[Lacuna] I Learn About GMing

[Bret Gillan]

I ran Lacuna for my friends in the city the other night, and it was really interesting. One thing it did with it's minimal but awesome system was show me how I run games. My GMing was just sort of laid bare in front of me. And seeing my GMing this way, I think, will allow me to be more effective in other games I run if I just focus on what I learned.

I'm not sure I can describe this in a meaningful way, but this is what I had already been doing that I learned from Lacuna.

Never call for a specific roll. I never say, "He's coming at you with a knife. Roll your dodge." I say, "He's coming at you with a knife, what do you do?" Maybe the character counters with a knife. Maybe the character does a buttload of dodging, humiliating the attacker kung-fu movie style. Maybe the character gives the attacker a cold stare causing him to drop his knife. Situations where characters and players interact with the mechanics in this way are opportunities for players to make statements about their characters. A character who pulls out a gun and shoots an attacker is very different from a character who talks the attacker into calming down. Denying the player that choice sucks. I've had that done that to me, either by having the choice denied ("He's attacking you and talking won't work. You can just stand there and take damage if you want.") or having it effectively denied ("Okay, you can roll but it'll be at a -20 penalty and he'll get a +20 bonus since you're not defending.") and it sucks.

Now, mechanics are also a major way for players to define and create the game world. This can be done by making changes to the shared imagined space that can't be disputed ("I hate this guy. I kill him!") but also, depending on the GM's style, to create the fiction and the game world. In Lacuna, I had their Monitor (the person responsible for providing them with intelligence and equipment outside the Blue City) acting really weird. The players started making all sorts of rolls to find out more information about the Monitor. This took the Monitor from random color (which is how I intended it to be) and transformed it into an actual plot. Later, the characters happened upon a savaged corpse which they were suspected of murdering. They never tracked down the killer, investigated the cause of death or anything, so the corpse was simply a corpse. It was a prop, not a plot.

If I could remember all this in every game I run, I'd have some pretty hot games.

Now, all that said, does this make sense in terms of the Big Model? Is what I'm saying here nothing new, and if so what terminology is used for this?

[Yokiboy]

It sounds like you had a good story now experience. In terms of The Big Model, who's really to say, as it was just one session, but you're on your way to narrative play. Letting the story develop through play by what the players are focusing on, rather than what the GM shoves down their throats.

You should try to introduce harder choices though, than just a corpse and hoping they'll look for clues. Try hitting them with some Bangs, that force them to make a decision. Bangs are situations that simply can't be avoided, and there's no clear right-or-wrong decision involved, preferably both outcomes should be equally bad - make the players sweat!

Sounds like you're off to a good start. Have fun with it,

Yoki

[Graham W]

Could someone in the know analyse this Big Model-style? I don't understand the Big Model well enough to do it.

Yoki's take doesn't quite ring true for me: it doesn't sound as though we know enough about the game to say it's approaching Narrativist play.

Graham

[Jasper Flick]

I'm with Graham that there's not enough data. I also think the question "does it make sense in terms of the Big Model" is a red herring. What are you searching for in this thread? Is it reflection?

You describe a preference for leaving all options open for players and going with the flow. That's cool.

[Yokiboy]

Could someone in the know analyse this Big Model-style? I don't understand the Big Model well enough to do it.

Yoki's take doesn't quite ring true for me: it doesn't sound as though we know enough about the game to say it's approaching Narrativist play.

Hey Graham,

There's not enough here to analyze your play accurately. It is just a few notes and not enough data. Listen to Jasper.

TTFN,

Yoki

[Bret Gillan]

Yoki,
This is my play. Not Graham's. If you need more data, feel free to ask questions. Otherwise, I have no idea what more you need to know about play.

Jasper,
I already made clear what I'm looking for. I'm looking for discussion on the methods I've outlined above. Elsewhere on the internet, I've been pointed towards Ron's description of the four authorities and that's helped get me started. My original thought was that I was saying something unique about GMing methods, but it appears that I was just, as you say, stating a preference for having the authorities distributed more even among a group rather than resting solely in my hands.

Graham,
I actually know enough about the Big Model to be dangerous and to give it ashot, but avoided describing my play in those terms during the write-up. What are you looking for here? I could give it a shot.

[Yokiboy]

Yoki,
This is my play. Not Graham's. If you need more data, feel free to ask questions. Otherwise, I have no idea what more you need to know about play.

I stand corrected Bret, I thought for a second that Graham was a player in your group. Still, the end result's the same. My initial guess is as far as I can go, because without more actual play posts detailing more sessions, there's not enough data to go on.

TTFN,

Yoki

[Bret Gillan]

Yoki, I'm frustrated because I've asked that if you need more details, ask questions and I will elaborate. Please, if you need some information from me, let me know what that information is and I will provide it. Otherwise I'm helpless here.

[Callan S.]

Hi Bret,

I don't think it works that way around. The idea is that a structure/a model already exists in your play and it's created from what you and the other participants think is important. We haven't seen enough of what's important to you guys to ask questions. If we asked questions right now, we'd be asking about stuff we think is important - that'd be pretty missplaced in analysing your play account.

[Yokiboy]

I was typing up another reply while Callan posted his, he explained what I wanted to say and quite eloquently at that. It's not so much the techniques you describe as to what your focus as players are.

[Bret Gillan]

Guys, please consider this thread closed. Thanks.

[Bret Gillan]

You know, let me take that back with an apology. I started this thread, and I've just reached a point where I feel like the thread has gone afield from what I intended, and I feel like you're all the way over there and I'm all the way over here. I'm going to try to bring it back on track while fully admitting I'm not very good at discussions like this or very knowledgeable about it.

I'm not sure what information you guys think is lacking. If it's what is motivating my players, I really feel like it's not relevant. I'm looking to talk about the methods I used in terms of the Big Model and where they fit into the big picture. If you feel like the players motivations are necessary to do that, I can provide them to you, but "we need more actual play" doesn't really help me narrow down what information you need. Do you want how the players responded to the methods? Do you want to specific instances where I used these methods? Please narrow it down, because "we need more actual play" isn't a helpful request to me to provide more information.

And I apologize Jasper. I apparently was being unclear. Am I still being unclear about what I'm looking for here? If not, what is unclear?

[Danny_K]

Hmm.  I think it really helps to have a sense of who the players are, how the game session happened, and what seemed to really work or not work in terms of getting everybody's attention and enjoyment.  No detailed recaps, just sort of a capsule summary.

Especially with a game like Lacuna, which seems to be in a different genre each time it's run, it really helps to have some of the content and the context.  Don't get me wrong, I really liked your initial post, but I need more to chew on. 

[The Dragon Master]

Bret: The thing is that when dealing with the Big Model and Creative Agenda, the methods could fit anywhere. Creative Agenda is all about the players motivations during play, where the "methods" you've described could be a part of any of the Creative Agenda's. I think that is where the confusion is coming from. Normally when someone asks where their play falls in the Big Model, they are looking for info on a Creative Agenda, that doesn't seem to be what you are asking. If you are looking for a specific, glossary-type term to describe the methods themselves, I believe that would be "techniques"* (check the Provisional Glossary for more info). Though whether there are specific names for the techniques you are using, I really don't know. Is that what you were looking for? If so I'm sure someone with more experience in the theory side of RPing can provide you with more assistance. If not, then I'm at a loss.

*If I'm using the wrong term here, someone correct me.

[Judd]

Bret: The thing is that when dealing with the Big Model and Creative Agenda, the methods could fit anywhere. Creative Agenda is all about the players motivations during play, where the "methods" you've described could be a part of any of the Creative Agenda's.

My understanding of GNS stuff is that it isn't about players at all but is about stuff the game's mechanics encourages.

But I think the personal break-throughs that Bret has had here aren't about GN or S but are about techniques he has uncovered as useful during play.