From a Simulationist into a Narrativist. Need tips!

[Dreams_of_Cats]

Hi -

I've lurked a lot, and have decided to take the plunge and actually
ask for an opinion on something.

I used to be quite the simulationist, and now I'm going to be
running a series of narrativist scenarios which will take several weeks to
complete.

I've read Ron's articles about the subect of GNS, and found them quite
helpful. Now, after many years of being away from gaming, I've
hooked up with a group and I'm going to be running again in two
short weeks.

I'm running a narrativist Mafia Family scenario, which will evolve
into COC style horror.

I'll be using my own homebrew mechanic, which I've already explained
to the fellas. Since it is so simple, it literally took only 5-10 minutes to
explain the whole thing. (Including how character generation works)

So here's what I think I've got going for me:

1.  A love of both gangsters and Lovecraft. (Being very knowlegable of
   both)

2.  A fertile imagination, and the ability to create memorable and
   believable characters.

3.  A great group of fellas to game with.

4.  A rules lite mechanic, that easily handles most tasks with a single
   roll.

5. Experience at being a GM, albeit long ago.

Here's what  has been tough for me:

1.   Formerly being a hard core simulationist, and being new to
     narrativism.

2.   Resisting the temptation to over engineer the scenario. (Like
    writing out every character down to the guy who sells hotdogs
    on the corner)

3.  Letting the players shape the evolving story, even if they send the
    overarching story off in a direction I didn't expect.  

4.   Sweating the fact that I don't have hand outs, character sketches,
    and long lists of rules for them to peruse.

Sooo... sorry for the long winded post, but throw me a bone here:
Help me overcome my jitters by pointing out any pitfalls I might
not be aware of. I would appreciate any tips you could throw my way.

D.O.C.

[Alan]

The biggest stumble I had when learning the narrativist approach was giving up the idea that I as GM was the primary author of the story.  After two years playing games which support narrativist play, I have learned a few things.

I'm not going to say this advice works for all narrativist designs, but it works with The Riddle of Steel, Trollbabe, and Sorcerer:

1) Provide a setting rich in inherent conflict, but have no overall story in mind.

2) Let the players develop their own threads and find or insert what they're interested in.

3) Start weaving the threads together.  At some point, an overall plot that involves them all will suggest itself.  Go with that.

BTW, you might want to start with some short shot games to shake out old habits - InSpectres, Trollbabe, and the Pool are affordable choices.

[Ian Charvill]

Welcome to the Forge.

I'm running a narrativist Mafia Family scenario, which will evolve into COC style horror.

Two quick questions:

What triggers the evolution?

Do the players already know the evolution will occur?

[Trevis Martin]

What's up D.o.C.?

(I know...I'm sorry I couldn't resist.   What is your real name?)

When Alan references having a conflict rich setting it does involve having a lot of npc's out there...you should make up a bunch interesting ones and make sure that they aren't just hanging around, but that they are in action in a situation.  They're out for something or in conflict.  More than that, most of them should want the PC's to be involved somehow.  This makes the characterts very 'sticky' and you can see which ones your players are attracted to.  You're going to end up playing them like PC's a lot.  Don't push the NPC's on them, if the players aren't interested, let that NPC be a minor one and just thow another one.  Some will stick.

You might consider having the characters make up some npcs that are connected to their characters and include them.  Not full blown write ups necessarily but quick sketches of a sentence or three.

Take a look at what the players create as characters and what they say during creation.  These will be the clearest signals you have about what they think is cool about the setting or what they are intersted in.  Cater to that.

regards,

Trevis

[Dreams_of_Cats]

Welcome to the Forge.

I'm running a narrativist Mafia Family scenario, which will evolve into COC style horror.

Two quick questions:

What triggers the evolution?

Do the players already know the evolution will occur?

Hi

Two situations compel the movement to horror: Some of the boys have
stopped showing up for work. And someone is attempting to muscle in on
the family territory.

In time, it will be discovered that they are facing a supernatural horror
that recruits from the ranks of dead wise guys and fellas that
have been smacked over the last few years.

Undead gangsters with firearms. Woo hoo! There will also be
various critters that border on the demonic.

The players are aware that there will be a change - but not the specifics.
They just know that something supernatural will happen. I will let
them get settled doing mafia stuff before making the shift. There will
be anticipation.

It could be said I shouldn't have tipped my hand, but I felt they needed
to know at least that much. It's my first time running with them. I need
to establish some street cred.

D.O.C.

[joshua neff]

It could be said I shouldn't have tipped my hand, but I felt they needed
to know at least that much. It's my first time running with them. I need
to establish some street cred.

There's nothing wrong with tipping your hand. In fact, it's generally considered that with narrativist games, tipping your hand is essential.

See, mysteries--in the sense of "there's stuff the players don't know, but the GM does, & the players have to figure it out"--don't work all that well in narrativist games. That's not to say the players have to know everything that's going on. But neither does the GM.

Traditionally, RPG mysteries are based on the idea that the GM is the author & controller of the world. It's the job of the players--not the characters, the players--to uncover the GM's mysteries. But in narrativist games, the GM is very definitely not the author. The entire group is the author.

So, imagine that you & your friends all sit down to write a story together--let's say it's about the Mafia, but you've all agreed to throw in some Lovecraftian stuff. Everyone sits down to write, & you say, "Okay, at some point I'm going to add in the Lovecraft boogedy-boogedies. But I'm not going to tell you when. Let's all start writing, but you guys won't know when I'm going to do this massive shift." That would be pretty inhibiting for the other authors, right?

That's not to say there aren't little mysteries to solve. But as a narrativist GM, your job is more along the lines of "keep everyone chugging along & throw complications in everyone's path" than it is "keep the mystery cards held close to the chest."

So, tip your hand. Let them see the cards that are important in co-authoring the story.

[hix]

Joshua,

I'd like to clarify your point about openness and co-authoring.

In the 'post Season 7' Buffy game I'm running, the starting point for most of the players is that they are members of a division of the Slayer's Council. However, one of the other major power blocks is a bunch of new Slayers who think they should be running things.

I had intended for these new Slayers to be a conspiracy - that is, I would reveal them or they would discovered by the players.

In the set-up phase of the game, how would you present this knowledge to the players and how would you want them to use it? Or to keep it on-topic, what advantages do you see to Dreamofcats keying the players in to the Lovecraft reveal?

Cheers,
Steve

[joshua neff]

Well, now it's probably going to sound like I'm contradicting myself, but...

Me? I'd spring them on the players later in the run of sessions. I wouldn't include info about them in the set-up.

The difference is the conspiracy wouldn't be a mystery for the players to figure out. The conspiracy would be a big Bang. Bam! Now there's this conspiracy of Slayers. What are you going to do about it? And anything the players do, any action they choose to resolve the issue of conspiratorial Slayers, is fine. They can try to kill them, they can ally with them, they can ignore them.

No mysteries, just Bangs.

[jburneko]

Hello Steve,

I'm not Joshua but I'd like to throw my two cents in here.  First, I'd like to point out that there's a BIG difference between the Mafia + Lovecraft concept and the Slayer conspiracy concept.  In the one case we have a situation that evolves from one set of expectations into another set of expectations.  If I was told that "hey, we're going to play the Godfather RPG!" and then half way through stuff starts going all weird and lovecraft I'd feel cheated because I built my character and my personal expectations around dealing with mafia issues not scholarly horror issues.  In the other case, Slayers are not outside my expectations in a Buffy game.

Then there's the issue of how a mystery is dealt with.  If solving of the mystery by the PLAYERS is the point of play then yes, that's pretty antithetical to Narrativism.  BUT I don't think that means that the players need be in on the answer to every mystery.  It's just that the clues leading to the solution need to be:

1) Readily available when the PCs go for them.  This often means improvising clues from sources you hadn't originally thought of but seem to make sense to the players and revealing clues out of any expected order up to and including the whole solution in one go.

2) Require meaningful choice at each step.  I.E. Not just be a puzzle piece to fit in with the other clues but requires here and now decision making on the part of the players.

For example I've seen a LOT of scenarios structured this way.

Encounter A in which the PCs find out that the killer is supernaturally strong from colorful NPC X.

Encounter B in which the PCs find out that there is more than one killer from colorful NPC Y.

Encounter C in which the PC s find out that all the killers are female from colorful NPC Z.

Usually such scenarios explicitly state that further investigation after each encouter should be allowed for the sake of "roleplaying" but that no further information should be revealed.  They then say something like, "After encounters A B and C the players should figure out that they're dealing with a rival Slayer gang."  And NOW the choice kicks in.

A better way to look at it is in chunks that require decisive meaningful action.  So right away start out with the reveal that someone out there seems to be fighting evil but through means that may be questionable, counter to our beliefs or just plain outside our authority.  Bam, right there is a meaningful choice.  What do we do about it?  Find them and recruit them?  Kill them?  Try to make contact but respect their anonymity?

From there all other aspects of the mystery should be revealed relatively quickly and in whatever order things play out in.  Maybe the players catch one of these Slayers in the act, now they know it's a female human and not a demon.  That complicates things.  They might capture her and discover, "Oh god she's a Slayer."

BAM!  Another crime is commited while the PCs have her in custody!  What wait, she's not working alone?  What do we do now?  Torture our potential ally for information?  Let her go and follow her?  

Captured another one and guess what she's a Slayer too!  Okay, a pair of rogue Slayers.  What was that?  ANOTHER instance?  Oh, god there's a whole ARMY out there operating outside our control!

You see, at each stage of the mystery the PCs had to make real choices with each level of "reveal" complicating that decision making process.  And my example flow is just ONE way it could go.  Maybe the players do something completely different from the start and so things get revealed or played out in a different order with different choices leading to different consequences.

Does that make sense?

Jesse

[Dreams_of_Cats]

It could be said I shouldn't have tipped my hand, but I felt they needed
to know at least that much. It's my first time running with them. I need
to establish some street cred.

There's nothing wrong with tipping your hand. In fact, it's generally considered that with narrativist games, tipping your hand is essential.

See, mysteries--in the sense of "there's stuff the players don't know, but the GM does, & the players have to figure it out"--don't work all that well in narrativist games. That's not to say the players have to know everything that's going on. But neither does the GM....

But in narrativist games, the GM is very definitely not the author. The entire group is the author.

So, tip your hand. Let them see the cards that are important in co-authoring the story.

Hi again.

I see your point - there is a little mystery in the center of the thing.
How and if they solve it is up to them. It's not essential that they become
sleuths, as they all want to  go at it the way gangsters would: The hard
way. So in the end, we'll see if the things from beyond have met their
match in the Scarfino family.

I frankly don't know how they are going to do it. I have some ideas, but
they are just going to have to be creative. I surrender complete
control in that respect. They even have the option of getting
wiped out to a man.

They've already suggested a couple of scenes, one of which is the
gangsters trying to interrogate a cthulhu type monster. That should
be amusing, but it will happen a little later on in the action.

jburneko wrote:
For example I've seen a LOT of scenarios structured this way.

Encounter A in which the PCs find out that the killer is supernaturally strong from colorful NPC X.

Encounter B in which the PCs find out that there is more than one killer from colorful NPC Y.

Encounter C in which the PC s find out that all the killers are female from colorful NPC Z.  

This will absolutely not happen. The NPC members are not
capable of doing this. The characters have to do the work. Ultimately,
you could call this scenario "The Doom that Came to Gangland".
The PC's will start off on the outside ring of the story, and will be drawn
inwards by vacancies and other situations.

Without the PC's, there is no hope. They must do something.

I am presenting hard choices to the group right out of the chute.
This I hope gives them an opportunity to flesh out their characters.

A few choices I have in mind:

1.  Which of the three Scarfino brothers to ally with: The sadistic one,
the charming coward, or the talkative brother with the common touch.
This will be presented in situations where they are tested by said
brothers to see "if they've got the right stuff". It mostly evolves around
intra-family discipline, and following orders without question. If you
act a bit on the sadistic side, then Frank will like you. Conversely
though, Tony will NOT like you very much, as he usually eschews
violence except when necessary. Being friendly with one brother
ensures that one of the other two will like you less.

2.  Making "collections" from loved ones. (Who may not know of the
crime family involvement) How could you ask your Uncle Howard for
$75 a week for protection? What if he won't pay?

3.  Hiding some of the brother's indiscretions from "Papa".

4.  Do you let the supernatural horrors run their course? It may
make things a little more roomy at the top when the smoke clears.
Then again, what happens if they set their sights on you?

5.  Do you suggest that the family get into the lucrative drug trade,
or stick with booze, extortion, and gambling? One of the brothers
is pro drugs, and another strongley against. Do you try to convince
the third brother one way or another?

I will also be listening for cues from the players too. They are a creative
bunch and have already brought several things to mind.

The NPC's are very fleshed out, and there are lots of them. The players
are free to interact with them or ignore them altogether.

I have several scenes in mind, which I'm ready to add to, or
throw out altogether.

Sorry for the long winded reply - but it's nice to be able to
speak with the people who have been doing this for a while.

D.O.C. (Joseph)

[pete_darby]

And now, the inevitable next question.. Have you got a relationship map drawn up?

[clehrich]

I see your point - there is a little mystery in the center of the thing.  How and if they solve it is up to them. It's not essential that they become sleuths, as they all want to  go at it the way gangsters would: The hard way. So in the end, we'll see if the things from beyond have met their match in the Scarfino family. ... I frankly don't know how they are going to do it. I have some ideas, but they are just going to have to be creative. I surrender complete control in that respect. They even have the option of getting wiped out to a man.

I confess right up front that I've never quite mastered GNS terminology, so if I'm misreading Narrativism somebody should certainly let me know!

If you're going to do a mystery in Narrativism, as I see it, the difficulty is avoiding the Force.  You probably need to force on them that there is a mystery, but you can't really predetermine that solving it matters.  You've noted that you can't predetermine the answer to the mystery, which would be definitely a force, but I think you have to be ready to roll with it if the players decide that solving the mystery isn't important.  That needs to be a genuine option.

The issue is Premise: the Premise has to be situated in the PCs (really the players, actually), not the NPCs.  If the players decide that solving the mystery is their problem to deal with, then it can be a big part of their constructing and addressing Premise.  But if the players decide that their interpersonal issues are the foundation of the Premise, then the mystery itself will become something of a background question, just a story-structure against which their real Premise plays out.  In fact, if the players decide that the mystery has nothing to do with the Premise, you can feel free to predetermine the answer to the mystery, because that doesn't create Force in terms of the Premise, which is really what matters.

You might want to think about what possible Premises you see here.  This is a game that could readily be done by means of any CA, with differing results.  If you want a Narrativist result, you need to have some ideas about the Premise and perhaps push them when possible Premises arise.  Don't push the Answer -- that's Force again -- but if you see players addressing a Premise you think makes sense, you might want to support that with whatever rewards are appropriate.

Chris Lehrich

[Dreams_of_Cats]

And now, the inevitable next question.. Have you got a relationship map drawn up?

I've been working on one. It's almost done. My pal lent me Ron's
book: The Sorcerer's Soul, and I've found it very useful!

D.O.C.

[Dreams_of_Cats]

>>>Snipping all sorts of useful stuff<<<

I confess right up front that I've never quite mastered GNS terminology, so if I'm misreading Narrativism somebody should certainly let me know!

If you're going to do a mystery in Narrativism, as I see it, the difficulty is avoiding the Force.  You probably need to force on them that there is a mystery, but you can't really predetermine that solving it matters.  You've noted that you can't predetermine the answer to the mystery, which would be definitely a force, but I think you have to be ready to roll with it if the players decide that solving the mystery isn't important.  That needs to be a genuine option.

Chris Lehrich

Sounds good. I really hadn't thought they might not want to solve
the mystery. So I'll do it the way you suggest. If they act like it's
a background issue, then I'll let them focus on the things that really
interest them. If they just want to be gangsters - then so be it.
I'll let them revel in their businesses, and trying to maneuver
to the top in the family.

Sounds like we're in for a heck of a ride.

D.O.C.

[Alan]

I've found that, in narrativist play, the GM and players can establish an understanding about certain things before play begins.  The GM can take a leadership role and suggest overall elements of genre, setting, and situation.  

So for example, in one game, the GM suggested we play "Imperium Confidential."  By understanding and agreeing to this, players accepted that they would be working to create a hard boiled mystery set in ancient Rome.  In play, the players did cooperate with the concept and develope it.

From my own experiences as GM, I would say: set out the evidence of wrong-doing (bodies and such) and maybe have a few solutions in mind, but don't be fixed to particular one, just let the solution ideas guide the creation of clues.  Players too may create clues and these may change things.  Finally, once play is underway, the GM should be alert for threads, which engage the players, and that may be inter-related and woven tighter until a climax occurs.  Essentially, the GM should leave the identity of the perpetrator undecided until the player's actions decide it.