The Accidental Narrativist

[jburneko]

Hello,

It's been a while since I've posted anything with substance and anything I have posted has been rather short and curt.  The reason being that my gaming experiences of late have been more depressing than ever and I've been trying to refrain from posting empty rants that amount to nothing more than me complaining about my personal preferences coming to conflict with my player's personal preferences.

The result is that I've been pouring over my past scenarios trying to see what worked, what didn't and so on.  In my studies I keep coming back to this one Chill adventure I call: The Art Gecko.  I've run that adventure three times, with three different groups and everytime it's been a HUGE success.  My player's (the ones who were there at the time) say it's the best thing I've ever written.  The second group I ran it for had a blast.  I just ran it at a Con a few weeks ago and people were asking me if I'd be running any more Chill games at future cons.  I've never had this kind of reaction before or since, so I had to figure out what the hell was so special about this adventure.

Now I wrote this adventure before I'd ever heard of GNS or stances or any of that. However, the more I study this adventure the more I realize that this adventure has a completely Narrativist design to it.  Let me show you what I mean.

First of all the scenario has a strong Premise and a fixed backstory centered around that Premise.  Ironically, the Premise is similar to that of Sorcerer.  It's a faustian tale of 'What are you willing to do to gain success?'  There are basically three artists in a local community who have done various things to achieve recognition.  Each one is slightly more abhorant than the last.

Felini - A painter who sold out his pride and started actually taking secret correspondence school art lessons to improve his technique.

Williams - A photographer who used her skills to blackmail an art critic into giving her good reviews.

Barahi - A sculptor who uses her pet basilisk to turn summer vacationers into, 'amazingly life-like depictions of fear and terror.'

To some degree there is a relationship map.  If I'd known about the relationship map technique at the time I would have made a more conscious effort to flesh it out because what few relationship map elements I have really drive home the ramifications of these peoples' actions.  For example:

The critic being blackmailed decided to give up the game, bite the bullet and turn Williams in.  Williams' boyfriend Drake caught wind of this and murdered the critic.  The critic's ghost is now plaguing Drake nightly looking for revenge.

A curious child crawled in to Barahi's basement and was turned to stone.  Barahi is guilt striken and the child's mother is driven mad when she sees a statue resembling her 'missing' son in the local art gallery.  The child's father is left a bitter and angry man after losing both his son and his wife.

Again, had I been thinking about relationship maps I would have added some similar conditions to Felini and perhaps linked them all together through other relationships.  But as it stands the three are pretty isolated.

And to top it all off the actual 'in game' events are all either location based or non-railroady 'bangs.'  For example:

The art critic animates his body and goes after drake if the player's find where it is located and dig him up.

If the player's start asking questions about missing art critics in Williams' or Drake's presence then Drake will start following the players around.

And so on...

It is at this point that Narrativist Design turns into Simulationist or Gamist Play.  See, the premise (I REALLY wish we had a different word of this) of Chill is that you're all members of this secret organization called SAVE.  SAVE monitors various world events and dispatches envoys to investigate anything they think may involve The Unknown.  In this case SAVE's computers have correlated several missing people with the rise in fame and fortune of three artists all in the same community.  SAVE dispatches a team of envoys and suggests that they might be looking at an art centric cult of some sort.  The result is, of course, the following:

1) The PCs are divorced from the Premise.  That is, thier characters are built to be SAVE envoys and no way relate to the moral nature of the problem at hand.  This isn't that big a deal since Ron has stated that the Premise can rise from the setting which in this case I think it does very nicely.  The bigger problem is:

2) The PCs are completely divorced from the events.  They are cold outside observers.  It's true that they must make moral judgement calls (Do we expose Felini's secret?  What do we do about Drake the murderer?  If we kill the basilisk what do we do about Barahi since no jury will believe us?) and they are free to do as they choose but they are still just outside obsevers running an investigation.

I've determined that it is this devide between player and scenario that is the source of my depression about gaming (At least when the game is good.  When the game is bad my depression stems from players who refuse to take things seriously.)  Ultimately, the players don't ADD anything new to the story.  They uncover the backstory and remove the source of evil and that's it.  Despite the non-railroadyness the scenario plays out almost identically everytime.  I keep wanting the players to really be enmeshed in the goings on but I don't know how to fascilitate that.  Is this more of a character creation issue?  Should I let the player's design characters as they see fit but simply focus more on Sorcerer style Kickers or 7th Sea style Backgrounds?  Can I do this some how in the scenario design itself by putting in certain types of NPCs or by pacing the actual running of the game differently?

The problem is that I think my players (well a lot of my players) would take to Narrativism given their reaction to this scenario.  I think it's so popular because the Premise really grabs the Players on that emotional and moral level. If I could somehow fascilitate more Narrativistic participation on their part WITHOUT trying to explain a lot of jargony concepts to them I think they'd really enjoy it.  I start talking about Premise, Theme, Author and Director stance and they look at me like I'm a space alien.  I want them to take more ownership of the story and really bring something unique to the table but I don't know how to bring that quality out of them.  Some of them I KNOW can do this, others I suspect can do it, and the rest can leave as far as I'm concerned.

Advice?

Jesse

[lumpley]

Maybe the best game I ever ran was a serial killer game and I started character creation with:

Make a character who cares about at least one of these murders.

Worked like a charm.  I'd say that there's plenty of room in your scenario for the same kind of thing.

It's always a trick to get pcs connected to each other and the world, though, isn't it?  Not a sentimental bone in their bodies.

-lumpley

[Paul Czege]

Hey Jesse,

The PCs are completely divorced from the events....they must make moral judgement calls....but they are still just outside observers running an investigation.

I know exactly where you're at. It was the same way with the Everway scenario I ran last winter, my first full-blown effort at Narrativism. The characters were all from separate parallel universes, and none of them were from either of the two universes where the scenario took place. I understand the idea of a game's Premise hooking the player, but in the situation I was in, no matter how hard I tried to expose the universally relevant aspects of the scenario and draw the players into personal interest in the outcome, it never quite happened. They had characters who were too much outsiders to the relationships of the scenario itself. The characters were spherewalkers who could too easily maintain an outsider mentality and a lack of connectedness to the NPC's of the relationship map. I've heard this described in Everway circles as the Star Trek: The Next Generation factor. Characters arrive, solve a problem as outsiders by promoting understanding between conflicting parties, and leave.

Should I let the player's design characters as they see fit but simply focus more on Sorcerer style Kickers or 7th Sea style Backgrounds?

In the scenario I'm currently running, I combined Sorcerer-style Kickers with the mechanics of The Pool. And I was very impressed with the awesomeness of the character creation session, so much so that the combination of Trial and Annotations I developed for The World, the Flesh, and the Devil is based on Sorcerer-style Kickers and Pool-style character descriptions.

It's actually quite a shame that Ken Hite didn't grasp Kickers in his reading of Sorcerer, because the more I think about the mechanic, the more I think it's the most awesome thing about the game. A Kicker is more than just a linkage between the player character and the relationship map. It's a way for the player to articulate what kind of story he's interested in telling with his character. Regardless of their history with RPG's, I think people have an intuitive understanding of the stories and themes that are interesting to them. They might not be able to describe why they like Fight Club and The Harp and the Blade, but they can create a Kicker that starts them out with the right raw material for a narrative that they'll be really interested in.

I would definitely recommend character creation with Kickers, and then some really psychological analysis on your part of what your players came up with. Think about the movies they like, and the kinds of roles their favorite actors take. They may not be able to tell you what themes they're most interested in, but you'll figure it out. I know, for instance, that one of the players in Silent Tamatama's Theatrix game really wants to have a character who has powerful friends. It's obvious from the way he played Everway, and from his movie preferences. And then all you have to do is set that stuff against the backdrop of a tense social or political situation, which you could certainly have come up with prior to the character session, or stolen from a published game.

Paul

[jburneko]

On 2001-09-19 16:17, Paul Czege wrote:
I've heard this described in Everway circles as the Star Trek: The Next Generation factor. Characters arrive, solve a problem as outsiders by promoting understanding between conflicting parties, and leave.

YES!  YES!  YES!  I would add that destroying the source of conflict is also an option but the result is the same.  This is EXACTLY the problem I'm struggling with.  And the worst part is that PCs often don't have what keeps Star Trek compelling despite the isolated outsider nature of the episodes.  There's a lot of intercharacter relationships on the Enterprise that generally don't form between PCs.  If anyone has any advice on fascilitating this kind of behavior that would interest me as well.

It's actually quite a shame that Ken Hite didn't grasp Kickers in his reading of Sorcerer, because the more I think about the mechanic, the more I think it's the most awesome thing about the game.

I COMPLETELY agree.  I have trouble imagining games that don't involve some sort of Kicker mechanic because it promotes that divorced nature.  What can I as the GM do if I don't understand what propells and defines the character?  The best I can do is write an adventure that's generic enough to suit any possible portrayal.

There is ONE pitfall regarding kickers that can become a problem.  It's real easy to write a kicker that just reverts to the outsider mode.  Examples:

"My character is an FBI agent and his superior has just assigned him to a series of strange serial murders."

"My character recently recieved a letter from a lawyer.  The letter claims that I've recently inherited a fortune from an Aunt I didn't know I had."

And then when you try to explain to the player that these really aren't suitable kickers they give you hell because it's his character and this is the way he sees it going.  I'm not sure what to do at this point either.  How do you explain what a suitable kicker is without infringing on the player's creativity or wishes?

Jesse

[Epoch]

Jesse,

And the worst part is that PCs often don't have what keeps Star Trek compelling despite the isolated outsider nature of the episodes.

<snotty vocal anti-Trek fan>Something kept Star Trek compelling?  Dammit, people are supposed to inform me of these things!</snotty vocal anti-Trek fan>

So anyhow, I think it's worthwhile to note that having characters who are engaged in the conflict on an emotional level is good, solid game design regardless of which corner of the triangle you're aiming for.

If you're hungry for more emotional involvement with the characters, I think you're on the right track.  Don't talk to the players about "kickers," just say, "Hey, so your character here -- what's important to him, or interesting to you?  What's your idea of an ideal challenge to confront him, that'd let you play him in the most interesting way?"

Non-jargonny, works for people who wouldn't spit on a dead Narrativist cat.  Hope it helps.

[Ben Morgan]

From what I can tell (not actually having managed to get a group together to play Sorcerer yet, but loving the whole thing just the same), most Kickers can be negotiated up from being mediocre to great, as long as the player is willing to work with you. Frex:

"My character is an FBI agent and his superior has just assigned him to a series of strange serial murders."

Perhaps a series of strange murders... in your hometown?

"My character recently recieved a letter from a lawyer. The letter claims that I've recently inherited a fortune from an Aunt I didn't know I had."

Maybe from an Aunt you did know you had (that you got along with really well), but didn't know she had money.

Just a thought. Later...

[Paul Czege]

Hey Jesse,

...when you try to explain to the player that these really aren't suitable kickers they give you hell....How do you explain what a suitable kicker is without infringing on the player's creativity or wishes?

I'm with you man. I had a problem with the character one of my friends created for the Everway scenario. The character was ex-warlord, basically his realm's equivalent of Hitler, who the gods had banished from his sphere, and "cursed" with immortality, agelessness, and almost complete and total instant healing ability. He was like a highlander, except he healed quickly, and couldn't be killed by beheading. The gods had supposedly instructed him to do good deeds to redeem himself. The player conceived of him as pursuing of peaceful solutions, but as a monstrous force in battle when provoked. He was like a smouldering fire, who always traveled heavily armed and armored. The player took a zero point power of "weapon mastery" that allowed the character to use any and all weapons he may come across with proficiency. And when I explained that his score of 3 in earth would mean he felt pain like any normal man, he almost took a 1 point power in "resist pain". In the context of a narrativist game, the character just didn't seem like any damn fun to me. He had no emotional ties to anyone. He was a one-trick pony, with no abilities or personality traits that would give the player any chance to appreciate NPC interaction. The problem wasn't the character's power. He could be overpowered, and imprisoned, or frozen in carbonite, or just buried underwater by a ton of bricks so he keeps drowning and resurrecting without the ability to take any action. What I didn't like was that he was monstrous. A better swordsman cuts off his head and the character grows a new one and keeps swinging. And I didn't want the game to revolve around people rising up and expelling him from their realms, or coming up with creative means to encase him in molten steel or something. The "quiet enforcer" type of character is hugely annoying. I had suggested variations on the "curse" that included perhaps an inability to use any weapons at all as he worked to redeem himself, or the possibility that the gods implanted false memories in him to create a foundation for human connectedness. But the player didn't like any of those ideas.

So I turned to Ron for advice. And he told me I had to have the player make up a different character.

Now how's that for a tall order?

The way I handled it was by essentially playing dumb. I wrote the player an email and explained that because I'd been heavily prepping the scenario prior to character creation, I had created a scenario that wasn't suitable for his character. The problem was mine. I was stupid. And I proposed two possible solutions. He could make up another character. Or I could split the group, run the scenario I had for two of the players, and after that, write a scenario to run for him and the other player. I would have been happy with either alternative. And I would have never written that second scenario. My entire goal was to run the scenario I'd been developing for players with suitable characters. He chose to create a new character.

My advice to you is to play dumb. The problem isn't with the Kicker the player wrote. It's with your stupid scenario. You're just learning this stuff after all :smile:

Paul

[Ron Edwards]

Hi all,

I'm kind of puzzled about one element of a lot of recent discussion: the idea that the GM is dragging reluctant, baffled players into a Narrativist context for role-playing.

I don't really see how this can be possible, and certainly it's not necessary. In my experience, finding others who share one's own proclivities in play is very easy. They may not be aware of how powerful a system or other aspects of an RPG may be, in terms of the orientation, but they are already predisposed to latch onto it when they see it.

That statement applies, I am sure, to all functional modes of role-playing. If someone has Turku leanings, it's easy to describe them or use some coded-phrase ("Man, I don't even care whether anyone understands my character, I just want to feel it") that will attract like-minded individuals. If someone has particular Gamist leanings, say of the classic 1980 bent, they can do the same. ("The best thing, and I mean the best, is when you get those last few points to level up again.")

Again, these are coded-phrases, not especially substantial but indicative of all sorts of other, very coherent things.

People who'd like to develop more Narrativist play should practice the very same tactic - find others who are similarly inclined. Do it with phrases that capture some of the essence of the orientation, not with horrible jargon.

It's pretty hard in some ways - "story" is a debased term in role-playing culture, often associated with metaplot or with railroading. I've had to be very careful about saying "CREATE story," and specifically contrast it with "ENACT story." My starting-a-group advice in another thread on this forum brings up some of my thoughts about it.

But why bother dragging people who are NOT interested into a mode of play they distrust or dislike? Say Bob has participated, over months and years of play, in a role-playing group who is quite oriented toward the "my guy in a metaplot" mode of play. Maybe he did a lot of Forgotten Realms in high school, maybe he discovered Call of Cthulhu in college, and now he and a few friends are looking for the perfect game for them, that combines the metaplot of the one with the modern-ish horror of the other. [Note: this is NOT autobiographical]

So then Bob (who's always the GM) finds The Pool or Ghost Light and flips his lid. "Hey guys!" he gushes. "Narrativism, man! We gotta do this! It's what I always wanted!" Cue months of struggles on Bob's part to grasp the potential of what he's seeing, of agonizing resistance and resentment from his friends, and generally a plain meltdown.

Basically, Bob has done a fine thing by honing his understanding of why he role-plays, but he has committed a social error of grave proportions. Bluntly, he needs to found a new group, probably by hand-picking its members one by one. Maybe one or two of the old group will be inclined to join him; maybe none will.

This, I believe, is one of the most important aspects of GNS theory: that it is perfectly all right to enjoy modes of role-playing that are not OTHERS' favored modes. Therefore trying to "change" others is not advised. Conversion is NOT part of the GNS proposition.

The suggestion is this: if one presents and demonstrates one's favored mode well, and if anyone is interested, the they'll come looking and asking more questions and wanting to play. If they aren't, they don't.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

jburneko wrote:
To some degree there is a relationship map.
[Snip.]
For example:

The critic being blackmailed decided to give up the game, bite the bullet and turn Williams in.  Williams' boyfriend Drake caught wind of this and murdered the critic.  The critic's ghost is now plaguing Drake nightly looking for revenge.
[Snip further examples, only for space.]

And to top it all off the actual 'in game' events are all either location based or non-railroady 'bangs.'  For example:

The art critic animates his body and goes after drake if the player's find where it is located and dig him up.

If the player's start asking questions about missing art critics in Williams' or Drake's presence then Drake will start following the players around.

From the above, I would have to say that it sounds more like what you originally did was more related to creating a "Set of Encounters" according to the old FAQ.  As I tried to point out in Dynamic Status Quo, "Sets of Encounters" rapidly degenerate into railroading as the encounters get used up.  The trick with making them work is really playing hard on the 'flavor' of having choice early on and hoping that the 'aftertaste' carries through to the end.

[Big snip.]
The result is, of course, the following:

1) The PCs are divorced from the Premise.
[Snip.]

The bigger problem is:

2) The PCs are completely divorced from the events.  They are...just outside observers running an investigation.

I've determined that it is this divide between player and scenario that is the source of my depression about gaming.
[Snip.]
Ultimately, the players don't ADD anything new to the story.

That, in my opinion, owes to the limitations in both "Sets of Encounters" and "Relationship Maps" as described in the old FAQ.  Neither appear to actually involve the characters.  Over at Impswitch (our gaming company) we call this Non-serial American Television Series-itis.  This is the quality in American television shows where the characters begin and end every episode in exactly the same state.  Gilligan's Island is a good example of this.  (Serials are different as they allow character development.)

At the start of the game the players are in no way related to anything in the pertinent setting.  The gamemaster (with varying help from the players) must set out first to create emotional investment between the players and elements of the setting.  This can be very hard, but it is completely necessary in 'packaged' scenarios.

Despite the non-railroadiness the scenario plays out almost identically every time.

That is because "Sets of Encounters" cannot avoid becoming railroading as the players find it harder and harder to 'choose' (or more appropriately 'find') the remaining encounters that separate them from the climax (the part that is 'identical every time').

I keep wanting the players to be [really] enmeshed in the goings on but I don't know how to facilitate that.  Is this more of a character creation issue?

In Scattershot we say quite clearly, one of the most important things to do in character creation (aside from the fact that the gamemaster needs to be involved) is to "make the character a part of the background and make the background a part of the character."  When players make their investigators envoys for SAVE they are partially doing this, the (distant) background has become a part of their character.  Unless you plan on the frequent interaction (read that as the involvement) of SAVE with the pertinent sequence of in-game events, this doesn't really count though.  (Though I suppose having someone on termination notice might make SAVE relevant to their focus on bringing the pertinent sequence of in-game events to successful conclusion.)

Should I let the player's design characters as they see fit but simply focus more on Sorcerer style Kickers or 7th Sea style Backgrounds?  Can I do this some how in the scenario design itself

There are many ways to go about what I have suggested above, you'll need to try a few and see what works best.  What I think you need to remember is that whatever you choose, it must be there to connect the characters (and their players) to the narrative even before play even begins.  (One way I have employed on several occasions has to do with making up the scenario, or at least much of the relevant setting detail, based on background information I solicit from my players.)  What won't work is things like:

by putting in certain types of NPCs or by pacing the actual running of the game differently?

Any time you try to connect players to the game without engaging their emotions (or interest) you will only amplify Television Series-itis.  While this sort of thing can be made to work, these kinds of plot devices usually fail because of their obviousness.  Pacing change only works well if you can sustain the players interest level until they make their own emotional investment in the game (say by taking special interest in a non-player character's fate), but you must be aware of the need (explained so well by Lajos Egri in The Art of Creative Writing) for an ever-escalating tension level (especially in a horror sub-genre).

I want them to take more ownership of the story and really bring something unique to the table but I don't know how to bring that quality out of them.

Why not start at the point of character creation?  As I mentioned above, I have frequently allow character background information central stage in my creation of the setting (this does mean that the characters are created first!).  In one (fairly cinematic fantasy) game, one character was on the run from a secret society of assassins for which he gave only spotty detail (and then I created it, knowing how central it was to his character conception), another had fled a wedding to a major tradehouse in another city (I can tell you this was initially difficult to make relevant, but that work provided a wealth of background detail), and so on.  Gathering and interrelating all of this detail created a rich background tapestry for the game and made the players feel both relevant to their world's goings-on and empowered them to add such detail to future campaigns I have run.

In response, Paul Czege wrote:
A Kicker is more than just a linkage between the player character and the relationship map. It's a way for the player to articulate what kind of story he's interested in telling with his character.

This is another good example of how to involve the players in the creation of the game during character creation.  We offer a similar technique in Scattershot; we call them Precipitating Events (owing to my lack of being able to create catchy names) and they are described as the point in the character's history when they go from being a non-player character to being a player character in terms of ideas related but not necessarily congruous to destiny, fate, script immunity, and the like.

jburneko later wrote:
This is EXACTLY the problem I'm struggling with. And the worst part is that PCs often don't have what keeps Star Trek compelling despite the isolated outsider nature of the episodes. There's a lot of inter-character relationships on the Enterprise that generally don't form between PCs. If anyone has any advice on facilitating this kind of behavior, that would interest me as well.

Well, I have almost always required it during character creation.  Instead of being faced with the cliched 'you all meet in a tavern' problem in most fantasy games, I simply require that all the players create any kind of association for their characters.  It can be anything at all (but secretly I watch for how emotionally engaged the players are with what they come up with).  In one superhero game, they simply said they were all 'drafted' into our game's version of Marvel's Avengers.  (Secretly I went aside to each to establish the reasons each of their characters felt compelled to stay in a group with people they didn't know and might not like.)

There is ONE pitfall regarding kickers that can become a problem. It's real easy to write a kicker that just reverts to the outsider mode.
[Examples Snipped.]

And then when you try to explain to the player that these really aren't suitable kickers they give you hell because it's their character and this is the way they see it going. I'm not sure what to do at this point either. How do you explain what a suitable kicker is without infringing on the player's creativity or wishes?

I think the problem is that in refusing these kickers you are taking away the players' ability to create the character they want.  Instead I might suggest turning what might be a veto into an interview.  Start by asking why these kickers are compelling to their characters.  What I think you might really be seeing in these examples is player reticence to expose their characters to the adverse work of more intrusive gamemasters.  Many players have been 'jerked around' by poor gamemasters with just these kinds of character hooks.

Another possibility is that they are unclear about what you are asking for.  The examples read as simple reasons for being in the game, perhaps you might ask the players to expand on these to give you some idea how they motivate the characters to action.

To jburneko's example:
"My character is an FBI agent and his superior has just assigned him to a series of strange serial murders."

The Amazing Kreskin replied:
Perhaps a series of strange murders... in your hometown?

I don't think this kind of intrusive gamemastering will work for everyone.  I usually go with the idea that the player has something in mind that they are having trouble articulating.

Ultimately it seems like you do a great deal of preparation before hand.  (This is not a bad thing!)  This can create many of the problems I associate with "Sets of Encounters" (as written in the old FAQ).  Ultimately you find you have a specific ending in mind, no matter what you do past that point it will become railroading in one way or another.  Of course there are certain expectations for endings based on the genres involved, but to choose a singular one is the pitfall.

In the Call of Cthulhu game, the obvious ending requires some kind of confrontation with a potent force from the genre.  This is so obvious, it happens to be wrong.  Failure in the face of adversity is an equally valid ending.  This is clearly the impression one gets from the sanity rules in Call of Cthulhu.  (Personally, when I read your description of the 'artist' and her crimes and the moral quandary over how to handle it, I thought of the solution that would be obvious to most of the characters I create; turn her to stone.)

To handle how to 'find' an ending in my games I frequently ask questions of my (not terribly Narrativist) players like, "If this were a movie, how do you see it ending?  How will your character 'get us there?'"  I do this kind of thing frequently in all my games.  Many times I find out that the players have a completely different view of what the important elements are in the game and usually theirs is a better game, so I go with that.  (Otherwise, I know it is time for the 'wake-up call' kind of scene, to put the characters to the test and get things moving again - in any direction.)

One thing I always explain in our game system is that, no matter how you slice it, a role-playing game is a group effort (this is why railroading is one of the most difficult forms to excel at).  While it does not have to be fully in the Narrativist mode, I always stress how important it is to have the characters (and by extension their players) involved at every level of the game's creation.  I hope this advice helps out some, it is central to a lot of what I suggest for new gamemasters.

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-09-20 13:06 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

I agree with Fang's post in every particular.

For the record, both in this thread and the first presentation in an earlier one, Fang's material is 100% consistent with the presentation/use of relationship maps in The Sorcerer's Soul, especially as they relate to player-characters' Kickers.

Best,
Ron

[jburneko]

I'm kind of puzzled about one element of a lot of recent discussion: the idea that the GM is dragging reluctant, baffled players into a Narrativist context for role-playing.

Hello Ron,

I think the issue is not so much dragging reluctant players into Narrativism, as it is trying to get them to understand that the rules have changed slightly.  I did say, 'And the rest can leave' up there.  What I was refering to are the players that I KNOW are hardcore gamists and immersionists and what not.  My d20 fanatic for example.  I'm not going to throw him out until he becomes too much of a detraction because for all I know he might suddenly take to this stuff simply because he's never had that ability.  Not likely but I don't know.  The main point is I'm not going to change my style to suit his preferences no matter how much he may tote that as the, 'hallmark of a good GM.'

I'm talking about the ones who write stories about their characters outside of the game but still can't break the mold of being only in control of what the character says and does.  I'm tired of games devolving into long Q&A sessions on the physical layout of areas down to things like,

'Is there a bottle on the table next to me?"

durring a bar brawl.  It's tavern.  It's a bar brawl.  Do you WANT there to be a bottle on the table?  Go ahead.

What I'm trying to get the players to do is change their percpetion on what their role as a player is and what my role as a GM is.  I'm trying to get them to change their mental model of what a role-playing game is.  They may care about the story.  They may think about their character from an author's point of view but they still don't understand how to apply those techniques and thoughts DURING actual play.  I think they would take to it if they knew that they were allowed to.  But on top of communicating that they're allowed to think that way, they don't understand HOW to or what their limits are.  I'm trying to figure out how to fascilitate those behaviors and restructure those concepts in the players who I know would take to it if only they understood that they were now allowed to.

And simply saying, 'You're now allowed to author and direct your character and the things important to him or her." doesn't cut it.  They don't know what that MEANS.  And explaining to them in a lot of Academic terminology doesn't help.  So, I have to fascilitate it through actual play and I'm trying to figure out how to do that.

Jesse

[unodiablo]

Hi Jesse,
I don't know if anyone mentioned this (limited time today), but I think the problem is this: when you play it with other people, you are playing a one-shot. So the Players/characters will get into the drama and tension you've created. Because the players are more tied into your SCENARIO's Premise, rather than Chill's Premise.

When you play with your regular group, you're basically playing X-Files or GhostBusters using the SAVE backround for all of the characters... Like was mentioned above, you have the FBItis syndrome. Using Sorcerer, or perhaps making unique Chill characters for the adventure, and playing it as a one shot with the same group would most likely prove far different, and probably a lot more rewarding for you.

I love one shots. :smile:

(I apologise if this discussion has gone far beyond this, our internet access is cut off at work right now. Damn viruses.)
Sean

[Mike Holmes]

Hey Jesse,

Play a different game entirely. Play SOAP, or some other GMless game. This will force your players to learn how to do author and director stance. Then ask them if they want to play the original game in a similar fashion to the game they just played.

Don't be surprised if they say no, however. You are at a point where I ws a while back where I wanted to convert my players. Well, they are bright guys all, and they understand Narrativism, now. Some just don't like it. For them I continue to run Sim style, while the others who do find Narrativism engaging I play narrativist with. You'll find that there are just some people who don't like it.

But you won't really know until you show them something like SOAP where narrativism is blindingly obvious. Then you can point and say, "Director mode, you know, like how you play that SOAP game!"

Interestingly, if you really wanted to impress upon the players what narrativism is like in your regular game, just use technique that I used when teaching some newbies SOAP for the first time. Just keep saying, "I don't know, is it?" Like if a player says, "Is there a bottle on the table?", just respond, "Why are you asking me?" Or if you get, "Are we there yet?", respond, "I don't know, are you?"

"I assume that there's a staircase that goes to the second floor?" should get the player, "Whatever you think is best."

All the while look at them as though you asked the question first. If they say, "That's the GMs job", respond, "Not in a narrativist game." In SOAP the response is, "I'm not the GM, I'm a player, doofus."

As I said, though, prepare for potentially disgruntled players.

Mike

[jburneko]

On 2001-09-25 17:05, Mike Holmes wrote:
Play a different game entirely. Play SOAP, or some other GMless game.

Oh, I know.  I wasn't specifically refering to Chill.  That was merely provided as a concrete example of the more important abstract concept.  SOAP is DEFINITELY in my player's futures.

Don't be surprised if they say no, however. You are at a point where I ws a while back where I wanted to convert my players.

I'm not trying to convert.  I'm trying to coax out what I know is there in some.  Ron put it a good way in a private message to me: "Simulationist-By-Habit".  I'm trying to break certain players (myself included) of habits.

Interestingly, if you really wanted to impress upon the players what narrativism is like in your regular game, just use technique that I used when teaching some newbies SOAP for the first time. Just keep saying, "I don't know, is it?" Like if a player says, "Is there a bottle on the table?", just respond, "Why are you asking me?" Or if you get, "Are we there yet?", respond, "I don't know, are you?"

"I assume that there's a staircase that goes to the second floor?" should get the player, "Whatever you think is best."

REALLY good advice.  Thanks.  This of course where I have to break myself of habits.  Player's ask a question.  I snap a response.  Hard to escape that mold when you've been doing it for 12 years.

As I said, though, prepare for potentially disgruntled players.

Oh, I'm prepared.  I've already been put through the, 'you have no right to be a GM if you're not prepared to cater to the lowest-common-denomenator player' ringer.

Note: I use 'lowest-common-denomenator' purly as a metaphore and not a judgement statement.  The player in question was expressing the opinion that if even a single player wasn't interested in a game, the game shouldn't be played rather than simply uninviting the uninterested player.  To uninvite the uninterested player would be rude, arrogant and disrespectful of the player's wishes.  Oh and the GM has no rights.  It's the GM's job to cater to the wishes of players at the expense of his own.  This is why being a GM is such a noble thing.

Jesse

[Mike Holmes]

REALLY good advice.  Thanks.  This of course where I have to break myself of habits.  Player's ask a question.  I snap a response.  Hard to escape that mold when you've been doing it for 12 years.

Sheesh is that it? Try 23 years from age 9 to 32. Or all my life. Still, going Narrativist I think is much easier for GMs. We've had experience making stuff up. Most players have not. Still, watching those same players (one who I've been playing with since age nine) play SOAP, they all got it within the first two rounds of play. Do it this weekend, or whenever you play next. Just say that you have a fun beer and pretzels game that'll only take a half an hour, an hour at most.

Oh, I'm prepared.  I've already been put through the, 'you have no right to be a GM if you're not prepared to cater to the lowest-common-denomenator player' ringer.

Well, I hate to say it, but I'm kinda on their side. Or rather that is what all this talk of social contract is about. If a player expects a certain sort of game then trying to force them to play something else is probably just going to make everyone unhappy. That's what happened to me when I tried that. Certainly there may be some that will convert, but you'll know after you play SOAP and relate to the players that you'd like to give them that sort of power in your other games. Some may say no way. Fortunately for me, I like to play Simulationist, so I don't mind if that's their habit. I just happen to like the other forms as well, and play that way now with people who prefer that mode.

If someone wants to play chess and you want to play stratego, either someone will have to compromise and have less (possibly no) fun, which may make the whole game a drag, or you'll have to find another opponent.

Mike

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-09-25 22:41 ]