From the Provisional Glossary wrote: Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, the

"The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts. Neither sub-clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the other. See Narrativism: Story Now.

The impossible thing is not just giving the gm bad advice but also the player. If the player thinks he is free to "direct the actions of the protagonist" and the gm accepts it the game will run fine. If however the GM is also trying to "author a story" while the player is "directing" there will be a conflict unless someone is willing to give a little.

Several different approaches to resolving this problem have been attempted and can lead to solid play. The first two examples listed below are simulationist answers to the problem, the last narrativism.

The gm can give up on his desire to create a story and let the players direct their characters, see where it leads. If the opportunity to inject story presents itself it may be acceptable but not at the cost of player input.

The gm can author the game while the players willingly follow along, giving up their ability to direct the action.

The gm and players can work together to author a story. This can work in many different ways such as game design that focuses on a certain type of story (My life with master, Dogs in the Vineyard, Sorceror) or in situation setup as John Kim mentions in several of his articles (most notably in his articles on proactive players and in his list of adventure design ideas within his article on three fold simulationism) and Marco has posted several play examples of this in actual play.

I've often heard a quote attributed to Henry Ford regarding his cars: "You can have any color you want as long as it's black." To me, this is TITBB in action.

You can have your characters do anything you want (as long as they decide to be pirates on this cool boat I thought of and run around and chase these cool things I thought up. If they don't do that, I'll ignore them and they can sit on the shore and sulk.)

I think that TITBB becomes more believeable in proportion to the quality and solidity of a given group's social contract. If the person running the game understands his players, and they understand him, and they're all relatively amiable, they will (I believe) accomodate one another through the course of the game. The GM would say that he writes the story and the players would say that they play their characters however they wish. Neither side may realize all the unconscious limitations they put on their actions so as to fit together.

SomeTHING will determine the course of the story. It can be the GM all on his lonesome with players following along. It can be the players with a flexible GM. It can be the whole group working together.

But you can't say "In this game, the GM is firmly in control of the story and its twists and turns. Also, players are free to have their characters pursue any avenue they wish unfettered."

Most actual groups probably fall into a gray area between each extreme. Some are at one extreme or another. Fine. But TITBB claims that its game is both total black and total white at the same time.

It seems to me that the problem with the ITBB is that it suggests that the authorship and direction take place concurrently, or (worse) simultaneously. By its words, it suggests the production of a play previously authored, but then also says that the play has to be written as it's happening. That only works in improv (where the given terms don't really apply).

I think it's reasonable to say that the GM authors a story--like a very loose script, with just setting and no dialogue--before play starts. Then, during play, the players and GM all direct the action. This does often lead to conflict with the original script; but, just as in theatre, such conflict usually produces interesting results.

Caldis wrote: The gm can give up on his desire to create a story and let the players direct their characters, see where it leads. If the opportunity to inject story presents itself it may be acceptable but not at the cost of player input.

The gm can author the game while the players willingly follow along, giving up their ability to direct the action.

The gm and players can work together to author a story. This can work in many different ways such as game design that focuses on a certain type of story (My life with master, Dogs in the Vineyard, Sorceror) or in situation setup as John Kim mentions in several of his articles (most notably in his articles on proactive players and in his list of adventure design ideas within his article on three fold simulationism) and Marco has posted several play examples of this in actual play.

Hello,

Aaron's (Jaik's) points are perfectly on target.

I also second John's comments. Our similar histories with the published adventure/villain materials for Champions in the mid-1980s apparently reached similar conclusions. The more so when, a few years later, the Champions approach was supplanted entirely by Impossible Thing laden adventure supplements, specifically from FASA and later from White Wolf.

Best,
Ron

Looking at these responses I see a few different things here.

1. Some posters (Jay, for one) really only apply the advice to the GM--saying it tells the GM to run either a pre-scripted game. Jaik's Henry Ford quip, although phrased as a paradox (jokingly), says the same thing.*

2. Caldis notes that the other reading of it is possible: that the GM can give up on control and let the players run with the story. The statement contains two possibilities.

NOTE: For this to be "bad advice to the GM which tells him to run a pre-scripted game"--which is what, IMO,what most of the posters here agreed with, then (1) is the correct interpertation. Clearly, judging from the glossary (2) is the one that the term refers to.

That most posters see this as only applying to the GM is, IMO fairly telling: For this to be bad/Impossible the correct reading must be the one that Calids refers to which includes two possible readings and two possible pieces of advice (and one, the empowered players, here is seen as good advice in general).

I think the Wiki is especially good on this count: rarely, IME, does the text say exactly what is quoted in the glossary. Usually it uses the word "like" somewhere in the mix and is clearly refering to an RPG and not a text-story in the first place. Almost always there is a much larger amount of attendant text which discusses other aspects of RPG play or has examples of dialog (which may or may not be good but at least establish that there are multiple roles and that GM's is, indeed, separate from the players in some important ways).

Since it is unclear what 'story' means or what it is 'like to author a story' in an RPG it is, at worst, IMO, unclear advice (no one can agree, even here what such a sentence would mean. If you say "story," I think of creating starting situation so Ron's Relationship maps qualify. At least one poster here--and, IME, many--think 'railroaded pre-plotted adventure').

Two things to note:

1. MJ created a list of at least six types of functional play that could come out of various readings.

2. Someone else (jdagna?) noted that "when you tell people this stuff and give them an RPG you get [some degree] of functional gaming." There is at least one thread here where the poster told his new-gaming crew (a bunch of kids) exactly this and got functional, well understood play out of it.

Why? It's the clearest way to communicate what a traditional game is like in the shortest time.

SECONDLY: For the Impossible Thing to cause problems one of two things must happen:

(a) Someone reads the sentence, internalizes, it and is paralyzed by the paradox. I am told strongly that 'no one does this.' Whether or not anyone does this, clearly the sentence didn't lead to readers in the 80's overanalyzing the literal meanings of the words with regards to fiction and then being unable to reconcile the fine points to the extent where play was impossible even to begin because they were faced with a literal and unresolvable paradox.

(b) Different players only internalize ONE of the two arguments. Again, here, they are presumably thinking deeply about meanings of the words--but not placing that in a cooperative, dynamic, RPG context. They are not applying the context of the sentence and are figuring "I'm the protagonist--that means I direct all the action." (Or "I'm the author, these people always do exactly what I tell them.")

While this (clearly) is what the complaint is, that's not inherent in the sentence itself. The use of similie ("like") or the use of metaphore (RPG-game is related to a 'story') is, in this scenario, ignored by the reader who is carefully examining the sentence otherwise.

In otherwords, this misguided gamer is smart enough to apply a stringent literary context to the words but not smart enough to realize he's engaged in a cooperative exercise of some type.

FINALLY: In many games we see that there are problems with the players and GM wrestling for control of the action or just plain being disappointed with the direction someone took things. Anyone who has worked on a creative project of any sort with a group knows that the problem TITBB describes is extant in a lot of places where no such text exists.

While I'm sure someone has run afoul of this snippet of text, I rather expect that this same phenonema occurrs in groups where only the GM has read the book and therefore the players would hypothetically have no expectation of controling the action.

But they still do.

This strikes me (strongly) as seeing a behavior and then blaming a piece of text for it.

I think the term is a good one for traditional-model gaming since it gets most readers into the right general ballpark (GM creates situation, runs world and other characters, players then take action within that backdrop). To be really excellent advice one could get a lot more specific about roles and discuss a myraid of different ways to set up games and share power.

In the end, I think people will still be disappointed with the direction someone took things and GM's (especially) may find themselves flustered when a traditonal game situation evolves in a direction they did not expect.

-Marco
* I'm interested in this:

The GM would say that he writes the story and the players would say that they play their characters however they wish. Neither side may realize all the unconscious limitations they put on their actions so as to fit together.

It happens that in response to a request from Places to Go, People to Be, I've just penned a three-article (totalling about ten thousand words) summary of the main currents in theory here, and the second of these is subtitled The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast. I've gotten some very positive feedback from one of the more significant (at least in my mind) contributors here, so I'm feeling pretty brave on this point at the moment.

Despite what Marco says, the text is the problem. It is not the problem he thinks it is; the text does not paralyze any group. What it does is create diversity of play that leads to incompatibility between play groups. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

What I realized was that the text that is the basis for The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast is a stated distribution of credibility that is impossible on its face. It says

• The referee has sufficient credibility to make all determinations concerning what story is to be told and how it will be resolved;• The character players have sufficient credibility to determine all the actions and choices of all the protagonists in that story.


As Marco rightly observes, no one in their right mind thinks that this is what the writers meant. Instead, we take it to mean something else. Yet, again as Marco remembered, there are quite a few different ways of making sense of this. In my article, I identify four, which I connect with four major "referee styles":

• The referee takes full control of the story, working all player decisions into his plan, while the players think their decisions matter but are being undermined at every significant turn such that they may be moving their characters around but they control nothing--Illusionism.• The referee takes full control of the story, and the players give it to him, because that's how these things are done--Participationism.• The referee plans a story and lays out sufficient clues for the players to follow it; he then entrusts his story to the players, who are committed to finding and following the path he created without any interference from him--Trailblazing.• The referee has full control of the setup, but after that he can do nothing but respond to the choices made by the players as they create the real story--Bass Playing.

All of these are choices in credibility distribution that different people think those statements mean, because they obviously don't mean what they say.

The problem is that if a Participationist player gets hold of a Bass Playing referee, he won't know what to do--he's expecting the referee to lead him through the story. Conversely, if it's a Participationist referee and a Bass Playing character player, they'll be fighting with each other for control of the story.

That's why The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast is a problem: it pretends to define the correct distribution of credibility between the participants, but it does so in a way that is inherently contradictory, and thus everyone makes their own distribution of credibility but thinks they're doing what the book told them to do.

Is that clear?

I think this is pretty much what Ron has been saying for the past seven years, but for some reason very few people really got it. Ultimately the problem isn't that any one gaming group can't figure out how to play from reading the text. The problem is that any two gaming groups will come up with a different way to understand the text, and thus the game becomes incoherent (another badly misunderstood concept I address in the same article) because different playgroups are playing different games based on the same set of rules.

--M. J. Young

Hi MJ,

To be very clear: TITBB is not a description of a social contract or distribution of credibility: it is an analogy describing a basic high-level dynamic of play.

People who choose to read it as the literal text of a social contract are going to have problems. Taking any analogy literally has problems and doing so is not, IMO, the fault of the author.

M. J. Young wrote:
What I realized was that the text that is the basis for The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast is a stated distribution of credibility that is impossible on its face. It says

• The referee has sufficient credibility to make all determinations concerning what story is to be told and how it will be resolved;• The character players have sufficient credibility to determine all the actions and choices of all the protagonists in that story.

As Marco rightly observes, no one in their right mind thinks that this is what the writers meant. Instead, we take it to mean something else. Yet, again as Marco remembered, there are quite a few different ways of making sense of this. In my article, I identify four, which I connect with four major "referee styles":

• The referee takes full control of the story, working all player decisions into his plan, while the players think their decisions matter but are being undermined at every significant turn such that they may be moving their characters around but they control nothing--Illusionism.• The referee takes full control of the story, and the players give it to him, because that's how these things are done--Participationism.• The referee plans a story and lays out sufficient clues for the players to follow it; he then entrusts his story to the players, who are committed to finding and following the path he created without any interference from him--Trailblazing.• The referee has full control of the setup, but after that he can do nothing but respond to the choices made by the players as they create the real story--Bass Playing.

All of these are choices in credibility distribution that different people think those statements mean, because they obviously don't mean what they say.

That's why The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast is a problem: it pretends to define the correct distribution of credibility between the participants, but it does so in a way that is inherently contradictory, and thus everyone makes their own distribution of credibility but thinks they're doing what the book told them to do.

Is that clear?

It's New Year's Eve. I'm sick. I thought I stop by the Forge.

M.J. -- your outline seems solid to me. Only one bit stuck out:

"The referee has full control of the setup, but after that he can do nothing but respond to the choices made by the players as they create the real story--Bass Playing."

I'd suggest that in Bass Playing the GM has a lot more to do with the story than "just responding". If I'm the GM and I throw a Bang down on the table that startles everybody and jump drives the story options in a whole new set of vectors no one could have anticipated -- I'm helping to drive the story. Just not in the same way as the Players with their PCs.

It's a subtle point, but an important one. There seems to be this notion when this issue comes up that either the GM is in charge of the story, or the Players are. I have always considered Bass Playing to be the honest mix of all parties in the creation of the narrative. As you've defined it, the GM is simply tagging along after the players. I've never percieved it this way. Do you?

***

Marco,

Is it possible people conclude TITBB is interpretted by different people in different ways precisely for the reasons M.J. has posted: Given the contradictory (impossible) nature described in the text people assume their own meaning for it to make it "work." For whatever reason, different people make different assumptions.

And let's be clear: Jay's initial assumption isn't just about what TITBB means to the GM. For it to be "bad" advice the Players would have to believe their PCs are true, active, story-driving protagonists. If the Players consider PCs protagonists as long as they're "in a scene" -- then the advice isn't bad at all -- and we have one of M.J. functional interpretations of the TITBB.

As to how it's possible the Players might run ashore on the text even if they're never read it -- well, I don't think that's all that hard. If I'm the GM and I've worked out my Plot, and I tell the players how to play by saying, "It's like you're the characters in a movie -- but this time you get to decide what to do," there well may be trouble. This description is a common elaboration of the TITBB. I may never tell them my half the deal -- and gears my grind when the group decides to side with the bad guy instead of rescuing the princess.

M.J.'s break down offers the possiblity that some group's might naturally find their way. Others might negotiate in the first session or over time. But the fact remains that the TITBB is a stand text element in RPGs that needs to be interpretted before its of any use to anyone. And because the words and the concepts ("protagonists" "story" "author") are slippery once put into motion in an RPG session, there really is too much contradiction for it to make any sense. (When I say the words are slippery, I'm of course referring to the fact that while a gazillion gamers know exactly what they mean, they all have different meanings to different gamers.)

As for this notion of theory-land -- I've never played a game there. If there's a map, please post a PDF. I've been bumping into this concept on chat boards far too much lately and it's simply becoming unbearable. It's a rhetorical jimmycrack that's just benath you Marco.

When people comment about the TITBB has something they've expereinced in a game, is it possible they actually did end up beached on that text? It seems to me, again, given the slippery nature of the words, that some groups found their way of playing, while other folks never really were satisfied with the how one group or another played?

I played plenty of games in the past where the group cooperated, with great focused effort, in fact, to make sure we never broke the walls of the GM's machinations. We respected the GM, we respected each other. I at least was bored out of my mind and finally had to wonder what all the work was for. I found out later I wasn't alone in my boredom, however. Many of my fellow players, despite their effort to play their PC's "right" while staying within the confines of the GM's story felt bored and frustrated. They were playing "right" - they had found their workable comprimise of the TITBB. They "repsected and "cooperated" -- but it grated their nerves in the end.

And finally, I think your belief that cooperation and respect is all that's required to have a good time at the table is horribly misplaced. While I would expect all the players at the table to cooperate and respect each other, it still seems to me that the question of "Cooperate to what end?" and "Respect each other for doing what?" still need to be answered.

To say, "Our game works because we cooperate and respect each other," seems at insusbtational an analysis as, "Our game works because we have fun." Well, clearly different people have different ideas of what consitite fun. And if you're going to do a group activity, you better been cooperate and you better respect each other, but to what end?

If I actually want to play a game where being a Protagonist means fully making choices for my PC, and the GM's idea of "story" means he knows I'll be fighting the bad guy at the climax one of two things happens:

1) We realize sooner or later that our gears aren't meshing. This isn't a matter of lacking respect. And it isn't a matter of lacking the desire to copperate -- just as a man who shows up with the makings of blueberry pie may well want to coopearate with the man who has the makings for pasta and shrimp -- but it isn't going to happen.

2) "Respect" and "cooperation" is interepretted to mean: "Stop wanting what you want." I offer, coldly and blunty, that in many RPG circles this is exactly how the words are interpretted. Now, I'm not speaking of the constant negotiation of ideas and moments that go around the table throughout any session. I mean, the real purpose for my showing up. In the example I gave, I showed up to Play a protagonist as I understand Protagonist. Having arrived, eight minutes into the game I'll quickly realize that if I'm going to keep playing I'll have to "cooperate" and "respect" the other player's style and give up on this notion.

This fulcrum of choice -- playing the way one wants (by finding the players who want want you want), or getting on with the game cause dammit, in an RPG, this is the way you play -- is in many respects the arguement that seemed to drive so much animosity between different posters here and RPG.net when I first showed up years ago. I don't think it's going away any time soon. I'm the kind of guy who will ask, "Why can't I play the damned games the way I want." And the rejoinder (at least what I hear as the rejoinder) is, "Why can't you just swallow enough of your own desires to coopererate with the other players? Why can't you repsect other gamers enough to play the way they want to play?" I don' think there's a way to resolve this split.

Finally, let me quickly switch my example around. I know some lovely and talented gamers in town. And when I asked them about their favorite gaming experiences, they described a GM who gave them one astounding visual setpiece after another. They wanted to show up as the PCs so they could go on the ride he offered. I pulled out Sorcerer and started offering ideas like Kicker and Bangs and... They all kind of fell silent. Respectfully. But it was clea that what I was offering had nothing to do with what they wanted. As a GM I wanted players who wanted to be Protagonists as I use the word. They wanted a Story as they use the word. Respect and cooperation were never going to get us over this gap.

That's not theory-land -- wherever the hell that is. That's just people, talking, feeling each other out for a game, and realizing that sitting at the table in an actual play session, cooperation would be impossible since we would want to build different expereinces, and respect would become a non-issue since that would have nothing to do with solving the problem.

Best,

Christopher

Hey everyone, thank you for making the effort to respond. However, I would like to point out that not one person directly responded to either my proposition or the question I had asked.

My proposition is, was the following an accurate and, more importantly, more useful rendering of the TITBB –

The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast (TITBB) is nothing more than bad advice offered by a game designer which basically instructs the GM to run his side of the game in such a way that directly deprotagonizes the players’ Creative Agenda relevant input.

Notice that in this rendition I say absolutely nothing about story, or plot or anything about Narrativism or Simulationism. There are many reasons for this. Not least of which is the question I posed –

…I am wondering if TITBB can also be applied to advice that does not directly deprotagonize player input, but rather sends them off on a fools errand which makes it impossible for the players to pursue a CA. Frex – would the game manual instructing the players to address Challenge so that they can get Story Now be considered TITBB?

I received a private email from someone that I am going to quote fairly directly. It is very clear and it represents my first defense against TITBB being argued from a play level point of view. As it was a private message I shall leave it up to the author to lay claim to it or not.

The thing is that the impossible thing applies more to [the] game book text than to actual play. A game gives instructions that is the impossible thing, that the GM writes the story while the players control the characters. Then, when people try to do this, it gets hashed out in a variety of ways, like deprotagonization (…). The impossible thing is a theory-level phenomenon. You do not see it in actual play because it is impossible. Just like how two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time or an object cannot be in two places at once.

Various emphasis mine and not the original author’s.

Silmenume wrote: I am wondering if TITBB can also be applied to advice that does not directly deprotagonize player input, but rather sends them off on a fools errand which makes it impossible for the players to pursue a CA. Frex – would the game manual instructing the players to address Challenge so that they can get Story Now be considered TITBB?

Hey Chris,

I'm sorry to hear you're sick. Rotten time of the year for it. :(

Christopher Kubasik wrote:
Marco,

Is it possible people conclude TITBB is interpretted by different people in different ways precisely for the reasons M.J. has posted: Given the contradictory (impossible) nature described in the text people assume their own meaning for it to make it "work." For whatever reason, different people make different assumptions.

And let's be clear: Jay's initial assumption isn't just about what TITBB means to the GM. For it to be "bad" advice the Players would have to believe their PCs are true, active, story-driving protagonists. If the Players consider PCs protagonists as long as they're "in a scene" -- then the advice isn't bad at all -- and we have one of M.J. functional interpretations of the TITBB.

As to how it's possible the Players might run ashore on the text even if they're never read it -- well, I don't think that's all that hard. If I'm the GM and I've worked out my Plot, and I tell the players how to play by saying, "It's like you're the characters in a movie -- but this time you get to decide what to do," there well may be trouble. This description is a common elaboration of the TITBB. I may never tell them my half the deal -- and gears my grind when the group decides to side with the bad guy instead of rescuing the princess.

As for this notion of theory-land -- I've never played a game there. If there's a map, please post a PDF. I've been bumping into this concept on chat boards far too much lately and it's simply becoming unbearable. It's a rhetorical jimmycrack that's just benath you Marco.

And finally, I think your belief that cooperation and respect is all that's required to have a good time at the table is horribly misplaced. While I would expect all the players at the table to cooperate and respect each other, it still seems to me that the question of "Cooperate to what end?" and "Respect each other for doing what?" still need to be answered.

Silmenume wrote: Hey everyone, thank you for making the effort to respond. However, I would like to point out that not one person directly responded to either my proposition or the question I had asked.

My proposition is, was the following an accurate and, more importantly, more useful rendering of the TITBB –

The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast (TITBB) is nothing more than bad advice offered by a game designer which basically instructs the GM to run his side of the game in such a way that directly deprotagonizes the players’ Creative Agenda relevant input.

If this question does not fit the proposed definition TITBB, does anyone have a better name for it? IOW, if TITBB offers advice on how to pursue a particular CA in a manner that obstructs that very process by telling the players to, let us say, address Challenge so that they can get Story Now; can such advice be considered TITBB?

Has anyone ever noticed that in all the threads about Sim and story, that deprotagonization is always present (even if the specific word isn’t used)? How can the understanding of a CA be coherent if nearly all the discussions about the functioning/execution of it almost always requires that the players be deprotagonized to some degree? Doesn’t anyone find that odd? The whole model is predicated on supporting/facilitating player input, yet almost every conversation about players and the Sim process includes the virtual necessity of some disempowerment of the players.

Could it be that Sim isn’t about story and that any game text instructions about Sim which include the promotion of story is really an example of the Sim Impossible Thing Before Breakfast?

Hi Silmenume (it's Jay, right? it's been a while),

Like Caldis, I believe everyone actually did respond to your proposition. (I don't think it was directly, however). They said, No, that's not a more acurate or useful wording of the TITBB. They made this clear when they all said that the GM and the Players are both getting failed instructions on what to do, that they will have to hit either a loggerhead or a comprimise.

You seem bent on interpretting it this way because you're on a path somewhere else. Godspeed -- but the truth is TITBB, to my weary, cough-jostled brain, simply isn't that complicated a concept. I don't quite get the shenanigans you're up to.

Marco,

Thanks for the reply, but... we're clearly not going to go anywhere here.

When you write: "But the analogy by itself communicates that the GM runs the world and the situation and the players (mostly) play one character each to which things happen," all I can say is, "Duuude. That's how you're interpretting it."

I've played in the games where people meant it to be something much different. I've read threads over on RPG.net where people read the TITBB clause and clearly came away with very different conculsions than you did. There a dozens of threads arguing that the GM is the Author from GMs telling players to stop screwing up their plots. And just as many from Players wondering the hell why they can't make an significant decisions if they're the damned heroes of the story.

I don't think the concern about TITBB is that complicated: the concepts of "story" "protagonist" and "author" as well as their numerous substitue words ("character" "narrative" "plot" "hero" and others) are very slippery. I can't even consider this a point that needs to be argued anymore.

The complicated part is when actual human beings have to negotiate their way through play with each other and firm up those slippery concepts.

As M.J. points out, different groups will find their own way this. Those who buy the way the group goes stay, those who don't leave.

But now my mind begins to fray. As I just wrote to Jay, I don't honestly see how the TITBB is even on the table. It's a clumsey concept, doing harm in its apparent simplicity and lacking all use as an idea to help people play together.

You seemed to be defened a standard clause pro bono, a clause that's found with different wording in different books. The general point is summed up:

"The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists."

Now, in your kind hearted defense you're making a clear point -- there's nothing about "railroaiding" in that text. And I would say, You are right.

However, all the players at the table, the GM and the Players, might well stumble across railroading. (As well as a bunch of other techniques -- Bangs or Kickers for example). Why? Cause they're trying to figure out how to play this strange thing called an RPG and they're muddling through as best they can and there's this portion of the text that says, "The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists."

I don't care if "railroading" isn't mentioned specifically. It's a choice that some will stumble across as the GM tries to "author" the story.

The point of naming the TITBB is not that it by definition creates railroading (despite what Jay's poking around at). It's that it sets up incompatible agendas for the players at the table.

That's it.

There are several ways of finding ironing out compatible playing techniques -- M.J. did a fine job of laying them out.

TITBB is not about pre-plotted scenarios being bad. (Well, it's bad for people like me when I encounter a GM who's interpretted TITBB to mean "I string the players along for six hours," because I percieve it as "being strung along"!)

It's a core kernal of instruction in many RPGs about what players at the table will do with these strange rules.

And its vauge, useless, and contradictory.

Even your interpretation is slippery, Marco. You wrote:

"But the analogy by itself communicates that the GM runs the world and the situation and the players (mostly) play one character each to which things happen."

Which is find for you're group -- because I'm assuming your group likes this.

But I don't consider a protagonist someone "to which things happen." You may (and probably will) consider me splitting hairs here, but I have experienced -- and been bored by -- too many sessions where I was supposed to respond to things happening and not have enough chance to MAKE things happen. And clearly, the vigor and drive with which I want to take action through my PC outstrips what some other players like. Reading your interpretation of how to negoatiate the failed instruction of TITBB gives me the willies.

Yours is one interpretation of negotiating TITBB into actual play. And a valid one. But can you agree it certainly isn't the only way to go? I find your easy comfort in knowing you "know" what is meant by this vague and contradictory notion baffling.

And that's it for me. Nice stopping by. But I gotta struggle back to work.

Best,

Christopher

Christopher Kubasik wrote: Hi Silmenume (it's Jay, right? it's been a while),

Like Caldis, I believe everyone actually did respond to your proposition. (I don't think it was directly, however). They said, No, that's not a more acurate or useful wording of the TITBB. They made this clear when they all said that the GM and the Players are both getting failed instructions on what to do, that they will have to hit either a loggerhead or a comprimise.

You seem bent on interpretting it this way because you're on a path somewhere else. Godspeed -- but the truth is TITBB, to my weary, cough-jostled brain, simply isn't that complicated a concept. I don't quite get the shenanigans you're up to.

Marco,

Thanks for the reply, but... we're clearly not going to go anywhere here.

When you write: "But the analogy by itself communicates that the GM runs the world and the situation and the players (mostly) play one character each to which things happen," all I can say is, "Duuude. That's how you're interpretting it."

I've played in the games where people meant it to be something much different. I've read threads over on RPG.net where people read the TITBB clause and clearly came away with very different conculsions than you did. There a dozens of threads arguing that the GM is the Author from GMs telling players to stop screwing up their plots. And just as many from Players wondering the hell why they can't make an significant decisions if they're the damned heroes of the story.

I don't think the concern about TITBB is that complicated: the concepts of "story" "protagonist" and "author" as well as their numerous substitue words ("character" "narrative" "plot" "hero" and others) are very slippery. I can't even consider this a point that needs to be argued anymore.

The complicated part is when actual human beings have to negotiate their way through play with each other and firm up those slippery concepts.

As M.J. points out, different groups will find their own way this. Those who buy the way the group goes stay, those who don't leave.

But now my mind begins to fray. As I just wrote to Jay, I don't honestly see how the TITBB is even on the table. It's a clumsey concept, doing harm in its apparent simplicity and lacking all use as an idea to help people play together.

The general point is summed up:

"The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists."

Now, in your kind hearted defense you're making a clear point -- there's nothing about "railroaiding" in that text. And I would say, You are right.

However, all the players at the table, the GM and the Players, might well stumble across railroading. (As well as a bunch of other techniques -- Bangs or Kickers for example). Why? Cause they're trying to figure out how to play this strange thing called an RPG and they're muddling through as best they can and there's this portion of the text that says, "The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists."

I don't care if "railroading" isn't mentioned specifically. It's a choice that some will stumble across as the GM tries to "author" the story.

The point of naming the TITBB is not that it by definition creates railroading (despite what Jay's poking around at). It's that it sets up incompatible agendas for the players at the table.

That's it.

There are several ways of finding ironing out compatible playing techniques -- M.J. did a fine job of laying them out.

TITBB is not about pre-plotted scenarios being bad. (Well, it's bad for people like me when I encounter a GM who's interpretted TITBB to mean "I string the players along for six hours," because I percieve it as "being strung along"!)

It's a core kernal of instruction in many RPGs about what players at the table will do with these strange rules.

And its vauge, useless, and contradictory.

Even your interpretation is slippery, Marco. You wrote:

"But the analogy by itself communicates that the GM runs the world and the situation and the players (mostly) play one character each to which things happen."

Which is fine for you're group -- because I'm assuming your group likes this.

But I don't consider a protagonist someone "to which things happen." You may (and probably will) consider me splitting hairs here, but I have experienced -- and been bored by -- too many sessions where I was supposed to respond to things happening and not have enough chance to MAKE things happen. And clearly, the vigor and drive with which I want to take action through my PC outstrips what some other players like. Reading your interpretation of how to negoatiate the failed instruction of TITBB gives me the willies.

Yours is one interpretation of negotiating TITBB into actual play. And a valid one. But can you agree it certainly isn't the only way to go? I find your easy comfort in knowing you "know" what is meant by this vague and contradictory notion baffling.

And that's it for me. Nice stopping by. But I gotta struggle back to work.

Best,

Christopher

Christopher Kubasik wrote:
"But the analogy by itself communicates that the GM runs the world and the situation and the players (mostly) play one character each to which things happen."

Which is find for you're group -- because I'm assuming your group likes this.

But I don't consider a protagonist someone "to which things happen." You may (and probably will) consider me splitting hairs here, but I have experienced -- and been bored by -- too many sessions where I was supposed to respond to things happening and not have enough chance to MAKE things happen. And clearly, the vigor and drive with which I want to take action through my PC outstrips what some other players like. Reading your interpretation of how to negoatiate the failed instruction of TITBB gives me the willies.

Yours is one interpretation of negotiating TITBB into actual play. And a valid one. But can you agree it certainly isn't the only way to go? I find your easy comfort in knowing you "know" what is meant by this vague and contradictory notion baffling.

And that's it for me. Nice stopping by. But I gotta struggle back to work.

Best,

Christopher

Just a short post in case I'm not reading correctly:

The way this impossible thing is worded, it seems to force a new interpretation by its impossibleness.

For example, imagine I gave you instructions to lay a piece of paper on your lap, and make holes in it by bringing down a knife hard, into the paper repeatedly.

Ah, I think your going to reinterpret what I meant by hard...like hard enough to go through the paper. But not hard enough to go through paper and your legs.

The impossible thing seems quite similar. Like with Marco and Christopher, I imagine they would work out something if they played together, because in communicative groups, if someone is getting 'stabbed in the legs' by the impossible thing, everyone feels it. People avoid unpleasant stuff, system does matter.

Personally I like the idea of "Just like how two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time or an object cannot be in two places at once."

Rather than my 'being stabbed in the legs' example, these two objects (GM and player effort to have COMPLETE CONTROL) are smashing together, as they try to be in the same place at once. While the impossible thing IS impossible, that doesn't mean it can't be attempted. And that is painful to all involved. Pain is a penalty, penalties lead to changes in behaviour (since system matters), and creative adaptions of the instructions are adopted.

Or not. I believe sometimes the pain of the impacts is outweighed by other factors...like a GM instructed that he is to spend a lot of time writing up an adventure and told 'GM is god'. In this rough example, the penalty of chucking away lots of the work he did and giving up this rather pleasant feeling of god-dom. This penalty is bigger than the penalty of butting heads with players...so he doesn't stop butting heads.

If I'm not keeping up, I'll bow out.

No, Callan, you've got it. That's an excellent overview, I think.

I've been in many games where everyone involved tried to achieve TITBB. Naturally, they all failed. And when they failed the game would shift to some other balance of credibility, just like people have been posting here.

But here's the thing: The advice is so prevalent, and so forceful, that I attributed those failures to some failing in me. I assumed that people wouldn't be writing this advice if it had not worked consistently for them. If I couldn't plot out a detailed story and tell it reliably, while giving the players complete freedom and basing everything on their decisions then it was because I was a bad GM. Likewise, if I couldn't have complete freedom while also toeing the line of the GMs story then I was a bad player. Very demoralizing.

It's less (for me) the knife-in-the-leg metaphor than it is the "Work eighty hour weeks at your job, and always be there for your family, and be a pillar of the volunteer community." It's not just bad advice, it's an impossible standard. But because it is a standard some people pride themselves on living up to there is an unwitting conspiracy to conceal how impossible it is.

TonyLB wrote: But here's the thing: The advice is so prevalent, and so forceful, that I attributed those failures to some failing in me. I assumed that people wouldn't be writing this advice if it had not worked consistently for them. If I couldn't plot out a detailed story and tell it reliably, while giving the players complete freedom and basing everything on their decisions then it was because I was a bad GM. Likewise, if I couldn't have complete freedom while also toeing the line of the GMs story then I was a bad player.

Most of you players take on the roles of "player characters" -- the heroes and heroines of the story. Collectively, you are the "posse". Each of you tries to accomplish your character's goals, defeat nefarious villains, decipher the many mysteries of Deadlands, and avoid becoming lunch for some unsavory critter.

You're the Marshal.

Remember that. You're the fellow who makes all the decisions and keeps things moving. It's your job to make the posse afraid of the dark while still dying to know what's in it. You have to run scenes full of high-action and drama, then turn around and do a little romance and comedy. You need to know enough rules to get you by, and you'll probably wind up paying for more pizza and soda than anyone else in the room.

I't a tough order to fill sometimes.

TonyLB wrote: The advice is so prevalent, and so forceful, that I attributed those failures to some failing in me. I assumed that people wouldn't be writing this advice if it had not worked consistently for them.

[snip]

Very demoralizing.

Marco wrote: Thesis: Issues of control or input into game-direction are endemic to the traditional open-ended model of RPG's because the GM sets up Situation and runs the world** to a significantly greater degree than the players.

Marco wrote: ** By "running the world" I mean running NPC's, I mean applying laws of physics, I mean making a significant amount of pacing decisions, and I mean a generally greater use of directoral power.

When the players have as much or almost as much directoral power, control over pacing and NPC's, and input into the specifics of situation then we have departed the tradtional RPG model.

Marco wrote: When the game reaches a point that the GM is either unprepared to facilitate the players or unengaged by the direction the players have chosen, there will be a legitimate problem, the solution to which must come from respect and cooperation because it exists above the level of game-system or even philosophy-of-play***.

John Kim wrote:

Marco wrote: Thesis: Issues of control or input into game-direction are endemic to the traditional open-ended model of RPG's because the GM sets up Situation and runs the world** to a significantly greater degree than the players.

Marco wrote: ** By "running the world" I mean running NPC's, I mean applying laws of physics, I mean making a significant amount of pacing decisions, and I mean a generally greater use of directoral power.

When the players have as much or almost as much directoral power, control over pacing and NPC's, and input into the specifics of situation then we have departed the tradtional RPG model.

Um, your definition of "traditional RPG model" doesn't include, say, a D&D DM running a written dungeon module. Here the DM has virtually no control over pacing, for example. Pacing is almost entirely handled by the players. The linear-plot model of a GM who forcefully runs the PCs through scenes of his choosing is neither inherent nor traditional. It became dominant for game designs in the 90s, but there are plenty of games and gamers who do not follow it.

Well, no. Any game can have issues of competing authorship or direction, whether it has a GM or not. This applies as much to, say, Soap as to traditional RPGs. Now, Soap has rules to resolve what happens -- but that doesn't prevent the same thing you say about a GM. I might still be (1) stuck for ideas of what to do on my turn, or (2) not engaged by what the other players are doing.

The game does have an influence on this, though. Many games provide implicit or explicit direction to the players. For example, Trollbabe specifies that PCs should not exit the adventure which the GM prepares, but also specifies that the GM should not plan an ending. A game can provide interesting material to be brought in and engaged by. For example, D&D provides monsters and other elements to populate dungeons with. Champions provides villains to fight.

Hello,

Everyone should remember that the purpose of the thread is to aid and abet Jay's understanding of the Impossible Thing.

As far as I'm concerned, M.J.'s breakdown (with the proviso/correction about Bass Playing) is sufficient and excellent toward that purpose.

This is not a place for people to say, "Oh, the Impossible Thing, well now, I have a bee in my bonnet about that, so I shall hold forth!" Which is what you're doing, Marco.

Nope. Don't post in reply. I do not care. You have numerous threads and posts already at the Forge about this. The responsible thing to do is to hunt them down, list them in a nice post which says, "A dissenting view may be found here," and be done.

Best,
Ron

I want to apologize to Jay that I missed the point of his original post. I think I understand now what he is saying, and can address it a bit better.

In the original post, Jay wrote: My understanding is that The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast (TITBB) is nothing more than bad advice offered by a game designer which basically instructs the GM to run his side of the game in such a way that directly deprotagonizes the players Creative Agenda relevant input.

If the TITBB is put into practice by the GM then TITBB is seen in operation as Force and can lead to dysfunction at the table.

One side or the other or both must compromise from that statement to some point of balance or agreement in which either the players are not really controling their characters (e.g., participationism) or the referee is not really completely controling the story (e.g., bass playing).

It is not that the advice given to the referee is bad advice. It is that it is in direct, obvious, and irreconcilible conflict with the advice given to the players.

Does that help?

Hey Ron,

Thanks for your aid in refocusing this thread.

Hey Christopher,

It is Jay, and it has been a while. I hope that you are feeling better now.

Christopher Kubasik wrote: You seem bent on interpretting it this way because you're on a path somewhere else. Godspeed -- but the truth is TITBB, to my weary, cough-jostled brain, simply isn't that complicated a concept. I don't quite get the shenanigans you're up to.

M. J. Young wrote: The problem--the only reason why this is "The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast"--is that the advice given to the referee and the advice given to the players cannot both be followed as writ and have any sort of functional play at all.

Emphasis mine