Hi folks,

I've been twirling the idea in my head for a bit, and got something a bit more clear and coherent.

The Ball

"Avenues of Potential"

I find that the real meat of what goes on in play is a part of that scene framing(Where, Who, What/Why) and almost a trading of potential avenues on the parts of the players and the GM, through suggestions, actions, and bits of foreshadowing.

Take a close look at last part of that quote. Potential avenues of "what happens next" suggested by the group, as one person to another.

You see it in play when stuff pops up like the GM hints, "The villain stands precariously close to the edge of the cliff...", giving a hint to the players that it would be possible or even appropriate to knock him off the cliff. Notice that the idea isn't necessarily explicitly stated as to "what should happen" but its hinted. By the GM's choice, he or she has opened an avenue and suggested it to the players.

So what got me started was looking at this exchange between the group, in terms of what "could happen". This is where the Ball comes in.

What is the Ball?

The Ball is the ability to make a decision as to which, if any of those avenues of possibility get taken, and to suggest new ones. If you have this power, then you have the Ball. Easy enough, right? It is the ability to decide "what happens next".

Passing the Ball

So, here's the reason why I use the Ball analogy: Because the focus of what I'm looking at is the Ball being passed back and forth between various members of the group. So let me give you a basic example of Ball passing:

GM- Sir James asks if you want to go to Eastville or Northlund?
PC- I'll let Sir James choose where we go.

So, the GM just passed the Ball to the player, the player just passed it back. Most games handle passing via group social contract, some games make it explicitly part of the rules.(Dust Devils, the Pool, Universalis, etc.)

For more interesting versions of people passing the Ball, check out:
http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6116
http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6464

Momentum

The second thing to notice about the Ball idea is that of Momentum. For now, we'll simply define Momentum as "interesting play", leaving what folks consider "interesting" up to the group(hello GNS!). As long as the person with the Ball can keep producing interesting events and play, the Momentum is kept. When the person with the Ball fades, its a good time to pass it, preferably "setting up" room for more interesting things to happen, foreshadowing possible avenues for "what happens next".

GM-scene frames Bob taking his girl on a date. Cut back to her apartment where his REAL girlfriend is tied up in the closet.
Player- Bob proposes to his girlfriend!

Aside from the nifty use of Author/OOC stance going on here, check out that the GM gave a set up to the player, and the player gave a set up back to the GM. Same deal as the "Villain by the cliff"example as a perfect way to see a "set up" in play.

Fans of the "Yes, and...", "Yes, but...", "No, and...", "No, but..." school of thought will find that this is what set-ups are all about. Scene Framing is the GM's primary tool, along with Bangs, but players have Kickers and character based actions and decisions as tools to generate momentum.

Dropping the Ball

The Ball has been dropped when:
1-The GM isn't giving clear signs on "what happens next"
2-The players are unsure of what to do
3-Nothing interesting is happening

From this you get complaints of "passive players" and "GM's who don't give cues on what should happen!" In this case, the players and the GM are all expecting the other to pick up the Ball. You'll hear the GM go, "What do you do next? Where do you want to go?" and the players go, "Um, I search for clues!".

Playing with the Ball

In order to play with the Ball and get that Momentum going, there are 3 methods to get input on "what happens next".

Character-
Character decisions, actions and reactions form interesting things. This is the core of protagonist play, Vanilla Narrativism and Meaningful Choice. You must be able to make some character make some choices in order to grab the Ball and generate Momentum this way.

Conflict-
Scene framing, or the ability to make requests about scenes and conflict within them(Trollbabe, TROS's SAs). You can open a thousand possibilities of "what can happen next" with this, even if you don't control Outcome.

Outcome-
You'll see this in narration rights, but also in "Yes, but...", "No, and..." leading to more Conflict.

Any one of these three can be a means for a player in the group to have the Ball and generate Momentum, and any one can set up possibilities for the other two.

The Impossible Thing

Looking at it with the Ball analogy, you can see why the Impossible thing is impossible. The Ball cannot be in two people's hands at the same time. It can be passed back and forth, but cannot be used by two people simultaneously. The power to choose what avenues will be taken, opened or closed cannot reside in two people's hands at the same time.

The Ball Hog

This is the style of play that is most commonly used by many people, in which the GM is the person who is responsible for holding the Ball most of the time, generating Momentum, and also the one blamed if the Ball drops. This style of play can be perfectly functional and fun, the Michael Jordan style of play, where everyone knows to pass to the GM.

This sort of play fails often because there is so little passing going on that the GM and the players do not develop the necessary communication skills to read when the ball is being passed, to whom, and what are some good things to do with it when you get it. You end up with GMs complaining, "Well, I kept dropping hints!" and the players saying, "I didn't know what was the right thing to do!". This also leads to players afraid of the Ball, having a hard time with games that make passing the Ball mandatory(The Pool, Inspectres, etc.).

The Passing Game

This sort of play is more like Magic Johnson, always being aware of who's open, who wants the Ball, and who's in a good position to use it. Also means being able to always catch it before it drops and keeping up the momentum. This sort of play either requires explicit rules that make the passing clear for everyone, or else a good rapport and social contract, as well as that "group vibe" that Ron talks about with his band analogy.

At its best, the players pass before losing Momentum, and try to open up other avenues to the person they're passing to. The GM forces passes when things slow down and hands it to someone else who is available, giving set ups through scene framing and Bangs.

Genre Expectations

Consider these to be sort of a "playbook" of how you can provide set-ups and payoffs to each other in the group. These still don't replace good communication, but are an excellent supporting device to work with passing the Ball.

GNS and the Ball

In all 3 forms of play, the Ball can be passed. Gamist and Simulationist gameplay can function fine with the GM as the Ballhog, but Narrativism only flies with the Ball getting passed back and forth, hence the reason this sort of thing comes up more in Narrativist play.

Hopefully that clears up a bit of the muddied idea there, and I'm looking forward to folks dropping some input on this idea. I'm really looking forward to anyone who can provide play examples of the Ball getting passed back and forth in an interesting or weird fashion, and maybe the hows and whys of it.

Chris

Pretty cool artical Chris.

Ball Hog

This is the style of play that is most commonly used by many people, in which the GM is the person who is responsible for holding the Ball most of the time, generating Momentum, and also the one blamed if the Ball drops. This style of play can be perfectly functional and fun, the Michael Jordan style of play, where everyone knows to pass to the GM.

This brings up the point of 'why pass to Jordan?' the reason being, well Duh, he's better at it.
I wouldn't say the GM is always the best one to hold the ball, but they are usually a good choice. I guess the question would be, is anyone good with the ball? Not everyone is good at anything else, so why should they be?

Hi Damion,

There's definitely something very interesting about the Ball, and the reason why I'm focusing on it right now:

The Ball happens whether it is explicitly or implicitly used.

So, as you've pointed out, the GM can open some possible avenues of "what can happen" and leave it to the player to choose. Notice also that the players may suggest something("He's really working for the mayor!") that the GM may or may not have thought of that then becomes an avenue to use("Yeah! He IS working for the mayor!"). For GM's who retroactively change things, this is an example that the players may not be aware of.

Some Narrativist games seem to have a combined model, i.e. a player may set up the conflic and resolve it themselves.

In many cases, it is because by giving over all 3 of the means of input(character, conflict, outcome), it is clear who has the ball. Much confusion over the Impossible thing occurs because the GM has the Ball, all the time, usually using Conflict(scene framing) and Outcomes as ways to railroad and force the decisions the players make using Character.

For example: John wants to go over the mountains east. But the GM wants the adventure in the City to the west. John uses Character to try to take the Ball to decide what happens next, and...

-The GM sets up overwhelming obstacles to discourage/turn him around(Conflict)
-The GM fiats or sets up high modifiers to prevent him crossing the mountains(Outcome)
-The GM just "moves" the city over the mountains(retroactive "all roads lead to Rome" style), (Outcome).

See, in all those cases, the player really didn't have the Ball, he really didn't have any choice at all. The player really never even had control over his Character as a means of input into "what happens". What the key point of the Passing Game, is, is that the GM has to be willing to let go of the Ball occassionally, and let the players have the freedom to do with it as they will.

As you've mentioned, being able to set up what is possible, is those methods in play. If you Scene Frame an area, and the people in it, you've already done a lot of input into "what can happen". If you have Director Stance power(Donjon's Facts), you have a lot of input into "what can happen".

What I'm really interested in, is the implicit use of the Ball, as opposed to the explicit use of it. The latter shows up in most of the Nar games that have popped up in the recent years, but the former is across the boards in all games.

I'm very interested in learning more about this flow of power, especially since its that Lumpley Principle in action, or rather, in movement.

Second, I'm also interested in its use as a group, in "synergy", or those "everybody's feeling each other" jam sessions that Ron's talking about.

Chris

PS- Check out Fvlminata's social resolution for an example of "Here's 3 outcomes, choose 1" sort of play.

Hi Chris,

The instance of play John Kim wrote about in the Actual Play forum (thread:Horseplay gone too far? ) strikes me as a good example of a "foul", an abusive snatch of the ball from a player by a gm. John's female character was ruled to be "in heat" when she changed form into a mare, and as such susceptible to a normal stallion's advances.

John Kim wrote: I think what made it particularly jarring was the off-the-cuff nature of the "in heat" ruling, as something on the spot which I had no say in (and which my character was not prepared for, despite being the shapeshifter). Other posters have pegged this as being caused by the GM's discomfort with how we were derailing the plot, which I think is right.

Chris, is the ball different from a person's say? That is, their instantaneous right or ability to determine in-game content. I'm looking at them as being mostly the same, so if that ain't the case, my following examples may be flawed. (I won't be around for a few days, so if I'm off the mark, take my apologies in advance.)

It seems like it might be an interesting approach to look at specific mechanics to see where/how they pass the ball.

InSpectre's confessional is kind of like a penalty, or free shot. The player has a limited but unrestricted opportunity to determine game content.

Otherkind's task resolution mechanic gives the player the chance to determine who gets the ball next (gm or player), and makes the decision a strategic one, balanced with in-game effectiveness, character mortality/damage and another in-game factor.

Mechanics can function to keep the passing of the ball free-flowing, and they can make it contested to add interest.

Universalis would be interesting to look at in this light since it is an example of a game that puts the ball into play with all players more equally.

In my gaming group, hand-offs are governed almost completely by simple group concensus and individual initiative. All conflicts are handled by discussion not by consultation with oracles or use of mechanics. Mediation by the third player sometimes, yes. :)

--Emily Care

Emily Care wrote: Universalis would be interesting to look at in this light since it is an example of a game that puts the ball into play with all players more equally.

To be precise you hand the ball to the player seated to your left when you're done with it (or listed below you in IRC), or you pay a Coin to just take the ball from the current player.

When resolving Complications it changes a bit with the ball going first to the player who rolled best, and thence to the involved players with worse results.

I'm all for consistent rules on who has the ball at any given time. I think that IIEE is very much a discusson of where the ball is during resolution portions of play.

Mike

Hi Emily,

Thanks for helping explore this idea!

Chris, is the ball different from a person's say? That is, their instantaneous right or ability to determine in-game content. I'm looking at them as being mostly the same, so if that ain't the case, my following examples may be flawed. (I won't be around for a few days, so if I'm off the mark, take my apologies in advance.)

Yes, in fact, the ball is somebody's say, the whole Passing the Conch and Lumpley's Credibility is rolled into this as well. The specific reason I choose to use ball is because it directly speaks to the part I'm interested in: The passing of it, and the momentum(interesting stuff happening game-wise) that occurs through its use. Personally, I like to focus not only on the "what's happening now" but the use of it to set up, "what's happening next".

To use John's example, here's that aforementioned idea of Character Decision being overrided by Conflict and Outcome. The option of "Do I want to engage in this raunchy event?" is really snatched from the player's hands, not only in the immediate application of the event, but also the GM fiat of outcome.

To comment on your examples, right, right, and right! These are all cases where passing is handled explicitly, which, in some cases assists with people dropping the ball less(from miscommunication), allowing folks to concentrate on momentum with the ball more.

In my gaming group, hand-offs are governed almost completely by simple group concensus and individual initiative. All conflicts are handled by discussion not by consultation with oracles or use of mechanics. Mediation by the third player sometimes, yes. :)

Hi Emily, this is exactly the "grey" zone I'd really love to explore more on. The explicit rules about ball passing are easy to see, in terms of looking at a design, then watching them in play. What I'm really fascinated by is the implicit use of the ball passing, because it does happen, even in classic "GM controls world, players sometimes control characters" sort of play. If you could come up with any interesting observations about it in play, either from your experiences, or next time you play, I'd love to explore the topic.

I'm all for consistent rules on who has the ball at any given time. I think that IIEE is very much a discusson of where the ball is during resolution portions of play.

Mike! Excellent point, I hadn't considered that! Is there any comments or observations along that line you'd like to add?

Chris

Further notes, from Abused Player Syndrome in Actual play:

Ron said-

Is anyone familiar with the following?

- Player makes up character who owns a bar or other establishment.
- Major event during the first session: bar gets blown up by GM fiat.

The positive version of these events (which is practically non-existent) is that we're talking about a Bang, in Sorcerer terms.

The negative version (1) is we're talking about a GM who doesn't frigging want a bar story, he wants a find-the-wumpus story, and the first thing to do is to get that character out of the bar. Easiest solution: remove the bar from around his ears.

The negative version (2) is we're talking about a player who doesn't frigging want to find the wumpus, and has honed that preference to not wanting to do anything at all, and hence won't stir from the bar unless it gets blown up.

Combine #1 and #2, and the "My World" vs. "My Guy" struggle for control has begun.

This is dysfunctional play, fighting over the Ball, right in action.

Right now I've got Character, Conflict, and Outcome listed as the means of handling the ball. I'd like to include that anything your character owns, your character's relationships, history, anything and everything that goes into the concept of "Who your character is" is that "My Guy" stuff that Ron's talking about.

The blowing up the bar, etc.? Outcome(Bar goes boom!) being used to force the player to use Character to accept the Conflict(find the wumpus!).

Chris

Bankuei wrote: Is there any comments or observations along that line you'd like to add?

Well, not much to say, really. Intent, Initiation, Execution, Effect are the phases of resolution. Games will indicate who has the ball for each, and in practice it's often chaotic.

For example in Sorcerer the other night, I kept obnoxiously interrupting people's Intent statments with better ones (IMO). Like one player said, "I hit he from behind with my cross" (don't ask), and I said, "No you gotta say something witty like 'you must pay for your sins', just as you hit her." So he says, "yeah, I say that" (and I groan because I was hoping for something like that, not that). This was an important part of the Initiation of the action because it got him a bonus die in the execution phase.

Anyhow, see how the ball bounced back and forth there. He had it, then I stole it, then he played off my pass. The interesting thing is how the Authority of the situation is established such that the player has to have the ball last in Intent. That is, it doesn't happen until he says it does, because it's his character, and I don't have authority (so in another way I never had the ball).

In another game, I might be allowed to declare actions for other's characters. For example, in Universalis, I'd have to pay to interrupt, and then to take contol of the character, and then the ball would be in my court, so to speak. To get rid of the players original declaration, however, I'd first have to Challenge it away.

I could go on, but it seems pretty straightforward how these things relate.

Mike