Montroll, Origami, and Game Design

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

There's been a lot of talk about rpg design in the blogosphere, and one idea that a lot of folks have is that anyone who has ever tweaked the rules of an rpg is, in all important respects, a designer.

In one sense, I suppose that is true. In another sense, it may be meaningless. If one defines all gamers as designers -- since I'm not sure there exists a gamer who hasn't tweaked the rules -- then, to a degree, the term "designers" becomes meaningless.

I suppose it is true that if I play Monopoly or Encore using a set of house rules, what I am playing is not Monopoly or Encore, but a different game. Nevertheless, this does not mean that I -- or I and my fellow players -- have suddenly designed a new board game in the same sense that someone who designs, creates, markets, and sells a new board game has done.

John Montroll once wrote that he could tell if a given origamist would or would not go on to design original origami models. If the folder is trying to recreate the model exactly as it appears in the book, and is content with that, that folder will not design models. This is where I fit in on the origami spectrum. My goal is to fold a perfect Montroll or Lang or .

If, on the other hand, the folder creates the model, and then starts fiddling with it, making changes, that folder may well go on to design models. That isn't me. I am content to copy what I see.

mnemex said that my analogy did not apply to rpgs. Basically, he's correct. I have tweaked rules, and borrowed bits and pieces, and collaged, and otherwise did fiddling. But, I think Montroll's idea may still hold the key to explaining the difference I believe exists between fiddling with rules and designing games in the narrower sense.

Contentment. I am content to copy a Montroll exactly. This is no small feat for me. I am an intermediate folder, and I have trouble with a lot of Montroll's (relatively) simple designs. And that's cool, but I will never design models with that attitude.

I am largely content with the OTE rules system. Have I twiddled with it? Yes. And then, I stopped, and it may be years before I make another change to my default rules system. I am content.

Sure, I run other systems. And, I may tweak those. I am giving serious thought to whether I want to tweak Sorcerer in ways that I know Ron Edwards would warn against. Sorcerer is, moreover, a game that has a built in "Tweak Here".

But again, there is an end point where I am content, and that end point does not involve trying to sell the result, whether for money or for ideology or simply because I want lots of people to try it.

The people discussing design theory who then apply it to great games which they later sell? They are not content. They are driven. They cannot not create.

I think that's the key point of difference.

Oh, there are side points as well. If I use a tweak in my group, I don't give a dang whether anyone I am not playing with will ever use that tweak. Authors of a lot of the indie games have made it very clear that they want their games played as they were written, by the rules. If the game is not played by the rules, they reckon that one of two things is going on. Either the rules are broken, or the gaming group will discover that they are not having fun and that there was a really good reason for the rules to be played as written.

But, mostly, I am content to get something that works and keeps me happy week after week. I like cutting edge, but I'm leary of bleeding edge. I play with design. I may be a designer, but I am not a Designer. Designers are not content. They have tasted the Wild Magic that may bring much satisfaction, but never peace.

Montroll, Origami, and Game Design

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

There's been a lot of talk about rpg design in the blogosphere, and one idea that a lot of folks have is that anyone who has ever tweaked the rules of an rpg is, in all important respects, a designer.

In one sense, I suppose that is true. In another sense, it may be meaningless. If one defines all gamers as designers -- since I'm not sure there exists a gamer who hasn't tweaked the rules -- then, to a degree, the term "designers" becomes meaningless.

I suppose it is true that if I play Monopoly or Encore using a set of house rules, what I am playing is not Monopoly or Encore, but a different game. Nevertheless, this does not mean that I -- or I and my fellow players -- have suddenly designed a new board game in the same sense that someone who designs, creates, markets, and sells a new board game has done.

John Montroll once wrote that he could tell if a given origamist would or would not go on to design original origami models. If the folder is trying to recreate the model exactly as it appears in the book, and is content with that, that folder will not design models. This is where I fit in on the origami spectrum. My goal is to fold a perfect Montroll or Lang or .

If, on the other hand, the folder creates the model, and then starts fiddling with it, making changes, that folder may well go on to design models. That isn't me. I am content to copy what I see.

mnemex said that my analogy did not apply to rpgs. Basically, he's correct. I have tweaked rules, and borrowed bits and pieces, and collaged, and otherwise did fiddling. But, I think Montroll's idea may still hold the key to explaining the difference I believe exists between fiddling with rules and designing games in the narrower sense.

Contentment. I am content to copy a Montroll exactly. This is no small feat for me. I am an intermediate folder, and I have trouble with a lot of Montroll's (relatively) simple designs. And that's cool, but I will never design models with that attitude.

I am largely content with the OTE rules system. Have I twiddled with it? Yes. And then, I stopped, and it may be years before I make another change to my default rules system. I am content.

Sure, I run other systems. And, I may tweak those. I am giving serious thought to whether I want to tweak Sorcerer in ways that I know Ron Edwards would warn against. Sorcerer is, moreover, a game that has a built in "Tweak Here".

But again, there is an end point where I am content, and that end point does not involve trying to sell the result, whether for money or for ideology or simply because I want lots of people to try it.

The people discussing design theory who then apply it to great games which they later sell? They are not content. They are driven. They cannot not create.

I think that's the key point of difference.

Oh, there are side points as well. If I use a tweak in my group, I don't give a dang whether anyone I am not playing with will ever use that tweak. Authors of a lot of the indie games have made it very clear that they want their games played as they were written, by the rules. If the game is not played by the rules, they reckon that one of two things is going on. Either the rules are broken, or the gaming group will discover that they are not having fun and that there was a really good reason for the rules to be played as written.

But, mostly, I am content to get something that works and keeps me happy week after week. I like cutting edge, but I'm leary of bleeding edge. I play with design. I may be a designer, but I am not a Designer. Designers are not content. They have tasted the Wild Magic that may bring much satisfaction, but never peace.

Context, Stew, and What Works

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

Much rpg blogosphere chat on Vincent Baker's 'blog, anyway mostly amicable, often tense, occasionally crossing over into potential flame has gone more or less like this:

New Idea
Yuck!
Cool!
Period of Fast and Thick Comments,
Reformulation of Cool Idea
Cool! (from previous Yuck-sayers)

A lot depends on the context of the idea. So, one of the ideas under consideration is "You don't own your character. Game designers should play with this."

For me, this was problematic until I found contexts I was comfortable with that already used this idea. One is the Letter Game that I am playing with mnemex and batyatoon, and another is the Ars Magica idea of grogs.

Vincent pointed out that when he's got his Game Designer Hat on, he's going to talk differently than when he does in a finished work, where the dangerous game design ideas are put in the appropriate context for Joe Gamer, who is then looking at a complete game, not a concept in a vaccuum. Among the conclusions one might draw from this is: RPG design is like stew. You might not want to look too closely at the preparation, or, if you do, You Have Been Warned.

All well and good, and already old news. Man, that 'blogosphere moves fast. And many of Vincent's -- and other people's -- points seem so bleeping obvious when one stops and thinks.

But, there's that context question. Much of the time, the first context we're in is React to Dangerous New Idea context. And, a lot of the time, there's a hidden context. If you are commenting on a 'blog, are you doing this from home, with plenty of rest and relaxtion? Are you doing this in the breaks between your day job? How are you doing outside of the 'blogosphere? Stressed? Happy? Cranky that you just can't keep up with the bleeping 'blogosphere? This colors your posts.

This is, I think, a 'blog version of Vincent's Lumpley Principle, which, if I understand it correctly, is simply that rpgs are games played by real people, and the social dynamics of this group of real people are an important factor in the game. 'Blogs and responses are written by real people (one presumes), and the social dynamics of this group of real people are an important factor in the dialogue.

There is another factor that I think is making me leery of some of the new ideas that are actually not so new. I don't have a catchy name for it.

The idea that one does not have sole ownership of one's character is not, as Vincent pointed out, actually new. Ars Magica, as I said, starts to play with this idea. Okay, there is a clear distinction between shared grog characters and more-owned non-grog characters. Nevertheless, there is this now Respected and Traditional rpg providing a safe context for the new and dangerous idea. Does this prove that, if one remembers context, the difference between talk about design and an actual game, and how to stay civil in an online discussion, that all is well?

Not necessarily, although remembering all of these items is certainly a good thing. Ars Magica works as a game, provided you want the sort of game it provides. I have not been having the same experience with a lot of the indie games, and I want to.

That is, Ars Magica, OTE, and other pre-indie explosion games work for me. I have a game. It is a complete game. I can play it, and I have played secure in my belief that I understand that what is supposed to happen is what is happening.

This is still too rare in my experience with indie games. Fr'ex, I like Primetime Adventures. I really like it. But, it took several rounds of discussion on the Forge forums before my group figured it understood all the nuances of this not very complicated game. Note that I am picking on PTA because it is, IMO, one of the best of this crop of games, and one that I have actually gotten my group to play, more than once, and one that I am actually ready, willing, and eager to play again.

I am finding that, for many indie games, a demo is essential if we are to have a prayer of being able to play it. I think this is a problem.

I am finding that there is significantly more to some of the indie games than I had thought. This is a problem, if an odd one. At GenCon Indy, I purchased Under the Bed and Bacchanal. I enjoyed reading both games, but found them light and fluffy, and mentally consigned them to the category of "party games" as opposed to "games I really want to play".

And there they would have stayed if I had not read various posts on the Forge forums and in other places. This is a problem: The game has not sold itself well enough for me to play it. More, without the information on the Forge, if I had tried to play either game, I would, at best, have gotten the light and fluffy results I would have expected. Now, I've met the authors of both games, and, while I am sure they are delighted by the simple fact of making a sale, I am also sure that they want their games played and understood.

All a gamer should need is the game itself.

Aside: I am ignoring the games-that-need-x-books-to-be-playable. One of the many things I like about the indie games is the philosophy that a game should be complete in one book, and a relatively small book at that.

You shouldn't need to have the game designer packaged with the game. You shouldn't need to consult forum post after forum post or to hunt for hours through the 'blogosphere in order to play the game. You shouldn't need a demo to be able to play the game. You should be able to play the game after reading the game.

OTOH, this isn't exactly a new complaint either, is it? It's just in a different context, because the indie games are pushing the boundaries of what we're used to and because the indie game designers are trying to raise the bar.

Context, Stew, and What Works

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

Much rpg blogosphere chat on Vincent Baker's 'blog, anyway mostly amicable, often tense, occasionally crossing over into potential flame has gone more or less like this:

New Idea
Yuck!
Cool!
Period of Fast and Thick Comments,
Reformulation of Cool Idea
Cool! (from previous Yuck-sayers)

A lot depends on the context of the idea. So, one of the ideas under consideration is "You don't own your character. Game designers should play with this."

For me, this was problematic until I found contexts I was comfortable with that already used this idea. One is the Letter Game that I am playing with mnemex and batyatoon, and another is the Ars Magica idea of grogs.

Vincent pointed out that when he's got his Game Designer Hat on, he's going to talk differently than when he does in a finished work, where the dangerous game design ideas are put in the appropriate context for Joe Gamer, who is then looking at a complete game, not a concept in a vaccuum. Among the conclusions one might draw from this is: RPG design is like stew. You might not want to look too closely at the preparation, or, if you do, You Have Been Warned.

All well and good, and already old news. Man, that 'blogosphere moves fast. And many of Vincent's -- and other people's -- points seem so bleeping obvious when one stops and thinks.

But, there's that context question. Much of the time, the first context we're in is React to Dangerous New Idea context. And, a lot of the time, there's a hidden context. If you are commenting on a 'blog, are you doing this from home, with plenty of rest and relaxtion? Are you doing this in the breaks between your day job? How are you doing outside of the 'blogosphere? Stressed? Happy? Cranky that you just can't keep up with the bleeping 'blogosphere? This colors your posts.

This is, I think, a 'blog version of Vincent's Lumpley Principle, which, if I understand it correctly, is simply that rpgs are games played by real people, and the social dynamics of this group of real people are an important factor in the game. 'Blogs and responses are written by real people (one presumes), and the social dynamics of this group of real people are an important factor in the dialogue.

There is another factor that I think is making me leery of some of the new ideas that are actually not so new. I don't have a catchy name for it.

The idea that one does not have sole ownership of one's character is not, as Vincent pointed out, actually new. Ars Magica, as I said, starts to play with this idea. Okay, there is a clear distinction between shared grog characters and more-owned non-grog characters. Nevertheless, there is this now Respected and Traditional rpg providing a safe context for the new and dangerous idea. Does this prove that, if one remembers context, the difference between talk about design and an actual game, and how to stay civil in an online discussion, that all is well?

Not necessarily, although remembering all of these items is certainly a good thing. Ars Magica works as a game, provided you want the sort of game it provides. I have not been having the same experience with a lot of the indie games, and I want to.

That is, Ars Magica, OTE, and other pre-indie explosion games work for me. I have a game. It is a complete game. I can play it, and I have played secure in my belief that I understand that what is supposed to happen is what is happening.

This is still too rare in my experience with indie games. Fr'ex, I like Primetime Adventures. I really like it. But, it took several rounds of discussion on the Forge forums before my group figured it understood all the nuances of this not very complicated game. Note that I am picking on PTA because it is, IMO, one of the best of this crop of games, and one that I have actually gotten my group to play, more than once, and one that I am actually ready, willing, and eager to play again.

I am finding that, for many indie games, a demo is essential if we are to have a prayer of being able to play it. I think this is a problem.

I am finding that there is significantly more to some of the indie games than I had thought. This is a problem, if an odd one. At GenCon Indy, I purchased Under the Bed and Bacchanal. I enjoyed reading both games, but found them light and fluffy, and mentally consigned them to the category of "party games" as opposed to "games I really want to play".

And there they would have stayed if I had not read various posts on the Forge forums and in other places. This is a problem: The game has not sold itself well enough for me to play it. More, without the information on the Forge, if I had tried to play either game, I would, at best, have gotten the light and fluffy results I would have expected. Now, I've met the authors of both games, and, while I am sure they are delighted by the simple fact of making a sale, I am also sure that they want their games played and understood.

All a gamer should need is the game itself.

Aside: I am ignoring the games-that-need-x-books-to-be-playable. One of the many things I like about the indie games is the philosophy that a game should be complete in one book, and a relatively small book at that.

You shouldn't need to have the game designer packaged with the game. You shouldn't need to consult forum post after forum post or to hunt for hours through the 'blogosphere in order to play the game. You shouldn't need a demo to be able to play the game. You should be able to play the game after reading the game.

OTOH, this isn't exactly a new complaint either, is it? It's just in a different context, because the indie games are pushing the boundaries of what we're used to and because the indie game designers are trying to raise the bar.

Contentment, Designers, and Cool

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

Another thought on rpg designers and contentment.

Okay, so, there's Some New Game out there. I hear about it, and it sounds waycool. Everyone thinks it is, including the designer who wrote it and his or her fellow designers. I buy it, and it seems waycool to me as well. Of course, finding time to play even one game of it in the next 12 months is challenging, and actually finding time to run a campaign of whatever length the system supports exponentially harder.

And, then, there's Some Other New Game in a few months. It's got different ways of being cool. And part of me is thinking, "Wait! I haven't wrapped my brain around the last nifty new game!" (or the last 5 or...) And it feels, sometimes, as if just as I'm discovering something, everyone else decides it's passe.

This is probably at its worst among the indie designers who are pushing the envelope. They are not content to stop where they are. There's fresh territory to be explored up ahead.

And, this isn't a bad thing. But, I still want time to wrap my mind around the old waycool games and concepts.

Contentment, Designers, and Cool

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

Another thought on rpg designers and contentment.

Okay, so, there's Some New Game out there. I hear about it, and it sounds waycool. Everyone thinks it is, including the designer who wrote it and his or her fellow designers. I buy it, and it seems waycool to me as well. Of course, finding time to play even one game of it in the next 12 months is challenging, and actually finding time to run a campaign of whatever length the system supports exponentially harder.

And, then, there's Some Other New Game in a few months. It's got different ways of being cool. And part of me is thinking, "Wait! I haven't wrapped my brain around the last nifty new game!" (or the last 5 or...) And it feels, sometimes, as if just as I'm discovering something, everyone else decides it's passe.

This is probably at its worst among the indie designers who are pushing the envelope. They are not content to stop where they are. There's fresh territory to be explored up ahead.

And, this isn't a bad thing. But, I still want time to wrap my mind around the old waycool games and concepts.

Sufferings and Tribulations

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

This is a piece I published in Lee Gold's gaming apa, Alarums and Excursions, with thanks to mnemex for the title. I thought of it while vaguely musing on questions of push, pull, and to what degree these terms discussed on Sin Aesthetics interested me. Contents are slightly edited for lj format consistency, and are probably at a tangent to Mo's point.

***

Players do not always want their characters to triumph with ease. Indeed, they often want their PCs to suffer -- but on their terms. A GM is likely to be more successful in making a PC's life miserable if she takes pains not to make the player's life miserable.

This seems obvious. After all, the player is not the PC, and should be able to distance himself from the character. But, in practice, it is not obvious. It isn't that GMs set out to make their players miserable. However, GMs often spring surprises on players, and are, in turn, sometimes surprised by a player's negative reaction to what they assumed was an entertaining plot twist. Players generally have a certain amount of emotional involvement with their PCs. This is something most GMs know, intellectually, at least, but can forget to factor in to their plans. If it factored in correctly, a player's emotional involvement can work in everyone's favor.

I have been on both sides of the GM screen, except that, these days, none of us seem to use the screens. No loss. I have found that when nrivkis gives me a heads up about certain things she plans to do to make the PCs' lives difficult, I feel like a co-conspirator with her against the PC, rather than like I am in an adversarial relationship with the GM. This does not mean that I have a problem every time she springs something that she does not run past me, but there are certain things that have worked better when I was given a heads up, and certain things that probably would have worked better if I had been given a heads up.

I think it is good that, in ebartley's Hub game, Marius does not wind up helpless most of the time. But, I think it important that he does wind up in over his head every once in a while, and sometimes, I try to find a way to tell this to ebartley.

It would seem a fairly easy thing to do, saying, "You know, Marius should get in over his head again." But there's a complicating factor that I hadn't been able to put my thumb on until mnemex helped me identify it.

mnemex's Principle: The player who asks the question should not supply the answer, whether or not the player is the GM.

For example, I may have a clear idea of exactly how much and what kind of trouble I want my Hub PC, Marius, in, and how I want him to get out of it, but at that point, I'm scripting, not gaming, as Josh explained. For it to be gaming, I might say, "Do something like X" and then let ebartley decide where to take it from there. This was also true when ebartley decided that she wanted her Cthulhupunk PC, Jay, to get captured by Ox. Or, if mnemex asks me to come up with an adventure where his PC, Firemaker, gets to use a magical string with knots that release the wind, he is supplying an answer and having me come up with the question. Note that, even though I am supplying the question / situation / set up, it is mnemex who decides when, how, and even whether to use the answer he initially specified.

If the GM sets up a mystery or a situation requiring intervention, the GM should not be the one to decide what the resolution will be. The GM should generally have a solution to problems in mind either, but that's a different issue. "Solution" does not have to mean "solution to the mystery"; it can mean "method of learning the solution that needs to be used."

This is not to say that scripting is always wrong. agrumer once posed and solved the problem of one of his Cthluhupunk PCs getting another to come on an adventure. This worked because it was dealt with quickly and did not slow the plot down. It was not something to be solved in session, but something to be explained briefly, as one dots the i and crosses the t.

When mnemex read the previous paragraph, he said that, in terms of the essay he wrote on shopping, agrumer was dealing with something that was either Routine or Difficult, but was not Extraordinary.

In general, for the Extraordinary, whoever asks the question may not answer it. Whoever sets the terms of the request may not fulfill it. Nevertheless, when a player has a request / question, the player usually also has an ideal answer or a range of answers in mind. This may explain why GM attempts to fulfill player requests may result in frustration, since the GM's answer or range of answers is not always identical to the player's. The player often imagines the situation beyond the point where what he wants can be explained to the GM without scripting, and the GM's ideas can fail to live up to the player's imagination, although mnemex notes that it can be extraordinary when the GM's ideas exceed the player's imagination -- or vice versa.

For example, suppose I want Justin, my PC in the Altclair game, to meet Leviathan. Once I tell this to nrivkis, the GM, she must be the one to set the terms of that meeting, at least if we're having a game session. If I insist on being the one specifying the details of what happens at the meeting, I should probably just write a story and show it to nrivkis. If she has no objection, we can agree that the story describes what happened when Justin met Leviathan. This is fine, if everyone agrees, but it is not an RPG session, and we are not roleplaying.

Thus, I may have a general or specific idea of what I'd like to happen, but I can't tell the GM most of it if I want the experience of being gm'd -- if I want the pleasure of getting what I want while not being in control. The GM has certain assumptions about how her world should work and what I might enjoy, but cannot know with certainty what I do want. It is unlikely that she will write the answer / adventure that I imagined. This would involve telepathy. She may write an adventure that is good enough and that is a different one from what the I had in mind. She may have enough of a rapport to get fairly close to my ideas. She may take things in a direction I don't like.

Again, I have been on both sides of the invisible GM screen. nrivkis had a request for an adventure for Cadji, her PC in the Cthulhupunk game, and I don't think the Cadji adventure I ran worked out entirely as she would have wished. But, unless she wants to write a story and ask me if she can treat it as What Happened, she's stuck with my interpretation.

What I am describing here is a power dynamic. The player wants to give up a certain amount of control in return for being given what he wants. This is not a dynamic that is -- or should be -- unquestioned; indeed, much work done at the Forge and elsewhere, including A&E, involves questioning the nature of the GM-Player power dynamic, how it can be modified, whether there needs to be such a dynamic, and whether there needs to be a GM at all. mnemex, reading early drafts of this essay, and noting the obvious parallels with certain kinds of consensual relationships best left to the readers' imagination, argued that this power dynamic is one of the key ingredients of RPGs. I am not sure. It is a key ingredient of the type of RPG that I prefer playing most of the time, but I do like other types for variety. And, the way I game is not and need not be the way everyone prefers to game.

Sufferings and Tribulations

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

This is a piece I published in Lee Gold's gaming apa, Alarums and Excursions, with thanks to mnemex for the title. I thought of it while vaguely musing on questions of push, pull, and to what degree these terms discussed on Sin Aesthetics interested me. Contents are slightly edited for lj format consistency, and are probably at a tangent to Mo's point.

***

Players do not always want their characters to triumph with ease. Indeed, they often want their PCs to suffer -- but on their terms. A GM is likely to be more successful in making a PC's life miserable if she takes pains not to make the player's life miserable.

This seems obvious. After all, the player is not the PC, and should be able to distance himself from the character. But, in practice, it is not obvious. It isn't that GMs set out to make their players miserable. However, GMs often spring surprises on players, and are, in turn, sometimes surprised by a player's negative reaction to what they assumed was an entertaining plot twist. Players generally have a certain amount of emotional involvement with their PCs. This is something most GMs know, intellectually, at least, but can forget to factor in to their plans. If it factored in correctly, a player's emotional involvement can work in everyone's favor.

I have been on both sides of the GM screen, except that, these days, none of us seem to use the screens. No loss. I have found that when nrivkis gives me a heads up about certain things she plans to do to make the PCs' lives difficult, I feel like a co-conspirator with her against the PC, rather than like I am in an adversarial relationship with the GM. This does not mean that I have a problem every time she springs something that she does not run past me, but there are certain things that have worked better when I was given a heads up, and certain things that probably would have worked better if I had been given a heads up.

I think it is good that, in ebartley's Hub game, Marius does not wind up helpless most of the time. But, I think it important that he does wind up in over his head every once in a while, and sometimes, I try to find a way to tell this to ebartley.

It would seem a fairly easy thing to do, saying, "You know, Marius should get in over his head again." But there's a complicating factor that I hadn't been able to put my thumb on until mnemex helped me identify it.

mnemex's Principle: The player who asks the question should not supply the answer, whether or not the player is the GM.

For example, I may have a clear idea of exactly how much and what kind of trouble I want my Hub PC, Marius, in, and how I want him to get out of it, but at that point, I'm scripting, not gaming, as Josh explained. For it to be gaming, I might say, "Do something like X" and then let ebartley decide where to take it from there. This was also true when ebartley decided that she wanted her Cthulhupunk PC, Jay, to get captured by Ox. Or, if mnemex asks me to come up with an adventure where his PC, Firemaker, gets to use a magical string with knots that release the wind, he is supplying an answer and having me come up with the question. Note that, even though I am supplying the question / situation / set up, it is mnemex who decides when, how, and even whether to use the answer he initially specified.

If the GM sets up a mystery or a situation requiring intervention, the GM should not be the one to decide what the resolution will be. The GM should generally have a solution to problems in mind either, but that's a different issue. "Solution" does not have to mean "solution to the mystery"; it can mean "method of learning the solution that needs to be used."

This is not to say that scripting is always wrong. agrumer once posed and solved the problem of one of his Cthluhupunk PCs getting another to come on an adventure. This worked because it was dealt with quickly and did not slow the plot down. It was not something to be solved in session, but something to be explained briefly, as one dots the i and crosses the t.

When mnemex read the previous paragraph, he said that, in terms of the essay he wrote on shopping, agrumer was dealing with something that was either Routine or Difficult, but was not Extraordinary.

In general, for the Extraordinary, whoever asks the question may not answer it. Whoever sets the terms of the request may not fulfill it. Nevertheless, when a player has a request / question, the player usually also has an ideal answer or a range of answers in mind. This may explain why GM attempts to fulfill player requests may result in frustration, since the GM's answer or range of answers is not always identical to the player's. The player often imagines the situation beyond the point where what he wants can be explained to the GM without scripting, and the GM's ideas can fail to live up to the player's imagination, although mnemex notes that it can be extraordinary when the GM's ideas exceed the player's imagination -- or vice versa.

For example, suppose I want Justin, my PC in the Altclair game, to meet Leviathan. Once I tell this to nrivkis, the GM, she must be the one to set the terms of that meeting, at least if we're having a game session. If I insist on being the one specifying the details of what happens at the meeting, I should probably just write a story and show it to nrivkis. If she has no objection, we can agree that the story describes what happened when Justin met Leviathan. This is fine, if everyone agrees, but it is not an RPG session, and we are not roleplaying.

Thus, I may have a general or specific idea of what I'd like to happen, but I can't tell the GM most of it if I want the experience of being gm'd -- if I want the pleasure of getting what I want while not being in control. The GM has certain assumptions about how her world should work and what I might enjoy, but cannot know with certainty what I do want. It is unlikely that she will write the answer / adventure that I imagined. This would involve telepathy. She may write an adventure that is good enough and that is a different one from what the I had in mind. She may have enough of a rapport to get fairly close to my ideas. She may take things in a direction I don't like.

Again, I have been on both sides of the invisible GM screen. nrivkis had a request for an adventure for Cadji, her PC in the Cthulhupunk game, and I don't think the Cadji adventure I ran worked out entirely as she would have wished. But, unless she wants to write a story and ask me if she can treat it as What Happened, she's stuck with my interpretation.

What I am describing here is a power dynamic. The player wants to give up a certain amount of control in return for being given what he wants. This is not a dynamic that is -- or should be -- unquestioned; indeed, much work done at the Forge and elsewhere, including A&E, involves questioning the nature of the GM-Player power dynamic, how it can be modified, whether there needs to be such a dynamic, and whether there needs to be a GM at all. mnemex, reading early drafts of this essay, and noting the obvious parallels with certain kinds of consensual relationships best left to the readers' imagination, argued that this power dynamic is one of the key ingredients of RPGs. I am not sure. It is a key ingredient of the type of RPG that I prefer playing most of the time, but I do like other types for variety. And, the way I game is not and need not be the way everyone prefers to game.