What am I playing?

[myripad]

I wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the Actual Play forum, so if I'm the wrong place, please let me know.

I'm sure this has been asked by various people at various times about their particular game which could not possibly fit a single creative agenda (terminology?). I'm not trying to challenge the gamist/narrativist/simulationist paradigm that is so prevalent on this site, I'm just trying to see if what I'm doing fits nicely into it.

I posted awhile ago looking for a combat system that would suit my game, Ron Edwards suggested first edition Cyberpunk, so I found it, condensed it, and am now using it. If I have to.

My group played for the first time today. Two of the players had never played before, and two of them have some experience playing various d20-based games. I really didn't know what to expect.

The players themselves basically thought of the plot so far. I created a setting and helped them figure out some details, but it's important to realize that they are all pretty keen on having narrative control of the story, which I like a lot, as it just means that I have to act as an editor to ensure that no gross inconsistencies are allowed to pass. The players are basically uninterested in dice and rules -- my explanation of the combat system was met by: "So we shouldn't get into gunfights, right?" on behalf of the players with no questions at all about the mechanics themselves. The players actually underpowered their players, or at least tried to. None of them took very many immediately useful skills, just ones that they thought their characters would have. The character creation phase was open-ended and utterly painless.

So, we aren't gamists. I think that should be clear.

We also don't really care about absolutel realism at all. Now, I'm fairly unclear about what simulationism actually is, but when internal consistency isn't a very big priority, all of the rules exist only to facilitate easy gameplay, and details that are changed and created as they are needed, this makes for a game that is basically un-sim, right? Or am I missing the boat?

That basically leaves us with narrativism, but because the game's themes aren't being consciously addressed, how can we be playing a narrativist game?

It's not a very serious game at all largely because two of the players think they are absolutely hilarious (which they often are, at least in the context of the game), and I'm fine with that. Today's session was almost pure dialogue and I expect that it will tend to be that way most of the time.

Sorry if this post is completely incoherent. Hopefully, someone can make some sense out of it and explain to me in virtually inapplicable theoretical terms why my game's creative agenda is this or that. If more information is needed, than I will be happy to explain, but I am a bit apprehensive about recounting the plot so far as it consists of teleporting trains and the senile old men who build them. I didn't devise this plot, but so far it's been a lot of fun.

[trechriron]

First thing I noticed.  You all have a strong unspoken Social Contract that seems you are reading each others minds as far as CA and your preferred stances/modes, etc.  Been together long?  ;-)

I think the design considerations for the characters to conform to a "standard" or consistency with the setting would suggest sim priorities in exploring setting and character.  You laid out a setting based on the characters and the characters focused on believability and made choices that they felt best fit their characters.  Where in that scheme setting or character takes the priority I imagine could shift frequently.  However, concerning your players focus on controlling the story, it is very possible these are only secondary priorities to your Narrativist play.  One thing to note – just because your group is not focused on actual system does not mean they are not interested or focused on contest.  We would need more testimony as to what happened during game play and the reactions of the players.

Now these are first impressions from reading a post on a forum.  Take that for all the grains of salt it is worth.  I am also not a frequent poster, simply a frequent lurker and a convert to the Gospel according to GNS, so again more salt may be in order (quick Smithers release the LIMES!).  Maybe some questions to clarify?

Could you describe specifically how the players are controlling/driving the Story?  You mentioned the players have thought of the plot so far, exactly how did that come about?  What are the players focusing on?  What are you focusing on?

There's my two cents and twenty questions.

[myripad]

First thing I noticed.  You all have a strong unspoken Social Contract that seems you are reading each others minds as far as CA and your preferred stances/modes, etc.  Been together long?  ;-)

I think the design considerations for the characters to conform to a "standard" or consistency with the setting would suggest sim priorities in exploring setting and character.  You laid out a setting based on the characters and the characters focused on believability and made choices that they felt best fit their characters.  Where in that scheme setting or character takes the priority I imagine could shift frequently.  However, concerning your players focus on controlling the story, it is very possible these are only secondary priorities to your Narrativist play.  One thing to note – just because your group is not focused on actual system does not mean they are not interested or focused on contest.  We would need more testimony as to what happened during game play and the reactions of the players.

Now these are first impressions from reading a post on a forum.  Take that for all the grains of salt it is worth.  I am also not a frequent poster, simply a frequent lurker and a convert to the Gospel according to GNS, so again more salt may be in order (quick Smithers release the LIMES!).  Maybe some questions to clarify?

Could you describe specifically how the players are controlling/driving the Story?  You mentioned the players have thought of the plot so far, exactly how did that come about?  What are the players focusing on?  What are you focusing on?

There's my two cents and twenty questions.

First of all, I asked for the players to tell me how they'd met and why they were together. I had my own ideas for plot, I just wanted to give them an opportunity to create some backstory. What I got wasn't backstory, it was a plot that had only just begun. They decided that two of the characters had been working on a train that could teleport. Now, this is fairly absurd, but it sort of makes sense -- one of the characters is an engineer and the other is a sort-of psionicist with the ability to teleport himself and a small amount of material (clothing, etc.). The third character was a contractor who had been hired to build some small parts (she is a metalsmith) and the fourth was the owner of the land whereupon the two mad scientists had been working. They basically took the plot into their own hands, and I went with it because it seemed like fun. And it was.

Within the game, the players would occasionally grab narrative control by deciding what things looked like or where they were before they'd been so described by me. I just ensured that no gross continuity errors were allowed to slide. One character also had a lengthy discussion with an NPC about local politics, although he (the player) knew nothing about them. He just made everything up as he went and quite successfully, too. Again, although I've long been a fairly tyrannical gamemaster, I let him do it because he wasn't disrupting the game, he was creating it.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "focusing on." Basically, we are just collectively creating a plot -- something that from my limited knowledge of GNS is a narrativist staple.

I realize that it's possible for there to be contest even when there are no real mechanics. I started playing roleplaying games at a fairly young age in a freeform gamist setting. However, the players have absolutely no interest in having power beyond what would make sense, which is a simulationist concept, right?

By the way, this is the first time I've ever played with this group. Two of the players played in two extremely brief and fairly directionless campaigns I ran, but we haven't played together very much at all. I was astonished at how well the group worked considering that two of the players had no concept of what a "shared imagined space roleplaying game" was.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Emily Care]

Hello myripad and Trentin,

Welcome to the Forge both of you!

Myripad, you may be interested the thread Plotless but Background-Based Games and the gaming John Kim describes in it. It sounds a lot like the approach you are taking--being open to what the players are interested in, not starting with a fixed world/situation in mind.  Depending on how flexible your lack of interest in in-game consistency is you might even be doing No-myth gaming.  

So, we aren't gamists. I think that should be clear.

You know, I bet you're right in your self-assessment as narrativist, but it's not necessarily the case from the details you've described.  Competition and step-on-up don't need to be engaged in via dice rolling, or combat mechanics.  But it sounds like your players--and you--are interested in the collaborative process of creating the world, rather than one-upping one another or overcoming challenges.  

Basically, we are just collectively creating a plot -- something that from my limited knowledge of GNS is a narrativist staple.

What you've got on your hands is a non-traditional distribution of creative power.  These days that's commonly associated with narrativism, but it could be used in any kind of gaming.  

Really, it may not matter whether you're doing is g,n or s--the important things are that you are all on the same page, and you've figured a little secret about role-playing games: anybody can make stuff up, and if you're well co-ordinated in how you do it, it is much more fun if everybody gets to make stuff up.  Well, IMO.

So, you may want to think about what you've got, and not necessarily worry about naming your CA.  Though, if you are interested in incorporating the good stuff of narrativism (exploring meaningful questions via setting, character, situation etc) then by all means, bring it in. You might do so by finding/creating the conflict laden themes in your characters' histories or foreseen development arcs.  Or create compelling situations that match with the characters attributes and which place them in the position of making meaty decisions.

And you can indulge in the depth of characterization, elaboration of detailed background, or atmospheric elements commonly associated with sim play.  For me, these are  fantastic elements of role-playing that are greatly enhanced by collaborative creation. They're bedrock for most anything you want to do though.

You may even find that the players are interested in setting up wicked political or technological challenges for their characters to surmount.  The great thing is, you're not limiting yourself by a system that structures your play in ways that you don't want.  You're now free to follow the interest of the players and see wherever that leads you.  

You might want to check out recent discussion of rules, too. 'Cause though you may be uninterested in using d20 mechanics, you may find yourself adopting non-mechanical rules that work for you.  See Why not Freeform? and Why have no rules?.  

Thanks for posting!  I'm really glad to hear about your game--it's a lot like gaming I entered into rpg with which has been absolutely the most satisfying I've experienced.  This post lists a bunch of threads by my current game group. Hope this kind of approach works out well for you, too!

Regards,
Emily Care