The Forge Archives

Not sure where to address something FAQ related, but stemming from what I do, so I'll put this here in Actual Play (and I'll move it if needs be).

Dynamic Status Quo Style

I would also like to offer an addition to the list of scenario designs offered by the rough draft of the FAQ.

As suggested (vaguely) in my Get Emotional article, railroading is a problem because when it reduces a player's choices, it tends to sever their emotional connection to their character and to the game.  Linear, Branched, and Set of Encounters all do this to some degree.

Set of Encounters at first seems widely divided from Linear and Branched until you realize that because of its ablative nature, it simply turns into a non-linear, but finite scenario design (the more encounters played, the fewer choices remain, the more railroading must be involved).  Few Sets of Encounters offer the possibility of cyclic visitation (the ability to return to an element in the set for another fruitful encounter).

When lacking in cyclic visitation, even Relationship Maps have the exact same problems as Set of Encounters.  Also, unless utmost care is taken to work player characters and their backgrounds 'into' the Relationship Map, it becomes merely an external device (simply an organizational technique) and it has as hard time evoking player emotional response.

Intuitive Continuity at first seems like a solution to this dilemma.  The depth of detail of an element in the narrative is roughly proportional to the degree of interaction it has with the player characters.  Superficially, this has a strong tendency to elicit unconscious emotional investment in these elements.  But as described, when the gamemaster uses them as "the basis for the actual conflicts and concerns" of the game, it quickly devolves into Linear or Branched.  The problem is that, even though the players had a hand in creating the pieces (which creates an unconscious emotional investment), they have little affect on 'end game' because it is gamemaster choice.  This style is also almost predisposed to having an abruptly finite length.

I recognized some of my game facilitation techniques in both Relationship Mapping and Intuitive Continuity, but I felt both missed something I did unconsciously.  In those terms, I set up a rough Relationship Map of all the relevant 'powers that be' and then dump the player characters onto and into it.  If they have connections, good, if not I use their write-ups as the foundation of what effectively functions as Intuitive Continuity.

It's the next step I perform that both seem to lack.  I consider myself a philosopher and one of my favorite realms to theorize about is the abstraction of culture.  One of my pet theories I find most difficult to discount has to do with how a culture channels the individuals who flout it.  I call this theory 'franchised rebellion.'  For gaming, it makes me consider what types of channels player characters can expect to be 'pushed towards' within the relevant culture of the game world.

These channels are always well worn and 'the powers that be' use them to redirect or alter problem individuals in these channels (and only a few of the involve law enforcement).  Basically players pursue whatever agendas stem from their write-ups and personal playing styles and because of the 'channeling' they come into conflict with the status quo.

Since a player is emotionally invested or 'linked' to their character and their character is 'linked' to the things that that character cares about, I 'link' this to the channels afforded by the status quo which in turn 'links' the player emotional investment to the idea of the grand conflict.  This 'chain' creates emotional investment for the players to every level of the game, allowing them to stress whatever they find the most value in.

When a player cares about nearly everything in the game and they are rewarded in their preferred 'frame' (see the Get Emotional! article of mine), they almost always think, "It was a great game."  Since I am all about monitoring, facilitating, and putting everything into the proper 'frames,' I have never seen this technique fail.

It does not come down whether or not this is railroading because I choose neither conflict nor its personification.  Whatever 'connection' that the players choose to interrupt (the usual point of contention), it is their choice and the reactions are relatively easy to determine due to the status quo and the enfranchisement of rebellion.  My work is all in the details.

One of the side benefits is that in every conflict run this way, opportunistic non-player entities jump in on both sides (either pandering to the 'villain' or aiding in their overthrow) not all of which the players would choose as allies.  This is why I call it 'Dynamic Status Quo,' it is all about how the non-player entities react within the predetermined structure.  And how ultimately, the players had a hand in keeping things 'Dynamic.'

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-08-13 10:20 ]

Fang,

Your post is impenetrable. I could print it out, mark it up with a pen, and then take a while to cross-reference its points with (say) my theories, but I don't have the luxury of time and energy to do that. I have no doubt that you are making a substantive claim, but in the absence of face/voice contact, or awareness of the prompting-point for you, it's impossible to follow your argument.

Could you please break it down into a stated claim, a set of comparisons, and examples? I would especially appreciate it if you could clarify whether your point (1) accords with, (2) refutes, or (3) is independent of other concepts and terms discussed at the Forge.

Best,
Ron

Wow, while reading that the green light outside my window changed to red, and a dancing midget in a red shirt spoke backwards to me.

Weird.

Seriously though, it sounds like you've though this all through and it deserves discussion - it's just all the pieces of the puzzle don't seem to be present.

Can we step back a bit first - such as pointing us to the article(s) your referencing may be?

Me - too. Can't parse the post. An example, maybe?

               - James

Seems like you're describing a style of plot and PC-hooking that you use in GMing called "Dynamic Status Quo" which I paraphrase as:

Characters are generated and run and allowed to pursue their individual agendas.

You find the "channels" in the society they are gaming in that would block or interact negatively (or in a positive manner) with the PC's agendas.

And your discussion of "linking" player to character to character motivation to npc intervention and world conerns, strikes me as this:

You generate plot from the character conflict with world entities, thus the characters are mirrored by the world, and since the players are invested in their character's actions, they feel the resistance of the world against them and so it feels "real" and they have a deep experience of play.

Now, I'd love to know what the source document(s) is/are for the various terms you discuss in the first part of your post (Intuitive Continuity etc) Those are all very tantalizing terms. :smile:

Emily Care

By popular request:

QuoteCan't parse the post. An example, maybe? - James

QuoteCan we step back a bit first - such as pointing us to [where] the article(s) you're referencing may be? - Ian

QuoteNow, I'd love to know what the source document(s) is/are for the various terms you discuss in the first part of your post (Intuitive Continuity, etc), those are all very tantalizing terms. - Emily

QuoteCould you please break it down into a stated claim, a set of comparisons, and examples? I would especially appreciate it if you could clarify whether your point (1) accords with, (2) refutes, or (3) is independent of other concepts and terms discussed at the Forge. - Ron

The annotated version (with hyperlinks):

Not sure where to address something FAQ related, but stemming from what I do, so I'll put this here in Actual Play (and I'll move it if needs be).

Dynamic Status Quo Style

I would also like to offer an addition ((1) Accords with and (3) is independent of as an addition) to the list of Scenario Designs offered by the rough draft of the FAQ.

That would be the draft of the GNS 101 FAQ here.  Specifically referring to the section about two-fifths of the way down called Scenario Design that lists Linear and Branched Adventures, Intuitive Continuity¹, Set of Encounters², and Relationship Maps³.  It goes further to stress indirectly that the most important aspect is their relationship to railroading⁴.

As suggested (vaguely) in my Get Emotional! article [This one you'll have to read in full-ed.], railroading⁴ is a problem because when it reduces a player's choices, it tends to sever their emotional connection to their character and to the game.  Linear, Branched, and Set of Encounters all do this to some degree.

According to the article, when a player has fewer choices (their "opportunities for action⁴" are reduced) they begin to lose their emotional or intellectual engagement in the game.  At some point, when the 'disconnect' becomes high enough, play devolves into simple storytelling (which uses a completely different mechanism for character identification than gaming).

Set of Encounters² at first seems widely divided from Linear and Branched except because of its ablative nature, it simply turns into a non-linear, but finite scenario design (the more encounters played, the fewer choices remain, the more railroading⁴ must be involved).  Few Sets of Encounters offer the possibility of cyclic visitation (the ability to return to an element in the set for another fruitful encounter).

When lacking in cyclic visitation, even Relationship Maps³ have the exact same problems as Set of Encounters.  Also, unless utmost care is taken to work player characters and their backgrounds 'into' the Relationship Map, it becomes merely an external device (simply an organizational technique) and it has as hard time evoking player emotional response.

From the wording of the description of Relationship Maps³, it sounded to me like player characters where not necessarily a structural part of this 'map.'  I practice the idea that 'your character is a part of the world and the world is a part of your character' in my gamemastering, so this grated slightly.

Set of Comparisons #1 Intuitive Continuity¹ at first seems like a solution to this dilemma.  The depth of detail of an element in the narrative is roughly proportional to the degree of interaction it has with the player characters.  Superficially, this has a strong tendency to elicit unconscious emotional investment in these elements.

In Get Emotional! I talk about what makes gaming an intense, satisfying experience and about the payoff on the emotional investment.  With these indirectly linked, a larger payoff is likely had from a larger investment.  So I see my task of facilitation, as a gamemaster, is to evoke an emotional connection to the larger aspects of the game, beyond just the players' characters.

The more the players 'buy into' or care about the further elements within the narrative, the bigger the potential payoff.  Showing the courtesy to focus on elements they are interested in can't help but invoke this however unconsciously.  (Conversely, simply avoiding something because of irrelevance to the gamemaster's material has all the hallmarks of railroading⁴ because of how it limits a player's choice.)

But as described, when the gamemaster uses them as "the basis for the actual conflicts and concerns" of the game, it quickly devolves into Linear or Branched.  The problem is that, even though the players had a hand in creating the pieces (which creates an unconscious emotional investment), they have little affect on 'end game' because it is gamemaster choice.  This style is also almost predisposed to having an abruptly finite length.

There are two ways this seems to play out.  First, the gamemaster makes some subjective decisions about "the basis for the actual conflicts and concerns" and then has to railroad⁴ the players into them.  Or second, the gamemaster simply has things play out as they lay; the problem with this is that it shows a lack of gamemaster input.  The unique position of the gamemaster allows for input that has nothing to do with railroading; this is what is usually referred to as 'facilitating' (and you'll have to find your own reference on that one).

Either way, play does not go as well as it could (or does, in my practice).

I recognized some of my game facilitation techniques in both Relationship Mapping³ and Intuitive Continuity¹, but I felt both missed something I did unconsciously.  Set of Comparisons #2 In those terms, I set up a rough Relationship Map of all the relevant 'powers that be' and then dump the player characters onto and into it.  If they have connections, good, if not I use their write-ups as the foundation of what effectively functions as Intuitive Continuity.

Stated Claim It's the next step I perform that both seem to lack.  I consider myself a philosopher and one of my favorite realms to theorize about is the abstraction of culture.  One of my pet theories I find most difficult to discount has to do with how a culture channels the individuals who flout it.  I call this theory 'franchised rebellion.'  For gaming, it makes me consider what types of channels player characters can expect to be 'pushed towards' within the relevant culture of the game world.

These channels are always well worn and 'the powers that be' use them to redirect or alter problem individuals in these channels (and only a few of the involve law enforcement).  Basically players pursue whatever agendas stem from their write-ups and personal playing styles and because of the 'channeling' they come into conflict with the status quo.

Example I'll fall back on White Wolf's Vampire: the Masquerade because I believe it is common enough.  Right out of the box you get all the clans and their attitudes as a template for a Relationship Map³.  What I do is pick a few clans and work out a handful of 'movers and shakers' and work up the "rough Relationship Map" based on their larger goals and 'standoffs' (these being points of contention that, after long enough, have devolved into 'Mexican standoffs').  Depending on the needs for 'background noise' that I have been able to glean by what the players think is cool about the published product (ranging from court intrigue and intense stasis to outright midnight warfare), I create a few 'gambits' that may be in the process of 'playing out.'

Next, I look at what the character write-ups indicate the players desire as parts of their personal narratives (that would be the stories from their perspectives).  Things like the merits and flaws of Short Fuse, or Deep Sleeper suggest that the player wants the narrative to put them on the defensive and therefore their character has to have some value to one or more of the components of the "rough Relationship Map³."  Things like Clan Friendship, Reputation, or Mistaken Identity automatically bring the player character into the "rough Relationship Map."  Merits like Mansion, Political Ties, or a skill like Public Speaking likely elevate them to active members of the 'powers that be.'  From these types of relationships, I determine where the characters 'fit in.'

After the 'origin' scene play (as suggested in the published material), I approach things in an Intuitive Continuity¹ fashion, "providing a number of encounters and interactions" using things I can mine from my 'Map and the 'origins.'  I treat all things the players take an interest in with the utmost respect and use what occurs there to add character to my 'Map.  It is more the interaction between the players and I that 'adds the flesh' to the 'Map.

This is where I don't see any material in the Scenario Designs section of the GNS 101 FAQ: at this point the players begin to come into conflict with the various elements of the 'Map (as would be expected in the Relationship Map³ scheme).  How my practice differs is that instead of pulling the player characters into direct (or simple) conflict with elements in the Relationship Map, I have had the Status Quo continuously 'nudging' them into the channels that already exist because of the 'Map I use.

From White Wolf's product, take for instance the 'Caitiff.'  These are vampires who are not included in the status quo of the clans.  Judging by the attitudes listed, all clan members have some pretty low expectations for these 'excluded' vampires.  (My non-player characters are frequently underestimating the player characters, that what makes it fun).  Getting 'lumped in' with the Caitiff is one way the status quo deals with members of its society that don't fit in.  Think about the difficulty getting anything done in the face of "oh, you're one of them."  This is one way the status quo dis-empowers those who flout it.  Any kind of pigeonholing can be used this way, the more difficult the agitator, the less they will be able to make use of the 'tools of society.'  (Think Unabomber.)

As play progresses, whatever the players value will become increasingly a problem for the 'powers that be' (partly because, in my opinion, all player characters are people of special characteristics) requiring varying degrees of negative feedback.  Most of this is easy for me to think in terms of and quite expected for the players (just not their characters), because I lean heavily towards the genre conventions and let my non-player characters grow out of initial stereotypes.  The direction this takes always becomes a matter of exactly how it is played out.  ( All characters, both player and non are such individuals.  You get the idea.)

And since I stay within the genre expectations, everyone can see the big conflict (of crisis-conflict-resolution) coming, but no one has any idea what form it will take, not even me.  (As a matter of fact, I got out of the practice of detailing my 'Map for the very reason that I never guessed correctly where things were going.)

Since a player is emotionally invested or 'linked' to their character and their character is 'linked' to the things that that character cares about, I 'link' this to the channels afforded by the status quo which in turn 'links' the player emotional investment to the idea of the grand conflict.  This 'chain' creates emotional investment for the players to every level of the game, allowing them to stress whatever they find the most value in.

This means I use the player emotional investment in their character and its properties to 'get them involved' in the emotional value of the status quo and the conflicts therein.  'Built' out of this is their own personal slice of whatever conflicts they 'buy into,' some choices of which are not even created at the time I sit down to play (being 'found' during the Intuitive Continuity¹ beginning phase of my game.)

When a player cares about nearly everything in the game and they are rewarded in their preferred 'frame' (see the Get Emotional! article of mine), they almost always think, "It was a great game."  Since I am all about monitoring, facilitating, and putting everything into the proper 'frames,' I have never seen this technique fail.

(2) Refutes It does not come down whether or not this is railroading⁴ because I choose neither the conflict nor its personification.  Whatever 'connection' that the players choose to interrupt (the usual point of contention), it is their choice and the reactions are relatively easy to determine due to the status quo and the enfranchisement of rebellion.  My work is all in the details.

This refutes the idea that all Scenario Designs (by implication) should have a stance towards railroading⁴.

One of the side benefits is that in every conflict run this way, opportunistic non-player entities jump in on both sides (either pandering to the 'villain' or aiding in their overthrow) not all of which the players would choose as allies.  This is why I call it 'Dynamic Status Quo,' it is all about how the non-player entities react within the predetermined structure.  And how ultimately, the players had a hand in keeping things 'Dynamic.'

This is a caveat about how and why I call it "Dynamic."  Since the characters come into conflict with someone or something, other members of the Status Quo (like the clans and leaders in Vampire: the Masquerade) will 'take sides' to get what they can from the ultimate conflict.  (And since my master movers always have designs within designs, my players love to hear after the fact how, in losing, they still win, because of the extrinsic game value frame of reference of this novelty - see the Get Emotional! article.)

Whew!  I hope this clears things up a bit.  Feel free to isolate parts for further clarification, I am more than happy to go into detail, obviously.

Fang Langford

¹ Defined in the GNS 101 FAQ as "relies on the GM providing a number of encounters and interactions to the players early in a session or series of sessions, without pre-determining their importance. He then uses the players' interests and responses during play to decide which NPCs and situations are going to be the basis for the actual conflicts and concerns."

² Defined in the GNS 101 FAQ as "a set of locations with descriptions and encounters set out on a map. The players are free to visit or not visit any encounter as they see fit, and they may visit the encounters in any order they choose. Some encounters can lead to other encounters on the map."

³ Defined in the GNS 101 FAQ as "a way to organize a scenario's back-story. It's a chart which shows relationships...among various NPCs in the game. The GM and players build the adventures from character goals and interactions with the NPCs based on the relationships established in the map."

⁴ Defined in the GNS 101 FAQ as "the GM assuming or controlling player-characters' decisions and opportunities for action."

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-08-13 17:51 ]

QuoteEmily Care wrote:
Seems like you're describing a style of plot and PC-hooking that you use in GMing called "Dynamic Status Quo" which I paraphrase as:

Characters are generated and run and allowed to pursue their individual agendas.

You find the "channels" in the society they are gaming in that would block or interact negatively (or in a positive manner) with the PC's agendas.

The "positive manner" is exceptionally important.  The 'underground press' has its audience and is therefore somewhat narcissistic, but considering how the society at large views it....

QuoteAnd your discussion of "linking" player to character to character motivation to npc intervention and world concerns, strikes me as this:

You generate plot from the character conflict with world entities, thus the characters are mirrored by the world, and since the players are invested in their character's actions, they feel the resistance of the world against them and so it feels "real" and they have a deep experience of play.

It sounds like you have it, only I worry that your terminology sounds a little immersive-jargon.  Since I practice this for everybody, it has no stance or 'fold' bias.

Thanks for adding your clarification, I can be a little wordy.

Fang Langford

Fang,

A little wordy?  Only in much the same way that Stephen King tends to write short novels! :smile:

If I'm reading you correctly, one of your major points is the way in which you use aspects of the character's role in the settting's society (as determined by the player) to hook the character into the game's social structure that facilitates an "outsider" stance for the PCs, which in turn enables them greater freedom to choose how to react to the great conflict.  But because this "outsider" status is determined by the major players in the society, the PCs cannot ignore the major conflict without giving up on aspects of the character which the player chose, and thus presumably has some investment in.

It seems that much of what you have done is to make explicit  a l ot of things that have been held implicitly by many   GMs.  I am specifically referring to ways to hook the PCs into the great conflict.  I have gamed with very few GMs who do not use some aspect of what you have described, but most of them could not have explained what they were doing.

Lon

QuoteUncle Dark wrote:
If I'm reading you correctly, one of your major points is the way in which you use aspects of the character's role in the setting's society (as determined by the player) to hook the character into the game's social structure

Metaphorically, player character generation usually includes a certain amount of 'related background' generation, tendrils if you will.  Since I always hold that the players are part-owners of the game (no matter what the power-sharing), it is important to have these tendrils 'take root' in the setting.  'Hooking' a character into a game makes it too much of a responsibility for the gamemaster, in my opinion.  It is more a matter of meshing what the player brings to the game with what the gamemaster does.  Without this kind of connection, wouldn't the player be largely uninvolved?

Quote[about how a character is 'hooked' into the game]
that facilitates an "outsider" stance for the PCs,

Actually, I have found that 'outsider' or beginner role is almost always the norm for character creation.  The reasons are many, but the biggest one is probably that otherwise the player must be well-versed in the setting and its social and political structures and be able to make a character that is an important part of that.  When writing, I use 'outsider' as the default and explain how one can set up an 'insider' if a player wishes.

Quote[about 'outsider' status]
which in turn enables them greater freedom to choose how to react to the greater conflict.

Between insiders and outsiders, it becomes a balance between political and social power versus freedom, ultimately a tradeoff.

And I think that it is unusual for a player to consciously choose to react to something.  If play is going the way I believe it should, they simply react (in context, see my Get Emotional! article for my explanation of contextual thinking).  I believe that as a gamemaster, in order to facilitate the greatest emotional payoff (see the same article), I need to entice emotional involvement in this greater conflict.

QuoteBut because this "outsider" status is determined by the major players in the society, the PCs cannot ignore the major conflict without giving up on aspects of the character which the player chose, and thus presumably has some investment in.

I hold that this status role is not determined by the "major players in the society" (what I call active narrative elements) but by the society itself (something I would categorize as a passive narrative element).  Nearly anyone can pigeonhole a character and to some degree reputation and stereotyping carry this forward.  What the "major players" can do is lock someone out of access to certain insider resources.  While this can push a character towards the outsider role, it does not prevent them from taking an insider role in a different but related (or adjacent) hierarchy.

Sometimes the best narratives revolve around player character denial (it attenuates the tension of the upcoming climax).  I seldom see it coming down to whether the player chooses to ignore the greater conflict.  It seems more whether they 'buy it' as a part of the shared narrative or not.

I think the narrative has to put the larger conflicts 'in the way' of the characters.  If it doesn't, then either the characters aren't as 'important' as they should be, or it does not offer enough consistency and emotional evocation to 'attract' them.

QuoteIt seems that much of what you have done is to make explicit a lot of things that have been held implicitly by many   GMs.  I am specifically referring to ways to hook the PCs into the greater conflict.  I have gamed with very few GMs who do not use some aspect of what you have described, but most of them could not have explained what they were doing.

I take it that these gamemasters are good, right?  Ultimately, my goal is to explain the obvious, but enigmatic process of 'gamemastering well.'  I hope that these articles have made inroads in that direction, and I thank you for the important clarifications you have prompted.

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-08-14 09:40 ]

Just wanted to mention that I am NOT a fan of the outsider role at all.  I undrestand that attraction, but the great advantage of playing an insider is that the control systems are MORE active on you than on the outsiders (who have no credibility) and thus easier to invoke in play; they emerge more naturally out of the backdrop.  Further, you can use the daily exposure to such control systems as mechanisms for the exposition of the world, which outsiders may not get.  I've had enough negative experiences with outsiders (bloody caitiffs) that these days starting as an insider would be the default, unless there were some overpowering reason to do so.

I would also point out the number of stories that are premised on the transition from insider to outsider, such as Fahrenheit 451.

You'll forgive me if I use your post to illustrate a point.

Quotecontracycle wrote:
Just wanted to mention that I am NOT a fan of the outsider role at all.  I understand that attraction,

No problem.  Personally, I prefer to play the insider myself (and court intrigue style at that).  However, I write for people new to gaming.  They won't have a great knowledge of system, world, or technique, so into the deep end with them.

Also, I am writing a game no one has ever seen.  This means that it is more than likely the person who takes it to their group will be the only copy-owner.  I'm sure you've had the experience with handing the only book around while everyone tries to make up their characters, it is difficult to master the intricacies of a published setting thus to make a well-heeled insider (I meant that the outsider was one of the more common newcomer archetypes, not the only one).

Quotebut the great advantage of playing an insider is that the control systems are MORE active on you than on the outsiders

Partly because your serve 'the system' as well, but I take your meaning, and agree.

Quote[on outsiders]
(who have no credibility) and [are] thus easier to invoke in play; they emerge more naturally out of the backdrop.

The lack of credibility is one of the primary 'controls' used against most 'outsider franchises.'

Quote[for insiders]
Further, you can use the daily exposure to such control systems as mechanisms for the exposition of the world, which outsiders may not get.

Or outsiders can have repetitive conflicts with the status quo for the same effect, six of one, half a dozen of the other.  In presentation, I doubt one has anything but subjective value over the other.

QuoteI've had enough negative experiences with outsiders (bloody caitiffs) that these days starting as an insider would be the default, unless there were some overpowering reason to do so.

Such as no experience or knowledge of the game?  Personally, I found the Malkavians a highly attractive, non-hierarchical, franchise to channel my newcomer-style character into before I could pony up for the hardcovers; they're definitely another brand of outsider.

The point I am trying to make is that the outsider is one of the easiest entry-level characters for a player with no knowledge of the setting.  Likewise it appeals in my philosophy of letting the players have 'enough rope.'  Unless the player chooses to 'jump through all the hoops' required to assimilate their character into the setting and the status quo, they wind up being an outsider anyway (although generally not what the status quo expects).  Guess which is the path of least resistance?

QuoteI would also point out the number of stories that are premised on the transition from insider to outsider, such as Fahrenheit 451.

This makes a great basis for premise in more self-conscious games (see Get Emotional! for details on my description of extrinsically valuable, self-conscious games), and an excellent example.  Thank you.

Fang Langford

Hey Fang,

I've been thinking a bit about your theory of channels, and its value in the context of Narrativism. It's definitely interesting.

One of my pet theories...has to do with how a culture channels the individuals who flout it. I call this theory 'franchised rebellion.' For gaming, it makes me consider what types of channels player characters can expect to be 'pushed towards' within the relevant culture of the game world.

These channels are always well worn...players pursue whatever agendas stem from their write-ups and personal playing styles and because of the 'channeling' they come into conflict...

Since a player is emotionally invested or 'linked' to their character and their character is 'linked' to the things that that character cares about, I 'link' this to the channels afforded by the status quo which in turn 'links' the player emotional investment to the idea of the grand conflict. This 'chain' creates emotional investment for the players to every level of the game, allowing them to stress whatever they find the most value in.

I'm familiar with the method of securing player investment in the game via the character. The scenario presents material that would create emotional impact for the character, and the player's immersion causes him to be interested in the things affecting the character.

But what I'm really interested in is the potential for the concept of channels to bypass the two-tier method of hooking the player via the character. I'm interested in the potential of channels to hook the player directly. There's a reason the Ron Edwards' relationship-map scenario method is focused almost exclusively on relationships of blood (relations) and sex. It's because the betrayal, violation, and exploiting of those relationships is universal in being compelling to players, with no immersion required, in ways that the nuances of chivalric honor, for example, probably aren't. The relationship-map method is about hooking the player directly.

And it seems to me that there's some potential with your theory of channels to accomplish the same thing. Your statement that channels are "always well worn" speaks to their universality in relation to the human condition. When I think of something like a person being channeled into in a situation of disempowering subordination in a workplace environment, that seems like something with the potential to hook a player directly. What do you think? How about some examples of channels you've exploited in your games?

Paul

[ This Message was edited by: Paul Czege on 2001-08-15 00:16 ]

Quote
On 2001-08-14 17:41, Le Joueur wrote:
You'll forgive me if I use your post to illustrate a point.


No problem.  Personally, I prefer to play the insider myself (and court intrigue style at that).  However, I write for people new to gaming.  They won't have a great knowledge of system, world, or technique, so into the deep end with them.

Precisely the opposite.  With new players, who may have little comprehension of what is going on, the ability to ask insider-type questions of the GM is IMO the best and quickest way to get them engaged and informed.  If they are outsiders, their requests for information which would be accessible to the character will be consistently rebuffed by the GM - for the logical reason that the character does not have it - leading to a devaluation of that questioning behaviour.  By contrast, making the character an insider gives the player a huge opportunity to exploit - they rapidly learn to distinguishg between what the player knows and what the character knows, learn how to interact with the GM, implicitly develop some of the poayer stances, etc etc.

I would take this further: in line with certain theories of policital organisation, I would take the least experienced player and put them in a position of power over other PC's; make them the lead, the default focus, the person whose consent must be got (if this kind of structure is plausible in your game, which it often isn't).  This means that they DON'T get ignored by the experienced players and are unable to adope a "wallflower" stance in relation to the game; they must become engaged becuase the other players are engaging them directly, and probably In Character.

QuotePaul Czege wrote:
One of my pet theories...has to do with how a culture channels the individuals who flout it. I call this theory 'franchised rebellion.' For gaming, it makes me consider what types of channels player characters can expect to be 'pushed towards' within the relevant culture of the game world.

These channels are always well worn...players pursue whatever agendas stem from their write-ups and personal playing styles and because of the 'channeling' they come into conflict...

Since a player is emotionally invested or 'linked' to their character and their character is 'linked' to the things that that character cares about, I 'link' this to the channels afforded by the status quo which in turn 'links' the player emotional investment to the idea of the grand conflict. This 'chain' creates emotional investment for the players to every level of the game, allowing them to stress whatever they find the most value in.

I'm familiar with the method of securing player investment in the game via the character.

Ah, but are you familiar with the emotions (and time) already invested by the player at the time of character generation?  This is what I think is key to the old standard of 'hooking the character.'

QuoteThe scenario presents material that would create emotional impact for the character, and the player's immersion causes him to be interested in the things affecting the character.

I know I sound like a radical, but first-person identification is not the only connection between player and character that exploits this "interest."  As an example, for people who find their characters finely crafted tools that allow them to exploit the game, the act of craftsmanship creates a visceral "interest" in what affects the character.

QuoteBut what I'm really interested in is the potential for the concept of channels to bypass the two-tier method of hooking the player via the character.

Just curious, which two-tier method is that?

QuoteI'm interested in the potential of channels to hook the player directly. There's a reason the Ron Edwards' relationship-map scenario method is focused almost exclusively on relationships of blood (relations) and sex. It's because the betrayal, violation, and exploiting of those relationships is universal in being compelling to players, with no immersion required, in ways that the nuances of chivalric honor, for example, probably aren't. The relationship-map method is about hooking the player directly.

I think the reason that "blood and sex" are very good is because both are almost entirely about emotion by themselves.  Players can be 'hooked' by this simply by emotional identification.  Taken a step farther, using a player's emotional investment in their character as the basis, if you make these "relationships" relevant to the character, then by extension, they become more relevant to the player.  (This is what I was talking about in the 'linking' quote above.)

The only description of Relationship Maps I have read, does not mention anything directly about 'hooking the player,' so I cannot say anything in that regard.  Can you explain?

QuoteAnd it seems to me that there's some potential with your theory of channels to accomplish the same thing. Your statement that channels are "always well worn" speaks to their universality in relation to the human condition.

Excellent!  Thus these 'franchises' should also appear familiar (thereby aiding in character identification: "...so that's what that must be like in our world!").

QuoteWhen I think of something like a person being channeled into in a situation of disempowering subordination in a workplace environment, which seems like something with the potential to hook a player directly.

And this also makes a great premise for playing in a self-conscious narrative.

QuoteWhat do you think? How about some examples of channels you've exploited in your games?

Let's see.  Lately, I have been running a series of games based on Japanese Collectible-Pet shows that have been taking over the Saturday morning cartoons.  To increase player identification with what ostensibly functions as their powers (the collectible pets serve merely as proxies in the genre), I have added a quasi-superhero comic motif of empowerment giving the powers directly to the player characters (as well as the aspects of the creatures the powers derived from to carry on the Anime motif).

Several of the recent campaigns functioned on a setting using a collection of officially recognized dojos and moots.  After competing at a required number of dojos, a trainer is allowed to compete in a televised, national contest.  (This allowed me to pull in both shadows of the original traveling martial artist stories and hints of Olympic style competition as familiar genre conventions.)

That being the basis for these games, I set up different conflicts for each.  My players are rather fond of a game type I call the 'hidden kings' style; it involves a self-conscious clique of powerful individuals usually mired in exactly the kinds of problems alluded to above in the "relationships of blood and sex."  (They also control large segments of society in conspiracy or illuminati fashion.)  This is frequently the 'dynamic background' everything is projected on, but not always.

In the history of one of the more memorable games, an incredibly powerful but very young character rose quickly through the 'hidden court,' eventually successfully pulling off a coup d'etat.  Per his design, his kicker (I think that's what it would be, I always called them precipitating events) was he had been secretly 'assassinated' and thrown into the sea.  Play followed this character as another found him at death's door on the shore and took him in.

As play progressed, the players discovered that hidden forces had aligned behind him, aiding his meteoric rise, the perversions of 'his court,' and his eventual 'assassination.'  Another of the characters, who had been created as his childhood friend, was manipulated into delivering the coup de main that slew this 'king.'  (His kicker was, in remorse, he had allowed his memories to be completely erased by a non-player character who was secretly behind much of it.)

All along the concerned parties constantly butted against the cultural separation between trainers and the public, the disdain that separates commoners from capitalistic aristocracy, and the way that the empowered hold themselves apart from those who 'sully' themselves training animals.  (Not to mention the way that a corrupt, perverse, and powerful subculture would alienate anyone not gaining membership via 'proper channels.')  All of this played out on of my more familiar premises; 'does all power corrupt?'  (One of the better themes that developed was how the 'dead' king felt he had to atone for his perversions by helping those 'less powerful' than himself.)

The channels afforded some interesting conflicts.  The 'dead' king had a great deal of trouble discovering who had been his assassin.  (Not to mention the priceless scene when the character with amnesia turned out to be the hand that did it.)  Since discovering the conspiracy against him required his virtually tearing the 'hidden court' apart (again) because of his 'exile' status; this brought him into conflict with the 'powers that be' when they could have simply told him what he had wanted to know (about the mind-wiper) in the first place.

I played upon player character protagonism throughout by placing impediments generated from the barriers around the 'franchises.'  Players were constantly stepping away from their stories to help out others (because of their relationship to the premise).

The ultimate theme I developed was based on what went on before the game started, illustrating how power can be corrupted in the 'dead' king's history.  Because they were outsiders from the 'hidden court' they constantly had to do things 'the hard way.'  Not only did this allow us to explore my setting more fully, but it brought out a lot of emotional involvement in the players because the franchise they were thrust into put them both at odds with the status quo, but also in league with those who suffered from the corruptions stemming from it.

(My players are so easy to 'nudge' into the redeeming hero role.)

Does that help, or should I go back further to my old Vampire: the Masquerade campaign?

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-08-15 13:04 ]

So, precisely which channels were you exploiting?