How to design System for pre-determined Theme?

[John Kim]

OK,

So the recent talk on GNS has got me thinking about pre-determined Theme.  So now I'm pondering about how to design a system to support playing to a pre-determined Theme.  Here's my thoughts:

1) There should be tools to help discuss and determine theme.  As I recall from memory, the early Storypath cards had a function like this (in the edition with the "Path of Horror" and the "Path of Intrigue").  There were special theme cards, where the group could pick one of these cards and put it up as the theme for that episode.  I think this is good.  With a small number (a dozen or so) theme cards, the group can develop agreement on what each means.  

Of course, theme should be more specific than a predefined category, but at least card selection gets everyone onto the same page.  Perhaps the players are responsible for picking the card, and the GM is responsible for defining a specific instance of that theme.  

2) I don't think there is much that can be done to mechanically enforce sticking to this theme.  That is, deciding what fits the theme has to be done by subjective human judgement -- in Everway terms this is Drama rather than Fortune or Karma.  However, the rules can help align different player's views.  My thought here is to give players a meta-resource -- like Drama Points or Whimsy Cards or chips or whatever.  However, any spending has to be ratified by another player also spending a point.  

The principle is to promote cooperatively working towards the agreed-upon theme, rather than going off in different directions.  The players have narrative power in cooperation rather than individually.  

3) For resolution, I'm not sure.  Cause-and-effect mechanics can be useful for maintaining continuity and/or believability, but they don't do anything directly to help theme.  Player conflict resolution such as Soap are contrary to the cooperative spirit.  One thought is that random or mechanical results could determine tone rather than theme.  So, for example, it can't be left up to chance whether or not the hero will die.  If we have pre-determined tragedy, then the hero will die.  However, the tone can perhaps be allowed to vary from bittersweet to simply bitter.  In game terms, perhaps Fortune results can be allowed, but they can be overridden by spending from a large point pool.  The pool essentially guarantees that you will get through, but the points used sets the tone for the result.  

Also, maybe the specific mechanics should be specific to the type of game (i.e. genre, tone) that I'm working on.  

Any other ideas?

[timfire]

Could you elaborate a little more on what you're thinking about? I mean, aren't there already numerous examples of (narrativist) games that that mechanically support a specific theme? (Sorcerer, TRoS, etc.)

[komradebob]

JK:
Iropnically, I've been thinking about this as well.

I'd been re-reading some "Rage Across..." modules and checking out their set ups, which include mood and theme. Now, I haven't played Werewolf in ages, but I remember being frustrated back in the day by my inability to get my players to groove on those elements of the pre-made adventures. I only recently clued to the fact that, as written, theme and mood in old WW products were hidden.  Character players were supposed to simply get it from the GM's descriptive syle, rather than have it up front. I suspect this has a lot to do with the dis-connect many WW players have described between the games they thought they were going to get, and WW games as played.

I think a meta-game mechanic could certainly help. If that metagame mechanic was specifically meant to maintain the theme, rather than more generically aid in task resolution/avoid damage, it might be even more beneficial.

Interesting side thought: What if the metagame resource was given to the player, and was usable outside of a given scenario/adventure/setting. That is, a resource meant to be used by the player rather than the character. Said resources could then follow the player, as they engaged in different scenarios, even perhaps following them into different roles ( say as a gm as well as a character player) at a later time.

More thoughts later, gotta head to work,
Robert

[Marco]

I'm not sure that games really pre-determine theme so much as players and player-groups. Games that are commonly cited as having Pre-Determined Theme like Call of Cthulhu use fortune, don't have Drama Points, and, outside of general "who you are and what you are (generally) doing" there is little guidance (I browsed my CoC D20 opening chapter this morning and saw no specific advice on what PC's should do when faced with the horiffic themes of CoC).

In order for there to be Pre-Determined Theme from the game in the sense that The Forge usually means it, there must be:

1. A Premise question inherent in the setting or situation.
2. Rules or conventions from the book that dictate the specific answer to that question.

This, as has been pointed out in various TITBB threads equates, essentially, to the GM running PC's like they were NPC's in order to achieve it.

Just having a game with prominent themes is easy, as Tim pointed out. A lot of people do that. But for the game to pre-determine the theme (as opposed to letting the players pre-determine it for themselves) requires some pretty heavy controling* influence.

-Marco
* And what do I mean by control? In this case, I mean someone other than the player running the character like they were an NPC. I mean this distinctly aside from consequences for a given choice of actions. However, extreme social pressure could apply here as well.

[Alan]

I think this is why Ron uses the Egri concept of Premise - it's more specific than the vague term theme.

In one sense of theme, that of general subject to be address, we find that TROS enforces a boundary on the kind of premise choices that can be made in play.  It does this by

1) having detailed rule systems for both combat and magic. (So if you play TROS as written, each player has to pay a lot of attention to the mechanics and choices of combat and/or magic.)
2) making the consequences of combat and magic extreme, so players who don't conform to the boundaries are punished.
3) allowing players to control the chance of suffering consequences by giving bonuses for pursuing specific kinds of conflicts (love, hate, faith, luck, etc.) with other characters.  

In TROS (and many narrativist designs), inflexible boundaries like these are common prerequisites to character creation - they proscribe the field of "theme" from which specific Premises may be chosen.  The reason this works is that players are first asked to agree to play within certain boundaries, then given full reign to choose whatever specific Premise appeals to them.

I think the way to design an rpg for a theme can be derived from my three points above.  In point 3) TROS rewards things that encourage narrativist play.  But for example, if one were to instead reward how well character actions reproduce, say, the atmosphere of the Michael York Three Musketeers movies, one would be encouraging simulationist play within a theme.   In this case, the restriction falls on what the character's do, rather than where they came from.

[Marco]

Theme has a specific meaning here--and IIRC it means the answer to the premise question (in the glossary it is the 'point' of the story or the defining attribute of story).

I think the discussion of TRoS is missing something : one of the finest ways a character can control the odds of their success is the use of tactics.  This is either gamist or simulationist depending on how you look at it.

-Marco

[Alan]

Hi Marco,

Yes, Ron uses "theme" in a specific way.  However, John uses it differently on his web site, so I assumed he had a different meaning in mind.  My bad if that's not so.

BTW, in TROS tactics pale in the face of 10 or more SA bonus dice.  Unless you mean the tactics of lining up your SAs so they're all firing off when you need them.

[Marco]

Nope, I just mean regular tactics. Yes, if you have large numbers of SA dice that'll certainly make a huge difference in how well you fight--no question.

But whether or not you'll always have that is really dependant on the play style of the group. It's not a requirement of any sort: that's just one possible way to play. If the group feels it's strong and tactically sound, the "inflexible boundaries" you mentioned may really be quite permeable.

-Marco

[timfire]

Maybe TRoS & Sorcerer weren't the best examples, but what about MLwM, or my own The Mountain Witch? MLwM has stats for Love, Self-Loathing, Fear, etc. TMW has Trust mechanics.

It seems to me that adding a thematic stat or mechanic automatically injects that theme into play.

But I would like to hear from John to see what he was thinking.

[John Kim]

In order for there to be Pre-Determined Theme from the game in the sense that The Forge usually means it, there must be:
1. A Premise question inherent in the setting or situation.
2. Rules or conventions from the book that dictate the specific answer to that question.
This, as has been pointed out in various TITBB threads equates, essentially, to the GM running PC's like they were NPC's in order to achieve it.

Just having a game with prominent themes is easy, as Tim pointed out. A lot of people do that. But for the game to pre-determine the theme (as opposed to letting the players pre-determine it for themselves) requires some pretty heavy controling* influence.

First of all, I don't see how this follows at all.  If the rules in the book determine theme, then why does the GM have to run the PC's?  Presumably this would be true if the GM were the only one who read the book and/or knew the rules.  However, if the players have equal access to the book, they will be just as reliable (or unreliable) as the GM.  

In any case, I wasn't talking about theme being written into the book.  I was talking about theme being something explicitly determined by the group beforehand -- not written into the game rules.  My suggestion was to have a set of theme cards.  At the end of a session, the players pick a theme card for the next session and hand it to the GM, along with any suggestions.  They break, and the GM prepares some.  At the start of the next session, the GM communicates to the group his specific take on that theme card for this session.  

During play, I expect that people are all contributing to the agreed theme.  I think a great example comes from lumpley's blog on http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/anycomment.php?entry=164">what should I contribute, where one of the players of The Mountain Witch at Dreamation 2005 describes how he decided what to contribute:  

Most of the time, when I had to figure out what to do, I was drawing from a couple of internal sources (in descending order, it so happens):
- Is this behavior sufficiently self-destructive to distract me from thinking about my Fate?
- What would Toshiro Mifune do? (Oh, shit, I gotta make that T-shirt)
- What would the Monkey King do? (I can make a whole wardrobe!)

I haven't played The Mountain Witch yet, but I think this quote suggests pretty well the sort of thing I am looking for.  

In one sense of theme, that of general subject to be address, we find that TROS enforces a boundary on the kind of premise choices that can be made in play.  It does this by
1) having detailed rule systems for both combat and magic. (So if you play TROS as written, each player has to pay a lot of attention to the mechanics and choices of combat and/or magic.)
2) making the consequences of combat and magic extreme, so players who don't conform to the boundaries are punished.
3) allowing players to control the chance of suffering consequences by giving bonuses for pursuing specific kinds of conflicts (love, hate, faith, luck, etc.) with other characters.
...
I think the way to design an rpg for a theme can be derived from my three points above.  In point 3) TROS rewards things that encourage narrativist play.  But for example, if one were to instead reward how well character actions reproduce, say, the atmosphere of the Michael York Three Musketeers movies, one would be encouraging simulationist play within a theme.   In this case, the restriction falls on what the character's do, rather than where they came from.

Well, the tricky part of this is, who decides whether it fits with the theme?  I'm not a big fan of the GM controlling players by tossing out points like doggy treats.  It isn't necessary, and it doesn't work on a lot of players -- notably myself.  

So what I suggested as an alternative is my "ratification" principle:  that everyone has points to dispense, but any action requires points from two different people.  The idea is that this promotes similarity of vision.  I want to promote everyone working cooperatively towards the theme.

[Marco]

In order for there to be Pre-Determined Theme from the game in the sense that The Forge usually means it, there must be:
1. A Premise question inherent in the setting or situation.
2. Rules or conventions from the book that dictate the specific answer to that question.
This, as has been pointed out in various TITBB threads equates, essentially, to the GM running PC's like they were NPC's in order to achieve it.

Just having a game with prominent themes is easy, as Tim pointed out. A lot of people do that. But for the game to pre-determine the theme (as opposed to letting the players pre-determine it for themselves) requires some pretty heavy controling* influence.

First of all, I don't see how this follows at all.  If the rules in the book determine theme, then why does the GM have to run the PC's?  Presumably this would be true if the GM were the only one who read the book and/or knew the rules.  However, if the players have equal access to the book, they will be just as reliable (or unreliable) as the GM.  

The reason I said that is that there are a number of games that are said to lend themselves to Pre-Determined Theme (Call of Cthulhu) that don't use any of the techniques you mentioned. In those cases, however they do it (setting expectations?) the GM enforces it because there aren't any obvious mechanics I can see that lead to collaberation on that point.

So if you assume that some games out there already do this or lead to it then take a look at how they do it.

[ Your suggestions are, I think, very good for getting collaberation on a point--no doubt--but I also don't know of a game said to have Pre-Determined Theme that does that. ]

In any case, I wasn't talking about theme being written into the book.  I was talking about theme being something explicitly determined by the group beforehand -- not written into the game rules.  My suggestion was to have a set of theme cards.  At the end of a session, the players pick a theme card for the next session and hand it to the GM, along with any suggestions.  They break, and the GM prepares some.  At the start of the next session, the GM communicates to the group his specific take on that theme card for this session.  

What do you mean by Theme here? Answer to a premise question or just a "topic" of the next session of play? When the GM determines his take on it is he saying "For this session we'll show that Duty is more important than Justice"? Or is he saying "We're going to look at Duty vs. Justice in this setting?"

Or am I totally off base?

-Marco

[Alan]

Hey John,

Who says the GM is the only one who rewards player actions?

[John Kim]

I was talking about theme being something explicitly determined by the group beforehand -- not written into the game rules.  My suggestion was to have a set of theme cards.  At the end of a session, the players pick a theme card for the next session and hand it to the GM, along with any suggestions.  They break, and the GM prepares some.  At the start of the next session, the GM communicates to the group his specific take on that theme card for this session.

What do you mean by Theme here? Answer to a premise question or just a "topic" of the next session of play? When the GM determines his take on it is he saying "For this session we'll show that Duty is more important than Justice"? Or is he saying "We're going to look at Duty vs. Justice in this setting?"

I meant answer to a premise question.  So yes, "Duty is more important than Justice" would be a good one.  Examples are always good, but I didn't yet have examples in mind.  

The reason I said that is that there are a number of games that are said to lend themselves to Pre-Determined Theme (Call of Cthulhu) that don't use any of the techniques you mentioned. In those cases, however they do it (setting expectations?) the GM enforces it because there aren't any obvious mechanics I can see that lead to collaberation on that point.

So if you assume that some games out there already do this or lead to it then take a look at how they do it.

I can't think of games which I think do this particularly well.  I mentioned Storypath cards as having interesting mechanics.  Torg has some potential ideas with its axioms (i.e. laying out explicit genre guidelines).  But as far as I can tell, pre-determined theme seems to mostly happen in spite of mechanics rather than because of them.  Notably, I don't see anything in the CoC mechanics which particularly lend themselves to pre-determined theme -- and my experience roughly corresponds.  There was often some effort towards that, but it was in spite of system.  

Who says the GM is the only one who rewards player actions?

Sorry, didn't mean to say it's the only reward.  I was just saying that I didn't like that kind.  I mentioned in the start my idea for "ratified" actions, which is a form of player-granted reward.  Do you have any ideas for other ones?