Tomas HVM wrote:
But all that is beside the point, a basis for my idea. This is the real point:

- Could you split a game session into small scenes, each one app. one hour, and make the session a tour the force into RPG in general?

Actually, after the last Ropecon a couple of months ago I deviced something similar. It's a fine tradition among certain hobbyists here to plan and execute strange things to get in free, you know.

Anyway, I probably won't GM this in the next 'con, but my plan was to make a "D&D rhapsody" with the exact same idea you have there. I'd probably make the scenes only last about fifteen minutes each, and use them to illustrate the "grand tradition" and history of D&D. To top it of, I planned to structure it as a classical long campaign, with each scene having the same characters in a different phase of their career.

So yeah, I think it's quite possible. Not that much stranger than many other ideas you see floating around.

Tomas HVM wrote:
- Is it possible to make one hour scenes, with different roles, and give each of them such an effective kick-off that any player will be able to interact with them, and will be able to jump with you from scene to scene, in a whirlwind of creativity?

Eminently possible. I think the key is in structuring the GM actions and posture to be suitably forward-leaning. A low-entry system (perchance no system at all), and an "everything goes" paradigm, and you'll be fine with it. The latter point is especially important, as a major part of roleplaying is curbing unsuitable player impulses. Everything from reading rules to creating characters to the GM at the end of the table can and will be read as limitations of creativity. Generally this limitation hampers player participation until they get confident about understanding the local social structure (exactly as in real life, except that most don't know beforehand exactly both the rules and the roles) and start slowly making up their own play. You won't have three sessions to get this effect, so I'd say it's most important to make it clear in the very beginning that everything goes, all participation is fine, and stick with it. Restructure your own plans as necessary, otherwise the players get careful and clam up and the scene will end before they are ready to open their mouths again.

Tomas HVM wrote:
- Would this be done best with different games and conflict resolution systems, or would it be best with some sort of methodical framework?

I'll have to say that this depends on your goals. From your writing I interpret that you vision an all-encompassing display of rpg-extravaganza, but I'd say that in a four-hour session, for example, one has to of course make some more exact decisions about the themes and the point of play. Take for example the abovementioned D&D sectional: the goal being to show and comment the cancer, this question answers itself. I was planning to use three systems myself, those being the old D&D in it's finnish edition, 2nd ed. AD&D and the new D&D.

So this part really isn't any different from normal unconventional scenario design. If you are planning for people who have never played roleplaying games before, I see three options: either go without rules at all, or stick by a two-rule limit, or use only one system. The first case wouldn't be my choise, as it really gives a skewed picture of the panorama of play, and isn't even that interesting. The last option has essentially the same problems to my mind, systemless just being a system after all. I'd choose the middle one:

It's a rough rule of thumb, that when explaining rules, you can explain two simple ones and be sure you are understood. If you try a third one the listener has to keep two rules in his mind while listening to a third, and that just causes problems. Like juggling. Another point to bear in mind when designing for newbies is to stick close to familiar mechanics.

With these two points about rules in mind, I'd construct this kind of game as follows: scenes from fifteen minutes to half an hour, each aggressively framed, with clear point of play succintly explained. I'd probably start with very mission oriented, but would go through all styles, apportioning more and more creative role for the players. In every scenario there would be a different rule (and occasionally two). These I would write on colorful big cards, just to make them even more understandable. If I really needed more than two rules then all additional ones would be explained at the start and they'd apply to all scenes. Everyone on this board can surely think up many interesting scenes and rules for them for himself, so I'll just give one (complex) example: a simple feudal court and a love scene performed in distinct theatrical dialogue. The rule#1: after every line the GM (otherwise useless; he just directs the play) throws d100 against the number of lines generated, and when he gets a roll under the number the scene ends with the lady's father bursting in, giving a sad or expecting ending, depending on what the lovers are doing. The rule#2: when a player cannot think of a suitable rejoinder, a flashback is described instead by the other player, giving some information about what happened in the play before this scene. And the universal rule #1 is of course "It's all good."

Tomas HVM wrote:
- How would you make the roles (fairly simple, I presume), and how would you make the players act through their roles, within such a framework?

As I intimated above, by accepting any performance they can get in. To get any greater coherence you'd need to spend time in indoctrinating the players or screening them. I prefer letting the game take care of it: the first scene or two might stumble a bit, but most people are quite capable of following cues when the GM is right at his elbow applauding and commenting on play. So constant feedback, that's the key.

As to the roles, they would be a part of the set-up. This means that either the set-up is general (like in the above example) and the players provide the particulars, or I'd use commonly known particulars. Presumably the above could be constructed as "Romeo and Juliet revisited", for example, and then the players would already know who their characters are. I'd be a little loath to provide anything more, but technically the following is possible: write clear, nicely made up facts about the character on a single sheet. No narration or more than one sentence about one aspect of the character, just a list of facts-to-be-considered. The more important facts in different colours, sizes, etc., maximising the strength of expression. And don't censure a player who fails in going by the sheet.

Tomas HVM wrote:
- Could this be used to demonstrate the vast possibilities within roleplaying games, both to strangers and to oldies?

The above outline would work for newbies, I think. For oldies you'd have to factor in the scars and D&D/Whitewolf pipevision, but on the other hand they are more able to doublethink both rules and story in the peculiar fashion you need in roleplaying. This would affect slight changes in both goals and setup.

Tomas HVM wrote:
- How serious a challenge would this be for a game master?

I've done harder, if that's what you mean. Couldn't be done by your basic GM caste, meaning those who just know how to follow the one paradigm from the rulebook. If the GM can think about the roleplay structure apart from the game or rulebook, and is skilled with communication, I don't see why this would be too hard. If the GM could also improvise with skill, it'd be yet easier. The main challenge after designing the scenes would be in constantly evaluating player responses and moulding the game by them.

To finish: the thing I find interesting here isn't the structure per se. There's a tendency in roleplaying (especially in the nordic countries) and other arts to give form primacy over content, and I see it here too. This form and structure can be used for many different things, but in itself it's just a form. You cannot apply it in any canonical form, you have to fill it with content. This is very similar to a musical suite, a book of short stories or what have you. As in those arts, in this it is important to consider both the inner structure of the scenes (meaning, make good scenes) and the relationship of the scenes (meaning, is there any intertext between them).

What I mean above is that I'd be interested in hearing what kind of content you'd plan for this kind of form. It could be used with an unifying theme (like making all scenes different love scenes) or in any of many other applications. Even if there is no planned intertext, the scenes will affect each other, and their ordering and interrelations are a foolish thing to ignore.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: To top it of, I planned to structure it as a classical long campaign, with each scene having the same characters in a different phase of their career.

My first ever roleplaying project was what I termed a "serial-fable", having players playing roles in the same family throughout the history of the world, each stage in the serial conducted as a mini-campaign with some "save-the-world (or conquer it)" theme. When a mini-campaign ended, we jumped 500-1000 years forth, made new roles based on the old ones, and played in the aftermath of earthshaking choices made by the former roles.

It did not function very well, but that's mainly due to the bad conflict resolution system. The idea in itself made it possible to play "save-the-world" scenarios all the time, and to establish former characters as great heroes or villains of the past (players love to think of their own characters as something special).

Eero Tuovinen wrote: I think the key is in structuring the GM actions and posture to be suitably forward-leaning. A low-entry system (perchance no system at all), and an "everything goes" paradigm, and you'll be fine with it.

I agree with the point of a "forward-leaning" GM being important. You must be effective and powerful when leading such a tour the force. Smitten the players with your attitude, and give them scenes which spurs them to true feelings and coherent action.

I'm not fond of the idea of "no system". I think defined methods are better than anything else. To have a set method of conflict resolution is good for all players (GM included). I am considering doing this with my own game; Fabula, making it a tour the force into the World of Fabula. However; I do believe that it may be accomplished with different games also, all mixed to make it a tour the force into RPGs in general. The reason being that players actually don't have to know the particulars of the system (they only need to be told the scale of the system, to read the character-statistics correctly). I think the only limitation to such a set-up is the GMs knowledge. Rules-heavy systems may demand more work to be used, but with the right preplanning and appliance, I think any problems pertaining to this would be eliminated.

To focus on the importance of an "everything goes" paradigm is both right and wrong in my point of view. You need to make the players trust the social setting, so it is important to be clear and strong in your leadership of the game. You have to be positive in handling their initiatives, and to help them make the characters actions in tune with the various settings. To pull this off you have to meet them with a positive attitude at all times, and apply some sort of constructive criticism to their initiatives. A positive attitude will ensure their attitudes being positive too, and the constructive critisism will maintain this, and at the same time ensure that the drama evolves within the confines of the fictional setting.

I believe a stance of "any and all player initiative shall be turned into something positive" will be most effective, as opposed to the "everything goes" paradigm proposed by Eero. It is a more active stance, and more in tune with the forward-leaning GM Eero hold to important for the set-up. Apart from this; I totally agree with Eero's writings on curbing unsuitable player impulses and limitations on creativity.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: From your writing I interpret that you vision an all-encompassing display of rpg-extravaganza, but I'd say that in a four-hour session, for example, one has to of course make some more exact decisions about the themes and the point of play.
...
I'd probably start with very mission oriented, but would go through all styles, apportioning more and more creative role for the players.

Yes, I do envision a display of RPG-extravaganca in general. The theme would be the wide range of possibilities within the form, showing that the drama created by RPGs can encompass a multitude of conflicts and feelings. I am not concerned with players being free to perform anything, but choose to focus my energy on getting the players to react and feel, putting them in something like the immersionist ideal state of mind. The "whirlwind" analogy is meant to cover the emotional storms created (hopefully) by this tour the force.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: ... most people are quite capable of following cues when the GM is right at his elbow applauding and commenting on play. So constant feedback, that's the key.

In total agreement with Eero on this.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: The above outline would work for newbies, I think. For oldies you'd have to factor in the scars and D&D/Whitewolf pipevision, ...

- and be more of a bastard in leading them. To drive it through with oldies you'll have to be more manipulative, and trust their ability to eventually see it all as "only a game", thus accepting your use of force to bend their stubborn pipevision to your use.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: There's a tendency in roleplaying (especially in the nordic countries) and other arts to give form primacy over content, and I see it here too. This form and structure can be used for many different things, but in itself it's just a form. You cannot apply it in any canonical form, you have to fill it with content.
...
What I mean above is that I'd be interested in hearing what kind of content you'd plan for this kind of form.

At first I reacted very enthusiastic to the initial comment in this quote, praising it as a very clear and distinct analysis. However; when reading it again I came to the conclusion that this analysis is partly wrong.

There is indeed a tendency in roleplaying to give form primacy over content, but it is not a predominant tendency in the nordic countries. It is a predominant tendency within certain groups or "levels" of roleplayers, all over the world. I think it could be identified quite closely with the "pipe-vision" Eero adhere to the "D&D and WoD players". It's a gloryfying of conservative (and safe) form, more than any preference for certain content.

My proposed tour the force is of course a celebration of form, but it is not "canonical" in any way. It's only an idea for presenting a mulitude of RPGs within a frame. Which RPGs you choose to make part of this frame, the themes you present, and the level of engagement you try to achieve, is totally up to you.

Myself is a humble I (!), and would only plan to fill this with a wide range of scenes, spanning from the troubles a farmers family experience with a cow in labour, to the high pitched quarrels amongst the presidents advisors on the evolving conflict in Iraq. And maybe something in between, being there only for entertainment, and perhance the chance to make a dive into pure flabbergasthlyness.

It may be that the content would have to define the method you use, depending on how demanding your scenes are.