I Don't Know, Just 'Cause

[Jason Lee]

So, I'm having a conversation with one of our players.  We're talking about how his run is going so far, and I ask him, "Why do you like that?"  I don't remember what specifically we were talking about - it had something to do with identifying a priority conflict.  His answer was, "I like it because it's fun and interesting."  Which, of course, sets me off into explaining how that statement doesn't say anything except "I like it because I like it".

Anyway, later in the conversation I ask him why he does something, he says, "That's just how I picture it."  Again, I don't recall exactly what the topic was - it had something to do with believability and values for character traits.  "Well, okay", I say, thoroughly unsatisfied.

Then today I'm vacuuming the house, which I've been putting off for quite some time, and it occurs to me why that answer was so unsatisfying.  "That's just how I picture it" is the same as saying, "this is how I see it, so you should too", which is the same as saying "you should agree with me because I said so."  "Because I said so" isn't exactly a compelling reason.  It's just an empty statement; the same as "because it's fun and interesting."

"What makes it fun?"  
"Why do you picture it like that?"

Answer those questions and we have something to work with.  I can't understand where you're coming from if you can't explain it to me.  I've been known to be clever from time to time, but I'm not telepathic.

It's these empty statements that help keep creative agenda hidden, even to oneself.

[C. Edwards]

Hey Jason,

Maybe it would help mentioning to the player that doing a little self-analysis in regards to why he enjoys particular moments during play would go a long way towards making sure he experiences those moments on a regular basis. After all, you can't expect anybody to help you have those fun moments if you can't explain to them why you find them so fun and interesting.

You may have done this already. If so, keep at it. :)

While I can understand the hesitance to analyze your leisure activities too closely, when it comes to role-playing you really only stand to gain from the analysis.

So, this is basically a sympathy and "don't give up" support post.

-Chris

[Callan S.]

Ask a broad question, get a broad answer?

I mean, its fairly sensible that if someone asks you a broad question, you don't sit down and hash out a long and arduous answer.

Eg,
"How are you today"
"Well, in the context of having percieved many days and knowing full well the extent of my...etc etc"

Not to mention, just why should anyone be obliged to give a long answer when it was just a short question? One might be able to figure out what was fun, but shouldn't one go to the same effort to do so as the questioner did in asking? You answer that way in school, not when talking with a peer.

Despite the fact it might bias things, I'd suggest talking about what you find fun before asking. In fact you might find its hard to open up and say what tickles your fancy on the spot. Simple questions can be the hardest to answer.

[greyorm]

I mean, its fairly sensible that if someone asks you a broad question, you don't sit down and hash out a long and arduous answer.

Unless you happen to be sitting with your psychologist and the point of the question is to reveal and gather that sort of information to come to a conclusion about not only how you feel the way you do, but perhaps why you feel the way you do today.

In this case, the long answer is justified. However, the communication between Jason and his friend may not have been such that the friend realized the long answer was appropriate, that the question was put forth to discover concrete facts and create an analysis to help with play.

[Callan S.]

The agreement of trust between psychologist and client is quite a creature. And even so, psychologists don't wade in from the start with 'Why are you sad?', I'm assuming.

Psychologists tend to approach the problem with smaller and more specialised questions. I'm actually wishing I'd used this analogy in my previous post, now.

[greyorm]

Let's not forget the forest for the trees, here, Callan. I think, perhaps, you're de-emphasizing my overall point about establishing communication of intent?

I do, however, agree about smaller, more specialized questions. However, what might those be? Is there a shared vocabularly Jason and his player can use to communicate the necessary concepts to satisfy Jason's desire to understand the player's motivations? What about specific questions that can be asked that might lead to such understanding?

Those I am at a loss for.

[Bankuei]

Hi Jason,

The best way to figure out what is going on is to observe someone's actions, not their words.  To give a non-gaming anecdote, I have a friend who always says, "I'm not a complainer, but..." and then complains continously.  Regardless of how conscious he is of his intent, the fact remains as far as actions go, he likes to complain.

Likewise, for your players, during play, watch their decisions, and watch their reactions.  When are they have the most fun? Least fun?

All this will work much better for you to figure out what's going on than simply asking.

Chris

[beingfrank]

Evaluation is a process that often needs to be learned.

I go through exactly the same thing with the Brownie Guides I get to evaluate the own activities and those of their peers.  We start off with 'we liked it because it was good,' or 'it was bad because I didn't like it' and slowly move up to the stage where 7 year olds are saying 'I didn't enjoy the game because it was too rough, I didn't feel safe and was worried I'd get hurt, so next time Jane runs a tiggy she should make sure the rules are clear and that they make it hard for people to get hurt' (taken almost word for word from a recent evaluation of a game another girl organised for her peers).  It takes a lot of prodding and leading questions to get to that point.  But if I can do it with under 10s in 6 months, then adults can learn to do it eventually.  Just keep asking, and provide models of the sort of answers you're looking for in type not content.

[clehrich]

I think the psychologist/psychiatrist metaphor is very accurate here, for all the reasons mentioned, and for another.

You may have heard the old joke: "How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?"  "Only one, but the light bulb has to want to change."

This, I think, is the problem here.  Jason's friend gives unsatisfactory (to Jason) answers at least partly because he doesn't perceive a problem.  It's fun, it's interesting, why should he worry?  And the prospect of analyzing what he does for its own sake seems to him pointless or uninteresting.  To continue the psychologist metaphor, he is someone well-adjusted and reasonably happy who sees no reason to spend money and time with a psychologist; unlike the psychologist herself (whom I would parallel here to Jason), he has no interest in studying or analyzing the state of happiness or adjustedness for its own sake.

So I suspect you get non-answers because your friend does not need the answers himself.

[Callan S.]

That's a good point. If you were to go through a short list of game elements one at a time and say that your interested in fine tuning them, not only does it say 'we could change X for the better', but it also suggests a specific question 'what could we do about X in particular'.

[Jason Lee]

I'm going to try to make a unified response to everyone, hard though that will be.

*****

It was pretty clear that we were performing an analysis of play during our talk.  This player has been somewhat discontent, both as a GM and a player.  He's having some conflicts with players when he GMs, and he's also having trouble getting want he wants out of play.  Unfortunately, it's all bundled up in denial, which I'm having trouble cutting through.  He might say, "Yeah, I liked that", when it is blatantly obvious that he did not.  I think he's finally starting to admit when he's unhappy, but when it comes to figuring out why I think we're still a ways away.

I think I've got a pretty good handle on his priorities, but the problem is that I don't think he does.  My observation says predominately Gam|Color; which I doubted for a long time because of statements he makes about "story", the use of Actor stance, and my own failure to distinguish between characterization (character color) and Exploration of Character.

The vocabulary isn't there, and realistically it never will be, but I'm pretty good at dodging jargon.  I've had bad luck talking to this particular player in the past.  He's just the argumentative sort, coupled with a real stubbornness against challenging his own preconceptions.  If I can't get him to reach a conclusion on his own, then nothing I say will make any difference.  There is also something fundamentally different about how we each communicate, which can make analysis a real pain in the ass.

*****

Seeing as everyone is eager to help, I'll expand a bit.

He's GM-ing right now, and another player and I both have a character that has been separated from the rest of the characters.  So, he felt that we should run a small separate session for the two of us mid-week instead of making everyone else sit through something they weren't part of.  I disagreed that it was necessary, because not having a character present in the location shouldn't equate to sitting around being bored, but I digress.

After a few minutes of setting up the delicious innards of some sloppy joes a simmering, we started with the other player's character.

This extra mini-session provided a unique opportunity to critique his GM-ing mid-session.  There were only three of us we wouldn't really be taking away from play time.

Let me see if I can reconstruct the conversation (the following is subject to me not remembering correctly, and therefore being somewhat not-right)...

While we ate our sloppy joes, I gave my analysis of the segment of play that just happened.  Basically, it seemed to go pretty well, the other player got what they wanted out of it, and it was colorful – all around good.  However, the skill totals of his mooks seemed a little too high.  The other player agreed, and I said that if the two of us think they are too high, you can bet the rest of the group will react the same to his scaling on Monday - something to keep in mind.

Well, this led us into all sorts of fun topics.  Starting with why we thought the scaling was too high.  The heart of the matter was that he was scaling the mooks in relation to the character in the conflict in order to create a challenging conflict, and that it wasn't that I was intimidated by the effectiveness of the mooks, I simply didn't find it believable.  I tried to get across the fundamental priority difference at work, and recommended that instead of scaling up mooks to create a challenging conflict he should instead put the character up against something other than mooks, that way it's nice and congruent.  

That didn't work.  The priority difference wasn't apparent to him.  I tried a new angle.

I have a character with a high Quickness rating and so does he.  So I say, "All right, take a look at the fembot's Quickness rating.  Does that bother you? Yes? Okay, why?"  Some talk about scaling conflicts and other stuff ensues and we eventually get to his reason – he doesn't think it's fair.  So I say, "Cool.  My turn.  Your character's Quickness rating bothers me because it doesn't make sense.  She's a TV star, not the frickin' flash.  If half the total was from cybernetics my gripe would disappear."

"See the priority difference?  See how fairness and consistency are different needs?" I say.

He makes a grumpy face and says, "Yeah, I guess I can see that."

Bingo!  Hallelujah!  Cheerleaders for everyone!  The priority conflict has been seen!

"Now let's flip this on its head and spank it.  What is your justification for your character's rating?  My reason is that ancient, alien, combat androids are superhuman, therefore they get superhuman speed.  What've you got?" I say.

And we come to the statement in my opening post, "That's just how I picture it."

"Well, okay." I say, thinking, "Okay, it's Color.  That's a valid reason."  Totalling missing that he didn't answer the question, neither to me or himself.

*****

"It's how I picture it" is a very common reason for things with this player.  "Why did that scene have to happen?  Why couldn't you just let it go instead of forcing it?" "I had a really strong image in my head."

The truth of the matter is that that isn't an answer at all.  "So you've got a picture in your head - big deal, so do I.  Mine's watercolor, how about yours?"  I mistook not having a reason for Exploration of Color; which not only falsely separates Color from the rest of Exploration, it also seriously undervalues Color.  A picture in someone's head is nothing more than a feeling.  The priority was easy to identify from the perspective of what one dislikes, but when trying to identify it from what one likes, the analysis all of the sudden became a whole lot cloudier.  It's as if people can only explain negative feelings.  The answer to "Why?" doesn't have to be long and involved, it just has to be something other than 'Just because'.

I do plan on taking this new chat rather slow, even though all I'm trying to get across at this point is that Gam and Nar exist, and that they conflict.  I felt like a lot was accomplished in this last conversation, but I also fear that I may have overloaded him and hence lost everything that was gained.  We went over a lot more than I mentioned here.

My battle plan is to ask two hard questions in the next conversation to dig out why the aforementioned picture exists in his head, and hope it sheds light on some other issues:

1.  "How do you justify giving your characters effectiveness ratings above what you think other player's characters should be allowed to have?"

2.  "Given that we know you approach the game with an interest in the ordinary man doing the extraordinary, and that the bulk of the group is interested in characters that are extraordinary to begin with, how do you justify giving effectiveness levels to ordinary individuals in excess of the ratings found on extraordinary individuals?  Can you see how that makes people's extraordinary characters beneath ordinary?  Can you see how that might bother another player?"

I'm fairly certain I know the answer to these questions, and it's a nice innocent Gamist one.  Something like, "The character that has been in play longer should be more effective, regardless of character concept - player investment should be rewarded with effectiveness."  However, I think it's going to be hard to get to that point.  He has a preconception that Gamism is wrong (I have no idea how I'm going to cut through this), so I think those questions are going to receive a rather negative emotional reaction.

After that I plan to go into the difference between GM plot and theme, and then the difference between characterization and Exploration of Character (though without the jargon).

Ultimately, he needs to come to his own answers about why he does the things he does, and how his desires might conflict with those of another player.  That's really the point I'm trying to get him to.  I'd love to just say, "Go read the Forge", but that isn't going to happen.

Anyway, I've prattled on long enough.

[Callan S.]

“Now let’s flip this on its head and spank it. What is your justification for your character's rating? My reason is that ancient, alien, combat androids are superhuman, therefore they get superhuman speed. What’ve you got?” I say.

Err, to me that isn't justification. Your just citing color. How you picture this color. Just 'how you picture it'.

Justification comes from pointing out what we owe each other, not what we owe the system in terms of explanation/color. For example, an particular social contract between people could mean 'My reason is that icy cold slugmen should get superhuman speed' and everyone agrees thats good (perhaps their agreeing to be perverse). This might jar with the system, the setting, pop culture and a ton of other things. But the point is, they need only justify it to each other, not to those other things like the setting, etc.

Strangely this sort of justification involves saying the same thing, but with the modifier 'I think', or 'I believe' or something that makes it clear its an assertion of you, not an assertion of someone else (like the system author for example). Eg, My reason is that I think ancient, alien, combat androids are superhuman, therefore I believe they get superhuman speed.

This also helps get away from 'this is the right way to play' sort of 'debate'. You might not intend to be pitching it this way, but 'this is the way I like to play' helps seperate it, as he may be in the belief that there is only one way to play and that if he accepts your complaints, that means his way is wrong and he's on the outer. After all, you don't believe there's one true way and he's not doing it, instead he's doing his personal style and it doesn't match yours and something needs to be negotiated between you.

Ironically, part of that negotiation needs to be the understanding that both of you don't have to play together. You might not match up expectation wise, even if you are friends. No one has to give up anything because the world wont explode if friends don't RP together. How much each party will give up depends on how much they'd like to play with their friend (which doesn't reflect on how much you are friends. I don't have to like spicy food just because my friends do).

I bet there aren't any ideas here that you haven't seen before. But from an outsiders perspective, I'd say they really aren't being employed, even if they feel to you like they are.

On him and his hating of gamism, try using terms like 'goal orientated play' and others that make it sound like play is about acomplishments (which gamism is, of course). It'll sound more positive that way.

[Jason Lee]

Something I didn't get to do before was respond to everybody's personal suggestions, because I got wrapped up in writing my uber-long post.

Now that I'm sitting around waiting for Oracle to install (again), I'd like to do that.

Maybe it would help mentioning to the player that doing a little self-analysis in regards to why he enjoys particular moments during play would go a long way towards making sure he experiences those moments on a regular basis. After all, you can't expect anybody to help you have those fun moments if you can't explain to them why you find them so fun and interesting.

You may have done this already. If so, keep at it. :)

While I can understand the hesitance to analyze your leisure activities too closely, when it comes to role-playing you really only stand to gain from the analysis.

So, this is basically a sympathy and "don't give up" support post.

Thanks ('Thanks' always reads so hollow online.  Maybe it's just me.)

Yeah, I'm having him do some self-analysis.  I'm always so wary of misinterpreting someone else's agenda and inadvertently pigeon holing them, that I actually told him "I think I know the answer to the hard questions I'm asking you, but I don't want to bias your own analysis by trying to tell you what you think.  So, I'm not going to tell you what I think the answers are."  Which sounds kind of irritating ("You know and you won't tell me?"), but he actually seemed to appreciate it.

*****

In this case, the long answer is justified. However, the communication between Jason and his friend may not have been such that the friend realized the long answer was appropriate, that the question was put forth to discover concrete facts and create an analysis to help with play.

I do, however, agree about smaller, more specialized questions. However, what might those be? Is there a shared vocabularly Jason and his player can use to communicate the necessary concepts to satisfy Jason's desire to understand the player's motivations? What about specific questions that can be asked that might lead to such understanding?

There are definitely communication barriers here.  It's not so much that he didn't know the long answer was appropriate, but that I don't think he knew the long answer that I was searching for existed.  Though really, I'm quibbling aren't I?  Is there actually a functional difference between those two?  They are both just a matter of articulating the needs of the conversation.  You're surprisingly spot on, for not knowing the details of the conversation.

*****

The best way to figure out what is going on is to observe someone's actions, not their words. To give a non-gaming anecdote, I have a friend who always says, "I'm not a complainer, but..." and then complains continously. Regardless of how conscious he is of his intent, the fact remains as far as actions go, he likes to complain.

Likewise, for your players, during play, watch their decisions, and watch their reactions. When are they have the most fun? Least fun?

All this will work much better for you to figure out what's going on than simply asking.

I think he's actually wrapped in that same obliviousness to his own intent.  I think I've got his interests pegged from observation, but unfortunately I don't think "See what you're doing?  Look at yourself!" is going to help him.

I've tried using other players as examples ("You know when So-and-so does blah?"), but I've having trouble getting him to not attribute other people's priorities to malice. By that I mean, if a player doesn't engage his NPCs or drifts off and stops paying attention in game it's not productive analysis to say they are doing these things because they are lazy bastards or they want to make life hard for the GM.  That's sort of egocentric isn't it?  "So-and-so's primary motivation has to do with me."  "No, So-and-so's motivation is for So-and-so - they are not interested in what's going on for some reason."  He agrees with me, but I think he slips back into it too easily for it to really have sunk in.

*****

Evaluation is a process that often needs to be learned.

I go through exactly the same thing with the Brownie Guides I get to evaluate the own activities and those of their peers. We start off with 'we liked it because it was good,' or 'it was bad because I didn't like it' and slowly move up to the stage where 7 year olds are saying 'I didn't enjoy the game because it was too rough, I didn't feel safe and was worried I'd get hurt, so next time Jane runs a tiggy she should make sure the rules are clear and that they make it hard for people to get hurt' (taken almost word for word from a recent evaluation of a game another girl organised for her peers). It takes a lot of prodding and leading questions to get to that point. But if I can do it with under 10s in 6 months, then adults can learn to do it eventually. Just keep asking, and provide models of the sort of answers you're looking for in type not content.

Whoa.  I love that.  I don't have anything else to say.  I just agree.

*****

I think the psychologist/psychiatrist metaphor is very accurate here, for all the reasons mentioned, and for another.

You may have heard the old joke: "How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?" "Only one, but the light bulb has to want to change."

This, I think, is the problem here. Jason's friend gives unsatisfactory (to Jason) answers at least partly because he doesn't perceive a problem. It's fun, it's interesting, why should he worry? And the prospect of analyzing what he does for its own sake seems to him pointless or uninteresting. To continue the psychologist metaphor, he is someone well-adjusted and reasonably happy who sees no reason to spend money and time with a psychologist; unlike the psychologist herself (whom I would parallel here to Jason), he has no interest in studying or analyzing the state of happiness or adjustedness for its own sake.

So I suspect you get non-answers because your friend does not need the answers himself.

There is totally an aspect of 'not wanting to change' at work, while still very much wanting to improve.  In this thread I've been focuses a lot on this player's faults, which is probably painting a rather bad picture.  He's very interested, more so that most players, in improving both how he plays and GMs.  And though we do have our arguments, he's also very interested in getting constructive criticism.  He seems to sort of hit this wall though, where the advice he's given conflicts with some preconception.  Hw wants to improve, but sometimes can't, because he won't let go of something.  Though I haven't really talked about it in this thread, GM controlled plot is the big one that's hard for him to let go of.  I've tried, I dunno a lot, of times to get across the concept of the myth of reality and No Myth play, at least for partial use.  Hasn't worked yet.  Still trying.

He's sort of like the lamp that knows the light bulb is burnt out, and he wants to be shiny, but the current bulb is so comforting and snuggly he doesn't want to abandon it.

*****

Err, to me that isn't justification. Your just citing color. How you picture this color. Just 'how you picture it'.

Justification comes from pointing out what we owe each other, not what we owe the system in terms of explanation/color. For example, an particular social contract between people could mean 'My reason is that icy cold slugmen should get superhuman speed' and everyone agrees thats good (perhaps their agreeing to be perverse). This might jar with the system, the setting, pop culture and a ton of other things. But the point is, they need only justify it to each other, not to those other things like the setting, etc.

Strangely this sort of justification involves saying the same thing, but with the modifier 'I think', or 'I believe' or something that makes it clear its an assertion of you, not an assertion of someone else (like the system author for example). Eg, My reason is that I think ancient, alien, combat androids are superhuman, therefore I believe they get superhuman speed.

This also helps get away from 'this is the right way to play' sort of 'debate'. You might not intend to be pitching it this way, but 'this is the way I like to play' helps seperate it, as he may be in the belief that there is only one way to play and that if he accepts your complaints, that means his way is wrong and he's on the outer. After all, you don't believe there's one true way and he's not doing it, instead he's doing his personal style and it doesn't match yours and something needs to be negotiated between you.

My justification is just my way of saying "This is consistent with the character concept, which is consistent with the genre from which it is drawn."  You can definitely interpret that as "That's just how I picture it."  That's sort of my point.  You can also interpret "My justification is that it is fair", "My justification is that I'm trying to express my character's background", "My justification is that this is my favorite combat ability", and probably many more as "That's just how I picture it."  Without knowing why it's pictured that way, I'm left to guess.

Anyway, I do take your general point about getting to the actual agenda conflict, rather than dressing the issue up in Exploration material.  I'm trying to make it clear that my dislike isn't necessarily a criticism of his approach, but simply different point of view.  Honestly though, sometimes I do criticize his approach, particularly in matters of trying to control other players.  When I do criticize, I do so because he is actually doing something bad, not just something different.  I suppose that difference can be difficult to see sometimes though (particularly if my definition of 'bad' is different), especially without the necessary vocabulary.

Ironically, part of that negotiation needs to be the understanding that both of you don't have to play together. You might not match up expectation wise, even if you are friends. No one has to give up anything because the world wont explode if friends don't RP together. How much each party will give up depends on how much they'd like to play with their friend (which doesn't reflect on how much you are friends. I don't have to like spicy food just because my friends do).

I bet there aren't any ideas here that you haven't seen before. But from an outsiders perspective, I'd say they really aren't being employed, even if they feel to you like they are.

On him and his hating of gamism, try using terms like 'goal orientated play' and others that make it sound like play is about acomplishments (which gamism is, of course). It'll sound more positive that way.

Hmmm... I think I'll try "accomplishments".  

As for not playing together, that's conventional wisdom around these parts.  There's truth in it, but there is also a measure of turning the other cheek.  You can give a starving man a fish, you can teach him to fish, or you can just ignore the fact that he's hungry and eat your own damn fish.  Sometimes the 'just don't play together' option smells too much like ignoring the problem.

Anyway, we've been playing together for a long time and can, eventually maybe, negotiated these issues.