A long time ago... anecdote one [Fudge]

[Paul T]

Hello.

This is the first of two actual play accounts I will be posting in the hopes of generating some discussion about issues I'm trying to deal with in my own gaming life right now.

Both are from a long time ago, but I hope that I remember enough of the salient features for a proper account.

Here we go:

---

*Introduction*

Just over a year ago, I brought together three of my friends to have dinner and to play a roleplaying game. One of them (male) is an old friend of mine, and has played lots of RPGs over the years, although all of them are of the real "traditional" variety. The other two were my girlfriend and her best friend. Neither of the girls had any roleplaying experience, but both had a lot of experience with theatre and performance. More about them a little bit later.

I wanted a brief roleplaying session that would introduce them to how the whole thing works, since I'd mentioned it to them before, and they sounded interested. I wanted to do so while avoiding a lot of the things typical to RPGs--intense rules, huge books, lots of combat and violence, etc.

The scenario I came up with was really basic: four university students in present-day France go on a camping trip. All four are roughly the same age as the players (early twenties), which I figured might make it easier for the players to relate to them. The character write-ups (which I did beforehand) were really simple, just two or three paragraphs about each character. There wasn't anything too strict personality-wise. I wanted to leave things up to each player a little bit. But some basic character traits were mentioned, and some basic likes/dislikes and skills. There was no separate "game stats" section--the game traits were included in the text, but marked in bold font. Fudge makes this quite easy. For example:

"Mary is in Great shape, and she knows it." or "unfortunately, you never excelled in sports--your aptitude for anything even remotely athletic is Poor at best."

Each character only had only a handful of such traits.

I briefly described the characters to them, and let them choose one each. For some reason, I kept them from looking at the character sheets before handing them out. I'm not sure why--there wasn't really anything secret on any of them.

Here are the characters, and the players that chose them (I said that I would prefer people to play characters of their own gender, unless some really didn't want to, and we would change the gender of the characters to suit once they were chosen). I'm not going to make you all remember two sets of names, so I'm just going to refer to the characters and their players by the characters' names for the purposes of this account:

Vincenza ("Vinnie"), an engineer and a jock, likes riding horses and direct solutions to problems. Chosen to be played by my girlfriend's best friend. She had a friend who was into D&D as a high school student, so she had heard of the games, but had never actually played one.

Mary, a physiology student, beautiful and charming. Chosen by my girlfriend, she turned out to be rather more neurotic and self-obsessed side. My girlfriend had never been exposed to roleplaying games before, but she had asked me about "what I was reading online", and ended up hearing a lot of "game theory" talk from me (along the lines of simplified GNS theory)--quite willingly (oddly enough).

Etienne, played by my best friend (who had lots of RPG experience, as I mentioned). A bookish, nerdy, history major with a dislike for "modern" things and a head full of unusual knowledge.

Francois, an NPC, a French kid. Really more of a plot device than a character.

My goal with the scenario set up was to create a really open-ended situation in which I would feed off the actions of the players in order to flesh out some sort of adventure once I had an idea of what sort of play they were interested in.


*The Game*

Once we'd chosen characters, I explained the basics of roleplaying to them. I discussed the procedures of play (GM describes situation, players decide character actions, for uncertain actions the rules determine the outcome) and the basic Fudge die mechanic. (It is important to note that I did not in any way mention what the goal of play was, except to say that no one "wins" or "loses"--this is the crux of the discussion I'm hoping to begin--see "Discussion", below.) This only took about five minutes.

Finally, I asked each player to write down on their character sheet a brief list of the sorts of things they would take camping with them.

This is where things got interesting:

Vinnie's player wrote a few basic items, seeming not terribly interested, and eager to begin playing.

Mary's player wrote a long, detailed list of minor items (hair ties, bottle of spring water, etc), all related to the character taking care of her appearance and health.

Etienne's player, on the other hand, put on a mischievous smile and made a brief list of items which were both comical and potentially useful in the game. There were items like a Swiss army multi-tool, the "Dummies' Guide to Camping", a compass, and similar things.

(Already some differences in playstyle were becoming apparent, and we had even begun the game.)

Play began with me reading a page-long introductory "short story". It described how the four students met and became friends, and how Francois convinced them to go on a camping trip. The four friends wandered into the forest, Francois preoccupied with a hand-held GPS, until he announced that he had found a good spot, and they settled down. Then Francois explained how he had been analyzing some texts by Nostradamus and discovered what he thought was a hidden message--the real reason he invited them camping was to investigate a location he thought was encoded in Nostradamus' quatrains. He explained that they were at that location now, and that Nostradamus had referred to it as "a stepping-stone of history". Disappointed not to find anything more exciting, they settled down to sleep.

The story concluded, I explained that play would begin with the characters waking up the next morning to discover Francois gone.

One noteworthy reaction: Vinnie's player immediately perked up and announced that her character was in love with Francois!

I began by describing the location of their campsite, and mentioned that they could hear shouting in the distance.

Moving a short distance to look through the forest, the characters saw a clearing where a number of horsemen are galloping in circles, shouting. They think they can hear Francois's shouts among the noise.

Vinnie's player announced that Vinnie tries to shout to Francois, but that Etienne puts his hand over her mouth, stopping her. I stopped play at this point to say that we should not narrate other characters' actions, since we want to leave each player the choice of describing how their character reacts. In retrospect, I wonder if I should have handled it differently--for instance, I could have simply asked Etienne's player if he was OK with that description. (I'm not sure about this one.)

The horsement quickly depart, leaving only Francoís's handheld GPS on the ground. The three friends pick it up. It can't detect any satellites.

As you may have guessed, the characters had been transported into the 17th century while they slept. Play progressed from there as the characters followed the path the horsemen had galloped away on to find a small hamlet. Noticing the unusual dress and accent of the people, they decided that they had stumbled across some sort of actors' community or filmset. They asked everyone they met how to get to the highway, get to a telephone and call the police, etc. There was a fair bit of roleplaying as they entered the town and interacted with the locals, who fed them and offered the girls to exchange their clothes for more suitable dresses.

Unfortunately, the game was cut short when Vinnie's player had to leave, and we decided it was time for everyone to go to bed. I believe there had been only one roll, when one of the girls tried to convince a villager to overlook their unusual clothing (the roll had failed).


*Notes*

Everyone seemed keen on continuing, but we never got the chance to do so. Here are some of my observations:

-Vinnie's player seemed to enjoy the game the most.

-Etienne's player enjoyed the game, but was very quiet, just observing the two girls as they tried to sort out the procedures of play (for instance, I had to explain to them that we can simply speak in character, instead of having to say, "I'd like for my character to tell him that he should follow us", if it's obvious that we're speaking in-character). Mary's player seemed to hesitate nevertheless--I may need to tell her next time that she CAN do it that way if the other way makes her uncomfortable (although, if that's the case, it's decidedly odd, since she's an experienced actress and performer).

-When the characters were traveling from the woods towards the little village, Mary stopped in order to drink some water, apply sunscreen, and similar things. She seemed to think this was bery important. I think the other two players were more than a little bored by this.

-In general, Mary's player seemed very concerned throughout, with furrowed brow, and, although she said she enjoyed the game and was keen to play again, didn't *look* like she was having fun. I asked her about this later, and she said that she was upset that she didn't roleplay her character "correctly", and viewed that as a failure on her part--which was strange, considering how little guidance there was on the character sheets in regards to personality. I told her that she needn' have worried--she was free to play her character however she thought would be the most fun. Then she explained that another concern was that she had trouble understanding what to do--in her words, she "wanted to understand what the GM wanted her to do, what the GM's story was" and follow it. This really shocked me, from someone who had never played an RPG, and never seen that kind of play. I had only discussed very general theory things with her previously, but one of the things I had mentioned was "railroading", and how it was problematic in that it limited players' free will and impact on the story.


*Discussion*

My reason for this actual play account is twofold:

1. I'd like to solicit any feedback and suggestions about my approach to prepping a first-time roleplayer's experience. The way I prepared this game is not the way I would do it if I were to run it again now, as I've been looking at more collaborative approaches, but I'm still trying to figure out good ways to introduce new people to roleplaying, so any comments are welcome. Any comments on my decisions in-play are welcome as well.

2. The diversity of reactions from the players was surprising. This got me thinking about how easy it is to completely gloss over what a game is about before it begins, and for all the players to jump into it with completely different assumptions (including the GM, if there is one).

I'm really interested in beginning a discussion about how to explain Creative Agenda for roleplaying games in non-jargon-laden, basic English terms. The key, as far as I can see, is that most gamers will talk in terms of *procedures of play* and leave out altogether the *goal* of play. Or, put another way, how the procedures of play lead to fun.

If necessary, this may have to be split into two topics of conversation--explaining what the game is about to new gamers, and explaining it to old-timers (who have a lot of baggage concerning what RPG are and what they should be). Hopefully, though, that shouldn't be necessary.

For a bit of context, this question was sparked in my mind by something Ron Edwards said in the [D&D 3.0/3.5] At long last, a dungeon thread. Here are some relevant quotes (edited to cut them down to a more digestible length):

My question is about the discussion that prefaced the whole game:

In other words, someone without the neurosis in the first place doesn't need therapy-based jargon in order to help themself enjoy doing something. All we did was that two-minute talk in the beginning about what sort of play we'd like, and since that talk wasn't swamped in meaningless garbage like "realism" and "balance" and similar, it was productive and sufficient.

In the original thread, Ron, you mentioned that you discussed the game briefly, identified a Creative Agenda (a potential one, perhaps, or only a possible one?), and gave the players a warning about the nature of challenges in the game:

We all had a little talk about what we'd like to do, and my jargony conclusion from what they said is, "light-hearted Narrativism, with necessary attention to strategy in order to keep characters alive."

I would really love to hear what kind of discussion you had, what kind of questions were fielded, and so on. I'm really interested in what kind of discussion can be helpful to nailing down these priorities or Contract-related issues before play.

I'm really interested in figuring out how to have a "jargon-free, productive and sufficient" talk with my fellow players. Are there any particularly good questions you have come across? What approaches have worked, and which haven't?

And Ron's reply:

(...)
The "positive," which is to say the constructive in the most literal sense (stuff to build with), is Creative Agenda, in concrete, human-interactive terms. And although I didn't mention this before, the touchstone for that in terms of procedures ("what do we do here?") is the reward system.

I suggest that in your case, based on what you've said here (because I wasn't there and cannot be sure), you might introduce, say, Tunnels & Trolls as follows:

The goal is to "beat my dungeon." The only way to do that is to progress as many of your characters upward through as many levels and abilities as possible, because I'll be amping the foes up the whole time. You'll need imagination and to think laterally a lot of the time, because the system is highly flexible and you can do stuff that isn't explicitly listed there. Sometimes it'll involve working as a team, and sometimes it'll involve screwing one another over in small ways.

Compare that to:

You make up characters and act out their dialogue!

Thud. The non-role-players' resulting stare of puzzlement and hesitancy is fully justified. Why would anyone want to do that? Of course they'll be unsure; they're looking for the part which any social/fun activity has to have in it - the social and procedural reinforcement process. What do they do which "works?" Without that, and even without the negative practices I mentioned before, they won't have received the explanation they were looking for.

Thank you in advance for your time. I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts, further questions, or suggestions.

All the best,


Paul

[Callan S.]

-In general, Mary's player seemed very concerned throughout, with furrowed brow, and, although she said she enjoyed the game and was keen to play again, didn't *look* like she was having fun. I asked her about this later, and she said that she was upset that she didn't roleplay her character "correctly", and viewed that as a failure on her part--which was strange, considering how little guidance there was on the character sheets in regards to personality. I told her that she needn' have worried--she was free to play her character however she thought would be the most fun. Then she explained that another concern was that she had trouble understanding what to do--in her words, she "wanted to understand what the GM wanted her to do, what the GM's story was" and follow it. This really shocked me, from someone who had never played an RPG, and never seen that kind of play. I had only discussed very general theory things with her previously, but one of the things I had mentioned was "railroading", and how it was problematic in that it limited players' free will and impact on the story.

and

You make up characters and act out their dialogue!

Thud. The non-role-players' resulting stare of puzzlement and hesitancy is fully justified. Why would anyone want to do that? Of course they'll be unsure; they're looking for the part which any social/fun activity has to have in it - the social and procedural reinforcement process. What do they do which "works?" Without that, and even without the negative practices I mentioned before, they won't have received the explanation they were looking for.

Are the same issue, it'd seem? Though instead of not playing at all, I think she's made the assumption that there is some sort of structure there, played, and she was annoyed with herself by the end of game because she didn't find it.

I think it's the healthy desire to play with someone, rather than play near someone. She's looking for the shared structure everyones supposed to be working from to make it a shared activity rather than a bunch of people in the same room doing their own seperate things.

Do you think that for her being part of a shared activity got first priority, while free will has a lesser priority?

[Paul T]

Callan,

You've brought up a social aspect of the situation I hadn't considered, and I think you're absolutely right. I will ask the player whether she agrees with your assessment. Thank you! (For those curious, what was my interpretation of her explanation of what she felt she wasn't "doing right" in the game? I think that, lacking a clear guideline for what the purpose of play was, she leaned on her theatre background, drawing from there two goals for herself--a) portray the character "correctly", and b) attempt to follow the director's vision. That was my liberal paraphrase of what she told me in an after-play discussion.)

I also definitely agree that the two quotes you point out are one and the same issue, which is why I brought up this particular question in the context of this particular play account. I see the results of a totally unclear explanation on my part--each player seemed to be approaching the game from a completely different angle. Since the RPG world at large lacks any sort of decent advice on this aspect of gaming, I've come here.

In this game, as is my usual mode or operation, I tried to leave things open, letting each player find their own direction in play, and then reacting to that, either helping build something or throwing obstacles in their path. Obviously, this doesn't always work. Is there a better way to do this? A more explicit way? Or this a Bad Thing to do, period?

Ron's brief paragraph outlining the point of play for a hypothetical Tunnels & Trolls game really put things into perspective for me. He says to base such an explanation on the reward system. But I'm at a bit of a loss on how to do that in a game that doesn't provide an explicit reward system--like most Sim play, or Nar play in a system that doesn't explicitly reward that.

Things have been pretty quiet here... I hope more people will come and pitch in!

All the best,


Paul

[Emily Care]

Hey Paul,

Thanks for this excellent write up and question to follow.  This is an issue in any game: what are we doing at the table and how do we figure out how to have fun with one another--especially when introducing new players to rpg.  I identify strongly with Mary--even after all these years I find myself slipping into a state of anxiety whenever I begin a game, and somehow need to find a "hook" in a game in order to be able to feel comfortable and be able to improvise events etc. easily.  It can take me several sessions to feel a character well enough for them to be that hook, but in some games something clicks for me so that I don't have to cast about: I played Great Ork Gods once and using and abusing the goblins to lessen the difficulty on tasks had that effect for me. Suddenly I knew what to do and could entertain myself and others. 

This is a huge issue in free-form play (which your session was pretty similar to).  Some people get inspiration easily and see how they can effect the game world, leveraging things they create so that they bring in new possibilities or affect others.  The person who brought the "camping for dummies" book and the compass seems to fall in that category.  For those not so comfortable or inspired a structure--like what Ron talks about--can help them have an in, to know what they can do to have effect.  The person who said their character fell in love with Francois was taking a direction for her character: she gave herself a motivation and potential direction in play.  As the players' characters acrue connections in the new world, or come into it with agendas to fulfill, the players will likely feel more at ease and be better able to engage with the game. Until then, they will be looking for a line on what to do. 

The interests in Vincent's fantasy game do this simply and well. Kickers in Sorcerer, keys in Shadow of Yesterday.  When Mary asked for your idea for the story, that's what she needed, I'd think.  I line on the direction of the flow of the narrative and the relationship that her character has to it, as well as areas or ways that she can affect and be affected by what goes on.  I'm sure you'll be able to tie them in in this way if you get to play again. You are already paying good attention to what the players are doing, and what they are interested in.  Perhaps some brainstorming about possible connections and ties would be helpful.

best,
Emily Care

[Paul T]

Emily,

Thank you for the reply and vote of confidence.

I'm hoping you won't mind if I ask to elaborate on your answer a little bit... I agree with your "diagnosis", or analysis of the situation, and it's helpful to know that you can relate to it. But can you provide any more concrete advice on creating a better situation?

The interests in Vincent's fantasy game do this simply and well.

Sorry... which game is that? I couldn't find it on his website, so I'm not sure which you're referring to. (Maybe the Cheap'n'Easy--or is it Cheap'n'Cheesy?--Fantasy game?)

Kickers in Sorcerer, keys in Shadow of Yesterday.  When Mary asked for your idea for the story, that's what she needed, I'd think.  I line on the direction of the flow of the narrative and the relationship that her character has to it, as well as areas or ways that she can affect and be affected by what goes on.  I'm sure you'll be able to tie them in in this way if you get to play again.

So, you're suggesting that a solution is to include an element that supplies the character with a goal (by describing their relation to the overall narrative), correct? In a system that doesn't directly support that, what would it look like? Would a bit of text on the character sheet, something like "Mary is desperate to get back home to her ailing mother" suffice? If not, why not?

I'm guessing that it is always more effective when the player can be motivated to produce this "hook" themselves (like Vinnie's love for Francois). Is there any way to encourage that behaviour, or is it something some people just have and others don't (or don't like doing)?

How does one figure when the player needs that provided for them, and when they can be left to do it on their own (as the other two players seemed to do)?

I was under the impression that Ron was saying that this had to be addressed outside the scope of the fiction itself--not by giving a character a goal, but by explaining to the player what the goal of play is. And it's something I want to learn to communicate about before, during, and after play.

(And I'm still not sure what the "goal" of play is for something more purely Sim, or how to communicate that.)

Whew... lots of questions.

I hope some more people will jump in here with their answers. This discussion has been great for me so far.

All the best,


Paul

[Callan S.]

In this game, as is my usual mode or operation, I tried to leave things open, letting each player find their own direction in play, and then reacting to that, either helping build something or throwing obstacles in their path. Obviously, this doesn't always work. Is there a better way to do this? A more explicit way? Or this a Bad Thing to do, period?

In terms of her concerns, it depends on whether you want to play on the level she was looking for. Right now in my opinion (don't take it as gospel) it's very one way, like a scientist probing a subject (trying to locate what makes it happy), yet the subject cannot probe back (what makes you happy Mr scientist? I have no way of finding out!). I wouldn't call that playing with each other, even though I've probably done that in most of the games I've GM'ed.

Limited resources for both GM and player seem to help out alot. When the GM has limited resources to effect the game, if he cares about anything in the game at all, it'll show up in the way he manipulates those resources. When the players can spend their own resources to cause effects on his resources, they can use that to examine what he cares about (and in the same way, the GM can find out what the players care about).

Ron's brief paragraph outlining the point of play for a hypothetical Tunnels & Trolls game really put things into perspective for me. He says to base such an explanation on the reward system. But I'm at a bit of a loss on how to do that in a game that doesn't provide an explicit reward system--like most Sim play, or Nar play in a system that doesn't explicitly reward that.

Try grabbing a scrap of paper. Write down a handful of the most enjoyable bits of gaming you've had in short form (just a paragraph each). Try and figure out some steps that would get you there - don't worry if you can't think of the perfect steps. Write them down. There, your on your way. A reward system can be as simple as 'follow each step and once your done, there's your reward', just like following a cooking recipe.

[Paul T]

In terms of her concerns, it depends on whether you want to play on the level she was looking for. Right now in my opinion (don't take it as gospel) it's very one way, like a scientist probing a subject (trying to locate what makes it happy), yet the subject cannot probe back (what makes you happy Mr scientist? I have no way of finding out!). I wouldn't call that playing with each other, even though I've probably done that in most of the games I've GM'ed.

Right. So what I'm looking for is a good way of communicating about those things (in plain English) before the game begins, so that we can be on the same page.

I can certainly see how a system with limited resources can make this easier, or even unnecessary. However, I'd still like to be able to do this without having to rely on a particular gaming system to guarantee fun or mutual comprehension between the players--if nothing else, so that it's possible to have a discussion of *which* system people would like to play (especially when the systems encourage different CA's).

Ron's brief paragraph outlining the point of play for a hypothetical Tunnels & Trolls game really put things into perspective for me. He says to base such an explanation on the reward system. But I'm at a bit of a loss on how to do that in a game that doesn't provide an explicit reward system--like most Sim play, or Nar play in a system that doesn't explicitly reward that.

Try grabbing a scrap of paper. Write down a handful of the most enjoyable bits of gaming you've had in short form (just a paragraph each). Try and figure out some steps that would get you there - don't worry if you can't think of the perfect steps. Write them down. There, your on your way. A reward system can be as simple as 'follow each step and once your done, there's your reward', just like following a cooking recipe.

I'm having a bit trouble seeing what this would look like. Wouldn't it potentially completely miss the important aspects of a great game (each player's emotional buy-in to whatever is presented) at the expense of highlighting *how* those elements were presented (in terms of a pre-prepared scenario or characters, combat system used, etc)?

Do you think you could show me what you mean, using the game in this actual play account as an example?

All the best,


Paul

(By the way, I feel like I'm receiving fairly little in the way of direct responses to my question. In my experience, this is often because the question itself is somehow misguided, or misses the point. Is this the case here?)

[Sydney Freedberg]

I think you definitely ran smack into Ron's "thud" moment -- and believe me, I've tried the same basic experiment in the past, only freeform with no rules at all: "Hey, make up a fictional character, something's gonna happen, okay?" It has worked on occasion, but only when (a) I came in with a strong idea for an external threat or force to throw at the player(s), and (b) when that idea happened to resonate in an interesting way for the player. When I lacked (a), there wasn't a chance of any kind of story emerging; when I had (a) but lacked (b), the player(s) and I got on each other's nerves and stopped after one brief session.

It is much, much easier for everyone to explicitly communicate beforehand: "Hey, this is going to be a game about refugees from a falling high-fantasy kingdom fleeing into the accursed, abandoned capital city," or "this is going to be about Mormon gunslinger-exorcists riding into town to set things right," or, "this is going to be about an elf, a dwarf, a ranger, and a generic priest of good wandering into a hole in the ground to kill things and take their stuff."

What I'm talking about here is situation, in Forge-speak: A system of characters -- PCs and NPCs both -- that is dynamic, unstable, and teetering on the edge of collapse into some radically new form. That's not "railroading," because the players get to choose what they do and what new form the system takes on (or at least, what they'll try), and the GM's job is to keep the pressure on, not to guide anyone to a predetermined outcome. But I think it's essential to fun play. (At least of a "Story Now" variety.)

Your problem here, and mine in my similar experiments, was two-fold:
1) Your/my players had no idea what the basic situation was, so they couldn't get into their characters and the story easily.
2) You/I didn't actually have a situation -- sure, we had a bunch of stuff that happened, often pretty big ("you fall off the world into primordial chaos that responds to your every thought," was mine; "you're in the wrong frickin' century" was yours), but the new situation wasn't dynamically unstable. The players could go, "well, crap, I guess we should get some appropriate clothes and something to eat" (or create it out of raw chaos in my case). But there wasn't any actual conflict for them to engage with, and without conflict, we didn't have a story.

[Paul T]

Sydney,

It sounds like you're saying that the solution is to describe the situation (including the characters' role within it) beforehand. In other words, the game is introduced as, ""Hey, this is going to be a game about refugees from a falling high-fantasy kingdom fleeing into the accursed, abandoned capital city," and the players agree to create characters who will be a) refugees, and b) fleeing into the [...] city.

But how does that guarantee your point "b)" (the idea is interesting to the player)? It seems like it's still a bit of a gamble.

(In Paul's head: I would imagine that if the players generate the "goal" themselves, in response to the setting or situation, this would be much more likely.)

But I thought that Ron was talking about something more "high-level". In other words, he wasn't talking about the characters having a definite goal to work towards, but rather about the players understanding the goal of play itself. So, it must answer "Why am I playing a refugee from a fantasy kingdom fleeing into the [...] city?" What's in it for the player?

For instance, in my game, the implicit goal of play was that the characters would need to rescue their friend. At the time I thought this was sufficient since the characters would need to do so in order to get "back home". However, I wasn't thinking about the players' interests.

I felt that Vinnie's player jumped into it by creating an emotional connection to the goal ("Vinnie is in love with Francois"), Etienne's player was happy to go along for the ride and solve problems along the way, but Mary's player wasn't sure HOW to go about playing or what exactly differentiated "playing well" from "playing badly".

I think Callan and Emily were talking about this when they said:

"I think she's made the assumption that there is some sort of structure there, played, and she was annoyed with herself by the end of game because she didn't find it." (Callan)

and

"When Mary asked for your idea for the story, that's what she needed, I'd think.  I ["One"?] line on the direction of the flow of the narrative and the relationship that her character has to it, as well as areas or ways that she can affect and be affected by what goes on." (Emily)

Or have misunderstood?

Thanks,


Paul

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

From this...

Mary's player wasn't sure HOW to go about playing or what exactly differentiated "playing well" from "playing badly".

...and this...

In this game, as is my usual mode or operation, I tried to leave things open, letting each player find their own direction in play

...I perceive a clear conflict. Mary wants "direction" but the game setup is geared to make her choose it for herself. Using another metaphor above, she was showing up for a casting call and found out it was a writer's workshop. :-)

I think you were on the right track when you asked the players to equip themselves to camp: you could gain a lot of clues about expectations of play from that. I would suggest that you continue that general process of asking specific, revealing questions throughout play:
o "Now, write down why your character is going on this camping trip."
o "You realize you're not in Kansas anymore... or even in the Twenty-First Century! Take a minute or two to write down how your character feels, what is his or her greatest worry about this situation, and what his or her initial plans are."

Also, it might serve you to adopt a "Pick Your Path To Adventure" style of play, at least until the players "get it" an are off and running. When they see the horsemen harrying Francois, rather than just look at them and wait for a response, ask things like "Do you yell at them to stop and move out to assist him; or do you stay hidden and silent?" When they choose one course or the other, put that decision "into their heads" by asking things like, "So you're leaving the poor kid to their mercies? How does your character feel about abandoning someone in the wilds, even if your character couldn't realistically be expected to help that person against mounted adversaries?" or "So you're moving out and challenging the riders? These big guys on bigger horses with no good intentions apparent? How does your character feel about possibly putting his or her head on the chopping block for this guy you met at college?" In essence, keep the focus of decision choices squarely on their characters and reactions, with actual causal results held (temporarily, at least) as secondary issue of play.

Also, eventually, someone will say something like, "Well, neither--I want to...". They have begun to be self-directing. And if your "introspection questions" have been sufficiently evocative, they are thinking in terms of character feelings and reactions as they act, rather than raw gamist efficacy or "what does the GM want" or any other externalizing concepts. Now, this may not be the "final agenda" of your game play, but I think it is a powerful way to get folks into their characters, which is a large step towards engaging gameplay in almost any system.

In summary, with new and new-to-you players, I recommend that the players be frequently asked to define their characters in a meaningful way in the situational context, and I recommend that you keep decision points discrete and meaningful and focused on the characters' actions and feelings at each point. Heck, even if the players are resistant to this form of play, you'll learn what they really want out of the game by their reticence and by what they say (or don't say) to bypass or downplay the psychological hooks you are trying to engender. If you get a lot of pushback to all this "mind game hoo-ha," then start rolling out the baddies and explaining the combat system! :-)

HTH;
David

[Sydney Freedberg]

In other words, the game is introduced as, ""Hey, this is going to be a game about refugees from a falling high-fantasy kingdom fleeing into the accursed, abandoned capital city," and the players agree to create characters who will be a) refugees, and b) fleeing into the [...] city. But how does that guarantee your point "b)" (the idea is interesting to the player)?

It doesn't -- but since you've explicitly stated thesituation up front, you get input from the players that allows you to modify it (or chuck it altogether) to make it more interesting to the players. In fact, in that campaign - which I'm currently running with Clinton Nixon's The Shadow of Yesterday -- I ran an initial session with just collective character creation and an introductory "fleeing to the city" scene, cut it just as the player-characters entered the city, and then solicited input from each player on what they wanted to find inside -- and almost everything about what was waiting for them I made up after that session based on their explicit requests and the interests implicit in the characters they'd created.

And, yes, you're right, Ron's "thud" post is talking about something higher-level -- though in my experience it's very hard to convey those higher-level concerns in the abstract, divorced of a particular situation. I also had the advantage of dealing with roleplayers fairly experienced in both traditional and indie games, so the "higher level" was something they understood. But even so, my initial "pitch" email to them consisted of a page of scene-setting, some tailored Keys and Secrets, and an explicit discussion of the higher level:

   This is an old-school dungeon-crawl turned on its head. You're looking for shelter, not adventure; for food, not gold. The challenge isn't, "how do I survive?" It's, "how do we survive as a society?" -- which is why I'd like to use Clinton R. Nixon's The Shadow of Yesterday rules, which were designed for this kind of post-apocalyptic soap opera.
   I'd ask each player to come up with a concept for
      first, your spotlight character;
      second, the community he or she came from -- both what it was, and what's left of it as it crosses the long stone bridge;
      third, something you want them to find in the ruined city. (They as fictional characters may or may not know about it, but I as a real person promise you as a real person to include it).
   So, assuming everyone is interested, that'd be three player characters, three bands of survivors with a non-player character or two apiece, and three features of the city.

[Paul T]

Sydney and David,

Those are two fantastic suggestions. And, Sydney, that excerpt/example is really helpful! Like Ron's "example paragraph" in the D&D thread, that really clears things up--kind of like "a picture is worth a thousand words", well, so is an example.

Although I welcome further comments or thoughts, as far as I am concerned, that gives me enough to think about for a while--you can considered those questions answered.

However, I still want to address my second question in more depth--that is, how to discuss these things outside the game, with the actual people, in productive and non jargen-laden terms, with the goal of identifying at least a potential CA.*

For instance, Ron's advice seems to be "get straight to the point of play for the players". So, in a dungeon crawl, for example, it needs to be expressed up-front that the game is about defeating the monsters and making choices so as to ensure character survival and advancement. In the D&D thread, Ron also used talking about "character choice" as a possible turn of phrase to suggest Nar play.

So, to aim at the goal of play. However, this advice is easy to apply in a game with clear win conditions or explicit reward systems (gaining XPs, receiving Fan Mail, etc). I would still like to hear suggestions on how this can be done in other games.

Sydney: You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that this discussion is unlikely to be productive outside the scope of a specific game. Is that correct? If so, that's certainly a point to consider.

Maybe I'll give an example of how a GM might introduce a more Sim-type game, and you (that's anyone reading :) can tell me whether I'm on the right track or not (I'd love to hear from Ron about this, as well):

"The players will each take on the part of a fictional character in a roleplaying game. They will travel through the imaginary world, meeting other characters (and their struggles), fantastic creatures, and exploring any locations you as players find interesting. With each situation you encounter, you will be able to make a choice--to take a stance on it, maybe pitching in one side or another, maybe attempting to change it in some other way, maybe using it to gain some advantage for your character, or maybe even ignoring it. Unlike a computer game or a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure game, there will not be any "right" or "wrong" choices, although some may be more or less dangerous, and all will have their logical consequences. (The only "wrong" choice in the game would be something completely illogical or incoherent.) However, each choice will reveal something about your character, who will develop in personality along the way. The rules will determine what your characters' strengths are and whether they succeed in their efforts."

Does this give a player enough to work with? Too much? Or is it completely off-base?

Thanks, as always,


Paul

*: I say this working from the assumption that there are more than three possible answers (i.e. not just G, N, or S). Many combinations and variations are possible--for instance, Ron's D&D game was aimed at providing a "light-hearted Narrativism" Agenda, combined with Gamist elements (focus on strategy to assure character survival).

[Callan S.]

Right. So what I'm looking for is a good way of communicating about those things (in plain English) before the game begins, so that we can be on the same page.

I can certainly see how a system with limited resources can make this easier, or even unnecessary. However, I'd still like to be able to do this without having to rely on a particular gaming system to guarantee fun or mutual comprehension between the players--if nothing else, so that it's possible to have a discussion of *which* system people would like to play (especially when the systems encourage different CA's).

I'm really skeptical of what you want here. If you have this level of mutual comprehension, you not only don't need a game system, but it'd likely get in the way of how your comprehending each other. Further, creative agenda drives all the way through from the start of the social contract. You don't have some comprehension of each other, then pick a game which supports a particular CA. That comprehension also needs to be aligned with a CA. That's why people often have 'alien at my dinner table' moments when they realise someone else isn't doing what they think. They thought they comprehended. but then realise that the other person is like an alien who isn't having dinner, but giving birth onto the plate in front of them. Right from the start, comprehension is attuned to a particular CA.

Try grabbing a scrap of paper. Write down a handful of the most enjoyable bits of gaming you've had in short form (just a paragraph each). Try and figure out some steps that would get you there - don't worry if you can't think of the perfect steps. Write them down. There, your on your way. A reward system can be as simple as 'follow each step and once your done, there's your reward', just like following a cooking recipe.

I'm having a bit trouble seeing what this would look like. Wouldn't it potentially completely miss the important aspects of a great game (each player's emotional buy-in to whatever is presented) at the expense of highlighting *how* those elements were presented (in terms of a pre-prepared scenario or characters, combat system used, etc)?

I think your saying stuff like pre prepped scenario, characters, combat system etc are just presentation, like a garnish. I'd also say alot of it is just a garnish. But I'm also certain that if you try, you can trace what was more than garnish and prompted a player to emotionally buy in. That's the type of step your looking for.

Do you think you could show me what you mean, using the game in this actual play account as an example?

I could, but it'd ring hollow for you and probably be dismissed, as I would be writing what I enjoyed about play and the steps to get to that. I doubt it would match what you want exactly enough to seem 'right'.

(By the way, I feel like I'm receiving fairly little in the way of direct responses to my question. In my experience, this is often because the question itself is somehow misguided, or misses the point. Is this the case here?)

I checked and I think I answered all questions you put to me (I leave Emily to answer your questions to her).

[Sydney Freedberg]

Sydney: You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that this discussion is unlikely to be productive outside the scope of a specific game.

Right. My experience -- not just in RPGs, now, but as a professional journalist for the last eight years, writing an average of 3,000 words of heavy-duty analysis every month, is that it is self-defeating to try to discuss general principles or abstract theory outside a specific context, or at least without abundant examples. Even people who are really steeped in a particular field, as most posters in this conversation are with RPGs, tend to stumble very quickly into mutual misunderstanding if they talk in generalities and eschew specifics (one big reason why Ron Edwards shut down the "RPG Theory" and "GNS" forums). And if you're addressing a less experienced audience -- as I do when I write, or as most GMs do with new players -- you might as well be speaking crazy moon-man talk. The only way to teach people the general principles in the first place is through specific examples and experiences.

So "this is a game about competing and making smart tactical choices" will get you an "uh - okay," but "you play freelance adventurers who go underground to kill monsters and take their treasure, trying to score the biggest possible prizes and still get out alive" will get you "oh, I get it." Likewise, "this is a game about the price and potential of arrogance" (Ron Edwards's lovely one-liner for Sorcerer) is a lot less revealing that "you play an otherwise ordinary human being so driven to achieve your goals that you break the fundamental laws of reality to bind insanely dangerous demonic beings to your will" (which is what the whole Sorcerer book is busy telling you).

Those were "Gamist" and "Narrativist" examples -- and of course, there are so many different types of G and N, as you said, that people who agree on the general principle might really differ on the most enjoyable specific application. I don't grok Simulationism as well, but I'll take a shot:

I'll give an example of how a GM might introduce a more Sim-type game....Does this give a player enough to work with? Too much?

Too much and not enough, I'd say -- and Sim is the hardest of these agendas to present, I think. Your description begs the question, "Why?" What is the point of the travelling, meeting people, and making choices? In Gamism, it's for the satisfaction of overcoming challenges; in Narrativism, it's about wrestling with moral dilemmas; but in Simulationism, it's the pleasure of experiencing things in itself -- what's sometimes called "celebration."

I personally would take that throwaway word in your example, "explore," and punch it in up in big, bold letters right at the front: You're going to be explorers. You're gonna find cool stuff. You're gonna meet interesting people. And, yeah, you're going to have to make moral and tactical choices along the way, but that's secondary to the sheer delight of brave new worlds.

Advanced Sim 201: The characters don't have to explore at all -- they can be totally stationary in a familiar environment that they're completely blase about, as long as that environment is full of things that are novel and exciting to the players; I suspect a lot of Glorantha and Star Wars games work this way. Of course, it's easier to do it with player and character having the same ideas about what's "familiar" and what's "foreign."

Now, here's the bottom line "specifics vs. generalities" issue: If the whole point is to explore and experience a strange world, it really matters what that world is like. Likewise, you can't sell people on "celebration" in the abstract; you have to have something to celebrate. "Simulationism" does not describe a kind of gaming any more than "fruits and vegetables" describes a style of cooking.

So you need to say something specific about your setting. Just from the scenario you presented to your players, as described in the first post, I would have probably been all psyched up for something like Deliverance or The Blair Witch Project: A bunch of regular people go into the woods, bad stuff happens, and we the players get to explore things like wilderness survival, human evil, and the nature of fear. Cool!

But I would totally, utterly not be expecting "okay, you wake up in the Middle Ages." That'd feel like a bait-and-switch -- even if the idea of a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court or Timeline game where I played a fish out of temporal water was intriguing to me. The things we're exploring are totally different now: Dealing with people of profoundly different cultural and moral outlooks, learning how to survive in a new society, applying modern attitudes and knowledge to medieval problems, etc.

I personally find "exploring being lost in time" less interesting than "exploring being lost in the woods," but that's just me. Here's the thing: You really, really want to figure out whether that's my preference before you recruit me for a good that I think is "woods" and you think is "time."

[Paul T]

Callan,

Thanks for sticking with me in this discussion. (I know you and Sydney may be going into "why doesn't he get it?" mode by now, so I really appreciate your tenacity.)

Right. So what I'm looking for is a good way of communicating about those things (in plain English) before the game begins, so that we can be on the same page.

I can certainly see how a system with limited resources can make this easier, or even unnecessary. However, I'd still like to be able to do this without having to rely on a particular gaming system to guarantee fun or mutual comprehension between the players--if nothing else, so that it's possible to have a discussion of *which* system people would like to play (especially when the systems encourage different CA's).

I'm really skeptical of what you want here. If you have this level of mutual comprehension, you not only don't need a game system, but it'd likely get in the way of how your comprehending each other. Further, creative agenda drives all the way through from the start of the social contract. You don't have some comprehension of each other, then pick a game which supports a particular CA. That comprehension also needs to be aligned with a CA. That's why people often have 'alien at my dinner table' moments when they realise someone else isn't doing what they think. They thought they comprehended. but then realise that the other person is like an alien who isn't having dinner, but giving birth onto the plate in front of them. Right from the start, comprehension is attuned to a particular CA.

Right. I'm not saying that I'm expecting some sort of cosmic perfect comprehension. I'm very much looking at the level that Ron suggested--i.e. "Look! A dungeon crawl!" --"Yeah, OK, I'm up for that!"

So, in other words, how to minimize the likelihood of someone feeling like an alien at my dinner table, and to minimize the likelihood that I'll feel that way at theirs.

I very much understand that it makes sense to discuss these things in the context of a game. But surely SOME discussion is possible beforehand. Otherwise, how do you choose WHICH game to play? (And it can't be purely based on game fiction elements, because you could play in the same setting under different rulesets, and get completely different gameplay.)

Or is it always hit and miss? (i.e. You must try a session of the game before you know whether or not it's for you.)

For instance, Mary's player felt like a bit of an alien, I think. My concern is how to avoid that in the future.

Try grabbing a scrap of paper. Write down a handful of the most enjoyable bits of gaming you've had in short form (just a paragraph each). Try and figure out some steps that would get you there - don't worry if you can't think of the perfect steps. Write them down. There, your on your way. A reward system can be as simple as 'follow each step and once your done, there's your reward', just like following a cooking recipe.

I'm having a bit trouble seeing what this would look like. Wouldn't it potentially completely miss the important aspects of a great game (each player's emotional buy-in to whatever is presented) at the expense of highlighting *how* those elements were presented (in terms of a pre-prepared scenario or characters, combat system used, etc)?

I think your saying stuff like pre prepped scenario, characters, combat system etc are just presentation, like a garnish. I'd also say alot of it is just a garnish. But I'm also certain that if you try, you can trace what was more than garnish and prompted a player to emotionally buy in. That's the type of step your looking for.

I think I see what you're saying, but it's hazy. Can you pull up an example from this account, for instance (or any other account), and show me how you would put together a "recipe"? An example is worth a thousand words. For instance, my favourite moment was when Vinnie's player said that Vinnie was in love with Francois. Her face just lit up! But I can't really see how I can get any sort of "recipe" or "reward structure" from that.

(I totally agree that the game fiction elements are vitally important, by the way.)

Do you think you could show me what you mean, using the game in this actual play account as an example?

I could, but it'd ring hollow for you and probably be dismissed, as I would be writing what I enjoyed about play and the steps to get to that. I doubt it would match what you want exactly enough to seem 'right'.

Give me some credit here. I'll try as hard as I can not to dismiss advice I am myself soliciting. Besides, this is more about the process--even if I disagree with your example, I can see how you went about it and then apply your earlier advice to come up with my own answers. I just feel like you're saying something important, but I'm having trouble quite getting it, or seeing what your advice in action might look like.

Thanks a lot,


Paul