Actual GNS discussion in my group

[RDU Neil]

Spinning off from the Blatant GNS questions thread...

Last night I had my group over for the first episode of a new story arc in my current campaign.  (Both Storn and Nuadha from these boards are in the group.)  We spent a good deal of time before any actual play, discussing the GNS model and outside of that, simply asking "As a player, what do you want?  What makes you say "Damn Good Game!" at the end.

We didn't address moving to a non-GM game.  It was pretty much agreed upon that everyone wanted the GM to exist and present the world and provide events to respond to as well as challenges.

While I'm sure I didn't describe the theory as well as I could... we gave general ideas about the modes... simply as a way to talk about our needs.  The best thing that came out of this was the understanding that "gamist" is not "bad"... and that gamist doesn't preclude good role playing, immersion and all that.  

What we did find, though, is that we all find it hard to believe that a Creative Agenda can every actually exist for more than a moment at a time.  If GNS describes the GROUPS creative agenda... we questioned whether something as fluid an situational could really be defined.   Individuals might be able to indicate their preferences over time... but is it really possible for the group to EVER be on the same page for the majority of the time?  We found that idea of group consensus just unrealistic.  Desires change with game events, player alertness, external stresses, and how much sugar is being consumed.  

What was clear, is that despite a good deal of successful gaming over the years (shorter for the new guy, Joe) we were not in agreement on a creative agenda.

Nuadha was clearly Sim-emphasis on Character.  He want more chances to encounter people and witness their reactions/history to the specific "weirdness" that is the center of this campaign.

Storn wanted an emphasis on how his character fits in the world... with lots of action and challenges to overcome, but also NPCs to react to and help him figure out where he fits.  Not sure if this is Sim or Gamist... possibly both.

Joe, the new guy, was very happily gamist.  "Give me challenges to overcome and goals to achieve."  (He also happens to be excellent at role playing in character and not a rule player, at all.)

Eric was tired and quiet, and never really gave his opinion, but later in the game he did say, "You know... I really do just like combat.  Give me combat... I'm happy!"  The fact that he will avoid combat "in character" when he can and role plays in character quite well, doesn't change the fact that he wants fast, violent action to enjoy an RPG.

The Ferrett was the most difficult.  He hadn't read the theory, but is really into this stuff, so we sent him the links.  Like me, I think he is caught between Sim and Narrativist... but his "tells" are very gamist.  He cheers at good combat rolls, loves to look over enemy character sheets to compare to his own, and loves to win by clever tactics and use of rules.  I'm thinking that while I really like his character... I don't think it fulfills the Ferrett's gaming needs while fitting the internally consistent concept of how the character fits the world/story.  

It was interesting that my desires as GM are very unclear.  One of the reasons I'm struggling with this new campaign, is that I don't have a clear motivation for running it.  It has techniques and story elements I've always wanted to run or play, but I have no over-arching theme or idea I want to explore.  (I'm still not sure how much GNS applies to the GM... as I've seen posts indicating that the GM is not part of the equation, but I'm not sure how that works.)

Anyway, I wanted to indicate an attempt to actually use this theory in a practical way to address our gaming needs.  It has pointed out the "stress points" of our group, not that we didn't see them before, but we might have a clearer idea of why they exist.   I have to put a theory to use in some practical manner for it to mean anything to me... which really relates to many of the other thread I've posted on or started.  Like Storn said in one thread, GNS is simply noticing the "tells" of your players... and I totally agree... but I'm really looking for "Ok... I've noticed the tells... now what do I DO... what behavior changes do I make and encourage in others... to make the game more successful."  

I guess we'll see, as we continue to try and actuall implement GNS in one manner or another.  I can understand some saying that it is not intended for implementation, but for analysis... but hey... it's a free country.  I'll let you know what happens.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Neil,

This is interesting - most of the "tells," as you guys are calling them (and as I think we instantly need to incorporate into Forge jargon), are screaming "Gamist" to one degree or another. If I'm interpreting correctly, and I may be wrong. Nuadha seems reasonably comfortable with his role, socially and creatively, right? Perhaps that's a whole sub-topic right there and ought to be addressed in Actual Play.

But if I'm right that most folks in the group are comfy with Gamist play (with a lot of imaginative input), then it seems the odd man out is ... you. At least in terms of how to incorporate Challenge (see my Gamism essay; it has a very specific meaning) into the general imaginative situations in general. So I think we need, quite quickly, to start discussing techniques for how this is achieved, and to bear in mind that apparently you guys are doing this quite well already.

In other words, it's not about finding new techniques or changing anything about how you play (or worse, trying to change any preferences that exist) ... but about recognizing when it's working, and appreciating one another in terms of doing it.

Which brings me to ...

we all find it hard to believe that a Creative Agenda can every actually exist for more than a moment at a time. If GNS describes the GROUPS creative agenda... we questioned whether something as fluid an situational could really be defined. Individuals might be able to indicate their preferences over time... but is it really possible for the group to EVER be on the same page for the majority of the time? We found that idea of group consensus just unrealistic. Desires change with game events, player alertness, external stresses, and how much sugar is being consumed.

I'll tell you what I think. First, I think you might be focused on moment-to-moment Ephemera rather than Creative Agenda. This isn't hard to understand; Ephemera are really what we do, think, feel, and say during role-playing, and it's easy to focus on them as its "units." But I suggest that it's also easy to mistake them for "desires" and hence to miss Creative Agenda. In other words, one "tell" does not a Creative Agenda make.

Second, it's also quite possible that without a recognizably coherent Creative Agenda, which is to say that play is held together only through non-imaginative elements of the socializing, a group is quite right in pointing out that apparently "tells" and other indicators vary all over the place. Whether this is good or bad is certainly an individual's own choice.

Third, let's look at major interpersonal decisions regarding role-playing: whether to remain with a particular group or to leave, whether to blow off attending a given session or to watch a TV show they could have recorded, or whether to mess with others' self-esteem during play or not. These are all pretty serious, right, or potentially so?

What I'd like to say about them is this: what keeps people from doing the negative thing, in your group? Whatever the answer is, does it include any aspect of what happens in-game? In other words, does the imaginative content matter at all? If so, then you will get a lot of mileage out of thinking about what about playing that content seems to be the most engaging.

One last question, and I apologize if you've provided this information already (lotta threads to keep track of lately): how old are you guys? And are you all guys, or any gals?

Best,
Ron

[RDU Neil]

We are all guys, and all of us are in our thirties, except Joe, who is the new guy, and much younger.  23 or so, I think.  Storn and I have been gaming together for 12 years... Eric and Ferrett (Bill) since '96 or so... James for at least four years... Joe just in the past six months.  

We'd love to have a female addition to our games.  Joe's fiance is a possibility, but she's had school conflicts.  James' wife plays in his other games, but hasn't shown any interest in our stuff (she comes from the goth/WW/Amber scene... and we are Champions/Hero System/Savage Worlds stalwarts)

Neither Storn nor my SO is a gamer (I can't imagine Susan trying to game... YIKES).

I'm 36 and Storn is 37... so we've been at this a while, and made it through some serious personal storms and ego clashes.  To the extent that we make the time to committ to a game, I'd say it's 50% social... 50% creative.  That's my opinion, of course.  One, I've learned over the years that I just can't game with people I couldn't have some kind of other connection with.  Some social context... sports, politics, cooking, martial arts... whatever.  That has to be there for me to feel comfortable enough to want to forge (excuse the term) the comfort and acceptance needed to relax and role play.  

I think, maybe as a partial answer to your question, is that we have learned to just accept that sometimes things don't go your way in a game (creative agenda doesn't fit for the night) and just deal with it.  Getting old and don't have the strength or desire to argue?  We've learned to lighten up a bit, relax and just deal... while at the same time remaining very passionate about the hobby.  (It is that for me.  Any idea about making this a career/job... and I'd lose total interest.  You could give me a job doing nothing but reading comics and eating Oreos, and I'd hate both immediately.  Making something "work" only makes it... well... work, for me.)

I can't speak for James/Nuadha, but I do think he feels left out at times.  He is more passive, less likely to insert himself into the discussions and vie for attention.  He really looks for the GM to focus on him and give him time to think and contemplate before speaking.  In that he is the odd man out, as the rest of us run off at the mouth pretty damn easily... bing, bang boom... keep things moving... go, go, go... this is combat!  It should be intense and fast paced!"  That's definitely how the rest of us game!

Funny, I don't feel "odd man out."  Actually, maybe I do when I'm a player... but then I play only 10% of the time.  The creative input/control I get as GM is highly satisfying to me 99% of the time... even when things go less than swimmingly.  I'm usually just bummed when I can't give my players what they want (like last night, once again Bill's character was sidelined to an extent, even though he is key to on going theme of mystery in the game, it is a slow discovery process, not any slam bang, in the thick of things action.  I want to make him more of a force in the game, but I'm just not sure how.)

I think what keeps the "negative thing" from happening is one, I'm a strong personality as GM, and I don't have a problem saying to someone "You are out of line."  I've had people choose to leave the game, and I've left the games of others.  No hard feelings, just didn't work out.  With one campaign, which has run for 17 years and had numerous players and player-characters in many sub-campaigns, I do think the internal consistency and the "reality" of that world that has been built up over time (I have issue lists, character lists, write-ups of almost every adventure, time lines, etc. which reinforce continuity to a great degree.)  really means that players begin to have a vested interest in the world.  They have seen their characters live and die and change that world... it is a real place to them, and therefore they commit to the creative process of keeping that world viable and alive.

Currently we are trying an all new campaign... new world... new concepts and themes to be discovered... and this is the game to which we are trying to apply theory, GNS or otherwise.  The campaign is new enough that it can be "tabula rasa" in some ways... and perhaps allow us the chance to really try and create a Creative Agenda in a GNS sense.  

Oh and yes, there is a lot of gamist going on.  At one point in last night's game, Storn's character was engaged in a money fight that they thought was going to be an easy win, and it turned out to be a real nail biter.  Very intense, edge of the seat, gritty... it all comes down to who gets the finishing shot in first... kind of fight.  When Storn initiatized in such a way to give him a huge advantage... the crowd went wild.  I literally said, "You guys are so gamist!" and we all laughed, because it was true.

[Storn]

Storn wanted an emphasis on how his character fits in the world... with lots of action and challenges to overcome, but also NPCs to react to and help him figure out where he fits. Not sure if this is Sim or Gamist... possibly both.

Storn initiatized in such a way to give him a huge advantage... the crowd went wild. I literally said, "You guys are so gamist!" and we all laughed, because it was true.

I find this very difficult to sort out.  I may be gamist.  But I don't particularly yearn for combat.  Often combat, I find, is the least exciting part of the evening.  Unless there is an emotional context... then it can be the most exciting!  To me, that is a very interesting dichotomy.  I was watching myself very closely during that pit fight that my character was involved in.

When I rolled the very good initiative (which in the end amounted to nothing, since my die rolling was very bad), I remember my body language, my slight smile on my face.  I heard the table go "wild" and that made me smile more.

But truthfully, it wasn't important for ME to win that fight.  Nor important to me that my character win that fight.  He has a soccer hooligan background... he's had the crap kicked outta him a few times... part of hte lifestyle.  

It WAS important to win, so we could build up "street cred" in the Phillippino underworld... and to win for the other PCs... who had placed considerable money and resources on my winning.  Both myself AND the character didn't want to "let the guys down".  But winning for its own sake?  Nah.  If I had lost, that would have been interesting too.  But I thought it was important to win for "the story"... that winning would give us more options for the story.  More plot hooks to continue for Neil to use/work.  Does that make sense?

I guess that I wanted to win, but I don't think it was tied to my ego.  Not in this case.  Although, I admit combat has been tied to my ego in the past.  

In that he is the odd man out, as the rest of us run off at the mouth pretty damn easily... bing, bang boom... keep things moving... go, go, go... this is combat! It should be intense and fast paced!" That's definitely how the rest of us game!

Not only combat.  It is non combat scenes as well.  

It is how I GM too.  And how I play.  Make the scene crackle!  Make it move!  I have always been bored with too much dawdling.  Economy of movement, recognize when it is your "table time", give up the spotlight when it is not.  But try to get to each player every 10 mins or so.  I do not like it, as GM or player, when one player monopolizes the table for a 1/2 hour and everyone is sitting on their heels.  That is "My Dinner with Andre".... I want "Maltese Falcon" in terms of Pace.  Enuff to really show, establish world and character... but keep the Pace moving.

The only exception to this is when ALL the players are engaged in conversation among themselves.  When everyone is contributing, in character, to philosophy, character wnats and discussion... like "should we take over the U.S. gov't " in our superhero world... That was a LONG scene...but it felt good because everyone was participating and there was heavy duty emotional and moralistic questions to deal with.

[Emily Care]

Hi  Storn,

I find this very difficult to sort out.  I may be gamist.  But I don't particularly yearn for combat.  Often combat, I find, is the least exciting part of the evening.  Unless there is an emotional context... then it can be the most exciting!  

(snipped)...It is how I GM too.  And how I play.  Make the scene crackle!  Make it move!  I have always been bored with too much dawdling.  Economy of movement, recognize when it is your "table time", give up the spotlight when it is not.  But try to get to each player every 10 mins or so.  I do not like it, as GM or player, when one player monopolizes the table for a 1/2 hour and everyone is sitting on their heels.  That is "My Dinner with Andre".... I want "Maltese Falcon" in terms of Pace.  Enuff to really show, establish world and character... but keep the Pace moving.

The only exception to this is when ALL the players are engaged in conversation among themselves.  When everyone is contributing, in character, to philosophy, character wnats and discussion... like "should we take over the U.S. gov't " in our superhero world... That was a LONG scene...but it felt good because everyone was participating and there was heavy duty emotional and moralistic questions to deal with.

Very interesting.  

Being into challenge, and identifying as gamist does not require either that you be into combat, or be all about the win.  Ben Lehman talks about sportsmanship in gamist play in the thread The Gentleman Gamist.

However, what you say is really of interest to you about the challenge makes it sound like you might actually be playing narrativist. Check out your last line above.

--Emily Care

[Storn]

However, what you say is really of interest to you about the challenge makes it sound like you might actually be playing narrativist. Check out your last line above.

What I *think* I care about the most as a gamer, both as GM and Player, is:  My character matters to the world, the world matters to the character.  I want to affect the world (perhaps that is winning and Gamist)...usually trying to make it a better place.  That is my power fantasy: to make a difference.  AND!  I want to be affected by the world.  I want to care about NPCs and other players.  I want to have strong love towards ideas, groups, and people.  And I want to have a personal stake vs. the villains.  Of everyone at the table, I'm the most interested in relationships, especially romantic.  Except maybe for James... I haven't quite gotten a grasp on what James thinks of Romantic subplots.

I have stolen for my games, wholeheartedly from Soap Operas... which I think are over-the-top dramas about relationships.  I think Melodrama is a wonderful tool for RPGs.  However, I've somewhat quieted that down over the years, partly because in my fantasy game, I've got players with multiple characters and we tend to bounce around a lot from plotline to plotline... Partly because my players are not as interested in Romantic subplots as I am.  And the scope of the game is Epic, even if the characters are not.  Nations rise and fall, soemtimes by characters actions and inactions.  Sometimes by events that are bigger than they are.  Tough to squeeze in a quiet little affair when PCs are on the move a lot.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Storn,

What's most interesting to me is the difference between your self-described priorities and enjoyment of play and Neil's description of you.

Part, or even most, of the disconnect there is probably not "real" in terms of actual play at all, but rather a symptom of acquiring the new vocabulary here. Many people stumble over Exploration per se vs. Simulationism, for instance.

But some might indicate that the two of you do not manage to communicate your goals and enjoyment to one another, at least not in terms of the most important thing you share. Because, yes, here in these posts, I see massive Narrativist self-description from the two of you. But during play? Do you each manage to appreciate it when the other plays ("realizes" in the classic sense of the word) this mode?

I am fully ready for the answer to be a straightforward "Yes." That would be pretty cool.

Best,
Ron

[Storn]

Do you each manage to appreciate it when the other plays ("realizes" in the classic sense of the word) this mode?

I'm not sure how to answer this quite.  But I will take a stab at it.

I find Neil, MOST of the time- for MOST of his characters (we've been at this a long time, so exceptions do pop up) the easiest to "write" for.

Most times, I know what scene will work on paper for Neil's characters (or in this case, Neil)...even before play happens.  Even if I don't predict the reaction, I will get a reaction.  And I can build on that reaction at the table.

I haven't GM'd since we've been on this forum.  Although, the last game I GM'd, I had scenes in mind for Neil's PC and they did work... they did spark him.  He enjoyed them.  And he came up with a couple of scenes on his own.  Which I enjoyed.  As a GM, I LOVE being surprised.  

What I cannot answer easily is do I enjoy Neil's play when I'm playing too.  It just doesn't happen all that much.  Last time was a few years ago... and I remember liking playing off of Neil.  But we are both the GM-players of the group.  He does the primary work load of GM and I substitue as needed by logistics and when a break is needed.

Now, I have another group and another close friend, Rick, who I find somewhat more difficult to write for.  But of late, it has gotten easier.  He, too, is a GM and I just tend to have an easier time with players who are both GM and player... they tend to help me as a GM more.  Give those plot hooks, close up a scene when it is time, create a scene when I'm floundering.  The kind of thing that I try to do for the GMs when I play.

[Storn]

Ron, I just thought of a bit more.

I'm completely open to the fact that I might not show the "tells" or actually be the kinda player that I think I am.  I might be completely deluding myself thinking I want what I want.

Part, or even most, of the disconnect there is probably not "real" in terms of actual play at all, but rather a symptom of acquiring the new vocabulary here.

I think that is quite possible.

[Valamir]

Now, I have another group and another close friend, Rick, who I find somewhat more difficult to write for. But of late, it has gotten easier. He, too, is a GM and I just tend to have an easier time with players who are both GM and player... they tend to help me as a GM more. Give those plot hooks, close up a scene when it is time, create a scene when I'm floundering. The kind of thing that I try to do for the GMs when I play.

I suspect this has everything to do with player empowerment.  IMO empowering players to participate during the game adds to the experience on many levels.  First, its a huge help to the GM to have players shoulder some of the responsibility for running the game, and keeping things entertaining.  Second, its a huge help to the GM when players aren't shy about signalling to the GM what they do and don't find interesting, and empowering the players makes it easier for them to do this.  Further, it helps build on the creative synergies between players.

In the traditional GM / player power split, the GM is empowered to do these things, and the players are generally pretty actively discouraged (through, game text, tradition, habit, prior experience) from doing it.

I think what you're seeing here is that players who have also spent time as GMs have honed those empowerment skills and are more willing and adept at using them in game.  It sounds to me like your recognize the benefit and utility of having them do so.

An angle you might want to pursue then, is how to get the rest of your players (who aren't traditionally GMs) to participate in this same way during play.

[John Kim]

Storn wanted an emphasis on how his character fits in the world... with lots of action and challenges to overcome, but also NPCs to react to and help him figure out where he fits. Not sure if this is Sim or Gamist... possibly both.  

What I *think* I care about the most as a gamer, both as GM and Player, is:  My character matters to the world, the world matters to the character.  I want to affect the world (perhaps that is winning and Gamist)...usually trying to make it a better place.  That is my power fantasy: to make a difference.  AND!  I want to be affected by the world.  I want to care about NPCs and other players.  I want to have strong love towards ideas, groups, and people.  And I want to have a personal stake vs. the villains.  

Just following up on Ron's comments.  The above is the contrast.  On one level, they are very similar -- talking about connection to world.  However, Neil's phrasing casts this in language of simulation (fitting into world) or game (challenge); while Storn's phrasing of it seems more in terms of drama or narrative (making a difference and caring).  Yet the point seems at least very similar in both cases.  I suspect this suggests what each wants to identify with on a conscious level -- which may or may not be the same as what is actually prioritized in play.

[RDU Neil]

Storn wanted an emphasis on how his character fits in the world... with lots of action and challenges to overcome, but also NPCs to react to and help him figure out where he fits. Not sure if this is Sim or Gamist... possibly both.  

What I *think* I care about the most as a gamer, both as GM and Player, is:  My character matters to the world, the world matters to the character.  I want to affect the world (perhaps that is winning and Gamist)...usually trying to make it a better place.  That is my power fantasy: to make a difference.  AND!  I want to be affected by the world.  I want to care about NPCs and other players.  I want to have strong love towards ideas, groups, and people.  And I want to have a personal stake vs. the villains.  

Just following up on Ron's comments.  The above is the contrast.  On one level, they are very similar -- talking about connection to world.  However, Neil's phrasing casts this in language of simulation (fitting into world) or game (challenge); while Storn's phrasing of it seems more in terms of drama or narrative (making a difference and caring).  Yet the point seems at least very similar in both cases.  I suspect this suggests what each wants to identify with on a conscious level -- which may or may not be the same as what is actually prioritized in play.

I think I should jump in here to say, from my perspective, from what I see as someone outside Storn's head... is that he does NOT want the same thing when a player as when he GMs.

As a player, I whole heartedly agree with Storn's description of himself.  I probably went wrong by trying to use Forge terminology, rather than just describing what I see.

From a GM position, though... as  a player to Storn's GM... I disagree.  Storn doesn't care about character's as much as he does the world he has created.  I've been in the same place, so I know what I'm talking about here.

In Storn's game, what is important to him is the big world picture.  Players and player-characters are just there to bear witness to the events unfolding around us.  We can affect them... even change them... but the characters are not the focus... the world is.  I think this explains why we jump around characters and multiple story lines so much.  The issue here is that Storn often says he is "stuck" or doesn't really have a story to run... and this seems to be because our current characters don't fit the events he finds interesting in the world at that point.  Our characters need to fit the story currently in Storn's mind... not that a story is made to fit our characters.

Now this isn't 100%, but I'd say most of the time, yes.  Example:  Last two adventures Storn ran.  Brought back some old characters with a sea-faring background.  The whole first adventure was plotted and staged and detailed by Storn...x happens, then y... then Z.   The big payoff in this adventure was that our character's ship was to be outfitted with a new dwarven invention... essentially cannon.  Storn was revealing, in game, a major shift in the socio-political-economic structure of the world, the first real use of "gun powder" in a major way in his world.

From a GM perspective, this is a majorly cool addition to the world.  From a player's perspective, it was rather boring and unengaging, as nothing our character's said or did really altered or changed the course of events.  We were just there as witnesses.

Now, the next adventure was completely different.  Storn wasn't sure where to go, so he asked us.  I just said, "Hey... we are going to be in this new port for over a week.  Our characters don't have much to do with the actual refitting of the ship.  Let's explore the city."  I gave Storn ideas by saying what I was looking for, what I might do, how I might act... who I might try to meet.... and he ran with it.

The second adventure was infinitely more interesting and engaging... because I could tell that my actions as a player character were causing things to happen in the game.  I said that my character was looking for night life, and being of well educated, influential merchant class, he was looking for a beautiful woman as much as exploring culture.  Storn wove a great scene into the game that involved ballroom dancing with a number of dwarves (who were the main population of the city) all the while I was ineptly trying to catch the eye of another's merchant's daughter.   It was a hoot.

Anyway... from my perspective as a gamer, I wasn't really interested in exploring the nuances of relationships and emotional questions... but rather exploring this suave, cultured side of my character.  I got satisfaction out of "making things happen" because my character's actions (and the actions of the other PCs) were the point of the game... rather than the plot being the point, and the characters just along for the ride.  Even though nothing of world import happened in the second adventure, I felt like I was making a difference in that game, but not in the first.  

I guess... to understand Storn better... I'd have to ask him, "As GM... which of those adventures was more satisfying to you?"

I say this because I'VE DONE THE SAME THING!  In my GM days, I've had a strong idea about the events and the importance of an adventure TO THE WORLD without really caring all that much about what the players or characters thought.  When I invoke illusionist techniques effectively, the players FEEL like they were affecting the world... even though the game may have been going just like I wanted it to, no matter WHAT the player's decided.  When it didn't work, I know the players felt detached at best, or worse, rail roaded.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure I want different things as a GM than I do as a player.  To the point of other GMs making the best players... that may be (as long as fights for control of the game don't take place), because those GM/players are more tolerent of tayloring their actions to the GM's needs... because they know what it's like to be the GM in need.  

(Of course all this exposes the weaknesses of my new campaign, because I'm really trying to allow more author/director stance by the players.  Actively avoiding any pushing by the GM as much as I can.  I want the players to just "do stuff" in character, and I'll build a narrative (in the story sense, rising action, climax, denoument) out of it.  This is a real struggle, and often leads us as a group to staring at each other with a "So what do you want from me?" kind of look.

In many ways, asking these questions and exposing what is going on "behind the scenes" in our games is actually causing the game to break down.   As Billy Bragg wrote, we have to avoid, "... taking the precious thing we have apart to see how it works, for it may never fit together again."

[Storn]

Storn wasn't sure where to go, so he asked us. I

Actually, Neil, that is not true.  I knew exactly where I was going.  The duel, the mayor, the party, the stone shaper... all of it was actually written down.  I didn't script the timeline, but they were elements designed to fit your characters.  You could have not known this, but I wrote adv 2 exactly the same as adv 1.  Certain events would rub against the players.  It is up to the player to react.

What worked is that the players responded and then extrapolated and did things on their own.  The Healer, the haircut, the piazza with the outdoor concert... that was made up on the fly.  And the merchant you mentioned was already created to be revealed at the party.  So it was easy for me to extrapolate because I did come up with the elements that I did work out.  

Not only is that proactiveness something I LIKE!  I expect.  Maybe too much.  Adv 1 was filled with dead air as the new players (Joe and James) struggled to find their characters.  I gave them and you the chance to be proactive.  No one really took me up on it.  I worked out scenes of crew tension, no one really paid attention.  The things that I scripted to give them that chance, didn't work.  So I did what Chandler suggested:  Kick in the door with a guy with a gun... in this case, it was Zombies.

"As GM... which of those adventures was more satisfying to you?"

The 2nd, of course.  

And while I did beat myself up over a poorly run Adv 1, I kept this in mind.  I had 2 new players.  I had 2 new Player Characters.  And 4 players overall.   It was the first adventure of a brand new campaign arc.  A lot of info had to be explained (like just what is a Privateer, why are you getting a Privateer Marque) because so much of "common" & romantic notions don't work in the context of my game.  (Gunpowder doesn't exist, so the common notions of pirates simply don't have the same tactics... they have the tactics of pirates of world before gunpowder, which not as much is known about and movies aren't made of.)  And sometimes, sessions just don't work.

The 2nd adventure, I knew the two new PCs much better.  I only had 3 players, much easier for me to have split Party situations that allows everyone to shine at various times.

[Ron Edwards]

This is a very interesting dialogue to watch!

As a minor but perhaps significant point, I don't think it's very useful to make a contrast between "the characters" vs. "the plot." In fact, I suggest abandoning any sort of thinking which tries to separate the two.

Best,
Ron

[RDU Neil]

Actually, Neil, that is not true. I knew exactly where I was going. The duel, the mayor, the party, the stone shaper... all of it was actually written down. I didn't script the timeline, but they were elements designed to fit your characters. You could have not known this, but I wrote adv 2 exactly the same as adv 1. Certain events would rub against the players. It is up to the player to react.

I was talking about the conversation we had right after Adv 1 took place.  The out of game, "So what did you guys think?" conversation, where we talked about "What do we do next week?"  That is what I meant... not that you came to Adv. 2 unprepared, but that you prepared based on player input... as well as improvising on the fly.  I should have been more clear.

To the over all discussion about CA in our group and others... one thing I wonder about.

What does it take to care about the other PCs?   One thing I've noticed when players get to drive the actions and events around their PCs to a large extent, is that makes the other players uninterested.

It is the "GM with a pet NPC" syndrome x number of players.  I'm sure everyone has been in games where everything the GM does centers around "their character"... an NPC who is the center of the story.   It can be maddening, because the players are like "What am I here for?"

With players taking more of the director/author stance... influencing the GM... making decisions "that matter"  you run the risk of other players not caring one whit about the personal stuff of the others.  I saw this to some extent on Thursday.  Whenever I start to deal with the individual elements of one player, the others tune it out and go their own way... or get frustrated when they feel it goes on too long.  

Yet, this is why I think James may be frustrated with the game.  He wants time to role play out long conversations with his "girlfriend" or just sit around talking in character about nothin in particular.  Others find this boring, and get visibly exasperated.

Though Terry's fight took longer than any other character's bit, and it was all Storn, it seemed to engage more players, but I know I can't do that all the time.  Again, the others were just an audience to Storn's face time.... it just happened to be action, not conversation being role played.  

I do think our group struggles with investing time and emotion in OTHER people's characters.  We are like "yeah, yeah... yadda, yadda... get to ME already!"  I'm as guilty of that as others, though I just play less often.  The only time our group REGULARLY clicks is when all are focused on a single goal, with each person acting in turn.  The classic "party" structure.  We have moments when the individual stuff works... more NAR play comes up... but for the most part it's "Hurry up to my turn!" if all the characters are not interacting at the same time.

To that end, I know that our group CA is not Narrative... nor is is Simulationist, because that would require people to step off stage without a fuss when the simulation required it... so I have to say we are very Gamist... as a default.  Because on some level, we all understand gamist play, so it is the common denominator.

hmmmm... definitely something to think about.