A Connecticut Narrativist in King Arthur's Simulation

[Skippy]

Okay, that's a really bad thread title.  However, I would like some input, if you all please.

I have spent most of the day reviewing GNS threads, trying to bring myself up to speed on the current status of the model, use, interpretations, etc.  It really is interesting.

I was struck by several comments in various threads, and I am having trouble getting them to mesh in my mind.  I hope to receive some insight.

One post (paraphrasing here) stated that the observable behavior of the player essentially determined which style was predominant.

My thought is that given a set of strict circumstances, a person who is strongly tied to one aspect of the model will become dissatisfied if he is forced to play in an environment that does not allow him to express that style.

Case Study 1:  In one of the AD&D modules, our small party was imprisoned.  We were then subjected to a gas that would knock us out. Players rolled saving throws until failure occured, attempting to hold their breath.  Since escape was not possible, this was a ruse, railroading toward a situation where the characters would be unconscious, and therefore unable to prevent being stripped of all gear.

So: Situation: Simulation, with Narrative intent.

Player 1: I roll to hold my breath.
Player 2: I roll to hold my breath.
Me: I grab the pipe where the gas is coming in.  I pull myself up and place my mouth over the opening, then I breath in as deeply as I can. (Laughter from around the table)
GM: You are supposed to roll to save.
Me: What the hell for?  I'm going to pass out eventually anyway.  Might as well get it over with.
GM: Just roll, okay?
Me: Sigh.  Okay, I failed my roll.
GM: Lemme see.
Me: For hell's sake it's a one, okay?
GM: Okay, you pass out.

Now, obviously, I was trying to introduce some humor, and personality into this situation.  I believe my approach demonstrated a narrativist bent.  However, the GM was a strict by-the-book guy, and really couldn't handle my deviation from the play style.  This isn't his fault, nor is it mine (well, maybe it's mine).  The fact is that the other players in that situation were happy with the prescribed format, while I was unhappy.

Ron has, I believe, as much as said that GNS is a concern for those of us who are dissatisfied with past or current gaming experiences.  Those who are content with the game, style of play, etc. will not spend much time trying to resolve the nuances of the model.

However, I believe that most of the players I have encountered are actually a combination of these elements, and not polarized to one extreme.  I think this is generally accepted, as well.

And then, I have encountered players who very clearly could not, or would not deviate from a strict play style.

Player M in one of my Rolemaster campaigns (about eleven years ago) was constantly trying to introduce narrativist elements into our games.  In particular, he routinely tried Feng Shui style stunts in combat.  Too bad it wasn't around back then.

Player B on the other hand, absolutely could not tolerate loose rule interpretations, since it wasn't fair.  He had built his character to be a Juggernaut, and if anything circumvented that (i.e. when I cheated), he would lose it.

Player P was about creating the perfect character.  His character committed suicide when he lost his foot in a trap.

My contention is that if I had had access to this model, the concepts therein, and an understanding of them, I might have been able to negotiate a contract with the players where we all could have gotten along.  This may be idyllic, but I think it is possible.  No one would have had complete immersion in his preferred style, but they would have been able to work out a charter for enjoyable play.

Therefore, I think these discussions *are* relevant to the majority of gamers, and I would be surprised if other GMs didn't have the same kinds of problems I encountered.  

The problem, as I see it, is in presenting it so that a person who is content may wish to consider other options.

I'm reminded of Andre Braugher in the TV series Homicide, where he discusses getting a confession from a suspect.  He explains that his job is to sell the suspect Time, a product for which he has no real need or desire, but must purchase nonetheless.  Except in this case, I think the product is needed: an understanding of focus, for a greater gaming experience.

Yea?  Nay?

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

I think you've provided some excellent examples and it's a great pleasure to have someone working with the theory here in this way. It's a compliment, and I think everyone ought to recognize that.

Let's consider the punchline, though. You wrote,
"The problem, as I see it, is in presenting it so that a person who is content may wish to consider other options."

I have two reactions ...

1) Isn't this a bit presumptuous? If a person is indeed content (and by this I mean with actual play, not just with a style that gets frustrated a lot), then who are you (or "am I," or anyone) to consider changing them?

In my deluded youth, I thought that the mighty Game Master exerted ideological power over the players, and that they were simply to accord with his mighty thoughts and plan and priorities of play. Since I was dealing with humans and not whatever-it-would-have-beens, this was a wretched mistake.

Since then, I have generally taken the approach stated in the essay and tried to present the ideas (or before I had the vocabulary, at least my alternative style of play) to those who seemed to be looking for something else.

But also,
2) I as well as others have commented that our modes of play have expanded greatly since the GNS/etc material started to take shape, and especially since I realized that my notions were not merely a re-expression of the Threefold.

To get right to it, I have become a happy Gamist, in role-playing that lends itself to it. I doubt I'll ever enjoy dungeon crawls (the trappings of "story" that clings to it frustrates me; I'm too tempted by it, like someone who plays a knight "heroically" in chess), but I really like RPGs like Ninja Burger. Since through most of my life, Gamist priorities in play have been at sharp odds with my own, until recently, I thought of Gamism as "that other mode, played by those people." Now I know that it's a hell of a lot of fun, as long as I know that that is what we are doing.

So, there you go. Two reactions, one that says "Naaaa," and the other that says "Yeah!" Oh, I hate ambiguity, but sometimes it refuses to be denied.

Best,
Ron

[Skippy]

Who am I?  I am the mighty GameMaster, puny mortal.

Let me see if I can phrase this better.  It is not my intention to "better" anyone else, to educate them, or to bring lambs to the fold.  I myself have come kicking and clawing, screaming all the way, "Don't label me, you theorizing, pontificating, egotists."  I'm taking medication, now.

My point (probably lost in my rambling) is that I have typically run games where I have players of various composition.  Let's label them as follows:

Bob: Bob becomes agitated when there is not enough action, no matter how interesting the story is.  While everyone else is content to engage in character-based interactions, Bob wants to roll dice and smash small animals.  Bob usually plays characters that are at least a foot taller than anyone else.

Mario: Mario plays whatever strikes his fancy for that session.  Mario generally regards rules as a hindrance, and is constantly trying to perform outrageous activities.  Mario would just as soon never roll the dice, and secretly wants to be on Broadway.  His favorite weapon is the Soliloquy, +15, slaying.

Matt: Even in games without alignment conventions, Matt is a Paladin.  He becomes angry with players (not characters) who play "evil."  He is all about cooperation, and loves to charge into battle to defend the innocent.  He then cries foul when he becomes hurt.  He is less concerned with mechanics than with perfection of character.

Eric: Eric manipulates rules to his own benefit, finds loopholes, and occasionally cheats on die rolls.  He is perfectly willing to narrate a spectacular failure, just for the sake of fun.  He tends to play evil, just to antagonize Matt.

Sal: Sal actually is borderline insane.  He is probably close to Tom Hanks' character in Mazes and Monsters.  He may actually believe that this fictional world exists.  He likes stats and skills, but plays for the immersion of character.  He is six foot five, two-forty, gorgeous, built like a linebacker, a 23 year old virgin, and cries when his character is seriously wounded.

Okay, that's about 2/3 of the group I gamed with.  As you might see, there are some difficulties inherent with a group like this.  Bob and Mario are often at odds, as are Matt and Eric.  Sal is basically lost to reality.  The group frequently becomes frustrated with Mario, and likewise with Bob.  Bob is frustrated with slow action, and uses those periods to clean one of his six or seven guns.

My hypothesis is that if everyone shared an awareness of the various styles of play, could appreciate and respect the other viewpoints, and would be willing to negotiate a contract of behavior, the experience and enjoyment for everyone might be improved.

I don't thing this is unrealistic.  I do think that it is unrealistic to "stick to one's own" and limit oneself to one style of play (although I have NOT heard anyone here suggest that.)  While the above people present gaming challenges, some of the best (or at least memorable) games I have played were a result of the group dynamics.  However, this was almost always when concessions were made, whether explicitly or implicitly.

Refute that, Herr Edwards, et. al.

Respectfully,

Skippy

[Mike Holmes]

Well, I agree with you, for one.

I think Ron is being careful so as not to be seen (as he is all to often, despite his efforts) as dictating things down to people. GNS, which is after all his theory, could be used to try and change people, and that would be problematic. OTOH, I agree with you that simply educating people to the existence of these generally different approaches is harmless enough, and could lead to better play. In the right circumstances.

People change occasionally, and some might just not be aware of exactly what it is that is causing the friction. Given that knowledge they might aceed to play in a different way. Which they may actually enjoy. It's my experience that many players play in the mode they do simply because they were educated to play that way and are unaware that it's acceptable to play in other fashions. Interestingly this is often what leads one player to dislike another players play. They assume that the other player is doing it wrong.

OTOH, some play styles grate on players for other reasons as well. And accomodation may not be forthcoming from every player even when educated about the acceptability and interesting nature of the other styles. So, what Ron is saying is don't expect anything. If something good happens, fine. But a player refusal to change is absolutely their right.

In other words, watch your own bias, and handle with care if you do proceed in this direction.

Mike

[Joe Murphy (Broin)]

I've had a similar experience to Skippy, recently. Since I came across the GNS essay, I realised that debate about it could show my group how their playing styles differ.

My players (why are they 'my' players? Do I still have the receipt?) are amusingly similar to Skippy's, too.

We have one player, Gordon, who's absolutely fascinating.  Loves drama. Loves to narrate. Loves interacting with NPCs. Will constantly throw in subplots to keep himself and others amused. He cheats on dice rolls and doesn't believe in statistics (really). Ignores story-events if he feels they're 'wrong'. You'd think he'd leap at the chance to use narrativist rules.

I haven't been able to demonstrate to him that simulationist rules *might* not suit his style of play, however. I don't think he believes that narrativist rules systems are really 'RPGs' at all, in fact. Barmy, but there you go.

I have found it useful for 50% of my group to debate the GNS model. A few of us have reached understandings in how our playing styles differ, and in discussing what game we'd like to eventually play together, we've been able to focus on topics other than genre. Genre's a slippery fish. Plus, I've been able to express my own preferences as a GM.

But for the other 50%... like Gordon... I have no idea. His playing style is clearly problematic for the group (such as when he disbelieves something I narrate). I'll probably run a strongly narrativist game for him so he can feel his way around... but given the heritage of Simulationist games, I'm not sure I'll be able to persuade him that something like http://www.123.net/~czege/WFD.html">The World, the Flesh, and the Devil is a 'real' RPG.

Joe.


[ This Message was edited by: Joe Murphy (Broin) on 2001-12-28 10:17 ]

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-12-28 10:16, Joe Murphy (Broin) wrote:
I'll probably run a strongly narrativist game for him so he can feel his way around... but given the heritage of Simulationist games, I'm not sure I'll be able to persuade him that something like http://www.123.net/~czege/WFD.html">The World, the Flesh, and the Devil is a 'real' RPG.

Well, the real question is not whether he thinks it's an RPG, but whether or not he'll play. I've got a game that people have been labeling as "Not an RPG", but I'll be darned if they don't like playing it. So, ask him what he means. Or the next time he says that its not an RPG, just say, "OK, want to play anyway?"

Mike

[joshua neff]

Right on. Twinkies aren't really food, but damn if they ain't tasty.

Are hardcore narrativist RPGs "roleplaying games" or are they "storytelling games" or what? Who the hell cares?

I think one of the good things about GNS is it can help clear up some confusion. A lot of people may say they're "story-oriented". But if you present them with real narrativist play, they discover that they're really more full-immersion simulationists. Or someone thinks of themselves as a simulationist, but if they gave narrativist games a try, they'd really like them. Or, like Ron, they might discover they really like a certain kind of gamism.

I think I tend to be ambivalent about it like Ron--I'm really uncomfortable with trying to change people or "show them the light", but at the same time, there are a lot of gamers out there who have suffered through loads of dysfunctional play & aren't completely sure what the hell they want. Or if they are sure, they aren't sure how to vocalize it & try to make it happen.

[Ron Edwards]

Great thread, folks.

To Skippy: you won't find any refutation here, because I agree with you. I see exactly where you're coming from and it makes a lot of sense. It's even accounted for in my essay - the part in which I say that, given a social aim to enjoy oneself with this particular group of people, premise has at least to be compatible among them. If the rest of the material provides useful tools for arriving at the compatibility, then cool.

I'm not sure what this indicates about my personality, but your description of Sal made me laugh out loud, and I want to give him (or have someone give him) a great big hug. And for some reason, saying that makes me laugh all over again.

Best,
Ron

[Joe Murphy (Broin)]

On 2001-12-28 10:32, Mike Holmes wrote:

On 2001-12-28 10:16, Joe Murphy (Broin) wrote:
I'll probably run a strongly narrativist game for him so he can feel his way around... but given the heritage of Simulationist games, I'm not sure I'll be able to persuade him that something like http://www.123.net/~czege/WFD.html">The World, the Flesh, and the Devil is a 'real' RPG.

Well, the real question is not whether he thinks it's an RPG, but whether or not he'll play. I've got a game that people have been labeling as "Not an RPG", but I'll be darned if they don't like playing it. So, ask him what he means. Or the next time he says that its not an RPG, just say, "OK, want to play anyway?"

Mike

Ask him what he means?

The tricky thing is, is that he's very odd indeed. I tried to appeal to his philosophy-degree-having half, but he has flatly refused to believe there's anything worth debating.

Paul Czege mailed me a while back, with a comment about how some players, who typically play the same sort of character, over and over again, do this because they have not yet been allowed to express that character properly. They have not been able to tell that character's story. This really did make for a lightbulb moment.

Gordon *very* much plays the same sort of character. Shamanistic, mystical, gothy, interested in symbols and fate. We've debated for, ooh, 7 years, as to whether people play the same characters over and over because those characters suit the players, or whether players are in a rut - they haven't thought about the possibilities.

With him, I feel it to be a rut. I certainly want it to be a rut. I want to see what warriors he'd play. I'm eager to see all his qualities come out in other characters.

Thanks for the advice. =)

Joe.

[Skippy]

Everyone wanted to hug Sal.  He was just a great big teddy bear.

Once, out at sea, I was giving him plenty of ribbing in front of a crowd.  He finally said, "That's it!", pinned me down, and wrote "Sal's Bitch" on my forehead in permanent marker.

God help me, I miss the big feller. (not dead, just out of touch)

As to the thread, I appreciate the feedback.  I discovered years ago (too late for the described group, unfortunately) that a contract of play was necessary.  I clearly state my style, my methods, and my expectations.  I ask the players to do the same, to express their goals, what it is they want to achieve.  I do this with a brand new group, but not for each session.  Once we get to know each other, many of the nuances develop over time.

I do feel, however, that if I had knowledge and understanding of the GNS concepts years ago, it would have allowed me to express the contract in clearer, more consistent terminology.

Although nothing compares to the zeal of the newly converted, or an ex-smoker.

Skippy

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

I have very little to add to the beauty of this text:
"I discovered years ago (too late for the described group, unfortunately) that a contract of play was necessary. I clearly state my style, my methods, and my expectations. I ask the players to do the same, to express their goals, what it is they want to achieve. I do this with a brand new group, but not for each session. Once we get to know each other, many of the nuances develop over time."

This describes my development as a GM perfectly from 1985 through 1992 (the primarily-Champions years). Since then, I've had tremendous success with new groups, and a lot of the theorizing in my essay represents my attempt to figure out what the hell I was doing that was so successful.

Best,
Ron

[Paul Czege]

Hey Joe,

Gordon *very* much plays the same sort of character. Shamanistic, mystical, gothy, interested in symbols and fate. We've debated for, ooh, 7 years, as to whether people play the same characters over and over because those characters suit the players, or whether players are in a rut - they haven't thought about the possibilities.

My recommendation is http://speardanes.homestead.com/index.html">WYRD. Get your hands on the GenCon ashcan version if you can.

Paul

[Skippy]

Joe,

I have a current player who always plays a mage. ALWAYS.  He develops decent quirks and personalities, but he is very much a power-gamer mage.  Until he began playing with me, his gaming had been limited to twenty years of D&D.  Not bad, just underexposed (for him, not as a general statement.)

Kelly has been dissatisfied with his games for quite some time.  Not enough to go actively seeking something else, but enough that he was tired of the system limitations he'd seen.

When I ran a GURPS fantasy game, he really liked exploring a sorcerer from a different mechanic.  Still a Sorcerer.

When I ran a Rolemaster (Skippified) campaign, he really liked playing a sorcerer from a different mechanic.  Pattern apparent?

When I recently ran a Feng Shui fantasy conversion of our old RM campaign, he nearly became aroused.  The most telling comment I heard from him was "You may have actually found a game where I'd want to play a fighter."  We haven't had the chance to test that, yet.

Excuse me, I dropped my point...There it is!

Perhaps Gordo is stuck in a rut, not because of a personal play style conflict, but because he simply hasn't found anything more appealing than the rut.  For whatever reason.

I believe that part of Kelly's problem was that mage characters are more mystical, and stock fighters are "mundane" to his thinking.  Personally, I believe the character is what you make it.  Some players have strong opinions, and that may make certain choices less appealing.  Moose is fond of pointing out that a good RPG will not limit your character, but allow you to play the type of character you envision.  However, without a system to back that up, you may have difficulty making vision reality.

Matt, the player I mentioned above, was a Paladin in every game we played.  It didn't matter if it was Rolemaster, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, CoC, Vampire, whatever.  His character may have been called Solo, Fighter, Gangrel, but he played it as a Paladin.  Now to him, each character was unique, and he could remember subtle details about each.  To me, they were all the same.  I almost made up business cards for him that said, "Have Dice, Will Travel."

Skip

[hardcoremoose]

Moose is fond of pointing out that a good RPG will not limit your character, but allow you to play the type of character you envision.

Ha!  I'd like to take credit for that little bit of wisdom, but truthfully it comes from John Wick.  And he succinctly says it all in his system chapter of Orkworld.  I doth quote:

"All too often a complex system not only tells players what they can do, but it also implies what they cannot do."

I've always liked simple, straightforward mechanics, but I never understood exactly why until I read that.  It's the part about 'implying' that got me.  Games that devote one-third (or more) of their text to describing combat mechanics imply to the reader that it's a game about combat.  Games with a huge list of skills imply to a player that that list is comprehensive.  Yada yada yada.  Those kinds of games do too much of the imagining for me.

And Joe, if you really seriously want to do something with WYRD, let me know.  There's still room for playtesters on the credits page...

- Moose

[Ryan Ary]

This all clarifies a goal and layout plan I developed while with Thunderhead Games for D&D3e modules. In a nut shell I was trying to get our writers to create a module but add twists so each encounter could be played in three styles. The first (and baseline for the company at the time) was roleplay intensive. This was essentially a Narrativist paradigm. It revolved around maximizing player option and creativity in dealing with the problem outlined in the plot. The second problem solving oriented but ammounted to simulationist. The third was gamist and involved maximizing the conflict (not necessarily combat though) challenge. I have yet to see how they applied the idea in their new (and first product) Interludes but reviews (for what they are worth) have been favorable. We shall see. However, it seems to me that his might be a way game designer could address the GNS challenge in their material. In other words its all about what you spotlight in the material. Who knows?

Thanks
Ryan