Here's an approach that I enjoy:

1) Everyone discusses and agrees on the state of the fiction, covering relevant details.  Who's where, etc.  Authority here comes from, (a) first, what the group has previously communicated, (b1) second, the GM's internal picture of the setting, (b2) also second, each player's internal picture of his character.

2) Everyone discusses intents.  This player character is trying to jump the cliff, that NPC is trying to flee, etc.  We modify intents if needed -- that cliff looks like a nearly-impossible jump, that NPC is too close to the blade machine to maneuver, etc.  Eventually we settle on intents and announce action.

3) Having announced what everyone is trying to do, we look at the state of the fiction (as established by the Authorities in #1 above) and determine "What would happen?"  In fictional circumstances with no hidden information, this has been covered already.  But often, the GM knows something about the setting that the characters couldn't factor into their decisions (the badguy covered the cliff in grease!), so now that gets factored in too.  "What would happen?" is now translated by the group into a range of possibilities and likelihoods.

4) We resolve "What does happen."  The precision of this resolution depends on who cares, which in turn depends on the stakes.  For some attempts, everyone in the group is content to look at the most likely outcome and declare it so.  "The effort to climb the fairly easy tree succeeds."  For other attempts, the possibility of the unlikely must be modeled!  "Climbing the easy tree will save the day!  Roll!  Pray you don't get double 1s!"

5) Communicating the full extent of "What happened" means we're doing Step 1 again.  Repeat forever.

These are the large-scale rules for how to play.  The answer to "When do you use these rules?" is "Always."  There are other rules, such as how we resolve "what does happen" in a few specific high-stakes circumstances (in lethal combat, roll for damage and location and shock because we care about all these things in the fiction; in climbing, roll 2d4 + a big skill modifier to represent the narrow probability range; etc.).  The rule for whether or not to utilize these particular resolution rules is "if any player (including GM) cares enough about the stakes".

I'm sure this isn't revolutionary, but I thought spelling it out this way might answer some debate about "fiction first".  In this case, that phrase could be used to mean, "we agree on the relevant details of the fiction first, and then resolve changes".

This may sound like a high-effort way to avoid Murk.  In practice, though, once the players get familiar with who cares about what, most of the fiction-establishing discussion is concise and enjoyable.  If you have a social contract that says (a) everyone's invested in supporting informed choices, (b) no one's bullshitting for personal advantage, and (c) some visual detail to the fiction is fun, then you're golden.

I think this is relevant to a lot of the ideas discussed in Callan's recent thread (even if it winds up not addressing Callan's own points).    Since that thread's closed, I just wanted to post this in AP to see if any of the discussers found it useful or interesting.  Sadly, all my actual AP examples of late are from my game Delve which is still in Playtest (and thus belongs in another forum).

Hi David,

That's a pretty good summation of the way a lot of groups deal with Murk in their rules text. 

The tough part is that without a clear statement like that, people often have to hack together something based on really vague, non-procedures, "Be Tough" "Be Fair", "Be Challenging", "Be Realistic", "Be Cinematic" all poured together at the same time.

The other tough part is this:

The precision of this resolution depends on who cares, which in turn depends on the stakes

*Hey David, I really think you nailed down a good description of how many groups play, but I have three comments:

1) When talking about "who cares" does this mean that if I am playing the game and another character is performing an action I have the right to ask that the rules be used with more precision to resolve his action, even if it doesn't effect me directly. I don't think it would be a problem if I could, I just haven't ever played or heard of anyone playing this way.

2) Subsystem, like combat, seem to demand that you care instead of giving you the option of caring or not. It seems like there would have to be various combat systems based on levels of interest to fully facilitate this style of play. Once again, not a problem in theory, just something I've almost never seen done in practice (with the exception of Burning Wheel).

3) I don't know if this in response to Callan's thread, but I don't think this fits what he was talking about with Fiction First. In this case, a fairly defined system is used to determine how the rules and the fiction feed into one another, it isn't the fictional content determining whether or not a rule is used as intended or ignored based of the players/a players aesthetic judgement, but I guess I should let Callan speak for himself.

I'm going to quote the ineffable Vincent Baker:

The only worthwhile use for rules I know of is to sustain in-game conflict of interest, in the face of the overwhelming unity of interest of the players.

Hey David, the thing is, you get one group you don't even talk about it in advance and they'll be connecting in a heartbeat, just effortly understanding what this statement or that means now. And then you get another group and you state all which you wrote above clearly in advance and they nod along to it and then you start playing and nothing works out, because what they understood and what you meant were not the same at all. Some of this boils down to social skills and common sense, but a lot of it is just, you know, that ol' Creative Agenda.

- Frank

Hi David,

I think it's really great to have hashed out a procedural text like this that anyone can look at and think about. I think if this text had been in some RPG about 35 years ago, roleplaying today would be in alot better shape than it is today. Let me stress you haven't written advice (there has been plenty of advice through the last 35 years), you've written a procedure - explicit instructions for what everyone does to be doing the same thing, together, as a group.

Now I don't think it's done, in terms of designing it, as it still leaves questions on 'during each moment of play what are we all doing, together as a group?' like the ones Chris raised. Wherever questions are left, the group can splinter on those very questions. Indeed that's half of what murk is, as I've seen accounts of it. But even if it's not done in terms of not closing all procedural question marks, by writing it out you have still closed a hell of alot of question marks so far! That's alot accomplished!

Now the other half of murk, from looking at accounts, is that gamers think spoken fiction somehow covers procedural question marks. I was talking about this on RPG.net recently, where someone was adamant that if they have said the following spoken fiction "The orb of zot has been smashed into shards!" everyone at the table just knows it's over for using the orb of zot. I said to him, no they don't. There have been a million capaigns based on something like 'Gather the 7 pieces of the magic McGuffin and reforge them to fight great evil!'. The spoken fiction does not tell the group that as a real life gaming group, you can't use option Z anymore. He said you could...and then if they don't get it, just tell them (which is clunky but workable, so I let it go at that point).

So that's what I estimate the other half of murk is - people thinking that spoken fiction is suitable for telling the whole group what procedure they should all be doing in real life. It is not. Indeed, it just raises more and more questions in itself. Spoken fictions a generator of questions. Which can be good, but in terms of a group all doing the same thing at the same time, it's awful and set for different people to start doing things that have nothing to do with each other, at the one table.

On fiction first, as I've been saying it

In this case, that phrase could be used to mean, "we agree on the relevant details of the fiction first, and then resolve changes".

For some attempts, everyone in the group is content to look at the most likely outcome and declare it so.  "The effort to climb the fairly easy tree succeeds."  For other attempts, the possibility of the unlikely must be modeled!  "Climbing the easy tree will save the day!  Roll!  Pray you don't get double 1s!"

3) I don't know if this in response to Callan's thread, but I don't think this fits what he was talking about with Fiction First. In this case, a fairly defined system is used to determine how the rules and the fiction feed into one another, it isn't the fictional content determining whether or not a rule is used as intended or ignored based of the players/a players aesthetic judgement, but I guess I should let Callan speak for himself.

Chris,

Chris_Chinn wrote:
people often have to hack together something based on really vague, non-procedures, "Be Tough" "Be Fair", "Be Challenging", "Be Realistic", "Be Cinematic" all poured together at the same time.

masqueradeball wrote:
1) When talking about "who cares" does this mean that if I am playing the game and another character is performing an action I have the right to ask that the rules be used with more precision to resolve his action, even if it doesn't effect me directly. I don't think it would be a problem if I could, I just haven't ever played or heard of anyone playing this way.

masqueradeball wrote:
2) Subsystem, like combat, seem to demand that you care instead of giving you the option of caring or not. It seems like there would have to be various combat systems based on levels of interest to fully facilitate this style of play. Once again, not a problem in theory, just something I've almost never seen done in practice (with the exception of Burning Wheel).

Roger,

I disagree with Vincent, and think that rules for establishing and communicating an "overwhelming unity of interest" among the players are vital.  I dunno, maybe he uses a different term for that.

As for whether my approach sustains in-game conflict, well, the group's level of caring determines that.  If they care a lot, the conflict will receive more detailed coverage, as well as formal resolution that tends to take longer.

Ps,
-David

Callan,

Great example with the smashed orb!  I agree that narration doesn't cover the procedural issue.  Hopefully, a larger agreement about whether we're playing realistically, or cinematically, etc., might cover it.  I guess it depends on how such general principles are turned into actionable uber-rules, rules of thumb, or specific systems.

I also agree that tree-climb-modeling games with no higher level procedural guidance leave me unimpressed.  It was "Say yes or roll the dice" that got me to try Dogs, not the give/see/raise rules.

Ps,
-David

Somewhere, there's a draft of the Rustbelt that, in the resolution rules, does the sort of thing that David's talking about. I mean, it set up resolution in general as a sort of flowchart that was persistently being run through over and over through the course of play. Every contribution to the fiction was cast as interaction with the resolution system, even if it didn't require dice rolls (the rules were and are pretty explicit about when you should and shouldn't roll dice).

I took that text out because a.) it was kinda dry, and b.) I thought it was kinda, y'know, obvious, unless the person reading the book has never done any roleplaying in their life (I didn't bother trying to write to that particular audience because, well, how'd they end up with this book anyway if they've never been introduced to roleplaying?).  This text was largely due to a certain type of thinking that I learned from programming, which requires very strictly logical steps without any intuitive leaps. I later came to the conclusion that, while explanation and explication were a good thing in an RPG text, it wasn't necessary to write out everything as though I was talking to a computer. Because people's brains aren't computers, and they can calculate in ways that computers can't.

I don't really have a point; it's just a thing.

The ironic thing being 'everybody else thinks the same as me and makes intuitive leaps in the same direction as me' is probably the only thinking or intuitive leap that people share in common. Otherwise their minds head in the same direction about as much as a herd of cats all head in the same direction. This includes people in the same gaming group (well, perhaps except for some who can practically finish each others sentences like they are married)

When I've written rules, I've noticed how the slightest nuance can often change the game entirely, just about. Leave things unexplained, and first and foremost for early gamers they argue over the 'right' way to play the game, when their intuitive leaps go in entirely different directions. Latter on they just folds their arms or turn to socialising (usually the player rather than GM), and put up with it. Then second thing is, given even small changes almost change the game entirely, a game text that leaves multiple points for 'intuitive leaps', the resulting game will have nothing much to do with the author at all, and also wont have much to do with the end group, as even though they are inventing a game, they have a whole bunch of left over text rules they grasp tenaciously at, thus getting in the way of them actually outright inventing a new game of their own.

Given the nuances of currency interaction differentiate one game from another, pretty much any game which goes "Hae! Roll when you wanna, Kae!", leave their major currency completely to the group, pretty much all behave in the same way with that same group (indeed the advice 'don't like it, play with someone else' is treated as some sort of wisdom). New games give the group the opportunity to do the same thing they've always done, but call it new, reskin the fiction and have new artwork on the cover to look at.

Basically there's three conditions that maintain its practice. 1: It's alot harder to write explicitly/technical writing rather than airy prose, 2: 99% of RPG's are written with 'intuitive leaps' and there's a large, keen audience who'll buy them regardless (and regardless of play results) and 3: There's no one to design with in terms of explicit design. Design talk is currently all intuitive leap talk.

So basically with a bunch of negative things in the way of change, nothing changes and the process gets lauded as. Lauded as much as, say, using leeches was lauded as high medicine once in medical circles.

There are alternatives to pretty much doing it as it's always been done, since Gygax. There's a great deal more work involved in them and alot less community to give warm human feedback about it. But there are alternatives. As another thing to consider or mull over.

Callan,

I too have encountered the phenomenon you're describing.  Players clashing over what's "correct" to do with a given game, groups playing every game the same way but with different color, etc.  However, I've yet to observe the flipside.  Neither Delve nor other procedurally specific games I've played has been able to answer every "What should we do now?" player question without requiring any player interpretation. 

Scene framing, for example, needs to take inputs from the specifics of prior play, so it's hard to write instructions to cover those bases.  An endless list of "If you've introduced X, achieved Y, and are wondering about Z, then your next scene should include the following:" is unfeasible, so I resort to more general rules of thumb.  But those are plenty fallible.

Although I'm in agreement with you philosophically (wouldn't it be nice if there were more RPGs that gave you all the guidance you needed to play that specific game?), I think it's also worth looking at the polar opposite approach.  That approach is to say, "gamers are going to make intuitive leaps, there's no use in trying to obviate that; what we really need to do is get all the gamers in a group on the same page about what play is supposed to feel like, so their intuitions will be compatible".  The fact that most places that sell RPGs have at least a quarter of their shelves covered in World of Darkness books speaks to the feasibility of this approach, no matter how high the whiff factor.  The fact that those games sell partly from art and fiction is not entirely a bad thing when it comes to actually playing them.  (I can back this up with Vampire AP if needed.)

I'm not trying to say "let's not bother with clear, comprehensive instructions", I'm just mentioning that there are other ways to get some degree of success.  Which may become relevant depending on whether "perfect instruction" is actually achievable or merely approachable.

I'm also wondering if you have any thoughts on scene framing instructions!

Ps,
-David

P.S. Marshall, I'm guessing you fall somewhere in between "all-encompassing instructions" and "screw instructions; perfect aesthetic!" but I'd be interested in hearing your own take on that.

David,

You've address your post to me, rather than something for anyone to possibly consider. But as far as I can tell, you've simply said 'I think it's also worth looking at...', I don't see a discussion point or arguement there, it's more like an advert. Which is fine, as my post pretty much was in a way as well. I'm just making it clear because I think I've been caught out before where people post, I've taken it to be a discussion when it's not, then I get moderated on it all in the end, for simply charitably reading it as a discussion. I've read what you've said and I think I touched on those points in my general consideration post myself, already.

I'm also wondering if you have any thoughts on scene framing instructions!

Neither Delve nor other procedurally specific games I've played has been able to answer every "What should we do now?" player question without requiring any player interpretation.

Callan,

Yeah, I concur, there was some advert in there.  I guess I was fine with discussion or no discussion of the "look how White Wolf's approach turned out!" point.

I like your summary of drawing the line in the sand.  It's quite a quandary for me!  As a player, I want the creative freedom to make play as awesome as I know I can make it.  As a designer, I'm terrified of leaving so much freedom that players can make or break the game regardless of whether they dig the game's intent.  The less freedom, the more I can know they'll like or dislike my game, rather than just some experience they made for themselves.  But I also want to make the kinds of games I enjoy playing, which have lots of freedom.

As for scene-framing rules leaving you to pick or flail, I've seen a lot of rules that ask you to:

• a) watch for certain conditions: "If Fred hasn't been in a scene in a while," "If Larry's scene has come to a natural conclusion," "If the group is getting bored," etc.
• b) when the conditions are met, take action: "Work toward revealing the monster," "Escalate what's at stake," "Reveal a new piece of information," etc.

The experience produced has varied a lot!  Sometimes, "What next?" was so obvious that we followed those rules without even remembering them.  Other times, we looked at them, and said, "Ah, yes, okay, now I know what to do next."  And other times: "Great, thanks a lot.  Fred's been out for 2 scenes, Larry's conflict seems most fun to drag out, one dude in the group is bored, all the monster traces and unveiled secrets I can think of aren't going to give the players an idea for what to do next, despite the fact that the stakes are high."

It's hard to cover all these potentialities without strangling freedom pretty severely!  When I played Burning Empires, I felt like my goals and options were nicely clear, but every character decision I made felt like a retcon.  I got used to this eventually, and overall quite enjoyed the game, but it still isn't my preferred way to play.

My first post details an attempt that I'm fairly happy with, but there's certainly room for improvement.  I'm happy to hear about others' attempts and results as well.

Ps,
-David

It depends on what you mean by freedom, David. Quite often in RPG's currently, they have rules who's words are in no way objectively measurable - they rely on someones interpretation. Usually a GM. So basically your trying to be creative, but then because of this subjective rule wording, someone else can step in and mess or fiat your creativity. That's just annoying. That's like some artist having a boss standing over them and telling them when they 'created wrong'. It's just really annoying. I think that too.

On the other hand, if you have 5 karate points but it takes 6 karate points to do a flying, spinning roundhouse to the head, then you know you just don't have the karate points. You know that before you even set out to be creative - you don't set out to be creative but then have someone pop out of the blue and say nuh uh as they interpret some weasel worded rules. You know from the start you just don't have enough points. So you have absolute freedom in the sense that you know exactly what you have to work with creatively and can use what you have to its utmost, if you so wish.

So it depends on what you mean by freedom. Do you really want complete freedom? Or do you just want to know the exact size of the sandbox you have to work within, then simply go to town as you will within that sandbox, without any surprise 'Nuh uh, can't do that!' coming up?

    * a) watch for certain conditions: "If Fred hasn't been in a scene in a while," "If Larry's scene has come to a natural conclusion," "If the group is getting bored," etc.
    * b) when the conditions are met, take action: "Work toward revealing the monster," "Escalate what's at stake," "Reveal a new piece of information," etc.

The ruleset has to provide some sort of mechanical support in running the game, otherwise it's like my worthless 'fun' game from above.

Callan,

Interesting stuff.  I think I'm following you.  Can you give me an example (real or hypothetical) of rules for manipulating game currencies to achieve something akin to the effects I mentioned ("if Larry's scene wrapping up" -> "reveal monster")?

I'll give it a shot:

Each player has a budget of 5 tokens they can use to push their scenes forward, introducing new facts or demanding new NPC responses.  Once these 5 tokens are spent, that player's scene is over.

Once a player's scene ends, the GM sets up a scene for the next player to the left.  Each scene has certain requirements ...  In the last scene of the first round of scenes, the GM must spend at least one of his Threat points on the game's primary monster.  The more Threat points allotted to a given threat, the more options that Threat has for attacking the PCs.

Is that what you had in mind?

Also, I'm curious if you've played Dead of Night and whether that covers any/all of these important bases.  I also recommend Burning Empires, I think you might enjoy it -- the currency movement there is pretty pervasive.

Ps,
-David

Each player has a budget of 5 tokens they can use to push their scenes forward, introducing new facts or demanding new NPC responses.  Once these 5 tokens are spent, that player's scene is over.

Once a player's scene ends, the GM sets up a scene for the next player to the left.  Each scene has certain requirements ...  In the last scene of the first round of scenes, the GM must spend at least one of his Threat points on the game's primary monster.  The more Threat points allotted to a given threat, the more options that Threat has for attacking the PCs.

Also, I'm curious if you've played Dead of Night and whether that covers any/all of these important bases.  I also recommend Burning Empires, I think you might enjoy it -- the currency movement there is pretty pervasive.

Those girlfriend and tentacle examples are great; they nicely illustrate a positive synergy between game currencies and fiction.  I'm having some trouble teasing out methods to use beyond those examples, though. 

Would you be willing to construct an example of ending one scene and beginning another scene that also utilizes the above-mentioned synergy?  I think that'll help me figure out how to better relate your points to my own experience playing and designing.

Thanks,
-David

David,

Well the thing about a 'scene' is that it has no fictional equivalent at all. You don't get characters walking around saying "Shit, did a scene just end there?" "Yeah, I think it did" (unless you made a fourth wall breaking satire setting and went with the notion). So scenes can't tie into the synergy for having no fictional representative. Scenes are like paragraphs in a book - they are a convention for managing reading - the paragraphs aren't somehow in the fiction, even as they shape the stories presentation explicitly.

But instead of just saying 'it don't work like that' I'll try and provide some actual content. Now the way I'm reading you is that your thinking of a series of if statements...specifically for the GM to work from. To me this gives the impression that the players just kinda...do whatever, and there's supposed to be this moment one can identify amongst all that whatever, to say 'cut!' and that'll be a great scene.

Okay, how I think is that you have a set real time, like ten minutes, and at the end that's a scene. Perhaps have a couple of cues '@ 5 minutes, foreshadow a cliffhanger situation' '@ 9 minutes, if you aren't already, get that cliffhanger into place'.

The thing is here the players know this time limit and the cue - and in how I imagine it, they don't just do whatever - they actively start shaping their spoken fiction to try and complete a scene at ten minutes and include the cues. So pretty much everyone is working together toward the same point, rather than they do whatever and then the GM somehow encapsulates it into a scene.

I guess I'm being a bit flippant in refering to it as 'do whatever'. What I mean is that not only does the players character do whatever its gunna do, but procedurally the player pretty much does whatever comes to mind as well. The uninhibited character portrayal has sort of mutated into also the player doing whatever at the table. Actually that raises a good question - does the player need alot of freedom, or just the character needs that freedom?

Really I guess I'm presenting an advert again, for consideration. But it's because scenes aren't something that's inside the fiction, the are outside the fiction. Since scenes aren't inside the fiction, they can't engage in that mechano/fictional synergy.

What is your own experience playing and designing, in terms of scenes? Indeed, why do you try to employ the notion of scenes? What prompted you and what value did it say scenes had? I don't think I've ever tried in my own play - at best if there were scenes, they came sort of organically with changes in fictional setting "Were at the tavern" "Were in the forest" "Were skirting the outside of broken down, yet occupied castles walls" etc. Indeed 'we go there' was usually the mark of 'ok, you head there and it's', which was as much scene change as my groups ever done, if I understand what you mean by scene change? Oh, or if one characters at another fictional location, cutting back to them to see what they do or if they do anything, then cutting to the main group. What's your own experience?

Callan,

You're right, there is no way that the interaction between mechanics and fiction can apply to scene framing in exactly the same way as it applies to fiction-creation.

I'm hoping, though, that the same logic can be applied to the process of establishing "who, what, when, where".

My questions about scene framing emerge from two rather different approaches, best epitomized by my games of Delve and Primetime Adventures.

In Delve:
There are no units of play labelled as "scenes", but there are moments where the pace of the fictional coverage shifts.  "We've destroyed the demon's body, now we want to cross the sea, and find the fabled castle where the demon's soul is purportedly bound."  So, do we roleplay through the voyage, or just jump ahead to, "You arrive outside the fabled castle"?  The group discusses this, and the players tell the GM, "If nothing important happens on the trip, yeah, let's skip it."  So the GM has some decisions to make.  He has the authority and duty to invent and introduce the world the player characters interact with, including obstacles and antagonists.  Before playing, the GM plans out some, but not all of this.  He doesn't have a specific plan for what the characters ought to encounter on their sea voyage. 

So, what should he do?  Pick some cool "sea monster" stuff out of the book to introduce?  Offer social connections to useful NPCs int eh ship's captain and first mate?  Create an opportunity for the characters to benefit -- like the ship is carrying a treasure?  Further, if he does want to introduce a monster or a treasure, how does he know whether to start the scene in evening or morning, above or below decks, with or without NPCs present, etc.?  "Do what feels right" works for me, but is hardly the thorough instruction we've been discussing in this thread.

Primetime Adventures
This is probably the more clearly relevant example.  When I've played, the player characters were often not in the same place, crossing paths occasionally.  The purpose of each scene is to address at least one character Issue, and in my play there's been a fair amount of group brainstorming.  "Hmm, Father Alvaro's wrestling with Obsolescence?  Let's see how he reacts when he sees the robot that's been built to replace his friend Pegg!"  And so we play that scene until it seems like Alvaro's caught between breaking down and laughing it off, and we draw some cards to see which one happens, and then we narrate that outcome.  And then it's back to brainstorming the next scene, often with, "So, who hasn't seen action in a while?"

So, there are two examples from my own experience.  Perhaps the design-and-instruction approach you've described doesn't mesh easily with these...  I dunno.  I'm curious to see what you think!

(At the same time, I'm still processing the points you made with the girlfriend and tentacle examples.)

Ps,
-David

Okay, on the first example your players really have no way to speak into the fiction on this level. Sure they have lots of character stuff they can do that inspires fiction at a character action level, but at a 'what's in the world level' - they just don't have any tools for that. So it's all punted onto the GM.

Here's a primitive idea to start out with. It starts when the GM judges some sort of voyage would be in order. He declares to players as such, and they all know to roll randomly, determining which of three options in front of them is active. Each has an option like 'Abandoned church', 'Tornado' and 'Nothing at this time'. The GM's instructions is to lead into what the start of the journey would entail and involve, having already began - then trail off, looking around. No one knows what each other has rolled and if players want to, they say something like 'But then we see an abandoned church!', if that's what they indeed rolled.

Okay, here's the tricky part - that 'ball' has to be picked up by another player. Otherwise it's like when a movie shows a beautiful mountain or forrest, or red dots crawling across a map in Indiana Jones, it's not really a story moment, just a nice thing to look at for a moment and then the GM just, after leaving it for ten seconds or so to see if anyone else is sparked, just goes on to the voyage destination. See, the procedure is, if saying that somehow sparks an idea in the mind of another player(or GM) other than the one who pointed out the abandoned church, then they have caught the fictional ball and were working on something as a group. If the guy who pointed out the church just keeps working on it by himself, were just in extended narration mode. Parlour narration? No good - gotta throw the ball in the air - if someone takes it up, good. If not, GM just moves play on to voyage destination.

Okay, that's a start. Procedurally clear cut enough? I'd write it out more, but it seems so to me at the moment. Also you might note there is no currency effect right now - that's because it's more work and actually relatively straight forward. Ie, attach a 'crisis of faith - wisdom: 1d4-3' or such.

On the second PTA example,

Let's see how he reacts when he sees the robot that's been built to replace his friend Pegg!"  And so we play that scene until it seems like Alvaro's caught between breaking down and laughing it off, and we draw some cards to see which one happens,

I get the first example: "If [characters take lengthy journey] then take the following steps: 1) GM intro narrate; 2) player die roll; 3) if player inspired by roll, narrate brief intro; 4) if other player inspired by intro, narrate more; 5) otherwise, skip journey narration."  Unfortunately, it is not obvious to me how this would interact with any sort of currency.  Care to explain?  I don't know what "crisis of faith - wisdom: 1d4-3" might mean in this play context.

As for the second example, my specifics might have been distracting.  The Father Alvaro game was very much about character development for its own sake.  The group cared how he was affected by this experience.  My question was more about the style of procedural guidance used to end one scene and begin another.  I found it functional, but there were no currencies involved (that I can see), and the issue of "Do we know what's at stake YET?" (and thus, "Should we employ the resolution procedures yet?") got muddy at times.

Hi guys,
Been trying to get back to y'all, but I haven't had much time and you keep posting more stuff :)

So, anyway:

P.S. Marshall, I'm guessing you fall somewhere in between "all-encompassing instructions" and "screw instructions; perfect aesthetic!" but I'd be interested in hearing your own take on that.

The ironic thing being 'everybody else thinks the same as me and makes intuitive leaps in the same direction as me' is probably the only thinking or intuitive leap that people share in common. Otherwise their minds head in the same direction about as much as a herd of cats all head in the same direction. This includes people in the same gaming group (well, perhaps except for some who can practically finish each others sentences like they are married)

1: It's alot harder to write explicitly/technical writing rather than airy prose

Quite often in RPG's currently, they have rules who's words are in no way objectively measurable - they rely on someones interpretation. Usually a GM. So basically your trying to be creative, but then because of this subjective rule wording, someone else can step in and mess or fiat your creativity. That's just annoying. That's like some artist having a boss standing over them and telling them when they 'created wrong'. It's just really annoying. I think that too.

David,

Unfortunately, it is not obvious to me how this would interact with any sort of currency.  Care to explain?  I don't know what "crisis of faith - wisdom: 1d4-3" might mean in this play context.

As for the second example, my specifics might have been distracting.  The Father Alvaro game was very much about character development for its own sake.  The group cared how he was affected by this experience.  My question was more about the style of procedural guidance used to end one scene and begin another.  I found it functional, but there were no currencies involved (that I can see), and the issue of "Do we know what's at stake YET?" (and thus, "Should we employ the resolution procedures yet?") got muddy at times.

"Do we know what's at stake YET?" (and thus, "Should we employ the resolution procedures yet?") got muddy at times.

Just to clarify this

And there is no resolution system except that the player portrays his character. Now you said he either laughs it off or breaks down. Okay, I didn't outline that at this point the GM decides, which thing get wrecked (or if both get wrecked). One or the other must get wrecked.

Callan,

Thanks for the explanations, I think I get it now. 

1) Passing the ball gets someone an attribute penalty.  Now the decisions of whether to introduce and accept "church" are informed by more than just aesthetic preference and fictional inspiration -- there's also a currency to consider.  To me, this doesn't look like a great example of the synergy you described earlier, but I know we're just making stuff up out of thin air here, so maybe we just haven't developed it enough yet.

2) You're right to point out that my PtA example already has plenty of functional processes going on, and doesn't call out for more procedural guidance.  I was hesitant to introduce an example of floundering play, because I'm fuzzy on the actual rulebook instructions, and any given snafu might actually be addressed. 

The reason I omitted game currencies from my example is that PtA doesn't really have any.  "This session, my character is the focus of attention; next session, yours is," is really the only quantity that's measured and tracked.

My main point was that the procedures for (a) setting a scene, (b) forming and identifying a scene's conflict/question, and (c) declaring "time for the next scene" are all participant judgment calls with no mechanical weight.  It works for me, because I never get tired of coming up with "what I think would be cool here" and suggesting that to the group.  But if I'm not inspired, there's no mechanical synergy (or mechanics, period) to fall back on.  If everyone looks at "issue: obsolescence" and at "situation: aging priest on ship with new robot" and no one has an idea for a scene, the game would die.

So, I'm not asking a question about PtA at all; rather, I'm wondering if you can envision a way to make a game that addresses what PtA addresses (individual character issues, with multiple characters, in a TV-like framework), but using mechanics that demonstrate your synergistic principle.

I'm sorry that I just keep saying, "Hey Callan, do more work to clue me in!"  I'm hoping that it's fun and not a chore.

If it'd help for me to mkae up some stats, just let me know.

Ps,
-David

P.S.  I suspect Sorcerer or Shadow of Yesterday would be better examples, but alas, I don't know those games very well.  (Actually, tSoY's dynamic of "I need to refresh my Reason stat, so I'll set a scene where I'm engaged in a chess match with a worthy opponent" might be a good example of a strong interaction between mechanics and scene-framing.  But I don't know what you do in that scene besides refresh your pool, so it might just amount to "if you want to refresh your pool, narrate how.")

Marshall,

I think we all agree that instructions should be clear, and I'd rather not discuss what presentation is clearest in this thread.  If you start a new thread about that, I will totally jump all up in there with comic books and bullet points.

I think we all agree that there should be standards for contributing, too.  It's just a question of who establishes those standards and how they're communicated.  (Good rulebook: "GM, pick a key, and tell the band of players what key you picked, and make sure they know how to play in that key."  Bad rulebook: "GM, pick a key.")

Marshall wrote:
The best trick is to leave the gaps for intuitive leaps in places where they don't require everyone to leap in the same direction. In other words, put them in places that are served by individual and perhaps-diverging creative perspectives.

Hi David,

1) Passing the ball gets someone an attribute penalty.  Now the decisions of whether to introduce and accept "church" are informed by more than just aesthetic preference and fictional inspiration -- there's also a currency to consider.  To me, this doesn't look like a great example of the synergy you described earlier, but I know we're just making stuff up out of thin air here, so maybe we just haven't developed it enough yet.

My main point was that the procedures for (a) setting a scene, (b) forming and identifying a scene's conflict/question, and (c) declaring "time for the next scene" are all participant judgment calls with no mechanical weight.  It works for me, because I never get tired of coming up with "what I think would be cool here" and suggesting that to the group.  But if I'm not inspired, there's no mechanical synergy (or mechanics, period) to fall back on.  If everyone looks at "issue: obsolescence" and at "situation: aging priest on ship with new robot" and no one has an idea for a scene, the game would die.

I'm actually up to a bit in my current play by post game where I don't feel particularly inspired fictionally and would like some sort of rules to have been there to just carry the game, generating new events that might inspired something, until I just happen to be inspired. One of the players dropped a huge post in, and while it got to a point, in my head I'm like 'well, you wrote alot. but that doesn't mean I want to jump, let alone ask how high'. Maybe I'm reading that onto it, but it seems like I'm to respond with something - but I'm not particularly inspired. Felt the post was a bit self focused, which is fine (if I read it in a book it wouldn't be dreadful and would explain some things). But in terms of generating new events...well for me it didn't inspire.

So what do I do here? Force myself to be inspired? Work for the sake of the game? Or turn to the procedure which...exists about as much as I've written it! The game system (Rifts, btw), provides it in the usual traditional way, as in as much as a stack of listed skills or the option to go to combat does. Ie, not at all. You can't choose a skill at random without it being just random and not inspirational (You shot down the village houses with explosive rounds cause your turning evil...roll your dance skill! Maybe that'll inspire me! No? Perhaps 'forrage'!?).

Of course, for fictional time/the fictional tale (being invented and told) to move forward merely on a mechanical basis is perhaps anathema. For the machine to speak into the campfire story (and take the weight of the lul in inspiration) is oh horrors of horrors. Yet the machine speaks into the story so often already (barring fudges and rule zeros(though rule zero is actually machinery...)) - it's just that people get upset of it speaking overtly, as if it were another person itself sitting at the fire. "The machine speaks into the story just in it's own voice? What? We humans are trying to achieve something here!!!", to paraphrase one of the forge essays.  Or maybe it's not a big deal for people. But certainly the 'hardcore' is fussed about in the gamist essay, as if turning to mechanics only for any amount of time somehow needs it's own seperate, distinct, 'not what we do' name. Of course it gets a seinfield like 'But there's nothing wrong with that!'. Except the seperate naming is so as to seperate it from the idea of 'just playing'. Indeed I'd propose the opposite - that organic only is 'the softcore' and the supposed hardcore, to any degree, is just playing. One way normal play can go and still just be normal. Indeed ironically, trying to never go to just hard rules use for any time leaves this inspiration gap. The irony being you start working for the game/the machine by forcing yourself to be inspired to fill the gap the activity has in it, rather than the machine working for you.

Well, that's enough dread litany! Just looking at the brief AP account of mind, It'd be nice if I already had rules so play goes on. And not some sort of whimsy card thing, which only affects game currency if, again, I feel so inspired to make it do so.

Hi Callan,

Interesting distinction you're drawing.  Thinking about it now, here's how I see those moments of terminal inspiration stall:

1) Having no procedures to fall back on sucks.  Groups/players coming up with their own ways to "work for the game" is risky.

2) Having a set of procedures that tells you to force inspiration (i.e. work), but then also how to take that and get back to a point of being inspired and letting the game work for you, is fine by me.  This wouldn't be my favorite part of roleplaying, but every activity I enjoy has a part that's not my favorite.

3) Having some mechanics to "use until inspired" strikes me as a good alternative to #2.  If the mechanics are well done, this way is probably better; if the mechanics are poorly done, this way is probably worse.  This strikes me as a hard thing to do well, but I don't really know.

4) Some activities are demanding and require breaks to recharge.  I have no problem with a game that eventually tires me out.  I'm happy to chill for a few minutes, chat, and then come back to it. 

However, I think there's a big difference between (a) the exhaustion that comes after a prolonged period of fun and successful creativity and (b) the confusion and anxiety that comes from not being sure what you have to do and are allowed to do to something as complex and nuanced as RPG fiction.  The PtA example is easily overcome by a group that talks out the ground rules and can easily relate any individual case to them.  Maybe that's ideal; I don't know.  But it certainly isn't a mechanical procedure with currencies, and I'm curious how that alternative would look.  It might have downsides of being obtrusive and distracting, but it might have upsides of being more foolproof and reliable.

If you could give me even a clunky hypothetical example of a currency system to turn the purely creative "decide that it's time for the conflict mechanics" (or any other suitable example) into a mechanically motivated decision, I'd be happy to work with it and refine it.  Alas, I'm still not fluent enough in the ideas you're expressing to do it myself.

Ps,
-David

Hi David,

One thing that struck me the other day relates to #3 strongly. It's that if you go back, people who played early D&D strongly enjoyed wargaming. With all it's strictly mechanical play. They loved that. So when they play early D&D, they either love the purely mechanical play, or they love when suddenly they apparently hit this imaginative layer (which is made up, but lets just call it a real layer for now) and stat engaging with all the fiction that up till then they merely thought affecting somehow. They loved both things.

But then at some point it became fashionable to decry those wargamers 'Were not wargamers you know, were ROLEplayers!'. It became fashionable not to love the mechanical play, and actively decry it. As a sort of intellectual turf statement of superiority. Side thought: with the advent of world of warcraft, I'm wondering if it's triggered a movement toward mechanics use love, again. Particularly in the desing of 4e. The raid has brought back the wargaming roots.

Or alternatively theres a sort of bipolar reaction 'Yeah, I love wargaming and boardgames (points at roborally on shelf or such like), but that's not what I do roleplay for'

In terms of your #3, my point is that it's been done before - many years before, early in D&D's history. Those guys could have gone to a early D&D session, played something which was entirely a wargame with corridors and no imaginative layer (perhaps what Ron calls 'the hardcore') and been happy. Or they could turn up, prepared to do that, but also hit the imaginative layer and enjoy that as well.

Have we lost that today? The capacity to do either and come out happy?

In terms of writing those rules for #3, for someone who's above wargaming, or someone who's bipolar (either boardgame totally or no boardgame at all), CAN you write for them? Or are they stuck, both thinking they can make new ways to play, yet finding no joy in raw rules and so have no way to actually, enjoyably shape their play in a new direction by the rules they could write? That joy in the rules use can transform into joyful fiction. Heck, I do this during monopoly "I dunno what my guy likes doing that puts him in jail all the time, but he sure likes doing it". I've read posts by Ralph Mazza about how he makes up fiction about chess games he plays in, as he plays. But you gotta have joy from just playing the rules for it to rise into joyful fiction. Once you do, you can change the ways the fiction plays out, by changing the rules a game uses.

So it's not just up to writing rules that can do #3.

Indeed the funny thing is, your average non gamer, Joe off the street is probably quite inclined towards either enjoying a full on boardgame session AND enjoying it if it hits some sort of imaginative layer.

If you could give me even a clunky hypothetical example of a currency system to turn the purely creative "decide that it's time for the conflict mechanics" (or any other suitable example) into a mechanically motivated decision, I'd be happy to work with it and refine it.

Hi Callan,

Have you ever played the boardgame Cranium?  It asks players to compete at a variety of tasks: acting, indirect verbal clue-giving, sculpting, drawing, spelling backwards, and knowing trivia.  Every time I've played it, someone has been forced to do an activity that they don't enjoy.  The energy has sagged while the person who likes acting and trivia has been forced to draw or sculpt, and that person has opted out of future play.  Eventually, we've wound up with a small number of people who like the challenge of Cranium's variety, and a larger number of people in drawing games, or spelling games, or trivia games, etc.

For this thread, I'm not talking about making Cranium.  I'm talking about making a game that offers one fun activity, the act of experiencing and affecting a SIS.  If there are currencies involved, they should exist to make that act more fun.  This is why I like your "introduce ex-girlfriend 1d4-3" example so much!  The mechanical values act as structure and constraint for "how do I affect the SIS right now?"

"Play stops in 100 minutes" is also interesting.  Do you want to go on to the next step and posit some specific mechanics? 

Again, I would love to see mechanical ideas that end and begin scenes, as I think that's one of the least structured procedures in games I've played.  By "begin a scene" I don't necessarily mean a hard cut in the fiction; any leap forward in situation counts ("Now we're in a new place faced with new surroundings and choices!").

My hope is that with a clear mechanical system to guide imaginative play, terminal inspiration stall can actually be avoided altogether, so we won't need a specific patch for it.  The solution could be just, "roll on your list of items like 'ex-girlfriend'."

Ps,
-David

I remember years ago people would say "What do these characters want?", and people on the forge would remind them that the characters do not exist. Your dealing with the player, not the character.

Back when the idea of a SIS was brought in, I thought it was good because people were often treating their activity with other people as if they were dealing with real things when they talked about spoken fiction. And the idea of an SIS would seperate them from this. But instead the idea of an SIS has become a surrogate for this sense of something existing.

There is no SIS to affect or even experience as an existant thing can be experienced. As far as I can tell, the idea of an SIS was instituted merely as a crutch to aid from the transition of thinking there is something there, to understanding your simply dealing with players directly. If the idea of an SIS wasn't brought in as an intermediary crutch by it's author(s) and instead as an 'existant thing', then I'll retract any credibility I may have appeared to have given their spoken idea at any given time.

At best people have private, seperate hallucinations, stimulated not by drugs but by words. I'm not even against humouring that hallucination for fun, or obviously I wouldn't be here. But treating the hallucination as something that can be affected, or that is genuinely replicated in other peoples minds, or that can be experienced like a real thing? Treating it as if it's an act, rather than a self inflicted mental condition?

Well, I engage in that. I have to apologise, as I can only part with you at that juncture. Sorry! :( My 'girlfriend' suggestion comes directly from treating the activity called roleplay as largely containing a practice of word induced hallucination (there's a new acroynm for ya - WIH!). Why I focus on currency and procedure so much is because it forms the base 'chemicals' of the many hallucinations at the table. I see no other way of changing the hallucination (perhaps there is a way - but I am unaware of it). Without procedure and currency, without system (as I'd use the word), the hallucination defaults to whatever it defaults to. You can try changing settings, or removing orcs, but you'll pretty much default to roleplaying the way you always roleplay with a certain group. If that's not in a satisfying way, that's how it stays (unless you change the people to fit the activity, as I warned about before).

Or long post short "I'm talking about making a game that offers one fun activity, the act of experiencing and affecting a SIS.", to me this activity doen't exist to be forfillable. I know, it flies in the face of how this sub niche hobby is assumed to work. Thanks for checking out my posts, David.

Callan,

I figured "SIS" was useful shorthand here.  I guess not.  How about if I rephrase the fun activity as "people talking to each other"?  And then clarify that what they're talking about is the stuff they're making up?

I thought we were discussing procedures/mechanics/currencies to support that.  You still up for that?

Fair enough clarification, David. But even further, what I'm describing is larger than supporting the activity. Instead the procedures and mechanics are the very origin of the activity. They aren't like an add on to your talking to each other. Instead they are the reason your talking at all.

Even in traditional gaming, even though say GM's and even players might learn how to nulify a mechanical roll by (bluntly) asking for more rolls or (more subtley) downplaying the result, some of these mechanical results get past the 'story before book!' goal keeper (so to speak) and to a small extent people will be talking because of what the roll resulted in. Not as a support to their talking, but the actual foundation stone. It's a pretty pivotal difference! I think plenty of my own play history is partially (a small part, sadly) derived from rolls/mechanics use in traditional (read: D&D) type gaming. I'll talk about Roche the Corde, my hated nemesis, being dead, not as a support to my talking with others, but in part, because of mechanics use having previously happened. My talk stems from the mechanics - I'm not talking with some help from mechanics, I'm talking because of them. But generally, because of BS like the golden rule, as well as the laze fair model of 'assign whatever difficulty number or monster ya want, GM! Oh, and describe the result as you will, as well!' design, it's usually dead easy to nullify mechanical input - and it's only the odd occasions that get past the nullifying goalie that create this origin effect. Ironically, I think people really enjoy the way certain mechanics can give certain effects when it sneaks through. Some other ways are perhaps repulsive enough though that once bitten, twice shy.

As a support - well, you see as a support the mechanic is basically beholden to whether someone actually initiates it. It's pretty clear that a mechanic can not change the way you play if no one initiates it. And by making it merely a support, it's making it valid gameplay to not use it, as it's just a support.

I think as a support, sometimes it can get initiated, and then sometimes it'll get past the goalie (if any). And then people will talk because of what the mechanics resulted in, then they'll get a little excited about how it altered/augmented the way they game to something they otherwise wouldn't have done if they had just talked. Possibly the excitement we all felt when we first gamed and our imagination for the very first time took a right turn we didn't even think of (we never imagined it there) and our imagination sailed on into previous uncharted waters. I'll grant that can happen - but it's a little chancey to me - it has low odds of happening.

So, fair enough clarification (forgive me, my last post could apply in regards to many gamers), but a support is just too...wobbly, for me. Heck, I could describe something as a support to you and you could say 'but what if I didn't use it' and I'd have to both  A: concede that since it's merely a support, it's optional, so you not using it is valid and B: that it obviously wont have an effect then.

To me, support isn't enough to definately get a result from designing. I guess I didn't say that to begin with, but I only realise that detail of my approach in discussion here so I'm kinda stuck that way!

What do you think?

Crap, now it's an issue with the term "support"!  I didn't mean to say that a mechanic would be like an optional bonus to the primary activity of roleplaying.  I just meant that, when designing mechanics, and asking, "What do we want this mechanic to accomplish?  What's our goal?" the answer would relate to talking about imagined stuff.

RPG design with mandatory and encompassing rules sounds appealing to me too!  But only if, as a player, I spend most of my game time talking and imagining. 

I can imagine this being the case!  Your ex-girlfriend example seemed to me to be a move in that direction: a low handling time mechanic, player decision based in large part on aesthetic judgments of the fiction, mechanical options that add fictional content, and currency that makes the process of talking and imagining more concrete, purposeful, and game-like.

I can understand that you don't want to put a lot of thought into a mechanics example of the type I've requested only to have me write back and say, "Ew, I don't wanna play like that!"  All I can say is that if, in conceiving mechanics, you do your best to relate it to the stuff that we agree on (yay currency-fiction synergy!), then I will too in responding.

Ps,
-David

Hi David,

I think I have concieved of mechanics here, like the girlfriend one, and said them. I'm not sure what else you still need? Except perhaps that your focused on a goal of talking about imagined stuff.

With my girlfriend example, talking about imagined stuff isn't the primary goal, it's simply a means to getting to the goal of the thorny (or perhaps hot? (just to be possitive for a change)) issue of ex girlfriends. It's perhaps a secondary or tertiary goal to talk about imagined stuff.

Are you trying to grasp the idea of currency-fiction synergy in relation to just continuing talking about imagined stuff?

You might be, but I'd be willing to bet money the ex girlfriend thing sounds interesting to you because it's outside, seperate from and beyond 'talking about imagined stuff'.

I'm thinking maybe if your goal, as in goal, is to  talk about imagined stuff, then I can't really explain this currency-fiction thing to you, only give more and more examples of it. And I'm kind of hitting a writers block  on that - actually, it kind of feels like GM burn out.

Other than that I'm not sure what else you still need to be able to extrapolate your own ways of doing it? Sorry :( It's been a long thread - perhaps I've forgotten something in a prior post on that?

What I'd like is an example of mechanics that end and begin scenes.  By "begin a scene" I don't necessarily mean a hard cut in the fiction; any leap forward in situation counts ("Now we're in a new place faced with new surroundings and choices!").

I'm picking this because I think it's a good example of a situation in which all of the RPGs you and I have played have left us to make this decision without reference to currency.  I'd love to see what the alternative might look like.

I'm picking this because I think it's a good example of a situation in which all of the RPGs you and I have played have left us to make this decision without reference to currency. I'd love to see what the alternative might look like.

Callan wrote:
Well, I've described an alternative - one where scene framing is optional at any point and yet gameplay continues towards session end (or even campaign end), rather than scene framing  being crucial for any gameplay to advance at all.

Callan wrote:
I'm not trying to give some sort of definate instructions for scene framing - my approach is to ensure that the game, as in the physical boardgame like element, continues to tic along instead of freezing until a scene is made up.

If it's the one where you get 120 minutes of real time, I thought we agreed that that would need to be developed further before fiction/currency synergy was achieved.  Maybe if you could invoke mechanics to slow down/speed up/pause the clock...

Gotcha.  Sounds like a sensible approach.  Should I infer that you're not interested in trying to give definite instructions for scene framing?

Cool, here's a stab at it, partly inspired by your "see a church" example.