I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]

[Le Joueur]

Hey Joe, whattaya know (always wanted to say that),

Fang, I think it's time you also check Dramatica again.

Couldn't parse Dramatica for role-playing games; from what I saw, you're right, that was another one of my influences here with 'chunk' theory.  The actual Dramatica is of limited value for gamemastering, but should be considered a valuable resource in 'chunk theory.'

Thanks for pointing it out.  I need to get a chance to go over it again.

Fang Langford

[Le Joueur]

Ah the inestimable Mr. Freitag,

Shall I point out, my dear esteemed Professor Fang, that my very first post on The Forge amounted to shouting "hey guys, El Dorado's over here!"?

Yeah, I saw that (and by the way, I have no accreditations, Sir Fang will have to do), but was unable to help for I could not understand you message.

No, I shall not, because you make some excellent points concerning the inadequacy of the directions to same that I've attempted to provide. In particular, I'm willing to entertain the theory that attempting to give those directions in GNS terms is and has been doomed to failure. That initial post asserted that GNS doesn't describe my play; for a long while I was convinced that I was wrong; recently I've come to suspect that I was partly right (though still wrong in many of the original particulars).

You've also raised an issue that I hadn't begun to examine yet: though the techniques in question have been discussed many times before, most recently under the general heading of "reality-in-flux" and within the context of Illusionism, the issue of what is actually done with those techniques has barely been touched. Examples, necessarily kept simple, have focused on avoiding specific turns of events that suck or of forcing a specific desired event. The idea of the story-in-the-abstract being decided separately from the specifics offers the potential for a more detailed model.

Alas, that is at the heart of what makes the impossible, not only possible, but also likely.  It was exactly the "reality-in-flux" issue that allowed me to overcome my prejudice of the 'myth of reality' and first see this possibility.

I like the way you put that "the idea of the story-in-the-abstract being decided separately from the specifics."  It is by performing this 'separation' that allows the two apparently contrasting 'controls' of El Dorado to coexist.  Yes, I think that may be the way to put it.  Thank you very much.

I've abbreviated your theory to underscore a critical point:

Here's where my past directions to El Dorado always got sidetracked: trying to pinpoint which GNS mode the GM behavior resulting from the decision to "add a complication" falls under. Is it Sim because complications are an expected part of the nature of the genre-world being explored? Is it Narr because complications can lead to addressing Premise? Is it Gamist because complications add challenge? The new hypothesis is: we usually can't tell, and it's irrelevant anyway. Sure, whatever decisions the GM makes in play can be shown ultimately to be most consistent with one of the GNS modes.

That's why El Dorado can be populated by any of the GNS modes and why they're irrelevant.  The gamemaster is making El Dorado decisions that are, at their heart, 'neutral' to modes specifically to meet, and accentuate, the modal needs.

However, keep in mind that the specifics have to interface with abstract structure somewhere. The specifics of the outcome might arise from the players, but at some point their in-play decisions either will or will not be consistent with the abstract plan. Some sort of force must be applied to rule out inconsistent outcomes, or else the plan must change (in which case it's really not a plan at all).

I've occasionally talked about tools to facilitate reality-in-flux play. One example, I recall, was tables of encounters organized by the purpose the encounter is expected to serve in the narrative rather than (or in addition to) the usual divisions by locale. "Complications" would be one possible table heading. Looking back on the ideas I've considered, they fall into two main categories: scripts for instantiating a particular chunk of abstract story, and rules for piecing the abstract story together on the fly (specifically, assembling smaller abstract pieces into larger ones) that facilitate coherent narrative structure in the whole. The encounter tables would fall into the first category. (In your El Dorado play, these wouldn't be used by GMs because the players' would be control of that process).

These are all critical to a functioning, and neither drifted or Illusionistic, El Dorado game.  Right now, I'm at a loss how to proceed in creating one (hence the call for help).  Perhaps, when Enlightenment wears out, we could write El Dorado as a group effort.  I'd be happy to take the lead the group effort, but additions like this will be crucial.  (I even have a suggestion, how about an over-the-top serial adventure type game where you play explorers seeking some fabled lost city in the Amazon jungle a hundred years ago?)

So, count me in on your expedition. A few things I'm loading on my pack mule:

- A field guide to fractals.
- A copy of the book "Strong Magic" by Darwin Ortiz.
- A laptop PC with satellite Internet access and a browser set to the Jan Murray (Hamlet on the Holodeck) Web site.
- Some food for your cat

What a fabulous list of gear.  I'm going to have to pursue these in private research before we set out.  Thanks again Walt, you've proven an invaluable resource; glad to have you aboard.  Now I think the only role missing is the whiny skeptic who we need to keep saving from the various jungle threats only to be betrayed by him at the city.  (Did I say that?)

Sir Fang Langford

[C. Edwards]

Sir Fang wrote:

That's why El Dorado can be populated by any of the GNS modes and why they're irrelevant.

This begs the question: Can a group consisting of persons subscribing to various combinations of GNS modes actually reach El Dorado, and if so, will they be happy?
Personally, I think they can reach it, but once there the same factors that caused conflict amongst the party on the journey to El Dorado may end up being the ruin of the fabled city.  Or at least result in all members of the expedition being banished back into the stygian depths of the jungle.

The honorable Mr. Freitag wrote:

However, keep in mind that the specifics have to interface with abstract structure somewhere. The specifics of the outcome might arise from the players, but at some point their in-play decisions either will or will not be consistent with the abstract plan. Some sort of force must be applied to rule out inconsistent outcomes, or else the plan must change (in which case it's really not a plan at all).

I've occasionally talked about tools to facilitate reality-in-flux play. One example, I recall, was tables of encounters organized by the purpose the encounter is expected to serve in the narrative rather than (or in addition to) the usual divisions by locale. "Complications" would be one possible table heading. Looking back on the ideas I've considered, they fall into two main categories: scripts for instantiating a particular chunk of abstract story, and rules for piecing the abstract story together on the fly (specifically, assembling smaller abstract pieces into larger ones) that facilitate coherent narrative structure in the whole. The encounter tables would fall into the first category. (In your El Dorado play, these wouldn't be used by GMs because the players' would be control of that process).

These are issues that I'm attempting to handle with a very structured format in the design of Omega Point which, quite to my delight, is turning out to be an rpg/board game hybrid where, of course, imagination takes the place of the game board.  The system will (hopefully), with player input, determine the length of a scene and the elements (such as complications) in a scene.  Every segment (session) consists of a certain number of scenes per character, decided on by the players, and the game itself will have a countdown mechanism (based on reaching the Omega Point) that determines when the game is over and who "wins".  One key thing is that an in-game situation won't necessarily have to be resolved in a traditional rpg manner.

There will be cards that can be drawn based on certain factors that determine setting based Complications (equivalent to Walt's encounter chart in effect), and these along with the categorized character goals of protect/find/destroy/learn/change (with specifics determined by the player) are used by the Moderator to help create the specifics of all that "cool stuff" that happens.  There is much more to it, but what I've mentioned should help illustrate what I'm trying to accomplish - which is turn the system itself into the story framework, letting it handle the often treacherous and mind-boggling parts so the GM can work on all that "cool stuff" and the players can concentrate on playing their characters and, since there are elements of gamism involved, trying to win.

It may not be a key to the city but it should at least end up as a guided tour.

-Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Chris,

What you posted sounds a lot like what Fang posted for his Iron Game Chef entry; check it out if you haven't.


What I see here is a description of a Macro-Mode of gaming. As Fang said, sorta outcome based. But I see it a in terms of actual play. That is, part of El Dorado is the feeling that we're in a relatively objective world, and also that there is a story emerging from the characters' actions. So it's not really outcome, but what happens in play.

When I say Macro Mode, what I mean is the particular mixture of GNS decisions. That is, in El Dorado play, there will be lots of Sim instances of play by the players, and lots of maneuvering by the GM to present his Narrativist decisions in such a way as to continue to support the players Sim play. Or at least the appearance of Sim play. That is, the players are making Narrativist decisions; they just tend to be presented with well constructed retroactive motivations.

Which is to say that the players are using a common form of player illusion. That being that they present their decision only after the retroactive assignment has occured. Thus:

"I want to see Coronado get all action-heroish. He tries to jump the chasm."

This does not use player Illusion.

"Coronado thinks that the city is across the chasm, so he tries to jump it."

This does.

This sort of illusion seems simple and common, and it is, because we're all used to playing in Actor stance. In which case that's perforce how an action is presented (there is no underlying player motive other than to play the character "accurately"). So when employing Actor stance, we are all knowledgable in how to present such illusion. In fact, the idea that Author Stance is "illegal" in some games has has meant that many people have become quite adept at hiding it, I'd wager.

Thus, we are unaware whether or not the player has "Authored" the response or not in such play, often.

This is not to say that allowing such a revelation as to player motive is bad. It really doesn't disturb play much at all, IMO. My point is not that El Dorado play is enhanced by player illusion (preferences will differ on that point I am sure), but rather that when playing El Dorado play, you tend to see this a lot. Or, rather, you don't. The player tends to just have stimuli that make it so that his response can either be Sim or Nar; one cannot tell.

IOW, there is a mix of player instances of play that is actually Sim and Narr. What makes it El Dorado is that the Narrativist instances tend to be subtle and seem to look just like the Sim ones. This is Walt's congruence thing. When playing Sim:char, or Narr, the only difference is whether or not the issue being decided on is "morally compelling" to the players. And this will, of course vary from decision to decision. Not all can be completely compelling. And in any case, the reacions will often be internal.

This is not really an uncommon style of play at all, of course. What we're talking about is a range of frequency of certain kinds of GNS decisions, and when they occur in terms of player (non-GM) play. Hence Macro-Mode.

I thnik it's useful to talk in terms of such macro modes. That is, I think we already do so, and not recognizing such leads to confusion. For example, in Narrativist play, we say that many of the instances of play are Narrativist. Well, isn't that contradictory? What I think we're saying is that the Narrativist Macro Mode is composed of a lot of Narrativist decisions, and proabably some Sim ones, with few or no Gamist ones. That's just hypothetical. The point is that it makes sense to look at these macro modes. And El Dorado is one, IMO.

I should mention that this is not new. Walt, Ron and others have worked through a bit of this on other threads dealing with "what is an instance of play", and atomic decision making.


The only other consideration is what exactly Fang is proposing in terms of his Illusionist technique. It seems to be a Flexible technique, in that you change the world to fit the characters actions to make them seem like story. But I'm kinda at a loss as to how it's new at all. I mean isn't that the technique that we always use when making use of this sort of Illusionist technique? What would be an example of such a technique that did not consider the world to be in a "wave state" before it was encountered? In all cases, something is changed behind the scenes and presented as though that's "the way it always was". I'm having trouble thinking of any Illusionist technique that doesn't work that way.

So is this just a matter of degree? That all things are considered non-permenant, a opposed to just some? Because it was in about 1982 that I "discovered" that there didn't have to be any objective permenance to anything in a game. Only the appearance of permenance. So perhaps I've been doing this so long, that it seems incomprehensible that anyone would be so inflexible as to refuse to change a game world "fact" if changing it would improve the game in any way.

Or, IOW, yes, I wholeheartedly support this method of play. It's what I've been using the term Illusionism to refer to, well, since I've used it. Or am I missing something more revelatory about the proposed method?

Where my play has developed of late, is the acceptance that players may be authoring, and not to question that. Even to encourage that to the extent that it does not interfere with anything like their personal senses of Immersion or any of that. That trust of the players has been the last step, for me on the road to the Macro-Mode of play that I'd call El Dorado.

Mike

[Christoffer Lernö]

Ooo, I just love this expedition Professor Langford. Thanks for inviting us all.

Let's see if I can make some contributions:

[disclaimer:The only time I GM and feel I'm truly in el Dorado is when I GM horror. On the other hand I've played in a few el Dorado games]

The chunks
I think you're not 100% right about the chunks prof. Or you are right in one way and not in the other.
What I mean is you can make the chunks as long as you like (by stringing small ones together) as long as you are willing to throw them away. Abstract chunks and filled chunks (chunks where the player have determined the meaning of the abstract idea) can be just as heavy a luggage.

The problem is, the longer chunks you make, the less likely you are to throw it away. It's very easy to stray from el Dorado if you carry a long string of chunks, especially if you invested time in thinking them up. So that warning is definately needed.

Tools
If GM and Players are doing two different things it's only logical that they should use different rules. Walt has already been onto the angle of having tools to create story.

Let me add to that adding another category: tools to retcon and fudge.

Here's an example: Let's say you are GM and you and your players are following the same in game rules. Now the best story is that POW that shot takes out the bad guy and he falls into the gene-goo so he can return later as a monster.
Only, in these rules with so and so many hitpoints the bad guy couldn't die that easy. Or he wouldn't drown or some other problem due to mechanical limitations.

Of course, it's all good drama and everyone enjoyed the scene so no one complains. Still there is this general feeling that the GM fudged the rules there for some drama.

See the illusion cracking?

The same thing becomes a problem even if you don't fudge the rules: You don't let the guy die and fall into the gene-goo. Instead you let the characters run in and do pure overkill to be sure the bad guy is dead. The stomp him to the ground, pee on him and then throw him in a meat grinder.

Instead of that dramatic scene the characters became murderers and butchers. Welcome to GM hell.

So another tool to help find el Dorado seems to be rules that allow GM editing of scenes for more drama. For this tool to work, it has to be a much more delicate and painless instrument than fudging rolls or ignoring rules.

We're talking about rules that allow you to take any abstract chunk and follow it no matter what. No game mechanics in the way to "make decisions that affect the plot".

...

Well that sums up my contributions for the night. I wish I could have stayed longer, but it's already 1:27 a.m. according to my watch. Time to roll out my sleeping bag and blow out the lamp.

G'night professor.


Best Wishes,

/Christoffer

[Jake Norwood]

This doesn't apply to anything, really, but I've never had so much fun reading a thread that I didn't really get.

Jake

[Daredevil]

(a bearded, dirty traveller emerges from the deep jungle -- somehow, he doesn't quite look like a native. Indeed, it is one of the thought-to-be-lost explorers of the beaten path to El Dorado!)

That chunk approach is what I've been using for years. That's at the root of why I've always defended my view that story/sim concerns CAN exist in the same game. I didn't realize it was worthy of such a commotion, though.

Also, consider Relationships Maps (an obscure method of drawing maps by the one theorist Edwards)! Are they not very similar to this chunk-based approach?

The most recent expedition towards our elusive city of gold defined its objective as (and I quote:) simply: player choice directing a gamemaster created story. Hmm. I'm not sure if that is the defination we've used in the past threads discussing this same journey.

The comparison to Schrödinger's Cat was excellent, as well as were the comments on realism. Something long overdue, I think. Realism is so passe, I feel. At least, the term realism is very, very inappropiate for what we're doing. I'm sure there is room under the collective umbrella of simulationism for some kind of hard-core emulation of a virtual world, but that's not what many Simulationists want to be doing.

My definition of El Dorado is slightly different. In an El Dorado game, I don't want the (realistic) flow of cause and effect (as understood within the gameworld) to be affected maliciously by the narrativist desires of both the gamemaster and the player. Yet, I want to empower the game with narrativist ideas so that our foray into this virtual reality of the game is not an empty one, but a meaningful one. But it is important to note that I don't think the causality -- the naturalism -- of the in-game is adversely affected by player discussion/action based on OOC knowledge outside the game. The player exists in the OOC world. The character exists in the IC world. For all actions of the character, there must exist a reasonable IC cause, no matter if the decision to initiate said action comes from an OOC decision of the player (in fact, where else can it originate from? I point to the non-existant cat in the box!) As long as there exists such a reason, the naturalism is sustained and the Sim angle is covered. Then the game, the "focus of the camera" and the decisions of the players, should aim for narratively meaningful outcomes.

I don't know, maybe I found my El Dorado in some of the tributaries of the Narrativism river. As I know that I've found it -- having lived there -- but I have just not used its specific flavor to empower the design of a game.

A note on separating the GM from the GNS paradigm. I think this idea bears thought, certainly. Perhaps we could look at the GM as a being outside and above of the GNS concerns, which glue the players to the game and control their decisions within it, as a director who must understand and cater to the specific GNS desires of those who play in his game.

As another side-note, I think Jake may have already stumbled pretty damn close to El Dorado with his Riddle of Steel. So, I just find it perfectly fitting and appropiate what he said in his post on this thread!

Just some preliminary thoughts for the new visitors to our wild region. Welcome to the jungle and beware the Southern Mountains, they're frought with peril.

- Joachim Buchert -

[Le Joueur]

Hey Mike,

Real cool commentary!

What I see here is a description of a Macro-Mode of gaming (as Fang said, sorta outcome-based), but I see it in terms of actual play. That is, part of El Dorado is the feeling that we're in a relatively objective world, and also that there is a story emerging from the characters' actions. So it's not really outcome, but what happens in play.

When I say Macro-Mode, what I mean is the particular mixture of GNS decisions. That is, in El Dorado play, there will be lots of Sim instances of play by the players, and lots of maneuvering by the GM to present his Narrativist decisions in such a way as to continue to support the players Sim play. (Or at least the appearance of Sim play, the players are making Narrativist decisions; they just tend to be presented with well-constructed retroactive motivations.)

["Player Illusion" stuff snipped; I haven't anything to add there, except it reinforces the idea that El Dorado may not shoulder Author Stance well and Director Stance at all.]

...I think it's useful to talk in terms of such Macro-Modes, I think we already do so, and not recognizing such leads to confusion. For example, in Narrativist play, we say that many of the instances of play are Narrativist. Well, isn't that contradictory? What I think we're saying is that the Narrativist Macro-Mode is composed of a lot of Narrativist decisions, and probably some Sim ones, with few or no Gamist ones. That's just hypothetical. The point is that it makes sense to look at these Macro-Modes. And El Dorado is one, IMO.

Very much on target.  Although I am not that comfortable using GNS terminology, I respect your take on it.  There's something at odds using "specific instance" terminology to discuss an outcome-based perspective, but I realize you're using a common (though discomforting) form of shorthand.

The only other consideration is what exactly Fang is proposing in terms of his Illusionist technique. It seems to be a Flexible technique, in that you change the world to fit the characters actions to make them seem like story. But I'm kinda at a loss as to how it's new at all. I mean isn't that the technique that we always use when making use of this sort of Illusionist technique?

It isn't.  I guess in my rush to present a 'travelogue' I overlooked stating that we had walked right over El Dorado without noticing.  I began to see the glimmer of it back with Jesse's "Case Number 2" play:

Premise is being consciously addressed but only on one side of the table. I think if that addressing is on the Players' side, you get dysfunction. However, if the GM, is consistently insuring that the presentation of Situation and NPC-Character interactions all essentially raise permutations of the question stated in a Premise but the players are ONLY actually addressing the Situation and Characters (not consciously acknowledging the Premise they embody) then I think this quite functional. But what is it?

Note: In this style of play the GM is only raising questions (the Premise) via presentation of Situation and choice Character interactions. He is NOT predetermining the PCs reactions to them. Therefore, because the Situation/Character interactions present Premise the players MUST address the Premise because they must make a decision regarding the given state of game affairs even if they are not consciously thinking of it in terms of Premise but only as a Situation to be resolved/dealt with.

All that was missing was making "gamemaster control" irrelevant to "player decisions having control" of the game; I supplied this (making El Dorado a subset of "Case Number 2" Illusionism).

What would be an example of such a technique that did not consider the world to be in a "wave state" before it was encountered? In all cases, something is changed behind the scenes and presented as though that's "the way it always was". I'm having trouble thinking of any Illusionist technique that doesn't work that way.

So is this just a matter of degree? That all things are considered non-permanent, a opposed to just some? Because it was in about 1982 that I "discovered" that there didn't have to be any objective permanence to anything in a game, only the appearance of permanence. So perhaps I've been doing this so long, that it seems incomprehensible that anyone would be so inflexible as to refuse to change a game world "fact" if changing it would improve the game in any way.

Or, IOW, yes, I wholeheartedly support this method of play. It's what I've been using the term Illusionism to refer to, well, since I've used it. Or am I missing something more revelatory about the proposed method?

Nope.  I just wanted to note publicly that we had pretty much run across the sacred city, almost without knowing it.  I fully consider El Dorado a subset of this kind of Illusionism.

On the permanence issue, I quite agree, but after the run-in regarding 'character motivations,' I began to realize that people, gamemasters included, get caught up in the emulation-effect and fall into thinking (via compartmentalized thinking, I think) that there is some value or truth to the idea that in-game things 'are real.'  It's a chronic problem; you work so hard to fool the players into having feelings based on "the appearance of permanence" that you get fooled too.  This isn't all bad, but what makes El Dorado a subset of this kind of Illusionism is that you do not allow yourself to be fooled; that is what allows the impossible to be possible.  (Yes, it is just a matter of degree.)

One important point I think I need to make here is about how different "Macro-Modes" get fitted to different 'Micro-Modes.'  For "Macro-Mode" gamemasters, you'll forgive me if I call them as being from the Imakeastory, Yougettachallenge, and Checkoutmyplace tribes.  I think a whole fresh set of theories could be created around the interactions between these gamemasters and players using the various GNS priorities.  They'd describe nine different interactions.

Of course you're familiar with the one-to-one match-ups: Imakeastory gamemasters with Narrativist players, Yougettachallenge gamemasters with Gamist players, and Checkoutmyplace gamemasters with Simulationist players, these all function very well and are almost never a source of problems; likewise they also support Author and Director Stance quite well.

While in this discussion we've spoken primarily of Imakeastory gamemasters playing with Simulationist players, I don't see any reason that the same techniques couldn't be employed with Gamist players as well.  What is wrong with a challenge that also 'results' in a story as well.  I have personal experience with (indirectly) self-identified Gamist players finding additional value in this practice.  (Heck, I'm probably descended from the Imakeastory tribe.)  I expect some will suggest that this would actually be simply Gamist play with additional material, I should say not.  It is definitely Illusionist play (per the new definition) where the gamemaster has two competing priorities; to 'curtain' non-Gamist prioritization and[/I] to make use of his Imakeastory heritage.  This is not purely Gamist play because (within the Illusionism) the Gamist is actually being used to power the Imakeastory tribal heritage much the same way that The Riddle of Steel's Simulationist mechanics put Narrativism in the forefront.  It isn't hybrid either due to the presence of 'the black curtain' curtailing recognition on the part of the players that they play in a hybrid (pull 'the curtain' back and it becomes hybrid).  The 'curtain' is the primary reason that these Illusionist mixed "Marcro-Modes" don't support Author and Director Stances as well as the one-to-one match-ups.

The exact same relationship exists when a Yougettachallenge gamemaster plays with either Vanilla Narrativist players (vanilla because of the Stance difficulties) or Simulationist players.  I don't have as strong of grasp on Yougettachallenge tribal practices as I'd like, but under my understanding a Simulationist murder mystery or Simulationist 'great old ones' adventure could both be handled in this way.  I tend to think that many 'you succeed at the difficult goal and the game ends' games could be handled this way for either Vanilla Narrativist or Simulationist players.  (With the same 'not pure GNS' and 'not hybrid' provisions as above.)

Finally, it comes as no surprise that I believe that when Checkoutmyplace gamemasters play with Gamists or Vanilla Narrativists (same reason) can be quite a functional kind of Illusionism as well.  Ultimately what I am speaking of is that these kinds of Illusionism work because of the lack of interference that "Macro-Mode" practices allow within Illusionism so that it makes the impossible possible; El Dorado has not twin, but triple cities (not just the 'control the story' opposed to player empowerment, but any seemingly opposition gamemastering technique).

This may, in fact, lead us back around to why 'incoherent systems' sell.  The likelihood of randomly bringing a Coherent group together is relatively small, an incoherent system, because of how it has 'the tools' for El Dorado Illusionism gamemastering (with smaller amounts of Drift than Drifting a Coherent system).  The reason Coherent systems have done better 'in practice,' is that they state, up front, what they are about and that weeds out a certain amount of incoherent groupings.  (It also may explain their limited sales; who has a Coherent group to play them with?)

What do we do with this?  One possibility is developing multiple-approach systems with built-in mechanisms that intentionally support this kind of Illusionism in the El Dorado sense.  They should suit those 'mixed groups' and be alternatively Coherent hybrids where the 'curtain' is up and El Dorado when it is down.  They might even support a long-term raising or lowering of the 'curtain.'

But then that's what I'm always on about with Transitional games.  [But you saw that coming didn't you?]

Fang Langford

p. s. I am not so sure that the various types of player can play well together; it may be possible that for this Illusionism to encounter fewer problems, the players may need to be coherent (and with their part of the game).  Hey, you can't have everything.

[Le Joueur]

Tools
If GM and Players are doing two different things it's only logical that they should use different rules. Walt has already been onto the angle of having tools to create story.

Let me add to that adding another category: tools to retcon and fudge.

Here's an example: Let's say you are GM and you and your players are following the same in game rules. Now the best story is that POW that shot takes out the bad guy and he falls into the gene-goo so he can return later as a monster.

Only, in these rules with so and so many hit points the bad guy couldn't die that easy. Or he wouldn't drown or some other problem due to mechanical limitations.

Of course, it's all good drama and everyone enjoyed the scene so no one complains. Still there is this general feeling that the GM fudged the rules there for some drama.

See the illusion cracking?

No I don't.  Like I said, to run El Dorado style, first you have to shed the idea that things in the game are real.  Did you tell the players how many hit points the bad guy has?  Since you didn't, his hit points don't exist.  (Isn't that right Schroedinger? [Fang scratches his cat between the ears.])

There is no "retcon," no fudge; you can't modify something that hasn't been created.  This is what I call the "myth of reality;" you keep thinking bad guys have hit points.  The only way the 'Illusion' cracks is in presentation; take that up in the thread about Illusionism, not here.

For an El Dorado consideration we're talking about is how the bad guy is only a 'radical conflict' to the gamemaster.  He's decided that the radical conflict will result in an even bigger conflict later on, nothing more.  If the players kill the bad guy, fine; his death becomes the trigger for the later confrontation (or some such).  Until you shake off planning the game (as an El Dorado Illusionist gamemaster) in terms of 'this bad guy will make another appearance' (losing the 'myth of reality' that the same bad guy is needed to control where the 'story' goes), you won't be using what I am describing as El Dorado Illusionist gamemastering.

The same thing becomes a problem even if you don't fudge the rules: You don't let the guy die and fall into the gene-goo. Instead you let the characters run in and do pure overkill to be sure the bad guy is dead. The stomp him to the ground, pee on him and then throw him in a meat grinder.

Instead of that dramatic scene the characters became murderers and butchers. Welcome to GM hell.

Why is that?  The above abomination of players exceeding the Genre Expectation of the game only changes the parameters, the very things which the players have total control of in El Dorado.  Again, the 'future confrontation' now becomes a result of this "overkill," possibly the players have now defined that as being a conflict with the police (who naturally come after murderers, right?).

So another tool to help find El Dorado seems to be rules that allow GM editing of scenes for more drama. For this tool to work, it has to be a much more delicate and painless instrument than fudging rolls or ignoring rules.

We're talking about rules that allow you to take any abstract chunk and follow it no matter what. No game mechanics in the way to "make decisions that affect the plot."

I believe if you are truly abstracting it, none of the problems you describe occur.  Lose the idea that players will know all these 'myth of reality' details or that they must actually be consistent (rather than simply seeming consistent), and you're all the way where you're going.

G'night professor.

Alas, as I said, I hold no degree; I am a humbler traveler and rogue scholar, nothing more.

Fang Langford

[Who goes looking for a nonexistent can-opener for the empty non-existent cans of cat food for Schroedinger.]

[Le Joueur]

Hey Jake,

Good to hear from you.

This doesn't apply to anything, really, but I've never had so much fun reading a thread that I didn't really get.

Thank you for your compliments.  If you'd like any explanation, I'd be more than happy to PM with you.

Fang Langford

[Le Joueur]

Welcome back Joachim,

That chunk approach is what I've been using for years. That's at the root of why I've always defended my view that story/sim concerns CAN exist in the same game. I didn't realize it was worthy of such a commotion, though.

Also, consider Relationships Maps (an obscure method of drawing maps by the one theorist Edwards)! Are they not very similar to this chunk-based approach?

Not at all, a Relationship Map is fraught with proper nouns and specific connections and, contrary to popular misusage, is not a way to manage details of the game.  To make a Relationship Map-like device fit the 'chunk' theory, it would be a web of generic terms connected by generic intensity measurements.  It would not fit the definition of a Relationship Map at the very get-go, because until player activity populates it with specifics, we cannot guarantee it is neither explicitly for thematic exploration, nor of blood and sex exclusively.

The comparison to Schrödinger's Cat was excellent, as well as were the comments on realism. Something long overdue, I think. Realism is so passe, I feel.

I believe it was the incomparable Lily Tomlin whose one-woman Broadway presentation contained, "I can handle reality in small doses, but as a lifestyle I find it highly restrictive."

I believe I may have already dealt with the rest of the issues raised in the remainder of Joachim's post; let me know if I missed anything.

Fang Langford

[Who's beginning to wonder how to feed such a large expedition.  Perhaps the number will dwindle when the weather reports come in.]

[Seth L. Blumberg]

I'm lost in an impenetrable thicket of metaphor, and can't find the discussion.

[contracycle]

I believe if you are truly abstracting it, none of the problems you describe occur. Lose the idea that players will know all these 'myth of reality' details or that they must actually be consistent (rather than simply seeming consistent), and you're all the way where you're going.

My emphasis.

I thought Pale Fire expressed it pretty well, myself.  The problem with this approach is that the players DO know.  They keep notes,  they remember.  Sometimes, I've found players remembering whole chunks of games that I didn't remember.  There is an old adage that the best lie is a simple lie, on the basis that a complicated lie is harder to remember.  Similarly, the more consistent a game history is, the easier it is to maintain that consistency.  The more you deviate from established fact, the more compensations you have to make and the more special cases you need to bear in mind at all times.

Our own notes are unreliable - in the heat of the moment I'm not likely to be able to record everything I say, let alone everything the players ask or remark.  The most dedicated GM I knew use to tape-record sessions and transcribe his notes from them.  The importance of consistency is to ensure that nobody discovers that their individual version of the illusion is at odds with someone elses.  And they can't just be left to seem consistent, or some day the actual inconsistencies will come back to haunt you.

[contracycle]

Fang wrote

To make a Relationship Map-like device fit the 'chunk' theory, it would be a web of generic terms connected by generic intensity measurements.  It would not fit the definition of a Relationship Map at the very get-go, because until player activity populates it with specifics, we cannot guarantee it is neither explicitly for thematic exploration, nor of blood and sex exclusively.

Strictly speaking no, but I see no reason the idea of the relationship map can't be pushed in that direction.  In fact I've had some thoughts of a similar fashion myself, in regards relationship maps on geometric layouts like hex grids.

I think the broader point is a good one - I think there are potential tools that lie outside the game but can be used to direct or schedule or prompt features in the game.  These would not be RPG mechanics so much as "chunk-management" systems, or similar; they could be ancillary ti the actual emchnaics used at the tabletop.

[Le Joueur]

I believe if you are truly abstracting it, none of the problems you describe occur. Lose the idea that players will know all these 'myth of reality' details or that they must actually be consistent (rather than simply seeming consistent), and you're all the way where you're going.

My emphasis.

The problem with this approach is that the players DO know.  They keep notes,  they remember.  Sometimes, I've found players remembering whole chunks of games that I didn't remember.  There is an old adage that the best lie is a simple lie, on the basis that a complicated lie is harder to remember.  Similarly, the more consistent a game history is, the easier it is to maintain that consistency.  The more you deviate from established fact, the more compensations you have to make and the more special cases you need to bear in mind at all times.

Our own notes are unreliable - in the heat of the moment I'm not likely to be able to record everything I say, let alone everything the players ask or remark.  The most dedicated GM I knew use to tape-record sessions and transcribe his notes from them.  The importance of consistency is to ensure that nobody discovers that their individual version of the illusion is at odds with someone elses.  And they can't just be left to seem[/] consistent, or some day the actual inconsistencies will come back to haunt you.

All of this is very good and very important; it applies to the core concepts of Illusionism.  Whether Illusionism can be maintained or not is a separate issue, which these are critical points to.  I've never maintained that Illusionism is easy or that El Dorado is in any way an easier form of it; I rather think the reverse is true.

The only application to what I am calling 'the myth of reality' is what I emphasized.  If you don't 'establish facts,' like how many hit points a bad guy has, you can't have inconsistency.  Beside that, it all becomes a matter of how you apply Illusionist techniques to 'hide' any inconsistency.  (For example, raising the 'curtain' long enough to sweep them under it.)

In order to describe the conditions permitting El Dorado, we must first assume functional Illusionism.  If you don't have that, then El Dorado truly is beyond your reach.

Fang Langford