[SotC] - Narrativist growing pains - seeking advice

[Filip Luszczyk]

Jamie,

I'm curious - what where your reasons for deciding to play the game with a clear Agenda in the first place, as well as for deciding on Narrativist Agenda specifically? Other than one player's issues with conflict mechanics, in what ways did the incoherence you noticed in the other games affect your satisfaction with play?

Recently, I've been considering how coherence/incogerence affects my gaming experience in the current group, at least as far as I understand the notion of CA's. It makes me wonder how in some games we seem to be much more in synch as a group than in others. So, seeing your explicit choice of CA, I'm curious.

Also, did you worked out the details of CA you were intending to follow, or was it rather just a general "let's stick to this area"?

[Web_Weaver]

Hi Filip,

That's a tricky question because, although I express myself with theory, I am am intuitive and empathetic person, and on that level things were really not going well when we played HeroQuest, there were a number of frustrations which were always present and were likely to boil over into real disagreement. This was resulting in an inordinate amount of bitching behind each others backs, and tangible level of disaffection with each other.

When I turned to theory I could feel that incoherence issues really were at the heart of the problems. That is not to say that encouraging a coherent view would sort out the interpersonal issues, but they would at least expose them as nothing to do with 'play'.

If I see two friends being unpleasant towards each other in the guise of play, and the unpleasantness is completely ignored as OK, because the game rules appear to say so, then I am the type of person that will point out the obvious. I feel on a gut level that many of our ongoing issues are exacerbated by going into a game without an understanding of the clashing views of what a role-playing game is. And without examples and language to clearly tease out these issues with the games themselves, there really is little hope that we will ever play together as a group of friends in any role-playing game, because what is habitually acceptable is not necessarily acceptable when we turn to a game like HeroQuest.

And a fundamental point is that the group was formed from a group of Runequest players of which three wanted to play HeroWars/HeroQuest, seeing its potential if not it's underlying modes, and the others just saw it as another rule set. But, that potential was probably different for each of us, and we only thought we were seeing the same things.

For the record I think HQ is seriously flawed in its presentation and contradictions, but I may be biased by my experiences playing with it.

So all that said, I proposed that we at least play some games with a clearer agenda so that we could actually get to grips with the muddled, and in my opinion disruptive on an interpersonal level, play that was resulting from HeroQuest. If the journey results in discarding any form of Narrativist play so be it, we would be in a much better position than we were. And, if it results in not playing at all, or some player deciding its not for them, then again that's much less likely to result in bitterness or alienation.

What has resulted is a very surprised group, who are constantly reassessing what role-playing is, and it has broadly been a positive experience, the current game of SotC has been remarkably successful from the perspective of explaining the concepts of Premise without having to explain it in words, and focusing in on issues of story control and theme. It has a pretty coherent feel in general as a rule set, given the ground work that had already been done in HeroQuest and Dogs.

And the players that have taken it up most enthusiastically are two of the players that saw HeroQuest as just another rule set, which means that we now have a much richer vocabulary to discuss these issues going forward.

Most positively it has been great fun to play for at least three or four of us. What we play next is going to be interesting, and some are suggesting a return to "just blowing stuff up" for a while or a letting off steam Paranoia game.

See, tricky stuff, a bit messy in the detail, but as honest and open as I can be in this context.

[Web_Weaver]

Steering this back on topic just in case my last post suggests anyone who comments is walking in a mine field (I was using self-reflection and emotional language to express the background frustrations of the group, please don't be put off, we are dealing with them slowly).

We finished off the SotC game last week and during the last session I was especially sensitive to the issues at hand, (talking about story instead of playing), and came to the conclusion that exactly the same thing is happening as was occurring in Dogs previously. The issue at hand is being discussed in a genuine spirit of meta-game story focus, but the discussion rapidly gets expanded and then once a sketch of future action has been drawn, it places undue expectation on a positive result from the rolls; lest the house of cards comes tumbling down.

In fact, it feels like the players are effectively de-protagonising themselves in the interest of the story.

Anyone seen this happen in their games?
Did anyone find a way to counter it?

The players most responsible, argue that the discussion is necessary, but I feel that much less detail would result in far more fluid play with little difference in the quality of story produced.

--

For example, in the session one PC had 'died' in the previous session , with an eye to there being a cool 'vision quest' for him to follow to allow his return. At the beginning of this the player clearly wanted this thread to tie in with the other players' actions so that it could be explored fully without hogging the spotlight. Ideas for how one character could join him were discussed, then how another character could act as a beacon to guide him back.

The discussion in itself took around ten minutes, but as far as I can tell both of the story crucial decisions had been made quite quickly and could have been over and dealt with in less than two.

At this point one of the involved players turned to me and said "so that's it isn't it, we don't need to roll do we?"

The remaining session conformed quite closely to the skeleton and although the player at the centre of the action expressed that they were willing to fail if the dice dictated, this was never likely, given the leverage a player can bring to bear on important rolls with Fate Points.

The players were happy with the outcome once the quest had been explored, and when questioned the player concerned felt that the discussion was worth it and expressed that he thinks we do better if we sketch out where we plan to go, even if the dice don't go our way.

I, on the other hand think there has to be a happier position which takes less time and places less pressure on the ongoing exploration.

[Landon Darkwood]

The issue at hand is being discussed in a genuine spirit of meta-game story focus, but the discussion rapidly gets expanded and then once a sketch of future action has been drawn, it places undue expectation on a positive result from the rolls; lest the house of cards comes tumbling down.

See, I think the emphasized text above is really the key to your problem. The "bad" part is not that the discussion is happening, it's that the group is really using it as a secondary form of resolution apart from the rules. It'd be vastly different if the discussion happened, but the ideas were held onto loosely, and the resolution system could make the actual outcomes vary from what had been discussed. So it's Exploration, but it's Exploration that's using pure Drama resolution instead of whatever the game uses. By the time they've decided the outcome, the rules are pretty much moot.

When I play Primetime Adventures, I often make use of the phrase "up for grabs" when we go into what Ralph called "writer's room" mode - as in, what are we resolving with discussion, and what are we putting "up for grabs". So, for example, in a recent supernatural police drama game I ran, the pilot ended with one PCs nemesis about to kill a criminal in cold blood who had cursed the police department - the curse had taken the live of that NPCs partner, and the criminal was calmly telling him so, as is appropriate to the Big Reveal.

The nemesis was a good cop himself, and the two protagonists had been shadowing him, and they were spying on the conversation. The nemesis had been a real asshole to both PCs, and so it was an issue of, "Hey, we don't like this guy, but we're cops, and a good cop is about to ruin his career."

So there's a pause in the narration, and I turn it over to the players and go, "Now what? Do you interfere or not?" And we started talking about what should and shouldn't happen, what the characters' perspectives on it were, etc. But then, I said, "Okay, so. Basically, it looks like both of you have a reason to stop him and a reason not to stop him. You want to put it up for grabs?" And they agreed, so they both rolled conflict against me, and it turns out I won against them and they both intervened.

Now, the point is, that could have gone either way for both characters, and the scene would have come out different. But more importantly, one of the players could have said, "Nah, you know, I'm not putting it up for grabs, because I think that X is the right way to go and makes the best scene." And I'd have just rolled the conflict with the other player.

It strikes me that you might want to consider making use of this if you're going to keep going with this group - let part of that discussion very specifically be about what's going to the dice and what's not.

[Roger]

I'm a bit out of practice with this and my conclusions might be way off-base, but I'm going to throw this out there.

I think what's happening is the same thing that happens in Sorcerer when the group has a definition of Humanity that no one really cares enough about.

What I mean is that I suspect that your Premises have not been sufficiently immediate and engaging to the players involved.

Both DitV and SotC are set in times different from our own.  This makes it a bit easier to wuss out, intentionally or not, and deal with the Premise at arms-length.  You end up looking forward at the possible plot twists because the current conflict does not have a choking grip on your heart.

In contrast, consider a Premise that the players really are deeply invested in.  They absolutely need, on a deep moral level, to win the current conflict that's facing them right now.  There's no room for discussion because there's no room for compromise.  Nothing I say to you is going to convince you that maybe you don't need to rescue your Jewish grandmother from the Nazi death camp.  Sure maybe it'll be great if she turns out to be a nuclear physicist with the plans for an entire atomic bomb in her brain, but there's no time for that now.

SotC is a great game, no question about it, but I think it subtly encourages the players to treat Premises in a shallow fashion.  It's one of the great classic pitfalls in Narrativism, and I suspect you've fallen in.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong with all of that with respect to your particular group.  But think about it, try it on, and let me know.


Cheers,
Roger

[Noclue]

The issue at hand is being discussed in a genuine spirit of meta-game story focus, but the discussion rapidly gets expanded and then once a sketch of future action has been drawn, it places undue expectation on a positive result from the rolls; lest the house of cards comes tumbling down.

For example, in the session one PC had 'died' in the previous session , with an eye to there being a cool 'vision quest' for him to follow to allow his return. At the beginning of this the player clearly wanted this thread to tie in with the other players' actions so that it could be explored fully without hogging the spotlight. Ideas for how one character could join him were discussed, then how another character could act as a beacon to guide him back.

The discussion in itself took around ten minutes, but as far as I can tell both of the story crucial decisions had been made quite quickly and could have been over and dealt with in less than two.

At this point one of the involved players turned to me and said "so that's it isn't it, we don't need to roll do we?"

I keep trying to quash the evil voice inside of me that wants to start looking around for compels to get one of them to fuck the whole plan up and make things really interesting.

[Web_Weaver]

let part of that discussion very specifically be about what's going to the dice and what's not.

Sounds like good advice, a good way to keep perspective on the conversation, thanks.

In other words accept that some of the conversation is Drama Resolution, and try and wheedle out from that conversation what parts are important to them when it comes to Fortune. This suggests that the players are perhaps seeing the premise differently to me, and as such when this occurs they are perhaps indicating that I am misjudging what is at stake currently and I should be ascertaining what is really at stake when dice roll.

My concern is that they might be dodging the stakes entirely, deprotagonising themselves by sidestepping any real risk and not even honestly resolving things via drama either. But, if that is the case your suggestion will soon make that clear because I would be trying to pin them down and make them present a premise addressing situation to replace mine.

[Web_Weaver]

I'm a bit out of practice with this and my conclusions might be way off-base, but I'm going to throw this out there.

Glad you did, you may have pushed the right buttons with your point. We structured the game by using aspects to create premise, and much of the premise was governed by what players found interesting, and as such you would imagine that this in itself would create play where premise was immediate.

But, in actuality, it is possible that any premise was held at arms length. And, your point makes me consider that much of the play may have been a method of premise avoidance.

The players were very fond of their characters, and their own places in the story. They enjoyed how their characters were able to make their mark on the story through mechanics that allowed story leverage, but they didn't seem to take hold of difficult situations. Instead they rolled with compels and my presented situations with an expectation that pulp dictated victory.

I probably fell into a trap of conspiring with them over story, I wasn't forcing real obstacles, no matter how real they seemed. Yes I killed the character, and yes he had to find his way back through the spirit plane and across 100,000 years of time, but I should have made that a clear barrier not a story hurdle.

That gives me food for thought, thanks.

[Noclue]

For example, in the session one PC had 'died' in the previous session , with an eye to there being a cool 'vision quest' for him to follow to allow his return. At the beginning of this the player clearly wanted this thread to tie in with the other players' actions so that it could be explored fully without hogging the spotlight. Ideas for how one character could join him were discussed, then how another character could act as a beacon to guide him back.

The discussion in itself took around ten minutes, but as far as I can tell both of the story crucial decisions had been made quite quickly and could have been over and dealt with in less than two.

At this point one of the involved players turned to me and said "so that's it isn't it, we don't need to roll do we?"

It strikes me that Dante wrote a whole novel about a character trying to get out of the underworld. Getting their buddy out of Hel sounds like meat enough for a session or two of game if you wanted to go that way.

There's adversity in the underworld. Lots. Odin himself tried to get his son Balder out of the Underworld, but Loki wouldn't let him. Thomas the Harper came out of the underworld cursed by Maeve with a tongue that couldn't lie.

[Web_Weaver]

It strikes me that Dante wrote a whole novel about a character trying to get out of the underworld.

Yep, and you are totally right! I might be on a downer right now, but having realised that I dropped the ball when it came to getting the players to address premise, that is all I can think to say.

I seem to have been seduced into helping the players write story, rather than challenging them to make the story meaningful to them. I introduced them to the tool box and they played with them, but they were not challenged to make anything other than practice pieces.

On the positive side they liked the tools and what they could do with them, so they may be up to the challenge when it's presented.

Next time the gloves are off!

[Noclue]

I seem to have been seduced into helping the players write story, rather than challenging them to make the story meaningful to them. I introduced them to the tool box and they played with them, but they were not challenged to make anything other than practice pieces.

No need to be hard on yourself. But it did strike me that no one remembered that the GM gets to play too. You're players aren't really letting you into the game to do your GM gig. That's a little troubling from a friends helping friends have fun POV.