The Story Now Discussion

[Manbearcat]

Let me say one last thing on the above.

I believe the issue with this confident presumption that "in Story Now play, you're invariably going to 'game engine complication improv' your way into a discontinuity corner that is unrecoverable" is a problem of cognitive framing based around first principles.

Here is what you have to accept:

Real life is stranger than fiction.

It fundamentally is. For any given set of variables, there are so many permutations that could spit out a "holy cow I didn't see that coming!" It feels like in the TTRPG space, for some reason, this reality (and it is a reality) is just rejected outright. Its as if any given TTRPG player has such amazing predictive modeling that they are not apt to be surprised by much of anything in life.

Let me say this. I don't work from a significant cognitive horsepower deficit in my life...but (a) I am surprised by all kinds of things with regularity and (b) I expect to be surprised. I work from this same framework in my gaming.

So, simply put, when you start with a - n in any given mystery, there isn't this tiny window of "what could be" at the starting point. Its pretty big. Accept that. Accept that with enough collective cognitive horsepower at the table, with enough trust in system/self/table alchemy, with enough curiosity and holding on lightly...you can absolutely arrive at someplace you didn't see coming...and it won't be riddled with discontinuity.

It will likely be awesome.

Because real life is stranger than fiction and high fantasy fiction is pretty damn strange.

 

[JonM]

I'm not sure you've actually grasped the concept. The idea isn't to imagine what the villain is doing, but to put a indicator out that the villain is doing "something." This should be big, and high concept, but you're not going to elaborate on it at all unless and until that clock ticks, and then you're going to create an immediate situation that challenges something the PCs care about. If I put out Dr. Bob's clock of "Destroy Metro City" then that's going to be sitting there, doing not much, until it comes time to tick it. If I'm doing a good job, then that clock alone will speak directly to things the PCs care about, and they'll be telling me what they're doing about it -- and whatever they tell me they do, that's going to be important to Dr. Bob's plans. The idea of the clock, or front, isn't to prep the plan, so to speak, but to put a red cape up and dare the players to charge it. It's the looming threat that needs to be taken care of, or bad things happen. Now, if the PCs ignore it, or it comes time to tick it, or they bungle an attempted thwarting, then you create some new fiction that speaks to the looming bad. Say the PCs decide to ignore Dr. Bob's threat and instead deal with Bobblob for a session. At the end of that session, when you're checking your clocks/fronts, and Dr. Bob's clock/front ticks over, then you introduce a bad thing that's happened, or you increase the threat level of Dr. Bob, or you do something like this. You don't advance a plan, you introduce a new threat. What that threat is/should be can be prepped, but it absolutely must speak to the current situation and PCs. It's hard to prep well in a Story Now game, because things go sideways often (and good thing, too!).

As for mysteries, they absolutely work. Recall, though, that everyone's playing to find out, so even the GM doesn't know the answer to the mystery when it starts, or even halfway through. Instead, the mystery will unfold in play. This is why I say that Story Now play is very dependent on the system -- a system that does it well will generate complications and the mystery will unfold in an organic and interesting way. A system that doesn't support this play, or fights it, will cause this to falter and feel forced.

An example from my Blades in the Dark game of a mystery went like this: the PCs were looking for a job (they were spies), and got one to recover some stolen alchemical notes that were causing alchemists to become very ill and die. This is actually from one of the jobs tables in Blades, and the group was looking to introduce some new ideas early in the game's run (where things weren't very complicated, yet). We did some free play, and established that there was an alchemist that had recently died worth investigating, and also a minor noble who was connected through a PC's contact to the underground alchemy scene. The party split up to investigate both, and I ran a split score -- two PCs investigated the alchemist's house, and two more the nobles. In the course of play, the alchemist's house was being ransacked by a rival gang (a few failures to sneak in meant there were people in the flat, and I introduced rival gang members) and devolved into a fight where gangers were killed (death in Blades is a "bad thing"), and they only got a fragment of some notes about the formula -- clearly it was disseminated more widely, and people were experimenting with it, but what it was or did remained unknown. This score was a failure, and so actually blossomed the mystery and made it deeper. The other score went even more awry. Failures there led to the introduction of an alchemist suffering the formula trying to kill/capture/scare? the nobleman, and the description was zombielike. The PCs there engaged the zombish alchemist, and more fails occurred, leading to the description the the "zombie" was heavily imbued with the ghost field, and could even stutter step through space (when your crack shot misses the zombie five feet away, you need a reason other than "you missed"). So, at the end of this, the PCs had some tantalizing clues, but had not recovered the formula or even had a grasp on what it did. Meanwhile, the between score entanglements roll indicated demonic interest, so a demon got involved, demanding the PCs recover this formula and destroy it or it would come of them (demons are like elementals in Blades, this one was a fire elemental). This one rolled job had now blossomed into a mystery, one that would take a few sessions, and lead to engaging allies for assistance, ghosts being kidnapped (it's a thing), haunted houses, secret cults, and more demons. None of this was planned, prepped, and most of it surprised the hell out of me.

If you mean Story Now doesn't do planned mysteries well, then, yes, because planned play is the opposite of the intent. If you're asking if Story Now can do mysteries, it 100% absolutely can, but you really can't plan what or how that mystery will go or even start.

I think we're on the same page, with the superhero stuff. If it didn't look like that, then it may have been bad wording, on my part. I kind of jokingly tossed off my "what are you doing today? " comment, which, admittedly, implies an answer that is a solid plan. And, sometimes, that is how it goes (so, I guess that wouldn't be Story Now, in a purist sense). But other times, the answer is more along the lines of, "Well, I am strongly motivated to destroy Dr. Tachyon, so I'm going to somehow work on that" and that's it - both I and the players get to find out what that means, as the game progresses (so, I guess more Story Now, yes?).

Now, the mystery thing... That, I think, we're not communicating about, very clearly. I tried to make it clear, in my post, but I do not mean the run-of-the-mill puzzles that you always run into in any RPG - the puzzles that require solutions, to further the plot - such as what you described. I'm talking about a true Mystery, in the traditional genre sense. A whodunnit, where some ne'er-do-well has specifically plotted to cause mischief, and it is up to the heroes to disentangle the scheme, usually by wading through red herrings, finding genuine clues, and the like. I tried to be clear about the difference, in my post, but the number of people who have misinterpreted that makes me think I may have failed. Oh, except Umbran. I think he got what I meant.

As I said to Campbell, your answer leads me to suspect that the real answer to my question is, "No, Story Now just isn't meant for that kind of thing." But, then, you pretty much said that, at the end of your own post.

 

[JonM]

Manbearcat: I won't quote both your last two posts, because... well... the first one is super long. But rest assured that does not mean I did not read them, beginning to end, and give them a lot of thought!

I do think, though, that, as with Ovinomancer and Campbell, you may have at least partially misinterpreted what I meant by mystery. What you're describing is more along the lines of my "I wonder where the werewolf is hiding" sort of RPG problem-to-solve, rather than a traditional Mystery. Rather than repeat myself, I'll just be lazy and point you to my last post, replying to Ovinomancer, about that.

So, once again, I'm left thinking that the answer is, "The Story Now approach can be used for most types of stories but is not well suited to traditional Mysteries." Well, unless you try to do it as I described in my original post, but, again, I speak from several personal experiences when I say that running one improv like that just seems shallower. Was it fun? Sure. Was it is as fun and satisfying, for the players, as the carefully crafted Mysteries? Not a chance.

 

[Arilyn]

So we have mysteries of the land that develop during play vs. the whodunit mysteries that library shelves are crammed with.

 

[Manbearcat]

A whodunnit, where some ne'er-do-well has specifically plotted to cause mischief, and it is up to the heroes to disentangle the scheme, usually by wading through red herrings, finding genuine clues, and the like.

Here is the thing on this, it comes down to game engine, procedures, and principles.

For instance:

* Player wants thing x to be true. Thing x being true doesn't overwrite already established fiction. Player x makes a move where the stakes are "is thing x true?"

Player gets a success.

Thing x is true.

GMing a red herring either now or introducing the red herring later in such a way that would render the player's won thing x is true is against the rules and against their GMing principles (say what honesty demands...play with integrity and a table-facing hand). The GM is constrained by these things and subsequent fiction is bound by this.

What if the player gets a success with complication?

Thing x is true but this other thing you don't want to be true (that doesn't undermine thing x being true) is also true...deal with it.

You can't make a red herring about thing x, but you can do some shenanigans with stuff that isn't thing x that doesn't violate prior fiction, rules, or principles.

What if the player gets a failure?

Thing x is not true. Deal with it.

Here is your "red herrings are game" move. And this can snowball into other things being not true that you (the player) want to be true. Or things can stabilize and the picture will suddenly flesh out, constraining the imagined space such that a, b, c, d, e, f, g, l, m, n, o, p are all locked in...the only bit of murk left is around h, i, and j. Subsequent play and the prior, binding fiction (and, of course, the rules and principles) will determine the nature of things.

---

Now if the question is "can you create a Story Now whodunnit where the GM is not constrained in the ways I've stated above?" The answer is "no, you cannot." But that doesn't mean that a whodunnit where curiosity is sated and the table participants are all both following and leading cannot emerge to create a skillfully played, satisfying mystery. It just means that the reveal of the whodunnit is operationalized in a particular way that precludes absolute GM authority in their preconceptions and extrapolations.

 

[JonM]

So we have mysteries of the land that develop during play vs. the whodunit mysteries that library shelves are crammed with.

Exactly. Thank you. There's the standard RPG problem-solving that leads to mysterious questions. That's not what I'm talking about. Then, there's the traditional Mystery genre, which fills many book shelves and shows up in many television shows. That is what I'm talking about.

 

[Manbearcat]

So we have mysteries of the land that develop during play vs. the whodunit mysteries that library shelves are crammed with.

I'm not exactly clear on (a) what you're meaning by "the land" here and (b) how you're contrasting this with "whodunit."

See my post above about operationalizing things.

For instance, after 1.5 hours of play + many player moves + many complications and snowballing + many reveals/stipulations + a lot of conversation play churned out:

It (the disappearance of the dwarf and his forge) was succumbing to old age, entombed by the Ancient Blue Dragon, w/ the Frost Giant refugee turned pupil, in a bygone era.

A "Clue-ish" formulation of "whodunnit" or "what happened."

I'm curious (in both operationalizing and in the output of play) the contrast you're drawing here. I'm not saying there isn't one...but I am not able to see it.

 

[JonM]

Here is the thing on this, it comes down to game engine, procedures, and principles.

For instance:

* Player wants thing x to be true. Thing x being true doesn't overwrite already established fiction. Player x makes a move where the stakes are "is thing x true?"

Player gets a success.

Thing x is true.

GMing a red herring either now or introducing the red herring later in such a way that would render the player's won thing x is true is against the rules and against their GMing principles (say what honesty demands...play with integrity and a table-facing hand). The GM is constrained by these things and subsequent fiction is bound by this.

What if the player gets a success with complication?

Thing x is true but this other thing you don't want to be true (that doesn't undermine thing x being true) is also true...deal with it.

You can't make a red herring about thing x, but you can do some shenanigans with stuff that isn't thing x that doesn't violate prior fiction, rules, or principles.

What if the player gets a failure?

Thing x is not true. Deal with it.

Here is your "red herrings are game" move. And this can snowball into other things being not true that you (the player) want to be true. Or things can stabilize and the picture will suddenly flesh out, constraining the imagined space such that a, b, c, d, e, f, g, l, m, n, o, p are all locked in...the only bit of murk left is around h, i, and j. Subsequent play and the prior, binding fiction (and, of course, the rules and principles) will determine the nature of things.

---

Now if the question is "can you create a Story Now whodunnit where the GM is not constrained in the ways I've stated above?" The answer is "no, you cannot." But that doesn't mean that a whodunnit where curiosity is sated and the table participants are all both following and leading cannot emerge to create a skillfully played, satisfying mystery. It just means that the reveal of the whodunnit is operationalized in a particular way that precludes absolute GM authority in their preconceptions and extrapolations.

Okay, this is more what I'm getting at.

Unfortunately, what you are describing is pretty much exactly the way I was doing it, when I was doing what I called improv mysteries (I didn't even know about Story Now, then), and, while it did work, it was kind of lacking, compared to the planned ones. It was fun and all, but I didn't find it as satisfying, and I'm pretty sure the players didn't either. In comparison, it lacked nuance and layering. Sure, we could explain events in a way that held together and was even interesting, but it still felt exactly like that. There was no sense of "oh! it all makes sense, now!" I presume, because... well... we made it make sense, and everybody knew that.

Again, fun? Sure. As fun? Nope. No way.

So, for me, the moral of the story still seems to be that Story Now, as with most approaches, has areas where it shines and areas where you would be better off to look elsewhere.

 

[Manbearcat]

Okay, this is more what I'm getting at.

Unfortunately, what you are describing is pretty much exactly the way I was doing it, when I was doing what I called improv mysteries (I didn't even know about Story Now, then), and, while it did work, it was kind of lacking, compared to the planned ones. It was fun and all, but I didn't find it as satisfying, and I'm pretty sure the players didn't either. In comparison, it lacked nuance and layering. Sure, we could explain events in a way that held together and was even interesting, but it still felt exactly like that. There was no sense of "oh! it all makes sense, now!" I presume, because... well... we made it make sense, and everybody knew that.

Again, fun? Sure. As fun? Nope. No way.

So, for me, the moral of the story still seems to be that Story Now, as with most approaches, has areas where it shines and areas where you would be better off to look elsewhere.

Let me ask you a few questions:

* Do you think what you're responding to is your cognitive orientation toward how this is operationalized (rather than an objective quality...or do you think your cognitive orientation toward how it is being operationalized is you detecting actual signal of an objective quality)?

* Do you think you're responding to your sense (due to the experience you're citing above) that players cannot play skillfully through a mystery and reveal a truth about the "reality" of the shared imagined space that was hitherto unknown?

 

[Manbearcat]

Let me say this about myself.

I've played Clue a ton. I've played through probably 20 of the Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective Series.

"Is this a satisfying 'whodunnit' mystery in which it feels that skullful play has led to a satisfying reveal" depends upon many factors.

1) Clue entirely lacks depth. There is no visceral impact from the reveal. Its fun, but it (the play and the results) is nested in nothing more than inferrence + guessing + understanding the rules. There are no stakes and there are no deeper implications to any instantiation of play.

2) The variance in the Sherlock Holmes episodes are WILDLY swingy in terms of both (a) "does it feel like skillful play could/did lead to a successful and interesting reveal" and (b) if there is a visceral sense of the result of play being nested in something of depth/impact.

I can say (100 % and without hesitation) that the sort of mysteries that have been operationalized and resolved in the Story Now games I run are more broadly rewarding with more deeper implications than Clue and are profoundly more consistently rewarding from both a skilled play perspective and a "nested in something of depth/impact" than the Sherlock Holmes games.

Now a few of those Sherlock Holmes entries were absolutely fantastic from both a skilled play perspective and a "nested in something of depth/impact" perspective. There was a sense of the game following us around, of coherency in the operationalizing of us putting together the clues, and the "keep score" (against Holmes solving of the mystery) felt like there were stakes.

But my personal anecdote and the anecdote of the people who have played those games and simultaneously played in Story Now games I've run yield the same result. The best done Sherlock Holmes games (a) felt like our Story Now play except (b) the visceral impact of the reveal wasn't anchored in something deeper (because the shared imagined space of those games is vastly more finite, therefore the impact and stakes are less visceral, than that of our Story Now games).


EDIT - if its not clear what I'm getting at here, I'm saying there is a cognitive framing effect ("but there is extra-player volition in the form of a GM that gives shape, persistence, and continuity/coherency to mysteries that isn't/can't be there in Story Now games!") that is an artifact of the person who is orienting toward the play. It isn't an objective artifact of the play itself.

Put another way, there is likely something kindred with The Alexandrian's "dissociative mechanics" thesis happening here.