Blue-booking

[Scourge108]

While I've tried just about every other roleplaying-related activity, I've never actually participated in a game that involved blue-booking.  I'd like to know more about what this is like. How does it enhance enjoyment of the game?  How much does it involve game mechanics?  What problems arise from its use?  I'd like to hear others' experiences and thoughts, particularly from a point of view of how it relates to game design.  Is it a design consideration?  If not, could it be?

[Ben Lehman]

Uhm, sorry to be obtuse -- but could you give a definition of "blue-booking?" for those of us playing along at home?

yrs--
--Ben

[contracycle]

From one of John Kims pages:
"Allow action to be done independently while the GM is interacting with another group. For example, some PCs could talk amongst themselves and plan while others are engaged in independent action. Another option is "blue-booking", a term from Aaron Allston in his Champions supplements. Each player has a small notebook in which he can write extended notes to the GM. While other action is going on, he can write in the blue-book. The GM can then read and respond to this during lulls in the action. "

RPG Times says:
" For those of you unfamiliar with the term, blue booking is a method by which sub plots and things that a player wants his character to do but gets done outside regular game sessions, and the term originates from the blue workbooks sold at universities for students to use to take notes and tests. For example, Chris' character Vector is going to go out on a date with a cute woman he met at a bar during the last gaming session. Rather than take up valuable time during the session and have everyone else sitting around, twiddling their thumbs and getting bored, Chris and the GM do some one on one role playing by writing it all down in a notebook (or, by emails, using the electronic version of this method). Blue booking is also an excellent way for the GM to get information to a player, such as the results of some research his character has been doing."

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I associate bluebooking with early Champions, and apparently it sprang up simultaneously among many groups. A rather intense group in central California, run by K.C. Ryan, practiced it regularly in the early-mid 1980s as documented in The Clobberin' Times. And clearly, Allston's explanation in Strike Force showed that the core Champs folks were familiar with it, although it's not mentioned in any of the core rulebooks. Kind of a weird chat-room type fiction creation, face-to-face (sometimes) but not speaking much to one another, via writing ... if I'm not mistaken, bluebooking often just "shifts" to actual verbal role-playing and vice versa, right there in the room.

Does anyone know of any discussions or documentation of bluebooking before or during the early 1980s, or regarding any games during that time besides Champions?

Best,
Ron

[ScottM]

I've used it, though not very consistently.   To me, the advantage is to use the "around the table time" to emphasize group activity and reduce downtime, while not denying players the chance to do "character stuff" that the timeline allows, but that group interest around the table does not.

The primary enhancement is that you get to do the "fun clutter", character development type stuff that often gets ignored by time constraints.  If you're familiar with it, Mage: The Ascension has a "spiritual quest" type of thing that happens every once in a great while.  It's mostly a test of character, though mechanics can come into play at times. Mechanics definitely take a back seat, because anything requiring mechanics is slow to do by notes or email.  I tended to run those "quests" as emails between sessions.

The biggest problem, to me, is that it's much more demanding for the GM.  It cuts into the group-prep time that goes on between sessions. Also, the pay out is usually one jazzed player, with some spillover as they describe what happens, what their character was up to, etc.

I'd much prefer to play out the subplots at the table.  It would require that the rest of the group be truly interested, as an audience, which is a pretty steep barrier in many games.

Summarizing: Bluebooks seem useful when one character does something personal that won't interest the group as a whole.

Scott Martin

[Valamir]

Summarizing: Bluebooks seem useful when one character does something personal that won't interest the group as a whole.

Hmmm, well maybe its just me.  But it seems to me that if the group as a whole isn't interested in the personal stuff from one character...something is seriously wrong.

[DevP]

Agreeing with Valamir. As a player, I feel somewhat disappointed when no one (but me) cares about my character's story. As a GM, I feel like I'm underentertaining folks if they just zone out during someone else's scene. Also, it's somewhat disruptive, as the other players suddenly have to zone back in like "Oh, so what just happened those last 20 minutes? What are we doing now?"

So my current GM/playing goals would be to frame the roleplaying to be entertaining to everybody at the table, all the time, and blue books for me wouldn't help that.

(As for bluebooking as player diaries in-between adventures, it may be helpful for the player to get immersed into her character, which is certainly key, but otherwise I put in the place of long extended character histories, which don't in themselves contribute to play.)

[ScottM]

Hmmm, well maybe it's just me.  But it seems to me that if the group as a whole isn't interested in the personal stuff from one character...something is seriously wrong.

While I'd like the group to be more interested in each other's minor actions, I don't think it's a deal breaker for the group as whole.  If a player wants to explain what he did during his ten years in a "fast time Shadow", and his acts don't involve the group or overall plot much, then I'm fine with him creating it. You can develop flavorful relationships with minor NPCs (who the GM might later incorporate), get a handle on the character's daily life, establish what he's doing at his day job, etc.  In many cases, it can a way to harness player interest without disrupting traditional GM/player authority.

Scourge, sorry if this is derailing your thread too much.

Dev, yes, I agree... it's not as productive nor as fun as play. It is much more like character histories, and is often used to increase immersion/ detail for a specific character.

----
Scott Martin

[HMT]

I believe the reason bluebooking developed in early Champions games is that it is one way to model what happens in comics. When Iron Man & Captain America were involved in their own titles, that might have been the bluebooking going on during the Avengers campaign.

[John Kim]

Agreeing with Valamir. As a player, I feel somewhat disappointed when no one (but me) cares about my character's story. As a GM, I feel like I'm underentertaining folks if they just zone out during someone else's scene. Also, it's somewhat disruptive, as the other players suddenly have to zone back in like "Oh, so what just happened those last 20 minutes? What are we doing now?"  So my current GM/playing goals would be to frame the roleplaying to be entertaining to everybody at the table, all the time, and blue books for me wouldn't help that.

Well, as it was explained in Aaron Allston's "Strike Force", blue-booking is specifically for the sorts of things which other players don't have to be filled in about in order to continue play.  Interestingly, this sounds a bit like the Doctor Xero's recent distinction of Interaction vs Independence in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10051">this thread.  A scene where a single player is entertaining all the others is something like independence.  I think the others are right that pure independence isn't a game at all, but there are folks who consider mixing in of independent performance to be a good thing.  Also, it relates to my essay on http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/narrative/paradigms.html">Story and Narrative Paradigms.  I suggested that the storytelling paradigm was for there to be only a single story for everyone, while the experiential paradigm emphasized that everyone had a different story.  

Anyhow, back to the original questions:

I've never done blue-booking per se except as a brief experiment.  However, what we have been doing for a http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/buffy/siliconvalley/">Buffy campaign is to have in-character blogs.  The PCs are all Silicon Valley professionals, and thus naturally they have blogs where they talk about their lives.  This is like blue-booking, but it is open to all the players to browse (or not browse) as they like.  Plus there is open interaction possible through comments.  

At times, it has been great.  There have been a few drawbacks.  We felt that for this to work well, it is easiest if real-world time roughly matches game time.  i.e. If a session ends on a cliff-hanger, then we can't blog between sessions.  This has furthered what was already a preference for episodic style sessions.  

What it has been good for is drawing out depth of character and just lots of humorous bits.  I would separate two purposes as far as interacting with the face-to-face sessions: (1) documenting but more importantly giving new perspective on the events of the face-to-face session; (2) added expression of character, which may establish subplots that will be played out more.  For example, Max's love for clueless Dot, and Chip's crush on Ifurita.  These both started only visible in blogs and then turned into effective subplots in face-to-face play.

[madelf]

We've used something that seems similar to this in my gaming group.
It's not a book though. Just notes passsed between a player and the GM.

They usually take place as something that a character is doing secretively (that may or may not have an impact on the party at some point), or privately on the side (where it's really not a party issue).
It's used to keep player knowledge and character knowledge at roughly the same level. A player may know the thief character is up to something, but they won't know what (even out-of-character), until the results play out.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

One of the things I learned about K.C.'s Sacramento group's bluebooking method is that they would all enthusiatically read one another's books, all the time. Sometimes they'd write in one another's books, and get dialogues established that way.

In fact, it's worth considering the difference between these two extremes:

1. Each player writes in his or her bluebook, privately and individually, and the GM reads them all. This is all carried out between sessions of play.

2. Each player brings the bluebooks to the play session and, whenever he or she feels like it, whips it out and scribbles for a while. Sometimes the whole group will just shift over into bluebooking mode, and often this involves passing them back and forth, commenting on them openly, writing in one another's books, and similar. Then they shift back into "plain old role-playing" and keep going.

I'll have to dig out those issues of The Clobberin' Times again and start finding some quotes. As I recall, since K.C. was a pretty straight-laced guy, he didn't permit any off-color or over-graphic material in actually-played scenes, but the players delivered much different acts into the Shared Imaginary Space via the "everyone into one another's bluebooks" method.

Best,
Ron

[Alan]

Hm.  I'd like to learn more.  

What would be the rules for what can happen in a blue book? Is it side adventures, interaction with relationship characters, or adventures of the past?  I suspect it's all of the above, with the caveat that the blue book activity can't change facts currently in actual play.

I can also see that a blue book would be a great source for the GM - he can learn what interests the player, and he can bring elements from the book into shared play.  If players shared blue books, they could do the same.

Something in the back of my mind is saying blue booking might make a good formal addition to some kinds of RPG design.  Hm.

Please say more, or tell me where I can learn more.

[John Kim]

Please say more, or tell me where I can learn more.

Well, the original term and recommendation came from a supplement for the Champions RPG, called "Strike Force" (or more completely "Aaron Allston's Strike Force").  Here's a listing of it with ISBN:
http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showbook&bookid=2380

Somewhat shockingly, I don't know of any other printed or online games which specifically address this sort of technique.  (And I know a lot of games.)  Does anyone else know of a mention?

[M. J. Young]

Never heard of bluebooking.

However, I do something like it in play, and recommend it in the referee's tips section of Multiverser. Whenever a player gets to doing something that requires a lot of detail work, he gets paper and pen and does it on his own. This includes things like shopping lists, designing equipment, planning skill improvement programs, creating spells, but it can include battle strategies and travel plans and other aspects if they're going to require time to explain. The player writes, I deal with other players, and when we're both ready I read.

This gives me a clear statement of what the player intends; it doesn't rely on my ability to pay as much attention as he says it, as I can read it at my convenience. It lets me focus on those aspects where I have questions and get through the parts that are fine with me pretty quickly. It also gives us a written record of the detail to which we can refer at need, so there's never any question of what was on it.

So it works well in that context; but it's not the same thing.

I have used character journals to fill in detail between adventures in some cases; the referee always read the journals and other players often did, but usually other players did not write their own journals. Frequently the last journal entry (or history entry if I did it as referee) would be read aloud at the beginning of a play session to get everyone on the same page.

--M. J. Young