The discussion in the Star Trek thread, as well as some recent thinking in the wake of having finished series 1 and 2 of the new Doctor Who put to mind a realization about one of the problems of bringing certain kinds of stories from literature or TV to the tabletop realm.

The problem is explained, in part by explaining my title:  There is a school of thought that says that the Sherlock Holmes stories are not mysteries, because the author and the protagonist know more that the reader does, and thus the reader cannot possibly solve the mystery simply on the clues given.

There's a literary term for this, but I can't for the life of me remember what it is.  The phrase "perfect knowledge" comes to mind, but that's about it.  Shows what I get for spending more time in English writing than I was paying attention to literary terms.

The same problem crops up in Star Trek, and in Doctor Who.  The protaganists know more than the viewer could possibly know.  Scotty, Geordi and Data's heads are all jam packed full of technical details the viewer has no clue of, in part because they aren't even real.  In the case of the Doctor, he knows literally more than any human could possibly know, short of absorbing the entirety of time and exploding it's brain.  He also admits on countless occasions that he's literally just make it all up as he goes along, which is a good clue for roleplayers if you think about it . . .

The end of many a Star Trek or Doctor Who or Sherlock Holmes story, involves the lead protagonist suddenly revealing some fantastic conclusion supported by evidence that has never been prevented to the reader, a conclusion that the reader never could've come to.  I don't know how to bypass a temporal induction coil to restart a dying protostar, I don't know how to tell where a man lives just by looking at the dirt on the sleeve of his jacket, and I don't even know what the hell a cortical steroid even is.

Makes a great easy plot device in a story of a TV serial, but this becomes a problem in the case of RPGs because, well, the reader has become the protagonist as well, but without the perfect knowledge gained from being a product of the author.  

So how do we deal with it?  

The easy solution is, well, a skill roll.  It's standard wisdom in RPG circles that when character knowledge exceeds player knowledge, the quick and easy solution is just to let the dice handle it.  It is after all what character stats are for most of the time.  

It's a bit dull though, especially if, as it often happens in these sorts of shows, the solution in question is pretty much the climax of the whole story.  It also places all the burden on the GM, and can lead to a lot of railroading.  You can jazz it up a bit with some decent description from the GM, and maybe a series of rolls, get the whole group into it.

The alternative I've found that can work, is if the player's a good enough bullshitter to just play it by ear and come up with these sorts of solutions on the fly.  Which is why my friend Tyler always wound up playing the Time Lord whenever we played, because he was the sort who could come up with stuff like that straight out of his arse and have the GM buy it up straight.

It can be a bit tricky though.  And it sort of puts all the weight on the player.  You can make it a bit easier though, I think.  

Ask lots of questions.  Questions nobody, not even the GM actually knows the answer to.  Think of any possible piece of information anyone could possible want to know about the present situation, and ask the GM.

Get everyone involved.  All the players should be involved in the brainstorm, the more heads the better.

If you want a fantastic example of what I'm talking to, we can actually return to the TV material, and look at a situation where the all-knowing living plot device suddenly isn't available.  

In The Satan Pit, an episode from last season of Doctor Who, The Doctor stuck in a pit in the center of the planet, outside radio contact with rose and the research station's crew.  So Rose rallies them by getting them to think of what assets they have available, what their strengths are, what they know about the enemy.

I find that somewhere in this whole process of information gathering and brainstorming, someone will move to the idea phase.  It's like a universal ratio of rolepalying, that the more gratuitous information the players have at hand, the more likely even the most unimaginative of players will come up with a wild plan.  

The fun bit is, since this is all a load of made up nonsense anyway, any idea will work so long as the players agree to run with it, and the GM can figure out how to handle it.  

Which I suppose now that I think about it, is a convoluted way of saying that, unless you're brilliant at improv, the best way to simulate the closed box, perfect knowledge mystery, is to throw out convention, open the box, and if you're really determined to stick with the formula, just treat the whole brainstorming session as out-of-character up until the point someone gets The Idea, and make The Idea the beginning of the next scene, the scene where the players execute the brilliant new plan.

That's the theory, anyway.  Sounds good in my head, what do you folks think?

You got it all right.

But I cannot understand why anybody would want to emulate shitty franchises like these.

They aren´t constructed challenges, so what is left? Just some aesthetics and nostalgia. No, that´s rubbish for gaming, as has been proven time and time again.

Players need to do something, solve some problem. The onus is on the franchise to provide that, or it´s just shitty for gaming.

Or you deviate from the franchise and add an actual, solvable problem. And this needs a well defined world, where everything makes sense. And this is the first point where you have to deviate from the franchise.

If that doesn´t interest you, I advise you to seek out counsel with your nearest Thematic gamer, to truly emulate that "Narrative Dimension".

Arcane,
 I got a simple answer for you ....at least with Sci-Fi shows : a Technobable solution is a sign of bad writing.
 I like TREK - but thought all the stories where they solved the situation with "babble-tech-talk" were the worst ones.

 Doctor Who ? Thats a special animal. Most RPGs center around a group and technically the Doctor is more of an NPC that a group of advebturers might encounter.  Back in the '80s I did a STAR TREK adventure where the players met a later incarnation of the Doctor . He was kind of wobbly just after a regeneration.  The adventure worked out pretty well and they had fun.  His guest appearane didn't overpower them .

- Ed C.

Sherlock Holmes, Gregory House, The Doctor, Hercule Poirot . . .

I wouldn't say a particular literary device or style is "bad writing" if it produces characters that have utterly fascinated people for generations.  

The character's competence may stem primarily from a literary trick, rather than anything tangible to the reader, but it nonetheless produces a fascinating creature whose genius is the envy of everyone who sees it.

And while the manifestation of that genius may be much the result of devious writing, you'll find with most of these characters and stories that there is an underlying theme, a very encouraging one at that, that everyone of us could be just as brilliant so long as we apply, as Poirot would say, "our little grey cells".  Doctor Who is the most inspiring of the lot, with the Doctor often going on at length at the brilliance (and folly) of the human species.  

And it's fun to be the genius.  I just want a great way of letting the players be the genius in their stories, and letting them live out the kind of stories they love to watch.

Like I said, the device may be simple, it may be devious, you may even call it "bad", but it works, it inspires the reader, and it's sometihng that can be learned from and put to games.

QuoteLike I said, the device may be simple, it may be devious, you may even call it "bad", but it works, it inspires the reader, and it's sometihng that can be learned from and put to games.

What exactly do you want to distill from that?
I´m not sure I understood you.

Quote from: J ArcaneLike I said, the device may be simple, it may be devious, you may even call it "bad", but it works, it inspires the reader, and it's sometihng that can be learned from and put to games.

I don't see why.  In an RPG, I want to be able to react to a world that makes sense, and I want to do that with a character that I can understand, if not entirely relate to.

Relying on the deus ex machina can sometimes work in drama, but in a game it's just sloppy.  The solution you posit is just as damning as anything else made to cope with it; sitting around brainstorming deus ex machina solutions means time spent in bullshit sessions rather than playing the game and exploring the setting through your character.  Instead, you're exploring the setting out of character to such a degree that you might as well be sitting around on the porch playing, "What would Kirk do?" rather than playing an RPG.

YMMV, of course, but I want to be fighting klingons and chasing down my evil twin before he blows up Station Alpha-4 rather than sitting around talking about how a phase-induced warp coil transponder welded to the transporter array can fix everything.

I believe it was Bailywolf who once posted a very lovely bit about how part of a GM's role is making your players feel like badasses.  

That can mean a hell of a lot of different things, everyone has different things that give them that thrill, that make them feel like a stone cold badass.

For me, one of my favorite parts of roleplaying has always been the making of the plan.  Sitting there, pondering, drinking in the surroundings, watching, then suddenly, EUREKA!  I've got it, I've got The Idea, The Plan, and it will work, and it will save the day.  

I've always been very much an idea man, so it's a notion that appeals to me, and something I love to explore in games.

Quote from: J ArcaneI believe it was Bailywolf who once posted a very lovely bit about how part of a GM's role is making your players feel like badasses.  

That can mean a hell of a lot of different things, everyone has different things that give them that thrill, that make them feel like a stone cold badass.

For me, one of my favorite parts of roleplaying has always been the making of the plan.  Sitting there, pondering, drinking in the surroundings, watching, then suddenly, EUREKA!  I've got it, I've got The Idea, The Plan, and it will work, and it will save the day.  

I've always been very much an idea man, so it's a notion that appeals to me, and something I love to explore in games.

Are we talking specifically about making plans in the context of the game world, or are we talking about making plans to utilize technobabble and bullshit to win the day?

Because to me, they're entirely different.

QuoteI've always been very much an idea man, so it's a notion that appeals to me, and something I love to explore in games.

So, why don´t you play like that?
Tough challenge, constructed conundrum, some restraints and ressources and the players can solve it.

I always GM like that.

Or do you mean something different?
Do you want to swipe the technique to let the players think they planned well, when instead they didn´t?

I´m confused.

Quote from: J ArcaneFor me, one of my favorite parts of roleplaying has always been the making of the plan.  Sitting there, pondering, drinking in the surroundings, watching, then suddenly, EUREKA!  I've got it, I've got The Idea, The Plan, and it will work, and it will save the day.  

Reading your original post it struck me, that this is more of an individual player thing rather than a collective effort. I mean I've got a couple of players who enjoy the same aspects of roleplaying as you. No matter what type of characters or personalities they create, being the "ideas man" is always a component of said characters. I wonder is it the same for you? (It's something I definitely take into account when running games for these types of players)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RedFoxAre we talking specifically about making plans in the context of the game world, or are we talking about making plans to utilize technobabble and bullshit to win the day?

Because to me, they're entirely different.

The game world is a fiction, just as the world of Doctor Who or House or Sherlock Holmes is a fiction.

You seem to be describing a concrete process, where in my experience the reality is much more fluid than you seem to be implying.  

The details of a game environment have a habit of shaping themselves at the requirement of the action, the players, the GM, a whole host of things.

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.

It's not a real place, it's a place that comes around to being something like real as the players and the GM inquire of it.  The details are all up in the air, out in some other place, and by poking at it, we pull them into our world.  Sure we all start with some ideas, but the details have a tendency of being very fluid until the day of the event.

So when you say "within the context of the game world", that doesn't necessarily mean much to me, because there really isn't a game world to speak of until the players and GM make one happen at the table.

Which is honestly a description which also rather handly describes my thought processes right now, so I ask that you forgive me if I'm being a bit vague.

Quote from: David RReading your original post it struck me, that this is more of an individual player thing rather than a collective effort. I mean I've got a couple of players who enjoy the same aspects of roleplaying as you. No matter what type of characters or personalities they create, being the "ideas man" is always a component of said characters. I wonder is it the same for you? (It's something I definitely take into account when running games for these types of players)

Regards,
David R

I think what I'm getting at is that while it is often an individual thing, with an individual driving it's presence as an aspect of the game, it CAN be a collective thing as well.  And in fact, usually is even when it appears not to be, because every little bit of prodding leads towards that inevitable conclusion.

Quote from: J ArcaneI think what I'm getting at is that while it is often an individual thing, with an individual driving it's presence as an aspect of the game, it CAN be a collective thing as well.  And in fact, usually is even when it appears not to be, because every little bit of prodding leads towards that inevitable conclusion.

I think I get where you are going with this. I do have a couple of problems with your out of character solution though.

1. I think it breaks immersion (or the mood as my crew refers to it as) which my group values.

2. The "collective" part is problematic at least in my experience because the rest of my players have very little enthusiasm for brainstorming ideas out of character, they would much prefer if they were out of character to let the ideas man/woman come up with something and rolling with it.

At least in character they have the option of playing up character quirks and inter party banter which although may not contribute much to the "idea" it does add "something" to the game.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI think I get where you are going with this. I do have a couple of problems with your out of character solution though.

1. I think it breaks immersion (or the mood as my crew refers to it as) which my group values.

2. The "collective" part is problematic at least in my experience because the rest of my players have very little enthusiasm for brainstorming ideas out of character, they would much prefer if they were out of character to let the ideas man/woman come up with something and rolling with it.

At least in character they have the option of playing up character quirks and inter party banter which although may not contribute much to the "idea" it does add "something" to the game.

Regards,
David R

I'm inclined to agree with you.

Mind, "IC" and "OOC" in most of the games I've played can be fluid states as well, but that's neither here nor there.

What does sort of "break the feel" more than anything else, to me, is getting too wrapped up in which is which and drawing neat borders around it all.  

And really, that whole bloody session can't just be wished away.  It happened.  The best you can do is pretend it didn't, and that seems a bit artificial.

I just sort of tossed it out there really.

Quote from: J ArcaneWhich is honestly a description which also rather handly describes my thought processes right now, so I ask that you forgive me if I'm being a bit vague.

Well 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.)