The Forge Archives

kibitz n
1. To look on and offer unwanted, usually meddlesome advice to others.
2. To chat; converse.

kibitz v
1. make unwanted and intrusive comments

I noticed something in from the Elfs session I had run recently. There was tons of kibitzing going on. I don't know if they could be considered true kibitzing since the suggestions seemed to be rather welcome. In the other game, giving suggestions to another player is strictly verboten. I was wondering what other people have had experiences with commenting on how a player plays their character.

If you means vhat I tink you means then it no bad in my group.

"Hey, you should do blah."
"Hey, you should say blah."
"What should I do guys?"
"Ooooo!  You do this and I'll do that."

If you mean that kind of stuff - more power to you.  Creative, and welcome, advice can lead to a lot of cool/funny shit happening.  Greater pool of creative energy and all that; like clustering.  Seems to mostly get used for humor purposes in my group; just a tendancy; dramatic/tense situations can be real character driven so the immersion level kicks up and hence the kibitzing drops off.

Side note:  If the other group forbade this kind of stuff that would make me personally feel creatively/social/participationally (word?) stifled...  Sorta like saying 'Shut up!' in a more polite way.  Seems overly controlling if the majority of the group wants to offer suggestions.  Of course, if the majority doesn't bend that way it's just setting the social contract and I suppose I can't legitametely criticize that.

Long-time lurker, few-times poster, great topic, love the show.

Our recent restarted run of HeroWars/Shadow World is RIFE with sotto voce kibbitzing.  We never presume to actually tell each other what to do, though.  It's taken in the spirit of camraderie, at least as far as I can tell.

Mike Holmes as GM is fairly loose with the reins as far as that goes.  I think he's experimenting with us, actually.  

Josh Neff as a GM is also pretty lax about that, but then I'm biased.

Other GMs I've played with have been less so, but it has never been a point of contention.

I think it's a good, cohesive, functional group that can kibbitz and stay on track simultaneously.  We have that.  Our social contract is tight.

I welcome suggestions from other players. From a sim perspective it's almost necessary when playing a character that's smarter than you are.  Sometimes it takes four people with a 14 intelligence to equal one character with an 18. As long as it's included in the social contract, everything is cool.

,Matt G.

Quote from: JulieMike Holmes as GM is fairly loose with the reins as far as that goes.  I think he's experimenting with us, actually.

What, who me? Experiment? ;-)

Actually it's a little beyond experiment at this stage. I think I understand how play that allows this sort of thing is supposed to go, and I'm just running with it. It'd be hard to stop Josh anyhow. :-)

There is, actually, one concern that this does bring up. I've noted times that I've kibbitzed perhaps too much. That is, if there's a really cool and neat idea that hanging out there, I've on occasion mentioned it before the player has had a chance to choose it themselves. Which means that they might, just might, resent not having been allowed the chance to have come up with it themselves.

That is, the challenge in narrativism is to come up with the cool thing to happen in-game. Players seem to relish the moments when they are the ones who came up with that moment that wows the other players. If you pre-empt that by making the suggestion, then you've stolen the player's thunder.

So there's a fine line that's often trammelled. Sure it's fun to offer suggestions, and when it makes for good play, that's cool. But also consider leaving the player some room to make their decisions. So, what I intend to do more is to ask first. Instead of blurting things out, I'll ask what the player is thinking of doing, and if the player wants an idea. That way, I'm not a jerk for stealing the accolades that they'd get for coming up with something.

The point is that Kibbitzing is fine so long as it's helpful, and doesn't disempower the player who you're trying to help. Keep that in mind, and be careful, and I think it's a positive addition to many games.

Note that this all refers to Narrativist play. For a really Sim game, Kibbitzing could be very harmful in any form. And, of course, it's traditional meaning in games (applicable to Gamist games), telling players tactical information that they aren't supposed to know, is cheating.

Mike

Quote from: crucielSide note:  If the other group forbade this kind of stuff that would make me personally feel creatively/social/participationally (word?) stifled...  Sorta like saying 'Shut up!' in a more polite way.  Seems overly controlling if the majority of the group wants to offer suggestions.  Of course, if the majority doesn't bend that way it's just setting the social contract and I suppose I can't legitametely criticize that.

Well, it is somewhat overt in the social contract. I think the social contract is kind of weird like that. If it's unstated, it tends to take the form it needs to better than if it is overtly stated. Take water and pour it into containers of various shapes it will take the shape of the vessel without any help. How can you make the water take a different shape?

Anyhoo,.. as far as that groups social contract, I think it has more to do with what the GM and his girlfriend want or think is right or an RPG is "supposed to be." ...I think. Maybe I'm bitter.

In either case, I think Julie made an interesting point.

QuoteI think it's a good, cohesive, functional group that can kibbitz and stay on track simultaneously. We have that. Our social contract is tight.

This suggests that a cohesive group can take kibitzing and other supposedly non-play conducive behavior while a group that cannot have kibitzing may be held together with spit, glue and bubble gum...much like the other group, I can tell you.

I usually allow it as long as the player characters can communicate in some way or for beguinners, but I often use an in story barrier to force a player out on their own. Sometimes I do this for challenge, but most often I do this to bring a background player into the game focus.

One interesting note: In a Sci-fi game I ran ages ago, kibitzing out of character was used to create an NPC. Any time a player was kibitzing the other players would ask "who are you?". We were most often on starships or other facilities so at one point a player, realizing they were not involved in the immediate play, responded that they were the janitor. The players told him to get back to work. This soon became a running gag, the janitor would show up in the middle of jungles and top secret bases with no explination. He never did anything but offer advice and was always dismissed after his inital comment. It was a fun and bizzare element to our game that I think of fondly to this day.

The kibbitz is a strong part of my group's method of play. I view the game as a collaborative experience, and we don't have any restrictions on suggestions. It often makes the scenes far more interesting.

On the other hand, rude comments made 'out-of-character' are restricted. Generally, if someone is going to get a dig in on a character that could be interpreted as 'in-game', the player must suffer the consequences of having his character make the comment. This arose out of too many instances of "Oh, my character didn't say that..."

Of course, when active play isn't going on, rude comments are totally appropriate. I think this portion of our social contract arose from a desire to avoid confusion regarding 'in-character' and 'out-of-character' comments.

I think kibbitzing is great as long as:
1) it doesn't disrupt the action in the game with long off-topic ramblings
2) it doesn't become a means for players to dominate or belittle others (such as by always coming up with a cool thing before anyone else can or insisting that his advice be followed)

Occasionally, I'll ban kibbitzing during combat - I enjoy the sense of confusion that comes when players can't spend minutes planning every action.  It just feels much more authentic.  But I need to have a group of players who also enjoy that and who all know the rules well enough to understand what they're doing.

Kibbitzing is particularly valuable when PCs get split up.  The GM can focus on one group at a time, but let the other players stay involved by making comments and suggestions.

Kibbitzing is something I don't really mind in most of my games.  When I shove the players with a rather sticky ethical situation that they have to work through I'll let them go at for as long as I feel it is nessisary.  It is a nice time to get up and go to the bathroom, refill the drink, and browse possible ideas for what is going to happen next.  Usualy I have Kibbitzing happen slightly in charecter that way should I ever feel like moving on I can usualy force the situation on them.  This way they have an oppertunity to discuss a bit about what they would like to do next, but they still have the real world feel that the planet holds still for no one.  People seem to like that a lot and it can lead to some interesting situations.

I do not allow Kibbitzing in combat.  I beleive that combat should be a whirrlewind of confusion and action and that there is no time to sit down and make lengthy plans once the action has started.  I make a few exceptions to this rule but in general it is one of the few things I am firm about.  Also combat can be the slowest part of the game session, if I write a game session without combat it is usally a good hour or two shorter than if I had thrown in some random encounters.  With the time constraints of some of my players in mind I usualy try to hurry through combat and that is a big part of it.

Now there is the bad part of Kibbitzing.  These are the random jokes, sexual comments, and digressions that just sort of happen.  It is these that I am rather torn about.  I mean I can't demand them not to joke and have a good time.  It is also sometimes the only oppertunty I get to see some of my freinds so it tends to happen quite a bit.  Normaly I let it go untill a certain point.  Then I usualy make them buckle down by getting them to do something.  I look at Kibbitzing as a part of the game, I mean it is a social activity for some people I know it is the social activity of thier week so having some normal conversations is always nice.  But not every game session and not for to long otherewise nothing happens.

I used to be in a group that subscribed to the whole "shut up, you're not there" kind of mentality, strict actor stance and all that. I knew there was something about it that I didn't like, I didn't know what it was or why.

Something I realized a while ago, though, and I've made it a point to tell my players: If other players are making suggestions about what your character should do or say, take it as a compliment. It means they're paying attention, and they care about your character. And taking those suggestions is not 'cheating'. I'm taking an active role in fostering what Ron called (in this thread) 'cheerleading interaction'.

Personally, I've had quite enough of each player trying their absolute best to ignore what's going on with the other PCs, because it would intrude on their sense of immersion, and only interacting with the other players for actual PC to PC dialog. And I've had enough of campaigns consisting of a GM running four or five separate little games, one for each player, and calling it a group.

-- Ben

Quote from: Ben MorganI used to be in a group that subscribed to the whole "shut up, you're not there" kind of mentality, strict actor stance and all that. I knew there was something about it that I didn't like, I didn't know what it was or why.

My group does this a lot, but it isn't because they're making suggestions. It's because the players like to launch into long speeches that their character would say if they were there -- but they're not. Often whole arguments would break out that I would have to settle, as GM, by saying things like "X, your character isn't there to say all this."

I think this style of play often derives from that -- allowing suggestions is one thing, but a lot of gamers just like to talk in-character whether it makes sense or not, and so the social contract acts to correct this.

I tend to enforce "shut up, you're not there" at times. Why? A few reasons: it emphasises and makes more meaningful the parties decision to split; it places the players more firmly in actor stance; it keeps the game movng quickly at high tension points and it requires players to solve their own problems.

That's an interesting point, Jack.

The reason that a lot of "narrativists" support the idea of lots of kibbitzing is so that people don't have any disincentive to split up. Because often it's good for the story for that to happen. Players in such play should never feel that there's any reason why they shouldn't split up. And so allowing them to continue participation via kibbitzing is extremely important.

Hadn't put that together until now.

And, as you say, it works conversely if you want to keep the characters together, or punctuate the separations.

Mike

Hey Mike,

The reason that a lot of "narrativists" support the idea of lots of kibbitzing is so that people don't have any disincentive to split up.

Nah..."reason" is too strong a word for that. The reason is what Ben said. The Narrativist metagame is managing the interest of other players in your character.

Paul