Play Example Explanation

[Mike Holmes]

Alexandre was inquiring about what my play is like mechanically from what he's seen in the logs here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19987.15

I was thinking more about publishing a short "sanitized" and approved excerpt just to get the gist of it. You could for instance take the gobelin's battle of the two camps. The one where Okhfeld has to decide between his line of duty and loyality to his lover. I guess a couple of interesting things happened from the point of view of the mechanics (battle, bang, etc).

The mechanical emphasis in these cases is very subtle. That is, when there's a choice like this, there's usually no contest that's going on at the moment (although occasionally players will do quick little "internal contests" on occasion to see what the character does when they, the player, are ambivalent  - not unconcerned, but ambivalent - about which way to go). The emphasis comes in terms of the player having a vague feeling about what sort of contests they may face when they do go a particular direction. And also what abilities they'll be able to rationalize increasing.

It's like Fred is thinking the following, but all quite subconsciously, "If I go fight the goblins, then I'll get to augment with my loyalty to my men and such, but if I go with Isadora, then later I can bump up his relationship with her to represent that, and in future contests, they'll be closer." Again, nobody does this consciously, it's just that the system gets people playing this way.

... for instance I see that you have a lot more conversation time and less action/exploration events than in my traditional

scenarios. This is expected from what we had discussed before on the characters.

Yep. You don't really get a lot of character development in action. Rather it's usually a low ratio. Also this means that when action does occur, it punctuates things, instead of being just "more of same."

I love action. I just also love character development. Note that the players often escalate to action, not me. I had no idea that Isadora was going to attack Sebastian the first time, nor kill him the second time they tangled. That was all the players.

Also as expected, I see that the PCs are much more in "charge of themselves" (even though sometimes Isadora seems a bit apathic for a colony leader faced with so many challenges at hand).

Not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that they're not other people's pawns? Or are you saying that the players feel that they can drive their characters anywhere they want? A lot of OOC chat is things like the players saying, "Mike, can I set up a scene where Okhfels and Isadora meet near her tent?" And me just saying, "Uh, Ok, sure."

Note that I don't have to even be present for the game to run. When I'm not there, Thomas steps in as narrator to make the final decisions, and play NPCs. But the players take a lot of responsibility to set up scenes, and to drive scenes once they're going. Which makes my life as narrator a whole lot easier than it would be otherwise.

In my games I keep throwing stuff at the PCs, to keep them busy and tense. I know that if I don't do this, the players will be a bit lost, because they will not know what to do by themselves. I usually frame very well the challenges (big sign: go here!), to avoid straying characters from the plot. Of course the players are active in finding ways to solve the problems they are faced, but not at all on the direction the story should go (except from post mortem feedback conversations).

Well, I don't want to be contentious, but what I've found, generally, is that players don't move the plot in cases like this, because they're expecting you to move the plot for them. Worse, if/when they do drive things, and you rout them back onto the plot, they realize that their contributions really aren't doing anything.

So, I'm betting that you've played the style where you just don't present them with any action at all, and see where they go, and they just sit there right? So you expect you can't leave it to them? This is the reason that the standard methods of prep that exist today do. But the way I play, I don't present them with nothing, or just static situation. I give them events, and events that they have to respond to in some way:

Not just goblins threatening, but goblins attacking.
Not just people threatening to persue characters, but actually appearing and trying to get thigns from them.
Not just an evil wood looming over everything, but agents from that wood causing problems for the characters.

What I don't do, however, is to have some idea of where these events are going to lead. X never leads to Y. These are all just events that get things going, and the players decide where they go. AKA Bangs.

So that's my game plan, to follow the Ron Edwards school of game prep, and have lots of potentially interesting things that I can throw at the characters to make their lives interesting, but not to then need the players to respond in any particular way. Instead I take how they respond, and simply complicate the new situations that arise from their decisions. It's not "All GM" plot, or "All player" plot. It's "We all make plot together."

It's an interesting idea, and I would really like to attend one of those sessions. Maybe if I once get a Friday off I stay awake to follow one of your cessions.

Hope you can make it.

Thank you for your invitation, I appreciate it (nothing compares to face to face communication). I do come to the US about every second year. Maybe next time I can try to arrange something.

This is also a good idea, I should check what's coming up in the next months. I have always played with the same group of friends, and we have had no contact with clubs or larger events since about ten years, so that could be a wellcome change.

Great. If you can arrange it so you can hit one of the major conventions (GenCon, or Origins) that would be even better. But let me know either way.

Mike

[Alexandre Santos]

Are you saying that they're not other people's pawns? Or are you saying that the players feel that they can drive their characters anywhere they want? A lot of OOC chat is things like the players saying, "Mike, can I set up a scene where Okhfels and Isadora meet near her tent?" And me just saying, "Uh, Ok, sure."

The second option. In our group we still tend to wait respectfully for the narrator to tell us what's going to happen next, no one would dream to set up scenes. There is also very little character interaction outside of narrator supervision, which sometimes frustrates me. I see no obvious reason for the players not to act their characters in the absence of the narrator (as long as he's informed about important stuff that might have happened).

Note that I don't have to even be present for the game to run. When I'm not there, Thomas steps in as narrator to make the final decisions, and play NPCs. But the players take a lot of responsibility to set up scenes, and to drive scenes once they're going. Which makes my life as narrator a whole lot easier than it would be otherwise.

That's exactly what I would like, to avoid the narrator-as-a-bottleneck problem. We had thought of rotating the narrator position to help people get used to have more initiative.

what I've found, generally, is that players don't move the plot in cases like this, because they're expecting you to move the plot for them. Worse, if/when they do drive things, and you rout them back onto the plot, they realize that their contributions really aren't doing anything.

Exactly, they know that the plot is pre-planned, and that they just have to follow the red line. If they stray from it, they will put the GM's plot in trouble.

So, I'm betting that you've played the style where you just don't present them with any action at all, and see where they go, and they just sit there right? So you expect you can't leave it to them?

Indeed! Some years ago my plot landed them in an harbour. I had decided to give them more freedom and told them to do whatever pleased them. It resulted in bored players and a dispersed group. People did not know what to do, nothing was happening (and I could not just keep inventing pub brawls to distract them). Since then I keep a tight grip on the group (via action moments or precise goals), so that things keep happening, and that they always know what to do.

Of course, the mistake was to get the players used to be purely reactive, and then expect some spontaneous action from them.

What I don't do, however, is to have some idea of where these events are going to lead. X never leads to Y. These are all just events that get things going, and the players decide where they go. AKA Bangs.

I think this is what is really needed to give the players the feeling that they are free to do/be what they want. I just can't believe how much time I spent making sure that players could not break my scenarii, when in fact I should have left things open ended and not worry about it. This would also have been more satisfying to them, as they would see the world change around them according to their acts, and not along a pre-established frame.

I had no idea that Isadora was going to attack Sebastian the first time, nor kill him the second time they tangled. That was all the players.

I understand. I was actually quite shocked by that move. In our gaming group inter-PC killing is totally taboo. We still have memories on how our first ever RPG campaign ended abruptly with inter-PC conflicts erupting into inter-player issues. We could only start playing again one year later, and since then have avoided that kind of situations (ok, we were teens by then, which didn't help!).

[Valamir]

Indeed! Some years ago my plot landed them in an harbour. I had decided to give them more freedom and told them to do whatever pleased them. It resulted in bored players and a dispersed group. People did not know what to do, nothing was happening (and I could not just keep inventing pub brawls to distract them). Since then I keep a tight grip on the group (via action moments or precise goals), so that things keep happening, and that they always know what to do.

Of course, the mistake was to get the players used to be purely reactive, and then expect some spontaneous action from them.

There are all kinds of little techniques that can be tried to get players to engage more.  Which works best varies by group but a couple tips I've learned along the way.

1) setting the stage and then asking "what do you do?" almost never works.  Players will mentally expand "What do you do?" into "what prepatory thing do you want to be doing between now and when I spring the next surprise on you."  All I ever got from that question was some variation on looking for new gear to buy, scoping out the area for tactical advantage, or drinking at the tavern.

2) instead what has worked better for alot of folks is asking "what sort of scene would you like to see next?"  Not only does this help highlight that you're not asking for them to fill in the trivial transition stuff between scenes of yours but it also starts training them to think in terms of scenes...which one day may lead to them proposing scenes of their own without your prodding.

Another variation on that same idea is "who is your character currently upset with?", followed by some combination of "what would they have to do to make it right with you?" or "how do you propose evening the score with them?"

Similarly "who do you think is currently most upset with your character?", followed by some combination of "how do you want to go about making it right with them?" or "what would be a good way for them to try and get even?"


The trick is to not ask totally open ended questions, but questions that drive towards a conflict that you can then set up the parameters for.

[Mike Holmes]

What Ralph says. Simply indicate honestly that you're not sure exactly where the game is going next, but that you're willing to support it where ever it goes. So simply saying something like, "What do you think would be cool next?" can spur some conversation. I may say something like "Would it be cool if I have Isadora attacked by something now?" The player might then say, "Ooh, yeah, how about not some random monster, but Aysha has escaped and comes for her?" (actual characters, not a real example). And then my actual implementation may be slightly different based on some idea I think makes it even more interesting. Once I have the idea of what the players might be into, I often then move back into more traditional GM mode, and surprise them with something not quite what was discussed. So they get both something like what they talked about wanting, but yet not entirely pre-planned out.

The second option. In our group we still tend to wait respectfully for the narrator to tell us what's going to happen next, no one would dream to set up scenes. There is also very little character interaction outside of narrator supervision, which sometimes frustrates me. I see no obvious reason for the players not to act their characters in the absence of the narrator (as long as he's informed about important stuff that might have happened).

Huh, that's odd. On the other hand, do the characters have much to say to each other? Nobody really wants to narrate small talk. If, on the other hand, they have information to relate, or some conflict with the other PC, then they talk. Sounds however like this may be part of the problem...

I understand. I was actually quite shocked by that move. In our gaming group inter-PC killing is totally taboo. We still have memories on how our first ever RPG campaign ended abruptly with inter-PC conflicts erupting into inter-player issues. We could only start playing again one year later, and since then have avoided that kind of situations (ok, we were teens by then, which didn't help!).

Classic. See, the problem here is My Guy play. That is, the players in this case are obviously competing with each other for coolest character (especially if there are magic items to be taken). But the problem is that the game indicates that the players are also supposed to be a team. But the violating player in question uses the "But that's what My Guy would do" defense to rationalize his otherwise illegal competition with the other player (often involving killing the other character in his sleep, which is all too easy tactically, making it not much of a competition).

So players learn to turn off their feelings toward each other as players, and the characters responses to each other, to avoid this sort of behavior. When what they really should be doing is co-operating as players to create conflict for their characters.

This is one case where the OOC logs would have been quite illuminating. The conversation between Thomas, playing Sebastian, and Adrienne playing Isadora went something like this (lots of paraphrasing):

Thomas: I've been trying to get rid of Sebastian for a long time now, but Mike keeps frustrating my attempts to get him out of the game. So, let's just say that Isadora kills Sebastian, OK?
Adrienne: Are you sure? I'm fine with it being a contest, if you like?
Mike: So, you're saying that you don't want Sebastian to win, Thomas? Sebastian isn't committing suicide, but you as player aren't opposing her killing him?
Thomas: It's OK, Adrienne. Mike, yeah, I don't want to oppose it.
Mike: OK, fine, who wants to narrate it, then?

I think Thomas ended up narrating it, though in concert with Adrienne, IIRC. Hardly matters, any of us could have written that narration right, I think.

Note that I've been a complete bastard about letting Thomas take Sebastian out of the game. Since dying, I've had Sebastian return as a ghost, and forced Thomas to continue to play him. He has a new character, Lana (who, interestingly has also become a ghost since arriving), but Sebastian is still around for him to play if we need him. :-)

We had thought of rotating the narrator position to help people get used to have more initiative.

That's a radical approach that might work. But if everyone isn't comfortable with that, these other techniques might do fine.

Exactly, they know that the plot is pre-planned, and that they just have to follow the red line. If they stray from it, they will put the GM's plot in trouble.

Right. Two forms of reinforcement. One is that the GM can be seen to be struggling, so they feel sympathy, but the other is that, when the GM makes the "correction" maneuver ("Oh, it turns out that you get lost in the rain, and end up at the Village you wanted to avoid anyhow") players realize that it's useless to try anyhow. So, if it's useless and painful, why try?

I've been that GM, too. For a couple of decades.

Of course, the mistake was to get the players used to be purely reactive, and then expect some spontaneous action from them.

Yep, that's precisely the problem. People see the ownership of directing where play goes as having to be 100% in the GM's hands, or 100% in the player's hands. What they miss is that it can be a mix. The GM providing opportunities to create, and the players taking them.

That's what the death was above. Me pushing for something more dramatic than just "Sebastian leaves town." And the players then collaborating on how to best provide that drama, and still accomplish the player goal of wanting to end Sebastian's story. The related fallout from this killing has been some of the most dramatic stuff since then.

I'll admit that this one moment is probably not like how it would play out in many people's games - a different Narrator than myself might have required a contest, for instance. But this is, almost certainly, the least "normal" part of this game to date. That is, if you think that this isn't all that peculiar play, then you'd have to agree with me that the play really isn't all that radical seeming. Yeah there are some important subtle things going on. But nothing that ever weirds out any new players to the game because it's somehow radically different than what happens in other RPGs.

Mike

[Alexandre Santos]

setting the stage and then asking "what do you do?" almost never works.

instead what has worked better for alot of folks is asking "what sort of scene would you like to see next?"

Yes, the problem is that until recently I did not ask meta-game questions. Either I did not think of it, or I had the impression that it would "spoil" the game, if players knew what was coming to them.

Usually I try to guess what the players want from their body language, their questions, their actions. But perhaps it's just simpler to frankly ask them about it ! :-)

This week end we discussed the upcoming Falkenstein campaign and we shuffled around exactly those kind of questions: "what would you like your PC to be involved with", instead of the traditional "what kind of PC would you like to play". The players got quite involved not only in specifying what they are interested in doing with their character, but also in building the background setting and the type of events will happen to their PCs. So I think we are getting there.

I may say something like "Would it be cool if I have Isadora attacked by something now?" The player might then say, "Ooh, yeah, how about not some random monster, but Aysha has escaped and comes for her?"

I see, what is happening is that there is a lot of meta-gaming during the game session. This is something I am not yet sure everybody will be comfortable with.  I think the problem is that meta-gaming can lower the apparent "believability" of the game narrative. The players could get the impression that the game world reality is not set but in flux, and that anything can happen, instead of following some causality rules like our own world.

Now everybody knows that the game world reality IS really in flux, and that the GM can make up things on the spot. What is important is to keep an illusion of internal coherence and believability. And meta-gaming could kill that illusion.

When what they really should be doing is co-operating as players to create conflict for their characters.

Yes, again the same issue, the players try to stay as much as they can in character, and this kind of player co-operation would run against this tendency. Usually nobody discusses about how they are going to play their PC with other players. They just do it. I think we just have to try to see what that gives.

That is, if you think that this isn't all that peculiar play, then you'd have to agree with me that the play really isn't all that radical seeming. Yeah there are some important subtle things going on

I agree, your style of play is quite reasonable, and again I think the main differences stem from this intense meta-gaming.

Personnally I have mixed feelings: will the players feel emotions (fear, uncertainty, joy) if there is a lot of meta-gaming? I mean, the player can be afraid of a room because he doesn't know what is inside the room. But if he can have a say about what is in the room, can he ever be frightened?

Or should meta-gaming be limited to certain aspects of the game (not 100% GM, neither 100% players, as you mentioned), and where to put the limits?

I would tend to limit discussions about what the player wants to happen to his PC in between cessions. The only exception would be when the GM is stuck, and resorts to ask the players to give suggestions and ideas to get the plot out of a hole.

[Valamir]

I see, what is happening is that there is a lot of meta-gaming during the game session. This is something I am not yet sure everybody will be comfortable with.  I think the problem is that meta-gaming can lower the apparent "believability" of the game narrative. The players could get the impression that the game world reality is not set but in flux, and that anything can happen, instead of following some causality rules like our own world.

Now everybody knows that the game world reality IS really in flux, and that the GM can make up things on the spot. What is important is to keep an illusion of internal coherence and believability. And meta-gaming could kill that illusion.

What I've found to be more true is that the illusion is important only because that is what people are most familiar with.  Its perfectly 100% for most people to switch seemlessly between meta and in game thinking...once they get used to it.  Its actually completely natural.

UNTIL they get used to it, its uncomfortable, awkward, and as a result people get suspicious or think they don't enjoy it.  In my experience the lack of enjoyment is just the initial reaction to being pushed into unfamiliar territory outside their comfort zone and after awhile it becomes second nature.

The biggest lightbulb for me in making the transition was accepting that I'm responsible for helping you enjoy the game just as much as I'm responsible for my own enjoyment (and vice versa).  This is nothing more than the natural extension of social rules that are standard operating procedure for most successful group social activities...but often times we don't think of gaming in that same way.  Thinking about it in those terms...there's no way that I can help make sure you are enjoying yourself as much as I am unless I'm willing to think in meta terms. 

As a result of that epiphany, it simply became necessary to swallow the pill and be willing to cross that habitual barrier.  And once I did that, it became extremely easy in practice to do.