Necessary Risk

[Buddha Nature]

Yanno, this discussion reminds me of a discussion we had way, way back about what makes a game.

I was expounding (sorta) on Free-form roleplaying, which is totally cooperation based. In a way, it's much like what Shane mentions. There's no risk, as everything is based on consent. Nothing happens to my character that I don't want to happen.

When we do "scenes" It's less free-form, as we'd agree to an overall goal before beginning to play, but the exact details are worked out in play.

Is it fun? Definitely. Especially when you're "on" that night, and the scene comes out with much foreshadowing, irony, and feeling that all participants just feel drained and in awe.

But is it a game? My argument was that it was not. There was no "risk", no set mechanics for advancement or punishment. It might be argued that there are mechanics, but they're more a form of social contract than rules. The rules can be broken with the consent and trust of other players, with the entire goal being to either make a good scene (either pre-set or impromptu) and to have fun.

I'm not sure if I've contributed to this topic or not, but I hope I did in some small way.

You know I think you might be right here - I think that the dividing line between game and storytelling is that in the latter there is no chance of something going in anyway other than yours (the player)--even if it includes having to compromise with someone else.  In the former there has to be some kind of chance - some mechanic - that can make things go a different way.

Hmm...  Much to think about...

-Shane

[C. Edwards]

Only in the realm of the Complication is the outcome ever in doubt.

I think this may be an incredible fallacy.

Let's look at Universalis and SOAP. Nobody knows what is going to happen next except the current narrator. Changing narrators is the mechanic that creates the element of surprise.

In Universalis a Complication is basically just a way to take that mechanic down to a smaller scale and a way for another player besides the current narrator to have a say in the outcome of that chunk of narration.

The last SOAP game I played in only saw one Challenge, and that was at the very end of the game. It was also chock full of "I wonder what's going to happen next?" and character risk. We were all working overtime to take the characters of the other players down. As in Universalis the act of switching narrators provides the aspect of the unkown outcome. For everyone but the current narrator the outcome is to some degree a mystery.

Think of it like watching a movie for which you wrote a small piece of the script. You're still not going to know what happens in the other 75% of the film.

Hope that helps illuminate where the "unkown" lies in games with a collaborative storytelling aspect.

-Chris

[M. J. Young]

Shane, I think it's been established that there's a difference between risk and uncertainty.

I disagree with Sean. Even though I have a strong gamist streak and like to play games where I win, I also like to play games in which this is not a factor, and I don't think they cease to be games. Did you ever play "out"? You know, where one person attempts a basketball shot, and if he makes it everyone else has to try or get a letter for failing, but if he misses it the ball passes to another player? Now, did you ever play it without keeping score? Is it less fun if you can't lose? Is it less a game if you never get any letters, but just see whether you can make the same shot?

You might find the http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5994">Young Storymap thread in the Alyria forum worthwhile in this regard. If there is "risk" in that game, it's seriously mitigated. Your character can't die without your permission. My wife, who has been at work during our play sessions so far and heard about them second-hand, said she didn't understand how you play a game in which you already know what's going to happen. That's just it--we don't really know what's going to happen. We keep wondering, speculating about what's going to happen. Will one of the bad guys become a good guy? Will someone who is currently confused see the truth? When will this character discover her power, and what will it mean in play? Is someone going to die? Those are all matters that will be decided by the players during play. There's a sense in which we all can see where the story's going, and a sense in which it unfolds before us in surprising ways.

When you first watched Star Wars, the original movie, did you have even a moment's doubt as to whether Luke Skywalker was going to destroy the Death Star? Did knowing that in advance make the moment any less exciting? Sometimes foreseeing or even knowing what is going to happen creates anticipation, which is itself a form of excitement.

Now, the degree to which your idea will work remains to be seen; but in general, you can certainly have a lot of fun playing in a game situation in which you know much of what is going to happen, particularly if part of what you're doing is figuring out how.

--M. J. Young

[Mike Holmes]

Before we get off on the tangent of the definition of Game, let's point out that it has been discussed to death elsewhere. The only consensus is that, game can mean activities with the sort of risk being discussed to some, and it can mean something wider to others. Even the dictionary allows for both.

And further, who cares? The only question is really whether or not certain kinds of risk are important. Don't worry about whether or not what your doing constitutes a "game" or not, it matters not at all. That only confounds the issue by brining in yet another ill defined term.

I'm on record as advocating that we call all RPGs something else like Role-Playing Systems. Or Role-Playing Entertainment. Because then people would forget about the whole question of whether or not these things constitute games. Which is pointless to debate.

Mike

[damion]

Sorry, it was late and I was tired so I probably was less than lucid.  My quandry is as to whether or not people would want to play a game where the outcome of certain events has already been decided for them previously.  For example what if in this game the GM told the player(s) that in this scene he envisioned two PC's having an argument in front of an NPC about which land to travel to and having the NPC suggest that they head toward one land over the other. (Odd example I know) So then the players would then be able to pretty much set up the scene and do whatever else they wanted in the scene as long as an argument occured and the NPC did his piece.  Is this something that would work do you think?

I'll try directly answering this. I think this would work if it was only done for some scenes.  If done for every scene it would probably be to obvious an application of Force and the players would feel railroaded.

Another thing is that  I think there is a distinction between apparent and true risk.  For example M.J. brought up Star Wars, the case is that there is no intellecual doubt about the outcome, however the drama of the story creates an emotional doubt about the outcome.


I'm not sure how you could create this tension in a RPG, i.e. the emotional doubt, but if you could, then a pre-planed scene would work.  
           One way would be if the details of the scene were important,  also if the players were involved in creating the pre-planed scene, they might like playing it out.

[Buddha Nature]

Only in the realm of the Complication is the outcome ever in doubt.

I think this may be an incredible fallacy.

Let's look at Universalis and SOAP. Nobody knows what is going to happen next except the current narrator. Changing narrators is the mechanic that creates the element of surprise.

In Universalis a Complication is basically just a way to take that mechanic down to a smaller scale and a way for another player besides the current narrator to have a say in the outcome of that chunk of narration.

The last SOAP game I played in only saw one Challenge, and that was at the very end of the game. It was also chock full of "I wonder what's going to happen next?" and character risk. We were all working overtime to take the characters of the other players down. As in Universalis the act of switching narrators provides the aspect of the unkown outcome. For everyone but the current narrator the outcome is to some degree a mystery.

Think of it like watching a movie for which you wrote a small piece of the script. You're still not going to know what happens in the other 75% of the film.

Hope that helps illuminate where the "unkown" lies in games with a collaborative storytelling aspect.

-Chris

I guess that came out incorrectly.  I guess what I mean is that within the frame of your control there are still elements that are outside of your control.  In Universalis if it is your scene you say everything that happens, even if someone challenges and it goes to bidding you can still retain control.  It is only in the Complication where there is a mechanic that "trumps" your narratrive control.

Maybe this is just a DKF issue.  Maybe I am stuck in a tiny box called "Fortune = 'out of control'".  It is a stupid place to be I know, and I don't know why my head is stuck there - I will have to get it out of there.  Maybe I just need to experience (or read/see examples of) Drama and Karma in play - I have only really experienced Fortune, except in Universalis.

-Shane

[C. Edwards]

It is only in the Complication where there is a mechanic that "trumps" your narratrive control.

Don't forget the Interrupt! :)


-Chris

[Bruce Baugh]

I have been toying around with an idea where a GM gives a brief outline of what he wants to happen in a scene and then lets the players play it out.

I could see that being a lot of fun, given folks I shared ideas about our overall tone with. After all, in a great many genres the question is "how do we get where we know we're going" rather than "are we going to get there". Whatever complications arise, we know we'll overcome them, and we have the chance to show our respective styles doing it.

I seem to recall that Neel Krishnaswami once ran a game with Thomist angels. He and the players discussed the major events of the session beforehand, since angels have foreknowledge, and then played out the angels' actions and reactions. Likewise, I could see playing a James Ellroy-style game where players know that one of them has the character who dies, one the character who falls and then rises, and one the character who rises and then falls, but they don't know who has which.

[Buddha Nature]

I have been toying around with an idea where a GM gives a brief outline of what he wants to happen in a scene and then lets the players play it out.

I could see that being a lot of fun, given folks I shared ideas about our overall tone with. After all, in a great many genres the question is "how do we get where we know we're going" rather than "are we going to get there". Whatever complications arise, we know we'll overcome them, and we have the chance to show our respective styles doing it.

I seem to recall that Neel Krishnaswami once ran a game with Thomist angels. He and the players discussed the major events of the session beforehand, since angels have foreknowledge, and then played out the angels' actions and reactions. Likewise, I could see playing a James Ellroy-style game where players know that one of them has the character who dies, one the character who falls and then rises, and one the character who rises and then falls, but they don't know who has which.

Dude!  This is so what I needed!  Both the style thing and the Ellroy thing.  I am working on a Noir game, and style and fallen characters are what it is all about.  Oh man!  That really helped!

I was first thinking about landmarks on the scene level, but maybe I need to look at them on the larger story level, not just by scene...  Mmmm...  As Erdos said, "my mind is open <>"

-Shane

[Bruce Baugh]

Hey, glad to help. I've got noir on the brain myself, so it was a relevant thing to draw from. But the principle applies broadly - in most action movies, for instance, you know that the heroes just are going to succeed (and then die, if it's a non-comedy John Woo movie, but that's part of the fun), and it's about maximizing coolness along the way. Romance novels of different sorts have their own conventions. Etc etc.