The Fundamental Mechanic

[John Tynes]

So I went to GenCon last week for the first time in four years or so. And I found it a really fun experience. I had to work most of the time, but what I saw of the exhibit hall was exciting, fun, and inspiring. This is in dramatic opposition to four years ago, when, as in so many years before, I found it tedious, repetitive, and uninspired.

The big difference? A lot fewer roleplaying games.

This is not my main point, but it's getting there. My main point is something I've been chewing on for a couple of years now, ever since I played My Life With Master. And I happily admit that I am parachuting in here, and if someone can point me to some useful examples of what I'm going to describe, I'll go off and poke at them and stop bothering you.

My overwhelming response to playing My Life With Master was this: Wow, this would have been really fun were it a boardgame.

In short, the game, as do almost all RPGs -- and, really, all RPGs, but I'm hedging my bets in an academic kind of way -- relies on the participants having a reasonably advanced knowledge of narrative. I know there's this notion that by stripping away rules we're getting back to pure narrative, but I also would happily submit that many people have no interest or inclination in creating narrative, especially in an improvisational manner.

So: how do you provide narrative structure to a storytelling game? There's the Once Upon A Time approach, where the structure is the game. And then there's, uh, not a lot that I've seen.

This year at GenCon, thinking back to how My Life With Master should have been a boardgame, I realized that in all the questioning of game design people have done, the fundamental mechanic that has mostly gone unchallenged is, "A roleplaying game requires a group of players to create a consensus reality through conversation."

More specifically, what work has been done to facilitate the creation of a consensual reality by a group of players through other mechanics than conversation guided by game systems? Who has done the roleplaying board game, the roleplaying card game? Who supports the notion of storytelling through mechanics that can be supported by moving physical objects around?

When people play Monopoly, they have their favorite pieces. I would bet the majority of Monopoly sessions ever played in which someone played the little metal car included a moment in which that player picked up that piece to move it and said, "Vrooom!" or something similar. Ditto, respectively, the dog and so on.

Or Clue. Clue gives each player a character. Only a few have any implied personality -- Miss Scarlet is the femme fatale, Professor Plum is the nerdy academic, Colonel Mustard is the blustering British colonial. The others have even less meat on their bones than these meager archetypes. And yet, they are just enough of a hook for players to hang their hat on. When Miss Scarlet and Professor Plum are in the same room together, who hasn't made some flirty joke about the two of them?

This sense of play is present even in games whose story and sense of character is barely existent. And among existing roleplayers, I believe both aspects are heightened.

In my hoary and altogether meh card game Creatures & Cultists. each player makes up their own Cthulhu Mythos cult. This requires three things: Make up a cult name, a cult slogan, and a cult symbol. The rules prod you towards silliness: the Boy Scouts of Azathoth and so forth. It's minimal, but it's enough that during game sessions players will call out their slogan, make jokes about each others' cults, and generally exercise some creativity that could, faintly, be termed roleplaying.

So: What if we did that intentionally?

I had a lot of problems playing My Life With Master. It worked fine if we just sort of agreed to keep our creativity in check. But the first time one player wanted to spy on or interfere in another player's narrative, or otherwise do reasonable narrative things that the mechanics didn't cope with, the game almost fell apart. It was no longer clear who could act in what phase, or whose turn was whose. To be sure, a group of enthusiasts could make such situations work. But the evolving narrative was both mechanically rigorous and procedurally obtuse.

As I played it, I kept thinking: this would be a lot more fun as a boardgame. Each player would be on their own track of sorts, and the mechanical challenges they have to overcome would be straightforward. But other players could have clear ways of interfering, by playing cards or moving pieces or whatever. They would still tell the same stories with similar mechanics, but now any group of twelve-year-olds could pick up and play this game. There would be no GM, no complete and total reliance on improvisational storytelling. Players would still inhabit characters, roleplay characters, interact in character. But their actions would not be randomly disruptive and in need of interpretation and adjudication; they would be proscribed, channeled, and still fun to act out. The amount of freedom lost to such an approach would be more than made up for by its accessibility and fun. And unless you are only making games for other game designers to play, I believe that is a very worthwhile goal.

I always wanted to make a roleplaying game whose scenarios would be built entirely out of a deck of cards. The cards would have various colored edges, and when laid out on a tabletop from a randomly shuffled sub-deck the matching of color to color, edge to edge, would invariably produce a reasonably entertaining fantasy adventure, a sort of flowchart. Then the GM would turn all the cards over, face down, and the players would sit down to play the story, revealing one card at a time, branching as they went.

The need to create story, to advance story, and to enforce the rules of story, still seems like the biggest stumbling block of all roleplaying games. I agree with many Forge-ites that it is possible to satisfy those needs through mechanics. But I think it would be valuable to step back and ask whether the most fundamental mechanic, of consensual reality by conversation, is really the best way to go.

I suspect, quite simply, that it is not.

So:

1) Can you point me to the kind of game I'm describing? If so, I would love to play it.

2) If you have designed a roleplaying game, how could it be improved with a board and/or cards?

[Gordon C. Landis]

John,

Awesome to see you post here.  Really awesome.  I'll be starting play in an Unknown Armies-inspired game tomorrow, so - awesome.  And I'll go ahead and say "Welcome to the Forge!"  Because it's kind of a tradition, and because I seem to be the first to respond to your very interesting post.

In short - yes, I've had thoughts along those lines.  I suspect others have as well, because I doubt there's much I've thought of in terms of RPGs that didn't have some inspiration from the other folks here.  For example, look at the Shab al-hiri Roach (check the Bully Pulpit Games forum here for details) - a set progression of scenes, and cards to play that influence character actions in those scenes.  In my case, SNAP (crappy webpage in my sig to be replaced soon) takes one step towards what you speak of by taking the abstract idea of "goals" for a "scene" and turning them into stacks of poker chips that are then reduced as the scene progress, until someone finishes off their stack and achieves that goal (there are complexities with multiple goals, but the principle remains).  Progress towards the goal is visual and quantifiable, so consensual reality by conversation is at least mediated via a physical thing. 

I'm not going to pretend this a full answer, or that SNAP is a masterpiece, but as a dialogue-builder, *is* that even close to what you're speaking of? 

Developed a bit further, I've considered converting all the normally ad hoc processes of stringing together scenes and character actions into card play (which I guess is taking the Roach ideas even further).  You could then regularize an order of play (turns, which some Forge RPGs are already using), and really mediate that conversation.  The fear, of course, is that at some point you have mediated it so much that we don't have a story creation by the players, but are instead simply playing out the story that's already there in the cards.  I'd like to see more attempts at it, though.  Off hand, Clinton's City of Brass (CRN Games forum here, though maybe this actual play post is a good place to start) is another good example.  I'm sure I'm forgetting others, but for now - that's a start.

Gordon

[LordRahvin]

I have a CCG called Dungeoneer.  One of the things I love about it are its Quest cards because I keep thinking, there's gotta be a way I can use this idea better.  Anyway, based on your post above I thought you'd like to see it:

The game involves having a character card with stats on it and a token piece and moving through a board randomly composed of location cards connected by doors and passageways.  As a player wanders through the board, they accumulate GLORY and PERIL in each location.  GLORY is used to play cards.  PERIL is a resource other players spend to do bad stuff to you like play monster cards.  Each player has two QUEST cards plus there is one QUEST card for the whole dungeon that anyone can try for.

To complete a QUEST, you must travel to the location specified on the card and do what the card says.  This usually involves either some kind of test (solve the riddle of the fairies), or picking up a token and carrying it to another location (rescue the maiden). When you complete a test, you level up and your new stats are already written for each level on your character card.  (There are three - combat, magic, and speed.) 

There is optional play for players to play against a single Dungeonkeeper who plays the PERIL cards, or for each character to be part dungeonkeeper, playing PERIL  earned by their opponents. 

Have fun.

[Jason Morningstar]

Hi John, and welcome to the Forge.

The game that immediately sprang to mind when you asked about generating situation mechanically is D. Vincent Baker's as-yet-unreleased In a Wicked Age, also known as AG&G. 

I use cards to drive play in The Shab-al-Hiri Roach, along with a very rigid scene structure - events happen in a proscribed order, and certain NPCs are introduced and re-introduced at specific points during play.  Rather than lead to tepid, deterministic play, I've found that these constraints focus the game and lead to a lot of narrative creativity.  Probably not exactly what you are looking for, but many people have commented on the "board gamey" aspects of The Roach. 

[Ben Lehman]

Hi John, welcome to the Forge!

I don't think that the type of game you're describing yet exists.  From the perspective of a card game that is slouching towards RPG, we have the excellent Dungeoneer already mentioned.  In terms of role-playing games, we have a more complicated palette.

What you seem to be talking about is a role-playing game where every action is actively enmeshed in mechanical system -- you don't just "do shit whenever" like a normal role-playing game but take turns and take limited, mechanically significant actions.

There are a lot of games like that floating around.  Not one has made the leap to what I would consider entirely a card game or board game, but several are close.  Let me hand you a couple:

Breaking the Ice: The theme of the game is that you play a couple on your first three dates.  The game system only resolves one thing -- whether the events of the dates are causing you to gain attraction or compatability with each other.  Actions only matter for that purpose.  Additionally, the turn-structure of the game is quite rigid.

Under the Bed: The theme of the game is that you play toys protecting children from their nightmares and problems.  The game system is strictly turn-based and competitive, with the players creating shit for each other to deal with and competing to become the most favorite toy.  Play is card-based.

Capes: The color of the game is four-color, morally driven superheros.  The goals of the game are quite complicated, and difficult to express, but turn structure is rigid, and action-narration only matters in-as-much as it applies to a single, previously framed conflict.

Perfect: The color is playing criminals in a dystopian, faux-victorian society.  The game is incredibly rigidly structured, but I haven't played enough to figure out what all the resources are.

The Shab al-Hiri Roach: Another card-based game, with a mind-controlling sumerian-roach god infecting the back-biting staff at a small New England university in 1910.  Again, it has a heavy structure, and winning conditions.

There are other games, of course, that suckle from the MLWM teat: With Great Power..., Polaris, Shock:, It Was A Mutual Decision and so on.  There's been a lot of development in the direction of more rigidly structured games of late, but I don't think that there's anything you're looking for exactly.  I'd recommend looking at any one of the above games, or more, playing it a few times, digesting, and then coming back and designing exactly the game you're looking for.

Sounds good?

yrs--
--Ben

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I have a CCG called Dungeoneer.

Thomas doesn't mention that he also has an RPG that uses the same structure. It works well to have a sort of combination of RPG and board game.

[Stuart Robertson]

Hi John -- thanks for posting this.  I'm currently designing a boardgame / RPG hybrid that uses a deck of cards to create obstacles and events for the characters in the game.  Since there is no GM/Referee, the players are more limited in the choices they can make for their characters and the overall story of the game.  Players might not have as much creative freedom as they do in many RPGs, and particularly newer storytelling RPGs, but you don't have to count on the other players keeping their creativity in check either.  Hopefully the speed of play, the lack of prep-work, and "strategic storytelling" combination will make up for not being able to have your character do anything you might imagine, or being able to work in highly personalized storylines based on the characters extensive back stories.

[iago]

More specifically, what work has been done to facilitate the creation of a consensual reality by a group of players through other mechanics than conversation guided by game systems? Who has done the roleplaying board game, the roleplaying card game? Who supports the notion of storytelling through mechanics that can be supported by moving physical objects around?

I am very likely to turn Beat the Clock, my Compact RPG Challenge submission, into a card/board game, with the cards (as someone else has mentioned) taking over to create the reality of the situation the players are trying to escape.  Honestly, when I first finished Beat the Clock, I had very much your reaction to it, of "this would be better as a board game". The non-board version: http://www.evilhat.com/lab/BeatTheClock1.0.zip

I think there's a group-mind movement going on right now, and I expect that over the next couple years you'll see more board games sitting in that "hybrid" space.  I look to the Shab Al Hiri Roach as an early example of this, since it has a card deck that in large part dictates player actions.  I predict we'll see more games like SAHR soon -- especially as POD providers start making it easier to produce on-demand decks of cards and other such components.

[greyorm]

More specifically, what work has been done to facilitate the creation of a consensual reality by a group of players through other mechanics than conversation guided by game systems? Who has done the roleplaying board game, the roleplaying card game? Who supports the notion of storytelling through mechanics that can be supported by moving physical objects around?

Greetings John,

I don't know if this is specifically what you might be looking at, because it doesn't necessarily require narrative. I wrote ORX so that it could be played as just a dice game. You don't have to do any sort of narrative structuring to it at all. However, when you do, the game provides cues regarding what you say -- what sort of action occured -- in the form of the Stat and Descriptors (and anything else) you chose to use that "round" when you rolled.

I suspect that is still very "consensual reality by conversation" though. Hrm, would board games like "Talisman" and "HeroQuest" be more what you are looking at? Or stuff like the Warhammer 40k or other various minis games? And if so, how do they meet or not meet the criteria for the games you are imagining here?

[Roger]

The need to create story, to advance story, and to enforce the rules of story, still seems like the biggest stumbling block of all roleplaying games. I agree with many Forge-ites that it is possible to satisfy those needs through mechanics. But I think it would be valuable to step back and ask whether the most fundamental mechanic, of consensual reality by conversation, is really the best way to go.

I suspect, quite simply, that it is not.

Hi, John.  I'm not really sure I'm understanding you here, in the big picture.

You bring up the examples of Monopoly and Clue.  As far as I can tell, these games are well-rooted in the "consensual reality by conversation" mode.  What is your opinion on the matter?

In short, abandoning "consensual reality by conversation" is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure I see what alternative(s) you're suggesting.  The only things that come to my mind are radical departures, like (literal) insanity or solipsistic isolationism, and I've got the feeling that that's not what you have in mind.



Cheers,
Roger

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Roger, maybe this will help.

Traditionally, role-playing games function as a sea of unconstructed conversation, subject to unspoken rules about whose words are more important or need to be taken seriously by everyone else. Within that sea, there are islands of highly procedural, often highly quantitative activity. But in the sea, no one is really sure how to get to an island, or upon completing an island, just what that means upon launching back out into the sea. In practice, these things are accomplished through complex social re-negotiations during the "sea" part until a group hits upon its own system for doing so.

By contrast, when checking out a board game or a card game, there is no point during play when we "just talk" as part of the game's procedures, or move the pieces or cards anywhere and everywhere as we see fit. Instead, everyone knows whose "go" it is. Everyone knows how that action affects their respective situations. Everyone knows how the overall mechanic (the board, the deck, etc) is changed by this. At any given point, some instruments may be active or inactive, different people are more or less important, and so on, but there is never any need to re-negotiate it. In fact, any such negotiation is an instant turn-off.

John, I suggest checking out my games Trollbabe and It Was a Mutual Decision. Both of them fully accord with my second description above. Although the latter is more explicit about that, it's instructive to discover that Trollbabe includes no "free play" at all.

I also suggest that your experience with My Life with Master is marred by your notions and habits of role-playing, such that your group could not see certain things, but that tells more about the group than about the game. For instance, minions spying on one another, or any of the other stuff you mention, is 100% possible using the system as written. I've spent years discovering the knots in people's minds when they encounter games like this ... they insist that X "can't be done!" when of course it can ... just not by the procedures they're accustomed to doing it by. It might be useful to empty your cup a little more before being too sure about such things.

Best, Ron

Best, Ron

[John Kim]

My overwhelming response to playing My Life With Master was this: Wow, this would have been really fun were it a boardgame.

So:

1) Can you point me to the kind of game I'm describing? If so, I would love to play it.

2) If you have designed a roleplaying game, how could it be improved with a board and/or cards?

Well, I haven't designed an original boardgame like this, but I do have an article on using a board for My Life With Master play.  It works pretty well, I think -- though I'd like to print it up more nicely and have some nice board graphics.  It's on my MLWM Notes Page along with a few other useful bits. 

[Thunder_God]

Oooh boy, I feel like I came back home with this discussion.

First, check out Frigid Bitch by Alexander Cherry, which is also influenced by MLwM, note that there's a revised version with an actual board. Maybe Alex will pop on later and provide it.

Second, I'd suggest taking a look at the project I'm spearheading, CSI Games, which purport to be a hybrid of Competitive and Story, but begun by me trying to draw board/war/card-game elements into RPGs. For example, take a look at Gnostigmata[URL] by John Kirk with its rules for creating a "Story Arc", [URL=http://competitiverpgs.pbwiki.com/Threads]Threads[URL] which the author, Filip Luszczyk, says could be turned into a board-game without being an RPG, and my own [URL=http://craniumrats.pbwiki.com]Cranium Rats[URL], which is also without "Free play", all interaction is governed by rules.
Most of these are still in the oven, as it were, but I hope they'll provide what you're seeking.

In fact, I too believe that talking about aspects needs to be curtailed, and that if these things truly do matter, they need to be codified mechanically. It is my own take on "System does Matter".

[Thunder_God]

Oooh boy, I feel like I came back home with this discussion.

First, check out Frigid Bitch by Alexander Cherry, which is also influenced by MLwM, note that there's a revised version with an actual board. Maybe Alex will pop on later and provide it.

Second, I'd suggest taking a look at the project I'm spearheading, CSI Games, which purport to be a hybrid of Competitive and Story, but begun by me trying to draw board/war/card-game elements into RPGs. For example, take a look at Gnostigmata by John Kirk with its rules for creating a "Story Arc", Threads which the author, Filip Luszczyk, says could be turned into a board-game without being an RPG, and my own Cranium Rats, which is also without "Free play", all interaction is governed by rules.
Most of these are still in the oven, as it were, but I hope they'll provide what you're seeking.

In fact, I too believe that talking about aspects needs to be curtailed, and that if these things truly do matter, they need to be codified mechanically. It is my own take on "System does Matter".

[Callan S.]

Hi John,

More specifically, what work has been done to facilitate the creation of a consensual reality by a group of players through other mechanics than conversation guided by game systems? Who has done the roleplaying board game, the roleplaying card game? Who supports the notion of storytelling through mechanics that can be supported by moving physical objects around?

When people play Monopoly, they have their favorite pieces. I would bet the majority of Monopoly sessions ever played in which someone played the little metal car included a moment in which that player picked up that piece to move it and said, "Vrooom!" or something similar. Ditto, respectively, the dog and so on.

Bold mine.

I don't think my life with master is about the creation of a consensual reality. When you talk about someone having the dog...and eventually going woof. Well, I think MLWM is the opposite way around - someone is already going 'woof' and now wants a game with a dog in it.

Call that 'woof' something else - situation. The player already has a situation boiling away in his head - he's not reaching for the game tools to perhaps eventually inspire him to go 'woof', he's reaching for them so he can explore this situation. I'd be interested in reading more actual play account, with a focus on what players were interested in and any issues - any situations they may have been interested in introducing.