Bangs and Narrativism... I -so- need help

[Lisa Padol]

Okay.  How?

Honest.  I'm not being facetious.  When I create something that I think the character will be forced to respond to, they freeze, preferring the death of their friends, the destruction of whole worlds and their own messy demise to the alternative of making a decision that might be wrong.

My sympathy -- I know the feeling. When you get advice to put the pressure on, sometimes folks overlook the obvious: While you are setting up a situation where the PCs must, and realistically, would, make a decision fast, the -players- are not on PC time. They can say, "Hang on, let's think about this."

Sure, you can say, "Tick, tick, tick, 4, 3, 2..." But if the players freeze, then you've got a tricky situation.

Sure, you can kill off the PCs, destroy their world, or have them watch innocents die. But if the players continue doing nothing, for the GM, it's an exercise in frustration. For the players, if there's this kind of freeze, they're likely having no fun. They may feel rushed, and want to slow down. They may feel, if you throw consequences of their inaction, that you are punishing them for not thinking fast enough for your tastes -- I've been on both sides of that equation, and it sucks.

It's a matter of the group getting into synch, and there are no easy formulas for that.

Part of it may be a matter of what constitutes a bang -- I'd been planning to ask for examples here. (Hey, turns out I'd completely misunderstood what an R-map was, so I figured I'd make sure I was starting on the right page with kickers and bangs.) What I've seen by way of examples reads well, but I don't know if it always plays well.

That is, I've seen really cool kickers and bangs. The kicker about someone coming home from his ex-wife's funeral to see her in his kitchen smoking a cigarette. The bangs about the cop who killed his wife and the lover who denies having done it. On another thread about cross-cutting between scenes, the woman who is having someone's baby.

And they're all the sorts of things that would come right before the commercial break on tv, and the audience waits.

But that tv audience is passive. That's the role of that kind of audience. Kickers and bangs are supposed to make the players active.

How does one do this when the players will not act?

Well, why won't they act? Ask them.

I've hit a couple of standard problems. The massive planning session. My group is heartily sick of this, so we've been working on strategies to avoid it. Last session, there were a few bumpy spots -- but no dead zone of half hour planning how to raid the castle. (well, not a castle really, but never mind.) This is because I planned the session carefully, and my players were on the money. Both of these are important -- I keep a lot more control than most folks here seem to advocate. I'm not saying this is better or worse, but it's a choice that has an obvious impact on the way the session goes. The more I plan, the easier I find it to improvise when the players go off book.

And no piece of advice we give will help if it doesn't fit your group. Someone counting down on me in an rpg -might- get me to have my PC act. Or I might find myself doing nothing except mentally shrugging, and thinking, "Ah well, it's just a game, and I guess I'm losing this round. On to the next thing." And if my reaction's going to vary that much, it's hard to predict what's going on inside the heads of a group of people I've never met.

Ask them. Or have you already tried this?

-Lisa

[Trevis Martin]

There might be a social contract issue here as well.  I know in my online PBP style games, particularly the current one.  We have a shared commitment to three  player posts per week each, minimum.  Now a couple of people have (including myself) fallen off that a time or two due to other circumstances but otherwise the effort is concerted and genuine.

The other thing that occurs to me is that, since you mention that they reject all solutions to a situation as flawed, then they are looking for a way to win the situation.  In the narrativist bang approach there isn't realliy a win per se...there is simply a situation and a choice to make.  I would definateliy talk to them about what you're going for.  And that you aren't out to get them in any fashion.  It took me a while to get this through some of my own group as well.

regards,

Trevis

[joshua neff]

Okay, but dropping a Bang means you're getting big choices made that the GM is interested in.

This means that the only provision for pursuing the plots the PCs are interested in is if the GM takes it upon himself to make it happen.  Which they should, granted, but it's still a wildly unequal situation.

I don't have any objection to "all killer, no filler".  But how do you spread that power around to the PCs as well?

Bangs don't have to be about what the GM is interested in. In Sorcerer, you've got the PC Kickers, which tell the GM, "Hey, this is what I'm interested in! Make the Bangs about this!" In TROS, you've got the SAs, which say the same thing. In HeroQuest, you've got the PC relationships & goals to tell you what the players want.

Beyond that, you're also going on some social contract issues. Why are the Bangs about "what the GM is interested in" rather than what the players are interested in? Why isn't everyone interested in the same thing? Besides, the GM is a player to & no less deserving of being entertained & interested, so why shouldn't the GM throw in some complications that interest him or her?

What I find helpful is to put the situation right up front, before characters are even made. "You're all police detectives. A murder has been committed, but the most likely suspect swears he didn't do it." That way, the players know what I'm interested in. Then, characters are created, & now you know what the players are interested. So, you come up with a bunch of bangs that allow for everyone's interests to be addressed.

And what other power do the players have? They can do whatever they want. They can address your bangs in anyway they see fit--& no answer is a wrong answer--& they can create their own bangs by just going off & doing whatever they do. "I'm going to talk to a witness. It's...um...my aunt, who just happened to witness things. But she's kinda dotty & eccentric." (Another thing I do is frequently ask the players, "Okay, who wants a scene? Where do you want it? What are you trying to accomplish?")

[TonyLB]

Beyond that, you're also going on some social contract issues. Why are the Bangs about "what the GM is interested in" rather than what the players are interested in? Why isn't everyone interested in the same thing?

That would obviously be great.  But even if the GM thinks he knows what the players want, it's chancier than giving the players themselves the ability to deploy Bangs (as you describe above).  It's like a family that comes into a restaurant and the father orders for everyone... no matter how prescient he is about what his family wants, it's not as equal as letting other folks order their own meals.  Anyway, that was my thinking.

There is, I think, a social contract issue about what pacing people want... and what they think they want, which may not be proven out by their actions.  Complicated territory, and I'm not sure what I think about it.

And what other power do the players have? They can do whatever they want.

Except go about their own story.  I know that sounds like I'm just being contrary, but... well, I'm playing in a game where I had a plan of my own (opening a nightclub for supernaturals) rife with its own inherent troubles and conflicts, and the GM has done nothing to feed into that plot line, and everything possible to give me Bangs from his story.  So I'm sensitized.  It seems like a tool that can be easily misused, as of course all tools can.

[joshua neff]

Beyond that, you're also going on some social contract issues. Why are the Bangs about "what the GM is interested in" rather than what the players are interested in? Why isn't everyone interested in the same thing?

That would obviously be great.  But even if the GM thinks he knows what the players want, it's chancier than giving the players themselves the ability to deploy Bangs (as you describe above).  It's like a family that comes into a restaurant and the father orders for everyone... no matter how prescient he is about what his family wants, it's not as equal as letting other folks order their own meals.  Anyway, that was my thinking.

Players always have the ability to deploy Bangs. Anybody has the ability to deploy Bangs. Bangs aren't a mechanic, they're a tool to use while playing. Everytime a player presents something that needs to be resolved, you could call that a Bang. So when Bob, playing Det. Algernon, says to Lucy, playing Det. Agnes, "I pull my gun on you & say, 'I know you've been protecting your murderer friend.'"--that's a Bang.

And if your worried about what the GM thinks the players want interfering with what the players really want, then you as the GM should ask the players, "Hey, what kind of conflicts do you want to deal with?" That's what Kickers & SAs do. That's what relationships & magical abilities & such do in HeroQuest.

But just as the players wants are important, the GM's wants are no less important. If the GM is throwing out Bangs because s/he finds them interesting, how is that more of a problem than players throwing out Bangs no one else finds interesting.

This falls again (as always) into social contract territory. If people can't even be satisfied with what other people at the table are addressing, then all the Bang tips in the world won't help the game. Before the first Bang is deployed, everyone needs to be on the same page regarding what the group will be addressing.

There is, I think, a social contract issue about what pacing people want... and what they think they want, which may not be proven out by their actions.  Complicated territory, and I'm not sure what I think about it.

And what other power do the players have? They can do whatever they want.

Except go about their own story.

Well, they can--but it's much more functional to have each player's story be a part of the group's story.

I know that sounds like I'm just being contrary, but... well, I'm playing in a game where I had a plan of my own (opening a nightclub for supernaturals) rife with its own inherent troubles and conflicts, and the GM has done nothing to feed into that plot line, and everything possible to give me Bangs from his story.

Have you talked to the GM about this? Have you said, "Hey, I really want to deal with my nightclub"?

So I'm sensitized.  It seems like a tool that can be easily misused, as of course all tools can.

I don't see how Bangs can be anymore misused than any other GMing technique. Especially as your not railroading anyone--the players can deal with the Bangs in anyway they see fit.

GM: "Your friend begs you to help. 'We've known each other since we were kids! I've helped you out all our lives! Now I need your help!'"
Player: "I tell him, 'Sorry, but murder is over the line. Deal with it yourself.' Then I call my sister to get more info from her about the weird religious cult I've been researching."
GM: "Okay."

You seem to be going back & forth here, Tony. On one hand, your players are paralyzed with inaction & you want to get them motivated. So we say, "Give them conflicts that need to be resolved. But don't dictate how they're to be resolved." Then you say, "Bangs sound like the GM dictating to the players." Well, which do you want? Do you want to push the players into more action? Give them situations that demand action. Do you want your players to take the initiative & create the action themselves? Tell them that & wait for them to move into action.

Are you asking if Bangs work? I can tell you from experience, as both a player & a GM, they do. Are you asking if sometimes the GM deploys a Bang that the players aren't interested in? Sure, it happens. So, as the GM, you modify the Bang & related Bangs. You adapt & you improvise. If you have the situation set up well, with sufficient prepwork, it's incredibly easy to modify & adapt Bangs. But no one's a mindreader. You talk about this stuff with the players. Ask them what they want, add in what you want, & everyone does their best to compromise.

[TonyLB]

You seem to be going back & forth here, Tony.

Yes, I am, and I'm sorry.

Well, which do you want? Do you want to push the players into more action? Give them situations that demand action. Do you want your players to take the initiative & create the action themselves? Tell them that & wait for them to move into action.

I want to be one participant among equals, with roughly equal abilities and responsibilities.  So I worry about both extremes... hence the back and forth.  I don't want to depend entirely on PC action... I want to encourage them when they falter.  But I don't want to be drawn into being the only one who drives the action either.  I want to give them a Bang and get a chain reaction of creativity.

Does that make any sense?

I know that the answer to this one is presumably "practice".  I'm just trying to get my mind around the directions I want to practice in.  Sorry if my wavering is making it impossible to get a bead on what I'm talking about :-(

[Valamir]

Well, I hate to sound like a shill, but

I want to be one participant among equals, with roughly equal abilities and responsibilities.

and

I know that the answer to this one is presumably "practice".

causes me to suggest checking out Universalis

There is no GM.  All players are equal, their ability to impact the story and their responsibility for the game are equal.  And, its pretty good practice for this sort of thing.  It also works well for chat room play.  I don't know that anyone has tried it PBeM.  But there is a group currently setting up a second game played on Wiki down in the discussion forum.

[Michael S. Miller]

I want to be one participant among equals, with roughly equal abilities and responsibilities.  So I worry about both extremes... hence the back and forth.  I don't want to depend entirely on PC action... I want to encourage them when they falter.  But I don't want to be drawn into being the only one who drives the action either.  I want to give them a Bang and get a chain reaction of creativity.

Okay, it's been said several times on this thread, and you haven't responded to it at all. Have you talked to your PBeM players? Do they know that you want to be a first among equals? DO they know that they're expected to be stirring up their own conflict? Do any of their characters have something equivalent to your "nightclub project" that they've brought to the game? If so, have you been playing to that and having them ignore it?

You can throw as many Bangs as you want at players, but if they're waiting for the railroad because that's what they really want, no good is going to come of it. Is it possible that all this time you've been asking "What do you do?" to players who are waiting for you to say "You should do this"? Forge-speak translation of the above: Are you sure your players are Narrativists?

I think you should do an OOC message to the players starting with "I'm concerned about the drop in frequency of posts and would like to know your thoughts on why this has occurred." In face-to-face play, you can always chat w/ folks before and after the game, so there's no reason not to do it in PBeM games.

[joshua neff]

Okay, it's been said several times on this thread, and you haven't responded to it at all. Have you talked to your PBeM players? Do they know that you want to be a first among equals? DO they know that they're expected to be stirring up their own conflict? Do any of their characters have something equivalent to your "nightclub project" that they've brought to the game? If so, have you been playing to that and having them ignore it?

You can throw as many Bangs as you want at players, but if they're waiting for the railroad because that's what they really want,

Or that's what they expect, whether they want it or not.

no good is going to come of it. Is it possible that all this time you've been asking "What do you do?" to players who are waiting for you to say "You should do this"? Forge-speak translation of the above: Are you sure your players are Narrativists?

I think you should do an OOC message to the players starting with "I'm concerned about the drop in frequency of posts and would like to know your thoughts on why this has occurred." In face-to-face play, you can always chat w/ folks before and after the game, so there's no reason not to do it in PBeM games.

I'll also suggest Universalis. In fact, I was going to suggest it in my last post, which I should've done, if only to save Ralph from having to shill his own game.

[Itse]

Your dealing with a common problem, one which I've been struggling with some time back and I've had some good results by totally changing the approach. I'll do some explaining.

For some weird reason, most rpg-plots seem to be about avoiding the bad things and solving problems. Also, most GM's take pride in their ability to turn everything into a problem. What ever the players decide to do, the GM gives them hell. If there's a moment of peace it just means there will be an attack. If they ever reach anything, it will be a bittersweet victory at best and more commonly they are swiftly robbed of what ever they have gained.

In the long run, this leads to where your at. The players are afraid to do anything if their characters are not in immediate danger, since they know that anything they do will propably just get them in trouble. (Don't buy this? Look at what has been suggested as plots in this thread. A lot of trouble with nothing to gain.) Putting more Bang in the game tends to just make the situation worse. Instead, I suggest you forget trouble, problems and threats for now and come up with something positive for the characters to gain; some real goals. You should try to make the characters work for something, not against something. More importantly, when the players/characters reach something, reward them. Give the characters some happy moments for it. Give them a chance to actually change something for the better instead of just making them struggle to keep the status quo. After a while you will notice your players becoming more active.

In your case, try coming up with something great they could achieve instead of some great danger they have to avoid. What if it's not the enemy who is attacking, but it's the PC's who have a chance to bring that big bad down? For example, if the characters are cops, give them a big hint on a drug lord, big enough to maybe bring the whole organization down. If they succeed, make it show. Less drug dealers on the streets, less "mysterious disappearings", less cops dying on the job. Hell, give them medals and more resources; new cars if nothing else. I know, this all sounds very challenge-oriented instead of story-oriented, but these things don't need to contradict each other. Notice how in many stories not only do the characters win the bad guy, but they actually achieve something else on the side, like love and respect? Those are some big rewards.

Generally speaking, try to reward them for being active, even if you think what they are doing wouldn't really work towards the "big goal". If they look in the wrong places, they're not going to find what they are looking for, but maybe they'll still find something interesting. This is often easier to do, if the characters are not constantly under attack. If one wrong move could kill them, not only are they afraid to make any moves, but the GM will have his hands full just because he has to constantly come up with things to keep the characters alive, since they inevitably make those wrong moves.

"Think positive" ;)

[neelk]

In the long run, this leads to where your at. The players are afraid to do anything if their characters are not in immediate danger, since they know that anything they do will propably just get them in trouble. (Don't buy this? Look at what has been suggested as plots in this thread. A lot of trouble with nothing to gain.) Putting more Bang in the game tends to just make the situation worse. Instead, I suggest you forget trouble, problems and threats for now and come up with something positive for the characters to gain; some real goals. You should try to make the characters work for something, not against something. More importantly, when the players/characters reach something, reward them. Give the characters some happy moments for it. Give them a chance to actually change something for the better instead of just making them struggle to keep the status quo. After a while you will notice your players becoming more active.

"Think positive" ;)

I think this this is dead-on accurate.

My experience with player paralysis, from both sides of the gaming table, is that it's fundamentally not a problem of character design. It's problem of player confidence. When a player makes a character for a game, what they are doing is a bit of author-work: they are creating a character according to a particular creative vision. However, the thing with rpgs is that creative work has to be validated with the acceptance of the other players before it becomes "real". Now, you can see the reason why people clutch in play: they're afraid that if they make the wrong choice, then their PC won't be their character anymore. To relax your players to the point where they are willing to make decisions, you have to put the players into situations in which their authorship isn't put at risk. (This is totally different from their characters being put into risk, of course.)

[TonyLB]

Well, first, as I said this has been my experience in several games.  So in the early ones, I didn't know enough to communicate this stuff up front.  Now though....

Okay, it's been said several times on this thread, and you haven't responded to it at all. Have you talked to your PBeM players?

Yes.

Do they know that you want to be a first among equals?

This was stated very explicitly at the beginning of the game.  I have reiterated it at intervals since.

DO they know that they're expected to be stirring up their own conflict?

Again, I said this at the beginning of the game, and have said so again since.

Do any of their characters have something equivalent to your "nightclub project" that they've brought to the game?

No.  They have, however, reluctantly gone along with some such notions when handed off to them by an NPC (a desperate effort on my part).

If so, have you been playing to that and having them ignore it?

They have not entirely ignored it.  They have done precisely as much as I actively encouraged them to do, then dropped the projects.

You can throw as many Bangs as you want at players, but if they're waiting for the railroad because that's what they really want, no good is going to come of it. Is it possible that all this time you've been asking "What do you do?" to players who are waiting for you to say "You should do this"?

I think you're quite right.  But I ASKED for people who were willing to take some responsibility for driving the story.  Pretty much in those words.  I've asked for them several games in a row.  It doesn't seem (from my personal experience) to be helping.

So I'm sorry if I haven't responded to people's suggestions that I do so, but I was worried that I might be snappish about it.  I hope I've managed to express my concerns without biting anyone's head off.  It's a sometimes frustrating situation.

[TonyLB]

Putting more Bang in the game tends to just make the situation worse.

Well, one question is how you can make a positive Bang with the same sense of urgency... something they must respond to, but which leads them to achievement rather than just letting them spin the consequences of trouble.

Give them a chance to actually change something for the better instead of just making them struggle to keep the status quo. After a while you will notice your players becoming more active.

Yeah... sort of hard to put into practice in an existing game, unfortunately.

I tried to make a "falling golden age" beginning, so that the PCs would learn to treasure some bright, beautiful, fragile things, and then have to determine what the world looks like after the collapse of the old order, what to save and what to abandon.  

Perhaps what I should have done (with 20/20 hindsight) is to make a "dark ages" beginning where everybody starts out so miserable that they can't possibly live like this any more, and let the PCs work their world back into something palatable.

>sigh<  Any thoughts on how to transition?

[DannyK]

I think there are some pretty good points made already on this thread.  

In particular, I think sometimes it's good to have the conflicts involve *lower* stakes which then feed back into the game.  

To make an analogy to movies and TV, I'm thinking of something like "The Sopranos" rather than "Die Hard."  In "Die Hard", Bruce Willis has to get the bad guys or all kinds of terrible things happen and everyone dies.  When Tony Soprano screws up, it often means "Damn, Uncle is going to be really pissed."  Which  makes for equally good drama IMO, since we-the-viewers know that this will come to haunt him in another episode or two.

When the stakes are too high, I find that: players freeze up because they don't want to lose their guys; and they also become much more passive and want to be railroaded.  This is perfectly understandable; if you're going through a minefield, you're going to follow the instructions of the guy who laid it.  

So, my modest philosophy is to make "failure-safe" scenarios: if the PC's fail to engage the situation, or completely botch it, things get worse and/or NPC's get the good things the PC's might have gotten.  I'm honestly not at all fond of the "The world will be destroyed and you may die!" school of plotting.  

DannyK
P.S. I really like also the comments people have made about players needing a "safety zone."  Especially in a more threatening or paranoid game, I think it really helps for the PC's to have someplace to interact where the pressure is off.  (That could be the donut shop for a cop game, or underground haven for the Sabbat vampire game, or whatever.)

[TonyLB]

I think there are some pretty good points made already on this thread.

Yeah, I'm really grateful for everyone's advice!

To make an analogy to movies and TV, I'm thinking of something like "The Sopranos" rather than "Die Hard."  In "Die Hard", Bruce Willis has to get the bad guys or all kinds of terrible things happen and everyone dies.  When Tony Soprano screws up, it often means "Damn, Uncle is going to be really pissed."  Which  makes for equally good drama IMO, since we-the-viewers know that this will come to haunt him in another episode or two.

I see what you're saying, but... it's really not the same kind of drama, is it?  Risk is scary, but overcoming risk is heroic...

I'll go way out on a limb, and use my fragmentary understanding of Forge-speak.  It sounds to me as if a game where the consequences of failure are delayed, or minor compared to the scale on which the characters operate, lends itself more to Simulation play than to Gamist or Narrative play.

And now, like someone learning a second language, I have to ask... did I say that right?

In any event, however, I agree completely that you can provide risk to the characters in a way that they take seriously, even when it's not objectively serious risk.  I've GMed TFOS, where people will go through seven different kinds of hell (literally, if need be) to avoid being caught sneaking back into their parents house after their curfew.  I just have to remember to apply those lessons to less whimsical games.  Thanks!