Typhoid Mary in Action?

[greyorm]

Over in Frustrations with 3E, Callan said:

For example, recently I pitched a very low key problematic situation to a player so he could address the premise (A guy with information was running away, but the PC would have to shove through a market place of people to get to him. Does he want to batter and bruise all these people, when the guy might not even know anything?)

He tackled it by describing how he would try and get around people and if needed, pick them up with his ultra strength and set them asside.

It was actually a very reasonable tactical responce. And I said that as I told him that basically this is a 'test of character', where its not about negotiating it but showing something about your character. If he wanted to negotiate it with tactics, we could do it that way but we'd never learn anything about his character.

I read that and something about the situation didn't sit right with me. After pondering it for a bit, I realized my discomfort was because the described behvaior on the GM's part was NOT facillitative of Narrativism. It was the opposite of such because it was taking the necessary control out of the player's hands. Thinking about it, to me, it seems it could best be described as Illusionist play, or perhaps Participationism.

Why do I say that? I mean, the player was addressing a Premise, after all, right? He was "showing his character" by making a choice between two possible courses of action.

Yet Narrativism is not about "What the GM wants to see happen", and admitedly, the GM did not have in mind a specific result for the scene...or did he?

The GM says above, "No, that's not what I want to see. You have to choose between doing this and doing this, you can't do anything else, because then it isn't what I want to see your character do." In other words, he is telling the player to limit himself to two pre-determined choices of action, because (supposedly) no other choices would address the Premise.

Over in Functional Roles and Narr, Tim said:

player authorship basically means that the player in question can tell the story they want to tell, or rather, the story events inside the SIS happen the way they want it to.

And I'm thinking, "Yeah." That's why Callan's story sat so wrong with me. It was Illusionism in action, it was an example of Force at work. The player isn't being allowed to tell the story, or react to it the way he wants -- the story events, or the choices/reactions/responses, aren't being left in his hands.

Had I been the player, I would have said, "Fuck you, dude. This is addressing the Premise, it is showing my hero's character: he's not going to push people around, but he's not going to let the bad guy get away, either. So, he picks people up and moves them without hurting them in order to get to the guy. Now, what happens? Do I catch him?"

So, I wondered, was Callan's description of this game event an example of Typhoid Mary (behavior) in action?

[Victor Gijsbers]

This is not really an example of Typhoid Mary, is it? The GameMaster is not addressing the Premise. He is pointing out to the player that the scene contains the possibility of addressing the Premise, and he might want to make use of that possibility instead of viewing it as a tactical situation. It might not be (I would say: is not) the best way to handle things, but it is not especially disfunctional and does not take away the player's opportunity to address premise. Indeed, it only takes away the player's opportunity not to address premise, which may be just as bad (if the player is not interested in narrativism) but is not the same.

Being able to do attempt to do anything that you wish is not the defining characteristic of functional narrativism; being able to create theme is the defining characteristic. I don't really see how that is compromised in this situation.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Raven, it seems to me as if you're stretching way past the point where we could answer this question. We weren't there. We don't know the people, we don't know how they play and how they interact. We especially don't know the history of the character and what sorts of conflicts he's been in, and what they've meant to people playing in the game so far.

Different people do things with different parameters and constraints. You want wide-open choicey-choice, and that's fine - maybe another group is having a fine time addressing Premise with highly constrained choices, which sound a little forced when articulated verbally, out of the context of how they interact with one another about it.

Basically, when I read a post like Callan's, from someone who's reasonably conversant with the vocabulary we use here, and when he says, "Address a little Premise," I give all the possible benefit of the doubt. He says they did it, so I buy it.

Furthermore, I think your basic data is too atomic - one scene, one action, one decision? No information about the social feedback, no sense of System in action throughout a reward cycle?

Nah. Not enough information. Pending any need to delve further (which I don't see any reason for), I just accept Callan's word about the session or set of sessions as a whole.

Best,
Ron

[sirogit]

Had I been the player, I would have said, "Fuck you, dude. This is addressing the Premise, it is showing my hero's character: he's not going to push people around, but he's not going to let the bad guy get away, either. So, he picks people up and moves them without hurting them in order to get to the guy. Now, what happens? Do I catch him?"

I think a character acting making a simple yes or no response to a situation has the same function of a yes or no question in conversation: It tells us a little bit about the situation. For no reason should it be thrown in with illusionism.

If the player had to choose between letting the bad guy get away or bruising a bunch of people, it would say something. It would speak which outweighs itself in the current context; his conviction or his compassion.

Catching the criminal without hurting people displays nothing about the character other than the fact that he isn't a sociopath that would intentionally hurt people.

[greyorm]

Thanks for the responses, everyone, that all makes sense. Unfortunately, this means I still have no clue what the fuck Typhoid Mary is, does, or even looks like (or "Force", too, for that matter).

Thread's closed unless anyone has anything revelatory to add.

[Victor Gijsbers]

Well, you have Typhoid Mary when the GameMaster uses his powers to address premise instead of letting the players address premise. Suppose the premise of my game is "Can love conquer pride?" If the GM runs the game in such a way that only one possible outcome to this question can emerge (No, for instance), because that is the Theme he wishes to state, we have a case of Typhoid Mary. The players are not allowed to answer the premise, they are only along for the ride while the GM unfolds his views on the topic.

[greyorm]

Ahhh, ok, that makes sense.
Thanks, Victor.

Also, upon rereading the various replies and cautionary advice provided, I believe I failed to be clear enough about one thing: I wasn't saying or trying to say "Callan is a Typhoid Mary" in an all-his-gaming-is-such sense. Rather, I was wondering if this event would be a discrete behavior that would fall under than category (ie: serve as a contributing factor(?)), regardless of whether or not Callan himself was or wasn't.

IE: It was the behavior I was looking at, not Callan, his group, his playstyle, etc. Because, yeah, obviously I can't and don't know crap about the context of the event and the general sort of play and interaction that occurs in this group.

I mention this so Callan doesn't feel insulted or picked on -- your example just happened to be available. A judgement on you personally wasn't intended, and I'm sorry if it came off that way (if it did)!

[Callan S.]

Since it was a PBP, you can sort of be there:

Near the bottom of this page I detail the little premise: http://rpol.net/display.cgi?gi=5888&gn=D20+Modern+(spiced+with+Rifts):+A+Tale+of+Revenge&threadnum=7&date=1099621057
I'll quote the post where I explain things:

There's no neat way around it, it's either rush through grabbing and putting to the side roughly the market people or let the guy go. It's only cause your augmented that you've got the chance to run him down.

((ooc: Note: this isn't a tactical test of how to get through a crowd without causing problems, but a test of character: Will you be quite rude and unpleasant to about fifty for the (perhaps slim) chance at some information?
So although your harm minimisation tactics are quite good, the moment is about testing in a small way what is more important to the both of you.

I hope an occasional test of character mixed in with tactical tests is enjoyable. Please comment in the OOC thread anything your think about it

Oh, IMPORTANT NOTE: By character test I don't mean there's a right or wrong answer and I as GM have decided which is best. This test is so players can look at their character closely and decide just what they think their PC would decide on. Which helps define the character by the choices he makes))

And on the next page at the top we get the players answer, which I'll leave to curious posters to check.

Had I been the player, I would have said, "Fuck you, dude. This is addressing the Premise, it is showing my hero's character: he's not going to push people around, but he's not going to let the bad guy get away, either. So, he picks people up and moves them without hurting them in order to get to the guy. Now, what happens? Do I catch him?"

I don't get it. You care about the people and you care about catching the informant. We already knew that so...what's the point of the answer if you can have both? You've shown me nothing new about your hero.

Where's the problematic choice if you can just pick people up and put them aside? You haven't had to make a choice then. I mean, nar revolves around problematic choice, correct? And by having choices you can take, there are choices you can't.

It sounds like you want to address a different premise entirely 'Are you a good guy who really wants to get the bad guy while still being good?'. On that one, I guess I'm typhoid mary. Because you just couldn't in that situation, because of how I was handling it. But I guess I found it very, very boring...'good guys wanting to be good in the face of easily surmonted adversity'. Doesn't really blow my mind.

Side note: I can't honestly acknowledge the judgement disclaimer.