Discussion with my GMing Mentor

[dyjoots]

Possible analogy: I learned to cook from my parents, all hands-on, nothing written down. So my instinct is, "Recipes? I don't need your stinkin' recipes!" And I've got a ton of cookbooks I hardly ever use, and if I do try to use them, I tend to riff off the written recipies more than I follow them. Which is great for making the 12 things I've been making in a rotating cycle for the last five years. But boy, do my wife and I get bored with those 12 things. And if I want to branch out -- if I want to try something new -- I'm going to have to buckle down and follow the instructions in a cookbook. But, damn! I resist. Because getting new options by following someone else's instructions feels like subjecting myself to constraints, when in fact it's a path to freedom.

I think one of the issues that comes up, though, is this line:

"But boy, do my wife and I get bored with those 12 things."

Some people aren't bored at all...  Some people will only ever eat cheese, peas, and chocolate pudding, and not only are uncomfortable when people talk about hamburger tartar, pumpkin soup, and cucumber ice cream, but actively resent it when people say "But you should try it, and see how good it is."

When I run a Forge game, like PTA or Sorcerer, it's like those non-standard recipes:

I have friends who would eat it and smile, not because they like it, but because I made it and they don't want to be negative, and I know people who, if I came at them with it, would get me such a verbal beating that I would never ask them to play anything again, let alone something "strange."

[Jason Lee]

This is kind of "duh", but the players need to be onboard the collaboration wagon for "indie style" gaming to work.  Which is not needed for "Jim style" GMing.  (Ick, I hate those labels.)

For example, in our game the current GM has himself a setting wherein an ancient continent rose up out of the sea and a great hurricane hovers over it.  Now, I have myself a character that can control the weather.  I refuse to play my character than can control the weather, so I'm playing someone else and conjuring up believable excuses for her not to be there.  I suspect it would only de-escalate whatever conflicts occur and flatten the setting (no idea if it would, but why risk it?).  Often, you have to act subtler, but this kind of behavior from the players is necessary to have escalating conflict that doesn't end up with a final battle against a giant shark with a laser on its head.

The fix to players who aren't assisting in creation is various methods of GM force like character power limits ("No Jedi!") and illusionism.  If you expect the GMs at cons to be bad, expect the players to be equally poor and GMs to try to compensate (which they have a responsibility to do).  Tony said up around post two that you need to stop programming people to resist collaboration before it'll ever happen though.

(Side note:  Jim sounds like he can run action, which is probably a big factor in him being a good GM.  People seem to have a lot of trouble running engaging action - mostly due to poor turn management and failure to escalate.  Not really related to the player empowerment discussion, but...)

[Mencelus]

I think I see where folks are going with this but, frankly, is "Jim-style" so bad? The original poster doesn't seem to think so, but other respondants poo a little on it. I actually kinda prefer Jim-style - just enough rope to hang myself, with the occassional prompting from the GM for stuff to do, and some freedom fries mixed in for good measure.

I ran into a few sessions of "non Jim-style" RPGing some time ago and felt myself at a loss for what to do with it. On the one hand, pretty nifty stuff - had some more freedom than usual, no set story. On the other hand, I spent the first three sessions trying to get a grip on who my character was, motivations, etc etc. Felt like somehwat wasted time to me - if I'd had a few solid concepts to start with, then maybe it'd be different. But I didn't, and there I was, flapping in the wind.

[contracycle]

I'm not happy with the triumphalism either.  I have defended the auteur-GM in the past and will do so again.

Lets take the No Jedi thing to start with.  I have done this, I am not ashamed, and I would do it again.  Bankuei wrote:

Now, all of the movies are about Jedi.   Most of the videogames are about Jedi.  If you ran up on any 7 year old kid and said, "Let's play Star Wars"- you'd all be playing some Jedi.

Yes.  But are the actual games as writ about Jedi?  IME, no they are not.  The whole Jedi thing is wrapped up in moral dilemmas, but of course the movies could pull off that sort of thing by exercising strict control of the action.  Vader cuts off Luke's hand and doesn't simply strike him dead?  How many games could in fact actually produce that result mechanically?  Few.  And, how many gamers are actually as interested in the moral dilemmas as they are in running around chopping up stormtroopers?  Few.

And the "reason" his group wouldn't let ANY player play some Jedi?  "Jedi would overpower the other PCs"  "Jedi are too powerful"  "Jedi would 'ruin' the adventure/challenge/whatever" Translation:  Fear of players.  "Chicken Littling" is what I'm calling it- "If you let the players get out of control, if you let the players get too much power, then the game will explode and everyone loses."

The last sentence has it right - EVERYONE loses.  To characterise this as "fear of players" is unfair IMO; this is responsible behaviour to ensure Maximum Game Fun.  Some notional ideal is less important than a game that actually works.  The fact that the games themselves have often only poorly examined game play revolving around Jedi exaggerates the problem - for example, there are no valid physical barriers to a group of players that includes a single lightsabre.  The fact that there is virtually no analysis of the Force reinforces the few that it is really only a Kewl Power rather than anything remorely resembling Sorcerers humanity.

Anyway I could go on about this example at some length but will restrain myself.  My argument remains that the GM has identified what is in fact a major oversight in the game-as-writ and has taken appropriate steps to solve the problem.  Similarly, if the GM knows that the players will not read the source material, will not constrain themselves to genre-appropriate actions, then the optimum solution is to assume responsibility for that constraint.  Character choices will be ruled out; certain actions will be disallowed... and all this will, or at least should, serve the make the game more fun than it would have been if everyones polyglot and uncoordinated wishes were merely fulfilled on autopilot.  At least the game will preserv some character, some theme, some of its particularity and uniqueness.

Further, the GM is here to have fun too.  If the GM's role is to be relegated to a mere response-machine, and the players input consistently seen as superior to the GM's input, then why is the GM doing this?  Where do the GM's own creativity, inspiration, acting skills, pacing skills, get employed?  Where, in short, does the GM get to have fun, get their own creative input validated by peer approval?

I'm afraid that I too think a sizable chunk of Indie games are overly focussed on a specific mode of play that aknowledges only a subset of actual play practices.  While the investigation of player input, GM-full/GM-less play, response to premise et al have certainly revolutionised our concept of what RPG's can do, I do not at all think that they are appropriate or desirable for many players.  That said I recognise that there are persistant problems related to iron railroading and de-protagonisation that emanate from many of the auteur-GM's bag of tricks.  But it is those issues that I think should be adressed within the context of the GM driven game, rather than GM driven game itself being dismissed.

[Judd]

I think what interests me in the conversation wasn't so much changing Jim nor showing him the light but the fact that two gamers who gamed together for years have grown apart.  That the way we GM in many ways reflects the way we live a little.

I am not here to change him,though I do want to game with him again, show him how I do things and confront what bothers him about it.  We can't really have a dialogue about it until he plays a game.

But the frightening part for me is that he might just not like it.  We might sit at different tables now.  That'd be odd.  I don't think that'll be the way it is but that possibility is there.

[TonyLB]

Classic advice people get early in the stay here on the Forge is "If you and Biff (or whoever) don't like gaming together, don't game together."  Everyone is eager to take that advice regarding people they've never enjoyed gaming with.  But yeah, it's hard, hard, hard to think about the fact that the advice is just as applicable to people you used to have a ball with, but now don't.  I'm right there with you on the feeling.

[Andrew Norris]

Hopefully this is still on topic. I've run into situations where my gaming friends think I, our resident indie-techniques guy, am the auteur. I keep telling them I'm really not, but they don't hear it.

One of my players keeps telling me what a genius I am for creating such complex plots that draw in all the characters. (Don't worry, my head isn't about to swell. I love the guy, but he's prone to hyperbole.) The thing is, and I've told him this, there is no plot. I put a lot of work into the R-Map and Bangs at the start of the campaign, but by now it's running mostly on player steam. I've told them this. But he still thinks that in order for me to have pushed everyones buttons and gotten them so involved in play, I'm a master illusionist and mind-reader. I say, "Dude, I'm running this out of the book," but it's not heard.

I've got another player who runs a traditional D&D game on the weekends. The way he plays with us on Wednesdays is drastically different from how he GMs on Sundays, and he enjoys both. That's awesome, I'm not trying to convert anybody. And then I hear about how his girlfriend came into town and played a one-shot D&D game with his group, and she didn't enjoy it. I've seen this girl's web site. In five minutes I could see she's a big freeformer who prioritizes character development over everything else. And when I ask him why she didn't have fun, he points to particular issues with the mechanics. I'm thinking, "Dude, she has a big neon sign over her head that says "Exploration of character is my thing" and you guys put her in a dungeon crawl with pregenerated characters?" But I don't say anything, because I don't want to be nosy.

I guess what I'm saying with all this verbiage is that my game's fun because I talk to the players before, during, and after about what they're enjoying. Then I give them more of that. I don't read subtle cues and adjust upcoming plot points to suit -- I give them what they say they like. And they've got this mindset that game stuff is game stuff, and outside stuff isn't, and when they meet it's a happy coincidence. Paka's mentor seems to be saying he knows that, but he thinks mixing them takes away from the experience. That's an understandable point of view. My buddies are hung up at a place where they don't see you can do it.

[greyorm]

Hopefully this is still on topic. I've run into situations where my gaming friends think I, our resident indie-techniques guy, am the auteur. I keep telling them I'm really not, but they don't hear it.

Andrew, it took my current group two years to listen to me and understand what I meant when I said, "I'm not running the game, I don't have a story, I don't have a plot, you can't 'ruin' my plans, and I don't 'want' you to go anywhere or make any particular choice(s)." TWO YEARS. They finally figured it out before the start of our last campaign, lightbulbs went on above their heads during a pre-game conversation about the issue and they said, "Ohhhh..." and damn if that wasn't a good feeling.

[Matt Snyder]

Raven, I'd love to hear more about that conversation when the light bulbs went off. Please post about it -- likely in a new thread --  if you're able!

[Callan S.]

I am not here to change him,though I do want to game with him again, show him how I do things and confront what bothers him about it.  We can't really have a dialogue about it until he plays a game.

Why do you want to confront what bothers him about your style?

And in doing so, wouldn't you be also confronting what bothers you about his style?

This is a really interesting point where two RPG cultures who had previously diverged, come back into contact. Why are they? What is happening at this point?

[Judd]

Why do you want to confront what bothers him about your style?

And in doing so, wouldn't you be also confronting what bothers you about his style?

This is a really interesting point where two RPG cultures who had previously diverged, come back into contact. Why are they? What is happening at this point?

We had a long talk about indie RPG's and how certain of my GMing practices would make him edgy to do.  This isn't a Forge phenomena.  I was handing my players important NPC's in an Ars Magica game in the mid 90's and I found that the games became so very delightfully surprising and NPC's were taken in directions I hadn't anticipated.

His style doesn't bother me, per se.  I am not convinced that his mistrust of his players is warranted. 

We were never out of touch but we've lived in different states for almost ten years now.  Still, we have weekly phone conversations at least, often to discuss our gaming.  However, our feedback to one another seems to be more and more distant.  We still help each other out but it ins't like it used to be.  Our styles have diverged.

We still have gaming as a kind of central focus but there isn't the exact same wavelength like there was. 

He will come up and visit in the next few months, I hope.  Hopefully, we'll play some Burning Wheel and Dogs in the Vineyard.

I'd love to have time to play Prime Time Adventures.  I'm not sure he'd dig it but I think he'd find it interesting.

My biggest worry is that I'd post this and the responses would be condescending and he'd be really turned off to this whole site.

As it is now, I have no idea where he weighs in on this thread.

[Marco]

The thing is, and I've told him this, there is no plot. I put a lot of work into the R-Map and Bangs at the start of the campaign, but by now it's running mostly on player steam. I've told them this. But he still thinks that in order for me to have pushed everyones buttons and gotten them so involved in play, I'm a master illusionist and mind-reader. I say, "Dude, I'm running this out of the book," but it's not heard.

I call that prep-work "plot."

I consider any NPC action taken as a result of starting situation (i.e. NPC plans that they act on) to be part of the plot. Any complex response to PC actions that the GM is constructing in a fashion so as to be dramatic, interesting, and/or engaging is "plotting." Just because, around here, plot means "railroaded adventure" (to some degree) doesn't mean everyone does.

Maybe these people think you're ignoring die rolls and changing things behind the scene to make things work out well--they might believe that and be wrong about it--but if you told me "there is no plot" I'd disagree with you.

This is important: Jim's assessment of his players may well be dead on. I certainly wouldn't use every technique I know with every player I've ever played with. If Jim is saying "well, that stuff sounds kinda radical and I'm not sure it'd work out so well" (my paraphrase from what I've understood) it's because he's got a dead-on reason to think so: no technique is a guaranteed success with every group--no matter how well designed the game.

If he's sayin' that certain techniques can't work *with any* group--or are just plain doomed to failure, then I can't agree with that--but that isn't what I got.

-Marco

[Alan]

I call that prep-work "plot."

I consider any NPC action taken as a result of starting situation (i.e. NPC plans that they act on) to be part of the plot. Any complex response to PC actions that the GM is constructing in a fashion so as to be dramatic, interesting, and/or engaging is "plotting." Just because, around here, plot means "railroaded adventure" (to some degree) doesn't mean everyone does.

Okay, as a fiction author, I can't let this blantant misuse of the word "plot" to pass.  "Plot" specifically refers to a set sequence of events that unfolds in a story.  R-maps and other preparation are not that.  Rather than mis-use a word, and so invite continual misunderstanding, why don't we find something more accurate?  Like "starting situation" or "initiate state"?

[greyorm]

Matt: I'll work on writing that post tomorrow. I want to dig out some of the e-mails that were exchanged to refresh myself regarding the points of the discussion that led to the lightbulbs.

I call that prep-work "plot." I consider any NPC action taken as a result of starting situation (i.e. NPC plans that they act on) to be part of the plot.

Marco, the average gamer is my gaming group, and it is Andrew's gaming group, and it is pretty much every gaming group I've ever played with (or run across), with very, very few notable exceptions. And what they -- the average gamers -- are thinking is nothing along the lines of what you've posted regarding how "plot" is considered to be or thought about.

To the average gamer, plot really is "the story the GM is weaving right now and where he's taking us with it". That's what Andrew's players are thinking, and I say that not because I am a mind-reader but because it is standard hobby assumption and typical. I could be wrong, but I would bet a whole lot of cash I don't have that I'm not, because I'm that confident about it given the details and simple probability.

Even if Andrew's players are a rare curve ball, that is most definitely what mine were thinking: they really, honestly, actually believe(d) there's a story the GM is trying to tell in some fashion, and that there are "right" choices and "wrong" choices that will get them to the end of things that the GM has envisioned or move them along some imagined path.

They most explicitly do not believe that the game is being guided by their own hands, that anything is happening because they chose to make it happen, or that the direction and eventual climax (if not outcome) of the game is completely up to them and their own actions. So when Andrew or I say to our respective players, "There is no plot" they are not misunderstanding us because they don't believe we have not prepared or we have not created NPCs with goals, etc. They misunderstand us because they honestly don't believe or understand when we're saying, "I have no personal plans for this game. You are showing me where it goes."

With all due respect, you can make definitional arguments about "what it really, really could mean to them", but that's really only speaking to the letter of things, and not the spirit, and thus no help at all to the situation.

[Marco]

Okay, as a fiction author, I can't let this blantant misuse of the word "plot" to pass.  "Plot" specifically refers to a set sequence of events that unfolds in a story.  R-maps and other preparation are not that.  Rather than mis-use a word, and so invite continual misunderstanding, why don't we find something more accurate?  Like "starting situation" or "initiate state"?

To use any traditional fiction terms to discuss the dynamic RPG-dynamic they must be substantially abstracted (author? theme? story?).

I'm with you: I think everyone should be using RPG-specific terms* (I like "starting situation" for clarity--the information architect in me likes "initial state", though).

Unfortunately, as Raven points out (and this was my point too), most people are going to use standard literary terms and mean them as non-rigorous (i.e. undefined--as in you don't know exactly what the speaker means) abstractions.

If we're going to get all bent out of shape about that we're doomed.

-Marco
* Robin Laws makes a good case that the term NPC is a bad one. I think he's right about that too.