![[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.
no subject
The difference between D&D and DitV and Sorcerer is that they encourage the gms to listen to what the players want and not get hung up on what they (the gm) had in mind. A thing that most 'good' d&d gms come to understand sooner or later.
But how wierd. Randomness is your friend. That's the mantra I've been holding in my head lately. Maybe we're all just dreaming our theory out of the same collective unconscious. My take on it is that what we're doing all the time is getting inspired. Dead ball is a lag on inspiration and, like you say, randomness can "unstick" our muse. It also allows a group to unlock conflict of interest between players or in ones own self (ie I don't know what my character would do because I can't disentangle what I want them to do from what I think is/should/could be happening and it's getting in the way of my muse).
The other part of it is that humans are these wierd symbol manipulating monkeys. Whatever you throw at us, we are going to read into and create meaning with. And for some reason that is easier than making it up whole cloth. We'll do it with things other folks describe, like in your golem example, or with tarot cards and dice results. You can do it on a raw dice result, with no structure given, if you're open to doing so. One our favorite mechanics to use in the Improv System games is a set of 6sided dice that have faces on them (smily-frowny-angry-neutral). Whenever we want to find out how characters may have reacted or been effected by something, we roll the dice and interpret away. The dice help us "believe" in what we've made up, by helping us overcome the conflict of interest issues above, and also by just giving us something to rif off of so we can get unblocked.
best,
Emily
no subject
I'm totally into randomness and the creative uses thereof, particularly how dice seem to apportion authority.
yrs--
--Ben
P.S. Are you going to have free time whenever? I'm going to be visiting around New England. Would love to meet you.