Observations of the Fox

Quite some time ago, I was writing about the Vector Theory (wow, that was 16 year ago), describing a perspective on how games are run. It used illustrations like these.                     I still think there's some value in these ideas, however my current thoughts are less about specific flowchart paths that a story MUST follow, and now my thoughts tend to flow more organically because we can't account for crazy choices that players might make, or every type of action that characters might choose to engage.   So everything basically collapses back to the "Simple Path" or "Path of Clouds" in the images above.   The point here is that the Three Way Tension doesn't always only to the GNS triangle, the actual essence of the model applies to the specifics of the GM, the Players and the Rules.       We can look at this a few ways when considering the dynamics at the table. With each player pulling on the di...

The last bit of this descriptive stage for the three-way tension theory pulls the concept into a more graphical format so that readers can observe the concept from a visual perspective. I'm doing this because I'm more of a graphical/visual thinker, and because sometime text can be a bit dry.  Let's look at what we've discussed so far... The whole things fits onto a triangular grid.  We can probably break down the types of games into that grid. Of course there's going to be debates over the labelling of the types of games, because if there's one thing we always debate about in game design circles, it's terminology, but bear with me for the moment...  GM/Narrators (I really should find a better single-word descriptor here) may aim to facilitate a game, tell a story with their players, provide an immersive setting experience, or some combination of the three. Players may be looking to complete the session by winning it (or at least ending up with characters in ...

The last post broke down the various stereotypical tensions between a GM/Narrator and their players. However, the players are not a monolithic block who all want the same thing from their session experience. There will often be tensions between players who have different requirements or who are aiming toward different session experiences. A session will often (but not always) work smoothly when the entire group is after the same type of thing.  If everyone has a Narrativist aim, they'll all be working toward producing a tale and exploring the unfolding story as they follow character goals as they work toward a logical and satisfying conclusion, or just generally meander with no particular goal or direction to see where things might head (working out a narratively satisfying tale from the events of the session later). The biggest tensions here will come from interpretations of how goals might come into conflict. If everyone has a Gamist aim, there will generally be a friendly (or no...

(If recent days are anything to go by, this post is going to be generally viewed by a few people, maybe discussed a bit...but lose traction pretty quickly.. then in 10 to 1t5 years, it'll suddenly be popular. Maybe the ideas in it will be announced by someone who happens to be the indie darlig of the scene in the mid to late 2030s, and I'll say things like "I was saying this years ago"... anyway, here goes.) If you're still with me in this description of how I see the mechanisms at play in a TTRPG session, you'll accept the ideas that there are three different forces at play, and there are three different types of session those forces will be looking for. Two of the forces are personified by the participants in the session, the GM/Narrator, and the Players, while the third force is embodied by the rules being used as a framework for the session. Each of these pulls on the others, and it's the interplay of the ways that they pull that makes (or breaks) a se...

      The above picture is from the SNAFU cookbook, which is full of symbols describing various parts of play and how they interact with one another to create the experience of a TTRPG session. The last post generated a bit os discussion on the socials (but not here, so I can't really archive what's been said without extensive cutting, pasting, and screenshots), so it's time to delve a bit deeper into the way I understand TTRPGs to work. Remember that this is my observations, archived and written down, your mileage may vary.  Crystallisation for Vcetor Theory and the 3-Way Tension model occurred during a BBQ I cooked for three Norwegians in my home at the time in southwestern Sydney. The meal I cooked was kangaroo and salad, the guests were  Matthijs Holter (designer of Archipelago , here's his  itch page ), Ole Peder Giæver (designer of Itras By ) and I want to say the last visitor was  Martin Bull Gudmundsen (co-designer of Itras By). I think it was...

An interesting point was raised in an earlier post There is often a lot of choice and customization when developing a character for an PG session. In most fantasy games you pick a race (which give a range of abilities and maybe a limitation or two), you pick an occupation or class (which defines the way you'll progress with your character in future), and a range of equipment (which give you advantages in a range of situations...like extra damage, the ability to do ranged damage, bonuses to different tasks, etc.) Variations apply for cyberpunk, superhero, and sci-fi games, but on the whole this kind of concept veers into the concept of "front loading the characters". This is common in heaps of convention game sessions, where the writer of the story module develops a range of characters that fit the type of narrative their trying to tell. It's a very simulationist style of play. The characters fit the narrative, the scenes inform that same style of narrative, and you en...

Let's say I have a plan for a story over a couple of sessions. Think of this like a story arc that goes over a couple of episodes in a TV series. Each session has a "context" act to establish it's events, a "complication" act to build up its tension, a "climax" act to face the issues at hand, and finally a "conclusion" act to resolve the story and pull things back into line. Four vignettes scattered across the episodes can help tie sessions that otherwise seem disconnected into a coherent whole. If we're going with the four act story structure, there are a few ways we can build a long form narrative while allowing a generally freeform approach to the choices made by characters.    Story Act Episode Event Notes E01 Act 1 Context: Let the players explore No predefined vignette E01 Act 2 Complication: Introduce the immediate story Optional Acceleration vignette to prompt na...

Alright, so I've indicated that I have this concept called " Vignettes ". These are basically modular scenes that can be plugged into a session wherever they're needed to have specific dramatic effects on the narrative.   Back in the day (2010 and 2011) I developed what I called the " Vector Theory " of gaming. It worked on the metaphor of an imaginary particle of storytelling, the Narraton. Like a photon when discussing light, various tools could be used by the Narrator, the players and the rules to manipulate the particle's trajectory. The general idea is that the same story could be run a thousand different times, and the path of the Narraton would change in subtle ways each and every time. Lenses and mirrors could change it's direction, gravity and density could change its speed. Unlike a photon moving around in 3D space, a narraton might move left and right depending on how happy or sad the story currently sits, it might move up and down based o...