Case Number 2" play (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=41600#41600):

Quote from: jburnekoPremise is being consciously addressed but only on one side of the table. I think if that addressing is on the Players' side, you get dysfunction. However, if the GM, is consistently insuring that the presentation of Situation and NPC-Character interactions all essentially raise permutations of the question stated in a Premise but the players are ONLY actually addressing the Situation and Characters (not consciously acknowledging the Premise they embody) then I think this quite functional. But what is it?

Note: In this style of play the GM is only raising questions (the Premise) via presentation of Situation and choice Character interactions. He is NOT predetermining the PCs reactions to them. Therefore, because the Situation/Character interactions present Premise the players MUST address the Premise because they must make a decision regarding the given state of game affairs even if they are not consciously thinking of it in terms of Premise but only as a Situation to be resolved/dealt with.
All that was missing was making "gamemaster control" irrelevant to "player decisions having control" of the game; I supplied this (making El Dorado a subset of "Case Number 2" Illusionism).

Quote from: Mike HolmesWhat would be an example of such a technique that did not consider the world to be in a "wave state" before it was encountered? In all cases, something is changed behind the scenes and presented as though that's "the way it always was". I'm having trouble thinking of any Illusionist technique that doesn't work that way.

So is this just a matter of degree? That all things are considered non-permanent, a opposed to just some? Because it was in about 1982 that I "discovered" that there didn't have to be any objective permanence to anything in a game, only the appearance of permanence. So perhaps I've been doing this so long, that it seems incomprehensible that anyone would be so inflexible as to refuse to change a game world "fact" if changing it would improve the game in any way.

Or, IOW, yes, I wholeheartedly support this method of play. It's what I've been using the term Illusionism to refer to, well, since I've used it. Or am I missing something more revelatory about the proposed method?
Nope.  I just wanted to note publicly that we had pretty much run across the sacred city, almost without knowing it.  I fully consider El Dorado a subset of this kind of Illusionism.

On the permanence issue, I quite agree, but after the run-in regarding 'character motivations,' I began to realize that people, gamemasters included, get caught up in the emulation-effect and fall into thinking (via compartmentalized thinking, I think) that there is some value or truth to the idea that in-game things 'are real.'  It's a chronic problem; you work so hard to fool the players into having feelings based on "the appearance of permanence" that you get fooled too.  This isn't all bad, but what makes El Dorado a subset of this kind of Illusionism is that you do not allow yourself to be fooled; that is what allows the impossible to be possible.  (Yes, it is just a matter of degree.)

One important point I think I need to make here is about how different "Macro-Modes" get fitted to different 'Micro-Modes.'  For "Macro-Mode" gamemasters, you'll forgive me if I call them as being from the Imakeastory, Yougettachallenge, and Checkoutmyplace tribes.  I think a whole fresh set of theories could be created around the interactions between these gamemasters and players using the various GNS priorities.  They'd describe nine different interactions.

Of course you're familiar with the one-to-one match-ups: Imakeastory gamemasters with Narrativist players, Yougettachallenge gamemasters with Gamist players, and Checkoutmyplace gamemasters with Simulationist players, these all function very well and are almost never a source of problems; likewise they also support Author and Director Stance quite well.

While in this discussion we've spoken primarily of Imakeastory gamemasters playing with Simulationist players, I don't see any reason that the same techniques couldn't be employed with Gamist players as well.  What is wrong with a challenge that also 'results' in a story as well.  I have personal experience with (indirectly) self-identified Gamist players finding additional value in this practice.  (Heck, I'm probably descended from the Imakeastory tribe.)  I expect some will suggest that this would actually be simply Gamist play with additional material, I should say not.  It is definitely Illusionist play (per the new definition) where the gamemaster has two competing priorities; to 'curtain' non-Gamist prioritization and[/I] to make use of his Imakeastory heritage.  This is not purely Gamist play because (within the Illusionism) the Gamist is actually being used to power the Imakeastory tribal heritage much the same way that The Riddle of Steel's Simulationist mechanics put Narrativism in the forefront.  It isn't hybrid either due to the presence of 'the black curtain' curtailing recognition on the part of the players that they play in a hybrid (pull 'the curtain' back and it becomes hybrid).  The 'curtain' is the primary reason that these Illusionist mixed "Marcro-Modes" don't support Author and Director Stances as well as the one-to-one match-ups.

The exact same relationship exists when a Yougettachallenge gamemaster plays with either Vanilla Narrativist players (vanilla because of the Stance difficulties) or Simulationist players.  I don't have as strong of grasp on Yougettachallenge tribal practices as I'd like, but under my understanding a Simulationist murder mystery or Simulationist 'great old ones' adventure could both be handled in this way.  I tend to think that many 'you succeed at the difficult goal and the game ends' games could be handled this way for either Vanilla Narrativist or Simulationist players.  (With the same 'not pure GNS' and 'not hybrid' provisions as above.)

Finally, it comes as no surprise that I believe that when Checkoutmyplace gamemasters play with Gamists or Vanilla Narrativists (same reason) can be quite a functional kind of Illusionism as well.  Ultimately what I am speaking of is that these kinds of Illusionism work because of the lack of interference that "Macro-Mode" practices allow within Illusionism so that it makes the impossible possible; El Dorado has not twin, but triple cities (not just the 'control the story' opposed to player empowerment, but any seemingly opposition gamemastering technique).

This may, in fact, lead us back around to why 'incoherent systems' sell.  The likelihood of randomly bringing a Coherent group together is relatively small, an incoherent system, because of how it has 'the tools' for El Dorado Illusionism gamemastering (with smaller amounts of Drift than Drifting a Coherent system).  The reason Coherent systems have done better 'in practice,' is that they state, up front, what they are about and that weeds out a certain amount of incoherent groupings.  (It also may explain their limited sales; who has a Coherent group to play them with?)

What do we do with this?  One possibility is developing multiple-approach systems with built-in mechanisms that intentionally support this kind of Illusionism in the El Dorado sense.  They should suit those 'mixed groups' and be alternatively Coherent hybrids where the 'curtain' is up and El Dorado when it is down.  They might even support a long-term raising or lowering of the 'curtain.'

But then that's what I'm always on about with Transitional games.  [But you saw that coming didn't you?]

Fang Langford

p. s. I am not so sure that the various types of player can play well together; it may be possible that for this Illusionism to encounter fewer problems, the players may need to be coherent (and with their part of the game).  Hey, you can't have everything.
Title: Stare Myth in Its Face
Post by: Le Joueur on November 19, 2002, 02:15:20 PM
Quote from: Pale FireTools
If GM and Players are doing two different things it's only logical that they should use different rules. Walt has already been onto the angle of having tools to create story.

Let me add to that adding another category: tools to retcon and fudge.

Here's an example: Let's say you are GM and you and your players are following the same in game rules. Now the best story is that POW that shot takes out the bad guy and he falls into the gene-goo so he can return later as a monster.

Only, in these rules with so and so many hit points the bad guy couldn't die that easy. Or he wouldn't drown or some other problem due to mechanical limitations.

Of course, it's all good drama and everyone enjoyed the scene so no one complains. Still there is this general feeling that the GM fudged the rules there for some drama.

See the illusion cracking?
No I don't.  Like I said, to run El Dorado style, first you have to shed the idea that things in the game are real.  Did you tell the players how many hit points the bad guy has?  Since you didn't, his hit points don't exist.  (Isn't that right Schroedinger? [Fang scratches his cat between the ears.])

There is no "retcon," no fudge; you can't modify something that hasn't been created.  This is what I call the "myth of reality;" you keep thinking bad guys have hit points.  The only way the 'Illusion' cracks is in presentation; take that up in the thread about Illusionism, not here.

For an El Dorado consideration we're talking about is how the bad guy is only a 'radical conflict' to the gamemaster.  He's decided that the radical conflict will result in an even bigger conflict later on, nothing more.  If the players kill the bad guy, fine; his death becomes the trigger for the later confrontation (or some such).  Until you shake off planning the game (as an El Dorado Illusionist gamemaster) in terms of 'this bad guy will make another appearance' (losing the 'myth of reality' that the same bad guy is needed to control where the 'story' goes), you won't be using what I am describing as El Dorado Illusionist gamemastering.

Quote from: Pale FireThe same thing becomes a problem even if you don't fudge the rules: You don't let the guy die and fall into the gene-goo. Instead you let the characters run in and do pure overkill to be sure the bad guy is dead. The stomp him to the ground, pee on him and then throw him in a meat grinder.

Instead of that dramatic scene the characters became murderers and butchers. Welcome to GM hell.
Why is that?  The above abomination of players exceeding the Genre Expectation of the game only changes the parameters, the very things which the players have total control of in El Dorado.  Again, the 'future confrontation' now becomes a result of this "overkill," possibly the players have now defined that as being a conflict with the police (who naturally come after murderers, right?).

Quote from: Pale FireSo another tool to help find El Dorado seems to be rules that allow GM editing of scenes for more drama. For this tool to work, it has to be a much more delicate and painless instrument than fudging rolls or ignoring rules.

We're talking about rules that allow you to take any abstract chunk and follow it no matter what. No game mechanics in the way to "make decisions that affect the plot."
I believe if you are truly abstracting it, none of the problems you describe occur.  Lose the idea that players will know all these 'myth of reality' details or that they must actually be consistent (rather than simply seeming consistent), and you're all the way where you're going.

Quote from: Pale FireG'night professor.
Alas, as I said, I hold no degree; I am a humbler traveler and rogue scholar, nothing more.

Fang Langford

[Who goes looking for a nonexistent can-opener for the empty non-existent cans of cat food for Schroedinger.]
Title: Anything I Can Do to Help
Post by: Le Joueur on November 19, 2002, 02:18:37 PM
Hey Jake,

Good to hear from you.

Quote from: Jake NorwoodThis doesn't apply to anything, really, but I've never had so much fun reading a thread that I didn't really get.
Thank you for your compliments.  If you'd like any explanation, I'd be more than happy to PM with you.

Fang Langford
Title: Another Face Enters the Fold
Post by: Le Joueur on November 19, 2002, 02:42:39 PM
Welcome back Joachim,

Quote from: DaredevilThat chunk approach is what I've been using for years. That's at the root of why I've always defended my view that story/sim concerns CAN exist in the same game. I didn't realize it was worthy of such a commotion, though.

Also, consider Relationships Maps (an obscure method of drawing maps by the one theorist Edwards)! Are they not very similar to this chunk-based approach?
Not at all, a Relationship Map is fraught with proper nouns and specific connections and, contrary to popular misusage, is not a way to manage details of the game.  To make a Relationship Map-like device fit the 'chunk' theory, it would be a web of generic terms connected by generic intensity measurements.  It would not fit the definition of a Relationship Map at the very get-go, because until player activity populates it with specifics, we cannot guarantee it is neither explicitly for thematic exploration, nor of blood and sex exclusively.

Quote from: DaredevilThe comparison to Schrödinger's Cat was excellent, as well as were the comments on realism. Something long overdue, I think. Realism is so passe, I feel.
I believe it was the incomparable Lily Tomlin whose one-woman Broadway presentation contained, "I can handle reality in small doses, but as a lifestyle I find it highly restrictive."

I believe I may have already dealt with the rest of the issues raised in the remainder of Joachim's post; let me know if I missed anything.

Fang Langford

[Who's beginning to wonder how to feed such a large expedition.  Perhaps the number will dwindle when the weather reports come in.]
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Seth L. Blumberg on November 19, 2002, 03:43:36 PM
I'm lost in an impenetrable thicket of metaphor, and can't find the discussion.
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: contracycle on November 19, 2002, 03:51:05 PM
Quote
I believe if you are truly abstracting it, none of the problems you describe occur. Lose the idea that players will know all these 'myth of reality' details or that they must actually be consistent (rather than simply seeming consistent), and you're all the way where you're going.

My emphasis.

I thought Pale Fire expressed it pretty well, myself.  The problem with this approach is that the players DO know.  They keep notes,  they remember.  Sometimes, I've found players remembering whole chunks of games that I didn't remember.  There is an old adage that the best lie is a simple lie, on the basis that a complicated lie is harder to remember.  Similarly, the more consistent a game history is, the easier it is to maintain that consistency.  The more you deviate from established fact, the more compensations you have to make and the more special cases you need to bear in mind at all times.

Our own notes are unreliable - in the heat of the moment I'm not likely to be able to record everything I say, let alone everything the players ask or remark.  The most dedicated GM I knew use to tape-record sessions and transcribe his notes from them.  The importance of consistency is to ensure that nobody discovers that their individual version of the illusion is at odds with someone elses.  And they can't just be left to seem consistent, or some day the actual inconsistencies will come back to haunt you.
Title: Re: Another Face Enters the Fold
Post by: contracycle on November 19, 2002, 04:12:59 PM
Fang wrote
Quote
To make a Relationship Map-like device fit the 'chunk' theory, it would be a web of generic terms connected by generic intensity measurements.  It would not fit the definition of a Relationship Map at the very get-go, because until player activity populates it with specifics, we cannot guarantee it is neither explicitly for thematic exploration, nor of blood and sex exclusively.

Strictly speaking no, but I see no reason the idea of the relationship map can't be pushed in that direction.  In fact I've had some thoughts of a similar fashion myself, in regards relationship maps on geometric layouts like hex grids.

I think the broader point is a good one - I think there are potential tools that lie outside the game but can be used to direct or schedule or prompt features in the game.  These would not be RPG mechanics so much as "chunk-management" systems, or similar; they could be ancillary ti the actual emchnaics used at the tabletop.
Title: But That's a Problem with Illusionism
Post by: Le Joueur on November 19, 2002, 04:23:57 PM
Quote from: contracycle
Quote from: Le JoueurI believe if you are truly abstracting it, none of the problems you describe occur. Lose the idea that players will know all these 'myth of reality' details or that they must actually be consistent (rather than simply seeming consistent), and you're all the way where you're going.
My emphasis.

The problem with this approach is that the players DO know.  They keep notes,  they remember.  Sometimes, I've found players remembering whole chunks of games that I didn't remember.  There is an old adage that the best lie is a simple lie, on the basis that a complicated lie is harder to remember.  Similarly, the more consistent a game history is, the easier it is to maintain that consistency.  The more you deviate from established fact, the more compensations you have to make and the more special cases you need to bear in mind at all times.

Our own notes are unreliable - in the heat of the moment I'm not likely to be able to record everything I say, let alone everything the players ask or remark.  The most dedicated GM I knew use to tape-record sessions and transcribe his notes from them.  The importance of consistency is to ensure that nobody discovers that their individual version of the illusion is at odds with someone elses.  And they can't just be left to seem[/] consistent, or some day the actual inconsistencies will come back to haunt you.
All of this is very good and very important; it applies to the core concepts of Illusionism.  Whether Illusionism can be maintained or not is a separate issue, which these are critical points to.  I've never maintained that Illusionism is easy or that El Dorado is in any way an easier form of it; I rather think the reverse is true.

The only application to what I am calling 'the myth of reality' is what I emphasized.  If you don't 'establish facts,' like how many hit points a bad guy has, you can't have inconsistency.  Beside that, it all becomes a matter of how you apply Illusionist techniques to 'hide' any inconsistency.  (For example, raising the 'curtain' long enough to sweep them under it.)

In order to describe the conditions permitting El Dorado, we must first assume functional Illusionism.  If you don't have that, then El Dorado truly is beyond your reach.

Fang Langford
Title: Re: But That's a Problem with Illusionism
Post by: contracycle on November 19, 2002, 05:04:02 PM
Quote from: Le Joueur
The only application to what I am calling 'the myth of reality' is what I emphasized.  If you don't 'establish facts,' like how many hit points a bad guy has, you can't have inconsistency.  Beside that, it all becomes a matter of how you apply Illusionist techniques to 'hide' any inconsistency.  (For example, raising the 'curtain' long enough to sweep them under it.)

OK.  But this is essentially the "its not real till you see it" approach that we already know, as others have mentioned.  There is a catch, though: the system lets payers predict Truth.  They might not know the bad guys HP, but they can know that X is enough to kill an elephant.  At which point you're back to credibility, which is a finite resource, or at least needs regular refreshing.  I feel you incorrectly understate the significance of the emulation of reality - I don't feel that I am seduced into maintenance of consistency out of the delusion that it MUST be consistent, but rather do so because it is the simplest lie.  There is value in real being real, IMO.
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Sylus Thane on November 19, 2002, 05:31:30 PM
From the Journals of Sylus Thane

Entry 2: Watching the progress of Mr. Langfords Expedition

As I watch through the great Scope of Things atop Mount Venture I am amazed at the amount of trappings people feel they need for such a simple expedition. I feel Fang is on the right track, no offense to the esteemed Professor Edwards, but I feel Fang is being led astray in his quest by the seductive promises of the GNS. He is correct in his summary of relationships when seeking Game. I have discussed the matter with one of the Gee'Ems, and they say that his thoughts are correct, but his disciption is wrong. If was a map you know where it leads, he must begin to think of it as a tree, you never know how it will grow or where it will branch. It he changes his form of thinking, his travel may become easier.

I am constantly concerned with his, and the others joining his expedition, need to attach special abstract words to help them define the things they seek. When and if they arrive it cause great difficulty in their attempts to learn Straightforward from the Players. I'm afraid that if they continue to view things from their old GNS ways, or continue to try and change GNSism into their own dialect they will never be able to see the signs that lead to El Dorado. Perhaps I will be forced to put aside the manuscripts detailing the Dawn of the Magi for now and go and try and find them before they become too lost. I have a feeling if they become too enamoured with their translations they may fall victim to the Isms who are constantly lurking in the shadows.

Food, change of clothes, sword, rifle, and my good knife. I am off. A few good players by my side. If we hurry I feel we can catch them before they reach the Simulationism Mazes. If they are caught in there, it will take a great deal of time to get them out, if ever.

Speed is of the essence.

Sylus
Title: Then You're Missing Abstraction Theory's Point
Post by: Le Joueur on November 19, 2002, 05:49:32 PM
Quote from: contracycle
Quote from: Le JoueurThe only application to what I am calling 'the myth of reality' is what I emphasized.  If you don't 'establish facts,' like how many hit points a bad guy has, you can't have inconsistency.  Beside that, it all becomes a matter of how you apply Illusionist techniques to 'hide' any inconsistency.  (For example, raising the 'curtain' long enough to sweep them under it.)
OK.  But this is essentially the "its not real till you see it" approach that we already know, as others have mentioned.  There is a catch, though: the system lets payers predict Truth.  They might not know the bad guys HP, but they can know that X is enough to kill an elephant.  At which point you're back to credibility, which is a finite resource, or at least needs regular refreshing.  I feel you incorrectly understate the significance of the emulation of reality - I don't feel that I am seduced into maintenance of consistency out of the delusion that it MUST be consistent, but rather do so because it is the simplest lie.  There is value in real being real, IMO.
Now I think I see the problem.  You are talking about the direct application to a specific quantity; that is the 'control' of the players in El Dorado.  Losing the 'myth of reality' in this sense is not worrying about the future of your bad guy.  Like I said before, his life or death is irrelevant to abstract 'chunk' control; he's just a complication that the decisions of the players brought them into conflict with.

Did you think you needed him in a future scene?  That is the 'chunk' theory mistake; who he is, is just a detail.  To connect this fight to some future event does not need to be by sustaining his life function; there are myriad ways to connect them.  The connection is forged at the wedding of the player's decisions and the gamemaster's 'chunks.'  All the gamemaster needs to do is be aware that some connection is to be made; that is a 'chunk' theory point and the reason that 'myth of reality' is in effect.

There is no reason, none, that the same character needs to be present in both situations for them to be connected.  You are detailing out too much if you think this is true and leaving yourself to inflexible to get yourself out of it.  No matter how well the players may wipe out the details you have preplanned to connect the events they have played to ones they have not, the fault is your adherence to the preplanned 'reality.'  What if the players wipe out every member of 'Bad Guy Incorporated?'  Then their sister organization, 'Villains Consolidated' fields members with a score to settle.  There is no connection unspoken that cannot be faked; connections are all that 'chunk' theory deals with, not specifics.

In El Dorado, all specifics come from the players, all abstracts come from the gamemaster.  Who the bad guy is?  Comes from the players.  When does he die?  Comes from the players.  If you are worried that having the bad guy do something won't happen because of the players' actions, you are wedded to the 'myth' that this guy is real, that he needs to live because he's the only one who can do something, that that something is specific to your plans.

Really, are you complaining about El Dorado (the difficulty in using player specifics in your abstract plans) or Illusionism in general?  I'm only talking about El Dorado.

Fang Langford
Title: Deeper into Untracked Phrases Looking out for Sharp Clauses
Post by: Le Joueur on November 19, 2002, 06:07:19 PM
Quote from: Sylus ThaneI feel Fang is being led astray in his quest by the seductive promises of the GNS.
Ah, yes, but it is the seduction of my cohort that I fall prey to.  I do everything I can to free them from it.  Demmed sirens.

Quote from: Sylus ThaneHe is correct in his summary of relationships when seeking Game.
Great, now I'm a Big Game hunter.

Quote from: Sylus ThaneI am constantly concerned with his, and the others joining his expedition, need to attach special abstract words to help them define the things they seek. When and if they arrive it cause great difficulty in their attempts to learn Straightforward from the Players.
I'm afraid I haven't any solutions to this.  I thought trying to teach them Abstract, would help them unlearn GNS, alas their dialect prevents.  Seeking the root of all languages, I thought I'd find a window into Straightforward.

Quote from: Sylus ThaneI'm afraid that if they continue to view things from their old GNS ways, or continue to try and change GNSism into their own dialect they will never be able to see the signs that lead to El Dorado.
I realize I do not need to take everyone to El Dorado.  The question remains, will I find enough evidence to prove its existence?

Fang Langford

p. s. Could someone go find Seth; I think he's gotten lost out in the thickets when he was going to...you know.
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Walt Freitag on November 19, 2002, 06:17:21 PM
Quote from: MikeIt seems to be a Flexible technique, in that you change the world to fit the characters actions to make them seem like story. But I'm kinda at a loss as to how it's new at all.

Well, even if it weren't, so what? New insight is always worthwhile, even if it's not new to others. Especially when so entertainingly described.

What I see as new here is not the findings Sir Fang has shared with us so far, but the proposed expedition itself. (Apologies to Seth for going back inside the metaphor). In other words, the exploration of operational models for how to actually perform El Dorado gamemastering.

From operational models can come... yes that's right... tools! Wonderful, shiny tools! Delicious crunchy tools! Which I'm obviously obsessed with. All reet! All reet!

So far, about all that's really been said about reality-in-flux techniques amounts to:

INTERVIEWER: What's your goal when you GM a role playing game?
GM: To adapt to what the players do while making sure the outcome has appropriate narrative structure.
INTERVIEWER: How do you do that?
GM: I create the visible reality on the fly.

That's really about as useful as:

INTERVIEWER: What's your goal when you duel?
DUELIST: To injure or kill the other guy without being injured or killed myself.
INTERVIEWER: How do you do that?
DUELIST: I use my sword.

That's why it's "intuitive" continuity. "Intuitive," as in, "I have no idea how to explain how to do it, it just sort of comes naturally." Unless it doesn't.

Fang has now put forth the tentative outlines of a model that involves units (or "chunks") of "story in the abstract" (some sort of template) which get filled in in play in a very flexible manner based primarily on player input. It's a start. Questions to explore: What helpfulconstraints are provided by a chunk-template? (Too few, the chunk isn't helping the GM make decisions. Too many, adapting to player decisions might require too much force. Chunk size is a factor here.) How do chunks fit together structurally? Are chunks planned ahead? Are chunks interchangeable?

I know at least one game design that exists within this space: Christoffer's horror game The Evil. In that schema, the chunks are relatively large, pre-planned, non-interchangeable, perhaps too open-ended to be sufficient help for most GMs. I hope Christoffer won't mind if we plan a supply stopover there.

- Walt
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Christoffer Lernö on November 19, 2002, 08:46:03 PM
Since you bring up The Evil Walt, I feel I have to make a quick comment in regards to its el Dorado qualities. In essence, the Evil is a gutted BRP RPG. There are hardly any rules at all. How is this helping el Dorado? Because rules are in the way "of making up reality as you see fit". Furthermore, there are no rules for the GM, there are only rules for the players.
The GM doesn't need to roll if the monster manages to stalk the player.
The GM doesn't need to roll to decide NPC vs NPC actions.
So there is no problem with the rules interefering with the GM's reality building. The mechanics and its results are given all their meaning through the interpretation of the GM. This way there is no effect that the GM did not desire. The mechanics only work as a rough suggestion.

The question, to me, is how to translate this well into a system with a lot of rules. The contrast between players employing a lot of rules and the GM using none would seem be so much more pronounced. Also there has to be a way for the GM to measure his NPCs actions. In the Evil the GM simply gives a target number made up on the fly and that's enough. In a more sophisticated game it would seem to be a lot harder.

Aren't these 4 points true?

1. Rules impede GM flexibility
2. Rules guide player decisions
3. Rules create consistent results
4. Rules make outcome predictable

Actually the 4th is a consequence of 1-3.

So, turning down the amount of rules like in a gutted BRP (the Evil) works in a way but unless we assist it with something else it can never work as a universal solution.

(I'm kinda embarrassed making all these references to the Evil. It's not like it's a revolutionary game. But for all it's simplicity it still works as an example as a game made to GM using IntCon)

[Edit: This isn't addressing the chunks at all. But I figured, if you want to look at the chunks, better know the other things going on in the game as well.]
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Jonathan Walton on November 19, 2002, 09:29:18 PM
I'm not sure if this is helpful at all, but I may have accidentally stumbled across a path that leads, not to the Golden City itself, but to a treacherous embankment that overlooks it.  This path is dubbed, by the natives, complete lack of GM preperation.

Looking back on it, I've been walking this path for a while now.  In middle and high school, I had friends who'd come over & expect to roleplay, making characters on the spot and looking for me to GM an adventure on the fly.  Just out of necessity, I had to get suggestions from them about the kind of game they wanted to play (since I had zilch time to prepare), and would just throw a bunch of the suggestions into an "opening" and then spend the rest of the game reacting to what the players threw out.  Lately, in Storypunk, The GM is Dead, and my new Harry Potter-based project, I find myself returning to this model.

After all, who has the time to spend preparing to roleplay?  Recently, I've been writing games where character creation either takes 5 minutes or can be done during play.  Also, the players can run the game right out of the box, in 30 minutes or less.  Zero prep-time, once you understand the rules.  This kind of off-the-cuff, reactive GM style is significantly different from the "chunk" method, but it similarly puts control of the narrative in the hands of the players, while the GM tries to administer things to keep the collaboration from breaking down.

Am I also heading towards El Dorado, or am I still lost in the jungle, smitten by mirages?
Title: The Villain Makes His Appearance
Post by: Le Joueur on November 19, 2002, 09:32:18 PM
Sorry Christoffer,

I'm bored and tired...

Quote from: Pale FireSince you bring up The Evil Walt,
Oh goody, our first villain!  So Walt, are you the Nazi uber-villain or the Belloq-peer-rival type?

Quote from: Pale FireAren't these 4 points true?[list=1]
  • Rules impede GM flexibility
  • Rules guide player decisions
  • Rules create consistent results
  • Rules make outcome predictable[/list:o][Edit: This isn't addressing the chunks at all. But I figured, if you want to look at the chunks, better know the other things going on in the game as well.]
It actually does address 'chunks' indirectly.  I believe you make the classic err thinking that 'fewer rules' always get 'out of the way' of the gamemaster.  The 'chunks' I'm proposing are neither 'in place of rules that players use' nor in conflict with any amount of rules in general.

Like I was trying to describe to Contracycle, the 'chunks' allow a gamemaster to manipulate and control 'where the game goes' by giving the players' decisions a structure to 'fit to.'  The same works for the "consistent results" that the rules 'create.'  Those are also specific results much like what the players create.  The only outcomes decided are those which are specific; few games offer rules that determine 'the larger picture' items (especially in a way that cannot be 'faked' by alternatives arising from the marriage of player decisions and 'chunk' directions).

So I guess in creating the actual 'chunks' for the theory, they must be the kind of abstractions that are in no way impeded by anything concrete resolutions.  We've had this discussion before; I don't believe rules impede this kind of "gamemaster flexibility."  (If one piece is 'illegal' simply put in another.)

Fang Langford
Title: Is El Dorado Your Destiny?
Post by: Le Joueur on November 19, 2002, 09:48:02 PM
Quote from: Jonathan Walton...To GM an adventure on the fly.  Just out of necessity, I had to get suggestions from them about the kind of game they wanted to play (since I had zilch time to prepare),

...After all, who has the time to spend preparing to roleplay?

...Am I also heading towards El Dorado, or am I still lost in the jungle, smitten by mirages?
Well, I'm sure we could arrange for some 'chunks' that you could use to climb down on (like steps), but you have to ask yourself; it that what you want?  Do you want to control a game to suit a 'big picture' purpose using Illusionism so that your players may subscribe to a different method of their choosing?

To be honest, I've been using "Case Number 2" gamemastering for the last five or six years exclusively.  In the absence of preparation (I have a family), I grew to using 'chunk' methods unconsciously.  I'd get a real kick if I had time to start a separate thread and bang out the actual kinds of 'chunks' to be used and how to use them for the various purposes.

Is that what you want?

Fang Langford
Title: Re: Is El Dorado Your Destiny?
Post by: Jonathan Walton on November 19, 2002, 10:04:10 PM
Quote from: Le JoueurDo you want to control a game to suit a 'big picture' purpose using Illusionism so that your players may subscribe to a different method of their choosing?

I'm not sure anymore.  I certainly used to want that, but, as I've matured as a GM, I seem to desire that less and less (perhaps because I've told myself that I'll never reach El Dorado?).  Nowadays, I seem to be more interested in tilting at Ron's favorite windmill, breaking down the distictions that seperate the GM from the players.  All of this ultimately seems to be aiming at the same goal, of making gaming less frustrating for GMs and players with diverse motives and interests.

As a GM, I loathe the idea that it's my duty to provide entertainment for the players.  I don't want to be a performing monkey.  But I also don't want to be completely reactionary; I want to have some hand in the outcome of play; I want my participation to matter.  So, I think Ron's windmill and your El Dorado are ultimately trying to solve this same problem: finding the happy medium between total GM determination and total player determination.  If the GM is just another player... problem solved.  Likewise, in El Dorado, where the GM provides form and the players provide structure... problem solved.

So we're really talking about two different Golden Cities here.
Title: Re: The Villain Makes His Appearance
Post by: Christoffer Lernö on November 19, 2002, 11:55:36 PM
I'm sad to hear I'm boring you Professor Fang. I'll see if I can revive your interest somewhat.

Quote from: Professor Fang Langford, daring explorer and searcher for the mythic el Dorado
It actually does address 'chunks' indirectly.  I believe you make the classic err thinking that 'fewer rules' always get 'out of the way' of the gamemaster.  The 'chunks' I'm proposing are neither 'in place of rules that players use' nor in conflict with any amount of rules in general.
Then I think you're puzzling the pieces I gave you together in the wrong fashion.
Let's get back to what you were teaching in those archeology classes - the importance of internalizing rules. Once the rules are internalized by the great Gee'Emm, they become tools. However, the shape of these tools vary from mechanic to mechanic. The more complicated and contra-intuitive the tools, the longer they take to be internalized. However the most important thing is how the tools interact with each other.

Less rules makes a game quicker to internalize and reduces the chance of tools interfering with each other.

I from what I see from your map to el Dorado, the task of the Gee'Emm seems to be to let the needs of the players interpret the abstract chunk he has picked up. But in expressing this chunk back to the players, the Gee'Emm needs to use his tools. If the tools interfer with each other, then the sketch handed back to the players will not be the one of the interpreted chunk and not of the players desires either.

What I am suggesting is that the tools of the Gee'Emm must allow him to draw the scene in any colours he wants.

There are far too many tools that leave out half of the colours or provide tools like "brushes with other brushes attached". Such tools tempt the Gee'Emm to fit the drawing to the tools instead - to draw things that the tools allow instead of the true image.

In that moment I believe el Dorado is lost to them.

If instead of having the players paint the abstract image of the chunk it is the system that chooses the image, then that can only mean the input of the players will be less. Is that not so?

This was my concern anyway. Maybe that was what you suspected all along. In that case forgive me for not understanding your reply. Please let me know why the above is wrong.


Say, were is Schrödinger by the way?
Title: Indianna Jones and Pipe Dreams
Post by: Le Joueur on November 20, 2002, 01:54:10 AM
Hey Christoffer,

I didn't mean that you had anything to do with my boredom.  (You didn't make me tired, did you?)  I thought it valuable to note what I brought to the conversation for caveat emptor purposes.

Quote from: Pale Fire
Quote from: Mr. Fang Langford, daring explorer and searcher for the mythic El DoradoIt actually does address 'chunks' indirectly.  I believe you make the classic err thinking that 'fewer rules' always get 'out of the way' of the gamemaster.  The 'chunks' I'm proposing are neither 'in place of rules that players use' nor in conflict with any amount of rules in general.
Then I think you're puzzling the pieces I gave you together in the wrong fashion.

Let's get back to what you were teaching in those archeology classes - the importance of internalizing rules. Once the rules are internalized by the great Gee'Emm, they become tools. However, the shape of these tools vary from mechanic to mechanic. The more complicated and contra-intuitive the tools, the longer they take to be internalized. However the most important thing is how the tools interact with each other.

[Fewer] rules make a game quicker to internalize and reduces the chance of tools interfering with each other.
I understand your opinion here, but I don't believe it has any context with what I'm talking about.  Since El Dorado is a destination, all of what you're discussing will have passed before that place is reached.  Any rules, no matter how intuitive or not, no matter how complicated, will have already been internalized (or whatever you want to call the 'getting it down' process.)  Use of rules will be transparent.

Quote from: Pale FireI from what I see from your map to El Dorado, the task of the Gee'Emm seems to be to let the needs of the players interpret the abstract chunk he has picked up. But in expressing this chunk back to the players, the Gee'Emm needs to use his tools. If the tools interfere with each other, then the sketch handed back to the players will not be the one of the interpreted chunk and not of the players' desires either.
I haven't actually placed any responsibility in terms of wedding the specifics created by the players to the abstracts created by the gamemaster.  Nor have I discussed the timing of the fusion.

As Illusionism, I expect that the players probably are not aware that the gamemaster even has an agenda.  (I'm still assimilating what this new definition of Illusionism means in application.)  I'm of the impression we can create these abstracts in such a way that they'll readily take the specifics of player decisions.  This goes back to the idea of taking player input and orchestrating the supposed environment (the 'myth of reality' again) to stress the importance of their decisions.

Quote from: Pale FireWhat I am suggesting is that the tools of the Gee'Emm must allow him to draw the scene in any colours he wants.

There are far too many tools that leave out half of the colours or provide tools like "brushes with other brushes attached". Such tools tempt the Gee'Emm to fit the drawing to the tools instead - to draw things that the tools allow instead of the true image.
That's a problem.  The 'tools of the Gee'Emm' should not be paintbrushes in this analogy, the players supply paint, colors, pallet, and canvas.  The gamemaster is thinking in terms of composition, symbolic representation, and element placement/relationships.

If you think in terms of the gamemaster 'drawing scenes' or using 'colours,' then your next statement is completely on the mark.

Quote from: Pale FireIn that moment I believe El Dorado is lost to them.

If instead of having the players paint the abstract image of the chunk it is the system that chooses the image, then that can only mean the input of the players will be less. Is that not so?
Of course.  You are sensing the inherent 'impossibility' of El Dorado.  Since you keep inferring that the gamemaster will be dealing in specifics intentionally you will always find El Dorado impossible; it becomes a fight to see whose specifics are actually in control.

Until you slip past the idea of the gamemaster 'controlling' anything that could be construed as a specific bit of information in the game, you aren't going to see past the conflict over who's running the show.

How can I make this more clear (not just to you, but to myself included)?

Let's try a little Raiders of the Lost Ark:(<--Abstract terminology) to a close.

Next, the gamemaster decides that the 'tension level' (<--Abstract terminology) is not high enough to support the 'final confrontation' (<--Abstract terminology).  Thus he chooses to create another 'tension cycle' of higher 'stakes' (<--Abstract terminology) to take the 'tension to the next level' (<--Abstract terminology).

Where did the players leave things?  On a steamer.  When?  Just prior to World War Two.  The gamemaster chooses to have that ship assailed by a German U-boat.  It doesn't matter what personifies the 'introduction of the next conflict' (<--Abstract terminology), only that it suits the place that the players have the game.  It could have equally been a German warship or Belloq's private yacht.  How the players respond to this 'introduction' is key.

They choose to hide and then bide their time.  Following this lead, the gamemaster has the captain of the ship support it saying that Jones is dead and attempting to gird the girl.  The gamemaster has already chosen that there will be a 'tense connection' (<--Abstract terminology) between a 'major player' (<--Abstract terminology) and a 'player character' (<--Abstract terminology).

Earlier Marion (another player character) has a run in Belloq; from this the gamemaster 'discovered' that Belloq is attracted to Marion.  (I say discovered because it could not have been the gamemaster's intention because it is a specific.)  To 'up the ante' (<--Abstract terminology) the gamemaster chooses to not only take 'the prize' (<--Abstract terminology), but to invoke the 'tense connection' again, thus Belloq takes the girl.  Here the gamemaster is playing with specifics, but only the available ones, not because he had planned it to be based on the Belloq/Marion relationship; he could have just as easily played on the Belloq/Jones 'one-upsmanship' by having Belloq announce 'out loud' that he has beaten Jones again (implying that he did not believe the story of Jones' demise).  This choice is arbitrary and affected only by what's available, not some kind of agenda on the specifics by the gamemaster.

Dr. Jones swims over to the U-boat for a ride with the rest of the principles.  I've always felt that it was suspect that (considering the map shown next in the movie) that Dr. Jones could have ridden undetected on the outside of a German U-boat all that way.  What that tells me is that the gamemaster rightly determined that a scuffle on the outside of the U-boat would unnecessarily 'complicate' (<--Abstract terminology) the game on a level not equal to the 'tension level' he's shooting for.  That's why the next scene 'frames' right to the 'next locale' (<--Abstract terminology).

There is a short establishing scene, I assume prompted by the players who felt a need to specify how Dr. Jones is able to move about the island unimpeded; such impediment would actually be detrimental to continuing the current 'tension cycle' so the gamemaster has no interest in turning into a 'confrontation' (<--Abstract terminology) or anything more than a 'minor complication' (<--Abstract terminology) so as to not lose the rising 'tension level.'

Gathering all the pieces together, the gamemaster assumes the passive and let's the players choose the next 'confrontation' with the 'major player.'  If Belloq had been done away with during the 'Ark chase,' this could have just as easily been any of the remaining Nazi 'major players.'  El Dorado Illusionism hinges on not making this choice until the 'confrontation' takes place.  Now, in keeping with the 'tension level' the gamemaster spontaneously chooses to call Jones' bluff.  What the players do is crucial but not 'decisive' (<--Abstract terminology).

Should they have gone through with the bluff, then it would be something else about 'the prize' that enacts the 'final confrontation,' perhaps the tablets survive and are then read.  Perhaps the players choose to have an 'action scene' (the type of scene, to my way of thinking right now, is just another specific for player decision to create) and fight to free Marion.  But what the players choose to do is 'give up;' this could have cost the gamemaster the 'tension level' except that great speech by Belloq was well worth it (even though extemporaneous by the gamemaster).

That leads to the 'final confrontation' where 'the prize' must play itself out.  Going in, the gamemaster must know that all 'leads' (<--Abstract terminology) will be dealt with, but not how.  I would think the choice line by Dr. Jones to 'not look' predicated pretty much the whole 'wrath of god' thing.  I'd even go so far as to suggest that the fancy special effects the gamemaster found himself describing may have surprised even him with the fact that 'the prize' is still intact at the end (hence the rather hasty 'denouement' (<--Abstract terminology) to 'clear up' the last of the 'leads' and end the game.)[/list:u]In this, I hope everyone gets a better idea of how much the gamemaster doesn't know, plan, or expect, and what he does.  The whole idea I founded this thread on is that keeping the 'gamemaster control' in a sphere unrelated to the specifics (that get driven by player decisions) allowed what has been described as impossible to gain some possibility.

El Dorado is not supposed to be the best kind of gaming.  It isn't even supposed to be a desirable form of gaming.  All I was saying is that it is a possible style of gaming.

Quote from: Pale FireSay, where is Schrödinger by the way?
Who?

Oh yeah!  He's...under my chair, playing with that treacherous pipe.

Fang Langford
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: JMendes on November 20, 2002, 02:08:36 AM
Hello, all, :)

I would like to raise a couple of points here. Unsignaled forks in the path, so to speak.

My first point will be: if El Dorado is all about the GM being in control of the story, then how does chunk theory help any?

To wit, narrative structure has been hammered to death in many a field of study. Sites with variations on the '36 basic plots' are out there by the thousands. If you read them out, they sound exactly like what (I think) you propose chunk theory to be. If that is the case, then 'GM control' is reduced to selecting a narrative structure from an already elaborately detailed menu of narrative structures.

Let's talk about writing, for instance. I never tried writing any fiction longer than a three-page short story, so I don't know if novel writing is any different. However, what I do is pick out a structure and a theme and then get ready to write the details in. In other words, I control the story because I control the details. The chunks come from the structure I picked. They control nothing.

So first my point, restated, is: why do you feel that planning out chunks is any degree of story control at all?

My second point is not as elaborate and is really only a question: how does your proposed El Dorado relate to the design and/or play of purchased scenarios?

Cheers,

J.
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Christoffer Lernö on November 20, 2002, 03:43:53 AM
Prof Fang old friend I don't see what you are saying STOP The natives seem very friendly STOP They are making me a nice pot of their best brew STOP Or so my interpreter tells me STOP but it's making me a little nervous STOP that they are already tying my assistant to a pole STOP but my interpreter assures me it's quite normal STOP

In other words I am a little lost here. The GM plays with his abstract images, but who is painting the picture? If it is the GM, then what are the tools of the trade?

If you are saying that the players provide the tools, isn't that saying "System doesn't matter"? If not the explain to me where the system enters. Because the way I see it, hasn't the system has put its influence on the painting by the time the GM shows the picture to the players?


It's starting to smell nice STOP I hope food is ready soon STOP Best wishes your friend Christoffer STOP
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: C. Edwards on November 20, 2002, 05:42:01 AM
Sir Fang,

I urge you wholeheartedly to rethink your proposed route to El Dorado.  The high Priestess of the Temple of the Sun, which lies at the heart of El Dorado, has come to me in visions with these words, "If you must resort to Illusionism, then you have already lost Control."  I fear the expedition my be focusing on a Shadow of El Dorado, and not the city itself.

*in the rest of this post my reference to El Dorado should be read as "El Dorado without Illusionism".

Fang wrote:
QuoteThe only application to what I am calling 'the myth of reality' is what I emphasized. If you don't 'establish facts,' like how many hit points a bad guy has, you can't have inconsistency.

contracycle wrote:
QuoteThe more you deviate from established fact, the more compensations you have to make and the more special cases you need to bear in mind at all times.

Christoffer wrote:
QuoteThere are hardly any rules at all. How is this helping el Dorado? Because rules are in the way "of making up reality as you see fit". Furthermore, there are no rules for the GM, there are only rules for the players.
The GM doesn't need to roll if the monster manages to stalk the player.
The GM doesn't need to roll to decide NPC vs NPC actions.
So there is no problem with the rules interefering with the GM's reality building. The mechanics and its results are given all their meaning through the interpretation of the GM. This way there is no effect that the GM did not desire. The mechanics only work as a
rough suggestion.

These are all related to the difficulties imposed by different treatment of the same rules by the players and the GM.  In a game created by the high Priestess, the system is El Dorado.  

I think a large problem people have, indoctrinated gamers anyway, is that they have a preconception of just what an rpg is supposed to be, which is often completely intertwined with this "myth of reality".  They believe that certain types of rules, certain quantities of rules, mechanics that work this way or that way will work better to create a "reality" that doesn't exist anywhere but in their minds.  That indoctrinated way of thought is poison to the pursuit of El Dorado.  

Jonathan wrote:
QuoteI'm not sure if this is helpful at all, but I may have accidentally stumbled across a path that leads, not to the Golden City itself, but to a treacherous embankment that overlooks it. This path is dubbed, by the natives, complete lack of GM preperation.

This is how I first stumbled upon the trail to El Dorado myself.  Its difficult not to deal in abstractions when you are barely managing to keep up with the players.  It is only by letting go of our need to know what might happen before the players do that we can see the true path to El Dorado.

Johathan
QuoteAs a GM, I loathe the idea that it's my duty to provide entertainment for the players. I don't want to be a performing monkey. But I also don't want to be completely reactionary; I want to have some hand in the outcome of play; I want my participation to matter.

This is, I believe, where the importance of Connections truly shine.  It is the Connections by which the GM influences player decision.  The truth is, Connections aren't any more reactionary than the players decisions which prompt those Connections.  Envision a yin-yang or the endless cycle of rainfall. Player decision carries no more weight than GM connection, they feed and reinforce one another.  It's the band metaphor all over again. Jazz baby.

Fang
QuoteI understand your opinion here, but I don't believe it has any context with what I'm talking about. Since El Dorado is a destination, all of what you're discussing will have passed before that place is reached. Any rules, no matter how intuitive or not, no matter how complicated, will have already been internalized (or whatever you want to call the 'getting it down' process.) Use of rules will be transparent.

Use of the rules will not be transparent as long as the GMs use of those rules is in contradiction to the players understanding of how those rules function.  This is the home town of Illusionism.  For example, in a game with hit points they have a solid context, specific rules for how they are lost, how many, etc., etc., The player always abides by these criteria, he doesn't have much choice.  The GM on the other hand takes these very same criteria and bends them until they break, usually based on no other criteria except perhaps "the needs of the story", or "keeping NPC alive for next time".  Therefore, the core mechanism the game is supposed to provide, central rules for determining various aspects of play in an objective manner, has been utterly disregarded by the GM. This is often considered a serious breach of the unspoken social contract, akin to cheating.

I wholeheartedly agree that letting go of the "myth of reality" is the greatest step on the winding trail, but when the system being used is still supporting that myth... you're up the creek without a paddle.

My basic issue here is that you seem to find Illusionism necessary to El Dorado because you believe the game system itself to be not of much issue.  If that is the case then I wholeheartedly disagree.

And I apologize if this has sounded like a rant for "how I play". It certainly isn't meant that way.  I also know that I haven't offered much in the way of crunchy fact and specifics but,  like any similar quest, I believe the route to El Dorado requires a certain degree of Zen thought.

-Chris
Title: Cardsharps at the Gates of Gold
Post by: Le Joueur on November 20, 2002, 11:07:19 AM
Hey J.

Seems you've arrived right in time for the lynching.  (I was worried this wasn't coming)

Quote from: JMendesMy first point will be: if El Dorado is all about the GM being in control of the story, then how does chunk theory help any?
This is a good question.  Perhaps the answer lies in two points; what is a 'story' and what is control.  I can see that leadership of the party is beginning to breakdown over these two points and for good reason.

Let's back up a moment and take this one step at a time.  First of all, the whole "I've seen El Dorado" idea was to solve a long-standing problem.  Rather than prove the impossible (the simple reading of El Dorado), I chose to readdress the basic underpinning of the whole idea of its possibility.

El Dorado was originally identified as 'the great impossible thing' here, "...The GM may be defined as the author of the ongoing story, and, simultaneously, the players may determine the actions of the characters as the story’s protagonists." – GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Design by Ron Edwards.  Over many months it has been simply discussed as "the gamemaster controlling (authoring) the story with the players' decisions determining the outcome of the story."  Clearly impossible, right?  Well, everyone wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.

Paul Czege probably first coined the Spanish name and proposed 'retroactive story interpretation' technique.  This was determined to be a failure because reinterpreting is not authoring.  Joachim Buchert speculated along the lines of restricting the players to Actor Stance and that this would free up the gamemaster to author (not unlike what I am proposing here); it basically broke down when it was pointed out that, in the assumption of restricted Actor Stance, the players were abdicating 'control' to the gamemaster.  After this, the search died down somewhat.

Then came all this recent activity on Illusionism.  More specifically Jesse Burneko's "Case Number 2:"Raiders of the Lost Ark example above).

What I realized was that even if the gamemaster shed all responsibility for details or specifics, completely, they could still gamemaster.  If every specific arose either from the player-character designs, the history of the game, the setting provided by whomever, or the decisions of the players (much like Intuitive Continuity described as "using the players' interests and actions during initial play to construct the crises and actual content"), then the 'symbolic language' employed by the gamemaster would formalize his "authoring of the ongoing story" without affecting the decisions of the players.

The reason this isn't 'retroactive interpretation' is because it happens immediately; by monitoring the flow of abstract elements, the gamemaster can author 'on the fly.'  For the addressing of a Edwardian Premise, this becomes 'story now' Narrativism.  The major difference between this and Vanilla Narrativism is how the players are not abdicating any right of 'control.'  It works because both parties are speaking 'different languages' and their motives don't conflict.

Important point: this is not easy!  One of the principle problems I've identified is what I have been calling the 'myth of reality.'  When you clearly escape the 'myth' you are empowered to use things like 'the moving clue' (if the players don't talk to the right person, the person they talk to becomes the right person) or 'the magician's choice' (If they pick A then you reveal that their choice is of what is to be discarded, if they pick B then you reveal that their choice is of what is to be saved); the complex point is being sensitive to where their interest lies per Intuitive Continuity and not supplying the specific personification of what is being addressed from your choice but from those things identified earlier (character design and et cetera).

Quote from: JMendesTo wit, narrative structure has been hammered to death in many a field of study. Sites with variations on the '36 basic plots' are out there by the thousands. If you read them out, they sound exactly like what (I think) you propose chunk theory to be. If that is the case, then 'GM control' is reduced to selecting a narrative structure from an already elaborately detailed menu of narrative structures.

Let's talk about writing, for instance. I never tried writing any fiction longer than a three-page short story, so I don't know if novel writing is any different. However, what I do is pick out a structure and a theme and then get ready to write the details in. In other words, I control the story because I control the details. The chunks come from the structure I picked. They control nothing.

So first my point, restated, is: why do you feel that planning out chunks is any degree of story control at all?
I appreciate your mention of the Polti's 'thirty-six plots,' because it had a lot to do with my formalization of symbolic approach to gamemastering; however they are more specific cruxes of contention within a story and as such actually count more as a 'player controlled' detail.  The abstraction I'm referring to most often comes up in reviews of literature.  When the reviewer takes a 'finer grained' approach to tearing a work apart without delving into the details of the story; for example, "At one point the antagonist does an about-face and completely violates the point of their introduction."

In bringing up Polti's plots, you approach symbolic gamemastering from too 'large of chunks.'  As Mike rightly points out, the other extreme is equally as bad.  (I identified 'atom-sized chunks' as abstractions like noun, verb, and adverb.)  The exact scale of 'chunks' is up to the gamemaster as is his 'depth of control' in authoring the story.  What I think is important is if he uses something akin to Intuitive Continuity to populate symbolic elements like 'antagonist' or 'thug' with names and details and doesn't allow himself to be swept away with the idea of using the 'same detail' for a later interaction (it isn't the same bad guy, necessarily, simply that the new confrontation is populated by an appropriate body who bears a connection to the previous).

We can't really talk writing because that's a matter of assembling a linear story prior to presentation.  That's akin to 'front loading' a plot to the game and it should be clear that a 'front loaded' story is previously authored (something not covered by the description of El Dorado).  Since you believe that structure can only be 'front loaded,' I can see why you think authoring is only in the details (the point of view planned for the players in El Dorado).  If you look at it more as improvisation, where you are selecting structure as you go along, then the details are irrelevant.Intuitive Continuity gamemaster constructs a crisis from elements revealed by player interest.  (I consider one of the biggest stumbling blocks to this approach being married to the idea that once the 'antagonist card' is played it refers to only that first detail assigned to it when played again in the future.  When the players render this unlikely, pursuing that 'marriage' causes unnecessary inconsistency.)

I see 'playing cards' as the gamemaster 'authoring the ongoing story' without being as reactive as the typical Intuitive Continuity gamemaster.  I see the players' decisions exercising the same 'control' as they do in Intuitive Continuity play (their authoring is in the details, like you imagine).  Thus there are two sides actively controlling with the wedding of the controlled elements being the game.  Both are 'playing solitaire' in their own realm, players with details and decisions, the gamemaster with 'chunk cards' and structure.  The trick is to marry details to 'chunks' in such a way as to build player emotional engagement throughout the game.

Like I said, not easy.

Quote from: JMendesMy second point is not as elaborate and is really only a question: how does your proposed El Dorado relate to the design and/or play of purchased scenarios?
I'd like to think so, but it'll require "purchased scenarios' like none I have ever seen (unless you count 'bare settings' as scenarios).  Right now, I'm reorganizing my thoughts around what goes into a Scattershot supplement because when Scattershot is played with primarily Self-Sovereign sharing and little Self-Consciousness of narrative, it will be ripe for El Dorado play.  (Our Sequences are like larger 'chunks' that allow the smaller 'card-sized' ones to be played onto them.)

Finally, I must caution that I do not see El Dorado as a place for everyone.  Think of it as an expensive tourist resort (provided we see it as exploitable) that requires much work on the part of the gamemaster, partly to master symbolic gamemastering and partly to unlearn a lot of 'myth of reality' habits.  This isn't really something I think will be worth much other than to complete our map and give us a better idea of 'where we are' in the world of gaming.

Above all else, everyone should remember my only motivation has been to show that El Dorado exists, not beat a path to it.

Fang Langford
Title: Do Not Fear the Natives!
Post by: Le Joueur on November 20, 2002, 11:17:09 AM
Quote from: Pale FireI am a little lost here.
Join the club.  The reason for the second expedition is because I'm lost too.  Remember, I've only 'seen' it; I got lost trying to describe how to get there.  That's why I need everyone's help.  This isn't a solid theory, but an idea of how a theory could be created.

Quote from: Pale FireThe GM plays with his abstract images, but who is painting the picture? If it is the GM, then what are the tools of the trade?

If you are saying that the players provide the tools, isn't that saying "System doesn't matter"? If not then explain to me where the system enters. Because the way I see it, hasn't the system has put its influence on the painting by the time the GM shows the picture to the players?
Take a look at the 'cardsharps' insert above.  That is a way of systemizing it; mostly a sketch, I'm looking for help fleshing such out.  And I can see how confusing it is about "painting the picture," I expect you're seeing the same "authoring is in the details" perspective as Mr. Mendes.  I hope my response to him clarifies things more.STOP

You mustn't be afraid. STOP Natives are harmless. STOP It's a myth; Gamists do not munchkin other gamers. STOP

You did say you were with Gamists, didn't you? STOP[/list:u]Sir Fang Langford STOP
Title: The Yin and Yang of El Dorado
Post by: Le Joueur on November 20, 2002, 11:41:36 AM
View hullo! Chris!

Quote from: C. EdwardsI urge you wholeheartedly to rethink your proposed route to El Dorado....

* In the rest of this post my reference to El Dorado should be read as
"El Dorado without Illusionism."

...I think a large problem people have, indoctrinated gamers anyway, is that they have a preconception of just what an rpg is supposed to be, which is often completely intertwined with this "myth of reality".  They believe that certain types of rules, certain quantities of rules, mechanics that work this way or that way will work better to create a "reality" that doesn’t exist anywhere but in their minds.  That indoctrinated way of thought is poison to the pursuit of El Dorado.
I'm finding that out.

Quote from: C. Edwards...It is only by letting go of our need to know what might happen before the players do that we can see the true path to El Dorado.

...It is the Connections by which the GM influences player decision.  The truth is, Connections aren’t any more reactionary than the players' decisions which prompt those Connections.  Envision a yin-yang or the endless cycle of rainfall. Player decision carries no more weight than GM connection; they feed and reinforce one another.  It’s the band metaphor all over again. Jazz baby.
I don't see it that way.  In order to make the 'impossible contrast' possible, both parties must be doing as they see fit without compromise.  The resulting game is a symbiosis, not collaboration.  I see the yin and yang working hand in hand simultaneously like a marriage dealing with others.  (Within a marriage, there is a back and forth, but toward outside influences these are simultaneous.)

Quote from: C. EdwardsUse of the rules will not be transparent as long as the GMs use of those rules is in contradiction to the players understanding of how those rules function.  This is the hometown of Illusionism.  For example, in a game with hit points they have a solid context, specific rules for how they are lost, how many, etc., etc., The player always abides by these criteria, he doesn’t have much choice.  The GM on the other hand takes these very same criteria and bends them until they break, usually based on no other criteria except perhaps "the needs of the story", or "keeping NPC alive for next time".  Therefore, the core mechanism the game is supposed to provide, central rules for determining various aspects of play in an objective manner, has been utterly disregarded by the GM. This is often considered a serious breach of the unspoken social contract, akin to cheating.

I wholeheartedly agree that letting go of the "myth of reality" is the greatest step on the winding trail, but when the system being used is still supporting that myth... you’re up the creek without a paddle.
It shouldn't matter if the 'rules for all' support the myth, changing details should be a non-event for the gamemaster's 'chunks' (which would be 'rules for gamemasters').  Christoffer often poses the idea that each party should have separate rules, I think this fails for exactly the "until they break" situation you describe.  Because I see the connection between details and 'chunks' as completely mercurial, I find no problem; as you said "keeping the NPC alive" is the 'myth of reality' problem to be avoided.

Quote from: C. EdwardsMy basic issue here is that you seem to find Illusionism necessary to El Dorado because you believe the game system itself to be not of much issue.  If that is the case then I wholeheartedly disagree.

And I apologize if this has sounded like a rant for "how I play". It certainly isn’t meant that way.  I also know that I haven’t offered much in the way of crunchy fact and specifics but, like any similar quest, I believe the route to El Dorado requires a certain degree of Zen thought.
I'm not surprised you picked up on the Illusionism irrelevance.  I picked that up mostly as a historic reference to how 'I saw El Dorado.'  Personally, I believe that El Dorado can function without Illusionism (unless you're convinced any gamemaster ulterior motives constitute Illusionism), I just used it as a shield for potential "that' cheating" comments.  I don't know why I'm being so defensive.

Thank you very much for both the Zen suggestion and identifying the yin and yang of El Dorado.  (Here's a thought for you eastern philosophers, gamemaster control would be yin in nature, and player control would be yang in character.)  I hope my response to Mr. Mendes helps clarify things a bit more.

Fang Langford
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Sylus Thane on November 20, 2002, 12:49:29 PM
After crossing the Great Gap, myself and my Player companions came across the esteemed Mr. Lerno and friend. Unfortunately they already had the company of Gamists from the Pit of the Isms. After a brief battle ensued we were able to free Lerno's companion before he had succumbed to being dinner. Lerno is correct in his thinking that all of the worlds abundant within the universe of game have their own unique rules. Which is as it should, as any Gee'Em will tell you, for it helps them in guiding parties of Players through their adventures, but I fear he may have gone to gung ho on the let's hurry up and get there that he mistakenly stopped to ask directions. As I did not send his guide I fear the forces of Ism have already begun to lead others astray, to what end I do not know.

Across the valley we spotted C. edwards plodding along with his eyes closed steadily feeling his way. He his on the right track and I hope he will not make similar mistakes and ask for directions as all they will do is lead him down the wrong path. We will continue to keep track of him, he shouldn't be too hard to keep track of as long as he keeps whistling those wonderful tunes.

Hopefully we will be able to find Mr. Mendes soon as he seems to be a good gentleman and looks to be on his way to becoming one of the great Gee'Ems with his willingness to question all theories.

I have no idea where Sir Langford. I fear he may have unwittingly walked into the Maze. If he has it may take a great deal of time to get him and all of his companions back out again. I hope his friend Caro has not strayed too far, and that he did not bring enough food for his cat. We will head for the maze now and hope to find some sign of his passing.

Sylus
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Daredevil on November 20, 2002, 02:10:57 PM
This is just a huge discussion, with a whole bunch of tangentially related issues complicating it further. Personally, I've yet to digest everything in this thread and before I can continue with my own search I'd have to go back to look at all the old threads as well as my own notes derived from these most ancient of manuscripts on our Golden City.

This is probably the most high-flying thread I've ever seen on the Forge and I think we've all seen a few that were deep indeed.

Amongst my notes I found the barest sketches of a game design -- started simply out of a wish to design a game that is distinctly El Doradan in flavor -- that I still find interesting. Indeed, perhaps this at times esoteric discussion could benefit from a firm root in reality, perhaps in the form of an actual game design. This way we could talk about matters in a more hands-on manner.

This is what should distinguish the true explorers from the mere theorists, my esteemed collegues.

Looking at my notes, with some deep humor and irony I chose the premise of the game to be the conquistadors and indeed restricted it further to be a game about a) the myth of El Dorado b) a more sim-type depiction of the conquistadors actual explorations. Each campaign would be about a group of explorers (the PCs) creating an expedition to look for that hidden city. In this way, the game has a generic shape, but also a narrative focus, without the initial decisions actually deciding which way the story will be going (you can still fail to find it, or you can actually find it, or the story can branch into some other tangential matter such as the player's establishing their own kingdom of Gold in the Amazon).

Indeed, the whole idea has a curious resonance with the "chunk" approach, as the game would pretty much be about the general chunks of the relationships of the conquistadors, encounters with local Indian cultures, the dangers of the wilderness, the logistics of exploration and other themes encountered by these exploring groups. All these issues are at the same time "realistic" sim-based concerns as well narrativist concerns loaded with meaning as contrasted to the journey at large. There is a general pre-knowledge of the chunks, by virtue of understanding the setting and the premise, but their true content only appears in play, as per the chunk approach.

A note on realism as pertaining to the game. The adventures in the game could just as well include magic, semi-magic or none at all, depending on any number of factors (player-GM decision, GM decision, etc). The "realism" is naturalism, in that it isn't carbon copy of OUR world, but a naturalist depiction of THEIR world.

Anyway, interesting thread which is going to take a great while to digest.

- Joachim Buchert -

Edit to include response to the Zen issue: The mention of this is almost unbelievable to me, since I have truthfully held the same thought -- that the approach to El Dorado takes a great deal of Zen -- from the VERY beginnings of the talks on El Dorado. I've never taken it up in discussion for fear of muddling it further (as I'm uncertain how many here are truly initiated or even lightly cognizant of Zen philosophy). This is also why the Schrödinger's Cat analogy worked so well with me, as it appealed to the part of me that associates this entire style with a Zen-approach to role-playing.
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: JMendes on November 20, 2002, 06:01:12 PM
Hullo, :)

1. I understand where you're going.
2. I do not think you're going where you think you're going.

From the essay, "...The GM may be defined as the author of the ongoing story, and, simultaneously, the players may determine the actions of the characters as the story's protagonists."

Some of you may or may not know that El Dorado, or a city built with actual gold, does not exist, but that an alternative explanation has been advanced regarding a city built with many a piece of obsidian stone that glints exactly like gold and that might exist, although it would also be very hard to find and indeed worth much.

In other words, I think you have lots and lots of merit for advancing and proposing this discovery, but I don't think you have found El Dorado as described in the essay.

Our differendum doesn't come from what is story nor from what is control, but rather, from what is authoring. You have artfully expanded on this point of difference in your response to my previous post when you stated that I think that authoring is in the details. You were right. I do. Or rather, I don't, but I do think that that is what the essay means.

I think Mike came close when he claimed you had found and iron pyrite version of El Dorado, except that pyrite is virtually worthless, whereas obsidian is at least semi-precious. Also, the discovery has much merit for archeological and anthropological value.

Also, I think Ron is still reading along with his sinister smile and all, but I would really like to know what he thinks at this point.

Cheers,

J.
Title: All That Glitters...
Post by: Le Joueur on November 20, 2002, 08:21:52 PM
Hello J.  (What should I use for the J?)

Quote from: JMendesIn other words, I think you have lots and lots of merit for advancing and proposing this discovery, but I don't think you have found El Dorado as described in the essay.

Our differendum doesn't come from what is story nor from what is control, but rather, from what is authoring. You have artfully expanded on this point of difference in your response to my previous post when you stated that I think that authoring is in the details. You were right. I do. Or rather, I don't, but I do think that that is what the essay means.
That is very true, but only so far as we disagree on what Ron originally meant by authoring.  That's a matter of pure speculation at this point, since we can't really tell.

Ultimately then, what I am proposing is an alternate form of authoring to your understanding (of the essay).  To me, an exercise in abstract 'story structure' generation is authoring.  (In fact, it is rather crucial to how my partner and I write comic books.  We determine what makes a 'good detail' and not, we conceive of a decent thematic message, and then we begin to apply it to writing.  One of the major impediments in our comic style is that each page carries 3-7 images and must not be overwhelmed with text.  Each page - or at least every right hand page - must finish with some 'question' that the reader will be intrigued enough to turn the page for; that's a pretty tall order.  If we didn't use an abstract narrative-element authoring scheme, it'd be deucedly difficult.)

Given this definition of authoring I believe we have the way to El Dorado.  Granted that there is no way to carry any this city back to civilization, much less an assay office, we'll have to content ourselves with the apparent value each of us ascribes to that which glitters like gold.

Quote from: JMendesAlso, I think Ron is still reading along with his sinister smile and all, but I would really like to know what he thinks at this point.
Oh, he thinks it's Narrativism pure and simple.

Fang Langford

p. s. My opinion of what the original definition means, based on what would be impossible in that sentence, is the whole 'who is in control' issue.
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: JMendes on November 20, 2002, 09:48:08 PM
Ahoy, :)

Quote from: Le JoueurHello J.  (What should I use for the J?)

João. My name is Mendes. João Mendes. ;) (That's an a-tilde for those of you with different code pages.)

Anyway, I think I see a clear path straight ahead towards... well, towards El Dorado, whatever it's made of. (Read: regardless of what definition of authorship is in use.) Of course, the path is crossed by bottomless pits and huge ridges that have to be crossed. (Read: it'll take some practice and deep thought to master symbolic chunk authorship.) But it's straight ahead. (Read: I know exactly what kind of practice and deep thought.)

Now, the decision is, do I want to take the time to get there? :) But that's for another thread.

And I do wish Ron would speak up on this thread.

Cheers,

J.
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Mike Holmes on November 21, 2002, 01:30:54 AM
Miss a day...

First, I think that we ought to consider a few new threads. This one's getting heavy. And I think we should drop all the metaphor (you people need to play more!). It's only serving to obscure things.

Like the ironic fact that I am not sure what Sylus is saying about speaking in a more straightforward manner.

Just one specific point. The case against "Reality" has been waaaay overstated here, IMO. That is, while flexibility is key, here, there are often times when you don't have to be flexible, and things just come togehter serendipitously. As such it's noce to have some reality present for when this does occur so that the GM can take a break from making it all up on the fly.

And nobody is saying that consistency has to be thown out. Rather the opposite. Consistency is what we hope to maintain by cheating as much as possible. "Oh, the cat wasn't there before? Hmmm. Yes, that is strange, isn't it...." (GM creates plot from presumed inconsistency).

As for GNS, what do you al have against discussing it in terms of GNS? Just because GNS can't describe it simply or entirely by itself doesn't mean that it's not useful in analyzing the phenomenon as always.

Mike
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: M. J. Young on November 21, 2002, 02:40:29 AM
Hazard Warnings on the Road

Quote from: contracycleOK. But this is essentially the "its not real till you see it" approach that we already know, as others have mentioned. There is a catch, though: the system lets players predict Truth. They might not know the bad guy's HP, but they can know that X is enough to kill an elephant. At which point you're back to credibility, which is a finite resource, or at least needs regular refreshing. I feel you incorrectly understate the significance of the emulation of reality - I don't feel that I am seduced into maintenance of consistency out of the delusion that it MUST be consistent, but rather do so because it is the simplest lie. There is value in real being real, IMO.
There is indeed value in real being real; but perhaps the problem is not with whether the players know how many points it takes to kill an elephant but rather with whether they know how many points have actually been inflicted on the bad guy. In short, you are interpreting El Doradan culture from the perspective of modern books, and not in its own context. You are accustomed to "You hit him for, let's see, five points of damage" because that is how it is done in our societies; but it need not be done even there.

Every game has ways by which characters can reduce the damage they take from a successful attack. Even OAD&D, notorious for its simplistic damage system, contains Ioun Stones, Rings of Regeneration, Armor of Healing, and the ability to enspell objects for similar function. In short, strictly speaking it is not possible for a player to know how many hit points an opponent has, how many he has taken, and whether he is getting them back faster than he's losing them.

Now, certainly if every villain has the same incredible protections, the players are going to start suspecting something's odd (probably even will attempt to discover why they all have these); but the fact is that the protections exist, and could be used by important opponents if the referee desires to use them.

Quote from: Concerning another game he had created, Christoffer Lerno a.k.a. Pale FireBecause rules are in the way "of making up reality as you see fit". Furthermore, there are no rules for the GM, there are only rules for the players.
The GM doesn't need to roll if the monster manages to stalk the player.
The GM doesn't need to roll to decide NPC vs NPC actions.
So there is no problem with the rules interfering with the GM's reality building. The mechanics and its results are given all their meaning through the interpretation of the GM. This way there is no effect that the GM did not desire. The mechanics only work as a rough suggestion.
Maybe this works well in that game; but I have some problems with it.

Vizzini, Montoya, and Fezzig have just climbed the Cliffs of Despair, and Vizzini says that no one but the giant has the strength to climb it. Now, if they're the player characters, don't they have the right to believe that whatever they did to impede the ability of the non-player characters to follow them has some effect? That is, clearly they climbed this cliff in order to delay pursuit. If the NPC's aren't delayed merely because the referee wants them to be in hot pursuit, what's the point of trying to slow them down? Sometimes the referee doesn't need to roll to see if the monster can stalk the PC's; but sometimes he must give them the courtesy of determining whether their precautions have been effective.

Also, generally I agree that the referee should just decide NPC versus NPC outcomes, when they're part of his story. But if the players have engineered this confrontation, using their enemies against each other, or even using their allies against their enemies, don't they have the right to know that the referee is going to adjudicate that outcome consistently with their expectations?

I agree that many times the referee can just decide how he wants things to go, and they go that way; on the other hand, sometimes it is not merely that the players have a stake in the outcome, but that they have very reasonable expectations concerning how the outcome will be determined, and in those cases the referee should be restricted to at least the appearance that those expectations were met.

Quote from: Christoffer Lerno a.k.a. Pale Fire furtherAren't these 4 points true?

1. Rules impede GM flexibility
2. Rules guide player decisions
3. Rules create consistent results
4. Rules make outcome predictable
No; or at least, not always.

I have seen rules that enhance referee flexibility. I think that Multiverser's general effects rolls do this, as well as the botch results rules, and probably also the relative success and relative failure rules.

There are rules that unfetter player decisions. Multiverser's skill learning system does this by allowing characters to try to teach themselves new skills "on the fly" as it were, much as you might do in real-life situations. Most of us have been in the spot of having to do something we've never done, and saying, "all right, let me try this," and having it work. A Multiverser character can pretty much do the same thing, whenever he wants, and with a lot less restriction than reality places on us. If by "guide player decisions" you mean "encourage certain kinds of solutions as more effective than others", that's certainly true; but if you mean "define the limits of what kinds of solutions should be considered", that's a lot less defensible.

Some rules are designed to create inconsistent results. I don't recall right now whether it is HKAT or Feng Shui, but one of them has "mook" rules which prevent the unimportant characters from doing more to the PC's than delay them. That means that if a mook hits you with a three-piece rod, you are not hurt, because he is a mook, but if a major villain hits you with the same weapon, you are injured. That is an inconsistent result; it means that three-piece rods are or are not dangerous depending on whether the person wielding them has story value. Multiverser's botch rules create inconsistent results: if you botch at some skills, absolutely anything can happen.

Rules do make outcomes predictable in a general sense, but not in a specific sense. For example, using the rules to OAD&D, I can (and did) construct a program which will determine how much damage an attacker will do to an opponent per round (based on number of attacks per round times probable chance to hit times average damage per successful hit). I could run this program, setting a knight against a dragon, and so determine who would win strictly on which one will outlast the other. However, this does not account for many of the factors which are, in a sense, outside the specifics of the rules. Will both combatants make the best choices in combat? Will one of them have a particularly good or bad streak of dice luck? Are there strategic opportunities which either can use which give them an edge not considered in this analysis? What seems very predictable by a direct application of the rules loses that aspect in play.

It would seem to me that the function of rules is primarily to protect the expectations of the players. Where the referee can do this without rules, he doesn't need them. Where the players' expectations are truly unformed, rules can be ignored. But when the players have clear expectations regarding the handling of game situations and these expectations involve complicated uncertainties, rules become critical building blocks for making that happen.

Beyond that, I think the chunk theory interesting, and I, too, am reading.

--M. J. Young
Title: I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]
Post by: Christoffer Lernö on November 24, 2002, 11:32:41 AM
Ok, I'm re-entering the confusing el Dorado thread to answer some concerns MJ has about things I wrote. I don't know if I dare to do any real exploring of el Dorado because at this point I am not sure if the el Dorado  we discuss is what I'd feel is el Dorado or if it's about something completely different.

The fact that there is now a "chunk-theory" that is based on something I wrote, but which doesn't resemble anything I ever considered makes me feel very lost :)

Quote from: M. J. YoungMaybe this works well in that game; but I have some problems with it. Vizzini, Montoya, and Fezzig have just climbed the Cliffs of Despair, and Vizzini says that no one but the giant has the strength to climb it. Now, if they're the player characters, don't they have the right to believe that whatever they did to impede the ability of the non-player characters to follow them has some effect?
Sure. Saying NPCs don't need to roll simply means what it says. The GM decides. Any GM deciding that such power means that NPCs can climb it with impunity could equally easy have said that the NPCs levitate themself up the cliff. Both would be blatantly ignoring any consistency in the world. The GM could also declare that the characters are all hit by a lightning from a freak thunderstorm. There is no way to correct such a GM by creating rules he/she has to follow.

As for your concerns with "The Evil" and the perceived inability to make a difference challenging the NPCs... In the case that a player is throwing a challenge towards an NPC, then the PLAYER rolls how effective this challenge is and the GM makes up what that means to the NPCs actions.

Obviously this rule-light stuff isn't well suited for all types of sim play. In fact I would only use it for horror. BUT I don't see the critical flaws you seem to say it contains M.J. I just see it as getting high-maintenance using it in other styles of adventures.

Quote from: M.J. YoungI have seen rules that enhance referee flexibility. I think that Multiverser's general effects rolls do this, as well as the botch results rules, and probably also the relative success and relative failure rules.
I think you might be confusing rules that create "GM rights to create inconsistencies" with flexibility. The former is typically used in a sim system where some of the genre expectations clash with the (sim) mechanics emphasizing "realistic" outcomes. The rules you talk about are a way to avoid breaking the social contract (usually: "use the rules of the game we are playing") when trying to adhere to genre expectations.

However, if there are no or very few rules, there are only genre expectations left really (no need to worry about breaking the social contract). Ergo, the problem goes away.

The mook rule provides results that are consistent with the genre expectations. The only reason you need add-on rules like the "mook rule" is because the rest of the mechanics are using mechanics that does not quite fit with the genre expectations.

(I do acknowledge that the "mook rule" is enforcing genre expectations which can help driving the game towards that type of play. Compare that to "The Evil" which doesn't have any helpful "driving mechanic" to ensure horror. The latter is much more at the mercy of the GM)