Mixing Styles Across The Table

[jburneko]

This might belong in the GNS forum but this isn't a discussion about the model directly but rather the set of tools that are generally associated with each point of the model so I thought I'd put it here.

Specifically I have a question as to what happens when you have a Narrativist GM with a whole lot of Simulationist players.  Forget gamists for right now.

Let's assume that the GM prepares in a Narrativistic fashion.  He plans a fixed backstory, perhaps uses a relationship map, and sets up a lot of POTENTIAL scenes to come but fully expects to play reactively to player decisions.  He even has a Premise in mind and has designed all the activity around that Premise.

But we have a group of Simulationist players.  The players stare at the GM blankly when he rambles on about Premise.  They take exception to having access to OOC information.  Despite being offered it they don't want author or director power.  They firmly believe that the GM is in control of everything that their character's are not.

What is the result of this?  If the idea is to allow the players to be true protagonists and that means that character decisions are driving the plot and the GM is constantly updating the events based on the character's decisions then how is this different from what happens when the player's DO use their authorial and directorial power?

This is something that's been stumping me for a while.  If the GM is running the game in a Narrativistic fashion and the Players simply refuse to use the tools that are given to them, then don't we just have a Narrativistic game where the GM is simply doing all the work?

Jesse

[Gordon C. Landis]

On 2001-08-15 13:26, jburneko wrote:
If the GM is running the game in a Narrativistic fashion and the Players simply refuse to use the tools that are given to them, then don't we just have a Narrativistic game where the GM is simply doing all the work?

Since the current definition of "Narrativist game" specifically includes the Player's participation . . . no, you don't just have a Narrativist game.  You have a game that has some aspects of Narrativism - Dramatism? (a number of threads discussed this a while back) - but missing some of the key "markers".  You lose the "even the GM has no clue where we're going" spontaniety, you gain the consistency of constant GM control.  Players have reduced "active" responsibility, and increased "stay IC" responsibilty.  Tradeoffs.

The real question is - is this a satisfying play style for the GM?  For the players?  If yes to both - cool, you've got a game worth playing.  If no to both, y'all can sit down and try and figure out what to change.  If no on one side, yes on t'other . . . this GM and these players may not work and play well together.  They may be able to talk through and find a new approach (I'm all in favor of giving such things a try), but ultimately, it may not work out.  

If everyone's having fun, you can start looking into what techniques work best in this form, how to best prepare for sessions, what stories/plots/characters are compelling to the GM and players . . . and etc.  If not - handle that first.

That's MY reaction - hope it helps.

Gordon C. Landis

[gentrification]

I may be going out on a limb here, but if the GM is running a Narrativist game and the players aren't cooperating because they don't want to play in a Narrativist game, then my guess is what you have is not a game at all but a dysfunction. I don't see how you could feasibly talk about the Narrativist (or Gamist, or Simulationist) qualities of a game in which the two major parties (GM and players) are working at cross-purposes.

[jburneko]

On 2001-08-15 15:19, gentrification wrote:
I may be going out on a limb here, but if the GM is running a Narrativist game and the players aren't cooperating because they don't want to play in a Narrativist game, then my guess is what you have is not a game at all but a dysfunction.

You're probably right but that's only if there are certain expectations that are not being met or coming into conflict.  For example if the GM EXPECTS the players to work off of Premise and they don't there's going to be a problem.

What I'm aking is if you eliminate the expectations are there any inherent conflicts in the TECHNIQUES themselves?  

If the GM is using backstory, Premise and reactivity to player actions to guide his directorial power does any of that conflict with the immersive simulationist desires of the players.

What is the result of this pairing?  Is it workable?

Jesse

[Gordon C. Landis]

On 2001-08-15 16:16, jburneko wrote:
If the GM is using backstory, Premise and reactivity to player actions to guide his directorial power does any of that conflict with the immersive simulationist desires of the players.

What is the result of this pairing?  Is it workable?

OK, I'll ignore the expectations issue - that changes my response a bit.  It depends (I say that a lot . . .) on the particular players, but I think this is substantively a common play style/model, roughly corresponding to the metaplot-driven and/or "Dramatist" style that's been discussed here before.  Dangers? I can see two:

1) How big/what kind of an emphasis the GM puts on Premise.  It seems like some kinds of Premise exploration would really require (or is at least be greatly aided by) player buy-in and active involvement.  If the GM is happy to do all the decision making about Premise issues, and just have the players react as they see fit IC - I can see this working.  This is how most of my previous experience with Premise (though we sure didn't call it that) has worked - the GM "manages" the, say, Slavery-related premise, and they players just react, having their character (in the moidst of everything else that's going on) slowly come to realize how demeaning slavery is, or discover how ingrained it is in the portrayed soiciety, etc.  I've found this to be ultimately a bit unsatisfying, as the "Premise pipe" isn't really "fat" enough in this model to get all the zing out of it that it seems like ought to be there, but I'm beginning to think my Simulationist ties are mostly force-of-habit at this point.  For someone(s) really commited to Simulation, that degree/style of Premise might be better renamed . . . but it seems like it could work.

2) Kinda tied to the above, but also about reactivity to the player actions - if the players are expecting the GM to be an impartial representative of the physics of the world, and he starts "fudging" things so that the Premise is better illustrated/served/explored, and/or the players are made "special exceptions" to the norms of the gameworld . . . pure Simulationist players may be offended by this.  This is (I think) a classic Simulationist dilemna, and even the most pure Sim group have to deal with it to some degree - usually (in my experience) by establishing guidelines right from the get-go.  By driving the game based on Premise and fluidly-changing PC-input, a GM could push the "realism" button on some Simulationists.  Actually, this is the "big issue", I think, because it's here that from some Sim prespectives expectations CAN'T be seperated from techniques - the GM either is letting "outside the Sim" issues effect his judgement, or he isn't.  If he is - is that just a "neccessary evil"?  Or has the group broadened their definition of "the Sim" to include these elements?  Figure that out, and then the players either accept it, or they don't.  Their "expectation" of how the GM is going to act is pretty fundamental, "Illusionism" (where the GM is basing action on out-of-the-Sim info, but it doesn't look like he is - or at least everyone pretends like it doesn't look like he is) aside ('cause, IMO, any experienced Sim-loving RP group is fully aware of Illusionism and thus has effectively broadened "in the Sim" to include it).

Again, hope this is helpful - if you give specific example of the Premise you're looking at, the kinds of chars involved, etc., something else might turn up, but with all the warnings above, I'm left thinking this COULD work - something close to it is what the majority of my RP experience has been, if I'm reading you right.  And while I've always felt "there's gotta be ways this can be better", my previous RP experience has been fun . . .

Gordon C. Landis

[Supplanter]

There's a very real sense in which simulationist players will expect a GM to be primarily "reactive." The question is, with what do they expect him to be reacting? Gordon put his finger on it substantially, I think, with his point about whether the GM is using metagame concerns to drive "the premise." ("The premise" seems sometimes like jargon for "what the GM wants the game to be about.") A solution is to embed the premise thoroughly in the setting, or, to put it another way, to see to it that the premise chosen can be seen as rising organically from the world itself. Frex, in a Glorantha-based game, a premise of "actions on behalf of one's community have a different efficacy than actions alienated from one's community" can be accepted as arising from the nature of the world itself. While there probably are simulationists out there primarily concerned with "the physics of the game world," many more surely understand that the GM's purview is the metaphysics of the game world.

Classically, a simulation consists of an initial condition and a set of iterative procedures for altering it. It is possible to imagine many sets of initial conditions (game worlds) where certain premises are part of what constitutes those initial conditions, even substantially constitute the initial conditions. It's also possible to imagine sets of iterative procedures that imply, contain and support certain premises. This is especially true in fantasy games, because in fantasy, social and artistic facts can have physical valence. We call that "magic."

If your premise is an emergent property of the Setting (broadly considered), then to be in the Setting is to elaborate on the premise. The "What's it like" question for that campaign world cannot be answered apart from the premise. The trick to avoiding the "illusionism" that Gordon rightly flags is a certain amount of conceptual work beforehand, and an understanding of how the meaning of "hooking the players" changes for these players - it means convincing them that this world with these embedded premises "makes sense," for lack of a better term, and that the "what's it like?" question is worth pursuing.

This way one avoids "dramatism" too, which is important, because if simulationist players liked "dramatism," google.com's archives would be measurably smaller.

Best,


Jim

[Ron Edwards]

Geez, you guys have this totally covered. Many thanks to all for the excellent, clear inquiry and the thoughtful replies. I really have nothing to add, beyond the observation that many groups I have observed playing in this mode tend to show "exhaustion" over time, with less and less satisfaction.

Best,
Ron

[jburneko]

I wanted to say that all of this has been insightful and helps with what I'm pondering right now very much.  I thought I'd go ahead and refine this even further.  The reason I'm asking this is because I'm trying to gain insight into my own group of players who seem to be this really strange brand of gamer who sits on the edge between simulationism and narrativism.

When I ask them WHY they role-play they tell me it's because they like interactive-stories and that the story is what matters most to them.  HOWEVER, when I try to introduce things like Author and Directorial power for the players they reject it explaining that they want to be immersive and to LIVE a story, not co-author one.  And yet at the same time they don't like it when I railroad.  They still want their freedom to react as they please and for me to make 'drama' influenced decisions about how the world reacts to their actions.

So, I'm curious as to what techniques I should employ to get the most out of what I have to work with.  To summarize:

1) My players claim that the purpose of roleplaying is to 'live out' a story.  To BE the character in a novel or movie.

2) However, they don't want to be co-authors.  They reject authorial and directorial power, as well as having access to OOC information.

3) They don't want the whole thing to be pre-plotted in advance, either.  They want their decisions to matter and to impact the plot.

4) The role of the GM (in their eyes) is to ensure that the consequences of their actions are as dramatic and interesting as possible to best facilitate a story.

So, what on earth am I dealing with here?  The only solution I can think of is to prepare and GM using the Narrativist GM's toolkit of techniques and let them play in their immersive simulationist manner.

Jesse

[Supplanter]

So, I'm curious as to what techniques I should employ to get the most out of what I have to work with.

Taps mike. Looks at it quizzically.

"Is this thing on?"




[ This Message was edited by: Supplanter on 2001-08-16 20:20 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Supplanter on 2001-08-16 20:20 ]

[Gordon C. Landis]

hmm. . . . I'm not sure what happened to Jim/Supplanter there.  I guess *I'll* find out if this thing's on . . .

While Jim was right to express caution about my drawing too close a parallel between "Dramatism" and Simulation, as there are many Simulationists that reject that connection, your points 1-4 are (IMO) a great description of why the Sim discussion a while back put "Dramatism" (I keep puttin' quotes on the thing 'cause I'm not sure I mean the same thing as GDS dramtism here) in with Sim rather than Narrative.

As such, the consensus seems to be that it's a pretty common style.  Hunting up that thread(s?) might prove useful.

As far as advice goes . . . talk to the players about the game and their characters a lot between/outside of game sessions.  The burden is going to fall on you to make the dramatic choices, and the players are not going to be willing to help while they're playing (they wanna be IC).  So you need as much info as possible ahead of time.  Try and get a sense of what kind of things they want their character doing, what story elements they enjoy.  If you detect a shift, wait for the end of the session (or a dinner break or something if you run long sessions), and ask the player "seems like Gruntor is starting to outgrow his barbarian roots - are you trying to civilize him a bit?"  Make note of what they respond to and what they don't, then "punch up" the things that get 'em excited.  All the traditional "plot wiggle" advice applies here - keep multiple channels to any particular goal open as long as possible, and try your best to allow for players to head off in a new direction (otherwise they WILL feel railroaded).

This style really puts quite a burden on the GM (IMO), but it can be quite a rewarding one.  Good luck . . .

Gordon C. Landis

[Ron Edwards]

Jesse,

Unfortunately, I remain skeptical. I tried doing EXACTLY what you describe for YEARS, mainly with Champions. In many ways, it was successful. It was also laborious, painful, often frustrating for me or an individual player, and punctuated with many disagreements.

From my current perspective, your players' outlook strikes me as an outrageous cop-out. They want a good story, but they don't want to make it. They want to "be" their characters, but they want no part in considering their characters' role and relationship to anyone else. They want you to indulge their every action AND fit each action into some "story" that THEY can decide is good or not.

I don't know, man. It's a lot like one of those dysfunctional relationships, in which one partner demands that the other make him/her happy, but also claims that the partner should "just know" how to do it. Sorry to be so grim, but that's how it looks from here.

Best,
Ron

[jburneko]

On 2001-08-17 02:07, Ron Edwards wrote:

I don't know, man. It's a lot like one of those dysfunctional relationships, in which one partner demands that the other make him/her happy, but also claims that the partner should "just know" how to do it. Sorry to be so grim, but that's how it looks from here.

WOW!  I think that's one of the most powerful analogies I've ever heard.  Funny, I never noticed the frightening similarities between:

"If you really loved me you'd know how to make me happy."

and

"If you were really a good GM you'd know how to make us happy."

I shall have to think about this.

Jesse

[jburneko]

On 2001-08-17 02:07, Ron Edwards wrote:

I don't know, man. It's a lot like one of those dysfunctional relationships, in which one partner demands that the other make him/her happy, but also claims that the partner should "just know" how to do it. Sorry to be so grim, but that's how it looks from here.

WOW!  I think that's one of the most powerful analogies I've ever heard.  Funny, I never noticed the frightening similarities between:

"If you really loved me you'd know how to make me happy."

and

"If you were really a good GM you'd know how to make us happy."

I shall have to think about this.

Jesse

[Emily Care]

Just as a suggestion:

Would your players perhaps be open to taking on additional characters?  This might be too much for their "immersion" play. (I identify as a deep immersion players and see no conflict with switching stances and runinng multiple characters etc.)  Or could they be tempted to participate in some other "small" way that would help them branch out from their mono-identification?  

They may not have tasted the fruits of broader powers in the world, and once they have a little bit they might not be able to help themselves from wanting more...

I'm not sure if this would help your overall problem initially, but it may also be that the direct apporach is too overwhelming to them.  They may need to be coaxed out of their game-head into something new in order to be able to fathom the directions you would like to go in.

Hope it's helpful.

Emily Care

And Ron's diagnosis of this situation as analagous to a codependent and abusive partner situation "IF you really loved me..." is apt.  You may just have to dump them if they won't go into counseling and address their issues. :smile:

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Jesse,

Or your players are playing in audience stance.  That is, they're playing in a mode where the GM's soul purpose is to entertain them.  Naturally, this sort of stance has a bit more audience participation than any other.  This is part of the medium, but it's the GM who presents the plots and suspends the disbelief and all the other work.

I would agree with the disfunctional assessment except that many, many GM prefer to run their games like this.  They enjoy it, as do their players.  This leads me to believe that calling such people disfunctional is like saying there's something wrong with people who enjoy dressing up in black leather playing bondage and discipline games with whips and chains. (Why are you looking at me like that?)

Disfunctional means the behaviors are destructive.  In this case, it just isn't.  In the case of Jesse's group, it is since he's trying to make them assume different stances and they just don't want to.

I'm not entirely sure why such a stance would be used.  It may be laziness.  It may be the only one with even a shred of creative ability is the GM, in which case it's probably for the best he's the one doing all of the work.  Force an uninspired person to create and you'll probably get something silly.

Maybe I'm off-base with this, but maybe it does hold water.