From: oliver@cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Dumb Moves By Game Companies -- NOT!! (Now Fluid Reality)
Date: 5 Jan 1993 14:58:21 -0500
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
NNTP-Posting-Host: bodie.cs.unc.edu

In article <1993Jan5.051557.2297@samba.oit.unc.edu> 
Ricardo.Sedan@launchpad.unc.edu (Ricardo Sedan) reacts 
to my second reply the next day with the  highly original but 
truly bizarre tactical move of re-editing and re-posting his 
original reply.

Argument by revision.  High use of bandwidth, but I like it.

Speaking of plausible denial, I was wondering if anyone out there 
has marketed (or has tried playing) a truly fluid game -- where 
the players, in fact, cannot count on their past actually having 
happened, or in the solidity of their present existence.

A trivial example:  I once ran a fantasy game in which the players,
ending a long day of travel, go into a roadside country inn.  I hadn't really
given much thought to the place, and basically fell into the 
standard fantasy country inn description, with the middle-aged
obese inkeeper, the slovenly yet voluptuous serving wenches, the 
sullen and secretive local yokels, etc.

One of the players said something to the effect of "Oh, great! Yet another
standard inn with a standard inkeeper."

Fine.  OK, dammit.

A cloud of mist arises.  It clears, and the inn suddenly becomes 
a leather bar.  Yes, the only place on the continent to have 
discovered the secret of black latex, chains, and nipple clamps.  
You may have noticed that the Village People mysteriously disappeared 
for 10 years, only recently having arrived  again in public view -- 
well, this is where they went.
 
This actually turned out well, and I started wondering about actually
trying to incorporate something along these lines into the game 
mechanics.  In this system, the actions of the players (as PCs, not,
as in the example above, by their real-life hobby of  
irritating the game master) could influence the actual fabric of
existence -- where force of will *could* force the clouds from the
sky, or where it *was* possible to go back and take the road more
taken.  


Here is one game mechanic I ended up giving a shot.  Since I run a
rather seat of the pants game anyway, I started with a general 
scenario.  I then drew Tarot cards to guide the events "just around
the corner" of the players -- I was only a couple of steps ahead of them
myself. I drew the cards two at a time.  The first card represented 
what was going on immediately around them, either temporally or 
physically, while the second card represented what was a little more distant.
The second card's primary purpose was to provide some sense of 
continuity -- the first card was a situation fostering a transition
from the present state to the situation in the second card.

When the players went into the environment dictated by the first card,
the second card became the "just around the corner" card.  Instead
of only drawing one new card to for a new distant future card, however,  
I drew two more cards.  I then rolled randomly to see if the first
of the new two cards would replace the old second card.

Thus, in terms of my planning of the scenario, the flow of
the game was in constant flux just beyond the "view" of
the players.  It took a little effort to maintain some
sense of continuity, but the players seemed unaware of what was going on.

I never figured out a good mechanism for integrating player activities 
into this, though.  Every time I tried, it just became self-serving --
I just used it as an excuse to draw cards until I saw something I liked.
I also never tried to move this backwards -- whatever the players 
did or saw was set in stone; the only changes occured in the 
future.  It was also necessary , I felt, to maintain *some* things 
regardless of the cards, again to maintain a sense of continuity -- 
for intance, the purpose of the quest never changed. 


Any other similar experiences?


Bill Oliver