TheRPGSite

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.)

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.

Quote from: GunslingerYou'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.

What will I do? I do so many things that seem to have results I am unaware of...;)

Bill

QuoteAnd 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.

I guess I just feel the the issue is entirely too fundamental to ever be solved in a systemic fashion.  

Sure I suppose I could take this brainstorming phase and try and force some codified system around it, or go from questions to statements as you did in your example above, or as so many trendy indie games have, but I think that would be largely an unnecessary stricture on a very fluid and natural process.  

But at it's core, as I've been trying to explain, this isn't a system issue, it's a genre issue, a style issue, and looking at it as a system issue is entirely the wrong way of going about it because no system can ever rewrite the entire original series, and that's exactly what you would have to do to get this "consistency" you seek so avidly.  

The best solution I have really seen systemically, were the "MacGuffin" and "Resourceful Pockets" skills in Time Lord, but there we're back to just boiling things down to a die roll and a move on, and thus all the problems I discussed with that solution in the original post.

Quote from: J ArcaneThe best solution I have really seen systemically, were the "MacGuffin" and "Resourceful Pockets" skills in Time Lord, but there we're back to just boiling things down to a die roll and a move on, and thus all the problems I discussed with that solution in the original post.

Not quite: a good description (from the players), some sub-plot elements (collecting the right bits - negociated between the players and the GM) a die roll and move on

This sort of thing used to happen all the time in Shards.  The refs would present us with a situation that they had no idea how it could/should be resolved, but in the confidence that we were creative and had lots of resources.  Sometimes it resulted in the campaign plot taking a massive leap to the right (like the time we protected an NPC from a major occult threat by making her the Queen of Faerie (and thus it was Faerie's problem now)), but a good GM can handle that

So you folks want mechanics for not-having-to-actually-solve-the-mystery-but-still-wanting-to-feel-smart?

Quote from: SettembriniSo you folks want mechanics for not-having-to-actually-solve-the-mystery-but-still-wanting-to-feel-smart?

I don't know if these folks do, but I'm willing to bet that is precisely what a huge number of folks want.

I mean, in my bread game the murderers got away with it, I think for many contemporary players that is just not acceptable.  The PCs must win, all must have prizes.  I'm not sure anyone here falls into that camp though, I suspect those folk post in less robust atmospheres.

Balbinus: Oftentimes I get the feeling it´s DMs who want to
"Pretend-it-is-a-mystery-without-actually-preparing-a-thought-out-mystery-to-solve"

Quote from: SettembriniBalbinus: Oftentimes I get the feeling it´s DMs who want to
"Pretend-it-is-a-mystery-without-actually-preparing-a-thought-out-mystery-to-solve"

Often that's true, many GMs would rather give the players the illusion of a challenge than an actual challenge, sometimes because it's easier and sometimes because they correctly realise that's what their players really want.

The whole concept that you choose the solution to the mystery based on players' ideas voiced during the game, which I routinely see recommended, is exactly that.  A GM shortcut designed to avoid the work of crafting a real but soluble mystery for the players.

But I think also many folk nowadays want essentially pablum, they want assured victory every time, to look cool without having to do any work for it.  And hey, it's their leisure time, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not what I'm in the game for.

Quote from: BalbinusI don't know if these folks do, but I'm willing to bet that is precisely what a huge number of folks want.

I mean, in my bread game the murderers got away with it, I think for many contemporary players that is just not acceptable.  The PCs must win, all must have prizes.  I'm not sure anyone here falls into that camp though, I suspect those folk post in less robust atmospheres.

I think that Settembrini hasn't actually read the thread, and needs to go bugger off somewhere else, instead of yammering like a buffoon.

It's not a system issue, it's a play technique discussion, and again, as I've pointed out to you already, we're not talking about real mysteries here.

QuoteBut I think also many folk nowadays want essentially pablum, they want assured victory every time, to look cool without having to do any work for it. And hey, it's their leisure time, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not what I'm in the game for.

I find something deeply flawed in the mindset of applying the term "work" to a game, and think such mindsets have no more place in a roleplaying game than they do in MMOs, where they're exceedingly popular amongst a small subset of very pathetic people with no lives, and the designers who like to milk them for cash.

I also find that 99 out of 100 what people are talking about when the speak of "challenge" or "working for it" in an RPG, is just scaling down the odds, and scalling up the "XP to level" numbers.  

Whoopie.  It continues to amaze me that people can be so terribly smug because their system of choice gives me an average of 30% chance of success instead of 50%, as if it makes them some kind of hardass.

Quote from: J ArcaneI think that Settembrini hasn't actually read the thread, and needs to go bugger off somewhere else, instead of yammering like a buffoon.

It's not a system issue, it's a play technique discussion, and again, as I've pointed out to you already, we're not talking about real mysteries here.

I was drifting the thread I admit.

On your dilemma, I think the Buffy rpg has much to teach us.

In the Buffy series, Buffy routinely beats up the vampires for a bit before staking them, to be honest it's never terribly clear why.  The real reason is that fights are more dramatic than insta-stakings.

In the Buffy rpg, a stake does 5x normal damage, but only if that would be enough to kill outright, if not it just does normal damage.  The result is that PCs beat up the vamps for a bit before staking them, as the system makes that a sensible strategy.  Accordingly, the PCs act as the characters in the show do, even though the characters in the show actually act irrationally.

Similarly, in Buffy we have a Slayer and a bunch of White Hats, essentially a superhero and a bunch of ordinary folk.  However, the ordinary folk contribute in the show and don't get wiped out as sensibly you would expect.  The game emulates this by giving White Hat characters far more drama points, which can be used to edit scenes, to amend wounds to being just flesh wounds or stuns, and for a variety of other effects.  Playing a White Hat becomes viable, indeed I personally prefer it, and in play the Slayer kicks ass while the White Hats contribute from the side lines, occasionally get lucky and sometimes slay a vamp but often more through apparent luck rather than skill.

The Buffy rpg is probably the best mechanical rpg emulation I've ever seen of a show in which characters behave in a way that makes no real world sense.

So, for a Sherlock Holmes rpg, one solution could be a mechanic where the PCs gain points for finding clues along the way, once they have enough points they can trade them in for a big reveal from the GM, which they can then use for the thrilling conclusion.  If the PCs don't get enough points, they never get to buy their big reveal, so challenge is still present but at the end of the adventure all going well they will suddenly have a burst of inspiration solving the plot.

These things can be done, it's just that it takes a slightly different approach.  Similarly with Hinterwelt's Star Trek issues, a Buffy rpg style approach would likely solve those by building in mechanical reasons to make it rational for the players to make their characters act like characters in the programme do.

Quote from: J ArcaneI find something deeply flawed in the mindset of applying the term "work" to a game, and think such mindsets have no more place in a roleplaying game than they do in MMOs, where they're exceedingly popular amongst a small subset of very pathetic people with no lives, and the designers who like to milk them for cash.

I also find that 99 out of 100 what people are talking about when the speak of "challenge" or "working for it" in an RPG, is just scaling down the odds, and scalling up the "XP to level" numbers.  

Whoopie.  It continues to amaze me that people can be so terribly smug because their system of choice gives me an average of 30% chance of success instead of 50%, as if it makes them some kind of hardass.

Did you miss the "it's their leisure time, there's nothing wrong with that" bit?

Anyway, what of it?  I work to improve my skiing and have more fun because I challenge myself, when I played Bridge each week I worked to improve my game and enjoyed it more for the greater challenge, when I play shoot'em ups I don't generally just set the difficulty at the easiest setting, I work to improve my skills because the game gives me more when it's more challenging (I generally set it at normal, as that for me is where the balance between work and fun comes out about right, others set it higher of course).

There's nothing strange about the idea that to get the most out of a hobby one may wish to put some work in and accept some challenge.

In terms of my personal taste, I find nothing personally very rewarding in a game where the GM and/or system assure me of absolute success every time, I find that unrewarding.  That doesn't make me hardass, but it is comparable to how I feel when playing computer games, bridge or skiing.

Buffy definitely does have a reputation for serving well for a situation like Dotctor Who, where the main character is, theoretically at least, much more powerful than the rest of the characters.  

It takes on a different form in Doctor Who, in that the Doctor's chief advantage is that he's a bloody genius.  sure he's rather physically capable as well, but the only real difference is that with him, sometimes he survives because of Time Lord physiology instead of pure luck like his companions.  combat capability isn't even really an issue in the series because, well, the Doctor doesn't generally fight things, except on rare occasions.

I forgot to say, I'm actually reading some Sherlock Holmes this week.

One story was a proper mystery, I guessed almost immediately the exact solution and was correct.  That's one though, otherwise they are as J explains, they're not mysteries and there is no real possibility of a reader solving the problem (well, some there is and I didn't, some there plainly isn't).

They're really crime stories, which is a different genre to mysteries and often confused with it.  Personally I think it's peculiarly ill suited to gaming, this particular manifestation (crime stories generally I think make great gaming and have been bizarrely neglected) but I think that the simple answer is that not everything which works in one medium will work in another, some things make great stories but lousy games and vice versa.

I can see the Buffy/Who comparison, it wouldn't be combat but you could have similar concepts to make it work.

With Trek, you'd need something to encourage sending down the bridge crew as an away team, which makes no sense at all on a moment's thought, something to encourage social rather than technical solutions to most issues and something to allow technobabble solutions on occasion.

Frankly, drama points might do much of it, I spend x drama points to have a relevant technical solution to this issue, does that not get us there?  The trick then is to structure the scenario so that technical solutions are just part of the overall solution.

Quote from: BalbinusDid you miss the "it's their leisure time, there's nothing wrong with that" bit?

Anyway, what of it?  I work to improve my skiing and have more fun because I challenge myself, when I played Bridge each week I worked to improve my game and enjoyed it more for the greater challenge, when I play shoot'em ups I don't generally just set the difficulty at the easiest setting, I work to improve my skills because the game gives me more when it's more challenging (I generally set it at normal, as that for me is where the balance between work and fun comes out about right, others set it higher of course).

There's nothing strange about the idea that to get the most out of a hobby one may wish to put some work in and accept some challenge.

In terms of my personal taste, I find nothing personally very rewarding in a game where the GM and/or system assure me of absolute success every time, I find that unrewarding.  That doesn't make me hardass, but it is comparable to how I feel when playing computer games, bridge or skiing.

I seek challenge in RPGs not through system, but through the challenge of taking on new roles.  

The actual events of a game, the "challenges" a character may face in the game, aren't real, they aren't a challenge to me personally, only to the character.  So getting hung up on them, to me, doesn't make much sense, there's nothing innately meaningful about a challenge unless I'm literally partaking in it.

If I want that kind of challenge, I'll play a LARP.  There's nothing challenging about ramping the statistics in the GM's favor.

The challenge to me is only in coming up with interesting characters and stories to tell, portraying them well, reacting to the events as they pass.

Quote from: J ArcaneThe challenge to me is only in coming up with interesting characters and stories to tell, portraying them well, reacting to the events as they pass.

Well, that's true for me as well, spot on so.  I guess perhaps where we differ is that if I'm assured success regardless of what I do I start to feel that what I do doesn't matter, and so in a way I'm no longer really contributing to the game.

In a way, the possibility of failure is what makes my choices in the game meaningful for me.  If I succeeed whatever I do, then what does it matter what I do?

Quote from: BalbinusI can see the Buffy/Who comparison, it wouldn't be combat but you could have similar concepts to make it work.

With Trek, you'd need something to encourage sending down the bridge crew as an away team, which makes no sense at all on a moment's thought, something to encourage social rather than technical solutions to most issues and something to allow technobabble solutions on occasion.

Dude, it just hit me.  You build up "Technobabble points" from solving problems non-violently.  When you've got enough of those, you can turn them in to essentially short-circuit a solution from scratch.  There may be a shopping list of effects, like Dramatic Editing from Adventure!, wherein the more points you have the more broadly you can change things with technobabble.

It, like the staking vamps thing, is a problem of mechanical pacing of behavior.

You know this sounds a lot like Greg Stolze's beer and pretzels game In Spaaace!

Which I believe is available free now.