From: [b--re--s] at [buran.fb10.tu-berlin.de] (Reimer Behrends)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Review: Theatrix
Date: 28 Nov 1994 07:52:22 GMT

0. Introductory Remarks
-----------------------

Theatrix, if you don't know from recent discussions, is a diceless
roleplaying system. I had the pleasure to playtest the core system
recently and this review is the result of what I and my players
experienced. I would like to note that, while having had only little
practical exposure to diceless gaming prior to Theatrix, I prefer
roleplaying games with little rules overhead but still enough rules to
make reproducible decisions when I'm GMing. Theatrix fits this bill
rather nicely.

My copy of the rules was a prepublication copy. Unlike the final
version, some of the interior art was still missing (which I didn't
need, anyway) as well as the reference sheets that are to be at the end
of the book, which reproduce tables etc. from within the book in a more
concise form. The only drawback was that the flowcharts (see below for
what they are good for) were only partly reprinted within the book.

Well, I was about to mail Backstage Press about whether they could send
me copies of the reference sheets as well (despite already having got
the copy for free ;-), when I discovered that I could easily write the
missing parts myself, given the rather simple pattern the advanced
flowcharts follow. In fact, I decided that I preferred to roll my own to
reflect the genre more closely and to get a better grasp of how how the
system works. This endeavour was rather successful.

One thing that may need getting accustomed to are the peculiar terms
Theatrix uses instead of the standard roleplaying terms. I.e. there are
Actors, Directors, Supporting Cast instead of players, GMs, non-player
characters. The advantage of this is that it is easily to extend this to
other terms (like Stage) with little need of adding detailed definitions
that still risk misunderstanding, and Theatrix makes heavy use of this.
The down side is that it breaks with established tradition. Still, at
the end of each chapter there is a glossary as well as a summary
comprising the most important parts of each chapter in abbreviated form.

But now on to the good stuff ...

1. Character Creation
---------------------

Before I comment on the character creation system in Theatrix, a few
comments on how it works are in order:

Basically, the character creation system relies on players relatively
arbitrarily assigning traits to their characters and the GM then
approving them (or having the players edit them, if they don't fit the
campaign or are too powerful or whatever). Like almost anywhere in
Theatrix, there are no hard and fast rules (like assigning points,
rolling dice, etc.) for that. Instead, guidelines and a (fairly loose)
algorithm for character creation is given. And while there is no
explicit balancing scheme (like points, free trait levels, etc.),
character creation worked surprisingly well in not producing
ridiculously overpowered characters (unless that had been our intention,
of course ;-). However, a GM who has a hard time saying 'no' might have
problems.

The primary reason for that is that a character description in Theatrix
avoids bare numbers wherever possible. Quantified traits (e.g. skills)
are accompanied by a description; or rather, some trait descriptions are
accompanied by numbers ;-). I was worried a bit beforehand that the lack
of any hard limits might encourage munchkinism; but the players (one of
which had no roleplaying experience whatsoever) turned out quite
interesting characters with a rich background.

It should be remarked that players starting out 'about equal' is far
less important in Theatrix than in other games as long as you ensure
that they don't overlap too much. In particular the primary descriptor
(which describes the character's primary realm of competence) together
with other game mechanics ensures absolute authority in that area if the
players wishes to enforce this.

Let's see an example of a player character (abbreviated):

Sarah Roberts (real name Marie Bathory). Hungarian ex circus acrobat, ex
cat burglar, now working as a reporter for the 'Daily Chronicle'. Still
wanted for theft in several European countries.

Attributes:
 [4.0] Strength - 'I know that I don't look it, but you can't climb
   a rope without having the muscles to back you up, see? On the
   other hand, I couldn't probably move somebody who doesn't want to,
   even if my life depended on it.'
 [4.0] Stamina - 'If you don't train for one day as an acrobat, you
   notice. After two days, your partners notice. After three days, the
   audience notices. So you keep a strict schedule. Tiring is out of
   the question.'
 [5.0] Coordination - 'Doesn't need much to imagine what happens to a
   trapeze acrobat who misses both the trapeze and the net, does it?'
 [3.5] Intelligence - 'I know that I don't know how to handle higher
   math for what it's worth. But that doesn't mean that I'm without
   wits. The Chronicle won't keep a reporter for long that doesn't
   possess a certain amount of cleverness, see? And what good is that
   math and classics stuff, anyway?'
 [4.0] Intuition - 'People. That's what I'm good at. Assessing them,
   guessing their motives, talking them into things. You can talk to
   people, never to machines.'
 [2.0] Presence - 'The ability to blend with the crowd is a valuable
   asset in my former profession, you know.'

Skills:
  [6.0] Acrobatics (Trapeze) - 'See, I could work without a net. It's
    just that there's always the chance something just might go wrong.
    But otherwise I could do without one. Besides, hotels rarely have
    nets to accomodate burglars.'
  [4.0] Writing (Newspaper articles) - 'Need the article within half an
    hour? Guess I can make it twenty minutes.'
  [3.0] Hungarian, German, English - 'Speak them fluently. Heck, you
    could mistake me for a native.'
  [2.0] Polish, Italian, Dutch, French - 'Ok, my accent shows, and I
    wished I had a firmer grasp on the vocabulary - so what?'
  [1.0] Firearms - 'You mean I could hit that barnyard over there? Well,
    how many tries do I get? If it weren't for you, I wouldn't touch the
    bloody gun.'

Personality Traits:
  Courage (Moderate)
  Anti-Austrian (Strong)

Descriptors:
  Former Circus Acrobat (Primary Descriptor)
  Shady Contacts
  Journalist
  Dark Secret (Flaw)

Attributes and skills should be clear (they are on a scale from 0.0 to
10.0, 3.0 being an average value). Personality Traits and Descriptors
are usually extracts of the textual character description that can be
activated by plot points (see below). This can be viewed as an indirect
balancing mechanic, too; as descriptors are really the traits that give
the most power to a character, to munchkinize you need to come up with a
plausible, interesting background story that still produces a lot of
beneficial descriptors; now that's not impossible, but it is quite hard.

The great advantage of the system is of course its flexibility; the sky
is the limit, so to speak (and of course the GM). However, it is not
without problems. It can be hard for a first-time GM to estimate whether
or not the characters fit the campaign. Second, while the guidelines for
creating a character and the descriptions of traits are quite good, the
core rules didn't offer a way how to convey information about character
style and powerlevel to the players. I solved this problem by presenting
them with half a dozen sample characters that were typical for the
setting and the powerlevel.

One final remark on the chapters on roleplay and character creation.
They are easily among the best I've read in rulebooks, and I've read a
lot of them. Especially as an introduction for people who never played
before they are invaluable. And even seasoned players and GMs can pick
up a few interesting things.

2. Making Decisions
-------------------

Action resolution is probably, along with character creation, the most
important mechanism in any roleplaying game. And while unusual (at first
I didn't even believe it would work at all), the ideas behind action
resolution in Theatrix are real gems; they are, however, slightly marred
by the way in which the system is presented in the rules.

The basic idea is fairly simple. The outcome of an action is defined by
some kind of dramatic logic (the difference to normal logic is explained
below), unless the players (and their characters) take steps to change
the result (and succeed).

Dramatic logic is not necessarily what normal logic dictates. If an
improbable outcome would be more interesting, more true to the genre,
or even more humourous, that may be the way events are moving. In
general, to quote the rules 'Presenting your Actors with a major
problem, or dilemma, and then adding minor problems, is what brings out
the abilities of your Actors. It's what makes the adventure an
adventure.'

That of course solves the problem of GM fairness in diceless games in a,
well, unexpected fashion. His task is not to be fair, but to be
unfair in a way that is both creative and challenging. Again the rules:
'Your job as Director is to give the Actors situations too tough to get
through and then to demand their creativity and their Plot Points.'

Plot points in Theatrix are a rather simple game mechanic. They're
chiefly used to buy a (thereby guaranteed) success related to a
descriptor or personality trait. So even if the GM doesn't think so, if
the player spends a plot point, he will succeed. Of course, this success
can still turn to ashes if the character doesn't capitalize on it.

Now that's a bit drastic, and plot points are a scarce resource as well.
So usually a player will try to gain successes in a different fashion.
Mainly so by coming up with creative, humourous, interesting, etc.
possibilities. The only thing that irritates me is that the rules
subsume these factors under the heading 'roleplay'. Of course, good
roleplay is related to these factors, but what is needed is more than
roleplay and even players who aren't good at acting aren't left out.

Anyway, this mechanism is probably the single most important factor why
the players in the playtest I ran considered the game a veritable
success.

Now there is of course more to the rules than what I explained above. In
fact, this was the least part of them. The largest part of the relevant
chapter (called 'Lights ... Camera ... Action!', about 30 pages) deals
with the details of action resolution.

Basically, the mechanism in its full form is based on flowcharts. There
are two types of flowcharts. First, there is the Basic Resolution
Flowchart. This one details whether to judge an action a success or a
failure, and, more important, what kind of success or failure. There are
three types of success and three types of failure (titled something like
'Give them False Hope' or 'Let them know they've Done Well'). This is
the point where the Advanced Resolution Flowcharts take over. For each
type of success and failure, they have further branches, depending on
the character's ability and outside factors such as the environment or
another character's mood.

What first comes to mind now is of course whether this isn't too much
hassle? As a matter of fact, no. In fact, I needed the basic chart not
at all (having made myself familiar with its rather simple mechanics
prior to the first session) and the advanced charts only once in a while
after the first few times (A real pity, because I spent much time
preparing special charts for fencing duels and sorcery, which, while not
necessarily needed, could add some additional flavour).

Still, the help they give is invaluable. What they provide is logic and
coherence. They give reasons why characters could fail or succeed even
if that's in doubt or just plain unlikely. In addition, they're usually
provided with hooks for further plot twists. And if you prefer to, it's
fairly easy to create additional special purpose charts yourself.

Combat finally is nothing but a logical extension of the action
resolution system. Nevertheless, an entire chapter is devoted to it and
the _large_ example is extremely helpful in understanding not only
combat but action resolution in general.

There is, however, one thing that I feel could be improved upon. Not the
concept itself, which is sound and eminently playable. However, there is
the way in which the rules are presented to the reader. While naming
everything that is important, you may have to read the chapter two or
three times to grasp the concept. The important information is spread
out over about 30 pages without a concise introduction of how and why
the scheme actually works. And some terms are just plain misleading.
Like roleplay, which in fact means more (and this is thankfully detailed
in a section of its own). Or the term plotline, which is probably the
one thing that no Theatrix game has, given the ways players can
manipulate events.  (See also the section on 'improvisation'below.)
That's why I subsumed it under 'dramatic logic'in my explanation above.
As a side note, reading the chapter on combat helps understanding the
rest as well.

One part of the rules that I didn't make use of was the optional die
rolling method to introduce randomness into the game, if you want that.
There were two reasons for that. First, I found that I didn't need it.
Second, the die rolling method appeared to be too clumsy (index a
skill-by-difficulty table, which determines what table to use for
interpreting a d100 roll).

3. Improvisation
----------------

Improvisation, or How To Make A GM Despair. ;-) Actually, it's not that
bad, but I don't know whether it can easily be recommended for a novice
GM. The whole point about Theatrix improvisation is to let the players
alter the fabric of reality themselves (if necessary, by expenditure of
plot points). A part that is the sole province of the GM in traditional
roleplaying games.

Now don't get me wrong. The GM still has the power to veto such
improvisations. Likewise, improvisations that are just plain impossible
or inconsistent are not allowed. And anything that has a serious impact
upon the fabric on the world needs payment in plot points to actually
pull it off.  Still, improvisations can make a GM's life living hell at
times. There is only one reason why you probably don't want to get rid
of them (if you can handle them) and that is that they are just too much
fun, both for the players and the GM.

Anyway, be prepared that your master villain finds the door he prepared
to flee through jammed (this led to a duel on top of a roof instead of
the outcome I prepared for); that a harmless looking mechanical doll
hides a time bomb (well, luckily its purpose was murderous, anyway); or
that a barrel on top of some others is not safely fastened (you see
where this leads?).

4. Playtest
-----------

Many of the above comments are the fruit of an adventure I ran in the
world of Castle Falkenstein, using the Theatrix rulework. Another thing
that has to be said in favour of Theatrix is that it is extremely
flexible to adapt a genre to it. The whole process of converting Castle
Falkenstein to Theatrix took no longer than a few hours, and most of
this time was spent faithfully translating the magic system.

The adventure I ran was based on Offenbach's 'Tales of Hoffmann'. The
way I adapted the opera, it starts with a scene in a tavern in Bamberg,
where the player characters meet Hoffmann (as well as a few other
characters). He then relates three rather fantastic tales, with the
player characters actively taking part in them. More important, these
episodes give them clues for the ending which again takes place in the
tavern. I won't spoil it here, as I plan to post the adventure in the
near future.

Anyway, I must admit that at the beginning I felt a bit unsure of
myself, as I couldn't rely on several of my trusted routines for GMing
with dice; similarly, the players were hesitant to use plot points and
improvisation to their full effect. However, soon after we embarked on
the first tale, this uncertainty vanished; I had made my first
experiences with the action resolution mechanism and had forced the
players to use both plot points and improvisations to their advantage;
which got rid of their hesitation to use them regularly.

Thus, at the end of the first tale we were in full flow; the ending of
this one got severely twisted (the time bomb incident mentioned above).
The second tale brought no great surprises, except that the villain
failed to escape and was instead forced into a duel, which ended with
him tumbling from the rooftop where it took place.

It should be noticed that I was a bit afraid of GMing the duel. After
all, I always disliked those one-on-one scenes (unless you have enough
furniture or other stuff to hurl around, hide behind, etc.) as they
tend to deteriorate into dice orgies with little action. Anyhow, I set
the scene up for the villain to defeat the character who had challenged
him and then disappear (they were about equally matched). As I mentioned
above, this attempt was thwarted, by means of a lot of creativity and
the strategic expenditure of a plot point to buy a success in a dire
situation to effectively reverse it. It was definitely one of the most
intense situations in the entire game.

The third tale went over without a hitch. It was the first one that went
as planned (well, almost). Back then in the tavern, I almost got the
players when I sprang my surprise ending on them. Anyway, it's kind of
lucky that their characters won't have to enter that particular tavern
again. ;-)

Summarily, the whole adventure went over splendidly, much better than I
had hoped for, given that both I and the players were unfamiliar with
the system and its paradigm. I certainly had a great time (although, or
even because of player improvisation can be tough on your nerves as a
GM. It certainly kept me thinking on my feet).

The players appararently had a great time as well (or at least so they
said). And while they attributed that to some degree to the adventure
and the setting (which they liked), they stated that they liked the
system as well. Favourites were the flexible character creation system,
and the combat system which gives maximum leeway for creativity. What
they also liked was the 'realistic feeling' (I quote!). Taking into
consideration that they had just encountered fairies, sorcerous automata
and wizardry in general, I think that what they meant is the feeling of
events evolving naturally from the circumstances. That would coincede
with my observations how the action resolution system helped producing
such an effect. Of course, it's just an illusion, but still an
interesting aspect.

Oh yes, and I've got another person addicted to roleplaying. ;-)

5. Character Advancement
------------------------

The one part of Theatrix that we didn't test thoroughly is the
advancement section, the above adventure being a one-shot game. Anyway,
here are some comments.

The Theatrix currency is, that much should be obvious by now, plot
points. It comes at no surprise that plot points are handed out to
reward roleplaying, creativity, etc. after completion of an adventure or
a subplot. Note that while the above adventure had three premade
subplots, subplots may arise in other ways, e.g. through player
improvisation, as solo sessions, etc.

Character advancement simply occurs instead of plot point rewards. I.e.,
if a player character advances in some way during a subplot or the main
adventure, he gets this advancement instead of the plot points normally
due at the end of it. Note that the Theatrix rules give several ways to
determine how fast characters can advance. The overall idea is to embed
character advancement in the storyline.

As I said, I haven't tried it, but the basic idea appears to be sound,
and it is definitely a lot better than certain other systems.

6. What Else Is There
---------------------

Another chapter that I can heartily recommend is the one called
'Setting'. Not only does it contain details on how to adapt a setting to
Theatrix, it contains some stuff that is helpful for creating a world
from scratch. My personal experience is that it is dead easy to convert
an existing world if you have at least some experience.

And finally there is the chapter with the ominous title 'Plotline'.
Well, I didn't need it as I had my adventure already prepared. Suffice
it to say that, despite recent heated debates on rec.games.frp.advocacy
it has little to do with plotting (i.e. forcing a particular plot down
the players' throats). Rather, what the chapter contains is a general
concept for preparing an adventure in a structured way. This prepared
structure might even survive exposure to players, but at the very least
should help the GM to stay afloat. So far the theory; whether this works
in practice, I cannot tell. However, it is nice to see that at last
somebody decided to provide more help for GMs in writing an adventure
than 'Well, there has to be a beginning and an end, and you should
somehow get through the middle'. If you like it, it's there to use, if
you don't need such advise, you can safely ignore it. The rules don't
depend on it.  

				Reimer Behrends