Thoughts on kibitzing.

[Mike Holmes]

Please replace the "The" at the beginning of the statement with an "A". My response was a subset of Ben's.

Mike

[Jack Aidley]

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.

And coversely I want to inhibit kibitzing to encourage the party to remain coherent. I do believe you've hit on something, Mike.

[Emmett]

I really don't think of kibitzing as bad, but it is a two edged sword. It can slow the game quite a bit, but in some instances you cam make the kibitz part of the game. In that light it cam be very enjoyable. I will usually allow players to kibitz during combat as long as they can talk, or radio or use telepathy etc. After all a trained fighting group is taught to communicate to fight coherently. In this light, I'll allow comments that in general take thirty seconds or so (not a strict rule, but a guideline). Longer than that and a lot of debate erupts and play slows. But I allow more chatter than would be possible in the game world for several reasons. One, the players are not the profesionals that they are supposed to be in the game. Most characters that have military intelegence skills or some expertise would instantaniously come to the conclusions that occur after a minute of dialog. Two it lowers stress levels to have a group effort and makes the game more fun. Three, as some of you are aware, I big into the players being a cohesive group. Kibitzing aids this.

But . . .

As I stated earlier, I restrict kibitzing in some instances to acive an effect. I tend to run little "horror" themes in my games and how afraid are you if you have five people supporting you? It adds to atmosphere. This is especcally true when the player attempts to poll the group for ideas and I tell them "They're not with you, they can't help". It's kind of mean but It gets their pulse up and that little gleam of panic in their eyes.

Another reason I restrict kibitzing is to cut out players that have all the answers for a short period and let the other players think. Some players are the go to guys for a group, and can dominate out of game decision making. Often I will work things so that they are needed for their particular skills in one place, when the rest of the group is needed elsewhere. The dominator gets to play the star and the other players get to think for themselves for a while.

[mikeryan]

In my friend's game (a homebrew far future SF game), we have what's referred to as "the big brain rule."  Except under certain circumstances (trying maintain a mystery, an isolated character under a time constraint, a stupid character, etc.), players are allowed to make suggestions to a player who is currently "on stage", even if the suggesting player's character is not present.  The rationale here is that in the game, the average intelligence of 10 is smarter than the average intelligence now.  As such, our characters are, for the most part, smarter than we are, and are more used to dealing with the situations that they deal with than we are.  As such, these suggestions are considered to be the character's "big brain".

There are several advantages to this.  First, everyone stays involved as everyone can contribute.  On those rare occaissions when we're not allowed to make suggestions, we're all paying attention closely as something is about to happen, or, in the case of one of our few stupid characters, making absurd suggestions.

Second, it allows players to confidently play in areas where their characters are adept but they aren't necessarily.  The player must still speak for their own character, but you never wind up with a player sitting there like a deer in headlights when their character is expected to make some rousing speech or to perform some really adept interrogation.

We've had some interesting outcomes, too.  One time, a character was subjected to some severe trauma, and the player decided that his character would crack.  For the next two hours of real time, the rest of us were all playing the voices in his head.  It was quite entertaining.

It can be a problem, and sometimes we do have to drag the game back into focus.

[Mike Holmes]

There seem to be two different levels of Kibitizing being talked about:

I will usually allow players to kibitz during combat as long as they can talk, or radio or use telepathy etc. After all a trained fighting group is taught to communicate to fight coherently.

This seems very in-game. Sure, it might not be realistic, entirely, but the communication is being predicated on the idea that the characters can talk. Several people have said that they'd allow "kibitzing" of this sort to occur. But there's another level, a completely OOC one that I think we're also discussing.

For example, Emmett, would you allow a player whose character had died three scenes ago to tell another player where he'd hidden the buried treasure?

That's the other level of Kibbitzing. Where there are no limits at all on what a player is allowed to tell other players. In one game recently, I suggested (me, not my character) to another player that it would be cooler if, before his character killed a minor character, that he should say something snappy rather than just doing it silently.

In another case, I had ruled as GM on what the outcome of a certain spell looked like. Another player interrupted and said, "No, wait, it should look like..." after which I said, "cool, OK it looks like that".

In another case, I played out a scene in which a character told another within earshot of a PC that he was going to kill another PC, and then headed off to do it. I played this scene out right in front of the PC who was being stalked. So he knew that he was going to be attacked before it even happened.

This all relates to the larger discussion of OOC knowledge. That is, do you try to restrict Player knowledge to what the character knows? Or do you just allow the player to know whatever info, and allow them to make appropriate decisions based on the mental separation of the data? Or, do you, like the "big brain" idea, basically allow OOC knowledge, but only with certain rationales that relate to in-game reality?

That's the real qulatitative difference in Kibbitzing, IMO. It's the point where you're obviously trying to go from support of Sim to support of Narrativism, I daresay.

Mike

[mikeryan]

For example, Emmett, would you allow a player whose character had died three scenes ago to tell another player where he'd hidden the buried treasure?

We generally draw the line at this.  If there's no way the character in question would know something, other players are expected to not provide the information.  The player of the character in question is also expected to not use information his character wouldn't have.  It helps to have a group of good roleplayers who are looking for more than just "winning" or beating the bad guys/scenario.  They need to be looking to be entertained and be involved in the entertaining story.

Mike has a good point about it being a difference between simulation and narration.

[Mike Holmes]

BTW, welcome to The Forge. I'm about to go all Forgey on you, so I thought that I'd prepare you. :-)

The player of the character in question is also expected to not use information his character wouldn't have. [\quote]I assume that this is true in almost all styles of play. If we're playing in the 10th century BC on Earth, I'd expect that a player who knows how to make gunpowder will not have his character do that. It's rare that OOC knowledge is "valid" to be employed as part of decision in an obvious manner.

OTOH, we expect that it happens constantly in play in a form called Author Stance. Basically, often players decide on what they want to happen from their POV, and then come up with a good rationale for why the character does what they do. The point is that all we really want is that there be an acceptable rationale.

Some groups have a greater tolerance on these things than others. The classic example is the "Finding the Guy at the Park" example. The Actor stance guy playing the Private Detective sees a scene in which the bad guy arrives in the park late one night. The Actor Stance player says, well, it's late, so he goes home, because that's what he'd do. The Author Stance player, however, says, he goes to the park because he always takes evening constitutionals.

Now we all know that the player is simply making up an excuse to go to the park. Some groups will call this acceptable; after all the excuse would not be beyond believability in other circumstances. It's only potentially problematic in this circumstance because players might see it as taking unfair advantage of things. But this assumes a certain style of play in the first place. Like you said, one in which the player isn't trying to "win".

It helps to have a group of good roleplayers who are looking for more than just "winning" or beating the bad guys/scenario.  They need to be looking to be entertained and be involved in the entertaining story.

This is what we refer to as modes of play. See the Articles link above, and specifically the GNS article for clarification.

Mike has a good point about it being a difference between simulation and narration.

That's Simulationism and Narrativism. These have very different meanings in use on these boards than simply thinking of it as simulation and narration.

The point is that "good roleplayers" is a relative statement. It's problematic to say that those who want to "win" aren't good roleplayers (gads that sounds politically correct, doesn't it?). It's simply a different mode. But one that you probably rightly peg as not as suitable for the Kibbitzing treatment. As I said above, what we call Gamism requires that certain information be kept from the player in order to ensure that the challenge remains intact. OTOH, information not pertaining to the challenge can be open without harm; most of these games make it illegal on principle however, and to be consistent.

So these considerations are inter-related, but the interaction is complex to say the least.

BTW, there's also a potential form of play that's somewhat post modern where OOC information is very much expected to be used. For example, one could have a game where the character was aware of the player, and they could talk to each other. Lot's of other possibilities. See the game in development here called, IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong guys), "Ever After".

Mike

[mikeryan]

BTW, welcome to The Forge. I'm about to go all Forgey on you, so I thought that I'd prepare you. :-)

Yeah.  I've been here off-and-on for 2 years.  I just don't post much as I'm not much of a GNS person, and that seems to be a bit of a stigma here.  Which is why I'm not really wild about your telling me how my response should be put in GNS terms.

I assume that this is true in almost all styles of play. If we're playing in the 10th century BC on Earth, I'd expect that a player who knows how to make gunpowder will not have his character do that. It's rare that OOC knowledge is "valid" to be employed as part of decision in an obvious manner.

True, but this does seem to be a concern or issue for some people, so I thought it was worth mentioning.

The point is that "good roleplayers" is a relative statement. It's problematic to say that those who want to "win" aren't good roleplayers (gads that sounds politically correct, doesn't it?). It's simply a different mode. But one that you probably rightly peg as not as suitable for the Kibbitzing treatment. As I said above, what we call Gamism requires that certain information be kept from the player in order to ensure that the challenge remains intact. OTOH, information not pertaining to the challenge can be open without harm; most of these games make it illegal on principle however, and to be consistent.

Fair enough; it is a bit sloppy of a statement, but I wasn't trying to put it in GNS terms.  By "good roleplayer", I mean somone who is able to suppress an instinct to "win" (as in to always succeed in game), because it would be appropriate either for the purposes of the story, the character or the way the game universe works.  It's really a level of maturity as a roleplayer (as in one who plays RPGs).  If you insist on putting this in GNS terms (but as this is Actual Play, I don't feel obligated), I'd say that kibitzing is appropriate for Narrativist and, to a limited extent, Simulationist modes.  I would agree that it's not too approrpirate for Gamist modes.  Beyond that, there is still a matter of individual player tastes.

Personally, I like some kibitzing in the game, as it's a source of ideas when I'm out of them or need to get out of the box.  It allows me to play characters that are good at things that I'm not without having to use game mechanics as a complete crutch.  I also like how it tends to bring a group of players together.

[Ian Charvill]

Through the GNS lens - I can't see kibbitzing being inappropriate in team (i.e. inter-player cooperative) gamist games.

Ignoring the GNS lens attibuting competitiveness to immature roleplaying and and cooperation to mature roleplaying is frankly nonsensical.  Is everyone who plays chess immature because they like the competition?

[mikeryan]

Ignoring the GNS lens attibuting competitiveness to immature roleplaying and and cooperation to mature roleplaying is frankly nonsensical.  Is everyone who plays chess immature because they like the competition?

No, and that's not what I meant.  I said "maturity as a roleplayer", and I meant maturity as in level of development and roleplayer as in one that plays roleplaying games.  If a concious decision is made to play a competitive game that's very Gamist in nature, that's a concious choice, and maturity as a roleplayer has nothing to do with it.  A "mature roleplayer", to me, is someone who has progressed to the point that they understand that there are more ways to gain enjoyment from roleplaying than "winning".  An "immature roleplayer" hasn't learned that yet, and frankly only sees "winning" (always succeeding, having the most treasure, etc.) as the only means of enjoyment, as typified by the stereotypical teenager who has just discovered RPGs.  They basically don't see any alternatives because they haven't developed to that point, yet.

I'm not saying "if you play competitively or only in a Gamist mode you are immature."

[Ian Charvill]

OK - I may have expressed myself a little tersely there, sorry for any offense.  Let me expand a little.  I'm going to use the word experienced, rather than mature because that seems similar to what you're saying - someone who has seen a lot of different forms of role playing and understands there are different ways to play games - without being so emotive.

Some people are eclectic and some people are specialists.  Some people like lots of stuff and some people like one particular thing.  I don't recognise that one is better than the other: the eclecticist might find it easier to have fun in a variety of gaming groups; the specialist might become really good at their particular type of game.

I don't see any logical way in which experience neccesitates a shift in style.  Experience doesn't require that someone becomes eclectic, it might just lead to them becoming more focussed.

I've read a lot of nineteenth century poetry (there's an imprint in England which means you can get the complete work of Keats or Wordworth or Poe or Whitman for a pound.  And I was unemployed for a time with little to do but go to the library or buy cheap books).  The only thing that tought me was that I don't much like nineteenth century poetry*.  Experience has taught me that, chances are, I wouldn't like to read 19th Century poetry.  Experience has not broadened my tastes.

Experience, as I see it, has no direct bearing on what type of game people like and whether they prioritise competition or "the purposes of the story, the character or the way the game universe works".

Ian

* I mean 19th Century English poetry, the French kicked a certain amount of ass around then, but I only start to see their influence on the English language scene during the modernists - also there are certain 19th century poems which are strong, but I'm talking about the body of work.  My point here - well basically it's a certain amount of showing off to counter the idea that I might be an unreconstructed luddite gamer with no appreciation of the finer points of things.

[Ian Charvill]

If I can commit the soleicism of following my own post - and in response to the fact that there was little on-topic in the previous post:

Kibbutzing can have an powerful effect on inter-player relationships.  The "My Guy" response doesn't need to come from GM abuse - I've seen quieter players have their characters half-run by other more dominant players in the group - and I've seen that result in non-fun play for the people concerned.

[mikeryan]

No problem, Ian.

Your reclassifying it as "experienced" is spot on.

I pretty much agree with what you're saying, although I don't think I was putting forth experience neccesitating a shift in style (at least I didn't intend to).  I meant it more as the option being there.  Your poetry analogy works.  As you're exposed to more styles of poetry, you can decide what you like and don't like.  As a roleplayer becomes more experienced, he can make a conscious choice of whether to be ecclectic or specialized (or somewhere in between).  Until he has that experience, though, he's only going to be able to play in the mode that he originally came in at and won't recognize the other modes for what they are.  Even if the experienced gamer has decided to be competitive, he's seen the various modes of play and can understand that someone may be coming from a different approach.  He's also able to recognize when those modes will be incompatible.

Your point about quieter players is excellent.

[DP]

I think kibbutzing is a good idea for players who need a little nudge for group cohesion. If they all grew up or worked on the same kibbutz, they know each other when the game starts...

*ducks*

Shalom,

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

This thread is wandering. Jack, can you provide another question or specific topic for some focus?

Everyone else, wait for it, please.

Best,
Ron