Mixing Styles Across The Table

[Supplanter]

Gordon wrote:

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

My point was that I felt I had already suggested promising paths that Jesse could pursue.

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.

"The discussion" did no such thing. Indeed, even Logan came to agree that the two were different animals.

Ron wrote:

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.

Or that word, "story," means different things to different people around Jesse's table, or they are all good Aristotelians.

Jesse wrote:

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

I shall have to think about this.

While thinking, think about how you like the sound of "If you were really good players you'd know how to make me happy." Also, "If you were really good players, you'd come to define your happiness in ways congenial to my approach."

It may well be, as different folks have said in their own way, that these players would be better off without you. But it may also be that not all the thinking on harmonizing disparate goals has been done, and that you and your group may find you have an original contribution to make. I am thinking that it depends on which aspects of "narrativism" you are most drawn to: if it is ramifying the implications of a Premise, then create a game world (the initial conditions) from which the Premise is inextricable - that minimizes GM resort to metagame concerns because the premise is built in. If OTOH, what attracts you is distributed direction, then as Ron and others have suggested, you really don't have enough enjoyment to offer these folks to make it worth all of you showing up every week.

pblock wrote:

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.

Nah, nobody on the Forge ever uses its theories to denigrate different styles. That's just Brian being paranoid.

Best,


Jim

[Gordon C. Landis]

On 2001-08-18 12:35, Supplanter wrote:
My point was that I felt I had already suggested promising paths that Jesse could pursue.

Yeah, I knew that!  I just, uh was test. . . ah, was trying, um what I mean is . . .

OK, I just missed it.  Sorry about that - call me dense, if you like.

"The discussion" did no such thing. Indeed, even Logan came to agree that the two were different animals.

All right, let me be bit more rigorous - in my opinion, it became clear that the Sim "box" was much bigger in GNS than some seemed to think, and that in that larger "box", many Dramatism concepts could be accomodated along with the "traditional" small-s-intentional-simulationist concepts.  None of which is meant to contradict that they are different animals - but they are different animals that (at the time, anyway) GNS found to share many "behaviors".  they also have some behaviors that are NOT shared . . . so  the new version of the FAQ will probably seperate 'em, and I'll look silly.

But for me, Dramatism (in my, oh, metaplot, GM-author/player-audience understanding, which again I'm not sure is *quite* the same as rgfa-GDS) just FITS in broad-box Simulationism, along with intentionally-small-s-simlationism - play styles I've participated in for YEARS that look quite different, but whoose simularities that previous discussion helped me understand.

Like I said, a later rev from the Forge folks might well contradict this . . and if so, I'll look at their reasons and consider 'em.

Basically, though, this is a long way of saying I really do think Dramatism fits MAINLY in Simulationism.

Nah, nobody on the Forge ever uses its theories to denigrate different styles. That's just Brian being paranoid.

Uh . . . while the statement was a little strong, and I'm glad you called pblock on it ('cause as far as I'm concerned, the problem isn't that folks go a little too far on occassion, it's when they KEEP going that it becomes an issue) . . . there has to be room for discussing extremes.  Sometimes Narrative focus can get all holier-than-heck, we're real artistes in a pedestrian genre - ww gotta talk about that.  Sometimes a GM IS being "abused" by lazy, do-it-for-me players.

We gotta be able to discuss that without being accused of denigrating a playing style.  At some point, it IS paranoia to assume a style is being denigrated, and not just a particular possibly-degenerate aspect being illuminated.

Like I said, I like that you raise a warning flag - and the fact is, I'm already well aware of many degenerate forms of G and S.  I would like to see more discussion of degenerate Narrativism - so I can avoid it as I try insert more "N" into my games!  

Gordon C. Landis

[Jack Spencer Jr]

On 2001-08-21 04:42, Gordon C. Landis wrote:
... Sometimes a GM IS being "abused" by lazy, do-it-for-me players.

We gotta be able to discuss that without being accused of denigrating a playing style.  

I agree.  Its just that in this discussion, at least, it seemed like no one else was making the point for this style of play.  Someone had to, I thought, and then no one did and I was like, "Aw, rats.  No one will do it for me so now I have to do it."

[TrizzlWizzl]

What's the point of even running a game no one's going to want to play?  Why would a GM even bother?  The idea that a GM would be fully cognizant of the preferences of his players and yet not give them any way to display their skills within their favored type seems like an extremely poor idea.  I see it as the GM's job to give the players what they want, and if he can't do that then he should figure out how.  If you've got a bunch of simulationists, then give them something to do simulation-wise.  In fact, if everyone in your group likes the same kind of stuff, you're lucky.  Your job as a GM just got a lot easier.

I guess I still don't understand why trying to give players things to do in response to the way they like to play is such a bad thing.  It's not fun to watch players being forced to do something they're no good at... it's like watching a figure skater wipe out.  Just kinda sad.  

What I like is watching players do stuff they're good at, like watching as the 'Narrativist' (or whatever) get all into their character, finding really cool roleplaying bits and helping to set the stage for those of us less fluent in characterization... or the Simulationist going over the treausre list, figuring out which magic item would work best with whom and making sure our encumbrances checked out... or the Gamist who uses the rules for dramatic new ends, finding cool things to do with them.

I dunno.  I like all different types of roleplaying, but not all the time.  I like to see and do different things when I game, and I feel a good GM can deliver that.

I think the GNS model is overly divisive.  I think that as long as everybody agrees on the rules, a good GM can deliver a fun game to everybody regardless of their 'stance'.  What's important is fun, and the way games are fun is if the players are having fun.  GMs need to figure out how the players go about obtaining fun so he can make his game fun.  That's my opinion anyway.

[Blake Hutchins]

The philosophy of GM as entertainer is, I think, a bit poisonous, and goes directly to the core of what Ron has been saying in his "System Does Matter" essays.  I've been through a number of games where I as GM thought it was my obligation to entertain the players, and I kept running these games even where I wasn't having a good time.  If the players didn't all have fun, I held myself responsible.  All in all, it was a fucked up, codependent relationship with gaming.

I still struggle with this attitude sometimes, but the turning point came in an Amber game where I had what I'll call a "system breaker" style of player who basically raped (yes, strong term, but I'll stick with it anyway) the many loopholes in Zelazny's cosmology in a way that put me in the position of either shutting down what this guy called his "creativity," or having to deal with a vastly Monte-ized Amber replete with laser rifles and nanotechnology.

I checked with the player and discussed my concerns, but hit a wall.  No flexibility there.  I realized this game was going to suck, not because the story was in or out of my control, but because I'd be locked in a struggle over the rules, which absolutely wasn't something I wanted to deal with.  So I shut the game down.  On the spot.  It wasn't done from anger or even from frustration.  The decision came from the recognition that the players also bear responsibility for making a good game, whether said game drives toward competition, story, or sim.  Since then, I've been a lot better about making sure I as GM am having fun.  I've found the best way to do that is to communicate with my players about my narrativist preferences, and game with the players who share them.

Without going into great detail, I'll say that I'm a pretty decent narrativist GM, but I suck hard as a Gamist GM.  Not for me the tables, AC calculations, level breaks, and attacks of opportunity of DnD, and I'm increasingly less inspired by the Storyteller system and huge amount of background/metaplot detail a White Wolf GM/player has to absorb.  I'm starting a game using The Pool, and I'm more excited about it than anything I've played in the last five years.  (Interestingly, so are my players, who are finding freeform character creation incredibly liberating.)  It's much easier for me to focus on story when I'm not worried about having to entertain the players.  Hopefully, we'll all have fun entertaining each other.

System (or lack of it) does matter.

Best,

Blake

[Mike Holmes]

TW,

Your point here is what GNS is all about. Trying to determine what the players want and give it to them. The primary statement of GNS is that first and foremost players all want to have fun. The next question is why don't they sometimes? One of the answers is GNS incompatibility. If Blake can't run Gamist for a player, and that is what the player wants, then the game is doomed. Very simple, really.

GNS doesn't divide people, their preferences do. If you can get everyone to like every preference, then that problem will be solved. FWIW, I've postulated lately that many people's problems with particular modes stem from experiencing dysfunctional versions of those modes, really bad GMS. But there are going to be some for whom a particular mode is a problem for whatever legitimate reason. What can you do?

Mike

[Laurel]

The idea that a GM would be fully cognizant of the preferences of his players and yet not give them any way to display their skills within their favored type seems like an extremely poor idea.  I see it as the GM's job to give the players what they want, and if he can't do that then he should figure out how.

To go back to Ron's analogy:
"If a man loves his wife, he should give her whatever she wants, whenever she wants it, even if her demands are unreasonable or counter each other, and if he can't do that then he should figure out how." *shakes head* It just can't be done.  I've known both marriage partners and GMs/players who have driven themselves to exhaustion or despair trying.

Somewhere I was reading something about the need for a social contract (tacit or implied) between everyone in a game, where everyone's expectations could be addressed.  Ideally, all players in a game (GM included) are going to be sane flexible cooperative people who can reach a consensus and have the self-discipline to follow through.

In almost every role-playing game I have ever seen or participated in, however, at least one of the players lacked the social skills or willingness to uphold the group's social contract, and problems regarding expectation-participation-behavior snowballed over time.  Sometimes (not always) the only solution is to leave a group behind and find other people to play with somewhere else, or else boot the problematical/unhappy player and salvage the group.

Laurel

[James Holloway]

On 2001-10-17 14:18, TrizzlWizzl wrote:
I see it as the GM's job to give the players what they want, and if he can't do that then he should figure out how.

I know it's starting to sound like "everybody whop on the new guy day" around here, but...

my job is the thing that I do at the office. RPGs are what I do to have fun. Games where the players do not share my ambitions/expectations for the game are not fun.

And therefore I don't want to play them, particularly as I don't have much time for gaming. I have no unilateral responsibilities toward the players.

I don't want to be rude, TrizzlWizzl, but your description of the three "types" of player suggests to me that a serious re-examination of the GNS documents - conveniently, starting with Ron's most recent article in the "Articles" section - is in order.

[Marco]

No relationship (marriage/gaming) is going to work well unless:

A) everyone is clear about what they want.
B) everyone takes responsibility for what they do.

If the players are clear about what they want and the GM can't provide it they need another GM. That's clear to me. No one's being victimized.

What I don't get is the 'lazy-players' refrences. Is a player who wants a good story but doesn't want authroial or directoral power lazy? What's up with that?

When I play I don't want/need a whole lot of directoral power, and I want an engaging story-line (i.e. I want "what's going on" in the game to be interesting).

From the sound of some of the posts I'm being lazy and/or a bad player. I don't see it.

I see my job as a player to try to live-up to the GM's story--to do things within the framework that advance the plot, are interesting, and make sense. It's my job to work as a team (meta-game wise: pitch in for pizza). It's my job to resolve conflicts with the GM in a sensible, mature fashion.

I don't see that as lazy or co-dependent.

-Marco

[Marco]

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:

I'd say the following: Run a more 'simulationist' scenario.

1. Work out the story in something of a simulationist fashion--that is, decide what is likely to happen if the characters do/don't intercede.

2. This framework assumes the characters are NOT the prime movers but rather the protagonists (that there are plotted events that will occur without their initiating them). If they are you have a much harder job.

3. Control likely avenues of events: If the characters are on a mission to find out what lurks in a haunted house there are many things they might think of to do--a good mental model of what the world is like will determine what happens if they do something you didn't think of. If they behave in a totally off the wall fashion you clearly need either different players or a different scenario.

In my experience cooperative players do a decent job of picking rational reactions to a situation. That's different from Ron's suggestion that you 'indulge their every whim.'

There's no reason a 'Simulationist' aproach to scenario building can't make a great, interesting, dramatic story. Go for it.

-Marco

[Paul Czege]

That's different from Ron's suggestion that you 'indulge their every whim.'

Someone needs to do a "Best of Quotes from Ron Edwards" webpage.

Paul

[Mike Holmes]

Nah, Marco, that's not lazy. That's just fine. If it's agreed before hand that the power split will be that way, then the player does have every right to expect the GM to live up to his expectations and has no responsibility to Author or Direct. As Laurel said, It all comes doen to the Social Contract at the beginning of the game. If you don't discuss it, or it isn't obvious, this is where problems can occur.

For example, if you were playing with a Narrativist GM the way you describe above, and you hadn't discussed the power split, you might find that you are both blaming each other for being lazy and not providing plot. Or if a Narrativist player were to play with you as a GM as you describe, you both might think that the other was horning in on each other's territory.

For most this is never a problem, because most groups already know how they usually split the power, and in most games it's pretty much the same: players control their character's actions, GM controls the rest of everything. This is easy and intuitive. Some people just prefer a different split. As long as you talk it out, it should become apparent.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Marco,

I think you're getting quite a strange idea about what I do as a GM and also anything regarding Narrativism. For example, no one has ever suggested a style in which every last nuance of events during play is due to the player-characters' actions. Nor is it "make it up as you go along." I have extensively outlined Narrativist methods of play that offer extreme back-story constraints to the players and many events over which they have no control.

If you are suggesting a mode of play with extensive prep, including many "bangs" thrown at the characters, yet allowing the characters to be protagonists and make crucial (not superficial) decisions about the point of play, then that is a form of Narrativisim.

TrizzIWizzI (not sure if I have that right),

I invite you to examine my essay in the Articles section. It is clear that you are working with perceptions of the three modes of play, as well as with a perception of my agenda, that are completely inaccurate. You will find a full disclosure of all of these in the essay.

Best,
Ron

[Blake Hutchins]

Since I raised the co-dependent term, I'll just add that in the Amber example I cited, there may well be many, many other GMs who would have been fine with that player's desires.  More power to them.  My point was, it didn't work for me.  Ultimately, roleplaying should be fun for everybody.  If you're not having fun, do something else.  It's amazing how long it took me to apply that simple maxim to my gaming activities.

I assume we've all had experiences with "bad GMs" and "bad players."  I don't care whether a player wants to exercise directorial power, but I do care about whether a player is trying to work with the group, including the GM, in pursuing whatever objective the game aims at.  In my case, I'm after a good story with shared distribution of storytelling ability, viz. Directorial power.  I prefer players who are willing to buy into that approach, of course, but so long as we're all playing constructively in the band (to borrow another of Ron's analogies), I'm happy to allow each player to determine his or her volume and independence within the overall melody.

TrizzlWizzl, I will say I've had games collapse because of inter-player romances gone sour, deliberate player disruption and sabotage, player compartmentalism (everybody wanting so much individual time within a session that the "group" essentially disintegrates), players taking character setbacks personally, players being dishonest with what they wanted out of a game, etc.  To be sure, I've been in poorly-GM'd games as well, and in some, I've been that sucky GM.  However, I have to disagree with an absolute statement that the quality of a game always rests with the GM.

By the way, TW, welcome to the Forge. :wink:

Best,

Blake

[ This Message was edited by: Blake Hutchins on 2001-10-17 20:38 ]

[Marco]

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

Unfortunately, I remain skeptical.  
...
They want you to indulge their every action AND fit each action into some "story" that THEY can decide is good or not.
...
Best,
Ron

Hi, Ron,

I don't think this has *anything* to do with Narrativism (and what it is or isn't). I don't know how you GM (although I assume it's with a slightly greater payer-GM power split than I usually do). But that's not the point: You were real grim on Jesse's group--I didn't see them as (necessiarily) doing anything wrong.

That's all,
-Marco