[Lacuna] I Learn About GMing

[Noclue]

Yes. I get the sense that Bret is more interested in names out of RPG theory for the techniques he has identified, rather than a discussion about where their play falls in relation to the Big Model.

Bret: If the above is accurate, the mention of the Big Model brought a little confusion. If I'm off base, please ignore.

[Bret Gillan]

I am talking about the Big Model. I am talking about the techniques I describe and where they fit into the Big Model. Names are useful, but I'm looking for a discussion on the ideas as well.

Where do these fit into the Big Model? I looked at a chart on the Wikipedia entry and saw "Techniques" and "Ephemera" as components. I'm guessing they fall under Techniques.

How do these Techniques plug into the SIS? I feel like concepts, ideas, what-have-you don't enter into the SIS until the PCs interact with them. The corpse they found could have had a complex back-story, but that back-story is not a part of the fiction of the game unless the PCs pursue it. And in this case, using mechanics cemented ideas into the SIS.

Dragon Master and Paka are right, I am not looking to have our Creative Agenda described. I don't care if we're G or N or S. If it's impossible to have this discussion without figuring that out, we can do that, but I'm skeptical. As for the play, here's a rundown:

I played with my friend Shael and his brother Devon. Shael is my friend from college. Both him and his brother seem to think I'm an awesome GM so when I visited him in NYC I ran a game for them. They enjoyed the game immensely, though Devon was very disturbed at first. He felt like he didn't have any grounding in the fiction and was confused. This was an immersive experience I was encouraging. Shael was basically unperturbed. They were not aware of the methods I was employing at all and as far as they knew I had a crazy complex back-story. They liked the mechanics and want to play again in the future. Does this help?

[Jasper Flick]

That could be it. Now I realize what I was missing: I didn't really read anything about an actual play session at all (hey, that's not bad or anything), instead you (Greg) told us "I prefer this technique in this situation over that technique in the same situation". It falls flat because everyone responds with "ok" and that's all of it.

Greg, your restart of the thread is way cool!
As I see it now, you played Lacuna and discovered your own preference for certain techniques. Now you're wondering whether that set of techniques dovetails strongly with either G, N, or S play, which would allow you to better communicate your preferences and enables you to focus on those games that would be most compatible with them. Am I anywhere near the mark?

Now the answers you're getting to the question above, sadly, are "it's not that simple for us to judge".

[Jasper Flick]

Aw hell we crossposted. Gotta run now, will read your post later.

[lumpley]

Hey Bret.

The looply pooply goes, "system is how you decide what happens in your game. However you decide what happens, that's your system."

I used to have a thing called my mini-rant #2. It's about backstory that doesn't yet exist. I'll quote it here, from a long, long time ago:

I don't think it's fair to call them "GM secrets."  The GM can't actually know secret things, since group assent is what makes things true in the game. 

Some play styles privilege the GM's plans to the point where if the GM planned it, the players have no social contract-sanctioned grounds to withhold their assent.  Calling the GM's plans "secrets" comes from that style of play and is dangerously misleading when applied to any other.  Dangerously misleading, I say!  Think of the children!

So can we call them "GM plans" instead?  That might point to solutions, or it might not, but at least it'll be clear what we're talking about.

Thus I think that this of yours is exactly, exactly right:

The corpse they found could have had a complex back-story, but that back-story is not a part of the fiction of the game unless the PCs pursue it. And in this case, using mechanics cemented ideas into the SIS.

-Vincent

[Valamir]

Ok, I'm sure that if Ron were not busy with vastly more important things (like say twin newborns) he'd already be in this thread moderating pretty heavy.  So I'll act as an unofficial temporary stand in.

Guys, really appreciate your participation, but lets stay on track with what Brett's asking here.  He's asking very clearly about the Big Model...which is called that because it goes way beyond Creative Agenda and GNS.  Oh, and for those prone to using such terms as "motivation" with respect to Creative Agenda...please don't.  That way lies madness.  No part of the Big Model requires getting inside someone's head and speculating about what's going on in there.

Bret what you're asking is very easy to identify in Big Model terms.  You've hit upon those things that the Big Model labels as Techniques which exist underneath (if you like hierarchal diagrams) or within (if you like set diagrams) Creative Agenda.

Never call for a specific roll. I never say, "He's coming at you with a knife. Roll your dodge." I say, "He's coming at you with a knife, what do you do?"

Either of these approaches (calling for a specific roll, or not) are different Techniques that a GM might use.  Both equally good for certain purposes and equally bad for others.  Clearly leaving the nature of the exact roll open to player interpretation worked great for you in this play; so we can start to take a look at why it was so effective for you.

You hit on at least part of the answer here:

Situations where characters and players interact with the mechanics in this way are opportunities for players to make statements about their characters. A character who pulls out a gun and shoots an attacker is very different from a character who talks the attacker into calming down. Denying the player that choice sucks.

From this we can say that it looks like you're using this Technique in support of the purity of the player's vision of their character.  Some interesting follow up questions here would include:  Is it strictly the owning player's vision that was important during play?  Did other players have a stake in whether the character in question is one who would pull out a gun vs. talking?  Did the GM?  How much table talk, or gestures, etc there was (and what kinds) surrounding making the determination of what approach to use and hense what skill to roll would fall under the heading of Ephemera in Big Model Jargon, which is basically all of the little functional things that make a Technique go in practice.  You can probably see how this Technique "Leaving the specific roll open" plays out very differently at the table and says something very different about the nature of play if the Ephemera include lots of suggestions from the other players vs. the other players being silent and only the "owning" player voicing their decision.

None of this really speaks to the Creative Agenda portion of the Model.  Exploration is part of all roleplaying with any Agenda and Character is one of the 5 parts of Exploration (the others being Situation, Setting, System, and Color).  So this Technique goes directly to supporting the Character aspect of Exploration, and speaks to how those 5 components are prioritized in your play.  But such Character support would be equally valid in a wide variety of play across any Agenda.

Now, mechanics are also a major way for players to define and create the game world. This can be done by making changes to the shared imagined space that can't be disputed ("I hate this guy. I kill him!") but also, depending on the GM's style, to create the fiction and the game world. In Lacuna, I had their Monitor (the person responsible for providing them with intelligence and equipment outside the Blue City) acting really weird. The players started making all sorts of rolls to find out more information about the Monitor. This took the Monitor from random color (which is how I intended it to be) and transformed it into an actual plot. Later, the characters happened upon a savaged corpse which they were suspected of murdering. They never tracked down the killer, investigated the cause of death or anything, so the corpse was simply a corpse. It was a prop, not a plot.

What you've painted here in pretty broad strokes could probably be broken out into a whole collection of Techniques.  Here you used elements of Setting (again at the Exploration level) as a vehicle to deliver Color.  From what I've gathered from Lacuna AP reports using the Monitor to set the tone of play is a pretty effective technique in the game.  You also let the players sniff around and determine which situation of those presented by you ("Hey your Monitor is acting Wierd", "Hey here's a corpse", "hey you're a supect") they wanted to pursue.  That's also a very non Creative Agenda specific Technique.  


How's that for answering the terminology and Big Model questions for you?

[Bret Gillan]

Ralph, this is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

Now, I guess I'm coming from a standpoint of "These techniques encourage fun play." Fun is an unhelpful word. Um. These techniques encouraged player and GM Exploration of Setting, Situation, Character, etc. What this brought to the game was a sense of fun as me and the players were figuring out what was going on. Having this opening up allowed for everyone to participate in participation and introduce everyone's vision to the game.

So, are these techniques that could be applied universally? You say that the Techniques I described are good in some situations and bad in others. Where do you think they could be bad?

[Valamir]

NP

So, are these techniques that could be applied universally? You say that the Techniques I described are good in some situations and bad in others. Where do you think they could be bad?

Well the easy and obvious answer would be "bad for people with a different sense of fun than you".

But to make it more applicable to design...consider a case where niche protection was an important part of the game and a desired feature of play by the players.  In such a game giving players the ability to deal with obstacles "any way they want" might be a net negative...e.g. "Here's a scene designed to let the combat ninja guy shine by beating the snot out of a horde of opponent"..."oh no, Mr. Slick Talky Guy just used his Persuasion skill to convince them all to settle down and leave"...now Ninja guy is bored, upstaged, and has had little impact on the game.  In that sort of game, the ability to say "This is a combat, time to roll your fight skill" might actually be considered a feature.

...eh...ok, on rereading that example is a bit lame...but hopefully you see where I was going with it.

Other situations where you might need to modify the technique would be with a player that tends to suffer analysis paralysis.  Leave them too many options and they might not be able to make a statement because they get so tied up in over thinking things.  With that sort of player you might need to alter your technique to include maybe offering several suggestions...like a Choose Your Own Adventure.  That would most likely be a GM and play group thing rather than a game design thing.

[Noclue]

So, are these techniques that could be applied universally? You say that the Techniques I described are good in some situations and bad in others. Where do you think they could be bad?

Sorry about my prior confusion. Your question above made me ask the following: If its cool for the talky PC to use his charming wit to defeat the axe wielding barbarian. Is it also cool when the GM does the same thing to a PC? Say an NPC talker calms your barbarian down so he doesn't hit him with the axe. Peole might differ on that one.

[Yokiboy]

Ralph, this is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

Bret, I'm sorry for making you frustrated by guessing at what you were asking, rather than helping guide you to the final analysis you were after. Glad you revived the thread, and that Ralph was nice enough to clear things up.

TTFN,

Yoki

[lumpley]

I really like Noclue's question (it's James, right?).

-Vincent

[Noclue]

Thanks. Yes, its James. I keep forgetting my name doesn't show up here on its own. I really need to put it in a signature line

[Bret Gillan]

Guys who are apologizing: don't. I appreciate your efforts to help me out.

Ralph, that makes perfect sense. If the rolls are ability-based, but all abilities are applicable, then each character needs to make sure that they have their chance to shine whether it's through spotlight scenes or targeting rolls. It wouldn't matter so much in competitive games. In Lacuna, there was a slight issue where co-operating wasn't really spelled out. Actions were taken by one character or the other, so determining who gets to punch the baddy is informally negotiate. Which is potentially problematic.

I'm wondering if HeroQuest might deal with this the most gracefully. Granted, if I try to combat your Sword skill with my Eating skill I'll face a hefty penalty, but it is possible to elevate my Eating skill to such a high mastery that eventually I can make it happen (based on my loose understanding of HeroQuest). It's still possible here for the GM to basically put up a wall by giving you an insurmountable penalty, but it does leave you with situations where you can try to talk your way out of that charging barbarian horde, but maybe it's more likely the combat-guy will succeed. But I still like having Talky guy and Fighty guy have equal chances of getting out of the same situation, but having it mean different things in the fiction.

I guess I'm groping for a universal in a situation that depends heavily on a system's design and a group's preference.

James, that's an interesting thing I hadn't thought about, mainly because of how Lacuna works. In Lacuna, only the players roll. The GM never rolls anything. So that didn't come up as an issue. What do you see as the problem with that? Why is an NPC talking a PC out of a course of action worse than, say, that same NPC chopping the same PC in half with an axe? I think I know why.

[Noclue]

James, that's an interesting thing I hadn't thought about, mainly because of how Lacuna works. In Lacuna, only the players roll. The GM never rolls anything. So that didn't come up as an issue. What do you see as the problem with that? Why is an NPC talking a PC out of a course of action worse than, say, that same NPC chopping the same PC in half with an axe? I think I know why.

Well, I'm not sure that it should be problematic, but I think that it can be for many. I guess when its "I chop with my axe!" and "I parry with my shield. You miss!" then the player stated the character's intention (chopping) and attempted to succeed, but was blocked by the other character. However, if its "I chop with my axe!" and the response is "No, I talk you out of chopping," you can be left feeling disenfranchised because you don't even own your character's intentions. You presumably created a big axe guy to be awesome with his big axe. You don't expect to hit all the time, but you expect to swing.

Now if its a battle between the players over narrative control, the above is less of a problem because the battle really goes like "I want to tell a story in which my guy chops you with an axe" and the response is "I want to tell a story in which I convince you not to chop my guy with an axe." That's a very different conflict. The player stated the player's intention, and was blocked by the other player. One of the things I like about DitV is that I think it handles this kind of stuff well. I raise with "I chop your head off with my axe!" But he reverses the blow with "As you raise your axe to kill me, I ask you if your mother would be proud of the man you've become." As long as he's got the dice to back em up, he can keep narrating talky blocks and attacks all he wants.

[henshaw]

We (the thread) have identified "Never call for a specific roll" as a technique that Bret uses. But I wonder if there's another technique, one that hasn't been mentioned yet, in addition to this. Implicit in the question "He's coming at you with a knife, what do you do?" is, I think, a rejection of 'initiative order'. In another game, you might say "Init 19: He's coming at you with a knife, roll to dodge [...] Init 16: Now, what do you do?". I don't actually know how Lacuna works, so I might be putting my foot in it - but I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that.

This seems to me to be related to IIEE, to involve the freedom of the threatened character to react to the Intention or Initiation step. Are the range of possible techniques explored anywhere? For instance, in D&D (where the characters traditionally freeze at the start of a combat and take it in turns to unfreeze and act in small ways upon the fiction) there's no freedom to react (with limited exceptions, like delayed actions [part of the initiative system] and attacks of opportunity [erm]) - not even to roll to dodge! But in explicity stake-setting games, the statement "he's coming for you with a knife" is more like an invitation for the player to react by setting their own stakes.

On the other hand, maybe "Never call for a specific roll" is a technique that only works when applied to the event that jumpstarts a conflict. But I still wonder if it's possible to find a technique that applies this GM lesson in the middle of more traditional 'initiative and fine-grained actions' conflicts.

OK, this is my first ever ever post on the forge after a few years fearing it, maybe a couple years on the outskirts, and a few days or weeks thinking I understand what it's really all about. So, if this falls too far outside the scope of Bret's GMing techniques and Lacuna examples then I'd be happy to try and take this to another thread, somewhere.