An Invitation for 2097, Jeph, Thanuir...

...And other Game State theorists:

I've been seeing my name here kind of a lot!

If you haven't already, I invite you to check out my current rpg project, The Wizard's Grimoire & The Barbarian's Bloody Quest, with more to come.

I think it aligns solidly with your Game State Model, and could provide a useful example for you. The games' structure upends the conventional RPG authority structure in a way that, I think, sheds light on how rpgs can, might, and do privilege non-shared in-game facts and continuity. Among other structural questions, they ask, "how much of the game state needs to be shared in order to create satisfying and meaningful continuity?" and they answer "not that much actually."

I also think you might super hate them. Maybe I'm mistaken and you'll love them! I don't know.

Either way, you might be interested, and there's a free downloadable preview that'll give you the gist, so I invite you to consider them.

Thanks!

-Vincent
«134

Comments

  • Hey @lumpley darling! Hope you're doing OK!
    Thanx for the reco! Just paid for & downloaded the PDFs. (Because I missed that there was a free demo.) I'm in a different time zone (it's 2248 on a Friday night here), just got home from seeing Dracula with @Aviatrix who is visiting.

    I promise to read them through and give my Brutal Review™ lmk if you don't want that and instead want a completely all-positive Pep Talk™—I usually ask this before I even start reading but I'll tell you what I do like and that's this post! Glad af to see you taking The Model seriously! Before I understood that Jeph & Thanuir and some others were onboard I was feeling super gaslighted, like, am I being the crazy one here? etc etc blablabla you get it, I'm sure.♥

    Peeps were referring to your 15 year old posts as if they were carved into granite. :bawling:
  • Once you’ve named yourself, tallied your qualities, rated your exertions, and set "The Signature of Aibesta of the Two Courts" nearby— without reading ahead in it! — you're ready to begin play.
    See, this is fucking baller. This is what I'm talking about. Some vindication here, please!?
  • Plasmids! It's in the orphoneverse!!
  • It's Jack Vance, pure and simple! Plasmids are clearly sandestins by any other name!

    This looks really neat. Will read over it later tonight.
  • Can all nay sayers come in here and be like "we're sorry, Sandra, thank you for teaching us" :bawling:
    I die daily for you guys and you won't even mow my lawn in return
    Hahaha wow I need to go to bed
    love you all
  • ps thanx again lumps♥♥♥
  • edited June 14
    Have now read it except the actual “do not read this yet” part (gonna hold off on that until I have two other dorx nearby so we can actually play it b/c it loox fun).

    OK, so it’s obv just a dinky li’l toy game compared to the extravagant didn’t-know-where-to-stop-piling-things-on kitchen sink that is 2097e, but,

    that’s what makes it a perfect example to demonstrate the whole game state thing.

    And from that perspective, it doesn’t have the “pretend symmetry” quality though.
    I’ll ask things like “I’m set upon by raiders. What are they like?” You and your fellow volunteer can imagine any raiders you want, exactly the raiders you find most fun, and tell me about them together.
    I.o.w. they’re just pulling them out of their hats & making them up. That kinda gameplay is what I wanted to get away from for the full “mirror story” kick. In the blorb, you’re pretending there’s something in the fridge, I’m pretending there’s something in the fridge, it’s symmetrical. Our knowledge of that thing isn’t symmetrical (if I’ve read ahead in the prep and seen that there’s cake in there) nor is our power but at least we’re even when it comes to this one aspect of play. “Pretend symmetry.”

    I get that it’s easy to make good & credible & satisfying raiders on the fly even w/o referencing the Lumps deep cut “Coherence and Contradictions” due to the question process buuut here we have a significant (??? maybe??? not sure since I haven’t played yet) aspect of play that’s relegated to only using tier 3 truths even though it (?? might be???) salient.

    Any follow up Qs on that? thanx

  • Oh, yes, yes, no, definitely not. This isn't anything like the game you're designing, I'd expect it to be the opposite game in many ways, in fact.

    It's a game that demonstrates the difference between the game state and the communicated, agreed-upon SIS, that's all. In case anyone's still sticking to "in rpgs, its not true until everyone agrees that it's true."

    -Vincent
  • It's a game that demonstrates the difference between the game state and the communicated, agreed-upon SIS, that's all. In case anyone's still sticking to "in rpgs, its not true until everyone agrees that it's true."
    ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
  • Looking forward to giving it a whirl!
  • Don’t prepare a list.

    You may, of course, prepare a list, if you like. Preparing lists is good fun and good practice. But contra Moorcock, what you need as an improvisational GM isn’t a list, but a habit of imagination.
    See, I was an improvisational GM and it was great fun and then the mirror story happened and I was like wait what? Things can have some weight to them? Matter? And a hack&slash retro game was the last place I’d expected to find it…

    and I am eager to see what is gonna happen when some smarter-than-me peeps start applying that same insight.
  • 1. The game certainly has lots of information known only to single or no player.

    2. It is interesting how the cohesiveness, if any, of the game world is the responsibility of the player. I guess that by asking sufficiently loaded questions it could be maintained or some earlier elements could be reincorporated. "I always take my pipe with me when I travel. Do I have it now?" or "Are these raiders the same ones the captured me earlier? Any faces I recognize?".

    3. The game would likely be very different when played with mostly the same people several times, when compared with playing with different people all the time.
  • edited June 15
    Pantheon also similarly has documents that no participant at the table are allowed to look at. ← but that's completely off-topic since they are more of a scoring sheet rather than a list of "true" propositions
  • I'm sorry, Sandra! Link me to the "mirror story"?
  • edited June 17
    @Lumpley :

    Not sure what writeup is the best but I had been playing & running RPGs for 20 years and then somewhere in 2012, 2013 I found an OSR group (so I was kinda late to the party, grognardia had been up for years at that point) and I played with them once, thought “ok that was kinda fun, but kinda scripted”, went home, looked at the module and thought “huh…. that could’ve gone all kinda different ways, and then played with them again and we find this room.

    there’s an object behind a curtain. I walk up to it and put my hand under. feels like glass. “it’s a cursed mirror?” we all think. we take it down from the wall w/o looking at it or removing the curtain. attach it to our cart.

    hours later, fighting against toad monsters on our way home from dungeon. we pull away curtain. one toad monsters sees the mirror and goes pop like a soap bubble just disappear from this world. and the mirror cracks.

    and i’m like… holy shit. the way the mirror felt so “real” when I first put my hand up against the glass (i.e. said “I put my hand under the curtain what do I feel”), the entire dungeon started feeling real, cold under my feet, I just vertiginously fell into it.

    i called my mom later that night i think i woke her. i was like “I finally understood how roleplaying games work!”

    remember, I had played games for two decades but I had never read moldvay or L4 The Lost City or any classic module. I was used to two kinds of gaming: improvised, and railroaded-events (or a mix). The idea of prepping a location, a porte-monstre-trésor (place/problem/goal array) had never ever ever occured to me in my whole life. it was all robin’s laws or funnel CoC setups (I hadn’t read that haunted house intro adventure either) or giovanni chronicles or whatever. and above all…. IMPROVISED stuff. “let’s play a roleplaying game? we don’t have rules. let’s start with some neil young song lyrics etc and just improvise from that, you’re the Archer etc, we just landed on the sun in our silver seed” etc etc. i mean we had done all kindsa weird & awesome shit. we had done the whole 90s scandinavian shit with extreme immersion, candle-lit, never ever speaking ooc. we had done a bunch of larps. we had had vampire larps in ruined castles from the 1200s etc. we had everway, we had fudge, we had diaspora, we had gurps, we had fiasco, we had it all except this. i had read 200 games.

    I mean, the “mirror story” is D&D basics but it just never occurred to me. and it was the best. just the best. and it happens pretty much every session now, it’s been a repeatable kick. i’m like… FINALLY. some of the games that came closest were Rune, Three Sixteen and Dogs in the Vineyard.

    i’ve been kind of a champ for a very strict take on this playstyle since that happened six or so years ago. Much more strict & disciplined about it than even the DM of the game where the “mirror story” happened.

    I at first thought that the stocking algorithm or whatever was the secret ingredient but the DM can be much freer than that.

    the principles I use right now are are…

    Prepping ≠ Running

    The “prepper” and “runner” is two completely different mindsets. If you are doing homebrew you need to really really try to switch mindset before running that material. I love running stuff that other people have written for this reason.

    The three tiers of truth.

    1. Is there an answer in the prep? (I.e. what does the prep say is in that treasure chest?). Iff undefined, fall down to tier two:
    2. Is there an answer in the rules? (I.e. do you have a random treasure chest content table?) Iff undefined, fall down to tier three:
    3. Make it up. (Prefer boring/empty/nothing.) Forgive yourself, but try to patch the hole for future sessions by creating a new rule, table, or be better at creating specific content.

    The wallpaper saliency principle

    If something is mere “wallpaper”, feel free to improvise it. If it becomes salient by other rules interacting with it, it doesn’t count as mere wallpaper any more.

    A recent example from my game is that because of spellcomponents, it became salient how much spell-active moss you can find in a day while foraging in the forest, so I created rules for that. (For new campaigns remove or store some of these rules that have become irrelevant. You can dig ’em out again if they come up.) I’m sure this is how GURPS grew to become so horrifically unweildy. But we started small with the li’l dinky 32 page 5e starter set booklet. And now several shelves are part of our gamestate.

    No Paper after seeing Rock principle

    This is to solve the “chasm width”–problem. Don’t create prep after seeing the characters. Here on S-G, this has been our current design focus, to replace this principle with some more nuanced principles; to find a way that’s sufficiently decision-making-disclaimed that we can have some character-custom elements in the prep. Like you roll up an aunt on the lifepaths in XGE, it’d be cool if that aunt then was actually in the game, wouldn’t it? etc etc.

    In my mind, all four of these principles are kinda clumsy & raw & could use some more nuanced & elegant design. Otoh they are super robust.

  • Pantheon also similarly has documents that no participant at the table are allowed to look at. ← but that's completely off-topic since they are more of a scoring sheet rather than a list of "true" propositions
    HOWEVER!!! I just thought of a game. The Sherlock Holmes game
  • Not to take away from the originality of any one game, just tryna find design analogies & put things in context
  • I really like how there's all this room to explore pre-written material in these games, Vincent! I've played In Dreaming Avalon a few times, and people always loved hunting down the ogre (for those unfamiliar, it's a whole more-or-less predefined sequence of events the text guides you through, while leaving you room to describe and embellish).

    Jeremy Strandberg is building all kinds of interesting pre-written material into his Dungeon World hack, Stonetop. Check out some great excerpts of the Arcana over here in this thread:

    https://forums.gauntlet-rpg.com/t/looking-forward-to-stonetop/1253/8

    Vincent, do you feel there's any particular theory development/idea/concept which is necessary for this kind of design? Or is it a natural extension/evolution of D&D modules and Choose Your Own Adventure books?
  • Paul&Jay, still not gonna acknowledge?

    Obviously the idea that rules & system (lower-case s system, I guess, since you guys take all the normal words and twist their meanings) govern things that haven't been shared-p or even read-p is a vital development. The fact that precedents existed only makes the model more relevant.

  • I’m not at all against that in principle. I’m just trying to mull it over and see what’s new about it. To me, it sounds like good old roleplaying, right? We’ve got modules and books of setting content and scripted material and GM notes and character backstories... that stuff is pretty fundamental to the majority of popular roleplaying, right? And has been since the beginning, and continues to be.

    I’m very open to the idea that there’s something new here! It will probably take a clever implementation of it to demonstrate the power of the idea. Perhaps Vincent’s stuff is doing that, right? That’s why I’m asking how he sees it.
  • It's a game that demonstrates the difference between the game state and the communicated, agreed-upon SIS, that's all. In case anyone's still sticking to "in rpgs, its not true until everyone agrees that it's true."
    Maybe I'm just thick, but I'm still sticking to that. As far as I'm concerned, a section of The Wizard's Grimoire revealed during the game - and not known to any of the participants up to that point - will still have to be accepted into the SIS.

    It's true that the text will be in the .pdf one participant will have downloaded and printed out.

    It's true that we will have agreed earlier to play the game, so your contribution (i.e. the designer's prep) - technically introduced by whoever reads it out loud - will have a ton of credibility.

    It's true that it might introduce 'the unwanted' into the game, i.e. mess with the participants' expectations and desires.

    Etc.

    But we will still all have to give our assent for it to become true in the SIS, which is key. That's the nature of RPGs as I understand them.

    (It's very unlikely, but an entry might break someone's suspension of disbelief, be deeply offensive, display the - hypothetical - French language version text on account of a .pdf-glitch etc. In all these cases, the entry does not become part of the SIS.)

    None of this is to say that prep is unimportant or can be changed arbitrarily (even though that might be the case for some RPGs or playstyles). As far as I recall, noone argued that the placement of Blackrazor in White Plume Mountain is irrelevant.

    We can debate the words 'RPG', 'true' etc., but so far, numerous threads, one with almost 700 posts, have not brought closure (though many insights as well as improvements to some proposed concepts).
  • edited June 16
    @Paul_T:

    Hidden movement board games (such as Specter Ops, Fury of Dracula and the like) being another pretty clear example of off-screen game state. (Shout out to a fan, Ting, for sending me an example of something similar [a tabletop RPG about the Predator and their invisible movement] via email.)

    Good old roleplaying?

    Things don't have to be new to be a counter-example to (apparently popular interpretation of) Forge stuff. You and Jay have been saying some kinda out there things… I'm much appreciative of how @Lumpley is trying to be clear & explicit but I mean what specifically do you need him to say at this point?

    What exactly do you (and Jay and Johann) need to hear before you can succumb to me as your queen and mow my lawn in penance?

    Good old roleplaying? So that's the tune now?

    Three seconds ago you were saying things like I was misrepresenting roleplaying as an activity or saying some pretty hypersollipsistic things like:
    Whenever and wherever any fact or piece of information is given legitimacy by the players interacting with that fact, it enters their Shared Imagined Space. You say "look, a pink elephant over there!", I accept your statement and imagine it, too, saying, "ooh!", and now we've created a SIS, which has a pink elephant. Credibility and assent.

    In a group playing a roleplaying game, all the facts or statements that are given credibility by all the participants are part of the group's SIS, and that's what we use to play: that becomes our game's "board" and "pieces".
    And now VB is holding up some other pretty vital "boards"&"pieces" and you're like "oh well I've been down with that old stuff since the Warlock of Firetop Mountain or w/e" and well, you have. Many games work that way. Which is point.

    Even now Johann is saying:
    It's a game that demonstrates the difference between the game state and the communicated, agreed-upon SIS, that's all. In case anyone's still sticking to "in rpgs, its not true until everyone agrees that it's true."
    Maybe I'm just thick, but I'm still sticking to that. As far as I'm concerned, a section of The Wizard's Grimoire revealed during the game - and not known to any of the participants up to that point - will still have to be accepted into the SIS.
    The SIS, the shared-p subset of the imagined space, isn't the be-all and end-all of "the nature of RPGs". Which, at this point, has turned into empty semantics. C.f. "the Yahtzee principle" for even more weirdo take on "the nature of RPGs" which apparently can mean nothing and anything…?
    It's very unlikely, but an entry might break someone's suspension of disbelief, be deeply offensive, display the - hypothetical - French language version text on account of a .pdf-glitch etc. In all these cases, the entry does not become part of the SIS.
    Again, the game state can contain contradictions just as the shared-p subset of it can contain contradictions; for both, contradictions can be resolved if they are discovered.

    I'm dying by gaslight over here
  • edited June 16
    At this point I'm just gonna have to accept that I'm wrong, campaign canceled, everybody go home, no D&D on Tuesday because our game world is part of the RPG anymore, not sure if the die-faces that I can't currently see are part of the RPG anymore either, except that D4 that I stepped on that one time, pretty sure about that one.
  • What is it that makes the Lonely Fun aspect of some games meaningful? Why roll up D&D characters when we can just imagine a fictional person in any sort of context, not bound by the sometimes arcane rules of an elfgame?

    Whatever value there is in the perspectives and boundaries presented by The Game when we're doing Lonely Fun don't suddenly disappear when other people become involved.

    In some sense, weren't efforts to classify significant aspects of games and player preferences (such as the Same Page Tool or whatever it was called) an acknowledgement of this fact? That some games just do some things better. That the prior assumptions a game was built with matter, that it can serve as a valuable interlocutor.

    When the post-Forge-indie-dirty-hippo-storygames movement decided to embrace the fact that we were all rational, self-interested (or self-indulgent) actors who knew best what we wanted in our games, that was probably a reasonable response to real problematic tendencies in the greater play and design culture of RPGs. It doesn't make it an altogether enlightened, higher form of gaming though.

    I think that the logical end-result of that kind of "rational self-interest" approach to play is that we see the other participants merely as baggage; we put up with them because, as a social activity, their presence and contributions are necessary to get what we want out of gaming, and that's it (note that I'm not accusing anyone of actually being so callous; it's merely an example of what happens when we stop valuing external contributions for their actual content, and only see them for the role they play in the larger model of how the game happens).

    But there are all sorts of reasons why we can value external contributions of the game designer or the module writer just like we value the contributions of other players as more than just a means to create what we want to create. For serious Step On Up players, that concreteness contributes to the satisfaction of challenge-based play (no paper after rock). In old school tournament play, everybody needed to play the same module in order to establish a baseline by which to score their play. For the immersionists, understanding that the world operates according to actual rules helps them immerse. For organized play like Shadowrun Missions or something, everybody playing the same module creates a sense of community among the game's fanbase. For someone like me, who's really into procedural rhetoric and analyzing game materials a sort of literature or kinetic art, overwriting the creator's message with my own would defeat the purpose. And so on and so forth.
  • thank you yukamichi. yes.
  • edited June 16
    Paul, Johann:

    More provocative, in lumpley principle terms, than the unknown material in the grimoire, is the relationship between the player and the possibly-changing volunteers session by session wrt continuity. The game constructs a wizard with a continuous identity out of a dense mix of communicated and non-communicated material, despite possibly-contradictory experiences, NOT via the lumpley principle.

    Nobody's disputing that in rpgs, the moment of communication is a moment of communication. The lumpley principle stands, there. Of course it does! The question is, what else? Where else do we need to be looking?

    We can consider rpgs only from the point of view of the act of communication, only from the point of view of the lumpley principle, if we want to. But The Wizard's Grimoire, and many other games to greater or lesser extent, as Sandra's saying, show that this is a pauce view. We should expand our view and consider more.
  • edited June 16
    Nobody's disputing that in rpgs, the moment of communication is a moment of communication.
    I'm sure as heckfire not disputing that♥
    Even though I sometimes forget which rooms they've been to before etc and redescribe them and they go "oh, yeah, this is the wine room"

    Edit: You're great @lumpley
    Thank you so much for helping me with this
  • edited June 16
    :smiley:
  • feel free to email me at sandra.snan@idiomdrottning.org if you have any more old principles that you need set straight
  • edited June 16
    One of the things that Wizard's Grimoire highlights effectively is that the concept of SIS is overly vague and unspecific.

    In linguistics, it's impossible to talk about common ground or mutual knowledge or manifest information without being clear about who holds this ground in common.

    In Wizard's Grimoire, the who is likely changing session to session, outside of the wizard's player.

    But this is true moment-to-moment in any other RPG, as well. Sometimes the GM and player are writing notes back and forth. Or one player's in the kitchen or bathroom when someone else makes a contribution. And all the time, our fallible human memories are working hard to cloud our understanding of what's been contributed in the past & who was there to witness it.

    And all of these are valid targets for design. I can totally write rules like:

    "Write down your character's True Name. You can hide it, share it, or lie about it, as you wish. When anyone speaks your True Name and makes a demand of you, you must consent or hand them one Effort Token. Of course, you may consent if you like, even if they get your True Name wrong, to hide the fact. You may even give them an Effort Token when they get your True Name wrong, to maintain a ruse. You probably want to have these conversations in private, to prevent your True Name from spreading around too widely."

    Suddenly, all these different shared spaces become very, very important!
  • And all of these are valid targets for design.
    thank you jeph. yes.
  • Heck yes, Jeph!
  • edited June 16
    Here's my take on what's new about this, for Paul and anyone else who's now changed their view to "yeah but isn't this how it's been?"

    You may recall that 15 years ago when I was first writing about the moment of communication, the established model was that the truth of the game was in the GM's sole head. The GM was the author and arbiter of the true game state; everybody else was just imagining, guessing, making things up, waiting and hoping for the GM's affirmation. That's the model that the lumpley principle hates and defies.

    This new model DEFINITELY ISN'T a return to that old one. Jeph's example makes that clear.

    Another breathtaking early example was in Julia Bond Ellingboe's game Steal Away Jordan, where the GM has to leave the room while the players finish making their characters together.
  • I think the current definition of gamestate (SIS plus various other stuff) is fine and it's long overdue that I say so. I disagree with certain claims about gamestate and that's when I have been suggesting alternative definitions to which you rightly take exception. I shall try to avoid this.

    I think I am touchy/protective about the concept of the SIS because (1) it's central to roleplaying and (2) it's in my head (as well as those of the other participants). So any wording (inadvertently, I assume) suggesting that someone can 'write' stuff into my head without my consent or knowledge causes vigorous resistance or disbelief, respectively.

    (I'll reiterate that I think it is impossible for me to give consent a priori even if I wanted to.)

    (You can 'write' stuff into my head, though, for instance by 'spoiling' a movie.)

    I don't have objections to a ton of other stuff and am somewhat puzzled that you guys think I do.

    I do appreciate you guys...

    - championing a playstyle/agenda/whatnot that puts an emphasis on prep unprecedented in explicitness and degree
    - analysing and eloquently formulating possible key concepts (e.g. the Three Tiers of Truth)
    - developing new techniques to facilitate this playstyle (e.g. auditing the GM prep)
    - showing your passion and excitment at breaking new ground
    - expanding the design space.

    Best wishes & apologies for addressing only a fraction of your points,

    Johann
  • So if I'm in a larp and the stage is literal&physical because it's a larp, and someone brings in a live cobra on stage, and I don't even know about it because I'm dancing & I might be looking the other way, that is scary & wrong but it's still possible and in the larp we have a stage which is physical and in the 2097e we have the blorb which is a collection of propositions including a pretty crappy map if I'm being honest, I hate that they can't be consistent about the 5' square / 10' square thing
  • What then followed was three hours of Sandra frantically googling the nearest live cobra dance places because that suddenly sounded sexy af. There's one out in Sundbyberg but they have a cover charge… not sure if worth it…
  • I like that LARP example. I'm hesitant to drag komradebob into these conversations since he hasn't been appearing in them himself so I won't actually tag him, but I feel like there's an aspect of that in what he wants to do with minis play.

    He (maybe) doesn't want the miniatures to be simple representations of what's going on in the fiction. Instead they're almost like simulacra; not a copy of something real (or imaginary, as it were), but true in their own right through the fact of their existence.
  • (Whoops btw lumps I didn't mean to make it look like this was an exhaustive list! @AlexanderWhite, @Vivificent, etc there's been some more too who stood up for all that was good and blorb)
  • Great examples, @Jeph and @lumpley . I dig that!

    That's actually pretty illuminating, and the way the Grimoire can switch out the players as you go along is a good illustration, as well.

    My whole stance on this is pretty much exactly what @Johann wrote, above. Just asking questions, curious - don't mistake that for some kind of war stance. Looking forward to seeing what comes of all this!
  • edited June 16
    if you can die of a dropped jaw than that's probably my cause of death but I don't know that for sure since i died and thus can't do a proper investigation

    you were saying some pretty out there things…?! about The Very Nature of Roleplaying edit just never mind. i am too dead to type
  • Death by Jaw Drop would be a great title for a game or an album or something. I think we should definitely keep that under our hats: someone needs to use it!

    My impression is that you and I both misread the other's position on this to be far more extreme than the other person actually intended. Now that we're understanding each other better (which could be seen as back-pedaling from those more extreme positions), I don't think there's too much to contend over. (Although I still maintain that Narrativist roleplay in a traditional format - like Apocalypse World - can be functional and super fun; I'm not backing down on that one! ;) )
  • edited June 16
    So if I'm in a larp and the stage is literal&physical because it's a larp, and someone brings in a live cobra on stage, and I don't even know about it because I'm dancing & I might be looking the other way, that is scary & wrong but it's still possible and in the larp we have a stage which is physical and in the 2097e we have the blorb which is a collection of propositions [...]
    That's not a LARP, that's a crime scene. ;-)

    More seriously: That's an interesting example. And it is indeed possible in a LARP (which ends for me if and when I find out about this, but I still cannot undo my participation).

    But you cannot throw a live cobra into the SIS. You can propose a cobra, and I can't help it but think about snakes for a moment, but I still have to give my consent for it to become part of the SIS.

    But to get away from negative examples: I know that hidden or partially hidden information can be used to facilitate all sorts of fun, challenging, intriguing, hilarious, 'solid feeling' etc. experiences in play. Like Paul, I think this isn't really news, though of course it's useful to have a proper theoretical framework of how this stuff works -- leading to an expanded design space (and not just for the klockwerk playstyle).

    I once deliberately ran a Shadow World dungeon without having read it in advance: "You trigger a pit trap and fall, uh, 100'. [reads on] Oh, and it says here you fall on spikes. Oh, wow! Poisoned spikes! And, let's see, there's more: The stone plate covering the pit weighs 1 ton and is designed to fall into the pit after you. And the ceiling above the pit ... [turns page] ... opens to release 10 tons of sand into the pit." We were in stitches.

    I value such conceits, and definitely not just for humorous purposes. These threads have provided numerous awesome examples.
    More provocative, in lumpley principle terms, than the unknown material in the grimoire, is the relationship between the player and the possibly-changing volunteers session by session wrt continuity. The game constructs a wizard with a continuous identity out of a dense mix of communicated and non-communicated material, despite possibly-contradictory experiences, NOT via the lumpley principle.
    I've downloaded the free demo but I don't understand what you're saying. It sure does sound intriguing.
  • I happen to be too dead to explain, can someone else field this?
  • @Johann If you have some way to require consent for what I'm about to say before I say it (it might or mightn't rhyme with schmive schmobra) you can use that same mechanism to require consent for what I'm about to prep before I prep it.
    My impression is that you and I both misread the other's position on this to be far more extreme than the other person actually intended. Now that we're understanding each other better (which could be seen as back-pedaling from those more extreme positions), I don't think there's too much to contend over. (Although I still maintain that Narrativist roleplay in a traditional format - like Apocalypse World - can be functional and super fun; I'm not backing down on that one! ;) )
    ♫I hear talking♫ when I should be hearing ♫laa-aawn-mow-ing♫
  • Johann,

    The piece you’re missing is that there is a continuous quest/story that can be facilitated by different players each time. It’s the equivalent of switching over the GM every now and then, while keeping the same “module”. Pretty cool stuff!
  • Hello,
    @Johann If you have some way to require consent for what I'm about to say before I say it (it might or mightn't rhyme with schmive schmobra) you can use that same mechanism to require consent for what I'm about to prep before I prep it.
    I failed to see anything in @Johann's post that he's suggesting pre-authorization of a piece of communication. If you could quote that you'd be helping my little pea-brain out.

    However on the other side just 3 days ago someone posted about "unspeakable" things being done to a character and you very strongly came out against such a communication.
    ...is not a safe exchange...

    Things that have been proposed but rejected have at times still been just as triggering to me.
    I am not making light of anything that causes you great personal distress. Such distress is real and should be treated with the greatest respect. I use this example only to demonstrate that you called out a hypothetical communication of play passing judgment on it as unacceptable in very strong terms. In essence the hypothetical player should have self-censored. Or lacking the judgement to self-censor effectively the hypothetical player should have sought pre-authorization from the person who could be triggered before communicating his proposal.

    On a completely different level if we are playing a game set in Narnia I would imagine that official in game communication about warp core breeches in the Romulan Neutral zone would also be "pre-censored" or conversely require some sort of pre-authorization to be introduced.

    I've purposely not quoted the text because it seemed so upsetting. If you wish you can follow the link to here.

    Best,

    Jay
  • edited June 17
    I've been letting these sink in...

    the principles I use right now are are…

    Prepping ≠ Running

    The “prepper” and “runner” is two completely different mindsets...

    The three tiers of truth.Is there an answer in the prep? ...Is there an answer in the rules? ...Make it up...

    The wallpaper saliency principleIf something is mere “wallpaper”, feel free to improvise it...

    No Paper after seeing Rock principle... Don’t create prep after seeing the characters...
    And Sandra they're fantastic.
  • They're kinda rough but they can turn many "traditional" style games into pure blorb.

    I was hoping to [order people smarter than me to] create more nuanced rules that can replace some of this stuff; for example the Paper→Rock could apply to problem-solving abilities but not to "relevancy traits" maybe, but I'm not getting it to work out without it feeling super Disney World. "Oh, we just happened to run into my aunt here? Geez... what are the odds…" A conundrum

    Also, I get that you were editing for length, which cool♥, but the salient part of tier 3 is that you don't want to rely on living there, it nomically prompts you to patch the hole for next sesh, and the salient part of wallpaper saliency is that something can become salient and thus no longer "improvisable".
Sign In or Register to comment.