What to do?

[Alan]

Hi Aidan,

Just to chime in with Ron and Jonathan in my own key:

Whether a person separates "in character" knowledge from "out of character" knowledge when making a decision about what to do is not an absolute measure of good roleplaying.  It doesn't define roleplaying - it is only one style of roleplaying.  

Many great games are played with players having their characters act on OOC knowledge.  Someone has mentioned a gamist style of play where the character does what's best from the player's point of view.  Well, there's also decisions such as directing a character into trouble beause it gives the player a chance to play out something interesting.  

Style expectations CAN be part of an expected standard of play - but these are issues of social contract.  The group can agree that, for this particular game, we're all going to try to play to certain standards, such as internal consistency, tactical astuteness, thematic relevance, etc.  As someone pointed out, these are the standards of the creative agenda (GNS) mode you've agreed on for that game.  (IC/OOC separation is typically an element of simulationist play - but is not atually definitional of that agenda, only of one style of simulationist play.)

Now, even if you all agree on a set of standards, you may find other players have different perspectives on what you think are cut and dried measures.  You might also find that some players just can't get away from standards they're used to.  In both these cases, just as with any mental process, communication may fail to change them.  You can't make the other person change - and expecting them to do so will cause you a lot of pain.

So, sure, talk to him - but first examine your own prejudice and understand his position so you don't come across with unwanted evangelism.

[taalyn]

I guess I didn't phrase the question right, because most of the answers have been pretty unhelpful. I am talking to him, for example.

Nevertheless, Callan answered my question, which is better phrased "what's going on here, and how do you deal with it best?" Mode drift is exctly what's going on (as he's a hardcore, self-identified Gamist).

Ron et al. were somewhat helpful with the "let go" sentiment, but without the cause behind what's going on, it wasn't enough. Hard to let go when you don't know what it is you're letting go of.

So, thanks all! That answered my question (as poorly phrased as it was).

[Low-level thug]

It seems to me that the answer might be simpler than all that.  It's basic human psychology, in my opinion.  Put a lot of expectations on a person in a field that they aren't particularly skilled.  And there's a good chance that they'll ham it up rather than really trying and looking stupid anyway.

You've already said, quite openly, that he's not a great roleplayer.  So when you look very seriously at him and say "this is going to be a very dramatic thing", what makes you think he won't crack under the pressure?  I know I'd feel a lot of pressure to perform.  And I'm afraid I might handle it in much the same way.  Try to diffuse it by being 1) silly, 2) pragmatic, or 3) non-immersive.  (Not sure that last one's a proper word, but hopefully you get the idea.)

Did you make this big a deal of it when you got the reaction you wanted in the past?  When he was under water and not drowning, did you set up lofty expectations ahead of time?

I think all that happened is that you put the stage light on him and turned it up too high.  That's all.


LLTh

[taalyn]

Well, the hoped-for drama came and went. What it ultimately was - expecting too much too fast. I didn't give him time to have a reaction. It all worked out fine in the end.

Aidan

[MarktheAnimator]

Hello,
I've been running games for 26 years and have never needed to mutilate a character for "dramatic purposes."

Why cut off his hand in the first place?

I once played in a game where the GM decided to kill my character and then ressurect me for the purpose of "drama."  It was one of the worst games I've played in.  Players don't like getting mutilated.  Sometimes it leaves a bad taste in their mouth and they don't want to play their character any more.

I know you asked him first, but I really think you should have come up with a better way to advance the plot.

Its often difficult trying to figure out how to take players along a story path without forcing them.  I've developed a way to draw them along instead.  Pulling as opposed to pushing......

Some players don't bite, and then "pulling" won't work....

So what I do is to create a list of scenes.  Each scene ends with a clue to one or more other scenes that follow it (the scenes don't all have to be in order).  I then place the players in the scene and let them go.  They eventually find the clue and go to the next scene on their own.  The story advances and in the end there is a big battle and its all over.

Another way of doing it is not to ask him, but to do something where he would voluntarily choose what you want within the story.  
For instance,

- A character sees a glowing crystal floating in the air.  When he grabs it, his hand turns into an articulated diamond!  

or

- A character walks into a shop and there is a demo of a person using a mechanical hand with all sorts of cool stuff attached.  The player asks him about it, and the guy starts unscrewing his hand, disconnects it and offers it to the player... He says that he'll trade it for the character's real hand.

Just a few ideas.


Anyway, I hope this gives you something to chew on...

[DannyK]

I think Ron Edwards' comparison of gaming to playing rock 'n' roll is an incredibly handy mental yardstick.  

Using that comparison, I'd say that I'm not sure it's necessary or helpful to analyze and fix this unsatisfying play experience.  Sometimes it's better to check in with each other and then just start jamming again.

[Mike Holmes]

Aidan, while I agree with Callan on the analysis of the situation, I too probably wouldn't have started out with the theory behind the problem. The end result is always the same, the player did what they did because they thought it was the right thing to do (barring social problems which the theory does not address outside of "play nice"). So the answer will always be the same, "just keep playing."


This gets back to some of the latest discussions that we've had on the list about the design. You have what I consider a design that should produce narrativism. But you're trying to use simulationist scenario design, and other elements to work with the system. Which leaves me, for one, unsurprised at the incoherence of the result. I mean, with narrativism supporting methods of play, you'd never have needed to ask the player to lose a hand in the first place. You could just do it, and there would be no problems.

Mike