Hello,

My name is Fang Langford and I'm an intrepid explorer, this is my cat Schroedinger. I just got back from a lengthy journey; I have some things I need to share with you. I'm glad you could make it; I've got some simply amazing news. I need your help, though. There are things I have seen that I scarcely believe; worse, I don't have words to explain much of it. That's where you come in....

Let me back up a moment and start from 'the beginning.' As you know, many of us have been searching for El Dorado, the lost city of gold (the truly impossible thing). When stated simply, it is clearly impossible, a city built of gold (player choice directing a gamemaster created story). The hardest work of all regarding the legends of El Dorado has been done by Professor Ron Edwards. It is his work, in fact, which truly enabled us to separate the myths from the clues for the first time in history.

Of late, I had been going over the writings of many of the previous explorers, pondering not so much what they said ('a Simulationist game with a Narrativist gamemaster') as what their saying of it meant. I know a lot of Professor Edwards' work centers on the idea of not differentiating between players and gamemasters; crucial, if I may say, to the perfection of his Narrativism. Tonight, I break with that idea completely. This is because of what I saw earlier today, or rather, what I think I saw.

It's been a long hard road, these last few months; I've had a lot of difficulty due to the lack of popularity of my own theories and ideas. That's why I'm appealing to you; I can't finish this work alone. I can't even describe it; that's my problem. If I've any hope of communicating my discovery, I must rely upon your help to make my findings communicable. What have I found? Why, El Dorado itself (the 'impossible thing').

I was traveling out in the fringes of explored territory. I visited Intuitive Continuity, the realm first thought to contain El Dorado, after crossing the decrepit 'many roads to Rome.' (I took a short detour into the area I named Dynamic Status Quo, even though that is more of a description of what is done there rather than where it is.) I visited for a time with members of the Narrativist commune and stopped briefly at the main village of the Simulationists (I always marvel at how clearly laid out it appears when you consider it from Professor Edwards' SSSCC model). I didn't stay there long as the language barrier often has gotten me into nearly deadly trouble with the natives. (Had a bit of a run in recently due to the language barrier; that actually contributed to tonight's epiphany.)

We eventually set up camp near the evidence of the Gamist's migration. (I still can't get over the fact that I've never actually seen a group of Gamists. Oh, there are converts here and there, but I've not encountered an actual group of them.) While I was pouring over the notes I had made here recently, I stumbled on something quite by accident. I was looking at the map of the whole region, such as they are, and contemplating the recent survey taken by the Right Honorable Walt Freitag, specifically the copy given me by Ralph "Valamir" Mazza. I was looking at an area he'd marked 'concentration' when the epiphany hit.

The biggest problem I've encountered with the Simulationists has to do with the word "realism." Sometimes it bleeds out into 'simulation' or as I've attempted to call it 'emulation.' In more diplomatic moods, I've even tried to term it 'verisimilitude.' Somehow I'd always missed the point. I notice you've been eying Schroedinger here, quite the specimen, isn't he? It was when he leap out of the tree onto the table which I was considering the maps on, when everything came together. Let's give the nice man a demonstration shall we Schroedinger?

Here, Schroedinger, get in your box; cute play on words isn't it? Well, let me turn the box around. See this sign? I know it's in French, I got the idea from a painting in the Scott McCloud collection. It translates roughly to "There is no cat." The painting is of a pipe and says, "This is not a pipe;" and it's true, the painting isn't a pipe, it's a painting of a pipe. The same principle applies here. This box contains nothing; there is no cat. There isn't even a box; it's all in your imagination. This is the "Myth of 'reality' in gaming."

Everyone argues about how realistic it is, or how good of a simulation it is, when in fact it isn't either. It's just frilly words about invisible concepts that have no real basis in reality. However, all these words are used in common life to refer to things that are real. I think the painting in McCloud's collection is 'the treachery of images' or something like that. That's exactly what's going on here. No matter how hard we try to believe that what happens in the game has as much causal 'follow-through' as reality (and Erwin Schroedinger pretty much disproved that one too), it doesn't. It couldn't, all the components are fictional. They aren't real. Even if 'what is beyond that curtain' is predetermined by the gamemaster, it isn't any more real than my cat here; sorry about leaving you in the box so long, Schroedinger.

Mr. Mazza's example of concentration was the big clue for me. Especially when I considered the work M. J. Young had done with it. Sorry, I'm babbling, aren't I. I guess I'm just too excited. Are you following me so far? Good; I'll need your help articulating this more clearly to the others.

Back to the jungle, so there I was clearing up after my 'chance meeting' with Schroedinger here. I was putting my maps back in order when I set the Freitag insert back down on an unexplored (or should I say under-explored? I believe some of our junior members say they've been there) section when a minor error resulted in my epiphany. Y'see usually people place the bodies involved in such a way that you see a clear flow, a river if you will, leading out of the jungle to the ocean (the player/gamemaster models). Well, the Freitag/Mazza interpretation of this particular area landed 90° out of alignment. What I had always taken as an ox-bow lake (a common feature along twisty rivers on broad, flat floodplains) was shown to actually be a bend in a second river entirely.

Let me explain. Up 'til now, everyone searching for El Dorado has gone up the sacred river, seeking it in some hidden tributary. Well, looking at the map thus, I realized we needed to search for another river entirely. We immediately decamped and began to cut our way into the brush and lo and behold, a second stream. Not wishing to return with only such controversial evidence, we immediately placed our canoes and paddled upstream.

Sure enough, it lead right to El Dorado. It was so obvious I could see how easily it had been missed. The lay of the land was perfect for the 'myth of reality' to completely send everyone off its track. Alas, in our haste to return, we became so helplessly lost that we failed to survey the route. I know this all sounds completely unreasonable, but hear me out. I need help mounting a second expedition. Get that Lerno chap, I think he's been there; he's right on track with the 'effect first' stuff, I just don't think he knows it.

I know everyone will think me mad, but I've seen it with my own eyes; you've gotta help me.

More information? Certainly.

Up 'til now everyone has looked at Professor Edwards' comments about 'player actions' and 'gamemaster defined story' as though they referred to the same thing, the 'myth of reality.' The idea that both are somehow interacting with some entity outside of themselves that was unique and in some ways unassailable. It wasn't until I had to take Jonathan to task over the 'unreality' of characters that I even conceived of this expedition. Rather than use a arbitrary compass to guide us, I fell upon using Intuitive Continuity to lead us back.

Here's what I found:

There really is a difference between players and gamemasters. In fact, they operate in completely different fashion (except as noted in 'pervy' Narrativism).

My practice, indulgence, wasn't so far from the oft written about 'facilitation' as I had previously thought. In fact, it pointed more towards the differences.

It works like this:


Players have these concrete agents in the game, mostly called characters, but that obscures their presence as the method players used to 'indulge' themselves.

Gamemasters are nothing like that. Many times it's said they have 'the world,' but that is by far, the worst misleading thing that could be said. It is clear from the Freitag/Mazza interpretation, that said world is not at all concrete, sensible, causal, or in any way consistent or real. It quite simply doesn't exist (until it is created). (The cards in the game of concentration 'in game' are as backless as Schroedinger's cat is alive or dead.)


And that's both where the confusion lays and the path to El Dorado.

Hearing people again and again contemplate gamemaster Narrativism with player Simulationism made me realize that most people sense the difference between these two parties. The fact that they want to apply the same model differently to both underscores that each is operating in a different fashion.

Until the recent work of Professor Edwards regarding Illusionism really sank in, I had no idea why. With it, we really do see a gamemaster who's doing one thing with players who are pretty much up to something else entirely. What's been wrong all this time is applying a single model to both.

I, myself, make the same error with the Avatar-Swashbuckler-Joueur-Auteur Scattershot model, except someone in my naiveté manage to only talk about player behaviour.

How does all of that relate to El Dorado? If you realize that these are two separate and distinct rivers, you can find your way right to the door of the fabled city.

(An El Dorado gamemaster doesn't fall for the 'myth of reality,' he plans his 'story' abstractly. He uses Origins, Precipitating Events, Mystiques, Moving Clues, Crises, Climaxes, and Resolutions without labeling them. A complication isn't Suzy or Bonnie or Chicken pox, it's simply a complication in complete abstraction. He can plan out all the turns of the story, in great detail if he wants, as plain abstractions. He then takes this 'gamemaster story' and feeds it to the players. It is from indulging their interests, their 'labels,' and their desires - just like described in Intuitive Continuity - where the specifics of 'his story' arise. I unconsciously ceded some of this 'authoring' to the entire group when I created Scattershot's Genre Expectations; some of them include the archetypical 'plot' written completely abstractly.)

(What does this mean? It means I'm going to have to create a whole 'nother model just for gamemasters. It means that I'm going to have to create terminology of the preference of player-Approach gamemasters follow. It means I have a lot of explaining to do. It means I need a lot of help working out the specifics of this idea. It means that this post has gone on far too long. It means I need to get to bed. It also means I'm so happy you guys helped me get this far and I appreciate however much help you can give me to get 'the rest of the way.')

(Finally, it means I'm glad you read this far; you're the greatest.)

Fang Langford

Just a thought. Although these abstract, unlabled events can be planned in advance they are mostly sketched out in chunks.

I do remember how delighted I was at reading the Dream Park RPG which had adventures explicitly divided into Climaxes, Resolutions, Developments and so on. I made a few games which only was a what that RPG referred to as a "beat chart", with these events laid out.
However, that quickly became a railroading story with some plotplots pre-loaded. Because it was all one big chunk. I do recommend flipping through Dream Park for it's insights on what plot elements you should throw in.

Efficent play of the type I think we are discussing still involves only designing "as much as you feel like" at a time, and then being ready to throw out that the instant it doesn't work with what you want to do.

For example, you were thinking that there were going to be werewolves out in the woods, but they went out too early in the game looking in the woods, so it would spoil the excitement to have them hunted now. Instead you let them come back without seeing anything special and switch to them playing with a ouija board and attracting ghosts.

It might seem that such a twist would be giant change, but if you only had worked out a story of "well they're gonna be chased by werewolves and stuff", then changing the story 90 degrees just because "it is more dramatic that way" isn't a problem.

At this point you had only really created an intro chunk "party, the find werewolves in the forest and get hunted". Since they went out before the party, you simply switched the story. The threat isn't the woods now, but something living in the house. So the story becomes "party, using oujia board to reveal the ghosts in the house". A new chunk.

Once the ouija board reveals the ghosts you might create a small chunk "ghostly effects scaring everyone, someone goes missing". And so on.

But maybe you're saying something different Fang?

Maybe you mean that the scenarios I'm switching between are really concrete implementations of a single meta-scenario: the intro-revelation-scares-first hints at the true horror-etc etc remains the same in both cases.

In that sense you could say that a typical horror story already has all of this pre-written. The pacing is this and this, the range of events are these and these.

If we zoom out, then will there always be somewhere where such a game can be considered to be made up by abstract components? I don't know for sure.

Fang

Hey, read through your post here (you did have a bit too much fun elaborating on your mental models as generated by your perusal of the various thread, if I do say so myself.)

But, I think what you are ultimately getting at is a good idea. It mirrors just a bit of the thinking I have been doing with regards to expanding my SGR stuff.

To expand it even further. I think power/responsiblity is an all important axes which to consider. By concentrating the power for an SGR mode in one person, you necessarily limit the power/responsibility of the other players. You create two different games, one played by the players, and one by the GM. This is fundamental to a games design as represented by it's language. I would go so far as to say the distrubition of power is the most important thing to consider in terms of GNS type stuff. It affects how an invidual player "can" prioritize his GNS decisions.

The players play to the GM's game, in the case of Story/Illusionist type play, the GM is working on directing or weaving the actions of the other players into a satisfying story. If they go along with them, things are good, where his reward is to actually achieve his S fix, and have that S fix reinforced/validated by the other players. The players are essentially trying to figure out what the GM is doing via his Show and Tell act, while doing their thing GNS thing from character perspective.

Anyway, I definitely think you have a good idea here. GNS has primarily addressed the "player" perspective and not enough attention has been considered, at least for design purposes, on the idea that reserving the power to one player, makes it a totally different game for him.

(Narrativism, as evidenced in most N games around, is kind of screwy since it covers the opposite side of the Story element, where all the players have more say in shaping and dealing with S, and are playing the game in a much more similar way. Where Dramatism/Illusionism is the more traditional method, with the Story element focused on the GM player, who effectively is playing a rather different game, or approach to the fundamental Story element entertainment.)

HTH

Howdy Fang,

An El Dorado gamemaster doesn't fall for the 'myth of reality,' he plans his 'story' abstractly. He uses Origins, Precipitating Events, Mystiques, Moving Clues, Crises, Climaxes, and Resolutions without labeling them. A complication isn't Suzy or Bonnie or Chicken pox, it's simply a complication in complete abstraction. He can plan out all the turns of the story, in great detail if he wants, as plain abstractions. He then takes this 'gamemaster story' and feeds it to the players. It is from indulging their interests, their 'labels,' and their desires - just like described in Intuitive Continuity - where the specifics of 'his story' arise.

said world is not at all concrete, sensible, causal, or in any way consistent or real. It quite simply doesn't exist (until it is created)

Thanks for replying Christoffer,

Pale Fire wrote: Just a thought, although these abstract, unlabeled events can be planned in advance they are mostly sketched out in chunks.

Pale Fire wrote: I do remember how delighted I was at reading the Dream Park RPG which had adventures explicitly divided into Climaxes, Resolutions, Developments and so on. I made a few games which only was a what that RPG referred to as a "beat chart", with these events laid out.

However, that quickly became a railroading story with some subplots pre-loaded. Because it was all one big chunk. I do recommend flipping through Dream Park for its insights on what plot elements you should throw in.

Pale Fire wrote: Efficient play of the type I think we are discussing still involves only designing "as much as you feel like" at a time, and then being ready to throw out that the instant it doesn't work with what you want to do.

For example, you were thinking that there were going to be werewolves out in the woods, but they went out too early in the game looking in the woods, so it would spoil the excitement to have them hunted now. Instead you let them come back without seeing anything special and switch to them playing with a ouija board and attracting ghosts.

It might seem that such a twist would be giant change, but if you only had worked out a story of "well they're gonna be chased by werewolves and stuff", then changing the story 90 degrees just because "it is more dramatic that way" isn't a problem.

At this point you had only really created an intro chunk "party, the find werewolves in the forest and get hunted". Since they went out before the party, you simply switched the story. The threat isn't the woods now, but something living in the house. So the story becomes "party, using oujia board to reveal the ghosts in the house". A new chunk.

Once the ouija board reveals the ghosts you might create a small chunk "ghostly effects scaring everyone, someone goes missing". And so on.

Pale Fire wrote: But maybe you're saying something different Fang?

Maybe you mean that the scenarios I'm switching between are really concrete implementations of a single meta-scenario: the intro-revelation-scares-first hints at the true horror-etc etc remains the same in both cases.

In that sense you could say that a typical horror story already has all of this pre-written. The pacing is this and this, the range of events are these and these.

If we zoom out, then will there always be somewhere where such a game can be considered to be made up by abstract components? I don't know for sure.

Hello,

Keep talking, folks, I'm listening.

I'm also smiling in a sinister fashion, but I'm listening.

Best,
Ron

Welcome to the discussion Rob,

RobMuadib wrote: To expand it even further, I think power/responsibility is an all important axes which to consider. By concentrating the power for an SGR mode in one person, you necessarily limit the power/responsibility of the other players. You create two different games, one played by the players, and one by the GM. This is fundamental to a games design as represented by its language. I would go so far as to say the distribution of power is the most important thing to consider in terms of GNS type stuff. It affects how an individual player "can" prioritize his GNS decisions.

RobMuadib wrote: The players play to the GM's game, in the case of Story/Illusionist type play, the GM is working on directing or weaving the actions of the other players into a satisfying story. If they go along with them, things are good, where his reward is to actually achieve his S fix, and have that S fix reinforced/validated by the other players. The players are essentially trying to figure out what the GM is doing via his Show and Tell act, while doing their thing GNS thing from character perspective.

RobMuadib wrote: Anyway, I definitely think you have a good idea here. GNS has primarily addressed the "player" perspective and not enough attention has been considered, at least for design purposes, on the idea that reserving the power to one player, makes it a totally different game for him.

Welcome aboard Chris, your help may prove invaluable.

C. Edwards wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: An El Dorado gamemaster doesn't fall for the 'myth of reality,' he plans his 'story' abstractly. He uses Origins, Precipitating Events, Mystiques, Moving Clues, Crises, Climaxes, and Resolutions without labeling them. A complication isn't Suzy or Bonnie or Chicken pox, it's simply a complication in complete abstraction. He can plan out all the turns of the story, in great detail if he wants, as plain abstractions. He then takes this 'gamemaster story' and feeds it to the players. It is from indulging their interests, their 'labels,' and their desires - just like described in Intuitive Continuity - where the specifics of 'his story' arise.

Not to poop on your epiphany but I guess I naively assumed that most people approached GMing in this manner, at least on a visceral level. Of course I don’t see it as the GM feeding the players "his story".

C. Edwards wrote: It’s the GMs story algorithm or framework, but the players’ decisions are what give meaning, in every sense, to its unfolding. If we were to lay out Cinderella as one of these abstract story frameworks with appropriate labels on complications and dramatic climaxes, etc. would it resemble the story of Cinderella? Would it have any meaning? The players may ONLY be supplying desires to the GM so that the specifics may be generated, but what is that if not player empowerment? The players' interests and desires ARE the story. They are the direct cause of events based upon a very limited (because GMs are not universal Turing machines) palette of possibilities.

C. Edwards wrote: So, If I’ve just described El Dorado, then yes Fang, I think you’ve found it, and here I thought it was just an old brickyard.

C. Edwards wrote: Of course, game systems with a substantial amount of Simulationist mechanics make running a game in this manner difficult, at least if the GM isn’t prepared to throw out a good deal of those mechanics that apply to what happens on his side of the screen. I’m not talking about fudging dice rolls either. I’m talking about manipulating time and space in a manner that conflict with the understanding of "how things work" on the player side of the screen. This is where Illusionism is born I think, different standards for different sides of the screen. But since, in El Dorado:

Le Joueur wrote: said world is not at all concrete, sensible, causal, or in any way consistent or real. It quite simply doesn't exist (until it is created)

The manipulation of time and space is a non-issue. I think that a system that doesn’t require, or one that openly embraces, different standards for player and GM is the only way to reach El Dorado and avoid the realm of Illusionism.

C. Edwards wrote: My primary experience with this is d20 and AD&D. Played by the book the game is a strategic exercise in foe smiting and power grabbing (levels/items) with, as Mr. Adkison says, "story too, if you‘re so inclined..." The 'El Dorado Model' can’t function properly without putting the players' decisions and desires at the very top of the pyramid. Putting player desires foremost is difficult in such systems because Simulationist mechanics try to impose causal structure on an imagined construct that must remain inconsistent and flexible to accommodate those desires.

C. Edwards wrote: Here is an analogy and comparison to help illustrate how I see El Dorado:

(Illusionism) A race that is decided by the voice of the announcer (GM).
(Railroading) A race that is decided by the structure of the race track (Plot).
(El Dorado) A race that is decided by the actions of the drivers (Players).

C. Edwards wrote: One of the reasons I appreciate the work you’re doing with Scattershot is that it lays out many of the pieces that a story framework can be built of in an understandable manner that is geared towards RPGs.

Telegram

Dear Fang,
Been living in El Dorado for awhile now. (stop) The weather is great and the natives are lovely. (stop) I've gotten to speak the language rather fluently. (stop) Hope you find your way here. Hint; The way isn't all by river, hope you brought your hiking boots and a machete. (stop) Beware the simulationists, they look friendly but I wouldn't turn your back on them.(stop)

Don't follow the beaten path,
Sylus (stop)

End Telegram

Sylus! (stop)
Expected to here of such. (stop) Send guide immediately. (stop) If guide cannot speak GNS, come yourself. (stop)

Oh, and I love the humor, don't (stop).

Fang Langford

I strongly suspect that you are in an Iron Pyrite version of the lost city of gold, Sylus. Partly that's because I thnk we've still not seen it as such. But perhaps I am mistaken. That said, it's almost a certainty that if it's ever found, that it will be inhabited; I mean if you found a city of gold, would you leave?

Fang, I think we are doomed to walk about in the jungle outside of El Dorado. Let me explain. As we proceed up your river, it becomes entangeld with the GNS river in the swamps just outside the city....

Sorry, I have to drop the metaphor here. Or rather adopt some new ones.

It has to do with the chunk theory that you have. As the chunks get smaller, we get closer and closer to El Dorado. But you'll also find that the effort level increases and increases in order that each does not just become a Simulationist result individually (the GM has to constantly consider the potential thematic impact of each). As this happens, the GM drops out more and more cases replacing them with Sim play, until he has no story left, and is playing Sim again. It's like the speed of light. As you get closer and closer it becomes asymptotically more difficult to go faster. As the chunks of play get smaller, the effort of keeping them all Nar neccessarily increases as well. To a point where the GM is just not going to be able to function.

But not all is lost. This jungle just outside of the city is pretty interesting (hence my recent suggestion that we just call it El Dorado, and camp there comfortably). That is, as long as one plays in this format for at least part of the game, a continuing sense of a story can be maintained. Let's call this the Marco Sense after it's most ardent supporter. I propose that this sense of a story is, for many, many players, even players who claim to like Narrativism, sufficient to make good play.

So, I propose that El Dorado is, in fact, a fiction, as are all perfect things. And instead, I suggest that you join me in the jungle where El Dorado is supposed to exist, and pick up the gold bricks that do indeed exist. We can take turns throwing them at the Narrativists that have gone over the edge of the precipice into the land of metagame.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that this jungle isn't a place that hasn't been tracked before. I hear of this man named Skarka who's theories about the place seem identical upon close reading...And then there's Professor Edwards' "Vanilla Narrativism" which is a part of the jungle that hangs out over the precipice. It's also not far away, and perhaps overlaps at times.

Mike

Sure, chunks. Most of my ideas for games are built around chunks. My current game concept is strictly composed of a finite number of scenes.

In addition, my game design theory revolves around game elements. Here is where it all started for me. Progress has been made but have come to a stop lately (new job). It seems to me more and more that this universe reveales itself to be discrete rather than continuous.

Fang, I think it's time you also check Dramatica again.

Best regards,

Joe Llama

Edited in: oops. just noticed someone put a new thread about the subject. anyway, i still think it's a good and unused resource.

Message sent by secure messenger. Do not attempt to interrogate as messenger does not speak GNS

Dear Fang,
I am unable to come myself as I am currently exploring some ruins outside the city that may lead me to a better understanding of a time known as the Dawn of the Magi.

After consulting with the locals, a culture known as Players, and their spiritual class known by a strange ancient word pronounced Gee'Em, it was decided after much negotiation that you would be allowed to visit. Unfotunately for now you will not be allowed to know the way, but led in secret, until such time as you can discover the path for yourself.

Some words of advice before you arrive. One, you will need to remember that Players do not speak GNS, but an old tongue known as Straightforward. This speach allows them to talk in a simple manner that is easily understood by any Gee'Em so that they may translate it to the higher powers that be. And two, do not expect to be given the answers, but instead shown the way to finding them yourself. Don't worry, I'll be here to help. I've discovered that I've been speaking Straightforward for so long now that I find GNS somewhat baffling anymore. No offense is meant towards the illustrious Professor Edwards, his research in cracking that ancient code has been invaluable, but I feel that finding the Rosetta Stone that will enable to truly crack Straightforward is just around the corner.

Please follow the guide as he will lead you here, but do not try and mark your way as it constantly changes, you would just invariably lose yourself later when trying to retrace your steps. Hope you arrive soon and eagerly await in hearing of your adventure here.

Sylus Thane Esq.
Explorer on the Rim

P.S. Please tell Professor Holmes that it definitly isn't pyrite that I look upon. Though it may not be gold in his eyes either. Treasure is in the eye of the beholder. If you have open eyes you will see it sparkle all around you. Of course it is inhabited, but you will find the natives friendly and understanding, and they smile at our ill understanding ways while gently prodding us towards the right path.

Well, well, well.

Shall I point out, my dear esteemed Professor Fang, that my very first post on The Forge amounted to shouting "hey guys, El Dorado's over here!"?

No, I shall not, because you make some excellent points concerning the inadequacy of the directions to same that I've attempted to provide. In particular, I'm willing to entertain the theory that attempting to give those directions in GNS terms is and has been doomed to failure. That initial post asserted that GNS doesn't describe my play; for a long while I was convinced that I was wrong; recently I've come to suspect that I was partly right (though still wrong in many of the original particulars).

You've also raised an issue that I hadn't begun to examine yet: though the techniques in question have been discussed many times before, most recently under the general heading of "reality-in-flux" and within the context of Illusionism, the issue of what is actually done with those techniques has barely been touched. Examples, necessarily kept simple, have focused on avoiding specific turns of events that suck or of forcing a specific desired event. The idea of the story-in-the-abstract being decided separately from the specifics offers the potential for a more detailed model.

My new theory of why and how GNS misses El Dorado wrote:
As was recently clarified in a recent discussion of some misleading wording in the GNS definition of Narrativism, all GNS modes are about "some priority NOW." GNS does not examine the outcome of play (that is, the fictional sequence of events actually generated by means of play), either as a consequence of GNS mode decisions (because any mode can lead to infinite different types of outcome) or as a motivation affecting GNS mode decisions (because GNS does not address motivation at all).

Outcome-based decision-making is the other river.

In El Dorado the GM's priority is not anything NOW. The GM's top priorities relate to the outcome. El Dorado GMs (and perhaps most GMs overall) prioritize the generation of outcomes with particular qualities, including, in many cases, narrative structurual qualities. A GM who decides to introduce a "complication" is making a narrative structural decision. Whether or not the players or the GM want a complication right now is irrelevant; the GM is acting on the perception that the narrative outcome needs a complication to happen. Just about any complication will serve the basic structural purpose, whether the specifics originate from the GM or from the players, so the GM has the option of deciding on the specifics based on a secondary priority (such as what's the most probable or what best invokes a theme) -- which is intCon play -- or allowing the players' desires to dictate them -- which is your El Dorado play.

Here's where my past directions to El Dorado always got sidetracked: trying to pinpoint which GNS mode the GM behavior resulting from the decision to "add a complication" falls under. Is it Sim because complications are an expected part of the nature of the genre-world being explored? Is it Narr because complications can lead to addressing Premise? Is it Gamist because complications add challenge? The new hypothesis is: we usually can't tell, and it's irrelevant anyway. Sure, whatever decisions the GM makes in play can be shown ultimately to be most consistent with one of the GNS modes. But that tells us no more about how the GM is making such decisions than pointing out that the observable behavior of a novelist at a typewriter can be categorized into typing letters, typing punctuation and spaces, and hitting the carriage return tells us how a novel is written.

Because it limits its domain to observable behavior, GNS lacks the resolution to usefully describe GM decision-making when the top decision-making priority is creating specific qualities in the outcome -- because the apparent GNS mode of such decisions is undeterminable, accidental, or the result of secondary considerations. Which is why on the GNS map El Dorado is somewhere in a big murky gray area in one corner of Simulationism where the only marking on the map is, "here be dragons."

Hi Mike,

Mike Holmes wrote: It has to do with the chunk theory that you have. As the chunks get smaller, we get closer and closer to El Dorado. But you'll also find that the effort level increases and increases in order that each does not just become a Simulationist result individually (the GM has to constantly consider the potential thematic impact of each). As this happens, the GM drops out more and more cases replacing them with Sim play, until he has no story left, and is playing Sim again. It's like the speed of light. As you get closer and closer it becomes asymptotically more difficult to go faster. As the chunks of play get smaller, the effort of keeping them all Nar necessarily increases as well. To a point where the GM is just not going to be able to function.

Mike Holmes wrote: But not all is lost. This jungle just outside of the city is pretty interesting (hence my recent suggestion that we just call it El Dorado, and camp there comfortably). That is, as long as one plays in this format for at least part of the game, a continuing sense of a story can be maintained. Let's call this the Marco Sense after it's most ardent supporter. I propose that this sense of a story is, for many, many players, even players who claim to like Narrativism, sufficient to make good play.

So, I propose that El Dorado is, in fact, a fiction, as are all perfect things. And instead, I suggest that you join me in the jungle where El Dorado is supposed to exist, and pick up the gold bricks that do indeed exist. We can take turns throwing them at the Narrativists that have gone over the edge of the precipice into the land of metagame.

Mike Holmes wrote: On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that this jungle isn't a place that hasn't been tracked before. I hear of this man named Skarka who's theories about the place seem identical upon close reading...And then there's Professor Edwards' "Vanilla Narrativism" which is a part of the jungle that hangs out over the precipice. It's also not far away, and perhaps overlaps at times.

Hey Joe, whattaya know (always wanted to say that),

joe_llama wrote: Fang, I think it's time you also check Dramatica again.

Ah the inestimable Mr. Freitag,

wfreitag wrote: Shall I point out, my dear esteemed Professor Fang, that my very first post on The Forge amounted to shouting "hey guys, El Dorado's over here!"?

wfreitag wrote: No, I shall not, because you make some excellent points concerning the inadequacy of the directions to same that I've attempted to provide. In particular, I'm willing to entertain the theory that attempting to give those directions in GNS terms is and has been doomed to failure. That initial post asserted that GNS doesn't describe my play; for a long while I was convinced that I was wrong; recently I've come to suspect that I was partly right (though still wrong in many of the original particulars).

You've also raised an issue that I hadn't begun to examine yet: though the techniques in question have been discussed many times before, most recently under the general heading of "reality-in-flux" and within the context of Illusionism, the issue of what is actually done with those techniques has barely been touched. Examples, necessarily kept simple, have focused on avoiding specific turns of events that suck or of forcing a specific desired event. The idea of the story-in-the-abstract being decided separately from the specifics offers the potential for a more detailed model.

wfreitag wrote:

My new theory of why and how GNS misses El Dorado wrote: Here's where my past directions to El Dorado always got sidetracked: trying to pinpoint which GNS mode the GM behavior resulting from the decision to "add a complication" falls under. Is it Sim because complications are an expected part of the nature of the genre-world being explored? Is it Narr because complications can lead to addressing Premise? Is it Gamist because complications add challenge? The new hypothesis is: we usually can't tell, and it's irrelevant anyway. Sure, whatever decisions the GM makes in play can be shown ultimately to be most consistent with one of the GNS modes.

wfreitag wrote: However, keep in mind that the specifics have to interface with abstract structure somewhere. The specifics of the outcome might arise from the players, but at some point their in-play decisions either will or will not be consistent with the abstract plan. Some sort of force must be applied to rule out inconsistent outcomes, or else the plan must change (in which case it's really not a plan at all).

I've occasionally talked about tools to facilitate reality-in-flux play. One example, I recall, was tables of encounters organized by the purpose the encounter is expected to serve in the narrative rather than (or in addition to) the usual divisions by locale. "Complications" would be one possible table heading. Looking back on the ideas I've considered, they fall into two main categories: scripts for instantiating a particular chunk of abstract story, and rules for piecing the abstract story together on the fly (specifically, assembling smaller abstract pieces into larger ones) that facilitate coherent narrative structure in the whole. The encounter tables would fall into the first category. (In your El Dorado play, these wouldn't be used by GMs because the players' would be control of that process).

wfreitag wrote: So, count me in on your expedition. A few things I'm loading on my pack mule:

- A field guide to fractals.
- A copy of the book "Strong Magic" by Darwin Ortiz.
- A laptop PC with satellite Internet access and a browser set to the Jan Murray (Hamlet on the Holodeck) Web site.
- Some food for your cat

Sir Fang wrote:

That's why El Dorado can be populated by any of the GNS modes and why they're irrelevant.

However, keep in mind that the specifics have to interface with abstract structure somewhere. The specifics of the outcome might arise from the players, but at some point their in-play decisions either will or will not be consistent with the abstract plan. Some sort of force must be applied to rule out inconsistent outcomes, or else the plan must change (in which case it's really not a plan at all).

I've occasionally talked about tools to facilitate reality-in-flux play. One example, I recall, was tables of encounters organized by the purpose the encounter is expected to serve in the narrative rather than (or in addition to) the usual divisions by locale. "Complications" would be one possible table heading. Looking back on the ideas I've considered, they fall into two main categories: scripts for instantiating a particular chunk of abstract story, and rules for piecing the abstract story together on the fly (specifically, assembling smaller abstract pieces into larger ones) that facilitate coherent narrative structure in the whole. The encounter tables would fall into the first category. (In your El Dorado play, these wouldn't be used by GMs because the players' would be control of that process).

Chris,

What you posted sounds a lot like what Fang posted for his Iron Game Chef entry; check it out if you haven't.


What I see here is a description of a Macro-Mode of gaming. As Fang said, sorta outcome based. But I see it a in terms of actual play. That is, part of El Dorado is the feeling that we're in a relatively objective world, and also that there is a story emerging from the characters' actions. So it's not really outcome, but what happens in play.

When I say Macro Mode, what I mean is the particular mixture of GNS decisions. That is, in El Dorado play, there will be lots of Sim instances of play by the players, and lots of maneuvering by the GM to present his Narrativist decisions in such a way as to continue to support the players Sim play. Or at least the appearance of Sim play. That is, the players are making Narrativist decisions; they just tend to be presented with well constructed retroactive motivations.

Which is to say that the players are using a common form of player illusion. That being that they present their decision only after the retroactive assignment has occured. Thus:

"I want to see Coronado get all action-heroish. He tries to jump the chasm."

This does not use player Illusion.

"Coronado thinks that the city is across the chasm, so he tries to jump it."

This does.

This sort of illusion seems simple and common, and it is, because we're all used to playing in Actor stance. In which case that's perforce how an action is presented (there is no underlying player motive other than to play the character "accurately"). So when employing Actor stance, we are all knowledgable in how to present such illusion. In fact, the idea that Author Stance is "illegal" in some games has has meant that many people have become quite adept at hiding it, I'd wager.

Thus, we are unaware whether or not the player has "Authored" the response or not in such play, often.

This is not to say that allowing such a revelation as to player motive is bad. It really doesn't disturb play much at all, IMO. My point is not that El Dorado play is enhanced by player illusion (preferences will differ on that point I am sure), but rather that when playing El Dorado play, you tend to see this a lot. Or, rather, you don't. The player tends to just have stimuli that make it so that his response can either be Sim or Nar; one cannot tell.

IOW, there is a mix of player instances of play that is actually Sim and Narr. What makes it El Dorado is that the Narrativist instances tend to be subtle and seem to look just like the Sim ones. This is Walt's congruence thing. When playing Sim:char, or Narr, the only difference is whether or not the issue being decided on is "morally compelling" to the players. And this will, of course vary from decision to decision. Not all can be completely compelling. And in any case, the reacions will often be internal.

This is not really an uncommon style of play at all, of course. What we're talking about is a range of frequency of certain kinds of GNS decisions, and when they occur in terms of player (non-GM) play. Hence Macro-Mode.

I thnik it's useful to talk in terms of such macro modes. That is, I think we already do so, and not recognizing such leads to confusion. For example, in Narrativist play, we say that many of the instances of play are Narrativist. Well, isn't that contradictory? What I think we're saying is that the Narrativist Macro Mode is composed of a lot of Narrativist decisions, and proabably some Sim ones, with few or no Gamist ones. That's just hypothetical. The point is that it makes sense to look at these macro modes. And El Dorado is one, IMO.

I should mention that this is not new. Walt, Ron and others have worked through a bit of this on other threads dealing with "what is an instance of play", and atomic decision making.


The only other consideration is what exactly Fang is proposing in terms of his Illusionist technique. It seems to be a Flexible technique, in that you change the world to fit the characters actions to make them seem like story. But I'm kinda at a loss as to how it's new at all. I mean isn't that the technique that we always use when making use of this sort of Illusionist technique? What would be an example of such a technique that did not consider the world to be in a "wave state" before it was encountered? In all cases, something is changed behind the scenes and presented as though that's "the way it always was". I'm having trouble thinking of any Illusionist technique that doesn't work that way.

So is this just a matter of degree? That all things are considered non-permenant, a opposed to just some? Because it was in about 1982 that I "discovered" that there didn't have to be any objective permenance to anything in a game. Only the appearance of permenance. So perhaps I've been doing this so long, that it seems incomprehensible that anyone would be so inflexible as to refuse to change a game world "fact" if changing it would improve the game in any way.

Or, IOW, yes, I wholeheartedly support this method of play. It's what I've been using the term Illusionism to refer to, well, since I've used it. Or am I missing something more revelatory about the proposed method?

Where my play has developed of late, is the acceptance that players may be authoring, and not to question that. Even to encourage that to the extent that it does not interfere with anything like their personal senses of Immersion or any of that. That trust of the players has been the last step, for me on the road to the Macro-Mode of play that I'd call El Dorado.

Mike

Ooo, I just love this expedition Professor Langford. Thanks for inviting us all.

Let's see if I can make some contributions:

[disclaimer:The only time I GM and feel I'm truly in el Dorado is when I GM horror. On the other hand I've played in a few el Dorado games]

The chunks
I think you're not 100% right about the chunks prof. Or you are right in one way and not in the other.
What I mean is you can make the chunks as long as you like (by stringing small ones together) as long as you are willing to throw them away. Abstract chunks and filled chunks (chunks where the player have determined the meaning of the abstract idea) can be just as heavy a luggage.

The problem is, the longer chunks you make, the less likely you are to throw it away. It's very easy to stray from el Dorado if you carry a long string of chunks, especially if you invested time in thinking them up. So that warning is definately needed.

Tools
If GM and Players are doing two different things it's only logical that they should use different rules. Walt has already been onto the angle of having tools to create story.

Let me add to that adding another category: tools to retcon and fudge.

Here's an example: Let's say you are GM and you and your players are following the same in game rules. Now the best story is that POW that shot takes out the bad guy and he falls into the gene-goo so he can return later as a monster.
Only, in these rules with so and so many hitpoints the bad guy couldn't die that easy. Or he wouldn't drown or some other problem due to mechanical limitations.

Of course, it's all good drama and everyone enjoyed the scene so no one complains. Still there is this general feeling that the GM fudged the rules there for some drama.

See the illusion cracking?

The same thing becomes a problem even if you don't fudge the rules: You don't let the guy die and fall into the gene-goo. Instead you let the characters run in and do pure overkill to be sure the bad guy is dead. The stomp him to the ground, pee on him and then throw him in a meat grinder.

Instead of that dramatic scene the characters became murderers and butchers. Welcome to GM hell.

So another tool to help find el Dorado seems to be rules that allow GM editing of scenes for more drama. For this tool to work, it has to be a much more delicate and painless instrument than fudging rolls or ignoring rules.

We're talking about rules that allow you to take any abstract chunk and follow it no matter what. No game mechanics in the way to "make decisions that affect the plot".

...

Well that sums up my contributions for the night. I wish I could have stayed longer, but it's already 1:27 a.m. according to my watch. Time to roll out my sleeping bag and blow out the lamp.

G'night professor.


Best Wishes,

/Christoffer

This doesn't apply to anything, really, but I've never had so much fun reading a thread that I didn't really get.

Jake

(a bearded, dirty traveller emerges from the deep jungle -- somehow, he doesn't quite look like a native. Indeed, it is one of the thought-to-be-lost explorers of the beaten path to El Dorado!)

That chunk approach is what I've been using for years. That's at the root of why I've always defended my view that story/sim concerns CAN exist in the same game. I didn't realize it was worthy of such a commotion, though.

Also, consider Relationships Maps (an obscure method of drawing maps by the one theorist Edwards)! Are they not very similar to this chunk-based approach?

The most recent expedition towards our elusive city of gold defined its objective as (and I quote:) simply: player choice directing a gamemaster created story. Hmm. I'm not sure if that is the defination we've used in the past threads discussing this same journey.

The comparison to Schrödinger's Cat was excellent, as well as were the comments on realism. Something long overdue, I think. Realism is so passe, I feel. At least, the term realism is very, very inappropiate for what we're doing. I'm sure there is room under the collective umbrella of simulationism for some kind of hard-core emulation of a virtual world, but that's not what many Simulationists want to be doing.

My definition of El Dorado is slightly different. In an El Dorado game, I don't want the (realistic) flow of cause and effect (as understood within the gameworld) to be affected maliciously by the narrativist desires of both the gamemaster and the player. Yet, I want to empower the game with narrativist ideas so that our foray into this virtual reality of the game is not an empty one, but a meaningful one. But it is important to note that I don't think the causality -- the naturalism -- of the in-game is adversely affected by player discussion/action based on OOC knowledge outside the game. The player exists in the OOC world. The character exists in the IC world. For all actions of the character, there must exist a reasonable IC cause, no matter if the decision to initiate said action comes from an OOC decision of the player (in fact, where else can it originate from? I point to the non-existant cat in the box!) As long as there exists such a reason, the naturalism is sustained and the Sim angle is covered. Then the game, the "focus of the camera" and the decisions of the players, should aim for narratively meaningful outcomes.

I don't know, maybe I found my El Dorado in some of the tributaries of the Narrativism river. As I know that I've found it -- having lived there -- but I have just not used its specific flavor to empower the design of a game.

A note on separating the GM from the GNS paradigm. I think this idea bears thought, certainly. Perhaps we could look at the GM as a being outside and above of the GNS concerns, which glue the players to the game and control their decisions within it, as a director who must understand and cater to the specific GNS desires of those who play in his game.

As another side-note, I think Jake may have already stumbled pretty damn close to El Dorado with his Riddle of Steel. So, I just find it perfectly fitting and appropiate what he said in his post on this thread!

Just some preliminary thoughts for the new visitors to our wild region. Welcome to the jungle and beware the Southern Mountains, they're frought with peril.

- Joachim Buchert -

Hey Mike,

Real cool commentary!

Mike Holmes wrote: What I see here is a description of a Macro-Mode of gaming (as Fang said, sorta outcome-based), but I see it in terms of actual play. That is, part of El Dorado is the feeling that we're in a relatively objective world, and also that there is a story emerging from the characters' actions. So it's not really outcome, but what happens in play.

When I say Macro-Mode, what I mean is the particular mixture of GNS decisions. That is, in El Dorado play, there will be lots of Sim instances of play by the players, and lots of maneuvering by the GM to present his Narrativist decisions in such a way as to continue to support the players Sim play. (Or at least the appearance of Sim play, the players are making Narrativist decisions; they just tend to be presented with well-constructed retroactive motivations.)

["Player Illusion" stuff snipped; I haven't anything to add there, except it reinforces the idea that El Dorado may not shoulder Author Stance well and Director Stance at all.]

...I think it's useful to talk in terms of such Macro-Modes, I think we already do so, and not recognizing such leads to confusion. For example, in Narrativist play, we say that many of the instances of play are Narrativist. Well, isn't that contradictory? What I think we're saying is that the Narrativist Macro-Mode is composed of a lot of Narrativist decisions, and probably some Sim ones, with few or no Gamist ones. That's just hypothetical. The point is that it makes sense to look at these Macro-Modes. And El Dorado is one, IMO.

Mike Holmes wrote: The only other consideration is what exactly Fang is proposing in terms of his Illusionist technique. It seems to be a Flexible technique, in that you change the world to fit the characters actions to make them seem like story. But I'm kinda at a loss as to how it's new at all. I mean isn't that the technique that we always use when making use of this sort of Illusionist technique?

jburneko wrote: Premise is being consciously addressed but only on one side of the table. I think if that addressing is on the Players' side, you get dysfunction. However, if the GM, is consistently insuring that the presentation of Situation and NPC-Character interactions all essentially raise permutations of the question stated in a Premise but the players are ONLY actually addressing the Situation and Characters (not consciously acknowledging the Premise they embody) then I think this quite functional. But what is it?

Note: In this style of play the GM is only raising questions (the Premise) via presentation of Situation and choice Character interactions. He is NOT predetermining the PCs reactions to them. Therefore, because the Situation/Character interactions present Premise the players MUST address the Premise because they must make a decision regarding the given state of game affairs even if they are not consciously thinking of it in terms of Premise but only as a Situation to be resolved/dealt with.

Mike Holmes wrote: What would be an example of such a technique that did not consider the world to be in a "wave state" before it was encountered? In all cases, something is changed behind the scenes and presented as though that's "the way it always was". I'm having trouble thinking of any Illusionist technique that doesn't work that way.

So is this just a matter of degree? That all things are considered non-permanent, a opposed to just some? Because it was in about 1982 that I "discovered" that there didn't have to be any objective permanence to anything in a game, only the appearance of permanence. So perhaps I've been doing this so long, that it seems incomprehensible that anyone would be so inflexible as to refuse to change a game world "fact" if changing it would improve the game in any way.

Or, IOW, yes, I wholeheartedly support this method of play. It's what I've been using the term Illusionism to refer to, well, since I've used it. Or am I missing something more revelatory about the proposed method?

Pale Fire wrote: Tools
If GM and Players are doing two different things it's only logical that they should use different rules. Walt has already been onto the angle of having tools to create story.

Let me add to that adding another category: tools to retcon and fudge.

Here's an example: Let's say you are GM and you and your players are following the same in game rules. Now the best story is that POW that shot takes out the bad guy and he falls into the gene-goo so he can return later as a monster.

Only, in these rules with so and so many hit points the bad guy couldn't die that easy. Or he wouldn't drown or some other problem due to mechanical limitations.

Of course, it's all good drama and everyone enjoyed the scene so no one complains. Still there is this general feeling that the GM fudged the rules there for some drama.

See the illusion cracking?

Pale Fire wrote: The same thing becomes a problem even if you don't fudge the rules: You don't let the guy die and fall into the gene-goo. Instead you let the characters run in and do pure overkill to be sure the bad guy is dead. The stomp him to the ground, pee on him and then throw him in a meat grinder.

Instead of that dramatic scene the characters became murderers and butchers. Welcome to GM hell.

Pale Fire wrote: So another tool to help find El Dorado seems to be rules that allow GM editing of scenes for more drama. For this tool to work, it has to be a much more delicate and painless instrument than fudging rolls or ignoring rules.

We're talking about rules that allow you to take any abstract chunk and follow it no matter what. No game mechanics in the way to "make decisions that affect the plot."

Pale Fire wrote: G'night professor.

Hey Jake,

Good to hear from you.

Jake Norwood wrote: This doesn't apply to anything, really, but I've never had so much fun reading a thread that I didn't really get.

Welcome back Joachim,

Daredevil wrote: That chunk approach is what I've been using for years. That's at the root of why I've always defended my view that story/sim concerns CAN exist in the same game. I didn't realize it was worthy of such a commotion, though.

Also, consider Relationships Maps (an obscure method of drawing maps by the one theorist Edwards)! Are they not very similar to this chunk-based approach?

Daredevil wrote: The comparison to Schrödinger's Cat was excellent, as well as were the comments on realism. Something long overdue, I think. Realism is so passe, I feel.

I'm lost in an impenetrable thicket of metaphor, and can't find the discussion.

I believe if you are truly abstracting it, none of the problems you describe occur. Lose the idea that players will know all these 'myth of reality' details or that they must actually be consistent (rather than simply seeming consistent), and you're all the way where you're going.

Fang wrote

To make a Relationship Map-like device fit the 'chunk' theory, it would be a web of generic terms connected by generic intensity measurements. It would not fit the definition of a Relationship Map at the very get-go, because until player activity populates it with specifics, we cannot guarantee it is neither explicitly for thematic exploration, nor of blood and sex exclusively.

contracycle wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: I believe if you are truly abstracting it, none of the problems you describe occur. Lose the idea that players will know all these 'myth of reality' details or that they must actually be consistent (rather than simply seeming consistent), and you're all the way where you're going.

My emphasis.

The problem with this approach is that the players DO know. They keep notes, they remember. Sometimes, I've found players remembering whole chunks of games that I didn't remember. There is an old adage that the best lie is a simple lie, on the basis that a complicated lie is harder to remember. Similarly, the more consistent a game history is, the easier it is to maintain that consistency. The more you deviate from established fact, the more compensations you have to make and the more special cases you need to bear in mind at all times.

Our own notes are unreliable - in the heat of the moment I'm not likely to be able to record everything I say, let alone everything the players ask or remark. The most dedicated GM I knew use to tape-record sessions and transcribe his notes from them. The importance of consistency is to ensure that nobody discovers that their individual version of the illusion is at odds with someone elses. And they can't just be left to seem[/] consistent, or some day the actual inconsistencies will come back to haunt you.

Le Joueur wrote:
The only application to what I am calling 'the myth of reality' is what I emphasized. If you don't 'establish facts,' like how many hit points a bad guy has, you can't have inconsistency. Beside that, it all becomes a matter of how you apply Illusionist techniques to 'hide' any inconsistency. (For example, raising the 'curtain' long enough to sweep them under it.)

From the Journals of Sylus Thane

Entry 2: Watching the progress of Mr. Langfords Expedition

As I watch through the great Scope of Things atop Mount Venture I am amazed at the amount of trappings people feel they need for such a simple expedition. I feel Fang is on the right track, no offense to the esteemed Professor Edwards, but I feel Fang is being led astray in his quest by the seductive promises of the GNS. He is correct in his summary of relationships when seeking Game. I have discussed the matter with one of the Gee'Ems, and they say that his thoughts are correct, but his disciption is wrong. If was a map you know where it leads, he must begin to think of it as a tree, you never know how it will grow or where it will branch. It he changes his form of thinking, his travel may become easier.

I am constantly concerned with his, and the others joining his expedition, need to attach special abstract words to help them define the things they seek. When and if they arrive it cause great difficulty in their attempts to learn Straightforward from the Players. I'm afraid that if they continue to view things from their old GNS ways, or continue to try and change GNSism into their own dialect they will never be able to see the signs that lead to El Dorado. Perhaps I will be forced to put aside the manuscripts detailing the Dawn of the Magi for now and go and try and find them before they become too lost. I have a feeling if they become too enamoured with their translations they may fall victim to the Isms who are constantly lurking in the shadows.

Food, change of clothes, sword, rifle, and my good knife. I am off. A few good players by my side. If we hurry I feel we can catch them before they reach the Simulationism Mazes. If they are caught in there, it will take a great deal of time to get them out, if ever.

Speed is of the essence.

Sylus

contracycle wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: The only application to what I am calling 'the myth of reality' is what I emphasized. If you don't 'establish facts,' like how many hit points a bad guy has, you can't have inconsistency. Beside that, it all becomes a matter of how you apply Illusionist techniques to 'hide' any inconsistency. (For example, raising the 'curtain' long enough to sweep them under it.)

OK. But this is essentially the "its not real till you see it" approach that we already know, as others have mentioned. There is a catch, though: the system lets payers predict Truth. They might not know the bad guys HP, but they can know that X is enough to kill an elephant. At which point you're back to credibility, which is a finite resource, or at least needs regular refreshing. I feel you incorrectly understate the significance of the emulation of reality - I don't feel that I am seduced into maintenance of consistency out of the delusion that it MUST be consistent, but rather do so because it is the simplest lie. There is value in real being real, IMO.

Sylus Thane wrote: I feel Fang is being led astray in his quest by the seductive promises of the GNS.

Sylus Thane wrote: He is correct in his summary of relationships when seeking Game.

Sylus Thane wrote: I am constantly concerned with his, and the others joining his expedition, need to attach special abstract words to help them define the things they seek. When and if they arrive it cause great difficulty in their attempts to learn Straightforward from the Players.

Sylus Thane wrote: I'm afraid that if they continue to view things from their old GNS ways, or continue to try and change GNSism into their own dialect they will never be able to see the signs that lead to El Dorado.

Mike wrote: It seems to be a Flexible technique, in that you change the world to fit the characters actions to make them seem like story. But I'm kinda at a loss as to how it's new at all.

Since you bring up The Evil Walt, I feel I have to make a quick comment in regards to its el Dorado qualities. In essence, the Evil is a gutted BRP RPG. There are hardly any rules at all. How is this helping el Dorado? Because rules are in the way "of making up reality as you see fit". Furthermore, there are no rules for the GM, there are only rules for the players.
The GM doesn't need to roll if the monster manages to stalk the player.
The GM doesn't need to roll to decide NPC vs NPC actions.
So there is no problem with the rules interefering with the GM's reality building. The mechanics and its results are given all their meaning through the interpretation of the GM. This way there is no effect that the GM did not desire. The mechanics only work as a rough suggestion.

The question, to me, is how to translate this well into a system with a lot of rules. The contrast between players employing a lot of rules and the GM using none would seem be so much more pronounced. Also there has to be a way for the GM to measure his NPCs actions. In the Evil the GM simply gives a target number made up on the fly and that's enough. In a more sophisticated game it would seem to be a lot harder.

Aren't these 4 points true?

1. Rules impede GM flexibility
2. Rules guide player decisions
3. Rules create consistent results
4. Rules make outcome predictable

Actually the 4th is a consequence of 1-3.

So, turning down the amount of rules like in a gutted BRP (the Evil) works in a way but unless we assist it with something else it can never work as a universal solution.

(I'm kinda embarrassed making all these references to the Evil. It's not like it's a revolutionary game. But for all it's simplicity it still works as an example as a game made to GM using IntCon)

[Edit: This isn't addressing the chunks at all. But I figured, if you want to look at the chunks, better know the other things going on in the game as well.]

I'm not sure if this is helpful at all, but I may have accidentally stumbled across a path that leads, not to the Golden City itself, but to a treacherous embankment that overlooks it. This path is dubbed, by the natives, complete lack of GM preperation.

Looking back on it, I've been walking this path for a while now. In middle and high school, I had friends who'd come over & expect to roleplay, making characters on the spot and looking for me to GM an adventure on the fly. Just out of necessity, I had to get suggestions from them about the kind of game they wanted to play (since I had zilch time to prepare), and would just throw a bunch of the suggestions into an "opening" and then spend the rest of the game reacting to what the players threw out. Lately, in Storypunk, The GM is Dead, and my new Harry Potter-based project, I find myself returning to this model.

After all, who has the time to spend preparing to roleplay? Recently, I've been writing games where character creation either takes 5 minutes or can be done during play. Also, the players can run the game right out of the box, in 30 minutes or less. Zero prep-time, once you understand the rules. This kind of off-the-cuff, reactive GM style is significantly different from the "chunk" method, but it similarly puts control of the narrative in the hands of the players, while the GM tries to administer things to keep the collaboration from breaking down.

Am I also heading towards El Dorado, or am I still lost in the jungle, smitten by mirages?

Sorry Christoffer,

I'm bored and tired...

Pale Fire wrote: Since you bring up The Evil Walt,

Pale Fire wrote: Aren't these 4 points true?

• Rules impede GM flexibility
• Rules guide player decisions
• Rules create consistent results
• Rules make outcome predictable

[Edit: This isn't addressing the chunks at all. But I figured, if you want to look at the chunks, better know the other things going on in the game as well.]

Jonathan Walton wrote: ...To GM an adventure on the fly. Just out of necessity, I had to get suggestions from them about the kind of game they wanted to play (since I had zilch time to prepare),

...After all, who has the time to spend preparing to roleplay?

...Am I also heading towards El Dorado, or am I still lost in the jungle, smitten by mirages?

Le Joueur wrote: Do you want to control a game to suit a 'big picture' purpose using Illusionism so that your players may subscribe to a different method of their choosing?

I'm sad to hear I'm boring you Professor Fang. I'll see if I can revive your interest somewhat.

Professor Fang Langford, daring explorer and searcher for the mythic el Dorado wrote:
It actually does address 'chunks' indirectly. I believe you make the classic err thinking that 'fewer rules' always get 'out of the way' of the gamemaster. The 'chunks' I'm proposing are neither 'in place of rules that players use' nor in conflict with any amount of rules in general.

Hey Christoffer,

I didn't mean that you had anything to do with my boredom. (You didn't make me tired, did you?) I thought it valuable to note what I brought to the conversation for caveat emptor purposes.

Pale Fire wrote:

Mr. Fang Langford, daring explorer and searcher for the mythic El Dorado wrote: It actually does address 'chunks' indirectly. I believe you make the classic err thinking that 'fewer rules' always get 'out of the way' of the gamemaster. The 'chunks' I'm proposing are neither 'in place of rules that players use' nor in conflict with any amount of rules in general.

Then I think you're puzzling the pieces I gave you together in the wrong fashion.

Let's get back to what you were teaching in those archeology classes - the importance of internalizing rules. Once the rules are internalized by the great Gee'Emm, they become tools. However, the shape of these tools vary from mechanic to mechanic. The more complicated and contra-intuitive the tools, the longer they take to be internalized. However the most important thing is how the tools interact with each other.

[Fewer] rules make a game quicker to internalize and reduces the chance of tools interfering with each other.

Pale Fire wrote: I from what I see from your map to El Dorado, the task of the Gee'Emm seems to be to let the needs of the players interpret the abstract chunk he has picked up. But in expressing this chunk back to the players, the Gee'Emm needs to use his tools. If the tools interfere with each other, then the sketch handed back to the players will not be the one of the interpreted chunk and not of the players' desires either.

Pale Fire wrote: What I am suggesting is that the tools of the Gee'Emm must allow him to draw the scene in any colours he wants.

There are far too many tools that leave out half of the colours or provide tools like "brushes with other brushes attached". Such tools tempt the Gee'Emm to fit the drawing to the tools instead - to draw things that the tools allow instead of the true image.

Pale Fire wrote: In that moment I believe El Dorado is lost to them.

If instead of having the players paint the abstract image of the chunk it is the system that chooses the image, then that can only mean the input of the players will be less. Is that not so?

Pale Fire wrote: Say, where is Schrödinger by the way?

Hello, all, :)

I would like to raise a couple of points here. Unsignaled forks in the path, so to speak.

My first point will be: if El Dorado is all about the GM being in control of the story, then how does chunk theory help any?

To wit, narrative structure has been hammered to death in many a field of study. Sites with variations on the '36 basic plots' are out there by the thousands. If you read them out, they sound exactly like what (I think) you propose chunk theory to be. If that is the case, then 'GM control' is reduced to selecting a narrative structure from an already elaborately detailed menu of narrative structures.

Let's talk about writing, for instance. I never tried writing any fiction longer than a three-page short story, so I don't know if novel writing is any different. However, what I do is pick out a structure and a theme and then get ready to write the details in. In other words, I control the story because I control the details. The chunks come from the structure I picked. They control nothing.

So first my point, restated, is: why do you feel that planning out chunks is any degree of story control at all?

My second point is not as elaborate and is really only a question: how does your proposed El Dorado relate to the design and/or play of purchased scenarios?

Cheers,

J.

Prof Fang old friend I don't see what you are saying STOP The natives seem very friendly STOP They are making me a nice pot of their best brew STOP Or so my interpreter tells me STOP but it's making me a little nervous STOP that they are already tying my assistant to a pole STOP but my interpreter assures me it's quite normal STOP

In other words I am a little lost here. The GM plays with his abstract images, but who is painting the picture? If it is the GM, then what are the tools of the trade?

If you are saying that the players provide the tools, isn't that saying "System doesn't matter"? If not the explain to me where the system enters. Because the way I see it, hasn't the system has put its influence on the painting by the time the GM shows the picture to the players?


It's starting to smell nice STOP I hope food is ready soon STOP Best wishes your friend Christoffer STOP

Sir Fang,

I urge you wholeheartedly to rethink your proposed route to El Dorado. The high Priestess of the Temple of the Sun, which lies at the heart of El Dorado, has come to me in visions with these words, “If you must resort to Illusionism, then you have already lost Control.” I fear the expedition my be focusing on a Shadow of El Dorado, and not the city itself.

*in the rest of this post my reference to El Dorado should be read as “El Dorado without Illusionism”.

Fang wrote:

The only application to what I am calling 'the myth of reality' is what I emphasized. If you don't 'establish facts,' like how many hit points a bad guy has, you can't have inconsistency.

The more you deviate from established fact, the more compensations you have to make and the more special cases you need to bear in mind at all times.

There are hardly any rules at all. How is this helping el Dorado? Because rules are in the way "of making up reality as you see fit". Furthermore, there are no rules for the GM, there are only rules for the players.
The GM doesn't need to roll if the monster manages to stalk the player.
The GM doesn't need to roll to decide NPC vs NPC actions.
So there is no problem with the rules interefering with the GM's reality building. The mechanics and its results are given all their meaning through the interpretation of the GM. This way there is no effect that the GM did not desire. The mechanics only work as a
rough suggestion.

I'm not sure if this is helpful at all, but I may have accidentally stumbled across a path that leads, not to the Golden City itself, but to a treacherous embankment that overlooks it. This path is dubbed, by the natives, complete lack of GM preperation.

As a GM, I loathe the idea that it's my duty to provide entertainment for the players. I don't want to be a performing monkey. But I also don't want to be completely reactionary; I want to have some hand in the outcome of play; I want my participation to matter.

I understand your opinion here, but I don't believe it has any context with what I'm talking about. Since El Dorado is a destination, all of what you're discussing will have passed before that place is reached. Any rules, no matter how intuitive or not, no matter how complicated, will have already been internalized (or whatever you want to call the 'getting it down' process.) Use of rules will be transparent.

Hey J.

Seems you've arrived right in time for the lynching. (I was worried this wasn't coming)

JMendes wrote: My first point will be: if El Dorado is all about the GM being in control of the story, then how does chunk theory help any?

JMendes wrote: To wit, narrative structure has been hammered to death in many a field of study. Sites with variations on the '36 basic plots' are out there by the thousands. If you read them out, they sound exactly like what (I think) you propose chunk theory to be. If that is the case, then 'GM control' is reduced to selecting a narrative structure from an already elaborately detailed menu of narrative structures.

Let's talk about writing, for instance. I never tried writing any fiction longer than a three-page short story, so I don't know if novel writing is any different. However, what I do is pick out a structure and a theme and then get ready to write the details in. In other words, I control the story because I control the details. The chunks come from the structure I picked. They control nothing.

So first my point, restated, is: why do you feel that planning out chunks is any degree of story control at all?

JMendes wrote: My second point is not as elaborate and is really only a question: how does your proposed El Dorado relate to the design and/or play of purchased scenarios?

Pale Fire wrote: I am a little lost here.

Pale Fire wrote: The GM plays with his abstract images, but who is painting the picture? If it is the GM, then what are the tools of the trade?

If you are saying that the players provide the tools, isn't that saying "System doesn't matter"? If not then explain to me where the system enters. Because the way I see it, hasn't the system has put its influence on the painting by the time the GM shows the picture to the players?

View hullo! Chris!

C. Edwards wrote: I urge you wholeheartedly to rethink your proposed route to El Dorado....

* In the rest of this post my reference to El Dorado should be read as
"El Dorado without Illusionism."

...I think a large problem people have, indoctrinated gamers anyway, is that they have a preconception of just what an rpg is supposed to be, which is often completely intertwined with this "myth of reality". They believe that certain types of rules, certain quantities of rules, mechanics that work this way or that way will work better to create a "reality" that doesn’t exist anywhere but in their minds. That indoctrinated way of thought is poison to the pursuit of El Dorado.

C. Edwards wrote: ...It is only by letting go of our need to know what might happen before the players do that we can see the true path to El Dorado.

...It is the Connections by which the GM influences player decision. The truth is, Connections aren’t any more reactionary than the players' decisions which prompt those Connections. Envision a yin-yang or the endless cycle of rainfall. Player decision carries no more weight than GM connection; they feed and reinforce one another. It’s the band metaphor all over again. Jazz baby.

C. Edwards wrote: Use of the rules will not be transparent as long as the GMs use of those rules is in contradiction to the players understanding of how those rules function. This is the hometown of Illusionism. For example, in a game with hit points they have a solid context, specific rules for how they are lost, how many, etc., etc., The player always abides by these criteria, he doesn’t have much choice. The GM on the other hand takes these very same criteria and bends them until they break, usually based on no other criteria except perhaps "the needs of the story", or "keeping NPC alive for next time". Therefore, the core mechanism the game is supposed to provide, central rules for determining various aspects of play in an objective manner, has been utterly disregarded by the GM. This is often considered a serious breach of the unspoken social contract, akin to cheating.

I wholeheartedly agree that letting go of the "myth of reality" is the greatest step on the winding trail, but when the system being used is still supporting that myth... you’re up the creek without a paddle.

C. Edwards wrote: My basic issue here is that you seem to find Illusionism necessary to El Dorado because you believe the game system itself to be not of much issue. If that is the case then I wholeheartedly disagree.

And I apologize if this has sounded like a rant for "how I play". It certainly isn’t meant that way. I also know that I haven’t offered much in the way of crunchy fact and specifics but, like any similar quest, I believe the route to El Dorado requires a certain degree of Zen thought.

After crossing the Great Gap, myself and my Player companions came across the esteemed Mr. Lerno and friend. Unfortunately they already had the company of Gamists from the Pit of the Isms. After a brief battle ensued we were able to free Lerno's companion before he had succumbed to being dinner. Lerno is correct in his thinking that all of the worlds abundant within the universe of game have their own unique rules. Which is as it should, as any Gee'Em will tell you, for it helps them in guiding parties of Players through their adventures, but I fear he may have gone to gung ho on the let's hurry up and get there that he mistakenly stopped to ask directions. As I did not send his guide I fear the forces of Ism have already begun to lead others astray, to what end I do not know.

Across the valley we spotted C. edwards plodding along with his eyes closed steadily feeling his way. He his on the right track and I hope he will not make similar mistakes and ask for directions as all they will do is lead him down the wrong path. We will continue to keep track of him, he shouldn't be too hard to keep track of as long as he keeps whistling those wonderful tunes.

Hopefully we will be able to find Mr. Mendes soon as he seems to be a good gentleman and looks to be on his way to becoming one of the great Gee'Ems with his willingness to question all theories.

I have no idea where Sir Langford. I fear he may have unwittingly walked into the Maze. If he has it may take a great deal of time to get him and all of his companions back out again. I hope his friend Caro has not strayed too far, and that he did not bring enough food for his cat. We will head for the maze now and hope to find some sign of his passing.

Sylus

This is just a huge discussion, with a whole bunch of tangentially related issues complicating it further. Personally, I've yet to digest everything in this thread and before I can continue with my own search I'd have to go back to look at all the old threads as well as my own notes derived from these most ancient of manuscripts on our Golden City.

This is probably the most high-flying thread I've ever seen on the Forge and I think we've all seen a few that were deep indeed.

Amongst my notes I found the barest sketches of a game design -- started simply out of a wish to design a game that is distinctly El Doradan in flavor -- that I still find interesting. Indeed, perhaps this at times esoteric discussion could benefit from a firm root in reality, perhaps in the form of an actual game design. This way we could talk about matters in a more hands-on manner.

This is what should distinguish the true explorers from the mere theorists, my esteemed collegues.

Looking at my notes, with some deep humor and irony I chose the premise of the game to be the conquistadors and indeed restricted it further to be a game about a) the myth of El Dorado b) a more sim-type depiction of the conquistadors actual explorations. Each campaign would be about a group of explorers (the PCs) creating an expedition to look for that hidden city. In this way, the game has a generic shape, but also a narrative focus, without the initial decisions actually deciding which way the story will be going (you can still fail to find it, or you can actually find it, or the story can branch into some other tangential matter such as the player's establishing their own kingdom of Gold in the Amazon).

Indeed, the whole idea has a curious resonance with the "chunk" approach, as the game would pretty much be about the general chunks of the relationships of the conquistadors, encounters with local Indian cultures, the dangers of the wilderness, the logistics of exploration and other themes encountered by these exploring groups. All these issues are at the same time "realistic" sim-based concerns as well narrativist concerns loaded with meaning as contrasted to the journey at large. There is a general pre-knowledge of the chunks, by virtue of understanding the setting and the premise, but their true content only appears in play, as per the chunk approach.

A note on realism as pertaining to the game. The adventures in the game could just as well include magic, semi-magic or none at all, depending on any number of factors (player-GM decision, GM decision, etc). The "realism" is naturalism, in that it isn't carbon copy of OUR world, but a naturalist depiction of THEIR world.

Anyway, interesting thread which is going to take a great while to digest.

- Joachim Buchert -

Edit to include response to the Zen issue: The mention of this is almost unbelievable to me, since I have truthfully held the same thought -- that the approach to El Dorado takes a great deal of Zen -- from the VERY beginnings of the talks on El Dorado. I've never taken it up in discussion for fear of muddling it further (as I'm uncertain how many here are truly initiated or even lightly cognizant of Zen philosophy). This is also why the Schrödinger's Cat analogy worked so well with me, as it appealed to the part of me that associates this entire style with a Zen-approach to role-playing.

Hullo, :)

1. I understand where you're going.
2. I do not think you're going where you think you're going.

From the essay, "...The GM may be defined as the author of the ongoing story, and, simultaneously, the players may determine the actions of the characters as the story's protagonists."

Some of you may or may not know that El Dorado, or a city built with actual gold, does not exist, but that an alternative explanation has been advanced regarding a city built with many a piece of obsidian stone that glints exactly like gold and that might exist, although it would also be very hard to find and indeed worth much.

In other words, I think you have lots and lots of merit for advancing and proposing this discovery, but I don't think you have found El Dorado as described in the essay.

Our differendum doesn't come from what is story nor from what is control, but rather, from what is authoring. You have artfully expanded on this point of difference in your response to my previous post when you stated that I think that authoring is in the details. You were right. I do. Or rather, I don't, but I do think that that is what the essay means.

I think Mike came close when he claimed you had found and iron pyrite version of El Dorado, except that pyrite is virtually worthless, whereas obsidian is at least semi-precious. Also, the discovery has much merit for archeological and anthropological value.

Also, I think Ron is still reading along with his sinister smile and all, but I would really like to know what he thinks at this point.

Cheers,

J.

Hello J. (What should I use for the J?)

JMendes wrote: In other words, I think you have lots and lots of merit for advancing and proposing this discovery, but I don't think you have found El Dorado as described in the essay.

Our differendum doesn't come from what is story nor from what is control, but rather, from what is authoring. You have artfully expanded on this point of difference in your response to my previous post when you stated that I think that authoring is in the details. You were right. I do. Or rather, I don't, but I do think that that is what the essay means.

JMendes wrote: Also, I think Ron is still reading along with his sinister smile and all, but I would really like to know what he thinks at this point.

Ahoy, :)

Le Joueur wrote: Hello J. (What should I use for the J?)

Miss a day...

First, I think that we ought to consider a few new threads. This one's getting heavy. And I think we should drop all the metaphor (you people need to play more!). It's only serving to obscure things.

Like the ironic fact that I am not sure what Sylus is saying about speaking in a more straightforward manner.

Just one specific point. The case against "Reality" has been waaaay overstated here, IMO. That is, while flexibility is key, here, there are often times when you don't have to be flexible, and things just come togehter serendipitously. As such it's noce to have some reality present for when this does occur so that the GM can take a break from making it all up on the fly.

And nobody is saying that consistency has to be thown out. Rather the opposite. Consistency is what we hope to maintain by cheating as much as possible. "Oh, the cat wasn't there before? Hmmm. Yes, that is strange, isn't it...." (GM creates plot from presumed inconsistency).

As for GNS, what do you al have against discussing it in terms of GNS? Just because GNS can't describe it simply or entirely by itself doesn't mean that it's not useful in analyzing the phenomenon as always.

Mike

Hazard Warnings on the Road

contracycle wrote: OK. But this is essentially the "its not real till you see it" approach that we already know, as others have mentioned. There is a catch, though: the system lets players predict Truth. They might not know the bad guy's HP, but they can know that X is enough to kill an elephant. At which point you're back to credibility, which is a finite resource, or at least needs regular refreshing. I feel you incorrectly understate the significance of the emulation of reality - I don't feel that I am seduced into maintenance of consistency out of the delusion that it MUST be consistent, but rather do so because it is the simplest lie. There is value in real being real, IMO.

Concerning another game he had created, Christoffer Lerno a.k.a. Pale Fire wrote: Because rules are in the way "of making up reality as you see fit". Furthermore, there are no rules for the GM, there are only rules for the players.
The GM doesn't need to roll if the monster manages to stalk the player.
The GM doesn't need to roll to decide NPC vs NPC actions.
So there is no problem with the rules interfering with the GM's reality building. The mechanics and its results are given all their meaning through the interpretation of the GM. This way there is no effect that the GM did not desire. The mechanics only work as a rough suggestion.

Christoffer Lerno a.k.a. Pale Fire further wrote: Aren't these 4 points true?

1. Rules impede GM flexibility
2. Rules guide player decisions
3. Rules create consistent results
4. Rules make outcome predictable

Ok, I'm re-entering the confusing el Dorado thread to answer some concerns MJ has about things I wrote. I don't know if I dare to do any real exploring of el Dorado because at this point I am not sure if the el Dorado we discuss is what I'd feel is el Dorado or if it's about something completely different.

The fact that there is now a "chunk-theory" that is based on something I wrote, but which doesn't resemble anything I ever considered makes me feel very lost :)

M. J. Young wrote: Maybe this works well in that game; but I have some problems with it. Vizzini, Montoya, and Fezzig have just climbed the Cliffs of Despair, and Vizzini says that no one but the giant has the strength to climb it. Now, if they're the player characters, don't they have the right to believe that whatever they did to impede the ability of the non-player characters to follow them has some effect?

M.J. Young wrote: I have seen rules that enhance referee flexibility. I think that Multiverser's general effects rolls do this, as well as the botch results rules, and probably also the relative success and relative failure rules.