Learning to Play again

[Tim Alexander]

Hey Folks,

I've spent a long time in the GM role; most of it as an illusionist/roads to rome sort of guy but have taken a lot of steps to relearn things, break habits as I've run more of the player authored stuff. I get positive responses; I'm at least acceptable in this role. More relevent to this thread I'm quite comfortable in it. I very rarely find myself flatfooted in response to the actions of players, I'm comfortable letting systems (Sorcerer immediately springs to mind) fill in the gaps, and I'm relatively good at rolling with the punches. Recently I've found myself on the player side of things for a refreshing change of pace (thanks Ron) and in numerous situations I find myself feeling clumsy.

Our recent experience with Bacchanal is a good example. It strikes me as the sort of game that should play to my strengths from the skills built in GMing since you end up using lots of techniques generally relegated to a more traditional GM's role. In practice though at no point did it feel effortless. Certainly in the first attempt there were some misconceptions about play which contributed, but even the second time around (while decidedly fun) was much more work than I would have assumed. The same could be said of a recent Sorcerer game, where I often found myself somewhat floundering and afterwards feeling that I more or less wasn't holding up my end of the bargain. So much so that I brought it up to the other players. Contrast this with recent Trollbabe play, where I felt much more comfortable in authoring, much more like I feel when in the GM seat.

So here's what I'm trying to suss out. Is this:

A) Differences in social dynamics (including or exclusively my expectations thereof) at the table among the various groups I play with.
B) Having a weaker skillset for playing than I do for GMing
C) All in my head
D) A,B, and C
E) Something else entirely

In order to keep some direction on the discussion I'm hoping for some of the following:

A) Pointers to some of those new fangled drills that might resolve any technique issues with playing.
B) Specific play examples that can help me position or narrow in on the issue.

Thanks much for the help folks,

-Tim

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Hi Tim,

I hope you'll excuse me as I'm not sure I can fit this into your categories.

I however was immediately struck with a question I wanted to ask. Do you think the problem could be one of motivation? I'm not talking about your drive here, but something else. As a gamemaster if you have gotten away from bringing your plot and pushing the players into it, and have moved to responding to what the players bring then perhaps you are struggling with how to bring your motivations to the table again in a way that doesn't have the GM-fiat authority you were previously used to using? Hows that for a run-on sentence. To try to narrow it down some more-- perhaps you are struggling with how to author things in a way that doesn't have to be immediately accepted and in fact can be challenged. I think in the GM role you described you are more like a tennis player returning volleys but as a player you have to serve.

I hope I'm making some kind of sense.

[Tim Alexander]

Hey Clyde,

You're making good sense indeed, and it's certainly possible that has something to do with it. Do you have any experience with that sort of an issue? Any ideas on how I might remedy the situation beyond just continuing to play? I'm interested in building a toolkit of drills and such for myself as well as for later folks who perhaps have similar issues. I think a firm diagnosis of the root cause may be tough to figure out, but a well rounded set of approaches to getting better as a player is a way to proactively approach the situation and has merit even if it ends up being a separate issue.

-Tim

[Storn]

Take this with a grain of salt, because I'm not sure if my experience means "its good for you too".

Just quickly:  I love GMing.  But it is an activity I can only do in short sprints, prefering a once a month type schedule.  As a result, I play quite a bit.  And I think I'm pretty decent at both.  However.  I was feeling quite stymied as a player with old systems (Hero specifically), old campaigns, (been in one Champs game for 15 years) and a real lack of the group being grabbed by something collectively.  Very aimless group.  I was questioning my joy for the hobby.

I just did a long distance move and ended up in a brand new group immediately (gotta love podcasts!).  In the three times i've played with this new group, it has been a different game, different players (as there are kinda 2 overall groups, and lots of matching players to games).  And we've played more indie games...they've been Agon, Burning Wheel and Prime Time Adventures.  I"m totally revived for gaming!

Here is why that last paragraph might be important... those three games mechanically allow for a lot of "GM stance" by the players at the table.  So, if you are a volleyer (love the tennis analogy, btw, as I'm an avid tennis player), having the other PLAYERS as well as the GM feeding you stuff to react to... you might have a bit more to chew on.  I tend to be a Serve and Volley, rush the net, force other players into reacting, myself... so these games are fitting me to a tee.  I think that being a GM, even when you are a player, within these games really helps them cook along.  But if you are a baseliner.... see below....

You ARE exploring these things, as stated in your OP, but I would put to you, not only are you responsible for bringing stuff to the table, your fellow players are responsible for GIVING you stuff to react. You stated you are talking to them.  Good.  See how the next session is.

In session.  Ask for help.  During play.  I have often said; "I don't have an idea where to take this scene, i"m blanking".  Then someone makes a suggestion, boom!  It fits, they saw a solution I didn't... I'm off and running... even better when the solution is presented through a character.  And I've turned around and done this for other players at the table... "have you thought about....x?"  Even if they don't take "x", it might jar them into an even better solution or one more geared towards their vision. 

Now.  Let me be really clear here.  I'm NOT saying leave your group OR force them to play only indie games.  The give and take between everyone at the table is important to any RPG, regardless of system or genre.

Last bit of advice.  Next time you are about to play, review the rules.  The rules for a setting declare, in my mind, What is Easy or Automatic, What is Probable, What is Possible, What is Difficult and What is Damn Near Impossible.  I feel that you are saying you are "freezing" at the table.  Having a good grasp of the above, will help at least narrow down the decision making process... if you, as the player, REALLY know that banishing Demon Argo is Damn Near Impossible, but want to try anyway from a roleplaying POV, you are already starting to think about how to react to the most likely failure of the conflcit resolution of dice, cards or bidding.... so when the failure comes, you are ready to react.

It is a simple and yet not simple.  If players know the system, things speed up.  Because your mind is not being bisected with "how to do something" and can now focus on "WHY I want to attempt to do something".

Good luck!

[TonyLB]

Hey Tim, can you be more specific on your experiences?

Like, can you tell us one scene from Bacchanal that made you uncomfortable?  Include the bits that you need in order to tell that story.  Then tell us one scene from Trollbabe that clicked for you, again in whatever detail you feel like.

The less abstract we get, the more I'm going to be able to give you answers that correspond to your experiences, rather than to my own experiences projected on the screen provided by your descriptions.

[Tim Alexander]

Hey Guys,

Cool, more input and questions... let's hit 'em:

Storn: I play in a couple of groups and in both we're playing pretty much exclusively stuff built in the 'new school.' One is built from friends who have come into play through me (see http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?t=13243 and http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?t=13346 for early actual play with these folks) and the other is myself, a close non-poster friend (Chris,) Ron, and Tim Koppang. The Bacchanal game with Ron and Chris is described http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=21128 for reference. I can say with certainty that both groups do fine giving and taking from each other at the table. Also, it's important to say that both of these groups are a lot of fun, and I don't want people to think that my vague discomfort is related to incoherence among the players.

Your second point about knowing the rules is a reasonable one, and I do find I'm less successful when I don't feel like I know the boundaries of play. Knowing the ruleset certainly helps this, and after our first time through Bacchanal I made it a point to read through the text while Chris was obtaining more wine. I'm willling to say this is an excellent point, but don't want to spend too much time on it as I feel like there's something beyond that going on here.

Tony: Basically what I'm talking about is the sort of "drawing a blank" feeling cropping up in play. As a specific instance, early in the Bacchanal game I'm playing my runaway slave who's hiding in the marketplace from soldiers on the lookout for him. The dice come up for an increase in decadence, and I'm having a rough time coming up with something. I bring in something about one of the soldiers needlessly hassling a vendor and Ron calls bullshit, no decadence, and I'm dead in the water. I got nothing, and in the end had to say "I got nothing, someone give me a hand here." In and of itself that would be fine, except I found myself in that place a lot.

By contrast in the recent Trollbabe game I'm playing this swashbuckling piratey Trollbabe who's trying to track down her brother and is carrying his journal (her human item.) The GM presents me with a man being railroaded in a public trial for murder, and I'm like, "I recognize his name from my brother's diary and decide that he may know what's become of him. Before his execution tomorrow I'm going to break him free." Most of the rest of the game was filled with moments like that where I could hook easily and involve my character strongly. There were certainly moments where it wasn't effortless, but I was far less flatfooted than I have been elsewhere.

Now... speaking somewhat to Storn's point above, I'm really comfortable with Trollbabe. Far more so than Bacchanal obviously, but probably not more than Sorcerer, wherein I've had some similar experiences to the flatfooting I felt in the Bacchanal game.

Does the above help?

-Tim

[TonyLB]

Maybe.  It seems to me like you have an easier time saying "This should happen in the story, whether my character has agency or not" than you do saying "Well, my character does X, and having done X is the important thing to me, whether anything comes of it in the broader world or not."

From my (admittedly second-hand) knowledge of Bacchanal, the story is built out of "Oh my God, look what you just DID!" rather than "Oh my God, look what's HAPPENING!"

Your example of the soldiers hassling someone, for instance, is "Look what's happening."  An example like "A noble-woman eyes the rippling thews of my character, then beckons him over ... glad of the chance to hide in her palanquin he follows, but then ... and after that ... and when the goat is too tired to continue they decide to ..." is more "Look what I did."  And also, of course, more decadent.

Is that distinction ringing any bells for you?

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Hey Tim,

The example you give of Ron calling bullshit in your game of Bacchanal is interesting. I don't have any personal experience with the games you are citing, but I wonder if there is a difference. In Bacchanal the actions you take are somewhat forced by the system correct? I haven't read Sorcerer yet, but would that be somewhat similar in that game? Now Trollbabe is a game that more readily responds to your input isn't it? It doesn't push you in any certain way, is that correct? If that is correct it sounds like you are more comfortable with games where you are creating the goals (I'm finding my brother in trollbabe) versus games that place requirements on your input. (Show us debauchery in Bacchanal)

I also wonder if the idea of having your input challenged perhaps makes you a bit nervous?

I'm sorry I can't give you any actual play, I find it particularly hard to point to my own empirical knowledge. I'm also not sure what you mean by drills. I can see two things that might be helpful. If the problem is more not knowing how to serve the tennis ball then try Ego-actor stance. What I mean by Ego-actor stance is don't make a character as much as put yourself into the situation. Then you could ask yourself what might Tim do? However your replies make me think it's not so much that as the restricted input and confrontation to your ideas. My only advice there is play more of those games, it sounds like if you can learn not to be challenged by Ron calling bullshit, you're unlikely to have problems with other people.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

For purposes of clarity: no, in Sorcerer, there is no push to have characters act any particular way. It is probably the single most free-will character-behavior RPG in existence.

Tim, I've seen this before, quite a bit in fact. Guys, I suggest this might be a tough-love moment rather than a nurturing one ... 'cause this ain't nothing but what any person undergoes when learning something new and ... well, I'm not sure how to describe it, but a free-falling quality. It's a lot like my training in martial arts was like at about the two-three year mark, when you actually got hit pretty regularly, and your technique was good enough mainly to get you into trouble. Everything you try seems wrong or ineffective ... but actually, instructors watching you are actually very pleased with your upward progress and improvement. It just doesn't feel that way, because everything you learn only opens up doors for some kind of new sensation or room for improvement.

Playing Sorcerer with me as GM is an unsettling experience. People have their characters do stuff they would never, ever anticipate doing, and I'm not talking about grossness or bloodiness or whatever - just anything, really. Every scene is crucial, and yet I"m totally relaxed about what might happen, and players find that all their skills of figuring out what I want are not working ... because there's nothing to figure out.

The flat-footed feeling is the equivalent of taking a side-kick when you approach an opponent unguardedly or badly-timed. Or it's like kissing someone and suddenly finding, in the middle of the irreversible motion, that you're not sure you really know how far you want to go (reaching back a ways into time for this analogy ...). These are realities of committed human contact and interaction. They take time, practice, learning-moments, and reflection to develop into actual skills and habits.

Also, it's simply not about being a rock star, in the sense of being acknowledged as the Great Awesome Role-player Guy. People who've often received acclaim from fellow role-players as being the "good one," or respected because they were the GM who understood the rules the most, take a little while to adjust to games in which one's basic input is expected ... and also in which the need to ask for others' input is a normal part of the landscape. As GM, I ask for others' input all the time, when it's not very clear to me what scene (or which PC) to set up next for whatever. The fact that I don't make a big deal out of it might render it invisible to you, Tim.

My advice: as far as actual participation is concerned, there's no problem. You're not slowing things down, making things bumpy, hitching up others' participation, or otherwise causing any hassles. You're dealing with new tasks, new feedback, and new sensations that no essays or ideas could possibly take you through. It's how these things work.

Best, Ron

[Tim Alexander]

Hey Again,

Tony: Regarding the Bacchanal game there was a tendency that we talked about where instead of focusing on the characters we pulled back to the scene, especially during escalations. This was more pronounced in the first game, and I'm concerned my example is muddying the waters a little. Basically, that particular issue can be considered a known quantity for me, and a flaw in play that I feel I have a handle on. Now, that said, your point on character agency does seem to ring a bell and may well be wrapped up in why that particular flaw hit me so easily.

Clyde: I'm having trouble getting a reading on your first paragraph. There might be something there, but I'm confused by some of what you're saying about how a game 'responds' to input. Can you maybe rephrase without citing the games you're unclear on?

On the subject of challanges to input... meh. I expect the players at the table to challenge me when my input sucks, and I hope I do the same for them. There are certainly times where that challenge can feel unfair, but I'm more than happy to make that known. In fact, in the initial Bacchanal game when we were sorting out expectations (I'm the one with the 'thrills and chills' misinterpretation) there was at least one point where I made it clear to Ron that I felt like he was stepping on my input a bit much. Again I think that's a bit of red herring and the particular example may be bad. I don't feel like the challenge shut me down in terms of providing input. I feel like the challenge came directly as a result of what I'm trying to get at, which is finding myself coming up with lame/no input.

Ron: Well on the one hand that's reassuring, and on the other... that sucks. Especially since the 2-3 year martial arts analogy feels right on,  but it's also where I ended up getting sufficiently frustrated to not continue. One thing on this:

As GM, I ask for others' input all the time, when it's not very clear to me what scene (or which PC) to set up next for whatever. The fact that I don't make a big deal out of it might render it invisible to you, Tim.

This makes all sorts of sense to me in terms of GMing, and I recognize it, but it seems acceptable to me in a way that the same sort of polling for input doesn't seem so as a player. Or at least polling for input relative to character actions. This may partly be because I'm self selecting too much on how often I'm doing it relative to the other players, but it also ties into Tony's comments about agency.

So... hmm. I was really hoping to get something more concrete out of this than, "just keep playing." Is there any real hope for that?

-Tim

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Tim,

I dunno, man. Why does it have to suck? "Embracing bewilderment" is a fun place to be sometimes, especially since in actuality you're doing nothing wrong or troublesome. I think it's a relief not to have to be the expert or in charge or up on stage for judgment-of-excellence all the damn time, especially when role-playing. I certainly don't do it as GM any more, far less so as player. No one at our table has to.

It seems to me that you are speaking as if you were somehow held responsible by the lot of us for "playing your character," and would be falling down on the job if you ask for suggestions. Or maybe there's the fear that calling for input is more like giving up the reins and you might not get them back, or something.

Clyde, what you're saying makes sense to me. Sorcerer and Trollbabe are a lot alike in terms of free-character actions, no constraints at all, and very easy to get into Actor stance, too. Whereas yes, Bacchanal is a constrained-narration kind of game, in which you roll and discover what is or is not included in the scene. However, as I say, Sorcerer goes with Trollbabe, not with Bacchanal. So Tim is finding himself blanking on both sides of this fence.

Best, Ron

[Storn]

As a specific instance, early in the Bacchanal game I'm playing my runaway slave who's hiding in the marketplace from soldiers on the lookout for him

and

By contrast in the recent Trollbabe game I'm playing this swashbuckling piratey Trollbabe who's trying to track down her brother and is carrying his journal (her human item.)

I would like to point out that I think there is alchemy in what CHARACTERS fit for what PLAYERS.  It is an art, not a science.  But it is really important and something that might not get explored enough here among all the other theory.  So maybe swashbuckly Troll is just a better fit than runaway slave? 

PCs are our filters in which we tackle the imaginary space of the setting.  I think having a character who doesn't "fit" can really color a game experience negatively.  In my own experience, I've come up with excellent characters that I just couldn't get into and play well... and I would feel somewhat like a failure as a player.  Then I would drop that character, create a new one... and lo and behold, off I went and had a grand ol' time.  And several times, someone else saw worth in the discarded character, picked up and ran it as their own... and had a grand ol' time.

I'm not trying to let you off the hook here.... but it really could be that simple in why you are more engaged w/ Trollbabe and less engaged with Bacchanal.  Not every game is for every player.

And from my POV, swashbuckly Troll is much, much more of a proactive character concept than runaway slave.  Unless you are Spartacus... Given a choice, as a player and GM, I would much rather be the swashbuckly Troll. 

Character fit is not the only puzzle piece in your dynamic... but I do think it is an important one to consider.  This was a long way to ask:  Do you really like your ex-Slave character?

[Tim Alexander]

Hey Guys,

I've been letting this all roll around in my head for a little while, and I'm still not entirely sure how to process it. I want to say something about this stuff though:

I think it's a relief not to have to be the expert or in charge or up on stage for judgment-of-excellence all the damn time, especially when role-playing. I certainly don't do it as GM any more, far less so as player. No one at our table has to.

Also, it's simply not about being a rock star, in the sense of being acknowledged as the Great Awesome Role-player Guy. People who've often received acclaim from fellow role-players as being the "good one," or respected because they were the GM who understood the rules the most, take a little while to adjust to games in which ones basic input is expected ... and also in which the need to ask for others input is a normal part of the landscape.

In session.  Ask for help.  During play.  I have often said; "I don't have an idea where to take this scene, i"m blanking".  Then someone makes a suggestion, boom!  It fits, they saw a solution I didn't... I'm off and running... even better when the solution is presented through a character.

There's a middle ground between wanting to be the rock star and struggling to add substantive stuff to the game. I'm in the midst of trying to find out how to get to that middle ground, because right now I feel like I'm struggling a fair amount of the time. If I'm reading you right Ron you're saying this is because I'm unlearning old stuff where being the rock star was the way to get validation at the table, and not in fact because I'm not adding content. That makes good sense, but can I do anything proactive about it? I mean that 'embracing bewilderment' sounds like hippy crap, what the hell can I do with that? Also, again let's be clear that 'sucks' is relative. There's this aspect to the activity that I want to be more comfortable with because it will increase my enjoyment, but it doesn't mean I'm not enjoying it otherwise. Ron knows this because he's at the table with me, but I want it out there for the rest of you. To use the band analogy, I feel like I'm playing, but my solos could use some work. Oh and Storn, man, I wish I could say it was just the characters, but I don't think that's it. Oh yeah, this too:

It seems to me that you are speaking as if you were somehow held responsible by the lot of us for "playing your character," and would be falling down on the job if you ask for suggestions. Or maybe there's the fear that calling for input is more like giving up the reins and you might not get them back, or something.

My response to the first sentence is, "Duh, of course I'm responsible for playing my character, and yes I'd be falling down on the job if all I did was ask for suggestions." The second one I'm not so concerned with, but that first one? Well yeah. But it's degrees. I'm not concerned with asking for some help at the table, but there's a line where it feels like asking for input becomes a burden rather than an expected part of the game. I'm glad I'm not at the point where it's a burden yet, but the fact that I'm aware of it is having an impact on me. And yeah yeah, I'm neurotic about it, and with continuing play I'll likely get less neurotic about it, but can't I speed that cycle up somehow?

Thanks guys, in spite of my lousy attitude this is quite productive for me,

-Tim

[charles ferguson]

Hey Tim,

My Nar play experience is limited to 3-4 sessions of DITV, so take this for what it's worth. I posted recently in the [AG&G] Novices at narrativism thread about how I found our Dogs play. The thing that strikes me here is that I experienced exactly the floundering feeling that your post conveys to me, but the things that triggered that feeling was completely different.

I didn't have any problems with "blanking" or feeling I wasn't pulling my weight, it manifested in whole other ways (basically uneasiness and uncertainty about the respective areas of responsibility around the table).

So it seems to me we experienced the same unease and 'lost' feeling but our respective triggers for that unease were really very different. If that's true, then the specific triggers are more symptomatic than causal, and spending too much time & energy on them may not give all that great a return.

Thanks for your post, it's helping me make more sense of my own recent play experiences.

cheers, charles

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I'm going to move on the (uncertain) assumption that these are really questions ...

If I'm reading you right Ron you're saying this is because I'm unlearning old stuff where being the rock star was the way to get validation at the table, and not in fact because I'm not adding content. That makes good sense, but can I do anything proactive about it?

I think you already are, in the sense that you're playing, you're seeing stuff happen, and all that. It's not like you're undergoing dysfunctional, agonizing play of the kind you've experienced in the past, right? Call it a good day, then.

I mean, I really don't wanna sound like Yoda, but what you're already doing is making good sense and working fine.

I mean that 'embracing bewilderment' sounds like hippy crap, what the hell can I do with that?

Stop back-talking your instructor? Wait - channeling martial arts, never mind. Let's see ... Here's what goes through my head when something disorienting happens to me in a learning situation.

"I feel wrong! Blocked! Stuck!"

"No wait, that's not what's happening. I am merely bewildered. And that's what everyone feels like when they are learning. OK. I am not frozen, I am not 'wrong,' I do not have to stop. Whatever happens is just data for the next time, or rather for the long term. It's only a fuckin' scene, not the whole session, not the whole game."

"OK! Guys, I'm seeing the monkeys and ninjas again. Brainstorm for a minute!"

So yeah, I'm saying something goofy here. I'm giving you a mantra, something actually to say, when that sensation strikes. Why? Because you asked for one, so there ya go, you hippy.

Best, Ron