I Have Seen El Dorado! [ultra-long]

[contracycle]

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.)

OK.  But this is essentially the "its not real till you see it" approach that we already know, as others have mentioned.  There is a catch, though: the system lets payers predict Truth.  They might not know the bad guys HP, but they can know that X is enough to kill an elephant.  At which point you're back to credibility, which is a finite resource, or at least needs regular refreshing.  I feel you incorrectly understate the significance of the emulation of reality - I don't feel that I am seduced into maintenance of consistency out of the delusion that it MUST be consistent, but rather do so because it is the simplest lie.  There is value in real being real, IMO.

[Sylus Thane]

From the Journals of Sylus Thane

Entry 2: Watching the progress of Mr. Langfords Expedition

As I watch through the great Scope of Things atop Mount Venture I am amazed at the amount of trappings people feel they need for such a simple expedition. I feel Fang is on the right track, no offense to the esteemed Professor Edwards, but I feel Fang is being led astray in his quest by the seductive promises of the GNS. He is correct in his summary of relationships when seeking Game. I have discussed the matter with one of the Gee'Ems, and they say that his thoughts are correct, but his disciption is wrong. If was a map you know where it leads, he must begin to think of it as a tree, you never know how it will grow or where it will branch. It he changes his form of thinking, his travel may become easier.

I am constantly concerned with his, and the others joining his expedition, need to attach special abstract words to help them define the things they seek. When and if they arrive it cause great difficulty in their attempts to learn Straightforward from the Players. I'm afraid that if they continue to view things from their old GNS ways, or continue to try and change GNSism into their own dialect they will never be able to see the signs that lead to El Dorado. Perhaps I will be forced to put aside the manuscripts detailing the Dawn of the Magi for now and go and try and find them before they become too lost. I have a feeling if they become too enamoured with their translations they may fall victim to the Isms who are constantly lurking in the shadows.

Food, change of clothes, sword, rifle, and my good knife. I am off. A few good players by my side. If we hurry I feel we can catch them before they reach the Simulationism Mazes. If they are caught in there, it will take a great deal of time to get them out, if ever.

Speed is of the essence.

Sylus

[Le Joueur]

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.)

OK.  But this is essentially the "its not real till you see it" approach that we already know, as others have mentioned.  There is a catch, though: the system lets payers predict Truth.  They might not know the bad guys HP, but they can know that X is enough to kill an elephant.  At which point you're back to credibility, which is a finite resource, or at least needs regular refreshing.  I feel you incorrectly understate the significance of the emulation of reality - I don't feel that I am seduced into maintenance of consistency out of the delusion that it MUST be consistent, but rather do so because it is the simplest lie.  There is value in real being real, IMO.

Now I think I see the problem.  You are talking about the direct application to a specific quantity; that is the 'control' of the players in El Dorado.  Losing the 'myth of reality' in this sense is not worrying about the future of your bad guy.  Like I said before, his life or death is irrelevant to abstract 'chunk' control; he's just a complication that the decisions of the players brought them into conflict with.

Did you think you needed him in a future scene?  That is the 'chunk' theory mistake; who he is, is just a detail.  To connect this fight to some future event does not need to be by sustaining his life function; there are myriad ways to connect them.  The connection is forged at the wedding of the player's decisions and the gamemaster's 'chunks.'  All the gamemaster needs to do is be aware that some connection is to be made; that is a 'chunk' theory point and the reason that 'myth of reality' is in effect.

There is no reason, none, that the same character needs to be present in both situations for them to be connected.  You are detailing out too much if you think this is true and leaving yourself to inflexible to get yourself out of it.  No matter how well the players may wipe out the details you have preplanned to connect the events they have played to ones they have not, the fault is your adherence to the preplanned 'reality.'  What if the players wipe out every member of 'Bad Guy Incorporated?'  Then their sister organization, 'Villains Consolidated' fields members with a score to settle.  There is no connection unspoken that cannot be faked; connections are all that 'chunk' theory deals with, not specifics.

In El Dorado, all specifics come from the players, all abstracts come from the gamemaster.  Who the bad guy is?  Comes from the players.  When does he die?  Comes from the players.  If you are worried that having the bad guy do something won't happen because of the players' actions, you are wedded to the 'myth' that this guy is real, that he needs to live because he's the only one who can do something, that that something is specific to your plans.

Really, are you complaining about El Dorado (the difficulty in using player specifics in your abstract plans) or Illusionism in general?  I'm only talking about El Dorado.

Fang Langford

[Le Joueur]

I feel Fang is being led astray in his quest by the seductive promises of the GNS.

Ah, yes, but it is the seduction of my cohort that I fall prey to.  I do everything I can to free them from it.  Demmed sirens.

He is correct in his summary of relationships when seeking Game.

Great, now I'm a Big Game hunter.

I am constantly concerned with his, and the others joining his expedition, need to attach special abstract words to help them define the things they seek. When and if they arrive it cause great difficulty in their attempts to learn Straightforward from the Players.

I'm afraid I haven't any solutions to this.  I thought trying to teach them Abstract, would help them unlearn GNS, alas their dialect prevents.  Seeking the root of all languages, I thought I'd find a window into Straightforward.

I'm afraid that if they continue to view things from their old GNS ways, or continue to try and change GNSism into their own dialect they will never be able to see the signs that lead to El Dorado.

I realize I do not need to take everyone to El Dorado.  The question remains, will I find enough evidence to prove its existence?

Fang Langford

p. s. Could someone go find Seth; I think he's gotten lost out in the thickets when he was going to...you know.

[Walt Freitag]

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.

Well, even if it weren't, so what? New insight is always worthwhile, even if it's not new to others. Especially when so entertainingly described.

What I see as new here is not the findings Sir Fang has shared with us so far, but the proposed expedition itself. (Apologies to Seth for going back inside the metaphor). In other words, the exploration of operational models for how to actually perform El Dorado gamemastering.

From operational models can come... yes that's right... tools! Wonderful, shiny tools! Delicious crunchy tools! Which I'm obviously obsessed with. All reet! All reet!

So far, about all that's really been said about reality-in-flux techniques amounts to:

INTERVIEWER: What's your goal when you GM a role playing game?
GM: To adapt to what the players do while making sure the outcome has appropriate narrative structure.
INTERVIEWER: How do you do that?
GM: I create the visible reality on the fly.

That's really about as useful as:

INTERVIEWER: What's your goal when you duel?
DUELIST: To injure or kill the other guy without being injured or killed myself.
INTERVIEWER: How do you do that?
DUELIST: I use my sword.

That's why it's "intuitive" continuity. "Intuitive," as in, "I have no idea how to explain how to do it, it just sort of comes naturally." Unless it doesn't.

Fang has now put forth the tentative outlines of a model that involves units (or "chunks") of "story in the abstract" (some sort of template) which get filled in in play in a very flexible manner based primarily on player input. It's a start. Questions to explore: What helpfulconstraints are provided by a chunk-template? (Too few, the chunk isn't helping the GM make decisions. Too many, adapting to player decisions might require too much force. Chunk size is a factor here.) How do chunks fit together structurally? Are chunks planned ahead? Are chunks interchangeable?

I know at least one game design that exists within this space: Christoffer's horror game The Evil. In that schema, the chunks are relatively large, pre-planned, non-interchangeable, perhaps too open-ended to be sufficient help for most GMs. I hope Christoffer won't mind if we plan a supply stopover there.

- Walt

[Christoffer Lernö]

Since you bring up The Evil Walt, I feel I have to make a quick comment in regards to its el Dorado qualities. In essence, the Evil is a gutted BRP RPG. There are hardly any rules at all. How is this helping el Dorado? Because rules are in the way "of making up reality as you see fit". Furthermore, there are no rules for the GM, there are only rules for the players.
The GM doesn't need to roll if the monster manages to stalk the player.
The GM doesn't need to roll to decide NPC vs NPC actions.
So there is no problem with the rules interefering with the GM's reality building. The mechanics and its results are given all their meaning through the interpretation of the GM. This way there is no effect that the GM did not desire. The mechanics only work as a rough suggestion.

The question, to me, is how to translate this well into a system with a lot of rules. The contrast between players employing a lot of rules and the GM using none would seem be so much more pronounced. Also there has to be a way for the GM to measure his NPCs actions. In the Evil the GM simply gives a target number made up on the fly and that's enough. In a more sophisticated game it would seem to be a lot harder.

Aren't these 4 points true?

1. Rules impede GM flexibility
2. Rules guide player decisions
3. Rules create consistent results
4. Rules make outcome predictable

Actually the 4th is a consequence of 1-3.

So, turning down the amount of rules like in a gutted BRP (the Evil) works in a way but unless we assist it with something else it can never work as a universal solution.

(I'm kinda embarrassed making all these references to the Evil. It's not like it's a revolutionary game. But for all it's simplicity it still works as an example as a game made to GM using IntCon)

[Edit: This isn't addressing the chunks at all. But I figured, if you want to look at the chunks, better know the other things going on in the game as well.]

[Jonathan Walton]

I'm not sure if this is helpful at all, but I may have accidentally stumbled across a path that leads, not to the Golden City itself, but to a treacherous embankment that overlooks it.  This path is dubbed, by the natives, complete lack of GM preperation.

Looking back on it, I've been walking this path for a while now.  In middle and high school, I had friends who'd come over & expect to roleplay, making characters on the spot and looking for me to GM an adventure on the fly.  Just out of necessity, I had to get suggestions from them about the kind of game they wanted to play (since I had zilch time to prepare), and would just throw a bunch of the suggestions into an "opening" and then spend the rest of the game reacting to what the players threw out.  Lately, in Storypunk, The GM is Dead, and my new Harry Potter-based project, I find myself returning to this model.

After all, who has the time to spend preparing to roleplay?  Recently, I've been writing games where character creation either takes 5 minutes or can be done during play.  Also, the players can run the game right out of the box, in 30 minutes or less.  Zero prep-time, once you understand the rules.  This kind of off-the-cuff, reactive GM style is significantly different from the "chunk" method, but it similarly puts control of the narrative in the hands of the players, while the GM tries to administer things to keep the collaboration from breaking down.

Am I also heading towards El Dorado, or am I still lost in the jungle, smitten by mirages?

[Le Joueur]

Sorry Christoffer,

I'm bored and tired...

Since you bring up The Evil Walt,

Oh goody, our first villain!  So Walt, are you the Nazi uber-villain or the Belloq-peer-rival type?

Aren't these 4 points true?[list=1][*]Rules impede GM flexibility
[*]Rules guide player decisions
[*]Rules create consistent results
[*]Rules make outcome predictable[/list:o][Edit: This isn't addressing the chunks at all. But I figured, if you want to look at the chunks, better know the other things going on in the game as well.]

It actually does address 'chunks' indirectly.  I believe you make the classic err thinking that 'fewer rules' always get 'out of the way' of the gamemaster.  The 'chunks' I'm proposing are neither 'in place of rules that players use' nor in conflict with any amount of rules in general.

Like I was trying to describe to Contracycle, the 'chunks' allow a gamemaster to manipulate and control 'where the game goes' by giving the players' decisions a structure to 'fit to.'  The same works for the "consistent results" that the rules 'create.'  Those are also specific results much like what the players create.  The only outcomes decided are those which are specific; few games offer rules that determine 'the larger picture' items (especially in a way that cannot be 'faked' by alternatives arising from the marriage of player decisions and 'chunk' directions).

So I guess in creating the actual 'chunks' for the theory, they must be the kind of abstractions that are in no way impeded by anything concrete resolutions.  We've had this discussion before; I don't believe rules impede this kind of "gamemaster flexibility."  (If one piece is 'illegal' simply put in another.)

Fang Langford

[Le Joueur]

...To GM an adventure on the fly.  Just out of necessity, I had to get suggestions from them about the kind of game they wanted to play (since I had zilch time to prepare),

...After all, who has the time to spend preparing to roleplay?

...Am I also heading towards El Dorado, or am I still lost in the jungle, smitten by mirages?

Well, I'm sure we could arrange for some 'chunks' that you could use to climb down on (like steps), but you have to ask yourself; it that what you want?  Do you want to control a game to suit a 'big picture' purpose using Illusionism so that your players may subscribe to a different method of their choosing?

To be honest, I've been using "Case Number 2" gamemastering for the last five or six years exclusively.  In the absence of preparation (I have a family), I grew to using 'chunk' methods unconsciously.  I'd get a real kick if I had time to start a separate thread and bang out the actual kinds of 'chunks' to be used and how to use them for the various purposes.

Is that what you want?

Fang Langford

[Jonathan Walton]

Do you want to control a game to suit a 'big picture' purpose using Illusionism so that your players may subscribe to a different method of their choosing?

I'm not sure anymore.  I certainly used to want that, but, as I've matured as a GM, I seem to desire that less and less (perhaps because I've told myself that I'll never reach El Dorado?).  Nowadays, I seem to be more interested in tilting at Ron's favorite windmill, breaking down the distictions that seperate the GM from the players.  All of this ultimately seems to be aiming at the same goal, of making gaming less frustrating for GMs and players with diverse motives and interests.

As a GM, I loathe the idea that it's my duty to provide entertainment for the players.  I don't want to be a performing monkey.  But I also don't want to be completely reactionary; I want to have some hand in the outcome of play; I want my participation to matter.  So, I think Ron's windmill and your El Dorado are ultimately trying to solve this same problem: finding the happy medium between total GM determination and total player determination.  If the GM is just another player... problem solved.  Likewise, in El Dorado, where the GM provides form and the players provide structure... problem solved.

So we're really talking about two different Golden Cities here.

[Christoffer Lernö]

I'm sad to hear I'm boring you Professor Fang. I'll see if I can revive your interest somewhat.

It actually does address 'chunks' indirectly.  I believe you make the classic err thinking that 'fewer rules' always get 'out of the way' of the gamemaster.  The 'chunks' I'm proposing are neither 'in place of rules that players use' nor in conflict with any amount of rules in general.

Then I think you're puzzling the pieces I gave you together in the wrong fashion.
Let's get back to what you were teaching in those archeology classes - the importance of internalizing rules. Once the rules are internalized by the great Gee'Emm, they become tools. However, the shape of these tools vary from mechanic to mechanic. The more complicated and contra-intuitive the tools, the longer they take to be internalized. However the most important thing is how the tools interact with each other.

Less rules makes a game quicker to internalize and reduces the chance of tools interfering with each other.

I from what I see from your map to el Dorado, the task of the Gee'Emm seems to be to let the needs of the players interpret the abstract chunk he has picked up. But in expressing this chunk back to the players, the Gee'Emm needs to use his tools. If the tools interfer with each other, then the sketch handed back to the players will not be the one of the interpreted chunk and not of the players desires either.

What I am suggesting is that the tools of the Gee'Emm must allow him to draw the scene in any colours he wants.

There are far too many tools that leave out half of the colours or provide tools like "brushes with other brushes attached". Such tools tempt the Gee'Emm to fit the drawing to the tools instead - to draw things that the tools allow instead of the true image.

In that moment I believe el Dorado is lost to them.

If instead of having the players paint the abstract image of the chunk it is the system that chooses the image, then that can only mean the input of the players will be less. Is that not so?

This was my concern anyway. Maybe that was what you suspected all along. In that case forgive me for not understanding your reply. Please let me know why the above is wrong.


Say, were is Schrödinger by the way?

[Le Joueur]

Hey Christoffer,

I didn't mean that you had anything to do with my boredom.  (You didn't make me tired, did you?)  I thought it valuable to note what I brought to the conversation for caveat emptor purposes.

It actually does address 'chunks' indirectly.  I believe you make the classic err thinking that 'fewer rules' always get 'out of the way' of the gamemaster.  The 'chunks' I'm proposing are neither 'in place of rules that players use' nor in conflict with any amount of rules in general.

Then I think you're puzzling the pieces I gave you together in the wrong fashion.

Let's get back to what you were teaching in those archeology classes - the importance of internalizing rules. Once the rules are internalized by the great Gee'Emm, they become tools. However, the shape of these tools vary from mechanic to mechanic. The more complicated and contra-intuitive the tools, the longer they take to be internalized. However the most important thing is how the tools interact with each other.

[Fewer] rules make a game quicker to internalize and reduces the chance of tools interfering with each other.

I understand your opinion here, but I don't believe it has any context with what I'm talking about.  Since El Dorado is a destination, all of what you're discussing will have passed before that place is reached.  Any rules, no matter how intuitive or not, no matter how complicated, will have already been internalized (or whatever you want to call the 'getting it down' process.)  Use of rules will be transparent.

I from what I see from your map to El Dorado, the task of the Gee'Emm seems to be to let the needs of the players interpret the abstract chunk he has picked up. But in expressing this chunk back to the players, the Gee'Emm needs to use his tools. If the tools interfere with each other, then the sketch handed back to the players will not be the one of the interpreted chunk and not of the players' desires either.

I haven't actually placed any responsibility in terms of wedding the specifics created by the players to the abstracts created by the gamemaster.  Nor have I discussed the timing of the fusion.

As Illusionism, I expect that the players probably are not aware that the gamemaster even has an agenda.  (I'm still assimilating what this new definition of Illusionism means in application.)  I'm of the impression we can create these abstracts in such a way that they'll readily take the specifics of player decisions.  This goes back to the idea of taking player input and orchestrating the supposed environment (the 'myth of reality' again) to stress the importance of their decisions.

What I am suggesting is that the tools of the Gee'Emm must allow him to draw the scene in any colours he wants.

There are far too many tools that leave out half of the colours or provide tools like "brushes with other brushes attached". Such tools tempt the Gee'Emm to fit the drawing to the tools instead - to draw things that the tools allow instead of the true image.

That's a problem.  The 'tools of the Gee'Emm' should not be paintbrushes in this analogy, the players supply paint, colors, pallet, and canvas.  The gamemaster is thinking in terms of composition, symbolic representation, and element placement/relationships.

If you think in terms of the gamemaster 'drawing scenes' or using 'colours,' then your next statement is completely on the mark.

In that moment I believe El Dorado is lost to them.

If instead of having the players paint the abstract image of the chunk it is the system that chooses the image, then that can only mean the input of the players will be less. Is that not so?

Of course.  You are sensing the inherent 'impossibility' of El Dorado.  Since you keep inferring that the gamemaster will be dealing in specifics intentionally you will always find El Dorado impossible; it becomes a fight to see whose specifics are actually in control.

Until you slip past the idea of the gamemaster 'controlling' anything that could be construed as a specific bit of information in the game, you aren't going to see past the conflict over who's running the show.

How can I make this more clear (not just to you, but to myself included)?

Let's try a little Raiders of the Lost Ark:

Dr. Jones (a player character) has finally gotten the Ark of the Covenant on the steamer headed home.  That brought the last 'tension cycle'

(<--Abstract terminology) to a close.

Next, the gamemaster decides that the 'tension level' (<--Abstract terminology) is not high enough to support the 'final confrontation' (<--Abstract terminology).  Thus he chooses to create another 'tension cycle' of higher 'stakes' (<--Abstract terminology) to take the 'tension to the next level' (<--Abstract terminology).

Where did the players leave things?  On a steamer.  When?  Just prior to World War Two.  The gamemaster chooses to have that ship assailed by a German U-boat.  It doesn't matter what personifies the 'introduction of the next conflict' (<--Abstract terminology), only that it suits the place that the players have the game.  It could have equally been a German warship or Belloq's private yacht.  How the players respond to this 'introduction' is key.

They choose to hide and then bide their time.  Following this lead, the gamemaster has the captain of the ship support it saying that Jones is dead and attempting to gird the girl.  The gamemaster has already chosen that there will be a 'tense connection' (<--Abstract terminology) between a 'major player' (<--Abstract terminology) and a 'player character' (<--Abstract terminology).

Earlier Marion (another player character) has a run in Belloq; from this the gamemaster 'discovered' that Belloq is attracted to Marion.  (I say discovered because it could not have been the gamemaster's intention because it is a specific.)  To 'up the ante' (<--Abstract terminology) the gamemaster chooses to not only take 'the prize' (<--Abstract terminology), but to invoke the 'tense connection' again, thus Belloq takes the girl.  Here the gamemaster is playing with specifics, but only the available ones, not because he had planned it to be based on the Belloq/Marion relationship; he could have just as easily played on the Belloq/Jones 'one-upsmanship' by having Belloq announce 'out loud' that he has beaten Jones again (implying that he did not believe the story of Jones' demise).  This choice is arbitrary and affected only by what's available, not some kind of agenda on the specifics by the gamemaster.

Dr. Jones swims over to the U-boat for a ride with the rest of the principles.  I've always felt that it was suspect that (considering the map shown next in the movie) that Dr. Jones could have ridden undetected on the outside of a German U-boat all that way.  What that tells me is that the gamemaster rightly determined that a scuffle on the outside of the U-boat would unnecessarily 'complicate' (<--Abstract terminology) the game on a level not equal to the 'tension level' he's shooting for.  That's why the next scene 'frames' right to the 'next locale' (<--Abstract terminology).

There is a short establishing scene, I assume prompted by the players who felt a need to specify how Dr. Jones is able to move about the island unimpeded; such impediment would actually be detrimental to continuing the current 'tension cycle' so the gamemaster has no interest in turning into a 'confrontation' (<--Abstract terminology) or anything more than a 'minor complication' (<--Abstract terminology) so as to not lose the rising 'tension level.'

Gathering all the pieces together, the gamemaster assumes the passive and let's the players choose the next 'confrontation' with the 'major player.'  If Belloq had been done away with during the 'Ark chase,' this could have just as easily been any of the remaining Nazi 'major players.'  El Dorado Illusionism hinges on not making this choice until the 'confrontation' takes place.  Now, in keeping with the 'tension level' the gamemaster spontaneously chooses to call Jones' bluff.  What the players do is crucial but not 'decisive' (<--Abstract terminology).

Should they have gone through with the bluff, then it would be something else about 'the prize' that enacts the 'final confrontation,' perhaps the tablets survive and are then read.  Perhaps the players choose to have an 'action scene' (the type of scene, to my way of thinking right now, is just another specific for player decision to create) and fight to free Marion.  But what the players choose to do is 'give up;' this could have cost the gamemaster the 'tension level' except that great speech by Belloq was well worth it (even though extemporaneous by the gamemaster).

That leads to the 'final confrontation' where 'the prize' must play itself out.  Going in, the gamemaster must know that all 'leads' (<--Abstract terminology) will be dealt with, but not how.  I would think the choice line by Dr. Jones to 'not look' predicated pretty much the whole 'wrath of god' thing.  I'd even go so far as to suggest that the fancy special effects the gamemaster found himself describing may have surprised even him with the fact that 'the prize' is still intact at the end (hence the rather hasty 'denouement' (<--Abstract terminology) to 'clear up' the last of the 'leads' and end the game.)[/list:u]In this, I hope everyone gets a better idea of how much the gamemaster doesn't know, plan, or expect, and what he does.  The whole idea I founded this thread on is that keeping the 'gamemaster control' in a sphere unrelated to the specifics (that get driven by player decisions) allowed what has been described as impossible to gain some possibility.

El Dorado is not supposed to be the best kind of gaming.  It isn't even supposed to be a desirable form of gaming.  All I was saying is that it is a possible style of gaming.

Say, where is Schrödinger by the way?

Who?

Oh yeah!  He's...under my chair, playing with that treacherous pipe.

Fang Langford

[JMendes]

Hello, all, :)

I would like to raise a couple of points here. Unsignaled forks in the path, so to speak.

My first point will be: if El Dorado is all about the GM being in control of the story, then how does chunk theory help any?

To wit, narrative structure has been hammered to death in many a field of study. Sites with variations on the '36 basic plots' are out there by the thousands. If you read them out, they sound exactly like what (I think) you propose chunk theory to be. If that is the case, then 'GM control' is reduced to selecting a narrative structure from an already elaborately detailed menu of narrative structures.

Let's talk about writing, for instance. I never tried writing any fiction longer than a three-page short story, so I don't know if novel writing is any different. However, what I do is pick out a structure and a theme and then get ready to write the details in. In other words, I control the story because I control the details. The chunks come from the structure I picked. They control nothing.

So first my point, restated, is: why do you feel that planning out chunks is any degree of story control at all?

My second point is not as elaborate and is really only a question: how does your proposed El Dorado relate to the design and/or play of purchased scenarios?

Cheers,

J.

[Christoffer Lernö]

Prof Fang old friend I don't see what you are saying STOP The natives seem very friendly STOP They are making me a nice pot of their best brew STOP Or so my interpreter tells me STOP but it's making me a little nervous STOP that they are already tying my assistant to a pole STOP but my interpreter assures me it's quite normal STOP

In other words I am a little lost here. The GM plays with his abstract images, but who is painting the picture? If it is the GM, then what are the tools of the trade?

If you are saying that the players provide the tools, isn't that saying "System doesn't matter"? If not the explain to me where the system enters. Because the way I see it, hasn't the system has put its influence on the painting by the time the GM shows the picture to the players?


It's starting to smell nice STOP I hope food is ready soon STOP Best wishes your friend Christoffer STOP

[C. Edwards]

Sir Fang,

I urge you wholeheartedly to rethink your proposed route to El Dorado.  The high Priestess of the Temple of the Sun, which lies at the heart of El Dorado, has come to me in visions with these words, "If you must resort to Illusionism, then you have already lost Control."  I fear the expedition my be focusing on a Shadow of El Dorado, and not the city itself.

*in the rest of this post my reference to El Dorado should be read as "El Dorado without Illusionism".

Fang wrote:

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.

contracycle wrote:

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.

Christoffer wrote:

There are hardly any rules at all. How is this helping el Dorado? Because rules are in the way "of making up reality as you see fit". Furthermore, there are no rules for the GM, there are only rules for the players.
The GM doesn't need to roll if the monster manages to stalk the player.
The GM doesn't need to roll to decide NPC vs NPC actions.
So there is no problem with the rules interefering with the GM's reality building. The mechanics and its results are given all their meaning through the interpretation of the GM. This way there is no effect that the GM did not desire. The mechanics only work as a
rough suggestion.

These are all related to the difficulties imposed by different treatment of the same rules by the players and the GM.  In a game created by the high Priestess, the system is El Dorado.  

I think a large problem people have, indoctrinated gamers anyway, is that they have a preconception of just what an rpg is supposed to be, which is often completely intertwined with this "myth of reality".  They believe that certain types of rules, certain quantities of rules, mechanics that work this way or that way will work better to create a "reality" that doesn't exist anywhere but in their minds.  That indoctrinated way of thought is poison to the pursuit of El Dorado.  

Jonathan wrote:

I'm not sure if this is helpful at all, but I may have accidentally stumbled across a path that leads, not to the Golden City itself, but to a treacherous embankment that overlooks it. This path is dubbed, by the natives, complete lack of GM preperation.

This is how I first stumbled upon the trail to El Dorado myself.  Its difficult not to deal in abstractions when you are barely managing to keep up with the players.  It is only by letting go of our need to know what might happen before the players do that we can see the true path to El Dorado.

Johathan

As a GM, I loathe the idea that it's my duty to provide entertainment for the players. I don't want to be a performing monkey. But I also don't want to be completely reactionary; I want to have some hand in the outcome of play; I want my participation to matter.

This is, I believe, where the importance of Connections truly shine.  It is the Connections by which the GM influences player decision.  The truth is, Connections aren't any more reactionary than the players decisions which prompt those Connections.  Envision a yin-yang or the endless cycle of rainfall. Player decision carries no more weight than GM connection, they feed and reinforce one another.  It's the band metaphor all over again. Jazz baby.

Fang

I understand your opinion here, but I don't believe it has any context with what I'm talking about. Since El Dorado is a destination, all of what you're discussing will have passed before that place is reached. Any rules, no matter how intuitive or not, no matter how complicated, will have already been internalized (or whatever you want to call the 'getting it down' process.) Use of rules will be transparent.

Use of the rules will not be transparent as long as the GMs use of those rules is in contradiction to the players understanding of how those rules function.  This is the home town of Illusionism.  For example, in a game with hit points they have a solid context, specific rules for how they are lost, how many, etc., etc., The player always abides by these criteria, he doesn't have much choice.  The GM on the other hand takes these very same criteria and bends them until they break, usually based on no other criteria except perhaps "the needs of the story", or "keeping NPC alive for next time".  Therefore, the core mechanism the game is supposed to provide, central rules for determining various aspects of play in an objective manner, has been utterly disregarded by the GM. This is often considered a serious breach of the unspoken social contract, akin to cheating.

I wholeheartedly agree that letting go of the "myth of reality" is the greatest step on the winding trail, but when the system being used is still supporting that myth... you're up the creek without a paddle.

My basic issue here is that you seem to find Illusionism necessary to El Dorado because you believe the game system itself to be not of much issue.  If that is the case then I wholeheartedly disagree.

And I apologize if this has sounded like a rant for "how I play". It certainly isn't meant that way.  I also know that I haven't offered much in the way of crunchy fact and specifics but,  like any similar quest, I believe the route to El Dorado requires a certain degree of Zen thought.

-Chris