I have no words but I must communicate

[Tobias]

And so as to not just reply to replies, but also to the original:

(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.)

I hope that the thing that 'everybody knows' is at least somewhat flexible. I can imagine that giving a mechanical bonusfor adhering to deeply soul-wrougth angsty things sounds corny. Maybe especially when introduced into a system that didn't already prepare for consideration of angst in advance. I do think some mechanical rewards might be helpful for stimulating a player to get 'deep' into character - but I prefer these mechanical rewards to be subtle and mostly optional, so that players can use them to the amount they're comfortable with. (Like 'deep' roleplaying can and does happen in AD&D as well). These mechanical rewards are generally for providing vivid examples of how a character is acting and using the surroundings - and maybe some 'soul' of the character will come into play through this as well. If not, at least the actions in the game are colorful. :)

I don't feel like I need to provide a mechanic that rewards deep peeks into a character's soul in a gamist RPG - if the players like it, they'll do it for themselves and get the social feedback without me having to have Pat slap Mike on the back - +1.

I don't recall having played a Nar game, though. Maybe I'm just fuzzy on terms and distinctions.

(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).

They might even do - but just not see that as 'RPGing' the way they like. Or they might not care to re-examine what makes their social group tick.

[Matt Snyder]

I think it is evaluation "of a person." It's one kind of evaluation "as a person." And it's the kind of evaluation common in Gamism.

Evaluation is synonymous with "judging" someone, in my book. I bring no special, negative connotation to the table with that term. Judging someone is neutral. Either someone behaves in a way that garners positive social feedback or they don't. Specially, we're talking about Step On Up. Either you Step On  Up successfully (meaning, you get some good social reaction) or you don't. We judge each other. It's as simple, and as benign, as that as a term.

I think it's a red herring to get into discussions of judging people "as a person." When using that phrasing, I think we generally mean things like 'Oh, he's a decent guy; he helps at the soup kitchen." Or, "That lady's a racist bitch!"

But we're not talking about that kind of crap. We're talking about judging someone "as a person playing a particular game."

Here's the problem, as I see it: These gamers have rigidly defined for themselves what is "good" or "acceptable" in gaming. They have hard and fast limits on their play. Step outside those limits, and the result is a trainwreck. The game gets all screwed up, and people have No Fun.

But those limits, sometimes, aren't based on any good self-criticism or rational process. They're sometimes based on rote tradition ("Because this is how we've ALWAYS played it!") and  irrational fears about "what people might think about me."

These gamers likely have very little evidence or reason to show that stepping out of the boundaries of what they think is "the game" is will cause them any grief. They have only mutual fears. They seek a comfort zone.

"I'm not gonna do that, you do that!"

"No way, I'm not gonna do that, you do that!"

"No way! That's not how we play!"

Normally, comfort zones are just fine. Hell, they're necessary. But when they're causing any kind of No Fun for the people playing the game, we have a problem.

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.

Whoa! It seems like you're suggesting these things aren't Gamism. Who said "storytelling" and "narrative skills" are contradictory to Gamism? They absolutely are not contradictory. They can be complimentary, and usually are. I find them great fun in Gamist play.

The appreciation of "Guts," for example, could easily be understood to mean appreciation for a colorfully described maneuver in combat, for example. Boom! Narrative skill that is all about a Gamist decision.

I think we have to be really careful when interpreting, understanding and applying Step On Up. The idea should not be limited to some purely tactical, and especially mechanical (read: enforced by the "rules") applications. Step On Up applies to a broad range of behaviors and activities at the table. It is not limited to combat, modifiers, numbers, mechanics, the "rules" and so on.

Rather, it is broader. Step On Up is all about garnering social reaction from your fellow players. There are myriad ways this happens, and many aspects of these remain largely unrecognized in game design. That's how I read Step On Up!

Back on track

How does this apply to the situation in question in this thread? I think the players do not recognize the realm of their experiences "outside" the game. They find refuge in "mechanically supported rules" rather than some "freeform narrative stuff" because they do not recognize that the game exists outside of the game world. They retreat to the rules.

Why? Is it because that's what they truly, honestly like? Sure, could be. More power to 'em. Have fun! Seriously!

Could it also be because they fear social failure too greatly to speak about it, or even dare to try it? Yes, I think that's entirely possible. Uh oh.

But, people do not want to hear insulting things like "You're a coward; try something else." That's just not productive.

If, indeed, they do have reservations about taking social risks outside the mechanics, it's difficult to talk about. I recommend trying to show why you, the talker, like these things. You might say, "Hey, I've got this house rule. I like it because it really challenges all of us to make the game more creative and colorful. That's really important for my fun factor in this game, so I'm hoping you guys will give it a shot. Are there any things you really like that we should emphasize more, too?"

[Emily Care]

Hello,
This struck me:

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.)

From this it sounds like a source of the problem you're experiencing is social--the mechanical "fixes" you've introduced have been blocked by the social atmosphere.  Is this so? How different is the in-play experience in your second group from what you describe in the first?  Social dynamics are hard to deal with--if the players themselves grate on one another it would be hard to go deeper with them.  If it's not a personality clash that's causing the clam-up, maybe there's a way that you could break through the reserve you're experiencing and break the ice, so to speak.  

Here's a suggestion, I don't know if this will fly with your fellow gamers, but it might be helpful if they are game. Timothy Kleinert (timfire) is working on a game called The Mountain Witch. It's pretty non-traditional so would call upon your fellow players to open up to new ideas about playing, as MJ and others have suggested here already, but the setting is combat oriented (an assault by samurai on the fortress of magical badass) and the setting kicks ass, so it might be tempting to them.  

Then if they find it intriguing, the system will focus their play on role-play (elaborating thematic fates decreed to befall each character) along with giving them opportunities to face challenges (monsters, hideous and powerful servants of the Witch).  Incorporated into the system is a Trust mechanic that players can use to establish relationships between characters, help eachother out (or act against one another).  Each player gives trust points to other players who may use them to affect the first player's character. Trust levels are adjusted after each session in a part of the session that is a built in time to reflect on the game and comment to one another on what has gone before. Both Ron and Tim who have playtested the game said that they felt the players left the game as better friends.

Might kill two birds with one stone: 1)introduce new ideas on gaming and 2)change the dynamic among your group.

Best of luck with it.

Yrs,
Emily Care

[Tobias]

(Stuff snipped - not to discount it, but because I could not think of anything to reply - and not to derail further).

I agree with a lot of what you just wrote, Matt. I certainly don't have any negative connotation with 'judging' as a principle, for instance - and I would imagine none of my players do so either.

I agree that we're judging a person playing a particular game. In my friend's case, I think that making him describe a result of an action not his character's, or having the results of his character's action described by another player, might be outside his 'comfort zone'. I sometimes worry that it might be so far outside that zone that he starts feeling (his capabilities at doing) it reflects on him outside of the game.

Whoa! It seems like you're suggesting these things aren't Gamism. Who said "storytelling" and "narrative skills" are contradictory to Gamism? They absolutely are not contradictory. They can be complimentary, and usually are. I find them great fun in Gamist play.

The appreciation of "Guts," for example, could easily be understood to mean appreciation for a colorfully described maneuver in combat, for example. Boom! Narrative skill that is all about a Gamist decision.

Oh, I wouldn't want to say that storytelling or narrative skills are contradictory to Gamism (and if my language has been sloppy, I apologize - like stated, I'm brand-spanking new and using the terms fuzzily, possibly). I love them myself. And your example of Guts actually comes really close to an interpretation I had in mind.

I am saying that my friend might interpret a roleplaying game as primarily consisting of 'strategy' and 'gutsy moves' (If you want, the computer version of AD&D as analogy). Things getting too undefined (and, along with that, who has the power in a group of players and a GM) can bother him.

(This said, I've been mailing with him today as well - and the above is not the case. He just prefers nice solid base of characteristics, numbers, and rules to depart from, scientist that he is and all).

Back on track

How does this apply to the situation in question in this thread? I think the players do not recognize the realm of their experiences "outside" the game. They find refuge in "mechanically supported rules" rather than some "freeform narrative stuff" because they do not recognize that the game exists outside of the game world. They retreat to the rules.

Why? Is it because that's what they truly, honestly like? Sure, could be. More power to 'em. Have fun! Seriously!

Indeed! It might fail to fullfil the GM's desire to explore new options, though. But that's like any other disappointment - adapt, overcome, etc.

Could it also be because they fear social failure too greatly to speak about it, or even dare to try it? Yes, I think that's entirely possible. Uh oh.

But, people do not want to hear insulting things like "You're a coward; try something else." That's just not productive.

If, indeed, they do have reservations about taking social risks outside the mechanics, it's difficult to talk about. I recommend trying to show why you, the talker, like these things. You might say, "Hey, I've got this house rule. I like it because it really challenges all of us to make the game more creative and colorful. That's really important for my fun factor in this game, so I'm hoping you guys will give it a shot. Are there any things you really like that we should emphasize more, too?"

That way of presentation sounds good - making the game more colorful is something that's hard to fear, I hope. It might at the same time be good to not over-emphasize your own desires, since they might feel a bit guilty about saying yes or no.

In the end, it's all about fun - so railroading or pressurising will be pretty self defeating. Frankly admitting you're looking to see if you can mine a new/additional vein of fun can work.

[edit: snipped a word]

[Matt Snyder]

Excellent, Tobias. Good to hear we're agreeing on most, if not all, things here! Your last post confirms that for me as well.

I caught myself with language that seemed confrontational, and revised much before posting my previous item. I certainly meant none of it as a challenge to your views, but rather as a clarification or reminder of what Gamism is all about (or, at least, what I understand it to be about).

[Halzebier]

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)

I'm not sure I correctly understand your point about anonymity above. As far as I can see, the spotlight would still be on the individual.

But the only alternative I can come up with is a wishy-washy post-game assessment of everyone's level of enjoyment. This would amount to "if we had fun tonight, we award ourselves a couple of extra points". I'm not sure this achieves much beyond a token evaluation.

Possibly, a shy player might secretly congratulate himself on having contributed to a session deemed 'good' and be encouraged to do so again.

But I'm on really thin ice here - my players would certainly scoff at the notion that they're shy. Yet, I think that any sort of peer review (or DM arbitrated reward system) is right out.

[description of abandoned houserule snipped]

Isn't there a Mike Holmes standard rant on this, on trying to drift slightly...

I'm not sure the houserule constitutes an attempt to drift the mode.

(And in fact, this is not what I was trying to do. I enjoy the gamist elements of D&D play very much and would like to strengthen them and expand them to other areas, if anything. That or play something other than D&D, for I have little interest in the system's multi-hour combats if they're run in a non-gamist fashion.)

The houserule was meant to use the gamist reward system (increases in character effectiveness in this case) to incorporate a largely mode-less concern: color.

Regards,

Hal

[Addendum: I apologize for not posting to this thread more frequently. Many of you offered interesting observations and advice, but, alas!, I have too little time to answer to each post. But then, the thread seems lively enough, which is nice.]

[Henri]

I can't help thinking that Donjon might be a good game for your group to try.  It is very gamist and it is in the fantasy dungeon crawl tradition, so people who are used to D&D shouldn't be too freaked out by it.  Also, it allows for goofy, light-hearted play, and as a couple of people have pointed out, it is often easier for us to come out of our shells if we go over board and ham it up.  However, Clinton is sneaky because even though it is a gamist dungeon crawl, the system forces the characters to be a lot more creative and descriptive and take more authority for themselves than games like D&D.  

Quick disclaimer: I have looked at Donjon, but haven't gotten around to playing yet (although I intend to), so this is based on second-hand info rather than personal experience.  But I'm sure there are people here who have played who could back me up.

[Caldis]

Just to be different I'll suggest something totally different from everyone else.  From the sound of things your group isn't fully interested in gamist play.  They may be interested in powering up, becoming more competent but the talk of people "not roleplaying properly" makes me think they have a more simulationist bent.  Maybe you should try something a little less radical such as continuing with a simulationist game that has a less complicated combat system?  

Maybe after trying that for a time they will feel more free to try different things and you can eventually work towards more fully gamist or narrativist play but from the sound of things they may not be ready for the changes you are suggesting at this point.  If they're content doing what they're doing then as the saying goes you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink.