Learning the interface

[talysman]

I;m a little confused by some of the concepts receiving the focus in this thread. when I think of players "learning the interface" in an rpg, I don't think of people trying to break the system or challenge the GM (or group's) authority; I interpretted Ron's example of the samurai being one of player unfamiliarity with the samurai concept as well as being unfamiliar with a Simish approach to it. if we're talking about a player who stubbornly refuses to bow to the lord even after having the situation explained, I think we're talking about something other than an interface problem -- although whether an interface problem handled inappropriately by the GM or group could lead to stubborn attempts to break the system is another question.

I'm kind of looking more at the case of players either new to a setting or new to rpgs in general who perform actions that, if the GN/group responds "in character" or "in genre" (or whatever other rules are in effect,) the player's character will be severly punished if not killed. no malice or power struggle on the player's part at all, just a lack of knowledge of the consequences. the classic examples I'm familiar with are:

 --  the newcomer to D&D or a similar frpg who purchases off-the-wall equipment like a ballista;
 --  the newcomer to Call of Cthulhu who buys a shotgun and starts using it without caution, or tries to solve a problem with a Mythos-level infestation using a D&D "kill the monster" approach.

it seems to me the best response is to gently explain why that's not a good idea and allow a do-over. the GM currency idea might be usable, with some modifications. rather than have a fixed number or a spendable resourse, which is way too much bookkeeping, I would just encourage the GM to hand out one-time bonuses during negotiations with players to change their character's actions.

so the GM for the samurai situation could say "oh, this is supposed to be medieval Japan; a samurai who refused to bow to his lord could be beheaded, just like your samurai has the authority to behead peasants who fail to bow to you in turn. but I don't want to have your character die like that because it spoils the fun, so would you be willing to undo your decision in return for a floating bonus on one future roll? if not, your action stands and I won't behead your character, but he's going to be treated in ahumiliating way by the lord's retainers."

it seems liek a good approach, because you are explaining the reason why the player's decision isn't good, offering an incentive to give up control for that one action, and giving another option that is not pleasant but isn't as harsh as outright character death.

[Harlequin]

I concur that the deliberate disruptiveness belongs in another thread and is distracting us.  You pick good examples, John.  I'd add these:

- The newbie to TROS who decides that the best defense is a good offense and dumps his entire pool on a strike during the very first exchange.
- (This is a subtle one) The Nobilis player who, intimidated by the scope, can't bring himself to work a single miracle.  (Nobilis isn't the only system which has this particular interface hiccup, and it's pernicious in any game... because it can be very subtle, and prevents them from learning the interface until it's overcome).

But again I have to disagree.  It's counterproductive IMO to ever have anybody give anything to anyone (other than the bank) as part of these negotiations.  It sends the little gamist-imps inside me into flurries of indignation, no matter how far buried they may be at the time, to have someone get paid off for being confused.  And it's certainly counterproductive to apply Force based on the currency exchange, as Gareth points out.

So I'm with John, with a quibble on the application.  No presents offered, just the discussion and (per GM preference and situation, I think) either "incorporate it healthily" or "allow takeback."

The only stumbler there is the player opacity that Ron points out, which I think is a particular (and fairly common) response to confusion or perceived criticism - clam up and stand by your actions until you understand what's going on.  I would suggest that this opacity component is self-esteem linked, which is why the various modes of applying consequences are inappropriate... if the baseline discussion didn't work, then either (a) you have a true disruptive, or (b) you have a clam.  Consequences may work (or may feed) the disruptive, but they'll certainly exacerbate the clam's self-esteem issues and make the behaviour worse.

I think this may be why Sean's method resonated with me and others here... it offered the afflicted player a clear path to higher self-esteem via character improvement, while simultaneously using the afflicted PC's situation as an example of the very creative agenda that the player is failing to grasp.  If I had to dissect his tricks in that post:

- "Um, no, here, look.  The way we play in this campaign, that action would need significant background to make any sense.  Here's some appropriate background, see how the causal logic fits together?" (Also, "in case you're not familiar with it," here's an example of 'no myth' play, where the causal logic is sometimes backwards, inventing the explanation after the act.)

- "I know it's kind of intimidating, and by having to step in I'm making things even scarier.  You probably don't have words to discuss it right now.  It'll be better once you feel you have mastery over the system and the setting.  Here's a way to achieve that mastery - do this."

- (Implicit in the method, the going back and fixing things up) "That action was nonsense as it stood, but we prefer to keep it and continue."  (Subtext, you are going to be held to your actions, so try to watch and learn.)

- "If I'm wrong, and you're a potentially disruptive player instead of a clam, then here's some mild consequences, but more importantly, here's your chance for some valid spotlight time, just not right now. Deal?"

Demonstrate, support, warn, defer.  Not a bad four-point checklist, in general.  Any comments or additions to the list?

- Eric