The Story Now Discussion

[prabe]

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?

So, I'm not @JonM but I think I see where he's coming from.

I think it starts with a recognition that the primary (most-frequent) pleasures of whodunits (or, if you want to be more highfalutin, mysteries of ratiocination) are at least somewhat different from those of TRPGs. This is a thought I've expressed before, but briefly the pleasures of a whodunit are A) beating the detective to the solution and/or B) watching the detective figure it out (or, plausibly, following the detective's explanation of how he figured it out). Pleasure "B" above isn't a viable pleasure in TRPGs, and pleasure "A" can possibly be simulated if you have some sort of time constraint in-game--but that still involves "figuring it out."

Whodunits where there's an expectation that the players are going to solve the mystery do not seem as though they are compatible with playing Story Now. What seems as though it would happen more in a Story Now game is that the players would write the mystery's solution. Even the process you went through of filtering the possible (plausible?) solutions and eliminating them one by one, is more the latter than the former, I think.

At least, that's the thinking from people who don't intentionally play Story Now games.

 

[JonM]

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.

Agatha Christie, Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett, Sherlock Holmes, Murder She Wrote, Castle, Columbo, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Honestly, I didn't think I was being that vague....

 

[prabe]

Agatha Christie, Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett, Sherlock Holmes, Murder She Wrote, Castle, Columbo, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Honestly, I didn't think I was being that vague....

Columbo is great fun, but the pleasures are not quite those of a more-traditional whodunit, IMO. The question isn't whether you can figure out who did it, it's whether you can figure out how Columbo will solve it.

 

[Manbearcat]

Agatha Christie, Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett, Sherlock Holmes, Murder She Wrote, Castle, Columbo, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Honestly, I didn't think I was being that vague....

No I know.

See my last post about Clue and Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective and tell me what you think.

 

[Manbearcat]

So, I'm not @JonM but I think I see where he's coming from.

I think it starts with a recognition that the primary (most-frequent) pleasures of whodunits (or, if you want to be more highfalutin, mysteries of ratiocination) are at least somewhat different from those of TRPGs. This is a thought I've expressed before, but briefly the pleasures of a whodunit are A) beating the detective to the solution and/or B) watching the detective figure it out (or, plausibly, following the detective's explanation of how he figured it out). Pleasure "B" above isn't a viable pleasure in TRPGs, and pleasure "A" can possibly be simulated if you have some sort of time constraint in-game--but that still involves "figuring it out."

Whodunits where there's an expectation that the players are going to solve the mystery do not seem as though they are compatible with playing Story Now. What seems as though it would happen more in a Story Now game is that the players would write the mystery's solution. Even the process you went through of filtering the possible (plausible?) solutions and eliminating them one by one, is more the latter than the former, I think.

At least, that's the thinking from people who don't intentionally play Story Now games.

See my last post on Sherlock Holmes and tell me what you think.

I think this is a result of the cognitive framing effect about the perceived volitional force of the play. Both forms of play have a significant volitional force of play that is "extra-player" but only one has an endstate that is (with certitude) 100 % independent of the player.

What I am saying is how you feel about that bolded is a particular biographical fact of the person playing.

For me, that bolded takes a PROFOUND 2ND SEAT to:

1) Do I feel like this instantiation of "mystery play" felt like Skillful play uncovered the reveal?

2) Do I feel like this instantiation of "mystery play" was visceral in both the play and the results because it was anchored in something with depth and stakes?


Because my priorities of (1) and (2) are paramount AND it is a stubborn fact that instantiations of "Detective Mystery" are absolutely inconsistent in terms of both (1) and (2) above (SHCD is beloved and at its best it is fantastic...but its "best" is not part of the normal distribution of SHCD play), the priority of endstate that is (with certitude) 100 % independent of the player doesn't move the needle for me with much strength.

The hierarchy of the above priorities is a particular autobiographical fact about me just like some other arrangement of them is a particular autobiographical fact about another person. But that isn't an empirical claim about the objective nature of "whodunnit mysteries" and Story Now games. This is why I relate it back to the dissociative mechanics thesis (its a cognitive framing effect around orientation and hierarchical priorities).

 

[Campbell]

I generally think the level of myth is separate dimension of play. Some Story Now games are No Myth, but not all. Lady Blackbird, Dogs in the Vineyard and Sorcerer are not really No Myth. The most important distinction to me rather than one on the prep dimension is what is guiding your prep or scene framing.

In Story Now play your number one consideration is being a fan of the players' characters. You present situations because you want to know how they will respond. Once you put the scenario out there or frame the scene the players are supposed to take the lead and play these wonderful and possibly broken things with gusto. The issue with the whodunnit is not that there is a murder or secret backstory, but that the PCs are expected to solve it. Be a curious explorer of the fiction rather than trying to tell a story.

Story Now is a basic inversion of play. Rather than the adventure providing the impetus and the GM being something of a leadership position your job is just to facilitate the story of these characters. Your scenario design is all in service to finding out who they really are and providing honest antagonism. The second play becomes more about the scenario than the PCs in your mind you're back to a more trad orientation. Nothing wrong with that by the way.

 

[JonM]

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?

Well, I can't answer the first one, because I can't even figure out what you're getting at (the odd use of parentheses may not be helping). BTW, a piece of objective advice from someone who has been reading related posts (which far too often devolve into arguments), on these forums, for a while now: convoluted jargon-heavy paragraphs like that are exactly why the non-Story Now folks keep viewing Story Now people as elitists. (And the second question, calling into question my view of my players' skill, makes it look even worse.) Just saying. If you really want an answer to a question and aren't just trying to look clever, phrase it clearly, so that it makes sense to your reader.

As for the second one, I have great confidence in my players' skill. That's not the issue. As I clearly said, we did have fun. But there was a sense of... layering? that seemed missing. We could assume that there were nuances, if you see what I mean, but we all knew we were making assumptions, like that. It was just less satisfying than the mysteries I had carefully plotted. And, sure, maybe it might go better, another time, but I have no reason to assume that, so far.

BTW, I think Prabe kind of sees what I'm getting at, in this regard. Part of the fun is in the tone a Mystery sets, but that seemed to get lost, in the translation.

BTW, you seem to be assuming that I'm trying to prove some sort of point, e.g. that Story Now is somehow limited or inferior. Not so. My question was an honest one. Hawkeyefan demonstrated, clearly, that Story Now can handle supers and how, which is exactly what I hoped to hear. But can this also work for the Mystery genre? My sense is, "no", but I was hoping to be proven wrong. So far, not so much.

 

[prabe]

See my last post on Sherlock Holmes and tell me what you think.

I think this is a result of the cognitive framing effect about the perceived volitional force of the play. Both forms of play have a significant volitional force of play that is "extra-player" but only one has an endstate that is (with certitude) 100 % independent of the player.

What I am saying is how you feel about that bolded is a particular biographical fact of the person playing.

For me, that bolded takes a PROFOUND 2ND SEAT to:

1) Do I feel like this instantiation of "mystery play" felt like Skillful play uncovered the reveal?

2) Do I feel like this instantiation of "mystery play" was visceral in both the play and the results because it was anchored in something with depth and stakes?


Because my priorities of (1) and (2) are paramount AND it is a stubborn fact that instantiations of "Detective Mystery" are absolutely inconsistent in terms of both (1) and (2) above (SHCD is beloved and at its best it is fantastic...but its "best" is not part of the normal distribution of SHCD play), the priority of endstate that is (with certitude) 100 % independent of the player doesn't move the needle for me with much strength.

The hierarchy of the above priorities is a particular autobiographical fact about me just like some other arrangement of them is a particular autobiographical fact about another person. But that isn't an empirical claim about the objective nature of "whodunnit mysteries" and Story Now games. This is why I relate it back to the dissociative mechanics thesis (its a cognitive framing effect around orientation and hierarchical priorities).

I don't think that the GM deciding what the facts of the case are renders either A) the players/characters solving it or B) the method of solution if solved independent of the players. The one and only time I've run a mystery-of-ratiocination adventure in a 5E campaign, the possibility of not solving it always existed; and I never had any set idea of how the PCs would solve it, if they did.

But I don't exactly think we're arguing, here--I've played exactly one session of Story Now, and any opinions I have are, IMO, too preliminary to let out into the world. I don't see how one can run a mystery of ratiocination in that type of game, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Putting it differently, it seems as though the only way such an adventure would work is if the GM didn't know the facts before framing the story, and I don't think I have the kind of brain to run that type of adventure that way. I might not have the type of brain to run any kind of adventure that way.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't think that the GM deciding what the facts of the case are renders either A) the players/characters solving it or B) the method of solution if solved independent of the players. The one and only time I've run a mystery-of-ratiocination adventure in a 5E campaign, the possibility of not solving it always existed; and I never had any set idea of how the PCs would solve it, if they did.

But I don't exactly think we're arguing, here--I've played exactly one session of Story Now, and any opinions I have are, IMO, too preliminary to let out into the world. I don't see how one can run a mystery of ratiocination in that type of game, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Putting it differently, it seems as though the only way such an adventure would work is if the GM didn't know the facts before framing the story, and I don't think I have the kind of brain to run that type of adventure that way. I might not have the type of brain to run any kind of adventure that way.

Quick clarification (because its important) on what I mean by independent.

I don't mean the actual investigation or the order/nature of the final reveal of the mystery is independent of player input.

I mean the prefabricated endstate is 100 % independent of player input (eg a player cannot make a move at any point during play to affect that endstate...the endstate is always going to be something like "Colonel Mustard in the Kitchen with the Knife")

 

[JonM]

Columbo is great fun, but the pleasures are not quite those of a more-traditional whodunit, IMO. The question isn't whether you can figure out who did it, it's whether you can figure out how Columbo will solve it.

Good point. He doesn't quite fit in with the others, in that regard. There is sort of sub-genre of mystery where, as a viewer/reader, you're not trying to figure out a solution (you may even have been given it, already) but how our hero will figure it out. I guess that doesn't really translate into any sort of RPG, not just Story Now.