Introducing narrativism and 'my guy' player behaviour

[Lamorak33]

I have a strong suspicion I played at one of your games at a con Rob, I played HQ under a guy called Rob with my character being an old lady with an amazing nag ability.  It was cool, the GM (maybe you) let me use my nag ability in combat to shame our opponents into rethinking their actions.

Hi

Yes that was me.  The scenario was 'The Peace Process'  and is quite Nar IMO.

I have written to the player about a host of issues, explaining where I want to take the game and setting out my agenda.  After reading the responses here I have (subtley I hope) asked about where he wants to take the character.  I hope that bears fruit.

Regards
Rob

[jburneko]

I guess what I want to do is say to the player, you may kill at any time but it will have an effect on your character and how your character relates to other characters.

The advice in this thread has been great so far but this particular quote set off alarm bells for me.  If you are truly interested in Story Now play then I would like to point out that what you have stated in the above quote is not your responsibilty as GM.  You have no authority to say how a conflict affects a character or hwo they relate to others.

You've mentioned Sorcerer's Humanity mechanic but there are some subtle differences between that and what I see here.

1) Humanity has an upfront definition and is ever present.  GM has "last word" dominion over when it gets applied but players are expected to be vigilant and vocal about it.  What I see here is an out of the blue call on your point about the significance of a moment.  There's no way for players to tell what actions are going to provoke such a response in you and no way for them to tell what mechanical effect it will bring to bear.  Just because something strikes you as a character defining momment doesn't mean it's so for the player.

2) Humanity value in Sorcerer has no meaning so long as it is not zero.  Low Humanity does not mean that you're a moody killer on the edge of going psychopath any momment.  High Humanity does not mean a happy go lucky care free spirit.  It represents history, not current state.  I fear "Killer" and then "Murderer" is an attempt to track the current state of the character which is anti-thetical to Story Now play.  How the character is *is* or *currently relates to others* is the sole domain of the player, no matter how many dead bodies he's left in his wake.

3) Humanity value is beneficial no matter whether it's high or low.  Low Humanity means that I can easily summon and command more demons, which means more power.  High Humanity means that I can easily banish and defeat demons, which means more power.  No matter which way my Humanity is going I'm getting BETTER at something.  This is the least of my worries becase as was already pointed out Killer can be used to your advantage purely according to the rules.  However, it does *feel* like an attempt to hinder the player especially since you keep calling it a flaw.

I'd like to reinforce the previous sentiments that your idea of a bang seems a little narrow.  It seems like what you're doing is thinking up possible ways the characters could develop as *you* percieve them and then tossing out things that make them choose between the range of possibilities you've already defined.  Especially, since you're attaching labels like "Killer" to some of those possibilities.  Imagine how weird it would feel if you did that for all the outcomes you percieved.  The game would suddenly feel like a choose your own adventure book.

Let me share with you something from my current 7th Sea game.

Background: In 7th Sea's setting Theah, Eisen (roughly Germany) is broken up into several provinces ruled by warlords who share an uneasy truce with each other.  Eva, a PC, has been feuding with one of these warlords Steffan Heilgrund.  She defeats him by making a deal with a demon that grants Heilgrund incredible power.  This weakens Heilgrund considerably and she's affraid that some of the other warlords might get it into their heads to take advantage of Heilgrund's weakened condition and go to war over his province.  So she decides to nurse Heilgrund back to health herself and allies herself with him and his people.  She decided to invite the other warlords to Heilgrund's castle to demonstrate that he is still in control and that his might is still a force to be reconned with.  So the other warlords or their represenatives start showing up.

Bang #1: After everyone has arrived, one of the warlord's representatives is murdered.

Do you see that all I have to do at this point is play the other NPCs?  I have no idea what Eva is going to do.  For all I know Eva could say, "screw this", pack up her bags and leave which would have been fine.  God knows there's enough other stuff going on in the game to keep her engaged.

Bang #2: After much bickering some of the warlords have picked a prime suspect.  Suddenly a messanger arrives with a message for that suspect.  That suspect starts insisting that she be allowed to leave.

Do you see how each of these worsens the political can of worms Eva has burried herself in?  She has to take action but there is no assumption in these events on my part regarding what those actions might be.

Hope this was useful.

Jesse

[Lamorak33]

I guess what I want to do is say to the player, you may kill at any time but it will have an effect on your character and how your character relates to other characters.

The advice in this thread has been great so far but this particular quote set off alarm bells for me.  If you are truly interested in Story Now play then I would like to point out that what you have stated in the above quote is not your responsibilty as GM.  You have no authority to say how a conflict affects a character or hwo they relate to others.

Hi Jesse

Thanks for your insight.  It is these responses that help me to a better understanding of narrativism or story now.

All the best
Rob

[Callan S.]

I have a perverse feeling the player did make a narrativist address here. As GM you try to imply a penalty goes along with killing the guy. The player then takes that supposed penalty and turns it into a shiny badge "Look, I'm a killer! It says on this badge/flaw! My character decided to become a killer/made an address...and now I can show that address off to everyone with my nifty badge!"

If I'm right, I find it perverse, because it seems wondefully functional! Anyone ever thought of making rules revolving around writing down addresses of premise on a character sheet, like medals or trophies or something?

[Jaik]

Fallout in Dogs in the Vineyard could be seen in exactly this light, I think.

[James Holloway]

Fallout in Dogs in the Vineyard could be seen in exactly this light, I think.

And can be used mechanically in much the same way as in HQ. Having a trait like "Killer" isn't necessarily a mechanical penalty. It can be used for all kinds of stuff. Mind you, I'm not sure this is a Bang per se, or if it is it isn't a terribly strong one -- it's more like a traditional "problem to solve."

[Mike Holmes]

Whoa, didn't see this thread. Rob, next time when you ask a question you've asked in another thread, include a link.

Interestingly, I posted in the other thread pretty much what y'all have here. And still I have more to say somehow. How like me that is.


Rob, did you get the idea of using assignment of traits as a deterrent to killing from the book? Because it's right in there in a sidebar looking really suspect. Frankly, that sidebar is one of the many things in the HQ text that leads to incoherent play of HQ. The HQ text speaks strongly to both sim and nar, and I do think that this is what causes most of the problems in play of it. For practical purposes, it should suffice to say that what we do here at the Forge is drift to nar supportive rules from the rules as written.

The whole rule about narrators being able to assign abilities to characters is...well way too much a fiat thing. There is a nigh mechanical suggestion that when you have a Major or Complete Defeat that you could be given a permanant trait to represent it. But other than that, there's just this one clause in the narrator section that says you can do it. Unfortunately that's always seemed to be one of the many clauses in the book that seem to have this unwritten clause attached to them: "which power you, of course, have, because you're the GM, and the GM has the ability to do whatever he wants to make the game fun because of the Maximum Game Fun rule."

Obviously this really bugs me.

Is there a game that does this well mechanically? Well, um, Universalis? Not to mention even more directly to the question Synthesis? I'm very fond of the idea of traits being the outcome of conflicts. As is Hegel (Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis). As opposed to Thesis + Antithesis = something if the narrator feels like it and remembers that it's an implied option.

There are no penalties in narrativism play of Heroquest, everyone got that one right. Flaws are rewards. I have to laugh every time somebody points out to me that the fetish release power is "limited" by the fact that the fetish goes away. In all the games I've seen, players get more story distance out of the fetish once it's been released than before that time. Power means nothing. It's all about how interesting your character is. Flaws make a character more interesting.

A flaw like "killer" as I mentioned in the other thread, is a liscence to kill. As it were. Ron has said this explicitly and nearly exactly before. Players looking to abuse a game like Hero System will take Psych Lims like "Psychotic Killer" all the time, not just for the points, but because they intended to play the character that way anyhow. The rules are just giving the player an excuse to hide behind when he has the character do something reprehensible without considering the ramifications.

So, if "killer" is a reward, then how do you balance the choice in question? Well, it has to be completely in-game. That is, all consequences of choices have to be in terms of in-game reactions to the act chosen. My favorite thing to do is to have a contest based on the choice, the outcome of which gives thematic weight to the choice. So instead of assigning "killer" to the player, have a contest to see if the town accepts his action (per Brand), and if he fails, then perhaps he's -50% on all interactions with everyone until he "heals" his reputation somehow (which could take a long, long, long time).

Even this is a reward. I'm not saying threaten. I'm agreeing with everyone to apply the consequences, however.

Jesse is right, of course, and it's a point I've already tried to make to you, Rob. Dichotomies are easy to make, but not the only form of bang. And some have more routs out than one realizes. Dog's In the Vinyard is all about discarding the previous options presented, and escallating to higher stakes.


Something you said has me thinking that the problem is deeper here:

althought the real push has been having a number of players who are clearly not sim orientated - they tend to look for the hook and go in the opposite direction.

This sounds to me like good old Abused Player Syndrome (APS). That is, players who, railroaded by GM after GM, and not looking for sim play, have decided to take control of play in the only way that they know how, which is to ignore every hook thrown at them. Understanding that taking the hook is the road to the GM dragging them scene by scene, through the scenario.

APS players are truely traumatized, and hard to reach. Because no matter how you reassure them that you intend to allow them to play their characters, they fear that any time you throw something out for them to respond to that it's a trap to get them to lose control of their characters. This results in play that looks like My Guy, because it's dysfunctional in that it's about finding a way to have fun for oneself in a situation where the player feels that he has to look out for number one. But instead of being motivated by wanting to annoy, it's more the other case where the expected social contract is about playing for your own good because of reaction to gamism (and really more pawn stance) in play.

Note that the other typical APS symptom is turtling, which is simply refusing to respond to any stimulus in any way. This occurs when the APS player had a GM who abused them no matter whether or not they took the hooks thrown out. Your players have the lesser case (if I'm right), in that they feel that they can still control things by heading away from GM stimulus.

This is actually relatively salvageable. Because you do want them to take an active role. You have basically two options.
1. Play completely Intuitive Continuity (I play somewhat this way). Basically you make up all of your elements in response to the player's drives. The hope is that the players will see that you're making it up and going with them, so that they don't flee from everything as a hidden hook to get them back on the rails.
2. Use strong tactics to get their trust back. I've already mentioned a few to you, the more heavy handed director stance power distribution, for example. If they know that they're making up the action by framing, then they can see that there's no "hooking" going on. If you talk about every decision OOC, mentioning the possibilities present (indicating that you aren't using subtle "Roads to Rome" illusionism or anything), then they can see that there is a way to play that allows you to interact with them while still allowing them to make the sorts of decisions that they want to make.

The advantage of the second is that you can prepare stuff. IntCon is hard, because you have to wing absolutely everything. The danger is that they'll see any prepared encounter, any use of GM authority to create a bang, as a means to get them back on the rails.

I'm tempted to say that you should discuss this with them. But it rarely works out as well as one might think. Like most traumatized people, they don't want to admit that they're reacting in a problematic manner (they'll hide behind "My Guy" before admit that they don't trust you). So try to be open about it, without being accusative. Hard row to hoe.

And consider that I might be dead wrong in my assessment. Hard enough to judge these things when one is present, much less on second-hand information. Just giving you a possibility to consider.

Mike

[Callan S.]

A flaw like "killer" as I mentioned in the other thread, is a liscence to kill. As it were. Ron has said this explicitly and nearly exactly before. Players looking to abuse a game like Hero System will take Psych Lims like "Psychotic Killer" all the time, not just for the points, but because they intended to play the character that way anyhow. The rules are just giving the player an excuse to hide behind when he has the character do something reprehensible without considering the ramifications.

Keep in mind that APS could also stem from 'Your just doing that to screw up the game!' treatment from a GM when an address is attempted. Think of the last address of premise you made and what you would think if the GM said "Your just doing that because you want to do bad shit and hide behind your character (hint: Don't, in the interests of a better story)". For the player who'd like to play a killer, and about to enter a narrativist game, if he can sense this is what the GM thinks, he'll probably go into "Don't tread on me (and my address)" mode. He'll keep pushing it and wont stop, because that would represent some sort of agreement that it's bad.

[Mike Holmes]

You're right, Callan. You know, APS is really sort of a bad term in this case, because the problem really stems less from the GM abusing the player, so much as trying to enforce a coherent mode. So the GM may have a good motive in trying to get to coherent sim play, and the player is just used to doing what he does in order to maintain the sort of narrativism control that he wants.

In any case, the source of the problem is rather moot at this point. The problem is that the player in question feels that to maintain their ability to make the sorts of decisions that they want to make, they have to steer clear of things that look like GM attempts to get them to play sim.

In any case, I wasn't suggesting at all that the player in question was using "My Guy" as the example you quoted is about. Just that the technique used has the additional danger of playing to anyone who does happen to be in "My Guy" mode.

Mike

[Lamorak33]

You're right, Callan. You know, APS is really sort of a bad term in this case, because the problem really stems less from the GM abusing the player, so much as trying to enforce a coherent mode. So the GM may have a good motive in trying to get to coherent sim play, and the player is just used to doing what he does in order to maintain the sort of narrativism control that he wants.

I kind of think this is it in a nutshell.  I will play it by ear, but I do think that issuing the 'killer' badge was a mistake on the whole, and I would certainly avoid it in the future.

Anyway, his murderous activity has certainly gave me some stuff to play off.  I think I am less worried than I was.  Cheers!

Rob