[In Nomine] Trailblazing ain't so much fun after bass playing

[Andrew Morris]

After getting used to what is referred to as "bass playing" in terms of GM style, I found it pretty difficult to get back into more "traditional" styles. I used to be very into In Nomine, and I decided to check out Scott Lesher's In Nomine game at DexCon. I've played in his games before, and I've always thought he was an excellent GM.

However, when playing the game, I realized that learning about all the cutting-edge indie stuff out there has really spoiled me. Using a solid game system that directly focuses on what you (the player) want, even a mediocre GM can run a table-thumping session.

Scott is an excellent "trailblazing" GM (as described by M. J. Young in his recent article on GMing styles). He sets up the scenario, gives you some very minimal clues, and sets you loose. Want to walk away from the situation and have your character eat ice cream for the whole session? No problem. He doesn't force any options or strategies -- it's all on you. I used to love this, especially the reveal at the end ("Want to know what was 'really' going on?"). But after playing so many games with different styles and distributions of narrative power, this kind of gaming left me flat.

The fact is that what used to be a top-shelf gaming experience for me is now solidly mediocre, in terms of my elevated expectations. Many times, I found myself running off in a particular direction, then realizing that the system wouldn't support it. Why can't we just cut to a meeting between the angels and demons, instead of wandering around the building until we run into each other? What do you mean I can't define what the secret really is?

This is certainly no slight to Scott. As I said, I think he's a great GM and he runs a great game. I certainly enjoyed myself. But what I would have considered an "excellent" session a year and a half ago, I now consider "good." Has anyone else had this experience, or something similar?

[Eric Provost]

Yup.

My recent experience playing CoC at Origins was very much like that.  But then, I kinda mentally prepared myself for that too.  I knew that I wasn't going to like gathering clues in front of a grinning GM nearly as much as I'd like some collaborative scene framing and getting right to the good stuff.  But I entertained myself by constantly writing things on my scratchpad like;  "The GM drives a Fiat!"

Do you think maybe it just comes down to your expectations?  Like, when you were a kid, a good bicycle was the fastest thing around and you had a blast on it.  Then, you get older and get a motorcycle and the ol' bike can't even be compared to it.  But the ol' bike is still fun.  You just can't expect to go as fast or as far as you can on your motorcycle.

-Eric

[TonyLB]

What do you mean I can't define what the secret really is?

Oh, I love that.  You've gone from "The GM has these incredibly cool ideas" to "We can create these incredibly cool ideas together."  You've recast your own role in the game, and anything less feels like the GM's not recognizing what you can bring to the table.

[Andrew Morris]

On one hand, yes, I feel that I've "outgrown" such styles of play. On the other, I think maybe I've become even more elitist than before, like I've eaten filet mignon so much that I can no longer enjoy a burger (well, not really, because I'm a vegetarian, but you get the idea).

[Judd]

I've started a thread over in RPG Theory that is about this very topic.

It started as a response to this but grew into its own thang.

[JSDiamond]

Of course... as a player you have to *want * to have those choices in the first place.  Most players do not.

[Eric Provost]

Of course... as a player you have to *want * to have those choices in the first place.  Most players do not.

I object to your claim that you know what most players want.  Especially your claim that most players don't want those choices.  At best you could say that your experience shows that players don't want choices.  But then, I could counter with my claim that every player I have ever met and played with wants more choices, but believed (sometimes because I told them so) that the GM was the one that got the choices, not the rest of the players.

I propose that, if most players avoid those choices, then it's because most players are taught by their games and fellow gamers that the choices are not viable.

-Eric

[Andrew Morris]

That's entirely possible, JS (first name?). The world is full of people with different wants and needs. I tend to think that most players don't know such things are available, though, so they just accept it as something they can't have, and try not to think about it.

[Ian Charvill]

Trailblazing, as coined oringinally by, I think, Mike Holmes, described an old-school style of adventure where part of the challenge was to work out the plot.  As a technique, it's very supportive of gamism, because it adds another level of challenge.

Which is to say, in a functional group you would expect to see a high levels of player endeavour directed at finding out the next part of the story.  Story here would be just an aspect of the reward mechanism.

It sounds like your GMs got the cut-scene to challenge ratio wrong.

Either that, or your talking about participationist sim, in which case the point of play is the enjoyment of the experience of the story.  In which case, you really need a GM who is a hell of a performer.

Which leaves us with a position of saying: "I prefer good narrativism to bad gamism", or "I prefer good narrativism to bad sim".   <I>C'est la vie</I>.

[Andrew Morris]

Ian, no, that's not it. I knew what the deal was. I knew we had to do stuff to find out more stuff, then put that stuff together and figure out the big stuff. We had the pieces to figure things out, but didn't do so, because we got more into the "how are angels and demons going to work together to achieve similar goals" issue than the "figure out just what the heck is going on here" issue. If we'd just decided to solve the mystery, we'd probably have done it.

[JSDiamond]

...most players are taught by their games and fellow gamers that the choices are not viable

I agree.  I just didn't want to go on all Zen like about 'how the answer is unreachable because no one knows what questions to ask' or even if they are allowed to ask at all.  But I also believe that most players don't want those game-defining choices because by remaining in a reactionary posture they are not responsible for everyone having fun.  Choice equals responsibility.  As it is they can interact as they please --they are only responsible for their own individual fun.  The GM is the catalyst.  Some players have trouble getting over the shyness of speaking in-character, how do those players make the jump to being co-authors of the adventure?   

Half-baked as I write, I still think that validates my unscientific opinion.  Players are taught to assume a reactionary posture to the GM's pro-action.  So IMO (and to address Andrew's original observation) it's not just that "you can't go home again" --it's that no matter how awesome the GM is, or how detailed the GM makes it, and no matter how many juicy details and bits are laid out for the PCs to discover --that particular kind of play is still the same one way street, only repaved.  I recount my recent D&D3 experience.  D20 is an amazing re-write and rules-fix.  But forty-five minutes into chargen I said to myself "Why am I doing this again?  There's nothing new here." 

I thank the invisible-deity-of-your-choice for games like Sorcerer and Donjon.