I have no words but I must communicate

[Halzebier]

Our D&D group had a brainstorming session for our next campaign tonight.

I found it an exercise in frustration, as I was unable to get my ideas across. The others humoured me and my new-fangled ideas, so the evening's mood was more or less alright. There's at least that.

The problem, as I see it, is that the group both embraces and condemns gamism (or aspects thereof). Players' eyes glaze over at the prospect of another +1, they argue endlessly over tiny modifiers and positioning and always go for the optimal tactical choice -- but at the same time, they complain that fights take too long and that people don't properly roleplay their characters. Also, they wish to raise the GM screen again to allow covert fudging.

I had brought a list of concrete suggestions, a fact which already raised a couple of eyebrows.

(Example: Everyone determines two character traits. If adhering to them garners a disadvantage (e.g. a risk), the player is rewarded with a free action point. IOW, just the carrot, no stick. This was dismissed on the grounds that it offered a mechanical reward - and, as everybody knows, good roleplay cannot be forced or bought with bribes, it has to come naturally. And so on and so forth.)

In the end, they kinda pitied me, because they (erroneously) think I don't enjoy illusionism (a term I avoided, BTW).

In retrospect, I guess I failed in three ways:

*-*-*

(1) I assumed that they'd easily come to accept things like the lumpley principle, the validity of alternative styles and other things I regard as fundamental (should they come up - I sure didn't have that in mind).

Boy, was I ever mistaken.

*-*-*

(2) My list was too diverse. Because I'd be happy to resolve the incoherence I perceive in any number of ways, I suggested options for taking the game in different directions.

This just confused everybody.

*-*-*

(3) I was unable to communicate.

I had not come to spread the light and was aware of the danger of appearing to do that, but I feel - guiltily and more than ever - that they're indeed... 'blind' (that's the most flattering term I can come up with). But I'm unable to do anything about it.

*-*-*

I've commented on the range of games out there a couple of times, but I'd mistaken their reactions as accepting that there's more than one way to play when, in fact, it had just strengthened their belief that there are a lot of very weird people in the world.

For instance, I had teased them about the DM's ultimate authority a couple of times in the past, and they had conceded that it wasn't limitless. "Conceded" apparently as in "let's humour him - everybody knows that you can construct a hypothetical case with jackass players, but in a real game, the DM is always right, you couldn't very well have a game otherwise".

*-*-*

I'm utterly despondent right now. I didn't even mean to change their style, I just want to discuss how we might iron out some of the wrinkles.

Depressed,

Hal @ 2 o'clock in the morning

[ethan_greer]

Have you read Ron's Gamism article? Not to proseletyze GNS, but there's a section in there about the bitterest gamer in the world.  Is that your group? May or may not be, but it's what I thought of immediately when I read your post.

Sadly, I don't have advice for you, but I was just curious about that.

[Halzebier]

Have you read Ron's Gamism article? Not to proseletyze GNS, but there's a section in there about the bitterest gamer in the world.  Is that your group? May or may not be, but it's what I thought of immediately when I read your post.

Sadly, I don't have advice for you, but I was just curious about that.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the article.

The section you mention is not a particularly good match, I think. For instance, the guys are not into heavy sim.

(But then, I hardly know what they're into any more - there's a whole bundle of conflicting, often unacknowledged desires.)

In any case, I don't think anyone qualifies for bitterest gamer in the world -- not even me, and I would seem to be a prime candidate: I sure have the impression that fully functional play is just a tad out of reach.

But I guess I can live with that - there's just some occasional frustration and wistfulness involved (depending on my mood).

I apologize for my post - it does not provide a good starting point for discussion (no analysis, no clear depiction of the specifics of the situation plus I have so much work that I can't remedy that). I was just venting and the fact that I added "@ 2 o'clock in the morning" shows that I did know better but went ahead anyway.

We should probably just let the thread die.

Regards,

Hal

[Callan S.]

This was dismissed on the grounds that it offered a mechanical reward - and, as everybody knows, good roleplay cannot be forced or bought with bribes, it has to come naturally. And so on and so forth.)

Say five years ago I'd have probably said something like this. Now I find the dissmissal shocking.

Does the problem start with a vibe that roleplay is something from the heart. And rewards would dirty that? From what I recall of myself, I think it started there. Also its that bitterest gamer thing (if I read it right) of the world being real and explorable...any other concerns would take away from that (never mind if anything else would provide more pleasure).

If you want the thread to die, just ignore this post. But I'd like to know what other forge dudes would do to get across that this reward is okay (and once you get a reward mechanism in, you can solidly encourage all sorts of things).

[xiombarg]

Well, really, it's basic psychology, on an almost Pavolvian level. You should point out ot them that good roleplay is arguably already rewarded, in the sense that it gets positive social feedback from the group. And that any game system, by its design, whether by accident or on purpose, rewards certain behavior, and we're not just talking the advancement system. Anything behavior the system makes easier is rewarded.

Why is it okay to mechanically reward some behavior (i.e. advancement XP) and not others? That's the question to ask them. The fact of the matter is, if you want something to happen again and again, there needs to be something to support it. If they don't want to give a mechanical reward to good roleplaying, are they willing to give a social reward? Is there a social reward? Do people give each other props for good roleplaying, or just shrug and move on?

"Good roleplaying is its own reward" is a cop-out. Role-playing is a social activity, and therefore anything that happens has to mean something within the context of the social group. If no one pays attention to good roleplaying, why bother? You can get the same satisfaction writing a good short story and not sharing it with anyone. This is another thing to point out: If rewarding certain behaviors "sullies" that behavior, why should you engage in it at all with the group and risk it being "tainted"? Write fiction instead, it's more "pure". I mean, in a group, someone might say "That's cool" and that would be a social bribe, right?

[Ron Edwards]

Just in case anyone's wondering, let's keep going with this thread. Even as it stands, there's a lot of room for discussion.

Hal, I think your first posts were perfectly understandable and even poignant, so if you want to recover a bit and focus us a bit more, that's cool too.

Best,
Ron

[trechriron]

My first suggestion is to define exactly what you are looking for in a game.  Clear your brain of your current group's problems and identify what you want.  Write it down, use the simplest terms possible and note Forge terminology in parenthesis (to jog your personal memory).  After that, write down what you see as major issues with your current group's playing.  Use your "what I want" description as a guideline.  Then seek out a couple examples of games that may facilitate what you are looking for.

I feel it is difficult to identify your cohorts' perspectives.  You are not in their heads, and as has been discussed here many times, many people find it difficult to vocalize what they want anyway (I struggled with this personally).  I think part of the communication problem stems from not wanting to draw lines (IMO).  Without lines you can avoid conflict and the potential consequences of that conflict.  The other issue is in confidence.  It is hard to be confident in your position when your position is not defined.  I would encourage you to not fear the conflict and to gather confidence from a defined position.

Secondly, Ask the group for another get together.  Read them your "what I want" description.  Explain to them what you see as incoherent (or not working may be a better way to put it) with your current playing style.  Suggest an experiment.  You want to see how this new playing style will actually work (the one you want).  It is not a set-in-stone permanent change.  You want everyone to give it a honest try.  Talk more about the styles, techniques, and agenda you are looking for to get everyone on the same page.  Essentially before the "experiment" can have any success you need to redefine the game parts of your social contract.  Set some new expectations.  Get a commitment for a realistic length of time for this experiment.  I would say four to six sessions would be an honest attempt.

Finally, run a game you want that facilitates what you are looking for.  Pay careful attention during the game where people are falling into old habits.  Note what parts the players are really enjoying and what parts they are "not getting" or that put them off.  I recommend you establish a post-game discussion for these sessions to discuss techniques and goals and let them voice their opinions about the game.

Worse case – they think your ideas are a "weird" and they have a difficult time integrating them.  However, they now understand what you could not communicate before.  Seeing is believing.  At this point the next discussion about campaigns and games should be a bit more fruitful as you are closer to being on the same page.  The group may have actually enjoyed some of the new techniques you tried out, and you could integrate them into your regular game.  You also spent some time observing your group and really paying attention to what they enjoy.  This will make running the next game easier to tailor to the group if that is what you want.

Ideally – After actually playing a game and giving it an honest attempt, they see where you are coming from and identify with the challenges you are seeing.  Now you can move forward with integrating your new experience into your regular game.

So far experiencing a game with different techniques than I am used to has proved far more fruitful in my education than all the discussions I have had or read.  The caveat being I would not have explored those situations without these discussions.  I feel the experience is worth more for the understanding of WHAT YOU WANT from the game.

Just my two cents...

[Halzebier]

Why is it okay to mechanically reward some behavior (i.e. advancement XP) and not others?

Individualized rewards require that the individual be judged, whether by the system or his peers - and I think they (and many players in general) are afraid of that.

(I find this puzzling in this case, as the group has strong gamist tendencies in many regards. Several players also happen to be avid board- and wargamers. And yet I feel that Ron's hard questions for gamists might touch a sore spot here.)

I dunno - maybe non-individulized, 'group-achievement' rewards are the way to go, but I have no idea how such a thing might look (much less how to properly implement it).

A while ago, I got them to try out a houserule. Everyone had been complaining about the lack of flavor text (i.e., "I crit AC 34 for 84 points of damage" instead of something more dramatic). So I suggested that when you rolled a natural 11 and remembered to give an evocative description of your current action (or just try for one), you'd gain a +d6 bonus.

The houserule was a failure and was gradually abandoned. I think it wasn't designed very well to begin with, but more importantly, the players' hearts were not in it. In fact, I got the impression that one player kind of sabotaged it by delivering deliberately cheesy descriptions.

Maybe he was uncomfortable with having the spotlight turned on his stylistic skills and to counter this, he went for camp and sillyness. If you're not playing the same sport, you can't lose.

This is pure conjecture on my part, though - I'm still puzzled by his behaviour, as he's generally an eloquent and outspoken player.

The fact of the matter is, if you want something to happen again and again, there needs to be something to support it. If they don't want to give a mechanical reward to good roleplaying, are they willing to give a social reward? Is there a social reward?

We seem to be very shy about giving positive feedback. This is something I've seen in many groups and which I find hard to break out of. I usually try to give positive feedback to the DM at the very least, but I'm uncomfortable if everyone else remains close-mouthed because I don't want to seem as if I am sucking up (that's an irrational fear, I'm sure) or as if I'm assuming the role of judge of what's good (and, by elimination, of what's not).

(Another group I game with has a different atmosphere in this regard. There's a lot of post-game chat and analysis by all involved. This may have something to do with the fact that we routinely have to clean up and give each other rides, so there is quite a bit of time after the game. Mary K. Kuhner on RGFA noted that her group's post-game dinners were a major contribution and part of the fun in all sorts of ways.)

Regards,

Hal

[Callan S.]

I dunno - maybe non-individulized, 'group-achievement' rewards are the way to go, but I have no idea how such a thing might look (much less how to properly implement it).

Perhaps something like '*jim does somthing* ah, for these actions a point is added to the group reward pool!'. That way it isn't individually based....yeah, like hell! It's pretty clear Jim got a reward (even if its one he shares). But it's hidden in that someone/could be anyone (which doesn't make anyone more special than others by GM fiat) did somthing that deserved an award. Anonamous system, but really it does reward individuals (but since the reward pool is shared equally to everyone at the end, bling bling, no ones too prompted to complain if they figure it out)

A while ago, I got them to try out a houserule. Everyone had been complaining about the lack of flavor text (i.e., "I crit AC 34 for 84 points of damage" instead of something more dramatic). So I suggested that when you rolled a natural 11 and remembered to give an evocative description of your current action (or just try for one), you'd gain a +d6 bonus.

The houserule was a failure and was gradually abandoned. I think it wasn't designed very well to begin with, but more importantly, the players' hearts were not in it. In fact, I got the impression that one player kind of sabotaged it by delivering deliberately cheesy descriptions.

Isn't there a Mike Holmes standard rant on this, on trying to drift slightly...I'll see if I can find it. Nope, can't. But he might come in at some point.

But on the actual problem, yeah, the sports analogy is a good one. I think that perhaps as gamists they felt out of their depth when it comes to being judged by a person, rather than how well they do at something showing up in solid system results.

On that point, one of my favorite things about the move 'strike mighty blow' in warhammer is that saying it did add to the atmosphere, and it was hard to do (if you didn't say it, you didn't get the bonus and we'd often forget when everything was cooking...it did seem challenging!). Some descriptive phrases with set rewards might get around it, while adding to atmosphere.

[Bill Cook]

In fact, I got the impression that one player kind of sabotaged it by delivering deliberately cheesy descriptions.

Maybe he was uncomfortable with having the spotlight turned on his stylistic skills and to counter this, he went for camp and sillyness. If you're not playing the same sport, you can't lose.

This is pure conjecture on my part, though - I'm still puzzled by his behaviour, as he's generally an eloquent and outspoken player.

I've seen this pattern time and again.  When I was studying singing in college, I was surrounded by fat-headed opera buffos who would press themselves into closet-sized practice rooms and wail, "Me, me, me!" until the walls shaked.  During my lessons, my vocal coach would try to get my voice to come out; sound more operatic.  At one point, out of frustration, I made this silly imitation of those egomaniac divas.  And whadda y'know, I felt something happen.  Didn't know what to make of it, but it seemed like a good kind of new thing.

Overcoming yourself often begins with mockery or exaggeration.  And upon reflection, it is often the fear of appearing foolish that was holding you back.  If I'd been in the room during the game you describe, I would've made everyone stop and said to your friend, "That's great!  Everyone: that is what we're trying to do."  So he'd get real praise and at the same time quite naturally tailor himself to justify it.

[M. J. Young]

My advice is more drastic, I think. Find games that break the molds completely, and get your group to try them out in small doses--a night of Universalis, a night of Inspectres, one of Squeam, or Little Fears or Puppetland perhaps, games which can't be played in their usual way. Don't introduce these as role playing games; introduce them as new ideas for games that you'd like to try with them as a break from your usual play.

A few of these will almost certainly let them see that their own notions of how to play are extremely narrow, and that a lot of great concepts in role playing are out there waiting to be explored. After you've hit the ones on the edges, then come back to games that are closer to what you really want.

The problem with picking up a game that is close to what they've always done but has the elements you want is that the group will almost certainly squeeze it into the mold of their expectations--"that's how these things are done". By first breaking those expectations entirely by using games that don't work at all in their traditional approach, you open the possibility of introducing games and techniques that are only a little different from what they know and having them fit into the group.

--M. J. Young

[Trevis Martin]

The relevant Rant from our own Mr. Holmes is this one:

Mike's Standard Rant #7: You Can't Sneak Up on Mode

-Trevis

[Tobias]

I've seen this pattern time and again.  When I was studying singing in college, I was surrounded by fat-headed opera buffos who would press themselves into closet-sized practice rooms and wail, "Me, me, me!" until the walls shaked.  During my lessons, my vocal coach would try to get my voice to come out; sound more operatic.  At one point, out of frustration, I made this silly imitation of those egomaniac divas.  And whadda y'know, I felt something happen.  Didn't know what to make of it, but it seemed like a good kind of new thing.

Overcoming yourself often begins with mockery or exaggeration.  And upon reflection, it is often the fear of appearing foolish that was holding you back.  

(snippage).

I just want to add a 'me too' to this observation. I've been fairly heavily involved in sports during my life - the two that have been most important to me are rock climbing and ninjutsu.

In both of them, there are techniques/moves/stances that require you to really go for them, without too much thought or self-reflection on how it might look - and with the possibility of disappointment (and laughter) when you try and fail.

Of course, experienced people have been there before as well, and probably won't laugh, but applaud the effort instead, but the fear of looking silly, committing to something, definately exists.

I'm in a sort of such a phase (again) with my ninjutsu - I slightly exaggerate the techniques I am performing - and I do it in such a way that it's apparent I am exaggerating. However, it is a really useful tool, in that the exaggeration actually makes me feel what is needed quite well.

So maybe the camp and over-acting is such a tool - or maybe there's real resistance. No way to know from where I'm sitting and typing.

Good luck,
Tobias

[Matt Snyder]

I think that perhaps as gamists they felt out of their depth when it comes to being judged by a person, rather than how well they do at something showing up in solid system results.

I find this odd. As I understand it, Gamism is defined as being judged by other people. This is what Step On Up is all about -- garnering social rewards by expressing behavior that is provocative, clever, risky, etc. Players who fear this are likely inviting disaster for their games, I think.

(Callan, I do not find it odd that you've observed this; likely, you're right. What I find odd is that players who enjoy Gamism invite dysfunction into the form the enjoy.)

Halzebier, I'm not sure I can help you with something that hasn't already been stated, but I thought this post might emphasize what Gamism is about and what kind of problems it can precipitate. Ron's essay does a far better job explaining this than I do here!

[Tobias]

I think that perhaps as gamists they felt out of their depth when it comes to being judged by a person, rather than how well they do at something showing up in solid system results.

I find this odd. As I understand it, Gamism is defined as being judged by other people. This is what Step On Up is all about -- garnering social rewards by expressing behavior that is provocative, clever, risky, etc. Players who fear this are likely inviting disaster for their games, I think.

(Callan, I do not find it odd that you've observed this; likely, you're right. What I find odd is that players who enjoy Gamism invite dysfunction into the form the enjoy.)

When I look at the definition of 'Step On Up', I see it (partially) reading 'Social assessment of personal strategy and guts among the participants in the face of risk.'

So the evaluation, at that point, is of the strategy and of the guts in the actions taken. No evaluation 'as a person' - and storytelling or narrative skills might be taken to reflect heavily on their skills as a person.

I'm responding because I have a player in my group (who's a very good friend of mine) who is a very classic AD&D gamer. When discussing how characters should be 'made', he made it very clear he needed numerical stats to get a grip with what the character was.

I talked about this later with another player (in the effort of seeing whether my interpretation of his playing style was correct so as to maximise his enjoyment), and we're basically agreed that he likes staying within the rules. A rule I'm currently considering in Your Gods are Dead basically translates into him having to describe the effects of one in 15 actions (by PCs or NPCs). We feel that this rule might be something of a challenge to him as a person, more than just requiring strategy or guts. (Although I will likely add a direct in-game reward for a good description, making a good description 'good strategy' on his part).