GM-task: Test to Extremity

[lumpley]

Yes! Same page.

So like, here's you and me and Mike Miller sitting down for a ten-minute Capes demo, right? And I create this little scientist guy via click & lock. And I'm sitting there looking at him, going, huh.

You put forward as a goal "stop this fiendish experiment" and my eyes light up! I'm like, "ooh, I didn't know that about my character. That's awesome! That's painful! That's deepening!"

You had an insight into my character. You were empowered to act on it. It was good.

Notice especially that me having the right to reject it is compatible with you having the power to act on it in the first place. That's the power I'm arguing for, not the power to bull through rejection.

-Vincent

[Kat Miller]

I think I'm finally getting this thanks to this example.

When we played the Mountain Witch at Dreamation, Tim, the GM, applied general pressure to the situation, but Judd was the one who saw what my character needed. Check this out, from my 6 Ronin etc. thread:

I wasn't sure if he [my character -VB] was the one pure ronin or the most cunning bastard of us all and I figured my character who grew up in the emperor's court just wouldn't trust that kind of purity.

Vince: "Judd, did you know that I was going to attack the Mountain Witch as soon as you released me from service?"

Me: "I didn't know, just seemed like the thing to do."

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Judd studied my character for nine tenths of the session, then - apparently by pure instinct, but I know better - he had his character do something so right to my character that I thought he could see the future. I didn't know that my character was going to kill the Mountain Witch if Judd's released me, but it sure as hell seemed like Judd knew.

Judd's your GM in this situation because he cause an action in game that created adversity for your character, even though Tim was recognized "GM" for the game.  

So anyone in a play group who creates adversity that your invested in, can be your own personal GM for the moment.  

This I have also experienced in play.  There are a few other players that we like gaming with because they are natural button pushers.  In a Buffy Game, Violet (my PC) has a crush on Dierdra's Brother Danny (Dierdra being Michele's PC)  Danny was being Mind Controled by an evil Football Coach and started being nice to me, even asked if I could come over and help him study.  Violet is happy!  Michele recognizes an opportunity to button push  and chooses that moment to arrive with something important she must discuss with Violet.  Mike's the GM of the buffy game, but at that moment Michele was putting me in a position of letting my best friend down or missing an opportunuty to spend time with the guys whose name litters the insides of all my books. . .oh the pain.  Violet squirms.  Kat is happy.  At that moment Michele is my Personal GM.

yes?

I'm still struggling with this though,

The last thing I'd do is trust the player to know what's the right adversity, until afterward.

the until afterword part-
is that until after they hear the suggested adversity or after the adversity is in play?  Or until after they've faced and overcome or been crushed by the adversity?

Is this that a player my have a vague notion about what they want but it takes an ouside force to shape a specific conflict?

[TonyLB]

Okay, cool.  Same page.  Your example is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

I'll say, beyond this (because I like going out on limbs) that the process of tossing out ideas and having them shot down is a vital thing, which games often lose out on... sometimes by design.

I'm thinking in particular about the many games that set out Conflicts by first achieving player consensus.  Let's say that in Vincent's example, I propose "Stop this fiendish experiment", looking at him significantly, and his eyes don't light up.  Ho hum.  No excitement.

How much should this cost me?  In a consensus-driven game, this costs me two seconds of discomfort, before I say "or maybe 'Control the hideous mutation'!" and try again.  In Capes, I've just spent my action, no take-backs.  Maybe I can worm a decent Inspiration out of it, or somehow spike the Conflict in later turns.  But I get immediate negative feedback reinforcing the fact that I tried and failed.

And that's good.  That's the best way to learn:  positive and negative feedback, both.

So, Vincent, it seems like part of our miscommunication is that you're excited by the fun to be had when this works well (which I'm totally excited about too, but sort of tacitly assuming), whereas I'm focussed on the value to be gained when it works poorly.  Does that sound right?

At that moment Michele is my Personal GM.

yes?

That's certainly how I perceive it, yes.  Which means that you'll have as many GMs (in a good game) as there are other people in the game, each working to rouse your interest.

[lumpley]

I find it intriguing that you use an example of someone who did not consciously know what the right thing is -- but rather just did what he felt like.  I find that in my experience, this is by far the most successful route.  i.e. If another player is trying to give my character just the right adversity, it generally falls flat.

I know what you mean. My current game is working out wicked well - and all the con games I've played too, pretty much - but I know just what you mean.

I'd have to think back hard to be more sure, but casually it seems to me that my failed experiences have been sometimes 1) the GM trying to impose an agenda on the player, like Tony's Fairyland example; sometimes 2) the GM understanding the character really shallowly, just missing the boat, like what you're talking about; and sometimes 3) the GM getting the character, but not seeing how to bring the insight into play - flubbing the right conflict, as opposed to choosing the wrong one.

Right now (forgive me if I'm oversharing, Em, Meg) Emily and Meg are paying very close attention to how they treat my character. It's led them to self-doubt, a little. They're doing the very right worst things to me, I'm in happy agony, but they're questioning themselves at every step. I predict that soon it'll go back to being instinctive for them - but meanwhile it's an example of someone trying on purpose, and succeeding.

The last thing I'd do is trust the player to know what's the right adversity, until afterward.

the until afterword part-
is that until after they hear the suggested adversity or after the adversity is in play?  Or until after they've faced and overcome or been crushed by the adversity?

Oh, just until it's in play. That moment when you started to squirm, right? Michele had her character come over, and you had this moment of recognition, like "I didn't expect that, but dang it's perfect. Ouch!"

-Vincent

[Emily Care]

So anyone in a play group who creates adversity that your invested in, can be your own personal GM for the moment.

I love how the term gm is evolving. What people need, regardless of what they are called--player, gm, tooth fairy--when they are gaming, is people to protagonize them.  Whatever quarter it comes from is all good.

Tony, your distinction about the protagonizer-of-choice having to listen to the player so right on.  And Vincent, using language like "the gm knows better than the player" is bound to sound like fighting words.  'Course that's the secret to your theory-fu. ; ) (By the way, no that was not over-sharing. I'm sure everyone can empathize with having protagonization blues)

Anyway,  speaking of fighting, the whole issue of having someone else do it for you puts me in mind of an analogy:  when you sparr with someone, they are doing you a favor by pointing our your openings.  It's very difficult to pick out your weak spots until someone obligingly mirrors them for you.  So, the gm or your fellow players, if properly engaged with you, can help you see your blind spots. As can you them.

respectfully,
Emily

[Mark Woodhouse]

Oooooh! Insight!

I just recognized my dysfunction.

I have a history of playing in games that are pretty heavily built around a TITBB model. Often, the provided adversity isn't really what I want to engage with. I play along, but the thing that makes the game enjoyable for me is that  I have one fellow player (my wife) who I can almost always rely on to feed me conflicts that I _do_ engage with. And I do the same for her.

I've had GM's who were okay with this, even supported it as long as it didn't detract from their story, but I have only had really great experiences in strong-gm TITBB-type games when I wasn't relying on a fellow player to engage with MY conflict.

Data pointing,

Mark

[lumpley]

I'll say, beyond this (because I like going out on limbs) that the process of tossing out ideas and having them shot down is a vital thing, which games often lose out on... sometimes by design.

I understand!

That's really interesting.

Tell us again how Capes works, in that regard? I've only seen the two scenes' worth in action. (Yes, I have the book, but like the man says, reading is for chumps.)

-Vincent

[LordSmerf]

Tell us again how Capes works, in that regard? I've only seen the two scenes' worth in action. (Yes, I have the book, but like the man says, reading is for chumps.)

I'm not Tony, but I will chime in on this one.  You know, based on all that playtesting I did.  Here's how it works:

I find myself short on Story Tokens, and I come up with a brilliant plan to get me some more of the things:  I'll create a rockin' Goal that you'll be all over and invest tons of Debt in so that when I lose it to you I get me some Story Tokens.  So I create "Girlfriend attacked by rabid wombats!".

You look up and say, "Uh, sure whatever."  And then just leave it there.  I've spent an action to create an Event that you don't care about, and so I am not going to get anything out of it, except maybe as Tony said, an Inspiration.  I have basically tried to grab your interest and failed, and it's cost me something (in Capes one Action).

Not only has it cost me something, but it's too late to change.  That uninteresting suggestion is now sitting there for everyone to look at and say, "Wow, that wasn't such a good idea after all."  So in addition to the "wasted" action, there's this reminder sitting out there, and the longer it sits the more apperent it becomes that no one cares about it.

Is that a clear example?

Thomas

[lumpley]

Yes, thank you! That's actually quite slick.

How does the wombat thing eventually go away, or does it never?

-Vincent

[LordSmerf]

I'll have to let Tony weigh in on this one fully as I haven't had a chance to play the final rules yet.

However, in playtest it worked like this: It just sat there, and sat there, and sat there while everyone did the stuff that mattered to them.  Eventually someone would find themselves without anything really grabbing them and would take a short break to do a quick snatch-and-grab on the Wombats.  If no one is opposing you you are basically garuanteed victory.  There's your Inspiration.

That's basically it, the Wombats sit there until the pacing allows a player to grab it for a mechanical advantage, basically for free.

Thomas

[TonyLB]

Right here Sydney posts an actual play incident of this feedback system running well in both negative (against me) and positive (for him) modes.  

I introduced something I thought would interest him.  I was wrong.  I got nothing but an Inspiration.  Woe is me.

He introduced something that absolutely zinged me perfectly.  He got a pile of Story Tokens.

That was our first session.  We both go into the next round of conflicts armed with more information about each other.  Our technique can only improve.



Re:  Crossposted Wombats

The Conflicts do, as Thomas says, get gobbled up for Inspirations.  What happens to those Inspirations (in terms of driving further story) is another matter.

Sometimes the Wombats go away ("They attacked your girlfriend, kidnapped her, now she's gone... you don't care?  Okay.")  The Inspiration gets spent on something unconnected, and the cascade of causality peters out.

More often, somebody figures out a way to turn the Wombats into something that will grab the attention of some players.  "You knew me as Trudy Trueheart, pathetic heroes, but you failed me.  Now I return in vengeance as WOMBATTA, QUEEN OF THE WOMBATS.  I will destroy your puny city and all its inhabitants!  And there is nothing you can do to stop me, for you are failures!  I am the living proof of that!"

[John Kim]

I find it intriguing that you use an example of someone who did not consciously know what the right thing is -- but rather just did what he felt like.  I find that in my experience, this is by far the most successful route.  i.e. If another player is trying to give my character just the right adversity, it generally falls flat.

I know what you mean. My current game is working out wicked well - and all the con games I've played too, pretty much - but I know just what you mean.

I think we agree here.  I think it's a bit confusing to call it a "GM Task" -- since it isn't necessarily more appropriate for the GM, and treating it as a conscious task to be accomplished can be problematic for some.  But you've acknowledged both of those, and Ron also in another thread said that the term "GM Task" is a misnomer.  I also know from past discussion that you are attached to escalation (i.e. testing to extremity) -- while I'm more OK with low-key interactions.  

I'd have to think back hard to be more sure, but casually it seems to me that my failed experiences have been sometimes 1) the GM trying to impose an agenda on the player, like Tony's Fairyland example; sometimes 2) the GM understanding the character really shallowly, just missing the boat, like what you're talking about; and sometimes 3) the GM getting the character, but not seeing how to bring the insight into play - flubbing the right conflict, as opposed to choosing the wrong one.

For my style, I just feel like it's not a good fit for the GM position.  As GM, I don't feel like there's any way I can know each of the PC's better than their player -- certainly not reliably.  I'm already juggling a dozen other things, so I can't really give each PC full analysis without major overcommitment.  Rather, my style is to maximize the interactions and connections and ties and opportunities.  So there's lots of opportunities for things to click, and in practice many do.

[lumpley]

For my style, I just feel like it's not a good fit for the GM position.

What about for the fellow-player position? When you're a player alongside someone else, do you limit yourself to being a fan? Do you do the same "maximize the interactions and connections and ties and opportunities" thing?

Tony: I dig it.

This is a non-challenge, just a question: why is the not-especially-negative feedback of getting only an Inspiration better than the not-especially-negative feedback of a few seconds' awkward silence?

-Vincent

[TonyLB]

Hard to say.  Part of it is that you did spend a renewable but scarce resource (Actions) to get your shot at the Story Tokens.  But mostly I think it's the difference between what you hoped for and what you achieved.  I think people generally judge their success relative to the range of possibilities, not their starting position.  So they can see an objective success as a subjective failure, because it's less than they might have achieved.  Likewise they can see an objective failure as a subjective success, because it could have been much worse.

[TonyLB]

Rather, my style is to maximize the interactions and connections and ties and opportunities.  So there's lots of opportunities for things to click, and in practice many do.

I have to ask:  Do some players more reliably create adversity than others?

I have this theory that creating adversity (and most importantly perceiving the openings (as Emily martially phrased it) that allow creation of adversity) is a learned/trained skill.  A game run as wide-open as you're describing seems like a perfect place to gather data for or against the notion.