The "impossible thing" is trust

One popular idea floating around is the Impossible Thing To Believe Before Breakfast, which is supposed to be what GM advice chapters tell us, supposedly,

"The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists."

Where is this written? In what book? What page? Nowhere, of course. What this sentence is, is a boiled-down version of GM advice chapters. But of course that's not the only way to boil it down. You can also express it like this:

The players get to control their characters. The GM gets to control everything else. Sometimes, there's overlap between the characters and everything else, and the control people have. That's what the rules and common sense are for.

This is closer to what those advice chapters actually say, and what most game groups have as an unspoken assumption before they roll dice or create characters. And of course it's not impossible at all.

Whereas what the ITTBBB is, is a reduction of many many GM advice chapters, reduced in such a way as to make them look absurd. It's not an actual quote from any rpg book at all. My reduction is closer to the essence of what GM advice chapters are actually saying.

I'd be interested if any single rpg contains the ITTBBB as an actual sentence or paragraph, except as a critique as an impossible thing. Can anyone pull up an rpg which actually says, "The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists," rather than saying, as I do,

"The players get to control their characters. The GM gets to control everything else. Sometimes, there's overlap between the characters and everything else, and the control people have. That's what the rules and common sense are for."

Which quote is closer to what game books actually say, and what gamers actually do? Seems to me like someone invented a solution, then had to invent a problem to fit it. They invented this problem to make it look like the GM is a bloodthirsty tyrant. And in fact few are. Players can and do trust their GMs. Perhaps what we're really dealing with here is that these rpg theorists lack trust in other people. The Impossible Thing To Believe Before Breakfast is trust.

Theory Wars

Well, the Forgers seem to have quietened down across the net for a bit, probably embarassed to discover just how happy most gamers are. The following rpg has spontaneously formed itself.


THEORY WARS
Each player makes a wannabe god/guru of rpg theory. Each player creates a character we call a Persona (an online persona, different to your true self), with a Theory and a Game. Each then plays to win, that is, to reduce their opponent's Theory to nothing, and convert them to it.

Play: In this game you will play by post (always). No-one plays in person, because theorists are always sitting around lonely in their parents' basement, or hiding from their wives in the study. Each post contains your narration - the post, and then below that, the actual game-move.

Persona: Name (always your first and last name - but you customize the middle name, especially if you can use it to make up for the dorkiness of your first name.)

Age: Your age. The higher the age, the greater the prestige. Theorists in their 20s won't be believed when they say they've gamed with thousands to gather data, or when they claim to have eleven degrees relevant to the hobby. Each decade of age from 15 onwards adds +1 die in Jargonise tests (as you get older your vocabulary increases), but subtracts 1 die from Prediction tests (as you get older you "lose touch with the scene" in the eyes of the gamer audience).

Gateway game: You must either pick a traditional game (for the victim) or an indie game (for the superior). This is the game you promote as having made you the gamer you are today. What circumcision is to Jews, or baptism to Christians, the Gateway Game is to the gamer.

Motivation: You have to choose one of two motivations. Your *stated* motivation is always to improve play for everyone.

Motivation, Victimised: You've been hurt (always in italics or some such). HURT! TRAUMATISED. You have to save others - but your real motivation is bitterness towards those that hurt you.

Victimised Perk: you may refuse to take a Responsibility Tokens in any argument, and trade it for a Clarity or Confusion Token.

Motivation, Superiority: You game better than they do. You must make sure everyone knows that. You are smarter than they are and more psychologically sophisticated.

Superiority Perk: you may refuse to take a Newbie Poster Token in an argument, and trade it for a Mockery or Precision token.


THEORY: Now you construct your theory. You have ten dice, to spread around each of the five Elements. Each Element must have at least 1 die in it.

Jargonised: This is a rating of how much jargon you use. This determines how hard to understand it is. For example praxis, paradigm, hermeneutics, or any everyday noun with a Capital Letter Added to it. If you are reduced to Jargonised 0, you are Ranting.

Obfuscate: This is a rating of how hard to understand your theory is, how vague and muddled your expression is. If you are reduced to Obfuscate 0, you are Naked, as the people realise the Emperor has no clothes.

Predictions: This is a rating of what kind of statements the theory makes. This is important: if it is low, you are living a lie and it may be falsified - this puts you out of the game. However, you can obscure it with the other two. For example, "players who play my Game using my Theory will usually prefer pizza with anchovies." If reduced to Predictions 0, you are made a Conspiracy Theorist.

Snark: How nasty the theory is in what it says about gamers, or your previous gaming experiences. For example, "gamers who enjoy rolling dice are using the dice as a Freudian substitute for playing with their own testicles." If reduced to Snark 0, you are Suspended from the forum on whcih you're posting. Exception: if playing on Usenet, you are Killfiled instead, which comes to the same thing.

Analysis: How many categories and pages your theory has. Higher numbers represent more detail, not more information. If reduced to Analysis 0, you are Babbling.

Chutzpah: The sheer gall with which you post, making extraordinary claims to impress people. For example, "D&D was produced using the principles I've outlined, even though I hadn't invented them when D&D was first produced." If reduced to Chutzpah 0, you are Humiliated.


GAME: Each player has created a game based on their Theory. Write down the name of the Game and its tag line.

Victory Conditions
A player has "won" wen they achieve one of the following:
- The opposing player is reduced to being simultaneously Ranting, Naked, Conspiracy Theorising, Suspended, Babbling and Humiliated. That is, their Theory Elements have been reduced to nothing.
- The Thread Heat Factor is tested against and causes a Thread Lock.
- The Thread Heat Factor is tested against and causes a Thread Death.
- The opposing player changes their Motivation
- The opposing player changes their Theory.


THE MOVES: you select a target (another player) and make a post. You can either Attack, or if you wish to let the other player Attack first, Defend.

Attack
Attacks may be against one of the opposing players Persona, Theory, Game or Gateway Game.

- Jargonise attack - your post must introduce words you have invented, or old words you've given new meaning to.
- Obfuscate attack - your post must redefine your words. If you use this immediately after a Jargonise attack, gain a bonus die.
- Prediction attack - your post must contain some prediction of the sort of play they'll achieve using the opposing Theory; this must be presented as bad.
- Snark attack - your post must contain something offensive, but connected to your Theory. Adds 1 to Thread Heat Factor (see below).
- Analysis attack - your post must deal with some specific part of the opposing Theory, so as to reveal it as wrong or nonsense.
- Chutzpah attack - your post must contain an extraordinary claim, preferably easily tossed aside by means of verfiable science or common sense.

Attacks should be described in detail, for example the player can attack a Persona by praising his Gateway Game (if he has the Victimised Motivation) or by denigrating his Gateway Game (if he has the Superiority Motivation).

Each post must should only one of Persona, Theory, Game or Gateway Game. For each element beyond the first attacked, subtract one die due to unfocused nature of attack.

Each post should attack using only one of Jargonise, Obfuscate, Prediction, Snark, Analysis or Chutzpah. Attacks may occur in combinations, but each one beyond the first subtracts two dice, so that a point of diminishing or zero returns occurs.

For example, "You are wilfully ignorant of the Praxis of my Theory." This a Persona attack, and is using both a Snark and a Jargonise. So if the Attacker had Snark (3) and Jargonise (2), nothing was gained by adding the Jargon. Snark (3) + Jargon (2) + Multiple Method Attack Penalty (-2) = (3). So a player should only use multiple methods of attack if they are relatively adept at the different methods involved.


Defend
Defend your Persona, Theory, Game or Gateway Game against the particular attack. If you defend some Element of your Theory that wasn't attacked, gain +1 Obfuscate die for this turn only.

Defences are otherwise dealt with in the same way that attacks are, excepting that it should be noted that defences are always only of your own Persona, Theory, Game or Gateway Game. A defence by means of dealing with the opposing Persona, Theory, Game or Gateway is actually an attack, not a defence.


Resolution of Moves
An Attack followed by an Attack is not resolved, and raises the Thread Heat Factor by 1.

A Defence followed by a Defence is not resolved, and lowers the Thread Heat Factor by 1.

An Attack is resolved against a Defence. Each player rolls the number of dice equal to the sum of all the methods used, among Jargonise, Obfuscate, Prediction, Snark, Analysis and Chutzpah.

Dice are rolled and the totals compared. If you lose the round, you can do one of the following,

If you have the Victimised Motivation:
- accept a Responsibility token. This requires you to reduce your Snark or Chutzpah by 1.
- accept a Clarity token. This requires you to reduce your Jargonise or Obfuscate by 1.
- accept a Confusion token. This requires you to reduce your Prediction or Analysis by 1.

If you have the Superiority Motivation:
- accept a Mockery token. Lower Chutzpah or Jargonise by 1.
- accept a Precision token. Lower Analysis or Obfuscate by 1.
- accept a Newbie Poster token. Lower Prediction and Snark by 1.

Any player may change their Motivation or Theory during play. Changing Motivation subtracts 1 die from each of Jargonise (as the Persona needs new language to post with), but adds 3 dice to Snark (as now they say, "now I'm telling you how I really feel!"). Changing Theory subtracts 1 die from each of Analysis and Jargonise (as the Persona must write a new Theory), but adds 3 dice to Chutzpah (as it takes balls to change what you're saying). Changing Motivation or Theory causes defeat of the changing Persona. It is recommended to create a new Persona if you wish to play again.


Thread Heat Factor
As the battle rages, the discussion may become more Heated. At the end of each turn, the winning player rolls three dice against the current Thread Heat Factor. If they roll below this, then the game ends with a Thread Lock, no more discussion may take place. If the Thread Heat Factor ever drops below zero, this causes a Thread Death, as the thread drops off the front page of the message board, or into everyone's killfiles, and is forgotten.

Otherwise, the battle continues until one of the Personas has their Theory reduced to nothing.


Experience Points and Advancement
Each argument a Persona participates in gains them 1xp.
If they were victorious, they again 3xp.
If they were defeated (Theory reduced to nothing), they get nothing.
If they changed their Motivation or Theory, they get nothing.
If the argument ended due to Thread Lock, they gain 2xp.
If the argument ended due to Thread Death, they lose 1xp - Personas require attention.

Whenever the discussion thread is linked to in another thread, they gain 2xp; when linked in a blog, 1xp; if their own blog, lose 1xp.

For each Proxy - a Persona controlled by someone else who takes on your Theory - gain 1xp. If any opponent ever takes on your Theory, gain 3xp.

Healing Elements to the previous level costs 1xp for each. Improving an Element costs target level in xp.

My gaming manifesto

aka, "Cheetoism"

Roleplaying games are a social creative hobby. Both the social and the creative are equally important like two hands on a guitar, and for a good game session, we have to encourage both sociability and creativity. The social part complements the creative part, and vice versa.

For a good game session what's important is,

1. People
2. Snacks
3. Setting
4. System
5. In that order

People are the most important because a good group with a crap game is always better than a crap group with a good game. People just not getting along is the main cause of game groups imploding, far more than people not liking this particular edition of a game system or the like.

Snacks are next most important because sharing food is something which binds people together and relaxes them.

Setting is next because players and GM have to have something to inspire them, some ideas to hang the adventures of their characters on. "You wake with no memory naked in an empty cell with no windows and a sealed door." No, don't be stupid.

System comes dead last because of the following two principles which help the game be both social and creative,

• player smarts should be more important than character skill
• GM rulings should be more important than system rules

If character skill is made more important than player smarts, then when a player comes up with a brilliant idea, the GM may say, "but your character wouldn't think of that," and veto it. So the GM is squashing player creativity, and players become discouraged and speak up less, which also hurts the sociability of the session. In a good game group, the GM will encourage player creativity, and make it more important than character skill.

No rulebook can deal with every possible situation coming up in a game session, still less can it deal with it in the way exactly to each group's taste. Thus every GM needs to make rulings, make decisions about what is at that moment reasonable, plausible, interesting and fun.

From rules to rulings there's a range. On the one hand we have rules-heavy games which try to ensure that the GM makes the minimum of rulings, on the other hand we have freeform games with little or no rules at all. A sensible GM finds a place in the middle, but slightly on the side of rulings. This is because a system of rules will only by merest chance happen to match what's right at that moment, but the GM can match it perfectly - sometimes only by squashing a rule.

None of that means that system doesn't matter at all, just that of the four, it's the least important. Like your little toe and your ability to walk - it helps, but it's the least important part of your foot. So long as the rest of your foot is sound, the little toe can be a bit mutated and you'll walk alright.

All this leads to five principles of GMing:

• I master the game, the game does not master me.
  
• Step on up or step on out.
  
• Momentum over perfection.
  
• Complications more'n obstacles
• The game must go on!

They're not numbered because they're all equally important.

I master the game, the game does not master me is simply another way of saying that rulings are more important than rules.

Step on up or step on out is saying that everyone jumping in to talk and do things keeps the session fun.

Momentum over perfection is about the GM's role as pace-setter; sometimes players will get stuck arguing about some tiny thing, or the GM will be tempted to spend an extra few minutes looking up an obscure rule - but all that is boring and no fun, it's better to keep things moving.

Complications more'n obstacles is a bit more finicky. As GM you present the PCs with challenges. There are two sorts of challenges: things which challenge the PCs' skills and the players' dice - obstacles - and things which challenge the players' minds - complications. "The evil wizard kidnapped your daughter" is an obstacle; "your daughter has fallen in love with the evil wizard's son" is a complication. You need both in a game session, but should put more effort into the complications because they need it, they're much harder for the GM to come up with and much harder for the players to solve.

The game must go on! means that we don't sit around waiting for that last late player, or cancel the session because someone's absent, or let a session just not happen because we're not sure where it'll be this week, or whatever - we make the game happen.

Of course, some people feel that these guidelines are wrong, or they quibble with their details. But those people are generally Bitter Non-Gamers, Forgers, Communists, or all three.