Gentechegioca
Gente Che Gioca => Sotto il cofano => Topic aperto da: Ron Edwards - 2011-10-28 21:06:54
-
I've noticed a great deal of confusion and struggle regarding playing the Solar System, particularly using the Near setting.
In preparing to play the German game DeGenesis, I decided to summarize my thoughts on using complex settings and more-or-less accidentally wrote a whole essay about it: Setting and emergent stories (http://adept-press.com/wordpress/wp-content/media/setting_dissection.pdf).
I welcome any thoughts or questions.
Best, Ron
-
is it necessary to know near and the solar system to read the linked PDF or not?
-
Antonio: No, as Ron's article is not specifically on TWON, but more in general on playing what it calls "setting-centric" Story Now.
Interestingly enough, the section which the article seems to regard as central consists of a set of techniques that can be applied to get this kind of play out of "traditional", incoherent game texts.
And for the designers out there, towards the end there is a bit of a pointer towards some unchartered territory in Narrativist game design...
That should be enough to whet the appetite of the uncertain. I'll maybe come back later with my comments and questions to Ron.
-
reading right now, thanks Ron!
PS: fanmail to Ron because you're actually going to play DeGenesis ... I followed that project for a looong time (unfortunately in a period of my life when I had no opportunities to roleplay).
I would love to know what you think of that game too! :D
-
the emphasis on and use of setting for Story Now play: as a creative element of these unstable situations, as a group tool for buy-in, and as a topic for which the events of play will carry thematic weight.
Well, Elar belongs to this specific category of Story Now.
It is well explained at Page 5, starting with point 2 "diagram for setting-centric Story Now play".
The way the Prologue and First Framing is played is a... unconscious quasi-experimental intuition that goes in that very same direction and the shifting sequence of Framing and Paragraph phases is a cycle that repeats points 3 to 5 until the playing group is satisfied with what they created at the table.
Those who played Elar with me in the demos can easily identify some techniques I use, like this:
In other words, the first thing you do to play is pick a spot on the world map, which provides the options for character creation in addition to the particular political and religious crises hitting flashpoint at that time
Normally choosing among Imperial territory and its in-court conspiracies, the non-denorean countries and their possible failed experiments or the White Dales and the secrets it may hold.
I cannot help but add this
The key transitional information for preparing comes right out of setting information, for instance, and character goals are not necessarily sources of conflict, let alone the central source.
As I used Character Goals as a flag for giving the players a specific thematic where they can force the presence of their characters and a in-game reason to be there.
And of course:
Enjoying the setting isn’t an end-stage outcome, it’s a starting and prevailing commitment. Nor is a single person expected to be the docent for the textual setting; rather, it belongs to everyone for inspiration and use. Play deepens it and provides nuances, and most importantly, changes it
... "if you want to assassinate that Empress-bitch, go and enjoy killing her".
Even the 10 points at page 7 and 8 are a great step-by-step guide on how to handle your game session in Elar.
Happy to find a confirmation of the central ideas that were at the base of the Elar/Fragma project.
Edit: note to self -> don't copy-and-paste from a PDF...
-
Hello Ron,
is there any chance that you could provide the original word file or similar? Reading the PDF is a bit problematic. With a rtf/doc/html I'll easily put together an ePub/mobi version.
-
isn't exalted another game that could be included in the fold? i was surprised it wasn't there!
-
well basically all traditional RPGs have a rich setting that could be put to good use following that structure.
I loved to see Unknown Armies being mentioned though ;)
-
With a rtf/doc/html I'll easily put together an ePub/mobi version
Fanmail (converting from the PDF is quite a pain, having a better format would save a lot of work).
-
If there will be an EPub version... I want it. I'm still on page 3, if I could use my e-reader...
-
I'm reading it.
Actually, I read in once, but I need to re-read it, I'm not sure what you wanted to point out, Ron.
-
Hello,
I have uploaded a copy of the essay in Word: Setting dissection (http://adept-press.com/wordpress/wp-content/media/setting-dissection.docx). If someone wants to make it into ePub/mobi (whatever those are), please do. Or if someone wants to translate it, that would also be wonderful.
Mattia, what I "wanted to point out" is what I wrote in the essay. To be absolutely specific (which I thought I already was), I am providing tools to make playing games like DeGenesis easy and fun for people who'd like to role-play with Story Now goals. For Italians, the problem applies very specifically to the World of Near material. For more background into my experiences with that setting, and a very practical application of the ideas, see the Forge thread [The Shadow of Yesterday] Drugs, hugs, knives, and Zu (http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=21952.0).
Best, Ron
-
Mattia, what I "wanted to point out" is what I wrote in the essay.
No doubt about that. ^_^
It's my fault: I don't have enough brain power in these days to process it... I'll read it again and I'll try to comment/ask on it.
-
Ok, here they are - still untested, let me know if you have problems reading them on your devices:
ePub version (http://www.box.net/shared/tqt5xue2bxz4d79hrtbp)
mobi version (http://www.box.net/shared/c3uhrt5u2k6qt2ryfei0) (might have issues with the images)
-
Hi Ron!
I told you that it was better to wait after Lucca to talk about your new essay. This place was deserted until yesterday! ;D
These are my observations:
1) About the first part, the description of "Story before", are you using different definitions of Partecipationism, Illusionism and Railroading instead of the ones in the Glossary? In this essay you talk of the difference as if it was based on the player's knowledge of being in a "story before" situation, and not (as in the Glossary) on the use of the "Black veil" by the GM.
This different is significant, because in my opinion, if we use the glossary definitions, the most functional type is not partecipationism, but Illusionism with the players "in the know" about what it's really happening. The black veil used not as a way of betray their trust but as a way, for everybody, to avoid calling out the illusion of reality. Everybody a partner in crime, everybody invested in keeping the secret. But in this essay you seem to have canceled this kind of Illusionism by considering this the same as partecipationism (where the GM tell them right in the nose that they are pawn and they have to accept it openly, the hell with the illusion and the dream)
2) About part II: it's ironic that looking back to my history of play, I find that way of using "setting" (choosing by myself a little part of it, having players characters fully integrated in the setting, tied to the existing social and geographic conflicts) used by me in different situation, and always with rather good effect. I am thinking for example of my very first D&D adventures I GMed, based on the AD&D module "Under Illefarm" by Steve Perrin (where the PC where all native of a little village with problematic neighbors) and the first part of my try of playing in Glorantha (the PCs were all members of a Rhino Riders tribe in Prax, having to bear with tribal affairs like initiation rites, migrations, raiding, etc, and with a ready-play conflict already in motion by having a male PC being the son of the chief of the tribe and a female PC the daughter of the tribe witch-woman, the other political power around)
The ironic part is that, betrayed as always by stupid "advices" in magazines and manuals, and by the moronic habits ingrained in the subculture, I considered every time these good results as "proof" that the group was "ready" to go to the next phase, to "bigger things"... and I always moved them away from their home setting to play "the better modules", with disastrous results. And I did see that not working at all, but I thought that my group was the problem, because "everybody else" enjoyed these "big story modules". Or at least, that was what was written in the magazines... (I would like to read a real survey, someday, about how many people really played Dragonlance. I personally don't know anybody who got to the end of the second module. Of 16. But at the time it seemed as everybody was playing it)
3) About Part III: see my previous comment. I have to say that these moments that I described were for the most part not "story now" games, so I have not a lot to say about using these techniques in real play. For the most part they were story-after and gamists, but they worked, using the general advice written in part II. It was trying to turn them into story-before in a bigger chunk of the setting (as advised by the rpg culture of the time) that ruined them.
4) about part 4: I still have not found the time to read Degenesis (I returned from Lucca with a lot to read)
5) about part 5 and 6:
The Megaplot:
the general widespread result (and this was the single perceived successful way to publish and recommended way to play in gamer culture by the early 1990s) was to transform a hobby of gamers and nascent designers into a mere captive market of periodical buyers and readers.
Probably that was the plan, though: to sell stuff to people even if they had not the time, chance or desire to play it...
About the principal culprit of all this, I already said by email that I consider TSR by far the first and worst offender (the time of the avatars was the first setting-wide megaplot, and it preceded AD&D2, not counting Dragonlance because in that case the setting came from the megaplot and not the other way around) , but that part I will post on the forge as you asked, seeing that the discussion there is going right there, and it's rather tangential to your essay.
To Alessandro:
well basically all traditional RPGs have a rich setting that could be put to good use following that structure.
I loved to see Unknown Armies being mentioned though ;)
No, a lot of traditional games have "big settings" in the sense that they have a really big list of monsters and npcs to fight against (or for), a patchwork of different micro-settings for when the players get bored (or to attract more players offering a lot of setting in one box) maps, etc.
But the "setting" in the book is not the "setting" in the Big Model. The first one is a physical product, the second one is a component of play. Often the second one is really much smaller, and it doesn't take a lot from the big list in the first one. Or the setting described in the book is bland and without any thematic hook. The examples are the biggest selling "setting" of the rpg market: where can you find anything to create theme in the Forgotten Realms? Or Dragonlance? With all these "good empires vs evil empires" tripe? (it's not surprising that the themes of the Dragonlance Novels are totally personal: personal duty vs personal honor or love, self-respect, revenge, power... it can be debated if they are treated in a mature manner or in a juvenile one, but there is theme in the Raistlin character story arc. But the setting doesn't enter in these themes, ever). Ravenloft was a INTENDED patchwork of different isolated "isles of terror". Other examples are the World of Darkness, Star Wars, etc.
If you know Glorantha, the difference is striking. And I am not talking only about Hero Wars. Even in 1980, with a system like Runequest that was dedicated to "simulation" above all else (and totally unsuitable to story now play), you did get Glorantha supplements where the "Bad guys" of one culture were the heroes of the other.
At the beginning, Lunars vs Orlanthy. Easy enough, it's celts vs romans with some fantasy trappings, right? (I am talking about first sight, I know the Lunars are Persians, Ottomans, the USA and Christians too, sometimes and somewhere, but let' keep this simple, right?). But then they go with... the point of view of Trolls? The Darkness creatures? (after reading "Trollpack" I wanted to play a troll for years. Never got to, the others wanted to play only D&D. Bah...). And then... CHAOTIC CREATURES? BROOS???? Are they out of their fucking mind? You go in the middle of the worst cesspool of chaos and evil in the entire world, Dorastor, and it's ruled by a... noble and refined broo?
As you can tell, with Glorantha it was love at first sight. And "sight" is the right word. I was never able to play in it. I only got to have a campaign based on it by being the GM, and with nobody other reading a single page of the books, it was hopeless. Sigh(t)!
Anyway, before I digress too much: the difference is really visible, evident, between a "setting" (list of meaningless bits) and a Setting, like Glorantha and Near (first version, the Shadow of Yesterday one). And in this industry the second type is very, very rare.
-
I think the essay is simply invaluable, especially Part III with its 10 steps procedure meant to suggest a way to prepare and run a setting-centric Story Now game when the source material is not very straightforward in explaining how to make use of the setting in order to get the most out of the game.
It reminded me of Dogs in the Vineyard town creation procedure in that it's an easy to follow, quite specific checklist that helps with the task of extracting, enhancing and developing the interesting issues integrated in the setting, making it easier for the players to create characters that are tied to the situation and that best incarnate, express and allow to address those same issues.
Sometimes one of the problems I have with setting-centric Story Now play is in selling the setting to other potential players (in Ron's words: "1. Choose a location. The group must discuss and become enthusiastic about the setting [...]"). I'm not sure it is an issue specific to this kind of play and it may simply be an instance of the more general "sell me a game" thing. The fact is that I noticed that, like magpies are attracted to shiny objects, at first many players appear to be more attracted to a colorful and imaginative setting than to the issues that the setting brings forth. There is nothing wrong with this: when we seat down to roleplay (Story Now) we are not interested in crafting a dissertation about some topic of interest to mankind; we are there to produce an interactive, negotiated fiction that, more or less directly, addresses those topics. So the "how" of a setting is at least as important as the "what", even more maybe. Yet I feel that what makes a setting-centric Story Now game click in the long run and what makes some players interested in the game at first doesn't always coincide. An example may be useful.
For a couple of years I have been fancying about organizing a Riddle of Steel game using as a setting a sligthly modified version of the Vosgaard region of the Birthright AD&D campaign setting. Quick summary for those who don't know about Birthright.
The Vos are a brutal, barbaric and superstitious culture, medieval Russia-flavoured, living in a cold merciless land. Hard people born from a harsh land (Conan anyone?). They live grim lives made of farming, fishing and raiding their neighbours, believe in grim, manipulative and violent gods and what they like the most is crushing their enemies, see them driven before them and hear the lamentations of their women.
There are a couple of overarching, related themes spanning the Vos culture at large.
The first is the issue of "unity": the only thing that seems to prevent the Vos from becoming a threat to the whole continent is that they are a divided and disorganized people, more preoccupied with internecine warfare and power struggles than interested in projecting their potential power elsewhere.
The second, related but more important, is the issue of "identity": two informal factions are developing in Vos society. The "Torva" are interested in preserving Vos' lifestyle and strictly adhere to the traditional precepts of Vos culture: they are xenophobic, despise merchants and traders, raid their neighbours, burn temples dedicated to foreign gods to the ground, etc. The "Nona" are still brutal but definitely more progressive and open to change and contacts with strangers and different lifestyles. They are also interested in trying to unite the Vos people into a single powerful kingdom. In the campaign timeline, the two factions are beginning to clash to determine the future of the Vos people. (As an aside, it's interesting to notice how the authors of the setting are ineherently leaning towards the Nona faction: while Torva relevant NPCs are very often evil-aligned, Nona NPCs are mostly neutral and a few are good).
These overarching themes find specific application at the local level in the setting: in an otherwise insignificant small kingdom named Melyy a few silver veins have been recently discovered generating a true "silver fever". Commoners are abandoning their farming and fishing activities to try their luck in the mines, organized trade-oriented people are exploiting the situation to gather money and influence while traditional warrior leaders have to face a flood of new people coming into Melyy from neighbouring kingdoms. At the same time those same neighbouring kingdom's leaders are turning their avid eyes towards the little Melyy and its silver mines. Basically, Melyy's society is on the verge of being transformed and everyone roles redefined. Such a situation, engineered by the setting authors, matches almost exactly Ron's 5th step in the procedure: 5. Aggravate the situation with a Trigger event – anything which destabilizes one or more of power, money, status, or resources. (it destabilizes all of them).
Now, I'm personally very interested in issues like identity and alienation. I think they are very relevant to today's society. Just think about how the world has changed in the last 15-20 years because of the attempt to extend globalization on a planetary scale: sometimes it was/is forcibly enforced, some other the transformation encountered little opposition and sometimes it was enthusiastically embraced. All the times it generated contradictions and further conflicts.
But the point is that a setting like the one I have just described puts its issues at the forefront and doesn't coat them with a shiny, fancy, especially original high fantasy colour that can draw the interest of players who are not so interested in those issues (I'm not saying this is a bad thing). So, unless you find someone who really really shares your deep interest, it happens quite often that, no matter how excited you are while you describe the setting, you end up staring at the 'meh' look in the eyes of your "convert-ee". And since the The group must discuss and become enthusiastic about the setting part is something you can't really skip if you want the game to be even possible, you better put your project on hold or find someone who is almost as excited as you are.
-
@ Moreno ... I disagree, but now I don't have the time to explain myself, and also I need a bit more time to reflect on your words and take a second look to Ron's ones.
But you'll hear from me again, soon! è_é
-
Moreno, I've come to think of Illusionism as the negative extreme, with any "in the know" indicating some degree of Participationism.
The distinction you're drawing is very finely-drawn, as I see it, perhaps too finely to matter. I see almost, perhaps complete identity between your two phrases: "the player's knowlege of being in a 'story before' situation" and "on the use of the 'Black Veil' by the GM." Well, maybe not complete. But very nearly complete.
It's no surprise that the author of Under Illefarn was Steve Perrin, no stranger to devotees of early RuneQuest. In fact, I recognize most of the authors of that series, notably Aaron Allston, one of the heavy hitters of early Champions.
Alessandro, I agree with Moreno. Not all settings are suitable, not intrinsically. I think it's possible to invent certain depth or details into a printed setting to make it more interesting; I found myself doing this when I was reading the Al-Qadim material, for example. The only problem with doing this is implementing it for actual role-playing, when I discovered that (whenever I tried) I was forced actually to re-write the whole setting.
My personal list of settings in the three relevant categories include
Powerful as written, play as written, bask in the wonderfulness: DeGenesis, Center Space, Glorantha (in a class by itself), Venus 2141
Plenty of potential but the authors didn't use it, highlight it, or perhaps even know it, or if they did, it was dodged or buried under crusts of other nonsense: Justifiers, Planescape, Underground, Fading Suns, The Whispering Vault, Tribe 8, The End
Very pretty but ultimately unusable for Story Now play, needs to be rewritten and profoundly re-focused in order to be played in this fashion: Al-Qadim, Jorune, Space: 1889
Please note that the above lists refer to the settings as written, without reference to the systems or instructions for play. Also note that I have omitted certain settings which are very good but require specific input from the GM (Zero, Lacuna), or any games in which setting is built by the group in some way (shock;, Sign in Stranger, In a Wicked Age, Sorcerer). Finally, the lists are not complete, merely intended as a snapshot.
Leonardo, I think the step you've raised deserves deep discussion in an Actual Play thread. It is, I think, an issue specific to this particular kind of play, both socially and procedurally.
... I feel that what makes a setting-centric Story Now game click in the long run and what makes some players interested in the game at first doesn't always coincide.
I agree. What that means to me is, my priority is not to make as many people in my gaming group attracted to this particular project for play, but rather to play it only with people who are.
... if you want the game to be even possible, you better put your project on hold or find someone who is almost as excited as you are.
Yes. Again, I think you should start a thread about how this was actually brought into practical, functional role-playing activity. I'd love to contribute to a discussion about that issue.
Best, Ron