Ideal to Application: Examining a Technique [Long]

[Le Joueur]

How about another 'ideal game' example?  For the sake of brevity, I'll use the movie Ghostbusters as the in-game dialogue of play (saves you the trouble of having to read the whole script here).  This will be an example mostly of the Blank Mystique Technique, but it'll probably tie in a lot of the stuff from Scattershot's Emergent Techniques and the Scattershot Gaming Model.

Anyway, let's say we have three players (we'll call them Bill, Dan, and Harry) and a Gamemaster (call 'im Ivan).  Their last game pretty much tied up last week so their looking to start something new.  Last weeks ending, while satisfying, was heavy and dark and very, very emotionally involved; they really aren't up for anything that serious.

Ivan has been reading up on parapsychology and the occult (a passion he shares with Dan) and has been thinking along Call of Cthulhu lines for most of the week, but he respects the 'let us take it easy' tone they come together in.  Still, he proposes it.  Out of all the potential games they could play, this is the one they go with, making Ivan the gamemaster.

The Set Up

Lacking anything original, Ivan suggests that they have the 'capers' be the central Mystiques.  This goes over pretty well, but the players aren't sure they share enough Genre Expectations to get this to work.  Harry offers that they could just start out slow and see what develops.

Ivan points out, having been drafted into being gamemaster, he has nothing prepared and wonders aloud if everyone would mind more sharing and having the players 'feel out' the circumstances they face (unknowingly sliding towards InSpectres, a game they've never played).  Bill will have nothing to do with Gamemasterful sharing (having been badly burned over confused proprietorship issues a few games back) and isn't too sure about even Referential sharing.  That's okay, Harry said we'd take it slow and see what develops.  Think of it like that Star Trek game we played last spring, where the Ivan hadn't 'come to the table' with a mission designed and let what the players 'found' (during Referential sharing) create the mission.

So anyway, they quickly sketch out their personae, designing them as they go along because at the moment they have no clear Genre Expectations.  Ivan suggests a University parapsychology program (where else would people bring their 'sightings'), Dan wants to play 'the earnest believer,' Harry is in the mood to crank out some kooky 'ghost-tech,' and Bill finally decides to be the 'con artist' who keeps the department afloat (not realizing he's falling right into Ivan's Referential sharing 'trap,' by himself creating the relationship between department and the University), not an unusual character for him.

The Play

Ivan starts out with 'let's get Mechanical, where are you?'  He's quickly tossed the ball into their court, pretty much forcing Referential play, making them define where the game starts based on their ideas of character.  Going around the table, Harry is at the metro library looking into some reports and Bill is running an 'experiment' saying that he's testing 'the effect of negative reinforcement on ESP phenomena' (actually he's just viciously shocking students for fun).  Just when Dan is about to say what he's doing, Bill throws in that he's found a co-ed who he's trying to con into thinking she has ESP.

Dan smirks and decides 1) he's going to get the game going (it is Referential), and 2) he's going to foil Bill's 'agenda.'  Dan starts his turn by rushing in on Bill's persona announcing that 'this is it!'  (You've seen the movie.)

In the process of the whole 'Library Scene,' several thinks happen.  Harry 'creates' the slimy card catalog, Dan creates the symmetrically stacked books, and Bill gets to goof around on those.  Harry notices that Ivan doesn't even bat an eye at his introduction of the PKE meter and starts 'getting ideas.'  Ivan creates the ghost of the librarian largely because the scene was getting boring and on a lark had it morph into the huge monster (retroactively deciding that this made sense because of the pranks the other players created indicate malevolence).

Harry calls for a scene where he points out to Dan's character that he might be able to 'catch' a ghost, based on new readings.  Dan jumps right in with the 'ionization constant' jargon, hamming it up.  While Bill tries to steal the scene, he's thwarted by Harry's understated response (and doesn't realize that he's begun setting the tone for the game with all his antics).

At this point Ivan decides to 'kick it up a notch' and get some pacing going (after all, the personae seem to pretty much have their relationships in order).  He has the University 'fire' them.  At this point the game stops for a bit as the group discusses where they want to go with things.  Harry says that he's interested in 'upping' the tech quotient and Dan wants more 'adventure.'  Bill is still unsure of the Referential sharing (even though he's done a fair bit himself), but he's okay with the rest of it.

The quickly discuss a new arrangement.  Rather than let things bog down is unfocused discussion, Ivan hits them with it again (same as he started the game out with), 'where are you?'  Bill starts thing off conning Dan's character into the 'third mortgage.'  Dan doesn't take it 'lying down' and calls for a roll to complicate Bill's turn; Bill beats him by a long shot and Harry tosses in the line about '$95,000.'

Dan's turn and he puts them into a firehouse (with the 'does this pole still work?' line).  All Harry can come up with is a line about the 'load-bearing members' and the 'demilitarized' neighborhood.

(Re)Setting the Genre Expectations

At this point, Ivan calls for a break and talks a little about the Genre Expectation they seem to have come up with.  It's turning into a tech-adventure, ghost chase heavy on the one-liners.  Sounds like one of those movies that Bill likes so much.  Harry points out that it reminds him of The Frighteners starring Michael J. Fox.  Except, Ivan points out, that this group is 'against' the ghosts, instead of 'with' them.  Ivan also says he really likes the one-liners and personal comedy, but he's not in the mood for it to get too 'cartoony' and all agree.

Since you're in charge, Bill, what do you add?  Bill's idea is that right next to the parking area should be a nice office (and no wall separating it, says Ivan) with turned wood a big desk and a smarmy secretary.

Not quite 'up to speed' with the new face of the game, Ivan proffers an attractive symphony bassist who has seen a ghost.  After an interview with her, Dan and Harry take a break and go get food.  Bill and Ivan run the scene back at the apartment.  While it doesn't add much, Ivan plans to keep it 'in the back of his mind.'

Kick It Up a Notch

When Dan and Harry get back, it turns out they've invented a whole kit of hi-tech gear and a methodology for catching ghosts.  (Again practicing clear Referential sharing: making up their own gear.)  Ivan's finally getting into the swing of things so when Bill suggests that the personae eat while he's eating (and feeling a bit left out on the 'making up your own stuff,' he introduces the fact that they are now out of money), he has the secretary take an 'emergency call' from a haunted hotel.

The hijinks that ensue grow largely out of the player input.  Ivan offers the 'twelfth floor' (pointing out that this hotel separates 'ground' from first floor, like in Britain, and has no thirteenth floor.)  Harry 'pokes' a bystander and chooses to roll to see if it is supernatural (it's not).  Dan 'sees' a green glob eating from a room service cart (meaning he makes it up on the spot).  Bill has it attack him (riffing off the slimy card catalog, he lays down the trademarked 'he slimed me' line).  Harry pulls the party back together and they have some fun with dice and proton chargers in the banquet hall.  (And don't forget Bill's 'billing' scene that sets the tone for a group struggling with money.)

Where's the Mystique?

I'm going to leave the rest of the film as an exercise, and take a moment to talk about how Mystique has been used thus far.

The game was designed around a Blank Mystique based on initially a parapsychological background.  The same Mystique followed into the evolution of the comedy.  Referential sharing with Blank Mystique often verges into Gamemasterful sharing, except the responsibility for entities central to each Mystique are quickly given to the gamemaster.  (It thus basically becomes the gamemaster's job to manage the Mystique and 'pull it together,' because a sprawling Mystique quickly takes over the game turning it into a broad spectrum Mystique.  Broad spectrum Mystiques largely only work if layered and that's hard to do 'on the fly' with a Blank Mystique.)

The 'Onionhead' scene (that's what they called 'the green glob' during production) illustrates some of the basics of how player-input can create the substance of a Blank Mystique.  It could have just as easily been stuff that the gamemasters tossed in off-the-cuff as it went along, except this was Referential sharing.  The important point to remember about Blank Mystiques is knowing when to consolidate them (bringing all the parts together and deciding, with some finality, what central mystery cause all of them).  One thing to remember is that it is usually best to conclude a Blank Mystique fairly close to when you finalize its mystery.  (That also helps keep track of the pacing, because you know when to 'turn up the heat' and bring on the climax.)

You'll notice over the length of the 'game,' Ivan kept returning to the early 'failed' subplot about the bassist.  Each item he added was a pacing rank higher than the last (I like the part that Dan put in about the architecture and 'spook central') and it became the 'spine' of the whole game.  (This is one of the advantages of a Blank Mystique; you can even turn failures into successes.)  One of the things that keeps this clear of gamemasterful sharing is the fact that Ivan was 'at the rudder,' keeping the game on course to a conclusion (not one he decided on in advance, I mean who would have expected Dan to come up with the Stay-Puft Marshmallow man?)

All in all, Mystique proves to be one of my strongest tools as a gamemaster even though it grew out of the hackneyed 'gamemaster proposes, players dispose' tradition¹.  It also happens to be the old 'gamemaster creates the campaign and then spoon-feeds it to the players' Technique, stripped down to the bare minimum, it's 'fighting weight.'  I hope you can see how using a Circumstance-based Mystique can be used to entice the players into action regardless whether it's 'Blank' or not.  I look forward to your comments on how I can explain Mystiques better and perhaps additional applications (or problems) for this Technique.

Fang Langford

¹ As described by Ron Edwards

[Mike Holmes]

Um, this is the opposite of the Ideal play concept. Instead of defining what sort of play you want to see, and then trying to figure out what mechanics will create the desired result, you have decided on a mechanic, and made up an example that supports your mechanic. Very convenient.

How do you know that in actual play that the mechanic would produce the desired effect? In fact we can be relatively certain that this is exacltly not how the plot in question was created. We know that it was written by Harry and Ivan before hand and "Railroaded" through with the complicity of the "players". That's the only sure way I know of to get the plot in question.

Why do you believe that your method will produce such a plot? Just because there is an empty slate, and it needs to be filled. Well, that's no great revelation. Sounds to me like you're saying "play InSpectres", which does this all exceptionally well.

Mike

[Le Joueur]

Um, this is the opposite of the Ideal play concept. Instead of defining what sort of play you want to see, and then trying to figure out what mechanics will create the desired result, you have decided on a mechanic, and made up an example that supports your mechanic. Very convenient.

I'm not sure I understand, the 'example of play' existed long before I made use of it.  It was actually this example (and a number of Star Trek episodes) that prompted the design of the Mystique Technique.  That I was lax in not presenting the example before I presented the Technique (or even thought of it) does not mean that it wasn't actually a solid step in it's design.  (I guess I'm bringing this up farther into the 'design process' than expected?)

Are you saying that I altered the movie to fit the Technique I wrote to epitomize it?

How do you know that in actual play that the mechanic would produce the desired effect? In fact we can be relatively certain that this is exactly not how the plot in question was created. We know that it was written by Harry and Ivan before hand and "Railroaded" through with the complicity of the "players". That's the only sure way I know of to get the plot in question.

I don't understand.  I don't know that this will happen in actual play.  That's why I posted it.  I need other perspectives, I'm not just sounding off.

Or are you saying that a technique should always result in the same plot as long as it is provided the same 'materials?'  There are a lot of variables that go into a game, I hardly think the same plot should turn out the same with the same people even with the same materials.  I can't really know how other people will apply this technique (unless I ask).

[And for the record, I wasn't implying that the movie's script happened in any way like this example.  The names chosen for the participants were pure artistic license on my part (and a way to keep them straight in my head as I wrote).  I chose an example I thought all of us had in common, it also happens to be the original 'ideal' I worked from.  Please imagine that this is a game session rather than a movie.]

Besides the whole purpose of 'Ideal to Application' is not to create rules that force play into the ideal example given, but to find rules that fit, make the example more likely, help, or at the very least don't impede it.  (That I had discerned these rules before posting, means I am working on an actual game as opposed to just posting an example and openingly soliciting advice.  Isn't Indie Game Design supposed to be about actual games being designed?)

And to be honest, I had never thought of 'Blank Mystiques' until I was starting to write this example, today.  It was something you said that gave me the idea (and Ron's discussions of 'Exploration of Setting' for use in Star Trek gaming).  I am sorry if my writing comes off with such polish that you think I retrofitted the example to the technique, I can assure you it was quite the opposite.

Why do you believe that your method will produce such a plot? Just because there is an empty slate, and it needs to be filled? Well, that's no great revelation. Sounds to me like you're saying "play InSpectres", which does this all exceptionally well.

I can't fault the design for InSpectres, I think it's pretty awesome, but it doesn't do what I want Scattershot to do.  I like the Pool too, and if you look closely enough, Scattershot's Experience Die Mechanic can function quite a bit like that as well.  Is my work on Scattershot indicative of advising to play that as well?

Remember the primary design departure with Scattershot is Transition.  That Scattershot works very like a game that you say "does this exceptionally well" when employed in similar venue is good in my mind.  It means I'm going where I want to go.  If I delved deeply into the Advanced Scattershot Combat mechanics illustrating the specificity of attack combinations and flurries to the point that it approximated The Riddle of Steel in flavor and dynamic, would you say I was wasting my time by pretty much saying that people should just play that as well?¹

There's a difference.  Scattershot is supposed to approximate any of these individually in different manifestations.  Furthermore, when I get to the right Techniques, it should also provide information on determining what one might like and the steps they could take, without starting another game, to move in that direction.  That's a tall order and I'm taking it one step at a time.

I just don't understand why the accusation, though.  What do you think I have or haven't done?  Okay, so I'm lousy at creating original examples and instead rely upon fictional sources.  I have said as much before.  Is there something wrong or less than ideal with the way this narrative turns out in the source material for the example?  Would it be a poor game session?

If you believe that the Blank Mystique Technique fails to support the example, please suggest why.  (Did you take the opportunity to read the longer writeup of the Technique in the Scattershot forum?)  I am more than happy (well, rather desperate actually) to receive input on this.  If it's too vague a Technique, how about suggesting some additions?  If you think it goes wrong and would more likely present a different example, by all means, tell me what and why.  In the full Emergent Technique description, I talk more about the interplay between intrigue and Mystique, is that what you're saying is missing?

Fang Langford

¹ (Well, for the record, I am actually working from the Phantom Menace's three-way battle on DVD instead.)