Narrativist mechanics

[deidzoeb]

Giving out XP at all rewards Gamism.  Even if you try to reward players for role-playing really well, for struggling with their Premise(s) instead of the typical hack & slash, the "reward" is that they become better able to hack & slash in future sessions.

I've been trying to figure a good workaround to this problem for d20 games.  Easiest I can figure is to play only one-shot adventures.  Tell the players up front that their characters will not be used for any other adventures, so they might as well focus on their Premise and the plot that develops.  Or the characters could be used in future adventures, but would not gain levels.

[Buddha Nature]

I have to disagree with the XP comment.  XP is a reward for those who like to build their characters that way.  I don't think it is bad to reward Author/Director Stance and good Actor stance with XP.  You are getting them to "diversify" and if it is what you want to see in the game then you should reward it in any way that will motivate the players.

Beyond this, if "they become better able to hack & slash in future sessions" what happens if there is less and less h&s as time goes by?  Or on the other hand, what if (as in hardcoremoose's Sorcerer mini-sup Charnel Gods (coming soon)) the players are _so_ powerful that it is pretty much worthless to do the h&s stuff?  All of which is GM planning and setting.

You are just crippling yourself if you just do one shots.  I spoke with a couple of my players about this...  One shots lead to "whatever" playing--players doing "whatever" due to complete non-attachement/connection to the characters.  This I mean with d20 and gamist/situationist tending players.

I have been thinking alot about the whole "GM-ing a system I don't like because _all_ my players want to play it" thing.  For me it comes down to doing it "my way."  I will build a set of "house rules" which are all additional (not changing anything hard-coded in the system) and optional for use byt the players.  They will totally reward the kind of playing I would like to see, but still give out "standard" awards of XP.

-Shane

[deidzoeb]

I imagine players rewarded with XP for good instances of Narrativist play would learn to play like that.  But I still think XP are tied up with Gamism.  This example is a little ridiculous, but it's like trying to train a lion to be less aggressive by giving him scraps of human meat as a reward.  The lion learns to act that way when you're around, but its goal remains eating humans.  If you reward players with better skills or abilities, how can you really break them of the tendency toward power-gaming?

Playing one-shots or turning off XP or levels is definitely a flawed workaround, and I haven't tested the idea much yet.  It makes sense to have characters grow and develop their skills, and theoretically it would be better for players to become more attached to characters by running through many sessions with them.

Anyhow, playing one-shot games shouldn't be the end of the world, even for players who enjoy long campaigns.  For example, the fickle GM I've been playing Star Wars with lately keeps requiring us to create new characters every few sessions to be at the right level for some new villain he created, or for a pre-fab adventure he bought.  I'd like to keep exploring my original character, but when I have to create a new character, it doesn't make me play less seriously.  How often do you have to create new characters when playing in other GM's campaigns?  Do you invest less interest in your new characters?

Beyond this, if "they become better able to hack & slash in future sessions" what happens if there is less and less h&s as time goes by?  Or on the other hand, what if (as in hardcoremoose's Sorcerer mini-sup Charnel Gods (coming soon)) the players are _so_ powerful that it is pretty much worthless to do the h&s stuff?  All of which is GM planning and setting.

Good point.  I hadn't thought of that.  If you can ween the players from hack & slash, that would work nicely too.  Of course, the kind of players who would give a "whatever, who cares" attitude to a one-shot game may be equally un-cooperative if you try to ween them from hack & slash dungeon-crawling.

I spoke with a couple of my players about this...  One shots lead to "whatever" playing--players doing "whatever" due to complete non-attachement/connection to the characters.  This I mean with d20 and gamist/situationist tending players.

Some of these players would be fundamentally opposed to playing a Narrativist-leaning game.  They'll say "whatever" every time you try to get them thinking harder about their character or situation or long-term plans.

Removing XP or levels or playing only one-shots is not a solution for everybody.  Just the only solution I can think of to stop encouraging power-gamers.  It's like telling them, you won't get your enjoyment from this game by hoping for a more powerful character, only from developing the plot.

I agree that a GM would have to compensate in other ways if they wanted to play a lot of one-shots.  But you should be able to have fun with a one-shot adventure.  Players should be able to invest some feeling in one-shot characters.

[Buddha Nature]

I think what it comes down to is making the best of a difficult situation.  If you are going to GM a bunch of players who play in a manner which is quite divergant from your own I would say create a system that rewards them for playing in the manner you like, but doesn't punish them for not.  And vice versa - if you are in a game which is being run differently than how you like, play how you like, but still within the confines.  Its okay to be the verbose one in the group of "I attack the orc" players.

In this instance I would hope Pavlov's theories are right - reward the desired behavior whenever you see it and hopefully they pick it up and it becomes second nature.

-Shane