diff -r 1e85b39d803d -r be57f0035c67 references/lumplay.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/references/lumplay.txt Thu Feb 23 15:13:15 2006 -0500 @@ -0,0 +1,670 @@ + + /* lumpley games* *: Roleplaying Theory*/ + +Roleplaying Theory + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +anyway. +A Penny for Your Thoughts +Read & Post Comments (488) +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +back to lumpley games + + + + + *Roleplaying Theory, Hardcore* + +I haven't written the all-encompassing essay yet, which so it goes and +ever shall. Instead, how about a running chronicle? + +(I've put them oldest to newest, and foof to blog convention, foof I +say! The newest is Burning Down the Firewall <#10>, 4-22-04.) + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Doing Away with the GM + +You need to have a system by which scenes start and stop. The rawest +solution is to do it by group consensus: anybody moved to can suggest a +scene or suggest that a scene be over, and it's up to the group to act +on the suggestion or not. You don't need a final authority beyond the +players' collective will. + +You need to have a system whereby narration becomes in-game truth. That +is, when somebody suggests something to happen or something to be so, +does it or doesn't it? Is it or isn't it? Again the rawest solution is +group consensus, with suggestions made by whoever's moved and then taken +up or let fall according to the group's interest. + +You need to have orchestrated conflict, and there's the tricky bit. GMs +are very good at orchestrating conflict, and it's hard to see a rawer +solution. My game Before the Flood handles the first two +needs ably but makes no provision at all for this third. What you get is +listless, aimless, dull play with no sustained conflict and no meaning. + +In our co-GMed Ars Magica game, each of us is responsible for +orchestrating conflict for the others, which works but isn't radical wrt +GM doage-away-with. It amounts to when Emily's character's conflicts +climax explosively and set off Meg's character's conflicts, which also +climax explosively, in a great kickin' season finale last autumn, I'm +the GM. GM-swapping, in other words, isn't the same as GM-sharing. + +Any solution to this is bound to be innovative. There's not much beaten +path. + +*6-5-03* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Roleplaying's Fundamental Act + +Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true +in game, all the participants in the game (players /and/ GMs, if you've +even got such things) have to understand and assent to it. When you're +roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be +true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to +determine whether they're actually true or not. + +So you're sitting at the table and one player says, "[let's imagine +that] an orc jumps out of the underbrush!" + +What has to happen before the group agrees that, indeed, an orc jumps +out of the underbrush? + +1. Sometimes, not much at all. The right participant said it, at an +appropriate moment, and everybody else just incorporates it smoothly +into their imaginary picture of the situation. "An orc! Yikes! +Battlestations!" This is how it usually is for participants with high +ownership of whatever they're talking about: GMs describing the weather +or the noncombat actions of NPCs, players saying what their characters +are wearing or thinking. + +2. Sometimes, a little bit more. "Really? An orc?" "Yeppers." "Huh, an +orc. Well, okay." Sometimes the suggesting participant has to defend the +suggestion: "Really, an orc this far into Elfland?" "Yeah, cuz this +thing about her tribe..." "Okay, I guess that makes sense." + +3. Sometimes, mechanics. "An orc? Only if you make your +having-an-orc-show-up roll. Throw down!" "Rawk! 57!" "Dude, orc it is!" +The thing to notice here is that the mechanics /serve the exact same +purpose/ as the explanation about this thing about her tribe in point 2, +which is to establish your credibility wrt the orc in question. + +4. And sometimes, lots of mechanics and negotiation. Debate the +likelihood of a lone orc in the underbrush way out here, make a +having-an-orc-show-up roll, a having-an-orc-hide-in-the-underbrush roll, +a having-the-orc-jump-out roll, argue about the modifiers for each of +the rolls, get into a philosophical thing about the rules' modeling of +orc-jump-out likelihood... all to establish one little thing. Wave a +stick in a game store and every game you knock of the shelves will have +a combat system that works like this. + +(Plenty of suggestions at the game table don't get picked up by the +group, or get revised and modified by the group before being accepted, +all with the same range of time and attention spent negotiating.) + +So look, you! Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's +another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and +constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the +table. That's their sole and crucial function. + +*6-9-03* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Aside: GNS + +So you have some people sitting around and talking. Some of the things +they say are about fictional characters in a fictional world. During the +conversation the characters and their world aren't static: the people +don't simply describe them in increasing detail, they (also) have them +do things and interact. They create situations - dynamic arrangements of +characters and setting elements - and resolve them into new situations. + +They may or may not have formal procedures for this part of the +conversation, but the simple fact that it consistently happens reveals +some sort of structure. If they didn't have an effective way to +negotiate the evolution of situation to situation, their conversation +would stall or crash. + +Why are they doing this? What do they get out of it? For now, let's +limit ourselves to three possibilities: they want to Say Something (in a +lit 101 sense), they want to Prove Themselves, or they want to Be There. +What they want to say, in what way they want to prove themselves, or +where precisely they want to be varies to the particular person in the +particular moment. Are there other possibilities? Maybe. Certainly these +three cover an enormous variety, especially as their nuanced particulars +combine in an actual group of people in actual play. + +Over time, that is, over many many in-game situations, play will either +fulfill the players' creative agendas or fail to fulfill them. Do they +have that discussion? Do they prove themselves or let themselves down? +Are they "there"? As in pretty much any kind of emergent pattern thingy, +whether the game fulfills the players' creative agendas depends on but +isn't predictable from the specific structure they've got for +negotiating situations. No individual situation's evolution or +resolution can reveal a) what the players' creative agendas are or b) +whether they're being fulfilled. Especially, limiting your observation +to the in-game contents of individual situations will certainly blind +you to what the players are actually getting out of the game. + +That's GNS in a page. + +I don't think I've said anything here that Ron Edwards hasn't been +saying. I do think that I've said it in mostly my own words. + +*1-23-04* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Conflict Resolution vs. Task Resolution + +In task resolution, what's at stake is the task itself. "I crack the +safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at +stake is: do you crack the safe? + +In conflict resolution, what's at stake is why you're doing the task. "I +crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" +What's at stake is: do you get the dirt on the supervillain? + +Which is important to the resolution rules: opening the safe, or getting +the dirt? That's how you tell whether it's task resolution or conflict +resolution. + +Task resolution is succeed/fail. Conflict resolution is win/lose. You +can succeed but lose, fail but win. + +In conventional rpgs, success=winning and failure=losing only provided +the GM constantly maintains that relationship - by (eg) making the safe +contain the relevant piece of information after you've cracked it. It's +possible and common for a GM to break the relationship instead, turning +a string of successes into a loss, or a failure at a key moment into a +win anyway. + +Let's assume that we haven't yet established what's in the safe. + +"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" +It's task resolution. Roll: Success! +"You crack the safe, but there's no dirt in there, just a bunch of +in-order papers." + +"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" +It's task resolution. Roll: Failure! +"The safe's too tough, but as you're turning away from it, you see a +piece of paper in the wastebasket..." + +(Those examples show how, using task resolution, the GM can break +success=winning, failure=losing.) + +That's, if you ask me, the big problem with task resolution: whether you +succeed or fail, the GM's the one who actually resolves the conflict. +The dice don't, the rules don't; you're depending on the GM's mood and +your relationship and all those unreliable social things the rules are +supposed to even out. + +Task resolution, in short, puts the GM in a position of priviledged +authorship. Task resolution will undermine your collaboration. + +Whether you roll for each flash of the blade or only for the whole fight +is a whole nother issue: scale, not task vs. conflict. This is sometimes +confusing for people; you say "conflict resolution" and they think you +mean "resolve the whole scene with one roll." No, actually you can +conflict-resolve a single blow, or task-resolve the whole fight in one roll: + +"I slash at his face, like ha!" "Why?" "To force him off-balance!" +Conflict Resolution: do you force him off-balance? +Roll: Loss! +"He ducks side to side, like fwip fwip! He keeps his feet and grins." + +"I fight him!" "Why?" "To get past him to the ship before it sails!" +Task Resolution: do you win the fight (that is, do you fight him +successfully)? +Roll: Success! +"You beat him! You disarm him and kick his butt!" +(Unresolved, left up to the GM: do you get to the ship before it sails?) + +(Those examples show small-scale conflict resolution vs. large-scale +task resolution.) + +Something I haven't examined: in a conventional rpg, does task +resolution + consequence mechanics = conflict resolution? "Roll to hit" +is task resolution, but is "Roll to hit, roll damage" conflict resolution? + +*2-5-04* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + A Small Thing About Suspense + +I have no criticism cred to back this up. Just amatuer observations. So +kick my butt if you gotta. + +*Suspense doesn't come from uncertain outcomes.* + +I have no doubt, not one shread of measly doubt, that Babe the pig is +going to wow the sheepdog trial audience. Neither do you. But we're on +the edge of our seats! What's up with that? + +*Suspense comes from putting off the inevitable.* + +What's up with that is, we know that Babe is going to win, but we don't +know /what it will cost/. + +Everybody with me still? If you're not, give it a try: watch a movie. +Notice how the movie builds suspense: by putting complications between +the protagonist and what we all know is coming. The protagonist has to +buy victory, it's as straightforward as that. That's why the payoff at +the end of the suspense is satisfying, after all, too: we're like /ah, +finally/. + +What about RPGs? + +Yes, it can be suspenseful to not know whether your character will +succeed or fail. I'm not going to dispute that. But what I absolutely do +dispute is that that's the only or best way to get suspense in your +gaming. In fact, and check this out, when GMs fudge die rolls in order +to preserve or create suspense, it shows that suspense and uncertain +outcomes are, in those circumstances, incompatible. + +So here's a better way to get suspense in gaming: put off the inevitable. + +Acknowledge up front that the PCs are going to win, and never sweat it. +Then use the dice to escalate, escalate, escalate. We all know the PCs +are going to win. What will it cost them? + +My game Chalk Outlines was a stab at this, and Otherkind + was a better stab, but where it's really coming home is in +Dogs in the Vineyard and the Good Knights . + +*3-22-04* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + A Small Thing About Character Death plus a mini-manifesto + +Along the precise same lines: + +When a character dies in a novel or a movie, it's a) to establish what's +at stake, b) to escalate the conflict, or c) to make a final statement. +Or perhaps some combination. It's never by accident or for no good +reason, unlike in real life. + +I've been thinking about examples. Obi-wan Kenobi in Star Wars? /This/, +his death says, is worth fighting for. Boromir in the Fellowship of the +Ring? The right death redeems betrayal. Brad and wha'sname at the +beginning of Pulp Fiction? The cop in Reservoir Dogs? All those random +people in Total Recall? Tara in Buffy? To escalate conflict, plain and +easy. Leon and Gary Oldman's character in the Professional? Final +statementville, but Matilda's family? Escalation plus some stakes. + +So that seems pretty solid to me. + +Before I go on (I'm sure you've already figured out what I'm going to +say anyway) but before I go on, *my mini-manifesto*. + +First: if what you get out of roleplaying is a) the accomplishment you +get from rising to the challenge, not letting yourself or your friends +down, learning the rules and just frickin' /owning/ them, or else b) the +satisfaction of peer-appreciated wish-fulfillment, you're off the hook. +None of what I say applies to you, you're happy. + +If, on the other hand, what you want out of roleplaying is suspense, +resolution, story, theme, character, meaning - listen up. + +Second: conventional RPGs can't give it to you. I'm sorry. + +So, third: that stuff you want? You get that by approaching roleplaying +as though it were a form of fiction, a form of literature. All that +stuff is well known to fiction writers and they can tell us how to do +it. Roleplaying isn't like writing, just like singing pub songs in a pub +isn't like composing songs, so the skills themselves are different. But +the same structure underlies both. You can't ignore the structure and +still get consistenly good results. + +So that's my mini-manifesto and here's character death in RPGs: + +PCs, like protagonists in fiction, don't get to die to show what's at +stake or to escalate conflict. They only get to die to make final +statements. + +Character death can never be a possible outcome moment-to-moment. Having +your character's survival be uncertain doesn't contribute to suspense, +as above <#5>, just like we don't actually ever believe that Bruce +Willis' character in Die Hard will die. Instead, character death should +fit into /what it will cost/. This thing, is it worth dying for? Obi-wan +Kenobi and Leon say yes. + +Here's a piece of text from Dogs in the Vineyard: + + Also, occasionally, your character will get killed. The conflict + resolution rules will keep it from being pointless or arbitrary: + it'll happen only when you've chosen to stake your character's life + on something. Staking your character's life means risking it, is all. + +In fiction, You never die for something you haven't staked your life on. + +*3-23-04* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Practical Conflict Resolution Advice + +My friend anonyfan asks: *"Do you have any ideas on how to effectively +and meaningfully implement 'what's at stake' in a non-narrativist game?"* + +I sure do. + +You won't have any trouble at all, and in fact your group will wonder +how you got along before, if you find the magic words. I don't know what +your group's magic words are but here are some I've used: +"The danger is that..." +"What's at stake is..." +"What you're risking is..." +"So what you hope to accomplish is..." + +Say the magic words every single time, when the dice are in their hands +but before they roll 'em. + +At first, you'll need to finish the sentence every time yourself, with a +period, like: +"The danger is that you'll set off the trap instead of disarming it." +"What's at stake is, do you make it to the ferry in time or do you have +to go the long way around?" +"What you're risking is being overheard by the goblins on the rooftop." +"So what you hope to accomplish is to get through the doorway, whether +this ogre lives or dies." + +But after you've said it three or four or ten times, you'll be able to +trail off with a question mark when you want their input: +"What you're risking is...?" + +And then, once the dice are on the table, always always always make it +like this: +- If they succeed, they win what's at stake. They accomplish their +accomplishment or they avoid the danger. +- If they fail, they lose what's at stake - and you IMMEDIATELY +introduce something new at stake. It might be another chance, it might +be a consequence, but what matters is that it's more serious that the +former. + +"The danger is that you'll set off the trap ... and you do! A dart +thocks into your shoulder. The danger now is that you'll succumb to its +poison!" +"You reach the dock as the ferry's pulling away. Do you want to jump for +it?" +"The goblins overhear you and start dropping in through the skylight. +They scramble all over you, biting and screeching. The danger is that +they'll get you off your feet!" +"Not only does the ogre keep you away from the doorway, it's pushing you +back toward the chasm..." + +In combat, you'll probably want to have an overall what's at stake for +the fight, and little tactical what's at stakes for each exchange. When +you describe the setup, mention two or three features of the +environment, like hanging tapestries or a swaying bridge or broken +cobblestones, plus an apparent weakness of the foe, like worn armor +straps or a pus-filled left eye, and then when you say what's at stake +for an exchange, incorporate one of those: "the danger is that he'll +push you back onto the broken cobblestones" or "so what you're hoping to +do is to further strain his armor straps." This is on top of hitting and +damage and whatever, just add it straight in. + +It's especially effective if you always give a small bonus or penalty +for the exchange before. What's it in D&D now, +2/-2? Give it every +single exchange, linked to whether they won or lost the what's at stake +of the previous exchange. "The broken cobblestones mess up your footing, +so take a -2." "He has to shrug and shift to adjust his sagging armor, +so take a +2." + +In Forge terms, you've used a couple of nonmechanical techniques to +build a conflict resolution system around your game's task resolution +rules. Guaranteed plus-fun. + +*3-27-04* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Arranging the Pieces of a Game + +/This is another straight transplant from the Forge. You'll have to +forgive the GNS talk, or not, I mean, it /is/ how I think about things:/ + +How do you treat Character, Setting, Situation, System and Color in +Narrativist game design vs. Simulationist vs. Gamist, is that what +you're asking? + +After setup, what a game's rules do is control how you resolve one +situation into the next. If you're designing a Narrativist game, what +you need are rules that create a) rising conflict b) across a moral line +c) between fit characters d) according to the authorship of the players. +Every new situation should be a step upward in that conflict, toward a +climax and resolution. Your rules need to provoke the players, +collaboratively, into escalating the conflict, until it can't escalate +no more. + +Character creation in a Narrativist game might work by creating +characters who, in some key way, have nowhere else to go. Life o' Crime, +the rpg: create a character who owes somebody more money than he can repay. + +Setting in a Narrativist game might work by applying pressure to that +key point in the characters. Life o' Crime: there's recession, few jobs, +no way up or out, but worse class difference than ever before anywhere. +You see wealth but no opportunity. + +Situation in a Narrativist game works by increasing the pressure. Life +o' Crime: Someone depends on your character to bring home groceries and +pay rent. Someone else has just been evicted and is facing homelessness. +Someone else asks you if you know where to get drugs. Someone else just +got beaten by the authorities. Someone else just got beaten by the guy +you owe money to. Someone else offers to cut you in on a job. Someone +else wants the whole take for himself. Someone else knew you'd never +amount to anything. Someone else can't be trusted. Someone else can be. + +System in a Narrativist game works, again, by resolving one situation +into the next. Life o' Crime: what do you do? How does it work out for +you? Does it a) hurt? b) give you breathing room? c) piss someone else +off? d) hurt someone else? and/or e) set you back? How does it increase +the pressure? Remember the moral line defined by your Premise, and +remember that the players are the authors! + +And Color permeates a Narrativist game same as any other. Life o' Crime: +is it Thatcher's England? Victoria's England? Shakespeare's England? +Bush's US? Hoover's US? Colonial Massachussetts? Mars? The Kingdom of +Thringbora? The details change, but the core of character situated in +setting - the fit characters locked into conflict defined by a moral +line - doesn't. + +I've had fun writing this! I hope it's at all an answer to your +question, and I should probably make clear that it's just how I think +about it, and other people no doubt think about it in whole different ways. + +I imagine you could break down Simulationist and Gamist games in a +similar way. + +*4-10-04* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Pre-play / Play / Post-play + +In your game, the game you're actually playing, a) in which stage does +/invention/ happen, and b) in which stage does /meaning/ happen? + +Invention - creating setting, character, nifty toys, potent powers - +invention can happen before the game or during the game. (It can't +really happen after the game, can it?) + +A game where the invention happens mostly pre-play would be one where +there are maps, characters, factions, technology, societies, interests, +all in place when the game begins. I can't think of a good example of +this in fiction - maybe /Babylon 5/? - but clearly lots of roleplaying +happens this way. Look at all the dang setting books! + +A game where the invention happens mostly during play would have the +same list of things, maps characters societies etc., but they'd be +created at need as the game progresses. We have one serious bazillion +examples of this from fiction: Howard wrote /Conan/ this way, their +writers wrote /Farscape/ and /Buffy/ this way, and lots of roleplaying +happens this way too. It's underrepresented in rpg books because it +doesn't call for or produce 'em. + +And it occurs to me that, in JRR Tolkein, we have an example in fiction +of post-play creation, where he created a bunch on the fly, and then +extensively rewrote and filled in to build his world. Apparently /the +Hobbit/ changed a lot to match what he'd written for /the Lord of the +Rings/, for instance. Can't really apply to roleplaying though. + +Similarly, meaning: + +A game where the meaning happens mostly pre-play is one in which +somebody or everybody has something to say and already knows what it is +when the game starts. You can always tell these games: the GM expects +his or her villains and their schemes to be absolutely gripping, but +they aren't; the players keep wanting to play their characters as well +as the characters deserve, but it's not happening. I make my character a +former slave but when it comes up in play it's because I force it to, +and my fellow players dodge eye contact and the GM wants to get on with +the plot. + +A game where the meaning happens mostly during play is also easy to +spot: everybody gets it and is engaged. Other players than me are into +my former-slave character, and when she gets passionate about something, +the other players hold their breaths. The GM lets the players pick the +villains through their PCs' judgements, then plays them aggressively and +directed-ly and hard. Every session is hot. Nobody sacrifices the +integrity of his or her character for the sake of staying together as a +party or solving the GM's mystery - the action comes right out of the +characters' passions. + +And a game where the meaning happens mostly post-play - telling it is +better than it was. Sometimes there'll be one person, the GM or the GM's +favorite player, whose needs the game mostly met, and if you talk to +/that/ person the game will sound rockin', but if you talk to the other +players, it'll sound eh. If people talk afterward about how cool this +kind of game was, they'll talk about highlights that happened once every +three, four, five sessions - as though a game with one gripping, +thrilling, passionate moment per twenty hours of play were a successful +game. + +My goal as a gamer and a game designer is to push /both/ invention and +meaning as much as possible into actual play. + +Problem: the hobby, represented by the books in your game store and the +conventional habits of most gamers, prefers the pre-game over the game. + +Seriously. How many times have you created a character who was far +cooler in your head than he or she turned out to be in play? How many +times have you prepped a campaign only to find that, in play, it didn't +go as well as you'd hoped? Have you ever thought that, y'know, reading +game books and imagining play and preparing for a game is almost as much +fun as actually playing? Or even /more/ fun than actually playing? + +The hobby doesn't value or teach collaboration. It values and teaches +competing sole-authorship. Pre-game invention sells books but robs +players of their ability to contribute; pre-game meaning is thrilling to +imagine but dull to actually play. This arrangement we've got going is +frickin' broken. + +The solution is to design games that're inspiring, but daydreaming about +how much fun the game will be to play seems pointless and lame, and you +can't create extensive histories or backstories because that stuff's +collaborative - + +- so you call a friend. + +*4-12-04* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + Burning Down the Firewall + +Conventional wisdom: *if your character's not in the scene, you can't +participate.* + +Text from Dogs in the Vineyard: + + The game calls for lots of free table talk, with you and your fellow + players calling out suggestions, kibitzing, and expanding on one + another's descriptions. Don't shut your mouth just because your + character's off the stage. + +Conventional wisdom: *if your character's not in the scene, you +shouldn't let information from the scene influence your actions.* + +Text from Dogs: + + The game works *even better* when you bring your own metagame + knowledge into your character's actions. If you're choosing between + two possible, realistic actions for your character to take, don't + limit your decision-making to your character's point of view. Choose + the one that *you* prefer! + +Conventional wisdom: *when your character's surprised, you should be +surprised.* + +I can't beat Ron Edwards' answer to this one. The whole answer's here on +the Forge , but +here's a quote: + + I'm now going to say something very harsh - traditionally, the focus + on "must ... surprise ... players!" is trying to solve the basic + problem that the encounter with, e.g., the goblins, is fundamentally + a stupid and irrelevant event in the game. Gotta have a fight. + Goblins. Must make it exciting. Um, well, I guess the only way is to + "get into character" and "be surprised," so I gotta figure out how. + OK, tell them to immerse, surprise the characters with GM-rolls-it + Perception checks, and thus the players will be surprised, right? + + Wrong. The perception check is a big fat meaningless waste - the + encounter only takes on player-relevance if, in fact, the goblins + are relevant to the Creative Agenda of this group. + +Conventional wisdom: *it's boring when your character's not in the scene.* + +Text from Dogs: + + Like every social fun, playing Dogs in the Vineyard depends on + constant feedback and demonstrated enthusiasm. When somebody says + something cool, show it. When something's funny, laugh. When you + have a suggestion, shout out. (I know, I know, duh, right? I only + mention it because I've played other games where you didn't, y'know, + do things like that.) + + Also, to really deliver, the game shouldn't be isolated from your + regular socializing, it should blend in. Chat about the game before + and after, just like you would a book or TV show or movie. Chat + about books and movies and catch up with each other, during! You can + think of it as commercial breaks if you want, but tied to the social + rhythms of your little group, not on TV's 15-minute cycle. If the + game's worth playing, it'll draw your attention back in. + Interspersing some time of just hanging out like friends can be + pretty effective for maintaining a pace, prolonging suspense, and + giving payoff moments real punch, so don't worry too much about + digressions. + + ... + + Your game will have an overall story, made up of the interwoven + individual stories of your characters. If it's not as fun and + engaging as the best TV shows, I haven't done my job. + +*4-22-04* + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + + + +