Role Playing Games Theory

[Telarus]

Hey everyone. I noticed that we have quite a few gamers 'round these parts. I'm not sure who has seen this stuff and who hasn't, so here we go.

Gaming is a fun, social activity, and I personally like to analyze it (while _not_ playing) to see how the whole shebang works. I see merit in this the same way the PD community sees merit in analyzing and changing ingrained thought processes, to make it a better, more fun, more challenging activity.

One of the main Models of "what actually happens between us monkeys while gaming" is called The Big Model [wikipedia link to follow]. I see this as a very well thought out model, and one that can be applied to your own gaming activities with some surprising results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Model

The most hotly contested aspect of the Big Model is Creative Agenda, so before you go and read through the wiki article, lets take a moment to examine that. Here's a really helpful visualization from the article:

The Big Model attempts to contextualize the many different aspects of the role-playing game hobby in a set of meaningful, hierarchical relationships by organizing these phenomena into four nested 'boxes'. The contents of each inner box are considered to be within the aegis of the outer box. A "skewer" that thrusts through the set of boxes identifies creative agenda.

Now, in the forum that this model came together (The Forge @ www.indie-rpgs.com) they identified a set of 3 basic creative agendas that the group (and the individuals) can hold as primary motivation. This grouping, called GNS, is a hotly debated subject and source of much drama and wank. So, at this point, this GNS issue is the last thing I want to talk about here. The point tho, is that when you sit down with a group of friends to play you have an Agenda for what type of fun you want. This Agenda, when shared, leads to moments of fun happening more often. When the people at the table have wildly differing Agendas then this leads to dysfunction and drama. What we call each person's Agenda doesn't matter at this point, the point is to be on board with each other.

OK! Now, having said that, go and read the wikipedia article. This is the model we'll be working with in this thread, and it will lead to some surprising things for some people, I think.

Later today, I'm also going to be introducing a podcast blog that has started to examine the various techniques and tips that this model has spawned (they guy who runs it is a Discordian I haven't run across before last night), and also interviews some of the core people who have developed the Big Model and the games and techniques that the model has led to.

Hopefully this will be useful to the gamer population of PD.

[Cait M. R.]

I'm looking forward to this as a game developer.

[Requia ☣]

what exactly is this model useful for?

[Cramulus]

[Kai]

There's a simpler model. It's called Flow.

[Telarus]

Thanks Cram. Are you familiar with any of this stuff yet?

There's a simpler model. It's called Flow.

Thanks Kai. That idea seems like an important part of what I'm going to be discussing here, but that really focuses on video games, which is a player interacting with a computer (or with another player through a computer). This topic is more focused around Tabletop(maybe LARP), face-to-face imaginative play. (Although I can and do translate much of this into video games, as that's what I'm in school for.)

what exactly is this model useful for?

I see it as useful as a meta-framework that allows us to verbalize and examine things that we otherwise wouldn't have the terms and language to verbalize and examine. Mostly tho, it's because ideas only have meaning within a context, and I wanted to be upfront with the context I will be working in when I present the later stuff, the real meat of the thread.

Which leads to:

THEORY FROM THE CLOSET by Clyde

I like this guy. He's got an appropriately self-examining sense of humor, and so far has over 50 podcasts on this subject. I will post his notes from the podcast (when available) here, but I encourage those following the thread to listen to the podcast before jumping into the discussion, just so we're all working from the same source. If you really feel the need to jump ahead and listen to more of them, that's great, but I want to give each one (possibly 2) at a time a chance to drive the discussion for a while.

I'm going to start at the beginning.

Show 001:Does System Matter?
http://www.theoryfromthecloset.com/shows/tftc_show001.mp3

Section 1: Introduction

This is where I introduced myself, and explained why I have no business discussing RPG theory or design. I then discussed the goals of the show, which are to be about 90% correct, that's an A, and to build from the ground up so new folks can learn as we go through shows. The specific theory the show is going to start with is GNS theory and the Big Model as that is what I'm most familiar with. I also let people know that I wasn't going to edit cursing, because this is a hobby, and I just don't want to take the time to police that. I think I dropped one F- bomb, and one D-bomb later in the show.

Section 2: Definitions

  1. Rule Zero - The first rule in almost all RPG's
  2. GM-Fiat - A System where the GM has all control over the fiction.
  3. Agenda - Is being referred to as style, I'll refine the word when we get to GNS.
  4. Theory Majors - Folks who are already well versed in RPG theory.
  5. Shared Imaginary Space (S.I.S.) - The fiction that is created through play.
  6. Social Contract - Our Relationships, logistical concerns, and expectations.
  7. Big Model - A model for roleplaying theory.

Section 3: Main segment - Does System Matter?

This is where I launch into the main portion of the show. First I discuss various people's views on rules, then I steal the Troll with a tree story. I use this to launch into a discussion of style conflict. This leads to what System is, and then close with some views on freestyle gaming.

Section 4: Outro

Thanks for listening.

Additional Thoughts

So I'm not sure whether I made it clear in the show whether I thought system mattered. I do. I think the definition has changed since Ron wrote that article I link to [below]. As the term is defined now, it is hard to imagine system not mattering. There are people who don't play with a well stated system and that works for them. I wonder how their games would change if they took the time to state their rules, or what might change in their opinions of their play if they actually saw some of their unwritten rules verbalized. I know that the idea has changed my thoughts on how I should go about Roleplaying.

Thanks for reading this long post.

Links Provided:
   * The Big Model, it's boxes not nested dolls, but you should get a clearer picture.

   * System Does Matter, by Ron Edwards

   * Why System Does Matter: Fun is Portable, by Matt Snyder

NOTE: The wiki he mentions doesn't exist. This podcast is about 2 years old and that seems to have not worked out for him.

[Telarus]

Ok, on second thought, instead of linking to the mp3 and reproducing the notes, I'll just link to his blog post, which will have the link to the mp3 and the notes.


That first podcast covered a lot of the basics pretty well, so I feel that we can go on to the second one.

http://theoryfromthecloset.com/2007/01/10/show002-conflict-and-task-resolution/
(Warning: starts with some loud incoherent punk-ish music.)

This is getting to the stuff that really interests me, and should provide much more interesting things to discuss.

[Telarus]

Ok, so having finished listening to that podcast I'd like to expand the Task-based Resolution vs Conflict-based Resolution system that Clyde mentions. His examples were a bit light for my taste.

So, Task Resolution means that when the dice hit the table, you're simply trying to see if the task you are attempting succeeds or not. Then the person with narration authority (basically the GM in most versions) describes what happens as a result. D&D has used this Technique pretty much consistently throughout all of it's incarnations.

Conflict Resolution means that the player and the GM agree to Stakes before the roll, and the roll determines how the in-game conflict is resolved.

So, lets have an example: A Thief is trying to pick a lock on the back door to get into a wizard's tower and loot the place. The GM has said that the wizard has a few animated crossbows walking around the tower as a sentry system

With a Task-based resolution system, each roll has a very specific time frame that it takes up and the the only change to the SIS after the roll is made is that time has passed and either the door gets unlocked, or the door remains locked. If the Thief fails the roll, and the GM doesn't introduce a complication, he gets to try again. And again, and again and again. Usually, the GM will only allow this to go on for so long before he introduces one of the walking crossbows into the scene.

With a Conflict-based resolution system, the dice roll can cover various time-frames and before the dice are rolled the player and GM negotiate as to what's actually At Stake with this roll. Let me say that again, because it's important. The player and the GM have a clear understanding that the Stakes in the roll are something Important. Then the dice are rolled and who-ever gets to narrate the results narrates them keeping in mind the Stakes set before the roll.

It may go something like this:
Player (having lurked and sussed out the sentry system): I want to pick the lock and get into the tower without drawing attention from those damn crossbow mini-golems (sets win Stakes).

GM: Ok, so if you fail at this roll you're still working at the lock when the sentry-crossbow rounds the corner. It's going to get a free shot at you (sets fail Stakes).

(In this case, we skip the *fail, roll again, fail, roll again, then something changes* routine. The roll failing means the situation has escalated, and the player is aware of this before attempting the roll.)

On the other hand the system may have Degrees of Success, and it may go like this:

Player: I want to pick the lock and get into the tower without drawing attention from those damn crossbow mini-golems (sets win Stakes).

GM: OK, that's 2 Stakes, unlocking the door and getting in unnoticed. You need an Excellent Success to get it unlocked and slip inside without drawing attention. A regular Success means you get it unlocked and get inside, but in the process you take an arrow in the back and take d6 damage. A Failure means that you can't get the lock to budge, you take an arrow in the back and take d6 damage and we go into a Combat round as you deal with the sentry and you'll have to roll Initiative.

At that point, the Player can decide that that's worth it and go for the roll, or he can continue the negotiation and set different Stakes. He could say that his character is also keeping an eye or ear out for the sentries. The GM may then impose a roll penalty and change the Stakes to reflect that choice. In that case, and Excellent Success means unlocking the door and slipping in unnoticed. A regular Success means unlocking the door right when the crossbow-golem rounds the corner and the Thief gets to respond to the free attack with a Dodge roll, while a Failure means that he doesn't get the door unlocked, but then also gets a Dodge attempt to cancel the free attack.



Conflict resolution takes some getting used to, but can be a very powerful way to drive the plot and to escalate situations, and tends to make rolling for important things a very tense experience.

Does this make sense? Any questions?

[Telarus]

Ok, last thing for tonight. I found an excellent post by Vincent Backer (who wrote Dogs in the Vineyard) about some advice for using Conflict Resolution:

http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html#7

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.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

This stuff is awesome!

The Once and Future GM of one of the largest LARP groups in Columbus (200+ at one point), has returned from a 4 year break and we're now developing a LARP for the next Marcon (next May). Traditionally we've run Vampire, Werewolf, Mage or Cthulhu Live. This year we're trying to see if we can develop a new system and world entirely. One of the biggest problems with any of the White Wolf stuff is OOC knowledge. Even if you want to pretend not to know... YOU KNOW why that Tremere has a blue ribbon around their neck. You know that the ugly guy in the corner is a Nos, he can turn invisible and probably beat the crap out of you. etc. Also, we're trying to deveolp very non-intrusive mechanics so that people can spend more time playing, rather than standing in time stop for 20 minutes while 15 seconds of combat go by.

Fantastic bit of synchronicity to find this popping up now!

[Triple Zero]

this seems like extremely interesting stuff, but I haven't had time to read it all yet.

[Cramulus]

Thanks Cram. Are you familiar with any of this stuff yet?

yes, but not with much of the terminology you've employed. Good reading! Don't have time to listen to an hour of podcasts before reading the post though.

I'm with rat, in that this is good timing for bringing this up. I've just signed up as the head writer for this huge-ass LARP which (if all goes according to plan) will be run next September. The goal is to be the melting-pot larp, where you can bring your character from your home game into our universe. Sort of like the pennsic of fantasy larp. This is a problematic project, one which I could elaborate on for pages, but suffice to say:

there are intersting problems in creating a gaming experience for a large number of people. I have 8+ experience running games for ~100 people at a time. I have no experience running games for 500+ people at a time. You need a totally new model. So I've been talking with the other writers about designing plot which doesn't rely on micromanagement, which makes the individual useful but not necessary, which makes players interact with each other to generate plot instead of the plot coming through the NPCs and modules.... interesting challenges!

so this is good stuff to keep in mind as we design it

One of the biggest problems with any of the White Wolf stuff is OOC knowledge. Even if you want to pretend not to know... YOU KNOW why that Tremere has a blue ribbon around their neck. You know that the ugly guy in the corner is a Nos, he can turn invisible and probably beat the crap out of you. etc. Also, we're trying to deveolp very non-intrusive mechanics so that people can spend more time playing, rather than standing in time stop for 20 minutes while 15 seconds of combat go by.

excellent, I'm glad you're thinking about that, because these are some of the major reasons which repel me from white wolf larps. I like my games immersive, I like to forget about the real world. In the LARPs I run / play, there is no invisibility, there is no flying, there are no giants. In one of them, there is no separation between In-Game and Out-Of-Game knowledge - if you know something OOG, you heard it IG too. That means that if you assassinate someone from behind, you can't stand around the body and talk about it, because the spirit can still hear you (even though the guys eyes are closed and he can't see you, he's still listening no matter what). They do this because they don't want players to have to ignore information that they actually know. It means you've gotta keep secrets really well!

at the last vampire larp I played, this guy said to me, "BTW, I'm probably going to kill you at the next event. But I'm telling you that out-of-character. So if you react to it, you're meta-gaming." WTF! Now if I defend myself, I'm cheating?

at the first vampire larp I played, I was a nos, and they gave me this in-game spy microphone that let me walk up to conversations and observe them without "being there". But in real life, I am actually standing there, making this dumb "ignore me" gesture (which only 40% of the players understood), and they DO change their conversation topic to account for that.


/threadjack

[Telarus]

Good, I'm glad you guys are finding this useful. As to the podcasts, well, since I have the time at the moment to listen to them, I keep doings so, and then bring the interesting bits and links back to the thread. So you can probably skip them. I'm probably going to start jumping around in that case and highlighting the stuff I find useful.

Ep 003 of Theory From the Closet talks about Stances.
http://theoryfromthecloset.com/2007/04/08/show003-stances/
Here I'll just copy some definitions from the Forge Glossary. These are good things to keep in mind, but I don't really want to dig into these right now as I've got some other interesting concepts that I do want to dig into.

http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html

Stance
    The cognitive position of a person to a fictional character. Differences among Stances should not be confused with IC vs. OOC narration. Originally coined in the RFGA on-line discussions; see John Kim?s website for archives. Current usage modified in GNS and other matters of role-playing theory. See Actor,Author, and Director Stance.

Actor Stance
    The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have. This stance does not necessarily include identifying with the character and feeling what he or she "feels," nor does it require in-character dialogue.

Author Stance
    The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions based on the player's priorities, independently of the character's knowledge and perceptions. Author Stance may or may not include a retroactive "motivation" of the character to perform the actions. When it lacks this feature, it is called Pawn Stance.

Director Stance
    The person playing a character determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters. Director Stance is often confused with narration of an in-game event, but the two concepts are not necessarily related.

One interesting thing to note is that usually, but not always, only the GM in games has the authority to narrate things into the fiction that are outside of the Character scope. Players can (usually) only narrate what their characters do, how they react, how they feel, etc.

Some games break this mold, but that gets into who at the table has Narration Authority over certain aspects of the fiction. We'll get back to this subject in a while.

[Telarus]

Ok, so after listening to Episodes 003 and 009, we have a few more concepts to introduce.

Kickers, Flags, and Bangs.

----------><----------
A Kicker is a short, (maybe 2-5 sentence) description, written before play, of what has just happened to a (player's) Character that makes going back to a normal day-to-day existence _impossible_. It's what Kick's Off the story for each Character. This should have some sort of open ended aspect that can be resolved during play (but maybe not for a few sessions), or is some sort of dynamic situation that cries out for a resolution of some sort.

A classic example is "I wake up in the morning and go to the bathroom. I'm shocked to find my girlfriend hanging, dead, in the shower. Suddenly, some-one bangs on my front door and a loud voice announces 'THIS IS THE POLICE'."

I haven't used Kickers or played in a game that requires Kickers yet, but it's certainly an interesting thing to think about (looking at Rat and Cram). As Clyde says, "The important thing to keep in mind when you're creating a character is that you're playing a collaborative game, so make it(the Kicker) interesting for the other people at the table, too."

----------><----------
Next up are Flags. These are thing used to identify what about the game or character is interesting to the player. It is specifically created and written on the character sheet to tell all the players at the table about that player/character's shtick, and specifically what about the game/character/story is important to the player. This is the closest mechanic/technique/rule I've seen to just putting your Creative Agenda out there for everyone to see.

The key thing about flags are to tie them to the mechanics, or to one of the Narrative Currencies (say XP, or Action Points, or similar) or other aspect of the Reward Cycle, or have them otherwise affect the game-world in a clear way, and also to limit the number you can have so that you have to make a choice about what's important.

I've mentioned these with The Shadow of Yesterday's Keys (in the White Wold thread, I think), and how they give xp when the character is in a scene that 'hits' on those Keys, the "motivations, problems, connections, duties, and loyalties that pull on your character.. ", with more xp for when a bigger motivational payoff, or larger problem or decision over duties/loyalty, etc comes up.

Clyde also mentions Instincts and Beliefs from Burning Wheel. Instincts are statements like "I always have my Gun on me." These statements modify the actual rules for that story, so the player's character always has his gun on him (yes, even in the shower), and that's one of the most important things about him. That says something meaningful about that character, and it also says something meaningful about how this player wants the story to go. Then, if the player is thrust into (or chooses voluntarily) a situation where he has to act against his Instinct (say a Conflict roll deprives him of his gun), he gets a Narrative Currency (something to spend to give a bonus to affect a scene).

Beliefs are sort of goals for the character. You get 3 of them. The example Clyde gives is "My brother is not the rightful King. I need to remove him from the throne." These statements introduce characters and situations into the game that cry out to be resolved, similar to Kickers above.

Flags, apart from the mechanical/game-world affecting aspect, also give the GM a handful of things per player with which to drive the plot. This makes it really easy to adapt pre-written scenarios to the unique story being told at the table, and also give the GM something to build further plot, conflict and challenges with. This leads to Bangs! which are driving the plot by hammering suddenly on a player's Flags. If your system doesn't have explicit Flags, go and make them. Otherwise you'll have to tease out from the player and their character sheets/ past stories to find out what to hammer on.

Clyde also mentions, that as players, we need to help set-up these interesting moments (Bangs) that the GM will use. We can do this by creating a conflicted character, one who will have to make hard decisions.He gives the example of a second "Belief" of "I care about how the Kingdom is run, and it turns out that my Brother would probably make a better King for the Kingdom I care about."

----------><----------
And finally, Bangs.

The Technique of introducing events into the game which make a thematically-significant or at least evocative choice necessary for a player. The term is taken from the rules of Sorcerer.

These are sudden events that the GM introduces as a 'story-dilemma'. Something that hits those things that one or more character find important (see Flags or even Kickers). Something that forces the player to make a decision, or puts them on the spot. If you can craft it so it hits more than one Flag and makes a player choose which one is _more_ important, so much the better.

You can plot two or more ways that a Bang can go, but never decide which is the 'Right' way to resolve it. The key to Bangs are that the GM cannot have any stake in how the players actually choose. He just has to throw it out there (BANG!), and then rolls with their answer. This throws the notion of a linear plot, or even a branching tree plot, out the window. Bangs should be thought of in clusters of related opportunities for Cain-level Machiavellianism. You can have future Bangs planned that depend on previous Bangs happening, but don't make too many Bangs that depend on how previous Bangs are resolved or on the choices that players make to respond to them. If you do have a lot of those, you'll find them evaporating in play when a player or the group makes a decision that surprises _everyone_.

----------><----------

Ok, so now we can see how these ideas are interlocking and becoming more than their individual meme-packets.
Any question? Comments....? Want to start a quick online game? All we need is an agreed on rule-set and a resolution mechanic (die-roller, etc).

[Cramulus]

MEANWHILE:
I started this horrible blog to give NERO staff members tips for running NERO, a live combat fantasy larp. It's terribly nerdy, but has some relevant LARP theory in there. http://nerology.wordpress.com/