News:

Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

An Idea for Diceless Play

Started by JackBauer, June 21, 2004, 09:27:11 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

ethan_greer

First off, I highly, highly recommend picking up a copy of Universalis. It's 18 bucks shipped, and worth its weight in gold for the kind of shared authorship play I'm talking about. Check it out here. Again, I highly recommend it. Even if you never play it, it's got useful information about what "scenes" are, what framing a scene entails, and stuff like that.

Now, when you say you don't have "scenes" in your game, I suspect you actually have them but just aren't calling them that. For example, when all the characters are asleep, I'm betting you don't play that out in game. So, when a player says, "my character is going to sleep," and you say, "okay, the next morning you get up and..." That's basically scene framing in practice. Scene framing is a technique used to skip to the "good bits." Does that make sense?

Regarding that illustration of play I gave in that last post, all that I'm doing is giving each player an equal opportunity to decide what "good bits" get to happen when. The GM/Player distinction pretty much dissolves. Or, you could say that the GM duties get passed around among the players.

The scenes don't necessarilly have to be in chronological order (although I suspect they will be a lot of the time). Just as you can have flashbacks in movies, you can use them in this type of play.

So what responsibilities and power does the acting GM have? Well, it's their scene, so they get to set it up, specifying location, who all is there (including NPCs and PCs and random extras), and the events that take place that warrant the scene.  What warrants a scene? Well, it has to be a "good bit." For example, you wouldn't frame a scene and say, "Okay, we're all sitting in the bar. What do you do?" Instead, you might say, "Okay, we're all sitting in the bar, when suddenly the sound of motorcycles starts getting louder and louder. People start looking around, and pow! A biker drives his motorcycle right through the front window! Glass and splinters of wood from the broken framework go flying everywhere, and people start running and screaming. The bike crashes into the tables, and the biker leaps off, lands on the bar, and pulls out a grenade. What do you do?" From that point on, it's shared authorship all the way. The scene framer shouldn't have a planned outcome for the scene.

The rules of behavior are pretty simple: Don't be a jerk, don't screw anyone else over, and stay true to the previously agreed-upon story framework. When you've got a group that's dedicated to the story and the flavor, it's not a problem to have the rules be that loose. If everyone's on the same team, it's going to be fun. Now if, for example, the above scene was framed in the middle of a Pirates-of-the-Carribean-themed game, that's obviously a problem, since pirates didn't have motorcycles. But how likely is something like that to happen, unless there's an underlying problem with the social contract of the group?

Quote from: JackBauer...plus, the players almost are never aware of the story before the game starts, it rather unfolds after the game starts. We don't have "scenes" persay, I provide them with loose "objectives" through ingame cues and clues, and provide challenges on their way towards meeting them.
The difference with the type of play I'm describing is that there is no story before the game starts. Instead of the game's story being authored by the GM and reacted to by the players, the story is built from the ground up, scene by scene. This approach has a couple of advantages. Most significantly (I think), the game's success isn't dependent how much the players enjoy the GM's story. Instead, everyone has an equal responsibility to make the game a success, and when the game is successful, everyone shares that "GM thrill" of creating something cool.

It's not all roses, though. Shared authorship play basically requires a strong social contract: everyone needs to be on board with the goals of play, and everyone needs to be committed to the game's success. If you've got a group like that, then special authority rules for the GM become a lot less necessary. But if you've got a player or two who actually need to be reeled in by GM authority in order to keep the game cohesive and enjoyable for all, then this type of play just isn't going to work. I don't know your situation; you'll have to judge for yourself.

Oh yeah, one other thing I wanted to cover: I mentioned in my last post about how anyone who wanted their character to be involved in a scene could just have their character show up, and I figured it would be worth expounding upon. The main point I want to draw your attention to is that it doesn't matter how the character shows up.

Example: Remember in Star Trek: Insurrection, when Worf first shows up? Picard says, "Worf! What the hell are you doing here?" Worf starts to explain, but the camera pans to something else in the room and we don't get to hear what he says. The audience never gets the reason that Worf is there, and what's cool is, the audience doesn't need the reason. It's enough to know that there is a reason; the reason itself is immaterial. That's what this type of play is all about: If it would make the story cooler, then it happens. You worry about the whys after the fact, if at all.

A good game that illustrates this technique of introducing characters into scenes is Trollbabe, another product that is worth your money.

Now, if you're the type of guy who was really irked by the fact that you don't get to know why Worf was there, then maybe this kind of play isn't for you.

Wow, this may be the longest post I've ever written.  Hope it's got some helpful info for you! After all that, I should again point out that I don't have much practical experience with the kind of play I'm talking about. But I do know that it's possible, and that it's happening. Just check out the threads I linked to above.

Also, there's another thread in the RPG Theory forum going on right now that's worth a look; they're talking about the same sort of stuff:
Filing Edges: GM as Author

xiombarg

Tho I think the discussion has moved on, I'd like to note that the proposed system greatly resembles my game Success.
love * Eris * RPGs  * Anime * Magick * Carroll * techno * hats * cats * Dada
Kirt "Loki" Dankmyer -- Dance, damn you, dance! -- UNSUNG IS OUT

JackBauer

That sounds like a neat way to play. I'd like to try it sometime. So, if you do'nt have practical experience with the type of play you're talking about, what type of play do you have experience with?

ethan_greer

I'm more of a traditionalist when it comes to my actual play habits.  Beyond some dabbling here and there with things like Universalis, I usually play "standard" (for lack of a better term) games.  Games like D&D, Savage Worlds, GURPS, Vampire, FUDGE. They have a strong GM who is considered to be in the driver's seat for the game.

On the other hand, I'm real interested in a lot of the theoretical mumbo jumbo that gets discussed around here, and I like to get my hands on and devour cool games that attempt to (and sometimes succeed in) pushing the boundaries of the hobby. So what if I never get a chance to play them! Sigh. :)

Also, I want to point out that I don't think that GM-authorship is a bad thing. After all, I'd be a pretty disgruntled gamer if I did think that. Shared authorship is just different. Both approaches have strengths and weaknesses.