Let's Talk About "Meaningful" Choice

[Tim C Koppang]

In an effort to ask the difficult quesion, let's say the players are getting into the whole idea of authorial power.  How then does one convey to them the idea of revealing character - revealing character in terms of emotional signifigance that is.  It's one thing to have a bunch of players breaking from stereotype, but that doesn't mean that they are portraying a unique (or maybe a better word is consistent) yet dynamic character.

I would argue that most GMs try to convey this through emotional scene framing and then just assume the players are getting the hang of it.  However, I've also seen a lot of players use a sort of hit and miss technique wherein they use the authorial power, but not for meaningful character development. (maybe this is impossible and any char dev is meaningful, but anyway...)  In such a case, should the GM hold a bit of Lit 101 type discussion?  Is there any other way to convey this concept?

I think that, at least in my case, I have historically assumed that players hold their characters to be sacred and that they will naturally want to see them grow in the Lit 101 sense, but it's not always so.  I suppose this could just be the gaming group I'm a part of - possibly an incompatibility of goals - however I'd like to think that I could run a successful game, like the one being described above, without turning anyone off too hard core.  Something for me to think about anyway.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Tim,

Everyone will have a different answer to this question, I think. I can only describe what it's been like for me.

Basically, it comes down to the idea that, in this sort of play, the GM is only a type of player. We're all there to do this thing, in our various "instruments." By getting into it, by showing encouragement (not Den-Daddy praise, but peer-appreciation), by providing "power" (see my example in Demon Cops), and by showing trust, one of two things happens.

1) The person blossoms as a Narrativist player. I mean, it's amazing, and it's often not the person you might expect.

2) The person stops playing in that group. It's that simple: a person who doesn't like this mode of play will get out of it in a heartbeat when it becomes focused, just as people who don't like outright-competitive Gamist play will leave those groups, or just as people who don't like Illusionist-Sim will leave those.

My experience leads me to think that over-analyzing the Narrativist process and trying to make it happen via dialogue beforehand, and trying to make another person "just be" the way you want them to be, are very bad tactics. Thinking instead in terms of the band, and being willing to accept that no one can predict who is going to compose the real rockin' line-up, are far more successful for me.

In connection with that, I also suggest not pushing the process too far at once in terms of mechanics. Games with relatively traditional mechanics but with very strong Premise are often the best way to go (e.g. The Whispering Vault), such that no one is sitting there with a friggin' sitar in his or her hands when all they know how to play is the tambourine. Best to use our tambourines for a bit, work out an unusual rhythm or set of aesthetics, and then to find the instruments that suit us best. One group in particular here at the Forge has the tendency to push past its comfort levels constantly in its attempt to be "real Narrativists," and it took a long time for them to realize that they frankly don't like enforced Director Stance very much. Yes, system does matter, but our minds and habits change slowly - thus changing system slowly seems best.

Best,
Ron

[Paul Czege]

Hey,

One group in particular here at the Forge has the tendency to push past its comfort levels constantly in its attempt to be "real Narrativists," and it took a long time for them to realize that they frankly don't like enforced Director Stance very much.

I can say that our group has pretty much arrived at the same realization. Our motivation was less shallow, but the pain was the same. So I gotta agree with Ron, there's definitely something to be said for spending time with a rules-light Sim game, preferably one with a meaningful conflict embedded in the setting (Whispering Vault, Arrowflight), room reserved in the setting for player character significance, and mechanics that preserve player character protagonism by avoiding whiff-syndrome¹, and then working your way toward a game like EPICS, where characters are developed through play.

On the other hand, I learned a hell of a lot from playing Theatrix and running The Pool. So perhaps my best recommendation is to avoid pushing forward too hard, each time to an even more avant-garde game. Play InSpectres, and then allow yourself to pull back into a comfort zone for your next game.

Paul

¹ I don't want to derail the thread, but Ron's been pimping GNS for a few years now. Why the hell isn't anyone choosing rules-light Sim + meaningful conflict + character significance + no whiff-syndrome as a design objective?

[talysman]

What fascinates me about most examples in role-playing texts is that they use the character names but describe player actions. I'm looking at the Arrowflight rules (chosen because it's one of the most honest Illusionist game texts I've ever seen), and that's just what they do: "Gythara rolls 4d6 ..." (paraphrase). In other words, the distinction between player and character that's central to Author Stance is deliberately obscured in most game texts, most especially in examples of play.

I can think of one reason why so many rpg texts fail to seperate character actions from player actions: it's hard!

while making my game for the "Iron Game Chef" thread, I struggled to be consistent and say "Andre's player rolls..." and "Andre (the character) does..." but I made a lot of mistakes. I'm going to have to go back through my text very carefully and maybe completely rewrite it before I attempt to publish it.

but then, maybe in my game there isn't much of a distinction between player and character...

as for Trollbabe and Sorcerer, I'm still digesting information from those games, so I'm not entirely sure I'm clear on the "meaningful choice" issues. I think I understand how Trollbabe works, but I could be wrong. unfortunately, the various gamers I know seem to cringe whenever I ask if they want to play an unusual game; they seem to prefer the better-known systems like D&D, GURPS, Storyteller, or CoC.