That's it. I quit playing RPG's. Well, not really quitting but taking a VERY long break. I guess part of this is GM burnout but it's not even half the story. Reading the GNS article and lurking around the Forge for about a month made me realize that I'm dissatisfied with RPG's in general, and not any specific game or perspective.

Don't get me wrong, I still love RPG's and believe they are one of the best things that ever happened to me, but I'm not sure I wanna play them any more. I found something better for me. It sits perfect with my needs and desires - drugs.

Just kidding. (Gotcha! :)

I'm talking about collaborative writing. "Oh, no! Not another Tolkien wannabe!". Far from it. I write for fun and I like sharing my stories with others - I never thought about becoming part of the industry (this is, BTW, also true for me with RPG's).

Anyway, I carried some of my RPG qualities (flaws?) over to collaborative writing. The end result is going to be a tool I'm developing for ease of collaboration. What's the connection between this and the Forge? Well, I can't think of anywhere else where there is such a large concentration of intelligent people that would understand what I'm talking about. I mean, the Forge is THE place for brainstorming when it comes to game design.

Now Ron (or Clinton?), before you kick me and this thread for not fitting with the forum, I'm asking you this one-time favor/thread. No, wait! I'm begging you to let this thread live its life and die with honor like all the other threads. I really need help with this and no one else can help me.

OK, assuming the flattery helped I present here a very early draft of the collaboration tool called Mindlink (name is strictly for convenience - no offense Jared). It's based on the ancient writing game of 'pass it on' which basically works like this:

1. Write an opening sentence to a story.
2. Give the paper to the next player.
3. Next players adds a sentence to continue the story.
4. Repeat 2 and 3 until story is over.

Pretty simple, huh? It's a lot of fun too, especially when fellow players write absurd lines and make a whacky story. But the problem is such a game can hardly become a serious collaboration unless there is some social agreement or rule to make it consistent. So I came up with four elements that help define a collaborative writing game:

STEP: Measure of a player's move. This is your basic understanding of how long each round is. I see two 'types' of steps.

Timed - Step is measured by seconds, minutes, days, etc. (e.g. each player has 5 minutes to write his move).

Spaced - Step is measured by sentences, paragraphs, pages, etc. (e.g. each player writes a maximum of three sentences).

Another useful term to insert here would be Endgame which defines the total steps of a single story (e.g. the game is 100 steps long). Endgame could also be 'free' meaning it ends when someone ends it.

BORDER: Limitation of story environment. This defines where the story cannot go. It can adrress many subjects such as Character, System, Setting, Situation, Color, Language, what have you. Borders are also defined by two 'traits':

Public/Private - Story is inside/outside of the border respectively. Public border is like an arena where the story takes place (e.g. the story takes place in France) while Private border is like a fence surrounding issues the story cannot address (e.g. the players cannot use the word 'Smurf').

Strong/Weak - Other side cannot/can be mentioned respectively. This means a Strong border won't let you mention anything on the other side (e.g. the name of God shall not be spoken) while a Weak border lets you mention the subject on the other side but not 'dwell' there (e.g. the story takes place in France but the hero may call New York).

FLAG: A point which the story MUST go through. Again, this point can be anything (Character, System, Setting, etc.) but the story will eventually reach it.

Examples: The villain must die in the end of the story; the word 'lust' must be mentioned every step; the hero must visit Berlin; the chaser will miss his target until the last 6 steps; etc.

MAGNET: A point which draws/repels the story in a number of determined steps. There are two types of magnets.

Pulling. Magnet is drawing the story. This means the magnet affects the storyline whenever it passes near it. If a story were to be placed in the middle of a strong magnet, it could mean the story would always be drawn back to the same subject. (e.g. No matter what happens, the characters will always find themselves back in Argentina within 5 steps).

Pushing. Magnet is repelling the story. This means the story cannot dwell on one subject for too long. (e.g. the story will be repelled from horror scenes within 8 steps).

In addition, each element should be defined by one of the four qualities:

Permanent - The element lasts from beginning to end of the story.
Temporary - The element lasts a certain number of steps or other time measurement.
Personal - The element only works on a certain player or event.
Smart - The element is like a programmed script. (e.g. Strong border on the word 'evil' for 6 steps, then moves on to the next player).

Of course, the number of elements used in a game is subject to what is desired from the story - there is no limit on how many elements can be used. Now, these four elements can be combined to give very interesting results. Imagine a Pulling magnet with a Strong border in its core. This could mean that the story will be pulled by the magnet but never mention the real issue at its center. An example of this would be a murder mytery in which one of the characters in the room is the murderer.

Another issue to be addressed is multiple storylines and splitting storylines. The only thing I could think of that might be useful is that in the end all storylines should join back to one main storyline. My tools and definitions for storyline are under heavy construction and I was hoping I'd get some help from you people.

As a side note, I've been running these games for the last couple of weeks (using both email and good old pen & paper) with amazing success. I'm working with more than 20 people in 5 different projects and our ranks are still growing! It has become an epidemic. The players (including yours truly) seem to like it for the following reasons:

1. All players have equal power of creation. For me it means I still get to GM but I share the burden with others.

2. You don't have to worry about lack of creativity. You are always backed up by other players.

3. There is an eternal sense of mystery. You never know what another player will write. This is one of my favorite qualities since it preserves some of that classic RPG tension.

4. You get immediate gratification. This comes mainly from the mouths of non-gamers who suddenly feel a whole world of entertainment opened before them.


This is what I have so far. It isn't much but it feels great. This is where you come in - I NEED as much feedback as possible. Don't be shy - I know some of you Nar guys have investigated deep into this field :)

With great respect,

Joe Llama

Nadev,

What feedback are you asking for? I don't see a direct question in your post at all.

Anyone's approval/disapproval seems irrelevant to me; as you explain, this is what you want to do. No questions to answer there.

You seem to have the structure down as you'd like it, and the success so far, by your own standards, is apparently high. No questions to answer there either.

Officially speaking, I'm happy to allow you "this one thread" as you request. Anyone who wants, please participate. But I have to emphasize - we need direct questions. Otherwise all that will result is a thread about "gee, what Bob thinks about collaborative writing," or "gee, I was in a group like that and it went like this," and that isn't going to happen here.

Best,
Ron

Oh, silly me! Posting what I've accomplished so far and not asking the question. <hits himself with a hammer>

My question is: do you see any element or element variation that might fit in with this mechanic? Did I miss something crucial to the structure of this tool? Are there more than four elements, border variations, flag types, etc, that I forgot to mention and might come in handy?

To help visualize it, I've come up with an analogy that I think would fit in here:

Imagine the game as an open wilderness rally. The Strong border(s) is the racing arena with Private borders as 'no drive' zones. Step is how fast your car drives and Magnets are like topography. You need to pass through all the Flags and you have to do this before you run out of fuel (Endgame).

Did I miss something here?

Furthermore, I need suggestions on how to handle storylines. What happens when they split? What happens when they collide? How do you work this into the game without ruining the basic 'pass it on' structure? This would obviously mean some rule or preparation in advance but what will it look like?

Last question: Is there something I'm totally missing here? "Yeah man, how do you play this over email? and where's the plot thing coming in?" that sort of thing. I know, I'm asking you to look for invisible things, but some of you have shown before a hidden sixth sense for game design (or maybe just a calm and methodical mind :).

Thanks a bunch,

Joe Llama (oh Ron, no disrespect but it's Nadav).

This is the second time I've typed this today. You might want to playtest Universalis. Essentially Universalis is a model for collaboratively creating stories (which is why, I think, that people sometimes remark that they feel it's not an RPG), and limiting each participants power to do so.

If you are interested in playtesting, PM either myself or Ralp Mazza (Valamir).

Anyhow, obviously we feel that there is a lot of merit in the sort of system that you propose. I'd like to see what comes of your efforts, personally. Have you considered more solid mechanics than what you have already? Or are you convinced that the soft "social contract" mechanics that you have are enough?

Mike

Oops, I apologize. Nadav is cooler-sounding anyway.

Best,
Ron

Have you considered more solid mechanics than what you have already? Or are you convinced that the soft "social contract" mechanics that you have are enough?

Oops, I apologize. Nadav is cooler-sounding anyway.

OK, I've seen Mike's Universalis and better understand what he meant by "solid mechanics". BTW, it kicks ass! Just needs a better boot, that's all :)

I'm not really sure Mindlink needs solid mechanics since it sort of creates them when the game starts. You write down elements that somehow direct an otherwise chaotic experience into an interesting writing experience.

I guess one entertaining variation would be to make an opening round where each player writes down one element to include in the story structure. Taking this even further, the players could have a pool of points which will allow them to affect the elements - something like "one point can add/remove/change one element". Other interesting variations, anyone?

The elements are sort of a programming language for collborative writing and they help define each project seperately. But maybe there's a fifth element I left out and didn't notice, any thoughts on that?

I'm still not sure what to do about splitting and colliding storylines and I was hoping someone would pick up the glove and throw in a couple of suggestions. Anyone out there?

See ya,

Joe Llama