Show021: Interview with Chris Moore and Michael Lingner
Here’s the next of the Ashcan Front interviews. I talk with Chris Moore and Michael Lingner about their game, “Psi Run.” This one may be a little on the quiet side. We recorded it in Michael and Chris’s hotel room while Chris’s son was sleeping in the next room. Maybe more later… time for me to sleep.
5:51 pm on September 17th, 2007
Hey, Clyde!
For the first time ever, I wasn’t horrified by the sound of my own voice! Thanks again for the interview.
Chris
9:26 pm on September 17th, 2007
Hello Clyde,
I do not participate in any rpg forums, so this comment may be superfluous although I have not heard you make it on any of your shows thus far.
Having listened to all of your podcasts it seems to me that the core archetype of the story game movement can be summarized as:
1) Collaborative Story Telling is the goal, the most significant barrier in achieving this goal is the stories themselves.
2) The ‘player aid’ that is designed to defeat this barrier are mechanics (often with a random element) that seed the story.
Psi Run being a crystal clear example of this in that, by assigning my dice around I am seeding various parts of the story, including most importantly the shape of its arc (i.e. how fast I am answering ‘the questions’ etc.)
9:42 pm on September 17th, 2007
Hey Chris,
I’m glad you’re happy with it.
Hi Subey,
Thanks for listening, and choosing to interact with me here.
I think I would say, yes, yes, and yes. Story Games are about Story Now, and the mechanics are there to support that collaboration. I would add that Psi Run allows you control of various parts of the story, as you said, but it is also guiding the story at the same time.
-edited for some bad grammar
10:12 pm on September 17th, 2007
Me again,
I’d have sent you an e-mail, but couldn’t find one
Since your podcast is all about design, and you’ve agreed with my interpretation of story games (not to imply that it is an original interpretation per se) Then doesn’t that make the Anchor point of design the following question,
“How do I seed the story?”
And that as a designer, if I’m always keeping that specific question/interpretation in my mind that it will allow me to design a game that is ideal at the task at hand… creating a collaborative story?
Because having answers to that question is something that I have woven into every aspect of my game.
10:30 pm on September 17th, 2007
Hi Subey,
I haven’t mentioned my email address in a while. Take the www and the dot com off my website address and then add @gmail.com
This next question is harder for me to address. I’m not sure specifically exactly what you mean by Anchor and Seed. I will continue anyway, but if I’m not making sense it’s likely those two points that are causing us to not understand each other.
I think you could make a game that asked how do I seed the story, but only gave the game master that control. That wouldn’t be collaborative. That may not necessarily be a bad thing either. Many folks like that style of play. I think the important consideration is if your game is bringing across your vision. I haven’t addressed the questions in the show yet to do that specifically, but you can hear them in each show I’ve done since Show017: Game Design for Game Designers as I have asked them in each interview since then. If you want I can dig those up and post them.
I’m curious also. I can’t place your name with a game design in my head. If you feel like sharing I’d love to hear about it.
3:46 am on September 18th, 2007
First, I’m not a designer. When I said, “As a designer” I was using to illustrate the presumed perspective of your audience rather than trying to literally claim that title.
First, a simple interpretation of what a seed is. A seed is a piece of information that allows your imagination to do its work. The easiest place to see this is in improv. If I am standing on an empty stage then I have no idea what to do… if I ask the audience for a place and an occupation then now my imagination can take off, and as a result so can the story.
That’s how improv works. That’s how Story Games should work. In improv I simply ask the audience for seeds. Therefore the ideal story game should be anchored (and by anchored I mean built around) around how seeds are added to the game so that the resulting story is good.
***
On a related note to help flesh my point out some more. A problem I see with story games is that many of them appear to be still saddled with ‘D&D’ resolution concepts. In the sense that they contain some element of, ‘This resolution mechanism is about me defeating my foe’ as an end.
Using Dogs as an example, doing X in order to win a conflict is the overt point. That’s D&D. The covert point of Dogs resolution mechanic (and I’d argue significantly greater) is that it provides you with a bunch of seeds that are ideal in the recreation of a western.
To repeat with different words.. When I *Reverse the Blow* overtly I am resolving a conflict… but covertly I’ve just dropped a great seed in my narrative lap.
***
Now if you compare Dogs with Psy-Run (not to be confused with Siren!), then Psy-Run is an order of magnitude more evolved than Dogs because how it uses its dice pool. The dice pool is overtly a resolution mechanic to resolve the various categories. But really it is an amazing seed mechanic. As I choose between assigning the chase category a 1, 3, or 5, I’m really sculpting the seed before I hand it to my imagination. Oh its a 5, that’s a certain kind of seed, now I can run with it.
***
To sum up then (assuming my logic could be followed :D), designing a game that is always conscious of the *MANIPULATION OF SEEDS* (different types, their creation and destruction etc.) should result in a better story game than one that isn’t because seeds are what the the imagination eats for food
3:59 am on September 18th, 2007
I’d also like to mention that I think a place that should be mined for a fresh perspective on seeds is Sports.
Sports are essentially giant story generators,
“Oh what an amazing pass”
“What a crazy run to the playoffs”
“Red Sox 78, I was there”
But that may muddy the waters too much… so feel free to ignore this.
4:00 am on September 26th, 2007
Just to hammer in the point, if you listen to the latest episode of Voice of the Revolution (#12), when Paul is talking about Grey Ranks, he talks about how the game links story seeds which, “Spur the imagination” to the emotional grid.
But Morningstar’s design is lacking, in that it sounds like an arbitrary meshing of two distinct seed generation devices. A seed centric design would have resulted in a more elegant seed system which would result in better narratives.
4:47 pm on September 26th, 2007
Hi Subey,
I’m planning to make a response, as my initial reading made me think I had something to say. I want to take time to digest it, before responding. I should have time before the weekend is over.
8:12 pm on September 29th, 2007
Hi Subey,
I think what you are saying is very true, but I’m not sure I’m agreeing 100% with you yet, and I think this is due to your explanation of Seeds. Your definition is describing them as ideas that are given to you from outside that you run with. Some games are designed with mainly that idea in mind.
I think you could describe the same phenomena as constraint. In the Improv example, the audience is constraining your choices. Then no longer having the set of everything in your head you move on to being creative. This is essentially how more freeform games operate. You create the initial character, the seed, or constraint, and go from there. A storygame however will tend to also create situations where you would have your protagonist behave differently than you would if you were uninhibited after that initial seed.
For example, in Dog’s in the Vineyard, you can reverse the blow if you have the dice, but what if you don’t, or what if you don’t want to commit them yet? The game is applying more constraint during the game which may limit the scope of your decision. So it’s not seeding the story, as much as adding some constraints.
You can’t just shoot the sinner if someone else wants to save him. In Improv the first actor would get the shot or salvation, but Dog’s constrains that choice if it’s important to someone else. It also constrains choice through the tactics and strategy of using the system. These constraints can cause surprises, insights, and sometimes even disappointment. It’s as if the audience could keep throwing out new things you had to react to and incorporate without that yelling throwing off the performance.
I think it’s this constraint that adds challenge, and enjoyment to a storygame and what makes it noticeably different from Improv, or Freeform.
12:33 pm on October 3rd, 2007
Subey wrote:
“To sum up then (assuming my logic could be followed :D), designing a game that is always conscious of the *MANIPULATION OF SEEDS* (different types, their creation and destruction etc.) should result in a better story game than one that isn’t because seeds are what the the imagination eats for food.”
You should take a look at The Shadow of Yesterday’s Keys and Spirit of the Century’s Aspects. I think they’re the “seeds” you’re talking about.
4:26 am on October 26th, 2007
I was arguing that constraints were really seeds in disguise (and would fall under the ‘manipulation of seeds’ umbrella). In a simplified model. If my archer has 10 normal arrows and 1 magic arrow, when I choose to use the magic arrow, then I am choosing to input that seed into the story.
But I see your distinction which says that ‘playing’ the constraint is an end itself. I missed that dimension completely.
I also think that I should ease up on the input of seeds if it appears that it is a rigid construct where the players are fed a tight series of seeds that limit their creativity. But having said that, if we are playing D&D, then already the game has been seeded with a mountain of seeds. For instance we are now in a realm of dungeons and dragons instead of robots and spaceships. From that mountain if I choose a Necromancer as your opponent, then I’ve lost some freedom, but I’ve now got a very concrete seed upon which my imagination can construct an adventure.
But to incorporate your insight into the seed centric model then what you are saying is, “incorporate a game structure into seed manipulation”, whereby game structure points to elements like resource management (i.e. do I use a normal arrow or a magic one) , because these things are fun in a story game for the same reasons they are fun in a board game.
1:27 pm on October 26th, 2007
Clyde I’m thinking that growing my idea into a mature form is outside of the scope of your comments area
So I’ll sum up my perspective as the following and leave it at that…
The Two Core Elements:
1) Keep the manipulation of seeds in mind at all time. (see everything as a seed, because everything has a seed like effect on the story, therefore recognizing that is essential)
2) Via Paul Czege, frame the preceding within the context of ‘Social Architecture’ because the experience is about the players experience at the table and not their characters.
And optional via you, incorporate ‘gamey’ constructs because they are fun. Of such universal appeal that incorporating this will enhance most games.
3:35 pm on October 29th, 2007
Hi Subey,
Again, it will take me a bit to reply. I’ll likely get to it the next weekend as the site maybe down this coming weekend due to the server moving.