Discussion with my GMing Mentor

[Judd]

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

Marco, I agree whole-heartedly.

[greyorm]

While what Marco states is true, it may also be that a person doing so is simply afraid to try it for whatever reason (outside their comfort zone, paradigmatically opposed to what they believe, etc.), and thus dimissing it out of hand or constructing arguments to support that feeling. Unfortunately, if that is the case, even trying such things will not improve the situation, because...well, if you think you can or you think you can't, you're right. Basically, they'll simply prove themself right because they don't want or desire to be proven wrong for whatever reason.

As Tony noted: mistrust is self-reinforcing, either because we don't want to and we aren't open to new things (which may or may not be a bad thing), or because we're really afraid of them and what accepting them as valid might do to everything we believe about the way the world works.

So, there's really two things going on here:
1) LIKING something new and different. (ie: I prefer peas and ice cream, and have never had a hamburger.)
2) ACCEPTING something new and different. (ie: People don't believe that Jesus Christ is the savior!?)

Absolutely no-one has to do #1: "Ok, I can see why you like Sim games. I don't, though."
The problem is with #2: "Sim games are the devil! No one could possibly play and enjoy them!"

Hrm, let's use religion, then, to describe this: for example, I am pagan, to my relatives' dismay. They don't have to convert to Wicca themselves (#1), but they sure do have to accept my personal religious choice as valid (#2). My father had serious trouble with this, and my aunt and grandmother cannot accept it at all (the former continues to proclaim that it is devil-worship and other weird claims, despite education to the contrary from numerous Christian and non-Christian individuals; the latter simply ignores it and acts as though the situation doesn't exist, I still get cards that say "God Bless You" on them), because it entails reevaluation of their own choices (not necessarily making new choices, though a posssibility, but finding new supports for their original choice) and thinking about some issues they may not want to confront. #2 is bad because not being able to deal with reality when reality disagrees with you is always a bad thing.

I don't really know where Jim stands, and I don't care to guess, but it is something to keep in mind when talking with the Jims of the world (ie: everybody): you have to figure out what the situation really is. Is it dealing with a #1 situation? Fine, if they try it and they don't like it, or don't need it, they can just go on their merry way. Or is it a #2 situation? It isn't that they don't like it, it's that the idea of it scares the hell out of them and they don't want to even get to the point of seeing if they like it or not.

It might seem like they're just gradations of the same thing, but they are, in reality, worlds apart, and completely different situations both internally and externally. The same behaviors that work to resolve and deal with a #1 situation, whether or not the individual ends up liking the thing in question, will not resolve or deal with a #2 situation, because it really isn't about the thing in question at all.

[Callan S.]

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.

This might be a bit of a divergence, but: I've always thought men use indirect topics to express themselves. For example, if some guys are talking about sport, their not just talking about the scores. In between they talk about what they admire in sportsmanship, what they think is a fair or unfair call, how they feel about their hopes being dashed when their team doesn't come through. So much interpersonal information is shared that bonding occurs, even though your just talking sport.

Do you think talking roleplay is like that? And your styles have diverged so much you've lost a shared topic by which you previously communcated things about yourselves to each other?

If I'm getting a little too soft and squishy here, how about killing him and taking his stuff. :)

[Mencelus]

Therein lies the issue, I think - and why I don't think Jim is wrong or lesser for his views - that not all of us agree that RPing in a "freeform" or "plotless" way is the best way. Because playing in a certain style at the table does take a certain view, it can be downright difficult to discuss something when the whole worldview on it is different. I'll give a somewhat recent example.

In a group I used to play with until very recently (I'm leaving the country, after all), one of our members was really into DitV and Sorceror. Said player was especially keen on the Bang-starting aspects of Sorceror and the definite "escalating" die-mechanics going on in DitV (I imagine he'd read some stuff on the Forge as well since he'd mentioned the whole GNS model bit before). Now, these are all well and good. However, my problem game (and what ultimately bummed me out as a GM) was Ars Magica - we were all new to it. We had a chargen session that was hard for all of us to get (or rather, I got CG but did not explain it well to the group, despite having copied many pages from the book to help it).

During the character session, they hashed out so ideas for the game and what they wanted their characters to do and what sort of game we wanted. Somewhat non-traditional scenario for Ars, but what the heck, I thought? We came up with some background stuff and why we wanted what we wanted (and eveyone participated, including me). Things we set, or so I thought.

So, we get to the character session and, bang, so the player tells us: "I have a cool idea from Sorceror. Let's use the bang-starting points. Everyone has to come up with bangs to start off the scenario." Now, this might have been cool otherwise, but it left me, the GM, with no obvious idea on how to go with things. Based on what the players had told me the two weeks before, I'd come up with the "Start" in the manner they had basically procribed (with a very sketchy plot laid out, and everything from there decided by the PCs). We sort of did it, and again, I'm sure it was supposed to be cool and amazing, but it just left me feeling left out and pointless - why go through all of this scenario hashing to have it blownup in the first 2 minutes of the session? Again, for the players, maybe this was cool, but it was not for me, killing my enjoyment as a GM.

The rest of the session went from there, with me floundering about and not sure what to do based on the character's bang beginnings. I had no idea, at that point, what they wanted, despite the few hours we'd spent in the last session discussing exactly that! I really was left feeling cold about the whole thing. This was my group, a very good group, with whom any amount of trust to do things well could be placed. We'd played numerous games together over the last five years, but this stuff threw me off in a bad way.

Now, maybe I'm too old (only 30!) but while I like some of the stuff I see here, I am feeling more like Jim and less like the rest of you. I enjoy theory and such, but only where it intersects with reality - and telling me that as a GM my only job is to react to what the players do, with no imput to the game from the GM, is just boring and wrong. The GM is a player too, not a sounding board or a reaction robot. I realize I won't be popular but this is what I feel. I like to try new things (witness my love of Burning Wheel) but not if it's just all-or-nothing-love. Do the Forgite way or no way. Not my style, this is.

To the original poster - Don't worry about it. I think you and your mentor can still game, and talk - just be ready to have fun different than usual. Maybe after some exposure he'll like some of what you do - and you may rediscover you loike of the other way you used to play.

[Trevis Martin]

Now, maybe I'm too old (only 30!) but while I like some of the stuff I see here, I am feeling more like Jim and less like the rest of you. I enjoy theory and such, but only where it intersects with reality - and telling me that as a GM my only job is to react to what the players do, with no imput to the game from the GM, is just boring and wrong. The GM is a player too, not a sounding board or a reaction robot. I realize I won't be popular but this is what I feel. I like to try new things (witness my love of Burning Wheel) but not if it's just all-or-nothing-love. Do the Forgite way or no way. Not my style, this is.

I felt a little pang of sadness as I read this.  What an unfortunate thing to have happen.  Everything about the general body of ideas here at the Forge affirms that the Gm/Ref  is as much a player as everyone else and has the right, as part of the group, to contribute to the game's imaginitive content.  It sounds, from your description, like your player derailed your other preperations which, frankly, if you weren't cool with it, wasn't cool at all.  Sorcerer has these opening bangs, they're called Kickers, but I would be hard pressed and very resentful if I felt pressured to improv off character kickers invented right that very instant.  I need at least a few hours of planning to properly thread them together.  I hate to see such a thing get formed in people's minds as some sort of monolithic "Forgite Way" when there isn't such a thing.

Bangs are simply a technique that are appropriate with certain types of play.  I can imagine them being inappropriate and destructive with other types of play.  They are not the Forgite Way, just a technique, long in existance for some, that was recognized and named, that some find valuable as a way of encouraging certain types of play. In any case I've never been good at simply improvising them.  Bang driven play is not something I consider to be spur of the moment.  Lastly I will say that Bang driven play is anything but freeform.  It is flexible, sure, but freeform, no.

best

Trevis

[Ria]

I have to agree with Jim, though I'm not sure our reasons for using more structure are the same. Basically, I like to play or run something where something is guaranteed to happen and it flows together logically. It's baffling to me that anyone wants to play something so free form that no one knows what's happening or where it's going. I am an absolute hard-core "gamist" and I wouldn't want to play any other way, it would be a waste of my time. If I tried it, it would be for a novelty or to compare the experience with what I usually do, and try to get something of it. I have played these types of games before, and am thankful they usually fizzled early and we could get back to something more exciting. Fortunately, the people I play with agree.

I think the best thing to do is recognize you and Jim differ in how you like to play, and instead focus on what you each contribute, rather than focussing on your differences. I think people with different views can create the most wonderful dialogues and discover exciting new things by discussing their POV and why they think that way. Capitalize on your differences, and if Jim comes by, each of you should run each other. Instead of focussing on why you're different, look at the pros and cons of each style of play. The rule should be you don't have to win about what's better, you just have to have fun playing and discussing play.

[Eric Provost]

Judd,

I've been thinking a lot about this thread and spent a bit of time reading it and re-reading it.  Partially out of a twang of guilt for accidentally pointing it down the "Jim's Way vs. Forge Way" path.  Serious case of Foot-in-Mouth disease over here.

But, in reading it all again today, something occurred to me.  You haven't really had a chance to introduce Jim to any of the Forge games yet have you?  You've just talked to him about them, right?  I really can't wait to hear how it goes when you do get to play DitV or PtA with him.  I wonder if the two of you will end up on the same page again.  I wonder if he'll come to the point where he feels like he totally understands where you're coming from, no matter what his final opinion on the games happen to be.

I'd be interested to hear Jim's reaction to GMing DitV.  The instructions to the GM in that game were like gold to me.  But I was looking for that gold.  And I'd love to hear about how it works for someone who sounds a lot like how I used to GM (a lot!) but isn't looking for that particular pot of gold.

-Eric

[greyorm]

Wow, I'm just seeing so many off-the-wall assumptions regarding what non-traditional play is/must be like from the "I'm with Jim" folks in this thread that it's making my head spin. Frex, Ria says "something so free form that no one knows what's happening or where it's going" and it just doesn't make any sense at all to me, because I end up scratching my head and asking, "What is this person talking about?" I mean, I KNOW that isn't what Paka is talking about, and I know that "Forge games" don't work/play like that, so...eh?

In fact, the description "something where something is guaranteed to happen and it flows together logically" sounds closer to the game play I've gotten from so-called "Forge philosophy gaming" than any of my traditional gaming experiences with old style D&D and White Wolf groups. In the latter, I've always complained that the problem was that things were never guaranteed to happen, or rather, we were lucky when things did happen, and we never got to see how it all fit together because most of that stuff was "GM's eyes only". Along for the ride and hoping for the best.

[Thor Olavsrud]

Chiming in to back up Raven here. It may just be a terminology matter, but to me (and I think many others on this board) 'freeform' suggests play without rules in which anything anyone playing says goes into the shared imagined space unless someone else playing disagrees. Freeform is the type of play Vincent and co. have described in discussions about their Ars Magica game, in which they ditched the rules.

This does not characterize most games that are discussed at The Forge, as far as I can tell. Many games developed by Forge participants are in fact very highly structured. For instance, Dogs in the Vineyard is a very highly structured game that is very far from freeform.

Yet, at the same time, a GM running dogs would be hard pressed to 'guarantee' that something happens in the game, unless he opens the game with that thing having just happened.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I'll go one step farther. Most of this conversation is bordering on stupid, or at the least, hot-button reactions.

Judd, see if you can find a nugget in here for starting another thread. It's likely that you are finished saying what you're saying, but in part, perhaps you can see that you did not provide any framework or question for people to evaluate their responses. Maybe take a day or so to try again.

I'm closing this thread now.

Best,
Ron

[Mencelus]

Really? I'm sorry that you think so sir, but I found the conversation rather interesting and have been checking it regularly since it started. With people still answering and such, I think that a lot of other people don't find it boring either.

It seems that no one is being evil or nasty or vindictive - see my own posts for the closest one comes to this. I had imagined (and perhaps I was wrong) that this was an open forum for the purpose of discussing various gaming related matters, and in this specific case, as it relates to RPG theory and the theory that sits under the games we play.

I'm a little offended that you find stupid something that I think was an interesting conversation. My understanding is that a moderator of a board's job is to "moderate" the board, not mandate what is stupid or not, and to allow discussion of such topics until the thread dies naturally of itself. If we were being nasty and rude and being racist nutcases, I could understand, but otherwise?

On a side note, I hope that no one here is taking things personally. If my own comments caused any discomfort, I am sorry. I do note, however, that two "heavyweights" have come on the thread to make sure and tell us that we're wrong, which I also find a bit offensive. If a mistake was made in terminalogy, then it should be, as Thor has done, corrected, and at least their interpretation given.

I hope that I am simply misreading what you wrote Mr. Edwards. In that case, I apologize, but your own post seems just as reactionary as the rest of the posts here.

[Ron Edwards]

Thread's closed = no more posting to it. If you don't like a moderation event, then contact me privately.

People also need to recognize that their preconceptions of what moderating is, and how forums work, simply need to be left at the door when you come here. This is a different place.

To repeat: no more posting to this thread.

Best,
Ron