Strong vs. Weakly Plotted RPGs
Kevin R. Hardwick
game as "decision making in character," a definition that drew
assents from both David Berkman and David Hauth.
To the extent that this is a good working definition of what we are
attempting to achieve, this position has definite implications for
the plotted versus non-plotted argument. As I have suggested, what
is most important for me (and please recognize that I am speaking
from a position strongly informed by my gaming group--gaming is not
a solo activity, and my experiences are very much conditioned by
the people for whom and with whom I run) is a strongly player-
focused game. What I mean by this is a game that focusses on
players assuming a character ("wearing" a character, in the way
that actors in a play do), and then making interesting decisions
"in character."
The GM's responsibility then is to set the stage upon which the
players will act. As David Hauth suggested, this in part means
giving a sufficiently rich description of the scene "to portray
accurately the physical environment, the mood and atmosphere, and
the tension of the moment." I argued earlier that this needs to be
done tersely, so as not to take stage time from the players--this,
however, is an issue of scene staging, not of plotting, and anyway
I don't think either David is in serious disagreement with me
(correct me if I am wrong <smile>.) What is important in this
context, however, is that the staging of the scene is an important
immediate determinant of the decisions with which the players will
be faced.
Plot, then, is the world setting that backgrounds the scenes within
which players act. In David Berkman's terms, the plot structures
the player decision points--it grounds them in the setting, and
thus enriches them and gives them extrinsic significance
(significance within the game world, as opposed to, and in addition
to, significance within the individual player's characterization.)
What I want to suggest, however, is that a strongly plotted
setting, that is, a GM determined story, does violence to this
conception of what an RPG is about. For this conception of what
our hobby is about emphasizes PLAYER DECISIONS. The better the
RPG, the more meaningful (subjectively, to the player/character)
and significant (objectively, within the world/setting) the
decisions will be. In a strongly plotted game, the outcome of any
given scene is predetermined by the story-teller/GM; hence, player
decisions are subordinated to the story-line as the GM has
determined it.
There are alternatives to strongly plotted game environments.
Peter Hentges suggested, for example, a completely free-form model
of play. In my experience, however, the most satisfying
alternative to a strongly plotted game is what I have termed a
weakly plotted game--a game environment, that is, within which the
player/character decisions have consequences, but within which the
players are also able to make their decisions freely, uncoerced by
the GM. This is more demanding of the GM, since the GM must both
attempt to anticipate the various alternatives available to the
players, and also remain flexible when the players do something
unanticipated. However, if the setting is sufficiently rich and
complex, it will provide a guide for the GM's staging of scenes.
As a general rule, I attempt to orchestrate each evening (about
three hours of play for six people) so that it revolves around one,
perhaps two important group decisions--I have found that that is
sufficient material for an evenings play.
I have also found that focus on decision points is quite compatible
with the kind of literary models that Nancy Sauer and David Berkman
have been discussing. Each meaningful decision rather naturally
has an introductory scene that sets it up, a conflict, and a
resolution, which it is then my responsibility to weave into the
next scene. More importantly, however, "plot" in this kind of game
becomes something retroactively imposed by the player/party, as
they look back on where they have been and attempt to order it. It
is not the sole product of a coercive story-teller.
All my best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 2 Mar 1995, Andrew Finch wrote:
>
> : Plot, then, is the world setting that backgrounds the scenes within
> : which players act. In David Berkman's terms, the plot structures
> : the player decision points--it grounds them in the setting, and
> : thus enriches them and gives them extrinsic significance
> : (significance within the game world, as opposed to, and in addition
> : to, significance within the individual player's characterization.)
>
> More than that. Plot is a direct expression of character, and character
> is known through the plot.
We may be talking past each other (as I suspect we were in our previous
discussion). Can you elaborate this thought further?
> : What I want to suggest, however, is that a strongly plotted
> :setting, that is, a GM determined story, does violence to this
> :conception of what an RPG is about. For this conception of what
> : our hobby is about emphasizes PLAYER DECISIONS.
> > I would say that it emphasises roleplay, however, player decision is a
> > strong part of this.
Hmm. It seems to me that if you disagree with this statement then you
disagree with the definition I proposed. I'm not sure its worth the
bandwidth, but can you explain the distinction you are drawing? To
reiterate, I suggested that the essence of good role playing was player
decision making in character. If this is the case, then rather
tautologically good role playing must emphasize player decisions <grin>.
> > The better the RPG, the more meaningful (subjectively, to the
> > player/character) and significant (objectively, within the
> > world/setting) the decisions will be. In a strongly plotted game, the
> > outcome of any given scene is predetermined by the story-teller/GM;
> > hence, player decisions are subordinated to the story-line as the GM
> > has determined it.
> Not true. The scene is the player decisions.
If the scene is about the players making decisions (as opposed to
ratifying decisions already made for them by the GM) then by definition
it is not strongly plotted, at least as I am using the term.
Definition: Strongly plotted game: A game in which the outcome(s) of its
constituent scene(s) is predetermined by the GM.
> Are you suggesting that simply because the player is free to make any
> decision he/she wishes, that the outcome of those decisions must be what
> the player expected, always?
Of course not. I do not see how you inferred such a position from my
statement.
In rereading your correspondence, David, I have become confused as to
just what style of play you are advocating. There are times when you
seem to support strongly plotted collective story telling (strongly
plotted as I defined it above). In other posts you have suggested that
plot is simply the order that human beings impose upon reality, which of
course can only happen during and after they have experienced it (perhaps
you have been reading Heidegger <grin>). This position seems to me
anyway to be more in tune with what I have called a "weakly" plotted
style of GMing. What I am arguing is that, if you accept the definition
with which I began my post, you should be predisposed to reject strongly
plotted story based GMing in favor of weakly plotted gaming (or no overt
plotting at all, per Peter Hentge's suggestion).
Perhaps we do not mean the same thing by "plot?"
Best,
Kevin
Thomas Bagwell
: Kevin R. Hardwick (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: : The better the
: : RPG, the more meaningful (subjectively, to the player/character)
: : and significant (objectively, within the world/setting) the
: : decisions will be. In a strongly plotted game, the outcome of any
: : given scene is predetermined by the story-teller/GM; hence, player
: : decisions are subordinated to the story-line as the GM has
: : determined it.
: Not true. The scene is the player decisions. Are you suggesting that
: simply because the player is free to make any decision he/she wishes, that
: the outcome of those decisions must be what the player expected, always?
Please clarify something for me, David. Are you implying that although
the player can make any decision (s)he wishes, the GM should not alter
the planned outcome of the scene, but should instead make sure that all
player decisions result in his preplanned outcome?
Above you seem to imply as much...that (to restate a bit differently)
players should be free to make any decisions that they like, and it's the
GM's job to make sure they don't really affect the preplanned plotline.
The line "a difference which makes no difference is no difference"
springs to mind... It certainly doesn't sound like the type of game I'd
like to play in.
Please correct me if I misunderstood...
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...A wild, weird clime |
That lieth, sublime, | Thomas N. Bagwell
Out of Space, | tbag...@netcom.com
Out of Time." |
--Edgar Allen Poe |
'Dreamland' | ____\|/_____________________\|/____
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: I don't think either David is in serious disagreement with me
: (correct me if I am wrong <smile>.) What is important in this
: context, however, is that the staging of the scene is an important
: immediate determinant of the decisions with which the players will
: be faced.
I basically agree, yes.
: Plot, then, is the world setting that backgrounds the scenes within
: which players act. In David Berkman's terms, the plot structures
: the player decision points--it grounds them in the setting, and
: thus enriches them and gives them extrinsic significance
: (significance within the game world, as opposed to, and in addition
: to, significance within the individual player's characterization.)
More than that. Plot is a direct expression of character, and character
is known through the plot.
: What I want to suggest, however, is that a strongly plotted
: setting, that is, a GM determined story, does violence to this
: conception of what an RPG is about. For this conception of what
: our hobby is about emphasizes PLAYER DECISIONS.
I would say that it emphasises roleplay, however, player decision is a
strong part of this.
: The better the
: RPG, the more meaningful (subjectively, to the player/character)
: and significant (objectively, within the world/setting) the
: decisions will be. In a strongly plotted game, the outcome of any
: given scene is predetermined by the story-teller/GM; hence, player
: decisions are subordinated to the story-line as the GM has
: determined it.
Not true. The scene is the player decisions. Are you suggesting that
simply because the player is free to make any decision he/she wishes, that
the outcome of those decisions must be what the player expected, always?
I think in practice you will find that strongly plotetd games support
roleplay very firmly.
David
Magefire
: Kevin R. Hardwick (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
[stuff deleted]
: : The better the
: : RPG, the more meaningful (subjectively, to the player/character)
: : and significant (objectively, within the world/setting) the
: : decisions will be. In a strongly plotted game, the outcome of any
: : given scene is predetermined by the story-teller/GM; hence, player
: : decisions are subordinated to the story-line as the GM has
: : determined it.
: Not true. The scene is the player decisions. Are you suggesting that
: simply because the player is free to make any decision he/she wishes, that
: the outcome of those decisions must be what the player expected, always?
: I think in practice you will find that strongly plotetd games support
: roleplay very firmly.
: David
Please forgive me for going off on a bit of a tangent, but discussing
whether heavy plotting can support roleplay reminds me of the Norse
saga. Here is a situation where the character's fate (often doom) is
predetermined. Yet, even knowing this, the hero would not simply
allow himself to be led about passively. The hero's refusal to submit
to the inevitable would result in a struggle that could be contrued as
roleplaying within the context of the game.
Of course, in a game you don't have the luxury of predetermining the
character's reaction to his predetermined fate (?). Basically, a good
roleplaying game that encourages heavy plotting would consist of
"destiny checkpoints", where fate _will_ cause something to happen.
In between checkpoints, a character is mostly free to do as he or she
will. It goes without saying that this type of game is not for
everyone.
/Magefire
Thomas Bagwell
: Thomas Bagwell (tbag...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : Please clarify something for me, David. Are you implying that although
: : the player can make any decision (s)he wishes, the GM should not alter
: : the planned outcome of the scene, but should instead make sure that all
: : player decisions result in his preplanned outcome?
: I'm saying that this is a valid way to run a game, or even certain
: scenes, yes. I'm not demanding that's what people do, or claiming that it
: will change your life, or even saying that it's what I do (although I
: have run this way, and will continue to do so at times). There is
: something to be learned from this practice though, and you may wish to
: try it.
It's certainly valid, just not an approach I happen to personally prefer.
I have, rarely, run scenes in that fashion, but even then, if the
characters perform actions which I failed to foresee that -did- disrupt
the playing out of the scene in the way I had planned, I didn't hesitate
to let the scene be disrupted. On the other hand, I have seen GMs go to
absurd lengths to play out the scene the way they planned, almost causing
a riot with the players as every potentially successful attempt to change
the pre-ordained outcome was disallowed or proclaimed a failure.
: I propose that your life is entirely pre-determined. Whether I am right
: or worng can not be proven, and makes no difference. Why? Because whether
: or not you are existentially free, you have no choice but to act that
: way, and in the moment, you probably feel that way. What difference then
: do your actions make, if your life is predetermined? Maybe none. Does
: that matter? No. What matters is how you feel and act and strive and
: think, at the moment. There are no winners and losers. No prize. Only being.
The major difference is that nobody knows whether or not life is entirely
pre-determined, so an opinion one way is just as good as an opinion the
other.
: A pre-determined game has all of these qualities. The characters are free
: in the moment, and their actions have import and significance. As far as
: roleplay is concerned, the plot does not inhibit at all, and can greatly
: help. It's an interesting way to run. Very roleplay focused.
But if I were playing in your game, I would know the outcome was
predetermined, and would find little incentive to creatively roleplay. I
want my character's actions to make a difference in what happens, not
merely act out a part in a predetermined script.
But...you did answer my question, and I have a clearer idea of where your
own preferences and opinions lie. If it works for you and your players,
then that's really what it all comes down to, isn't it?
Kevin R. Hardwick
[David--
Thanks for your extended comments on plot. I am not responding to them
here because I want to give them more thought than an on-line comment
allows for.]
> : The critical statement here is "and how the following action ensues may
> : vary greatly depending on how I react now." So even if the outcome of
> : the *scene* is established and set, the outcome of the *plot* is not. In
> : this sense, the scenario (or to pursue the theatrical metaphor, the Act)
> : is not strongly plotted, even if the outcome of the scene is
> : predetermined. So I take your example to ultimately support my larger point.
>
> For the way I normally run, yes. I would have a plot in mind. If
> character action changes that plot, I will have another plot in mind. I
> never abandon the structure. But I do allow the specific creation of that
> structure to change. If that supports your point, then we agree.
We agree. I think the terms strong and weak plot, and the anterior
distinction upon which they rest, Authorial determination, have meant
different things to us. I think the most useful move we could make at
this point would be to explore what we mean by (my term) authorial
authority, or narrative control, in the "good" RPG as we each conceive it.
> However, strong plotting to the extent of an accomplished act is a viable
> method of GMing. Very often, my games get very close to the plot as I
> priginally concieved it.
[Discussion of decision points excerpted.]
You are quite correct that the scene (wife leaves husband) that you
described contains decisions. But by my definition they are not PLOT
decisions, or at least not weighty plot decisions, because they pertain
mostly to internal characterization and not to the player-in-character
(ugh, an awkward locution--perhaps you can suggest a better one?) interaction
to the world-setting. By your definition they ARE plot decisions, because
characterization and plot are inextricably intertwined. I do not think
there is any fundamental disagreement between us, because a.) I think scenes
that develop purely internal characterization are fun and important in
themselves to the RPG experience, and b.) internal characterization provides
an extremely important input to player-in-character decisions that do concern
interaction to the world-setting, and hence, which are by MY definition plot
decisions. There may however be a minor difference, since my definition
permits me to argue that one category of player-in-character decisions
deserves more attention when staging a scene than the other; while your
definition places equal weight on both categories, and hence has no need to
distinguish them.
[Side note: in earlier posts you used the term "pacing" to describe
management of a scene by the GM; do you suppose pacing and staging
connote the same thing?]
> The progression is due to the evolving explanation. However, my
> definition is already written out in Chapter 10 of the Theatrix Core Rules.
Grin. You have successfully persuaded me that I need to read Theatrix
much more thoroughly than I have. I applaud your rhetoric!
> : actions. In this sense, strong plots will occur when the GM coerces the
> : player *decision*.
>
> Strong plots occur due to a solid structure, and no coersion is necessary
> nor desirable.
I very much agree with you that coercion is undesirable--this leads me to
suspect that we mean different things by it (and by the underlying
concept of authorial or narrative control).
I'm going to post an example of the kind of game evening I write--perhaps
by grounding our discussion in a concrete example we can both clarify our
meaning and advance our understanding of the conversation in a mutually
beneficial fashion. Smile--I am a professional historian, and as such my
training privileges the specific and concrete over the abstract and
theoretical. We become, at some point, creatures of the habits of our
minds; the best of us try to recognize and understand those habits.
[Tangent--in an earlier post you suggested that I should come and
participate in one of your games. I would very much like to do
so--experiencing what you do first hand is much more real than trying to
reconstruct the experience second-hand across the net. So, where are
you? and more realistically, when will you be at a con sufficiently near
to me, ie., Mid-Atlantic region?]
> If you would like to read some very coherent stuff on plots, and know in
> depth what I am talking about, then you should read 'The Screenwriter's
> Workbook' by Sid Field.
You have mentioned this work twice now--I'll look for it. Is it the kind
of thing I might find in a good book store, or should I look for it in an
academic library?
Best,
Kevin
Andrew Finch
: > I have been under another thread in this group. I think it's Character
: > and Dramatic Structure, or something like that.
: Ok. I'll look for it. I have glanced at that thread, but it is rather
: long and convuluted, and I find it difficult to drop into the middle of
: established threads--if you have the opportunity, perhaps you could
: summarize your position. I ask, I hope it is clear, out of respect for
: the coherence of your thinking (even if I am not always completely
: persuaded by it). Unlike some of the people in this conversation, I've
: found your responses remarkably civil and for the most part even-handed.
Thanks you, and I may attempt a summary. However, if I could summarize
simply and clearly, the thread would not be as long or convoluted.
Basically, my argument goes that we know character only through plot,
that the purpose of plot is an exposition on charcater through the medium
of the central conflict, and that plot is always an extension of
character. Further, that plot is structure, and that conflict takes a
particular form to provide good lines of dramatic progression. If the
structure is poor, or missing peices, then the form of the conflict is
less satisfying. If the conflict doesn't arrise out of the central
characters, then the plot is shallow and boring. Plot and character are
interwoven in an inseperable way. Providing a plot is the best way to
provide a solid ground from which to roleplay.
: This is a useful example of a case in which strong plotting is
: appropriate, so I guess I need to modify my position. But I'm not
: particulalry concerned with making blanket statements--I do not want to
: condemn strong plotting in all situations, merely to argue that, all
: other things being equal, weak plotting is to be preferred to strong.
O.K. Lets see if we can come up with a situation in which I would agree
to that premise.
: I
: guess I have been focusing on the extremes for sake of argument, and you
: are correct to call me on that. I think a smart GM maximizes the tools
: at his or her disposal, and strong plotting is a tool that should be used
: when appropriate. But I would argue that it is a tool to be used sparingly.
I agree. But my strong plotting is probably a good bit tighter than
yours. My weak plotting is a lot stronger than most.
: > Lets take the above scene again. We know that my wife will leave.
: > However, what this means to my character, and how the following action
: > ensues, may vary greatly depending on how I react now, despite the fact
: > that those actions will not alter this scene's ending. If I just rip open
: > a beer, and burp as she leaves, the ending to the scenario may be very
: > different, even if it occurs at a pre-determined place, with all the
: > right people. There is a lot of leeway inside a plot, at least as how we
: > define them.
: The critical statement here is "and how the following action ensues may
: vary greatly depending on how I react now." So even if the outcome of
: the *scene* is established and set, the outcome of the *plot* is not. In
: this sense, the scenario (or to pursue the theatrical metaphor, the Act)
: is not strongly plotted, even if the outcome of the scene is
: predetermined. So I take your example to ultimately support my larger point.
For the way I normally run, yes. I would have a plot in mind. If
character action changes that plot, I will have another plot in mind. I
never abandon the structure. But I do allow the specific creation of that
structure to change. If that supports your point, then we agree.
However, strong plotting to the extent of an accomplished act is a viable
method of GMing. Very often, my games get very close to the plot as I
priginally concieved it.
: More importantly, the scene as you describe it is missing the critical
: element upon which I focus when I write scenes--the decision point.
: Where in this scene does the player-in-character have to make a
: decision?
Right at the start, and possibly all the way through. Your wife is
walking out on you. There are no decisions to be made here? The decision
is how to react, how to get her to stay, how to handle the emotional
fallout, and what to do with yourself when she's gone. We're dealing with
a lot of internal stuff, but that makes the decisions no easier, nor any
less real.
: Now there may be value in playing the scene, because it
: increases or contributes to the characterization of the player involved,
: which may then contribute to the resolution of a decision in some later
: scene. But I would not make such a scene as you describe the central
: focus of an evenings play precisely because no character decision is
: required.
I don't know if the scene is large enough to take up a whole game
session, and I would certainly doubt it, but then I never intimated that
it was. The reason for playing the scene is for its roleplay value. Plots
are about their central characters, and not about their events. The
events exist only as the external form that the conflict will take. The
reason for playing any scene is in its roleplaying value.
: > : Perhaps we do not mean the same thing by "plot?"
: Looking back on your posts, I do not think you (or most other parties)
: have used a consistent definition of plot--the notion of what plot is has
: actually been quite slippery and elusive throughout the various posts of
: the last few weeks, and I see (anyway) a definite progression in your use of
: the term, mostly (I suspect) in response to your discussion with Nancy Sauer.
The progression is due to the evolving explanation. However, my
definition is already written out in Chapter 10 of the Theatrix Core Rules.
: Let me see if I can define, or at least explore, what *I* mean by the term
: more precisely. I'm writing this off-the-cuff, and could probably do a
: better job if I sat down and really worked on it--if our conversation
: developes much further I'll do that. Anyway, back to my definition: the
: essence of good RPGing is making decisions in character. I can imagine
: many scenes that are primarily about characterization--taking the raw
: germ of a character concept and fleshing it out. (The literary equivalent
: might be the 18th century genre of the character sketch.) Such scenes
: deepen my own understanding of who and what my character is, but do
: not in any way advance a plot. (Since I am divorcing the concepts of plot
: and character here, I expect that you may challenge this
As I will now.
: --I am most
: curious to understand the basis of your critique of the position I am
: taking.) I think the example you give of the wife leaving the husband
: probably falls into this category, although we would have to flesh out the
: context of the scene to really know for sure.
[Snip]
: actions. In this sense, strong plots will occur when the GM coerces the
: player *decision*.
Strong plots occur due to a solid structure, and no coersion is necessary
nor desirable.
[Snip]
: Perhaps with perserverence we can get past the semantic and "special
: case objection" part of our conversation to get at the meat of our
: disagreement (or to discover that we do not disagree.)
: I think I am reaching the limit of *my* coherence, so I'll close.
If you would like to read some very coherent stuff on plots, and know in
depth what I am talking about, then you should read 'The Screenwriter's
Workbook' by Sid Field.
David
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: But if I were playing in your game, I would know the outcome was
: predetermined, and would find little incentive to creatively roleplay.
I have never stated so before a game, and never say so during a game, and
I do not run all games in this fashion. So, how would you know? ANd in
that case, what is teh difference?
: I
: want my character's actions to make a difference in what happens, not
: merely act out a part in a predetermined script.
Your character's actions can mean quite a lot, despite a strongly plotted
game (or because of it). I have explained how they can make such a
difference several times now. In the example we are using, the
character's actions would make a difference.
: But...you did answer my question, and I have a clearer idea of where your
: own preferences and opinions lie. If it works for you and your players,
: then that's really what it all comes down to, isn't it?
Yes, I think so. Although we are having this conversation for other
reasons I suspect.
David
Thomas Bagwell
: : predetermined, and would find little incentive to creatively roleplay.
: I have never stated so before a game, and never say so during a game, and
: I do not run all games in this fashion. So, how would you know? ANd in
: that case, what is teh difference?
If you can successfully hide it, I suppose. I've yet to meet any GM who can
hide a strongly plotted campaign, but if you can pull it off...
: : I
: : want my character's actions to make a difference in what happens, not
: : merely act out a part in a predetermined script.
: Your character's actions can mean quite a lot, despite a strongly plotted
: game (or because of it). I have explained how they can make such a
: difference several times now. In the example we are using, the
: character's actions would make a difference.
I guess my point is that the character's actions would make no difference
in the final outcome. His actions may dictate one path over another
(although probably not even that much in a really strongly plotted game.)
: : But...you did answer my question, and I have a clearer idea of where your
: : own preferences and opinions lie. If it works for you and your players,
: : then that's really what it all comes down to, isn't it?
: Yes, I think so. Although we are having this conversation for other
: reasons I suspect.
??? Sorry, not sure what you're referring to...
Sarah E Kahn
: A Theatrix game should be an invitation to create...
: I don't think you can do this without having a strongly plotted
: game.
And elsewhere:
: If you really like that, I suggest you try a strongly plotted game. Weak
: plots limit how much you can share the creation of the story.
David, do you think that you could elaborate on these
statements? This is clearly something you feel quite strongly
about, and your opinion on the matter is evidently heavily
disputed on this board. I would be very interested in hearing
this position explained a little bit more clearly, if you wouldn't
mind. (I know you've probably gone over it before, but I must
have missed it...)
-- Sarah
Thomas Bagwell
: : If you can successfully hide it, I suppose. I've yet to meet any GM who can
: : hide a strongly plotted campaign, but if you can pull it off...
: I don't pull it off, the players do. A Theatrix game should be an
: invitation to create. How can we do this, and maintain a strongly plotted
: game? I don't think you can do this without having a strongly plotted
: game.
The players hide a strongly plotted campaign? How? I tend to run
world-based games...by this I mean that I do all the set up work,
then let the players loose. I have preferred goals I would like them
to work towards, but they aren't mandatory, and I have no idea how they're
going to go about it. I discover the 'plot' along with them. Together we
create a story that nobody knows the outcome of in advance. It creates
remarkable opportunities for roleplaying as totally unforeseen situations
crop up, calling for ingenuity as well as roleplaying ability. I find
this an even more creative endeavor than having a group of characters
wending their way through a pre-existing plot like might exist in a
strongly pre-plotted game.
I don't mean that you can't do this in Theatrix (I don't make claims about
systems I haven't played), but I do maintain that you can do it in other
types of games (diced, free-form, world-based, whatever.) We've been
playing creatively for years.
: Stringly plotted does not mean inflexible. I use the structure of plot to
: alter the plot duringthe game, due to player actions, and still maintain
: structure. I could never do this without knowing a lot about the original
: concept, ie. I need the structure in the first place, to give me the
: breathing room to accept a lot of improvisational material.
If you're willing to alter the plot and outcome due to character actions
during the course of the game, then I have no objections...although that
doesn't fit my perception of what you meant by 'strongly plotted'.
: If it was simply a matter of 'it works for me', the postings on these
: subjects would not have been, or lasted, this long.
I think everyone recognizes that the argument 'it works for me' is
indisputable. For my part, these postings are an attempt to understand
why other people have the audacidty to have different preferences from
mine..:)
: David Berkman
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: If you can successfully hide it, I suppose. I've yet to meet any GM who can
: hide a strongly plotted campaign, but if you can pull it off...
I don't pull it off, the players do. A Theatrix game should be an
invitation to create. How can we do this, and maintain a strongly plotted
game? I don't think you can do this without having a strongly plotted
game.
[Snip]
: I guess my point is that the character's actions would make no difference
: in the final outcome. His actions may dictate one path over another
: (although probably not even that much in a really strongly plotted game.)
Stringly plotted does not mean inflexible. I use the structure of plot to
alter the plot duringthe game, due to player actions, and still maintain
structure. I could never do this without knowing a lot about the original
concept, ie. I need the structure in the first place, to give me the
breathing room to accept a lot of improvisational material.
: : : But...you did answer my question, and I have a clearer idea of where your
: : : own preferences and opinions lie. If it works for you and your players,
: : : then that's really what it all comes down to, isn't it?
: : Yes, I think so. Although we are having this conversation for other
: : reasons I suspect.
: ??? Sorry, not sure what you're referring to...
If it was simply a matter of 'it works for me', the postings on these
subjects would not have been, or lasted, this long.
David Berkman
Kevin R. Hardwick
> : If you really like that, I suggest you try a strongly plotted game. Weak
> : plots limit how much you can share the creation of the story.
>
>
> David, do you think that you could elaborate on these
> statements?
> -- Sarah
David, permit me to add my voice to Sarah's. Despite the quite
intelligent and informed conversation we have been having, I remain
confused on this issue as well. I am beginning to suspect that what I
mean by weak plot and what you mean by strong is the same thing.
Best,
Kevin
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: We agree. I think the terms strong and weak plot, and the anterior
: distinction upon which they rest, Authorial determination, have meant
: different things to us. I think the most useful move we could make at
: this point would be to explore what we mean by (my term) authorial
: authority, or narrative control, in the "good" RPG as we each conceive it.
If you start, I'll join in. I want to see where you're at, so I can try
to respond in a meaningful way to your ideas and questions.
: You are quite correct that the scene (wife leaves husband) that you
: described contains decisions. But by my definition they are not PLOT
: decisions, or at least not weighty plot decisions, because they pertain
: mostly to internal characterization and not to the player-in-character
: (ugh, an awkward locution--perhaps you can suggest a better one?) interaction
: to the world-setting. By your definition they ARE plot decisions, because
: characterization and plot are inextricably intertwined.
As an example, in the plot I had in mind, some bad people nab the wife
after she has left her hubby, in order to get back at him (maybe he has
been a bad boy and taken something of theirs). In any case, the plot
becomes a rescue, with short, awkward phone conversations with the wife,
dealings with wise guys and police, etc. When the main character finally
reaches the climax, and (hopefully) saves the woman who had just walked
out on him, their relationship should have had the opportunity to take
these events as a catalyst for change. What happened in the opening of
this scenario, and their interactions since that time (which will have
been colored by the opening), will determine what is possible in the end.
Was this scenario about a kidnapping, and action, and gunfire? No. It had
all these elements, but the plot was about the relationship between a man
and a woman, and in the end, that's the point of greatest interest (if
I've done things right). So, were those initial decisions important to
the plot? Emphatically, YES. Plots are about their characters, and not
their events. The conflict in the plot is the conflict of the characters.
The rest is used to bring that conflict to a point of tension, ie. to
invoke drama.
: I do not think
: there is any fundamental disagreement between us, because a.) I think scenes
: that develop purely internal characterization are fun and important in
: themselves to the RPG experience, and b.) internal characterization provides
: an extremely important input to player-in-character decisions that do concern
: interaction to the world-setting, and hence, which are by MY definition plot
: decisions. There may however be a minor difference, since my definition
: permits me to argue that one category of player-in-character decisions
: deserves more attention when staging a scene than the other; while your
: definition places equal weight on both categories, and hence has no need to
: distinguish them.
Yes, we do have differences. Not major ones as I see them, and we may yet
come to a fuller agreement.
: [Side note: in earlier posts you used the term "pacing" to describe
: management of a scene by the GM; do you suppose pacing and staging
: connote the same thing?]
No, but they are related. Staging is the layout of events in the physical
domain, and pacing is the lay out in the temporal one.
: > The progression is due to the evolving explanation. However, my
: > definition is already written out in Chapter 10 of the Theatrix Core Rules.
: Grin. You have successfully persuaded me that I need to read Theatrix
: much more thoroughly than I have. I applaud your rhetoric!
Thanks, but I'm not sure what I said. Whatever it was, yes, definitely,
of course.
: > : actions. In this sense, strong plots will occur when the GM coerces the
: > : player *decision*.
: >
: > Strong plots occur due to a solid structure, and no coersion is necessary
: > nor desirable.
: I very much agree with you that coercion is undesirable--this leads me to
: suspect that we mean different things by it (and by the underlying
: concept of authorial or narrative control).
That could very well be.
: I'm going to post an example of the kind of game evening I write--perhaps
: by grounding our discussion in a concrete example we can both clarify our
: meaning and advance our understanding of the conversation in a mutually
: beneficial fashion.
That seems like a fair way to go.
: Smile--I am a professional historian, and as such my
: training privileges the specific and concrete over the abstract and
: theoretical. We become, at some point, creatures of the habits of our
: minds; the best of us try to recognize and understand those habits.
I'm a professional psychlogist, and would agree.
: [Tangent--in an earlier post you suggested that I should come and
: participate in one of your games. I would very much like to do
: so--experiencing what you do first hand is much more real than trying to
: reconstruct the experience second-hand across the net. So, where are
: you? and more realistically, when will you be at a con sufficiently near
: to me, ie., Mid-Atlantic region?]
Unfortunately, we are all in San Francisco. The east coast is the hardest
place for us to get to. However, we will be at GenCon in August. We may
be at Origins as well.
: > If you would like to read some very coherent stuff on plots, and know in
: > depth what I am talking about, then you should read 'The Screenwriter's
: > Workbook' by Sid Field.
: You have mentioned this work twice now--I'll look for it. Is it the kind
: of thing I might find in a good book store, or should I look for it in an
: academic library?
No, a lot of bookstores carry it, like B. Daltons and such.
David
Thomas Bagwell
: : The players hide a strongly plotted campaign? How?
: They do half the work of creating one.
Um, by 'strongly plotted', I mean a plot that the GM intends to have
unfold in a very pre-planned way. Regardless of what the players do,
the end result will be that foreseen by the GM. Even when run well,
I dislike this approach.
If you mean something different by 'strongly plotted', then I think I've
found the nub of confusion...
: If the players are wending their way through a plot, and not being
: creative, excited, interested, improvisational, and roleplaying their
: little hearts out, then you're designing your plots wrong.
Normally, I don't set up plots. I track ongoing events in the world. The
plot is dependent upon the actions of the characters, and is created as
they go along. I don't plot ahead of them except sometimes in very general
terms.
: Strongly plotted is not inflexible, it is having a good, strong, tight
: story structure, even as that story changes under your feet.
Ah. Do you think you could elaborate on this point a bit?
: David B
Andrew Finch
: The players hide a strongly plotted campaign? How?
They do half the work of creating one.
[Snip]
: It creates
: remarkable opportunities for roleplaying as totally unforeseen situations
: crop up, calling for ingenuity as well as roleplaying ability. I find
: this an even more creative endeavor than having a group of characters
: wending their way through a pre-existing plot like might exist in a
: strongly pre-plotted game.
If the players are wending their way through a plot, and not being
creative, excited, interested, improvisational, and roleplaying their
little hearts out, then you're designing your plots wrong.
[Snip]
: If you're willing to alter the plot and outcome due to character actions
: during the course of the game, then I have no objections...although that
: doesn't fit my perception of what you meant by 'strongly plotted'.
Strongly plotted is not inflexible, it is having a good, strong, tight
story structure, even as that story changes under your feet.
: I think everyone recognizes that the argument 'it works for me' is
: indisputable. For my part, these postings are an attempt to understand
: why other people have the audacidty to have different preferences from
: mine..:)
I still haven't figured that little oddity out.
David B
Andrew Finch
: David, do you think that you could elaborate on these
: statements? This is clearly something you feel quite strongly
: about, and your opinion on the matter is evidently heavily
: disputed on this board.
Many of my opinions are heavily disputed. Which I find baffling as they
are all so inordinately reasonable.
: I would be very interested in hearing
: this position explained a little bit more clearly, if you wouldn't
: mind. (I know you've probably gone over it before, but I must
: have missed it...)
Check my latest postings, I've given another explanation here somewhere
today.
David
PS - If you can't find it, I'll do it again (I'm a little teapot short
and stout ...).
Thomas Bagwell
: : : Strongly plotted is not inflexible, it is having a good, strong, tight
: : : story structure, even as that story changes under your feet.
: : Ah. Do you think you could elaborate on this point a bit?
: Have you ever played cat's cradle?
Ummm...forgive my apparent density, but...
Andrew Finch
: : Have you ever played cat's cradle?
: Yes, I have. Have you?
Yes, or I wouldn't have mentioned it.
: I must say that I see remarkably little
: similarity between the structure of a string game and the structure
: of a story.
There is not much that I can see either.
: In cat's cradle, for example, there ...
[Snip]
The only point I had was that this was a game in which the particular
shape is in constant flux, bot also with a consistent structure. A
plotline in an RPG is the same, ie. in constant flux, but with consistent
structure. That was it. That was the whole point.
: Sorry to go on so.
No problem.
: It just occurred to me that perhaps
: you had an erroneous idea of how string games are played. In
: my day, at any rate, Cat's Cradle was a "GIRLIE" (to use Andrew
: Rilestone's delightful phrase); it was not played by the
: boys. I thought it possible that you might not have realized
: just to what extent you run the risk of expressing just the
: opposite of what I assume was your intent with this analogy.
I like playing games with girls.
David
Sarah E Kahn
: Sarah E Kahn (SSK...@frost.oit.umass.edu) wrote:
: : : Have you ever played cat's cradle?
: : Yes, I have. Have you?
: Yes, or I wouldn't have mentioned it.
[snip]
: The only point I had was that this was a game in which the particular
: shape is in constant flux, bot also with a consistent structure. A
: plotline in an RPG is the same, ie. in constant flux, but with consistent
: structure. That was it. That was the whole point.
Okay.
: : It just occurred to me that perhaps
: : you had an erroneous idea of how string games are played. In
: : my day, at any rate, Cat's Cradle was a "GIRLIE" (to use Andrew
: : Rilestone's delightful phrase); it was not played by the
: : boys. I thought it possible that you might not have realized
: : just to what extent you run the risk of expressing just the
: : opposite of what I assume was your intent with this analogy.
: I like playing games with girls.
Ah-HAH! Clearly this is why you prefer gaming which
is so strongly character-based. Everyone knows that only
girls care about character. Boys like big guns, and tactics,
and dice, and other manly stuff like that.
-- Sarah
Sarah E Kahn
Okay, David. I have now scrutinized this thread and
others, trying to understand both your definition of plot and
your claim that tight plotting allows for more role-play than
weak plotting. I'm still a bit confused, so I'd like to put
forth some ideas about what I *think* you might mean and see
what your responses are. I understand that you are getting
sick of people demanding that you explain yourself over and
over again; I hope that this might be a somewhat less annoying
way for us all to try to gain an understanding of your ideas.
Now, it has seemed to me, in reading over all of your
comments and retorts on this issue, that what you are saying
is that:
1) It is desirable for the GM (or Director, if
you prefer) to begin the game with a specific
structure in mind. In other words, he should
have a clear idea of what the PCs goals will
be, what means they are likely to take to
achieve these goals, and what the resolution
to the story will be. He should then use this
knowledge to organize the planned plot "events"
into a feasible structure, with introduction,
build-up, plot pinches, mid-points, and all of
the other criteria by which one analyzes plot
in any other story-telling medium, such as film.
2) Should the PCs, in the course of play, act in
such a way as to cause the plot to veer wildly
from its intended course, then the details of
the plot will of course differ somewhat from
the ones originally conceived by the GM. The
fact that there IS a structure already in place,
however, will enable the GM to respond to these
changes quickly and efficiently. Furthermore,
in most cases, the elements of the pre-existing
structure will still be able to be used in the
new scenario; even if some elements DO have to
be altered slightly, the existence of the
skeleton structure makes it very easy to put
the new elements into proper position.
How am I doing so far? Am I with you, or have I
misinterpreted your position?
If I have indeed understood you properly, then it
would seem that you would consider a plot in which only the
initial premise (the "set-up," or situation, with which the
PCs are initially confronted) is known beforehand by the GM
a "weak plot," because little thought has been given to the
structure of the story beyond the premise. Yes?
If this is indeed the case, then I still am not quite
sure why you feel that a strong plot is more conducive to
role-play than a weak plot. So far, your explanation has
seemed to consist of the argument that "it is easier for the
GM to quickly and efficiently adapt to the PCs decisions if
a strong plot structure is already in place." Not only am
I in some doubt about the truth of this statement (it seems
to me that a strong WORLD structure will serve this purpose
just as well, if not better, than a strong PLOT structure),
but I am also having some difficulty seeing the relevance
of this statement. Surely not everything that makes the
GM's job easier is conducive to better role-play.
Comments?
-- Sarah
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: : Strongly plotted is not inflexible, it is having a good, strong, tight
: : story structure, even as that story changes under your feet.
: Ah. Do you think you could elaborate on this point a bit?
Have you ever played cat's cradle?
David B
Sarah E Kahn
[attempt at summarizing what I believed to be
David's positions on strong & weak plotting]
: : How am I doing so far? Am I with you, or have I
: : misinterpreted your position?
: No, I'm good with that so far.
Okay. Cool. I feel much more comfortable with this
discussion now that I am reasonably certain that I understand
the definitions in operation. As you point out yourself,
boundaries are necessary things.
: : If I have indeed understood you properly, then it
: : would seem that you would consider a plot in which only the
: : initial premise (the "set-up," or situation, with which the
: : PCs are initially confronted) is known beforehand by the GM
: : a "weak plot," because little thought has been given to the
: : structure of the story beyond the premise. Yes?
: Yes.
Great. I can work with this definition.
: : If this is indeed the case, then I still am not quite
: : sure why you feel that a strong plot is more conducive to
: : role-play than a weak plot.
: Character is action. Action takes place in context. When the context is
: known and secure, then a lot of character exploration may take place.
: This occurs when the GM places the game on sure footing with a solid
: structure.
Well, as you know, I don't quite agree with you about
character = action, unless your definition of "action" is so
broad as to encompass all aspects of the very state of being
(consciousness, thought, etc.).
I do, however, agree with you that context is absolutely
*necessary* for role-play. Characters require context to achieve
any form of reality or meaning. I just consider context to be
achieved through world-structure, not plot-structure. Which
brings us to...
: : a strong plot structure is already in place." Not only am
: : I in some doubt about the truth of this statement (it seems
: : to me that a strong WORLD structure will serve this purpose
: : just as well, if not better, than a strong PLOT structure),
: World structure is only as strong as the plot structure within which the
: PCs find themselves. Strong plot structure *is* strong world-structure.
Ah. Now, you see, I would express this in just the opposite
way. I would say that "plot structure is only as strong as the
world structure in which that plot takes place and in which the PCs
exist."
As you say yourself:
: I work with abused children. They have grown up in families where either
: they were not given boundaries, or where the boundaries were all about
: pleasing their parents. The borderline or narcisistic environments. These
: kids have a lack of personal ego structure. They spend most of their time
: defending themselves against the world, ie. trying to find a safe place
: to *be*. As soon as you provide a safe place, with good, reasonable
: boundaries, they start to do a lot of self exploration and healing, all
: on their own. Personality does not exist in a vaccum. It exists in
: reflection by the world around us.
^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^
Yes. Precisely. The structure necessary for the development
of personality is a world which seems to make *sense,* a world in
which the boundaries are understood, a world that the characters can
exist in relation *to.*
I don't see how this is relevant to the issue of whether or
not the "plot" has a clear mid-point, or whether its scenes fit the
traditional dramatic structure.
: When the structure is less cohesive then the GM will be prepared to handle
: less, and will be scrambling more. The GM will be unable to resond to the
: detail produced by good characterization with firm and supportive responses.
Now THIS I can see. THIS makes sense to me. Certainly I
agree with you that a GM who is scrabbling to try to make some sense
of the plot is NOT a GM who is likely to be capable of helping to
foster and encourage good role-play.
: : but I am also having some difficulty seeing the relevance
: : of this statement. Surely not everything that makes the
: : GM's job easier is conducive to better role-play.
: It surely is.
Well...no, I don't think that it necessarily is. An
extremely mechanistic system which allows for *no* GM leeway
in interpreting results, for example, surely makes the GM's
job a very easy one indeed, but I think that we would both
agree that such a system is *not* conducive to better role-play.
I can think of lots of things that would make the GM's job
easier, but would be downright detrimental to role-play.
You have even said yourself that the _Theatrix_ system requires
a good deal of quick thinking and hard work on the part of
the GM; yet I am almost certain that you believe the system
to be conducive to better role-play.
I do agree with you, though, that it is important
for role-play that the GM be able to be attentive and responsive
to the players, and that the less burdened with other concerns
the GM is, the more energy and time he will have to provide
this sort of attention.
: Can you roleplay in a D&D dungeon crawl? Yes. But better plot structure
: will provide better oportunities and more support.
This is funny. My most serious objection to most of the
D&D dungeon crawls I remember from my junior high school days
wasn't the plot per se, but the lack of any coherent world in
which the dungeon crawl was taking place. No, the plot of a
dungeon crawl is not very prepossessing. "Characters go into
dangerous place which contains hidden treasure guarded by scores
of hostile creatures and lethal traps. They conquer the
creatures, evade the traps, and find the goodies. Emerging with
the loot, they return home." Not very interesting, admittedly,
but I could live with that, I suppose.
No, what always bothered me the most about those games
was that the world did not exist. None of the characters had
any *background.* If you were to ask the players what sort of
culture their characters came from, they would look at you as if
you had lost your mind. The characters didn't even speak any
real *languages,* for heaven's sake! They spoke something called
"common." And trying to elicit information from a cleric about
his own religion was well-nigh impossible. ("I serve Bozo,
the God of blunt implements of destruction." "Oh yeah? That's
fascinating. How precisely do you serve Bozo?" "I give him
ten percent of my treasure." "Oh. [pause] Um...so how did
you come to decide to dedicate yourself to this god?" [blank
look] "I dunno. I guess I just did." "Yeah, well. What
an interesting story. I guess I'll just be moving on now...")
It wasn't the lack of plot structure that got to me.
It was the lack of even the feeblest attempt at creating a
fictional reality.
I have played in a number of games that had very little
plot at all and enjoyed them. But I simply cannot role-play a
character without a coherent world which can provide context
for the character's existence.
-- Sarah
A Lapalme
> World structure is only as strong as the plot structure within which the
> PCs find themselves. Strong plot structure *is* strong world-structure.
>
> will provide better oportunities and more support.
>
call plot, I call setting; what you call structure, I call setting. If the Gm
has a solid and varied setting and
the players decide to play their characters, then good stories and games
will come out. You just can't help it.
Alain
A Lapalme
>> : If you really like that, I suggest you try a strongly plotted game. Weak
>> : plots limit how much you can share the creation of the story.
>>
>>
>> David, do you think that you could elaborate on these
>> statements?
>
>
> David, permit me to add my voice to Sarah's. Despite the quite
> intelligent and informed conversation we have been having, I remain
> confused on this issue as well. I am beginning to suspect that what I
> mean by weak plot and what you mean by strong is the same thing.
>
> Best,
> Kevin
>
problem Kevin has. My definition of weeakly plotted is not the same as
Dave's (I think) so when he says weakly plotted I assume one thing. His
posts seem to indicate he assumes something else.
Maybe an example would help?
Alain
Sarah E Kahn
: Thomas Bagwell (tbag...@netcom.com) wrote:
: [Snip]
Yes, I have. Have you? I must say that I see remarkably little
similarity between the structure of a string game and the structure
of a story.
In cat's cradle, for example, there nearly always comes
a time when, due to player error, you end up with a "Pinkies"
formation which has a twist in it. At that point, both players
know that the game is doomed. The twist will continue to
reappear in all subsequent formations, spawning more and more
"twisties," until the formations degenerate into irredeemable
snarls of string. (There *is* a way to fix the Twistie if
you catch it on its first appearance, but this is a difficult
procedure, and you have to do it FAST, before the twisties
spawn). Once the string has become snarled, there is nothing
to do but to unsnarl it and to start all over again.
There is remarkably little variety in a game of cat's
cradle, and little room for player creativity. Rather, there
are only a few choices of how to respond to any given formation,
and deviation from these responses results in a tangled snarl
of string -- the end of the game. Furthermore, the game when
properly played (ie, played in such a way that the string does
NOT snarl) results in the same formations reappearing over and
over and over again. As I remember the game from my childhood,
a good deal of the fun DID come from consciously messing up
the pattern to watch this disintegration -- primal playground
observation of chaos in action -- but the main challenge of
the game was to see how long you could keep it going WITHOUT
messing it up. Unsnarling the string was a pain in the neck,
and generally something the players tried to avoid.
In short, I think that cat's cradle is exactly the
WRONG analogy for the type of structure you are trying to
describe. Presumably, the story structure of an RPG should
allow for player variation and creativity WITHOUT confusing
the game so badly that it will disintegrate to the point where
there can be no resolution and no closure (the string getting
so snarled that no further play is possible). And I think that
we would both agree that any story structure ought not result
in the same situations arising over and over and OVER again.
Sorry to go on so. It just occurred to me that perhaps
you had an erroneous idea of how string games are played. In
my day, at any rate, Cat's Cradle was a "GIRLIE" (to use Andrew
Rilestone's delightful phrase); it was not played by the
boys. I thought it possible that you might not have realized
just to what extent you run the risk of expressing just the
opposite of what I assume was your intent with this analogy.
-- Sarah, who cringes to recall
that she once used
terms like "Pinkies"
and "Twisties" on a
regular basis...
Jeff Stehman
> I have played in a number of games that had very little
>plot at all and enjoyed them. But I simply cannot role-play a
>character without a coherent world which can provide context
>for the character's existence.
Whole hearted agreement from me on that one. Countless hours have been
passed with our characters sitting in a tavern or library, enjoying a
drink and just talking. What made it interesting was that the characters
and the world they lived in had history. Some of it was developed in
game, some out of game, but it gave meaning to the things they said. To
borrow David's term, it provided the structure for their conversations.
--
Jeff Stehman Senior Systems Administrator
ste...@southwind.net SouthWind Internet Access, Inc.
voice: (316)263-7963 Wichita, KS
URL for Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce: http://www.southwind.net/ict
Alexander Williams
Sarah E Kahn, replying to the mystic words as written, saying:
>: World structure is only as strong as the plot structure within which the
>: PCs find themselves. Strong plot structure *is* strong world-structure.
>
> Ah. Now, you see, I would express this in just the opposite
>way. I would say that "plot structure is only as strong as the
>world structure in which that plot takes place and in which the PCs
>exist."
And I would express it yet a third way:
Plot structure is only as strong as the writing skills of the
scribe setting down the events /after the fact/. World structure is
as strong as the creator's instinct for it.
Plot and world-design are /very/ different events, structures,
and constructs. Forcing them together in the same boat is a radical
trivialization of the impact of world-design at the over-building of
plot.
>: to *be*. As soon as you provide a safe place, with good, reasonable
>: boundaries, they start to do a lot of self exploration and healing, all
>: on their own. Personality does not exist in a vaccum. It exists in
>: reflection by the world around us.
> ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^
> Yes. Precisely. The structure necessary for the development
>of personality is a world which seems to make *sense,* a world in
>which the boundaries are understood, a world that the characters can
>exist in relation *to.*
Unless you don't /want/ to create a feeling of safety, a
sensation of boundaries. I can, and have, created a very well
detailed world that does most distinctly /not/ create a feeling of
safety in either players or characters, where things are surreal and
fluctuate without warning on occasion, where illusion is the
mainstay and things manifest almost randomly from the characters'
PoV. (Its not /much/ better from the players' prospective, but they
know where their characters fit /in/ to the mess... at least on
creation. After that, Hades below only knows.)
Does this mean my world-design is flawed? No, I don't think so,
/I/ at least know what's going on at any given time socially, and
the dice mechanics present a baseline physics for the players to at
least understand. Is it then that this world could birth no
powerful plots? Again, I'd say no, I could write any number of
short stories and novels in the setting, and in retrospect the
players are very good at fitting their experienced events to a plot
(which was not in effect or presence before or during the events to
which it is matched).
So, where is the ultimate link between plot and world, here,
except in saying /characters/ exist as a function derived from their
world?
> I don't see how this is relevant to the issue of whether or
>not the "plot" has a clear mid-point, or whether its scenes fit the
>traditional dramatic structure.
Precisely.
> Now THIS I can see. THIS makes sense to me. Certainly I
>agree with you that a GM who is scrabbling to try to make some sense
>of the plot is NOT a GM who is likely to be capable of helping to
>foster and encourage good role-play.
One needn't necessarily be scrambling to make sense of a plot if
there is not plot to be made sense of, understand. In the world,
certain events will come to pass unless directly affected, at some
time... This is world-design, /not/ plotting.
A strong world design helps structure events, but it does not
create plot. Only the sequence of experiences viewed in retrospect
(or railroading) create that.
>dungeon crawl is not very prepossessing. "Characters go into
>dangerous place which contains hidden treasure guarded by scores
>of hostile creatures and lethal traps. They conquer the
>creatures, evade the traps, and find the goodies. Emerging with
>the loot, they return home." Not very interesting, admittedly,
>but I could live with that, I suppose.
I'd say that that's not only a very good and solid plot, but one
that's been used in hundreds of movies without too much change at
all. Do global-search-and-replace on thugs for creatures, cash/"the
girl" for treasure, and you've gor 80% of the modern action flicks.
It most certainly recounts the plot as seen after the fact. Quite a
few of these movies, David's expressed admiration for.
Its the absence of world/setting, as you say, which would make
the retelling (note /retelling/) a void experience. It might be
/fun/ to run some guys through a dungeon, slash, hack, and save the
booty, then leave, without worrying why or where to, in the same
sense that its fun to do downhill skiing without being in
competition or for a reason, just to ski. However, RPGs are a
narritive experience, and we /like/ to recount them to ourselves
afterward. A strong setting helps with that, we're quite able to
inject plot for ourselves.
--
tha...@runic.mind.org (Alexander Williams) | PGP 2.6 key avail
Should we shed our mental pants and compare | DF 22 16 CE CA 7F
the size of our consciousnesses? | 98 47 13 EE 8E EC
Jan Sand to Marvin Minsky | 9C 2D 9B 9B
Sarah E Kahn
[discussion of a lack of boundaries, and how this lack
can lead to a lack of personal ego structure]
: As soon as you provide a safe place, with good, reasonable
: boundaries, they start to do a lot of self exploration and healing, all
: on their own. Personality does not exist in a vaccum. It exists in
: reflection by the world around us.
: Good plot structure provides a firm, safe place to explore particular
: characterizations...
All right. I've been thinking about the Theatrix
system today, and there are a number of things about the game
which I find...disturbing. The odd thing is that David's statements
above do a very good job of describing precisely WHY I find
one of these aspects of the game disturbing, and why I would find
it exceptionally damaging to role-play.
I'm not trying to persecute you or your game, David (honest!),
but I would like to go over this with you here, if I may, because
there seems to me to be a fundamental discrepancy in philosophy in
operation here, and I would very much like to hear what you and
others think about it.
In Theatrix, the Actors (the players) are encouraged
to take an important authorial role in the game. To this end,
they are empowered to make certain assumptions about the game
world, and to act on these assumptions without first gaining
the permission of the Director (GM). In other words, upon
walking into a room which is specified as an office, an Actor
is perfectly free to say, "I sit down at the high-backed
leather chair behind the desk and rifle through the drawers,
swivelling the chair back and forth nervously as I search,"
without first ascertaining that there IS a chair, that it
is high-backed, that it is leather, or that it swivels.
By including this description in his statement, the Actor
has effectively created this chair, and the chair will
subsequently exist in all further interactions the Actors
may have with the objects in this room.
There are naturally guidelines to govern what sort
of props are not permissable for an Actor to improvise, and
it is understood that the Director may veto "improvisations
upon the Stage," but generally speaking, the Actors are permitted
a great deal of leeway in the creation of the world from moment
to moment.
In order to encourage this sort of improvisation,
in fact, the writers suggest that it can be useful for
the Director to adopt the rule of thumb that all questions
about the game world that could have been answered through
improvisation ought be answered with "no." In other words,
rather than asking "Is there a staircase in this hall?"
(the answer to which would be "no"), the Actor ought
say, "I spot an emergency exit stairway up ahead and run
for it." (I believe that this is one of the examples
given in the book).
Now, I have two major problems with this form
of player-world interaction. The first of these is that
it denies the character any way of relating to his environs
other than active. Of course, I know that David thinks that
character IS action, so I imagine that he might consider
this a good thing. I do not.
The second, and more deeply disturbing, aspect of
this type of player-world interaction, though, deals with
the very concern with consistency and structure that David
expresses above. When the details of the game world are
changing constantly in the course of play as a result of
Actor improvisation, then it seems to me that this structure
is lacking. A good example of what I mean exists in the
sample of play (the "Big Combat Mega-Example") in the
Theatrix book itself. I would prefer to call this scenario
"The Case of the Amazing Mutating Staircase."
The situation here is that three heroes are walking
down a riveted steel staircase on board an "uberzeppelin,"
trying to make their way to the hangar deck. They get to
the bottom of the stairs, start down the corridor, and a
door to their left opens loudly and abruptly.
Player 1's reaction is to run back up the stairs,
very quickly. The Director allows this action.
Player 2 says that he is going to throw himself
behind the steel staircase. The Director reminds him that,
as this is a staircase designed to be light -- they are on
an airship, after all -- the stairs have an open framework.
Not very good cover.
Player 2 responds by stating that the staircase,
while open, is a SPIRAL staircase, supported by a central
pole, and that therefore it will provide him with pretty
good cover. The Director accepts this improvisation.
The staircase is now a circular one.
A bit later in the plot, while the characters are
being fired upon, Player 1 tries to jump quickly down the
stairs. The Director reminds him that this is a CIRCULAR
staircase now, and that he will therefore not be able to
do this.
Player 1 responds by saying that, in that case,
he jumps over the side, leaping the bannister. The
Director allows the action, including the bannister in
his description and thus, implicity, allowing that
improvisation. The staircase is now not only circular,
it also has a bannister.
Okay. That's all of the sample of play I really
need, I think, to make my point.
Now, I must say that I would find it very hard to
play a sane character in this world. Just as children
require boundaries to develop a good, strong personal ego,
so characters require some consistency in their environs to
exist as sane and believable fictional people. And there is
absolutely no consistency in this universe, no boundaries,
no structure. This is a game world designed to drive the
characters mad.
Let's look at the situation from the perspective of
Player 1's character, Scott, shall we? Scott runs up a
staircase. The staircase is described as a "steel, riveted
staircase." As no other description is given, it is quite
reasonable to assume that this is a straight stair; in
fact, it is clear that this was the Director's vision of
the stair as well. So Scott has run up this straight
set of stairs.
Now, Player 2 makes the stairs circular. From Scott's
perspective, the staircase he has just run up has now, inexplicably
and without warning, turned into a circular one. Whoah! Trippy.
Scott shakes his head in some dismay. It must have been something
he ate.
Trying to regain his bearings, Scott now notices that the
particular vantage point that he once had of the corridor below has
just changed. It has changed so significantly, in fact, that Scott
can no longer see the same things he was able to see a minute ago.
Whereas before, he had a pretty clear view all the way down to the
corridor, now there is a steel pole and a bunch of stairs blocking
his line of sight, and he's not quite sure what he's standing on
anymore. A minute ago, he was standing at the top of a staircase
leading down into the corridor, but now he's not quite sure WHERE
the hell he is. Is he on one of the top steps of the circular
stair, with the entrance to the upper floor more or less directly
above his head? Or is he ON the upper floor? Can he see the
floor above, or not? (Later on, it is in fact established that
he CAN see the floor above, but poor Scott doesn't know this yet).
Uh-oh. Looks like Scott's vision is blurry, and his
sense of spatial relationship seems to be going as well. Perhaps
he's coming down with the 'flu. Sure hope he hasn't been poisoned...
Next thing you know, Scott has reason to jump back DOWN
the stairs. But you know what? He can't. He has to sort of
vault over them. Because everyone knows that it is very difficult
to throw oneself quickly down a circular staircase backwards.
For that matter, it is also very difficult to run quickly UP
a circular staircase, but that's okay, 'cause back when Scott was
running UP the stairs, they weren't circular, and it's really
EASY to bolt up a regular staircase. Scott shakes his head
again. Perhaps he's going mad, but he is far too busy to worry
about it now. Good thing that bannister was there -- that made
vaulting down to the corridor a lot easier.
From below, Player 2's character, Abe, blinks in
astonishment. A bannister has just appeared on this functional
steel military staircase. He could have SWORN that there wasn't
a bannister there a second ago. He begins to wonder if perhaps
all this stress might be getting to him. Could combat fatigue
DO this to a person?
I will spare you any more of this. I'm sure that I
have made my meaning more than plain.
Now, this is a game world in which I would find it
very, very difficult to role-play well. Good role-play, IMO,
requires that the player be able to adopt the first person
perspective of the character. A vital part of this ability
is the capacity to visualize the scene from the character's
perspective -- to "see" the scene as the character sees it.
This visualization is never perfect, as there is at any time
an infinite amount of unspecified detail in the scene as
described which must be filled in by the player's imagination.
But by providing a stable and consistent game world, and by
making good use of description, the GM is able to aid the
player in this endeavor, establishing firm guidelines as to
what sorts of details are "reasonable" to assume within the
game world. This is the sort of structure, the boundaries,
if you will, that enable the game world to take on the
semblance of reality for the participants in the game.
The world in which this scenario takes place, however,
does not have those boundaries. Things in this universe are
highly unstable; they are subject to frequent revision and
change. It would be difficult to have any clear idea of
what sort of detail would be "reasonable" to assume within
this game world, a world in which a staircase in a fictional
WWII zeppelin can just as easily be straight as it can be
circular. Are the players meant to assume, for instance,
that since this particular staircase is circular, that all
of the other staircases they have been running up and down
have ALSO been circular? Or is this the only circular
staircase (with a BANNISTER, no less!) in the zeppelin,
placed there for some unfathomable reason by a mad interior
decorator? There is just no way of knowing, in such a universe,
what things are *likely* to look like, and the visualization
necessary to assume the character's perspective in play therefore
becomes very difficult to achieve. I cannot imagine that I
am the only person in the world who might find that this would
diminish their role-play.
Now, I realize that this sort of thing goes on
in ANY game. Players often make assumptions about their
characters' surroundings that are erroneous, and they are later
forced to revise their visualization to get themselves back
on track with the fictional reality of the game world. In my
group, we refer to this as RetCon ("Retroactive Continuity").
It happens. It happens because no one is perfect, because
people will naturally imagine things in different ways, and
becausethe amount of detail which goes UNdescribed in any RPG
is literally infinite. I understand that visualization
needs to be revised frequently in any role-playing game.
But this is, IMO, a situation which is to be
*avoided.* The more agreement among the participants
about the game world, the better. We are trying to
create a shared reality here, and to create a shared
reality, you need consistency. We try to REDUCE
the possibility of a situation arising in which the players
need to revise their visualizations as much as possible,
because such "RetCon" weakens the structure of the game world
and makes role-play far more difficult.
I am in firm agreement with David that character is
best developed in "a safe place with good, reasonable boundaries."
I don't think, though, that the Theatrix system leads to
the creation of such a space; rather, it would seem to me
that it hinders it. Certainly this example of play would
seem to indicate that use of the system leads to a world
which is frighteningly unstable, a world in which it is
very difficult to rely upon even the most general assumptions
of what things are *like,* a world in which reality has
become so fluid that there is no real structure to which
the characters can relate. The PLOT may be structured to
hell and back, but if the world in which the characters
exist lacks internal consistency, then I don't think that
the players are getting the sort of structure that is
optimal for good role-play.
-- Sarah
Kevin R. Hardwick
that Sarah and Larry Smith have been discussing, (pp. 101-112) the problem
arises because there is an inconsistency between the actions of Scott (who
runs up the stairs) and Abe, who improvises to declare that the stairs are
spiral. An alert GM would have countermanded Abe's declaration, since it
clearly was not consonant with the action of Scott. The trouble is, with
all the other things that a GM has to keep track of, it is easy for an
inconsistency this subtle to slip past (witness the fact that it DID slip
past the attention of the writers of THEATRIX!). And if enough of this
sort of thing happens, the world begins to take on an indefinite feel
that certainly gives it a most un-visual like lack of substance (after all,
in a film the audience and actors can SEE the set).
In the games I have run I have encouraged 'minor' improvisation but
generally discouraged 'major' improvisation to the set for precisely this
reason--I want to make it as easy as possible for the players to
visualize the setting, and too much definition by other players can
hamper that effort, precisely as Sarah describes. This is an issue that
our group has explicitly discussed--I am reporting a group decision
here. So what I do instead is to authorize players to create setting at
particular times.
For example, in a game I recently ran, I handed control of a setting to
the players explicitly. Two characters have been on the road, in the
rain, for several days; they are cold, wet, hungry, and miserable. They
enter a moderate sized market town--there is a bar here, I say.
You enter the bar. "Weasal," [the name of Tom's character] I say, "tell us
what you see." Weasal's player then creates the bar, and that provides
the setting for the rest of the scenes in the bar. The player bases his
description on the information I have given him--he is hungry and
wet--and his description and the short role playing of his entry into the
bar, ending with him standing steaming by the fire with a nice mug of mulled
cider in his hands, provides a nice counterpart to the mood of the
flashbacks I have been intercutting.
Since I know something of the action that will occur, I take care to ask
leading questions to pin down relevant information; is there a back door,
for example? What's back there--well, Weasal can't SEE that, so that's
up to me. I take care to explicitly take back the authorial authority to
create the setting--"Thank's Tom, nice description . . ."
Now it does seem useful to me to permit small improvisation where
appropriate. Sparks, another character, is a member of a persecuted
religion. He spots a cloaked fellow in the corner who he has
reason to believe is also a member of this religion; this fellow is talking
to someone who seems to be dressed like a boat captain or fisherman.
Sparks saunters over to the table where the two are talking and engages
the captain in conversation. "There's a puddle of condensed water on the
table," Sparks says, "and while we talk I idly trace the design of the
Cross of Netherone in the puddle, taking care not to look directly at the
cloaked man."
Whats the difference between small and great improvisation? Largely a
judgement call. But in this case, the existence of the puddle is not
likely to jar hard on one of the other player's mental image of the bar.
Thinking about the way the players interpret the game world--and what
narrative stance I want them to take as we together weave the story--has
been really helpful to me--it made the last games I have run much much
more effective.
As Sarah remarked, these stances do not exist comfortably together, and
delimiting them explicitly has made my more recent games considerably
more fun than what I was doing previously.
Best,
Kevin
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: : World structure is only as strong as the plot structure within which the
: : PCs find themselves. Strong plot structure *is* strong world-structure.
: Ah. Now, you see, I would express this in just the opposite
: way. I would say that "plot structure is only as strong as the
: world structure in which that plot takes place and in which the PCs
: exist."
Yes. Same thing. Of course, a world construction kit occurs as the
chapter before the plot construction kit. However, when a PC takes an
action in a diceless game, on what can you more often base a decision on
the outcome; the structure od your world, or the structure of your
present plotline? I would say plotline, and that is why I would phrase
this the other way around.
[Snip]
: Yes. Precisely. The structure necessary for the development
: of personality is a world which seems to make *sense,* a world in
: which the boundaries are understood, a world that the characters can
: exist in relation *to.*
And the structure of meaning as viewed in its natural habitat, ie. time,
is where the structure of plot derives from.
: I don't see how this is relevant to the issue of whether or
: not the "plot" has a clear mid-point, or whether its scenes fit the
: traditional dramatic structure.
Structure is meaning (I knew I forgot one of these earlier).
: Well...no, I don't think that it necessarily is. An
: extremely mechanistic system which allows for *no* GM leeway
: in interpreting results, for example, surely makes the GM's
: job a very easy one indeed, but I think that we would both
: agree that such a system is *not* conducive to better role-play.
O.K. You got me. But the stuff we suggest is.
David
David Hauth
We're talking about improvisation and player-control on the "stage" in
Theatrix. Sarah gave us a lengthy discussion of how she finds
improvisational modification of stage props jarring and surreal, and
David Berkman (and another gentleman whose name escapes me -- many
apologies) tried to counter this perception by offering their own
experiences. I'll toss my hat in the ring.
I hate to disagree with you, Sarah, but I like the improvisational
stage-management that players are allowed in Theatrix. Why? Because it
cuts down on trivial question-answer periods in the middle of tense
action scenes and cuts to the chase. If, during a car chase one of the
players reaches behind the seat and pulls out a crate of grapefruit, I
don't really care so much. If it was absolutely important that the car
be completely empty, I would have described it as so.
In one of my recent episodes of Theatrix, a couple of PCs were chased
down by shotgun-toting thugs, and chased into a cornfield. While they
were playing cat-and-mouse, the other PCs came racing up to investigate
all the shotgun blasts. One of the players improved: "I'll jump onto
the tractor that's parked next to the farmhouse, and drive off into the
cornfield on it." I had as yet not described any farmhouse, let alone a
tractor. But there was no good reason to _deny_ their existence, so I
didn't. In a Standard Game (TM) it might have went thusly:
Phil: We drive up to where the jeep is overturned. What's around us?
Me: You are on a road running through a cornfield, with tall cornrows
on either side. No one is in sight.
Phil: Is there a farmhouse in sight?
Me: Yes, there is. About 50 meters before the overturned jeep. It's
pretty close to the road, and there is a barn here and a potato shed
here.
Phil: Is their a tractor parked near the barn, or any other vehicle?
Me: Yeah -- there's one of those classic old farm tractors right out
in front of the barn. Next to it are a couple of different plows
and rakes meant to be towed behind.
Phil: Okay -- I hop on the tractor, and drive it out into the cornfields...
By letting Phil just improv the tractor and the farmhouse, I avoided a
short but disrupting question-answer session that detracted from the
tension of the moment. I wanted them to drive up, react to the
overturned jeep, and leap into action. Which is what they did; the
improved version had more immediacy, though.
I can certainly identify with your concerns about consistency, though.
I, too, wouldn't want to play in a world where the reality was constantly
flip-flopping. I haven't had the problems that you perceive with the
improvisation of the stage.
Hope I'm not haranguing you, sarah ;)
Cheers,
Dave Hauth
Larry Smith USG
I won't include that whole post to save bandwidth, but let
me add this: you are describing a Schrodinger's Cat world,
where nothing has a _specific_ form until it becomes germane
to the plot. The staircase did not "start out" as a straight
flight of stairs and "become" circular, they were _always_
circular, but the fact that that was the case did not become
germane to the plot until later. If the GM (or Director) in
this case does not wish to leave this unspecified, then he
simply specifies it in the initial description "a flight of
steps heading down to a landing" - or vetoes the proposed
resolution when it is made "But the steps are circular." "No,
they aren't."
The vast majority of the world is done this way in any game,
the details of the walls, the water stains, the cracks, are
unspecified. They exist in multifarious forms in each player's
mind. When a player gets an idea, it's about _his_ version of
this reality - when he asks questions about it, he's asking
for confirmation of _his_ version of reality - and in so doing,
altering the reality in the minds of the other players. Theatrix
makes it more upfront that this goes on and allows a lot of
latitude for players to add elements, but this same thing goes
in in every improvisational game, no matter what the rules, and
it goes on - to a lesser, but still appreciable extent - even
for "fully prepared" scenarios run by a strictly "what's in the
notes" GM, since even they have to "wing it" if the player asks
about something not covered in the notes. The notes might say
"some random junk" - "is there a pole in there?" "well, yeah,
a broken one - a foot long." "I take it." <time passes> "Well,
I use that short section of pole I found in the junk pile to
impale the vampire." "Oh." You can't stop this unless you
absolutely refuse to elaborate detail (and thereby "collapse the
probability wave" for you physics fans) "There's junk here."
"Anything good?" "No." "Some rags?" "No, just junk." "How
about a pole?" "No." "Hunk of wood?" "No." "Bit of leather?"
"No." "Well, what sort of 'junk', exactly?" "JUNK junk."
"What, some strange elemental substance called 'junk'? Is it
pure 'junkium', or just an ore?" You see where this leads.
--
Larry Smith --- My opinions only. lar...@zk3.dec.com/lar...@io.com.
pentagon.io.com is Illuminati OnLine, SJ Games, _not_ "the" Pentagon, please.
'Elitism' is a term used in derision by those without standards towards
those with them. -- Clark Gaylord
11265-Graham Wills
>will provide better oportunities and more support.
>David
Interesting. Now a dungeon crawl seems the epitome of a highly plotted game.
After all, it has one location and most rooms have only one way of solving
them. There are various "gates" that have to be passed to move onto the next
plot segment. In fact, a real *authentic* D&D crawl has exactly one way
through it. There are minimal choices to be made, just a series of problems
admitting of a single solution.
That seems *very* tightly plotted to me.
And I can't see how it helps characterization.
Characters are built up by the way they approach situations. To allow for
more varied characters it seems a weaker plot is required. Clearly an absolute
vacuum is bad, but how many people have had problems with a game because they
had too many options available?
-Graham Wills
--
Graham Wills Data Visualization / Software Research (11265)
gwi...@research.att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories, Indian Hill, Naperville IL
Andrew Finch
: All right. I've been thinking about the Theatrix
: system today, and there are a number of things about the game
: which I find...disturbing.
You wouldn't be the first.
: The odd thing is that David's statements
: above do a very good job of describing precisely WHY I find
: one of these aspects of the game disturbing, and why I would find
: it exceptionally damaging to role-play.
I would caution that what you think might occur, and what actually does,
may be two different things.
: I'm not trying to persecute you or your game, David (honest!),
: but I would like to go over this with you here, if I may, because
: there seems to me to be a fundamental discrepancy in philosophy in
: operation here, and I would very much like to hear what you and
: others think about it.
Sure. And you can't persecute us, I've asked for comments. As long as
they are intelligent and thoughtful, I'll try to respond to them.
[Snip]
: Now, I have two major problems with this form
: of player-world interaction. The first of these is that
: it denies the character any way of relating to his environs
: other than active. Of course, I know that David thinks that
: character IS action, so I imagine that he might consider
: this a good thing. I do not.
I'm not sure what you mean. The player reacts to his environment in an
active way. The character just sees and hears what is there, whether that
was created by either the Actor or Director. And, you can always ask
'What's in the room?'. That gets the normal response. If you are using
the rule of thumb, it's questions like 'Is there a safe in here?' that
get the 'no', and that's because the player obviously has some idea, and
we encourage him to put that idea into play, on his/her own initiative.
Of course, this is just to get people into the spirit. Use it or not as
you wish.
: The second, and more deeply disturbing, aspect of
: this type of player-world interaction, though, deals with
: the very concern with consistency and structure that David
: expresses above. When the details of the game world are
: changing constantly in the course of play as a result of
: Actor improvisation, then it seems to me that this structure
: is lacking.
The details do not change constantly. See the section on 'Information'
in the 'Improvisation' chapter. Once declared, that's reality. The
details get filled in, not replaced. Information is built up in a natural
way which the players can take part in, in order to help advance certain
points of their characterizations, or because they have a neat plot piece
they would like to contribute.
: A good example of what I mean exists in the
: sample of play (the "Big Combat Mega-Example") in the
: Theatrix book itself. I would prefer to call this scenario
: "The Case of the Amazing Mutating Staircase."
[Snip]
: improvisation. The staircase is now not only circular,
: it also has a bannister.
: Okay. That's all of the sample of play I really
: need, I think, to make my point.
At no time does the staircase alter or change form. More information about
the staitrcase is added, as needed to detail portions of the action, and
some of those details are declared by the players. In a 'normal' game, the
GM would be adding this information as he is asked these questions,
normally in an improvisational way as well. In Theatrix, the players may
take part in this detailing, but each declaration is just as stable as in
the more 'normal' paradigm.
: Now, I must say that I would find it very hard to
: play a sane character in this world. Just as children
: require boundaries to develop a good, strong personal ego,
: so characters require some consistency in their environs to
: exist as sane and believable fictional people. And there is
: absolutely no consistency in this universe, no boundaries,
: no structure. This is a game world designed to drive the
: characters mad.
There were never any boundaries or structure. We make use of that to
empower the players in ways which we believe are valuable. However, there
is as much consistency as in any other game, and as much as you wish to have.
: Let's look at the situation from the perspective of
: Player 1's character, Scott, shall we? Scott runs up a
: staircase. The staircase is described as a "steel, riveted
: staircase." As no other description is given, it is quite
: reasonable to assume that this is a straight stair; in
: fact, it is clear that this was the Director's vision of
: the stair as well. So Scott has run up this straight
: set of stairs.
I disagree. There is an assumption that the staircase is straight, and
that may be a reasonable assumption, but that's all it is. Of course,
from Scott's viewpoint it makes no difference at this time, which is why
Scott's player has not bothered to declare the shape of the staircase, or
ask. It is ambiguous. If it were important, the Director would say, or
Scott's player would declare the facts.
In a 'normal' game, the players' views of the world and its details are
constantly being overriden by the GMs descriptions, as the GM fills in
the details. No one seems to make much of this. Why should it remove the
validity of the world simply because the players may actively engage
themselves in this process if they wish?
: Now, Player 2 makes the stairs circular. From Scott's
: perspective, the staircase he has just run up has now, inexplicably
: and without warning, turned into a circular one. Whoah! Trippy.
: Scott shakes his head in some dismay. It must have been something
: he ate.
That's a bit much. In a D&D game, when I walk into a banquet hall, not
every detail is declared by the GM. When I find out where the exits are,
and exactly what shape the table is, if that didn't fit in with my
assumptions, is my world suddenly shattered and remolded? Am I on a wierd
psychedelic trip?
[Snip]
: stair, with the entrance to the upper floor more or less directly
: above his head? Or is he ON the upper floor? Can he see the
: floor above, or not? (Later on, it is in fact established that
: he CAN see the floor above, but poor Scott doesn't know this yet).
Only because he hasn't asked and it hasn't been described yet. But he
didn't know this when it was a stright staircase in his mind either. No
perceptions have been altered.
[Snip]
: a circular staircase, but that's okay, 'cause back when Scott was
: running UP the stairs, they weren't circular, and it's really
: EASY to bolt up a regular staircase.
I disagree. I think you can bolt up a circular staircase as well. If I
didn't think so, I would have disallowed the improvisation.
But enough of this. This adventure happens to be the one we were running
at cons the entirety of last summer. I just ran it myself recently. I run
a lot of other games in this manner. If you're careful about what you've
already stated as reality, about as careful as you need to be in a
'normal' environment, then it works fine. Why not give it a try and see?
You bought the book, you might as well see if you can get your money out
of it. You may feel differently than you think you will.
: I will spare you any more of this. I'm sure that I
: have made my meaning more than plain.
Yes. Now you should see whether that's true.
[Snip]
: making good use of description, the GM is able to aid the
: player in this endeavor, establishing firm guidelines as to
: what sorts of details are "reasonable" to assume within the
: game world.
I think players can make many of these assumptions correctly, and really
adopt the first person perspective. Rather than peering into a room,
being asked by the guy behind you what's in it, asking the GM for what
your first person perspective is, and then repeating it, you can simply
state, in the first person, what your first person perspective is. This
makes a profound difference, and one I don't wish to give up.
: Now, I realize that this sort of thing goes on
: in ANY game. Players often make assumptions about their
: characters' surroundings that are erroneous, and they are later
: forced to revise their visualization to get themselves back
: on track with the fictional reality of the game world.
Yes.
: But this is, IMO, a situation which is to be
: *avoided.*
It is as avoidable in Theatrix as any othe rgame. The only way to avoid
this is to actually describe the details, and as they are described,
there they are. We are just allowing the players to do part of this
description. I think you are getting hung up on this to a far greater
extent than the reality deserves. We have always found this freedom far
more helpful than hurtful.
: I am in firm agreement with David that character is
: best developed in "a safe place with good, reasonable boundaries."
: I don't think, though, that the Theatrix system leads to
: the creation of such a space; rather, it would seem to me
: that it hinders it.
It doesn't. It promotes characterization. Or rather, it does for me,
and I think for a few others around here as well. But you are holding the
game and may find out for yourself.
David Berkman
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: Plot and world-design are /very/ different events, structures,
: and constructs. Forcing them together in the same boat is a radical
: trivialization of the impact of world-design at the over-building of
: plot.
Forcing them together is as natural as can be. They were always
inseperable, but most people (unfamiliar with plot deconstruction) have
never given plot its due. Of course, there have been almost no resources
available to the gaming public.
: One needn't necessarily be scrambling to make sense of a plot if
: there is not plot to be made sense of, understand. In the world,
: certain events will come to pass unless directly affected, at some
: time... This is world-design, /not/ plotting.
That's plotting. I do that, and I call it plotting.
: A strong world design helps structure events, but it does not
: create plot. Only the sequence of experiences viewed in retrospect
: (or railroading) create that.
We have very different definitions of world design and plot.
: >dungeon crawl is not very prepossessing. "Characters go into
: >dangerous place which contains hidden treasure guarded by scores
: I'd say that that's not only a very good and solid plot, but one
: that's been used in hundreds of movies without too much change at
: all.
I would say that this shows a lack of understanding of movie plot
construction.
David
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: Aha! This is fairly clear now.
: I would say that I more often base a decision on the structure
: of my world - hence the distinction. As I explained in the multiple
: endings for _Return of the Jedi_, plotline rarely is the basis for a
: decision for me - since I usually see many equally good choices.
That looked like plot-based decisions to me.
: Therefore I typically base the outcome simply on what is
: reasonable for the world as I have set it up. As long as I set up
: the conflict and stay true to the characters, the plot usually works
: itself out just fine, I find.
In the Jedi example it is perfectly reasonable for the world that Vader
kill luke, kill Lea, kill Han, and melt down the robots. Yet you didn't
consider this possibility, and many others. All the possibilities you
chose were along plotlines. I found that interesting.
Yes, any decision must be plausible within the world and genre, but they
all serve some niche within the unfolding plotline.
David
A Lapalme
[snip long example on character perspective]
I've been using that technique for 1 year now and have not found it to be
a problem. However, I have to say that my players have not been abusive
about the privilege so I have neeo seen the type of world reconstruction
as examplified in the Theatrix exampe.
I personally feel that this approach works . However, the GM must put
some limit on it. For example, in the staircase example, I doubt I would
have allowed the staircase to change shape that much, specially since a
character had already used the stair. ON the other hand,if the characters
had not used the stair yet, than I would have had no problems allowing the
circular stari to exist.
In essence, world reconstruction after the fact, I don't favour. Before,
the fact, well, pretty much anything goes.
Alain
Sarah E Kahn
: Sarah E Kahn (SSK...@frost.oit.umass.edu) wrote:
: : Ah. Now, you see, I would express this in just the opposite
: : way. I would say that "plot structure is only as strong as the
: : world structure in which that plot takes place and in which the PCs
: : exist."
: Yes. Same thing. Of course, a world construction kit occurs as the
: chapter before the plot construction kit.
Urgh.
: However, when a PC takes an
: action in a diceless game, on what can you more often base a decision on
: the outcome; the structure od your world, or the structure of your
: present plotline? I would say plotline, and that is why I would phrase
: this the other way around.
Okay. Perhaps this describes our differences in opinion
on this issue. I find that I most often base a decision on the
structure of the world, less often on genre, and only very
infrequently on the plot. When I even *have* a plot in mind,
which I often do not.
Of course, the distinctions between world, genre, and
plot are pretty fuzzy sometimes. But soft...
-- Sarah
A Lapalme
world reality and Dave's response]
>
>
> It doesn't. It promotes characterization. Or rather, it does for me,
> and I think for a few others around here as well. But you are holding the
> game and may find out for yourself.
>
promote characterization? I've been allowing player improv for some time
and have yet to see how it improves characterization when all the player
does is create props. It might make the game more interesting but this
has nothing to do with characterization. Rather, it's a case of sharing
the GMing workload.
Note: I could be guilty of pulling a quote out of context but the whole
post was about improvisation so I have to assume the concluding paragraph
is still about improvisation]
Alain
Sarah E Kahn
: In an arcane scroll, Alexander Williams quotes the holy scripturist
: Sarah E Kahn, replying to the mystic words as written, saying:
: And I would express it yet a third way:
: Plot structure is only as strong as the writing skills of the
: scribe setting down the events /after the fact/. World structure is
: as strong as the creator's instinct for it.
Yes. You have a good point here. It is the nature of
human beings to impose structure upon events. In an RPG, the
players will always impose some sort of narrative structure
upon the events even during play. With hindsight, when the
game is over, they will do an even more complete job of it.
: > Now THIS I can see. THIS makes sense to me. Certainly I
: >agree with you that a GM who is scrabbling to try to make some sense
: >of the plot is NOT a GM who is likely to be capable of helping to
: >foster and encourage good role-play.
: One needn't necessarily be scrambling to make sense of a plot if
: there is not plot to be made sense of, understand. In the world,
: certain events will come to pass unless directly affected, at some
: time... This is world-design, /not/ plotting.
I agree with you. Sometimes I plot, and sometimes I
don't. When I do not plot, I do not find myself "scrabbling,"
because there is a well-structured world in place.
This issue in question, though, was whether things
that make a GMs job easier will encourage good role-play.
I conceded the point that a GM who is feeling insecure and
structureless, for whatever reason, is NOT going to be able
to do a very good job of encouraging good role-play among
his players.
: A strong world design helps structure events, but it does not
: create plot. Only the sequence of experiences viewed in retrospect
: (or railroading) create that.
Um-hmm. We've been tape recording our games lately,
and then later going back and transcribing them. It has been
fascinating to see the various ways in which our memories of
the game differ from the transcripts.
: >dungeon crawl is not very prepossessing. "Characters go into
: >dangerous place which contains hidden treasure guarded by scores
: >of hostile creatures and lethal traps. They conquer the
: >creatures, evade the traps, and find the goodies. Emerging with
: >the loot, they return home." Not very interesting, admittedly,
: >but I could live with that, I suppose.
: I'd say that that's not only a very good and solid plot, but one
: that's been used in hundreds of movies without too much change at
: all. Do global-search-and-replace on thugs for creatures, cash/"the
: girl" for treasure, and you've gor 80% of the modern action flicks.
: It most certainly recounts the plot as seen after the fact. Quite a
: few of these movies, David's expressed admiration for.
It is a *very* solid plot, and a very common one. In
Tolkien's words, what you've got there is "There And Back Again."
A very standard plot.
Of course, it's what you DO with the plot that counts.
Most dungeon-crawls don't do much with it, but it is not the
plot that is to blame for that.
I don't care much for most action movies myself, which
is possibly why Theatrix's metaphor (and the examples it uses to
illustrate its points) left me cold. I don't like WATCHING most
action-adventure movies. I certainly don't want to *play* one of
them.
: Its the absence of world/setting, as you say, which would make
: the retelling (note /retelling/) a void experience. It might be
: /fun/ to run some guys through a dungeon, slash, hack, and save the
: booty, then leave, without worrying why or where to, in the same
: sense that its fun to do downhill skiing without being in
: competition or for a reason, just to ski. However, RPGs are a
: narritive experience, and we /like/ to recount them to ourselves
: afterward. A strong setting helps with that, we're quite able to
: inject plot for ourselves.
I agree. But then, I imagine that you knew that I would. ;)
-- Sarah
Sarah E Kahn
: Sarah E Kahn (SSK...@frost.oit.umass.edu) wrote:
: I would caution that what you think might occur, and what actually does,
: may be two different things.
Of course. In the interests of fairness, however, I *did*
use the sample of play given in the actual book. I thought it safe
to assume that, as the creators of Theatrix included that sample,
they themselves considered it a fairly good representation of
play. And as, unlike a game in play, a sample of play in a book
may be *edited*, I think that it is more than fair to use that
sample as an example of what the creators of the system believe
play should (or will) be like.
: Sure. And you can't persecute us, I've asked for comments. As long as
: they are intelligent and thoughtful, I'll try to respond to them.
Thank you. I will certainly attempt to make my comments
intelligent and thoughtful. Please do understand that I am here
reacting only to the game *as read.* I understand that it might
be very different in play, and I do promise that I will give the
system a run before I make any absolute judgements about it. Rest
assured that when we do give the game a play, I'll be sure to tell
you how it went.
: I'm not sure what you mean. The player reacts to his environment in an
: active way. The character just sees and hears what is there, whether that
: was created by either the Actor or Director. And, you can always ask
: 'What's in the room?'. That gets the normal response. If you are using
: the rule of thumb, it's questions like 'Is there a safe in here?' that
: get the 'no', and that's because the player obviously has some idea, and
: we encourage him to put that idea into play, on his/her own initiative.
: Of course, this is just to get people into the spirit. Use it or not as
: you wish.
Okay. How about a question like: "What color scheme
is this office decorated in?" or "In what style is this room
decorated -- are the pieces of furniture eclectic or in period,
and if in period, which period?"
I could of course just create this detail myself, but
I can easily envision circumstances in which I wouldn't want to.
If this were the house or office of a suspect in a murder mystery,
for example, then I would rather be able to view the details and
deduce FROM them than to create them myself.
I do agree with you that too much of the "Is there an X
here?" can get tiresome, and that it wears down the GM. "Is there
a blotter on the desk?" "Um, yes." "Is there a little calendar on
the desk?" "Sure. Why not. Yes, there is." "Is there one of those
little pen-and-pencil holders?" "Oh, for Christ's sake, it's a
desk in an OFFICE, man! What do you THINK? (sigh) Yes. Yes,
there is a pen-and-pencil holder. That's an affirmative."
This sort of thing is, I agree, most undesirable. We
do an awful lot of what you call "improv" in our games as well.
My problem here is not with the concept itself, but with the
SORT of improv allowed in your sample of play and thus, I
presume, in your game.
: The details do not change constantly. See the section on 'Information'
: in the 'Improvisation' chapter. Once declared, that's reality. The
: details get filled in, not replaced. Information is built up in a natural
: way which the players can take part in, in order to help advance certain
: points of their characterizations, or because they have a neat plot piece
: they would like to contribute.
I understand that. We do a lot of this ourselves. I
think, though, that there are times when a "reasonable assumption"
should be understood to implicitly declare reality. Once the
characters have spent some time in the office, for example, I
would not consider it acceptable for one of the players to declare
the chair in the office "a high-backed chair of some darkly
colored wood -- perhaps mahogany. Grinning gargoyles are carved
into its arms, and there is a bas relief of a pastoral scene on
its back." This is not the sort of chair one would generally
SEE in an office, and therefore if it had looked that way, the
other characters would have noticed it immediately. By failing
to describe the chair in the office initially, the gamers have
implicitly declared it to be unextraordinary.
: I disagree. There is an assumption that the staircase is straight, and
: that may be a reasonable assumption, but that's all it is. Of course,
: from Scott's viewpoint it makes no difference at this time, which is why
: Scott's player has not bothered to declare the shape of the staircase, or
: ask. It is ambiguous. If it were important, the Director would say, or
: Scott's player would declare the facts.
Okay. Perhaps it is the specifics of the example which are
hanging us up here. The difference between a circular stair and
a straight one is an important one to my mind. The two types of
staircases create a very different atmosphere to the surroundings.
If I-as-player-in-character think that I am running quickly up
and down spiral staircases (which I will concede to you is possible)
during an action sequence, then I have a *very* different image
of what is going on than I do if the staircases are straight ones.
My mental image of the kinetics involved in the action and of the
visual perspective afforded during this action transforms greatly:
it is the difference between leaping up and down stairs two or three
at a time with a clear view ahead of me (straight stairs), and of
whirling quickly around, keeping one hand on the central pole for
support, with a confusing blur of stairs and framework rushing
through my line of sight as I run (circular stair). We are
talking about very different TYPES of "running up and down
stairs" here. Perhaps we just differ in opinion over how important
a difference this is.
: In a 'normal' game, the players' views of the world and its details are
: constantly being overriden by the GMs descriptions, as the GM fills in
: the details. No one seems to make much of this. Why should it remove the
: validity of the world simply because the players may actively engage
: themselves in this process if they wish?
It can ENHANCE the validity of the world, in my opinion,
but only if done with *care.* I did not feel, from the sample of
play given in the book, that Theatrix advocates quite as much
care in this regard as I feel is necessary to maintain a sense
of structure and consistency to the world. On the contrary,
I felt that it was encouraging a sort of carelessness with this
technique which I believe can be harmful.
: That's a bit much. In a D&D game, when I walk into a banquet hall, not
: every detail is declared by the GM. When I find out where the exits are,
: and exactly what shape the table is, if that didn't fit in with my
: assumptions, is my world suddenly shattered and remolded? Am I on a wierd
: psychedelic trip?
No, of course not. But if enough of your reasonable
assumptions about the hall are overriden by the GM -- and overriden
long after they have become established as "reality" in your
mind -- then eventually you might begin to feel as if you were.
Whether the players contradict your reasonable assumptions or the GM
does is irrelevant; either way, it weakens the reality of the game.
My concern is that Theatrix encourages a type of fluidity which
might result in the frequent overturn of "reasonable assumption"
at a point in play when it is no longer really fair to overturn
it.
: : stair, with the entrance to the upper floor more or less directly
: : above his head? Or is he ON the upper floor? Can he see the
: : floor above, or not? (Later on, it is in fact established that
: : he CAN see the floor above, but poor Scott doesn't know this yet).
: Only because he hasn't asked and it hasn't been described yet. But he
: didn't know this when it was a stright staircase in his mind either. No
: perceptions have been altered.
I'd say they have been. It is reasonable to assume that
a character standing at the top of a straight staircase has a clear
view down into the corridor below. Circular staircases, however,
are a bit trickier. Given the details of the sample of play in
the Theatrix book, in fact, I have a very difficult time imagining
the lay-out of that staircase and where Scott is in relation to
it and to the upper level, where the Colonel appears when he enters
the scene. It is very confusing even with ample time to try to
suss it out; in play, I would have found the spatial relationships
involved utterly bewildering.
: : Now, I realize that this sort of thing goes on
: : in ANY game. Players often make assumptions about their
: : characters' surroundings that are erroneous, and they are later
: : forced to revise their visualization to get themselves back
: : on track with the fictional reality of the game world.
: Yes.
: : But this is, IMO, a situation which is to be
: : *avoided.*
: It is as avoidable in Theatrix as any othe rgame. The only way to avoid
: this is to actually describe the details, and as they are described,
: there they are. We are just allowing the players to do part of this
: description. I think you are getting hung up on this to a far greater
: extent than the reality deserves. We have always found this freedom far
: more helpful than hurtful.
Okay. Perhaps I am hung up on the staircase, and perhaps
I am imagining Theatrix improvisation to be far more extreme than
it actually is in play. Bear in mind, however, that right now
I have only the "sample of play" to go on, and that sample *does*
include, short as it is, at least one example of what *I* would
consider a truly egregious improv, an improv that I consider both
unfair and damaging to the game. This cannot help but lead me
to suspect that the game itself encourages such improvisation,
and that is, in my opinion, a perfectly valid and legitimate
source of concern about the game.
-- Sarah
Sarah E Kahn
[a very clear summary of the issue, and of my problem
with the improv in the Theatrix sample of play]
: In the games I have run I have encouraged 'minor' improvisation but
: generally discouraged 'major' improvisation to the set for precisely this
: reason--I want to make it as easy as possible for the players to
: visualize the setting, and too much definition by other players can
: hamper that effort, precisely as Sarah describes. This is an issue that
: our group has explicitly discussed--I am reporting a group decision
: here. So what I do instead is to authorize players to create setting at
: particular times.
This is generally our policy as well. Of course,
discussion of such issues is always a good thing. IMO.
: up to me. I take care to explicitly take back the authorial authority to
: create the setting--"Thank's Tom, nice description . . ."
A good approach, I think. It eliminates possible confusion
over where the authorial authority (that's a silly phrase) lies at
any given moment.
: Whats the difference between small and great improvisation? Largely a
: judgement call. But in this case, the existence of the puddle is not
: likely to jar hard on one of the other player's mental image of the bar.
It is a judgement call, and therefore sometimes it can be
open to dispute. This isn't such a bad thing, I think, so long as
it doesn't turn into the diceless version of rules-lawyering. In
our games, sometimes there is a bit of out-of-character discussion
over the fairness or appropriateness of an improvisation. If
player X improvs a detail about the bar that really DOES jar
with player Y's mental image, I think that it is perfectly
acceptable for player Y to say, "I'm sorry, but I have a bit
of a problem with that," and then to explain his reasons.
In most cases, some agreement can be reached. If not, the GM
arbitrates. This can be a bit disruptive to the flow of
play, I suppose, but it can also be very useful, as it clarifies
exactly how the players are envisioning the situation, thus
reducing the likelihood of confusion and misunderstandings
in play.
In fact, often consensus can be a very good way to
determine small details about the game world. If player X
is looking through that "pile of junk in the corner," often
in my group the precise contents of the "pile of junk" are
determined by a sort of consensus: everyone throws out some
suggestions, express opinions on the suggestions of others,
and the GM then renders a final decision based on this
discussion. Once again, the drawback is the disruption of
game flow. In exchange, though, you get an increased sense
of participation and responsibility among the players, who
now get to share in the "enforcer of genre and believability"
role of the GM.
-- Sarah
Sarah E Kahn
: Hi Sarah, and everyone else on this thread.
Hi, David. I think that I have already addressed most
of your points in my response to David B., but I'd just like to
add a few more comments.
: I hate to disagree with you, Sarah, but I like the improvisational
: stage-management that players are allowed in Theatrix. Why? Because it
: cuts down on trivial question-answer periods in the middle of tense
: action scenes and cuts to the chase. If, during a car chase one of the
: players reaches behind the seat and pulls out a crate of grapefruit, I
: don't really care so much. If it was absolutely important that the car
: be completely empty, I would have described it as so.
Yes. I agree with you that quibbling over details or
getting mired down in lengthy question-and-answer sessions in
the middle of a tense action scene is to be avoided. It kills
the pacing and destroys the mood. Improv helps a lot here.
Unfortunately, though, it is just in the midst of
these tense, exciting, and action-filled moments that the most
grievous damage to internal consistency is the most likely to
be done through improv. It is also in just such situations that
this damage is the most likely to cause problems. This combination
is lethal.
In a less action-packed scene, the pace is usually slower,
and the GM is more likely to have the time to notice an inconsistency
and to react to it. In an action scene, though, the pace is fast.
Things Are Happening, and the GM might well not notice the
inconsistency before it is too late. GMs are human, just like
players, and they get all caught up in the excitement of the
moment as well. In the heat of the moment, who cares if the
staircase is straight or circular? There's someone SHOOTING
at the PCs, for heaven's sake! Let's get on with it.
I hesitate even to mention this, but another factor to
consider here is that it is in action-scenes that players are
usually the most eager to tweak things to their character's
advantage. "Action" usually implies "violence" in RPG, and
players are quite naturally concerned for the safety of their
characters whenever things start getting risky. I didn't want
to bring it up in my first post on this thread, as I feared
that it might both muddy the waters and sound overly accusatory,
but surely it has occurred to others beside myself that the
improv in question -- Abe's declaring the staircase to be
circular -- is in fact an improv which is motivated by his
desire for his character to avoid getting shot? In other words,
it is an improv which is inspired directly by Abe's desire
for character "success" in a combat context. Of course, we
all know that worrying too much about this sort of "success"
is detrimental (right?), but even good players *will* fall into
this sort of thinking from time to time, particularly when there
is threat of character death in the air. The result of this is
that the probability of improvisation damaging the internal
consistency of the world positively SOARS during action scenes.
So, undesirable improv is more likely to happen in
action scenes. So what? Well, the problem is that the
action scenes also happen to be the ones in which spatial
consistency is often the MOST important. Action deals with
spatial relationships, and spatial relationships are a tricky
thing to establish in an RPG, which is the reason that so many
gamers like to use maps, miniatures, hexes, diagrams, and other
visual aids. When the characters are just sitting around and
talking, or trying to solve an intellectual puzzle, or travelling
long distances along a road, the nitty-gritty details of spatial
relationship are not all that important. When the characters
are in what I would consider an "action sequence," though, the
spatial relationships become very important indeed.
If an improv has created an inconsistency during an
action scene, you've got a big problem. The inconsistency
is far more likely to come up in the first place, because
the scene is dependent on the sort of spatial relationships
that are very vulnerable to careless improv. Furthermore,
the players are likely to be in a high state of excitement
during such scenes (due both to the nature of such scenes
and to their concern about the safety of their characters),
and so if the inconsistency confuses them or results in
an unfair adjudication, they are most unlikely to "let it
pass" the way they might in a less active scene. Rather,
they are likely to confront you with the inconsistency.
And THAT is going to be a BIG disruption to the game flow.
To go back to the Theatrix sample of play, for a
moment, what would have happened if things had played out
this way:
SCOTT: I'm getting a little bit nervous up here all by myself.
I'm worried about my friends down below. I shine the
flashlight down there, to make sure that everyone's
okay.
GM: Okay. You shine your flashlight down into the corridor
below. The beam of light is cut by the framwork of
the staircase beneath you, the metal pole in front
of you, and the stairs themselves, curving down into
the darkness below. Your light throws strange and
confusing shadows into the corridor. It's a bit
hard to see what's...
SCOTT: Well, can I at least see Johnny? He's further down
the corridor.
GM: Yes, but the shadows are playing tricks on your vision,
and...
SCOTT: You mean I can't see the corridor from here? But I
wouldn't have run up here, if I had thought that I
couldn't see the damned corridor!
GM: You weren't thinking. You were in a panic; things
were confusing; there was gunfire...
SCOTT: Yeah, but where I am now is even scarier, 'cause
I can't see where any of my friends are. I'm alone
up here. There's no line of sight. That's not the
way I was imagining it. No WAY would I have run up
here had I known that the staircase was a spiral.
I'm cut off up here!
And so on. Admittedly, the GM is getting a bit
flustered, and the player a bit ostreperous, in my example
here, but I do not think that the above dialogue is really
all that far outside the realms of probability, even with
good players and good GMs. Scott's objections are fair ones.
It is not fair, IMO, to make the player work to retroactively
change his character's motivations for taking certain actions.
It might well be that the PC would never have run up the
staircase, had he known that it were circular. Why should
he now have to struggle to find some reason for his character
to have done so? That sort of thing is, IMO, really a serious
impediment to role-play.
[example of major improv working well in play]
: By letting Phil just improv the tractor and the farmhouse, I avoided a
: short but disrupting question-answer session that detracted from the
: tension of the moment. I wanted them to drive up, react to the
: overturned jeep, and leap into action. Which is what they did; the
: improved version had more immediacy, though.
It worked well for you, then. Terrific. But what
would have happened if one of your other players had said:
"You said that there was 'no one in sight.' I assumed that
included vestiges of civilization. I had been envisioning
this as a desolate scene -- nothing but corn fields, as far
as the eye can see. If I had known that there was a FARMHOUSE
here, I would have done something COMPLETELY different"?
To my mind, this would be a very legitimate grievance.
Assuming that the player in question was not generally whiny,
argumentative, or competitive in his play, I would take him
seriously. His character might well have acted differently,
and this is a big problem. One might even call it UNFAIR to
the player in question, who was not given sufficient information
to act in character, and whose ability to believe in his own
role-play is now impeded.
: I can certainly identify with your concerns about consistency, though.
: I, too, wouldn't want to play in a world where the reality was constantly
: flip-flopping. I haven't had the problems that you perceive with the
: improvisation of the stage.
Well, as I said in my response to David B., my gaming
group does often make minor improvisations of this sort. The
very major ones which Theatrix encourages, though, I have found
to be problematic in the past. I hope that I have explained
the nature of those problems.
: Hope I'm not haranguing you, sarah ;)
Not in the least, David. ;)
-- Sarah
Andrew Finch
: Excuse me for being so dense but how does creating a spiral staircase
: promote characterization? I've been allowing player improv for some time
: and have yet to see how it improves characterization when all the player
: does is create props. It might make the game more interesting but this
: has nothing to do with characterization. Rather, it's a case of sharing
: the GMing workload.
Now that depends on how you use that power. For a good example of how to
define props in a way which supports character structure, I would point
to Dan Akroyd, in Sneakers. Yes, I know it was written, but you can do
the same thing at home, if you're careful.
The scene I'm refering to is when the group is discussing how to sneak
into the building and get their prescious box back. Dan Akroyd describes
the security measures on the building, and his possible solutions. This is
a perfect example of prop construction in Theatrix. We haven't seen the
scene where Dan checks out the building, and we don't know how he's done it.
Probably looked at the plans at City Hall, and walked in during daytime,
who knows? That would have slowed the story down, so we don't see it. And
we don't need to in an RPG either. Instead, the character just describes
what's there, and how they can get in, sets up a plot complication, and
supports the story (helping to support a higher Plot Point reward at the
end of the adventuire).
At the same time, he expresses his character's depth of knowledge,
competence, ability to think in very wierd ways, and total trust in a
plan that no sane man would attempt. He's good. Very good.
Yes, minor world construction is just that, a sharing of GM
responsibilities. But that power can be used to support your character
construction in all the little ways which the GM may or may not ever do
for you. That frees the GM up to worry about the game, which is where
his/her head should be, and frees the player to handle moments of
characterization which only the player who created the character can do
best.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: Of course. In the interests of fairness, however, I *did*
: use the sample of play given in the actual book. I thought it safe
: to assume that, as the creators of Theatrix included that sample,
: they themselves considered it a fairly good representation of
: play. And as, unlike a game in play, a sample of play in a book
: may be *edited*, I think that it is more than fair to use that
: sample as an example of what the creators of the system believe
: play should (or will) be like.
The caution was not a denial of what we wrote, it was a caution that
youmayfeel differently about the practice if and when you actually
experience it. I don't guarantee. I certainly am not sure. But there is
that possibility.
: Thank you. I will certainly attempt to make my comments
: intelligent and thoughtful. Please do understand that I am here
: reacting only to the game *as read.* I understand that it might
: be very different in play, and I do promise that I will give the
: system a run before I make any absolute judgements about it. Rest
: assured that when we do give the game a play, I'll be sure to tell
: you how it went.
I would like that.
[snip]
: Okay. How about a question like: "What color scheme
: is this office decorated in?" or "In what style is this room
: decorated -- are the pieces of furniture eclectic or in period,
: and if in period, which period?"
I would answer those as GM, but probably I would simply ask the player to
declare them. Or at least 'Did you have anything in mind?'. I might even
allow the player to partly create the peronality of the man who owns the
offfice in this way.
: I could of course just create this detail myself, but
: I can easily envision circumstances in which I wouldn't want to.
: If this were the house or office of a suspect in a murder mystery,
: for example, then I would rather be able to view the details and
: deduce FROM them than to create them myself.
O.K. But you give up the chance at a characterization moment. If you're
playing the detective here, you have two choices. As GM, I can give you
the details, and you can guess at what they mean. Unless you're as good
as your character, you're probably out of luck. But I agree, that isn't
the point. So instead I can have you make a deduction roll, feed you what
your character would know, and let you recite it. That works, but is not
very fun. Or, you could declare the contents of the room, and as your
character, deduce whatthey mean, and state it. You declare the props, you
make a Satement which ties them together with some concept, and declare
that concept, in the way that your character would. That's a lot more fun
in my opinion. More fun for you, more fun for the GM (with what he's
going to do with that info), and you never have to step out of character.
[Snip]
: This sort of thing is, I agree, most undesirable. We
: do an awful lot of what you call "improv" in our games as well.
: My problem here is not with the concept itself, but with the
: SORT of improv allowed in your sample of play and thus, I
: presume, in your game.
The sample of play was in many ways mild.
[Snip]
: its back." This is not the sort of chair one would generally
: SEE in an office, and therefore if it had looked that way, the
: other characters would have noticed it immediately. By failing
: to describe the chair in the office initially, the gamers have
: implicitly declared it to be unextraordinary.
I can see that, and the player should know better, and you can simply
veto the declaration on those grounds. Set the limits a bit, and the
players will get used to them, and then you can have fun. But every group
will set those limits in a way which works for them. Which is fine.
That's what we intended.
[Snip]
: talking about very different TYPES of "running up and down
: stairs" here. Perhaps we just differ in opinion over how important
: a difference this is.
I think so. And in your games you would do something different, which
again, is fine. We wish to provide the empowerment and flexibility, and
to suggest a method, but we make no demands.
[Snip]
: It can ENHANCE the validity of the world, in my opinion,
: but only if done with *care.* I did not feel, from the sample of
: play given in the book, that Theatrix advocates quite as much
: care in this regard as I feel is necessary to maintain a sense
: of structure and consistency to the world. On the contrary,
: I felt that it was encouraging a sort of carelessness with this
: technique which I believe can be harmful.
We don't believe it's harmful, and we encourage even wilder use of the
techniques. Go all out. See how far you can take them, and what that
provides. Yes, we advocate that. But if you find a point which is a
little less out on the limb than we play the game, and that is the point
which is comfortable to you, I think we strongly advocate that you use
it, becuase you are the best judge of your games.
[Snip]
: My concern is that Theatrix encourages a type of fluidity which
: might result in the frequent overturn of "reasonable assumption"
: at a point in play when it is no longer really fair to overturn
: it.
So you'll try it and see.
[Snip]
: Okay. Perhaps I am hung up on the staircase, and perhaps
: I am imagining Theatrix improvisation to be far more extreme than
: it actually is in play. Bear in mind, however, that right now
: I have only the "sample of play" to go on, and that sample *does*
: include, short as it is, at least one example of what *I* would
: consider a truly egregious improv, an improv that I consider both
: unfair and damaging to the game. This cannot help but lead me
: to suspect that the game itself encourages such improvisation,
: and that is, in my opinion, a perfectly valid and legitimate
: source of concern about the game.
We do encourage it. This is fairly different stuff. If we hang back, we
are not doing the game justice. We want to show what is possible. You can
decide what you want to use.
David B
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 11 Mar 1995, Sarah E Kahn wrote:
> Kevin R. Hardwick (krhr...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
> : here. So what I do instead is to authorize players to create setting at
> : particular times.
>
> This is generally our policy as well. Of course,
> discussion of such issues is always a good thing. IMO.
I have been doing so for quite a while. But the recent conversation
about narrative perspective has forced me to reexamine the practice. In
the last game I ran I deployed (or rather, I asked my players to deploy)
four separate narrative stances: Author, Actor, Audience, and (I'm
lacking a clear term here) first person. (By this last I mean the kind
of narrative stance that we might use to create a narrative understanding
of our own life, as we look back on it. Let me know if this is not clear
and I will try to formulate something better.) I was quite
self-conscious about it, and I tried to clue my players in in a variety
of ways (in retrospect I could have been much more effective, but hey,
that's what retrospects are for!) when the narrative stance changed.
For example, one of the flashbacks was completely third person--it did
not report the narrative experience of the characters at all. It was a
peice of the story that my PLAYERS got to listen to--I was asking them to
be purely an audience. (This is one of the techniques I got from
Theatrix, and some of my players liked it very much, while others found
it completely jarring. In general we try not to break character during
an evening, and this technique REQUIRES that the players do so. I'd say
that the jury is still out on this one, but it was quite interesting to
experiment with.)
Another of the flashbacks was also purely third person narrative, but it
was something that was important to the personal background of the
characters. Hence, while I was asking the players to be an audience, it
was something they could do in-character; a subtle but important
difference between the first flashback and the second.
Finally, a third flashback asked the players to be purely ACTOR-like in
the game; that is, I gave them the outcome of the scene--something beyond
their control, and then asked them to respond to it in character. I
asked the kind of "characterization" questions that a drama coach asks of
an actor--at this point in the action, how do you feel? This was quite
effective; it let me pack in much more detail into my scene description
because the players had a direct stake in their re-action to it, even
though they had no control over the outcome of the scene at all. Hmm.
I'm not sure I've done a good job of expressing this--let me know and
I'll elaborate the distinction at greater length.
My point is, each of these scenes carried a radically different
experience with it, because in each the narrative stance of the players
was different. As an aside, these flashbacks were all about a midieval
battle, which the players (on the losing side) managed to survive. I
cribbed alot of my descriptive material from Keegan, THE FACE OF BATTLE,
and from Kenneth Branagh's HENRY V. One of my players, an experienced
tournament GM in her own right, told me afterwards "wow, I feel like I
lived through that!" I've never been so successful at capturing the
"feel" of a macro-event like a battle before, and I attribute the success
not so much to my skill as a story-teller as to the dramatic devices
that I used.
> : up to me. I take care to explicitly take back the authorial authority to
> : create the setting--"Thank's Tom, nice description . . ."
>
> A good approach, I think. It eliminates possible confusion
> over where the authorial authority (that's a silly phrase) lies at
> any given moment.
Yes, looking back on it, and thinking about the conversations I've had
with the troupe since, the sharp demarcation of authorial
license (also a silly term, but not quite so alliterative!) helped the
players maintain the illusion of the game. There was no confusion who
was telling the story, and everyone at one point or another got to
participate as the author. Furthermore, by making clear the limitations
or boundaries of the authorship role I asked them to assume, I think I
helped some of the more reticent players feel comfortable improvising as
we went along.
> It is a judgement call, and therefore sometimes it can be
> open to dispute. This isn't such a bad thing, I think, so long as
> it doesn't turn into the diceless version of rules-lawyering.
Hmm. Henry V springs to mind again <grin>.
> In
> our games, sometimes there is a bit of out-of-character discussion
> over the fairness or appropriateness of an improvisation. If
> player X improvs a detail about the bar that really DOES jar
> with player Y's mental image, I think that it is perfectly
> acceptable for player Y to say, "I'm sorry, but I have a bit
> of a problem with that," and then to explain his reasons.
> In most cases, some agreement can be reached. If not, the GM
> arbitrates. This can be a bit disruptive to the flow of
> play, I suppose, but it can also be very useful, as it clarifies
> exactly how the players are envisioning the situation, thus
> reducing the likelihood of confusion and misunderstandings
> in play.
I absolutely agree with you. This kind of conflict should not run
rampant (everybody loses if it does) but where appropriate it creates the
kind of troupe environment that permits strong improvisation. I am more
likely to improvise if I know that you will complain if my improvisation
jars with your visualization of the world, and vice versa.
Best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 11 Mar 1995, Sarah E Kahn wrote:
> Unfortunately, though, it is just in the midst of
> these tense, exciting, and action-filled moments that the most
> grievous damage to internal consistency is the most likely to
> be done through improv. It is also in just such situations that
> this damage is the most likely to cause problems. This combination
> is lethal.
>
[snip]
>
> I hesitate even to mention this, but another factor to
> consider here is that it is in action-scenes that players are
> usually the most eager to tweak things to their character's
> advantage. . . . [snip]
> . . . Abe's declaring the staircase to be
> circular -- is in fact an improv which is motivated by his
> desire for his character to avoid getting shot? In other words,
> it is an improv which is inspired directly by Abe's desire
> for character "success" in a combat context. Of course, we
> all know that worrying too much about this sort of "success"
> is detrimental (right?), but even good players *will* fall into
> this sort of thinking from time to time, particularly when there
> is threat of character death in the air. The result of this is
> that the probability of improvisation damaging the internal
> consistency of the world positively SOARS during action scenes.
Notice that in this kind of scene the other players--an important source
of consistency as the GROUP attempts to maintain visualuziation of the
scene--are least likely to speak up. Abe is NOT
likely to question the redefinition of the staircase, precisely BECAUSE
another player is using it for cover. This even though Abe may very well
have lost his visualization of the set becuase of the redefinition.
Best,
Kevin
Sarah E Kahn
: I have been doing so for quite a while. But the recent conversation
: about narrative perspective has forced me to reexamine the practice. In
: the last game I ran I deployed (or rather, I asked my players to deploy)
: four separate narrative stances: Author, Actor, Audience, and (I'm
: lacking a clear term here) first person. (By this last I mean the kind
: of narrative stance that we might use to create a narrative understanding
: of our own life, as we look back on it. Let me know if this is not clear
: and I will try to formulate something better.)
I'm with you fine so far.
"Character" would seem to be the obvious term for that
fourth narrative stance, but I understand why we might not
want to use it, as the word is used for far too many other meanings
on this board. How about "Experiencer?"
No, bleah, I don't like that at all. Oh, well. Until we
come up with something better, I can deal quite well with "First
Person." I do think that perhaps we ought capitalize it though,
if only to make it perfectly clear that it means "the first person
narrative stance of the character," as opposed to merely "speaking
in the first person instead of in the third."
: I was quite
: self-conscious about it, and I tried to clue my players in in a variety
: of ways (in retrospect I could have been much more effective, but hey,
: that's what retrospects are for!) when the narrative stance changed.
[Kevin describes some of the techniques he used to
effect various narrative shifts, and gives
a tentative analysis of the effectiveness
of each one]
I shouldn't worry too much about self-consciousness if I
were you; I imagine that one gets less self-conscious with practice.
Kevin, this is really terrific stuff! I'd just like
to thank you for opening up your gaming experimentation to
public observation on this board. I know that I haven't done
nearly as much experimentation with many of these techniques
as I would like to do, and I suspect that others here feel the
same way. You are our guinea pig here, Kevin, and I'm sure
that there are others reading along with the same eye to their
own experimentation as I am. You are doing us all a great
public service.
Boy. This conversation is really making me want to
get out there and experiment!
: Yes, looking back on it, and thinking about the conversations I've had
: with the troupe since, the sharp demarcation of authorial
: license (also a silly term, but not quite so alliterative!) helped the
: players maintain the illusion of the game. There was no confusion who
: was telling the story, and everyone at one point or another got to
: participate as the author. Furthermore, by making clear the limitations
: or boundaries of the authorship role I asked them to assume, I think I
: helped some of the more reticent players feel comfortable improvising as
: we went along.
I think you are probably right that these sorts of boundaries
could be very comforting to new or shy players.
: > It is a judgement call, and therefore sometimes it can be
: > open to dispute. This isn't such a bad thing, I think, so long as
: > it doesn't turn into the diceless version of rules-lawyering.
: Hmm. Henry V springs to mind again <grin>.
(snickering rather maniacally here at my keyboard)
I shake my head in admiration. You're far too
clever for me tonight, Kevin.
: I absolutely agree with you. This kind of conflict should not run
: rampant (everybody loses if it does) but where appropriate it creates the
: kind of troupe environment that permits strong improvisation. I am more
: likely to improvise if I know that you will complain if my improvisation
: jars with your visualization of the world, and vice versa.
Yes. Flamboyant or talkative players are not necessarily
inconsiderate ones, and if they feel assured that their play is not
going to be bulldozing over anyone else's, they will feel more free
to let their imaginations run wild.
-- Sarah
A Lapalme
>
> : Excuse me for being so dense but how does creating a spiral staircase
> : promote characterization? I've been allowing player improv for some time
> : and have yet to see how it improves characterization when all the player
> : does is create props. It might make the game more interesting but this
> : has nothing to do with characterization. Rather, it's a case of sharing
> : the GMing workload.
>
> define props in a way which supports character structure, I would point
> to Dan Akroyd, in Sneakers. Yes, I know it was written, but you can do
> the same thing at home, if you're careful.
>
> The scene I'm refering to is when the group is discussing how to sneak
> into the building and get their prescious box back. Dan Akroyd describes
> the security measures on the building, and his possible solutions. This is
> a perfect example of prop construction in Theatrix. We haven't seen the
> scene where Dan checks out the building, and we don't know how he's done it.
> Probably looked at the plans at City Hall, and walked in during daytime,
> who knows? That would have slowed the story down, so we don't see it. And
> we don't need to in an RPG either. Instead, the character just describes
> what's there, and how they can get in, sets up a plot complication, and
> supports the story (helping to support a higher Plot Point reward at the
> end of the adventuire).
>
> At the same time, he expresses his character's depth of knowledge,
> competence, ability to think in very wierd ways, and total trust in a
> plan that no sane man would attempt. He's good. Very good.
>
movie. Is Akroyd's suppose to know this stuff? If so, then yes, I'll
grant that this is part of his characterization. If not, then this is
just the player grand standing.
Alain
Lea Crowe
> Character is action.
Is it? I have a feeling that you must be using a very broad definition
of "action" here. For instance, it has to include dialogue or even
inconsequential chit-chat. When I talk about "action", I tend to think
of something less static. This isn't a semantic quibble: I genuinely
don't understand what you're asserting here.
(I'm reminded of the sequence in "Cerebus" in which the superhero parody
"Moon Roach" forces his assistants to beat each other up regularly because
conflict builds characterisation...)
> Action takes place in context. When the context is
> known and secure, then a lot of character exploration may take place.
> This occurs when the GM places the game on sur efooting with a solid
> structure.
The context, though, can be a flexible environment in which a number of
developments are happening, rather than a specific story. (It can even
be a static environment: as you say, you can roleplay in a dungeon crawl,
but, as you also say, this makes it a lot more difficult.)
> When the structure is less cohesive then the GM will be prepared to handle
> less, and will be scrambling more. The GM will be unable to resond to the
> detail produced by good characterization with firm and supportive responses.
And if the structure is too limited -- say, a strongly plotted narrative --
the GM will have no support if (when) the PCs step outside it. The
environment must be cohesive, as you say, but it must also be extensive.
> World structure is only as strong as the plot structure within which the
> PCs find themselves. Strong plot structure *is* strong world-structure.
No, I don't see this. This is a very strong assertion which you don't
justify and which completely contradicts my experience.
I have been involved in a couple of campaigns which have had a very weak
plot-structure but a very strong world-structure. "Minions" used the
modern world with a couple of fantasy-type twists; the local environment
was laid out in detail, and the rest of the world was sketched out and filled
in as required by the PCs' actions; the only "plot" was a single event
and its explanation. Everything after the beginning, up to and including
the final resolution, was unplotted or only sketched out.
Is that strong plot structure? Or weak world structure? I don't think so.
Could you clarify *why* you think this is true?
--
l...@hestia.demon.co.uk Ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea!
A Lapalme
> : the last game I ran I deployed (or rather, I asked my players to deploy)
> : four separate narrative stances: Author, Actor, Audience, and (I'm
> : lacking a clear term here) first person. (By this last I mean the kind
> : of narrative stance that we might use to create a narrative understanding
> : of our own life, as we look back on it. Let me know if this is not clear
> : and I will try to formulate something better.)
>
>
> "Character" would seem to be the obvious term for that
> fourth narrative stance, but I understand why we might not
> want to use it, as the word is used for far too many other meanings
> on this board. How about "Experiencer?"
> No, bleah, I don't like that at all. Oh, well. Until we
> come up with something better, I can deal quite well with "First
> Person." I do think that perhaps we ought capitalize it though,
> if only to make it perfectly clear that it means "the first person
> narrative stance of the character," as opposed to merely "speaking
> in the first person instead of in the third."
>
>
> : of ways (in retrospect I could have been much more effective, but hey,
> : that's what retrospects are for!) when the narrative stance changed.
>
> effect various narrative shifts, and gives
> a tentative analysis of the effectiveness
> of each one]
>
>
> I shouldn't worry too much about self-consciousness if I
> were you; I imagine that one gets less self-conscious with practice.
>
> Kevin, this is really terrific stuff! I'd just like
> to thank you for opening up your gaming experimentation to
> public observation on this board. I know that I haven't done
> nearly as much experimentation with many of these techniques
> as I would like to do, and I suspect that others here feel the
> same way. You are our guinea pig here, Kevin, and I'm sure
> that there are others reading along with the same eye to their
> own experimentation as I am. You are doing us all a great
> public service.
>
> Boy. This conversation is really making me want to
> get out there and experiment!
You and me both, Sarah. It seems everytime there's a real good discussion
herre about Gming approaches, I'm in a non-GM mode. That just leaves me
stewing, waiting for my chance to run a game again.
As you recall, I posted my idea of my next game a few days ago. To put it
very honestly, the idea of running the campaign the way I presented it
stemmed out of discussions in this forum. I have this world in whcih a
certain major event has been set to occur on a certain date. I set that
up in 1986 and, since then, have been trying to take a group to a position
in my game where they can actually play it with meaning.
Ideas I've seen here have shown me that the only way I'll ever get it done
is to create a campaign where the different pointsof view of the events is
shown to the players, not necessarily to the characters. I'll be using
foreshadowing, cut scenes, side scenes, some of Kevin's ideas(actor,
author, audiene and first person), and on and on. And, for once , I feel
confident that it'll work. Furthemrore, the approahces do not have the
inherent requirement that I keep the same group fo players throughout.
So, in a lot of ways, these discussions here rekindle my interest in RPGs,
an interest which is often hard to maintain with kids, job, spouse and 100
other things clamouring for my attention. My only problem now is that the
March 19 startup for my new game has been delayed an additional 2 weeks
(booh).
Why am I saying all this? Because I strongly believe that our discussions
are worth the time we spend at it. I've heard lots of complaints in the
last couple of weeks about people who are tired of these discussions.
Personally, I find this sad. There's a lot to be learnt here, if only one
spends the effort.
Ok, off my soapbox!
Alain
Andrew Finch
: And if the structure is too limited -- say, a strongly plotted narrative --
There are no limits to astrongly plotted game. When plotted properly,
and especially in the context of an ongoing campaign, then there is no
way for a PC to 'step outside' of the plot.
: the GM will have no support if (when) the PCs step outside it. The
: environment must be cohesive, as you say, but it must also be extensive.
Not really. I think the limnits you're seeing are in your concept of a
plot and how it works within the RPG environment. I think we'll probably
disagree on what a plot is, and how one functions, and that in my
paradigm these problems do not exist.
: > World structure is only as strong as the plot structure within which the
: > PCs find themselves. Strong plot structure *is* strong world-structure.
: No, I don't see this. This is a very strong assertion which you don't
: justify and which completely contradicts my experience.
Your experience, yes. Not mine. But I'm sure we treat such things as
'plot' quite differently.
: Could you clarify *why* you think this is true?
I have been trying, but my very best justification is a 144 page treatise
we call the Theatrix Core Rules.
I can only approach something of what we talk about in this medium. I'll
do what I can.
David B
Sarah E Kahn
: Interesting. Now a dungeon crawl seems the epitome of a highly plotted game.
: After all, it has one location and most rooms have only one way of solving
: them. There are various "gates" that have to be passed to move onto the next
: plot segment. In fact, a real *authentic* D&D crawl has exactly one way
: through it. There are minimal choices to be made, just a series of problems
: admitting of a single solution.
: That seems *very* tightly plotted to me.
Well...I think that you are missing a vital ingredient
in David's definition of plot.
Time.
David's conception of plot is extremely dependent upon
*pacing.* He is coming from a film-oriented perspective, remember.
His conception of "plot structure" has much to do with the
temporal ordering of types of scenes -- placing a dramatic turn
here, and then a confrontation there, and so on. A dungeon
crawl would therefore not really fit his definition of a "tight
plot" unless the GM is keeping tight control over the pacing
of the game -- WHEN the PCs manage to solve each "gate,"
WHEN monsters will attack, WHEN treasure is found, and so on.
Unless, of couse, I am completely misunderstanding
David's definition of "plot," which I admit is a possibility...
-- Sarah
Andrew Finch
: : Interesting. Now a dungeon crawl seems the epitome of a highly plotted game.
: : After all, it has one location and most rooms have only one way of solving
: : them. There are various "gates" that have to be passed to move onto the next
: : plot segment. In fact, a real *authentic* D&D crawl has exactly one way
: : through it. There are minimal choices to be made, just a series of problems
: : admitting of a single solution.
: : That seems *very* tightly plotted to me.
This has nothing to do with plot. It is simply a situation with few
choices, which tend to make for poor plots, and poor gaming.
: Well...I think that you are missing a vital ingredient
: in David's definition of plot.
I agree.
: Time.
and Character.
: David's conception of plot is extremely dependent upon
: *pacing.* He is coming from a film-oriented perspective, remember.
: His conception of "plot structure" has much to do with the
: temporal ordering of types of scenes -- placing a dramatic turn
: here, and then a confrontation there, and so on. A dungeon
: crawl would therefore not really fit his definition of a "tight
: plot" unless the GM is keeping tight control over the pacing
: of the game -- WHEN the PCs manage to solve each "gate,"
: WHEN monsters will attack, WHEN treasure is found, and so on.
:
: Unless, of couse, I am completely misunderstanding
: David's definition of "plot," which I admit is a possibility...
Well, timing is important, but that's not the reason a dungeon crawl is
not a plot. The reason has to do with character. A plot is about its
protaginist, and not about its events. The events of a plot are there to
constrict a characterization into a situation in which it becomes drama.
Where is the character in a dungeon crawl? All that's necessary is the
dungeon. The characters are replaceable. A plot follows the introduction,
conflict, and resolution of a conflict, for a character, and exists
because a particular character is in that situation. Aliens is a dungeon
crawl. But it is Ripley's story. The crawl is about Ripley's strength,
and ability to survive, and ultimately the strength of motherhood. It's
interesting for what it does to the characters, and how they react to the
stress, and not because of which doors those characters happen to open.
Scenes are shown for a reason, and aught to be in an RPG as well. Dungeon
crawls simply follow the PCs around through ten by ten stone corridors.
David
Peter Timothy Jackson
In article <gwills.7...@graceland.att.com>, gwi...@graceland.att.com (11265-Graham Wills) writes...
> Interesting. Now a dungeon crawl seems the epitome of a highly plotted game.
> After all, it has one location and most rooms have only one way of solving
> them. There are various "gates" that have to be passed to move onto the next
> plot segment. In fact, a real *authentic* D&D crawl has exactly one way
> through it. There are minimal choices to be made, just a series of problems
> admitting of a single solution.
I think you haven't done much dungeon-crawling. Only worst sort admit only one
solution. Besides the arguments as to which is the best solution can lead to
good role-playing.
Peter
Alternative email address - p...@uvo.dec.com
David A Bonar
: We're talking about improvisation and player-control on the "stage" in
: Theatrix. Sarah gave us a lengthy discussion of how she finds
: improvisational modification of stage props jarring and surreal, and
: David Berkman (and another gentleman whose name escapes me -- many
: apologies) tried to counter this perception by offering their own
: experiences. I'll toss my hat in the ring.
: I hate to disagree with you, Sarah, but I like the improvisational
: stage-management that players are allowed in Theatrix. Why? Because it
: cuts down on trivial question-answer periods in the middle of tense
: action scenes and cuts to the chase.
Yet another Dave chiming in.
I'm with Sarah on this. Some stage management by players is great but
it can be carried too far.
: In one of my recent episodes of Theatrix, a couple of PCs were chased
: down by shotgun-toting thugs, and chased into a cornfield. While they
: were playing cat-and-mouse, the other PCs came racing up to investigate
: all the shotgun blasts. One of the players improved: "I'll jump onto
: the tractor that's parked next to the farmhouse, and drive off into the
: cornfield on it." I had as yet not described any farmhouse, let alone a
: tractor. But there was no good reason to _deny_ their existence, so I
: didn't. In a Standard Game (TM) it might have went thusly:
[Q&A deleted]
: By letting Phil just improv the tractor and the farmhouse, I avoided a
: short but disrupting question-answer session that detracted from the
: tension of the moment. I wanted them to drive up, react to the
: overturned jeep, and leap into action. Which is what they did; the
: improved version had more immediacy, though.
But this comes at the expense of plausability. The PCs come roaring
up and find the jeep. From the given description player A envisions
a road cutting past a cornfield with nothing else nearby. On the basis
of that information he goes running off into the corn. Player B suddenly
has an insight and declares that there is a farmhouse and tractor right
nearby. Perhaps player B naturally envisioned the scene that way, perhaps
he was just good at thinking on his feet and wondered if there was a faster
was to get there. But either way B has imposed his version of reality on
A and very likely changed the reasonableness of A's actions.
Dave
David Hauth
: > Interesting. Now a dungeon crawl seems the epitome of a highly plotted game.
: > After all, it has one location and most rooms have only one way of solving
: > them. There are various "gates" that have to be passed to move onto the next
: > plot segment. In fact, a real *authentic* D&D crawl has exactly one way
: > through it. There are minimal choices to be made, just a series of problems
: > admitting of a single solution.
There is a big difference between a "plotted game" and a dungeon crawl:
in a plotted game, the characters in it essentially _define_ the plot --
it wouldn't make sense without them. In a dungeon crawl, any old group
of characters could throw themselves into it -- the "adventure" is
completely detached from the characters.
Cheers,
Dave Hauth
David Hauth
: But this comes at the expense of plausability. The PCs come roaring
: up and find the jeep. From the given description player A envisions
: a road cutting past a cornfield with nothing else nearby. On the basis
: of that information he goes running off into the corn. Player B suddenly
: has an insight and declares that there is a farmhouse and tractor right
: nearby.
The same "implausibility" can come into play if Player B starts asking
more questions about the setting than did Player A. Player A is still
out in the cornfield, and the tractor et al. still "came into being"
after Player A's decision to run into the field, and Player B. still
continues with his actions.
I don't see the difference between letting Player B come up with this, or
having the GM do it by Q&A. I would just interpret this as Player B's
character thinking on his feet a little better than Player A's.
: Perhaps player B naturally envisioned the scene that way, perhaps
: he was just good at thinking on his feet and wondered if there was a faster
: was to get there. But either way B has imposed his version of reality on
: A and very likely changed the reasonableness of A's actions.
What's the difference between Player B imposing _his_ version on Player
A, and the _GM_ imposing _his_?
I won't deny you're distaste for inconsistency. One thing I left out in
the description was that the characters had been through this cornfield
before and knew that there were numerous farm houses and lots of farm
machinery about -- so Player A's vision of everything was not so detached.
By the way, all my players thought it was great and thought it _filled
out_ the encounter in a very interesting way. None complained.
Thanks for your input.
Cheers,
Dave Hauth
Ray Trent
>: Excuse me for being so dense but how does creating a spiral staircase
>: promote characterization? I've been allowing player improv for some time
>to Dan Akroyd, in Sneakers. Yes, I know it was written, but you can do
>his/her head should be, and frees the player to handle moments of
>characterization which only the player who created the character can do
>best.
I guess what it comes down to (*again* :-) is: what is the goal of
role-playing?
The Theatrix camp seems to be coming from the position of:
role-playing should be an activity designed and implemented so as to
maximize the players ability to think up a character concept and
portray that concept to the other players/GM. The goal of the GM
should be to facilitate this as much as possible while still meeting
the GM's goal of telling a good story, and GMing is appealing for much
the same reason writing a book or directing a play is appealing (i.e.
the creation of something that will be entertaining to someone else
and possibly communicate some ideas you'd like to express).
In this world-view, Improvisation *does* help in the task of showing a
character to the other players and in the task of telling a
story. Certain contradictions can come up no matter how this is done,
of course, but basically it's a tool that allows the player to ask the
question: "Which of the possible forms that could be taken by this
reality would be most useful for my character to accomplish his goals
and/or to express my character to the other players?" and then *use*
that newly created reality to *portray* a character.
In a non-improvising game, the players would not typically think about
such issues nearly as much, because no matter what they come up with,
the GM is the one that has primary responsibility and power to
determine what "reality" is and weave it into a good
story. Improvisation, then, is a delegation of this power and
responsibility to the players, and can be viewed as a very positive
thing.
In this "character portrayal" world view, the player that asks the GM
"is there a fire extinguisher in that stairway" is asking the GM to
decide on the character's "dramatic nature", which would definitely
break the paradigm. The player's question "what's in the stairway?"
could usually only lead to the GM's question "I don't know, it doesn't
really matter to me, what would make it easiest for you to express
your character the way you perceive him?".
The camp I have so far followed has an entirely different view of the
goal of roleplaying, and therefore an entirely different view of the
desireability of the free use of Improvisation by the players. To us,
roleplaying is about *experiencing* what your character
experiences...getting *inside* your character's head, figuring out
*how* he'll react to the situation he is in, and generally *assuming*
the character's role rather than *portraying* it. GMing, then, is
about supporting this activity on the part of the players by throwing
in stuff that's fun for the players/characters to react to, and
puzzles for the players/characters to solve and is appealing for the
same sorts of reasons doll-houses and plastic soldiers are appealing.
In this paradigm, it is jarring in the extreme for players to take an
active role in creating reality because (except in extremely silly
genres) the *characters* don't have the ability/authority to decide
how the world will treat them. The characters are *reactive*, the way
that real people are for the most part, to the situations they find
themselves in. The way in which *characters* are proactive is the way
that *people* are...by their decisions regarding how to react to
situations and in setting up "plans", "traps" if you will, into which
it is predicted/hoped the rest of the world will fall.
With such a world view, the GM would be seriously derelict in his or
her duties to delegate the ability/responsibility to grossly shape the
world to the players. And additionally, in this view, delegating this
authority would rob the GM of their primary motivation for GMing
(which might perjoritively be described as ego-gratification and
"playing god").
The players, in order to continue to "wear their characters shoes"
would have to start projecting these "supernatural" abilities onto
their characters, which probably doesn't make sense except for truly
wacky fantasy genres. A *character* doesn't think "boy it would be
convenient if there were a fire extinguisher there in that stairway"
and have the world respond "poof, there's a fire extinguisher in that
stairway". The player, in order to take advantage of (and fulfill the
responsibility of) the ability to improvise *must* inherently jump out
of their role *as* the character and into their role as an "actor"
trying to *protray* the character accurately/interestingly.
So, by contrast, the player that asks "what's in that staircase?" in
the "character assumption" world-view is doing what the *character*
would do upon entering the stairway, which is assess the situation,
observe, and then figure out what to do. They have *assumed* the role.
To tie this back into the diceless/diced debate, the
character-portrayal view would rather have the events of the world be
decided by someone with an active consideration of what will enhance
the story and make the portrayal of the character more compelling,
whereas the character-assumption view would rather have events decided
by a mechanism that the players think is consistent with the way
reality works (which for most gamers, I would posit, means a belief
that small events are, if not exactly random, at least dependent on
more variables that anyone but a *true* god could consider). Thus, it
is inevitable that those who follow the character-portrayal camp will
prefer non-random, intentional decision making processes whereas those
who prefer the character-assumption model will prefer a more
stochastic "simulation" process that leaves only the setup of what is
in the world to "god" (the GM).
--
"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
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
[interesting comments deleted for brevity]
|> To tie this back into the diceless/diced debate, the
|> character-portrayal view would rather have the events of the world be
|> decided by someone with an active consideration of what will enhance
|> the story and make the portrayal of the character more compelling,
|> whereas the character-assumption view would rather have events decided
|> by a mechanism that the players think is consistent with the way
|> reality works (which for most gamers, I would posit, means a belief
|> that small events are, if not exactly random, at least dependent on
|> more variables that anyone but a *true* god could consider). Thus, it
|> is inevitable that those who follow the character-portrayal camp will
|> prefer non-random, intentional decision making processes whereas those
|> who prefer the character-assumption model will prefer a more
|> stochastic "simulation" process that leaves only the setup of what is
|> in the world to "god" (the GM).
May I break away from theoretical considerations and make a few pragmatic
comments?
I find long question-and-answer series to be extremely jarring, and a major
distraction in play.
For example, suppose the PC is playing a wise and well-versed mage.
Scenario A
GM: "You enter the apothecary's shop. It is small and cluttered, with all
sorts of strange potions, chemicals and herbs for sale."
PC: "I pop open a green love potion, sniff it, and say, 'Any fool who drinks
this deserves what he gets!'"
Scenario B
GM: "You enter the apothecary's shop. It is small and cluttered, with all
sorts of strange potions, chemicals and herbs for sale."
PC: "What sort of potions does he sell?"
GM: "Love potions, rat poisons, patent medicines, all sorts."
PC: "Does he have a *green* potion?"
GM: "Uh, well, sure, he has a couple."
PC: "Are any of the green ones love potions?"
GM: (confused) "I don't know. Why do you ask?"
PC: (decides it isn't worth it) "Oh, never mind. It's not important."
I find that the minor improvisation in A is less damaging to characterization
than the pointless exchange in B. I rule that if the invention would cause
a significant change (like the Mutating Staircase) then they should ask me.
Neel
11265-Graham Wills
>There are no limits to astrongly plotted game. When plotted properly,
>and especially in the context of an ongoing campaign, then there is no
>way for a PC to 'step outside' of the plot.
From Webster's: "plot" the plan or main story of a literary work
If you cannot step oustide a plot, then that means there is no main story,
as it is easy to step outside a main story or a plan. Therefore I must
conclude that your definition of a 'strongly plotted game' is one where
there is no plan or main story.
Are you *really* saying that? Can we please leave the word "plot" meaning
what everyone thinks it means?
-Graham Wills
--
Graham Wills Data Visualization / Software Research (11265)
gwi...@research.att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories, Indian Hill, Naperville IL
11265-Graham Wills
>Well, timing is important, but that's not the reason a dungeon crawl is
>not a plot. The reason has to do with character. A plot is about its
>protaginist, and not about its events. The events of a plot are there to
>constrict a characterization into a situation in which it becomes drama.
I'm sorry for misunderstanding your definition of "plot", but since you've
been proposing a dramatic metaphor for gaming, I thought that you were
carrying the definition of "plot" over too.
Unfortunately I now find that "plot" means not only the plan or
outline of a story, but also pacing (Webster's "rate of performance or
delivery") which is orthogonal to plot. Also now it seems that a plot requires
"characterization", which Webster's gives as "representation of human
character or motives through the arts", which is how the plot is transmitted
to the audience.
To be honest, this definition of "plot" seems much more like the definition
of drama: "a composition in verse or prose intended to portray life or
character or to tell a story through action and dialogue and designed for
theatrical performance", tweaked for RPGs.
To me, a plot is a statement like "Hamlet, a prince of denmark finds that his
uncle has murdered Hamlet's father. Hamlet struggles with this knowledge and
his own feelings especially with regard to his mother (who has married the
murderer). The uncle tries to kill Hamlet with both poisoned wine and a
poisoned sword in the hands of someone who hates Hamlet, but things go awry
and just about everyone dies at the end."
This contains a minimal amount of characterization (only of Hamlet) and
absolutely no pacing. If this is not a plot, however, then the term is being
seriously misused.
>Where is the character in a dungeon crawl? All that's necessary is the
>dungeon. The characters are replaceable. A plot follows the introduction,
>conflict, and resolution of a conflict, for a character, and exists
>because a particular character is in that situation.
The statement " A plot follows the introduction, conflict, and resolution
of a conflict" is correct. The extra bit of it being "for a character" is
not necessarily true. The plot of Hamlet has been used in many other
situations, and has had many different types of character play it. Even the
play itself has been played with different Hamlet characterizations: Hamlet
can be weak, strong, mad, sane, visionary or earthy. The same plot works with
different charcaterizations and pacing.
Can you perhaps reconcile your defintion of plot with Webster's? Otherwise
the discussion will become even more confusing.
11265-Graham Wills
>A dungeon
>crawl would therefore not really fit his definition of a "tight
>plot" unless the GM is keeping tight control over the pacing
>of the game -- WHEN the PCs manage to solve each "gate,"
>WHEN monsters will attack, WHEN treasure is found, and so on.
This is not really "pace". Pace in a dramatic sense is much more
akin to "tempo" than what you decribe. This is really the order
of the plot. And yes, in dungeon crawls I've been in, the GM does
keep pretty tight control of WHEN the various events happen.
-Graham
Magnus Lie Hetland
|> Strong plots occur due to a solid structure, and no coersion is necessary
|> nor desirable.
|>
|> [Snip]
|>
|> : Perhaps with perserverence we can get past the semantic and "special
|> : case objection" part of our conversation to get at the meat of our
|> : disagreement (or to discover that we do not disagree.)
|>
|> : I think I am reaching the limit of *my* coherence, so I'll close.
|>
|> If you would like to read some very coherent stuff on plots, and know in
|> depth what I am talking about, then you should read 'The Screenwriter's
|> Workbook' by Sid Field.
|>
|> David
|>
I have been reading a lot of the threads on the subject of plots here lately
and
several articles are quite interesting. But one thing has struck me - the
bibliographical references are quite thin :)
Most of the debatants write only of their own opinion - what they "think",
"feel"
or "believe" a plot is. That is ok, but there is a limit to how far one can get
in a discussion where people know little of the field they are talking about
(I'm
talking about dramaturgy and narratology here.) The only outside source seems
to
be "The Screenwriter's Workbook" by Syd (not Sid :) Field. It is his model, an
integral part of the so-called "Hollywood Dramaturgy" that Mr. Berkman
advocates
so heavily. It is, of course, a valid model, but I think it is a bit narrow to
limit the discussion to concern this only. For instance - to claim that every
story has a midpoint... It may be true, but for many types of stories it is
truly
not interesting. Fields dramaturgy is made for films (a specific type of films,
even). What he writes about character and conflict is quite generally
applicable,
but his "pinches", for instance are quite clearly practical tools for writing a
screenplay, but not in analyzing a fairytale.
I don't really want to start a discussion about this in itself (though that
might
be interesting). My intention is to introduce the fact that there are many
models
for describing many kinds of stories, and many of them are (in my opinion)
useful
to roleplayers. Not all of them describe the order of events, but the structure
of the relaitonships between the forces in the story (Greimas' Actant-model for
instance) which is very useful even if you don't want to plan the events, or if
you want to play "world-based".
I could go on and on about this... if there is any interest, maybe I will :)
M
--
The next statement is true and this signature is a Paradox.
The previous statement is false and this signature is a Paradox.
Magnus
Lie
Hetland
Sarah E Kahn
: SSK...@frost.oit.umass.edu (Sarah E Kahn) writes:
: >A dungeon
: >crawl would therefore not really fit his definition of a "tight
: >plot" unless the GM is keeping tight control over the pacing
: >of the game -- WHEN the PCs manage to solve each "gate,"
: >WHEN monsters will attack, WHEN treasure is found, and so on.
: This is not really "pace". Pace in a dramatic sense is much more
: akin to "tempo" than what you decribe. This is really the order
: of the plot. And yes, in dungeon crawls I've been in, the GM does
: keep pretty tight control of WHEN the various events happen.
Well...no, it's a bit more than the order of the plot.
Perhaps I didn't make my meaning clear. I can see how my use of
the word "when" could have been misleading. What I meant was
that the pacing determines when the events happen in the Real Time
of the players -- the meta-game time, if you will.
I *think* (although, again, I am not altogether sure
about this) that David Berkman's conception of plot includes
the pacing of the game. So, in other words, it is not just
a matter of "after the PCs fight the Kobolds in the Cold Room,
they will discover a strange glowing crystal in the corner..."
I think that David would also consider the pacing a matter
of "the level of action drops off here for a while, in the
middle of the gaming session, allowing the players breathing
room, and time for some good role-playing interaction between
themselves. As this period of quiet draws to a close, however,
tension should begin to build, resulting from anticipation of
more combat to come. When this tension becomes palpable,
there will be a false release of the tension -- an event
which seems to be the approach of another confrontation
scene will strike, but it will not be what it appears.
This will result in the tension dissipating sharply, and
THEN I'll bring in the glowing crystal, which will
bring about the first Plot Turn..." And so on. The
pacing of the plot as MOVIE pacing, which is rooted in
the temporal perception of the players as audience, and
not necessarily of the players as characters.
I do agree with you, by the way, that this is a
very strange definition of plot. It is not one that I
share. I am only trying to serve as David's translator
here because I find that his inability to communicate
his meaning, and the inability of others to understand
his intended meaning, almost unbearably frustrating to
witness.
Incidentally, I think that dungeon crawls ARE
tightly plotted. A *good* dungeon crawl (and such a
thing *does* exist) has pacing and tempo, and IS
character-specific -- the plot is intrinsically linked
to the characters, and the crawl could not work if the
PCs were replaced with any others. I've played in a
number of character-specific dungeon crawls with good
pacing and structure. They DO exist. (They're still
duller than dirt without a solid world-structure, IMO,
but that's another issue...)
-- Sarah
Andrew Finch
: I don't really want to start a discussion about this in itself (though
: that might be interesting). My intention is to introduce the fact that
: there are many models for describing many kinds of stories, and many of
: them are (in my opinion) useful to roleplayers.
I agree. We just found a particularly useful model, and one which worked
very well with our methodology, and included it. It's a good start.
: Not all of them describe
: the order of events, but the structure of the relaitonships between the
: forces in the story (Greimas' Actant-model for instance) which is very
: useful even if you don't want to plan the events, or if you want to play
: "world-based".
Can you give me a bibliographic reference? May be we'll include a chapter
in a fture release.
: I could go on and on about this... if there is any interest, maybe I will :)
I certainly am interested.
David Berkman
Backstage Press
Peter Timothy Jackson
In article <3jt324$6...@crl.crl.com>, bcks...@crl.com (Andrew Finch) writes...
[snip]
>O.K. But you give up the chance at a characterization moment. If you're
>playing the detective here, you have two choices. As GM, I can give you
>the details, and you can guess at what they mean. Unless you're as good
>as your character, you're probably out of luck. But I agree, that isn't
>the point. So instead I can have you make a deduction roll, feed you what
>your character would know, and let you recite it. That works, but is not
>very fun. Or, you could declare the contents of the room, and as your
>character, deduce whatthey mean, and state it. You declare the props, you
>make a Satement which ties them together with some concept, and declare
>that concept, in the way that your character would. That's a lot more fun
>in my opinion. More fun for you, more fun for the GM (with what he's
>going to do with that info), and you never have to step out of character.
I think you have had to step out of character, and that in the whole process
you are never in character. You are acting in character, but not thinking in
character. The character is supposed to be observing and deducing, not making
things up.
Andrew Finch
: I'm sorry for misunderstanding your definition of "plot", but since you've
: been proposing a dramatic metaphor for gaming, I thought that you were
: carrying the definition of "plot" over too.
My fault really. We use a particular defintion and method, which I'm
filling in here as the questions are asked.
[Snip]
: To me, a plot is a statement like "Hamlet, a prince of denmark finds that his
: uncle has murdered Hamlet's father. Hamlet struggles with this knowledge and
: his own feelings especially with regard to his mother (who has married the
: murderer). The uncle tries to kill Hamlet with both poisoned wine and a
: poisoned sword in the hands of someone who hates Hamlet, but things go awry
: and just about everyone dies at the end."
This is a fine 4 line treatment of the astory. Notice that the basis for
this treatment is Hamlet's character. His motivations are the driving
force behind the events, just as the events are a driving force behind
his motivations. This is the kind of incestuous relationship you want.
That's a plot.
: This contains a minimal amount of characterization (only of Hamlet) and
: absolutely no pacing. If this is not a plot, however, then the term is being
: seriously misused.
It's a treatment for a plot. We're looking for a bit more yet.
[Snip]
: The statement " A plot follows the introduction, conflict, and resolution
: of a conflict" is correct. The extra bit of it being "for a character" is
: not necessarily true. The plot of Hamlet has been used in many other
: situations, and has had many different types of character play it. Even the
: play itself has been played with different Hamlet characterizations: Hamlet
: can be weak, strong, mad, sane, visionary or earthy. The same plot works with
: different charcaterizations and pacing.
There are different interpretations of the character, which create
different interpretations of the play, but all the motivational forces
stay the same. It is still Hamlet's father's o'er untimely death that
drives him.
: Can you perhaps reconcile your defintion of plot with Webster's? Otherwise
: the discussion will become even more confusing.
No way. I'm sorry, Webster's definition is not enough to write a plot on.
If you want a reference source, use Syd Field's 'Screenwriter's
Workbook', which is worth having in its own right.
David
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: I *think* (although, again, I am not altogether sure
: about this) that David Berkman's conception of plot includes
: the pacing of the game. So, in other words, it is not just
: a matter of "after the PCs fight the Kobolds in the Cold Room,
: they will discover a strange glowing crystal in the corner..."
: I think that David would also consider the pacing a matter
: of "the level of action drops off here for a while, in the
[Snip]
: middle of the gaming session, allowing the players breathing
: the temporal perception of the players as audience, and
: not necessarily of the players as characters.
I would normally put this stuff in my notes for the run, but not directly
in the plot formation, although the particular scenes will be. Although
pacing of those scenes is very important.
: I do agree with you, by the way, that this is a
: very strange definition of plot. It is not one that I
: share. I am only trying to serve as David's translator
: here because I find that his inability to communicate
: his meaning, and the inability of others to understand
: his intended meaning, almost unbearably frustrating to
: witness.
So do I.
: Incidentally, I think that dungeon crawls ARE
: tightly plotted. A *good* dungeon crawl (and such a
: thing *does* exist) has pacing and tempo, and IS
: character-specific -- the plot is intrinsically linked
: to the characters, and the crawl could not work if the
: PCs were replaced with any others. I've played in a
: number of character-specific dungeon crawls with good
: pacing and structure. They DO exist. (They're still
: duller than dirt without a solid world-structure, IMO,
: but that's another issue...)
Yes, they do. I would accept 'Aliens' as an example.
David
Kevin R. Hardwick
because I suspect that the titles alone will make people want to barf.
But since you asked <grin> here are a few of the ones I have found most
useful, in no particular order:
Hans Kellner, LANGUAGE AND HISTORICAL REPRESENTATION: GETTING THE STORY
CROOKED (Madison, WI, 1989)
George Lafoff and Mark Johnson, METAPHORS WE LIVE BY (Chicago, 1980)
Terence Hawkes, STRUCTURALISM AND SEMIOTICS (Berkeley, 1977)
Christopher Norris, DECONSTRUCTION: THEORY AND PRACTICE (London, 1982)
Pierre Bourdieu, LANGUAGE & SYMBOLIC POWER (Cambridge, Ma., 1994)
Richard Harland, SUPERSTRUCTURALISM: THE PHILOSOPHY OF STRUCTURALISM AND
POST-STRUCTURALISM (London, 1987)
As this kind of stuff goes, all of these books are SHORT and relatively
easy to follow. Of the books I mention, I've found the Kellner and
Lakoff and Johnson the most relevant to my thinking on plot. That said,
this is all very pedantic stuff--the Harland, Norris, and Hawkes volumes
in particular far along on the descent into fetishism.
Best,
Kevin
John H Kim
sense, where players make up facts about the game-world on the fly.
In general, I agree with Sarah: Improvisation is good for speeding up
the pace of the game, but especially in its strong form (as suggested
in _Theatrix_) it is damaging to the plausibility of the world.
-*-*-*-
To take the example of _Sneakers_ as an RPG plot... David B.
suggested that he might simply put in his notes just "a really tough
security system" and let the player improvise the details.
Frankly, I have found that the security systems often portrayed
in movies are laughable in design. The same is true of designs which
GM's whip up quickly beforehand. A design which is made up on the spot
by a player will be even sillier, most likely. In games, I frequently
find myself thinking things like "Jeez, what a dumb building design -
what were they thinking?" - I guess that, like David said, I'm too
demanding.
-*-*-*-
Sarah E Kahn <SSK...@frost.oit.umass.edu> wrote:
>David Hauth (dha...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
>: I hate to disagree with you, Sarah, but I like the improvisational
>: stage-management that players are allowed in Theatrix. Why? Because
>: it cuts down on trivial question-answer periods in the middle of tense
>: action scenes and cuts to the chase.
I also like Improvisation - but I do think it is damaging to
believability. I try to make use of it in "cinematic" games I run
or that I am in - it keeps things moving quickly and gives players
a little more creative input.
OTOH, if I want to prioritize on believability and role-playing,
then I put an emphasis on exacting description. For example, in my
serious-style _Star Trek_ campaign, I worked out internal starship
security in exacting detail because I knew it was a topic that was
going to come up frequently. I introduced this by handouts like the
"Starship Operations Manual" - which went into excruciating detail,
including several paragraphs on _doors_.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
> If an improv has created an inconsistency during an action scene,
>you've got a big problem. The inconsistency is far more likely to come
>up in the first place, because the scene is dependent on the sort of
>spatial relationships that are very vulnerable to careless improv.
>Furthermore, the players are likely to be in a high state of excitement
>during such scenes (due both to the nature of such scenes and to their
>concern about the safety of their characters), and so if the inconsistency
>confuses them or results in an unfair adjudication, they are most
>unlikely to "let it pass" the way they might in a less active scene.
Even if they do "let it pass", it may stick with them like a
bad feeling in their mouths. I try my best not to dispute GM rulings
during play - but inconsistancies annoy me just as much. Just because
no one challenges it during play doesn't mean it is good.
-*-*-*-
>
>: I can certainly identify with your concerns about consistency, though.
>: I, too, wouldn't want to play in a world where the reality was constantly
>: flip-flopping. I haven't had the problems that you perceive with the
>: improvisation of the stage.
>
> Well, as I said in my response to David B., my gaming
>group does often make minor improvisations of this sort. The
>very major ones which Theatrix encourages, though, I have found
>to be problematic in the past.
I tend to agree. For believability, the best solution is to
work out as much as possible in advance. Improvisation can be a lot
of fun, however - especially in strong form.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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_
Sarah E Kahn
: > : Excuse me for being so dense but how does creating a spiral staircase
: > : promote characterization? I've been allowing player improv for some time
: > : and have yet to see how it improves characterization when all the player
: > : does is create props. It might make the game more interesting but this
: > : has nothing to do with characterization. Rather, it's a case of sharing
: > : the GMing workload.
Actually, I think that player improv *does* promote
characterization. Not only does it reduce the tedium of lengthy
Q&A sessions between player and GM, which can be disruptive to
role assumption, but it also provides the opportunity for a
much greater range of 'props' to which the characters can
respond. Furthermore, it provides props which are of emotional
importance to the *characters,* which naturally encourages
role-play. Many of the best "character-defining" scenes that
have occurred in our games simply would not have happened
had the players not been free to improv.
As an example, here is an actual scene from a game
I am currently running. In this scene, an incredibly minor
improv (a play) provides a launching pad for an entire
conversation which, in my opinion, did much for the development
and expression of the characters involved. My apologies in
advance for the length of the sample of play. I thought that
it was necessary to show a good deal of the conversation to
illustrate my points.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is a heavily-modified Ars Magica
game which takes place in a fantasy world. The covenant itself
is a deeply wintery one, which has been fairly recently
"inherited" by the very young students of the now-deceased
older magi.
The two characters involved in this scene are
one of the leading magi, Asonder, and the Captain of the covenant's
military, Septimus. Asonder, while a mage, comes from a
rather backwards part of the world, and his master was quite
remiss in giving him the usual liberal education to supplement
his magical knowledge. He is, in other words, still very
much a barbarian. For imagining his vocal intonation and
speech patterns, think Klingon.
Septimus, on the other hand, is quite well-educated
for covenfolk, as in his youth he was the protege of one of the
old (now deceased) magi. He is significantly older than most of
the current magi, and while he likes Asonder quite well personally,
he has serious misgivings about the leadership of the covenant
in general. In fact, he is a severely disillusioned man, and
he has been drinking a bit too much lately. For HIS vocal
intonation and speech patterns, think of a very weary and
cynical John Cleese.
Iam, incidentally, is the chief villain of this culture's
mythic history. He is supposed to have conquered a large area
through the use of sorcery and undead warriors, before being
defeated by this culture's greatest folk hero. Tenemus is
the greatest playwright of a now-past Golden Age.
In this scene, Asonder has come to speak to the
Septimus about the implementation of some new security
measures. Septimus' player had declared at the beginning
of the scene that when Asonder approached him, he had quickly
put down the Tenemus play he had been reading and given
the mage his full attention. Now that Asonder has finished
delivering his orders and turned to go, Septimus returns
to his book, then suddenly looks back up at Asonder, struck
by a thought. The following scene ensues:
Septimus: (an afterthought) Have you ever read Tenemus?
The question takes Asonder aback.
Asonder: I don't believe so.
Septimus: Hm. I was reading through one of his plays, set in the
early court of Iam. It...I...I'm just...I'm trying to
imagine: if you were planning a military campaign,
would you take along two hundred and twenty "bull
oxen?" I mean, BULLS? They don't list any purpose for
them...I'm...I'm trying to imagine...perhaps it's for
sacrifice or something, I don't know, but...just...
Asonder is giving the Septimus a very blank look indeed. The
Septimus notices, and stutters to a halt.
Septimus: (collecting himself) I'm sorry, Magus. I'm nattering. (long
pause) At any rate, I will...
Asonder: But isn't an oxen a gelded...bull?
Septimus: (amused) You're right. That is a very strange term of
phrase: "bull oxen." (explaining the context) You
see, the thing is that they're outside... It's a monologue
from the Quartermaster, sort of stating the scene, talking about
everything that's happening off-stage, um, but, uh,
they're listed separately from...(runs his finger down
the page) the oxen that are pulling the wagons,
etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, the horses -- "and two
hundred and twenty bull oxen." Bull. Oxen.
No...purpose is listed for them, no description is made
of them, they're never brought up again... (a bit
defensively) It's a odd number.
Asonder: Perhaps they're being used as food. How large of an
army is it?
Septimus: Well, it's...it's Iam's rather magical army. I mean,
parts of it don't eat. MOST of it doesn't eat, in
fact.
Asonder: Hmm.
Septimus: Most of it's DEAD.
Long pause.
Asonder: (very suspiciously) When was this written, and by whom?
Septimus: It's TENEMUS. (blank look from Asonder) He's a
famous...um...early Tympanian playwright. (even
blanker look from Asonder) He wrote some, uh, thirty-
two plays. Um...considered generally, most of them,
quite classic, although this one is rarely performed.
(pause) It's an early work.
Asonder: Understandably. It has two hundred and fifty bull
OXEN in it.
Septimus: No, no, they don't actually appear, you see.
It's...it's a common...it's a common...um, technique, a
device. To speak...to have someone come in and speak
about what is happening off-stage. That's how most
battles are fought, you see. The characters are...are
behind the front, or in a castle somewhere, and someone
runs in to tell them what's been happening, you see.
Asonder: That doesn't sound very interesting.
Septimus: Oh, no, it's quite interesting, actually. I mean, I've
never...I've never had a chance to actually see a
performance. But I have read them, and they're
quite...they're POETRY. It's very good.
Asonder: (a bit annoyed) What's the point of merely having
someone DESCRIBE a battle? It's a PERFORMANCE!
Septimus: (getting a bit annoyed himself) Yes, but it's...it's
in the words and the way they're spoken, and...(finishing
up, lamely) ...and in the poetry.
Asonder: Shouldn't they at least have a FEW people fighting on
stage?
Septimus: Well, it DOES happen every now and then, for a duel, or
something, it's... But to have an actual war, it's...
(getting frustrated) It's a bit difficult.
Asonder gives up on the conversation.
Asonder: (muttering darkly) I've never much liked Tympanian poetry.
A brief silence.
Septimus: (briskly) At any rate, sir, I shall go and speak to
Boomer and Lucky now, concerning this, and will inform
the men.
Asonder: Thank you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, this scene is a defining one for poor Septimus.
As the conversation progresses, he is coming to the horrible
realization that not only is he older, more experienced, and
generally more competent than the magi he serves, but that he
is also considerably more LEARNED. More literate. More cultured.
More knowledgeable. (It is simply appalling, from his point
of view, that Asonder should not even know the mythic history
of Iam and his undead army) This is NOT the way Things Are
Supposed To Be. This scene is going to be very important
to the way that Septimus will think and behave in the future,
and his player is going to play the role accordingly.
This scene is also useful for Asonder's characterization.
Through it, we learn the EXTENT of Asonder's isolation from the
mundane culture of his magical tradition. We also get to see
a side of Asonder that does not come up very often -- his rather
defensive irritability on this very subject. And his tendency
to chalk down to "dislike" his frustration with aspects of the
culture which he doesn't really understand.
This scene would not have happened without the improv.
Now, admittedly, I *have* given this scene as a "script,"
including only in-character dialogue and some "stage direction."
You will just have to take my word for it that, in the game
itself, there really was remarkably little else in the play of
this scene. I did not have to cut out much player talk at
all to write this transcription up as a dramatic "scene."
At no time did Kip, the player of Septimus, ask me
anything about the Tenemus play. He did not ask me if it
was all right for him to be reading it; he didn't ask me what
it was about; he didn't ask me if it were possible for there
to be a Tenemus play about Iam; he didn't ask me if Tenemus'
drama were similar to Shakespeare's in its handling of on-stage
and off-stage combat; he didn't ask me if there might be a somewhat
confusing passage about 'bull oxen' in the play in question. Had
he been required to gain my permission about ANY of these things,
the scene simply would not have worked.
Had any of Kip's improv in this scene been simply WRONG,
then I would have jumped in to correct it, of course. ("Um, Kip?
Actually, Tenemus would never have written a play about Iam; it
would have been considered unacceptable in his day.") But when
the players have a good, solid grounding in the game-world, it
becomes less and less likely that they are going to improv
anything which could not or should not exist in the game world.
In fact, when the responsibility of creating the game world is
a shared one (Troupe-style play), the improv that happens during
the games can become an important part of world-creation. This
Tenemus play, for example ("Nine Days In the Court of Iam"),
has now become an established part of the game world, and has
led to a lot of discussion about Tenemus' lesser-known works,
why they are lesser-known, and what political factors have
influenced the popularity (or lack thereof) of certain of these
plays throughout history. Fun stuff.
There was, in fact, only one moment in the above scene
in which my approval was sought. When Asonder said "I don't
believe so," his player looked questioningly at me. I shrugged
in response, leaving the decision up to him. As Asonder's
player is one of the co-creators of the world, I felt no need
to help him out in this decision. Had he been a new player,
I might well have broken into the scene to say: "Tenemus is
like Shakespeare, or Sophocles. He's VERY well-known. Unless
your liberal education was REALLY neglected, you've probably
read at least one of his plays." The player in question knew
this: his decision to have Asonder's liberal education really
be that lacking was a conscious one -- he knew JUST what he
was doing.
Now, the creation of a book is an incredibly minor
improv. It is so minor, in fact, that I don't even know if
it COUNTS as "improvising on the stage." The subsequent
improv of a number of aspects OF the play -- and, by extension,
of the very nature of drama in the game world -- I think of
as a fairly considerable improv, because it establishes
something important about the world as a whole (the state
of the dramatic art during the Golden Age). Without the
mutual trust necessary to allow this sort of improv, though,
you lose the opportunity to have scenes like this one,
scenes that I think DO greatly enhance characterization
within the game.
The creation of the spiral staircase in the sample
of play given in the Theatrix book, it is true, did NOT
promote characterization. But I suppose that I can imagine
other circumstances in which it could have done so. I think
that improv can be a VERY potent tool for characterization
in an RPG. I just think that it is a tool which ought be
used with some caution and a great deal of discretion. You
must only use this power for Good...
-- Sarah
Andrew Finch
: I think you have had to step out of character, and that in the whole process
: you are never in character. You are acting in character, but not thinking in
: character. The character is supposed to be observing and deducing, not making
: things up.
The character isn't making things up, he is 'seeing', 'experiencing', and
describing those experiences. Having the GM tell you what you see is
hardly more in character. In the improv method, I can visualize as I
believe the character would, and express what I've just experienced.
David
Andrew Finch
: character. The character is supposed to be observing and deducing, not making
: things up.
The character is not making anything up. The player accepts the role of
the character, envisions what the character would see, and declares it.
Better, to my mind, than being told what I see by the GM.
David
: Alternative email address - p...@uvo.dec.com
David Hauth
: I think you have had to step out of character, and that in the whole process
: you are never in character. You are acting in character, but not thinking in
: character. The character is supposed to be observing and deducing, not making
: things up.
Ahhhh... but when you are REALLY IN CHARACTER, you are "seeing" through
the eyes of your character (along with smelling, hearing, feeling, etc).
As the GM describes, you take his sketchy outlines and "flesh out" the
scene in your imagination INSTANTANEOUSLY -- you can't help it, this is
something that happens subconsciously and so fast that you aren't aware
of it (just like when your read a book and imagine as you go).
It is much more "in-character" to simply STATE what "you" are seeing,
rather that breaking out-of-character to go through a meta-game
question-and-answer session.
Cheers,
Dave Hauth
John H Kim
of plot and dramatic structure.
Magnus Lie Hetland <m...@lise.unit.no> wrote:
>One thing has struck me - the bibliographical references are quite thin :)
>
>Most of the debatants write only of their own opinion - what they "think",
>"feel" or "believe" a plot is. That is ok, but there is a limit to how
>far one can get in a discussion where people know little of the field
>they are talking about (I'm talking about dramaturgy and narratology
>here.) The only outside source seems to be "The Screenwriter's Workbook"
>by Syd (not Sid :) Field.
Well, it's been a while since I've taken a dramaturgy class
(It's been three years since my "Script Analysis" class at Columbia) -
and I've never been good about keeping my textbooks handy. What's more,
I've never worked with a good, widely-published introductory work. Given
this, I'm not sure what sort of references I should bring up. If we were
to talk about Hitchcock films, I could drag in a lot of references - but
I'm not sure how useful that is.
Frankly, if someone can explain their concept of "plot" clearly,
I am just as willing to accept it as some dramaturgical scholar's
definition. This is not a scholarly discussion, in general, so I don't
see the need for too many references.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>My intention is to introduce the fact that there are many models for
>describing many kinds of stories, and many of them are (in my opinion)
>useful to roleplayers. Not all of them describe the order of events, but
>the structure of the relaitonships between the forces in the story
>(Greimas' Actant-model for instance) which is very useful even if you
>don't want to plan the events, or if you want to play "world-based".
Well, so what is your reference for the Greimas' Actant-model? @-)
In general, if you have a particular insight as to how these
models can be useful - and have the patience to describe them clearly,
then I would welcome them in.
I am currently planning a `modern magic' game, and for the
starting leg of the campaign I will be drawing some upon Joseph Campbell's
_Hero of a Thousand Faces_, which breaks down the hero's journey into
a series of standard steps.
John H Kim
promotes characterization. In it, one player improvised his magus'
knowledge of a classical play during a discussion - which the other
magus he was talking to knew nothing about.
Sarah E Kahn <SSK...@frost.oit.umass.edu> wrote:
> Had any of Kip's improv in this scene been simply WRONG,
>then I would have jumped in to correct it, of course. ("Um, Kip?
>Actually, Tenemus would never have written a play about Iam; it
>would have been considered unacceptable in his day.") But when
>the players have a good, solid grounding in the game-world, it
>becomes less and less likely that they are going to improv
>anything which could not or should not exist in the game world.
Agreed. Note the self-feeding nature of this - the more
world information you give to the players, the more they can comfortably
improvise within that framework.
David B. gave an example of where he would leave out detail on
a security system to give the player more "room" for improvisation. I
think this is somewhat spurious. If you give the player *more*
information, then he can improvise *more*.
For example, if you give the player the general layout of the
security system - then he can improvise the _specifics_; and he will
do so with greater speed and confidence. ("There are sonic motion-sensors
embedded in the plaster of the walls here, here, and here. These are
powered by individual circuits which are controlled by...[etc.]").
I have often found that the more you define things for your
players, the more they will respond with stuff.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>As the conversation progresses, he [Septimus] is coming to the horrible
>realization that not only is he older, more experienced, and generally
>more competent than the magi he serves, but that he is also considerably
>more LEARNED. More literate. More cultured. More knowledgeable. (It
>is simply appalling, from his point of view, that Asonder should not
>even know the mythic history of Iam and his undead army)
Hmmmm. Note the danger of doing this on less information,
though. What if Asonder's player did *not* see himself as being
uncultured - that while Asonder appeared uncultured to others, he
mainly has trouble communicating?
Asonder's player would be rather lost - should he know about
this Tenemus play, or shouldn't he? Is it an obscure work, or is it
a standard which his character should be familiar with?
If he was improvising, Asonder's player might think that
Septimus is talking about a really obscure play - while Septimus'
player is thinking that this is a standard work which everyone learned
is familiar with.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
> This scene is also useful for Asonder's characterization.
>Through it, we learn the EXTENT of Asonder's isolation from the
>mundane culture of his magical tradition.
...
> This scene would not have happened without the improv.
Well, note that this *sort* of scene can happen without
improv. Especially since we are talking about _Ars Magica_, which
takes place in a world with very good background. For example,
Septimus' player might alternately start talking about Sophocles'
_Electra_, and about the nature of burial rituals in it. In that
case, there might be no improv in the scene, and the goals which
you are talking about are still met.
I think it is less the _act_ of improvising as the _effect_
of detailed knowledge which is important here. Which is to say,
improvisation is a useful and indeed neccessary tool in creating the
world and characters in detail - but it is a _substitute_ for prepared
background, and has many pitfalls associated with it.
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: Agreed. Note the self-feeding nature of this - the more
: world information you give to the players, the more they can comfortably
: improvise within that framework.
: David B. gave an example of where he would leave out detail on
: a security system to give the player more "room" for improvisation. I
: think this is somewhat spurious. If you give the player *more*
: information, then he can improvise *more*.
Sorry, I was assuming. I'm simply too used to my players. Security
systems, guns and ammo, military ops, martial arts, emergency medical
techniques, and small unit combat tactics, are just a few of the areas
where my input is only going to hamper things. Those guys are obssesed and
deranged. If I let them loose, they'll get in more trouble than I could
ever hope for.
: For example, if you give the player the general layout of the
: security system - then he can improvise the _specifics_; and he will
: do so with greater speed and confidence. ("There are sonic motion-sensors
: embedded in the plaster of the walls here, here, and here. These are
: powered by individual circuits which are controlled by...[etc.]").
I would just start getting corrected.
: I have often found that the more you define things for your
: players, the more they will respond with stuff.
That's true, and I try to provide a lot of detail, but I know what my
players are good at, and I try to leave them to it.
: Hmmmm. Note the danger of doing this on less information,
: though. What if Asonder's player did *not* see himself as being
: uncultured - that while Asonder appeared uncultured to others, he
: mainly has trouble communicating?
He would have said that he had read the play. The intention of the improv
was obvious enough, made so by the nice roleplay of the other player. And
it could have gone in a idfferent direction. Still no problem. Still a
moment of characterization.
: Asonder's player would be rather lost - should he know about
: this Tenemus play, or shouldn't he? Is it an obscure work, or is it
: a standard which his character should be familiar with?
It's true, if you freeze up and get all paranoid over these things,
you're probably better off leaving them out of your games.
: If he was improvising, Asonder's player might think that
: Septimus is talking about a really obscure play - while Septimus'
: player is thinking that this is a standard work which everyone learned
: is familiar with.
Yes, it's a *risk*. A little excitement in your day. Get that blood
pumping. Let yourself know you're still alive.
: Well, note that this *sort* of scene can happen without
: improv. Especially since we are talking about _Ars Magica_, which
: takes place in a world with very good background. For example,
: Septimus' player might alternately start talking about Sophocles'
: _Electra_, and about the nature of burial rituals in it. In that
: case, there might be no improv in the scene, and the goals which
: you are talking about are still met.
And her point about the usefulness of improv would be just as valid.
: I think it is less the _act_ of improvising as the _effect_
: of detailed knowledge which is important here. Which is to say,
: improvisation is a useful and indeed neccessary tool in creating the
: world and characters in detail - but it is a _substitute_ for prepared
: background, and has many pitfalls associated with it.
Another fine roleplaying moment that never should have existed. They
evidently do this fairly often. You think they would have hit the pitfalls
in this very dangerous technique and come to their senses. Kids, today.
I am sorry about the sarcasm John, but this 'you shouldn't improv because
it's too dangerous' argument is too hard to take seriously. It's a
roleplaying game, I think we can dance with a little danger.
David
Thomas Bagwell
: The same "implausibility" can come into play if Player B starts asking
: more questions about the setting than did Player A. Player A is still
: out in the cornfield, and the tractor et al. still "came into being"
: after Player A's decision to run into the field, and Player B. still
: continues with his actions.
I don't feel this would ever be the case. If the characters arrive at
the scene, I've never known a GM who wouldn't mention a house being
present. If he didn't, then it was inevitably safe to assume that there
was not a house, or a giant pink elephant, or a bottomless pit, or any
number of other important objects there, waiting for a player to ask
about them specifically. Now, the GM might not mention the tractor if
it was on the other side of the house and not visible, but this is a
totally different situation, and Player A's decision would have been
reasonable, if premature.
: I don't see the difference between letting Player B come up with this, or
: having the GM do it by Q&A. I would just interpret this as Player B's
: character thinking on his feet a little better than Player A's.
If the GM never described anything, and handled it all by Q&A (even blatantly
obvious items/structures/etc.), then you would be correct. Fortunately,
I've never seen a GM that operates that way.
: What's the difference between Player B imposing _his_ version on Player
: A, and the _GM_ imposing _his_?
Nothing, I suppose, if that's the type of game you like. In our games, we
prefer a single source for such details. Much greater consistency.
: I won't deny you're distaste for inconsistency. One thing I left out in
: the description was that the characters had been through this cornfield
: before and knew that there were numerous farm houses and lots of farm
: machinery about -- so Player A's vision of everything was not so detached.
: By the way, all my players thought it was great and thought it _filled
: out_ the encounter in a very interesting way. None complained.
Different strokes. Many people prefer gaming systems that our group
loathes and detests...doesn't make them or us wrong. Our group would
really hate the above happening.
: Dave Hauth
Tom B.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...A wild, weird clime |
That lieth, sublime, | Thomas N. Bagwell
Out of Space, | tbag...@netcom.com
Out of Time." |
--Edgar Allen Poe |
'Dreamland' | ____\|/_____________________\|/____
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Bagwell
: I find long question-and-answer series to be extremely jarring, and a major
: distraction in play.
So do I. That's why we don't run that way.
: For example, suppose the PC is playing a wise and well-versed mage.
: Scenario A
: GM: "You enter the apothecary's shop. It is small and cluttered, with all
: sorts of strange potions, chemicals and herbs for sale."
: PC: "I pop open a green love potion, sniff it, and say, 'Any fool who drinks
: this deserves what he gets!'"
Actually, this level of player improvisation we have no problem with. Of
course, it's solely for characterization and does not affect the plot.
Now, if it happens to give the GM an idea...
: Scenario B
: GM: "You enter the apothecary's shop. It is small and cluttered, with all
: sorts of strange potions, chemicals and herbs for sale."
: PC: "What sort of potions does he sell?"
: GM: "Love potions, rat poisons, patent medicines, all sorts."
: PC: "Does he have a *green* potion?"
: GM: "Uh, well, sure, he has a couple."
: PC: "Are any of the green ones love potions?"
: GM: (confused) "I don't know. Why do you ask?"
: PC: (decides it isn't worth it) "Oh, never mind. It's not important."
We would certainly never approach it in this fashion. Now, some players
might be hesitant to such blatant improvisation as in your first example,
but still, the most extreme example of Q&A I would expect from my most
reticent player would be more like:
GM: You enter the apothecary's shop. It is small and cluttered, with all
sorts of strange potions, chemicals, and herbs for sale.
PC: Any love potions?
GM: Yeah, he has a couple on a shelf near the counter.
PC: I'll pick one up, sniff it, and say, "Any fool who drinks this will
get just what he deserves!"
I find this a far likelier scenario than your rather extreme example...
: I find that the minor improvisation in A is less damaging to characterization
: than the pointless exchange in B. I rule that if the invention would cause
: a significant change (like the Mutating Staircase) then they should ask me.
And that's pretty much the rule of thumb we use. I'll even allow some fairly
major improvisations...the players have found that the best indicator of
whether or not they're going too far is simply to keep an eye on me and
judge my reaction.
: Neel
Jeff
The 'character' wouldn't be 'visualizing'. The character would be seeing.
And what the character would be seeing is an external reality that is the
same for all of his companions.
Example:
The characters on the ground floor of a building, on the roof of which is
a helicopter that they must stop.
Player 1: "I head up the stairwell." This player is thinking that the
building is only a few stories tall, and rationalizes that taking the
stairs will be faster than an elevator.
GM: "Okay. You fling open the door of the stairwell and charge up the
stairs."
Player 2: "I run into the open elevator, and press the button for the
58th floor, just below the roof."
GM: "Okay."
Player 2 has just defined the previously undefined height of the
building, retroactivey making Player 1's decision *stupid*. There is no
reason why Player 1's character wouldn't already know the height of the
building, but he is stuck 'not knowing' because he didn't happen to
mention how tall he thought it was.
When the GM is responsible for the environment, he help players avoid
making their characters react in silly and pointless ways by telling them
what their characters ought to already know.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
gaun...@bga.com Sic Gorgiamus Subjectatus Allos Nunc
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Sarah E Kahn
: > If an improv has created an inconsistency during an action scene,
: >you've got a big problem...
[snip]
: >Furthermore, the players are likely to be in a high state of excitement
: >during such scenes (due both to the nature of such scenes and to their
: >concern about the safety of their characters), and so if the inconsistency
: >confuses them or results in an unfair adjudication, they are most
: >unlikely to "let it pass" the way they might in a less active scene.
John H. Kim wrote:
: Even if they do "let it pass", it may stick with them like a
: bad feeling in their mouths. I try my best not to dispute GM rulings
: during play - but inconsistancies annoy me just as much. Just because
: no one challenges it during play doesn't mean it is good.
I agree. And, actually, I think that Kevin made a very
good point when he suggested that often players will NOT object
to inconsistencies in action scenes precisely BECAUSE those
inconsistencies are working to the advantage of some other
player's character in a potentially-lethal situation. No one
wants to be the creep who causes someone else's character to
die by bringing an inconsistency to the attention of the GM.
But what happens when this same inconsistency then is placing
THEIR character at risk? I like putting characters in those
sorts of "him-or-me" moral quandries. I don't want to put my
*players* in them.
I think that John is quite right in his strong implication
that this can be even WORSE in the long run. Player annoyance
can rankle and fester if it goes unexpressed.
-- Sarah
Peter Timothy Jackson
In article <3k2kkm$17...@rover.ucs.ualberta.ca>, dha...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca (David Hauth) writes...
>Peter Timothy Jackson (jac...@kernel.enet.dec.com) wrote:
No I did not.
>
>: > Interesting. Now a dungeon crawl seems the epitome of a highly plotted game.
>: > After all, it has one location and most rooms have only one way of solving
>: > them. There are various "gates" that have to be passed to move onto the next
>: > plot segment. In fact, a real *authentic* D&D crawl has exactly one way
>: > through it. There are minimal choices to be made, just a series of problems
>: > admitting of a single solution.
>
>There is a big difference between a "plotted game" and a dungeon crawl:
>in a plotted game, the characters in it essentially _define_ the plot --
>it wouldn't make sense without them. In a dungeon crawl, any old group
>of characters could throw themselves into it -- the "adventure" is
>completely detached from the characters.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dave Hauth
Please take more care when cutting bits out to leave correct author in.
I disagree more with the first paragraph, than I do with your response.
I agree that any old group of characters can be thrown into a dungeon crawl,
but the plot/adventure that gets created will depend on those characters. The
dungeon crawl is just the setting in which an story can be created. Often the
nature of that story is undefined. This has the disadvantage that the story
that gets created may be uninteresting, but sometimes it is fairly
interesting.
For example, I have seen the following happen: party assembles; brute force
characters insist on charging straight in with all wands blazing; attack fails
and party retreats; 'weaker' characters with more guile persuade the
'stronger' ones than an intelligent plan is needed; plan is devised; plan is
acted upon; attack succeeds. Maybe this wasn't a very good plot, but it was
certainly attached to the characters and the relationships between them.
Peter
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
Cool. I agree with you on this one. I don't think you have mentioned that
one of the advantages of allowing players to improvise the minor details is
the fact that it focuses attention on the players' characters rather than
on the GM.
This definitely promotes characterization, since the players focus their
attention on the character making the comment rather than on the GM.
Neel
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
|> : Scenario B
|> : GM: "You enter the apothecary's shop. It is small and cluttered, with all
|> : sorts of strange potions, chemicals and herbs for sale."
|> : PC: "What sort of potions does he sell?"
|> : GM: "Love potions, rat poisons, patent medicines, all sorts."
|> : PC: "Does he have a *green* potion?"
|> : GM: "Uh, well, sure, he has a couple."
|> : PC: "Are any of the green ones love potions?"
|> : GM: (confused) "I don't know. Why do you ask?"
|> : PC: (decides it isn't worth it) "Oh, never mind. It's not important."
[disbelief that something like this can happen deleted]
I am greatly amused. Scenario B is a slightly paraphrased example of what
happened in my campaign. I approached the player after the session, and then
found out what he was driving at. The player placed a lot of emphasis on the
word "green", and I had no idea why the love potion's color was so terribly
important to him. It turned out it wasn't; it was just the way the idea was
evolving in his head.
This whole thing illustrates Sarah's (or Alain's?) comment about "small hits
to characterization". The confusion we felt was not the feeling the
apothecary's shop was supposed to evoke. The PC magi were professionals of
long standing, and the stuff in the shop should be familiar to them.
I told the players that improvisation to characterize is okay with me, and I
guess I'll just have to encourage them until they gain confidence in their
innate sense of reasonableness.
Neel
John H Kim
has mysteriously interpreted my statement that "Improv has some
pitfalls" as "Improv should never be used".
This article is trying to clarify what I like and dislike about
Improv in RPG's. As background, I have done a fair bit of theatre games
as an actor - it is very challenging, forcing you to be constantly
creative and inventive. I liked it, but it was often very tense and
stressful for me.
OTOH, in role-playing, "improvisation" has a much firmer ground.
I know my character and the world in detail, and have a pretty good idea
of the location. This makes it easy and fun to act out long dialogues -
making up "props" is handy, but I consider it a means to an end
(interesting interactions) rather than an end in itself.
NOTE: By an acting paradigm, *all* of role-playing is "improvisation",
unless the players are given a literal script. When refering to
"improvisation" in role-playing, I am using the _Theatrix_ definition,
which is when the players create/define features of the world by
their statements.
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>John H Kim (jh...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
>: If he was improvising, Asonder's player might think that
>: Septimus is talking about a really obscure play - while Septimus'
>: player is thinking that this is a standard work which everyone learned
>: is familiar with.
>
>Yes, it's a *risk*. A little excitement in your day. Get that blood
>pumping. Let yourself know you're still alive.
So it's kind of like rolling a die to see if your character
succeeds or fails? @-)
I prefer my thrills to be thrills _inside_ the game, as a part
of a well-constructed environment (although there are different forms
of good construction). What you are talking about is the thrill of
"Is this meta-game technique going to work, or is it going to diminish
role-play?"
My preference regarding Improvisation is to minimize this
risk - by preparation and agreement to make sure that Improvisation
works as well as possible when it is used.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>: I think it is less the _act_ of improvising as the _effect_
>: of detailed knowledge which is important here. Which is to say,
>: improvisation is a useful and indeed neccessary tool in creating the
>: world and characters in detail - but it is a _substitute_ for prepared
>: background, and has many pitfalls associated with it.
...
>I am sorry about the sarcasm John, but this 'you shouldn't improv because
>it's too dangerous' argument is too hard to take seriously. It's a
>roleplaying game, I think we can dance with a little danger.
David - if you're having trouble, why don't you try reading
what I wrote? I certainly haven't said that "you should't improv".
I said that there are pitfalls associated with it.
Personally, I'm not all that much interested in "dancing" with
the risk of it being a inconsistant, poorly-described game. I plan
intend to do everything I can to help make as sure as possible that
improvisation works.
Ray Trent
>characterization. Not only does it reduce the tedium of lengthy
>Q&A sessions between player and GM, which can be disruptive to
>role assumption, but it also provides the opportunity for a
>much greater range of 'props' to which the characters can
>respond. Furthermore, it provides props which are of emotional
>importance to the *characters,* which naturally encourages
>role-play. Many of the best "character-defining" scenes that
>have occurred in our games simply would not have happened
>had the players not been free to improv.
I re-iterate my claim that this shows the difference between character
*assumption* and character *portrayal*. If your goal is to *portray*
your character to the other players then, yes, it is useful to be able
to pull props out of a hat.
However, if you're trying to *become* your character, it is jarring to
have the authority and responsibility of *defining reality* (unless
your character has that attribute).
A *person* does *not* go around saying, "gosh, my visualization of a
canonical staircase is that it contains a fire-extinguisher, therefore
I know this stairway has a fire extinguisher" (and it is *especially*
true that the fire extinguisher does not therefore appear in that
location).
They think something like "aha, a staircase"...and if there's a reason
to desire a fire extinguisher they might think "most stairways in
buildings have fire extinguishers...*I'll look and see if I can find
one here*".
The former thought process is pathological in the extreme. Only if you
conceive of your character as pathological in that way can you perform
this "improvisation" task *in character*. Otherwise, in order to act
in character, you *must* ask the question "do I perceive a fire
extinguisher in this stairway?" of some external reality.
In a non-improvisational game, this external "reality" is the GM. In
an improvisational game, the entity your character asks is the
player...which *forces* the player to be on the character level and
the meta-game level at the same time.
I have to disagree with the existentialist point of view here. As a
practical matter, perception is fundamentally about people asking the
question "what is out there?", not about saying "my perception creates
the reality that is out there".
It's confusing levels to believe that people think this way. The only
intelligent and useful point of existentialism is the brilliant
(though a bit obvious) observation that people will perceive things in
a way that is unique to them and they will *react* as though their
perception is reality (and that they have little other choice but to
do so...their perception of the world is all they have to go on). It
is in *that* sense that people create reality through perception.
People, however, *perform* this operation on a concrete rather than an
abstract level. "I *perceive* X. Therefore, I think X exists". *Not*
the other way around. Repeat *not* the other way around. Heck, why not
repeat that again, *not* the other way around.
--
"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\..
David Hauth
: Nothing, I suppose, if that's the type of game you like. In our games, we
: prefer a single source for such details. Much greater consistency.
If everyone is paying attention, then the results of character improv are
quite consistent.
Cheers,
Dave Hauth
Ray Trent
> The character is not making anything up. The player accepts the role of
>the character, envisions what the character would see, and declares it.
>Better, to my mind, than being told what I see by the GM.
And, in fact, that's the point. The character *is not* "making
anything up". The player *must* "make something up" in order to
improvise it.
Therefore, the player that wishes to improvise is *forced* to think in
a way that the character does not think.
Therefore, the player is not taking on the character's role and thoughts.
And is therefore not roleplaying (by my definition) while improvising.
Mind you, I'm not saying that's necessarily bad. It can be fun. The
players may enjoy a chance to take on the autorial role in addition to
the role of the character.
It can be quite entertaining to think along the lines of "if there
were a vase on that mantle, it would really portray my character's
personality well if he were to pick it up, start to break it over the
bad guy's head, realize it's 3rd Dynasty, and spend the rest of the
combat trying to keep it unbroken".
It's just not something the *character* would conceivably think in the
heat of combat (though perhaps it's possible if the character's in a
particularly reflective mood).
Improvisation is an *inherently* third person activity.
David Hauth
: The 'character' wouldn't be 'visualizing'. The character would be seeing.
: And what the character would be seeing is an external reality that is the
: same for all of his companions.
Come now, Jeff, you're splitting hairs just to argue. When David says "I
can visualize as my character would" he is saying that he can imagine
what his character is seeing. David isn't being _that_ inscrutable.
[example of characters going up stairs/elevators to top of building]
: Player 2 has just defined the previously undefined height of the
: building, retroactivey making Player 1's decision *stupid*. There is no
: reason why Player 1's character wouldn't already know the height of the
: building, but he is stuck 'not knowing' because he didn't happen to
: mention how tall he thought it was.
The key here is to let Player 1 know if his action is stupid at the time
-- restating his improvisation and giving him additional information.
"Do you really want to take the stairs? It's a _long_ way up to the
top!" This gives him a chance to make a less "stupid" move.
Just because improvisation is allowed doesn't mean that improvisation
_must always be used_ or _must always be accepted_. Like any RPG, in
Theatrix the GM is final arbiter of any improvisation. Good GMs will
allow more improv that they disallow, assuming of course that his players
are skilled in the use of improvisation in roleplay.
: When the GM is responsible for the environment, he help players avoid
: making their characters react in silly and pointless ways by telling them
: what their characters ought to already know.
But the GM doesn't always have time to do this, especially in a
fast-paced tense chase scene or combat encounter. And often the players
think up great improvisations that add entertaining flavor to the game --
things the GM maybe overlooked.
I find the reactionary distaste for improvisation on this thread
confusing. If everyone in the game is PAYING ATTENTION and taking
interest, the improvisations will all be consistent and the flow of the
game will be uninterrupted. I'll admit: there is a certain level of
skill to doing improv RIGHT in an RPG, but it's a skill that is
relatively easy to learn.
Cheers,
Dave Hauth
David Hauth
[a bit about improv-ing and stating what "you" are seeing]
: Cool. I agree with you on this one. I don't think you have mentioned that
: one of the advantages of allowing players to improvise the minor details is
: the fact that it focuses attention on the players' characters rather than
: on the GM.
Precisely. The one thing I like about systems that allow improvisation
is that the characters start to "matter" more -- they're not just taking
a tour through the GMs world, they are actively involved in it. If the
players are good, they are not going to improv "out-of-character" nor are
they going to invent inconsistent realities. It's nice, as GM, to have
some of the tediuous "describe-the-minor-details" responsibility lifted
so you can put your efforts into the IMPORTANT stuff -- like NPC
characterization.
: This definitely promotes characterization, since the players focus their
: attention on the character making the comment rather than on the GM.
Yes! You understand! Go forth, and instruct others.
Cheers,
Dave Hauth
David A Bonar
: David A Bonar (dbo...@tiger.lsu.edu) wrote:
: The same "implausibility" can come into play if Player B starts asking
: more questions about the setting than did Player A. Player A is still
: out in the cornfield, and the tractor et al. still "came into being"
: after Player A's decision to run into the field, and Player B. still
: continues with his actions.
My experience has been that players can easily work questions
into the flow of things ("I look around. Is there a tractor nearby?"
The GM gives a quick yes or no and and pertinant info on the tractor)
By not mentioning items such as a nearby tractor the GM would have
been indicating that no such object was immediately apparent.
It boils down to the fact that I think the traditional GM
responsibility for the background and scenery is useful in action
oriented scenes. By leaving things to one person at such times I
think you can get a more consistant (and thus more easily visualized)
setting. Additionally it puts a check on the possibility that one of the
gamers is better at quickly thinking up plausable scene manipulations
(which can be important since manipulations in action oriented scenes
will tend to be of a benificial to the character in question kind even
if the benifit is just the ability to alway be the character who steals
the scene).
This does put somewhat of a burden on the GM. He has to judge
what level of detail his players are going to want and give it to them.
I've always found that this came easily for both myself and most of the
GMs I've gamed with. As I mentioned before we rarely run into Q&A
sessions like the one you described. Instead we get simple questions
that can best be described as the character thinking outload and the
GM providing the mind's reply.
: I won't deny you're distaste for inconsistency. One thing I left out in
: the description was that the characters had been through this cornfield
: before and knew that there were numerous farm houses and lots of farm
: machinery about -- so Player A's vision of everything was not so detached.
Significant information. If everyone had this info on hand then
player B's addition of a tractor nearby isn't really going to change
anyone's visualization.
: By the way, all my players thought it was great and thought it _filled
: out_ the encounter in a very interesting way. None complained.
I seriously doubt I'd complain about an incident like this
(and with the extra background info that you didn't include at first
I'm sure I wouldn't). However over time I feel that strong player
stage management would grate on me if it was allowed in action scenes.
I love its use in places where the aim is the detail the character or
streamline some parts of play (Sarah's example concerning the play
and someone's green love potion stuff) though.
For that matter; with a group of players who knew each other
very well, were playing in a well developed world, had a good sense
of the genre and had similar levels of seriousness (for lack of a
better world) in their approach to play at that time it might well
work in action scenes.
Dave
Per Fischer
IÕve been following the improv discussion for a while now, and it has been
quite interesting. IÕm a danish citizen (meaning: I just heard of THEATRIX,
and IÕm right now trying to get a copy from Backstage Press; might take a
while.).
If there is something about THEATRIX or the discussion IÕve misunderstood,
please forgive me and tell me whatÕs wrong.
My reason for contributing is Sarahs example of how wrong improv can go, i.e.
the Ars Magica example. I understand that your point, Sarah, is that
improvisation in a very character-based roleplaying game can tilt the balance
between character psykologies. Correct me if IÕm wrong.
IMHO improvisation is based on one basic element: going along, or: never say
no. At least that is the approach in *real* theater. And going along, thatÕs
just what Asonders player is not doing. If the older Magus is more
experienced than the younger one, then Asonders player has to conclude that
he (Asonder, not the player) has knowledge of the Tenemus plays. At some
point in the conversation the player of Asonder had to respond:
ÒListen, young fellow, I read Tenemus when I was young. I donÕt read him
anymore. Now, would You have me excused, my young friend?Ó or something like
that.
Improv is also about taking the initiative. When SeptimusÕ player assumed
his character was reading Tenemus, and played it out in the conversation, he
took the initiative and created a dynamic situation. ThatÕs what fascinates
me about improv in general: there is no way back!
>Septimus: (an afterthought) Have you ever read Tenemus?
>The question takes Asonder aback.
>Asonder: I don't believe so.
There you are! Asonders player looks at the GM and gets nothing. What now? He
could choose to go along as in the example (with the consequences decribed by
Sarah) or try to go another way. I think he chose the wrong way.
BTW, Sarah, I enjoy your writing! :-)))
Greetings from the cold north, Per.
Per_F...@pol.online.dk
Andrew Finch
: Sigh. I guess I can't always be as clear as I like. David B.
: has mysteriously interpreted my statement that "Improv has some
: pitfalls" as "Improv should never be used".
Sorry again John. I'll try to be more balanced in my claims, but that
seems like a poor internet tactic. The run of an argument is more like
the wild swing of a pendulum. Eventually the conflicting forces come to
some relatively stable center.
[Snip]
: So it's kind of like rolling a die to see if your character
: succeeds or fails? @-)
Thanks, very funny.
: I prefer my thrills to be thrills _inside_ the game, as a part
: of a well-constructed environment (although there are different forms
: of good construction). What you are talking about is the thrill of
: "Is this meta-game technique going to work, or is it going to diminish
: role-play?"
I don't get my thrills from that at all. I've been doing this long enough
that I know it works. All I was saying was that the *risk* portrayed is
actually fairly small. It's just a game. It won't collapse on you if you
make an improvistaional error. Is that better?
: My preference regarding Improvisation is to minimize this
: risk - by preparation and agreement to make sure that Improvisation
: works as well as possible when it is used.
Yes. Very much yes.
: David - if you're having trouble, why don't you try reading
: what I wrote? I certainly haven't said that "you should't improv".
I was appologizing for any miscommunication. Yes, I read what you write.
Looking at your stuff above, I wonder if you are not over-reacting as well?
David
Andrew Finch
: However, if you're trying to *become* your character, it is jarring to
: have the authority and responsibility of *defining reality* (unless
: your character has that attribute).
I disagree. You find it jarring. I find it very helpful. I think the
prospect is at least intriguing enough to try.
[Snip]
: I have to disagree with the existentialist point of view here. As a
: practical matter, perception is fundamentally about people asking the
: question "what is out there?", not about saying "my perception creates
: the reality that is out there".
Actually, you would be dead wrong, and a lot of experimental evidence
backs up the existentialist viewpoint. Perception is an act of creation,
and experimental cognitive science has given us a lot of data on it.
: It's confusing levels to believe that people think this way.
They do. It may not be at all intuitive. A lot of good psychology is not.
If it were intuitive, we wouldn't have the perceptual, interpersonal, and
emotional problems we do.
: The only
: intelligent and useful point of existentialism is the brilliant
[Snip]
We can argue existentialism another time. I'll just say that as a
Buddhist, and an existentialist, I disagree.
: People, however, *perform* this operation on a concrete rather than an
: abstract level. "I *perceive* X. Therefore, I think X exists". *Not*
: the other way around. Repeat *not* the other way around. Heck, why not
: repeat that again, *not* the other way around.
You know, there is an overwhelming mountain of evidence to the contrary.
In humans, it is very often a case of I think X exists, therefore I
percieve X.
I would repeat that three times, but it is unnecessary. If you're
interested, you can start with some of Maslow's research and go from
there. For a fascinating study of existential psychology, I would read
either Rolo May or Irving Yalom.
David
Andrew Finch
[Snip]
: Therefore, the player that wishes to improvise is *forced* to think in
: a way that the character does not think.
You know, the only way I can improvise well in these situations is to
think as the character would. What would I see? What would I do? These
kinds of questions. Which is in character. And the experience is more direct.
: And is therefore not roleplaying (by my definition) while improvising.
Oh, I see. Maybe you don't roleplay by this defintion while improvising,
but I roleplay more. Maybe it's a difference in style?
: Mind you, I'm not saying that's necessarily bad. It can be fun. The
: players may enjoy a chance to take on the autorial role in addition to
: the role of the character.
There is also that. But I find myself in the authorial role when I'm
improvising for a third party.
: Improvisation is an *inherently* third person activity.
I would disagree. All acting is improvisation. All roleplay is
improvisation. So, by your definition, all roleplay is third person.
Which in a sense would be right, as we are never our characters. We are
just pretending. However, we are closer to the pretence of a first person
experience if we are free to improvise.
David
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 15 Mar 1995, Andrew Finch wrote:
> Ray Trent (r...@clement.erg.sri.com) wrote:
> : I have to disagree with the existentialist point of view here. As a
> : practical matter, perception is fundamentally about people asking the
> : question "what is out there?", not about saying "my perception creates
> : the reality that is out there".
>
> Actually, you would be dead wrong, and a lot of experimental evidence
> backs up the existentialist viewpoint. Perception is an act of creation,
> and experimental cognitive science has given us a lot of data on it.
Much work in the social sciences also supports this (David B.'s)
position. This does not deny the ontological status of some tangible
"real world," merely suggests that that the way we KNOW it and ORDER it
is highly malleable. (Some people do, of course, go so far as to
deny the existence of a the real world beyond our ability to perceive
it. But the initial premise does not require going that far.) Much of the
basic position stems from the work of a French (of course) linguist named
Saussure, and various people's reactions to it. Research has
demonstrated (notice the adroit use of the passive voice--no, I cannot
cite chapter and verse, at least not off the top of my head) that the
language we use is fundamental to how we impose order on reality;
language of course is something we share, something we are socialized in
to, not something over which we have absolute control. Specialized
typologies created through the use of language have immense social
implications: this is what underpins much of the work of the French (of
course) historian Michel Foucault. The typologies and hierarchies we
apply to different kinds of human beings: criminal vs. adjusted, mad vs.
sane, and so on, carry social authority behind them; they become the
basis, in this kind of thinking anyway, for repression and validation.
You may not like the mode of analysis (Foucault, for starters, cannot
write for beans) but its worth knowing something about, because it is
vastly prevalent right now, and as has been for some 15 years. This is
more than a passing academic fad.
Kevin