fiction-based rule use (one fun option)
Callan S.:
David,
Well the thing about a 'scene' is that it has no fictional equivalent at all. You don't get characters walking around saying "Shit, did a scene just end there?" "Yeah, I think it did" (unless you made a fourth wall breaking satire setting and went with the notion). So scenes can't tie into the synergy for having no fictional representative. Scenes are like paragraphs in a book - they are a convention for managing reading - the paragraphs aren't somehow in the fiction, even as they shape the stories presentation explicitly.
But instead of just saying 'it don't work like that' I'll try and provide some actual content. Now the way I'm reading you is that your thinking of a series of if statements...specifically for the GM to work from. To me this gives the impression that the players just kinda...do whatever, and there's supposed to be this moment one can identify amongst all that whatever, to say 'cut!' and that'll be a great scene.
Okay, how I think is that you have a set real time, like ten minutes, and at the end that's a scene. Perhaps have a couple of cues '@ 5 minutes, foreshadow a cliffhanger situation' '@ 9 minutes, if you aren't already, get that cliffhanger into place'.
The thing is here the players know this time limit and the cue - and in how I imagine it, they don't just do whatever - they actively start shaping their spoken fiction to try and complete a scene at ten minutes and include the cues. So pretty much everyone is working together toward the same point, rather than they do whatever and then the GM somehow encapsulates it into a scene.
I guess I'm being a bit flippant in refering to it as 'do whatever'. What I mean is that not only does the players character do whatever its gunna do, but procedurally the player pretty much does whatever comes to mind as well. The uninhibited character portrayal has sort of mutated into also the player doing whatever at the table. Actually that raises a good question - does the player need alot of freedom, or just the character needs that freedom?
Really I guess I'm presenting an advert again, for consideration. But it's because scenes aren't something that's inside the fiction, the are outside the fiction. Since scenes aren't inside the fiction, they can't engage in that mechano/fictional synergy.
What is your own experience playing and designing, in terms of scenes? Indeed, why do you try to employ the notion of scenes? What prompted you and what value did it say scenes had? I don't think I've ever tried in my own play - at best if there were scenes, they came sort of organically with changes in fictional setting "Were at the tavern" "Were in the forest" "Were skirting the outside of broken down, yet occupied castles walls" etc. Indeed 'we go there' was usually the mark of 'ok, you head there and it's', which was as much scene change as my groups ever done, if I understand what you mean by scene change? Oh, or if one characters at another fictional location, cutting back to them to see what they do or if they do anything, then cutting to the main group. What's your own experience?
David Berg:
Callan,
You're right, there is no way that the interaction between mechanics and fiction can apply to scene framing in exactly the same way as it applies to fiction-creation.
I'm hoping, though, that the same logic can be applied to the process of establishing "who, what, when, where".
My questions about scene framing emerge from two rather different approaches, best epitomized by my games of Delve and Primetime Adventures.
In Delve:
There are no units of play labelled as "scenes", but there are moments where the pace of the fictional coverage shifts. "We've destroyed the demon's body, now we want to cross the sea, and find the fabled castle where the demon's soul is purportedly bound." So, do we roleplay through the voyage, or just jump ahead to, "You arrive outside the fabled castle"? The group discusses this, and the players tell the GM, "If nothing important happens on the trip, yeah, let's skip it." So the GM has some decisions to make. He has the authority and duty to invent and introduce the world the player characters interact with, including obstacles and antagonists. Before playing, the GM plans out some, but not all of this. He doesn't have a specific plan for what the characters ought to encounter on their sea voyage.
So, what should he do? Pick some cool "sea monster" stuff out of the book to introduce? Offer social connections to useful NPCs int eh ship's captain and first mate? Create an opportunity for the characters to benefit -- like the ship is carrying a treasure? Further, if he does want to introduce a monster or a treasure, how does he know whether to start the scene in evening or morning, above or below decks, with or without NPCs present, etc.? "Do what feels right" works for me, but is hardly the thorough instruction we've been discussing in this thread.
Primetime Adventures
This is probably the more clearly relevant example. When I've played, the player characters were often not in the same place, crossing paths occasionally. The purpose of each scene is to address at least one character Issue, and in my play there's been a fair amount of group brainstorming. "Hmm, Father Alvaro's wrestling with Obsolescence? Let's see how he reacts when he sees the robot that's been built to replace his friend Pegg!" And so we play that scene until it seems like Alvaro's caught between breaking down and laughing it off, and we draw some cards to see which one happens, and then we narrate that outcome. And then it's back to brainstorming the next scene, often with, "So, who hasn't seen action in a while?"
So, there are two examples from my own experience. Perhaps the design-and-instruction approach you've described doesn't mesh easily with these... I dunno. I'm curious to see what you think!
(At the same time, I'm still processing the points you made with the girlfriend and tentacle examples.)
Ps,
-David
Callan S.:
Okay, on the first example your players really have no way to speak into the fiction on this level. Sure they have lots of character stuff they can do that inspires fiction at a character action level, but at a 'what's in the world level' - they just don't have any tools for that. So it's all punted onto the GM.
Here's a primitive idea to start out with. It starts when the GM judges some sort of voyage would be in order. He declares to players as such, and they all know to roll randomly, determining which of three options in front of them is active. Each has an option like 'Abandoned church', 'Tornado' and 'Nothing at this time'. The GM's instructions is to lead into what the start of the journey would entail and involve, having already began - then trail off, looking around. No one knows what each other has rolled and if players want to, they say something like 'But then we see an abandoned church!', if that's what they indeed rolled.
Okay, here's the tricky part - that 'ball' has to be picked up by another player. Otherwise it's like when a movie shows a beautiful mountain or forrest, or red dots crawling across a map in Indiana Jones, it's not really a story moment, just a nice thing to look at for a moment and then the GM just, after leaving it for ten seconds or so to see if anyone else is sparked, just goes on to the voyage destination. See, the procedure is, if saying that somehow sparks an idea in the mind of another player(or GM) other than the one who pointed out the abandoned church, then they have caught the fictional ball and were working on something as a group. If the guy who pointed out the church just keeps working on it by himself, were just in extended narration mode. Parlour narration? No good - gotta throw the ball in the air - if someone takes it up, good. If not, GM just moves play on to voyage destination.
Okay, that's a start. Procedurally clear cut enough? I'd write it out more, but it seems so to me at the moment. Also you might note there is no currency effect right now - that's because it's more work and actually relatively straight forward. Ie, attach a 'crisis of faith - wisdom: 1d4-3' or such.
On the second PTA example,
Quote
Let's see how he reacts when he sees the robot that's been built to replace his friend Pegg!" And so we play that scene until it seems like Alvaro's caught between breaking down and laughing it off, and we draw some cards to see which one happens,
First off, I'm wondering, wha? Draw cards to see whether he breaks down or laughs it off?
Anyway, looking at it - nothing has happened. He breaks down or laughs - well, nothings happened? Well, if it were the end of the game such a emotional collapse works, since it's the end. But nothings happened that would further a continuing game.
As a procedure I'd suggest along the lines of having two things, one of which (or perhaps both) will be affected by his responce regardless. How to determine these things - think of something five or more NPC's would get pissed off at (or mix in PC's if you think you can guess what would piss them off). Or what would piss off an NPC who could be considered a boss. Perhaps even have a chart to determine if A: they are pissed off, B: pissed off to the point of violence right away or C: pissed off to the point of begining the act of commiting murder right now.
Okay, now the procedure tells you the fictions rigged. Father Alvaro is fucked. He laughs, he insults the dignity of/pisses off the diplomatic party here for war negotiations. If he collapses, then he fails to go and get X done in time, something burns down and he pisses off someone else. One (or both) of those two things that will piss someone off, will get wrecked and piss those people off. Can't avoid it. Which maybe sounds dreadful if you roleplay to play a guy who farms cabbages all day long, but hey.
And hey, maybe he'll kill the NPC's all in the end, but even if he does, it's story that he'd kill over such a thing. Or atleast to me it's story. And if he doesn't - well, with pissed off people, don't future scenes start to form in your head? Play out those NPC's pissed off attitude.
Again, sans currency effects. But I think adding it onto the structure is kind of straight forward after having made a structure to begin with.
This is really rough, written on a napkin stuff at this point. But the more clear I get, the more I'm literally designing an actual RPG in front of you rather than just giving examples.
David Berg:
I get the first example: "If [characters take lengthy journey] then take the following steps: 1) GM intro narrate; 2) player die roll; 3) if player inspired by roll, narrate brief intro; 4) if other player inspired by intro, narrate more; 5) otherwise, skip journey narration." Unfortunately, it is not obvious to me how this would interact with any sort of currency. Care to explain? I don't know what "crisis of faith - wisdom: 1d4-3" might mean in this play context.
As for the second example, my specifics might have been distracting. The Father Alvaro game was very much about character development for its own sake. The group cared how he was affected by this experience. My question was more about the style of procedural guidance used to end one scene and begin another. I found it functional, but there were no currencies involved (that I can see), and the issue of "Do we know what's at stake YET?" (and thus, "Should we employ the resolution procedures yet?") got muddy at times.
Marshall Burns:
Hi guys,
Been trying to get back to y'all, but I haven't had much time and you keep posting more stuff :)
So, anyway:
Quote
P.S. Marshall, I'm guessing you fall somewhere in between "all-encompassing instructions" and "screw instructions; perfect aesthetic!" but I'd be interested in hearing your own take on that.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I try to make rules all-encompassing, but not wholly in a mechanical/computer sort of way. Because, as I said, human brains are not computers, and can calculate in ways that computers can't. Ergo, I should take advantage of that, or else write a computer game instead.
Quote
The ironic thing being 'everybody else thinks the same as me and makes intuitive leaps in the same direction as me' is probably the only thinking or intuitive leap that people share in common. Otherwise their minds head in the same direction about as much as a herd of cats all head in the same direction. This includes people in the same gaming group (well, perhaps except for some who can practically finish each others sentences like they are married)
The best trick is to leave the gaps for intuitive leaps in places where they don't require everyone to leap in the same direction. In other words, put them in places that are served by individual and perhaps-diverging creative perspectives.
A less good, but still good, trick is to leave a gap, alert the reader that you're leaving that gap, and tell them that they'll need to come to their own standards on a group level in order for this rule to function. An example is the definitions of the attributes in the Rustbelt, which are highly (and deliberately) subjective. There's a sidebar that calls this out, so that everyone is aware of this. It helps that you can arrive at a standard gradually, through play, without the game failing, and that you can revise that standard easily, and that your next scenario can operate with a totally different standard without breaking anything.
Quote
1: It's alot harder to write explicitly/technical writing rather than airy prose
I don't think it's hard at all. It's hard for me to NOT write explicit, technical writing. The problem is that such technical writing is not useful.
A rules text must first and foremost be an act of communication. Technical writing, even while containing ALL the data and ALL the procedures you need, isn't good communication unless you're talking to engineers or computers. Some people will fail to read it because it's boring and they can't/aren't willing to focus on it. Some people will just skim it, scanning for key details (or what they interpret as key details) that are recognizable to them, just like some people do with ANY set of instructions (from assembly of things to recipes). Some people will read it cover-to-cover and STILL misunderstand things.
I've come to the conclusion that the best way to write an RPG rules text is to do it in an engaging, conversational manner (which precludes some measure of the detail and data of technical writing), then invite the reader to further avenues of communication (email, forums, etc.) in case of misunderstandings. I think expecting the text to stand by itself forever for everyone is a ridiculous and impracticable standard. The text should do A LOT by itself -- there isn't an excuse for texts that don't make any sense no matter how you slice them. But the real issue is communication. Why limit that communication to the book?
Quote
Quite often in RPG's currently, they have rules who's words are in no way objectively measurable - they rely on someones interpretation. Usually a GM. So basically your trying to be creative, but then because of this subjective rule wording, someone else can step in and mess or fiat your creativity. That's just annoying. That's like some artist having a boss standing over them and telling them when they 'created wrong'. It's just really annoying. I think that too.
I strongly disagree here. I stand behind subjectively interpretation in RPGs. You just have to be careful where you put it -- only put it where it is useful. When it's not useful, use something else.
As for 'creating wrong,' it does exist. If we're playing music, and I started off in the key of F and now you're joining in the key of E, you are creating wrong. Editors and directors are bosses that have to stand over people and tell them when they're creating wrong. They don't do it to be annoying, they do it to help -- to make the work stronger. Done right, it's a good thing.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page