A Sorcerer Idea

[Mike Holmes]

I think a light just went on.

No way, these details are too small for me to manage as a GM without MONTHS of detailed planning and some pretty heavy handed micromanagement.

But then, this is where the whole director-stance thing comes into play doesn't it?  This is what I wasn't getting before.  When I was thinking about the players introducing material into the game I was thinking about the players being concered with the SAME details that I as the GM am concerned with.  The major NPCs and the backstory.  But that's not it at all, is it?  We're talking about letting the players decide that their kid has a little league game and their going to skip it to summon a demon and that their wife is going to file for divorce over it.  And then I as the GM can run with that; like a ripple effect out into the other events of the story.

Yep, Ron's right, you've got it. Another Jake Blues get struck in the forehead moment, halleluja.

To give you a contrapositive example I often test GM's patiences by trying to GM while I'm a player. I constantly suggest plots and plot elements which they refuse to use (which they then feel bad about because they wish they had thought of it, and could have used it). I incorporate background elements by saying stuff like, "Can it be true that Kroog had an old master who taught him the Naginata?" and look at their face as they wonder if it's OK to let a player invent something like that, or if it'll undermine their authority to say yes. I role-play scenes out with other players when our characters are alone together and not with the rest of the party who are being run by the GM. During which I have my character do things. When the GM comes back he is perplexed to find that my character has already ordered and finished dinner, and made a date with the barmaid.

I know that I'm entertaining, at least to myself. So I don't let myself get bored and try constantly to add to the game. Some Simulationist GMs get this and most Narrativist ones, but most others do not. It is this lack of understanding RPGs as collaborative efforts that make it hard to employ Author and Director power in the hands of the players. Very American attitude, tho I suppose the problem goes elsewhere as well; if it is a game, there must be two sides and competition. Until you decide that it can be a collaborative thing, you're stuck without being able to try all these fun tools.

Oops, forgot to drive this back on topic. So, you like the idea? I'm so pleased, it just struck me that it would be more powerful to include some real life commentary on the choices of sacrifices in our society (in addition to the obviously overt scorcerous ones).

I don't know how many times I have lamented one of my friends and players leaving the area to pursue a job. I think its really odd that people can just give up seeing all the people who are important to them regularly, all in the name of money. And deluding themselves with promises of "I'll be back on the holidays" and such. What kind of demon persuaded them that this was a good idea?

Mike

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-06-08 16:08 ]

[jburneko]

On 2001-06-08 16:00, Mike Holmes wrote:

Very American attitude, tho I suppose the problem goes elsewhere as well; if it is a game, there must be two sides and competition. Until you decide that it can be a collaborative thing, you're stuck without being able to try all these fun tools.

Well, I never really saw it as a competition, players vs. GM, but more like an organic Virtual Reality Machine.  The players are characters and GM acts as the pathway between the players and everything in the world.  Railroading is what happens when you to take away the players power to make their own choices about a given situation.  I don't do that.  What I'm having trouble with is what happens when the players are allowed to introduce SITUATIONS into the world.  

I thought had it.  I thought I had seen the light and then I lost it again.  I need examples.  Concrete examples.  Here's the counter example I thought up that made me lose what I thought I saw so clearly.

Let's say I've been looking over the character's backgrounds and I see that one of the players has a sister they care very much about.  I decide to be mean and nasty and have the villain kidnap the sister.  I don't want the player to know right away.  I want to drop subtle hints and build up to the revelation very slowly.  So, let's say we've been gaming for two months and I've dropped clues that the player's sister is in the villains hands.  He hasn't figured it out yet.  The player isn't even suspicious yet but if he were paying attention it would all make sense.

Then WHAM! The player (not knowing that his characters sister has been kidnapped by the villian) decides to bring his sister into the picture.  He, using his narativist authorial power, decides to run into her at ball that's taking place the game.  What do I do then!?  

Two options, a) look at the clues I've been dropping and try and make them either fit something else entirely or warp them so that it looks like they were building up to the sister being kidnapped LATER instead of already. b) As the GM, say, no it's not really a good idea that she enter the story at this point.  And the player will ask 'Why?'  And I'll say, trust me this isn't the time.  And then the player will start thinking about it and might put the clues together because of a META-GAME reason instead of a ligitamate in game reason there by ruining my surprise!

See my GMing style relies HEAVILY on secrets and surprises.  Just letting the players introduce elements is DANGEROUS because my plots are like carefully constructed card houses, not in ACTION but in INFORMATION. I never rely on the players doing something specific that's railroading but I DO rely on the players being ignorant about certain peices of information.  Sorry I thought I saw it, but I lost it again.  Help.

This thread is now WAY WAY off topic.

Jesse

[Paul Czege]

Hey Mike,

I often test GM's patiences by trying to GM while I'm a player. I constantly suggest plots and plot elements which they refuse to use (which they then feel bad about because they wish they had thought of it, and could have used it). I incorporate background elements by saying stuff like, "Can it be true that Kroog had an old master who taught him the Naginata?" and look at their face as they wonder if it's OK to let a player invent something like that, or if it'll undermine their authority to say yes. I role-play scenes out with other players when our characters are alone together and not with the rest of the party who are being run by the GM. During which I have my character do things.

What ever made you think you're a Simulationist??!?!

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jesse,

I think we are solidly on-topic, actually. Let's go over that "where's my sister" example.

As you state it, the GM has "played" the sister already without the player knowing it. Well, then the player tries to "play" the sister, and it seems to you that the GM has a problem.

However, there's no problem. The GM says, "Hey, that's funny, your sister isn't there."

Whoa, says the player. I wanted to direct my sister into the scene. "Nope," you say. "She's busy. Or something. Your character hasn't seen her." Hm, says the player. My character is probably starting to get worried about that.

It really isn't very different from the traditional mode of play, in which you as GM would introduce your player to the absence of the character's sister at a time and place of YOUR choosing. This way, the same information is imparted - but it was the player's attempt to USE the sister that leads to the character becoming worried.

The only thing you have to give up is the utter control over the timing of the character realizing that his sister may be in trouble. And you know, that really ain't much of a price to play. Once you get used to it, a huge percentage of your prep time goes away and can be devoted to other aspects of play.

Here's a more general principle though, which I hope you find reassuring.

Director power is not absolute for players. It can't be. The precise relationship between GM-uber-Director and Player-Director is something that gets worked out in play. It can be worked out in the utter absence of rules (like the poor-bastard GM that Mike was torturing in the above post), or there may be rules and mechanics for it (Story Points in Theatrix or Story Engine; the Coincidence attribute in Extreme Vengeance).

So don't worry about these mini-GMs running roughshod over your back-story and screwing up all manner of things. Set a reasonable limit on their ability, encourage AUTHOR power (which only concerns character decision-making) rather than Director, and all will be well.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-06-08 17:49, Paul Czege wrote:
Hey Mike,

What ever made you think you're a Simulationist??!?!

Hey Paul can you use something other than that red? It gives me a headache when it comes up against my blue.

Uh, Simulationist?

Because of the intent. Mostly. I don't give a flying squirrel sundae about the story. I don't care that it would be good for the "story" if Kroog and Kelia struck up a relationship if I don't think that it's likely that a hobgoblin and a human would appeal to each other. Essentially, I make all sorts of stuff up, but its all about cultures and places and what my character does on friday nights (that barmaid!) and in what manner he likes to kill those who don't understand his religion.

BTW, Kroog is an actual example, a Fighter/Cleric Hobgoblin that I devised for a Gamist D&D game.

I want to have my character travel places and see what the world is about. And interact with it "just to see what happens". I try to figure out what the character is really like, and have him do things that I think he would do. But I'm not one of those "it's all about the character" types either, I am genuinmely interested in what actions the rest of the world takes in reaction to the character's. And the rest of the player's characters.

Example. Kroog is led into a village of Elves, unsuspecting, by the rest of he party. In my four page background with color illustrations stolen from the internet (I even found one of a hobgoblin with a naginata, go figure) it says that Kroog's tribe was often at war with nearby Elves and he sees them as sneaky, dangerous, and dishonorable as they fight with bows (Kroog is *Lawful* Evil like all hobgoblins are, you see). So, Kroog starts to mention to the other party members that they should get out of there soon before the Elves turned on them.

Now, in a narrativist game that might have derailed the plot that the other players and GM were cooking up together. Given what all was going on, the better decision may have been to decide that Kroog wanted to stay and maybe get a chance to kill some Elves, or something. But I decided to have Kroog just do what I thought he'd do. And that's how I always operate, it's what interests me.

I'm not against story, and when it does occur, bully! But I'm not primarily interested in it, usually. I actually like and employ all three styles by turn, but I come back to simulationism regularly, because I prefer it to other styles. Not thatt I think that I've had all that much experience with truely Narrativist games mind you. I might be convertable, yet.

You can say that the style that I play in is Narrativism because I use some Narrativist tools. But, if so, then I'm a very irresponsible one. That because I'm never really making the decision for the story sake. I don't accept OOC information to help me make a better decision, for example. Instead, I explore the possibilities that exist before in the scope of the interaction between my character and the world.

Ron might say that I am a narrativist, but don't want to own up to the responsibility of story because I fear something. But, in fact, I just like to play that way. If it were because of some dislike, how would that invalidate my preference, anyhow? Can't a person just not like Sushi. By which I mean to say isn't taste a personal thing (I like sishi, actually)? Now in another thread I find that my style preference is causing me to be introverted. Can't we get beyond the why of these preferences and just work on improving the methods of each style? These sorts of things are the reasons that people are talking about this site as being pro-narrativist, in the anti-everything else sense. People seem to have an agenda.

I like the feeling of immersion (again, apollogies to Ron, but I can't think of a better word). I like to see what happens by the random intersection of my character and his world. Isn't that how life occurs? I want that simulation of life as a Shinto/Samurai Hobgoblin in a Planescape environment. Or whatever...

I've now explained this about a dozen times, maybe I should write an essay to refer to. Am I still not clear? Is it not sufficient to say that I prefer it?

Mike Holmes

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-06-08 16:33, jburneko wrote:
Well, I never really saw it as a competition, players vs. GM, but more like an organic Virtual Reality Machine.  The players are characters and GM acts as the pathway between the players and everything in the world.  

OK, maybe not just competition but neutrality as well. Or non-collaborative. Or Synergistic. All which I like, but do not produce Narrativism like collaboration might, it seems to me.

I thought had it.  I thought I had seen the light and then I lost it again.  I need examples.  Concrete examples.  Here's the counter example I thought up that made me lose what I thought I saw so clearly.

(snip kidnapping example)

See my GMing style relies HEAVILY on secrets and surprises.  Just letting the players introduce elements is DANGEROUS because my plots are like carefully constructed card houses, not in ACTION but in INFORMATION. I never rely on the players doing something specific that's railroading but I DO rely on the players being ignorant about certain peices of information.  Sorry I thought I saw it, but I lost it again.

In addition to Ron's method, which appeals to the Simulationist in me, there is another method: stop relying on ignorance. Ignorance is one method, but it has the problem that you're describing combining it with Directorial power. Not only can you trust your players with power, you can entrust them with knowledge. OOC Knowledge.

So you tell me that I can't introduce my sister because she has been kidnapped unbeknownst to my character. Being a good Narrativist player, I simply carry on developing the plot in the best manner I know how, which is to have my character act appropriately and move on. This seems to be in vogue with lots of the Narrativists these days.

This may be more narrativist than you like, but it's one option.

Mike Holmes

[jburneko]

In addition to Ron's method, which appeals to the Simulationist in me, there is another method: stop relying on ignorance. Ignorance is one method, but it has the problem that you're describing combining it with Directorial power. Not only can you trust your players with power, you can entrust them with knowledge. OOC Knowledge.

You see this is something I don't think I can EVER get behind no matter how hard I try.  If something that is meant to be surprising, shocking or horrific isn't surprising, shocking or horrific to the PLAYER then I'm not satisfied as a GM.  I feel like I've failed in my edeavors to produce a certain 'effect'.

This is my problem with Fear Mechanics in most horror games.  My players will make Fear Checks and gladly accept the consequences of whatever the game rules dictate for the failed roll but they utterly FAIL to role-play scared.  So it's something I've learned over the years is that if I can't make my PLAYERS feel it then their characters never will.

I try to set an example by having NPCs that have failed their fear checks act paniced and irrational and the players always yell at me and tell me I'm being lazy and just don't want to have the NPCs help out in the situation.  They say this because they know that the fear mechanics of the game never dictate this kind of behavior only that you take a -2 penalty or lose a round or take Stamina damage, etc. etc.

This is where I get the notion that Players will ALWAYS act in their own interest within the rules of the game.  They will never WILLINGLY introduce conflict onto their characters.  They will never WILLINGLY fundamentally change the personality or beliefs of their character.  I have to fool them as the GM.  I have to be cunning and misleading to produce the effects that I want.

When I DO that they are thankful.  They're surprised, and horrified and shocked.  They complement me on my cleverness and my skill at deception and my great sense of dramatic timing.  They're happy with my stories because they see that as my job.  My job is to make their character's lives hell within the context of the game but they themselves will always act in their best interest in so far as the situation and the mechanics of the game allow.

If I reveal early on that the character's sister has been kidnapped then I will be chastized by the PLAYER for telling him.  Most of my players CAN'T role-play ignorance.  As it is I get chastized for revealing information that only their character knows in front of the group.  My players demand that I pass notes or take them out of the room.  One player NEVER reveals his character sheet to any of the other players.

It's not that they feel they are competing with one another.  It's not that they won't share the information when the time is right.  They just want to keep it as 'real' as possible.

Jesse

[Valamir]

An excellent point Mike, and one of the biggest hurdles I had to overcome when I discovered this style of play.

Just because the CHARACTERS don't know what's going on, doesn't mean the PLAYERS have to be kept in the dark.

This goes beyond the traditional ramifications of players pretending they don't know in an effort to "stay in character".

How to deal with secret information that characters aren't supposed to know in the game can be summed up as follows:

1) Keep the players in the dark.  If the players don't know by definition their characters won't know. (I would say this is a very Gamist approach as it emphasizes a level of competition between GM and players and who knows what.  The GM "wins" if he can "surprise" the players)

2) Don't worry if the players know what they're not supposed to know.  Rely on them to simply ignore that out of character information and play their characters as if their characters were totally oblivious.  (I would say this is a very Simulationist approach as it emphasizes play based on In Character knowledge.)

3) Go out of your way to deliver the out of character knowledge to the players on purpose.  In the kidnapping example, actually stage a cut scene showing the sister being kidnapped (for really advanced play, go ahead and show who did it).  The players are not expected to ignore this information or pretend they don't have it, but to actually use this information constructively to further the telling of the story.  (This is the Narrativist approach).

What you lose in this situation is the element of surprise.  Building elaborate contrivances meant to shock, surprise, or take the players unaware is counter productive.  In the Narrativist situation, you aren't trying to surprise the players with the kidnapping.  Your presenting the kidnapping and actively recruiting them to help you tell a cool story about.  You don't have to worry about them "abusing this knowledge and ruining your story" because in Narrativist play it isn't your story its everyones.  If they take the kidnapping off in some wild direction, as long as it interests them and makes for a great tale, scrap or modify what you thought was going on and run with their suggestions.  

When making this adjustment myself I found it helpful to think of it this way:  Pretend you're making up a really cool scenario the way you normally make up a really cool scenario.  Now pretend that your're making this scenario with a friend and you're both cooperating on how its being written.  Now pretend that you're making this scenario with 3 or 4 friends and you're all cooperating as to how its being written.  You're the "lead designer" but alot of the scenario is stuff created by your friends with little input from you.  Now take it the final step and pretend that you're making the scenario simultaneously while playing it, and you haven't finished writing it yet.  Your friends are both playing in it, and collaborating with you in writing it and you're all doing both at the same time.  Once I grasped this, I grasped the mindset of what it means to play Narratively.

[greyorm]

On 2001-06-11 16:17, jburneko wrote:
This is where I get the notion that Players will ALWAYS act in their own interest within the rules of the game.  They will never WILLINGLY introduce conflict onto their characters.  They will never WILLINGLY fundamentally change the personality or beliefs of their character.

Wow, Jesse, you've never played with me.

Since I play on-line, I don't actually see the other players, but I'd like to imagine the look on my DM's face when I suggested that my character had just turned his back on his knighthood and returned to necromancy.

This was something I'd made up on the spot...I'd never known before that point that he was ever anything but a wise, noble, charming and witty knight...suddenly I'm giving him this awful past he ran away from full of death magic and evil godlessness.

This wasn't to be just a "class change," BTW, it would have dropped me five levels and removed or made useless all my hard-won abilities and equipment.
It would have been a fundamental alteration of the character both personality-wise and game mechanics-wise.
(I say "would have" because the game fell apart due very personal player conflicts shortly thereafter)

Also when the knight willingly destroyed his intelligent sword to allow the group to pass through an area unhindered.
It wasn't something I really wanted to do as a player, but I did it because it was in-character, it was human frailty and it was also me making a mistake I regret to this day.

It opened up a huge can of worms for me to deal with in regards to my character, and for my character to deal with as well.
I mean how would YOU feel if you just sacrificed the life of someone you were trying to save just moments before.  I'm still terrified that my character did that, that I chose to have him do that.

So, all this ALWAYS, NEVER and never WILLINGLY stuff just doesn't jive with me, personally!

I do think that players often use their characters as ego-vehicles...paper dolls they play out their personal power-fantasies with, in which case you're right...such players will never willingly change their character or act against its interests, because they take it personally.

I've found the same people also tend to play the same type of characters over and over...different name, face, race, class...same character.

This behavior is something else that limits the full range of the gaming experience, I think.

_________________
Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
http://www.daegmorgan.net/">http://www.daegmorgan.net/
"Homer, your growing insanity is starting to bother me."

[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-06-12 00:27 ]

[jburneko]

So, all this ALWAYS, NEVER and never WILLINGLY stuff just doesn't jive with me, personally!

I do think that players often use their characters as ego-vehicles...paper dolls they play out their personal power-fantasies with, in which case you're right...such players will never willingly change their character or act against its interests, because they take it personally.

I've found the same people also tend to play the same type of characters over and over...different name, face, race, class...same character.

This behavior is something else that limits the full range of the gaming experience, I think.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I thought ALL players were like this.  I simply meant in all MY experience I've never met one who played otherwise.

The type of personality you've describe above fits my players, every last one of them.  Even the best of the role-players in my group only changes the outer shell of the character but the fundamental philosophy guiding the character is always the same and it also happens to be his OWN philosophy.

They want to be heroes saving the world.  They don't want to be morally fragil beings.  They don't want the conflict to be personal.  And when the conflict becomes personal they ALWAYS ALWAYS look for a rational morally right way to do things.  They think through the situation carefully and weigh all the options.  They never make a snap judgement that might fit the character but be morally ambiguous.  They never make a move until they've thought through it and all the consequences and refuse to take action without all the facts and details to be sure they're doing the 'best and right thing.'

Sigh.

Just my experience.

Jesse

[Mike Holmes]

Jesse, Val, Greyworm,

The issue is simple, and I can relate well.

Jesse, you have Gamist/Simulationist players. Changing your players preferences is difficult, but not impossible, IMO. The question is do you really want to. You have three options. Work on your players to try and get them to change. Continue to accept their preferences and modiify your game to fit (or rather quit trying to change it). Or find new players.

The players that you play with sound experienced and probably have well developed style habits. Changing these habits can only ocur one way. Communication. You can't just start a new game and say this is how were going to play and expect your players to comply. You'd have to speak to them individually or as a group and say I want to play in a Narrativist style, which means xyz. Explain the advantages as you see them, and ask if they have doubts. A little discussion can go a long way. Then discuss what you'd expect from them as players if they did decide to play. If they then do agree to try, then you will have a head start on getting them out of those old habits. But don't be surprised if they say no. Half of my players have outright.

OTOH, I prefer simulationist play myself, and sympathize with your player's style to an extent. At least in that I want to be surprised and not know OOC things. So, if you aren't entirely disenchanted with Simulationism, perhaps you might give up on Narrativism. At least for the while. Why fight it when you have gamers ready to play?

Thirdly, you can always try to start a new game. And if you start with people who have never Role-played before, then the method that you teach them will become their default style of play. No worries.

Or do some of each. That's what I'd do.

Mike Holmes

[greyorm]

On 2001-06-12 03:24, jburneko wrote:

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I thought ALL players were like this.  I simply meant in all MY experience I've never met one who played otherwise.

Ok.  BTW, if any of that sounded harsh or like an attack, apologies, it wasn't meant as such.  You'll need to tack little smileys everywhere to understand the tone I was delivering it in (in my head).

In my post above, I was attempting to showcase my own experiences in contrast to your statement, about players and their characters, to perhaps help you see it occuring or see that it is possible.  I hope that's the way you read it or saw it and didn't take it as a rip on you or anything like such.

As to the rest...Well, what can I say, I've gamed with plenty of people who play in this style as well.  They drive me nuts, personally, but luckily they've never stayed in my group very long (the last one dropped out after two years with us...but no hard feelings on either side).

I don't like gaming with a vehicle for someone else's personality or ego, which is what that behavior always feels like to me.  It's just not my style.

However, so as not to be someone who just complains about the problem, to counter this I've recently been changing characters repeatedly between sessions, playing one type, then another (ex: a wise, talkative, self-assured knight; then a quiet, zombie-like, near-ghostly elf; a power-crazed, self-preposessed Setian witch; then a crazy old-man who believes he is an exiled king AND his rough-around-the-edges servant (with a bad sense of what is appropriately funny when)).

None of them are the same or have the same philosophy or personality, each interacts differently with the other characters.  Frex, the knight can't stand the party's other knight, and vice versa...personality conflicts between that player and I...surprisingly, the crazy king and that character get along very well indeed!

And thus it is my hope that this style or mindset towards character in play will rub-off on my fellow players, and I might start seeing more diverse character types.

I don't know if you have a player willing to do this, or if you can find one, but you can always try to set something up like this and see if the other players follow the lead.  They may just need to be shocked out of a rut or they may not.

They may be comfortable in their current style, and that's fine (for them), but you might want to find another group to game with as well if their lack of desire to explore other methodologies is frustrating you.
Hey, it's your game, too...you should be having fun as well, right?