Quote from: RedFoxWell it seems to me that you're asking for some sort of author-mode solution.  I'm approaching it from an angle wherein I wish to minimize authorial input as a player.

Which makes this proposal of yours something of a less than ideal solution.

(Author-mode meaning taking charge of more than the actions and reactions of a player-character; the traditional purview of the GM.)

See, that's the thing though.  I'm not really talking about anything even that concrete, which is what I was getting at here:

"I don't necessarily mean this as an actively shaped process, in the sense of a game like Universalis or something, but an incidental process that happens as the players and GM explore it."

I'm thinking more about stuff like, when a player asks you, the GM, some detail you hadn't even thought of or thought relevant, but to him it could be the most important thing in the world.  But you don't have the slightest bloody clue, so what do you do?

You make it up on the spot of course.  That's part of what a GM does, he has to know these things, and when he doesn't, he has to know them anyway.

The player has, in effect, shaped the world with a question, instead of a statement.  He doesn't necessarily control what the GM is going to say, but he has nonetheless shaped it by his inquiry.

It's Schroedinger's Box.  The act of asking the question shapes the result.

And it is this very effect which is harnessed in the brainstorming process, the question making process, so that in the end, you produce an end result very similar to what you get at the end of a Sherlock holmes mystery:  A solution that no one, GM or player, could possibly have thought of 5 minutes ago before the questions started.

Quote from: J ArcaneIt's Schroedinger's Box.  The act of asking the question shapes the result.

Ah, I see what you're saying now.  That's just normal play, however.  And in the case of setting-spawned inconsistencies, it puts a lot of burden on the GM where a more consistent setting would not.

It's the old, "Will this screw up the game?" conundrum, but if you have matter creation / transportation technology (or whatever) and you allow technobabble solutions to problems when on-the-spot inquiries are made, if you at all desire consistency then you're opening up a possible and annoying can of worms.  What seems a harmless and legitimate use of technobabble in one situation can lead to further situations where the consequences begin to spiral out of control.  And if you have to put the breaks on that through fiat, the game's already been damaged.

I think that Hinterwelt was searching for a more elegant solution.

Quote from: RedFoxAh, I see what you're saying now.  That's just normal play, however.  And in the case of setting-spawned inconsistencies, it puts a lot of burden on the GM where a more consistent setting would not.

It's the old, "Will this screw up the game?" conundrum, but if you have matter creation / transportation technology (or whatever) and you allow technobabble solutions to problems when on-the-spot inquiries are made, if you at all desire consistency then you're opening up a possible and annoying can of worms.  What seems a harmless and legitimate use of technobabble in one situation can lead to further situations where the consequences begin to spiral out of control.  And if you have to put the breaks on that through fiat, the game's already been damaged.

I think that Hinterwelt was searching for a more elegant solution.

If Hinterwelt came to this thread looking for a solution to his problem, he's in the wrong thread.

Hinterwelt's problem is simply the standard geek problem of taking everything too damn seriously.  He's what Russel T. Davies was thinking of I suspect when he talked about how he didn't worry about "canonicity" and "continuity" because the fans seemed to obsess about it just fine without him.  He's why I can't stand the vast majority of fantasy, because folks like him strip all the wonder and joy out of it with a catalog of meaningless details.

They want to put the butterfly under glass.

Those same details that are so useful in the moment are bloody worthless 10 minutes later, and well forgotten, they don't matter to the story or the action anymore, and getting hung up on them bogs down things.

I just want to have some fun, save the day, solve the crime, and wrap it all up in time to have a nice cup of tea.  

His problem, my problem, and my solution are as far removed as anything could be, because our mindsets are as far removed as anything could be.

Right, well I'll just bow out then.  Sorry.

I'm getting a bit lost in this thread.

I sometimes run mystery scenarios, I've run whodunnits involving finding the thief of a rare statue and ensuring its recovery, I've run whodunnits involving finding out who murdered a guest at a dinner party.

I always start by working out who committed the crime, how and why.  Once I know those things, who how and why, I have a solid base on which I can improvise any details that didn't occur to me.

So, if a player asks for an unexpected detail, I can think about what actually happened and work out quickly a sensible response.

What I do not do is work out who did it, how and why based on player input during the game.  I know some folk do that and enjoy it but for me it utterly misses the point of an investigative game.  In my games, the PCs may fail, they may as happened in the dinner party game find out who did it but lack the proof to make it stick, so it goes.

But otherwise, I don't find this that hard, you have to be sure to have multiple clues capable of discovery so that failing one roll doesn't stop the investigation, you have to ensure the mystery is capable of being unravelled so nothing too tricky, but with a bit of practice those are learnable techniques.

In the dinner party game I forget the motive, but the means was poisoning a speciality bread that it was well known the victim was unusually fond of and that would be present primarily for their enjoyment, all would eat it but it could be fairly certainly guessed that the victim would eat far more than anyone else.

The PCs discovered that everyone present was sick, but only the victim died.  They then looked to see if the victim ate anything different to the others, and learned they ate much more of this specialty bread.  They investigated the source of the bread and discovered that the bakery had lost its two master bakers the day before and so had had to hire a master baker from out of town who had fortuitously appeared that morning looking for work.

At that point, it was evident to the PCs how it was done, find out what happened to take out the two original bakers and where the replacement came from and you find your killer.

I'm not sure what the great difficulty with all this is, it's just practical techniques which can be learnt by reading the relevant novels or by discussing techniques with other gamers at places like this.

It has occured to me that what I just said regarding Hinterwelt is a bit harsh, and that perhaps some clarification is in order to better explain what I mean.

The two problems are superficially connected, in that his problem is the end consequence of a plot device I am talking about embracing.

The reason I say the two are so far apart is that literally, we have taken the exact opposite positions possible.  He hates the result of the plot device, while I seek to embrace it for effect.

HW's problem is that of expecting something from a genre that said genre does not offer.  Shows like Star Trek are, at heart, just adventure serials.  He wants Tolkien, when what he's been given is nothing of the sort.  It is an irreconcilable difference, essentially, because the genre is being asked to do something it was never intended or designed to do.  

The only "solution" to a problem of that nature is either not to play it, or embrace it for what it truly is and toss off the baggage.  Neither of which I suspect will ever be acceptable to him I suspect.

QuoteI'm not sure what the great difficulty with all this is, it's just practical techniques which can be learnt by reading the relevant novels or by discussing techniques with other gamers at places like this.

You have rather effectively summed up a proper mystery story, which serves as an excellent control sample for what I begun this whole train of thought with, which is this:

At heart, the stories we're talking about AREN'T proper mysteries.  Not in their source form.

They are adventure stories, but in the big climax instead of the hero punching out the bad guy with the power of his fists, or his sword, or his magic, he defeats the bad guy with the power of his intellect.  

He comes up with a cunning plan to save the day, solve the case, cure the patient, what have you.  

Simulating that, I think, requires a correspondingly different approach than a conventional mystery.

Quote from: J ArcaneIf Hinterwelt came to this thread looking for a solution to his problem, he's in the wrong thread.

Hinterwelt's problem is simply the standard geek problem of taking everything too damn seriously.  He's what Russel T. Davies was thinking of I suspect when he talked about how he didn't worry about "canonicity" and "continuity" because the fans seemed to obsess about it just fine without him.  He's why I can't stand the vast majority of fantasy, because folks like him strip all the wonder and joy out of it with a catalog of meaningless details.

They want to put the butterfly under glass.

Those same details that are so useful in the moment are bloody worthless 10 minutes later, and well forgotten, they don't matter to the story or the action anymore, and getting hung up on them bogs down things.

I just want to have some fun, save the day, solve the crime, and wrap it all up in time to have a nice cup of tea.  

His problem, my problem, and my solution are as far removed as anything could be, because our mindsets are as far removed as anything could be.

Wow. Did I tic you off some how? hmm.

In the other thread, I was simply looking for how one might create a game from a difficult or inconsistent setting. I actually site your solution, essentially group compliance to the setting. I have no problem with this as the means to enable a setting being played but it has , and your stated solution as well (as I understand it), has little to do with a rules set solution. By its nature, the problem must be solved by a "fuzzy" logic. Call it player fiat or player empowerment. You end up with the same solution. Players look at a problem, process the information and come up with a solution. The GM does not get in the way any more than he must and the players feel empowered and powerful. Am I close to understanding your solution?

In the case of the other thread, it is looking at system mechanics under microscope. I design games and like to discuss issues I have encountered. Some design issues can only be solved via play actions. I will always say, play trumps design every time. You can solve almost any system issue by simply stating "play the way you enjoy" but often it is good to (as a designer) supply the tools that enable play. That was my point and it has nothing to do with anal retention, geek obsession to detail or my knowledge of ST.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltWow. Did I tic you off some how? hmm.

I had a feeling you might get that impression.  I'm a bit sorry about that.  while the mindset does annoy me in some fashions, I didn't mean to snap about it, so I apologize if I've caused any offense.

QuoteIn the other thread, I was simply looking for how one might create a game from a difficult or inconsistent setting.

...

 That was my point and it has nothing to do with anal retention, geek obsession to detail or my knowledge of ST.

Bill

You betray your thoughts with your own language.  

"Inconsistent."  Right there you've made a value judgement, and a statement of expectations, all in one tidy little package.  

Let's state plain here, "inconsistent" is not a word without negative connotations.  

It also speaks to exactly what I was talking about in #21:  You are expecting something the setting simply cannot give, and approaching it in a mindset that is not compatible with it.

You want to make Tolkien out of The Shadow.  This is a goal that can never be achieved.  

In these sorts of adventures, every episode is written by a different writer, often at odd times and with no communication with one another, on pressing schedules, the works.  It's amazing they can keep all the character's names straight, let alone what sonic screwdriver setting cause ionic diffusion in copper-based life forms in episode #342.

But that's OK, it doesn't matter, because they don't care, they've just got a story to tell, and adventure to show us, and all msot of the audience wants is to see some exciting scrapes, maybe an explosion or two, and the Doctor to win out in the end.

The best solution I can think of to tell you is to simply try and clear your mind at the beginning of each episode, or the campaign, imagine that the story is being told with nothing but a basic series bible to go on, and just roll with whatever happens.

Or barring that, just find something else to play that fulfills your expectations, like a Tolkien or a Forgotten Realms or something that's nice and tidy and ordered.

Quote from: J ArcaneYou betray your thoughts with your own language.  

"Inconsistent."  Right there you've made a value judgement, and a statement of expectations, all in one tidy little package.  

Let's state plain here, "inconsistent" is not a word without negative connotations.  

O.k. I see a problem we are going to have. I am, amongst other things, an engineer by training. Inconsistent means not consistent in a quantifiable manner. No alue judgement in my mind in the least. I cannot control your impression of the word. If you woul dlike to use a different word for "states something in one part of the story then the something different in another part" I have no problem changing my word usage.

Quote from: J ArcaneIt also speaks to exactly what I was talking about in #21:  You are expecting something the setting simply cannot give, and approaching it in a mindset that is not compatible with it.

You want to make Tolkien out of The Shadow.  This is a goal that can never be achieved.  

In these sorts of adventures, every episode is written by a different writer, often at odd times and with no communication with one another, on pressing schedules, the works.  It's amazing they can keep all the character's names straight, let alone what sonic screwdriver setting cause ionic diffusion in copper-based life forms in episode #342.

But that's OK, it doesn't matter, because they don't care, they've just got a story to tell, and adventure to show us, and all msot of the audience wants is to see some exciting scrapes, maybe an explosion or two, and the Doctor to win out in the end.

Again, you seem (and I may be misinterpreting you) to be implying that I hate such stories. Quite the contrary, I like ST and Dr. Who. I am not finding fault with the writers (beyond the observation that they are writing it) for writing entertaining stories. I am searching for a solution that may not exist. I fully admit this is an intellectual pursuit that will, hopefully, make me a better game designer.

Quote from: J ArcaneThe best solution I can think of to tell you is to simply try and clear your mind at the beginning of each episode, or the campaign, imagine that the story is being told with nothing but a basic series bible to go on, and just roll with whatever happens.

Or barring that, just find something else to play that fulfills your expectations, like a Tolkien or a Forgotten Realms or something that's nice and tidy and ordered.

And here is the other part of the issue. You are looking at play solutions. I acknowledge those. To be honest, in terms of an explanation (not implementation) it is the easiest solution to the issue. I wished to explore a system solution. To do so, you need to look at the setting and translate it to a system. To date, i believe (and this is only my opinion) every company who has tried has failed. That does not, in any way, mean you cannot run a successful campaign for many years in these settings. Design and play are different matters. Design can affect play. Play ALWAYS trumps design.

I also think your discussion is more related to the nature of designing such systems than you seem to be admitting. See, if I was aiming for your segment (and in some ways I do) in the market I would be designing systems with strong meta-elements for manipulating the story, both from player's and GM's POV. However, IMO, this is not needed as your method of play does not require specific rules to make it work. It is reliant, if I understand correctly, on the skill of players and GMs. Since play trumps design, you will have a good game.

Bill

HW, I think JA has a point here. Star Trek OS, which is the only ST series I ever really followed, is "inconsistent" only if you try to convert it into some rigorously hard sci-fi sim RPG. And in that case it's not ST OS that's inconsistent, it's the mismatch of ST and rules set.

Re. mystery games, I've run dozens of these exactly as Balbinus has. Those are no problem. The problem does exist with deus ex techno in soft sci-fi, e.g. Scotty hooking up his bagpipes to his phaser in order to "stun" a hostile Klingon audience.

You'll never model that with sim rules. You'll need some mechanic like "technobabble points" that players can draw on, such that PCs get to do funky shit that defies quantifiable physics but proves human ingenuity, which as Balbinus said is precisely what ST OS is about.

Lastly, for calling that kind of thing "not a roleplaying game," or not an "adventure game," or whatever other stupidity, Settembrini wins a nice warm glass of Shut The Fuck Up.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity......The problem does exist with deus ex techno in soft sci-fi, e.g. Scotty hooking up his bagpipes to his phaser in order to "stun" a hostile Klingon audience.

 Actually, just PLAYING the bagpipes might be enough to startle or stun some alien races.


 You ever heard someone who was untrained play those things??  Oy Vey!


- Ed C.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityHW, I think JA has a point here. Star Trek OS, which is the only ST series I ever really followed, is "inconsistent" only if you try to convert it into some rigorously hard sci-fi sim RPG. And in that case it's not ST OS that's inconsistent, it's the mismatch of ST and rules set.

Oh, and I just wanted to make sure that it was understood that was what I was exploring. Three ST games have been produced in this manner and I was wondering if it was difficulty of translating story to system or more fundamentally the approach of the designers to the setting. I still believe ST is a victim o fits own success and thus proliferation of writers and stories in the setting. This adds to the inconsistencies making the setting all that more difficult to model.

As to mystery games and the approach presented, it relies heavily ont he group since it is a play solution. This is not good or bad but merely a factor for consideration. In such situations a bad day for the GM or players makes for a bad game. Conversely, a good day would make for a game so entertaining as to surpass anything a system could supply. I look at system design as an equalizing mechanism, not forcing a player of GM to a role but giving them the back up that might be needed if the boss just yelled at them or they lost their wallet that day. System is a tool, play is the entertainment.

Bill

Quote from: J ArcaneThe only "solution" to a problem of that nature is either not to play it, or embrace it for what it truly is and toss off the baggage.  Neither of which I suspect will ever be acceptable to him I suspect.

I felt I needed to address this separately. As I understand your position you advocate solutions based on players and gm's solving dilemmas through brainstorming. To me, this is what I call a play solution. There may be a system solution but it is secondary to the story being told. This is the choice of the group to play in this manner. At the root of such play you require absolutely no system. It is co-operative. Example:

GM: "You find the duchess lying on the floor with nary a mark on her. She is dead, eyes staring into the ether as though wishing for life. Her expression is desparate but oddly soft, as though she were half asleep as she realized her peril".

P1: "I am a doctor. I will examine her. She appears to have a puncture on her arm. It is black and looks as though hastily administered syringe."

P2: "I am a policeman and I have been investigating the Northside Ripper, a serial murderer most foul. Could it be him?"

P3: "I am a journalist and my paper has followed the Ripper though all of Chicago. He uses opium to sedate his victims then tortures them."

GM:"It appears, on moving the body, you find a match book..."

And so forth. No rolls of dice or points needed. You certainly could put a system to it but it is not necessary. A similar method could be applied to ST, Dr. Who or any long running story with inconsistencies in the canon.

My approach was one of wondering if it is impossible to model a setting of such a nature in a traditional fixed system. I prefer never to just shrug and say it is impossible. There are always other people more clever than I who can give me an insight I do not have.

I am sorry you have decided, out of hand, that I am a close minded person. I do not feel that is my position in the least.

Bill

You'll do it Hinterwelt and people will accuse you of telling them how to play or, my favorite, a good group and GM does that anyway.