76 ** Le Jeu

    77 

    78 **** GM-tasks (from lumpley.txt):

    79 

    80 - start and stop scenes;

    81 

    82 - truth regulation; what happens?

    83 

    84 - orchestrated conflicts;

    85 

    86 *** From HowRPGRulesWork.txt

    87 

    88 On 1-20-05, *Vincent* wrote:

    89 

    90 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    91 Ben, I reread that thread, most of it anyway. Here's a thing:

    92 

    93 The goal of designing rules is to change social contract.

    94 

    95 When I design a set of rules, I'm trying to change the way that people

    96 relate to one another, within the confines of the game. I'm trying to

    97 force, trick, or provoke them into treating one another in particular,

    98 possibly unnatural ways. I'm fuckin' around with their working creative

    99 relationships.

   100 

   101 Beyond apportioning credibility, rules create /permission/ and

   102 /expectation/. Permission and expectation are the real building blocks

   103 of social contract; cunningly designed rules have access to human

   104 interactions at a deep level.

   105 

   106 So, sure, there are no complete RPGs; as you say, the complete RPG is

   107 playerless. It may work better to think of RPG rules as strong or weak,

   108 flexible or brittle: a strong RPG draws the players into its particular

   109 play, where a weak one allows them to play however comes naturally. A

   110 flexible RPG can survive or redirect a broad range of preexisting social

   111 dynamics, where a brittle one requires a particular social dynamic to

   112 already be in place, or the game crashes.

   113 

   114 Am I making sense? Am I kind of on your topic?

   115 

   116 /*I bumped this thread up to the front page. Let's talk about my diagrams

   117 here.*/

   118 

   119 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

   120 

   121 ** Le Jouet

   122 

   123 ** L'Histoire

   124 

   125 *** Why a character died? (from lumpley.txt):

   126 

   127   When a character dies in a novel or a movie, it's a) to establish

   128   what's at stake, b) to escalate the conflict, or c) to make a final

   129   statement.  Or perhaps some combination. It's never by accident or

   130   for no good reason, unlike in real life.

   131 

   132 

   193 

   194 ** Meta-gaming elements in Resolution

   195 

   196 [From Burning Down the Firewall in lumpley.txt:]

   197 

   198 *** Out-of-scene characters

   199 

   200 Conventional wisdom: *if your character's not in the scene, you can't

   201 participate.*

   202 

   203 Text from Dogs in the Vineyard:

   204 

   205     The game calls for lots of free table talk, with you and your fellow

   206     players calling out suggestions, kibitzing, and expanding on one

   207     another's descriptions. Don't shut your mouth just because your

   208     character's off the stage.

   209 

   210 *** Metagame knowledge

   211 

   212 Conventional wisdom: *if your character's not in the scene, you

   213 shouldn't let information from the scene influence your actions.*

   214 

   215 Text from Dogs:

   216 

   217     The game works *even better* when you bring your own metagame

   218     knowledge into your character's actions. If you're choosing between

   219     two possible, realistic actions for your character to take, don't

   220     limit your decision-making to your character's point of view. Choose

   221     the one that *you* prefer!

   222 

   223 *** Immersive Surprise

   224 

   225 Conventional wisdom: *when your character's surprised, you should be

   226 surprised.*

   227 

   228 I can't beat Ron Edwards' answer to this one. The whole answer's here on

   229 the Forge <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=114267#114267>, but

   230 here's a quote:

   231 

   232     I'm now going to say something very harsh - traditionally, the focus

   233     on "must ... surprise ... players!" is trying to solve the basic

   234     problem that the encounter with, e.g., the goblins, is fundamentally

   235     a stupid and irrelevant event in the game. Gotta have a fight.

   236     Goblins. Must make it exciting. Um, well, I guess the only way is to

   237     "get into character" and "be surprised," so I gotta figure out how.

   238     OK, tell them to immerse, surprise the characters with GM-rolls-it

   239     Perception checks, and thus the players will be surprised, right?

   240 

   241     Wrong. The perception check is a big fat meaningless waste - the

   242     encounter only takes on player-relevance if, in fact, the goblins

   243     are relevant to the Creative Agenda of this group.

   244 

   245 *** Out-of-scene Participation

   246 

   247 Conventional wisdom: *it's boring when your character's not in the scene.*

   248 

   249 Text from Dogs:

   250 

   251     Like every social fun, playing Dogs in the Vineyard depends on

   252     constant feedback and demonstrated enthusiasm. When somebody says

   253     something cool, show it. When something's funny, laugh. When you

   254     have a suggestion, shout out. (I know, I know, duh, right? I only

   255     mention it because I've played other games where you didn't, y'know,

   256     do things like that.)

   257 

   258     Also, to really deliver, the game shouldn't be isolated from your

   259     regular socializing, it should blend in. Chat about the game before

   260     and after, just like you would a book or TV show or movie. Chat

   261     about books and movies and catch up with each other, during! You can

   262     think of it as commercial breaks if you want, but tied to the social

   263     rhythms of your little group, not on TV's 15-minute cycle. If the

   264     game's worth playing, it'll draw your attention back in.

   265     Interspersing some time of just hanging out like friends can be

   266     pretty effective for maintaining a pace, prolonging suspense, and

   267     giving payoff moments real punch, so don't worry too much about

   268     digressions.

   269 

   270     ...

   271 

   272     Your game will have an overall story, made up of the interwoven

   273     individual stories of your characters. If it's not as fun and

   274     engaging as the best TV shows, I haven't done my job.

   275 

   276 ** Conflicts vs Tasks Resolution

   277 

   278 *** From lumpley.txt:

   279 

   280 In task resolution, what's at stake is the task itself. "I crack the

   281 safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at

   282 stake is: do you crack the safe?

   283 

   284 In conflict resolution, what's at stake is why you're doing the task. "I

   285 crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"

   286 What's at stake is: do you get the dirt on the supervillain?

   287 

   288 Task resolution is succeed/fail. Conflict resolution is win/lose. You

   289 can succeed but lose, fail but win.

   290 

   291 In conventional rpgs, success=winning and failure=losing only provided

   292 the GM constantly maintains that relationship - by (eg) making the safe

   293 contain the relevant piece of information after you've cracked it. It's

   294 possible and common for a GM to break the relationship instead, turning

   295 a string of successes into a loss, or a failure at a key moment into a

   296 win anyway.

   297 

   298 Let's assume that we haven't yet established what's in the safe.

   299 

   300 "I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"

   301 It's task resolution. Roll: Success!

   302 "You crack the safe, but there's no dirt in there, just a bunch of

   303 in-order papers."

   304 

   305 "I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"

   306 It's task resolution. Roll: Failure!

   307 "The safe's too tough, but as you're turning away from it, you see a

   308 piece of paper in the wastebasket..."

   309 

   310 (Those examples show how, using task resolution, the GM can break

   311 success=winning, failure=losing.)

   312 

   313 That's, if you ask me, the big problem with task resolution: whether you

   314 succeed or fail, the GM's the one who actually resolves the conflict.

   315 The dice don't, the rules don't; you're depending on the GM's mood and

   316 your relationship and all those unreliable social things the rules are

   317 supposed to even out.

   318 

   319 Task resolution, in short, puts the GM in a position of priviledged

   320 authorship. Task resolution will undermine your collaboration.

   321 

   322 (later, in Practical Conflict Resolution Advice):

   323 

   324 In Conflicts Resolution, Success/Failure give you a bonus/malus on

   325 accessing what's at stake.

   421 

   422 About suspense, from lumpley.txt:

   423 

   424 ==> Suspense comes from putting off the inevitable.

   425 

   426 Put complications to inevitable outcomes and you get suspense.