[SotC] - Narrativist growing pains - seeking advice

[Web_Weaver]

I have been running a game of Spirit of the Century for the last couple of months and have been quite surprised by the results.

The intention was to run a game with a clear Narrativist Agenda, after finding games like HeroQuest and even Dogs in the Vinyard to have generally resulted in at least some incoherence. My aim was to at least have a game with a clear agenda under our belt so that it was possible to communicate these issues.

As it became clear that the structure of the story itself was a player responsibility in the game I was running, the group very quickly moved into discussions on plot structure issues. The most prevalent examples being in the use of declarations, which were often grabbed with both hands as a way of steering things. Mystic PCs using Fortune Telling being a favourite device.

My concern is that the discussions at this level have detracted from exploration such that it is possible to say that much less role-playing is actually occurring. I don't mean that in an 'acting in-character' way, more that exploration itself is being put aside for segments of the game in favour of meta issues.

This has occurred in two or three key moments of the game, where one might expect this to happen, once when the players were taking the initial situations and story threads that I had presented based on their Aspects and were deciding on what they considered interesting and where the story should lead (actively working out the premise); and twice so far towards the end of the game where it is clearly a player priority that the game comes to a satisfactory conclusion and the threads are tied together.

The enthusiasm for these discussion could just be based on novelty, and for me and a couple of the players these meta-discussions have been useful and quite fun, if a little disorientating, and for one player they have been useful but occasionally frustrating, but for one player they were enough for him to opt out of the game.

So, I wonder at this juncture, is this meta-game quality something that becomes more fluid and transparent as the players become used to it, or is it something that will always occur with such detail?

Has anyone else had similar experiences and how did the play style develop over time?


Example

Upon realising that he now had access to the big machine at the heart of the adventure, one player began discussing exactly what should happen in the scene once he had modified the device in preparation for his roll. And, before we knew it the discussion was involving everyone and pushing into areas well outside of the scene's context, detailing how each PC would be effected in the fallout of the action and how the whole scenario would conclude.

At which point I figured we were getting ahead of ourselves and insisted that start working through each action and see what transpired. The discussion did prove useful and inspired much of what then happened but it just felt a little too divorced from the action leaving me unclear on whether it was a good thing or not.

Note: My musings on this game have been documented on the blog linked in my sig, for background context.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jamie,

I can speak with some fierceness on this topic.

The discussions that you're seeing aren't Narrativist play. They're dodging play. They're a defense mechanism.

Narrativist play does not have any integral feature that requires discussing what will happen. One does not stop playing in order to negotiate about play. All the mechanics that you've seen across a number of games, including narration rights and scene-framing trading and stuff like that, are structure for play. But they don't stop play or hop away from it to decide stuff about it. The process of deciding "what happens next" is no difference from deciding "what my gu says next." The distinction between the two is artificial, an artifact of RPG culture to date.

Yes, the game provides for player authority over plot-structure and events - that's a great thing. But doing it is different from talking about it! The classic effect of such rules, when embraced, is actually to pump events and decisions into play at a far faster rate than traditional play, rather than slower. Or more accurately, the scenes and conflicts move more smoothly, at a pace that's suited for each scene. That's what happens when people do it. This discuss-it business is a red flag for me. Whenever I've seen it, I've been able to identify one or more people at the table who are shying away from actually playing.

Best, Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I got a private message asking me if I was shutting down this discussion. The answer is, No! No way!

For one thing, I'm not in that group and haven't actually seen what's going on. For all I know, my red flag totally does not apply at all. Jamie has to let me know whether I'm on track, cross-referencing what I'm saying to what he knows is really going on. I'm interested to know that, and as a discussion group, we all need to know whether that's a viable avenue, or, just as productively, whether we can say "that's not it" and confidently turn our attention to something else.

For another, there may be some feature or perceived feature of Spirit of the Century which is making this phenomenon more likely, or conversely, which is inadvertently being ignored or de-emphasized in the group. So the discussion can illuminate the game itself, too.

Jamie, I look forward to what you can tell us.

Full disclosure: I wrote my post with an infant vocalizing into each ear (which makes two infants, you see), which I think meant the content is there, but the "how to use this post" is not.

Best, Ron

[Larry L.]

Hi Ron,

This thing you bring up is interesting to me. I think I've seen such a phenomenon occur when I'm playing these new-fangled story narrative games, but hadn't been aware to pay attention to it in detail, or that it might have a detrimental effect. So I'm not sure.

Could you come up with an example of happy "non-dodging" Narrativist play to contrast against Jamie's example, to better illustrate exactly what you're talking about?

[Valamir]

I will offer as a different data point that such meta level discussions are not necessarily dodging play, although I accept the assertion that they often can be.

Myself, Keith Sears, Seth-Ben Ezra and his wife Crystal recently played a session of Shock where probably 1/3 to 1/2 of everything that "happened" plotwise developed out of meta-level discussions.  I won't say that's common with Shock or with this group, just what happened in this game.  It definitely was NOT dodging anything.

Instead I view it as akin to the literary / film / tv technique of the audience seeing stuff going on that isn't happening directly to the main characters.  The main character (the PC) is off doing something while the camera shows us a scene of the main character's wife cheating on him with his best friend.  The players in their role as Audience will often immediately grasp the implications of what's going to happen when the character finds out and be jazzed about seeing it play out.  The players in their role as authors and directors will often find it helpful to touch base on the topic...just like a stable of TV script writers will have to consider what this means for future episodes...e.g. "You know, if we let him find out before the big job is complete, that's totally going to invalidate the central conflict we've been building up to"..."yeah, but this other conflict would be cool too so maybe we should just roll with it in that direction".

I don't see these types of examples as "dodging" play at all.  Rather I see them embracing the option to play while wearing different hats than the traditional "player as actor" hat.  In fact, I've made the case before that refusing to put on the "player as author", "player as director", "player as audience" hats and engage with the game from time to time on those levels is actually itself a form of "dodging".

So Web, I don't see anything that automatically seems wrong in your write-up.  As with anything, however, it will help to have players who are on the same page regarding how frequently and at what times and for how long they are going to be putting on those other hats.  No different really from having the same expectations about how frequently dice will be rolled, or how much tactical thinking players will be putting into combat, or how much out of character knowledge players are allowed to use during play.  Just another variable to balance.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Larry,

It will take me a couple of days to answer. I hit a crunch time.

Please, everyone, dive in and discuss!

Best, Ron

[Landon Darkwood]

Web_Weaver, could you tell me to what degree these lengthy meta-discussions are taking place as an actual part of rules use and how much of it gets "nailed down" into the gamespace afterward? Do players use fate points to try and make anything from their discussions "true" - pile on additional declarations, in other words?

Like, in your last example, when the guy started talking about what to do with the big machine, and people started resolving the scenario ahead of time... how much did they expect the roll to resolve after that? What happens when things don't really go the way they "planned" it? Is the discussion more about what could happen, or what should happen?

I ask because by the rules, a declaration only resolves one "fact", and requires a roll (or fate points) to see if the person's right or wrong. So, unless it's all fate points all the time, someone using Fortune Telling shouldn't necessarily be able to guarantee any plot outcomes - they have just as much chance of being right as being wrong. And even if they buy their way into being right all the time, there's only so much one declaration will get you. So I'm curious as to how that blossoms into pre-structuring the plot, and then, how that pre-structuring feeds back into mechanics and resolution.

Also, does this meta-discussion take place when someone calls for a compel? How do compels usually happen in your games?


-L

[Noclue]

As it became clear that the structure of the story itself was a player responsibility in the game I was running, the group very quickly moved into discussions on plot structure issues. The most prevalent examples being in the use of declarations, which were often grabbed with both hands as a way of steering things. Mystic PCs using Fortune Telling being a favourite device.

Just so I'm clear, you've grafted the players have responsibility for the story structure idea to SOTC in order to get a "game with a clear Narrativist agenda?" Since I don't think SOTC does this on its own, I'm guessing talking about SOTC rules won't really be helping you.

What system did you put into place to adjudicate story structure in your game? In Burning Empires, for example, character generation includes lots of metagaming, but the game provides a structure for the discussion as part of the world burning process.  In Blossoms are falling, similar things go on with Clan Burning, but once the situation is set up the PCs have to do something to affect the story.

[Web_Weaver]

The discussions that you're seeing aren't Narrativist play. They're dodging play. They're a defense mechanism.

Well I see this from two sides, on one level it does feel like obfuscation of the scene, where the inclination is to look right past the thing that is happening and talk all around the idea, without actually rolling the dice or resolving the conflict at hand, but on another level the real meat of the scenario has often arose out of these moments, as they are times of brainstorming creativity.

I suppose the trick may be to recognise when exited creativity moves towards what I have tended to call pre-narration, a tendency to extrapolate wildly from the current conflict and in the process resolve it before it even has a chance to happen naturally.

This tendency feels similar to some experiences with Dogs in the Vineyard, where instead of boiling down the conflict at hand to a clear stake, a conversation would arise that pre-empted each outcome and ended up making the conflict seem pointless. I managed to temper this by pointing to any conflict where the activity within would never have been predicted, as examples that show the vale of the conflict running as intended.

BTW your post certainly didn't feel like closing down, I just haven't looked back here for a few days to give some time for replies to come in.

[Web_Weaver]

Instead I view it as akin to the literary / film / tv technique of the audience seeing stuff going on that isn't happening directly to the main characters. 

I don't think this is quite the thing. For instance, in the game I used a player action and suggestion to initiate an off camera action, which in turn helped resolve another player's Fortune Telling, and while that did involve a little bit of discussion to make sure my narration fitted with both the original action, and the fortune, the narration never went beyond the mechanics of the game which was essentially a compel.

e.g. "O.K. you did that and I have a cool complication that ties some stuff up, here's a fate point if you accept"

I am more worried about the times when the players start going well beyond this and essentially stop playing and begin a process more akin to script writing.

"Oh that's cool if you do that then this could happen, and then this would be a cool scene, and then we could wrap up with this, wow!"

It seems to have started based on the Fortune Telling concept in SotC, which grants small and vague rights to the players to define something that might happen down the line of the story, and I haven't discouraged that because it is their story too, even when the fortune is more specific than the rules suggest. However, that seems to have sparked some players imaginations and they have grasped the nettle and started to use any Declaration as a story writing device and this seems to have slipped into a game pitched higher up in the meta game level, where it feels less like role-play and more like a TV writers room might feel.

[Web_Weaver]

Hey Landon,

You are on the money here with your example so I wont bother to quote you, I would need to quote it all.

The discussions are drifting far away from the rules; it is precisely this element of getting distracted from the actual roll at hand, I have to call a stop to it and remind them all that we haven't actually done the declaration roll.

And this in itself isn't that easy because the conversation starts naturally from the point of the roll but the gets away from all of us, and while I might be the first to notice we have slipped into waffle, I have had a hand in it by answering questions and generally listening to the cool stuff without calling it to order. This is why I wonder if its just something I need to be more sensitive to and will come with practice.

I have certainly enforced the one thing per declaration rule rigidly and that is where the contrast lies, you just described a load of stuff, lets roll for the first bit. But a lot of that extra conversation will come into the following exploration because it was great material, although sometimes its a battle to make sure it is still in the balance because the player that had an idea may get very attached to it, forgetting that it hasn't been explored yet.

The problem is that on one level it has been great fun, and has produced a game with a much higher creativity level than we are used to, where a lot more ideas are being flung around and a lot of them are sticking to the game (to strecth the analogy too far). It has also been a far more social experience where I haven't just enjoyed the game but enjoyed the company also, which sadly isn't always true in our games.

[Web_Weaver]

Just so I'm clear, you've grafted the players have responsibility for the story structure idea to SOTC in order to get a "game with a clear Narrativist agenda?" Since I don't think SOTC does this on its own, I'm guessing talking about SOTC rules won't really be helping you.

Well a great deal of the techniques and advice of the game do produce a narrativist friendly experience. Declarations are a light touch story structure mechanic for instance, as are compels and tags on one level.

I certainly didn't expect or directly initiate the full blown effort on the part of the players to take hold of the story, but I didn't discourage it either, and once the declarations started, players started to view fate points as story devices and Pandora's Box was opened.

I don't want to make this all sound too dramatic, my concerns are that things are drifting away from a controllable situation, not that they are full blown out of control. For instance, the player that decided to sit out of the game was having real frustration with HeroQuest's conflict resolution and Dog's blocking mechanics, so his choice may have been made a while ago to stick to more traditional games.

[Valamir]

I am more worried about the times when the players start going well beyond this and essentially stop playing and begin a process more akin to script writing.

"Oh that's cool if you do that then this could happen, and then this would be a cool scene, and then we could wrap up with this, wow!"

It seems to have started based on the Fortune Telling concept in SotC, which grants small and vague rights to the players to define something that might happen down the line of the story, and I haven't discouraged that because it is their story too, even when the fortune is more specific than the rules suggest. However, that seems to have sparked some players imaginations and they have grasped the nettle and started to use any Declaration as a story writing device and this seems to have slipped into a game pitched higher up in the meta game level, where it feels less like role-play and more like a TV writers room might feel.

Actually that's my point.  I was pointing out that even if it does pitch higher up into the meta game that that's not necessarily an example of dodging play, and not necessarily a bad thing.

Your phrasing suggests that you're assuming this sort of thing is bad, or less fun, or less "role-playing".

I'm pointing out that it actually can be extremely good, produce great stories, lots of fun and is every bit as much role-playing as more traditional stay-in-character modes of play.

Its only a problem if, as with anything else, not everybody is on the same page with the who-what-when-where-why-and-how of doing it...which is what it sounds like you're experiencing.  It can take a bit of a learning curve to get as comfortable and familiar with the feel of a TV writiers room as you are with more traditional play but its also very rewarding and very functional.  Its a technique that can be misused and takes some practice to get good with it so it blends in seamlessly instead of sticking out like a sore thumb...but that comes with time and exposure.

[Web_Weaver]

Actually that's my point.  I was pointing out that even if it does pitch higher up into the meta game that that's not necessarily an example of dodging play, and not necessarily a bad thing.

Agreed.

Your phrasing suggests that you're assuming this sort of thing is bad, or less fun, or less "role-playing".

I'm pointing out that it actually can be extremely good, produce great stories, lots of fun and is every bit as much role-playing as more traditional stay-in-character modes of play.

My essential point is if it ain't exploration it ain't role-playing. I don't think that is a radical idea, youseem to suggest this is just an issue of Stance, but I don't think it is.

Possibly, it highlights a rule, as long as a stance can be identified then you are exploring, but when you are out of the game entirely and moulding it from outside that is no longer exploration. There is no room in my theory set for Writers Room Stance but there is for Explorative Collaboration which may utilise any stance.

[Valamir]

Cool.

If you ever have a chance to play Universalis (or have played), let me know whether that affects your thoughts on "writers room" stance.  About 80% of Uni play winds up feeling like that (by design) and its actually the exact analogy I use to get people into the spirit of how to think about play in the game.