Theatrix review
Ray Trent
to playtest them. Here's a review of my impression of the rules.
First, Theatrix seems to a philosophy in search of a system. There are
many ideas in the "rules" that are really cool, which I intend to try
out the next time I run gaming with my group. There is a lot of
description that goes along with the "tricks" which makes them much
more appealing than what I could describe succintly. Therefore, I'd
suggest that people interested in adding a few new dimensions to their
gaming acquire the Core rules and read them thoroughly.
Which brings me to my unfortunate overall conclusion (specifics
below). The way it is now, I don't think Theatrix has much of a
commercial future. It's really a book of gaming philosophy (I happen
to think it's a very *good* book of gaming philosophy) rather than a
gaming system. I can't see more than 1 person in a group buying a copy
of the Core "rules" because there really aren't any rules. By the same
token, I have a hard time envisioning people buying setting books,
because they could get the same kind of help from other system's
supplements with the advantage of having a real system behind it.
It's not just the "diceless" nature of the game that prevents it from
being a "system". The reason it's not a system is that it doesn't have
the necessary "focus" to lead people in defining the actual method of
play. It's essential message is: you don't need a system. While I
happen to agree (more or less) with this philosophy (actually, I would
tend more to say that the system doesn't really matter much), I doubt
that many people buying Theatrix will find enough meat there to
convince them to switch to using it wholesale.
Various ideas, yes. Plot points are a really cool idea (the reviews of
this "trick" on the net haven't done it justice by far, IMNSHO, so
again I won't try to describe them). So are the notions of separating
character advancement from player reward, handling of sub-plots, the
flashback trick, group GMing, etc. I expect that what most people will
do with the "system" is incorporate these tricks into their current
system.
But stop using a rules system entirely? I doubt it. Again, it's not
really a matter of dice vs. diceless. I often play my group's
homegrown system more or less diceless (ok...the system still uses
dice, but I often contrive to minimize them to the point of
non-existance). It's a matter of giving players and GM enough of a
framework to create a real world that really holds together without
relying on them to do it all themselves. Theatrix doesn't provide
enough of a system to avoid obsoleting itself (why use a system at
all?).
The "system" that is given in the Core "rules" is essentially: here
are 6 attributes that range from 1.0 to 10.0, scaled to fit the genre
and setting (plus descriptive text that has real game relevance),
create a list of skills and abilities that also range from 1.0 to
10.0. Pick a short phrase that defines your character's essential
existance. GM decides how hard something is. If the plot doesn't
require a particular outcome, GM looks up the result on a chart (or
fakes it) and describes said result in an aesthetically pleasing
manner.
Oh yes, there's an "optional" diced resolution system that is
essentially the above followed by "roll percentile dice and look up
the *real* result on the (hard-to-read) chart
corresponding to the "mean" result discovered above". The chart is
needed because the results are fitted to a normal curve. It's beyond
me why they didn't use something easier like rolling 3d6 (already a
normal distribution and far more commercially viable than d10s) and
using a simple lookup table to modify the skill level. It's also
beyond me why difficulties are on a different scale than skill
levels...seems unnecessary and complicating (unless you're using
tables, where you *have* to cut down the size somehow).
This probably works fine with a tight-knit group of good players and a
good GM (I'll find out when I try it). But commercial success can't
depend on that. Always remember the Secret of Power: you know how dumb
the average guy on the street is? By definition, half of them are
stupider than that.
I also think they made a few mistakes in presentation (GURPS had some
of the same problems initially). One is: for some reason, Theatrix
chooses 6 attributes that are "common" to all settings while leaving
everything else up to the GM to define. Point 1) some settings really
cry out for different sets of attributes (take the Toon setting, for
example). Point 2) You're not going to be commercial unless you
include in the Core rules some "base" set of defined skills and a
"base" magic (or some other equivilent, adaptable "power")
system. It's been tried before, and it just doesn't get off the
ground. Flesh that stuff out. Then there will be a reason to use the
Theatrix "system" and also to buy "setting" books which redefine the
scaling, effects, scope, and extent of the base system.
Additionally, not to rag too seriously on David Berkman, but the
editing of the pre-publication rules is atrocious. It looks like the
editing was done with a spell-checker. There are numerous examples of
"to" where "too" was intended, awkward notations that differ from
place to place ("Brave at Strong" vs. Brave (Strong) vs. Brave, at
strong)..in the context of the other grammar errors the first looks
like maybe it should be "Brave and Strong"), "your" instead of
"you're", etc. Also, there is at least 1 page long table which is not
set off well enough to be immediately distinguishable from the
surrounding text (I tripped over pages 56-57 for quite a while before
realizing that 56 was a table and 57 was a continuation of the text of
55). Etc. Oh yes, and he got the etymologies of "microscopic" and
"macroscopic" wrong.
I'm curious, BTW...how hard is it to get permission to use short
quotes from movies in a commercial product? I like the liberal
sprinkling of them throughout the rules and examples, and I'm
wondering why no one's done it before.
Another serious editing problem is that "Actor" and "Character" and
other similar terms are often mixed freely in a very confusing manner.
I understand that you want the line to be blurred during play, but the
rules should attempt to be unambiguous. E.g., pages 42 and 43 talk
about character attributes being possessed by actors.
Which brings me to my final four suggestions:
1) remove all sentences containing the word "we" referring to the
designers. The wording of the core "rules" is already pompous and
overblown enough to turn off most experienced gamers without getting
"royal". Newbies might stand for it, but I can guarantee you'll make
the rest of us sick.
2) As others have said, much of the re-casting of common RPG terms
into theatrical notation is confusing and unnecessary. "Player" is a
perfectly well understood term in both gaming *and* the theatrical
world. I don't mind "Director" so much, because I'm used to different
terms being used to describe the "GM". But "Troupe", "Supporting
Cast",
3) Go over the whole "plotline" chapter and make an effort to re-cast
the description of plot building to emphasize that this is just an
example, rather than a hard and fast rule of "all good plots must have
(exactly) these elements". You mention it in an offhand way a few
times, whereas I think it needs to be emphasized more.
4) Get rid of the cutsy "simulated coffee stain" and "simulated stamp"
on the reproducable "dossier" (was "character sheet" *really* so inferior,
BTW?). Leave them on the example version if you want. Also, take the
color out of the reproducable "dossier" sheet...it doesn't copy well
or consistently.
I really don't mean this review to be as much of a downer as it may
sound like it is. There are some great ideas here. They just aren't
tied together tightly enough.
--
"When you're down, it's a long way up
When you're up, it's a long way down
It's all the same thing
And it's no new tale to tell" ../ray\..
Andrew Finch
don't find it a downer at all. I have some responses to your questions,
and I'll try to keep them factual. Your opinions have their own merit,
and duscussing them here would be contrary to the purpose of a review.
Ray Trent (r...@clement.erg.sri.com) wrote:
: Oh yes, there's an "optional" diced resolution system that is
: essentially the above followed by "roll percentile dice and look up
: the *real* result on the (hard-to-read) chart
: corresponding to the "mean" result discovered above". The chart is
: needed because the results are fitted to a normal curve. It's beyond
: me why they didn't use something easier like rolling 3d6 (already a
: normal distribution and far more commercially viable than d10s) and
: using a simple lookup table to modify the skill level. It's also
: beyond me why difficulties are on a different scale than skill
: levels...seems unnecessary and complicating (unless you're using
: tables, where you *have* to cut down the size somehow).
We used d10's because we like them, and they go along with the 1 to 10
scale used in the game. Also, with d10's you can do all sorts of stuff
with just two of them. Personal preference really.
Difficulties are on a 5 point scale, instead of the 10 point scale used
elsewhere, because that's what made sense. We tried a 10 point difficulty
scale, but the difference between each point on the scale was too
minimal. The 5 point scale is more natural in actual practice, easy to
remember, and useful.
: This probably works fine with a tight-knit group of good players and a
: good GM (I'll find out when I try it). But commercial success can't
: depend on that. Always remember the Secret of Power: you know how dumb
: the average guy on the street is? By definition, half of them are
: stupider than that.
We would like to disagree. We may be wrong, but we hope not (we all keep
on trying, like fools).
: I also think they made a few mistakes in presentation (GURPS had some
: of the same problems initially). One is: for some reason, Theatrix
: chooses 6 attributes that are "common" to all settings while leaving
: everything else up to the GM to define. Point 1) some settings really
: cry out for different sets of attributes (take the Toon setting, for
: example).
Exactly. We wanted the 'Core Rules' to be absolutely universal in nature.
Any new Attributes necessary to represent a genre will be included in the
appropriate Setting Book, along with an actual character generation
method, a slightly more concrete character advancement system (but no too
concrete), a real genre oriented skill list, etc.
: Point 2) You're not going to be commercial unless you
: include in the Core rules some "base" set of defined skills and a
: "base" magic (or some other equivilent, adaptable "power")
: system. It's been tried before, and it just doesn't get off the
: ground. Flesh that stuff out. Then there will be a reason to use the
: Theatrix "system" and also to buy "setting" books which redefine the
: scaling, effects, scope, and extent of the base system.
Again, this gets fleshed out in the Setting Books, the first of which
will be published at the same time as the Core Rules (or so we hope).
: Additionally, not to rag too seriously on David Berkman, but the
: editing of the pre-publication rules is atrocious. It looks like the
: editing was done with a spell-checker. There are numerous examples of
: "to" where "too" was intended, awkward notations that differ from
: place to place ("Brave at Strong" vs. Brave (Strong) vs. Brave, at
: strong)..in the context of the other grammar errors the first looks
: like maybe it should be "Brave and Strong"), "your" instead of
: "you're", etc. Also, there is at least 1 page long table which is not
: set off well enough to be immediately distinguishable from the
: surrounding text (I tripped over pages 56-57 for quite a while before
: realizing that 56 was a table and 57 was a continuation of the text of
: 55). Etc. Oh yes, and he got the etymologies of "microscopic" and
: "macroscopic" wrong.
Yes, the editing is done by spell checker, and a lot of people, all of
whome seem to miss something. I will check on and attempt to unify all
the notaions however. Many are, but we've obviously missed some. Good
point, thanks. We added three or four tables in this latest addition,
none of which were properly offset. They all now have their own headers,
similar to the chapter headings. We noticed this too. As for micro and
macroscopic, I'll check, but I believe we used the dictionary meanings
(Webster's Unabridged), as well as the proper usage. Can you send me an
e-mail explaining this further?
: Another serious editing problem is that "Actor" and "Character" and
: other similar terms are often mixed freely in a very confusing manner.
: I understand that you want the line to be blurred during play, but the
: rules should attempt to be unambiguous. E.g., pages 42 and 43 talk
: about character attributes being possessed by actors.
Pages 42 and 43 are dead wrong in that respect, and have been changed (one
of the new example lists added at the last moment). I believe we've been
fairly careful about the usage elsewhere, although they are sometimes hard
to distinguish.
: Which brings me to my final four suggestions:
: 1) remove all sentences containing the word "we" referring to the
: designers. The wording of the core "rules" is already pompous and
: overblown enough to turn off most experienced gamers without getting
: "royal". Newbies might stand for it, but I can guarantee you'll make
: the rest of us sick.
Sorry, the 'we' wasn't meant in that way. Six of us wrote the book, and
we were all uncomfortable with the use of I. We were also unconfortable
in making certain statements as though they were fact, believe it or not.
So instead we opted for simply stating what 'we' as a group generally do,
leaving the actual choice up to you, the reader.
: 2) As others have said, much of the re-casting of common RPG terms
: into theatrical notation is confusing and unnecessary. "Player" is a
: perfectly well understood term in both gaming *and* the theatrical
: world. I don't mind "Director" so much, because I'm used to different
: terms being used to describe the "GM". But "Troupe", "Supporting
: Cast",
Yes, everybody says that, but I think we'll be stubborn enough to keep it.
We've used it long enough that it actually seems natural, and for those
who decide to use the system as is, I think they'll find this true. They
have the right connotations, where 'player' and NPC never seemed to.
: 3) Go over the whole "plotline" chapter and make an effort to re-cast
: the description of plot building to emphasize that this is just an
: example, rather than a hard and fast rule of "all good plots must have
: (exactly) these elements". You mention it in an offhand way a few
: times, whereas I think it needs to be emphasized more.
I don't think we emphasized the importance of those five basic scenes
enough. That chapter is based of Syd Field's work. The guy read over 2000
scripts for major studios, and from them developed an astounding paradigm
for plot formation. We don't believe that it's 'just an example'. You can
try to find another paradigm, certainly. But we've never seen one nearly
so powerful. We don't mean to denegrate anyone's plot froming ability, but
I think that chapter is very helpful to almost everybody. Take a plot that
didn't go so well, and break it down according to that paradigm.
I don't think we emphasized the importance of those five basic scenes
enough. That chapter is based of Syd Field's work. The guy read over 2000
scripts for major studios, and from them developed an astounding paradigm
for plot formation. We don't believe that it's 'just an example'. You can
try to find another paradigm, certainly. But we've never seen one nearly
so powerful. We don't mean to denegrate anyone's plot forming ability, but
I think that chapter is very helpful to almost everybody. Take a plot that
didn't go so well, and break it down according to that paradigm.
Everytime I try this I can usually find the error, "Aahh, yes, we were
cut off at Pinch 1 really. The plot never built enough to reach the
midpoint, and then it was solved for us. That's why it didn't feel
satisfying.', etc. Everytime I stick to this method, I get good plots. I
just can't say enough good things about it. But try it for yourself, and
see what you think.
: 4) Get rid of the cutsy "simulated coffee stain" and "simulated stamp"
: on the reproducable "dossier" (was "character sheet" *really* so inferior,
: BTW?). Leave them on the example version if you want. Also, take the
: color out of the reproducable "dossier" sheet...it doesn't copy well
: or consistently.
Oh well, we like the cutsy bits. Although the copies you see have terrible
color. They're copies, of a copy, of an original Fiery print. The 4-color
press versions should look far, far better. Maybe that will make the cutsy
stuff more forgiveable.
: I really don't mean this review to be as much of a downer as it may
: sound like it is. There are some great ideas here. They just aren't
: tied together tightly enough.
O.K. Suggestions for improvement? Believe me, we are listening and would
appreciate further feedback.
Thank you sincerely for this effort
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Ray Trent
>We used d10's because we like them, and they go along with the 1 to 10
>scale used in the game. Also, with d10's you can do all sorts of stuff
>with just two of them. Personal preference really.
I guess. The problem with d100 is that you have to resort to something
like a table in order to have a normal distribution. This is a serious
drawback in practice. Also, I get the feeling from Theatrix'
description of skill and attribute ranks that the correlation between
the 1-10 ranks and the ten sided die is misleading. There really isn't
any sensible way I can think of to use that d10, or I might agree with
this.
>Difficulties are on a 5 point scale, instead of the 10 point scale used
>elsewhere, because that's what made sense. We tried a 10 point difficulty
>scale, but the difference between each point on the scale was too
>minimal. The 5 point scale is more natural in actual practice, easy to
>remember, and useful.
Hmmm. To be honest, I have a hard time believing this. You already
have to go to the trouble to scale the various ranks to your campaign,
so presumably you have a handy-dandy chart that clearly lays out what
each rank means. In the four-color example, the jumping ability might
be scaled: 1: normal human, 2: leaps people in a single bound...10:
leaps to the moon. The player tries to leap over a tall building in a
single bound...ok, take the task to be performed, find it on the
ability scale, divide by 2, convert to
Easy/Normal/Difficult/Extreme/Impossible, and look it up on a chart
(or figure it out in your head). Sure, you could do that. Wouldn't it
be easier to just find the task on the scale and then compare it to
the characters rank? +-1 could be "about capable", with further
extremes further out.
The random method could then be done be having the die roll modify the
Skill Rank. You could use 3d6, or d100, or any other mechanism (the
Director could even tailor this to fit the feel of the genre (how
random are things)), but there would only be 1 table to look at, which
one could easily learn to do without.
>: of the same problems initially). One is: for some reason, Theatrix
>: chooses 6 attributes that are "common" to all settings while leaving
>: everything else up to the GM to define. Point 1) some settings really
>: cry out for different sets of attributes (take the Toon setting, for
>: example).
>
>Exactly. We wanted the 'Core Rules' to be absolutely universal in nature.
>Any new Attributes necessary to represent a genre will be included in the
>appropriate Setting Book, along with an actual character generation
>method, a slightly more concrete character advancement system (but no too
>concrete), a real genre oriented skill list, etc.
Ok, this isn't at all clear in the rules. The rules (and pre-printed
character sheet) make it look like the attributes are cast in concrete
(wet, concrete, but concrete nonetheless :-). I guess I was just
disappointed that the Skills were left to the setting (I may not think
that's a commercially viable strategy, but I like to do it that way
myself), and the Abilities were left to setting, and the nifty
Descriptors were left to setting (though more loosely), but the
Attributes were deemed "universal" enough to get printed on the
character sheet.
>: ground. Flesh that stuff out. Then there will be a reason to use the
>: Theatrix "system" and also to buy "setting" books which redefine the
>: scaling, effects, scope, and extent of the base system.
>
>Again, this gets fleshed out in the Setting Books, the first of which
>will be published at the same time as the Core Rules (or so we hope).
I guess I wasn't very clear about what I meant by this. What I was
trying to convey was that I don't think people will buy the core rules
unless they come with at least 1 appealing (and for commercial
reasons, popular) genre already fleshed out. I think they'll look over
the rules and say something like "hmmm, neat ideas, but in order to
even try it out the first time I'd either have to go to a lot of
trouble to scale my favorite setting or buy this expansion book over
here...maybe I'll just pick up a copy of Champions instead."
>: 1) remove all sentences containing the word "we" referring to the
>: designers. The wording of the core "rules" is already pompous and
>
>Sorry, the 'we' wasn't meant in that way. Six of us wrote the book, and
>we were all uncomfortable with the use of I. We were also unconfortable
>in making certain statements as though they were fact, believe it or not.
I know. It's a tough dilemma. I wrote my first several documents (and
book reports, essays, diatribes, etc) in that kind of informal manner.
Every time I try it, it comes out looking like it's written by a bunch
of guys in a garage. Sadly, I think in order to inspire confidence you
have to sound a bit more professional. Here's an example from the
rules.
A Formula For Success
Warning!: Use this formula only when you wish the feel of randomness
it provides. We feel that the Director is fully adequate to the task
of determining the Success and Failure of *all* actions within the
Chronicle, without reference to a die roll. However, we're willing to
provide this more traditional route for those who aren't comfortable
Directing in that manner.
In a paragraph, presumably without even trying, you've managed to
paint all traditional RPGs as inferior, the GMs as sniveling wimps,
and dice as a crutch. You may feel some or all of these is true. In
any event, the wording is quite arrogant, which could be bearable if
the "we" didn't make it sound like it was written by a bunch of PIBs
fresh out of college. The tone of the text is also "Formula for
Disaster", which clashes with the cute paragraph title. You could say
much the same thing and avoid pissing people off or creating cognative
dissonance with something like:
A Formula For Success
Caveat: Using this formula will impart more of a feeling of
randomness to a Chronicle. In some settings this may be desired, but
it is usually counter to the way Theatrix distinguishes itself from
traditional role playing games. Also, some Directors may feel
uncomfortable (or even just less excited by) being directly
responsible for the fates of the characters. It is for these
situations that this more traditional alternative is provided.
>: the description of plot building to emphasize that this is just an
>: example, rather than a hard and fast rule of "all good plots must have
>
>I don't think we emphasized the importance of those five basic scenes
>enough. That chapter is based of Syd Field's work. The guy read over 2000
>scripts for major studios, and from them developed an astounding paradigm
>for plot formation. We don't believe that it's 'just an example'. You can
The problem is that role playing *isn't* making movies. It's fun to
treat it that way sometimes, but in practice it's more a social
experience than a creative one (at least for every group of gamers
I've ever met or heard about). It's more important (to me and every
gamer I've talked to) to have fun than to create some kind of
"perfect" plot. Many GMs seriously prefer to simply let their
characters wander around in their well-crafted setting and see what
happens without any pre-conceived notions. Sure, there are "plot
twists" that s/he wants to through at the PCs to drive them to do
something interesting, but that's a far cry from laying out a plot in
advance. That can be fun, too, of course. But there are many "true
ways".
The other problem with the layout of the plot structure is that movies
are predictable (unless they don't follow this paradigm). I don't like
gaming to be predictable. In a movie, you always have that nagging
voice saying, "aha, that was the temporary setback that the characters
will now proceed to overcome since there's only 15 minutes of movies
left". Or, "aha, that scene developed the romantic sub-plot". I find
such over-formulizing to be a lot of what's wrong with Hollywood.
Let's keep it out of gaming, what do you say?
>: 4) Get rid of the cutsy "simulated coffee stain" and "simulated stamp"
>: on the reproducable "dossier" (was "character sheet" *really* so inferior,
>: BTW?). Leave them on the example version if you want. Also, take the
>: color out of the reproducable "dossier" sheet...it doesn't copy well
>: or consistently.
>
>Oh well, we like the cutsy bits. Although the copies you see have terrible
>color. They're copies, of a copy, of an original Fiery print. The 4-color
>press versions should look far, far better. Maybe that will make the cutsy
>stuff more forgiveable.
Like I said. Leave it on the example sheet if you want. People are
going to be photocopying and actually using the main sheet, sometimes
on creaking old hideous Xerox machines from hell. There's really no
need to complicate their lives. By the same token, cross-hatch the
look-up tables so they can be copied.
Kid Kibbitz
the guys at Backstage Press, who were gutsy enough to give this diced-play
advocate a free copy of the pre-press edition of the game for review.)
While I'll post a full review later (like, after I've read the rules), let
me suggest a major revision of the first piece of information I looked at:
the sample character sheet. No, not the form itself, but the sample
character.....
Besides presenting a bad stereotype of Italian males, what the character
portrayed does is to set up Theatrix characters as just plain hokey. Let
me explain that I often consider the sample characters given in a game to
be one of the good judges of the system. I can almost immediately figure
out what characteristics, skill/class mechanisms, genre/cinema-level, and
various other game attributes are incorporated in the game just by reading
the sample character sheet, and so I often read them first just to get a
feel for the game.
To be blunt, based solely on the sample character sheet enclosed, I would
guess the rules to be hokey (i.e., supporting broad, sweeping stereotypes
and not condusive to particularly broad or deep characterizations),
and the writers either biggoted or too familiar. (I don't care for an RPG
that was written as if the intended audience were the authors' friends.)
Is this an irrational basis? Perhaps. But the real question is... am I
the only gamer who would make it? (Maybe yes to that, too; I dunno.)
Anyway, just MHO,
--Jered
Andrew Finch
levels ...
That character was one of mine. It was created for and run in a modern
horror game, on the level of Cthulhu Now, or Dark Conspiracy. The game was
not hokey at all, but rather dark and deadly. Nor was that character
hokey. He was bigotted, abrassive, and difficult. Not a very likeable
character. But he had his uses, as you can see from his skills and
descriptors. There were obvious characteristics of humor to the character,
which made an odd juxtoposition with the genre, which is what I intended.
At the same time, the character was quite grim enough to fit in well. He
was a blast to play. The character was twisted enough that we thought he
would make a good example of the flexibility of the system.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: like a table in order to have a normal distribution. This is a serious
: drawback in practice. Also, I get the feeling from Theatrix'
: description of skill and attribute ranks that the correlation between
: the 1-10 ranks and the ten sided die is misleading. There really isn't
: any sensible way I can think of to use that d10, or I might agree with
: this.
No, there's no particular way to correlate the d10 with the stats in the
present rules. However, if we decide to make further die rolling
alternatives, we felt that the d10/d100 combo had the best possibilities
considering the 1-10/1-100 nature of teh stats. This lefdt good
possibilities for future supplements. Also, the d100 is distributed
normally in the charts given. We did not use 3d6, because the standard
deviation is not what we wanted. We chose the standard deviation of our
normal curves very carefully. It is set at 1.82, greater than you would
get with 3d6. Choosing a d100 allowed us to model the exact curve we
wished to fit (an advantage of d100's). We can take advantage of this
ability with later tables as well.
: Easy/Normal/Difficult/Extreme/Impossible, and look it up on a chart
: (or figure it out in your head). Sure, you could do that. Wouldn't it
: be easier to just find the task on the scale and then compare it to
: the characters rank? +-1 could be "about capable", with further
: extremes further out.
From a skill vs. difficulty perspective your suggestion does make sense.
But that is not the base view we wanted to promote. Getting a +2, or a -3
and giving a capability result off of that is fine, but it leaves the
descriptions of difficulty levels a little weak. We've got strong
descriptions of difficulty levels, which I think make some sense. And
taken from the perspective of Succes or Failure first, with a comparison
not of numbers, but of description of skill rank vs. description of
difficulty, to help with resolution afterward, the 5 levels of difficulty
work well. Again, we tried 10 difficulty ranks, and didn't feel there was
enough there to hold all ten positions. However, if you would like to
make up description for 10 difficulty ranks, and it seems more useful in
practice than what we've got, we'll give you some design credit for sure.
And we always appreciate suggestions.
: Ok, this isn't at all clear in the rules. The rules (and pre-printed
: character sheet) make it look like the attributes are cast in concrete
: (wet, concrete, but concrete nonetheless :-). I guess I was just
: disappointed that the Skills were left to the setting (I may not think
: that's a commercially viable strategy, but I like to do it that way
: myself), and the Abilities were left to setting, and the nifty
: Descriptors were left to setting (though more loosely), but the
: Attributes were deemed "universal" enough to get printed on the
: character sheet.
You have a point there. But it's easier to leave skills to a Setting,
once you give an example people can make up their own. Descriptors have
to be left by their very nature. Attributes are something we felt people
would be uncomfortable creating on their own. Plus we felt we needed a
base set for the core rules, just to give a solid base. Plus, the 6 we
chose should be generic enough to cover an enourmous variety of Settings
(they have for us so far). The few Settings that will need add ons can be
tackled in the genre book. Skills and Descriptors on the other hand vary
much more from Setting to Setting. Again, give us a specific suggestion
for a change and we'll certainly consider it.
: I guess I wasn't very clear about what I meant by this. What I was
: trying to convey was that I don't think people will buy the core rules
: unless they come with at least 1 appealing (and for commercial
: reasons, popular) genre already fleshed out. I think they'll look over
: the rules and say something like "hmmm, neat ideas, but in order to
: even try it out the first time I'd either have to go to a lot of
: trouble to scale my favorite setting or buy this expansion book over
: here...maybe I'll just pick up a copy of Champions instead."
Or GURPS ... But you are right of course, and this is a risk we are
taking. But we are commited to creating a purely gernre-less base which
can be infinitely molded, and yet provide common ground for various
Theatrix groups.
: >: 1) remove all sentences containing the word "we" referring to the
: >: designers. The wording of the core "rules" is already pompous and
: I know. It's a tough dilemma. I wrote my first several documents (and
: book reports, essays, diatribes, etc) in that kind of informal manner.
: Every time I try it, it comes out looking like it's written by a bunch
: of guys in a garage. Sadly, I think in order to inspire confidence you
: have to sound a bit more professional. Here's an example from the
: rules. ...
[excerpted]
And taken to heart. I think we'll make the change you suggested, plus
I'll look for those other 'we's, and see if we can't find another way of
stating those. We don't want to lose the friendly feel, but I don't mind
getting rid of the pretentiosness. Thanks.
: The problem is that role playing *isn't* making movies. It's fun to
: treat it that way sometimes, but in practice it's more a social
: experience than a creative one (at least for every group of gamers
: I've ever met or heard about). It's more important (to me and every
: gamer I've talked to) to have fun than to create some kind of
: "perfect" plot. Many GMs seriously prefer to simply let their
[excerpted]
All I can say is that the plots created in this way have been the most fun
we've ever had, the most enjoyable for everyone involved, and had the
fewest problems. So I disagree. Making a rpg plot is a lot like making a
movie plot from all the experience I've had. It just works well that way.
And as for predictability and surprises, no problem. The plot method we
suggest tends to enforce surprises (if you think about the Midpoint).
They just come out feeling 'right' to us. Give it a try, then tell me what
you think.
Of course this is not the only 'true path'. And we don't say it is. What
it is though, is a standard method of getting a good plot, that's well
laid out, and easy to follow. And I've never seen anything as teachable,
as flexibile, or as easy to use. So that's what we included. And I
believe that's what we claim.
: Like I said. Leave it on the example sheet if you want. People are
: going to be photocopying and actually using the main sheet, sometimes
: on creaking old hideous Xerox machines from hell. There's really no
: need to complicate their lives. By the same token, cross-hatch the
: look-up tables so they can be copied.
We'll consider it, but we do like the color (we'll sell separate pads of
character sheets, and people can always make their own). We probably
won't use cross hatching becuase we much prefer the look of a fine
gradient (which is not fine on those photocopies, but will be in the
final product).
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Kid Kibbitz
>Just to prove that you can't judge a book by its cover, on serveral
>levels ...
>
>That character was one of mine. It was created for and run in a modern
>horror game, on the level of Cthulhu Now, or Dark Conspiracy. The game was
>not hokey at all, but rather dark and deadly.
Whether or not the character was actually played, and whether or not it was
run in a dark modern setting, it gives, IMHO (which is all I can ever
express) a bad image to the game on several levels, which I outlined IAPP.
I could also create/play a large, dumb, black Jamaican serial rapist
character, or a skinny, money-grubbing Jewish diamond merchant who secretly
funds assassination attempts on Nation of Islam leaders, according to the
rules; that wouldn't make them the best sample characters, for much the
same reasons.
MHO, YMMV, and all other acronymic disclaimers,
--Kid Kibbitz
Ray Trent
>No, there's no particular way to correlate the d10 with the stats in the
>present rules. However, if we decide to make further die rolling
>alternatives, we felt that the d10/d100 combo had the best possibilities
>considering the 1-10/1-100 nature of teh stats. This lefdt good
>possibilities for future supplements. Also, the d100 is distributed
>normally in the charts given. We did not use 3d6, because the standard
>deviation is not what we wanted. We chose the standard deviation of our
>normal curves very carefully. It is set at 1.82, greater than you would
>get with 3d6. Choosing a d100 allowed us to model the exact curve we
>wished to fit (an advantage of d100's). We can take advantage of this
>ability with later tables as well.
For someone who advocates diceless role play, you seem to care an
inordinate amount about the particular standard deviation of the dice
in the optional system. But, of course, it's your game and your
choice. I can only speak for myself, but I'd rather invent an entirely
new imperfectly deviant mechanic (probably will, if I decide to fall
back on dice) than use 13 hard-to-photocopy tables with SDs perfectly
set up. But then you seem amenable to people making up their own
system...
>: the characters rank? +-1 could be "about capable", with further
>: extremes further out.
>
>From a skill vs. difficulty perspective your suggestion does make sense.
>But that is not the base view we wanted to promote. Getting a +2, or a -3
>and giving a capability result off of that is fine, but it leaves the
>descriptions of difficulty levels a little weak. We've got strong
Actually, I think as a player I would find it more difficult to relate
to some normalized "Easy/Normal/Difficult..." scale. I would much
rather have the GM look up "leaps tall buildings in a single bound" on
the scaling for the "Leap" ability and say something like "you've
never leaped over something quite that large...it looks like it might
take 2 or 3 bounds" than something like: "that would a tough leap for
a normal leaper" (the latter being paraphrased because I can't even
think of how to normalize the description).
>work well. Again, we tried 10 difficulty ranks, and didn't feel there was
>enough there to hold all ten positions. However, if you would like to
>make up description for 10 difficulty ranks, and it seems more useful in
>practice than what we've got, we'll give you some design credit for sure.
>And we always appreciate suggestions.
I guess my problem is that I don't see how to describe the
easy/normal...difficulties levels as it is. What use is describing a
task as "extraordinary if performed by a normal competent person" if
the character isn't the normal competent character? I can only imagine
saying "If you were a normal person, this would be hard, but..." just
so many times before it gets old (or at least becomes a tired cliche).
Presumably, you're trying to get away from the Director saying "It's a
tall building, so people with leaping of 7+ could make it easily". A
laudable goal...perhaps this section needs some more thought?
>to be left by their very nature. Attributes are something we felt people
>would be uncomfortable creating on their own. Plus we felt we needed a
But skills aren't? Ok, maybe these are more generic. But take the Toon
setting. Notwithstanding the actual Toon rules, I would say that
attributes such as Strength, Coordination, Intellect, etc. really miss
the point and would in fact damage that setting. I think it's just a
matter of appearing consistent. If it's ok to leave skills to be
fleshed out by the GM (or setting books, but I think there's a pretty
large market of people who have little interest in buying setting
books...me for example) while providing little more than a fancy 100
million font sheet of example skills, would it really hurt to list the
6 attributes as "commonly useful" and provide a small list of other
example attributes? Again...your game...I just wanted to express that
I was disappointed.
>All I can say is that the plots created in this way have been the most fun
>we've ever had, the most enjoyable for everyone involved, and had the
>fewest problems. So I disagree. Making a rpg plot is a lot like making a
Your perogative. By now, I assume you understand that there are a lot
of people out there who prefer to game "world-based" rather than
"plot-based" (neither can totally dominate, of course), so I'll stop
beating this dead horse.
>We'll consider it, but we do like the color (we'll sell separate pads of
>character sheets, and people can always make their own). We probably
>won't use cross hatching becuase we much prefer the look of a fine
>gradient (which is not fine on those photocopies, but will be in the
>final product).
Color's great...I just meant that I think you'll piss a lot of people
off if photocopies of the tables and character sheets look too grungy.
Two different sets would work, too, though that's probably too much
work.
Oh, that reminds me...there were a few other ideas I wanted to mention
in the context of world-building and play mechanics:
When I saw "cue cards" in the index, I went "Cool! That's a great
idea." Then I got to the description and was a bit disappointed. What
I *thought* you were going to suggest is little pre-written cards you
could hand to a player (Actor, if you will) that would contain enough
info to allow you to just say: Here, play this NPC (SCM, for
Supporting Cast Member)? for me for this Scene..." I know you didn't
mean that, but I plan on doing it anyway because it sounds cool.
Oh, and I think the Setting section could use a few more sections.
Some examples:
Under "World": Physics: How do the laws of nature work in your setting?
(our favorite example of this is "Star Trek Physics", meaning things
like warp drives, ships slowing down when thrust is removed,
reactionless drives and tractor beams, etc...)
Under "People": What species are available for characters? What are
their characteristics? What types of professions do you want
characters to come from? (etc....overall, I mean what subset of the
setting's population should PCs come from).
Etc...
John H Kim
ignored without much trouble.
Kid Kibbitz <kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>To be blunt, based solely on the sample character sheet enclosed, I would
>guess the rules to be hokey (i.e., supporting broad, sweeping stereotypes
>and not condusive to particularly broad or deep characterizations),
>and the writers either biggoted or too familiar. (I don't care for an RPG
>that was written as if the intended audience were the authors' friends.)
>Is this an irrational basis? Perhaps. But the real question is... am I
>the only gamer who would make it?
Well, yes. The main problem, IMO, was not the nature of the
character (a burly Italian with a schtick), but the character quotes
in the attributes, which I agree sound very hokey:
"Presence: (4.0) I look like some @#$% wop guido. Women think I'm some
kind of wise guy. They eat it up, he he he."
I'd certainly agree that these sound very stereotyped. It
emphasizes him as a sexist, womanizing, dumb, criminally-minded. Also,
the quotes often fail to do their job of actually filling in details
about the trait in question. For example,
"Intellect: (2.5) Hey, hey ... you calling me stupid or something?"
This doesn't actually describe the character's intellect - it
just says something about his personality.
Also, the character's Primary Descriptor, "The True Gift" is not
described at all. The character supposedly has psychic powers, but
what they are is not at all described beyond: "(fortune telling, spirit
contact, etc.)".
As it is, the attribute descriptions are in the first person, and
the description and background are in third person. I might suggest
reversing that - the attributes are described more objectively, and the
background is from Tony's point of view:
"Intellect: (2.5) Tony is uneducated, and inclined to believe his
preconceptions rather than actually _thinking_. Still, he can be
pretty wily if it suits his purpose."
"History: I got this `Gift' I inherited from my Ma - voices speakin
in my head all the time. As if growing up in the Bronx wasn't hard
enough. Later, money in construction work was pretty slim, so I thought
I'd cash in on it. But nobody paid to have a guy read their fortune,
so - just for the money, mind you - I dress up as Madame Zorga. I
like broads just fine, and get a lot of them - but this is a way to
make money legit (unlike working for my cousin Bertolucci)."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
jh...@columbia.edu | Just a single little finger can... change the world."
Columbia University | - Stephen Sondheim, _Assassins_
Andrew Finch
: For someone who advocates diceless role play, you seem to care an
: inordinate amount about the particular standard deviation of the dice
: in the optional system. But, of course, it's your game and your
: choice ...
We worked hard to get the stadard deviation right, so that it gave the
proper results about the right number of times, going to the Advanced
Resolution Charts. But yes, feel free to do something different. If it's
good, then publish it, or maybe we could work something out?
: Presumably, you're trying to get away from the Director saying "It's a
: tall building, so people with leaping of 7+ could make it easily". A
: laudable goal...perhaps this section needs some more thought?
It does seem to work for us, and so far the other playtesters we have out
there. However, some thought is always a good thing. In any case, we don't
want the Director always saying 'This would be Difficult for a '3.0' to
perform'. That should go on in his head. The description the player hears
should be tailored for him/her, not a running tally of the intermediate
procedural steps. Again, if you can come up with something specific that
meats both goals, we are willing to listen.
: But skills aren't? Ok, maybe these are more generic. But take the Toon
: setting. Notwithstanding the actual Toon rules, I would say that ...
: 6 attributes as "commonly useful" and provide a small list of other
: example attributes? Again...your game...I just wanted to express that
: I was disappointed.
O.K. Tune is a real different sort of Genre, but those 6 basic stats can
still apply very well there. You just describe them very differently.
Think of Strength and McGuilla Gorrila, or Presence and Bugs Bunny, or
Intellect and Wile E. Coyote. Those stats are very much more generic than
any Skill list. Alternates, fine. If we had any we really want to list. I
don't mean to shut you off. It's just that we've been through a lot of
this, and have reasons for what we did. I can be convinced however. I
just want to be sure that any changes are going to be best for the game,
and that it will still be what we wanted it to be. Don't let my arguments
stop your comments, they are excellent, and well thought out.
: Your perogative. By now, I assume you understand that there are a lot
: of people out there who prefer to game "world-based" rather than
: "plot-based" (neither can totally dominate, of course), so I'll stop
: beating this dead horse.
Yeah, it is pretty dead. I think that a good world-based game will have
well structured plots, and that a good plot-based game will occure in a
well structured world. We have rules that are plot based, but have a
chapter on creating well integrated Settings. Everything is important.
: Color's great...I just meant that I think you'll piss a lot of people
: off if photocopies of the tables and character sheets look too grungy.
: Two different sets would work, too, though that's probably too much
: work.
Actually, color photocpoies of the character sheets will probably look
fine, and ebven black and whites are O.K. (we've used them). Photo-copies
of the charts should be fine if taken from the originals.
: When I saw "cue cards" in the index, I went "Cool! That's a great
: idea." Then I got to the description and was a bit disappointed. What
: I *thought* you were going to suggest is little pre-written cards you
: could hand to a player (Actor, if you will) that would contain enough
: info to allow you to just say: Here, play this NPC (SCM, for
: Supporting Cast Member)? for me for this Scene..." I know you didn't
: mean that, but I plan on doing it anyway because it sounds cool.
It does sound cool, and we'll add that suggestion, and your name to the
design credits. So what's your full name (you can e-mail me).
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
itself, and not the character on it. However, people are going to take it
as an example, and it's nearly the only one, which means we aught to
obviously change it. We don't mean to insult any race or creed of people.
I'm sure we can find a more neutral subject. Thanks for the input.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Kid Kibbitz
No problem. By the way, this was really only an issue (or at least, was
especially an issue) because the sample character was separately bound; had
it been buried in the back of the book somewhere, it wouldn't have made
much difference.
On a vaguely related note (i.e., opinions based solely on the reference
sheets), your examples of handgun ranges are a bit off, IMHO. The effective
range of your average modern pistol (say a military .45 or a typical 9mm)
is about 50-60 yards. (This is the distance at which a decent marksman
will hit a stationary target about 50% of the time.) This should be
considered a "normal" task, probably: hitting a torso-sized target (or
maybe slightly smaller, even) at 50 yards (150 feet) with no pressure.
YMMV, of course.
--Kid Kibbitz
P.S. I'll probably get to actually read the rules themselves this weekend,
and post my review next week.
Ray Trent
>want the Director always saying 'This would be Difficult for a '3.0' to
>perform'. That should go on in his head. The description the player hears
>should be tailored for him/her, not a running tally of the intermediate
>procedural steps. Again, if you can come up with something specific that
>meats both goals, we are willing to listen.
Don't know if I can "meat" both goals without hamming it up...:-), but
I guess I feel like you already have most of the "solution" there
already...the section on scaling. In scaling, the Director (or setting
book) already has to have gone to the (rather extraordinary) effort of
figuring out what the effects should be for the different skill,
attribute, and ability ranks. I don't understand why the Director then
must perform the additional step of also scaling the difficulties at a
different resolution (sure, it's not really that hard...just divide by
2, but what's the point?). S/he can already look up the task on the
scaling and see how far off the character's rank is. But I've said
this before, so you probably simply disagree...
>O.K. Tune is a real different sort of Genre, but those 6 basic stats can
>still apply very well there. You just describe them very differently.
>Think of Strength and McGuilla Gorrila, or Presence and Bugs Bunny, or
>Intellect and Wile E. Coyote. Those stats are very much more generic than
>any Skill list. Alternates, fine. If we had any we really want to list. I
They work "ok". It's just that stats like "karma", "speed", "luck",
"out of frameness" (by which I mean how far out of the laws of the
Toon world does the character operate) would work better for this
genre. Presence is still pretty good. Stuff like "strength",
"coordination", "intellect", etc...would work better, IMNSHO, as
Descriptors for the Toon genre.
Or take a high fantasy realm that happens to have "magic resistance"
and/or "magic power" as a truly basic, passive attribute that people
have at different levels. Sure...they work as "abilities" also...(of
course, so do "strength", "intellect", etc.), I just feel like
"attribute" has a better feel for them...I guess what it comes down to
is that I feel "attributes" are something by which *every* character
should be rated, whereas "abilities", etc., are things that not every
character should care about.
Psi might be another example...sure, you could use "Intuition", or
"Presence", or some combination of the two...if you wanted "Psi"
linked to these attributes...but sometimes you don't. You want the
possibility of complete invisible idiots with normally weak wills
having an enormous Psi rating (take the "Lawnmower Man" genre, for
example), because it fits in with your plot somehow.
To sum up, I feel that the distinguishing characteristic of an
"Attribute" that makes it a useful distinction from "Ability" or
"Skill" is that it is universal to all characters...everyone has a
rating. This is the distinction it *looks* like you're trying to make,
and it's what every other game I've seen seems to *try* to do...please
correct my misimpression if indeed it is that...
>Yeah, it is pretty dead. I think that a good world-based game will have
>well structured plots, and that a good plot-based game will occure in a
>well structured world. We have rules that are plot based, but have a
>chapter on creating well integrated Settings. Everything is important.
True enough. I think the option of asking "Is failure or success of
this action required by the setting?" instead of "...the plot?" is a
valid one that sometimes should even take precedence, but it's easy
enough to do that without being told to...
Anyway, this has rambled longer than I wanted. I was going to ask for
a plotting example but I'd rather not have it get buried here, so I'll
follow-up separately.
Ray Trent
>Yeah, it is pretty dead. I think that a good world-based game will have
>well structured plots, and that a good plot-based game will occure in a
>well structured world. We have rules that are plot based, but have a
>chapter on creating well integrated Settings. Everything is important.
I think an example that we all can recognize would be very helpful in
crystalizing opinions about Theatrix' plotting mechanism.
My request (challenge? :-) is this: The Lord of the Rings is an epic
fantasy that I claim most gamers are familiar with. I'd go so far as
to say that most of us consider it well-plotted and well-set...perhaps
more so than any other existing example. I also claim that, if it
hadn't already become a cliche by the time gaming became popular, it
would have made a marvelous, even canonical, example of a good
role-playing adventure.
How would you break up TLOTR to fit the Theatrix model of "good"
plots...i.e., which of the following scenes are part of the
Introduction, Plot Turn 1, Pinch 1, Midpoint, Pinch 2, Plot Turn 2,
and Conclusion (I'll endeavor to name the scenes agreeably, but I'm
doing this from memory, so pardon any brainoes):
The Birthday Party and Consequences
The Journey to Bree
The Attack at Bree and Chase to the Ford
Old Friends Re-United
The Council of Elrond (includes flashback to Gandalf's Capture)
The Quest Sets Out, Defeat at Caradhros (sp?)
The Mines of Moria and the Fall of Gandalf
Galadriel in Lothlorien
The Anduin and Betrayal of Boromir
[plot splits several ways]
[plot 1]
Frodo and Sam meet Gollum
The Gates of Morranon (sp?)
Faramir
Shelob
The Watcher and the Tower
Trip to Orodruin
Orc Death March
Mount Doom and the Destruction of the Ring
[plot 2]
The Fall of Boromir
Merry and Pippin's Orc Death March
Fangorn Forest and the Ents
The Fall of Orthanc (plot combines with 3)
[plot 3]
Strider and Company Prove their Swiftness
Eomer and the Riders of Rohan
Gandalf the White
The Halls of Theoden
The Siege of Helm's Deep
Eomer and Gandalf to the Rescue
Saruman's Staff Broken and Recovery of the Palantir
[plot 4]
Aragorn Challanges Sauron
The Paths of the Dead and the Grey Company
The Rescue of Minas Tirath (plot combines with 5)
[plot 5]
The Red Arrow
The Lost Forest Tribe (damn, what was their name)
Minas Tirath Besieged
Eowyn Kills Angmar (captain of the ringwraiths)
Minas Tirith Saved
Gondor Marches on Mordor
The Eagles Rescue our Heroes (plot combines with 1)
[plot 1]
Praise Them with Great Praise (partying all around)
Return to Shire
The Scouring of the Shire
The Grey Havens
I have a hard time doing the mapping off the top of my head and
suspect that there is much more going on here than would be covered in
any movie (it's more comparable in complexity (though not quality :-)
to one of my gaming plots). I find LOTR feels more like a "history"
than a "story" or a "movie", with myriads of connections and
interplay. Consider this an opportunity to validate the canonical
"good Theatrix plot" or show how it is intended to be expanded beyond
the canonical elements.
Andrew Finch
: They work "ok". It's just that stats like "karma", "speed", "luck",
: "out of frameness" (by which I mean how far out of the laws of the
: Toon world does the character operate) would work better for this
: genre. Presence is still pretty good. Stuff like "strength",
: "coordination", "intellect", etc...would work better, IMNSHO, as
: Descriptors for the Toon genre.
You may be right. We'll pick that bridge up when we burn it.
: Or take a high fantasy realm that happens to have "magic resistance"
: and/or "magic power" as a truly basic, passive attribute that people
: have at different levels. Sure...they work as "abilities" also...(of
: course, so do "strength", "intellect", etc.), I just feel like
: "attribute" has a better feel for them...I guess what it comes down to
: is that I feel "attributes" are something by which *every* character
: should be rated, whereas "abilities", etc., are things that not every
: character should care about.
Magic Resistance is made for a Descriptor. Remembet that Attributes only
effect the outcomes of action through their harmony or disharmony with
your description of the action. They have no direct effect. A Skill Rank
sums up the total life experience which composes it.
: Psi might be another example...sure, you could use "Intuition", or
: "Presence", or some combination of the two...if you wanted "Psi"
: linked to these attributes...but sometimes you don't. You want the
: possibility of complete invisible idiots with normally weak wills
: having an enormous Psi rating (take the "Lawnmower Man" genre, for
: example), because it fits in with your plot somehow.
An Attribute may be described, like everything else in Theatrix, quite
explicitly and exactly. If you want a weak willed idiot with an enourmous
Psi rating, just say so, ...
Intellect - John is basically a good-hearted moron, willing to accept
almost anything anyone says nicely. Slow and feeble, he is ulikely to
ever be educated in any traditional manner. He has enough wits to feed
and clothe himself, and perform menial work, although somebody else is
going to have to monitor his funds for him, or he'll spend it all on
comics. However, lurking under this simple mind is a psychich giant of
enormous potential, waiting to be activated ...
: To sum up, I feel that the distinguishing characteristic of an
: "Attribute" that makes it a useful distinction from "Ability" or
: "Skill" is that it is universal to all characters...everyone has a
: rating. This is the distinction it *looks* like you're trying to make,
: and it's what every other game I've seen seems to *try* to do...please
: correct my misimpression if indeed it is that...
No, you've got it. It's for that very reason we give basic Attributes for
every genre. To give some basic similarity to every Theatrix game, and to
provide some basis on which characters may move from game to game, and
even genre to genre. They have no direct effect on the game mechanics,
but they have a great effect on the game environment. We may just
dissagree, although not entirely. You've made an excellent point. I don't
know if we'll change it for the press-run, but you can always change it
in your games. We encourage you to do just that.
: True enough. I think the option of asking "Is failure or success of
: this action required by the setting?" instead of "...the plot?" is a
: valid one that sometimes should even take precedence, but it's easy
: enough to do that without being told to...
Yes.
: Anyway, this has rambled longer than I wanted. I was going to ask for
: a plotting example but I'd rather not have it get buried here, so I'll
: follow-up separately.
O.K.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: crystalizing opinions about Theatrix' plotting mechanism.
: My request (challenge? :-) is this: The Lord of the Rings is an epic
: fantasy that I claim most gamers are familiar with. I'd go so far as
: to say that most of us consider it well-plotted and well-set...perhaps
: more so than any other existing example. I also claim that, if it
: hadn't already become a cliche by the time gaming became popular, it
: would have made a marvelous, even canonical, example of a good
: role-playing adventure.
: How would you break up TLOTR to fit the Theatrix model of "good"
: plots...i.e., which of the following scenes are part of the
: Introduction, Plot Turn 1, Pinch 1, Midpoint, Pinch 2, Plot Turn 2,
: and Conclusion (I'll endeavor to name the scenes agreeably, but I'm
: doing this from memory, so pardon any brainoes):
Good question. Poor example. Or, rather, great example, but not for the
use you wish to put it. The 'Lord of the Rings' is a three book trilogy.
And you have just uncovered why Theatrix uses a movie paradigm. Books
have a huge amount of space. They can in fact run several plots at once.
Not just a bunch of Subplots, but several whole plots. Remember that a
plot happens to a character. You know how books will often jump from
character to character, rotating their stories in successive chapters,
until they all come together? The 'Lord of the Rings' does this a lot.
Think about this in terms of the plot structure we give. Each one of
these is a storyline, a whole plot, broken-up, and then told in rotation.
Each of them will individually make up an entire plot, and that doesn't
include the subplots.
Second discovery. Someting we don't even mention in the Theatrix Core
Rules, because it's too complex an issue, and it's one you discover for
yourself if you take our reccomendations and use the plotting method. The
plot structure we give is recursive. For example, lets say I want to run
an epic quest campaign, something like 'The Lord of the Rings'. Every D&D
GM does this at some point. I did. They usually come out pretty boring,
and by the third or fourth one, kind of rote. J.R.R. got it right though.
How? Because the quest is a meta-plot. It folows the basic plot
structure, but inside it are a series of whole plots. Lets see. It was a
whole plot just to find the damned ring, which serves as the introduction
for the meta-plot of the quest. Then, each book in the series serves as
another portion of the meta-plot, each one a full plot in itself, or
shall we say several. You see, the quest is not really a meta-plot. I
lied. It's a meta-meta-plot. Each book is actually a meta-plot, and each
one contains the separate stories of several characters, ecah one of
these being a plot. They fit inside each other, and you need to follow
each thread to find its structure.
That's why your having so much trouble. That's why we use movies. They
generally have the time for only one plot. However, you have time for much
more. Master the plot technique first. Then use a series of plots to
introduce, build a conflict for, and resolve a meta-plot. Each full plot
within the meta-plot will reveal something more about the meta-plot. At
Midpoint of the meta-plot, the Actors will probably realize that the
meta-plot is occuring, and something is behind the string of other plots
they've been going through. The last plot resolves not only itself, but
the meta-plot as well. Unless of course you have a meta-meta-plot going.
Secrets within secrets, and a structure to keep track of them and build on
them logically. And it doesn't get boring, because at any one time you're
not on some never-ending quest, you're on a tangible plot with a
foreseeable end. That's why J.R.R. could pull of the trilogy.
Want to try this first with a movie?
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Ray Trent
>Good question. Poor example. Or, rather, great example, but not for the
>use you wish to put it. The 'Lord of the Rings' is a three book trilogy.
Actually, I would strongly disagree with this. LOTR is 1 book. The
Hobbit is a prequel (that most people consider to have been written
without LOTR as a literary work in mind). The fact that publishing
realities put it in three volumes is not relevant (for psychological
reasons I wouldn't even attempt to explain, it seems to me to be an
even better work when bound in 1 volume). None of the books really
dramatically holds together by itself. But this is a side issue.
>until they all come together? The 'Lord of the Rings' does this a lot.
>Think about this in terms of the plot structure we give. Each one of
>these is a storyline, a whole plot, broken-up, and then told in rotation.
>Each of them will individually make up an entire plot, and that doesn't
>include the subplots.
I guess I'm saying that there's something dissatisfying about this
reletively simple paradigm when it's imbedded in a larger meta-plot
(as you put it). Let's just look at Frodo's meta-plot. following the
Theatrix suggestions (as well as I can), the Resolution is the
destruction of the Ring. The Introduction is, near as I can tell, the
point up to which Gandalf tells Frodo about the History of the Ring in
Bag End. Plot turn 1 seems to be the attack at Bree; pinch 1 is the
trip from there to Rivendell; the Council of Elrond appears to be the
Midpoint, and everything up to the episode at the second plot turn in
the Tower in Minas Morgul appears to be Pinch 2. Let me know how I'm
doing here.
Pardon me for saying this, but I find this plotting rather
unsatisfying, or at least uncompelling. I could just as easily say
that Boromir's Betrayal is the Midpoint (it's closer to the physical
middle of the plot...but doesn't fit near as well). Or that Gandalf's
death, or meeting Gollum is the Midpoint. Personally, I would claim
that the locus of the midpoint is *very* indistinct in Frodo's
meta-plot.
In fact, I would claim that starting with any of these as some sort of
meta-notion like a Midpoint would not have led to Frodo's plot. What
led to his plot was the setting and his character development, which
in turn was shaped by his experiences. But I'm willing to bet a dozen
nickels that JRRT planned out this character development (and the
development of Aragorn, Boromir, Gandalf, Merry, Pippin, and
especially Sam (Legolas and Gimli being rather weak characters to my
way of thinking) and then wrapped a plot around it so as to bring it
to being.
None of which says anything about how to create a good RPG, of course.
Still, I can't help thinking that the neatly packaged "movie plot
sized" hunks that Theatrix seems to encourage don't really lead to
this kind of character development and the consequent role playing.
Which is not to say I think the section is useless or unhelpful. There
are a lot of good ideas there...I just think more attention to the
additional layers of complexity would be useful as well.
Maybe this would help: I find that series of movies rarely make good
Chronicles of the characters. The structure of a movie plot just
doesn't lend itself very well to ongoing development. The bigger and
more exciting the Resolution of each movie, the more dissappointing
the next movie. People get jaded quickly. It can work for a little
while: Terminator II was a great film, but I can't imagine a 3rd one
being anything but a decent action flick. Star Wars was a pretty cool
trilogy, but to be honest, I don't think there's much left in those
characters. The Star Trek movies were pretty much an abomination as a
Chronicle, relying on their individual strengths for whatever appeal
each of them had. And then 1 self-explanatory example: Alien(s).
>Second discovery. Someting we don't even mention in the Theatrix Core
>Rules, because it's too complex an issue, and it's one you discover
Well, you seemed to describe the problem pretty well here (with a few
understandable oopses...I don't think the books of LOTR are really
meta-plots...where's the resolution in the Two Towers, for
example...the meta plots are more character based).
Some of the things I'd like to see the Core Rules deal with are how to
resolve some of the conflicts that this recursive model can cause (and
does, in every good campaign I've ever run or played in). How does one
deal with valid plot twists in simple plots that later come back to
bite the meta-plot. Etc. This is especially important in the Theatrix
system, where the players can directly affect the reality of the
world in which their characters live.
>they've been going through. The last plot resolves not only itself, but
>the meta-plot as well. Unless of course you have a meta-meta-plot going.
>Secrets within secrets, and a structure to keep track of them and build on
Essentially, I think what I'm saying is that every good campaign does
this. That's why I think the simplistic model presented needs more
expansion.
The reason I had a "hard time" plotting LOTR by this scheme is that
it's too seamless for the scheme. The individual plot lines are often
too convoluted to fit this scheme as well (as I showed with Frodo's
case, above). Actually, to be honest, I have a hard time finding
something I'd arbitrarily label a Midpoint (without being embarrassed
about the post-hoc-ness of it) in any of LOTR's plots, meta-plots,
meta-meta-plots, character plots, historical plots, villain plots,
etc. Essentially, the quality that makes LOTR compelling is that it is
a seamless coming together of a ton of plot twists, motivations,
character developments as well as simple action progressions.
But ok, maybe that's my limitation. Tell me, how would you run LOTR as
a game (as an example...it's probably pointless to actually run
something that cliched as a game, especially a Theatrix game). How
would you break up the list of scenes in my last post (I forgot a few,
like Tom Bombadil...feel free to include missing ones) into separate
plots that comprise the Intro, Conflict, and Resolution of the
meta-plots which themselves comprise the parts of the meta-meta-plot?
If you can do it from the perspective of how you'd go about designing
LOTR as a Theatrix Chronicle, so much the better...but even a post hoc
analysis would be very enlightening.
As a GM, creating a setting in Theatrix is too much work for me to be
satisfied with anything less than a full Chronicle (I'd call it a
campaign) worth of role-playing, which I don't think is adequately
encompassed by the existing Plot paradigm.
Robbie Westmoreland
It's interesting reading this thread: Ray Trent is obstinately missing the
point, and David Berkman is dodgedly sticking to the terminology in
Theatrix even though it's hurting his argument.
Why doesn't the Lord of the Rings make a good example of a possible
RPG plot? Because it's HUGE! Enormous! Titanic even! I mean, it
doesn't have the scope of the Silmarillion or the Bible, and it doesn't
compare to Michener's epics, but there's a lot in there.
Now, when you run the Lord of the Rings as an RPG adventure (that's what
Ray's suggesting, right?), how long do you figure it takes? Well, I
think that you can get Sam and Frodo together with Pippin and Merry
inside of two sessions. Then you have a couple of sessions getting
to Bree (Tom Bombadil is in there, ya know, along with a random meeting
with a Nazgul). These are 4 hour sessions, by the way. You college
kids might be able to manage things in larger chunks - find a factor
and divide my totals.
Now, the time in Bree is one session, with some amusing roleplaying
and the big fleeing scene - enter Aragorn. I'd definitely want to end
the session right after the flight to let people catch their breathes,
and there can be a bit of in-character discussion as we're wrapping up
as everyone is introduced more completely.
The trip to Rivendell could be done in one session, I suppose, but that
depends on the group. The time in Rivendell is at least two sessions,
and finally the whole Fellowship is together.
How far into the first book are we at this point? At 4 hours per session
and 1 session per week, I've just spent a couple of months and the game
has only begun.
So David's right: The Lord of the Rings is too much to put into one "plot"
as defined in the Theatrix rules. It's too much to be more than a campaign
theme for any RPG system I've seen, and few of them give any decent treat-
ment of internally cohesive stories. Hence the "meta-plot" relegation of
the LotR epic. There are a few dozen internal plots in LotR, each with their
own resolution and a couple of subplots.
Flaws of David's terminology:
He's sticking too closely to this "movie" thing, and it breaks down with
ongoing "chronicles." Movie sequels don't pick up where the last movie
left off. RPG's do. I think that hour-long serial TV shows would be a
better example - most modern ones have direct continuity between episodes,
but each episode develops a main plot and a couple of sub-plots, and gives
some form of resolution.
I'm beginning to think that John Kim (in another branch of another thread)
is right: RPG's involve much more plot and character complexity than is
possible in visual media, and perhaps the use of movie terms disguises
this...
--
Robbie Westmoreland, Dilettante rob...@inviso.com
"Today history is no more than a thin thread of the remembered stretching over
an ocean of the forgotten..." Milan Kundera, _The Joke_
v1.0.1 GSS/O d++ -p+ c++ l u e- m* s n- h+ f+ g+ w+ t- r++ y+
Andrew Finch
In response:
You can't do this with LOTR, not because it's too seamless, but because
it's too big. There are multiple plots going on, inside plots. And yes,
you can find large numbers of Midpoints due to this same fact. However,
any single run is much smaller than that. I think you would understand if
we started with something smaller. And since I run Chronicles this way,
by the existing Plot paradigm, I know it works. And I've had much better
success with my plots after using this technique. I also propose that
roleplaying is far more like a movie than a book, and runs by a movie
structure. But I'm willing to prove this.
Give me your best plot. One you feel worthy of roleplay. One that was run
well, and you feel was so seamless, that it wouldn't break down into our
little suggestion of a plot structure. I'll see what I can do with it.
Then give a plot that didn't go so well, and I'll see if I can find the
error (obviously not a plot that crashed due to everyone beeing too tired
or something, but one you thought should have gone well, but didn't).
: As a GM, creating a setting in Theatrix is too much work for me to be
: satisfied with anything less than a full Chronicle (I'd call it a
: campaign) worth of role-playing, which I don't think is adequately
: encompassed by the existing Plot paradigm.
The above test might be the proof in the pudding.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Ray Trent
Robbie Westmoreland <rob...@inviso.com> wrote:
>Why doesn't the Lord of the Rings make a good example of a possible
>RPG plot? Because it's HUGE! Enormous! Titanic even! I mean, it
Eh. It's not so big. You just have to have the right frame of mind.
Does it help to know that my gaming group's largest campaign so far
spanned 3 years with a 6 hour session more weekends than not? Order of
100 sessions, I'd say. That's rare, of course. Most of our campaigns
last roughly 10-20 6 hour sessions. They've been doing this for 11
years (I only really joined 7 years ago, though I've been gaming for
about 16 years...the early parts of which were typical high school kid
30 hour/week fanaticism).
>How far into the first book are we at this point? At 4 hours per session
>and 1 session per week, I've just spent a couple of months and the game
>has only begun.
Actually, I'd disagree for no other reason than that RPGs typically
move faster than most books. I'd actually say that getting the Company
together would take roughly 3-4 6 hour sessions. On the other hand,
our 3 year campaign was more or less a multi-layered Silmarillion
style thing (lots more linear plot, lots less complexity, in case
you're wondering).
>the LotR epic. There are a few dozen internal plots in LotR, each with their
>own resolution and a couple of subplots.
My point exactly. Yet, one can hardly say that an RPG LOTR is out of
the realm of even likelihood (*everyone* does something like that at
some point, don't they?). In most systems, this isn't a serious
problem, because you don't have to plot things out that far in
advance. Theatrix appears to require at least a sketchy idea of how it
all is going to happen because there aren't really any mechanics to
resolve things. Or not, I suppose. If/when I use Theatrix, I will
probably answer "no" to "Does the plot require a certain outcome"
almost all the time, and I'm not sure it matters. I'm just talking
about a perceived skimpiness of the plotting suggestions.
That's not to say you can't plot out something that complex. It's just
that it takes being willing to relax the formulaic "movie plot"
sequence of events when forming your plot and I believe it also takes
leaving a lot of decisions to natural consequences of a richly defined
world (because more than 1 person is coming up with the plot, making
it several orders of magnitude more unstable than it would be if you
were writing the whole thing).
>is right: RPG's involve much more plot and character complexity than is
>possible in visual media, and perhaps the use of movie terms disguises
>this...
I thought that's what I was trying to say...sorry if it wasn't clear.
Andrew Finch
: that it takes being willing to relax the formulaic "movie plot"
: sequence of events when forming your plot and I believe it also takes
: leaving a lot of decisions to natural consequences of a richly defined
: world (because more than 1 person is coming up with the plot, making
: it several orders of magnitude more unstable than it would be if you
: were writing the whole thing).
That's not plotting it out at all. In fact, you would never plot out
anything so big unless you were writing a book. Individual games, or
episodes, or stories (usually 4 to six sessions long) never cover that
much ground. If you play for 11 years you go through plots, and plots,
and plots. However, I don't think any of this negates the value of
plotting out your runs in 4 to 6 session increments (Episodes), and then
letting the Episodes chain together to form a continuous Chronicle. That
plotting you do for each episode, taking the time to form a satisfying
structure, improves each Episode and makes it far easier to handle,
especially when you allow a lot of improvisation.
If the structure given in Theatrix is not satisfactory, it is certainly
not because it won't cover 11 years worth of play, or anything as big as
'Lord of the Rings'. When you sit down for a game, you're thinking in
terms of 'getting the king's daughter back', or 'finding the murderer', or
'tracking down the cult leader'. These are part of much smaller plots,
well handled by the strcuture we suggest. In fact, this is the only
structure I've ever seen suggested of any worth, in any rpg (anybody have
another?). These smaller plots are chained together to make up the larger
story, and thus world, in which the PC's interact. And as I was saying
before, I believe that this larger plot can in fact be thought of the same
way, as a bigger version of the 'movie' plot structure given. These
larger plots also chain together, etc. But that at least gives a basis
upon which to evaluate a plot, and a structure with which to learn.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Ray Trent
>Give me your best plot. One you feel worthy of roleplay. One that was run
>well, and you feel was so seamless, that it wouldn't break down into our
>little suggestion of a plot structure. I'll see what I can do with it.
Well, actually, most of our "best plots" if you want to call them that
(most fun campaigns, anyway), have tended to be more "rambling" than
is easy to describe shortly. And a lot of them happened many years
ago. But here are two synopses of plots I've mentioned before.
1) "Historical" Venice. The PCs consist of Guido Bricaducci
(mercenary), Armando (a chemist frustrated by the alchemy of the
time), a ship's captain whose name I don't remember, the Bishop of
Pessino (a see taken over by the Orthodox church a while before the
game starts...dramatic goal of regaining the see, except that actually
he was secretly in collusion with the Orthodox Bishop that took over),
a couple of magicians (it was only "mostly" historical), a very lost
Viking, and a couple of other characters. The "plot" started out as
simple trading expeditions, funded by a patron, around the
Mediterranean, leading us to encounter and overcome various local
foes, buy and sell goods, rob a few tombs, party (leading to an
amusing bet about whether we could get the Bishop to comit all 7
deadly sins at one party) and generally have a good time making a
nuisance of ourselves (angering various powers that be in various
places, acquiring a piece of the True Cross (Bishop liked relics, you
see), encountering the Ark of the Covenant (which the Bishop proceeded
to touch with the fragment of the true Cross, resulting it the
fragment bursting into non-consuming flame and the Bishop falling down
unconscious every morning at the same time as the incident occured),
losing it to some Levites that were wandering around looking for it,
acquiring an ancient Norse sword in the Tomb of Attila the Hun that
occasionally takes control of Guido, encountering an undead horde of
Mongols that awoke when we descecrated the tomb, killing them to get
to Attila, also undead, encountering and killing (all 7 incarnations
of ) the crazed Patriarch of Antioch (holy hand grenade and all)...all
pretty much "normal" fantasy adventure fare until we wandered into a
cave and wandered out into 19th century England, where we, being good
Venicians, go about figuring out how to make a killing from this
incredible experience, encountered Lydia Hoople-Cooper, who turns out
ultimately to be top witch in England, have various adventures, ending
in our making our way back to Venice with Lydia's daughter and another
Venician trader who was stuck there, etc., etc., etc. Still
on-going. There may be a meta-plot that we just aren't aware of, but
none of us really seem to mind much because it's all rolling good
fun. This is definetely "world-based", with the GMs peculiar sense of
the weird throwing plot twists in, at least as far as I can discern so
far.
2) A more traditionally plotted campaign I ran, which would sort of
fit a recursive form of the Theatrix plot, where the PCs save the
multiverse from destruction. An interdimensional mage, Gordo, gathers
the PCs on modern day Earth, ostensibly because it is one of the
"original" planes in the Multiverse and thus harbors tougher folk than
other planes. He claims that a group called the Cabal has taken
control of the plane at the center of the multiverse and is playing
around with the power that created and maintains the multiverse
because they are Megalomaniacs. The PCs must travel from plane to
plane, (and on the meta-level gain skills and needed equipment) making
their way to the center o' things, where they must defeat or otherwise
thwart the Cabal. First, they have to recover a great warrior spirit
still left on Earth in the form of a sword. A sub-plot ensues. They
uncover the owner of the sword, figure out how to find him, and
assault his home (which turns out to be fortress constructed with the
owner's ill gotten Yakuza gains). To make a long story short, they
recover the sword. Gordo meets them and takes them to the next plane,
where they need to travel in space via the high-tech FLT equipement
available on this plane to just off the shoulder of Orion (mumble,
correspondence of physical locations, mumble). This plane is very
loosely based on some aspects of Vernor Vinge's Fire Upon the Deep.
They hook up with some human rebels fighting the domination of the
Tines, who use tech-modified humans to do much of their local
fighting. The rebel ship is captured by the Tines, who modify the
Green-beret type PC partially into one of these "meta-humans". They
escape after various hi-jinx and make their way to their destination,
where Gordo meets them and takes them on to a world of magic, where
they need to find a fractally cut diamond that acts as a powerful
focus for the Earth-magic that one of the PCs turns out to be
pre-disposed to (in the mean time, during the journey, they are
attacked by an inter-dimensional creature...Gordo runs away to let
them fight it out, which they aren't too pleased by, but he claims
he's serving a higher purpose and that they are not the only group he
is gathering to fight the Cabal). This is another sub-plot, during
which one of the PCs, a linguist, learn he has some ability to affect
reality through use of a pre-Proto-European language. The PCs then
head on to a world where magic and high-tech both work, and are tasked
with finding out how the ruler of this world manages to bind magic
spirits into technological items, synergistically enhancing both
(difficult due to the mechanics of magic use in this multiverse). This
sub-plot took the longest and involved tons of stuff, but essentially
was a proving ground for the PCs being able to function in a
high-magic/high-tech environment. Turns out the ruler of the world,
Korlon, becomes one of the PCs after much stuff happening (an extra
player joined the group at this point). He provides them with various
insights (including the "fact" that the linguist's magic can't
possibly work by any known mechanism), and is very good at magic and
computer theory, though he can cast no magic himself. So, ok, the PCs
now travel to the Center plane, where they discover that Gordo is
actually a talent scout and that this whole thing was a gladatorial
exhibition. They fight the Cabal in an arena where some areas have
magic, some high tech, some both and some neither. Afterwards, the
survivors become the next Cabal. They learn from the survivors that,
actually, not all of Gordo's story is false. The multiverse is truly
in danger but they are trying to stop it. Gordo's race has given up on
that and is in a decadent decline, hence the circuses. The PCs travel
to the source and discover tons of interesting stuff, eventually
learning how to travel inter-dimensionally by combining the talents of
4 of the PCs (the linguist's meta-magic, one of the previous Cabal
member's ability to teleport via portals, Korlon's theoretical
knowledge and a computer programmer's ability to hack the co-ordinate
system). They first acertain that the multiverse has quite some time
before it runs out of energy and the previously mentioned dragon
leaves the scene, presumably resulting in the multiverse
dissolving. So they decide to track down Gordo and teach him a lesson
or two. They succeed in finding his world (a very strange place where
the economy is based entirely on barter, the "scientific method" is
unheard of, strange Rube-Goldberg contraptions are the rule rather
than the exception, but which nevertheless has a rather advanced
technological base). Gordo escapes, but they realize he could really
hurt them bad with his superior abilities now that he knows they are
"on the loose", so the retreat to Korlon's world (actually a nearby
very similar plane) (during all this interdimensional travel, the PCs
have various mishaps as they learn about how things work). Eventually,
they make their way back to the central plane because the think they
have a way of tracking Gordo from there. Instead, they discover that
the central plane is actually not at co-ordinates (0, 0, 0, 0, 0...)
as they originally thought, but at constant offset from there. So they
head off to where (0,0,0,0...) really is, and discover a higher order
of existance that parallels the central plane. They wander around here
for a while, eventually discovering that there are many of these
"dragon" creatures around, and that the human life form on this plane
knows about the sub-multiverses that exist below their level of
existance, and in fact that a typical thing for a grad student to do
is travel to one of these multiverses (where time flows much more
slowly) and do their research there. Turns out Gordo actually *is*
doing research on some obscure effects of entertainment after all.
They find the place where he's hiding out and startle him into the
machine that he uses to travel to the multiverse and he disappears
(turns out I got tired of this campaign and decided not to pursue this
line any further...Gordo was trapped without his equipment on a plane
where no magic worked and lived out the rest of his life there). They
then found another source of energy for their multiverse's "dragon",
re-stocked it, and returned to live happily ever after...total of
roughly 13 6-hour sessions. Grueling for me, though, because I had to
come up with an entire new milleu every few sessions.
>Then give a plot that didn't go so well, and I'll see if I can find the
>error (obviously not a plot that crashed due to everyone beeing too tired
>or something, but one you thought should have gone well, but didn't).
The one flop I can think of was a horror movie
insects-from-hell-invade-earth plot that followed a pretty typical
"vampire movie plot" (intended to lead us to believe it was a vampire,
in fact, and not insects-from-hell) until the PCs decided to "bug out"
:-) from the isolated valley where it was occuring and ran smack into
the major plot device which unceromoniously killed them (an example
where mechanics *did* get in the way, and Theatrix *would* have
helped, probably, but because of the plot based action resolution
rather than the plot structure). This was intended to be more a 2-4
session long movie length plot-driven adventure, though. On the other
hand, the players "knew" they were in a horror movie and decided to
have their characters do what we all wish horror movie victims *would*
do (instead of being stupid) and *get the hell out of there*, which
led to plot dissolution.
Jesse Ephraim
A free copy? Can't complain about that...I'd be interesting in
playtesting it...
--
Jesse Ephraim | But what is truth?
j...@metronet.com | Is truth unchanging law?
| We both have truths...
| Are mine the same as yours? - Pontius Pilate,"JCSS"
Andrew Finch
Andrew Rilstone
> In article <2tbphe$q...@crl.crl.com>, Andrew Finch <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
> >Give me your best plot. One you feel worthy of roleplay. One that was run
> >well, and you feel was so seamless, that it wouldn't break down into our
> >little suggestion of a plot structure. I'll see what I can do with it.
>
I think the best plots in RPGs - and I've had one or two rising to
LOTR complexity levels - come about sort of by accident. Or because
character's behaviour falls into archetypal patterns. Or something. I had
a whole Pendragon campaign focus around a conflict between two brothers -
the elder, illegitimate brother (PC) knowing he would make a good king,
but knowing equally that his younger, legitimate brother had more right
to the throne than he did... Eventually, years on, the younger brother
murders the elder, and the game shifts to a revenge story. It was wonderful,
epic stuff, with the feel of a courtly romance. I don't think it would
have been nearly as fun if we had planned it that way. Someone devised a
characters, and wrote "elder brother, illegitimate" on the character sheet.
I (as ref) started playing the elder brother in a particular way. Plots started
to emerge. The dice threw unexpected suggestions in. We found that we were in
a plot.
The fact that players had a lot of free will, and still found a good
plot crystalising around them was part of the dynamic that made the game
(this game, not all games, obviously) such fun. On the other hand,
Pendragon being Pendragon, there was a meta-plot set down before
the game started: the quest for the Holy Grail was also going to
start at a particular time; characters were always going to have
to decide whether to lay their differences aside and fight Mordred or not.
Once again, I fear that this discussion risks falling into a
"which approach is better" debate, to which one has to say
"better for what?". If you aspire to a game with a cinematic
feel, then better set a plot before you start. If you aspire
to a simulation of reality, then better have a realistic world,
dice, some rules and let the players choose what to do.
--
Andrew Rilstone and...@aslan.demon.co.uk
Editor, INTER*ACTION
******************************************************************
"I am not trying to say that the Satanic Verses is 'only a novel'
and thus need not be taken seriously. I do not believe that
novels are trivial matters." Salman Rushdie
******************************************************************
Alexander Williams
bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes:
>At the same time, the character was quite grim enough to fit in well. He
>was a blast to play. The character was twisted enough that we thought he
>would make a good example of the flexibility of the system.
Well, apparently David, you guys screwed up, at least with one gamer,
KidKibbutz, who found the characterization -that you put in the book-,
necessarily devoid of your in-house experiences and memories, to be hokey
and stereotypical. You made a serious tactical error in assuming that
- -all- readers of your RPG would instantaneously pick up on your genre, and
the flavour of your gaming.
Far more useful would have been to include "just an average Joe" as your
example, not some "dark and twisted" character from a horror-genre game.
The idea is to give the players a baseline.
- --
tha...@runic.via.mind.org (Alexander Williams) | PGP 2.x keya avail
Email is the right of the masses. So do it. | DF 22 16 CE CA 7F
Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be the Whole of the | 98 47 13 EE 8E EC
Law. Love is the Law, Love Under Will. -oOo- | 9C 2D 9B 9B
===================================================================
"Democracy isn't just the best form of government; its the only one
even remotely worth a damn. Only democracy guarantees people get
what they deserve."
-- Zeno Marley (Early 21st Century Mercenary-Philosopher)
[Dark Conspiracy RPG, pg 29]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a
iQCVAgUBLfsbTl6rnc26j4NHAQEqBwP/TYV0GUMej8g0ph8NSCNyWIEkcPmT9WsH
lcjXwaC0zL4vpeU05LW5UKcbVg3aqElR1KmX6S6doS/3f/3niW8CsUBcz4FgcZnv
68m9ZeYnPxFn9FxluZWzlFTGWuWsIZ3zY/LhuebRvL1nTY7/2sIaCXbIfNN6HwUg
qhfeayK2JKA=
=5Gyz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Andrew Finch
: The idea is to give the players a baseline.
Yes, I agree. You see the sheet we are discussing was really meant to
describe the character sheet itself, not the character upon it, which was
basically just background. However, people seem to be reading the
character as a base example for the game. This is good to know, and we
plan to change the character used for this example in the next run.
David Berkman
Backstage press
Andrew Finch
: : Well, actually, most of our "best plots" if you want to call them that
: : (most fun campaigns, anyway), have tended to be more "rambling" than
: : is easy to describe shortly. And a lot of them happened many years
: : ago. But here are two synopses of plots I've mentioned before.
: : 1) "Historical" Venice. The PCs consist of Guido Bricaducci
[see the previous post]
We run heavily plot-based games, which if you wrote out in he does this
... she does that - style, they would appear very much like what you've
given me. Which is unfortunately not useful to our porposes. I assume your
games move with some sort of logical order and progression, in a way that
makes them somewhat plausible and believable. These tend to be in sections
of some sort. Give me as best you can, the general outline of one of those
sections, abstracted. It probably follows a plot order. Or maybe not. But
since the plot order we suggest, is that which makes a story a story,ie.,
it begins with a beginning, has some confrontation, and then some sort of
resolution (not complete, but comes to some sort of closure), it's really
not that radical. If your games never introduce concepts, but simply drop
you in the middle of them, never build confrontations, but rather
introduce elements randomly, and never find any sort of closure, then they
truely are not plot-based. But I doubt that. All we are suggesting is
thinking about what makes a story, and inlcuding those elements, in your
plot-based, story-based, or whatever-based game.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: The fact that players had a lot of free will, and still found a good
: plot crystalising around them was part of the dynamic that made the game
: (this game, not all games, obviously) such fun. On the other hand,
: Pendragon being Pendragon, there was a meta-plot set down before
: the game started: the quest for the Holy Grail was also going to
: start at a particular time; characters were always going to have
: to decide whether to lay their differences aside and fight Mordred or not.
The meta-plot discussion was an attempt to explain the intricacies which
can be drawn from a fairly simple method of basic plot construction. It
certainly sin't necessary. But that bit about having a lot of free-will,
while still finding a plot crystalizing about you, is exactly what we're
trying to foster with Theatrix. They do tend to be great games, and you
can plan for them.
: Once again, I fear that this discussion risks falling into a
: "which approach is better" debate, to which one has to say
: "better for what?". If you aspire to a game with a cinematic
: feel, then better set a plot before you start. If you aspire
: to a simulation of reality, then better have a realistic world,
: dice, some rules and let the players choose what to do.
Yes, I agree. But I will continue to point out the possibilities of the
former method.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
John H Kim
most recent claim about the universality of his "plot-based" method, which
I have some complaints about. In the most recent post (in reply to Ray
Trent) he has given a weakened definition of plot-based:
David Berkman<bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>But since the plot order we suggest, is that which makes a story a story,ie.,
>it begins with a beginning, has some confrontation, and then some sort of
>resolution (not complete, but comes to some sort of closure), it's really
>not that radical. If your games never introduce concepts, but simply drop
>you in the middle of them, never build confrontations, but rather
>introduce elements randomly, and never find any sort of closure, then they
>truely are not plot-based. But I doubt that.
Oh, good grief. It appears that in order to not be plot-based,
you have to actively seek to _avoid_ plot. Just by following actions as
they should reasonably occur in the game-world, you will achieve certain
points of closure. Non-random confrontations are generally the norm
(people confront each other by choice rather than chance in general).
I would say that this is a non-useful term in that case. I have
rarely encountered anti-plot-based games, with possible exceptions in
some _Toon_ and _Paranoia_ games.
Anyhow, the term I have been using is "drama"-based, which
refers to games in which actions are resolved on the basis of what
makes a better plot above what should really happen given the
game-world.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
A somewhat earlier statement (in reply to Lee Short) also annoyed
me, which I thought I would comment on...
>
>Theatrix is heavily plot based. However, it is not heavily rigid, and in
>fact we put so much emphasis on plot so that this will not occur.
>
>All I can say is, try running this way for a month or two, then you'll
>know. You may not like it, but at least thjis will be a highly informed
>opinion. I spent 17 years GM'ing your way.
I rather doubt that. How is it that you _know_ that his way of
playing is just your old method from a few lines of conversation, while
to even understand your way he has to play for months? You seem to be
under the impression that everyone else is stumbling about in the dark,
and you are the only one with innovative ideas.
I _have_ run and played in plot-based games, and played in them.
I am also a student of script analysis in cinema, so very little in your
Plotline section is new to me.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
My current Star Trek campaign is an example. I am definitely
manipulating the plot in various ways to maintain an episodic structure.
This structure means that I generally come up with a finite problem which
can be resolved within one session as the meat of the adventure. I try
to make that problem layered and interesting. OTOH, I do not have any
planned resolution or plotline for how things go.
A good example of a typical episode was one in which the PC's
found out about a masked and coded Klingon signal from within Federation
space. To prepare for this episode, I worked out who the Klingons were,
what they were doing there, and what sort of defenses/precautions they
might have.
The details of the Klingons were significant to the characters
mission. Long-term, they were ordered to evaluate Klingon culture to
discover if the Klingons intended to go to war if the Organian treaty
fell. These Klingons were part of an archeological mission, and
one of them was a civilian archeologist, who had a very different
viewpoint than the soldiers that the PCs usually encountered.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Other campaigns I do not have this sort of structure. In my
modern paranormals game, I just started the PCs off with a particular
situation, and let them wander around the world, finding interesting
things to do. And it was quite successful (mainly due to extensive
detailing of the world and its characters).
Ray Trent
>: : Well, actually, most of our "best plots" if you want to call them that
>: : (most fun campaigns, anyway), have tended to be more "rambling" than
>
>sections, abstracted. It probably follows a plot order. Or maybe not. But
>since the plot order we suggest, is that which makes a story a story,ie.,
>it begins with a beginning, has some confrontation, and then some sort of
>resolution (not complete, but comes to some sort of closure), it's really
>not that radical. If your games never introduce concepts, but simply drop
Yes, I hear what you're saying. The difference in a world-based game
is not that the action has no introduction, nor conflict, nor
resolution, it's simply that what the conflict turns out to be and how
it is resolved are not decided in advance, whereas they are in what I
would think of as a "plot-based" game.
Here's a *very* rough outline of how one of our campaigns typically
starts:
1) GM describes setting and outlines a few interesting things that are
going on in the world as well as a few interesting NPCs that exist and
some info about their recent actions (usually including some
implications regarding their motivations, though not always).
2) The players introduce their characters to the other players.
3) The GM asks, "so what do you want to do now?" (or words to that
effect).
4) The players decide on a problem to resolve, or an NPC to contact
(often deciding which side of the meta-conflict they want to be on),
or occasionally something more random to do.
5) The GM improvises NPC reactions, generates information that can be
found, throws in interesting "plot twists" and otherwise tries to make
the story that the players/characters are creating an interesting one,
keeping in mind the outside events and NPC motivations and actions,
mostly so as to know what "plot twists" make sense.
6) The PCs, in the process of doing whatever it is they decided to do,
find some kind of "conflict" to engage in, usually on some side of the
events unfolding (often the GM suggests that the PCs are the "good
guys" or the "bad guys", but the players occasionally ignore this
advice). Also, it's not uncommon for the PCs to use the "pit plot
device A on plot device B and pick up the pieces" approach.
7) The conflict the PCs engaged in is resolved in some manner
consistent with the setting and NPC abilities, decisions, (luck, since
we used diced resolution usually) and motivations.
8) If all major campaign issues are resolved or we/the GM are tired of
the campaign, etc., the campaign typically ends. Otherwise, goto 3.
Optionally, the GM will throw in a plot twist or conflict at step 3
that has a rather "obvious" response by the PCs (like attacking them
or someone they care about, or dropping a clue in their faces, or
having an NPC hire them, etc...leading to a more "plot-based"
adventure).
We sometimes play plot-based, and sometimes play world-based.
Maybe this question will help make the problem clearer: when plotting
out a resolution, do you typically decide such things as which side
will "win", what the features of the climatic scene will be, etc? Or
do the actions of the PCs ultimately determine which side of the
conflict wins and what form the struggle takes?
For example, if running a world-based LOTR style campaign, one of our
GMs typically has to consider 3 general possibilities (described in
examples relevant to LOTR):
1) The PCs take the role/side of the Fellowship.
2) The PCs take the role/side of the Dark Lord.
3) The PCs decide to make their way to the Grey Havens, overpower,
trick, get the sympathy of or otherwise evade the elves there,
and sail into the West to escape the War of the Ring
(occasionally "planning" on convincing or attacking the
Valar to get them to allow this course of action), and then go on
to have adventures there.
Any of these will end up having the requisite "good" plot elements,
viewed post hoc.
Kid Kibbitz
several passages which emphasize the difference between the type of play
that John Kim, myself, and several others prefer, and the type that Berkman
and Theatrix promote. Berkman consistently tries to either deny any
difference, or else portray one side of the difference as inferior; I'll
simply expound here on various phrases from the Theatrix text that I take
exception to. (These are all drawn from the first ~30 pages, the
introductory material, and are really not system-specific so much as
philosophy-specific.) These are in order of appearance in the text rather
than in any order of importance.
1. "If a Scene would be boring to roleplay through, .... alter the Scene
so that there is information to be gained, or a lesson to be learned,
or a facet of a character's personality to be brought out." (p. 22,
col. 1)
This entire focus on/fascination with "scenes" as such is foreign to me.
If characters choose a path which is fruitless for them (e.g., go into a
bar expecting a fight or to find some information or whatever, and spend
time there, only to find there is absolutely nothing of interest in the
bar), they should discern from the situation that it is "boring." It is
not my job to determine what is "boring" for my players, nor is it my
primary job to keep them "entertained" at all times. I don't feel it
appropriate to alter my geography/gameworld because the characters chose to
enter the Lucky Dragon Inn rather than the Sweating Bullets Tavern.
Nor is the option which I deleted from the above quote ("roleplay through
enough of the Scene to allow the Actors to feel the tedium before going
on") appropriate to me, either. Again, my job is to represent adequately
what occurs in the characters' worlds. Obviously I will not spend undue
time describing in detail the events of a character's 16-year jail term;
however, in events with choice, it is the character's (player's) decision
when too much is too much.
2. CUT SCENES in general, and "Our classic use of Cut Scenes is to show
the Actors what the villains are up to" in particular. (p. 23, col. 2)
In my game, the focus is specifically on the characters. If I were to tell
the players everything that is going on at any given point in time, I
wouldn't have any time for the players! This section implicitly emphasizes
that there is a (as in "one" or at least "not many") villain(s) whom the
characters oppose and must defeat. Maybe, sometimes; not in my world,
though, even when I do Supers.
More importantly, though, it again de-emphasizes the CHARACTER and puts its
focus on the PLOT ("Chronicle"). While this is a perfectly acceptable
shift, it is NOT the focus that I prefer in my games.
3. "Whenever you can, shamelessly stretch or shrink the amount of time
Scenes take, the distance characters have to travel, and the delays
which hold them up, in order to keep the plot interesting and
intense." (p. 26, col. 1)
Again, this passage stresses the discontinuity of the GAMEWORLD in exchange
for excitement of the PLOT ("chronicle"). While this is a valid exchange,
it is no more "valid" than its opposite counterpart, stressing continuity
of the gameworld, even if it doesn't make the most interesting or
best-plotted story.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- {See? I can do this too, John :) }
I think can all be summarized very nicely by Berkman's/Theatrix' definition
of "roleplaying" as "interactive, improvisational theatre." This
definition clearly stresses the emphasis on an interesting yarn and the
malleability of the world to fit the moment. A better definition from my
perspective would be "the interaction of (a) fictional character(s) with a
fictional world," which stresses the continuity of the gameworld and the
continuity of the characters' interaction with that world.
All, as always, just MHO,
--Kid Kibbitz
--
"That's the theme song of the twentieth century. Is society going to dominate
intellect or is intellect going to dominate society? And if society wins,
what's going to happen to intellect? And if intellect wins what's going to
be left of society?" --R. Pirsig, _LILA_
Andrew Finch
: situation, and let them wander around the world, finding interesting
: things to do. And it was quite successful (mainly due to extensive
: detailing of the world and its characters).
Good grief. Everything you've said it pretty much true. All of these
things will make a better game. Our chapter on plot structure doesn't even
have anything to do with a 'drama-based' game. Which is an entirely
different subject. My mere mention of the fact that I though taking the
time to detail out the basics of your plot, in addition to its reasons,
the PC's, and your world, is a darn good idea that can only improve a
game, started a landslide of opion which seemed to be that if you knew the
plot beforehand, you would only destroy the game and be heavyhanded. I
have mostly been responding to this position. And I have not stated a
weakened position on plot structure. It's the same position as given in
our chapter on the subject, which after all, talks about resolutions,
confrontation, and introductions, and not a whole lot else. Taking the
time to detail these, and the 5 scenes that make up their basic points,
and then adding in the scenes in-between, with as much forethought and
planning as you can take, we believe is a good thing. It makes for good
games.
As for drama-base decision making. This is central to Theatrix, and I
believe grants more satisfying results, and more options, than diced
based, simulation oriented resolutions. It is certainly the preferred
method given the rest of the Theatrix rules base. Again, I've been told
from many sources how this would be a terrible idea, regardless of
system. Since this is the flames and rebuttles section, I have made
counter arguments, and will continue to do so for as long as people are
interested in this debate. Note that I've never said that tjis would be
the preferred way of handling things in Hero, or AD&D. I made an argument
for it in the context of a system designed for this sort of use, ie.
ours. And I argued that playing this way will introduce ideas which will
improve your other games, diced or not.
And it seems people have been interested in this point of view. So again,
I'll continue.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: out a resolution, do you typically decide such things as which side
: will "win", what the features of the climatic scene will be, etc? Or
: do the actions of the PCs ultimately determine which side of the
: conflict wins and what form the struggle takes?
O.K. Depends upon the situation. If this is the introduction, I've
generally already decided upon the winning side, although the PC's
actions will have very much to do with how well they win or lose, and
just how much trouble they're in afterwards. I generally know all the
features of the 'climactic' scenes. This can be changed, but in a well
designed plot, where the PC's motivations have been carefully accounted
for, it usually falls into place. The PC's almost always do stuff I don't
expect, and solev the plot in ways I can't predict. But again, in a well
designed plot, these innovations generally fit in well, and improve upon,
rather than destroy or overwrite my work on the plot.
The PC's always decide what form the struggle takes. That's the point.
They have the best chance by attempting to move the struggle onto ground
in which they have an advantage. Fighting on the opponent's turf (not
physical, but plot turf) will mean a lot of damage, and high casualties
(again, possibly not 'physical' casualties). To win well, they must be
creative, recognize where things are going, recognize when they're being
fooled, and move things to more advantageous terrain, and then take
advantage of that terrain. I'm not an easy GM.
: For example, if running a world-based LOTR style campaign, one of our
: GMs typically has to consider 3 general possibilities (described in
: examples relevant to LOTR):
: 1) The PCs take the role/side of the Fellowship.
: 2) The PCs take the role/side of the Dark Lord.
: 3) The PCs decide to make their way to the Grey Havens, overpower,
: trick, get the sympathy of or otherwise evade the elves there,
: and sail into the West to escape the War of the Ring
: (occasionally "planning" on convincing or attacking the
: Valar to get them to allow this course of action), and then go on
: to have adventures there.
: Any of these will end up having the requisite "good" plot elements,
: viewed post hoc.
Absolutely. But, 2 of them are losses. If they take the side of the Dark
Lord, I assume I'll know that this will happen because the PC's are all
total scum. O.K. if we both wish to play such a game. But lets assume the
PC's are basically good guys. Maybe not saints, but they don't enjoy the
suffering of others, and can sympathise with a world in pain. Lets also
assume the GM has made it clear that the PC's have a chance to alter the
course of events in the world, ie. they are important, and they can make
a difference (their 'world' might be the mean streets of Chicago, Middle
Earth, or the Mily Way Galaxy, depending upon the genre.). Then joining
the Dark Lord, and watching the destruction of everything beautiful they
know and love, is probably a loss for reasonable characters. That's
probably a loss for most normally hard-bitten and cynical characters. If
the character's sail off into the West, and they are determined to do so,
then let them. I don't know how they'll feel about watching the slow
destruction of everything they loved, when they had a chance (maybe not a
great one, but a chance) to stop it, and saved their own hides instead,
but it probably won't be the highlight of their day. Again, they lose,
and they should know it. There is only one win, and that's to find a way
to stop this mad scheme of the Dark Lords. And now they're back onto the
plot.
Sure, if the PC's are determined to ignore situations let them. But don't
protect them from the consequences. In most cases, they go for the plot
later, when the situation has gotten really bad, and have a much tougher
time, and suffer more because of it. Their choice, but certainly not the
end of your plot. If it is a plot, ie. if it extends from the characters'
dramatic needs, they'll take it. That's what they're roleplaying for in
the first place.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: This entire focus on/fascination with "scenes" as such is foreign to me.
: If characters choose a path which is fruitless for them (e.g., go into a
: bar expecting a fight or to find some information or whatever, and spend
: time there, only to find there is absolutely nothing of interest in the
: bar), they should discern from the situation that it is "boring." It is
: not my job to determine what is "boring" for my players, nor is it my
: primary job to keep them "entertained" at all times. I don't feel it
: appropriate to alter my geography/gameworld because the characters chose to
: enter the Lucky Dragon Inn rather than the Sweating Bullets Tavern.
Come on. You're better than that. That's not what the paragraph was
talking about at all. They go into the Lucky Dragon, if nothing happens,
and they don't roleplay in there, and they're bored, you tell them
nothing is happening, and pass the time quickly, 'No one in the Lucky
Dragon seems to have any information for you. It;s not that they're being
closed mouthed. They just honestly don't seem to know anything in that
bar.' Done. And you get on to the Sweating Bullets Tavern. They might
even 'pass by' and recognize someone in the tavern. SOmething that will
draw them in.
The paragraph you mention is talking about when you plan the scene for
the Sweating Bullet, and they go in, and nothing happens, and th players
get bored. Something is wrong. Make sure your scenes have something to
teach, or have elements for roleplay, etc.
: Nor is the option which I deleted from the above quote ("roleplay through
: enough of the Scene to allow the Actors to feel the tedium before going
: on") appropriate to me, either. Again, my job is to represent adequately
: what occurs in the characters' worlds. Obviously I will not spend undue
: time describing in detail the events of a character's 16-year jail term;
: however, in events with choice, it is the character's (player's) decision
: when too much is too much.
No, it is yours as well. What we're saying is to look for the players
giving you clues, like this is too much. Often, players won't say
anything outloud, and many starting GM's don't know what to do. Not evry
peice of advice we give is meant for experienced GM's only. Much of it is
downright obviou. Good. If GM's get even all the obvious stuff right,
games would improve dramatically. I miss a few 'obvious' things now and
again myself, and enjoy the reminder.
: 2. CUT SCENES in general, and "Our classic use of Cut Scenes is to show
: the Actors what the villains are up to" in particular. (p. 23, col. 2)
: In my game, the focus is specifically on the characters.
So are ours.
: If I were to tell
: the players everything that is going on at any given point in time, I
: wouldn't have any time for the players!
When did we say 'Tell your players everything that is going on at any
given point in time.'? I believe we made a suggestion of something neat
to do when it's appropriate. And we made that amply clear. Try the
introduction to that chapter.
: This section implicitly emphasizes
: that there is a (as in "one" or at least "not many") villain(s) whom the
: characters oppose and must defeat. Maybe, sometimes; not in my world,
: though, even when I do Supers.
What, you never have a villain to defeat? You could never use a Cut Scene
in that way? I doubt it. And even when a villain is not involved, they're
useful. How about a Cut Scene of the victims trapped inside the burning
building, the fire steadily advancing on them, as the heros are outside
trying to make their way in, to give the 'audience', ie. the players, a
feeling for how little time they have, and how desperate the situation
is. And there are many other uses. If you don't like them, don't use
them. We only make suggestions, beacuse we thought people would enjoy a
few options and some advice they may not have thought of, or tried before.
: More importantly, though, it again de-emphasizes the CHARACTER and puts its
: focus on the PLOT ("Chronicle"). While this is a perfectly acceptable
: shift, it is NOT the focus that I prefer in my games.
Since, in chapter 10, we make it very clear (and in many other places in
the book), that 'plots' do not occure without characters, that characters
are central to every plot, that worlds are a backdrop for the characters'
motivations, I think you have little to fear in that department. By the
way, Cut Scenes do not de-emphasize character, but are inteded rather to
focus attention on the situation in which the characters are in. Over
half the total book is bent towards making the characterization of each
role important within the game. How can you say we de-emphasize character?
: 3. "Whenever you can, shamelessly stretch or shrink the amount of time
: Scenes take, the distance characters have to travel, and the delays
: which hold them up, in order to keep the plot interesting and
: intense." (p. 26, col. 1)
: Again, this passage stresses the discontinuity of the GAMEWORLD in exchange
: for excitement of the PLOT ("chronicle"). While this is a valid exchange,
: it is no more "valid" than its opposite counterpart, stressing continuity
: of the gameworld, even if it doesn't make the most interesting or
: best-plotted story.
Aaah. Here you are right. We do suggest trading a false notion of
'reality', for excitement and drama, wherever you can, as long as it does
not break Continuity. We have several paragraphs, in several chapters,
devoted to the concept of Coninuity (I would point to the sections on
this subject in chapters 2 and 6. Chapter 6 even has a section by the
name of 'Continuity', and we talk about suspension-of-disbelief as an
important concept). But where you can explain it through coincidence, or
where it's plausible for the game world, or even possible, then yes, we
suggest playing with the plot simply to enhance the drama.
: I think can all be summarized very nicely by Berkman's/Theatrix' definition
: of "roleplaying" as "interactive, improvisational theatre." This
: definition clearly stresses the emphasis on an interesting yarn and the
: malleability of the world to fit the moment. A better definition from my
: perspective would be "the interaction of (a) fictional character(s) with a
: fictional world," which stresses the continuity of the gameworld and the
: continuity of the characters' interaction with that world.
As I've mentioned, and I would be happy to excerpt if you would like, we
talk a lot about those subjects. And the game is made to enhance
characterization. And I would say that 'interactive, improvisational
theatre', stresses heavily, interesting characters, in an interesting
situation, where they have meaning and control. As for maleability, as we
say, you can use anything that makes sense, even if you created it on the
spur of the moment, as long as it fits. And if it does fit, who cares if
it was improvisational and off the cuff? Isn't that what roleplay is
about?
Maybe you disagree. O.K. But at least when you cite paragraphs, you
could cite all the relavent ones, and not take them out of context.
Please. I do respect you opinions. And I want to hear them. You may not
like the game. O.K. Give me an informed argument, using the whole of the
rules against me. We may end up irreconcilable. But I will have learned
something from that.
Thanks for your efforts so far, and I look forward to further posts.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Christopher Pound
observations about how rpgs work, narratologically speaking]
In article <2tltcc$g...@crl2.crl.com>, Andrew Finch <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>I assume your
>games move with some sort of logical order and progression, in a way that
>makes them somewhat plausible and believable. These tend to be in sections
>of some sort. Give me as best you can, the general outline of one of those
>sections, abstracted. It probably follows a plot order. Or maybe not.
That a game moves in a logical order is unsurprising. That's basically the
definition of _narrative_: "the recounting of two or more events (or a
situation and an event) that are logically connected, occur over time, and
are linked by a consistent subject into a whole" (1). Some theorists (e.g.
Greimas) define narrative further, as you seem to do, in terms of its goal
orientation and sense of closure and wholeness.
However, others suggest that "temporal succession is sufficient as a minimal
requirement for a group of events to form a story ... causality can often
(always?) be projected onto temporality" (1). This fits well with a
distinction made by Russian Formalism between _story_ (a.k.a. _fabula_) and
_plot_ (a.k.a. _syuzhet_); story is "understood as 'the pattern of relation-
ships between characters and the pattern of actions as they unfold in
chronological order,'" whereas plot is the "artistic organization, or
'deformation,' of the causal-chronological order of events" (1).
Cast in these terms, I think a lot of role-players would claim that their
games are more focussed on story than plot -- even if there always will have
been an "artistic organization" (heh :) to the game's narrative.
>But
>since the plot order we suggest, is that which makes a story a story,ie.,
>it begins with a beginning, has some confrontation, and then some sort of
>resolution (not complete, but comes to some sort of closure), it's really
>not that radical.
I can understand why you might think so; the order you suggest is definitely
like the structure of most narratives (so-called "natural narratives"), stories
people tell each other all the time, everywhere. The sociolinguist William
Labov studied this kind of narrative and came up with a model very similar
to the kind of narrative organization most people learn to identify in
narrative literature (cf. 2 or 3 for a more complete definition).
But, just because that's the structure of most narratives, gamers probably
won't often recognize it clearly for several reasons: 1) that's how real life
is recounted, but not how it's really lived (and, if you've never met any, let
me assure you there are gamers out there who do their best to play games with
that ideal of realism in mind; a realism that surpasses the narrative realism
of literature and approaches what people tend to think of as the historical
or ethnographic real -- more on that later); 2) the role-playing <-> miniature
strategy games connection reinforces a sense of historical realism (think of
where the word _campaign_ comes from), and most people don't appreciate the
degree to which history is given meaning by its mode of emplotment; and
3) the plot order you here suggest doesn't provide a ground for deciding the
meaning of the story (e.g. the degree to which the confrontation is taken
seriously; think of the different meanings of confrontation in most AD&D,
Call of Cthulhu, or say Paranoia adventures) and, accordingly, may not count
for much in the players' evaluations of "what happened."
Realism is entrenched in gaming in more than one way. We're all familiar
with people who get upset if game rules don't replicate the laws of physics,
etc., but the important kind of realism here is that gamers have usually
shunned playing in anything other than the present -- not just the present
*tense* of most movie scripts, but what they suppose to be a real, non-
narrative, non-linguistic present in some other world. I think that has
some really important implications if you're trying to manipulate the plot
of a game (and you can't get your players to throw this kind of realism
completely out the window).
First, it means you wouldn't be able to use movies as a model for how to run
the kind of role-playing games most people (I've met) run. Skipping the
"downtime" of an adventure is the limit of temporal deformation for most
games I've played in (barring _It Came from the Late, Late, Late Show_, of
course, which works well as a parody of game and movie adventures :).
Movies can employ a wide variety of tenses, moods, and voices, which are by and
large unavailable to gamers (novels also have such variety available). Playing
out a flashback, passing notes to keep information more contained, and
putting players in separate parts of your house when their characters are
separated just ain't the same.
Second, it means you are limited in planning out a plot to plotting strategies
that lend themselves to extemporization. I'm sure you can explain how
plot points fit the bill here; my answer to this might be to use the old
Whimsy Cards from Lion Rampant. Also, I'd accept the fact that planned
confrontations can take on entirely different dimensions in play, necessitating
a shift in the mode of emplotment. Adventures designed to work out in the
end (Comedy) may not work out that way if the players set limits on what
"may be aspired to and what may be legitimately aimed at in the quest for
security and sanity in the world" (i.e. Tragedy; 4). I've had plenty of
Call of Cthulhu adventures turn out this way; I actually planned for the
players to win this one, but heck, if they wanna do it in such a way that
one character loses an arm and another is permanently marked with hideous
white spots all over his body, then so much the better. :-)
Third and finally, it means you respect the historical/ethnographic present
as something (contingently) real for the players. You might be able to lay
out the mode of emplotment (e.g. Romance, Tragedy, Comedy, or Satire -- my
Call of Cthulhu players had probably been trained to expect Tragedy even
though I have a strong Romantic streak when it comes to running games) in
advance, and you certainly can lay out the world and the probability of
character death, etc., in advance; however, the game itself has to happen
first and then be reacted to. I think most players really enjoy discerning
the story elements you call plot *after* the fact (this is just like the
enjoyment of discovering some daily experience of yours makes a good story),
but if plot elements are telegraphed beforehand or obviously orchestrated,
the game can feel sort of hollow for all involved (been guilty of this plenty
of times, myself).
>If your games never introduce concepts, but simply drop
>you in the middle of them, never build confrontations, but rather
>introduce elements randomly, and never find any sort of closure, then they
>truely are not plot-based. But I doubt that. All we are suggesting is
>thinking about what makes a story, and inlcuding those elements, in your
>plot-based, story-based, or whatever-based game.
My use of the phrase "ethnographic present" is probably confusing, above.
Fans of Tekumel, Glorantha, or Jorune will doubtless understand what I mean,
though. Tekumel, especially, suggests a game in which world elements come
in to play less because of their importance to the plot and more because the
players will learn even more about the world. Games aren't ethnographies,
but like most ethnographies, they are designed to represent an *ongoing*
presentness in the/a world -- something movies almost never do.
My use of the phrase "historical present" is probably also confusing, since it
is meant to evoke the complement of the ethnographic present, the idea that
players are living out a history, something that accumulates in a particular
way for their characters and may never end from the players' perspectives.
Again, games aren't histories, but like histories, they can be understood as
stories about the way things "really" unfold (by "really," I mean the overall
tenor of the historical "reality" being propounded, as well as the fact that
it's done in a "you are there" sort of way like, say, a Harold Lamb
historical biography).
Oh well. Draw your own conclusions, but all I am suggesting is that games
are part miniatures battles, part drama, part novel, part history, part
ethnography, part Mornington Crescent, and (most importantly) already out
there in the world as something to be dealt with in all its various forms.
Oh, and I forgot: part movie.
References:
(1) Stam, et al. _New Vocabularies in Film Semiotics_
Part III, on Film Narratology, is where the quotes come from
and is especially interesting if you want to think about
games in terms of movies.
(2) Pratt, Mary Louise. _Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse_
Chapter 2, on Natural Narratives, is where I got the pointer back to:
(3) Labov, William. _Language in the Inner City_
wherein Chapter 9 provides a lot of interesting detail on how people
narrativize experience
(4) White, Hayden. _Metahistory_
The introduction is probably more than any gamer needs to know about
the rhetorical nature of historical writing
--
Christopher Pound (po...@rice.edu) | They think they are Parisians, but
Department of Anthropology, Rice U. | they are nothing. -- Pierre Bourdieu
Kid Kibbitz
at least give him credit here). :)
In response to Mr. Berkman, I try below to explain our differences in
gaming style, and how the Theatrix method is contrary to my style.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In article <2touvn$l...@crl2.crl.com> bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes:
>Kid Kibbitz (kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
>
>: This entire focus on/fascination with "scenes" as such is foreign to me.
>: If characters choose a path which is fruitless for them (e.g., go into a
>: bar expecting a fight or to find some information or whatever, and spend
>: time there, only to find there is absolutely nothing of interest in the
>: bar), they should discern from the situation that it is "boring." It is
>: not my job to determine what is "boring" for my players, nor is it my
>: primary job to keep them "entertained" at all times. I don't feel it
>: appropriate to alter my geography/gameworld because the characters chose to
>: enter the Lucky Dragon Inn rather than the Sweating Bullets Tavern.
>
>Come on. You're better than that. That's not what the paragraph was
>talking about at all. They go into the Lucky Dragon, if nothing happens,
>and they don't roleplay in there, and they're bored, you tell them
>nothing is happening, and pass the time quickly, 'No one in the Lucky
>Dragon seems to have any information for you. It;s not that they're being
>closed mouthed. They just honestly don't seem to know anything in that
>bar.' Done.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, though; and frankly, it seems quite
contrary to what you say elsewhere in the book about how to represent
character knowledge/appearance. Or is that for players only? Again, I
stress that my emphasis in my game is the continuity of the game world. It
is up to the characters (players) to determine whether there is any
interesting information to be had somewhere. I've had very enjoyable
sessions, as both player and GM, where a large portion of the time was
spent on "meaningless" (in terms of "plot") interactions with barkeeps.
You may think this is "time wasted"; fine. But I've yet to have such an
interaction not pay off in the future.
To summarize: this is again an example of where you (and Theatrix) would
put emphasis on the plot/action/progression, where I would put emphasis on
the characters' interaction with the world.
>And you get on to the Sweating Bullets Tavern. They might
>even 'pass by' and recognize someone in the tavern. SOmething that will
>draw them in.
Only if you're working with the assumption that the characters are "slated"
to have something happen in the SBT. To me, I couldn't give a rodent's
posterior whether characters go into the bar or not. That's their choice;
my games are never so scripted that if they miss one key encounter, they're
doomed. (This is not to say that no encounter is inevitable, but very few
are, and those that are inevitable are so because someone with power NEEDS
to talk to the PC's, and not because I as GM need the chars involved in
some plot.)
>The paragraph you mention is talking about when you plan the scene for
>the Sweating Bullet, and they go in, and nothing happens, and th players
>get bored. Something is wrong. Make sure your scenes have something to
>teach, or have elements for roleplay, etc.
Well, perhaps this is a fault in the book, then, because this isn't
particularly clear to this reader. The text says "If a Scene would be
boring to roleplay through." Perhaps I the reader am supposed to infer,
based on the fact that this is in the chapter on Cinematography, that this
only refers to "slated" events; I did not draw that inference, though,
since nowhere in the preceding pages does it say anything about scripted
vs. improv'ed (other than an oblique reference to improv as the Actors'
place to utilize these techniques).
>: Nor is the option which I deleted from the above quote ("roleplay through
>: enough of the Scene to allow the Actors to feel the tedium before going
>: on") appropriate to me, either. Again, my job is to represent adequately
>: what occurs in the characters' worlds. Obviously I will not spend undue
>: time describing in detail the events of a character's 16-year jail term;
>: however, in events with choice, it is the character's (player's) decision
>: when too much is too much.
>
>No, it is yours as well. What we're saying is to look for the players
>giving you clues, like this is too much. Often, players won't say
>anything outloud, and many starting GM's don't know what to do. Not evry
>peice of advice we give is meant for experienced GM's only. Much of it is
>downright obviou. Good. If GM's get even all the obvious stuff right,
>games would improve dramatically. I miss a few 'obvious' things now and
>again myself, and enjoy the reminder.
I'm not sure I follow, frankly. If players get bored with a "Scene" in my
campaign, they move on. They don't just sit there and expect that there
must be something of use for them in every locale... Perhaps this has to do
with an understanding between the players and GM about how the gameworld
works?
>: 2. CUT SCENES in general, and "Our classic use of Cut Scenes is to show
>: the Actors what the villains are up to" in particular. (p. 23, col. 2)
>
>: In my game, the focus is specifically on the characters.
>
>So are ours.
Perhaps you misunderstand how I meant this. I meant 'focus' in,
ironically, a more cinematographic way than you did.... I mean, literally,
the action is always based upon the characters. Since there is never A
Plot that the characters are following, it wouldn't make sense to me to add
cut scenes of the things going on in the world. Perhaps one at the very
beginning as an introduction to the gameworld ("a day in the life" sort of
thing), but I usually make people aware of the gameworld before they join,
since it's kinda tough to make a character without that knowledge.... :)
>: This section implicitly emphasizes
>: that there is a (as in "one" or at least "not many") villain(s) whom the
>: characters oppose and must defeat. Maybe, sometimes; not in my world,
>: though, even when I do Supers.
>
>What, you never have a villain to defeat?
Nope. There are no "villains" in my game. There are people with goals.
Naturally, some people's goals overlap, and others are mutually exclusive;
that is what makes the world interesting. Here's just a simplified
example: Who is the "villain" in West Side Story? The Sharks? The Jets?
Officer Krumpky? I say none of 'em. Sure, there's the villain of society,
which prevents two lovers from coming together, but I don't think that's
what you mean. If you do mean this, then yes, in my campaigns, society and
history are usually the villains.
>You could never use a Cut Scene
>in that way? I doubt it.
I *could*, but it would be counter-productive to my goals. Again (maybe I
should put this in all caps so it doesn't get skimmed over?), my purpose in
GM-ing is to serve as the means of interaction between characters created
by the players and my gameworld. Nothing more (and nothing less!).
>And even when a villain is not involved, they're
>useful. How about a Cut Scene of the victims trapped inside the burning
>building, the fire steadily advancing on them, as the heros are outside
>trying to make their way in, to give the 'audience', ie. the players, a
>feeling for how little time they have, and how desperate the situation
>is.
See, there it is again. "Audience." This is a word which, I think,
indicates as well as any the differences in our perspectives. As for
giving players an idea of how little time they have... Players have to act
(in my world) based upon what their characters can see. They get at least
as much suspense from the unknown as they would from the cut scene, IMHO.
>And there are many other uses. If you don't like them, don't use
>them. We only make suggestions, beacuse we thought people would enjoy a
>few options and some advice they may not have thought of, or tried before.
My point was NOT that they're bad. My purpose was, as I stated, to point
out specifics in Theatrix which emphasize the difference between the
"world-based" philosophy (John Kim, myself, and others) and the Theatrix
approach. There's nothing wrong with either approach--which is exactly
what I'm trying to get across.
>: More importantly, though, it again de-emphasizes the CHARACTER and puts its
>: focus on the PLOT ("Chronicle"). While this is a perfectly acceptable
>: shift, it is NOT the focus that I prefer in my games.
>
>Since, in chapter 10, we make it very clear (and in many other places in
>the book), that 'plots' do not occure without characters, that characters
>are central to every plot, that worlds are a backdrop for the characters'
>motivations, I think you have little to fear in that department. By the
>way, Cut Scenes do not de-emphasize character, but are inteded rather to
>focus attention on the situation in which the characters are in. Over
>half the total book is bent towards making the characterization of each
>role important within the game. How can you say we de-emphasize character?
"De-emphasize" is a relative term. Starting with the kind of game I run,
and moving to the Theatrix approach, is to me a "de-emphasis" on character.
In my game, character is the only game in town (no pun intended);
everything is of and for and on the characters. Theatrix, on the other
hand, also emphasizes the drama of the situation. Again, I'm not saying
this is invalid; it's just not the way my games are run.
>: 3. "Whenever you can, shamelessly stretch or shrink the amount of time
>: Scenes take, the distance characters have to travel, and the delays
>: which hold them up, in order to keep the plot interesting and
>: intense." (p. 26, col. 1)
>
>: Again, this passage stresses the discontinuity of the GAMEWORLD in exchange
>: for excitement of the PLOT ("chronicle"). While this is a valid exchange,
>: it is no more "valid" than its opposite counterpart, stressing continuity
>: of the gameworld, even if it doesn't make the most interesting or
>: best-plotted story.
>
>Aaah. Here you are right. We do suggest trading a false notion of
>'reality'...
"A false notion of 'reality'".... jeez, do you need the "false" AND the
scare-quotes? Is it really the case that you can't accept that other
people might have different priorities for their roleplay than you and
Theatrix represent? To some people, internal reality is more important
than dramatic necessity. I happen to be one of 'em.
>... for excitement and drama, wherever you can, as long as it does
>not break Continuity. We have several paragraphs, in several chapters,
>devoted to the concept of Coninuity (I would point to the sections on
>this subject in chapters 2 and 6. Chapter 6 even has a section by the
>name of 'Continuity', and we talk about suspension-of-disbelief as an
>important concept). But where you can explain it through coincidence, or
>where it's plausible for the game world, or even possible, then yes, we
>suggest playing with the plot simply to enhance the drama.
I'll be addressing your "Continuity" chapters in my review... I think there
are some ways to make it clearer/better, but I don't want to get into that
in this thread.
As for "as long as it does not break Continuity," that again is a relative
term, depending on how "Continuous" one wants one's world to be. On one
extreme is the old D&D dungeon-hopping "Which module this week?" routine,
which has zero continuity. Some of us prefer as close to 100% contiunity
as we can get, meaning the whole world is going on its own, and the
characters are interacting with that world as equals. To you and Theatrix,
"Continuity" falls somewhere between these extremes, where it is tempered
by "dramatic necessity" and so on.
Again, this is fine; I have nothing against it. It's just not the way I
choose to run my games, and I don't think there's any right to a claim of
"superiority" by either side.
>: I think can all be summarized very nicely by Berkman's/Theatrix' definition
>: of "roleplaying" as "interactive, improvisational theatre." This
>: definition clearly stresses the emphasis on an interesting yarn and the
>: malleability of the world to fit the moment. A better definition from my
>: perspective would be "the interaction of (a) fictional character(s) with a
>: fictional world," which stresses the continuity of the gameworld and the
>: continuity of the characters' interaction with that world.
>
>As I've mentioned, and I would be happy to excerpt if you would like, we
>talk a lot about those subjects.
See above.
>And the game is made to enhance
>characterization.
I'll agree to this.
>And I would say that 'interactive, improvisational
>theatre', stresses heavily, interesting characters, in an interesting
>situation, where they have meaning and control. As for maleability, as we
>say, you can use anything that makes sense, even if you created it on the
>spur of the moment, as long as it fits. And if it does fit, who cares if
>it was improvisational and off the cuff? Isn't that what roleplay is
>about?
Depends what you mean.
Yes, roleplay is about improvisation. However, where we disagree is on
what can be iprovised. Characters' (and NPC's) reactions to and behaviors
within any situation obviously MUST be improvised; otherwise, you're just
reading a script. :) However, where we disagree is whether players can
improvise gameworld FACTS. Certainly I have no problem with trivial
improvisation ("Funny, I had a childhood friend named Willomena. Wonder
what ever happened to her?"). However, players in my game do NOT go around
changing the physical properties of the gameworld ("Oh, yes, that's
Rigellian flu!"). I know you disagree with this; that's fine, and you're
entitled to your opinion. But you must recognize that gameworld continuity
is compromised by such improvisation, and to those of us who try to create
as consistent and continuous and CHARACTER-INDEPENDENT a gameworld as we
can, this is not an acceptable compromise.
>Maybe you disagree. O.K. But at least when you cite paragraphs, you
>could cite all the relavent ones, and not take them out of context.
Gimme a break... If I cited all "relevant" paragraphs, I would be typing
out all 130 pages of the book. I don't think I particularly took any of
the paragraphs out of context--at least, I didn't intend to.
>Please. I do respect you opinions. And I want to hear them. You may not
>like the game. O.K. Give me an informed argument, using the whole of the
>rules against me. We may end up irreconcilable. But I will have learned
>something from that.
Well, hopefully the above expounding will make more clear what my
objections are.
--Kid Kibbitz
Andrew Finch
: [Disclaimer: Don't know much about Theatrix; what follows are some rambling
: observations about how rpgs work, narratologically speaking]
: That a game moves in a logical order is unsurprising. That's basically the
: definition of _narrative_: "the recounting of two or more events (or a
I agree. We simply suggest a method of developing logical order, which is
something that many GM's have a problem with.
: However, others suggest that "temporal succession is sufficient as a minimal
: requirement for a group of events to form a story ... causality can often
: (always?) be projected onto temporality" (1). This fits well with a
: distinction made by Russian Formalism between _story_ (a.k.a. _fabula_) and
: _plot_ (a.k.a. _syuzhet_); story is "understood as 'the pattern of relation-
: ships between characters and the pattern of actions as they unfold in
: chronological order,'" whereas plot is the "artistic organization, or
: 'deformation,' of the causal-chronological order of events" (1).
One would not seem to preclude the other from the above definition. Which
I am tempted to agree with.
: Cast in these terms, I think a lot of role-players would claim that their
: games are more focussed on story than plot -- even if there always will have
: been an "artistic organization" (heh :) to the game's narrative.
I believe you can focus on both. In fact, we believe that a plot focus
will sharpen your story focus as well.
: But, just because that's the structure of most narratives, gamers probably
: won't often recognize it clearly for several reasons: 1) that's how real life
: is recounted, but not how it's really lived ...
No, but then RPG's are not how life is really lived. Not even close. Nor
would they be much fun if they were. Just as stories would be boring if
told in the way life is lived.
: ... (and, if you've never met any, let
: me assure you there are gamers out there who do their best to play games with
: that ideal of realism in mind; a realism that surpasses the narrative realism
: of literature and approaches what people tend to think of as the historical
: or ethnographic real ...
I would put forth that what people think of as historically real is real
only in the way that literature is, and follows a dramatic structure. In
order to understand, we define in a way which has meaning, and that is,
as you noted above, a dramatic, literary structure. I point to the
popularity of historical novels. Also, in my 17 years of gaming, every
game I have ever been in has been so obviously aimed at the dramatic,
despite however much the GM might have said otherwise. Combat rules in
themselves are not an attempt at simulation, at which they are poor, but
an attempt at dramatic re-creation, in an improvisational setting.
: -- more on that later); 2) the role-playing <-> miniature
: strategy games connection reinforces a sense of historical realism (think of
: where the word _campaign_ comes from), and most people don't appreciate the
: degree to which history is given meaning by its mode of emplotment
We do, that's why we suggest a plot basis.
: 3) the plot order you here suggest doesn't provide a ground for deciding the
: meaning of the story (e.g. the degree to which the confrontation is taken
: seriously; think of the different meanings of confrontation in most AD&D,
: Call of Cthulhu, or say Paranoia adventures) and, accordingly, may not count
: for much in the players' evaluations of "what happened."
As you say, the meaning is derived from the genre, not the plot structure,
which simply provides drama and story. That is why the game is so
universal. Simply add a genre, and the same plot structure can be used to
provide a framework in which to embed the meaning of any story, at any
time, in any place. A story is a story, whether in Call of Cthulhu, or
Paranoia. It is the genre which completes the picture, and provides both
the meaning, and the rationalization, for the outcomes of all actions.
: Realism is entrenched in gaming in more than one way. We're all familiar
: with people who get upset if game rules don't replicate the laws of physics,
They don't. Only the feeling of realism is important.
: etc., but the important kind of realism here is that gamers have usually
: shunned playing in anything other than the present -- not just the present
: *tense* of most movie scripts, but what they suppose to be a real, non-
: narrative, non-linguistic present in some other world. I think that has
: some really important implications if you're trying to manipulate the plot
: of a game (and you can't get your players to throw this kind of realism
: completely out the window).
They have shunned this, but they are looking for somethig else (or at
least a large segment of the market is). Gaming is maturing. And we
certainly don't throw realism out the window. The genre holds the
conventions of realism, and Theatrix can handle any genre you wish. It's
run by your understanding, not the understanding of some artificial
system of narrow simulation.
: First, it means you wouldn't be able to use movies as a model for how to run
: the kind of role-playing games most people (I've met) run.
You can.
: Movies can employ a wide variety of tenses, moods, and voices, which are by and
: large unavailable to gamers (novels also have such variety available). Playing
: out a flashback, passing notes to keep information more contained, and
: putting players in separate parts of your house when their characters are
: separated just ain't the same.
No, but they help. And the Theatrix improvisational system goes a long
way towards giving the players the same kind of control over tenses,
moods, and voices, which has been the province of books and movies. So in
a sense, I fully agree with you so far.
: Second, it means you are limited in planning out a plot to plotting strategies
: that lend themselves to extemporization. I'm sure you can explain how
: plot points fit the bill here;
You got it.
: Also, I'd accept the fact that planned
: confrontations can take on entirely different dimensions in play, necessitating
: a shift in the mode of emplotment. Adventures designed to work out in the
: end (Comedy) may not work out that way if the players set limits on what
: "may be aspired to and what may be legitimately aimed at in the quest for
: security and sanity in the world" (i.e. Tragedy; 4). I've had plenty of
: Call of Cthulhu adventures turn out this way; I actually planned for the
: players to win this one, but heck, if they wanna do it in such a way that
: one character loses an arm and another is permanently marked with hideous
: white spots all over his body, then so much the better. :-)
First, I thinks that's wondeful. I fully support the players in
attainingthe kind of game they wish. Second, Theatrix pre-supposes a lot
of comunication and co-operation between the GM and the players. This is a
co-operative effort, and one of our design goals was to get away from the
traditional antangonistic relationship between player and GM, which we
feel has always been harmful to the enjoyment of gaming.
: I think most players really enjoy discerning
: the story elements you call plot *after* the fact (this is just like the
: enjoyment of discovering some daily experience of yours makes a good story),
: but if plot elements are telegraphed beforehand or obviously orchestrated,
: the game can feel sort of hollow for all involved (been guilty of this plenty
: of times, myself).
Yes, the same as in a movie (aha!). Broadcasting certain elements
beforehand hieghtens drama, well others would ruin the big surprises and
the sense of discovery. Which is why we give the advice to foreshadow, or
show scenes from only those elements which the audience would see in a
good movie, ie. the ones that increase tension, without letting out the
suprises to be discovered. We never, ever said to broadcast every plot
element in advance. These effects are to be used sparringly and where
appropriate, as we clearly state.
: Games aren't ethnographies,
: but like most ethnographies, they are designed to represent an *ongoing*
: presentness in the/a world -- something movies almost never do.
This of course is an illusion, as is everything else in the game. We
simply use the inherent flexibility of this illusion to obtain some of
the control that movies and books have, without actually breaking
continuity or believability.
: Oh well. Draw your own conclusions, but all I am suggesting is that games
: are part miniatures battles, part drama, part novel, part history, part
: ethnography, part Mornington Crescent, and (most importantly) already out
: there in the world as something to be dealt with in all its various forms.
: Oh, and I forgot: part movie.
Get rid of the miniatures battles, and we would agree. We have put out a
system for people who wish to have an rpg without the wargame. We think
it's an improvement, but that wouldn't stop us from adding a supplement
on miniatures battles to the present rules (thinking of calling it Tactix).
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: This is exactly what I'm talking about, though; and frankly, it seems quite
: contrary to what you say elsewhere in the book about how to represent
: character knowledge/appearance. Or is that for players only?
No, and I would tend to be more in genre, and in character about it, but
the point stands. Which is, pass the slow parts more quickly, and get
onto the important stuff. On which I think we agree.
: Again, I
: stress that my emphasis in my game is the continuity of the game world. It
: is up to the characters (players) to determine whether there is any
: interesting information to be had somewhere. I've had very enjoyable
: sessions, as both player and GM, where a large portion of the time was
: spent on "meaningless" (in terms of "plot") interactions with barkeeps.
: You may think this is "time wasted"; fine. But I've yet to have such an
: interaction not pay off in the future.
Never said that. Neither do the rules. As I sated earlier, if there is
roleplay and characterization going on, then this is important (the book
backs me up here), and you spend as much time on it as the players will
enjoy having. These Little Scenes are covered in chapter 3.
: To summarize: this is again an example of where you (and Theatrix) would
: put emphasis on the plot/action/progression, where I would put emphasis on
: the characters' interaction with the world.
No, it is again an example of where Theatrix would also place emphasis on
the character's interaction with the world (or with the plot as we would
say).
: >And you get on to the Sweating Bullets Tavern. They might
: >even 'pass by' and recognize someone in the tavern. SOmething that will
: >draw them in.
: Only if you're working with the assumption that the characters are "slated"
: to have something happen in the SBT.
No, I thought you were working with that assumption, which is where your
example seemed to head. I was simply answering in the same vein.
: To me, I couldn't give a rodent's
: posterior whether characters go into the bar or not. That's their choice;
: my games are never so scripted that if they miss one key encounter, they're
: doomed.
Good, neither are ours. I believe we discuss Scene Cards in chapter 10,
with just this in mind. To allow the players several ways of getting the
same information, so that they are never forced into one path, and you as
GM can react to them, rather than forcing them to react to you. We agree
again.
: The text says "If a Scene would be
: boring to roleplay through." Perhaps I the reader am supposed to infer,
: based on the fact that this is in the chapter on Cinematography, that this
: only refers to "slated" events
It doesn't. It applies to 'un-slated' events as well. If the players are
bored, and they're not roleplaying, and not enjoying themselves, then
this is an indication that something is wrong. You don't just let this
continue 'because it's a world, and this kind of thing can happen'. You
as GM need to step in and direct things a bit, which it seems the players
need, even though they are not saying so directly. Either they're bored
with the game, and you should have something happen, or they are
frustrated and don't know how to proceed, in which case you should give
them some help. Unless of course you are doing this for a reason, and
wish the players to feel the frustration of their characters, just don't
over do it. Which is just what the paragraph you're referencing talks
about. Or so we thought.
: >: Nor is the option which I deleted from the above quote ("roleplay through
: >: enough of the Scene to allow the Actors to feel the tedium before going
: >: on") appropriate to me, either.
See the above. It may make more sense.
: >: Again, my job is to represent adequately
: >: what occurs in the characters' worlds. Obviously I will not spend undue
: >: time describing in detail the events of a character's 16-year jail term;
: >: however, in events with choice, it is the character's (player's) decision
: >: when too much is too much.
Yes, but it is the GM's responsibility to look for this, even when the
PC's don't know how to communicate this directly. You are a teacher and a
guide, as well as a world-creator. But this is an awful lot over one
paragraph that shouldn't be this controversial.
: Perhaps you misunderstand how I meant this. I meant 'focus' in,
: ironically, a more cinematographic way than you did.... I mean, literally,
: the action is always based upon the characters.
So did we. Literally, the action is based upon the characters in
Theatrix, and nothing else. Plot is based on characters, world is based
on characters, everything is based on the characters, and the players
have Plot Points to make sure it stays that way.
: Since there is never A
: Plot that the characters are following,
Too bad. It seems kind of aimless to me. But I'm sure that you have
plenty of plot and intrigue to keep your players busy, and we are running
into a semantics problem.
: Nope. There are no "villains" in my game. There are people with goals.
: Naturally, some people's goals overlap, and others are mutually exclusive;
: that is what makes the world interesting.
Of course. I was using villain in the traditional sense of antagonist,
not the simplistic sense of evil person.
Here's just a simplified
: example: Who is the "villain" in West Side Story? The Sharks? The Jets?
: Officer Krumpky? I say none of 'em. Sure, there's the villain of society,
: which prevents two lovers from coming together, but I don't think that's
: what you mean. If you do mean this, then yes, in my campaigns, society and
: history are usually the villains.
No, but there are antagonists and protagonists in West Side story. And in
fact, both the play and movie versions use 'Cut Scenes', ie. the portrayed
action does not always follow the protagonists, but gives the audience
glimpses of the other things going on, so that they can understand and
react to how the story is coming together, without ruining the surprises.
: I *could*, but it would be counter-productive to my goals. Again (maybe I
: should put this in all caps so it doesn't get skimmed over?), my purpose in
: GM-ing is to serve as the means of interaction between characters created
: by the players and my gameworld. Nothing more (and nothing less!).
We are suggesting that if you change your goals, you will come out with a
better game. Although you obviously disagree, but many do not. nd I think
we do a good job of presenting other methods for these people. Maybe
someday you'll change your mind.
: See, there it is again. "Audience." This is a word which, I think,
: indicates as well as any the differences in our perspectives. As for
: giving players an idea of how little time they have... Players have to act
: (in my world) based upon what their characters can see. They get at least
: as much suspense from the unknown as they would from the cut scene, IMHO.
Aaaaah. In our game, the characters' must react on what they can see, but
we allow the players a greater view than that, to hieghten the drama, and
their enjoyment of the game, and to provide an enjoyable acting
challenge, all where appropriate.
: My point was NOT that they're bad. My purpose was, as I stated, to point
: out specifics in Theatrix which emphasize the difference between the
: "world-based" philosophy (John Kim, myself, and others) and the Theatrix
: approach. There's nothing wrong with either approach--which is exactly
: what I'm trying to get across.
No, tehre is nothing wrong with either approach. We integrate much of the
world-based aproach into the game. I'm suggesting that by integrating
some plot-based options into your style, that you'll come out with a
higher quality of roleplay, and a more enjoyable time. There is no
'wrong' way though.
: "A false notion of 'reality'".... jeez, do you need the "false" AND the
: scare-quotes? Is it really the case that you can't accept that other
: people might have different priorities for their roleplay than you and
: Theatrix represent? To some people, internal reality is more important
: than dramatic necessity. I happen to be one of 'em.
RPG's ahve no 'internal' reality. They are a communal fantasy. They have
only external reality. We are suggesting several ways of using this fact,
rather than ignoring it, without breaking continuity, or suspension of
disbelief.
: I'll be addressing your "Continuity" chapters in my review... I think there
: are some ways to make it clearer/better, but I don't want to get into that
: in this thread.
O.K.
: As for "as long as it does not break Continuity," that again is a relative
: term, depending on how "Continuous" one wants one's world to be. On one
: extreme is the old D&D dungeon-hopping "Which module this week?" routine,
: which has zero continuity. Some of us prefer as close to 100% contiunity
: as we can get, meaning the whole world is going on its own, and the
: characters are interacting with that world as equals. To you and Theatrix,
: "Continuity" falls somewhere between these extremes, where it is tempered
: by "dramatic necessity" and so on.
Sort of. We make suggestions. But our highest suggestion is that the
particular Troupe using the product must ultimately make this judgement
as they feel comfortable with it. And the game is certainly open to
wherever you wish to set this line.
: See above.
: >And the game is made to enhance
: >characterization.
: I'll agree to this.
Thank you.
: what ever happened to her?"). However, players in my game do NOT go around
: changing the physical properties of the gameworld ("Oh, yes, that's
: Rigellian flu!"). I know you disagree with this; that's fine, and you're
: entitled to your opinion. But you must recognize that gameworld continuity
: is compromised by such improvisation, and to those of us who try to create
: as consistent and continuous and CHARACTER-INDEPENDENT a gameworld as we
: can, this is not an acceptable compromise.
Since the game-world doesn't exist, and can't be character-independent, as
it is a consensual illusion, and would cease to exist at all without
characters, I must disagree. This type of improvisation does not break
gameworld continuity at all, so long as it is in-genre, and appropriate.
The GM is making these sort of improvisations all the time, and do they
inherently 'break the game-world conituity'? No. They are the game-world
continuity. We just make the players a part of this process. Note, the
players, not the characters, for whome world-conuity must always exist,
because they are fictional.
: Well, hopefully the above expounding will make more clear what my
: objections are.
: --Kid Kibbitz
Yes, and I hope my answers have been helpful. Please keep on responding.
I find this very helpful myself.
Thanks very much
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Kid Kibbitz
anyway.... This is in response to Berkman's response to my response to...
well, you get the idea; it's about "world-based" vs. Berkman/Theatrix
roleplaying.
-------------------------------------
In article <2tquoi$7...@crl.crl.com> bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes:
>Kid Kibbitz (kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
>
>: >And you get on to the Sweating Bullets Tavern. They might
>: >even 'pass by' and recognize someone in the tavern. SOmething that will
>: >draw them in.
>: Only if you're working with the assumption that the characters are "slated"
>: to have something happen in the SBT.
>
>No, I thought you were working with that assumption, which is where your
>example seemed to head. I was simply answering in the same vein.
No, in my example, there was something interesting in the SBT; that doesn't
mean that they will ever encounter it....
>: The text says "If a Scene would be
>: boring to roleplay through." Perhaps I the reader am supposed to infer,
>: based on the fact that this is in the chapter on Cinematography, that this
>: only refers to "slated" events
>
>It doesn't. It applies to 'un-slated' events as well. If the players are
>bored, and they're not roleplaying, and not enjoying themselves, then
>this is an indication that something is wrong. You don't just let this
>continue 'because it's a world, and this kind of thing can happen'. You
>as GM need to step in and direct things a bit, which it seems the players
>need, even though they are not saying so directly. Either they're bored
>with the game, and you should have something happen, or they are
>frustrated and don't know how to proceed, in which case you should give
>them some help. Unless of course you are doing this for a reason, and
>wish the players to feel the frustration of their characters, just don't
>over do it. Which is just what the paragraph you're referencing talks
>about. Or so we thought.
Hmmm... Then this paragraph could use some improvement, if this is all it's
really trying to say. Basically, what you just said can be boiled down to
"Don't let your players get bored or frustrated unintentionally." What the
text seems to say (and we can analyze every sentence (and lack of sentence)
if need be) is that every scene should either provide
information/lesson/etc., be skimmed over, or be enacted just enough to
demonstrate the tedium. This relates to a problem with terseness and lack
of examples which crops up elsewhere in the rules; I think someone else
commented on this in his review, and I will as well.
>: Perhaps you misunderstand how I meant this. I meant 'focus' in,
>: ironically, a more cinematographic way than you did.... I mean, literally,
>: the action is always based upon the characters.
>
>So did we. Literally, the action is based upon the characters in
>Theatrix, and nothing else. Plot is based on characters, world is based
>on characters, everything is based on the characters, and the players
>have Plot Points to make sure it stays that way.
Ah, see, there you snuck in a major disagreement between us. As I'm sure
you know (since you address it at some length below), my world is not based
upon my characters; quite the other way around. Obviously, the "spotlight"
is upon the characters' portion of the world, but the world continues
outside that spotlight, and has its own separate continuity. I think that
plot points are, in general, really awful for my style of campaign (unless
they're used in the vein of old TOP SECRET 'fame' points, which could alter
a single die roll/outcome; but that's not how they're portrayed in
Theatrix).
>: Nope. There are no "villains" in my game. There are people with goals.
>: Naturally, some people's goals overlap, and others are mutually exclusive;
>: that is what makes the world interesting.
>
>Of course. I was using villain in the traditional sense of antagonist,
>not the simplistic sense of evil person.
Well, but an antagonist to one of my players might be a comrade to another;
I do not force the "You are PC's; you must be a cohesive Party" mentality
(which I assume Theatrix doesn't, either). In my current campaign, it is
really fate that is the antagonist in a certain sense; it's really rather
difficult to describe without giving a full-blown description of the
campaign world, I'm afraid, but it's not unlike a post-holocaust (WWIII)
type setting.
>Here's just a simplified
>: example: Who is the "villain" in West Side Story? The Sharks? The Jets?
>: Officer Krumpky? I say none of 'em. Sure, there's the villain of society,
>: which prevents two lovers from coming together, but I don't think that's
>: what you mean. If you do mean this, then yes, in my campaigns, society and
>: history are usually the villains.
>
>No, but there are antagonists and protagonists in West Side story. And in
>fact, both the play and movie versions use 'Cut Scenes', ie. the portrayed
>action does not always follow the protagonists, but gives the audience
>glimpses of the other things going on, so that they can understand and
>react to how the story is coming together, without ruining the surprises.
Yes. This is appropriate for movies, because in movies, the audience does
not have any decision-making capabilities, and is a third person. I think
Theatrix sometimes (often?) goes too far in carrying some theater/cinema
analogies into role-playing, and fails to recognize RP as a unique and
separate entity.
>: I *could*, but it would be counter-productive to my goals. Again (maybe I
>: should put this in all caps so it doesn't get skimmed over?), my purpose in
>: GM-ing is to serve as the means of interaction between characters created
>: by the players and my gameworld. Nothing more (and nothing less!).
>
>We are suggesting that if you change your goals, you will come out with a
>better game. Although you obviously disagree, but many do not. nd I think
>we do a good job of presenting other methods for these people. Maybe
>someday you'll change your mind.
"Better game." Well, thanks, but on what scale? As I recall, the Prime
Directive of Theatrix was "Have Fun." Are you now judging how I can and
can't? I'm a bit puzzled.
>: See, there it is again. "Audience." This is a word which, I think,
>: indicates as well as any the differences in our perspectives. As for
>: giving players an idea of how little time they have... Players have to act
>: (in my world) based upon what their characters can see. They get at least
>: as much suspense from the unknown as they would from the cut scene, IMHO.
>
>Aaaaah. In our game, the characters' must react on what they can see, but
>we allow the players a greater view than that, to hieghten the drama, and
>their enjoyment of the game, and to provide an enjoyable acting
>challenge, all where appropriate.
...Whereas I prefer to maintain suspense by keeping the players themselves
in suspense. I suppose you've never liked a book written in the first
person? To me, that's what roleplaying is, if you have to make an analogy
to theater/cinema/literature at all (which I think is somewhat
inappropriate).
>: My point was NOT that they're bad. My purpose was, as I stated, to point
>: out specifics in Theatrix which emphasize the difference between the
>: "world-based" philosophy (John Kim, myself, and others) and the Theatrix
>: approach. There's nothing wrong with either approach--which is exactly
>: what I'm trying to get across.
>
>No, tehre is nothing wrong with either approach. We integrate much of the
>world-based aproach into the game. I'm suggesting that by integrating
>some plot-based options into your style, that you'll come out with a
>higher quality of roleplay, and a more enjoyable time. There is no
>'wrong' way though.
I don't mean to be rude, but... isn't this a tad two-faced? "You'll come
out with higher quality and more enjoyment... but that doesn't make you
'wrong'." Gee, thanks.
I've played in a Theatrix-style campaign (long before there was a
Theatrix), and frankly, I didn't find it to my tastes. Obviously, I just
have lower-quality and less-enjoyable tastes, but... so be it.
>: "A false notion of 'reality'".... jeez, do you need the "false" AND the
>: scare-quotes? Is it really the case that you can't accept that other
>: people might have different priorities for their roleplay than you and
>: Theatrix represent? To some people, internal reality is more important
>: than dramatic necessity. I happen to be one of 'em.
>
>RPG's ahve no 'internal' reality. They are a communal fantasy. They have
>only external reality.
You are obviously getting into semantic games again.
By using the phrase "inner reality," I tried to avoid the semantic
difficulties between reality as resemblance to the "real world" and reality
as accurate and consistent representation of the genre/gameworld.
>We are suggesting several ways of using this fact,
>rather than ignoring it, without breaking continuity, or suspension of
>disbelief.
For you, maybe. Again, you use a different definition of "continuity" than
I do. You are obviously also at comfort with Schroedinger's cat-box. :)
>: As for "as long as it does not break Continuity," that again is a relative
>: term, depending on how "Continuous" one wants one's world to be. On one
>: extreme is the old D&D dungeon-hopping "Which module this week?" routine,
>: which has zero continuity. Some of us prefer as close to 100% contiunity
>: as we can get, meaning the whole world is going on its own, and the
>: characters are interacting with that world as equals. To you and Theatrix,
>: "Continuity" falls somewhere between these extremes, where it is tempered
>: by "dramatic necessity" and so on.
>
>Sort of. We make suggestions. But our highest suggestion is that the
>particular Troupe using the product must ultimately make this judgement
>as they feel comfortable with it. And the game is certainly open to
>wherever you wish to set this line.
Not really.
I mean, if I am going for 100% of what I call continuity, then having a
player change his incorrect diagnosis of carburator troubles into a failed
alternator breaks that continuity. Thus, the whole mechanic of plot points
is contrary to what I call 100% continuity.
>: what ever happened to her?"). However, players in my game do NOT go around
>: changing the physical properties of the gameworld ("Oh, yes, that's
>: Rigellian flu!"). I know you disagree with this; that's fine, and you're
>: entitled to your opinion. But you must recognize that gameworld continuity
>: is compromised by such improvisation, and to those of us who try to create
>: as consistent and continuous and CHARACTER-INDEPENDENT a gameworld as we
>: can, this is not an acceptable compromise.
>
>Since the game-world doesn't exist, and can't be character-independent, as
>it is a consensual illusion, and would cease to exist at all without
>characters, I must disagree. This type of improvisation does not break
>gameworld continuity at all, so long as it is in-genre, and appropriate.
We're just running around in circles here; either you refuse to hear my
point, or you just ignore it.
My job as GM, in my games, is to handle the interaction of the characters
with the game world. It is no more appropriate for players to tell me how
my game world interacts than it would be for me to tell them how to
interact with it. Any argument you make which ignores this central reality
is futile.
>The GM is making these sort of improvisations all the time, and do they
>inherently 'break the game-world conituity'? No. They are the game-world
>continuity. We just make the players a part of this process. Note, the
>players, not the characters, for whome world-conuity must always exist,
>because they are fictional.
But for my definition of role-playing (or, if you will, for my style of
role-playing), this is a self-defeating goal. If my entire purpose is to
create a world and guide characters' interactions with that world, then
players changing how the world interacts with their characters is
counter-productive to my presumed purpose. You may call your method
"superior" (which you did, several pages ago); I suppose you're entitled to
your opinion. Even when you're wrong. :)
--Kid Kibbitz
Ray Trent
>: GMs typically has to consider 3 general possibilities (described in
>: examples relevant to LOTR):
>
>: 1) The PCs take the role/side of the Fellowship.
>: 2) The PCs take the role/side of the Dark Lord.
>: 3) The PCs decide to make their way to the Grey Havens, overpower,
>
>Lord, I assume I'll know that this will happen because the PC's are all
>total scum. O.K. if we both wish to play such a game. But lets assume the
>PC's are basically good guys. Maybe not saints, but they don't enjoy the
If the characters are cliches, maybe this is true. Real people are not
anywhere near that predictable.
I would say there is only 1 kind of true "loss" possible in this sort
of campaign (I suppose there's also the meta-loss outcome of everyone
having a boring time, but that turns out to be rare for our group):
the case where the PCs decide to take the role of the Fellowship, and
through their actions, fail to prevent the Dark Lord's schemes (in our
worlds, this is certainly a possible outcome, and I think it has to be
in order to preserve any sort of drama, tension, or anticipation...in
other words, occasionally the heroes have to lose).
If the PCs play the fellowship and "win", well, huzzah!
If the PCs play the side of the Dark Lord and "win", well, as far as
I'm concerned, "hurray" for them...they decided on their goal and
succeeded. My world certainly doesn't care (being fictional), and I
want the same thrill of uncertainty that I try to grant the players by
holding out the real possibility of defeat. That's not to say there
might not be later opportunities for them to engage in additional role
play that turns things around (hey, maybe they'll decide to plot
against the Dark Lord, perhaps winning, perhaps continuing the reign
of terror, perhaps ruling "tough but fair", who knows? Lot's of role
playing opportunities).
If the PCs play the side of the Dark Lord and "lose", well, no one can
really feel all that terrible about that, can they? There's a certain
appeal to playing the bad guys and losing...we do that occasionally
and have a great time at it. It's a unique and entertaining experience
to cheer inside when your character is cut down...
If the PCs decide to leave and go elsewhere, who am I to tell them
otherwise. Unless I play out bunches of "Cut Scenes" (all fine and
good if you like that sort of thing), they'll probably never even know
until/unless they are repelled from the West or the Dark Lord starts
invading. Until then, they can have perfectly reasonable adventures
(of course, as the GM, I might end up steering events such that they
get back into the War, but I might not...depends entirely on how
things seem to be going...if the West looks boring, who knows?).
I think this difference in philosophy is the main distinction between
"drama based" and "world based" games. If you have predictable
players, or want to make it clear in advance what side the PCs are on,
fine...that will often lead to a more drama based game, in which case
I think the existing resolution mechanism of Theatrix would even work
marginally better than "simulation" resolution.
I guess I'm saying that even if the campaign is "world based", that
doesn't mean that diceless resolution, as well as most of the other
Theatrix tricks, have to be discarded. I suspect that replacing "does
the plot require some particular outcome" with "does a consistent
world view require some particular outcome" would work almost as well
(if not better). I still think I'd generally reserve judgement on the
outcome until seeing what the characters do (i.e., almost always
answer that question "no"), but you don't have to have a plot to make
it work (it's just easier on the GM...but then doing the plotting is
harder).
Ray Trent
>: what ever happened to her?"). However, players in my game do NOT go around
>: changing the physical properties of the gameworld ("Oh, yes, that's
>: Rigellian flu!"). I know you disagree with this; that's fine, and you're
>
>it is a consensual illusion, and would cease to exist at all without
>characters, I must disagree. This type of improvisation does not break
>gameworld continuity at all, so long as it is in-genre, and appropriate.
>The GM is making these sort of improvisations all the time, and do they
The GM has a better chance of preserving continuity, being only 1
person, I'd think.
One thing I'd like to see spelled better out in the rules is how to
deal with contradicting Improvisations.
I know at least a few GMs who like to run the same game world with
different groups of players/characters (sometimes interacting, but
most of the time separate). Even if only 1 group of characters is
being run, often the party gets split into multiple groups. In this
situation, what do you do if a character in one group improvises
something that contradicts something improvised in another group? What
do you do if you only realize it's a contradiction later on?
Here's an example: two groups view a "locked door" crime scene in a
marginally paranormal, but modern day world.
In one group, a character has the Primary Descriptor of "Psychic
consultant", and she spends a Plot Point to Improvise "I sense a
single strong psychic impression on that lock. Only 1 person has been
here since the violent attack and she used telekinesis to lock it from
the outside, without touching the lock."
The other group happens on the scene *without even knowing the first
group was there*, and a character with the Primary descriptor
"Forensic specialist" spends a Plot Point to Improvise "How strange,
there's a trace of blood on the outside of this lock, next to these
fingerprints, with the same DNA as the victim, which fell there
*after* the time the fatal wound was inflicted".
Both are making statements that should be authoratative because of
their Primary Descriptors. Both seem like they could be interesting
plot twists. Should the Director simply disallow one of the Plot Point
usages? Which one? Should one of them be changed so as to avoid
contradicting the other one? How do you do that without giving away
something that the character shouldn't know? What if the first play
session actually took place *later* in game-world time than the second
play session? What if the second Improvisation was more interesting
than the first one (I personally think that's true of the above
example)? Is one of the characters later found to be wrong? (in their
specialty? I thought that was a no-no.) Anyway, some suggestions on
these issues would make the system hold together better, IMNSHO.
Which brings up another suggestion: If I'm not just forgetting this is
in there, I think it would be a good idea to recommend that the
Director write down the implications of all significant improvisations
(perhaps on the "Cue cards"?), because I can only imagine that they'd
be easy to forget something that you didn't plan out yourself.
Andrew Finch
: --Kid Kibbitz
Yes, I now see where our entire disgreement stems from. You see, I'm
actually right. And if you could accept this fact, I think we could get
on with some really meaningful dialogue (just kidding).
Yes, we are at cross purposes. Theatrix is at one end of the scale on a
lot of issues, which is why we're trying to put it out. On the other
hand, in practice it's not that far off from what you're doing now. You
may never use it, but I'm still glad to have your opnions. You see, it's
not that you're wrong, it's just that we're disagreeing.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: One thing I'd like to see spelled better out in the rules is how to
: deal with contradicting Improvisations.
: Here's an example: two groups view a "locked door" crime scene in a
: marginally paranormal, but modern day world.
: In one group, a character has the Primary Descriptor of "Psychic
: consultant", and she spends a Plot Point to Improvise "I sense a
: single strong psychic impression on that lock. Only 1 person has been
: here since the violent attack and she used telekinesis to lock it from
: the outside, without touching the lock."
: The other group happens on the scene *without even knowing the first
: group was there*, and a character with the Primary descriptor
: "Forensic specialist" spends a Plot Point to Improvise "How strange,
: there's a trace of blood on the outside of this lock, next to these
: fingerprints, with the same DNA as the victim, which fell there
: *after* the time the fatal wound was inflicted".
O.K. I'll respond specifically first, then to the more general question.
The second example is not a Statement as described in the rules. The
blood is an improvised prop, which is for free, as are the fingerprints.
This is an awfully good forensic guy if he can 'see' the DNA match. But
if he has that ability, then it's still improvisation on a prop. This
description contains no percentage of being wrong, is not a Statement of
possibility, but of fact, and is therefore not a Statement. The psychic's
description was a Statement, beacuse her impression could simply be
wrong. However, blood and fingerprints are blood and fingerprints.
Now, since the door is a dramatic prop, and central to the drama of the
plot at this point, then the Director may deny any improvisations upon
it. But, I'll assume for the sake of argument that the Director wishes to
allow the improvisation anyway.
: Both are making statements that should be authoratative because of
: their Primary Descriptors. Both seem like they could be interesting
: plot twists. Should the Director simply disallow one of the Plot Point
: usages? Which one? Should one of them be changed so as to avoid
: contradicting the other one?
The rules state that the first accepted improvisation that becomes fact,
may not be changed, to protect the continuity of information and the
world. So the first accpeted improvisation wins.
However, if you like the feel of going back in time and disallowing the
first Statement (I don't care for this much, but you might be O.K. with
it) then go ahead, it's your game.
But, I see nothing contradictory in these improvisations. In fact, they
make perfect sense. The blood and fingerprints wre noticed *after* the
first group got there. The first group will know they were not there
earlier if told about them. The second group sees them, which means
somebody has entered the room between the time the first and second
groups arrive. That person obviously had an interest in the dead man's
blood, and was a bit sloppy (assuminmg the fingerprints are not also the
dead man's prints).
Now, if the fingerprints match the dead guy's as well, what we have is a
clone, who cam back afterward to get a blood sample. Why did the original
kill himself (or maybe the dead man is the clone), and why did the clone
(or original) come back for a blood sample, in a hurry, so as to leave
prints? Well, that's up to you. If that is too far out, then maybe the
player making the improvisation has a reason you van accept. Or maybe
you'll have to deny the improvisation. But there are ways to fit it in.
: How do you do that without giving away
: something that the character shouldn't know?
See above. They'll gain certain information of course, but that's what a
Plot Point or an improvised prop is for (which is why dramatic props are
normally safe from improvisation). But it opens as many or more questions
than it solves (in this case).
: What if the first play
: session actually took place *later* in game-world time than the second
: play session? What if the second Improvisation was more interesting
: than the first one (I personally think that's true of the above
: example)? Is one of the characters later found to be wrong? (in their
: specialty? I thought that was a no-no.) Anyway, some suggestions on
: these issues would make the system hold together better, IMNSHO.
We would love to, and we've given an example, but the rest is up to you.
Everything you stated is a possibility. What actually happens is based on
your game, your Directing, your players, and your style. You got it
basically right. It is open. That's why it's improvisational. You base
these decisions on your experience as a GM, just like any other.
: Which brings up another suggestion: If I'm not just forgetting this is
: in there, I think it would be a good idea to recommend that the
: Director write down the implications of all significant improvisations
: (perhaps on the "Cue cards"?), because I can only imagine that they'd
: be easy to forget something that you didn't plan out yourself.
Well, actually, the players do stuff all the time, in any game, that
should be written down, but most of us manage without. ALthough that is a
fine idea if you want to take the time. We do recommend writing down all
the dangkling plotlines at the end of each Episode.
Thanks for the feedback
David Berkman
Backstage Press
John H Kim
discussion - in reply to David Berkman.
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>My mere mention of the fact that I thought taking the time to detail
>out the basics of your plot, in addition to its reasons, the PC's, and
>your world, is a darn good idea that can only improve a game, started
>a landslide of opion which seemed to be that if you knew the plot
>beforehand, you would only destroy the game and be heavyhanded.
>I have mostly been responding to this position.
Well, don't respond to that position to _me_, because I
never said anything of the sort. While some people may have said
that your methods don't work, that does not mean that you have to,
in response, similarly put down others' positions.
I am not convinced that detailing a plot beforehand can
_only_ improve a game. I think that to a large degree it is a matter
of style, which differs among various GMs, players, and campaigns.
I certainly think that it can improve a great many campaigns to
plot out storylines in advance. OTOH, I don't think that it is
always a good idea.
Magnus Lie Hetland
I just wondered... If your plot neither included a psychic murderer or a clone
with an interest in the victims blood, then these seem to be a bit difficult to
include. Should you then disallow them, and if not, how should you tackle them
without scrapping your plot? ( I know there are general answers to this in the
core rules, but it would be nice with an a bit more specific answer :)
--
Either the next statement is true, or this signature is a Paradox.
The previous statement is false and this signature is a Paradox.
Magnus
Lie
Hetland
A Lapalme
The confusion (read dissatisfaction) that I have about Theatrix is in the
concept of Statements and Plot points. Since reading the rules and
exchanging some e-mail with Dave, my understanding of the concept is still
very fuzy. Here, I'm using Ray's example and am asking Dave for some
clarifications.
In a previous article, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) says:
>Ray Trent (r...@clement.erg.sri.com) wrote:
>: Here's an example: two groups view a "locked door" crime scene in a
>: marginally paranormal, but modern day world.
>
>: In one group, a character has the Primary Descriptor of "Psychic
>: consultant", and she spends a Plot Point to Improvise "I sense a
>: single strong psychic impression on that lock. Only 1 person has been
>: here since the violent attack and she used telekinesis to lock it from
>: the outside, without touching the lock."
>
>: The other group happens on the scene *without even knowing the first
>: group was there*, and a character with the Primary descriptor
>: "Forensic specialist" spends a Plot Point to Improvise "How strange,
>: there's a trace of blood on the outside of this lock, next to these
>: fingerprints, with the same DNA as the victim, which fell there
>: *after* the time the fatal wound was inflicted".
>
>O.K. I'll respond specifically first, then to the more general question.
>
>The second example is not a Statement as described in the rules. The
>blood is an improvised prop, which is for free, as are the fingerprints.
>This is an awfully good forensic guy if he can 'see' the DNA match. But
>if he has that ability, then it's still improvisation on a prop. This
>description contains no percentage of being wrong, is not a Statement of
>possibility, but of fact, and is therefore not a Statement. The psychic's
>description was a Statement, beacuse her impression could simply be
>wrong. However, blood and fingerprints are blood and fingerprints.
>
I'm not sure how you can say that the psychic has a chance of being wrong
while the forensic person does not. DNA finger printing is not a very
accurate science (unless you choose to make it so). Psychic impressions
are not very accurate unless you choose to make it so. The way I see it,
either statement can have a probabilistic (is that a word) component or it
may not.
I am not arguing your interpretation. Rather, I'm trying to understand
the concept of statements. Theatrix's strength depends (at least in my
view) on the effective use of Statements.
Let me give another example (one that occured during our play testing):
During combat, one PC is hit on the arm and his weapon flies away.
Another PC, states that his high coordination allows him to catch the
sword and throw it back at its owner. Furthermore, he adds that the high
coordination of the owner allows him to catch the sword.
In this case, the PC wit the sowrd was an accomplished swordman. The
other PC was not. In neither case was the use of swords a primary
descriptor.
The way I understand statements, the above was NOT one. Am I right?
Alain
--
Frank Cheeseman
>Let me give another example (one that occured during our play testing):
>During combat, one PC is hit on the arm and his weapon flies away.
>Another PC, states that his high coordination allows him to catch the
>sword and throw it back at its owner. Furthermore, he adds that the high
>coordination of the owner allows him to catch the sword.
>In this case, the PC wit the sowrd was an accomplished swordman. The
>other PC was not. In neither case was the use of swords a primary
>descriptor.
>The way I understand statements, the above was NOT one. Am I right?
>Alain
>--
But Alain, it certainly _was_ dramatic!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Cheeseman. 890...@dragon.acadiau.ca & axe.acadiau.ca.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in
us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in
the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to
till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule."
--Gandalf, _The Return of the King_
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Noble
I'm sorry, this is probably a bit off-topic, but I couldn't resist:
In article <Crp6B...@freenet.carleton.ca> ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) writes:
>
>During combat, one PC is hit on the arm and his weapon flies away.
>Another PC, states that his high coordination allows him to catch the
>sword and throw it back at its owner. Furthermore, he adds that the high
>coordination of the owner allows him to catch the sword.
Don't you just love the way players will insist on this stuff? In *any*
system?
"The huge hideous beastie is bearing down on you from only 30 feet away;
what do you want to do?"
"Well, I fire my crossbow, aiming especially for its eyes, and then I get
out some oil, and throw the bottle of oil at it. The bottle breaks,
splashing the creature with flammable oil, and I light a match and set the
creature on fire as it gets close to me, then I draw my sword to engage it
in melee combat.... What do you mean I can't do all that? Look here, it
says I've got Oil Throwing - Superb, and Speed - Excellent... [you get the
idea]".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Noble | jno...@bunyip.bhs.mq.edu.au
National Centre for HIV Social Research | jno...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia | ph. (61 2) 850 8667
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Finch
: I just wondered... If your plot neither included a psychic murderer or a clone
: with an interest in the victims blood, then these seem to be a bit difficult to
: include. Should you then disallow them, and if not, how should you tackle them
: without scrapping your plot? ( I know there are general answers to this in the
: core rules, but it would be nice with an a bit more specific answer :)
It's hard to be specific without knowing what the original plot was. I
would be inclined to try to alter my plot to use these ideas, if that
would not break the plot. They might add some huge complications, but if
the basic structure stays intact, I would go for it. As to how to tackle
this particular situation, and can it be done without scrapping the plot?
Well, what's the plot?
David Berkman
Backstage Press
PS - If you answer with a plot, try to be brief and just describe the
intro, the 5 major scenes in the confrontation, and the resolution. I'll
try to take it from there.
Andrew Finch
: The confusion (read dissatisfaction) that I have about Theatrix is in the
: concept of Statements and Plot points. Since reading the rules and
: exchanging some e-mail with Dave, my understanding of the concept is still
: very fuzy. Here, I'm using Ray's example and am asking Dave for some
: clarifications.
: I'm not sure how you can say that the psychic has a chance of being wrong
: while the forensic person does not. DNA finger printing is not a very
: accurate science (unless you choose to make it so). Psychic impressions
: are not very accurate unless you choose to make it so. The way I see it,
: either statement can have a probabilistic (is that a word) component or it
: may not.
You are right. I was responding to the tone of the DNA Statement as fact.
A Theatrix Statement is an in-character declaration of a probabilistic
nature. So, 'Aha, there's traces of blood here. Hmmm, type A negative
(this is an improvised prop). I'll bet that if we send this sample for DNA
fingerprinting, we'll find it matches our murder victim in there.', would
be closer to a Statement. The idea is to give the Director some leeway to
work with, so he/she can decide what to do with the Statement. However,
given that DNA fingerprinting is not exact, and if the player understands
this, and is willing to accept being incorrect on this basis, then it
would be a Statement. The second is just a little more elegant, because it
gives the Director time and space in which to maneuver. You get used to
doing this with a little practice, and more of your Statements are
accepted this way (it's less demanding, and therefore easier for the
Director to use).
: I am not arguing your interpretation. Rather, I'm trying to understand
: the concept of statements. Theatrix's strength depends (at least in my
: view) on the effective use of Statements.
In part. But the other improvisations are as important.
: Let me give another example (one that occured during our play testing):
: During combat, one PC is hit on the arm and his weapon flies away.
: Another PC, states that his high coordination allows him to catch the
: sword and throw it back at its owner. Furthermore, he adds that the high
: coordination of the owner allows him to catch the sword.
: In this case, the PC wit the sowrd was an accomplished swordman. The
: other PC was not. In neither case was the use of swords a primary
: descriptor.
: The way I understand statements, the above was NOT one. Am I right?
Yes, you are. That is a description of an attempted action. And even if
on of the PC's had the Descriptor of 'Swordmaster', it's still an action.
The Descriptor may be activated to gain a Success in that action, but
this is not the same as direct Activation of the Descriptor (which would
last for the entire Scene). A more clever Activation of Swordmaster,
might be to drop a Plot Point to know the style of swordplay of your
opponents, 'I see you've studied under Fontain. A most excellent man, and
a good swordsman, but his style was always weak in defending against the
Florentine attack. Shall we give it a try?' That one Plot Point and some
quick improvisational speaches will last for the entire Scene. Now it
won't allow you to directly Succeed on any particular strike, but it will
allow you to improvise various edges for yourself, against each of your
opponents, for the entire Scene. In essence your creating disadvantages
for your opponents, which you can then make use of (bringing the fight to
your turf, even against other swordsman). You're going to look especially
good for that fight.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: Don't you just love the way players will insist on this stuff? In *any*
: system?
: "The huge hideous beastie is bearing down on you from only 30 feet away;
: what do you want to do?"
: "Well, I fire my crossbow, aiming especially for its eyes, and then I get
: out some oil, and throw the bottle of oil at it. The bottle breaks,
: splashing the creature with flammable oil, and I light a match and set the
: creature on fire as it gets close to me, then I draw my sword to engage it
: in melee combat.... What do you mean I can't do all that? Look here, it
: says I've got Oil Throwing - Superb, and Speed - Excellent... [you get the
: idea]".
A response to that player. Just break things down second by second, and
then see what he does.
O.K. that's a fine intent for action. You aim and fire the crossbow,
which strikes the beasts meaty shoulder. It cries in pain and rage, but
doesn't slow down. In that time it's crossed 20 feet, and is now 10 ffet
from you. You reach for some oil, and as you grasp the bottle, the beast
leaps onto you, bearing you over backwards, its great claws ripping into
your shoulders and belly (for those who say Theatrix can't be gritty
and realistic enough) ...
Hey, hold it, that's not what I wanted!
Oh, did you not want to wait until it was on top of you to pull out your
sword? You should do that earlier. Let's go back, and you can pull out
your sword rather than firing the crossbow. You're pretty sure you can
get that sword out, and brace yourself, before the beast reaches you.
But, I have incredible speed!
Yes, which is the only reason you can get that sword out before you're
torn to bits.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
A Lapalme
In a previous article, jno...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Jason Noble) says:
>
>I'm sorry, this is probably a bit off-topic, but I couldn't resist:
>
>In article <Crp6B...@freenet.carleton.ca> ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (A Lapalme) writes:
>>
>>During combat, one PC is hit on the arm and his weapon flies away.
>>Another PC, states that his high coordination allows him to catch the
>>sword and throw it back at its owner. Furthermore, he adds that the high
>>coordination of the owner allows him to catch the sword.
>
>Don't you just love the way players will insist on this stuff? In *any*
>system?
>
>"The huge hideous beastie is bearing down on you from only 30 feet away;
>what do you want to do?"
>
>"Well, I fire my crossbow, aiming especially for its eyes, and then I get
>out some oil, and throw the bottle of oil at it. The bottle breaks,
>splashing the creature with flammable oil, and I light a match and set the
>creature on fire as it gets close to me, then I draw my sword to engage it
>in melee combat.... What do you mean I can't do all that? Look here, it
>says I've got Oil Throwing - Superb, and Speed - Excellent... [you get the
>idea]".
>
Bingo! That's how we had to play to get Theatrix to work for us. Maybe
we went too extreme but, all the examples given in the book plus the ones
given here by David are mostly in that vein.
Personally, I find this type of gaming fun. However, I'm not really
interested in GMing them thought but playing, now I'd do that any
day.
Alain
--
A Lapalme
The level of detail used by David to make a scene a bit less of a munchkin
scene requires that the GM provide a lot of details. My position is that
this is a lot of work for a GM. Why bother when some systems do all the
work for you, freeing your brain to handle the real important stuff.
In a previous article, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) says:
Hmm... Ok, Theatrix can be nitty gritty but it seems to be a lot of work.
I guess I'm just lazy. A dice system like RM handles the above scene
quite well and I don't have to use my imagination to get gruesome since
the RM criticals provide it. My brain is then free to handle the whole
picture.
My bias in evaluating system is on how slow or how much work combat is.
The thing I liked about Theatrix is that it was very subjective and not
overly detailed. However, to make the above situation more realistic,
the GM still has to get down to details. And, on top of that, will
probably end up having arguments about exactly how fast Joe Character will
really (for that case anyways). If it's going to get that detailed, I
might as well use a dice system where the mechanics handle everything.
My impression of Theatrix is that players will be willing to accept GM
mandated resolutions when most of the action are subjective and not overly
detailed. However, when the level of detail increases, so does the number
of resolutions and, at that level, the plot is probably not going to be
much help in deciding every little action. So, GM decisions will look
very arbitrary. Furthermore, the GM won't really have much to stand on if
challenged.
I guess what I see is that if the level of detail in action
resolution gets too high in Theatrix, this will lead to arguments between
GM and players. Which is not a good thing.
Alain
--
Andrew Finch
: Bingo! That's how we had to play to get Theatrix to work for us. Maybe
: we went too extreme but, all the examples given in the book plus the ones
: given here by David are mostly in that vein.
: Personally, I find this type of gaming fun. However, I'm not really
: interested in GMing them thought but playing, now I'd do that any
: day.
: Alain
Thanks Alain. We were wondering how to tighten up the combat example in
the book to be more useful. Now I know how to show the breaks in the
action the Director would use. We like this type of gaming too.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: The level of detail used by David to make a scene a bit less of a munchkin
: scene requires that the GM provide a lot of details. My position is that
: this is a lot of work for a GM. Why bother when some systems do all the
: work for you, freeing your brain to handle the real important stuff.
No system that I know of does this kind of work. Some make a simplified
stab at this kind of definition. Take the overbearing attack of the
charging monster. Very few combat systems even handle the tactical
implications of this kind of attack. Rolemaster does, but you have to
deal with the rest of the Rolemaster system, like double-open ending into
some stupid death every other roll. Champions has some of the best
tactical variation of any mechanics oriented game, but even in Champs,
you would have to give the creature a Martial Maneuver (Sacrifice Throw)
to handle this (although Knockback might give something like it, if
you're lucky). But then Champs hardly does a lot of the work for the GM.
Start a Champs combat and watch the game come to a grinding halt. Maybe
GURPS handles this better, I don't know. But we bother with this kind of
detail in Theatrix, because we feel it's worth it. Honestly, I don't know
that any diced system gives the same kind of feel.
As for the amount of work. I pulled out the description you're talking
about off the cuff. The problem is not indoing it, but in keeping that
pace for an entire game. But in Theatrix, the players are usually helping
you.
: My bias in evaluating system is on how slow or how much work combat is.
: The thing I liked about Theatrix is that it was very subjective and not
: overly detailed. However, to make the above situation more realistic,
: the GM still has to get down to details. And, on top of that, will
: probably end up having arguments about exactly how fast Joe Character will
: really (for that case anyways). If it's going to get that detailed, I
: might as well use a dice system where the mechanics handle everything.
Of course the GM still needs the details. Our point is to stop rolling the
dice and use the details instead. The more I play this way, the less
satisfactory 'I roll to hit ... I hit a 12 ... I do 15 damage' becomes.
As for the arguments, since when has a diced game stopped that 'The
monster has a 6 speed!'. Arguments come from the players feeling insecure
about something (with or without cause). In Theatrix, they have the
option of guaranteeing themselves security in situations that are
important to them, and the whole feel and method of the game is far more
cooperative than most rpg's. I find that this lessens arguments.
: My impression of Theatrix is that players will be willing to accept GM
: mandated resolutions when most of the action are subjective and not overly
: detailed. However, when the level of detail increases, so does the number
: of resolutions and, at that level, the plot is probably not going to be
: much help in deciding every little action. So, GM decisions will look
: very arbitrary. Furthermore, the GM won't really have much to stand on if
: challenged.
No, at this level the plot will help decide the overall outcome of a
fight, but not the individual details. However, I do not see why that
should make the GM's decisions seem arbitrary, unless the GM is a very
arbitrary person, with no feeling for the continuity of time and action in
his own gameworld. However, if this is the case, a diced system probably
won't help, as this kind of deficiency will show up in other places. Did
the fragment I gave in the original post seem arbitrary? Any more
arbitrary than a diced system?
The GM has the same ground to stand on as when challenged about all the
myriad things GM's get challenged on in diced games. The fact that he or
she is the GM. Attempting to regulate the interpersonal strife and
insecurities of the players of your game is a bad idea. If they can't
accept this stuff as a game, and get so they need to challenge the very
person they've given the job of referee, then something is wrong (and
I've seen this something wrong in plenty of game groups, and wish to stay
away from it). In Theatrix, we give the players some more control to help
buffer those feelings of insecurity, and remove those things people use
to hide their gripes behind, rather than communicating their problems
more directly, ie. the dice and their associated mechanics. A discussion
of this nature in most games centers around the never ending side issue
of rule interpretation. In Theatrix the discussion is about the problem,
ie. the player with the really fast character feels snubbed by a monster
faster than he is (which may be a legitimate gripe).
: I guess what I see is that if the level of detail in action
: resolution gets too high in Theatrix, this will lead to arguments between
: GM and players. Which is not a good thing.
No, it is not. But the level of detail is not the problem there. It may
be helping to bring out a problem, or to make an existing problem more
obvious because there's less to hide behind, but it is not the problem.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Loren Miller
>Yes, I hear what you're saying. The difference in a world-based game
>is not that the action has no introduction, nor conflict, nor
>resolution, it's simply that what the conflict turns out to be and how
>it is resolved are not decided in advance, whereas they are in what I
>would think of as a "plot-based" game.
Good grief! The conflict and its resolution are not decided in advance in
every plot-based game, only in ones where the players don't have any freedom
of action. In other words you're comparing the very worst plotted games to
the very best unplotted games.
Ray Trent
>: I'm not sure how you can say that the psychic has a chance of being wrong
>: while the forensic person does not. DNA finger printing is not a very
>
>A Theatrix Statement is an in-character declaration of a probabilistic
>nature. So, 'Aha, there's traces of blood here. Hmmm, type A negative
>(this is an improvised prop). I'll bet that if we send this sample for DNA
>fingerprinting, we'll find it matches our murder victim in there.', would
Hmm, my example was perhaps a bit too slippery. It was my intent to
portray the presense of a distinct psychic imprint as basically
equivilent to the presence of the blood/prints. Both were intended as
"props" in this sense.
In both cases, the conclusions drawn from the props (a: that only 1
person touched the door after the attack, and that b: the prints/blood
were from the victim) were intended as Statements regarding the
respective characters' analysis of the props, backed up by a Plot
Point to insure success (or can't you do that...I'm never quite sure).
At this point, the contradiction is between the conclusion of the
psychic and the improvised prop of the forensic specialist (which
implies the doorknob was touched after the attack). (or,
alternatively, the contradiction is between the psychic imprint and
the forensic conclusion).
I guess among other things, what I'm asking for is a better
explanation of:
a) How does the Director go about denying what seems like a perfectly
good "prop request" or improvisation (or do you just say, "sorry, no
blood")? To make it a more complicated problem, what if the "fact"
that there *cannot be* blood would give away some important dramatic
information that these characters shouldn't have yet. One idea would
be to say that the door is a dramatic prop immune to improvisation,
which would give away very little, but that could be difficult or all
too telling if the Actor improvised something around a seemingly
innocuous object (which turns out to be "dramatic" behind the scenes,
unbeknownst to the characters).
b) What the Director does if they realize they've allowed
contradicting improvisations without noticing (truly...i.e. s/he can't
figure out a kludge that fits the setting). If it would help, I can
keep throwing "accidentally" accepted improvisations at your solutions
until you run out of them (clones?, assuming I even want to allow
cloning in my world, which I probably don't if it's not high tech
enough, what if the DNA scanning character "conclusively proved" the
sample doesn't show the "DNA drift", to borrow a ST:tNGism, of a
clone...etc.).
>: the concept of statements. Theatrix's strength depends (at least in my
>: view) on the effective use of Statements.
>
>In part. But the other improvisations are as important.
Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify which types of
improvisations/actions the Actors can actually make that are really
authoritative (with or without Plot Point usage). I have a vague
memory of being confused by this in the rules, but please feel free to
point out the appropriate section if it's spell out explicitly.
One thing it might be good to do is to warn Directors about attempted
Actions (potentially reinforced with a Plot Point) that contain
implicit Statements, such as "I attempt to match that blood sample
with the blood of Suspect A, proving his guilt". These seem very
dangerous, and again could be denied while giving away little.
>might be to drop a Plot Point to know the style of swordplay of your
>opponents, 'I see you've studied under Fontain. A most excellent man, and
>a good swordsman, but his style was always weak in defending against the
>Florentine attack. Shall we give it a try?' That one Plot Point and some
Unless-a your opponent has a-studied his Agrippa...which I have! :-).
Ray Trent
>: I just wondered... If your plot neither included a psychic murderer
>: with an interest in the victims blood, then these seem to be a bit
>: difficult to include. Should you then disallow them, and if not,
>: how should you tackle them without scrapping your plot? ( I know there
>
>tackle this particular situation, and can it be done without scrapping the
>plot?
>Well, what's the plot?
Ok, here's something really simple:
Intro: The characters are introduced to the scene of the crime.
Plot Twist 1: the locked door nature of the crime.
Pinch 1: The characters investigate the appearant cause of death (whatever).
Midpoint: The characters realize that the victim was actually poisoned
with some slow acting exotic South American plant resin and locked
himself in the room.
Pinch 2: The characters investigate the poison, etc.
Plot Twist 2: The players discover out the identity of the killer.
Resolution: Confrontation, capture, trial, etc.
John H Kim
Loren Miller <lo...@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu> wrote:
>r...@clement.erg.sri.com (Ray Trent) writes:
>>The difference in a world-based game is not that the action has no
>>introduction, nor conflict, nor resolution, it's simply that what the
>>conflict turns out to be and how it is resolved are not decided in
>>advance, whereas they are in what I would think of as a "plot-based" game.
>
>Good grief! The conflict and its resolution are not decided in advance in
>every plot-based game, only in ones where the players don't have any freedom
>of action. In other words you're comparing the very worst plotted games to
>the very best unplotted games.
Excuse me? It seems to me that it is a fairly reasonable
definition that a "plotted game" is a game which is plotted in advance.
How is that "worst"? As it was expressed before, the players may
choose to cooperate in the plot - that is, a plot planned in advance
need not be railroading. I know of many people who enjoy a well-plotted
scenario.
I guess my main question is - what do you consider a "plot-based"
game? I defined "drama-based" plotting as where the GM prepares a
storyline for the game, as opposed to "world-based" plotting where he
prepares a starting situation and events that will happen unless the
players influence them.
A Lapalme
In a previous article, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) says:
>A Lapalme (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>
>: The level of detail used by David to make a scene a bit less of a munchkin
>: scene requires that the GM provide a lot of details. My position is that
>: this is a lot of work for a GM. Why bother when some systems do all the
>: work for you, freeing your brain to handle the real important stuff.
>
>No system that I know of does this kind of work. Some make a simplified
>stab at this kind of definition. Take the overbearing attack of the
>charging monster. Very few combat systems even handle the tactical
>implications of this kind of attack.
My point is, [I guess i wasn't clear enough], that kind of tactical detail
is not why I roleplay. Actually, that kind of tactical detail has nothing
to do with roleplay. It's more a combat thing than a roleplay thing.
The problem I have with Theatrix is that I want combat simple and quick.
It definitely is not simple when the GM has to think up some description
for every action in a combat. So, when I say I prefer dice system for
that kind of stuff I mean that dice system make it easy for me. A die
system may
not be perfect (actually it isn't perfect), but that is not my primary
concern when all I want is simplicity.
>Rolemaster does, but you have to
>deal with the rest of the Rolemaster system, like double-open ending into
>some stupid death every other roll.
That's not really a problem when you consider that the chance of doing
two-consecutive open-ended roll is 1 in 400. GM discretion should handle
these things. The difference here is that I don't have to do it for every
action. And that's all I'll say about RM.
>Champions has some of the best
>tactical variation of any mechanics oriented game, but even in Champs,
>you would have to give the creature a Martial Maneuver (Sacrifice Throw)
>to handle this (although Knockback might give something like it, if
>you're lucky). But then Champs hardly does a lot of the work for the GM.
>Start a Champs combat and watch the game come to a grinding halt. Maybe
>GURPS handles this better, I don't know. But we bother with this kind of
>detail in Theatrix, because we feel it's worth it. Honestly, I don't know
>that any diced system gives the same kind of feel.
>
Oh, I won't argue that point. A GM is much better qualified to give that
kind of feel than any dice system. No doubt about it.
>As for the amount of work. I pulled out the description you're talking
>about off the cuff. The problem is not indoing it, but in keeping that
>pace for an entire game. But in Theatrix, the players are usually helping
>you.
>
Guess I had the wrong type of players???
>: My bias in evaluating system is on how slow or how much work combat is.
>: The thing I liked about Theatrix is that it was very subjective and not
>: overly detailed. However, to make the above situation more realistic,
>: the GM still has to get down to details. And, on top of that, will
>: probably end up having arguments about exactly how fast Joe Character will
>: really (for that case anyways). If it's going to get that detailed, I
>: might as well use a dice system where the mechanics handle everything.
>
>Of course the GM still needs the details. Our point is to stop rolling the
>dice and use the details instead. The more I play this way, the less
>satisfactory 'I roll to hit ... I hit a 12 ... I do 15 damage' becomes.
>
Again, as I said above, that depends on the type of game you want.
Alain
--
Andrew Finch
: Ok, here's something really simple:
: Intro: The characters are introduced to the scene of the crime.
: Plot Twist 1: the locked door nature of the crime.
: Pinch 1: The characters investigate the appearant cause of death (whatever).
: Midpoint: The characters realize that the victim was actually poisoned
: with some slow acting exotic South American plant resin and locked
: himself in the room.
: Pinch 2: The characters investigate the poison, etc.
: Plot Twist 2: The players discover out the identity of the killer.
: Resolution: Confrontation, capture, trial, etc.
ME, with that plot, I would take those improvs in a second. They wouldn't
alter the basic structure of that plot, and even if they did, the plot is
so simple it can easily be changed. Now, some important improvisations do
complicate things. I like complex plots. But if you want a simple plot,
with no comlex science, and no psyionics, and no supernatural, ie. just
ordinary people on an ordinary investigation, then these improvisations
are not going to work for you. However, if the players are even
marginally aware of your intentions, then I can't see them making such
suggestions. Unless of course, they want a stranger game, and are asking
for one in this way. In which case, why not give them what they'll enjoy
playing most?
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: I guess my main question is - what do you consider a "plot-based"
: game? I defined "drama-based" plotting as where the GM prepares a
: storyline for the game, as opposed to "world-based" plotting where he
: prepares a starting situation and events that will happen unless the
: players influence them.
I'm not sure I see the difference between those two. If I design a
world-based game, with a situation that will happen unless influenced by
the players, have I just created a plot? This is the way I create a lot
of my plots. I just make sure there are reasons why the players will be
interested in the upcoming events. But I bet a lot of world-based GM's do
that too. Isn't that, preparing a storyline?
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: My point is, [I guess i wasn't clear enough], that kind of tactical detail
: is not why I roleplay. Actually, that kind of tactical detail has nothing
: to do with roleplay. It's more a combat thing than a roleplay thing.
I full on disagree. That kind of detail, in description of combat, in
description of interpersonal relationships, in description of mood, in
description of action, is exactly what roleplay is about. Roleplay is
nothing but description (this is a communal fantasy). And the more detail
you can give it, the more life it has. That's why 'I hit', or 'I make my
fix-it roll by 5', is so unacceptable to me.
: The problem I have with Theatrix is that I want combat simple and quick.
: It definitely is not simple when the GM has to think up some description
: for every action in a combat. So, when I say I prefer dice system for
: that kind of stuff I mean that dice system make it easy for me. A die
: system may
: not be perfect (actually it isn't perfect), but that is not my primary
: concern when all I want is simplicity.
O.K. All I want is to feel like I'm in the experience. And dice don't do
that for me.
: That's not really a problem when you consider that the chance of doing
: two-consecutive open-ended roll is 1 in 400. GM discretion should handle
: these things. The difference here is that I don't have to do it for every
: action. And that's all I'll say about RM.
I have seen so many wild and outrageous open-ends in Rolemaster, in every
game I've played of it. You often only have to open end once to make
things pretty hairy. But I see at least one or two double open-end per
game. Odds or not (rolled in the open too).
: Oh, I won't argue that point. A GM is much better qualified to give that
: kind of feel than any dice system. No doubt about it.
: Guess I had the wrong type of players???
Maybe they just don't have a lot of experience at this sort of thing yet
(or you, or both, or something else).
: >Of course the GM still needs the details. Our point is to stop rolling the
: >dice and use the details instead. The more I play this way, the less
: >satisfactory 'I roll to hit ... I hit a 12 ... I do 15 damage' becomes.
: >
: Again, as I said above, that depends on the type of game you want.
Yup.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
John H Kim
if I come off a bit harsh. This article concerns the drama-based vs.
world-based distinction again, as regards plotlines.
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>John H Kim (jh...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>: I defined "drama-based" plotting as where the GM prepares a storyline
>: for the game, as opposed to "world-based" plotting where he prepares
>: a starting situation and events that will happen unless the players
>: influence them.
>
>I'm not sure I see the difference between those two. If I design a
>world-based game, with a situation that will happen unless influenced by
>the players, have I just created a plot?
Sure you've created _a_ plot, but it is not the plot of the
game unless the PC's have no influence on events.
As for what the difference is - look at your own damn book.
_Theatrix_ has a chapter on Plotline. It recommends developing a
game's central plot by starting with the Resolution scene, and then
developing the scenes which lead up to that in a structured manner.
This is *not* a plot independent of the PC's, but rather one that is
intended to flow from their dramatic neccessity.
_Theatrix_ gives an example plotline about a group of DEA agents.
As a twist at the end, the smuggler kidnaps a close relation of one of
the agents and demands his cocaine back - leading to a gunfight in a
department store. This is a preplotted scene, which depends on the
PC's having seized his supply.
A similar world-based preparation might be detailing the
smuggler, and perhaps what his plans are _without_ interference
from the PC's. You details his personality, his resources, and
what (if anything) he knows about the agents. Then in play the GM
may decide on what his reaction is based on what the PC's do.
-*-*-*-
As another illustration...
A typical drama-based device is to have a contingent scene -
i.e. whenever the PC's reach this point, then they hear a scream of a
woman being attacked in the woods ahead. They arrive in time to chase
away or defeat the attackers, but the woman is dying - and gives them
a vital warning with her last words.
A more world-based game might have a timed event, instead. I.E.
the woman is attacked on Tuesday night at 9PM at that spot. If the PC's
get there before then, they find nothing; if they get there after then,
they find a dead body with tracks and perhaps other clues around it. If
they happen to be there exactly on time, they may be able to do something
about it, or at least spot the attackers.
John H Kim
call for order in the argument here.
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>A Lapalme (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>: My point is, [I guess i wasn't clear enough], that kind of tactical detail
>: is not why I roleplay. Actually, that kind of tactical detail has nothing
>: to do with roleplay. It's more a combat thing than a roleplay thing.
>
>I full on disagree. That kind of detail, in description of combat, in
>description of interpersonal relationships, in description of mood, in
>description of action, is exactly what roleplay is about.
This is getting ridiculous. Why each of you roleplays is your
own business. Arguing over what roleplay is _really_ about is stupid,
IMO. You may present different reasons why you roleplay, which could
be interesting (a thread of "What I look for in roleplaying?"). OTOH,
there is no right and wrong here - one cannot disagree.
David - Alain has done pretty much just what you asked: he tried
_Theatrix_ for a time to see how he liked it. I may be doing the same
in an upcoming sideline campaign, done in troupe style with alternating
GM's. I would think that if you are trying to promote _Theatrix_, you
would be interested in accomodating other views with your system, rather
than rejecting them.
Andrew Finch
: A typical drama-based device is to have a contingent scene -
: i.e. whenever the PC's reach this point, then they hear a scream of a
: woman being attacked in the woods ahead. They arrive in time to chase
: away or defeat the attackers, but the woman is dying - and gives them
: a vital warning with her last words.
: A more world-based game might have a timed event, instead. I.E.
: the woman is attacked on Tuesday night at 9PM at that spot. If the PC's
: get there before then, they find nothing; if they get there after then,
: they find a dead body with tracks and perhaps other clues around it. If
: they happen to be there exactly on time, they may be able to do something
: about it, or at least spot the attackers.
: John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
O.K. Who decides whether the PC's get there before 9PM or not? They do?
Would you time them. Say, start the game and tell them that it's now 5PM,
and what are they doing ... and then 4 hours into the game, wherever they
are, it's 9PM. That might be feesable except for any combat that goes on.
I suppose you could keep a rough accounting system of how much times has
passed in the world at any moment, but that seems sort of cumbersome. You
would have to play this live action, and then you enter into the book even
farther than Theatrix aims for, and you're very plotted, but just in a
different way.
Of course you could run a chronicled world, with the same characters, and
aim for plotlines that can be run live-action. Which is intriguing ...
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: IMO. You may present different reasons why you roleplay, which could
: be interesting (a thread of "What I look for in roleplaying?"). OTOH,
: there is no right and wrong here - one cannot disagree.
Of course we can disagree, this is .advocacy.
: David - Alain has done pretty much just what you asked: he tried
: _Theatrix_ for a time to see how he liked it. I may be doing the same
: in an upcoming sideline campaign, done in troupe style with alternating
: GM's. I would think that if you are trying to promote _Theatrix_, you
: would be interested in accomodating other views with your system, rather
: than rejecting them.
Of course Alain has done what we asked, and more. I'm not questioning his
good-will, or intentions, or right to speak on this issue (anyone should
be able to). I am presenting an alternative point of view, which happens
to be one I believe in, and having an argument ... a dialectic in
freeform. I accomodate a lot of other views, but that's not my purpose in
my discussion with Alain. I'm learning by it, and to do that I present
the best argument I can. Sometimes we argue a point which is more
emotional to one side or the other, but I don't think there's any lack of
respect. At least none was intended from my side.
: John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
>
>I full on disagree. That kind of detail, in description of combat, in
>description of interpersonal relationships, in description of mood, in
>description of action, is exactly what roleplay is about. Roleplay is
>nothing but description (this is a communal fantasy). And the more detail
>you can give it, the more life it has. That's why 'I hit', or 'I make my
>fix-it roll by 5', is so unacceptable to me.
>
Yes, but what if you (the player) has absolutely no experience with the
actions the character is to perform? Few people have any sort of combat
experience, short of watching movies. Is diceless roleplaying by
definition cinematic? If I was to play a car mechanic, and should repair a
car engine, and had no knowledge about the subject: If the character has
"superb" mechanic skills, could I just say: "I move the chortle to the
widget, and turn the screw on the preset harbnicator, so as to make the
kringdans go at twenty percent more RPM" and have the GM (here assumed to
be proficient in the subject matter) gnash his teeth, but still go with
the flow and say "OK. You succeed.". Or should he, since he knows you
(the player) is bogusing, say "That's bullshitting. It won't work. You
fail"?
>O.K. All I want is to feel like I'm in the experience. And dice don't do
>that for me.
>
Should I, as a computer scientist, groan loudly if someone "roleplays" a
computer scientist character in a totally bogus way (such as in the car
mechanic example above)? Or can two players use totally different
terminology when roleplaying the same situation, based on their individual
experiences in the field?
>I have seen so many wild and outrageous open-ends in Rolemaster, in every
>game I've played of it. You often only have to open end once to make
>things pretty hairy. But I see at least one or two double open-end per
>game. Odds or not (rolled in the open too).
>
So? I can transform this result into a colourful description of what
happened if the playing style requires that. The point in the dice vs.
diceless debate is that I cannot point an accusing finger at the GM and
say: "HE is the sole reason of the exceptional result". Dice do not favour
some players before others, neither openly nor hidden. GMs may.
>Maybe they just don't have a lot of experience at this sort of thing yet
>(or you, or both, or something else).
>
Few have. The first diceless RPG, Price Valiant, didn't (and still don't)
sell too well. OK, it uses coins instead of dice, but at least it was/is a
storytelling game first and foremost. But until recently people didn't
have Amber or Theatrix or Castle Falkenstein (for the latter case, people
_still_ don't have it :-) ).
>: >Of course the GM still needs the details. Our point is to stop rolling the
>: >dice and use the details instead. The more I play this way, the less
>: >satisfactory 'I roll to hit ... I hit a 12 ... I do 15 damage' becomes.
You are saying that rolling dice _causes_ bad roleplaying. Are you also
saying that _not_ rolling dice causes _good_ roleplaying?
>
>David Berkman
>Backstage Press
>
Inquiring minds request answers. Ignorant minds require answers.
- Tor Iver
--
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <tor...@pvv.unit.no> CS student at NTH, Trondheim, NO
Info: http://www.pvv.unit.no/~toriver/ Member of The Software Workshop, UNIT
"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
- Dr. Barry Gehm's corollary to Clarke's law
A Lapalme
In a previous article, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) says:
>: This is getting ridiculous. Why each of you roleplays is your
>: own business. Arguing over what roleplay is _really_ about is stupid,
>: IMO. You may present different reasons why you roleplay, which could
>: be interesting (a thread of "What I look for in roleplaying?"). OTOH,
>: there is no right and wrong here - one cannot disagree.
>
>Of course we can disagree, this is .advocacy.
>
>: David - Alain has done pretty much just what you asked: he tried
>Of course Alain has done what we asked, and more. I'm not questioning his
>good-will, or intentions, or right to speak on this issue (anyone should
>be able to). I am presenting an alternative point of view, which happens
>to be one I believe in, and having an argument ... a dialectic in
>freeform. I accomodate a lot of other views, but that's not my purpose in
>my discussion with Alain. I'm learning by it, and to do that I present
>the best argument I can. Sometimes we argue a point which is more
>emotional to one side or the other, but I don't think there's any lack of
>respect. At least none was intended from my side.
>
I don't feel like I'm being attacked. Like Dave said, we have some basic
disagreement on some things and I think we agree on others.
John, I see your point about our arguing what we consider roleplay. I was
fully aware of what I was doing when I posted this. I felt I had to
simply because I thought that my position on why I roleplay and what
aspects of roleplaying I like we important to the discussion. If no one
understands my bias, then my position is probably non-sensical.
Alain
--
A Lapalme
In a previous article, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) says:
Come on, Dave! The time spent is
dependent on the players. If the game starts at 4 PM game time and the
players decide to not do anything until morning, then it is morning and
they missed the 9 PM event. Or, if they decide to do something, get into
a fight, someone gets hurt and they have to get the person attended to and
end up waiting 3 hours in the emergency ward. Or, they end up following
another lead or thread which takes them to the other end of town. Or they
decide to go to the brothel and spend the night there! The possibilities
are endless, all are dependent on player decisions, each possibility has
interesting roleplay potential and each one of them will make them miss
the 9 PM event.
P.S. I keep a simple accounting system of time pass in my games. I've
been doing that since day one. I thought and still think it's hard not to
if you want some continuity and life in one's campaign. I've had
campaigns lasting 3 reall years and 10 game years. These campaigns were
great for several reasons, one of them being that the players had the
sense that their PCs were real (in some way). Without some kind of
timekeeping mechanism, there is no way this could have happened.
Alain
--
Andy Skinner
One thing that I think is a little funny in all this is the way some arguments
keep crossing over from side to side.
(from the diced/world-based perspective:)
about dice vs drama providing the outcome of an attempt to do something:
* dice provide a range of results, hopefully directly related to the skill of
the character (i.e. FUDGE gives range of results centered around skill)
* drama-based constrains what happens to what is needed by the plot or drama
about character improvisation:
* in world-based games, the GM has an idea of the world and what should happen
in that world--the actions of characters can only interact with that in
limited ways--they can do what their abilities let them, in dealing with
independently existing situations in the world
* improvisational games let players _change_ the world, not just interact with
it.
What seems funny to me is that Theatrix is said to be too limited in respect
to whether a character succeeds at a task, and too unlimited in what characters
(players, too, I think) can do with the world. I see distinctions in the
arguments, but occasionally it seems that when going from diced/drama arguments
to world/improv arguments, both sides switch places.
I am sure that some combination of the different styles is done in most (all?)
good games, and that different people prefer different weightings on different
styles. As long as Dave B doesn't try to force on us that all our games will
be better if we quit doing things our way and do things his way, I think we
could probably be helped by recognizing when it is appropriate to handle parts
of games his way. And some folks will want to do things more his way than
others, either because they find that they like that style of game better,
or had been trying unsuccessfully to do that style of game with diced games,
and it didn't work.
Pure simulation wouldn't work, in my opinion. ("I'm driving fast down the dirt
road." "You realize you haven't gone to the bathroom since yesterday morning,
and each bump reminds you that you _need_ to stop" "Darn! I keep forgetting to
say that I did that. OK, while I stop, I also put on deoderant and ...").
Pure drama/improv would seem to me more like Once Upon A Time (which I love,
and with that in mind, I might like Theatrix style games _sometimes_).
J.D. Frazer
articles at the top:
Andrew Finch of Backstage Press is unclear on John Kim's definitions of
World-based vs. Plot-based campaigns. I think the difference is clear, and
provide further clarification.
In article <2u8isu$i...@crl3.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch)
writes:
>
> O.K. Who decides whether the PC's get there before 9PM or not? They do?
> Would you time them. Say, start the game and tell them that it's now 5PM,
> and what are they doing ... and then 4 hours into the game, wherever they
> are, it's 9PM. That might be feesable except for any combat that goes on.
> I suppose you could keep a rough accounting system of how much times has
> passed in the world at any moment, but that seems sort of cumbersome. You
> would have to play this live action, and then you enter into the book
> even
> farther than Theatrix aims for, and you're very plotted, but just in a
> different way.
Um, Andrew, I think John Kim's point was pretty clear. Who says that the
PCs even have to *go* to where the woman is murdered? World-based campaigns
have a multitude of events that occur totally independant of the PCs --
like in Real Life (tm), the game universe carries on oblivious to where the
PCs are at any given moment. Important men and women may die, wars may
start, insignificant citizens get drunk and riot, a customs official is
bribed, a plot to assassinate the minister of trade is hatched by an
underground group... whatever. The PCs *can* cut into the intrigue and
action of any of these events, but that's up to them to be at the right
place at the right time. The world isn't going to wait around for them.
Plot-based campaigns very much so revolve around the actions of the PCs.
"World" events are really happenings that occur due to decisions made by
the player characters (who, like in a book -- which is necessarily
plot-based -- are the protagonists of the story and thus are the focus of
the book's universe). Specific events *must* occur for the plot to
progress, and PCs must by definition take part in them.
Conclusion: Plot-based and World-based campaigns are very different, which
is what I think John has been trying (and doing an admirable job) to
explain all along.
--
(J)ohn (D)ouglas Frazer Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?
a4...@mindlink.bc.ca Who will clean the janitors?
Vancouver, British Columbia
Ray Trent
>: Plot Twist 1: the locked door nature of the crime.
>: Pinch 1: The characters investigate the appearant cause of death (whatever).
>
>alter the basic structure of that plot, and even if they did, the plot is
>so simple it can easily be changed. Now, some important improvisations do
Well, ok, but it's not really fair to ask for a "really simple plot"
and then point out that it can easily be changed because it's so
simple. If you really want something more complicated, I could come up
with it (in my copious spare time...on second though, don't ask :-).
But in a sense I agree with you, given this plot, and the Theatrix
rules, I would accept the improvisation too (still not sure which one
or how I'd reconcile them, though...a psychic clone seems like just a
bit much...and I would tend to assume that the players (who had no
knowledge of what the other group did) weren't trying to achieve such
a weird outcome by their improvisations, but were just trying to
smoothly move the game along).
It seems very likely to me, however, that the original plot won't get
followed at all. I envision my players going on to investigate
something other than the cause of death after "finding" (creating)
such interesting and suggestive clues. My guess is they'd take the
"appearant" cause of death at face value and go some other way.
Which is fine, and I'd be willing to bet it could still be
interesting, but it requires the GM to improvise the entire rest of
the plot (as well as probably the murderer, unless the improvisation
happens to fit)...either that or casually throw out the bit about the
poison...but *that* is the kind of thing I think people are talking
about when they refer to GMs "steering" the players into the plot. I
must admit I find such steering a bit annoying myself, unless the GM's
really subtle about it.
On the other hand, I might not be so complacent about it if I'd spent
hours working out a complicated plot. Which makes me wonder whether
it's really worth the trouble to spend a lot of time creating a plot,
or if I should just go ahead and use what we've been referring to as
"world based" plotting.
But that leads me to ask what I should use instead of "Does the plot
require some outcome?" to primarily decide action resolution, if the
players have improvised away my plot (and, in fact, the circumstances
and events surrounding the core "plot elements").
John H Kim
(Aaagh, the sun! Hssss!), I suppose I was getting a bit touchy. Anyhow,
sorry to have interrupted the fight.
In this article I thought I'd share some thoughts on why _I_
roleplay (which is, of course, why all the rest of you should roleplay
as well @-).
A Lapalme <ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>John, I see your point about our arguing what we consider roleplay.
...
>I felt I had to simply because I thought that my position on why I
>roleplay and what aspects of roleplaying I like we important to the
>discussion.
Hmmm. There are a lot of reasons why I roleplay. Let me try
to separate some. As GM, my main kick is the act of creation -
inventing worlds, and cultures, and people, and situations, and so
forth. I often have fun just detailing a world I am planning - even
though I have no idea when I would next run a campaign there. During
the campaign, I prefer it if the players express a direction they
are interested in going.
I sometimes run more plotted, cinematic games as one-shot
adventures or tournaments. Pulp adventures, Westerns, mysteries, and
parodies (ex. _Paranoia_) are common for these. I haven't really
tried this for longer campaigns, as I think the plot would wear
thin for me.
As a player, I tend to get heavily into character. I often
become very interested in pushing my own agenda. I enjoy making
original and intriguing plans. I also enjoy in-character discussion,
especially probing ones concerning character. And I like cool fights
(depending on the system, to some degree).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
A Lapalme
In a previous article, jh...@merhaba.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) says:
> Hmm. Well, looking at some of this in the light of morning
>(Aaagh, the sun! Hssss!), I suppose I was getting a bit touchy. Anyhow,
>sorry to have interrupted the fight.
I needed a breather anyway :)
> Hmmm. There are a lot of reasons why I roleplay. Let me try
>to separate some. As GM, my main kick is the act of creation -
>inventing worlds, and cultures, and people, and situations, and so
>forth. I often have fun just detailing a world I am planning - even
>though I have no idea when I would next run a campaign there. During
>the campaign, I prefer it if the players express a direction they
>are interested in going.
>
> I sometimes run more plotted, cinematic games as one-shot
>adventures or tournaments. Pulp adventures, Westerns, mysteries, and
>parodies (ex. _Paranoia_) are common for these. I haven't really
>tried this for longer campaigns, as I think the plot would wear
>thin for me.
>
>
> As a player, I tend to get heavily into character. I often
>become very interested in pushing my own agenda. I enjoy making
>original and intriguing plans. I also enjoy in-character discussion,
>especially probing ones concerning character. And I like cool fights
>(depending on the system, to some degree).
>
Which doesn't put you very far away from me, I think. Therefore, you're
approach is the only good approach <grin>!
You know what's really frustrating about your posts John? I tend to agree
with them so I usually end up having to just watch a discussion you
participate in. Just watching is not my style. :)
To Dave Berkman:
Part of the reason why I disagree (and others too) with some of your
comments and approaches in Theatrix is because we seem to have very
different needs when it comes to roleplay (beside having fun I mean),
specially when GMing. So, I don't find it surprising that we are having
fundamental disagreement about things like dice versus diceless and plot
versus world based. We simply don't want the same thing out of the game.
Alain
--
John H Kim
extreme of world-based games.
Andy Skinner <ski...@fuzzy.stdavids.picker.com> wrote:
>Pure simulation wouldn't work, in my opinion. ("I'm driving fast down the
>dirt road." "You realize you haven't gone to the bathroom since yesterday
>morning, and each bump reminds you that you _need_ to stop" "Darn! I
>keep forgetting to say that I did that. OK, while I stop, I also put on
>deoderant and ...").
Hrrrrm. While I might accept that fairly few players would
be interested in pure simulation, your example is not at all problem
for that style. After all, a player in cinematic game does not have
to describe everything that would be seen in each camera shot of his
action.
A game can be done in varying levels of detail regardless of
whether it is dramatic or simulational. A player does not have to
specify every step of what his character does. It is *assumed* that
to get from one side of the room to another, the charcter moves his
legs and balances. Similarly, if the player declares "I charge and
attack with my sword", one can assume that he draws the sword during
the approach, and that his attack reflects the character's fighting
skill.
-*-*-*-
My general method is to take the player's statements as the
character's _intentions_. If doing something would be obvious to
the character, then I assume it is done unless the player specifies
otherwise.
For example: the players declare they are turning around and
heading back after exploring an abandoned mine. If there is a pitfall
they discovered on the way in, I assume they take precautions to avoid
it, unless all of the characters are fairly stupid.
-*-*-*-
Just because it is a simulation doesn't mean that it is an
minutely detailed simulation - just as a dramatic game is not the
dictation of a finished script.
A Lapalme
I'm not sure what is meant by a simulation.
In gaming I usually think of
simulations in terms of re-creating an historical battle (D-Day, Hastings)
using mechanics which can best simulate the historical perspective. Ie:
range artillery was different during WWII than the canons used during the
American Civil war.
In roleplaying, I'm a bit at a lost on how to differentiate simulations vs
non-simulation. One extreme approach might be that an RPG simulation can only
deal with real, current or historical facts and situations (ie magic,
cyberpunk, parellel universes, are out). NOn-simulation are everything else.
So... comments?
Alain
--
John H Kim
up with which I am thinking about. It is a storytelling campaign in a
fairly literal sense. (Since Alain is having trouble with agreeing with
me too much, I'll mention that I think it's much cooler than all of your
campaigns @-).
-*-*-*-
The heart of the campaign is a wraparound story of several
immortal characters - friends - who are gathered together in modern
times. They are reminiscing about earlier times, swapping stories of
experiences they had, which of course span all sorts of places and times
throughout history. There is room for a variety of characters - the
only requirement is that they be immortal (or _really_ long-lived) in
some way, and that they be friends. Thus we may have a vampire, a
mage, and so forth.
The idea is to run this with round-robin GMing. Each scenario
would end (or perhaps begin) with the friends talking around the
table. One of the players might start, "Yes, and remember the time
when... (etc.)." Someone else might answer "No, I wasn't there. Tell
me about it." Then in the next session, the player whose character
wasn't there GM's.
Anyhow, the idea is that the adventures need not be
chronologically connected, or follow in a fixed plot. OTOH, it is
extremely easy (and reasonable) for them to be linked in theme.
-*-*-*-
So anyhow, I was looking for comments - perhaps on troupe-style
GMing, or on non-linear plots, or similar. We were thinking that this
might be appropriate to try _Theatrix_. I see the non-linear structure
as being an advantage in a number of ways - but I am trying to predict
problems with it.
An advantage I see is that continuity errors are less of a
problem is the sessions are decades and continents apart. Also,
we could blame continuity errors on fault of memory - improvisations
or events perhaps could be canceled by spending a Plot Point,
saying "What? You're getting senile. That wasn't how it happened -
what _really_ happened was this...".
OTOH, this can quickly get pretty confusing. Continuity
definitely *is* a problem in things happening to the characters. That
they can't be killed is not so big a deal, IMO - they are pretty
darn resiliant, among other things. But less drastic changes are a
problem - lessons learned, information gained, and so forth.
Also, splitting up between different GM's can lead to some
disagreement. Does the mage's player decide how magic works? Or would
it be less biased to have someone else do that?
A Lapalme
John has a fascinating concept for a campaign idea. Following are a few
comments.
In a previous article, jh...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) says:
> OK. Here's a recent campaign idea which a friend of mine came
>up with which I am thinking about. It is a storytelling campaign in a
>fairly literal sense. (Since Alain is having trouble with agreeing with
>me too much, I'll mention that I think it's much cooler than all of your
>campaigns @-).
>
I'll work real work at controversy. After all, this is advocacy. :)
>-*-*-*-
>
> The heart of the campaign is a wraparound story of several
>immortal characters - friends - who are gathered together in modern
>times. They are reminiscing about earlier times, swapping stories of
>experiences they had, which of course span all sorts of places and times
>throughout history. There is room for a variety of characters - the
>only requirement is that they be immortal (or _really_ long-lived) in
>some way, and that they be friends. Thus we may have a vampire, a
>mage, and so forth.
>
> The idea is to run this with round-robin GMing. Each scenario
>would end (or perhaps begin) with the friends talking around the
>table. One of the players might start, "Yes, and remember the time
>when... (etc.)." Someone else might answer "No, I wasn't there. Tell
>me about it." Then in the next session, the player whose character
>wasn't there GM's.
>
>
> Anyhow, the idea is that the adventures need not be
>chronologically connected, or follow in a fixed plot. OTOH, it is
>extremely easy (and reasonable) for them to be linked in theme.
>
>-*-*-*-
>
> So anyhow, I was looking for comments - perhaps on troupe-style
>GMing, or on non-linear plots, or similar. We were thinking that this
>might be appropriate to try _Theatrix_. I see the non-linear structure
>as being an advantage in a number of ways - but I am trying to predict
>problems with it.
>
I really can see Theatrix being the ticket here. Since every player is
heavily involved in the campaign, they will more involved on the creation
side.
> An advantage I see is that continuity errors are less of a
>problem is the sessions are decades and continents apart. Also,
>we could blame continuity errors on fault of memory - improvisations
>or events perhaps could be canceled by spending a Plot Point,
>saying "What? You're getting senile. That wasn't how it happened -
>what _really_ happened was this...".
>
> OTOH, this can quickly get pretty confusing. Continuity
>definitely *is* a problem in things happening to the characters. That
>they can't be killed is not so big a deal, IMO - they are pretty
>darn resiliant, among other things. But less drastic changes are a
>problem - lessons learned, information gained, and so forth.
>
The only problem I see is maintaining interested in a campaign where there
is no solid goal, no chance of loosing one's character, and no central
theme (except for the theme of immortals exchanging tales, maybe in some
bar to add atmosphere).
How about putting the storytelling scenes in the far future? That would
allow the games to vary in genre: fantasy, roman, medieval, victorian,
pulp era, modern, cyberpunk, space exploration, etc..
You could also handle it slightly differently. Have the characters' souls
be immortal but not their bodies. Therefore, each adventure would have
its own risks, it could lead to interesting death scenes where the players
real ham it up and would allow a bit more flexibility on the part of the GM.
In the large sense, the campaign (calling it a campaign is probably as
misnomer), will need several themes. Otherwise there won't be much
holding it together.
> Also, splitting up between different GM's can lead to some
>disagreement. Does the mage's player decide how magic works? Or would
>it be less biased to have someone else do that?
>
I don't see it as a problem. Given that stories will be seperated by
decades, centuries or even millenia, you guys could decided that the
nature of magic can change, just like technology (maybe use the Niven concept
of magic mana being a non renewable resource).
So, where do I sign up? This sounds like fun.
Alain
--
Kid Kibbitz
reminiscing over old times.
In article <2ub2jm$l...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>
jh...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
> OK. Here's a recent campaign idea which a friend of mine came
>up with which I am thinking about. It is a storytelling campaign in a
>fairly literal sense.
>
> The heart of the campaign is a wraparound story of several
>immortal characters - friends - who are gathered together in modern
>times. They are reminiscing about earlier times, swapping stories of
>experiences they had, which of course span all sorts of places and times
>throughout history. There is room for a variety of characters - the
>only requirement is that they be immortal (or _really_ long-lived) in
>some way, and that they be friends. Thus we may have a vampire, a
>mage, and so forth.
>
> The idea is to run this with round-robin GMing. Each scenario
>would end (or perhaps begin) with the friends talking around the
>table. One of the players might start, "Yes, and remember the time
>when... (etc.)." Someone else might answer "No, I wasn't there. Tell
>me about it." Then in the next session, the player whose character
>wasn't there GM's.
>
> So anyhow, I was looking for comments - perhaps on troupe-style
>GMing, or on non-linear plots, or similar. We were thinking that this
>might be appropriate to try _Theatrix_. I see the non-linear structure
>as being an advantage in a number of ways - but I am trying to predict
>problems with it.
It reminds me in basic structure of a Dream-Park game--i.e., the mechanism
allows the characters to live indefinitely (there is no chance of the PC's
dying), the plots are typically episodic rather than epic/continuous, etc.
I think it's a good setup for a storytelling/drama-based system (or even
running systemless).
On the down side, it could, if you're not careful, degenerate into an
extended John Lovitz SNL sketch--"Yeah, and I... uh... slew the dragon!
With... with just a Q-tip in one hand and a melon-baller in the other!
Yeah, that's the ticket!" While I think your group is probably better than
that, it is the sort of mechanism that leads to one-upsmanship.
There's also the slight loss of suspense knowing that there's no death
awaiting the PC's.
Other than that, though, it sounds like a lot of fun! A suggestion I'd
have, though, is maybe to have your cake and eat it too, so to speak--run
the group of immortals as a veteran team in the present tense, interspersed
with the reminiscent episodes (perhaps roughly one session of real-time
followed by one session of reminisce). That might help to solve your
continuity deficit, as well as put some danger back into it. You wouldn't
even have to use the same gaming system for the two elements; there's no
reason the "real-time" episodes couldn't be run under HERO, GURPS, or the
system of your choice, while the flash-back episodes are run in a more
free-form fashion.
Doing it in this way allows neat use of the flashback mechanism suggested
in Theatrix, in a slightly larger sense, for setting up actions in the
real-time.
Of course, this is a complete bastardization of your (friend's) original
idea, but... so be it. :)
--Kid Kibbitz
Andrew Finch
: Come on, Dave! The time spent is
: dependent on the players. If the game starts at 4 PM game time and the
: players decide to not do anything until morning, then it is morning and
: they missed the 9 PM event.
So, they have no idea anything is going to heppen in this park? Then
they'll never get there, unless you drop clues, or they 'chance' upon it.
Either way is plot driven.
: Or, if they decide to do something, get into
: a fight, someone gets hurt and they have to get the person attended to and
: end up waiting 3 hours in the emergency ward.
Who decides how badly this guy is hurt? And who decides how long they'll
have to spend in the emergency ward (healing mechanics are pretty sparse
in most systems).
: Or, they end up following
: another lead or thread which takes them to the other end of town.
Who would provide such a false lead?
: Or they
: decide to go to the brothel and spend the night there!
Again, are we to assume they are ignoring the clues already given or that
they are supposed to make it to that park without any clue to go there at
all.
: The possibilities
: are endless, all are dependent on player decisions, each possibility has
: interesting roleplay potential and each one of them will make them miss
: the 9 PM event.
I don't believe the possibilities are all that endless. You can either
have them at that park at 9, without being heavyhanded at all. Or you can
have them miss the event. The entire world beyond the players skin is up
to you. You hold so much of the control. How can you blame being there or
not on the players, unless you drop clues to give them the chance to be
there, and they specifically ignore those clues, knowing that they might
miss something. And then you're into plot-based territory.
: sense that their PCs were real (in some way). Without some kind of
: timekeeping mechanism, there is no way this could have happened.
: Alain
In my games, I specifically mess with time to allow things to come
together. I may stop someone in the middle of a fight, and then move onto
another group. When that other group arrives at the scene of the fight,
I'll tell them they hear a scuffle up ahead, and then continue the combat
with everyone there. Unless of course, someone specifically wants to wait
until morning for leaving, and the fight is at night, etc. Since I never
controvene what the characters know to be continuous and real, ie. I
don't break the continuity of information within the game, it works.
Without a timekeeping system. We like the use of fuzzy time. We get
specific only when that specifity would matter.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: PCs even have to *go* to where the woman is murdered? World-based campaigns
: have a multitude of events that occur totally independant of the PCs --
: like in Real Life (tm), the game universe carries on oblivious to where the
: PCs are at any given moment.
Riiiight. And what UberCray Super Computer is simulating this entirely
realistic multitude of events. If the game is any like the ones I know,
the GM has worked out a limited set of possibilities made of some new
stuff he/she has thought of, and a bunch of older ongoing plot threads.
Which, by the way, is no different from a drama-based game. Which means
that the park scene must be important. Or do you simulate 'every' event
that the players miss. You would hardly have time for them. I mean, you've
got what, 5 or 6 players, and how many thousands of people to take care of
in your world?
: Important men and women may die, wars may
: start, insignificant citizens get drunk and riot, a customs official is
: bribed, a plot to assassinate the minister of trade is hatched by an
: underground group... whatever. The PCs *can* cut into the intrigue and
: action of any of these events, but that's up to them to be at the right
: place at the right time. The world isn't going to wait around for them.
You mean that you've planed certain plot events, which the PC's may cut
into if they wish, but that plot events will continue on a pre-decided
course unless they change them? Welcome to a plot-based game. Unless of
course you don't design a limited number of plot events, and are actually
simulating a whole world, in which case, I would like to meet you. How
much time do you spend on your game?
: Plot-based campaigns very much so revolve around the actions of the PCs.
: "World" events are really happenings that occur due to decisions made by
: the player characters (who, like in a book -- which is necessarily
: plot-based -- are the protagonists of the story and thus are the focus of
: the book's universe). Specific events *must* occur for the plot to
: progress, and PCs must by definition take part in them.
Wrong. I have plots the pC's miss. They go on without them, and get
picked up when they interfere in the lives of the PC's again. Plots don't
simply drop away every time the PC's look in a different direction.
Continuity is as important in a drama-based game, only in a different way.
: Conclusion: Plot-based and World-based campaigns are very different, which
: is what I think John has been trying (and doing an admirable job) to
: explain all along.
I still disagree.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: >: Plot Twist 1: the locked door nature of the crime.
: >: Pinch 1: The characters investigate the appearant cause of death (whatever).
: On the other hand, I might not be so complacent about it if I'd spent
: hours working out a complicated plot. Which makes me wonder whether
: it's really worth the trouble to spend a lot of time creating a plot,
: or if I should just go ahead and use what we've been referring to as
: "world based" plotting.
Don't steer. Either fit the improv into your plot, or deny the improv, or
let the PC's go and think fast.
There is no right way, here. Do what is best for you and your game. But
if you decide to think fast and develop a new line of action, envision
and end for it, and work from there.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Kid Kibbitz
between "world-based" and "plot-based" resolutions.
In article <2uc9va$7...@crl.crl.com> bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes:
>: Conclusion: Plot-based and World-based campaigns are very different, which
>: is what I think John has been trying (and doing an admirable job) to
>: explain all along.
>
>I still disagree.
I'm scratching my head a little bit at this point.
If there's no difference between these two, what the heck is so special
about Theatrix???
I suppose you will say plot-driven as opposed to diced resolution (but
then, maybe not?). If so, I think that's really a part of what we're all
talking about here. Part of living in a "world" (as opposed to a "plot")
is that a world is expected to behave in a manner consistent for all its
inhabitants, while part of living in a plot is, in some sense, having a
special status in the world. Diced mechanisms are, in theory, designed to
allow a reasonably objective set of mechanisms which provide a range of
outcomes for most events. This is basically going along with the
world-based philosophy that characters are just another group of people,
whom the laws of the land act upon in the same way as everyone else.
Drama-based resolution says, to me, let's throw that out the window; we
don't *WANT* "real-world" results here, we want fun results. Which is
perfectly valid, but decidedly different.
So even the diced vs. diceless aspect of "primitive" RPGs vs Theatrix
represent an attempt to distinguish between "world-based" and "plot-based"
resolutions.
--Kid Kibbitz
A Lapalme
Responding to Dave's comments on how the GM is in total control of time
passage.
In a previous article, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) says:
>A Lapalme (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>
>: Come on, Dave! The time spent is
>: dependent on the players. If the game starts at 4 PM game time and the
>: players decide to not do anything until morning, then it is morning and
>: they missed the 9 PM event.
>
>So, they have no idea anything is going to heppen in this park? Then
>they'll never get there, unless you drop clues, or they 'chance' upon it.
>Either way is plot driven.
I'm getting I'm a bit annoyed here. Who ever said they did not
know what is happening in the par? They do. There ma;y have been several
clues dropped and they misunderstood or decided to ignore the clue about
the park.
>
>: Or, if they decide to do something, get into
>: a fight, someone gets hurt and they have to get the person attended to and
>: end up waiting 3 hours in the emergency ward.
>
>Who decides how badly this guy is hurt? And who decides how long they'll
>have to spend in the emergency ward (healing mechanics are pretty sparse
>in most systems).
Doesn't matter who decides how bad this guy gets hurt. If they get in a
stupid fight, a fight in which it should be obvious there are overmatched,
someone will get hurt. Once that happens, then logical consequences takes
care of the rest. Emergency wards are not known for processing patients
rapidly. Or the only safe hospital for them (as determined in previous
scenarios) is across town and they don't have enough money for a cab ride
(again the fare is based on previous scenes). The point is that players
will be players and do what they want to do GM plot or no GM plot.
>
>: Or, they end up following
>: another lead or thread which takes them to the other end of town.
>
>Who would provide such a false lead?
the GM would obviously. Or the players reached the wrong conclusion. It
happends. Are you implying the GM should not provide false leads.
>
>: Or they
>: decide to go to the brothel and spend the night there!
>
>Again, are we to assume they are ignoring the clues already given or that
>they are supposed to make it to that park without any clue to go there at
>all.
Yes, that is what one could suppose. Or they simply decide it is not
worth the risk.
>
>: The possibilities
>: are endless, all are dependent on player decisions, each possibility has
>: interesting roleplay potential and each one of them will make them miss
>: the 9 PM event.
>
>I don't believe the possibilities are all that endless. You can either
>have them at that park at 9, without being heavyhanded at all. Or you can
>have them miss the event.
Sorry, I don't buy this at all. If I'm not being heavy handed, then I'm
giving them the freedom of choice. If they have the freedom of choice,
then they can decide, for whatever reason, not to go to the park. It is
up to them. Not up to the GM. And if the GM tries to stear them back
towards the park they will be able to accuse the GM of railroading them
(since they made it obvious they did not want to go there).
> The entire world beyond the players skin is up
>to you. You hold so much of the control. How can you blame being there or
>not on the players, unless you drop clues to give them the chance to be
>there, and they specifically ignore those clues, knowing that they might
>miss something. And then you're into plot-based territory.
>
Sorry, I don't follow this at all.
>: sense that their PCs were real (in some way). Without some kind of
>: timekeeping mechanism, there is no way this could have happened.
>
>: Alain
>
>In my games, I specifically mess with time to allow things to come
>together. I may stop someone in the middle of a fight, and then move onto
>another group. When that other group arrives at the scene of the fight,
>I'll tell them they hear a scuffle up ahead, and then continue the combat
>with everyone there. Unless of course, someone specifically wants to wait
>until morning for leaving, and the fight is at night, etc. Since I never
>controvene what the characters know to be continuous and real, ie. I
>don't break the continuity of information within the game, it works.
>Without a timekeeping system. We like the use of fuzzy time. We get
>specific only when that specifity would matter.
>
>David Berkman
>Backstage Press
>
>
>
The point here is that you say that the GM can arrange things so that the
players will be at the scene, set for a certain place and time, at the
certain place and time. If they are not, then, the GM is totally to
blame. So, to prevent that the GM would:
1- present only clues to force them to draw the conclusion that they have
to be at the park at 9: PM (I'm force to conclude this from your post
because you say if the players do something else it is because the players
were not given proper clues or were given other misleading clues)
2- eliminate any other encounter(since only the GM decides what they
encounter, then the best way is to eliminate any encounter before the scene.)
3- take away any player initiative (ie if they want to meet someone
specific the GM has to say no so and so is not available).
You seem to assume that players are only playing for the plot. That is
not always the case. That's all I'm trying to say.
Alain
--
John H Kim
event will happen at a given time and place in the game-world unless the
PC's interfere with the subject first. The example: a woman is attacked
on Tuesday night at 9PM at a given spot. The point has been addressed by
other posters, but since I brought it up, I thought I should answer.
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>O.K. Who decides whether the PC's get there before 9PM or not? They do?
>Would you time them. Say, start the game and tell them that it's now 5PM,
>and what are they doing ... and then 4 hours into the game, wherever they
>are, it's 9PM. That might be feesable except for any combat that goes on.
Errrh? What about just keeping track of time in the game-world.
It's not that tough. I.E. The players say they hike 4 miles - it is now
an hour or so later. You don't generally have to be all that exact - if
time becomes an issue, you just think back over what happened recently
and how much time it would take (talked for an hour, traveled by horse
to town, had dinner, etc.).
>
>I suppose you could keep a rough accounting system of how much times has
>passed in the world at any moment, but that seems sort of cumbersome. You
>would have to play this live action, ...
Well, no you don't have to play it live action. You just have
to stop and think every once and a while. (Not that playing live action
is a bad idea - just that it is not neccessary).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
Ray Trent
>: On the other hand, I might not be so complacent about it if I'd spent
>: hours working out a complicated plot. Which makes me wonder whether
>: it's really worth the trouble to spend a lot of time creating a plot,
>
>if you decide to think fast and develop a new line of action, envision
>and end for it, and work from there.
What resolution mechanism do you use for actions? Is it consistent?
In my "original plot" it might be necessary that the characters fail
at an initial attempt to discover the cause of death, so that later
they can find out it's really poison.
In the revised plot (where I've replaced the killer with a psychic
clone), this may no longer even be the way the victim was
killed. Presumably, I don't go back and let the previous action
succeed (even if that might now be necessary for the new plot...say,
cause of death: serious psychic trauma...he died of fear).
You must either be able to think much faster than I, or have much less
complicated and/or convoluted plots to be able to come up with
something consistent with past, present, and future game events on the
fly.
It also doesn't answer the original question: what to do if you've
"accidentally" allowed contradicting improvisations to occur (or a
later revised plot is found to contradict an earlier improvisation)?
And the correlary question: what do you do if you've spent a lot of
time on your plot and don't want to scrap it and start over, but have
"accidentally" allowed a contradicting improvisation?
Sure, either of these can happen in a "world based" game, but in
traditional "world based" games, you don't normally let the players
change the world reality much, at least not in ways that matter.
Which leads me towards the conclusion that you can't allow
improvisations on anything that really matters. I haven't reached that
conclusion yet, but it sounds like so much work otherwise that my
head's spinning at the prospect of GMing without it. Even so, my other
question was: what if the players don't know (and aren't supposed to
know) that some feature of the game world "really matters"? Is nothing
in Theatrix supposed to matter that much?
Maybe this would be a simple question: can Plot Points be used to
succeed at an action that the Director has determined the plot
requires must fail? Maybe that's *too* simple a question. Do you
understand what I'm asking?
It's bad enough having to think of all the things PCs might decide to
throw at your world...I've known naive GMs to do something like run a
virtual-reality mystery campaign without considering the PCs first
action might be to shut the whole damn thing down and reload it from
the trusted off-site archives that any sane and consistent world would
have (happened to one of our GMs recently...his fledging AI wasn't
such a problem after that...luckily that wasn't the core problem, if
you'll pardon the pun).
Adding in the element that the players can actually change the world
reality seems like it would make this 10x worse.
J.D. Frazer
escape me at the moment) define as world-based is actually plot-based.
In article <2uc9va$7...@crl.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch)
writes:
>
> Riiiight. And what UberCray Super Computer is simulating this entirely
> realistic multitude of events.
Tsk, Such sarcasm. If I wasn't clear, I probably deserve it, but I thought
I explained it well.
> If the game is any like the ones I know, the GM has worked out a limited
> set of possibilities made of some new stuff he/she has thought of, and a
> bunch of older ongoing plot threads. Which, by the way, is no different
> from a drama-based game. Which means that the park scene must be
> important. Or do you simulate 'every' event that the players miss. You
> would hardly have time for them. I mean, you've got what, 5 or 6 players,
> and how many thousands of people to take care of in your world?
The park scene *might* be important. It might be utterly disconnected from
the other things that the characters are doing. Random events happen, yes?
Why, oh why, does every event have to have some bearing on the plot?
If the players miss the events that were planned, they are resolved either
randomly or simply proceed as planned. And no, I don't resolve millions of
events. Just a couple dozen. Enough to give the world depth.
> You mean that you've planed certain plot events, which the PC's may cut
> into if they wish, but that plot events will continue on a pre-decided
> course unless they change them? Welcome to a plot-based game. Unless of
> course you don't design a limited number of plot events, and are actually
> simulating a whole world, in which case, I would like to meet you. How
> much time do you spend on your game?
I think I see where this is heading. See below.
> Wrong. I have plots the pC's miss. They go on without them, and get
> picked up when they interfere in the lives of the PC's again. Plots don't
> simply drop away every time the PC's look in a different direction.
> Continuity is as important in a drama-based game, only in a different
> way.
*Why* can't plots simply drop away if the players miss them? How many times
have you missed an opportunity to change your own life in reality? Do you
even know? What would have happened if you said hello to that attractive
stranger at the bus stop? Would you have been married, shacked up, slapped,
ignored? But you didn't say hello...
> I still disagree.
I think what's happening here is that David has a different opinion on what
the definition of World-based and plot-based are. Whihc renders this entire
debate moot.
John H Kim
reply to David Berkman.
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>A Lapalme (ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>: Come on, Dave! The time spent is dependent on the players. If the game
>: starts at 4 PM game time and the players decide to not do anything until
>: morning, then it is morning and they missed the 9 PM event.
>
>So, they have no idea anything is going to heppen in this park? Then
>they'll never get there, unless you drop clues, or they 'chance' upon it.
>Either way is plot driven.
Well, I suppose it depends on your definition of "plot driven",
I suppose. The GM could just work out what the crime is, who is planning
it, and so forth. In a pure world-based game, the GM does not try to
fudge clues to try to point the players in a given direction. Rather,
he simply works out what clues would be reasonably left by such a
crime.
In a larger picture, perhaps the gang which attacked the woman
had previously attacked the PC's. They might choose to track and
investigate this gang as a result - predicting this, the GM works out
what the gang will be doing. They might follow a gang member, or stake
out a common hang-out place (a bar, a few blocks, or the park).
Following the member means that they may be noticed. They have no
reason to choose the park over the bar. If they stake out the bar,
they would miss the gang, but they might be able to ask people there
for information about the gang - regulars might see and know a fair
bit about them.
If they don't happen upon the attack (which is most likely),
then the next day, they may read about it in the papers, and want to
look into it. There will be an investigation which they may become
involved in.
OTOH, they might just turn over everything they know to the
police, and work on additional security so they don't have to worry
about this or other gangs. The woman attacked would just be an event
in the newspaper.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
As for "either" way being plot driven, you seem to have missed
the point. There are *far* more than two ways this can happen. They
might never get there, and simply read about it in the morning paper -
or perhaps later on try to connect this with the gang they were dealing
with.
>
>: The possibilities are endless, all are dependent on player decisions,
>: each possibility has interesting roleplay potential and each one of
>: them will make them miss the 9 PM event.
>
>I don't believe the possibilities are all that endless. You can either
>have them at that park at 9, without being heavyhanded at all. Or you can
>have them miss the event.
...
>How can you blame being there or not on the players, unless you drop clues
>to give them the chance to be there, and they specifically ignore those
>clues, knowing that they might miss something. And then you're into
>plot-based territory.
Hello? I don't _blame_ the players for anything. I think your
assumption here is that they are _supposed_ to be there for the event,
which would be a characteristic of a drama-based plot. In a world-based
game, there is not a path which the PC's are _supposed_ to take. The
event is not a plot turn, or a hint to the players - it is just an event.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
As another example, as you describe your drama-based plots, the
PC's may ignore it, but it will always come back for them to deal with.
This may not be true in a world-based game.
In my modern paranormals campaign, the PC's were originally drawn
together by being recruited by a explosives man named Kurt Fenlon, who
wanted to investigate the purpose behind a very powerful secret society
which he defected from. They started with contact with some other
defectors from the society, but eventually they turned Kurt down, and
went their own way.
That is - they ignored an ultra-powerful secret society when
they were among the few who knew about it. However, the plot did not
come back on them. They heard from Kurt from time to time - he tried
recruiting some other people, and he got in trouble with the police
at one point. However, they never did deal with the question of that
secret society.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>In my games, I specifically mess with time to allow things to come
>together. [...] Since I never controvene what the characters know to
>be continuous and real, ie. I don't break the continuity of information
>within the game, it works. Without a timekeeping system. We like the
>use of fuzzy time.
Certainly. Like I said - this is a characteristic of drama-based
games, which you seem to prefer. (I assume my example of the contingent
scene would similarly be appropriate for your campaign). My point was
that there is a different and equally valid approach in world-based
games.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Whatever else is true, you - trust your little finger.
Andrew Finch
: Diced mechanisms are, in theory, designed to
: allow a reasonably objective set of mechanisms which provide a range of
: outcomes for most events. This is basically going along with the
: world-based philosophy that characters are just another group of people,
: whom the laws of the land act upon in the same way as everyone else.
Dice are a hangover from wargaming, from which rpg's developed. Dice
mechanics are a means of enforcing an even objective playing field, while
adding a random component so that no decision could be absolute. That way
you could play a game a dozen times without it becoming repetitive. Or,
you could replay the battle at Bunker Hill again and again, trying new
tactics, without repetition. Wargames such as Diplomacy tend to develop
standard openings and responses which don't have the feel of real combat.
However, an even playing field and enforced randomness are not necessary,
and possibly not even desirable for what rpg's have become.
My insistance that there is no difference between world-based and
drama-based games has a point. If there is no difference. If you've been
setting up plots and running drama the whole time you've insisted you
were developing some 'objective' reality, then you can drop the
'objective' pretence. And once you do this, you open up a whole new way
of looking at the same situations, and a slew of new ways of reacting.
Of course, if there were some specific reason for maintaining the
objective pretence, ie. if it gets you something you could not otherwise
have, then we would really have a split.
I have therefore tried to show that maintaining this pretense buys you
nothing that you can't do anyway, and limits you from actions which would
be otherwise beneficial or interesting. I have done this since most
arguments against a drama-based methodology have been that you would lose
something in the consistency of the world by adopting one. If this is not
true, and there is little difference, then maybe there's something else
worth trying.
Or not. In any case, I'm enjoying learning through this debate.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: Errrh? What about just keeping track of time in the game-world.
: It's not that tough. I.E. The players say they hike 4 miles - it is now
: an hour or so later. You don't generally have to be all that exact - if
: time becomes an issue, you just think back over what happened recently
: and how much time it would take (talked for an hour, traveled by horse
: to town, had dinner, etc.).
Well, since how long each thing took is pretty flexible, and your making a
rough guess, then you're kind of just deciding as GM. If you're just going
to decide whther they've missed the deadline or not, then you're using a
drama-based resolution. 'Yeah, their close enough, and I want them to
encounter this happening while it's going on.' You're making time
flexible which gives you the leeway for coincidence (or the leeway to say
they don't make it in time). This is a plot based decision, within the
confines of continuity of course (which is just what I've been suggesting
... I think).
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
: 1- present only clues to force them to draw the conclusion that they have
: to be at the park at 9: PM (I'm force to conclude this from your post
: because you say if the players do something else it is because the players
: were not given proper clues or were given other misleading clues)
Either you drop clues to get them there, or they are not going to arrive.
Why should they go to a park they probably don't know even exists. And if
you drop contradictory clues, you have obviosly planned for them not
being there, as they may take up the other trail. Either way, this sounds
awfully plot-based.
: 2- eliminate any other encounter(since only the GM decides what they
: encounter, then the best way is to eliminate any encounter before the scene.)
No, have any other encounters they want. And the players can be stupid
and suffer the consequences. But consequences is really a plot-based
term. I mean, in a world-based game if this woman dies in the park, the
PC's go on with their lives. So what.
So either you give them an encounter, knowing you are lureing them away
from the park, which can be an interesting tactic, which I've used, but
is plot-based. Or the players can get themselves in trouble, and miss the
meeting in the park. But if that miss is to matter, it's because there is
a plot (for a whole world, why should it matter?).
: 3- take away any player initiative (ie if they want to meet someone
: specific the GM has to say no so and so is not available).
No need. See the above. My point is that if there's a meeting, and a
place to be, and something interesting to the PC's about to happen, and
they should be there, and there are consequences for not being there,
then this world-based example isn't to world-based at all, but rather
plot-based.
And if this is just another thing happening in the world, which is not
made to be of any interest to the PC's, then you've got me. Why plan such
things. Do you plan everything in the world? No, you plan those things
the PC's would be interested in. It's a plot.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
John H Kim
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>You mean that you've planned certain plot events, which the PC's may cut
>into if they wish, but that plot events will continue on a pre-decided
>course unless they change them? Welcome to a plot-based game.
Well, call it what you like - but I think this is fundamentally
different than the style advocated in _Theatrix_. Yes, they both have
things happen in the world - but that doesn't mean that there are no
differences.
The handling of time, for example. I already mentioned the
difference between planned scenes and timed events. Also, _Theatrix_
advocates mainly linear plots - i.e. plots which develop in a given
direction, which build rather than wander. _Theatrix_ requires that
things be broken into discrete plots and subplots (it bases Plot Point
rewards on this) - rather than a mess of connected and unconnected
events.
>
>Wrong. I have plots the PC's miss. They go on without them, and get
>picked up when they interfere in the lives of the PC's again. Plots don't
>simply drop away every time the PC's look in a different direction.
>Continuity is as important in a drama-based game, only in a different way.
In a different way than what?
I think what you are saying here is that there is a difference
between world-based and drama-based. I think the distinction of PC's
"missing" plots uses drama-based terminology - saying that they missed
implies that they should have been trying to hit them.
I *constantly* have potentially interesting things which
the PC's don't follow up on. It's just not possible for them to do
everything. I don't regard this as "missing" - I regard it as
choosing direction.
Andrew Finch
: What resolution mechanism do you use for actions? Is it consistent?
Yes, the Resolution Flowcharts. Start with the Basic Resolution Flowchart
and go from there.
: In the revised plot (where I've replaced the killer with a psychic
: clone), this may no longer even be the way the victim was
: killed. Presumably, I don't go back and let the previous action
: succeed (even if that might now be necessary for the new plot...say,
: cause of death: serious psychic trauma...he died of fear).
No, you don't break consistency by going back.
: You must either be able to think much faster than I, or have much less
: complicated and/or convoluted plots to be able to come up with
: something consistent with past, present, and future game events on the
: fly.
Coming up with something consistent with past and present is easy. Those
things that just can't be consistent with past and present aren't
allowed, and the players know this and don't generally suggest them. The
future handles itself until it becomes the past or present. On any one
plotline, as it develops, the range of improvisational options will
obviously constrict, as the plotline constricts towards its single
resolution. Therefore, fewer wide improvisations are acceptable as the
plotline continues (more of the world has become fact, and is not so
maleable). But then again, the players have a better and better idea of
what the plotline is as it goes along, and unless they are just trying to
aggravate the GM, will be able to tailor their improvs to the emerging
plot, which they themselves have helped develop.
: It also doesn't answer the original question: what to do if you've
: "accidentally" allowed contradicting improvisations to occur (or a
: later revised plot is found to contradict an earlier improvisation)?
You do the same thing you do as GM whenever you make a mistake like this,
you appologize, say 'oops', and try not to do it again. Of course you must
'go back' and decide which information will be the correct information.
But this can happen with or without dice and improvisation. I've made
mistakes like this in D&D and Champions.
: And the correlary question: what do you do if you've spent a lot of
: time on your plot and don't want to scrap it and start over, but have
: "accidentally" allowed a contradicting improvisation?
See the above. What else can you do when you make an irreconcilable
mistake. But these are rare in actual practice, at least that I've seen.
: Sure, either of these can happen in a "world based" game, but in
: traditional "world based" games, you don't normally let the players
: change the world reality much, at least not in ways that matter.
No, but there are not that many improvs that can cause this kind of
mistake in actual practice, and they are usually so large that you would
notice such a mistake before it occured, unless you are asleep.
: Which leads me towards the conclusion that you can't allow
: improvisations on anything that really matters. I haven't reached that
: conclusion yet, but it sounds like so much work otherwise that my
: head's spinning at the prospect of GMing without it. Even so, my other
: question was: what if the players don't know (and aren't supposed to
: know) that some feature of the game world "really matters"? Is nothing
: in Theatrix supposed to matter that much?
You can deny an improvisation with 'I'm sorry I can't allow that, and you
might realize why later.' That's good enough. You don't need to do this
often at all, and it gives away so little information that it just doesn't
make a difference. I give away much more than that in Cut Scenes, without
ever ruining the surprises. Heck, I've probably already foreshadowed such
an object, and the players should realize it's important. They just have
to roleplay as though the characters did not know.
: Maybe this would be a simple question: can Plot Points be used to
: succeed at an action that the Director has determined the plot
: requires must fail? Maybe that's *too* simple a question. Do you
: understand what I'm asking?
Can you Activate a Descriptor or Personality Trait for Success in an
action that *must* Fail? Well, try to find a way to allow it to Succeeed
and still get your plot off. Or allow it to Succeed and have big
consequences for it. This might lead to a 'failed' Episode, but that was
the players' decision. Or, if the Success will short circuit the plot,
then you have learned a valuable lesson. Try not to build plots that can
be short circuited with one successful action. Sometimes though, this
will just happen. Simply deny the Plot Point expenditure. I've made this
mistake, and what I find helpful is 'Look, you really have to fail here.
Is there some reason you can think of that your character would fail,
that you would be happy with?' That actually works really well, becuase
it gives the player control, and allows him to fail in a way he doesn't mind.
: It's bad enough having to think of all the things PCs might decide to
: throw at your world...I've known naive GMs to do something like run a
: virtual-reality mystery campaign without considering the PCs first
: action might be to shut the whole damn thing down and reload it from
: the trusted off-site archives that any sane and consistent world would
: have (happened to one of our GMs recently...his fledging AI wasn't
: such a problem after that...luckily that wasn't the core problem, if
: you'll pardon the pun).
I'm due to run such a campaign at Origins. However, the PC's are hired
specifically because the company owning the AI has no wish to shut down
the virtual-reality. The PC's are supposed to save them from such an
eventuality. Also, another way out. What if the growth and learning of
the AI can not simply be off-loaded? What if shut-down would cause
irreversible loss? Shut it down, and you make some powerful people very
mad. Plus, lets say the Ai found a way to transfer itself to another
main-frame before shut-down. And now it's after the PC's too, for trying
to kill it.
: Adding in the element that the players can actually change the world
: reality seems like it would make this 10x worse.
And a lot more fun. Look, you probably know how to do a lot of complicated
things that don't seem so complicated now. How did you get that way?
Practice. We do this all the time. All your points are good. We handle
them every week, and they get handled. I'm not theorizing with you. We
have more than one group running this, and we run at a lot of cons, with
people we've never seen before. It works. It takes practice. It's not an
easy way to GM, but once you've got the hang of it, it's a lot of fun.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Kid Kibbitz
roleplay, in relation to 'world-based' vs. 'drama-based.'
In article <2ud62s$h...@crl2.crl.com> bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes:
>Kid Kibbitz (kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
>
>: Diced mechanisms are, in theory, designed to
>: allow a reasonably objective set of mechanisms which provide a range of
>: outcomes for most events. This is basically going along with the
>: world-based philosophy that characters are just another group of people,
>: whom the laws of the land act upon in the same way as everyone else.
>
>Dice are a hangover from wargaming, from which rpg's developed.
Maybe; so? Computers are a hangover from cryptography and arithmetic, but
I don't have any problems using mine to play adventure games or read
UseNet, either. My point is, attacking the origins of dice in gaming is
moot; the real question is, are they desirable or not? All else is
smokescreen.
>However, an even playing field and enforced randomness are not necessary,
>and possibly not even desirable for what rpg's have become.
....And possibly are desirable.
That's what a lot of us have been arguing, anyway, and I don't think you
can honestly tell us that we don't enjoy our gaming! The fact that we
enjoy our games with even playing fields and random distributions of events
makes them desirable, period.
>My insistance that there is no difference between world-based and
>drama-based games has a point. If there is no difference. If you've been
>setting up plots and running drama the whole time you've insisted you
>were developing some 'objective' reality, then you can drop the
>'objective' pretence. And once you do this, you open up a whole new way
>of looking at the same situations, and a slew of new ways of reacting.
No one claims to have set up an 'objective' reality. I *do* claim to have
set up a *MORE* 'objective' reality than would be generated by drama-based
resolution. And your insistence that there is no difference is misplaced;
there is an obvious difference every time I go to mediate players' (well,
characters') interactions with the gameworld. Obvious to me and my
players, at any rate, which is all that really matters in the long run.
>Of course, if there were some specific reason for maintaining the
>objective pretence, ie. if it gets you something you could not otherwise
>have, then we would really have a split.
I think that's indeed the case. I do get something out of the 'objective
pretense'; namely, greater objectivity and greater enjoyment.
>I have therefore tried to show that maintaining this pretense buys you
>nothing that you can't do anyway...
No offense, but... keep trying, cuz I'm not yet convinced.
>and limits you from actions which would
>be otherwise beneficial or interesting. I have done this since most
>arguments against a drama-based methodology have been that you would lose
>something in the consistency of the world by adopting one. If this is not
>true, and there is little difference, then maybe there's something else
>worth trying.
Again, I never said it wasn't worth trying; I said I didn't enjoy it.
--Kid Kibbitz
Andrew Finch
: Well, I suppose it depends on your definition of "plot driven",
: I suppose. The GM could just work out what the crime is, who is planning
: it, and so forth. In a pure world-based game, the GM does not try to
: fudge clues to try to point the players in a given direction. Rather,
: he simply works out what clues would be reasonably left by such a
: crime.
I don't attempt to fudge clues. The players can miss clues. The woman's
death can go unavenged. That's a losing Episode, and the PC's will walk
away scratching their heads, probably as dissatisfied as I would be.
: If they don't happen upon the attack (which is most likely),
: then the next day, they may read about it in the papers, and want to
: look into it. There will be an investigation which they may become
: involved in.
Yes, there are many ways in which they may become involved in the plot.
: OTOH, they might just turn over everything they know to the
: police, and work on additional security so they don't have to worry
: about this or other gangs. The woman attacked would just be an event
: in the newspaper.
Not very satisfying, but it may have significance later. If there were
very many such non-significant events though, the game would probably
suffer, for lack of plots.
: As for "either" way being plot driven, you seem to have missed
: the point. There are *far* more than two ways this can happen. They
: might never get there, and simply read about it in the morning paper -
: or perhaps later on try to connect this with the gang they were dealing
: with.
All ways into the plot. Yes, in my games the PC's often choose unexpected
ways of becoming involved. Still plot-based though.
: Hello? I don't _blame_ the players for anything. I think your
: assumption here is that they are _supposed_ to be there for the event,
: which would be a characteristic of a drama-based plot. In a world-based
: game, there is not a path which the PC's are _supposed_ to take. The
: event is not a plot turn, or a hint to the players - it is just an event.
No, it's a plot turn, but one that may not work out if you don't think
about that inadvance. And as I've said, if lots of these don't work out,
the game usually becomes dissatisfying. An indication of the necessity of
plots.
: As another example, as you describe your drama-based plots, the
: PC's may ignore it, but it will always come back for them to deal with.
: This may not be true in a world-based game.
: In my modern paranormals campaign, the PC's were originally drawn
: together by being recruited by a explosives man named Kurt Fenlon, who
: wanted to investigate the purpose behind a very powerful secret society
: which he defected from. They started with contact with some other
: defectors from the society, but eventually they turned Kurt down, and
: went their own way.
: That is - they ignored an ultra-powerful secret society when
: they were among the few who knew about it. However, the plot did not
: come back on them. They heard from Kurt from time to time - he tried
: recruiting some other people, and he got in trouble with the police
: at one point. However, they never did deal with the question of that
: secret society.
Yet. Yet. If you ever re-enter this plot, it would be very interesting
because it has a past. I was also speaking about more meaningful plots,
which tend to return with more vengenace than your example above, because
they are more intimately connected with the PC's. Of course, the PC's
were not very connected with the events above, and they simply ignored
them, which seems like planning down the drain. Why do that? Small plots
can be fun, too, but they should be meaningful enough to follow. Again,
if you do thgis too often the game will probably suffer. Since your games
don't seem to, you probably have a fair number of plots which are bigger
and better connected to the PC's.
: Certainly. Like I said - this is a characteristic of drama-based
: games, which you seem to prefer. (I assume my example of the contingent
: scene would similarly be appropriate for your campaign). My point was
: that there is a different and equally valid approach in world-based
: games.
Of course just as valid. But what do you gain from them that would not be
gained from a drama-based approach?
David Berkman
Backstage Press
John H Kim
the issue is - if the GM makes a decision in the game, does that mean
that it is automatically drama-based resolution? (My answer, as you
might guess, is no.)
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>John H Kim (jh...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>: You don't generally have to be all that exact - if time becomes an issue,
>: you just think back over what happened recently and how much time it
>: would take (talked for an hour, traveled by horse to town, had dinner,
>: etc.).
>
>Well, since how long each thing took is pretty flexible, and your making a
>rough guess, then you're kind of just deciding as GM. If you're just going
>to decide whther they've missed the deadline or not, then you're using a
>drama-based resolution. 'Yeah, their close enough, and I want them to
>encounter this happening while it's going on.'
Hello? _You_ might always do this whenever you make a decision,
but that doesn't mean that everyone else does.
Certainly there may be some bias on my part in that direction,
but I certainly would not say that every decision I make is drama-based
resolution. Oftentimes I will just use a player estimate of time - for
example, asking them "How long do you think you spent talking with the
old man?" Or if I estimate a range of times when they might show up,
I might roll a die.
-*-*-*-
I'm not saying I never use drama-based resolution, but every
GM decision is *not* automatically drama-based. And mine often are not.
The reason I prefer world-based decision-making in my campaigns
is because that is the sort of game I prefer it as a player. Certainly
there are players who prefer drama-based - but I run the sort of games
I prefer as a player. Call it personal bias.
John H Kim
I have been driving at.
This concerns the built-up example of a campaign event - a woman
being attacked (and killed) in a park by a gang.
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>John H Kim (jh...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>: In a pure world-based game, the GM does not try to fudge clues to try
>: to point the players in a given direction. Rather, he simply works
>: out what clues would be reasonably left by such a crime.
>
>I don't attempt to fudge clues. The players can miss clues. The woman's
>death can go unavenged. That's a losing Episode, and the PC's will walk
>away scratching their heads, probably as dissatisfied as I would be.
Aha! I think I see the difference here.
I don't think I would be dissatisfied with that as a player.
I think I would take it in character: it's just another murder you read
about in the paper. A bit more like reality. In fact, as a player, I
rather like it - it puts a bit more bite into the world.
Yes - I know I am different from many other players in this
way. I just don't like the winning/losing distinction. I *like* this
sort of thing: the unavenged death, the broken marriage, the simmering
prejudice, the wasted sacrifice - to me, these are the essence of drama
as opposed to melodrama.
But then, I have wierd tastes.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>: OTOH, they might just turn over everything they know to the
>: police, and work on additional security so they don't have to worry
>: about this or other gangs. The woman attacked would just be an event
>: in the newspaper.
>
>Not very satisfying, but it may have significance later. If there were
>very many such non-significant events though, the game would probably
>suffer, for lack of plots.
Perhaps this is so in your games. IMO, the more non-significant
events, the better. Lack of plot material is certainly a problem, but
if I was capable of generating more non-significant events in addition
to the significant ones, then I would. I'd love to be able to have
reports of local events in my game - a little newspaper of the game-
world. It just takes too much time for me to do.
John H Kim
reminiscing over old times.
Kid Kibbitz <kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>jh...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>A suggestion I'd have, though, is maybe to have your cake and eat it too,
>so to speak--run the group of immortals as a veteran team in the present
>tense, interspersed with the reminiscent episodes (perhaps roughly one
>session of real-time followed by one session of reminisce).
...
>Doing it in this way allows neat use of the flashback mechanism suggested
>in Theatrix, in a slightly larger sense, for setting up actions in the
>real-time.
Well, I was thinking about this. The problem I see is that it
causes problems for unconnected reminiscent episodes. If there is a
"real" plot going on, then the reminisces have to somehow relate to
that, or they will seem, well, irrelevant. This puts a strong limitation
on what the reminiscent episodes can be about - and one thing I really
like about the setup is how open the framework is. I.E. I want to run
a Wild West episode. I don't need to fit it into the Big Picture (TM),
I can just use whatever cool idea I come up with.
Maybe we can keep the present-tense plot as something that may
later be injected. I.E. the immortals start by just swapping stories,
and this goes on for a while, developing lots of threads, characters,
and adventures in the past. Then (if things feel a little old @-),
something in the present might happen - and they realize that it draws
together certain threads in the past. Things develop with increasing
speed in the present, and yet they still have to recount what happened
before to solve things.
Ooog - good thing Rain's on vacation, I hope he doesn't read
this. It would make a neat plot twist. OTOH, other players should
have input on this whole thing. Ah, well.