John's FAQ

[John H Kim]

The rec.games.frp.advocacy FAQ
==============================
PART I: The Purpose of the Group and actual FAQ's

0) What's this fack thing?
1) What is "on topic" for this newsgroup?
2) What's with all the acronyms?
3) What is diceless role-playing?
4) What do you mean by "plot" and "plotting"?
5) What about all these other terms?
6) What are these "narrative stances" that people refer to?
7) What are the campaign "axes"?
8) What is the point of all this abstract discussion?

(Part II of this FAQ will deal with "plot", and Part III will deal
with "diceless roleplaying")
Copies of this FAQ can be found on the WWW at:
"http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~jhkim/rpg/styles.html"

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
0) What's this fack thing?

"FAQ" stands for "Frequently Asked Questions". This is a
regularly posted document intended to introduce newcomers to
common terminology and issues in this forum. A copy of these
FAQ postings can be found on the Web at:
"http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~jhkim/rpg/styles.html"

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
1) What is "on topic" for this newsgroup?

This newsgroup is about comparative discussion of various
role-playing systems and styles -- their merits and flaws, how well
they work in different situations, etc. Until there is consensus
otherwise, this includes all styles of role-play, including
live-action -- just make sure to label your posts clearly.

Thus, GURPS versus HERO would technically be on-topic. However,
most of what has gone on is more detailed discussion of differing
styles and features of games. For example: "Do you prefer to have
rules and traits which govern a character's personality?" or
"What are the consequences of timelining a plot in advance?"

You should try to avoid asking or stating that a game or
technique is generically "better" or "worse". The one thing which
is strikingly clear from discussion here is that different people
prefer different things in their games. Try to keep this in mind.

The other thing is to be careful about is misunderstood
generalizations. Someone might say that "plotted" games are
restrictive, and you respond that he is wrong -- they are inherently
more flexible. Most likely, he is referring to a different type
of game when he says "plotted" than you think of when you say
"plotted".

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
2) What's with all the acronyms?

POV: "Point of View"
IC: "In-Character Stance", i.e. the state of thinking from your
character's POV
OOC: "Out Of Character"
SOD: "Suspension of Disbelief"
d-b: "Description-Based", i.e. using qualitative verbal description
rather than game mechanics
DIP: "Develop-In-Play", referring to players who only have a rough
character sketch which is only filled out during the campaign
DAS: "Develop-At-Start", i.e. players who write a detailed character
background/personality by the time the campaign begins

plus more general ones like-

CF: "Castle Falkenstein", a card-using Victorian fantasy game
OTE: "Over the Edge", a dice-using freeform conspiracy game
RM: "Rolemaster"
PC: "Player Character" - usually handled by a player
NPC: "Non-Player Character" - usually handled by the GM
YMMV: "your mileage may vary"
IMHO: "in my humble opinion"

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
3) What is diceless role-playing?

Technically, diceless role-playing is simply any RPG which
does not use any randomizers like dice or cards. There are
currently four published diceless RPG "systems", including
The _Amber_ DPRG, by Phage Press; _Theatrix_, by Backstage Press;
_Persona_, by Tesarta Industries, Inc.; and _Epiphany_, by BTRC.

Some games use non-numerical randomizers, such as _Everway_'s
Vision Cards, and are thus not "diceless" in this sense.
These are also distinct from most "dice-using" games, however.
Also, some dice-using games have notes on how to run the game
in a diceless fashion, such as FUDGE by Grey Ghost Games and
_Witchcraft_ by Myrmidon Press.

However, you should *not* assume that all diceless is like it is
described in these games. "Diceless" encompasses a wide variety
of playing styles, ranging from interactive storytelling to
competitive simulation-style games.

For more information on this, see part III of this FAQ.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
4) What do you mean by "plot" and "plotting"?

We don't. @-) By that, I mean that there are many different
meanings of the term "plot" floating around: at least three and
probably more. For more information, see part 2 of this FAQ.
For now, I will outline three common usages:

1) Simply a bare sketch of a goal for the PC's and challenges to
them reaching that goal. This is sometimes called a
"plot-premise" or "line of tension".
2) A GM-planned sequence of events based on what she expects the
PC's to do -- called a "plot-plan" or "preplanned plot".
3) Just what happens in the game, regardless of how or even
whether the GM planned it. This is sometimes called
"plot-story" or simply "story".

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
5) What about all these other terms?

"group contract": The set of conventions the players and GM agree
on: including rule system, but also issues like "The GM will
fudge things so PCs won't die pointless deaths", or "Pulp genre
conventions take precedence over common sense", or even
"Don't let the cat in while we play: she bites legs."

"metagame": dealing with concerns of the players and GM, as opposed
to the characters in the gameworld. Examples of metagame
concerns could include "spotlight time", plot scripting, and
who brought the munchies.

"intra-game": dealing solely with matters within the gameworld.
This would include a character's plans and actions, the
environment, etc.

"gamist": is the esthetic of games which try to set up a fair
challenge for the *players* (as opposed to the PC's). The
challenges may be tactical combat, intellectual mysteries,
social manipulation, etc. At the heart of this contract
is the expectation that the players will try to solve the
problems they are presented with -- and in turn the GM will
make these challenges solvable if they act intelligently
within the contract.

"dramatic": is the esthetic of games which try to make the
action into a satisfying and coherent storyline. See
Part II of this FAQ for more on this style.

"simulationist": is the esthetic of games where effort is made
to not let meta-game concerns during play affect in-game
resolution of events. That is, a fully simulationist GM will
not fudge results to save PC's or to save her plot -- and
will not add forces to the game world just to make things
more challenging for the PC's. Such a GM may make meta-game
decisions like who is playing which character, when to break
for dinner, whether or not to play out a long conversation
word for word, etc. -- just so long as she tries to resolve
it as what would "really" happen.

"Triangle model": Describing a game as a balance of Gamist,
Dramatic, and Simulationist concerns -- i.e. someone
might describe themselves as mostly Gamist with some
Dramatic influence, but not very Simulationist.

"immersion": This is a term for trying to cut out all meta-game
information and view things from the Point-of-View of your
character (or for GM's just look at the game world facts).
It is associated with the "In-Character" stance -- see the
next section below.

"mechanic": A formal method of resolution, which need not be numerical
(i.e. Plot Points and Drama Deck cards are mechanics) but must be
specific. A statement like "low roll good, lower roll better" is
not considered a mechanic unless it is spelled out just how low
is good. On the other hand, a statement like "a 02 or less is a
critical" is a mechanic.

There has been some discussion over what exactly constitutes
a mechanic: until that is resolved I am keeping the above
description, but direct people to ongoing discussion.

"mechanics-light, mechanicless": Games which have very few to no
mechanics (sometimes known as "freeform", but this term is less
clear). _Over the Edge_ is mechanics-light, for example.
A game using the rule of "GM Decides" is a "mechanicless" game.
(Technically, one can say it has a single mechanic, but the
term "mechanicless" still stands for this type of game.)

"non-numerical": a game or game mechanic which does not use meta-game
numbers. Non-numerical randomizers could be judging the
result of an action by the theme of a tarot card drawn.
Non-numerical stats would be text description without any
associated game number.

"spotlight time": The amount of time a player/PC is the center of
attention in the group.

"firewalling": This is the practice of not letting Out-of-Character
information you know as a player affect your decisions in play,
which can apply to both the GM and the player.

"abstraction": This is substituting a simpler game handling for
something that in the game-world is more complex. In other
words, the GM might say - `You manage to pick the lock' rather
than describing how each tumbler was handled.

"script immunity": This is part of the group contract under which
certain characters are protected from dying at a metagame level.
For example, the GM might fudge so as not to kill PC's unless
they do something stupid. This might also be handled by
mechanics such as "Fortune Points" which players spend to save
their PC's. This can also apply to important NPC's (such as
villians in _James Bond_, who can use "Survival Points" to
always get away.)

"Fair Play": This is another group assumption -- that the GM will
present problems which are challenging but solvable by the
PC's. If the players act intelligently, it is expected that
the PC's should succeed and be rewarded. This is often an
integral part of "Gamist" contracts (see above).

"assumption clash": When the GM's understanding of how the game-world
works conflicts with a player's assumptions. For example, as a
player you might think that your tough fighter can kill a charging
boar with his sword with little fear of injury, while your GM
thinks that a boar can easily ignore any sword swing and will
break both his legs. You say "I crouch and prepare to meet its
rush" and get severely mauled.
It doesn't matter who is *right* in this case -- the
problem is that their understanding differs. The player are not
privy to information her character would know, and thus she made
decisions which simply didn't make sense in the game world.

"interactive literature": a term for various forms of Live Action
Role-playing Games (LARP's), which involve the interactive creation
of a story. Not everything the characters do is neccessarily acted
out, but they share some qualities: There are almost never NPC's,
so both protagonists and antagonists are run by players. The players
generally wander around a large area -- a Judge/GM is not always on
hand, and bulky rule are rarely carried. Thus, the resolution
mechanics must be minimal.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
6) What are these "narrative stances" that people refer to?

This was first formulated by Kevin Hardwick and Sarah Kahn, and was
so useful that it immediately became part of the jargon of the group.
These stances are not exactly defined, but

[A] Actor Stance
The Actor Stance is the one in which the player contemplates
what she can do to portray her character more effectively to the
other participants in the game. That is, you use it when you
have already fixed what your character is going to do -- and
your concern is primarily portraying her to others.
This is different from Author stance because it is not
concerned with character development -- instead of writing the
character or trying to think *as* the character, the player
consciously trying to portray the character as defined. (i.e.
"Michael has a weakness for women, so I'll say pick-up lines
to this NPC.")

[B] Audience Stance
The position from which the player observes, enjoys, and
evaluates the game or aspects of it as himself, rather than as his
character. This is also a meta-game stance, as it refers to the
*player's* viewing and interpretation of the game, which may be
very different from the character's. This stance is the stance
from which things like dramatic irony or historical accuracy are
judged. It is also the stance adopted whenever the player
witnesses an in-game event of which his character is utterly
unaware.

[C] Author Stance
The position from which the player evaluates the game with an
eye towards changing it or affecting its development -- either
through her character or possibly through the world itself. The
player adopts this when consciously writing new parts of her
character's background, for example. Usually it is associated
with the player watching the development of the game, and trying
to spice it up by throwing in new twists (i.e. "Hey, we've just
gotten involved with pirates -- why don't I write in that my
character's ex-girlfriend was killed in a pirate attack!")
Thus, the player is trying to stay consistent with the
character as defined, but isn't thinking *as* the character.

[D] In-Character Stance (IC) or Immersion Stance
The view of the game from within the inside of the game world
and its reality, usually from within the mind of a player
character living within that reality. The player is thinking
*as* the character -- he doesn't acknowledge Out-of-Character
(OOC) information and tries to concentrate on what the character
is experiencing. In theory, acting In-Character becomes second
nature -- the player does not look at his character sheet and see
"Weakness for Women". Rather, he hears the GM describe a woman
and reacts by saying a pass at her.
There are a lot of conflicting claims regarding this stance.
Everyone agrees that it is difficult to get into. Once there,
some people talk about having different emotional responses or
different personality types (see below). In general, this is
said to take much preparation effort to drop into -- making the
character feel real in your mind. It also is fragile:
distractions can drop you out, making you uncertain of what the
character would "really" do.

[?] ``Deep In-Character Stance'' (``Deep IC'')
This is a possible deeper version of IC stance, where the
player begins to "channel" her character and just *be* that
person. In theory, this is likened to certain mask work or
experiences of spiritual possession -- that is, even though the
character is not an external entity, the player feels as though
something else were taking over, and she is unable to control
what the character is doing in the game.

Of course, in any RPG, multiple stances may be taken. Often
players will have a preference for one stance over another, but
still a player will usually switch back and forth. Some claim that
this is done quickly and effortlessly -- others claim that certain
stances (mostly In-Character) require much time and effort to drop
into.

Much discussion hinges on how to encourage and facilitate
people's preferences in these regards. For those who want to
play in the "In-Character"(IC) stance, it is important not to have
metagame distractions. They need to be able to get as close as
possible to their character's Point-of-View (POV).

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
7) What are the campaign "Axes"? (as submitted by Rodney Payne)

This is a concept for "campaign classification" developed by Leon
von Stauber and Rodney Payne. From the initial concept, Leon had
created a large number of axes on which campaigns could be classified:
Plot, World, Drama, Realism, Romanticism, Conflict, Authorship,
Direction, Mechanism. His original article is on the web at:

http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~jhkim/rpg/styles/plot_axes.html

A limitation of this approach is that it requires diametrically
opposed tendencies. The opposites of drama or realism or such
are contentious points under discussion. An important distinction
concerns "direction"...
-> DIRECTED/NATURAL

A *directed* GM is one who makes a conscious effort during game play
to guide the campaign development. This doesn't mean that she has a
fixed plot which she is sticking to, however. There is also purely
off-the-cuff directing: guiding the campaign towards higher drama
on the spur of the moment, or perhaps just keeping the action moving.

A *natural* GM is one who simply responds to players actions in a
manner most consistent with his conception of the world, and perhaps
his understanding of the group contract. He leaves dealing with
meta-game issues like drama or pacing up to the group, rather than
taking a leadership role.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
8) What is the point of all this abstract discussion?

Many times the discussion in .advocacy seems purely academic,
unrelated to any practical issues of actually running or playing in
a game. However, some of us feel that by some analysis of the
techniques and styles which occur in RPG's, we can help improve actual
game play. Some possibilities:

-> Creating tools - like the questionaire in Part II of the FAQ -
to help GM's and player's figure out their style differences
and reach a compromise (or simply avoid playing together if
their styles are too different)
-> Give GM's and player's new ideas for methods and style of
play, which may help them to stretch out to different and
interesting variations.
-> Analyze what techniques work best with what styles -- i.e.
pro's and con's based on classification. (i.e. If you have
Develop-In-Play players, then explicitly announced campaign
themes might not be that useful).
-> Allow for easier discussion when different GM's or players
are comparing notes, by creating a common vocabulary of how
to refer to certain features
-> Keep up interest level in games

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting sun.
jh...@columbia.edu | But Proof - Proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Columbia University | - Paul Simon, _Proof_

[John H Kim]

The rec.games.frp.advocacy FAQ
==============================
PART II: Plotting Distinctions

1) What is "dramatic plotting" in an RPG?
(by John Kim <jh...@columbia.edu>)
1) What kinds of questions come up in deciding on plotting style?
( by Mary Kuhner <mkku...@genetics.washington.edu> )
2) How do interesting things which engage the motivations of the
PC's become a part of the setting? (by John Kim <jh...@columbia.edu>)
3) What techniques do GM's actually use in preparing for games?
(by John Kim <jh...@columbia.edu>)

Copies of this FAQ can be found on the WWW at:
"http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~jhkim/rpg/styles.html"

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
1) What does it mean to pre-plot a game?
(by John Kim <jh...@columbia.edu>)

Much discussion has been on the subject of "dramatic plotting",
based on certain formulas from dramatic theory. The basic concept
is that the GM should prepare lines of tension which will specifically
engage the PC's. In short, the GM looks at each of the PC's, and the
PC's as a whole, to determine what will engage them: what is
interesting and meaningful to them.

The GM then prepares background on elements which will lead
to this engagement, and arranges for the PC's to get an inkling
of what is there. (This is often called a "hook" in some circles,
or the "plot-premise").

The key is that once the PC's have committed themselves to
a line of tension (or perhaps even before), the GM prepares a
series of scenes -- his prediction of how the conflict will be
played out (using both his knowledge and communication with the
players on what they plan to do). The sequence is designed as
one would write a dramatic plot: with twists, climax, and so
forth.

During the game, the GM may have to abandon particulars of
his prepared plotline, of course, when the PC's do the unexpected.
The theory is that his preparation will still be useful, because
even though the particulars of the second plot twist have changed,
the GM can still arrange for there to be a second plot twist,
and thus retain his scene structure.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
1) What kinds of questions come up in deciding on plotting style?
( by Mary Kuhner <mkku...@genetics.washington.edu> )

The following questionnaire is an aid in helping the GM communicate
to his/her players what type of game will be played.

1. When you are setting up a campaign or scenario, do you attempt to
provide a plot for the PCs to follow?
(a) Will you design elements of the background to fit with this
plot?
***I need an organization on about the same power level as the
PCs to act as a recurring antagonist, so let's design one and
place it in the setting.***

(b) Will you change the world background in play to keep the plot on
track?
***The PCs unwittingly destroyed the clue in location A, so I
will provide a similar clue in location B.***

(c) Will you adjucate the results of PC actions in such a way as to
further the plot?
***If a PC doesn't notice this clue the group will go off in a
totally nonproductive direction, so I will insure that he does
notice it, rather than leaving it up to chance/dice/probability.***

2. Do you deliberately attempt to engage the motivations and inner
conflicts of the PCs?
(a) Will you design elements of the world background to do so?

***This PC needs recurring threats to protect the common folk
from in order to develop her view of herself as heroine, so I'd
better provide them in my world design.***

(b) Will you change the world background in play to do so?

***This character would react much more strongly to the situation
if the attackers were of his own religion, not (as I originally
thought) a different one.***

(c) Will you adjucate the results of player actions in such a way as
to further engagement of PC motivations?

***If the PC doesn't manage to save this NPC's life she won't be
as emotionally engaged with the situation, so I will arrange for
her to succeed.***

3. Do the PCs have special advantages, or disadvantages, relative to
NPCs of the same ability?
(a) Do you design the world background to specifically advantage
(disadvantage) the PCs?
***I'd better set up some challenges which these PCs are
specifically able to tackle, such as ones slanted at their
particular powers.***

(b) Will you change the world background in play to do so?
***With the kinds of abilities these PCs have they'll have trouble
escaping from captivity, so I'd better add a traitor among the
enemy to make it possible.***

(c) Will you adjucate the results of PC actions to do so?
***An NPC who took that damage would be killed, but for a PC
we'll allow medical intervention to save her life.***

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

3) How do interesting things which engage the motivations of the
PC's become a part of the setting? (by John Kim <jh...@columbia.edu>)

A) "GM Hooks": The players create their characters, and then the GM
comes up with a limited number of interesting "plot hooks" which
the PC's may or may not choose to commit to.

B) "Connected PC's": The GM builds various interesting things to do
into his setting, and the players then create characters who are
motivated towards and around those interesting things.

C) "Conflicted PC's": The players build their characters so that
they create interesting things to do -- either by conflict within
and between themselves, or by their very nature.

Let me give three contrasting examples:

A) A pulp action campaign -- the players create various daredevils who
are generically interested in fighting crime. The GM comes up with
a semi-scripted introductory adventure designed to pull them together
into a team. He them creates various villians with schemes for
world domination -- and each week drops out various clues for these
schemes which the PC's then follow up on.

B) A fantasy game, where the GM already has a detailed world designed
which includes (among various other things) an evil empire ruled over
by a sorceror-king. The players look over the source material and
tell the GM -- "Hey, why don't we play rebels in the capital city
who are trying to overthrow the king?" The GM and the players
work up more details on the capital and the palace defenses, etc.
Each week, the PC's outline for the GM their upcoming plans -- and
the GM dutifully fills in details on where they plan to strike next.

C) A modern-world game where the PC's are the majority of a handful
of people who simultaneously and inexplicably gain godlike paranormal
powers. Now their rivalries, aspirations, and other conflict are
what draw out the game. For example, one character is a communist
sympathizer who tries out various political machinations which the
others become concerned about. (Hi, Craig!)

Like in a fractious _Amber_ game, the PC's are by and large their
own enemies. Naturally, one of the obvious themes is their slide
from a "mortal" POV to a "god" POV. Absolute power corrupts
absolutely and all that.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
4) What techniques do GM's actually use in preparing for games?
( by John Kim <jh...@columbia.edu> )

As I see it, the most common elements of GM planning might be something
like: Locations/NPC's , Timetables, Contingent Scenes/Events, and
Consequence sequences or flowcharts.

I) *Background Preparation* -- detailing the Locations and NPC's,
which is fairly universal regardless of planning/plotting style.
However, there are some distinctions of *why* that gets detailed:

A] The group has agreed that certain things will be important
(as in my Champions game where they are fighting a conspiracy
known as "The Enclave", which was agreed upon in a group
discussion at the start of the campaign)
B] The players predict, based on their knowledge, that things will
be important and inform the GM (Ex. "We plan on going to
Botswana tomorrow." -- and the GM prepares stuff on Botswana)
C] The GM predicts, based on his knowledge, that the PC's will
run into certain things.
D] The GM thinks that certain locations/characters would be
interesting if the players ran into them, and details them
for possible inclusion if the opportunity presents itself.
E] The GM thinks that certain locations/characters are interesting
in-and-of themselves and works them out regardless of how
they intersect with the PC's.
F] The GM has certain locations/characters detailed which he will
direct the PC's towards (Ex. A _Feng Shui_ GM who prepares
a cool site for a fight scene, and then manipulates the PC's
to get there).

II) *Time-tabling* (or "Locational Time-tabling) of things which
will happen due to interactions which do _not_ involve the PC's.

The classic example of this is a literal time-table of NPC
interactions like the Duke's Grand Ball -- where you work out in
advance what the NPC's will do if the PC's don't interfere.
Similarly, this would include working out an enemy's plan assuming
only In-Character knowledge for the enemy NPC.

This may be "unplotted" (i.e. the GM isn't planning on an
expected sequence of events), but it can also be "plotted" if the
GM arranges the events of the timetable with the PC's in mind.

III) *Contingent Events* are things which are intentionally left
indeterminate in space, time, or agent so that they can be made to
intersect better with the PC's.

For example, the GM might decide that at some point along their
travel, an Ogre is summoned by a curse in the middle of a group of
nearby soldiers. The summoning of the Ogre is contingent on the
PC's passing by -- whenever they pass by that spot, that is when
the ogre appears.

"Schroedinger's NPC" would also fall into this category --
i.e. the PC's run into someone with a piece of information for them:
If they leave by the city's West Gate, then a beggar comes up to them.
If they leave by another way, then they run into a wandering juggler
on the road who tells them the same thing.

This is "plotted" almost by definition. It is often used to
set up pivotal "plot hooks" -- but can also be used for just some
atmospheric touches or such (i.e. whenever the players pass by the
rear of the church, they will see a huge raven flutter away from a
particular grave).

IV) *Consequence sequences* (or flowcharts) are planned results of
certain actions if the PC's try them -- this is a short-cut to working
out logical consequences during the game (in case they are complicated).

For example, let's say that there is an NPC book-seller who the
GM thinks might be hired to find certain rare books. Rather than
working it out on the spot, the GM decides in advance *if* he is hired
to find certain books how long he will take and what steps he will go
through to do so.

In the above case, this is a fairly "non-plotted" (in that the
sequence is not particularly geared to engage the PC's). However,
like Locational Time-tabling, these consequences can be tailored to
fit with an intended plot.

[John H Kim]

The rec.games.frp.advocacy FAQ
==============================
PART III: Diceless Roleplaying

1) What is Diceless role-playing?
2) Does it work?
3) How does the GM make decisions?
4) Is it fair to the players?
5) Can it simulate "realistic" randomness?
6) What difference does it make in practice?

Copies of this FAQ can be found on the WWW at:
"http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~jhkim/rpg/styles.html"

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
1) What is Diceless role-playing?

Technically, diceless gaming would simply be a game that doesn't
use dice (for example, _Castle Falkenstein_ uses cards).

In terms of this FAQ, however, "diceless" role-playing refers
to generally minimalist systems where the GM decides on the results
of actions without the help of randomizers, tables, or explicit
quantified mechanics. There are currently four published diceless
RPG "systems":
-> The _Amber_ role-playing game, by Phage Press
-> _Theatrix_, by Backstage Press.
-> _Persona_, by Tesarta Industries, Inc
-> _Epiphany_, by BTRC

Also, FUDGE by Grey Ghost Games has notes on how to run the game
in a diceless fashion.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
2) Does it work?

Yes. There are plenty of people who have been playing without
dice even long before the above systems were published. At least for
these people, it can be just as exciting as diced gaming, and at least
competitive in realism with many diced games. It generally results in
much more emphasis on player and GM descriptions, and much less emphasis
on rules.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
3) How does the GM make decisions?

That varies with the system, the GM, the group contract, and
so forth. In general, action resolution can be based on a great
variety of input factors. What follows is an outline of some of
the factors which can go into action resolution -

[A] Reality/Genre: This is just the GM's judgement of what is the
most reasonable outcome given the understood "reality" of the
situation - including genre and setting-specific laws (like
magic). This is actually the most common form of resolution in
any game - if a character tries to walk through the woods, the
GM just says it happens.

[B] Mechanics: This is game-mechanical constructs (which may represent
the genre-reality, but which are more than just a general
understanding). Note that this does *not* have to involve dice.
CORPS and _Vampire_ both use some diceless, mechanical action
resolution. Spending Plot Points (or Hero Points, Willpower,
etc.) is also a diceless mechanic.

[C] Description: In this case, _how_ the player describes his character's
action has a big effect on the outcome. This involves the player
heavily in the action -- but it also tends to emphasize player skill
rather than character skill (i.e. if a given player is very good at
describing combat tactics, then his character is better at combat).

[D] Plot: As _Theatrix_ describes it, "Does the plot require a given
outcome?" The GM sets up a plot beforehand, and if a given result is
required for the plot to work, he chooses that result. This is the
factor most often associated with "railroading".

[E] Drama: This is a free-wheeling sense of drama or comedy/fun, as
mediated by the GM. For example, a chandelier swing in a swashbuckling
game may naturally succeed because it is dramatically appropriate. It
has nothing to do with the written plot, but it fits.

[F] Meta-game: This is a catch-all category for concerns of the GM and
players. A gamble may succeed because it is getting late in the
evening and people want to go home. Certain issues may be avoided
because some players find them offensive. A PC may disappear
because the player can't show Etcetera.

[G] Group Consensus (from Sarah Kahn): This is a sort of combination
of Reality and Description resolution, in which the entire group
combines efforts to determine what the "expert swordsman's" best
strategy really would BE when the player of the swordsman knows
nothing of combat. It is often use to counteract the problems of
"description" resolution. It often takes the form of "he who knows
the subject best is empowered to define the reality."

[H] Dice: Technically dice will not be used in a "diceless" game, but
I included them to be completist, and to show how they are just one
among a large number of factors. Dice can be used as additional
input into any number of resolutions. Mechanics often call for die
rolls, but a mechanicless game can also use dice to represent random
factors (The rule being, say, "High good, low bad").

Besides the variety of input, action resolution can be different in
method or style of handling -- like how the results are presented. For
example, even if two GM's use the same mechanics and die rolls: one might
describe to players using only descriptive terms, and he keeps the
character sheet and die rolls to himself.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
4) Is this fair to the players?

Well, that depends. The advantage of diceless role-playing
on this front is that it encourages greater feedback and communication
with the GM. Yes, in principle, a diceless GM can shoot down whatever
player plans he doesn't like by ruling that they fail. However, the
idea is that it will be very clear to the players that he is doing
this -- since the GM decides everything, he also takes all the blame.

Diceless play requires a large amount of trust in the GM -- but
the theory is that it also makes it more clear when the GM has broken
that trust.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
5) Can it simulate "realistic" randomness?

Well, that depends on the GM and the situation. Theoretically,
a die-roll can certainly provide a more statistically random sequence
than GM whim. However, within the context of the game, there are
very few runs of statistically-analyzable events.

The GM can take into account a wide variety of in-game factors
for each individual decision which will differentiate them. Of course,
unless he is a skilled expert in that field, common sense only carries
you so far -- some of the choices will either be arbitrary, or be based
on meta-game factors like Drama...

As an example: the PC's fire a volley of arrows at a distant
enemy. The GM has to decide if they hit any vital spots, taking out
some of the enemy. At a detail-by-detail level, the GM's choice is
arbitrary -- but he can try adjust things to make sure that overall,
the archers are about as effective as they should be.

Using dice is better able to simulate the randomness that
often occurs in real world. However, the mechanics are only able to
take into account a few of the relevant variables. In dice-using or
diceless games, the GM can take into account far more of the actual
(i.e. game-world) situation.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
6) What difference does it make?

Well, I'll defer at this point to Alain Lapalme, who described
in an article what he considered to be the diceless "paradigm shift"
for him...

> It is clear to me that I don't understand the dice/diceless
> paradigm shift (I used tothink I did, but I'm no longer so sure).
> To summarize my views on the diceless shift:
> 1) explicit trust in the GM
> 2) can't hide behind bad/good rolls
> 3) forces players to take responsability for their actions
> 4) changes the player/gm communication style from mechanistic
> to more descriptive
> 5) increases subjectivity
> 6) changes the whole nature of combat

But of course this is different for every person...