![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Choices, Decision Paralysis, and Story Recipes
A short essay.
So Vincent and J have been having this great discussion recently which is about how, really, all the rules in most RPGs (conflict resolution, blocking and precedence, etc.) about about how to treat other's contributions, and they don't answer the big question -- what should you contribute? This has a bit to do with all that other stuff I was talking about recently, I think. Ron, of course, is way ahead of us, having already talked about this in his Narrativism Essay but, like Ron always does, he has decided that the standard GM-player model is a great solution to this, treated well. And, frankly, he's right. It ain't broke, so why fix it?
That's a different essay. For right now, let's assume that there is a good reason to want every player of a game to have real authority to give story-level input into the course of that game, and there is a good reason to divide up the standard judgment and filtering tasks that a GM has to deal with. Okay, good? Now I'm going ask you to imagine something.
Imagine that you go into a restaurant and sit down. The waitress doesn't bring you a menu. She just comes up and says "what do you want to eat?"
Now, sometimes, you really want your eggs and bacon, or your 糖醋鱼, or some other favorite dish. You just order it, they make it, no problem. But that is a very rare case.
Most likely, you stare at the waitress, and say "Uhm, well, what do you have?"
"Pretty much anything."
"What's good?"
"Eh, it's all pretty good. So what do you want? You're wasting my time."
And, for the life of you, you cannot think of a single thing you want to eat. Even if you do come up with something, it will be spoken hesitantly, and awkwardly.
This is why restaurants have menus. It isn't that the kitchen can't produce a much wider array of food than what's listed on the menu. It is simply easier to give you a much more limited set of options to choose from, rather than open things up to give you the full range, which is near-infinite. Too many possible decisions creates paralysis.
In the context of RPGs, Ron calls this the "Dead Ball Effect."
Okay, so we know it is there. How do we get around it?
A railroaded GMed game is like, there's the GM, and it is his responsibility to keep things going on all the time and, in fact, the players aren't even allowed to introduce new things if they want to.
A GMed game which is a little more fun, I think, might look like this: The GM introduces a situation, a player introduces their character's action, the GM responds with the changes in situation, the player acts again. Of course, there are sometimes multiple players (though not as often as we might think -- another essay), and in that case their actions are going to cross over and effect one another.
Another sort of GMed game looks like this: The players are taking most of the action and the authority, and riffing and having their characters compete and argue or whatever. The GM reaches in when things are boring and uses some bangs to spice things up. A well-run LARP is a lot like this, I think.
But then there are other games. A lot of things can take the place of the heavy load of GM prep and stress which is necessary to run all these games. Here are some thoughts:
Vincent, Emily and Meg's Improvised Ars Magica game seems to use a system where they all do a lot of prep for the game, so there are just a lot of things going on at the same time. Anytime that someone can't think of a new thing, someone else has something else that they can jump in with. Add this to a heavily structured relationship web, and you have enough juice to keep going for a while.
Polaris has a whole shitload of serious support mechanisms for this problem, and it isn't totally enough. First of all, the diagram provides each character with a "menu" of options for creating and sustaining conflict which has already been established as meaningful. Second, the two Moons help the conflict generator do his thing. Third, the unordered scene passing lets people who have a good idea do their thing and lets others sit back. Lastly, you can always rely on your Heart to frame a scene for you if you can't. Still, when we played last, we had a little dead air time.
Universalis doesn't have enough backup, I think. It uses the whole unstructured turn order of Polaris, I think, but I don't know what else.
The Game of Changes, when it hits, is going to have a Conflict Menu attached to each setting, so that when you are called to introduce a new conflict (which is just all the time) you can pick something from the list. See, the menu is the only thing that differentiates setting from setting. Isn't that awesome?
D&D has modules, so you always can have a good dungeon crawl without needing any help. Further, the 1st ed AD&D book had a random dungeon generator. How awesome is that? Random encounter tables help, too, and D&D 3 has a list of 100 adventure seeds, just sitting there. Yes, it is all for a GMed game, but that is serious support. Just goes to show that our ancestors were *way* ahead of us.
Anyway, J, that's my long answer.
So Vincent and J have been having this great discussion recently which is about how, really, all the rules in most RPGs (conflict resolution, blocking and precedence, etc.) about about how to treat other's contributions, and they don't answer the big question -- what should you contribute? This has a bit to do with all that other stuff I was talking about recently, I think. Ron, of course, is way ahead of us, having already talked about this in his Narrativism Essay but, like Ron always does, he has decided that the standard GM-player model is a great solution to this, treated well. And, frankly, he's right. It ain't broke, so why fix it?
That's a different essay. For right now, let's assume that there is a good reason to want every player of a game to have real authority to give story-level input into the course of that game, and there is a good reason to divide up the standard judgment and filtering tasks that a GM has to deal with. Okay, good? Now I'm going ask you to imagine something.
Imagine that you go into a restaurant and sit down. The waitress doesn't bring you a menu. She just comes up and says "what do you want to eat?"
Now, sometimes, you really want your eggs and bacon, or your 糖醋鱼, or some other favorite dish. You just order it, they make it, no problem. But that is a very rare case.
Most likely, you stare at the waitress, and say "Uhm, well, what do you have?"
"Pretty much anything."
"What's good?"
"Eh, it's all pretty good. So what do you want? You're wasting my time."
And, for the life of you, you cannot think of a single thing you want to eat. Even if you do come up with something, it will be spoken hesitantly, and awkwardly.
This is why restaurants have menus. It isn't that the kitchen can't produce a much wider array of food than what's listed on the menu. It is simply easier to give you a much more limited set of options to choose from, rather than open things up to give you the full range, which is near-infinite. Too many possible decisions creates paralysis.
In the context of RPGs, Ron calls this the "Dead Ball Effect."
Okay, so we know it is there. How do we get around it?
A railroaded GMed game is like, there's the GM, and it is his responsibility to keep things going on all the time and, in fact, the players aren't even allowed to introduce new things if they want to.
A GMed game which is a little more fun, I think, might look like this: The GM introduces a situation, a player introduces their character's action, the GM responds with the changes in situation, the player acts again. Of course, there are sometimes multiple players (though not as often as we might think -- another essay), and in that case their actions are going to cross over and effect one another.
Another sort of GMed game looks like this: The players are taking most of the action and the authority, and riffing and having their characters compete and argue or whatever. The GM reaches in when things are boring and uses some bangs to spice things up. A well-run LARP is a lot like this, I think.
But then there are other games. A lot of things can take the place of the heavy load of GM prep and stress which is necessary to run all these games. Here are some thoughts:
Vincent, Emily and Meg's Improvised Ars Magica game seems to use a system where they all do a lot of prep for the game, so there are just a lot of things going on at the same time. Anytime that someone can't think of a new thing, someone else has something else that they can jump in with. Add this to a heavily structured relationship web, and you have enough juice to keep going for a while.
Polaris has a whole shitload of serious support mechanisms for this problem, and it isn't totally enough. First of all, the diagram provides each character with a "menu" of options for creating and sustaining conflict which has already been established as meaningful. Second, the two Moons help the conflict generator do his thing. Third, the unordered scene passing lets people who have a good idea do their thing and lets others sit back. Lastly, you can always rely on your Heart to frame a scene for you if you can't. Still, when we played last, we had a little dead air time.
Universalis doesn't have enough backup, I think. It uses the whole unstructured turn order of Polaris, I think, but I don't know what else.
The Game of Changes, when it hits, is going to have a Conflict Menu attached to each setting, so that when you are called to introduce a new conflict (which is just all the time) you can pick something from the list. See, the menu is the only thing that differentiates setting from setting. Isn't that awesome?
D&D has modules, so you always can have a good dungeon crawl without needing any help. Further, the 1st ed AD&D book had a random dungeon generator. How awesome is that? Random encounter tables help, too, and D&D 3 has a list of 100 adventure seeds, just sitting there. Yes, it is all for a GMed game, but that is serious support. Just goes to show that our ancestors were *way* ahead of us.
Anyway, J, that's my long answer.
Bring it!
Nor am I saying that D&D did or does these things better than Dogs. In fact, quite the opposite. Dogs rules. My point is that these are not new concepts -- they were discovered a generation ago and then forgotten.
How about you listen to someone who ran an entire, very successful, campaign based on the D&D random encounter charts? Like me. Here's how they work when they are working:
Ben rolls on the random encounter chart: A stone golem
Ben thinks, okay, the setting is an ancient forest, and Golems are supposed to guard and protect things
Ben: Okay, you're walking along, and you suddenly here a booming voice say "You shall not pass."
Jasper: What, where from?
Ben: It looks like it's coming from that tree over there.
Eli: (expecting an Ent) I look carefully at the tree, does it have a face on it or anything?
Ben: As soon as you look at the tree, you realize it isn't a tree at all, but a giant man, overgrown with vines and moss. It says "I cannot permit you to enter here."
So there's this golem. They talk with it for a while, but all it really can say is that they can't go in there. They try to figure out what it is gaurding. Someone brings up that Golems are usually made by priests. Ben goes "Hey, that's cool" and goes over to the Random Dungeon Generation charts and rolls up a short dungeon to be the nearby ruins of the temple that the Golem was gaurding. Apparently, the Golem is an artifact on an ancient Monotheistic religion that was crushed out by the D&D polytheism. In order to pass through unharmed, Jasper and Eli swear allegiance to this god, Ahm.
This isn't "a pack of roving kobolds." It's an entire fucking campaign. See how, while we provided the creativity, it was, in the end, all centered around the "Golem" result? That's what I'm talking about.
Can these tools be misused? Yes. So can town creation in Dogs, although that is much more robust and harder to misuse. But I will bet you dollars to donuts that the first random encounter tables were used a lot more like the above then like random damage in Final Fantasy X.
Software can't write stories. But chaos can give you ideas.
yrs--
--Ben
Re: Bring it!
But what if you've got a bunch of established stuff in your story - you have a history, cosmology, all this stuff, and it's all come out in play, with everyone invested, and then you hit a stupid spot in the evening. In PTA, I usually consider it my job as Producer to be the one to shove, to make a sudden, critical conflict take place that gives everyone a direction. I have no idea how I'd do that randomly; what I do is check everyone's motivations and figure out which of them can conflict best right now. To a great extent, that's what everyone in the game is doing, really.
My reaction to this is because I've never seen random encounters used like that. I've seen them as handwaving away any relevance of the characters' actions.
So, yeah, Gygax et al. took the easy way, in my opinion. They said, use randomness because it means the GM doesn't have to prepare anything and it keeps the players from having input. It's not their fault your found the diamonds in the rough.
Re: Bring it!
I do think that AD&D is a giant heap of interesting techniques, though. Ron (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/20/) is right, in his essay. The original D&D is unplayable. Everyone fixed it in different ways, and a lot of those fixes were hybridized together to make AD&D. AD&D didn't work, but it has all these bits and pieces of different people's functional systems. It is a brilliant idea mine.
Look at the Random Event tables in Oriental Adventures and tell me that Jeff Grubb and Zeb Cook weren't using Random Encounters in the exact same way I was using them above.
yrs--
--Ben
Re: Bring it!
Well, sure, something can be said. What can be said is that the rules encourage social misfunction and your group is too functional to fall for it.