[Open Design] Using Syllogisms to drive GM action

Taking an example from yourdictionary.com , here is a syllogism:

Major Premise: All cars have wheels.

Minor Premise: I drive a car.

Conclusion: My car has wheels.


For now, while I play with the basic idea, I'm ignoring the distinction between major and

minor premises.


Let's say you had a set of premises that described some aspects of your setting. You

could drive "GM" decisions by creating syllogisms out of these premises. These syllogisms

would guide and drive your content, acting as boundaries.


An analogy: 


Creating the content of your adventure is like coloring in a coloring book. When you color,

you try to stay within the lines or boundaries. Syllogisms are the equivalent of those

coloring book lines.


Problems:

Not everything can or should be driven by syllogisms.  Some things should fall under what

I’ve coined as Baseline Assumptions-- a fuzzy concept that I describe as “things about the

setting which are unremarkable to you”.


So, given all that, here are some questions I’m pondering:

•  How should you adjudicate what falls under the umbrella of Basic Assumptions about a setting
• Conversely, how do you decide what should be dominated by premises?

Assuming, you’ve figured out for yourself what should fall under each domain, there are

other things that you might worry about:

•  How do you judge whether the content you’ve created has stayed within the boundaries defined by the syllogisms?
• What is a fair way to expand those boundaries when needed? In other words, how do you evolve existing premises or create new ones?

 Some ideas on the last question:

•  Trade a mechanical success, 1-for-1, to modify a premise or introduce a new premise.
• Or, maybe create an economy with “currency” that you use to “buy” or modify premises. For example, trade a mechanical success, 1-for-1, for currency.

This is all I have for now.

Note: I’m basically re-visiting an aspect of #writingwithdice, which I call Principles. Maybe there is a cleaner and simpler way of doing that.

Using Baseline Assumptions In Solo Roleplaying

This is partly based on things I've written in #WritingWithDice, parallel concepts I later found in the Location Crafter, and ideas that I read in The Writer's Journey. As I find better ways elucidating on it, the document will evolve.

Feel free to leave feedback, ideas, etc in the comments, or anonymously if you prefer. I very much appreciate it since I'm interested in finding ways in which tools can incorporate this.

Defining Baseline Assumptions

I define baseline assumptions as details that ones expect to be a normal aspect of a particular “thing” (i.e. a situation, a location, an entity, a setting, etc). These details would not be remarkable in the context that this “thing” would normally exists. In terms of solo play, these things might merit a passing mention at best, if at all.

For example, in most game situations, you wouldn’t remark that an NPC has two legs as that would probably be a given. If you’re describing a dance club, the thumping music might merit a passing mention here and there, but you would not likely place your focus on it.

How I approach the Player Knowledge / Character Knowledge Dilemma in Solo Roleplaying

I dislike separating character knowledge from player knowledge, so if I have a story premise in mind, I will frame things such that I know only as much as the character knows. Otherwise, it would be better for me to be the GM and emulate the players .

One Way To Avoid That Split As a Player

When you're trying to avoid that player/character knowledge split, I think that the #1 thing is being conscientious to avoid omniscience. Anything that your character does not know is something that can't be treated as a fact. It's only a possibility that you as a player know about.

In my opinion, you shouldn't even attempt to confirm or deny a fact until your character is in a position to find out. Just leave it hanging there until such a time.

Hardcore Immersion

If you want to be even more hardcore, consider this:

Some GMs consider in-game player chatter to be in-character chatter.What if you considered your own in-game mental chatter to be in character mental chatter? In other words, if you find yourself thinking of some possibility, you should treat that thought as something that has also entered your character's mind.

Just remember, though, just because it entered your character's mind, it doesn't mean it's a fact. How your character reacts to these thoughts is in itself an interesting roleplaying exercise. Is she/he going to dismiss them as fanciful flights of imagination? Is she going to keep them in mind as a real possibility?

For me, that's going to be informed strictly by what's already been established as confirmed fact during the initial set up of the game's situation, and in the course of play.

If any of this doesn't make sense, or needs some examples, let me know.

“Challenging the player” in a solo game. Is it possible?

I’ve often read the concept of “challenging the player; not the character” in some OSR blogs. Makes total sense, and I think it’s usually an aspect of RPGs that I enjoyed in the past. So, stupid question, outside of adventures crafted for solo play, like the Tunnels & Trolls or Fighting Fantasy kind, can one truly “challenge the player” when you’re playing solo? The answer would seem to be ‘NO’ in most cases as you would run into the so-called Czege Principle (http://random-average.com/TheoryTopics/CzegePrinciple). This being the case, it’s probably safe to say that during solo sessions most of the challenges will be of the “challenge your character” type, which would mean most of your enjoyment would probably come from watching the outcome of putting your character through such challenges; a little bit like playing God with your character perhaps.

However, there is a little solo game called Beloved, which shows that it is indeed possible to challenge yourself as a player: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gnPx8AlhF1TMarQ165Y1vGM382c6epUvCu1-HkXvICI/edit?hl=en&authkey=CJDYi58F&pli=1# The trick here seems to be in coming up with seemingly impossible to solve challenges (in the case of that game, an invincible monster), and then as a player, trying to figure out how the challenge is not actually impossible after all by looking for holes that you may not have been aware of before setting up the challenge.

How often do you engage a randomizer for story needs?

It seems to me that for one to engage in solo roleplaying some sort of random input is needed to direct one's imagination. Without it, the exercise becomes plain creative writing, or storytelling.

Still, engaging a randomizer results in a break in the flow of imagination as you interpret the results. The break in the flow might be short, but it is there. I've found that trying to keep a cohesive feeling to the story sometimes means that the breaks are longer as I try to make sense of some random result in context of what has happened in the story prior to that.

What is your sweet spot in terms of percentages? Do you have any rules of thumb as to when to call upon Randomness?

In your solo roleplaying, how often do you engage your randomizer for story needs?
	Around 10% of the time
	Around 20% of the time
	Around 30% of the time
	Around 40% of the time
	Around 50% of the time
	Around 60% of the time
	Around 70% of the time
	Around 80% of the time
	Around 90% of the time
	More than 90% of the time
pollcode.com free polls

Hidden Information, Spontaneous Information and the solo RPG experience

I often make pretty random posts which are more like a way of trying to synthesize things I'm thinking about, or reading about, in my quest for a satisfying solo RPG experience. 

A discussion at the Story Games forum regarding games with "Hidden Information" got me thinking about the opposite concept (spontaneous information/non-existent information) and their relationship to each other. Of course, I'm also interested in their relationship to solo gaming, though I didn't focus specifically on that aspect while participating in that discussion. Here is my attempt to apply some of what I got out of that to solo rpg'ing.

Story structures: template vs map approach?

Just thought I'd share this here, as it was part of a 9Q's discussion on the Mythic GM Yahoo group. One of the members had expressed a reluctance to try the 9Q's because it seemed to him the stories always followed the same formulaic pattern.

I thought it was an interesting observation, though I don't necessarily agree with it. It made me think of the advice Christopher Vogler gives in his book about not thinking of the Monomyth as a step by step guide (if I remember correctly). Advice which I didn't really 'get' as much as I thought, until I saw the results of going against it for myself in my own tinkering with this structure as a gaming aid. 

Anyway, much of my thoughts are in my reply to the fellow member, in the rest of this post. I hope these help.

Player Character death in a solo game

How do you feel about it? How do you handle it? 

I've seen it work great in some actual plays of dungeon crawls that have been posted on the Yahoo group for Mythic. After a while, I got the impression that all of those dead characters added a backdrop, and a sense of emerging history to the dungeon. 

Still, I try to avoid player character death in my own solo games. Often, I find myself fudging results so that the story can go on, rather than come to an abrupt stop. I'm not worthy enough to kiss Hitchcock’s shoe soles, so I won't even try to pull a trick like he did in Psycho by killing the Heroine early on. 

With that pre-amble, I wanted to share an idea that I've been playing around with. I have been calling it Consequence and Repercussion tokens interchangeably as the mood strikes me, but I think "Pick Your Poison" captures the feel better.  Here’s how it works: 

Investing in the monomyth's "Ordinary World"

Those who enjoyed Gamasutra's post on the monomyth (Solo RPG Gamer: Gamasutra: Automated Monomyth), may find this post at the Words on Play blog interesting:

Another aspect of RPGs that seems to be at odds with creating a compelling story is the desire to make the player character a blank slate at the beginning of the game. Again, this gives the player the freedom to create whatever character they like, but without an established backstory to work with, it is hard to forge any kind of connection between the player and the world. Yes, it gives us a nice conceit to explain the player’s early unfamiliarity with their world (and run them through the obligatory tutorial quests) but dramatically it leaves the character without any investment in the world.

The solution I’d like to explore is to have a more significant “Ordinary World” (in Campbell’s terms) before the Call to Adventure.

I think the author's thoughts may be relevant to Pen and Paper RPGs as well, even in solo mode. Would play, and the story, be more compelling if a player spent a few scenes interacting with people and places in this "Ordinary World" where he comes from (as the author of the original post suggests)? Or should that just be relegated to a background write up?

Edit: I've decided to put this to the test in this gaming session for Solo Tabletop Gaming Appreciation Month.

Mythic GME and the power of questions

I just saw this awesome post by Jerry over at Solosaurus called Solo Gaming Set Up (please read it first and come back here). :) In playing around with the Mythic GME, he noticed something I had also noticed, and mentioned in my "scrap notes" post:

The main GME book talks about cheating and asking silly questions like "Do I find one million gold pieces right now?" But it doesn't address that you can manipulate things without realizing just by phrasing the questions differently or asking under certain conditions.

With the Mythic GME, the questions drive much of the story, and the player has absolute control over those questions. No matter what the Chaos factor is, you can consciously manipulate the story to your advantage or your disadvantage. Like I've said before, that's a lot of control, and Jerry is right that it sort of it can't be helped. :)

I still think that there are ways to lessen this, though. I may have mentioned this before (I can't recall), but one way I can see of lessening the solo player's ability to manipulate the story is by having rules that specify how the player may ask the questions (a structure). Like, "You may only ask questions in a way that create more opposition for your character " (or the opposite of that if you want to have a positive bent). To use Jerry's "Daemon Prince of Khorne" example, in a high chaos situation, you'd ask "Is the main antagonist a Daemon Prince of Khorne?", while in a low chaos situation you'd phrase it as the opposite ("Is the main antagonist NOT a Daemon Prince of Khorne?").

The rule still leaves a lot of openness for manipulation of the story (i.e. you could make all your opposition weak, etc), but it takes away some of your control over the story. Ideally, a set of rules like these would try to structure your questions in such a way that they create the kind of story you find enjoyable. For example, perhaps the rule above would be more like "In low chaos situations, you must always ask questions that increase your opposition. In high chaos situations, they should be structured in ways that are positive to your character."

I think there is some room for innovation in the area of how to structure the solo player's input, whether that input is in the form of questions or interpretation of randomizers.

Scrap Notes: Some interesting links on solo gaming (update 7/13/2011)

Various links that I think have interesting insights that might be applicable to solo gaming.

Experimenting with game structures

As usual, this is just me daydreaming about mechanisms to make my solo experience closer to the feel I believe an RPG should have. Lots of half baked ideas, etc. I do intend to play with these in actual play...some day.

How would you represent evolving relationships in solo play?

As the title says, "How would you represent evolving relationships between characters? "

If you don't necessarily want to do it by fiat, or by asking Mythic questions all the time, could we take a page from "The Sims" computer game? If I remember correctly, each Sim had a number of preferences. I don't remember exactly what they were, but let's assume that a Sim character might like or dislike things like soap operas, creative writing magazines, gardening, horror movies, country music, and mountain hiking.

For example: 

Rebbecca  likes: creative writing magazines, soap operas, and mountain hiking
Rebbecca dislikes: horror movies

Robert likes: horror movies, gardening, and soap operas
Robert dislikes: mountain hiking

When I've played that game, and let the Sims "converse" with each other, I could see little dialogue clouds with ideograms. If one was talking about travel, you'd see a drawing of an airplane, for example.  Then if the other Sim liked it,their relationship score got a boost (a "+" would float above their heads). The higher the relationship score, the more options become available to you as a player to make them interact (i.e. if the relationship score got high enough, you could then hug the other Sim, etc).
On the other hand, if one Sim happens to bring up a subject that the other Sim doesn't like, then the relationship gets a "-" (minus) and the score goes down.  If the score goes down below a threshold, you might lose some of the options in a relationship. I don't remember what happens if the subject is was neutral, so I'll have to play again sometime. :)

Anyway, I think this is another idea that could be tweaked and integrated into solo play to add more guidance to NPC reactions.  I'm still hazy (as usual) on how exactly to tweak it, but here's what I'm thinking so far:

• Relationship scores is easy to visualize.
• Likes and Dislikes (or whatever) are probably a little harder. They should probably be both broad and evocative. "Gore Hound Geek" is probably more evocative and covers more ground than "likes Horror movies".  I really like what I read on this post regarding Sorcerer's Descriptors (http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=11194.0), which is what inspired this bullet point.  Maybe Personality Traits is a better word than Likes/Dislikes. Thoughts? (Note: I think The Window rpg might be very much like this as well).
• The player could randomly set an NPC's Descriptors/Personality Trait via UNE or Mythic (or Tarot cards in some creative fasion).
• I'd probably roll for Personality Traits only at the last possible moment (i.e. when I try to interact in a meaningful way with the PC.) I have more thoughs on this and may need to unpack further.
• If the Personality Traits becamo relevant in a scene for whatever reason then I could use them as a guide of whether the relationship gets a "+" boost or a "-" reduction.
• I would, in turn, use the relationship score as a guide of an NPC's disposition towards me.
• Common sense, the needs of the fiction, and what has been established about a character should prevail, though. Not everything that could affect a relationship score can be covered in descriptors.
• I'd personally make it a requirement that in order to use someone's Personality Trait to your advantage without a roll, your own declared Personality Traits must be conducive to that. If you don't have it written down, if your mental character concept of your PC allows it, then you can use it as well ( see "common sense" bullet preceding this one).

For me, the whole point of trying something like this would be to minimize fiat as much as possible, and minimize the need for Mythic questions.

How would you tweak this approach? What other approaches would you use to roleplay PC/NPC relationships?

Gamasutra: Automated Monomyth

One thing I admire about Shock is it's shock/issue grid. Not being familiar at all with literary theory or criticism, I thought this simple device elegantly captured what I enjoy about science fiction the most.

The world that Shock opened for me has led me into the local used bookstore in search of literary theory books. I'm way into Blade Runner so I wanted something which would illuminate that sort of work. However, I could find no works on science fiction.

On the other hand, I found a couple of books on crime fiction. Since I love the police procedural a la Zodiac and Memories Of Murder movies, I made the purchase. I also figure it covers an aspect of what makes Blade Runner attractive to me.

As an aside, I also found a book on David Cronenberg. I love Videodrome and Scanners, so I immediately put my greedy paws on that book ("The Artist as Monster").

This new interest has also introduced me to the concept of the monomyth. Intrigued, I had to learn more, and ended up finding the following thread on Gamasutra, which is titled: "Challenge: The Automyth, Or Automated Monomyth"

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/24593/Challenge_The_Automyth_Or_Automated_Monomyth.php

This happens to intersect with computing and AI, which is one of my interests despite my weak math (I do my best).The post is inspiring, and I can see it revolutionizing solo roleplaying if it ever became a reality. Pipe dream? Who knows, but just considering the question could prove to be productive.

Scrap Notes: More Tinkering with Mythic

Interesting thread at the Yahoo Group for Mythic:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Mythic_Role_Playing/message/4589
The OP asks:

DnD should be the easiest to use Mythic with, right? After all, the game is
already laid out and regulated well enough to be able to play it without a GM at
all. However, there is one thing that I have always wondered especially when
trying my hands on a solo dungeon crawl:

How should I use Spot/Listen and similar checks?

Normally, you would roll these sense checks and then ask your GM "do I hear/see
anything?" With Mythic however, seeing/hearing anything would more likely be
detrimental to the PC's progress and health, since nothing EXISTS before they
look for it and ask the question.

In my view, this again boils down to the fact that the Mythic GME's input is only relevant to the story or game when you consult it. The player has the power of being able to choose WHEN the GME can add any input, which for some players just does not have the same feeling as a live GM.  The GME is not an entity that can interrupt you to say, "Since you didn't make a perception roll, you didn't see the giant spider hiding in the shadows."

As a solo player, you have to wear both the player and the GM hat, with the Mythic GME throwing you a curve ball a percentage of the time that you consult it.  On top of that, you also control HOW the GME can add that input by the way your questions are framed. You also get to set the Odds, though if you have a good handle on the internal logic of your setting, you can be "objective" when deciding the Odds.

Still, that's a lot of power you don't have when you're not the GM, so one needs to be fair with their expectations of Mythic to fully enjoy it.  :)

Nevertheless, some suggestions follow:


Using a Timer

This idea was mentioned by a member (Monele) in the Yahoo Group. I tried to create an outline out of the poster's description:

1)    Set the timer to an unknown interval.

2)     As you play, if you ask a Mythic question:

a.     If there an “Unresolved Mystery” (as defined by this set of rules on step 3.c.ii), and the “Unresolved Mystery Number” appears in either of your d10 die:

                                          i.    Ask Mythic:  "Was there *really* something?":

1.     If “Yes”: Define what you discover with more Mythic questions or random tables.

2.     If “No”:  The "GM" was playing with you and there was nothing to worry about. (Optional: Keep the mystery as unresolved or resolve to regular Random Events)

3)    If the timer goes off:

a.      Mythic is asking you to make a skill roll. Pick a skill that applies to the situation.

b.     Assign the Odds according to how well your rolled in “step a”, and Ask Mythic a yes/no question ( “do I perceive anything?")

                                          i.    If “Yes”: Define what you discover with more Mythic questions or random tables

                                         ii.    If “No”: You don't perceive anything. Roll a d10, write down the number with the note: "unresolved mystery". (I’ll call this the “Unresolved Mystery Number”).

4)    Start again at Step 1.

Hidden Encounters/Treasure

For something like a dungeon crawl, I would probably take a page from dungeon crawl board games. Some of them appear to have sets of "tiles" (sometimes cards) that can be randomized to create a dungeon as you play. In one game I saw, the cards had information on them regarding treasure, terrain, etc, and if I remember correctly some of those would only be activated according to specific attributes the Hero has, etc.

I think something like this could be implemented using index cards that you can shuffle, or maybe random tables. It'd all depend on what method one likes best. I personally would try index cards with information on one both sides, one of which I would keep hidden face down. Before stepping on a particular "tile", I would decide whether to make a "sense roll" or something.

You could even make it more strategical/tactical, by limiting the number of such "sense rolls" that you could make per game. Generally, placing some limits in gameplay can lead to more fun in the way of some challenge.

Edit 1/17/2011: As is often wont to be the case, someone had already thought of something similar. On 7/13/09, a member of the Yahoo Mythic Group, going by the moniker of "shadowxsoul", had already offered the following suggestion to a fellow member:

for terrain i personally use terrain cards that i made myself out of construction paper, take out a bunch at random and throw them down face down, then turn them all right side up and voila! a map. the edges of the map are assumed to be walls, cliffs, or otherwise impassable obstacles. i also have cards that i can draw to detail what's happening in each room. like if its an ambush or a treasure room or a puzzle or a trap etc... you could probably do the same thing with another chart.

Sounds like it'd be fun just sitting down to lovingly create these. =) However, if you don't want to create them yourself, you could download the "Torchlight - Quest for the Orncryst" random dungeon cards. They can be found at http://www.arborell.com/download.html. This came to the Yahoo Mythic Group's attention courtesy of pdwmcdonald on 7/13/2009 (if you haven't joined, you're missing out!).

Edit 1/20/2011: Just liked this paragraph I found at this post: http://story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=11801&page=1#Item_0 It describes Drangonlance's SAGA system which uses a deck of cards. This is something I could see myself enjoying, and why I bought the "Bright Idea" deck. There is something to the saying that "A picture is worth a thousand words."

[Italics added by me for emphasis]

Game play I haven't gotten too far through. No combat yet. I really do like the Fate Deck though. There's a fair amount of information on the cards, so if I want something to be randomly decided, I flip over a card and interpret it. For example 1-3 are white, 4-6 are red, 7-9 are black, for good, neutral and evil. I wanted to see what the weather would be like, flipped it over and got a 10 (the odd exception, still black), and decided it was one of the worst storms ever. Ask a question, flip card, interpret. It's like having random tables to roll on, but without having to check the tables. It certainly makes it inherrently much easier to GM. The advice for Narrators is also quite good, I haven't gotten around to doing a designed adventure, or using one of the published ones (doesn't entirely suit the characters we have going), but I like what I see. Definitely something I wish I'd seen in the DMG.

Edit 1/24/2011: More thoughts on using cards, though this thread is not specific to solo gaming: http://story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=267&page=1#Item_0

Hidden Die Rolls

Not that different from the idea of index cards with the hidden facing down. It could possibly be a bit more dynamic. The idea would be to have an extra set of die that you can use to make a secret roll (by somehow hiding it from yourself)The secret roll should map to some sort of table. Perhaps the Random Event table, or the Action/Subject tables in Mythic, or some other custom table. You would choose how often a secret roll happens during a game session (the beginning of every scene or turn? Every other scene/turn? etc).

Once you have a secret roll at the beginning of the scene, you can either randomly select the requirements (what type of roll, the difficulty/Odds), or set yourself based on subjective criteria. If the roll is successful, then you can look at the Secret Roll and determine that your character caught on to what was in there. If it's unsuccessful, then you decide: do you back out of there, or continue and take your chances? If you choose to continue, then find out what the Secret Roll had in store for you. It may be nothing, or it may be an encounter your character is now unprepared for.

There are many ways you can play with a scenario like this too. Perhaps you treat success at a more granular level: you may be somewhat successful and only get a small bonus to determine if your character is surprised once you reveal the Secret Roll, based on some 'hint' that you found (Mythic can provide the detail). The 'hint' itself can add color to your interpretation of the Secret Roll (if you're using something like the Mythic Action/Subject tables).

Default Assumptions & Dice Rolls To Change Fortune
I don't quite know what to name this idea, but I heard that the old Tunnels & Trolls solo adventures used to handle combat damage to the PC this way: The PC rolls to hit the monster. If the roll fails, he takes an automatic hit from the monster. What if you could extrapolate this idea to create default encounters in each "tile" or dungeon section?

What I mean is, what if at every interval X, the "tile" or section of dungeon that you are has an encounter with Y creature type (e.g.1d10 kobolds every 3 tiles/sections)? Now, assumming that kobolds were the easiest encounter (say level 1), let's say you had a random table like this:

1) 1d6Goblins (level 2)
2) 1d4 Zombies (level 3)
3) 1d10 Gold Pieces (treasure)
4) Nothing

You now have a choice. Go with the default encounter, or take a chance rolling against that table. Now, I would probably get sick of the default encounter very quick, so I know I would take chances. If I felt lucky, I might also roll on an empty tile to see if I luck out with some free treasure.

This doesn't lend itself to the same surprise feeling that a deck of upside down cards could have, because it's more like gambling, but that can be fun in its own way.

Treating Encounters as Resources
Edit: I had to rewrite this section as it got cut off when I added other suggestions above.

I was thinking of this independently, but it looks like the author of World Vs Hero thought of something similar, as evident on some published playtests of that system. That system has the 'GM' front load a number of "Locations", which have a list of encounters built into them. The game uses a standard card deck to adjudicate when those encounters can be used. Pretty nifty, from what I can tell.

I was also thinking of pre-compiling lists, except that they might not necessarily be specific encounters. A list could contain, for example, a set of Mythic GME Fate Chart questions to guide a user's interpretation. Perhaps a set of questions in an entry might look like:

• Is the creature type Goblins? If no, then assume they are Kobolds. Are they a group of 1d4? If not, assume it's a solitary creature. Do they live here, or are they invading?

Your answers might be: A hermit Goblin that lives in here. A group of  Kobolds that are invading. Etc.

The questions could demand more interpretation by being vague:

• Will this be a Level 1 encounter?

Your answers might be that you have to roll on an encounter table to determine what the Level 1 encounter is.  Or decide if it's a Level 2 encounter, or something else. The more things left unanswered, the more things are at your discretion to decide or interpret.

The should probably be customized in ways that are interesting to you. I like eerie atmosphere, so I would try to build it into my choices like this:

• You see a light. Is it coming from above? If no, it comes from ahead. Is it white? If no, it's orange. Is it sentient?  

My answers to this might range from someone or something carrying a torch, to a sentient statue that glows, to an elemental spirit, to just a lamp hanging somewhere.

Finally, you could set these up as random "Madlibs" (if you're familiar with that kid's game):

• You see a _(adjective)_ light.

The answer here could be anything from: "You see a crazy light" to "You see a blinding light" to "You see a talking light." It doesn't have to be an adjective either. You could omit a noun, a verb, any part of the sentence that makes sense to you. If you so felt like, you could even randomly determine which part of the sentence to leave out.

If you could imagine combining a number of the suggestions above into something wholly satisfying to you, what do you think it would look like?  The possibilities are great!

Solo Story System

A quick "Solo Story System" a fellow created by a fellow who referred to it on another website (can't remember where). Looks interesting, if very very lightweight.

http://www.rpglaboratory.com/solo_story_system

Scrap notes: Automating Questions asked to Mythic GME

This post may re-hash some old ideas that I've gathered from others, but hopefully there are some "fresh" ideas in here as well, if not a better structure to what has already been suggested.

Regardless, my obsession with obtaining the illusion that I'm not driving an RPG story continues.The way that Mythic GME works is that the player asks it questions, which it answers via the "mental ink blotch" to paraphrase one member of the Mythic group. It's a simple, clean and brilliant idea; a gigantic step in the direction I want to go-- which is to reliquish as much control as I can to the system.

Tom Pigeon, creator of Mythic, points out in the text that players can potentially "cheat" by framing questions in a certain way. Having the ability to choose what questions you ask still gives the player a huge amount of control over what territory the story will go into. So it seems logical to me that in order to achieve that goal, maybe I should let the system dictate what questions get asked. The only control I want to have is how my PC reacts.

So here is an example of what I'm thinking about (a random table to generate open ended questions for the "setting/scenery"):
 
 

So, for example, I might generate questions like:
 
"Who was the house constructed by?" and then have Mythic GME answer. To me, this would enrich the world in unexpected ways.
 
My further thought is that you could have similar tables customized for NPC demeanors, or even for generating the situation (though Mythic already does that).
 
I can see how having many tables could slow down the action, but if these were stored inside a program, then the generation of them would be a breeze. I have further thoughts on how to structure all of this further, which I need to work out, but I guess I would describe it as a loose map, where the outlines are the questions, placed at certain pre-determined points in the road (interesting post here).

Edit 11/21/2010:

I tried playing around with a couple of tables for a short noir scene, but it didn't quite work the way I expected. I had a "life path" table and a "location" table. The life path table generated some interesting questions, which fleshed out my protagonist, but it didn't generate a lot of what I considered important questions such as profession, etc. Either I need to change my thinking about what is important, or I need to work something else out.

I'm thinking that maybe a flowchart with what the player considers essential questions about a character might work better, and then another table to further flesh out the character in unexpected ways. Likewise, straight old fashioned tables with things like professions, or a real "life path" table like the Cyberpunk one might be what is needed.

The "location" table was even less successful, in my estimation. I just didn't care for what I was rolling, but then again I was just rolling at random, just to swee what kind of questions would be generated. Again, I'm now thinking that old fashioned table with types of terrains, etc, would be more appropriate to front load a sort of area map. The "location questions" table could still be helpful in giving that area map some color and history.

In a nutshell, have old fashioned tables, or a flowchart, to build a sort of skeleton for your characters, and locations. Then save the question generating tables for the fleshing out.

The problem is going to be coming up with a tight set of entries in those tables that do not generate nonsensical questions. Perhaps it would help to keep the questions as yes/no type questions, and avoid complex questions.

If all of that still does not work the way I expect, another approach I'm thinking about is filing away one's interpretations of Mythic's answers into a table, except those interpretations should be somewhat vague. More specific that mythic's word combinations, but vague enough like a horoscope. Enough for you to fill in some blanks, but give you structure.