(was) TROS, Narrativism and Illusionism

[hyphz]

Ok, since I have lots of questions to ask, and the thread has turned out not to be related to -isms at all, and is more close to me working out what to do in an actual game, I've moved it here ;)  (And yes, I am trying to use TROS as a bit of a style-shift for these players, largely because I remember it being referenced here as a good way of introducing new styles)

Regarding the changing of SAs - that sounds good, and it's the sort of thing I'd want to happen, (They want to change their SAs for OOC reasons?  Yes, go ahead, PLEASE do tell me more about the sort of thing you want to play!!)  but it strikes me that the particular players involved don't seem likely to do it.  Their position so far has been that they should pick "optimal" SAs which are as generic as they can so that they can get bonuses and SA points as often as possible - ie, they wouldn't need to change them because the scope of the SA would be so wide-reaching they wouldn't need to.  

Then regarding using SAs to set up railroads being "lazy" - I agree!  But, if we assume for the moment that (for whatever reasons) the players are unlikely to change their SAs, how is this best avoided?  Include inter-SA conflicts?  (I have a horrible feeling they'll turn out to just pick the one with the highest bonus, but then again there are game mechanics that make that a bad idea...)

[Mike Holmes]

Tough problem. You wanted to get away from "isms" but, sorry, I'm bringing them in here. Because they directly relate to your problem. You have players who prefer Gamism. Somehow, they have missed the point of TROS, that it supports Sim or Narrativist play. Which is surprising. I assume that they are "experienced gamers"? Read "players canalized into thinking that their mode of play is the only way to play".

There is no perfect solution to this. First, you need to address this outside of play. That is, you need to talk to them directly about the problem. Explain to them that SAs are not meant as a source of player tactical power, but as a means to get events rolling that are important to the characters. And that they need to look at it in that light before the system will work the way it's intended.

Print out some of Jake's comments here if they remain unconvinced. Tell them that there is are other nifty modes of play that they might want to try out, and might enjoy. Convince them however you can.

But, quite possibly, you'll find that this will not matter. Because it may remain their preference to play that way. Which can be impossible to change. If that's the case, then your options are to either just play along, and suffer not having the chance to see the cool rules in effect, or get new players.

I think that I may have given you this speech before. But it will never change. It's just a truism that if players have incompatible goals that there is no easy solution.

Above all else, do not try to solve this problem via play. That's a certain road to doom.

Mike

[hyphz]

Tough problem. You wanted to get away from "isms" but, sorry, I'm bringing them in here. Because they directly relate to your problem.

I didn't especially want to get away from -isms; I just thought I'd better move the thread because it was clearly discussing my particular TROS endeavours rather than the GNS model in general.

You have players who prefer Gamism. Somehow, they have missed the point of TROS, that it supports Sim or Narrativist play. Which is surprising.

Well, my understanding - and a big reason for my interest in TROS - was that TROS was good at introducing these genres because it provides a gamist reward (relatively huge die bonuses) in exchange for the players proactively getting out there and making their SAs relevant.  

I assume that they are "experienced gamers"? Read "players canalized into thinking that their mode of play is the only way to play".

They play lots of Gamist systems, but a number of them have begun to express frustration at having their PCs deprotagonized by games which, while Gamist overall, push extra Simulationist limits onto the PCs while giving their enemies Narrativist advantages.

There is no perfect solution to this. First, you need to address this outside of play. That is, you need to talk to them directly about the problem. Explain to them that SAs are not meant as a source of player tactical power, but as a means to get events rolling that are important to the characters. And that they need to look at it in that light before the system will work the way it's intended.

Well, my real intent in the original post was to ask HOW SAs are meant to 'get events rolling', and to confirm that it wasn't by simple railroad motivation (and I'm very relieved it wasn't)

[Jake Norwood]

A couple of ideas (and that's all they are):

- As Mike said, nothing beats communication. Talk to them about what SA's are meant for and how it can really count.

- Carefully consider the SAs they choose, making sure they're specific enough to accomplish your goals. Perhaps even assigning SA's to willing players (so that the others can see how cool it is) would work.

- Introduce in-game events that motivate them to change their SAs. Do it through an appeal to power...let's say one is Loyal to king Steve. But Barron Mark has a lot more cash, a bigger and more aggressive force on-call, and pays better. Then, have king Steve mistreat the PC, even on accident, and see if that player doesn't get emotionally involved ("Screw with my character will you...ha-hah, I'll show you...").

Jake

[Mike Holmes]

Yeah, if any game can do it, it's this one. So, by all means, try to convert them. Just be ready if they decide to remain entrenched.

Mike