Con-Game Phenomenon or Actual Play Style?

[jburneko]

I was reading "5 minutes of fun packed in 4 hours of dysfunction" thead and a very loud bell went off.  Take a look at these threads:

The original L5R thread:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16515.0

The In Nomine game described here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16001.msg170753#msg170753

The In Nomine and Changeling game described here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=601.0

These games all have something in common:

1) The PCs are given some random or vague goal/situtation.  The whole scenario consists of the characters encountering unconnected colorful but ultimately meaningless encounters that present neither real conflict nor real challenge.

2) They were all con games.

Question The First: Is this a conscious deliberate scenario design choice?

It strikes me that GMs of such scenarios might have an incredibly rigid definition of "role-playing"  Not just "talking in character" but "talking in character amongst each other."  So the idea is for the GM to present things that will prompt in character discussion of said thing.  Hence the anoying shrinking dude in the L5R game.  The wave after wave of wanna-be vampire hunters and absurd weaponry in the In Nomine game.

Such a rigid definition of "role-playing" would explain why "hot-sauce" guy above got awarded "best roleplayer" and similarly why my portrayal of an above average intelligence demon obsessed with the philosophical definition of "to live in" was similarly lauded.  Or why my refusal to frolic randomly with my fellow PCs in the Changeling game was chastised.

Question The Second: Is this a result of con game laziness or do people actualy play like this long term?

What I'm wondering is, does this style crop up from an attitude of, "Well, it's just a con game all people really want to do is dick around in character anyway..." OR do some groups actually play like this on a regular basis?  I'm trying to imagine a group showing up week after week with the GM starting each game with, "Okay this is what you're up to..." and then just let the players socialize in character over what ever the "up to" is.  Whenever the conversation seems to be dying out the GM just throws some wacky thing for commentary out into the scenario and spurs the fires of conversation.

Jesse

[Frank T]

Hi Jesse,

Oh yeah, there are groups that play like this ever and ever. I have seen them. To an extent, it can be said that I have done it myself, and had fun with it. Check out this thread about a Star Wars d20 campaign for a good example.

You might be right, though, that this kind of adventure design is more present on Cons, because many GMs seem to have the notion that goals and conflicts need a long time to be introduced and resolved--longer than one session. This is owed to the die-hard legend that you must play out everything that happens. Well, at least that's my take.

- Frank

[Jasper Polane]

Hi Jesse,

Yes, there's a lot of groups that play this way all the time.

I think this style of play is a natural effect of a lot of bad GM advice, and conventional wisdom you get in those games. You know the kind I'm talking about: Players shouldn't be allowed to talk out-of-character (or only through "designated OOC channels"), don't use the rules because they'll get in the way of the story, the player's shouldn't be allowed to mess up the GM's plans, that sort of thing.

The whole scenario consists of the characters encountering unconnected colorful but ultimately meaningless encounters that present neither real conflict nor real challenge.

There's no real conflict in these games, because combat is pretty much the only form of conflict they have to offer. But then they talk down to "hack-and-slash", which is only enjoyed by "immature munchkins".

Is this a result of con game laziness or do people actualy play like this long term?

I think the style might be more present at con games because people are in the spotlight, they want to show what "good role players" they are. If "everybody knows" this is how good role playing is supposed to be, this is what they'll present.

And it isn't just GMs. If you're confronted with a group of players that's conditioned in this way, there's not much you can do.

--Jasper

[Robert Bohl]

I played in the "hot sauce" game, and I've just finished a 12-week series of cognative behavioral therapy to cope with the resultant post-traumatic stress disorder.

I think that at core, the GM of that game thought he was doing something very clever.  He thought irony would carry the day--and for the majority of people there it did.  He did not seem to know about de-protagonizing and was mostly concerned with impressing people with his cleverness in the end.  When my PC gave away the MacGuffin to the bad-guys 15 minutes into actual play (2 hours into the game's slot), I could see he was shitting himself over it.  The whole game was over and we'd never get to discover the Cool Thing he'd planned for the ending.

As to the general question, I don't know that it's answerable without taking a blind study on the subject.  I suspect however that "feel my plot" gaming is probably about a third or more of what goes on out there, outside of cons.  That said, I think cons are particularly susceptible to this, because there's no opportunity for character development and player choice to guide the story. 

I don't believe that the GM consciously thought of what he was doing as laziness.  I think he was very proud of himself, having thought of something clever to surprise us with at the end.

[Merten]

As to the general question, I don't know that it's answerable without taking a blind study on the subject.  I suspect however that "feel my plot" gaming is probably about a third or more of what goes on out there, outside of cons.  That said, I think cons are particularly susceptible to this, because there's no opportunity for character development and player choice to guide the story.

It sounds to me awfully lot like laziness and/or sloppy design ("I have this vague idea and I'll just improvise from there") and unfamiliriaty with one-shot games/convention games (issues like pacing, choosing between freeform/railroaded game, having players to make their own characters, etc).

It's quite hard to make a succesfull and balanced convention game unless you're running a game which is designed to make it easy to run a short, intense scenario (and has rules to support building the scenario, running the scenario or both) or you pay attention to differences between, for example:

* A campaign game (no time restraints, you either know your players or get to know them during the games, you can use slowly developing plots and allocate time for social playing or hidden dynamics between the characters)

* A convention game (heavy time restraints, you probably don't know your players, no time to use slowly developing plots or multiple plotlines, no or little time for social playing or hidden dynamics between the characters)

* A one-shot game (some time restraints, you might or might not know your players - but you have some time to get to know them, some time for slow plotlines or multiple plotlines, some time for social playing or hidden group dynamics)

"Convention game" meaning that you have, for example, a timeslot (4 hours, 6 hours, 8 hours...) during which you have to run your game.

At least, judging from the Actual Play-posts of "Hot Sauce" and comments from players, it sounded to me like the GM didn't know what he was running, where he was running, how he was running and why he was running the game. I wouldn't have wanted to be there.

(What's wrong with Feel My Plot-games, anyway?)

[Nicolas Crost]

1) The PCs are given some random or vague goal/situtation.  The whole scenario consists of the characters encountering unconnected colorful but ultimately meaningless encounters that present neither real conflict nor real challenge.

This sounds absolutely like the Witchcraft game I attended on Grofafo Summer Rally two weeks back. The GM gave us color and insufficent information to deal with the big uber-riddle and then left us to chat in-character and plan the following steps (which of course didn't lead us anywhere until he decided that the allmighty NPC would hand the info over) - which probably is the essence of "role-playing" in his eyes.

And even thoug I have to admit that the game sucke donkey ass (not feeling pc here) to me, all the other players liked it a lot! And upon asking whether this was the GM's usual style of gaming, he confimed that, yes, he always plays like that with his regular group (with a bit more "story", whatever that means in this case)

Which leads me to believe that quite a few people enjoy this style and play so regularly. So, it might be more frequent on cons, but it's out there. Might also be, that most posters here on The Forge only encounter this particular style on cons. Who knows.

[Sean]

Yes, people do run games this way by conscious choice. They have as long as I've been playing.

No, it is not unique to con games. There are GMs who think that this is what role-playing is, that it's their job to tell a story and the PCs job, basically, to go along with it, mostly contributing color.

I, and most people I've played with, regarded this as 'bad GMing' long before the Forge existed. People who GMed games this way at my high school club, for instance, gradually lost most or all of their players.

In my opinion though there are a certain percentage of people who think that his is the right way to role-play. The power given to the GM combined with the sincere desire of some GMs and groups to have their play yield 'meaningful stories' is one reason; products like the Dragonlance modules and, apparently, many Storyteller system products, and, apparently, the games mentioned earlier in this thread, which enforce this playstyle by event- and plot-driven scenarios is another.

[Robert Bohl]

To be clear, I don't think the problem here is coming up with a scenario that has some hooks and even a plan, the problem is when this scenario has nothign to do with the actions or choices of the players, and when things will happen regardless of what the players do.  That old deprotagonization thing.  I don't think that merely coming up with a plot ahead of time automatically deprotagonizes players.  It's only an issue if the plot isn't fluid and dynamic.

[Bankuei]

Hi Jesse,

In my experience, yeah, these are conscious design choices.  But all the random stuff that happens?  That's because there's "Some Really Cool Backstory TM"(that there's no possible way for you to find out) that the GM has going on.  I'm sure there's some reason for crazy shrinking people, and random stuff- it's just that there's no way you'll ever find out.  It lets you know that the game is epic and you are Part of Something Bigger.  Supposedly.

I'm flitted from group to group and encountered this stuff more than enough times to know that it's not a con game issue.

Chris

[jburneko]

I'm looking over these answers and I see a lot of references to GM Plot.  But that's not what I'm seeing here.  They're a lot of games out there where the players are expected to follow the GM's plot but don't run like this.  Call of Cthulhu being one of the most enjoyable and functional ones out there.  There's always stuff going on and the 'game' is in engaging with it correctly so that it unlocks the next bit of cool stuff and in the end it all adds up to something coherent.  Everything in a Call of Cthulhu game is there a for reason and players are expected to engage it in a meaningful manner even if that manner is pre-defined upfront: Get clues from NPCs, go mad from books, die fighting monsters.

From what I see in these games there isn't even a GM plot to follow except maybe a bit at the end that ties into whatever vague thing was thrown out at the begining.  I see a BIG difference between a good old fashioned railroaded adventure (kill the bad guys, rescue the girl, save the world) and this.  This just consists of random events thrown out on the table to provoke 'reaction' but not towards the thing itself but amongst the player's in character discussion of said thing.

I think everyone recognizes Call of Cthulhu play as functional.  But in all the threads I quoted everyone, including myself, thought the style I'm discussing as pretty disfuctional and sad.  But I'm asking, is it?  Could we develop tools and technques for say creating better more frequent character cues to maximize the flurry of in character chatter if that's what these people really want?  Has anyone seen this style of play where it's clear that this is why everyone shows up on a weekly basis and is clearly the point of engagement for everyone?

Jesse

[komradebob]

Has anyone seen this style of play where it's clear that this is why everyone shows up on a weekly basis and is clearly the point of engagement for everyone?

Ever been involved with a non-convention Vampire/MET LARP? You've pretty much described it...

[Merten]

Could we develop tools and technques for say creating better more frequent character cues to maximize the flurry of in character chatter if that's what these people really want?  Has anyone seen this style of play where it's clear that this is why everyone shows up on a weekly basis and is clearly the point of engagement for everyone?

With this, do you mean a game which would mostly contain in-character discussions between the players and very little of actual problem-solving, plot advancement and such? (I can't really place the word "flurry")

[jaw6]

encountering unconnected colorful but ultimately meaningless encounters

Isn't that the key to the "but why does CoC work?" question? If players are signing up to, essentially, be entertained by the GM's meandering plot, then the plots the thing. If the encounters are meaningless, it's not a plot, it's a travelogue.

[Josh Roby]

I see a BIG difference between a good old fashioned railroaded adventure (kill the bad guys, rescue the girl, save the world) and this.  This just consists of random events thrown out on the table to provoke 'reaction' but not towards the thing itself but amongst the player's in character discussion of said thing.

I think everyone recognizes Call of Cthulhu play as functional.  But in all the threads I quoted everyone, including myself, thought the style I'm discussing as pretty disfuctional and sad.  But I'm asking, is it?  Could we develop tools and technques for say creating better more frequent character cues to maximize the flurry of in character chatter if that's what these people really want?

Spot-on, Jesse.  The players in these games are enjoying themselves, therefore, this is functional (ie, 'producing an entertaining experience') play.  It's not the way a lot of posters here play, and it certainly isn't Big-Model coherent play, but it's still roleplay, it's still entertaining, and it still sells books (to be utterly pragmatic).  A lot of MUSHing involves this sort of play.  What 'roleplay' there is to be had on the RP Servers of World of Warcraft (see, now I've branded myself) is along these lines, as well.  Some people -- in fact, a lot of people -- enjoy just being somebody else for a bit.

I'm pretty sure that part of it is that 'these people' do not understand what makes a protagonist and in character creation, they make 'a guy like me except a vampire' or 'a guy like me except a samurai'.  Or they look at the nuts and bolts tools in character creation, they slap together disparate elements, and have at it.  But whether or not they are ignorant of narrative principles, I think it's also important to point out that they are pretty disinterested in them, too.

These people don't want Story Now, they don't want to Step On Up, they want to hang out with other people and have some laughs.  Perhaps you can make an argument that they're out to win some social recognition for being clever and call it gamism; maybe you could say that they want to live the dream or whatever we're calling Sim today.  But you'd be stretching it.  On the other hand, calling this 'zilchplay' and assuming that they get nothing out of it but keep doing it nonetheless is rather perjorative.

Your last question is the important one -- what can we do to market to these gamers?  I think turning our backs on them as not 'good enough' is exactly the wrong thing to do.  At the same time, I don't think we need to reform them, either.  I do, however, think that we need games that can function on this level, and also can function on the high-octane Narrativism-or-Die level we hold so near and dear to our own hearts (or whichever CA you want to root for).  Games that require players to leap head-first into active participation are all well and good, but games that give folks the option of playing either way is a market segment that I find sorely unprovided for.

[Judd]

I do, however, think that we need games that can function on this level, and also can function on the high-octane Narrativism-or-Die level we hold so near and dear to our own hearts (or whichever CA you want to root for).  Games that require players to leap head-first into active participation are all well and good, but games that give folks the option of playing either way is a market segment that I find sorely unprovided for.

I find myself disagreeing on a visceral level.  This could be for any number of reasons and I fully admit it could be effecting my ability to really look at this with a level head.

It could be because I was in one of those example adventures in the above threads and I was not having fun in any way shape or form.

Is it a bigoted and ugly gamer in me who wants to call this style of play lazy, lame and worthless?

In the case of my example, this wasn't well done gamist hack and slash, this wasn't immersive role-playing, it was crap and it was agony.  The only person who got anything out of it was me and what I got was a horrid gaming story that I can tell as a cautionary tale.

Eff this market.  Eff this demographic.  Television, not the good stuff but the bad, the stuff that wants you to sit there and drool without thinkign about the world around you at all is already geared for them.  Video-games without thought and every RPG that puts the fetishization of its setting above the fun of the players is geared to them.

The world is geared to them.

I've watched indie game after indie game with rules that are set up to avoid this kind of play, to avoid these kinds of games and situations from Sorcerer to Trollbabe, to Dogs in the Vineyard to Burning Wheel.  I can't stand the thought of people thinking of catering to people who want to play this way. 

I don't think its possible to cater to this crowd and I wouldn't know where to begin.

Where would you begin and if you don't find it fun, why?