At the Intersection of Skilled Play, System Intricacy, Prep, and Story Now

[Ovinomancer]

I am simply outlining a program of analysis/research to address the question. It wasn't intended to be an attack on anyone's position. In terms of talking about 'theorycrafting' what I am saying is we won't derive stronger and more useful conclusions merely by inventing more examples. Now, going beyond that, and I think we'd need to go significantly beyond that, might turn out to be rather more than can be accomplished in a thread, so maybe you can object to the agenda on the basis of feasibility. However, I'm treating everything discussed as an open question, not me trying to prove something to you. That is, if such a project was undertaken, my feeling is it would support my position, but I'm not creating a hill to die on here. Its a hypothesis, not gospel.

You preserved the rhetorical win but disclaimed the work. You've established that you firmly believe that my point is incorrect, and that thinking along the lines you've sketched will show it, thereby claiming a rhetorical win, but you've disclaimed the intent to actual complete the teamwork/ thinking. This is attempting to set up some cover of rigor and fairness when the boiled down output is naught but you saying you think I'm wrong.

I'll happily accept a reasoned rebuttal. I will point out that the standout examples of story now play all feature robust mechanical resolution systems and eschew consensus resolution. MLwM does this, DitV does this, BW does this, PbtA does this, FitD does this, even 4e does this. Heck, Cthulhu Dark does this.

 

[pemerton]

you can roleplay with conviction a character in these games, but the point of the game isn't to find out who these characters are

A modest side-point: not all story-now play is aimed at finding out who the characters are. For instance, some is focused on setting (HeroWars/Quest is the poster child here; this was also the main focus in my 4e D&D play). And some is focused on situation (The Dying Earth is one example; Prince Valiant can be, too, though I would say it sits more on the character-situation interface than The Dying Earth does).

You and I (A and O) are playing some hypothetical GM-less RPG in which we somehow share authority over constructing the fiction.

<sinp>

So, A and O somehow produce a fiction, and the characters are somehow placed within it, and some aspect of how that fiction is created, or a third process will then push the characters into action by engaging them in a thematically relevant way (operationalizing the premise). We are both concerned with story, and we are expected to do our part by carrying forward the character interaction with this premise, as appropriate to whichever character we are playing (Ca and Co let us say). Now, I'm going to presume here that Ca and Co interact in some fashion, otherwise there is no ONE story, right? They are both engaged with the same fictional elements and there's probably some direct relationship between them.

Now, your thesis is that I cannot build a system where A can both participate in authoring the fiction in a consensual manner with O, and still be an effective protagonist in the role of Ca. The CP is going to make this an interesting dance, but lets see where we can go with it. I hold that we can accomplish a good design that meets the criteria of Story Now, at least in a real-world sense. I agree with the thought in this thread that pure theorycrafting on this kind of thing is of limited value, so anything we were to come up with would potentially meet with THEORETICAL objections, but its what works in practice that I care about.

If I've understood you properly, then not only is this something that can be done, but I've done it, playing Burning Wheel with a friend.

The full write-up of play is here.

We each burned a PC - in my case Aedhros, a Dark Elf Deceiver, in his case Alicia, a Weather Witch. We agreed on an opening scene - both disembarking from a ship in Hardby with Resources 0 and no shoes. I asked why Alicia hadn't been paid. Because bottom has fallen out of the market in soft cheese, so the cargo can't be sold. I ran with that, framed a scene, Alicia's player earned a Fate point for her Base Humility in accepting the ship-master's refusal to pay her, Aedhros picked the ship-master's pocket (we agreed he got 1D of cash for his troubles), and then Aedhros proposed that the two of us find a room for a day or two before robbing the master in the night. Alicia agreed.

More scenes were framed, on the rough principle that I managed the adversity for Alicia and my friend managed the adversity for Aedhros. The upshot was that Alicia worked in the kitchen of a dodgy dock-side inn in exchange for board; Aedhros sneaked into the inn and persuaded Alicia to join him first in robbing the inn-keeper; we waited for a mist to roll in (as predicted by Alicia) so that we could sneak about and easily escape; we broke into the inn-keepers room and Alicia disabled him with her martial arts, then Persuaded Aedhros not to murder him, but swooned as a result of casting her spell; and Aedhros relieved the inn-keeper of his strongbox (2D cash) and his shoes, and carried the unconscious Alicia through the mist down to the docks, so she could rest and recover her Tax.

The elements of consensus in this play - around scene-framing, stakes-setting (eg we agreed that the master's purse would have 1D of cash, and the inn-keeper's strongbox 2D) and consequence resolution (eg in determining the upshot of my failed Resources check to purchase accommodation for both Aedhros and Alicia, which is what precipitated the robbing of the inn-keeper) - didn't prevent us playing to find out, and at least in my case discovering new things about Aedhros (like the fact that he hesitated when it came to murdering the innkeeper, which is what gave Alicia the time to cast her Persuasion spell).

 

[Ovinomancer]

A modest side-point: not all story-now play is aimed at finding out who the characters are. For instance, some is focused on setting (HeroWars/Quest is the poster child here; this was also the main focus in my 4e D&D play). And some is focused on situation (The Dying Earth is one example; Prince Valiant can be, too, though I would say it sits more on the character-situation interface than The Dying Earth does).

If I've understood you properly, then not only is this something that can be done, but I've done it, playing Burning Wheel with a friend.

The full write-up of play is here.

We each burned a PC - in my case Aedhros, a Dark Elf Deceiver, in his case Alicia, a Weather Witch. We agreed on an opening scene - both disembarking from a ship in Hardby with Resources 0 and no shoes. I asked why Alicia hadn't been paid. Because bottom has fallen out of the market in soft cheese, so the cargo can't be sold. I ran with that, framed a scene, Alicia's player earned a Fate point for her Base Humility in accepting the ship-master's refusal to pay her, Aedhros picked the ship-master's pocket (we agreed he got 1D of cash for his troubles), and then Aedhros proposed that the two of us find a room for a day or two before robbing the master in the night. Alicia agreed.

More scenes were framed, on the rough principle that I managed the adversity for Alicia and my friend managed the adversity for Aedhros. The upshot was that Alicia worked in the kitchen of a dodgy dock-side inn in exchange for board; Aedhros sneaked into the inn and persuaded Alicia to join him first in robbing the inn-keeper; we waited for a mist to roll in (as predicted by Alicia) so that we could sneak about and easily escape; we broke into the inn-keepers room and Alicia disabled him with her martial arts, then Persuaded Aedhros not to murder him, but swooned as a result of casting her spell; and Aedhros relieved the inn-keeper of his strongbox (2D cash) and his shoes, and carried the unconscious Alicia through the mist down to the docks, so she could rest and recover her Tax.

The elements of consensus in this play - around scene-framing, stakes-setting (eg we agreed that the master's purse would have 1D of cash, and the inn-keeper's strongbox 2D) and consequence resolution (eg in determining the upshot of my failed Resources check to purchase accommodation for both Aedhros and Alicia, which is what precipitated the robbing of the inn-keeper) - didn't prevent us playing to find out, and at least in my case discovering new things about Aedhros (like the fact that he hesitated when it came to murdering the innkeeper, which is what gave Alicia the time to cast her Persuasion spell).

Did you roll dice? If you did, the conflict resolution was mechanical, not consensus. Every game has some consensus seeking even if only on the exact shape of the current fiction. What you seem to describe here is a more collaborative way to create situation and describe outcome, but there's a complete dearth on how you actually resolved the conflicts. More, please.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You preserved the rhetorical win but disclaimed the work. You've established that you firmly believe that my point is incorrect, and that thinking along the lines you've sketched will show it, thereby claiming a rhetorical win, but you've disclaimed the intent to actual complete the teamwork/ thinking. This is attempting to set up some cover of rigor and fairness when the boiled down output is naught but you saying you think I'm wrong.

I'll happily accept a reasoned rebuttal. I will point out that the standout examples of story now play all feature robust mechanical resolution systems and eschew consensus resolution. MLwM does this, DitV does this, BW does this, PbtA does this, FitD does this, even 4e does this. Heck, Cthulhu Dark does this.

I'm puzzled as what earned your hostility, but be that as it may. I think you mistake me. I'm perfectly willing to undertake this exploration, lets do it! Obviously I do believe I can establish my hypothesis, but as far as I know the best way to do so is attempted falsification, so I'm very much not opposed to the exploration of the ways in which you propose the idea is flawed. OK?

Anyway, another avenue might be a thorough analysis of @pemerton's play of BW without a full time GM and the players alternating GM duty. Let me know what you think of that option, otherwise I'll go ahead and build as much of a game as everyone feels is required to address the question.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Did you roll dice? If you did, the conflict resolution was mechanical, not consensus. Every game has some consensus seeking even if only on the exact shape of the current fiction. What you seem to describe here is a more collaborative way to create situation and describe outcome, but there's a complete dearth on how you actually resolved the conflicts. More, please.

I read the play report, back when it was posted. Its quite detailed actually. Modulus the factors involved in co-GMing it seemed to be pretty much bog-standard BW. I am confused about the dice thing, of course they rolled dice, everyone rolls dice... conflict resolution is generally THE central nexus of mechanics in most RPGs, is it not? Even Story Now ones.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I read the play report, back when it was posted. Its quite detailed actually. Modulus the factors involved in co-GMing it seemed to be pretty much bog-standard BW. I am confused about the dice thing, of course they rolled dice, everyone rolls dice... conflict resolution is generally THE central nexus of mechanics in most RPGs, is it not? Even Story Now ones.

Because consensus conflict resolution is the players negotiating the outcome without using dice or any other mechanic. They decide together what happens solely through negotiation.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm puzzled as what earned your hostility, but be that as it may. I think you mistake me. I'm perfectly willing to undertake this exploration, lets do it! Obviously I do believe I can establish my hypothesis, but as far as I know the best way to do so is attempted falsification, so I'm very much not opposed to the exploration of the ways in which you propose the idea is flawed. OK?

Anyway, another avenue might be a thorough analysis of @pemerton's play of BW without a full time GM and the players alternating GM duty. Let me know what you think of that option, otherwise I'll go ahead and build as much of a game as everyone feels is required to address the question.

You've now said in three posts that you think you are right and that you want to do the exploration to show it, but you haven't actually done any of the showing part. Kindly put up?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

OK then...
I would propose a simple game system model. Here's one that is an extrapolation of another game I've run a few times, and could also be thought of as a simplification of games like BW to a degree. Each player constructs a character (presumably there's an agreement on a genre and general milieu, I don't think that stuff is super relevant though). Each character consists of a description including something they believe, something they want, and something/someone they know (and how or why). The player then names 2 traits, which are restricted to being a 3-5 word descriptive phrase. 7 points are divided between the two traits. Each character also starts with an agreed upon number of additional 'free dice'. By convention this is something like, say, five.

Once the characters have been constructed, the players alternate framing scenes which relate to the belief, want, or knowledge/relationship of the other player's character. They may choose to place their own PC in frame, or not, but each scene must follow in some logical way from previous fiction (so most anything goes at first I guess).

The goal is simple, to have fun challenging each other and yourself. Mechanical resolution is a simple pool. A player declares some sort of intent, and names a proposed level of difficulty required to achieve it within the current scene frame/position. The other player can accept this, or they can spend some of their free dice in order to increase the difficulty. The first player can also add free dice to his pool, which starts at the level of one of his attributes, whichever one he can justify engaging (or if none, then 0). The other player is free to object to this determination, they will have to talk it out. Once the size of each pool is determined, dice are rolled, and the one who gets the most high rolls wins. If the player achieves his intent, then he gets to frame the rest of the scene, showing how he succeeds. If he fails, then the other player gets to describe how his plans go awry. Alternatively the other player can hit the loser with a twist, which is pure fiction, but is persistent (lets say it results in the other player being able to invoke it as a 'misfortune' in the next scene). Finally, he could hit the loser with an 'affliction', which reduces one of his attributes by the loss margin during his next scene.

As an incentive, lets say that if you lose in a scene, you get to keep all the dice played in that scene and add them to your free dice. So, there's a real game going on here where the players can help or hinder each other's characters, as they see fit.

Now, there should be an additional consideration in this game, a reason why the players would really cooperate on the fiction, or not. In other words there really aren't yet any solid win cons or loss cons. There could be some kind of score kept. Or the players could agree on some parameters for a story arc which includes some kind of win cons, like whomever gets the girl wins, or whoever first fulfills their desire, etc. Honestly I think it should be a bit cleverer than this, but I'm just noodling here.

So, I think this can work, though it might not without some tweaking. I'm pretty sure the basic mechanics are workable though. The story building part might be a little rough though, again, it seems like the incentive part of this needs to be highly considered if it is going to really exhibit Story Now reliably. Perhaps the best strategy is to just make things very explicit. Both PCs have to address an agreed upon premise (IE it has to be spoken to in the character description, and the object of framing scenes is to engage it). So, then incentive will be related to how that goes. A character's intent in a scene might well not be particularly to get something they want, but to have a certain type of experience relative to the premise.

Anyway... its a rough start.

 

[Ovinomancer]

OK then...
I would propose a simple game system model. Here's one that is an extrapolation of another game I've run a few times, and could also be thought of as a simplification of games like BW to a degree. Each player constructs a character (presumably there's an agreement on a genre and general milieu, I don't think that stuff is super relevant though). Each character consists of a description including something they believe, something they want, and something/someone they know (and how or why). The player then names 2 traits, which are restricted to being a 3-5 word descriptive phrase. 7 points are divided between the two traits. Each character also starts with an agreed upon number of additional 'free dice'. By convention this is something like, say, five.

Once the characters have been constructed, the players alternate framing scenes which relate to the belief, want, or knowledge/relationship of the other player's character. They may choose to place their own PC in frame, or not, but each scene must follow in some logical way from previous fiction (so most anything goes at first I guess).

The goal is simple, to have fun challenging each other and yourself. Mechanical resolution is a simple pool. A player declares some sort of intent, and names a proposed level of difficulty required to achieve it within the current scene frame/position. The other player can accept this, or they can spend some of their free dice in order to increase the difficulty. The first player can also add free dice to his pool, which starts at the level of one of his attributes, whichever one he can justify engaging (or if none, then 0). The other player is free to object to this determination, they will have to talk it out. Once the size of each pool is determined, dice are rolled, and the one who gets the most high rolls wins. If the player achieves his intent, then he gets to frame the rest of the scene, showing how he succeeds. If he fails, then the other player gets to describe how his plans go awry. Alternatively the other player can hit the loser with a twist, which is pure fiction, but is persistent (lets say it results in the other player being able to invoke it as a 'misfortune' in the next scene). Finally, he could hit the loser with an 'affliction', which reduces one of his attributes by the loss margin during his next scene.

As an incentive, lets say that if you lose in a scene, you get to keep all the dice played in that scene and add them to your free dice. So, there's a real game going on here where the players can help or hinder each other's characters, as they see fit.

Now, there should be an additional consideration in this game, a reason why the players would really cooperate on the fiction, or not. In other words there really aren't yet any solid win cons or loss cons. There could be some kind of score kept. Or the players could agree on some parameters for a story arc which includes some kind of win cons, like whomever gets the girl wins, or whoever first fulfills their desire, etc. Honestly I think it should be a bit cleverer than this, but I'm just noodling here.

So, I think this can work, though it might not without some tweaking. I'm pretty sure the basic mechanics are workable though. The story building part might be a little rough though, again, it seems like the incentive part of this needs to be highly considered if it is going to really exhibit Story Now reliably. Perhaps the best strategy is to just make things very explicit. Both PCs have to address an agreed upon premise (IE it has to be spoken to in the character description, and the object of framing scenes is to engage it). So, then incentive will be related to how that goes. A character's intent in a scene might well not be particularly to get something they want, but to have a certain type of experience relative to the premise.

Anyway... its a rough start.

Also not consensus. You have mechanics that are not consensus seeking and that conclusively resolve conflict when applied.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Also not consensus. You have mechanics that are not consensus seeking and that conclusively resolve conflict when applied.

I guess I'm not really following what your argument is entirely then, because clearly there are inputs from all parties here. I guess maybe we now have to have a discussion about what is and isn't a form of consensus. That is, this discussion seemed to start with a question about MLwM, and Fiasco, and their bona fides as Story Now games (at least Fiasco). It SEEMS to me what I've proposed is a pretty minimal analog of that, but I'm happy to have a discussion of the key differences.

Anyway, by thinking about it, I have arrived back at RE's observation about Story Now (Narrativism) and reward structure, lol. Its rather interesting when you see how robust some of these models are, things just 'fall out'. In any case, certainly you could make a game where consensus was more pervasive. There ARE limits before the Czege Principle bites you though, and then its much harder to generate any drama.