I've been thinking about successful illusionism a lot lately. I've come to the conclusion that pretty much all the consistently good rpg experiences has been with GMs running illusionism with what Ron calls a "rear-constructed story". I've been thinking about my experiences as a GM too, and I've found that the degree of player and own satisfaction has been directly mirroring the amount I've used this "retcon technique".

I hope it's clear what I mean? It means creating a story "events first" around the players and then retroactively construct a story out of it. GM motivation for something happening is "because it keeps up the pace and the adds to the atmosphere" (or something similar) rather than "this [established fact] will cause these things to happen". (Is this considered vanilla narrativist priorities for the GM?)

I only know one way to promote this way of GMing, and that is by reducing the amount of rules the GM has to follow. Looking at "The Evil" you see this primitive principle at work. However it is only really trying to remove the obstacles a more complex system puts up (which can be avoided once the system is well internalized incidentally), it's not really promoting anything.

I don't really know how to achieve this though.

Let's look at the facts (feel free to dispute them):

* The GM plays effects first.
This is made much harder if all or many of the effects in the game world has to be determined by die rolling, because then the GM should really first define the cause of the effect, then roll if the effect appears. It's obvious that this is problem.
Most traditionally games are cause first, effect later (if ever). Note that this corresponds somewhat to Fortune-in-the-Beginning/Middle/End in a way. In FitB and FitM we have the effect (generated by fortune) retroactively motivated by the player and/or GM. We could call the effect-first GMing as Effect-in-the-Beginning and compare that to the standard Effect-in-the-End of traditional game mechanics.

* When the "cause" is ready to be discovered it is created by the GM.
This is in a sense not unlike the "discovery" of the story created by some games with heavy directorial mechanics, such as Donjon (correct me if I'm wrong!) In a way, the GM actually is exploring the story alongside the players. In any case - in games with a more "solid" definition of reality, it's more difficult to come up with causes, but it's far from possible.

* The players are supposed to act like the effects have a cause
If an effective illusionism is upheld, the player won't have a clue that the GM is improvising the story, but I don't see why particionism wouldn't work. However, the characters obviously have to act as if an effect always is prelinked to a cause. Or in other words, the players should pretend or believe that in-game causality is actually upheld. That means the GM has to try to maintain the illusion.

Hmm I'm saying the same thing over and over again I think.

Now for the question: are there more efficient ways to facilitate this type of illusionism? "Removing rules" seem a little too primitive :) It seems that providing different rules for GM and players would help things along, but I'm not sure what those differences would be.

Is there anyone having experimented along these lines?

Pale Fire wrote: I only know one way to promote this way of GMing, and that is by reducing the amount of rules the GM has to follow.

Pale Fire wrote: Now for the question: are there more efficient ways to facilitate this type of illusionism? "Removing rules" seem a little too primitive :) It seems that providing different rules for GM and players would help things along, but I'm not sure what those differences would be.

Pale Fire wrote: The players are supposed to act like the effects have a cause. If an effective illusionism is upheld, the player won't have a clue that the GM is improvising the story, but I don't see why particionism wouldn't work. However, the characters obviously have to act as if an effect always is prelinked to a cause. Or in other words, the players should pretend or believe that in-game causality is actually upheld. That means the GM has to try to maintain the illusion.

I think the "throw out the rules that don't work for you" is kind of a poor apology by the authors who thereby acknowledge that the system probably won't be possible to run without in-play modifications. So they just tuck that in without bothering to give any guidelines on how such modifications should be played out at all.

Eliminating the GM isn't what I'm looking for. I'm quite happy with having a GM. The GM allows a single direction in the game and information that might be hidden from the players as well as the characters. There are other enjoyable ways of playing too, but they are different from the game I'd like to construct right now. Anyway, this thread was about illusionism. In other types of games this problem might not even arise.

If the events don't adversely affect the PCs (there's rain outside), then the PCs logically wouldn't bother to do anything about it and so would be tempted to break the illusion for something to do.

Have a look at the Shadows playtest: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3939 I was particulary struck by how the GM started off with no preparation, but came up with several story ideas, which he didn't have to use! Instead the players drove the narrative along. Could a similar system work for you?

Pale Fire wrote: I think the "throw out the rules that don't work for you" is kind of a poor apology by the authors who thereby acknowledge that the system probably won't be possible to run without in-play modifications. So they just tuck that in without bothering to give any guidelines on how such modifications should be played out at all.

The history of rules in traditional RPGs can be seen as a war (often an overt one) between players and Gamemasters, or more precisely Gamist Players and Simulationist Players and Game Masters.

Get four or five truely honest to Pete Simulationists in a room together and they can play a full bore sim RPG with a minimum of rules and consulting of rules. There is a shared understanding of "how things are supposed to work" that facilitates the ability to interpret plausible outcomes from a minimal number of mechanical inputs.

Throw a player with Gamist priorities into the mix however, and things become more difficult. This has nothing to do with good or bad roleplayers and everything to do with getting enjoyment from different aspects of the game. Maximizing character effectiveness through skillfull application of player choices is the defining feature of Gamism. It is entirely incidental to pure Simulationism. A pure Simulationist will often knowingly make poor player decisions in order to better simulate a character (I've known historical mini gamers who've issued irrationally reckless...aka stupid...orders to their troops because they know that was the kind of commander a particular officer was, and to play him prudently would be a poor simulation). In practice historically, both groups of preferred play style typically villify the other.

The increase in rules volume and detail (what I call Simulative Bloat) in many sim games is easy to understand in terms of Simulationists despirately designing rules that (the hope) will force Gamists to play in a Simulationist manner. Since the Gamist cannot be relied upon (in the minds of these types of players) to voluntarily hamstring himself on the basis of that's what would make sense given the situation, we need to add large volumes of rules that will enforce this hamstringing upon him. Encomberance rules are a prime example of this.

This tactic, however, is doomed to fail because a true Gamist gets great joy in finding ways to use the rules to increase character effectiveness in ways that simulationists still find undesireable (thus encouraging even more rules). No this doesn't mean Gamists are munchkins. Thats often nothing more than a term applied by gamers who have 1 priority to a gamer with a different priority. Finding ways to "win" by making maximum use of the rules available is a staple feature and attraction of most every kind of board game out there. In that sense it is the Simulationists who possess the "odd" behavior.

At any rate, The Golden Rule IMO can best be seen as a safty valve. It is the end result of years of anti gamist rules bloat in games that really don't on their own require that many rules (except to enforce a certain style of play) patched with permission to throw out rules you don't "need".

Translation: We wrote a ton of rules so you as GM would have ample ammunition to ward off those dastardly gamists, but if you're playing with "mature" gamers and find you don't need the rules feel free to ignore them. They are there to keep "the wrong sort" of players in line.

In my mind this is the real underlying reason for "The Goldon Rule"

Its not so much a lazy cop out as it is wistfully wishing that the rules weren't "necessary" to begin with. Its not an acknowledgement of the inevitability of house rules as it is an indication that the rules have a specific use and if that use isn't necessary they can be ignored. That use is not (in the case of Encumberance rules) to calculate how much a character can carry...no...true simulationists can determine "what's reasonable" to carry without such detailed rules. The rules are a weapon against "abusive" players and if you're "fortuneate" enough not to play with such players than you won't need to pull out all of these weapons.


This is the history of Role Playing as its been played out ad naseum in Role vs Roll debates and "mature gaming" vs "munchkin players". Its subtley (and sometimes not so subtley) embedded in most large scale traditional commercial RPGs of the past couple decades. One of the great (IMO) features of Arrow Flight is that Deep 7 had the stones to just come right out and say it. They didn't sugar coat it or hide it in coy language. They came right out and said "We hate gamists and this is why we wrote these rules".

Few other games are that direct about it, but that sentiment is behind ALOT of the game design choices of the past several decades...how to prevent "abusive" players from "screwing up" the game.

Another sentiment that has had almost as much play in game design is the corollary: "how to prevent GMs from screwing up my enjoyment of my character". This can be seen in most of the earliest designs as limits put on the GM's ability to inflict harm on characters...e.g. saving throws, and a chance to detect traps before they go off.

Once you understand the warring priorities of different types of gamers that have been embedded as "standard" roleplaying techniques in RPGs over the years, and you see how in an attempt to cater to the widest possible audience you see rules which support obviously conflicting priorities in the same game the meaning of the Forge's use of incoherence becomes much clearer.

You can also see why GNS's biggest benefit is allowing people from differing priorities to discuss these differing priorities and begin to understand the appeal and enjoyment of other styles to other gamers and to recognize their own preferences and begin to sift through various rules to find ones that reinforce their preferences.

The "Golden Rule" discussion is interesting but not on topic. :)

Hey Christoffer,

I'm going to go outside of Forge convention by breaking this down into small chunks, but you raise a lot of interesting issues that seem to get blurred together in your thinking. I'd like to 'tease them apart' and then offer a solution.

Pale Fire wrote: I've found that the degree of player and own satisfaction has been directly mirroring the amount I've used [the] "retcon technique".

I hope it's clear what I mean? It means creating a story "events first" around the players and then retroactively construct a story out of it. GM motivation for something happening is "because it keeps up the pace and the adds to the atmosphere" (or something similar) rather than "this [established fact] will cause these things to happen". (Is this considered vanilla narrativist priorities for the GM?)

I only know one way to promote this way of GMing, and that is by reducing the amount of rules the GM has to follow.

Pale Fire wrote:
* The GM plays effects first

This is made much harder if all or many of the effects in the game world has to be determined by die rolling, because then the GM should really first define the cause of the effect, then roll if the effect appears. It's obvious that this is problem.

Most traditionally games are cause first, effect later (if ever).

Pale Fire wrote:
* When the "cause" is ready to be discovered it is created by the GM

In a way, the GM actually is exploring the story alongside the players. In...games with a more "solid" definition of reality, it's more difficult to come up with causes, but it's far from possible.

Pale Fire wrote:
* The players are supposed to act like the effects have a cause

If an effective illusionism is upheld, the player won't have a clue that the GM is improvising...in other words, the players should pretend or believe that in-game causality is actually upheld. That means the GM has to try to maintain the illusion.

Pale Fire wrote: Now for the question: are there more efficient ways to facilitate this type of illusionism? "Removing rules" seem a little too primitive :) It seems that providing different rules for GM and players would help things along, but I'm not sure what those differences would be.

Is there anyone having experimented along these lines?

Now for the question: are there more efficient ways to facilitate this type of illusionism? "Removing rules" seem a little too primitive :) It seems that providing different rules for GM and players would help things along, but I'm not sure what those differences would be.

Is there anyone having experimented along these lines?

Wow. All I can say is, "Well said", Walt. That's a really effective and insightful parallel you draw.

Thanks,
Mike

wfreitag wrote: So where's the "Book of 100 situations, suitable for any setting"? Where are the random encounter tables that not only index "situations" instead of individual entities, but do so in a manner that's context-sensitive for various larger-scale situations that may already exist?

- Walt

Interesting, Robert. How did I miss that one? It sounds very cool and very useful. And the "choice of background scenarios" sounds like at least a rudimentary version of the context-sensitivity idea.

And it was popular, you say.

So naturally, no one's created anything like it since? :-b

- Walt

Hullo, :)

wfreitag wrote: So naturally, no one's created anything like it since?

I've done some more thinking on this subject. It's hard to get anywhere though. My best method so far has been trying to compare how adventures done this way contrast with other methods. Should we for the time being classify this as IntCon.... ? Let me brand my own term "Effect First". Hey can I shorten that to F? :)

First off, it's kind of a tangled mess right now as far as the concept goes. I want to make a point that this kind of effect-first-retcon-later is different from bang-driven play or similar plot creating methods.

What I mean by "Effect First" doesn't isn't intimately bound to the plot, it's a way to look at how events are added to the narrative from the GM's point of view. F can be applied both to game events and to the plot itself, I argue that it's most powerful when it's applied to both. This is not to be taken as nothing can be preplanned.

It's also important to differentiate pure F and semi-F play. There are some things you only get from playing pure F.

For me personally, I tend to end up in semi-F land. This is a very unsatifying mode of play really and full of potential hazards. This tends to happen when you have a kind of plot and NPCs driving the story and then try to flesh out that with F. There are a lot of potential conflicts, not to mention you might get prevented from running F when you really need it.

Pure IntCon then, is when GM is thinking effects first cause later.

If I think: "Oh, they need something to happen at this lake, maybe I can put a monster in it. Ok I chose monster X. Now from the monster X's point of view, what happens?" - and then the encounter takes up from there. Well if I think like that I'm NOT doing F.

If I on the other hand think: "Oh, they need something to happen at this lake. Maybe I a monster comes out of it? Ok I chose monster X. The monter is now leaving lake X", then I'm doing F.

It seems a little counter-intuitive that this is better. In the former case I've carefully tried to sim-style tried to let the monster act reasonably, whereas in the second it just pops up as if it was a wandering monster straight out of D&D.

The point of course is that monster X might very well be given a retcon:ed explanation of why it is there.

You're also running things F style if you're GMing horror and as the pace winds down you give them a sound or something scary to happen even though you yourself don't know what the sound means or why the scary thing happens.

In the first monster case which I declared wasn't F, could be an illustration of problematic semi-F if the GM later wants to explain why there was a monster in the lake.

The benefit of pure F is that the actions will be exactly what the GM thinks the narrative needs, and not a "filtered through the system" kind of thing.

I've found that I drift into semi-F play when I play games where I'm employing rules both to NPC and PC actions. If the NPCs are governed by much simpler rules (either through tweaking the system, ignoring rules or as endorsed by the system) that facilitates pure F play for game events.

I think this comes because on one hand the GM would be best supported by a game which supports Narrativism and on the other the players should remain playing Sim.

The question is, how do we referee this situation.

For example in combat:
Bob the Mighty Barbarian (controlled by the Player) is attacking the Goblin King (GM). Bob rolls pretty high, and gives a result which would knock the Goblin King out. The GM on the other hand it would be a whole lot more dramatic if the Goblin King died.
BUT, if the GM says "oh, you killed him", then Bob's player might cheated because he won so easily and maybe didn't get the chance to roll all his damage dice and all.

We also have the example from "protagonizing the setting" where the GM whips up an effect for the boss that might be dramatic, but which seems to break the rules of the ordering in the combat system (hey Bob should have been able to swing before the Demigod swiped him to the ground because that's how it works in this system).

Sure we're partly talking about Gamist players here, but it's also about player disbelief in the GM illusion.

In the GM is pretending to use the same system the players are, then the GM can't overtly break rules.

So it would seem that a system facilitating F would be a system which explicitly allows the GM to make Narrativist decisions while at the same regulating these so that the players can feel like they're playing Sim.

Wow, this is hard to respond to. I've written a couple big essays, and thrown them away.

First, what you are proposing is exteremely difficult to come up with. How can a system itself support it's ease of adulteration, while simultaneously seeming to be unaduterated to the players in result? The more you make the adulterability obvious in the text, the more you make it obvious that the system is not arbirtary, and that the GM is in control. Further, I see nothing wrong with the normal ("Vanilla") Illusionist model which is to use hard Sim system, and just encourage the GM to use Illusionist tactics in the text. Perhaps even teaching the better ones. That works just fine.

That said, I suppose I could envision system that might have some of the effect you're looking for. Let's look at a hypothetical example:

Most of the rolls are conducted by the GM in secret. The GM is honor bound by the text to report the events as determined by the dice to the players. In fact, to keep him honest, the players are allowed to each, say once per session, look at the results of a roll, after the roll occurs to ensure his honesty. In addition, however, the GM had a resource that he is allowed to expend, in order to ignore the rules, and just create whatever he wants. A player peeking at that point would note the expenditure, and see that all was well (perhaps the GM places a token in a bowl every time he does so, and then transfers it out to a second bowl of "used" tokens, that way the checking player can audit the GMs use).

Alternately, instead of a resource, the GM can roll a separate die that assuming it comes up a certain way, tells him that he is free to create.

All seems to be a long way to go to get the desired effect, however. Again, I'm not sure that the standard Illusionist method isn't better.

Ron's suggestion with Arrowflight is that by limiting a players effectiveness, and making his ability to affect the game mostly color, that this would allow for the GM to create Illusion more easily. I would contend, however, that this slips quite a bit towards Participationism. The players will likely strongly feel their inability to affect events (while possibly very much enjoying the process of being a color adder).

Mike

Pale Fire wrote:

So it would seem that a system facilitating F would be a system which explicitly allows the GM to make Narrativist decisions while at the same regulating these so that the players can feel like they're playing Sim.

Again, Christoffer, I'm really convinced that you looking at 'the usual suspects' and none of them is to blame for the problems you cite. (And why don't we call "Effect First" EF instead of F? It's less confusing.)

First of all, thank you for clarifying your method (with a little editing on my part):

Pale Fire wrote: What I mean by "Effect First" doesn't isn't intimately bound to the plot, it's a way to look at how events are added to the narrative from the GM's point of view. [EF] can be applied both to game events and to the plot itself, I argue that it's most powerful when it's applied to both. This is not to be taken as nothing can be preplanned.

Pure IntCon then, is when GM is thinking effects first cause later.

If I think: "Oh, they need something to happen at this lake, maybe I can put a monster in it. Ok I chose monster X. Now from the monster X's point of view, what happens?" - and then the encounter takes up from there. Well if I think like that I'm NOT doing EF.

If I, on the other hand, think: "Oh, they need something to happen at this lake. Maybe I a monster comes out of it? Ok I chose monster X. The monster is now leaving lake X", then I'm doing EF.

It seems a little counter-intuitive that this is better. In the former case I've carefully tried to sim-style let the monster act reasonably, whereas in the second it just pops up as if it was a wandering monster straight out of D&D.

It's also important to differentiate pure EF and semi-EF play. There are some things you only get from playing pure EF.

In the first monster case which I declared wasn't EF, could be an illustration of problematic semi-EF if the GM later wants to explain why there was a monster in the lake.

You're also running things EF style if you're GMing horror and as the pace winds down you give them a sound or something scary to happen even though you yourself don't know what the sound means or why the scary thing happens.

The benefit of pure EF is that the actions will be exactly what the GM thinks the narrative needs, and not a "filtered through the system" kind of thing.

Pale Fire wrote: For me personally, I tend to end up in semi-EF land. This is a very unsatisfying mode of play really and full of potential hazards. This tends to happen when you have a kind of plot and NPCs driving the story and then try to flesh out that with EF. There are a lot of potential conflicts, not to mention you might get prevented from running EF when you really need it.

I've found that I drift into semi-EF play when I play games where I'm employing rules both to NPC and PC actions. If the NPCs are governed by much simpler rules (either through tweaking the system, ignoring rules or as endorsed by the system) that facilitates pure EF play for game events.

I think this comes because on one hand the GM would be best supported by a game which supports Narrativism and on the other the players should remain playing Sim.

Pale Fire wrote: I want to make a point that this kind of effect-first-retcon-later is different from bang-driven play or similar plot creating methods.

Pale Fire wrote: The question is how do we referee this situation.

For example in combat:

Bob the Mighty Barbarian (controlled by the Player) is attacking the Goblin King (GM). Bob rolls pretty high, and gives a result which would knock the Goblin King out. The GM on the other hand it would be a whole lot more dramatic if the Goblin King died.

BUT, if the GM says "oh, you killed him", then Bob's player might feel cheated because he won so easily and maybe didn't get the chance to roll all his damage dice and all.

We also have the example from "protagonizing the setting" where the GM whips up an effect for the boss that might be dramatic, but which seems to break the rules of the ordering in the combat system (hey Bob should have been able to swing before the Demigod swiped him to the ground because that's how it works in this system).

Pale Fire wrote: Sure we're partly talking about Gamist players here, but it's also about player disbelief in the GM illusion.

In the GM is pretending to use the same system the players are then the GM can't overtly break rules.

Pale Fire wrote: So it would seem that a system facilitating EF would be a system which explicitly allows the GM to make Narrativist decisions while at the same regulating these so that the players can feel like they're playing Sim.

I think you've totally missed Christoffer's point, Fang. You have this particular view of Illusionism which I don't think others agree with. In my view, for example, what Christoffer brings up about the rules screwing you is exactly the issue. In what I call Illusionism, half the techniques are what some people call "Cheating". They are about ignoring the mechanical results and creating story despite those results, while leaving the feeling that you did use the system. I am aware that you think this is dysfunctional, but it's a method that I claim works just fine. You might not have a problem with the mecahics, but then your methodology and results are not what I think he's looking for.

All I see above is you dismissing what he thinks is the problem without any reasoning at all (two sentences, no argument, just dismissal), and then substituting your own idea of what the problem must be.

Mike

Hey Mike,

Mike Holmes wrote: I think you've totally missed Christoffer's point, Fang.

...All I see above is you dismissing what he thinks is the problem without any reasoning at all (two sentences, no argument, just dismissal), and then substituting your own idea of what the problem must be.

Mike Holmes wrote: In what I call Illusionism, half the techniques are what some people call "Cheating". They are about ignoring the mechanical results and creating story despite those results, while leaving the feeling that you did use the system. I am aware that you think this is dysfunctional, but it's a method that I claim works just fine."

Of course it's about consistency. The question he's asking, IMO, is how do I make play look consistent, without actually being consistent. That's what Illusionism is. So, sure, no problem we can just consider the Situation to me maleable. Fine. But what about the mechanical examples he gave? How do you solve those problems? Your response seems to be, well, just play them out as written, and don't worry about it, beacuse it'll all take care of itself.

But it won't. There will be occasions where the dice come up and say, hey, Jim is dead. And I don't want Jim dead. So if I don't have some method to fix that, the story I'm building breaks. That's a problem. How does consistency fix this problem? Or rather how do you propose to build in consistency in the mechanics, and still allow him to get away with what he want's to do?

Sure, some of the description he gives is of setting-based problems. But they are presented to let us know what style of play he's talking about. The "problem" comes in when he points out that the mechanics of a game like his can screw over his story. What he want's to know, it seems to me, is how can I make better mechanics so that I can better perform Illusionism. That is, how can the mechanics seem both to be solid and arbitrary, and simultaneously allow the GM to do what he wants? It's a reasonable question. If one potentially without a good answer.

If you want to look more closely at his motives, be my guest. But I certainly don't think it's neccessary.

Mike

Hey Mike,

To all of which I say FitM. A system that answers in detail what happens at the end of resolution will not allow much Illusionism as you define it. FitM will. FitM 'with teeth' especially; Jim isn't dead, the dice say that Jim's life just got really, really complicated. The dice are "in the Middle," so the gamemaster says what this complication is. Is he dead? Unconscious? Sent to another dimension? After the die roll, only the gamemaster can say. This works especially well if you don't break everything down into +1 or +2 or 'that is a scimitar from Mu and it does 20-101 points of damage.' 'A big sword' hurts a lot, but isn't defined as doing cutting or impaling damage; that is left to colorful description. The 'colorful description' rule hides a lot of Illusionism without making it illegal and could be a wealth of rules itself.

I am proposing building mechanics that don't, themselves, make consistency an issue (like those drifted in the past). Take out the issue of consistency from the rules and open up a whole world of Illusionism. These rules will play as written. More so if the players expect deus ex machina and the like, once in awhile.

I agree the mechanics he has drifted in the past "screw over his story." That's because they're pass-fail mechanics that 'take over' the game. Like the halcyon chasm problem, these rules get to say 'you fell to your death' or 'you made it.' I'm saying make different rules. Use FitM mechanics that complicate the story rather than dominating it. You win big at the casino, how much? The rules don't give a number; neither does the gamemaster, just 'real big.' The actual impact on the game is malleable, now we know you're rich, but not for how long. To be consistent you might voice it in fractions, "Well, a year has come and gone and now you've only a quarter of what you won."

I think there is a good answer, but addressing the cause of the problems, not the problems themselves, can only get at it. Patching drifted rules will only beget more patching. Until we address why the drifted rules fail in the first place can we begin to start over and create something better.

I think the EF discussion would be crucial in how to apply the FitM rules for this theoretical game. Arm the gamemaster with more than 'make stuff up' and you get both consistency and the ability to create Illusionism. I think the most important component of such an EF chapter would be to say something like 'suit the impact of the die roll not to an absolute standard but to the scope of the situation.' 'Real big winnings' at the beginning of a 'cycle' would be relatively small in comparison to those at the climax, but it'd seem consistent because it suited the situation at hand.

Now all that needs be done is for Christoffer to describe what he wants and how he can do it. (I kinda liked the magic stuff he was doing until you shot it down; the only thing I thought was wrong was that he didn't have enough 'dials' built in yet and it needed the stuff being talked about here. A spell of diamond creation whose results are a few, crappy, low-grade diamonds at the beginning of the adventure and many big, high-quality ones at the climax offers both the flexibility and the consistency. To me.)

Now what I want to know is what Christoffer thinks....

Fang Langford

Some points quoted from earlier in the thread:

Robert wrote:
Sim is prioritized in direct relation to the immediacy of the decision. So an Illusionist GM wouldn't (overtly) fudge a damage result to get a better story any more than he would map out the continent using a complicated algorithm/die roll combo. One situation is immediate and thus calls for a Sim approach, and the other is way in the background and thus calls for a Nar approach.

And earlier, Fang wrote:

Pale Fire wrote: The GM plays effects first

This is made much harder if all or many of the effects in the game world has to be determined by die rolling, because then the GM should really first define the cause of the effect, then roll if the effect appears. It's obvious that this is problem.

Most traditionally games are cause first, effect later (if ever).
I think there's an inherent problem here of scale. I swing my sword and you take damage is cause and effect. I can't imagine rules were you take damage and then we decide I must be swinging my sword (especially if I was doing something else at the time).

Ok forgive me Fang if I'm misunderstanding your point, but it seems to me like you take EF to be simply about IntCon techniques and retconning narrative.

On one level, it's definately that, but pure-EF involves EF decisions on the fundamental level.

Q: "Why does suddenly the lights go out in the horror adventure?"
A: "Because the effect of that would increase tension"

If you make decisions prior to the effect then you're not EFing that element. It's not about improvising effects from a cause as I think Fang is into. (If I would for example first decide that the monsters are making the power go out, I'm not doing pure EF).

It's about the fundamental story decision making... Do I interpolate them from an established cause or do I first put in the effect I want and then interpolate what have cause it?

Another example:

GM: "You come to a broken bridge, you see traces of combat everywhere, but not a sign of bodies"

There are a few ways the GM could have prepped that scene. Maybe the GM have thought up these trolls that live under the bridge, or maybe something of significance has happened here that's essential to the plot. Either way those things could have been established long before the characters find the bridge. From written down, to thought out in the beginning of the adventure, to just before they reach the bridge.

Neither of that is EF though.

EF is if the GM simply is announcing the situation without having decided what has happened.

If the GM is only applying EF on certain levels (say the plot) then it's semi-EF, if it's applied on every level it's pure EF.

My horror games are run pure EF style. I have an idea of a story thought up at the beginning, then I start running that setup, improvising details (that in itself is not EF). I mostly allow the players act themselves but throw in events which I don't bother to create causes for. Instead I leave it up to the players to look into, and in that way generate even more story.

If you look at the horror story I ran with Nathan and Chris written up here you have an example of a story made through pure EF.

The problem is one of consistency as rightly identified, but I think it's different from what Fang perceives it to be.

Let me give an example here:

1. Rok, Sue and Bollo is decide to make their camp near a lake.
2. GM decides this is a magic lake.
3. Rok goes to look stupidly at his reflection and idly play around near the water which strangely does not ripple (the GM just made that up)
4. Finding this interesting Rok, smashes his hand on the water to make a splash.
5. The GM makes up that a hand formed of water shoots up and grabs Rok.

What follows might involve Rok trying to get free of the hand which tries to drag him down, and his friends might come and try to and help him get free.

Now naturally the players are interested in having the GM making this "fair" and make a difference (for example) between Rok struggling and Rok being helped by Bollo who's bodybuilder frame should make a difference.

Running this in traditional sim can be very difficult, because the GM has to make some really quick judgements on the spot: How strong is this hand compared to Rok? How strong compared to Bollo + Rok? What if Sue helps?

All these problems make it difficult to use EF, which is why EF is difficult to use as the core principle. When you know the system might be a problem, you go by cause first (defining an entity within the system) and then apply its effects. That way you know the effect is possible to calculate within the frames of the sim system.

However, the amount of bookkeeping and predefining makes this a less fast flowing technique than the ideal EF situation.

If the system is well internalized by the GM, it's sometimes possible to make "on the fly" rule estimates. This helps running EF.

There is another thing to think about in assisting EF, namely the predictability of a mechanic. I mentioned this before as a desireable trait because. I said, it helps tweaking. But I never specified what tweaking.

Actually I've come to understand that what I mean was reverse-engineering rules on the fly. For example, the hand... maybe I know that I want it to be able to drag down Rok, but if he gets the help of Bollo it's supposed to be a 50-50 chance. In games which are more transparent it's often possible to come up with a game mechanic which would create such a behaviour. In others, let's say Shadowrun as a good example, it's very hard to say when you have a 50-50 chance and how to input stats and stuff into a mechanic that gives you the desired behaviour.

Games that allow the GM to create theats that are relative to character abilites ought to be very helpful for this.


To sum things up:

In pure EF you create narrative situations effect first. The problem comes when the players expect to interract with these effects within the simulationist system. At that time, the effect needs to be translated into a in-system defined cause or the players cannot interact with it within the mechanics.

There are no sim games I know of which actively supports this reverse engineering of effects into cause.

I have proposed that maybe a mechanic could be made so that the effects could be plugged directly into the sim mechanics. Some concerns are lack of detail within the effects and such things.

Other than that, I can see that games in which it is easy to create mechanics from a "desired type of outcome" is helpful once the system is internalized. Predictability makes things nicely explicit for the struggling GM. It's important to note that usually all the GM would like is to have something like "long shot", "small chance". "50-50", "good chance", "sure thing" to plug into the system as possible outcomes. The problem comes when players want to interface their special abilities and stats with those chances.

A few useful rules from a more practical standpoint (if we can't make a game which strongly facilitates this) would be:

* Simple rules for extending a set difficulty to variations in abilities. For example if the GM decides that Rok has a 50-50 chance, what is the chance if Sue tries who is weaker? What if both Rok and Sue does it. Some rules where this is really intuitive and simple would help because the GM only needs to worry about setting the threat relative to ONE character and then the rest follows.

* GM usable threat ratings to set abilities and difficulties according to player abilities. For example, the GM wants to put up a 50-50 chance to cross chasm. What does that translate into with the Sim mechanics? An effective "desired effect to system" translation would be very good to have. Preferably to deal with any situation, but if not then at least for some.

wfreitag wrote:
So naturally, no one's created anything like it since? :-b

It may be that Christophers concerns should be tackled more like "genre expectations", in Fangs parlance. What is described above is loosely what I have thought of as Dramatism; the construction of dramatic forms, with or without significant content. The content can be "back filled" into the space created for it, in principle. I don't have a rules system for this: but I speculate that something could be built which exploited dramatic structure convention to this effect; have you seen Theatrix, Christopher? It's not what you are looking for, but might be grist to the mill.

contracycle wrote:

wfreitag wrote:
So naturally, no one's created anything like it since? :-b

I believe its been reprinted by a British fan group. I have "100 plots", "100 patrons" (I think) and "100 cargoes"

EF (Effect First, in case you came in late like me) is something I've used quite a few times in my games.

I tend to run games based on a few loose ideas and then fill in the details as I go along. One technique I often use is to base elements on the game on player (or character) expectations. I just listen in to their discussions as to what is going on and riff of that.

I've found this technique very useful in mystery games, in particular whodunnits. If the PCs are checking up on leads there comes a point when all the background work tends to become repetitive. I wait for this to happen and decide that their current lead is the good one, or their current hypothesis. I then have to back-fill so that it makes sense.

The only game where EF was the prime generator of 'what was going on' was an Unknown Armies game called The Donner Diner. I had decided that the PCs get caught in a snowstorm in the Rockies and have to spend the night together at the Donner Diner.

The players did not know they were playing UA. I wrote up their PCs based on feedback from telling them that it was a modern game with weirdness. UA is good game for getting interesting characters and we ended up with a Wanderer Archetype (Ash from Evil Dead), a shrink and his self-cutting patient (who'd been almost convinced that his magic was not real) and a coke-head failed sports star.

The game was driven by the tension between the PCs, thrown together and not really compatible, and the first weird event (finding a corpse).

I just then piled up the horror clichés, mostly following on from players' suggestions. Things happened so quickly that they never had to to question the actual logic of the situation because it fitted with the logic of the horror film.

If the internal logic, the conventions, of the situation works, like in bad but exciting movies, then the players are less likely to question things.

Cheers,
Steve

If the internal logic, the conventions, of the situation works, like in bad but exciting movies, then the players are less likely to question things.

Theatrix is heavily based on formal dramatic structure; the 3-act play with pinches and twists inserted into those acts to give an outline of what kind of scenes you "schedule". Secondly, it discusses GM fiat in task resolution, so that you are deciding success or failure of an action based on dramatic need - whether you want to increase or release the tension.

Thirdly, it has a very interesting take on resolution, and its single greatest feature IMO is something I often cite in discussions of whiffing - a one-page, 4 panel picture displaying 4 possible outcomes to a specific task, showing different interpretations of the outcomes. These were based on an array of two elements - success or failure, and whether the character is competent or incompeten. So one picture showed a competent success, another a competent failure, aother an incompetent success, and the last an incompetent failure. This is given as a mechanism for kinda "smoothing over" the fact that the GM is choosing the outcome; it actively promotes protagonistic play by preventing mandated failures for dramatic need being big whiffs.

There are some other rules involving how players can make statements to makes things True in the game world. These are less known to me as I have not used Theatrix in play; its not my thing but its great library filler. Some good things to chew on for the habitually sim player.

Hi there,

Theatrix also presents the technique of using flashbacks to increase the effectiveness of the character in the present. I think it may have pioneered the technique, although if anyone knows otherwise, correct me.

Best,
Ron

Interesting. I'll take some time and digest that and see if I can make something useful out of it.

I know I know. Right now it looks like I'm taking shots blindly in the dark, but it all springs from a single source. Trust me :)