The Forge Archives

Last night I went with my wife to my friends game. I still didn't play. I can only imagine what they are all thinking about that, but it isn't important. The important thing is I didn't bring a book or anything so all I did the entire time was sit and listen to them play. I noticed two things.

First, before the game proper got underway, the GM had a little pep talk of sorts. First thing he did was hand out a sheet for their characters likes and dislikes because most of the group had not filled one out or had failed to give it to him after filling it out. This game had been going on for a couple months now and this was part of character creation. He then talked about other things like the relationship map between the player characters and such.

What struck me about it was how the GM kept saying "motivate your characters" while I was thinking "motivate your players." They were griping about having to fill out the form, not know what likes or dislikes to put down and things of this nature. The sad thing is that I had tald the GM about motivating the player not the characters before and it fell on deaf ears.

The second thing, and this was pretty interesting to me. I hope I can express it properly. The second thing I noticed when the group was attacking a bad guy in his farm house. It was a simple, one room, thatched roof, farm house. Two of the PCs climded on top of the roof to see if they could get in. Then one player asked "Is there a chimney?" The GM said there was.

What I found so interesting about this how it illustrates the lumpley principle and this groups social contrat regarding the shared imaginative space.

You see, in some groups, when the player asked if there was a chimney and the GM said there was, the chimney would have 'magically' appeared on the house in the shared imagined space (director stance on the part of the GM with help from the player) The way this group works, the chimney was always there in the shared imagined space created by the GM. It was just up to the players to explore this space to ask about these details. So essentially there are two imagined spaces, one the GM has in his own head and the shared space that is made as the players explore and try to gain details from the GM about the space inside his own head (and notes and such). So there's the original and the hand-traced copy, so to speak.

This seems to be heavy duty the GM controls the world sort of play and it explains the GM's attention to detail since he needs to provide this detail is the players should ask for it.

I'd rather not argue of the particulars of this example. I mean, certainly the GM might not have considered if the house had a chimney or not. He might have just assumed that the house had a chimney because well, of course. Don't all houses have chimnies? Perhaps one of the players on the roof could have said "I go to the chimney" without asking if there was one first. I do not know what is going on inside their heads. Ibut I have played with this GM for nearly nine years and once this realization hit me, this is how he plays.

Just some observations I thought I would share.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrFirst, before the game proper got underway, the GM had a little pep talk of sorts. First thing he did was hand out a sheet for their characters likes and dislikes because most of the group had not filled one out or had failed to give it to him after filling it out. This game had been going on for a couple months now and this was part of character creation. He then talked about other things like the relationship map between the player characters and such.

What struck me about it was how the GM kept saying "motivate your characters" while I was thinking "motivate your players." They were griping about having to fill out the form, not know what likes or dislikes to put down and things of this nature. The sad thing is that I had tald the GM about motivating the player not the characters before and it fell on deaf ears.

This is something I'm trying to analyze, or something like it.  Different players want different things out of the character creation system.  One player in my group likes his characters generated more or less randomly, while I personally like being able to pick and choose every little thing so I can get the character in line with the background story I've decided for the guy.  The other 3 are somewhere inbetween the two poles.

The players are going to form their first opinions of a game during that character creation stage, so to get them motivated and keep them interested they must not be at odds with that stage.  Also, the character generation system must be flexible (or inflexible as the case may be) enough to produce a character that they like.  If they don't like their character, they won't have fun, and will lose motivation.

This belongs perhaps more in game theory than here, but I am trying to produce an outline for a mechanic that is meant to be drifted, and in fact gives a system for doing so as a part of the mechanic.  Currently the most workable thing I've been able to figure out is a sort of modular system whereby the player/GM/whatever can mix and match "black boxes" that take some input (random rolls, point distributions, whatever) and output something that flows into other such boxes and finally produce a character.

But this is complicated and irritating.  And god knows I should have better things to do than waste my time fiddling with these models. :)

I have this nagging feeling that there is a better way...  Hopefully the eventual simplification of the black box method will produce it.

But anyway.  My opinion is that player motivation comes first and foremost through their character.  It is their interface, so to speak, to the imaginary world, and if that interface is clunky, they will become frustrated and disappointed.  The player with a character they like will take the initiative and produce interesting play, while the player with a not-so-hot character will lag and need prodding from the other players and GM, and will become disenchanted with the game.  Hence the quality of the in-play mechanic and world, while still important, are not as important as the system by which the characters are generated in the first place.  In my opinion, anyway. :)

And I'm not saying that a more freeform character generation system is better.  Take the random generation guy example from above.  There just has to be sufficient leeway to allow all types of players something close to what they want.

Are these differences in character generation preferences pointing towards a fundamental difference in play-style that will cause friction down the road, hence dictating that a "driftable" character generation system is doomed to failure anyway?  I don't think so.  There hasn't been any signifigant player-player friction in our group yet, and it's been a couple of years, and we all have pretty diverse play styles.

Hi Jack,

Very interesting stuff. I'm curious if you can provide some detail as to what sort of questions were on the sheet the GM handed out?

I don't know, of course, but my guess is that the players may have been irked not by the task of filling in the questionaire but by the perceived lack of applicability of the questions? In many writing guides and courses, it is recommended that you know your characters inside and out -- down to the types of foods they like to eat (or hate) and the type of music they prefer. This is supposed to help get you inside the head of the character, and I'm guessing that's what this GM had in mind.

But I would argue that these details are, for the most part, inconsequential and can actually become a barrier to figuring out what really drives a character. What you really need when creating characters (for narrativist-oriented play) is to drive down into those characters' central conflicts -- the unresolved questions around which their stories turn. Framing that conflict in a way that will address the Premise will lead to "story."

Once that's in place, the questions about food and music preferences and so forth either fall into place or no longer need to be answered at all because they just don't matter to the story.

Sorcerer, I think, drives down to that central conflict very well with its Kickers and demonic relationships and Humanity, although I would venture to say that there is a possiblity of a superficial conflict without an agreed upon Premise for play stated before character creation. That's only speculation as I have not run or played the game yet. I can also see how a well-formed definition of Humanity may allow you to allude to a Premise without the need to state it.

Riddle of Steel, I think, uncovers characters' central conflicts even more directly with its Spiritual Attributes -- especially the Passion, Drive and Destiny SAs. Because of the way character creation is designed in this game, players must choose at least one of these SAs, creating a central, passionate relationship laden with inherent conflict. The GM need only apply pressure to that relationship to activate the character's story.

However, I would point out that in my first Riddle of Steel session, my players were a bit hesitant about SAs at first -- sounding much like the players you describe. I think it comes down to that old school notion that built-in conflicts and relationships will only be used to screw the character (i.e. the reason why so many characters seem to be orphans with no friends), or worse, will simply be ignored once play actually begins. Confronting that is a scary thing, and old habits die hard. It really took showing them that the conflicts they created mattered in play.

As to the second part of your post, I'm a little unsure of what you see going on. I did a search on the "Lumpley Principle," and unless I'm mistaken it seems the idea is that character creation "mechanics" are of prime importance in facilitating narrativist play. How do shared imagined spaces slot into that, and what do you see as the significance between whether a chimney exists prior to being stated or only after it is stated?

Quote from: Thor OlavsrudVery interesting stuff. I'm curious if you can provide some detail as to what sort of questions were on the sheet the GM handed out?

Certainly the likes/dislikes categories are:

[*]Food
[*]Drink
[*]Color
[*]mode of travel
[*]object
[*]activities
[*]hobbies
[*]sleep surface
[*]Person
[*]Ideal
[*]other
[/list:u]

QuoteAs to the second part of your post, I'm a little unsure of what you see going on. I did a search on the "Lumpley Principle," and unless I'm mistaken it seems the idea is that character creation "mechanics" are of prime importance in facilitating narrativist play. How do shared imagined spaces slot into that, and what do you see as the significance between whether a chimney exists prior to being stated or only after it is stated?

I don't know what you found but the lumpley principle IIRC is that the system is the method by which items and/or events are entered into the shared imaginitive space, which is where the game takes place. So the significance is how the GM is final authority of what does or does not enter the shared imaginative space. If the player had said "I got to the chimney" and the GM said "There is no chimney" then there is no chimney. I'm also noting that it seems that these details are already decided on and they are in a way already assumed to be in this shared space even though they don't really enter it until someone asks the GM or the GM decides to mention it. I also have just realized how similar this is to the old parser text adventures.

>GO TO THE DOOR

YOU DON'T SEE ANY "DOOR" HERE.

>GET AXE

TAKEN.

I'm just making note of this and seeing if useful discussion can come of it.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrI don't know what you found but the lumpley principle IIRC is that the system is the method by which items and/or events are entered into the shared imaginitive space, which is where the game takes place. So the significance is how the GM is final authority of what does or does not enter the shared imaginative space. If the player had said "I got to the chimney" and the GM said "There is no chimney" then there is no chimney. I'm also noting that it seems that these details are already decided on and they are in a way already assumed to be in this shared space even though they don't really enter it until someone asks the GM or the GM decides to mention it. I also have just realized how similar this is to the old parser text adventures.

Okay, that definitely makes more sense to me and the point about text adventures is intriguing. I guess my next question is what effect do you think it had on the play you witnessed? Do you think the players felt shut down?

I'm assuming, based on what you described in the first post, that the goal was more narrativist oriented play? My guess is that the method the GM used influenced the players to adopt more simulationist decisions, but I'm interested in what you observed.

Most of the people I play with these days take a more blended approach, with things that the GM describes or has in his notes being more or less definitive, and anything outside that being 'negotiable.'

So the players are still likely to ask, "Is there a chimney?" But unless the GM has a story-important reason why there is no chimney the chimney would spring into being.

I've also noticed that some games, especially 'cinematic' games like Feng Shui or Exalted, seem to encourage players to be more definitive about directorial statements. For instance, in a factory, instead of asking if there is a cat-walk the players will narrate it into being. Something about these games seems to encourage players taking that sort of power, without necessarily granting players those powers explicitly in the text.

Hey, Thor

I'm not sure how you got the notion that this group plays even remotely narrativist but for that I apologize. Maybe I should clairify.

Part of what the little pep talk was about was that nearly everyone had things in their backgrounds, mostly conjured up using Central Casting, that are important for the rest of the group to know and nobody has talked about it. Things like they have an enemy that is trying to kill them.

The other part was about how some of the characters have pre-existing relationships with each other but this does not make a web of relationships and he told them to decide how the lines of relationship interconnect, but I did not hear this get resolved before play.

As I said before, I don't think this is narrativist play going on. Were I to guess what's going on I would say it was Gamist/Simulationist play expecting Narrativist results, at least for some. This is probably because of the Impossible Thing To Believe Before Breakfast.

I have just remembered some further detail I recall and I shall share it now. One of the players was late. This player's character was left in dire peril at the end of the last session. Turns out he had wandered off without the rest of the party and had nearly gotten killed. So as a penalty for following his "my guy" mentality, this player got to sit for the entire session because his character was completely ineffectual after being nearly dying. This ia a homebrewed system BTW where wound translate into a penalty to all actions until healed.

Since last session, this player had discussed with the GM the possibility of rolling up a new character since this character would be out of action for months game time. The GM read of the stats of the proposed character. What I mostly caught was that the player had irored the arbitrary cap on skills for begining characters and that he had maxed out combat stats/skills. The GM said something like "Isn't that ridiculous?" and I was thinking "Why? The way this game plays, combat skills are the most important skills. So it is only natural to want to spend character points where they would be to the best advantage and be most useful."

That said, this is the same player who tried to have his GURPS Minotaur, IQ 3, invent a medival flame thrower.

Question:  Why weren't the players excited about filling out the form? Were they not interested in these details?

On the surface it looks to my like the GM is pretty Sim/Char/Actor and is trying to create that sort of game.  Based on the 'detail your character damnit' form and the 'your traits are ridiculous (unrealistic)' position he seems to be taking.  If the group isn't interested in exploring Char, then there exists the possibility the GM is railroading the other elements of Exploration as variable control, to highlight Char.

Most of my experience with that 'my guy' mentality is just being insensitivity to the needs of other players - an unwillingness to comprise and try to foster a fun experience for all.  I don't have a lot of patience for it.  So, this player works against the group and gives up when things don't go his way (his way being contrary to everyone elses).  Maybe I'm being a little harsh, maybe I don't fully understand the situation, but it sounds like that'd bug the crap out of me.

If player motivation is a problem, maybe they aren't interested in exploring Char.  What actually interests these people (in non GNS terms), action movies, love stories, dark angsty heros?  Has the question been asked?  And would people disagree?

And...

Quote from: LumpleyThe lookie-me-I'm-a-principle principle is that what a game's rules do is facilitate consensus among the players.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrHey, Thor

I'm not sure how you got the notion that this group plays even remotely narrativist but for that I apologize. Maybe I should clairify.

Part of what the little pep talk was about was that nearly everyone had things in their backgrounds, mostly conjured up using Central Casting, that are important for the rest of the group to know and nobody has talked about it. Things like they have an enemy that is trying to kill them.

The other part was about how some of the characters have pre-existing relationships with each other but this does not make a web of relationships and he told them to decide how the lines of relationship interconnect, but I did not hear this get resolved before play.

As I said before, I don't think this is narrativist play going on. Were I to guess what's going on I would say it was Gamist/Simulationist play expecting Narrativist results, at least for some. This is probably because of the Impossible Thing To Believe Before Breakfast.

Aha! You're right, I was reading something into your post that wasn't there.

I will say that in the context of a focus on character exploration, it sounds like both the GM's sheet and the way the group handles the shared imaginative space would be valid choices, though clearly there was dissatisfactin with the former.

Do you feel their play was dysfunctional, or just not to your taste?

It sounds like Cruciel is probably on the right track.

Quote from: crucielQuestion:  Why weren't the players excited about filling out the form? Were they not interested in these details?

"I don't know what to put down" was a common response.

QuoteMost of my experience with that 'my guy' mentality is just being insensitivity to the needs of other players - an unwillingness to comprise and try to foster a fun experience for all.  I don't have a lot of patience for it.  So, this player works against the group and gives up when things don't go his way (his way being contrary to everyone elses).  Maybe I'm being a little harsh, maybe I don't fully understand the situation, but it sounds like that'd bug the crap out of me.

Well, it is a lot like that. The player in question has been and remains very much the sort you describe. He has a real problem with authority. However, in his defence, I can see why he attempted to build his character the way he did. One detail I inadvertently omitted was the character had two-weapon fighting ability and the GM did not want him to have that because there were two other players with that ability and he didn't want him stepping on other players' schtick. My feeling is that two-weapon fighting ability confers  a certain tactical advantage in combat that cannot be had without this ability (at least not with the arbitrary skill cap, anyway) and he was simply trying to gain the best advantage for this character because this could make a difference to the character's survival. That's the way I see it.

QuoteIf player motivation is a problem, maybe they aren't interested in exploring Char.  What actually interests these people (in non GNS terms), action movies, love stories, dark angsty heros?  Has the question been asked?  And would people disagree?

I don't believe this question has ever been asked or it has not been answered. Or maybe I just have not been paying attention. I suspect people would disagree on some points.

Quote from: Thor OlavsrudDo you feel their play was dysfunctional, or just not to your taste?

That is the $100,000 question, isn't it? I am afraid that part of me would like to find this play to be dysfunctional for selfish reasons since I have quit the group because I was dissatisfied with it. It seems to work, but the GM has to twist arms to get players to do certain things, like talk to the other players about their backgrounds, so I wonder. The "role-playing" I witness involved the GM's girlfriend doing most of the talking. The party had taken a prisoner and she asked most of the questions. It reminded me of text adventures again as she struggled to come up with just the right wording for her questions. She also seemed to be getting pissed and frustrated by this, but maybe that's how she enjoys herself. During this the rest of the group would occasionally chime in, but not often IMO, but that may be me. One thing that did stand out was when one player suggested they kill the prisoner. The GM said no, and it was a very definitive no. The reason he gave was "because the characters are not evil." I'm not entirely sure what this  means. He has often talked about how he prefers heroic stories and refers to the PCs as "the heroes" (often "slap-happy" heroes but I digress). It could be that he is forcing his own preferences in content on the group. They may be perfectly happy with this or they may not. I cannot tell what is inside their heads.

I'm just gonna make some judgements based on my experience, I've never met this group, and am working off second hand info.  You be the judge if I'm wrong.

Quote from: Jack Spencer Jr"I don't know what to put down" was a common response.

This kind of stuff can either be a chance to breath life into a character or a chore the GM makes you do.  It depends how it is presented.  I think mandatory is the wrong way to go.  Sure, the people who dig that sort of thing won't mind, but the people who see it as work (or don't know how they see it) are going to be unhappy and unmotivated.  Thing is, if it isn't mandatory those who weren't interested it to begin with can get 'jump on the bandwagon' syndrome and enjoy it once it's been proven to them someone else enjoys it.  The more people who join in the more left out you are, and the more you want to participate in the fun thing everybody's doing.

QuoteMy feeling is that two-weapon fighting ability confers  a certain tactical advantage in combat that cannot be had without this ability (at least not with the arbitrary skill cap, anyway) and he was simply trying to gain the best advantage for this character because this could make a difference to the character's survival. That's the way I see it.

Hmmm...character survival is important to the game, huh?  Maybe the GM doesn't actually want it to be, but is making it that way...I'll get back to that.  

QuoteI don't believe this question has ever been asked or it has not been answered. Or maybe I just have not been paying attention. I suspect people would disagree on some points.

Matters of taste can't really be resolved, just compromised on.  If you like fluffy bunny stories and I like domestic abuse stories one of us isn't going to be happy about what we play.  You're last paragraph implies to me you have some taste differences with the GM.  Based on:

QuoteOne thing that did stand out was when one player suggested they kill the prisoner. The GM said no, and it was a very definitive no. The reason he gave was "because the characters are not evil." I'm not entirely sure what this  means. He has often talked about how he prefers heroic stories and refers to the PCs as "the heroes" (often "slap-happy" heroes but I digress).

Am I assuming correctly that black and white, hero versus evil doesn't appeal to you?  We've got one GM with this black and white mindset.  Don't do anything evil (or morally 'wrong') in his game or his personal moral opinions will intrude into the game and he'll use his 'GM is God' mindset to punish your character.  Arguement could be made that he's trying to explore the concept that 'good is better', but I think he's just repressed (but that's neither here nor there).  An instant struggle of GM versus player insues.  The issue is hard to deal with, because it's a personal problem, not a game problem.  We normal dodge the problem by handling the GM, which some players frankly suck nuts at.  So, if they are the target of the moral backlash it always screws up play until someone else says 'cut it out, you're being a dick' and play resumes.

QuoteThe "role-playing" I witness involved the GM's girlfriend doing most of the talking. The party had taken a prisoner and she asked most of the questions. It reminded me of text adventures again as she struggled to come up with just the right wording for her questions. She also seemed to be getting pissed and frustrated by this, but maybe that's how she enjoys herself.

I've seen several GM's make this mistake, myself included.  You want character depth and color, but you make the players struggle through the details.  You think you're encouraging Sim-brand (TM) Actor stance and Exploration of Char by forcing everyone to stay 'in character', but what you're actually doing is working as an adversary to the players using the setting and NPC's as tools to that end.  The mandate to stay 'in character' is a rule of the game, a limitter, a Gamist boundary.  The players feel like they have to work against the GM to play, because if they don't they always fail in whatever they do.  So, faced with the decision of not playing or min/maxing their character (told you I'd get back to it), they choose the path of least resistance.  Seems like standard dysfunction for Sim players trying to play in a Gamist fashion and failing, because they think they need game balance.  We've got one player who always played Gamist, he was so used to bad Gamist play (the GM will fight you, you will succeed or you will not play) that fear kept him from trying anything else.  Thing is, I don't think he really enjoy it (snide comment: you cannot possible win against the GM, he is God after all).  Now he's finding failure almost as much fun as success (because he knows the GM wants him to do what makes him happy).  Success and failure are each just a Char roleplaying opportunity.  I think he's having more fun now.

Maybe this GM doesn't want to fight the players at all, maybe he want to help them Explore Char, but he thinks he has to fight them because that's how roleplaying works.  He ends up working against his own agenda.  I've been there, sometimes I even slip back when I'm not paying attention.  How I realized I didn't like the way I was GMing was to play with a player control mechanic (like tokens you can spend as a roll bonus).  A player's mouth would drop and he'd go 'uh, ok' whenever I'd use a GM token on an NPC.  So, I quit using GM tokens on NPC's and starting using them only on PC's when I liked an action.  I found it a lot more fun.

Too bad I don't think you can just tell someone 'don't fight the players, you might like it more'.

YMMV, and Jason may be talking out his ass.

Quote from: crucielYMMV, and Jason may be talking out his ass.

Possibly. ;-)

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Exploration of Character was a priority, but I don't think so. I know that I personally saw the like/dislikes sheet as work. I can't speak for the others, really.

The purpose of the likes page was to give the GM raw material to work with. "If nobody likes to drink wine, then I won't put a winemaker in the game." There is a very, very strong "RPGs must be played Sim" assumption at work here, I think. I also believe there is a bit of the impossible thing going on here, but I'm not entirely sure.

My big worry in discussing this group is because I was dissatisfied and ultimately quit playing, I have this lurking desire to be able to say "Hey look! Their play is disfunctional! No wonder why I didn't like it!" I'm trying to keep this in check, but that's where I am now.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrI'm not sure where you got the idea that Exploration of Character was a priority, but I don't think so. I know that I personally saw the like/dislikes sheet as work. I can't speak for the others, really.

It's just conjecture based off the character detail form (who cares if someone likes wine, so you can put in a winemaker, if the character's personalities aren't part of the appeal?) and this quote:

QuoteIt seems to work, but the GM has to twist arms to get players to do certain things, like talk to the other players about their backgrounds, so I wonder.

Like I said, I ain't there, just working with what I got to make cruel judgements about people I don't know ;).

Oh, if everybody is having fun it isn't dysfunctional.  Seeing as how you aren't part of everybody now, what do you say to that?!

QuoteI don't know, of course, but my guess is that the players may have been irked not by the task of filling in the questionaire but by the perceived lack of applicability of the questions?

I think Thor got it in one.

In many cases, players will look at the material, and then at the game in question, and wonder, "what does that all have to do with the number of orcs I can kill in ten rounds of combat?"

In order for this to work, the background material has to have some relevance to play. Note how in Hero Wars, where these things will all have numerical values (Hates The Color Red 17), how quickly people come up with this sort of material.

This is a problem with GURPS quirks, for example. The hardest five points you'll even earn, many players try to get by without enumerating them. Why? Because they have no mechanical effect, and are just these extras that people are supposed to remember to play out in play. The player could put these into play if they wanted to without getting the five points. But GURPS tries to incentivize them with points. But then gives you no incentive (other than nebulous Role-playing rewards) to use them in play.

Look at that likes/dislikes list. Let's say for argument's sake that the game is AD&D3E (I didn't see Jack indicate a system). To make players jump all over these character personality items, just say that they can use these to gain +1 to damage in combat representing fervor (and the GM can do a -1 for opposite conditions). Thus, if the character is wearing his favorite color, he gets a +1 damage. If he's just had a meal he likes, +1 again. If he's just traveled a long way in a mode that's not his favorite, -1.

Note not only how quickly the players will assign these then, but how good a job they'll do of making sure that their character is always dressed in their favorite color. Cool scenes then occur as the character, bereft of his favorite blue tabard due to being improsoned, suddenly gains in confidence when he finds it again, and don's it. Never in D&D will clothing have seemed so interesting.

In fact, the GM will want to reduce the list, such that the player can only choose from a limited selection because players will try to enumerate every last detail about the character to get more bonuses.

Mike[/quote]

Sounds to me like this group has what I think of as the "welcome to my world" problem.  The GM has this vision in mind of the game, from top to bottom, and he's using any trick he can think of to shoehorn the group of players into liking that vision.  What almost necessarily happens is that he's got this great movie in his head, and the players are struggling to get a glimpse of it.

The GM understands that it's necessary for the players to be into this, and to think of themselves as creatively involved.  So he says, in effect, "Here's something for you to be creative about.  Fill out this questionnaire.  See?  You're creatively involved.  Now the film is yours, so you have to participate in it."

I think this is why you're linking up the questionnaire to the chimney example.  Out of context, the chimney thing could mean nothing at all; from the fact that you, a fly on the wall in effect, pick it up as a disturbingly consistent detail suggests to me that this is how the whole game runs.  It sounds like when the players said, "Is there a chimney?" they were really saying, "I'm guessing that in your vision a chimney wouldn't be out of place; do I see things right or am I still just flailing?"  So you've got an RPG as weird 20 Questions.

Out of interest, does this campaign currently have a Big Plot Running, which the characters are supposed to Figure Out?  Perhaps with a pre-determined Deadline?  Just a guess.

Mike, clehrich,

Thanks. These last two posts have been insightful.

QuoteOut of interest, does this campaign currently have a Big Plot Running, which the characters are supposed to Figure Out? Perhaps with a pre-determined Deadline? Just a guess.

Interesting. There is a plot involving a search for some artifact or other, yaddah, yaddah. I don't believe there is a time limit, but there was in the last one (see when the GM says threads) The whole Welcome to my world idea is precisely it. My hat goes off to you for showing the relationship between two things I thought were unrelated, the sheet and the chimney thing. It also explains the morality thing as well. It is his story. Yet the players supposedly control the protagonists of his story. Therefore, it is the Impossible Thing in action. Woo-hoo. Thanks.