GNS and Social Contract (split)

[Matt Snyder]

Good question. Is our RoS play narrativist? I think one of the challenges in answering that lies in that RoS is probably one of the few workable hybrid games. I suspect we "go simulationist" almost as often as we "go narrativist." If the premise of that game is "What will you kill for?" or "What is worth killing for?", I can point to key events in the game that indicate where the game 'goes narrativist.' (BTW, it is much easier for me to say, that yes, _I_ was making narrativist choices at that point, however, far less easy for me to speak for others. Yes, probably they were.) However, I think I can reasonably point to other events where people are dreaming the dream, seeing what it's like to live in a near-renaissance city, etc.

What you're still missing, I suspect, is who's GM-ing what and when. Our RoS GM is Tony (aka Asaraludu here on the Forge). Lisa and I are both players in RoS. Whereas, one of us is GM in other games, invariably. So, we have three GMs, as many games (indeed more as we've changed games), and triple the dynamic to work through.

[Tim Alexander]

Good question. Is our RoS play narrativist? I think one of the challenges in answering that lies in that RoS is probably one of the few workable hybrid games. I suspect we "go simulationist" almost as often as we "go narrativist."

Oooh, yeah. I have yet to actually play RoS, but I can definately see how it could handle both modes. Since it sounds like people aren't exactly looking to learn theory, you may be best off just testing the waters with some focused games to see if you can draw it out that way.

What you're still missing, I suspect, is who's GM-ing what and when. Our RoS GM is Tony (aka Asaraludu here on the Forge). Lisa and I are both players in RoS. Whereas, one of us is GM in other games, invariably. So, we have three GMs, as many games (indeed more as we've changed games), and triple the dynamic to work through.

Yeah, that sounds tougher, but I don't think you guys are really all that far from each other, or at least there's a lot of indications that things can work. I sort of wish I wasn't the lone voice here; that you could get some additional input from folks.

-Tim

[M. J. Young]

I sort of wish I wasn't the lone voice here; that you could get some additional input from folks.

Be careful for what you wish; anyway, I was catching up on the thread and planning to say something already, it just happens that I came in at this point.

Lisa, what Mike said--maybe a bit more clearly, I hope.

Some years back when Ron first introduced the basics of GNS at Gaming Outpost, I was adamantly opposed to one point that has been completely dropped from the theory since then: the notion that each player has one primary mode in which he usually plays, and which he tries to force on any game or situation.

A lot of the arguments back then were not very informative, because I think all of us were at least at times confusing techniques with goals. We didn't really have a good way to get to goals (and probably still don't), so we substituted techniques--a narrativist likes this technique because it enhances his ability to address premise, while a gamist likes that technique because it enhances his ability to face the challenge. The problem is that while techniques can support particular goals, they can be engineered to support any goal in the right context. Someone just recently made that mistake again, thinking that rules lite meant narrativist and rules heavy meant gamist--you can build very complex narrativist rules systems and very simple gamist ones (and the same for simulationism, both ways). Yet the core point I made then still stands: I move between GNS modes during play, sometimes enjoying the competition, sometimes the premise, sometimes the dream. My games tend to do that as well.

That said, I'm something of a bulldog in defense of GNS. I understand it; I see how it works. It really is found in everyone's games; it's just usually unrecognized. Further, as long you're not having GNS conflicts, you don't need necessarily to recognize it.

There are four ways in which GNS modes mix in play that I've seen.

The first is drift. This essentially means that no one is paying attention, but the players push the game in one direction or another. If everyone in the game is on the same page, the game usually drifts to one corner and stays there; if people have different desires, the game will drift toward one and then be pulled back toward another. Drift can work well for a long time, as long as no one pushes too hard toward their corner--your courtesy issue. For example, in Multiverser playtesting, there was one player who decided to kill everything and everyone who was not a player character. This made it rather difficult for anyone else in the game to build relationships or interact with the non-player characters, to explore setting, to create story--the one guy was blowing everything away as fast as it came on the set. Now, if you had someone who was so very gamist that everything was a target he had to challenge, your other players would be very unhappy with that--unless, of course, they too saw this as a challenge. (It seems to me that it devolves into a first person shooter, which some would say is not an RPG, but I know groups who have a lot of fun just killing everything.) As long as everyone is comfortable letting the game be about this for a while, and about that for a while, and about the other thing for a while, and the game keeps drifting back to what each really wants at some point, drift works. Arguably it doesn't work as well for any one individual as having a game that never drifts away from his preference, but since there are issues of socializing at play here as well (that is, we wanted to get together with our friends and play a game to pass the time while we socialize) this aspect of drift is the cost of playing together. I suspect this is what you're doing.

Transition is formalized drift. In this case, the system (using the Lumpley Principle definition of system) is designed so that everyone knows we're moving from the simulationist part to the gamist part to the narrativist part, and everyone tags along. (Vincent Baker defined system as that set of rules which are actually applied within the social contract to determine the content of the imaginary space; it is distinct from the rules in the book, because it is the specific application of how to play that the group uses.) Transition has advantages over drift in that either there is no tug of war over how play is going to proceed at the moment, or that tug of war is formalized in the system so that it can be easily resolved. It has the disadvantage that to really use it, everyone has to consciously understand that the modes of play are going to change in particular ways at particular times, and not just go with the flow.

Convergence means that the play situation is set up such that gamist, narrativist, and simulationist play will all look the same. The best example of convergence is the film Armageddon. The world is going to be destroyed. You people are the only ones who can stop it. Will you do it? The gamist will do it because this is the great challenge. The simulationist will do it because there's no logic to a character refusing to try to save the world when it might be his only chance to survive. The narrativist will do it because he's moving into the great story of risking your own life for the benefit of others. When the player says yes, his character will get on that space ship and go out there, that tells us nothing about his GNS preferences, because it is unlikely that anyone would say no. (Even if he does say no, it could be from any GNS preference--he doesn't believe he can meet the challenge, or he doesn't think his character would risk his life on such a hopeless errand, or he wants to address the premise of what happens if he doesn't go, if the world is destroyed for his inaction.) Convergence is very difficult to maintain. I've suggested that you could run something like members of a platoon in Viet Nam, and have pretty good convergence most of the time, but the more leeway individual characters have to get outside the story, the easier it is for decisions to conflict with other goals.

Isolation is the last technique; it's the one we use in Multiverser. Players play together at the same table, but their characters don't have to be involved with each other at all. Eschewing the party concept big time, we in essence say you can work together if you want, or you can all go your own way and do whatever you want, and it's all the same as far as the game is concerned. (It's very player driven at times, but not always so.) Because the player characters don't have to stick together, players can each push toward their own goals and the game will drift to accommodate them.

I'd say either you're using drift to accommodate everyone, or your group isn't actually as diverse as you think it is. (It is possible that everyone really is simulationist, with different ideas about what the best thing to explore would be, and in that exploration you provide different aspects that can be addressed.)

Matt has expressed some concern about illusionist play versus player-driven play, and a desire to do something more narrativist. I think the issue of illusionism is probably more significant than GNS, if that's the problem; an illusionist referee will to some degree override everyone's goals (I've played with one, I know). That doesn't mean that illusionist techniques aren't useful--I use them at times and encourage them in measured amounts. But if this is the problem, it may need to be addressed.

An illusionist GM starts with a storyline and decides this is what's going to happen. The players then start interacting with the storyline, but nothing they can do will alter it. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I've got one scenario in which players have to find and disarm a bomb planted by terrorists. To avoid the possibility that they would find the bomb in the first ten minutes, nothing in the game is on the map. The referee fills in the map as the game progresses. Instead, the players encounter each event on the sheet in the order they're listed, and decide what to do about them. There is no way that the players can get to the end in advance--they have to go through the events in sequence to find the bomb. It plays like a movie script storyboard, and if the players are not aware that this technique is being used they don't feel like they've lost control. However, it has to be used judiciously--tell a player that this choice doesn't matter, and he doesn't care about this choice. It's perfectly fine for the players to wander into the events in the slated order, as long as 1) some of their decisions still matter (like how they handle each event) and 2) they don't know which ones don't.

It's also perfectly legitimate to play in participationist or trailblazing style, both of which resemble illusionism, if the playgroup wants to do that.

However, if a player feels as if the decisions of his character will not alter anything about the story that matters to him, he will rapidly become disenchanted.

There's the famous gag about the referee trying to hook the players into a scenario by giving them a map. Some old crone tries to sell them a map, but they don't buy it. Someone in the inn offers to trade it to them for something, but they're not interested. They meet a hermit on the road who tries to give it to them. Again and again the referee tries to force players to take the map, because the referee has planned out what the players are going to do. Matt, I presume, doesn't want that. He wants the players to create what they do, and the referee to respond to that to hold it together and help make it interesting. That creates a conflict of game style--the referee wants to decide what, in general, the players are going to do, and Matt thinks the players should decide that, taking it in a direction different from that which the referee intends.

The other thing that's happening, though, is when Matt gets people to agree that the referee isn't going to decide in advance what they're supposed to do, the other players fall apart, and think that means there's nothing to do--no plot, because the referee didn't prepare one for us.

Actually, it really sounds to me like your group has been using trailblazing for a long time, and very successfully; and Matt doesn't want to follow the trail. Trailblazing means that the referee plans what the story is going to do (level of detail may vary), and the players commit themselves to finding the clues that point to the right path and following it. It's a quite functional way to play; it is not conducive to narrativism, because it really doesn't let the players address premise and decide where the story goes. (Narrativism is not telling a coherent story; it's addressing a moral, ethical, or personal issue to raise questions and possibly suggest answers.)

I've rambled long enough, and my youngest is asking for food, so I've got to go.

I hope some of this is helpful.

--M. J. Young

[The GM]

Hey MJ,
Just a couple of things here as it's late and I'm a bit tired. I plan on responding to a whole host of other points that people have brought up later, perhaps early next week. There's some good stuff going on here, and some stuff that leaves me wanting to bang my head against the monitor and scream, no! no! no!. As my weekend is more booked than seems humanly possible, I'll not be able to get to everything that I want to address for a bit.
However, you said something that instantly caught my eye, and so I wanted to take a moment to get to it.

>>Arguably it doesn't work as well for any one individual as having a game that never drifts away from his preference, but since there are issues of socializing at play here as well (that is, we wanted to get together with our friends and play a game to pass the time while we socialize) this aspect of drift is the cost of playing together. I suspect this is what you're doing.<<

You place a negative connotation on this type of play, as though it's a bad thing. You call it the 'cost', implying that somehow there's risk involved for said players.(i.e. you pay for this style of play by giving up what you want so someone else can have what they want, thus coming out on the short end of the entertainment stick.) We call it the benefit of playing together. It's rewarding for a number of reasons, primarily social, however, there's the side beni of getting to play in different styles and grow as a player and GM alike.  What's not to like about that? Obviously, Matt's not grooving on it (the whole reason I'm trying to figure this stuff out to begin with.) The rest of the group is okie dokie with it, as am I. I think Matt has agreed to this point, (step up and disagree here, Matt, if you need to.) The rest of the group is fine with what you term 'cost' and what I term 'benefit'.

>>However, if a player feels as if the decisions of his character will not alter anything about the story that matters to him, he will rapidly become disenchanted.<<

Agreed, absolutely. This is why I feel it's important to go with the flow depending on who (as in which player) I am focusing on at any given moment.
For instance, if I, as a GM, am dealing with Matt, I know I have to give him options that allow him to go out and create something that means something to him/his character. By contrast, another player of mine, Wendy, wants to respond to my cues, and in fact, requires those cues to 'know what to do.' Matt's style of play is *not* better than Wendy's, it's simply different. Since we've all agreed that we want to play together, I have to give them both what they not only want, but need in order to have a good time. IOW, back to the compromise issue.
Maybe here's the problem. Matt watches me give Wen 'illusionist' play, and automatically assumes that this is not the sort of game that he wants to play, when in reality, I'm ready and willing to shift gears to give him the narrative that he wants in the same game, same session. Don't scoff, I've done it, it works. ;D
An addendum to this is that as soon as Matt decides that a particular game didn't meet his expectations, he's in favor of moving onto something else, thinking that changing games will solve his conundrum. Prior to Matt joining our group, we played long campaigns, the shortest one was 3 years in length. Now we bounce around all the time (w/ the exception of the RoS game). It's like he doesn't take the time to 'warm' to any given game. If it doesn't work out in the first 3 sessions, he's done. Not only is this hard for me as a GM, because I'm constantly trying to re-tool to fit his preferences, but it's hard for the other players, and for me as a player, because we come up w/ these great ideas for games and characters, and then Matt bails, forcing us to start all over again.
I Am Not Pointing Fingers! Nor am I being accusatory or nasty. This is just the way it is. I like Matt, he's my pal, and I want to accommodate him as much as I can, just as I would for any other player/friend so that he can have a good time. It just seems as though he doesn't allow the time for the opportunity to come around where a campaign gels and is satisfying. He takes an immediate like/dislike and that's it.
He gets frustrated, we get frustrated. This is not cool, especially when you look at the rest of the group and how well we play and I think, 'man, why is it not working for this guy? Is it because he's micro managing gaming, and thus making it too complex and when we fail to meet that complexity, he shuts off? Is it that he thinks that I'm trying to impose other player's style of play on him, and then he shuts off?
Now, don't think that Matt and I don't discuss this stuff, we do. When a game doesn't work for him, which it's been a high percentage that  haven't, I ask the why, and make a concerted effort not to repeat what he doesn't like. Unfortunately, it seems like new dislikes keep popping up like weeds.
BTW, Matt is not a disagreeable sort guy. All of this looks kinda negative, I don't mean it that way at all. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this so he can have fun too.

>>(Narrativism is not telling a coherent story; it's addressing a moral, ethical, or personal issue to raise questions and possibly suggest answers.)<<

I do this all the time, as I like this sort of thing a great deal. My other players are not adverse to this either. Why isn't it working for Matt? Again, good question. This is the solution I seek. I'm reading everything that he has to say, I talk to him and I nod my head in full agreement of what he wants to see in a game and I say to myself "YES! This is cool!" Then I try to dish it up, and for various reasons, the execution isn't quite to his taste. Is it because I blend so many modes of play in the same game/system/setting? Maybe.

Gawd, I wrote more than I meant to. I'm off to bed. So much for short comments. ;)

Warm Regards,
Lisa

[jdagna]

Like MJ, I'm joining this thread a little late, and I hope what I have to say hasn't already been said.  It looks like it hasn't.

The GM said:

Now, I knew that my gamist player really liked the idea of winning, whether that be saving the day from the bad guy through a series of events, or achieving minor goals, or whatever. By 'winning' scenarios, this player feels rewarded and entertained.  
My simulationist player, by contrast is a by the book sort of fellow. He likes published metaplot, he likes linear, straight forward play. He likes to know where the campaign is going at all times. This is fun to him.
I, in contrast to them both, have an 'anything goes' attitude. The story is where it's at for me, and if the story will be made better by taking unconventional actions, that's not only ok w/ me, I prefer it.
Obviously, because we had never heard of GNS, we did not apply any of its principles. According to what I have read in these forums, that campaign should have been a trainwreck.

... snip ...

Using GNS designations, the campaign swung wildly from one spectrum to the other, frequently mid-session as I, being the storyteller, purposefully provided aspects of each category to satisfy each player, myself included.

In particular, what I noticed is that you said "because we had never heard of GNS, we did not apply any of its principles."

I think this is wrong.  You didn't know of GNS, but you did apply its principles.  You had come to your own understanding of what each player wanted and you made sure that each person got a portion of what they wanted during play.  So GNS is just a new way of naming things for you, but the concepts aren't new.  Or, to put it in a physics way, you didn't know Newton's equation F=ma, but you discovered on your own that a=F/m.  Same concept, different way of expressing it.  

I think most good GMs come to some sort of similar understanding.  In fact, I think this is the reason the GNS article says that it isn't meant for happy groups - happy groups have almost by definition understood GNS already, if by their own name.


Also, GNS goals are only exclusive at the atomic level.  That is, you can only do one thing at a time.  However, you can easily switch between GNS modes, and many modes of play coincide in their expression in given situation.  MJ covered this very well, so I won't repeat it.  Most players have a preferred mode, but enjoy all of them to some extent.

For example, you label one of your players Gamist because you'd seen him thrive on challenges.  To maximize his enjoyment of the game, you tossed him those challenges now and then.  I think you can agree that if you stopped giving him challenges, his satisfaction with the game would probably drop, though he might still have a good time.

The reality is that most (or at least many) role-players aren't as lucky as your group.  Many of us played for a long period of time with this vague dissatisfaction we couldn't quite label or fix.  Some GMs, lacking an intuitive understanding like yours might say "What a munchkin! He keeps ruining the story."

THIS is where the value of GNS lies.  The "munchkin" and the GM have different understandings of "story."  GNS gives them words and concepts to use in describing their differences of opinion in a constructive manner.  Naturally, if you already have a way of communicating and/or understanding your differences, then you don't need GNS to help (though I think it adds a level of depth to anyone's experiences).

[Marco]

Hi folks,

I have a couple of points that I don't think are *too* tangential.

1. GNS is not just for groups that are having a problem. I see that from time to time and it's very problematic for the theory. There are quotes in the GNS essay that say it's for anyone who wants *any* kind of improvement in their gaming--of any sort (microscopic or otherwise). So the idea that "it's not important if you're not having problems" is (and there was a thread that went into this explicitly) not so.

2. There *are* people here (long time, vociferous posters) who have (IME) gone strongly on the record saying that indeed GNS preferences had bloodly well better line up (maybe that's their strong preference for tight mode focus speaking, or intolerance of other modes, I don't know). So, I think that a reader of this board could get a distinct feeling that, yes, GNS theory "in the wild" (in actual usage) should involve people who line up on the same axis (and this, IME, is entirely not true).

Both these statements (despite not getting much support here) do and have gotten support on other threads I've participated in.

I still think there's some work to be done in introductory documents for people because there are some strong preferences that aren't cannonical.

-Marco

[M. J. Young]

>>Arguably it doesn't work as well for any one individual as having a game that never drifts away from his preference, but since there are issues of socializing at play here as well (that is, we wanted to get together with our friends and play a game to pass the time while we socialize) this aspect of drift is the cost of playing together. I suspect this is what you're doing.<<

You place a negative connotation on this type of play, as though it?s a bad thing. You call it the ?cost?, implying that somehow there?s risk involved for said players.(i.e. you pay for this style of play by giving up what you want so someone else can have what they want, thus coming out on the short end of the entertainment stick.)

Obviously that negative connotation was inferred from my use of the word "cost"; I don't see cost as a negative, exactly.

I play a lot of games. Some games I really enjoy quite a bit, and some I enjoy enough, and some I can enjoy if I'm in the mood--and I'll admit that there are some games that really annoy me. I hate Canasta (I'll confess--it's because I always lose). Yet I recognize that in order to socialize with the people with whom I play games, sometimes I'm going to have to play Canasta, and Scrabble, and other games that are not high on my list, and sometimes they're going to have to play the games that I particularly enjoy. The cost of relating to other people is that we have to compromise, because no two people are in complete agreement on everything. That cost is certainly worth it (or people wouldn't pay it), but it's still a cost. I'd rather stay home and play role playing games than go to the zoo or on a picnic, but sometimes people want to get outside and do something else, so I give up staying home to be with them.

Looked at another way, there's a cost to giving up what you would prefer for what you would accept, but there is another cost for not doing so, so if cost is a negative then everything has that negative attached. I agree that there are also benefits, and I have learned to enjoy Scrabble and figure out how to play better (but not Canasta). I'd still rather play Trivial Pursuit or Ubi or Pinochle, but I can't always get my way over everyone else (even if I am the dad). I'd always rather play miniature golf than go bowling, but bowling is good, too, and sometimes that's what people want to do.

As to Matt's problems--well, let's get back

>>However, if a player feels as if the decisions of his character will not alter anything about the story that matters to him, he will rapidly become disenchanted.<<

Agreed, absolutely. This is why I feel it?s important to go with the flow depending on who (as in which player) I am focusing on at any given moment.
For instance, if I, as a GM, am dealing with Matt, I know I have to give him options that allow him to go out and create something that means something to him/his character. By contrast, another player of mine, Wendy, wants to respond to my cues, and in fact, requires those cues to ?know what to do.? Matt?s style of play is *not* better than Wendy?s, it?s simply different. Since we?ve all agreed that we want to play together, I have to give them both what they not only want, but need in order to have a good time. IOW, back to the compromise issue.
Maybe here?s the problem. Matt watches me give Wen ?illusionist? play, and automatically assumes that this is not the sort of game that he wants to play, when in reality, I?m ready and willing to shift gears to give him the narrative that he wants in the same game, same session. Don?t scoff, I?ve done it, it works. ;D

There's a lot here; I hope I can catch it all easily.

First, I think that the play style you're describing in regard to Wendy is not illusionism. What you're doing is what we call trailblazing. Let me clarify that.

By contrast, another player of mine, Wendy, wants to respond to my cues, and in fact, requires those cues to ?know what to do.?

That's the key. You aren't telling Wendy what her character does, or tying her up in your story specifically; you're laying out the breadcrumbs in a way she can grasp, so that she can find your story.

Let me quickly clarify:

[*]Illusionism: The referee is running the story, and nothing the players do will derail the referee's story, but they don't know it. They believe that their choices have meaning, but the story is going to play out exactly as the referee has planned--they will be where they are supposed to be at the right time every time, and whatever they choose to do, the same things will happen. Illusionism is marked by things like the referee knows where the final battle will take place, and knows that in this encounter that is going to happen this villain will escape to be encountered again later. The players are unaware of this. When the players realize that their choices have no meaning, you either shift to participationism or see the game fall apart.[*]Participationism: This is functionally the same as illusionism, but that the players are in on the secret. They know that nothing they do matters to the story, but they're having fun adding color to it and watching as the referee unfolds what happens to them. It's a bit like kids sitting on Grandad's knee as he tells a story:

"Once there was a prince."

"And his name was Bobby, right grampa?"

"That's right, Bobby, his name was Bobby."[/list:u]They get to add details, to decide whether they kill the dragon with the sword or the bow or the spell, perhaps, but they know that the death of the dragon is predetermined if that's what the referee has planned. Everyone pretends that their actions have consequences, but everyone knows that they don't--the referee's story is going to be told, and their characters are going to be the heroes, and that's the way the game is played.

[*]Trailblazing: This was first introduced in connection with a discussion of competetion module play. In this case, the referee does have the entire story mapped out in advance, and he places the characters at the starting point--but then he does nothing to keep them on track but lay out the clues for them, so they can try to work out which way they should go next, what they should do, how they can discover and reveal the referee's story. They in essence sit down to play a game with the understanding that the referee has a story for them to follow, and that if they can successfully follow the clues they'll reach the end and reap the rewards. They are committed up front to trying to do whatever it is the referee has planned, and so looking for the clues so that they can do that.[/list:u]Now, what you describe in connection with your relationship with Wendy sounds like trailblazing. You're dropping the clues in front of her so that she will know what it is she is supposed to do to produce the story you have planned.

Now, back to Matt and Wendy.

In order for you to provide Wendy with the clues that tell her what she  is supposed to do, you must already have in your mind some idea of which way you're expecting the game to go. You've created your adventure plan, and you're moving that direction, expecting that the players will appreciate your preparation and begin to explore what you've prepared. The problem is that for Matt, that's exactly what's wrong with the game--that you've prepared something, and already have an idea of what should happen. What Matt is looking for is play in which you provide the starting point, but no one, not even you, has any idea what is going to happen from there.

Let me recommend you take a look in the Alyria forum at some reports of a play session I was running with that game. You should find it under http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5994">Young Playtest Group First Storymap. What you'll see is something of hardcore narrativist play. We began the game with a batch of characters who had places in a world or a story, some with relationships to others, some with reasons to oppose or support others. Other than that, all we really had was a place and a moment at which the story would begin. The players then began to create the story.

I still don't know how that story ends; the players haven't gotten that far yet. Not only that, I don't even know where they will go next, or what will happen next, or how they will proceed from here, or what the possible endings are--all I know as referee is that each character has been pursuing its interest and objectives, that they've collided with each other, and that we've got a great story going already.

Would Wendy be completely lost in such a game? Maybe, maybe not. At the moment, Wendy is committed to trailblazing--she knows you've got an adventure to run, and she's going to find that adventure and follow that path. In such a game it might take her a while to realize that you don't have an adventure planned, and so she has to create one.

That's where the rub is. As long as you're still able to drop the clues to Wendy that tell her what she should do, you still have some idea of where the game/story should be going. You're not doing what Matt wants until you don't know what to tell Wendy, because somehow Matt and Wendy have to tell you where the story is going and what it is about. As Ron analogizes it, you're the bass player--set the mood, keep the beat, establish the progression, and then sit back and see what the other musicians do with it. You're trying to be the conductor, telling each of them what song you're playing, giving Wendy the sheet music, telling Matt when his improvisational solo comes--that's not the same thing.

It's no wonder, if this is correct, that Matt gives up on games in three sessions. How long does it really take for him to know that the referee already knows where the referee wants the game to go, and expects the players to go there? The first time you clue Wendy that this is what she "should" do, you flash a neon sign to Matt that you've got an adventure planned. That's exactly what he doesn't want. He doesn't want the referee to have anything planned. He wants the players to create what happens, and the referee to hold it together and watch it unfold.

Will changing games solve his connundrum? It might do so if you change to a game in which the referee can't plan the adventure. Legends of Alyria, Sorcerer, and Universalis all strike me as games in which that is the case. (Caveat: I have played Alyria, but it's hard to get as it's not yet published; I have discussed Sorcerer and now finally own a copy, but I have not yet had the opportunity to read it in detail or play it; I have discussed Universalis but have not seen more of it than the cover.)

I need to clarify this. Not having anything planned is not exactly the same thing as having made a lot of different planned things possible. It is very easy for a referee to confuse the two. Take Multiverser's NagaWorld. I drop a new player's character on the grassy plain. He can go to the glass city, or the industrial complex, or Umak Tek, or the mobile home, or the southern hills--but although he has free choice to go to any or none of those places, everything really is planned, because I know what kinds of things happen in each of those places; I don't have no adventures planned, but a dozen from which my player may choose. Having no adventure planned really means creating a starting point which contains the seeds of interpersonal conflict, great challenge, moral uncertainty, or some story foundation, and letting it go from there. Think of it this way. If you needed to run a game in which everything took place between five player characters and five non-player characters who were all ordinary English gentlepeople at a tea party, could you do it? In that situation, the only thing that really matters is how the characters react to each other--something over which you have very little control. Thus to do it you must create the characters themselves such that their interaction will become dynamic and produce the necessary conflicts that will create story.

It may very well be that you have a very serious GNS conflict, between Matt who wants to be able to play in a player-driven player-created narrativist story and the rest of the group who are quite comfortable with the gamist/simulationist trailblazing that you've been doing for years.

I hate to say it, but it may be that you're going to have to say to Matt that he doesn't fit into your group, because no one there wants to do that sort of narrativist play.

I hope this doesn't seem too much like pontificating. There are some things that look pretty clear from what you've described (one of which is that no one in the group has any clue what narrativist play would really be like, and efforts to "accommodate it" are completely wrongheaded), but I'm not there, so I'm doing analysis through your eyes and Matt's, which could be misleading me at some point. So I hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

[The GM]

Nice stuff, MJ. Thanks for your response. 
Still, what you're saying doesn't quite fit.
A great example happened this weekend. The 'old school' group sat down to play Shadowrun. Matt was not there. The weekend up to that point had been rather hectic, and I had no pre-designated idea of what to do for plotline or anything else for that matter. This particular campaign is about two years old, so characters are fairly seasoned. I started the session with these words: "So guys, you're in Seattle. What do you do?"
From there, it was out of my hands as the players crafted their own adventure. It was funny, because at the end of the session, I was getting some pats on the back for 'creating' an adventure that was full of all kinds of plot twists and unexpected turns. In reality, I did none of it. (And told my players so.) The players did. They were making up everything on the fly, including npcs, vast reaching conspiracies, and other general goodness. Everyone was glued to their seat as each 'theory' about what was going on became more interesting than the last. All I had to do was sit there and do some basic referee work.
I had to laugh, because by definition, that game was pure narrativism, the very thing that Matt wants.
So, is this still trailblazing?
Also, why did it work out that way?
I think the reason that the game went that way is because the players have 'warmed' to their characters enough that they feel comfortable to take the reins and really run with the game. I've seen this happen in our RoS campaign in which Matt and I are both players as well.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that it takes a bit for this warming to occur. (Not 2 years, but not 2 sessions either.) Matt calls this growing pains. Maybe it is, although I see it as everyone syncing up and getting on the same page. So, when Matt says after a session or two, 'this isn't working for me,' and we change games in an effort to compromise, it essentially starts that warming cycle over again, only each time it negatively reinforces that the next game will only last a few sessions as well, and so why bother trying to put a lot of thought into it. So in a very real sense, we wait for him to settle on a game before we get excited about it because we're afraid that he'll want to move onto something else, and all of the time spent on thinking great ideas up for game X this week will have been wasted when we're starting game Y next week.
Giving Matt the boot is not an acceptable solution. I believe that we can make it work. So how do we shorten that warming period so that Matt gets satisfaction?
Thoughts?
Warm Regards,
Lisa

[Matt Snyder]

First, regarding the example of play from this weekend

Without more information, it's impossible to say whether this was narrativism, even though I know the group pretty well. Based on my experiences with the group, my gut tells me it was not narrativism, as the Forge defines it.

Did the session take as its fundamental premise a moral question (or, possibly, questions) which the players then prioritized as the key factor in their making decisions and ultimately in answering, or working towards an answer, the moral question at hand? If so, what was the moral question or questions? How did the players answer the question(s)?

If this was not happening, it was not narrativism.

The players used their long-existing characters. So, what within their extensive histories allowed them to "go out and do stuff?" Were they tying up loose ends from previous sessions? Were they doing stuff they've "wanted to do for a while?" Or, did they pretty much venture out into wholly new territory? Based on my limited experience and knowledge of the group, I'd be surprised if it was the latter. It seems to me more likely that they had plenty of "go do stuff" ammunition from many, many previous sessions. Is this correct?

Eitehr way, what did you as GM do to respond to their actions? How were their actions complicated?

How many pre-existing NPCs entered into the game session?

How many wholly new NPCs entered the game session? What was the actual nature of their "creation"?

Did the players partake in any jobs, aka Shadowruns? Did they receive any in-game rewards for doing so (nuyen, gear, etc.)? What about metagame rewards, like karma? For what specific events/accomplishments/etc. were they rewarded?

How many times during the session did the players roll the dice / "use" the system?

How much of the session involved combat dice rolls? How long did those combat scenes, if any, take in real time?

What were the key conflicts of the session? How did they pan out?

Second, regarding changing sessions, etc.

The issue from my perspective is not that I seek only Narrativist play, and cannot be happy with any other form of play. Rather, the issue is that in seveal instances, the group agrees upon a mode of play (usually using no or little Forge terminology), but then proceeds in actual play to not carry out that agreement, often reverting back into a "groove," a play style and set of techniques the group is largely used to.

To be sure, I do want to see some of these things happen in play -- narrativist games, more frequent directorial stances, non-illusionist play, etc. But I am not limiting myself only to wanting these things in play. However, I think the group is playing largely within the same mode (or rather, individuals are playing within their own modes/comfort zones), not fully grasping what all this stuff is and is about. They just want to play. They agree to play some new game, and then "rubber band" back into the usual tropes and techniques, because that is what they know and want. Can't say I blame them much!

I argue that they (that is, we!) "get it" with Riddle of Steel because it's encoded into how the game is played. They have Spiritual Attributes that help them, even require them to resolve specific issues, and often specific moral quandaries. (In other words, the system matters.) Other games, like Shadowrun (which I have played only once with the group) and Mutants & Masterminds (which I have played several times), have no such reinforcements besides "an agreement to agree" on how the game is played. In fact, my experience has been that those agreements are not being fully met consistently. Yes, some successes have occurred, but not sufficiently for me, I guess.

To put it another way: I believe, argue, and attempt to show in play that system does matter, and significantly. I think the group, for the most part, does not agree that system does matter, having much tradition and experiences to "disprove" that statement. I actually see the current situation as clear proof that system does matter, rather than the other way around. I think that point, simply stated, is the crucial point. (Of course, in actuality, that's a very complicated, many faceted point.)

[The GM]

Hey! There you are. ;)

>>Did the session take as its fundamental premise a moral question (or, possibly, questions) which the players then prioritized as the key factor in their making decisions and ultimately in answering, or working towards an answer, the moral question at hand? If so, what was the moral question or questions? How did the players answer the question(s)? <<

The background of the campaign is that the characters are reincarnated and have met in a different life to right some wrongs they didn't get around to the first time. So, Asaraludu vocalized this at the start by saying, 'if we had a second chance to change things, how would we do it? Plus, what needs fixed?'
This was the premise of the adventure.

>>The players used their long-existing characters. So, what within their extensive histories allowed them to "go out and do stuff?"<<

Obviously, stuff like setting stayed the same. The group had come off of a rather generic run, and so this was a new point for something to happen.

>>Were they tying up loose ends from previous sessions?<<

Nope, it was fresh.

>>Were they doing stuff they've "wanted to do for a while?" Or, did they pretty much venture out into wholly new territory? Based on my limited experience and knowledge of the group, I'd be surprised if it was the latter. It seems to me more likely that they had plenty of "go do stuff" ammunition from many, many previous sessions. Is this correct? <<

There was a bit of this at first. 'IE, I call and grease my contacts because I've been out of town for awhile,'
However, this didn't last very long, because I had no real plan and that's when the new stuff got injected. IOW, the players rose to the occasion. Their desire to play was so strong that it didn't matter if I was ready or not.


>>Eitehr way, what did you as GM do to respond to their actions? How were their actions complicated? <<

I honestly didn't have to do much, other than provide npc dialogue where needed. They provided a lot of their own conflict. IE, Wen thought this was the best route, Flash thought this was, and Ton a different. It was pretty neat character interaction.
From my end, I just took their assumptions about what was 'scary/dangerous' and affirmed them. "Yeah, it would be devastating if XYZ happened."

>>How many pre-existing NPCs entered into the game session? <<

One, at the begining, none after that.

>>How many wholly new NPCs entered the game session? What was the actual nature of their "creation"? <<

Good question. If you're talking about a major one, just one. If you include minor, there were several.

>>Did the players partake in any jobs, aka Shadowruns? Did they receive any in-game rewards for doing so (nuyen, gear, etc.)? What about metagame rewards, like karma?<<

No, no and none.

>> For what specific events/accomplishments/etc. were they rewarded? <<

They were rewarded by having a good time together and creating a really cool story. IOW, the reward wasn't karma, it was in the act of creation itself. I didn't even think to give karma when it was done, nor did they ask.


>>How many times during the session did the players roll the dice / "use" the system? <<

None.

>>How much of the session involved combat dice rolls? How long did those combat scenes, if any, take in real time?<<

I let them describe to me what happened rather than dice rolling. Because the guys are very well versed in what is possible in the physics of the SR world, they only took actions that they deemed 'realistic.' I, of course, was more than happy to let them describe to me what happened rather than rolling scads of dice for hours on end.

>>What were the key conflicts of the session? How did they pan out? <<

The key conflict is that there's a evil prescence in the city that seeks to destroy and taint. The object was to find out more about how far reaching this taint was. The players decided that this taint was very far reaching, in fact, much more so than I would have had I 'planned' the adventure. This particular adventure is still ongoing.

[The GM]

Oh, missed one:

>>What was the actual nature of their "creation"? <<

The players were talking about whether or not the 'threat' was so huge as to enter into world governments, and if so, which leaders might be involved. The players decided that one of the 'big players' of what the players have termed 'the game' (IOW, the conspiracy) was a guy they called 'The master of the tower.' The master, they surmise, is a great magician who has an innate talent with technology, and thus he can become the ghost in the machine, essentially being able to spy on any and everyone. They also surpmised that the master was tainted by evil, or a servant of evil forces.
It was a pretty cool idea, I thought.

[The GM]

Matt says:
>>To put it another way: I believe, argue, and attempt to show in play that system does matter, and significantly. I think the group, for the most part, does not agree that system does matter, having much tradition and experiences to "disprove" that statement. I actually see the current situation as clear proof that system does matter, rather than the other way around. I think that point, simply stated, is the crucial point. (Of course, in actuality, that's a very complicated, many faceted point.)<<

I would say, and have said, that system matters in that it needs to do what you want it to, to recreate physics or what have you. As you know, when I think system gets in the way, I'm more than happy to drop it. (and then I say, system doesn't matter! ;D ) Do I think a game has to have SAs to make for player driven play? Nope. I do think you have to have a clear idea of character motivation though. So, you could make the argument that SAs and mechanics of that nature are the crutch players use to constantly be reminded of what those motivations are.
Looking back on it, you are right, play doesn't always happen the way we say it's going to.
Hmmm....
Now, the question is, how to keep from reverting to old styles of play when trying something new. I would venture to guess that this is a question of making sure we're each on the same page. I mean really on the same page, not just with words about how a game is going to go, but maybe some real examples prior to play.
I'm certain that our group has played at some point, most styles/ modes, so I can't see that the understanding of such examples would go unnoticed.

[Matt Snyder]

Hey! There you are. ;)

Yep, been away most of the weekend. Catching up now.

The background of the campaign is that the characters are reincarnated and have met in a different life to right some wrongs they didn't get around to the first time. So, Asaraludu vocalized this at the start by saying, 'if we had a second chance to change things, how would we do it? Plus, what needs fixed?'
This was the premise of the adventure.

This premise, if stated exactly as the group understands it, already presupposes an answer. That is, it assumes that, yes, indeed, each character would change things if given the chance, rather than question whether or not he would change it and why. It also assumes things "need fixed."

If so, there aren't any group-recognized themes or moral questions to answer. Rather, there is a group-recognized theme by which all answer the same: "Yes, I will reform my life; here's how." This seems to me to be a pretty simulationist premise. Other folks might have better insight than I do, however! (Whaddya say, folks?)

From my end, I just took their assumptions about what was 'scary/dangerous' and affirmed them. "Yeah, it would be devastating if XYZ happened."

What do you mean by this? Can you provide a specific example of interaction to explain?

>>Did the players partake in any jobs, aka Shadowruns? Did they receive any in-game rewards for doing so (nuyen, gear, etc.)? What about metagame rewards, like karma?<<

No, no and none.

>> For what specific events/accomplishments/etc. were they rewarded? <<

They were rewarded by having a good time together and creating a really cool story. IOW, the reward wasn't karma, it was in the act of creation itself. I didn't even think to give karma when it was done, nor did they ask.

To be blunt, why is it sufficient to only award "enjoyment"? Aren't all games supposed to be enjoyable? If you're not offering mechanical rewards, why are you using a system at all (in fact, it seems like you're not, given no dice-based conflicts, etc.)

Did any of the players say, "Jeez, that was a great session," (I'm sure they did) and then follow with, "Don't bother giving me any karma/money/etc., This was enough." (I doubt they did). That is, are you 100% certain that the players didn't actually want to receive something for their efforts, or are you assuming that since you had fun and they seemed to have fun, that no rewards are necessary? How do you know this is sufficient for them?

>>How many times during the session did the players roll the dice / "use" the system? <<

None.

>>How much of the session involved combat dice rolls? How long did those combat scenes, if any, take in real time?<<

I let them describe to me what happened rather than dice rolling. Because the guys are very well versed in what is possible in the physics of the SR world, they only took actions that they deemed 'realistic.' I, of course, was more than happy to let them describe to me what happened rather than rolling scads of dice for hours on end.

You are, then, in effect, playing freeform Shadowrun? That is, using the setting, schucking the rules? At what point do you utilize the system? When are dice rolled?

Plainly, I'm pretty disinclined to play in this style. If that's what the group's used to, or if the system is there to keep game monkeys pleased, it's not the game for me. If, for example, you run a bunch of dice rolls in a quick combat to keep Flash interested in that aspect, that isn't sufficient for my interests in the game Shadowrun. (i.e., this ain't how I envision SR, and it isn't what the game was made to do, despite its neato setting)

Furthermore, if you are indeed effectively running a freeform storytelling game, using the Shadowrun setting, by what means do players become empowered to tell the story? How do they resist you as GM? Can they? If there is no system, even a simple system to say, "No, GM, I don't want that to happen that way," how the non-GM players really get to contribute to the story at crucial junctures?

In other words, why are you playing Shadowrun in the first place? Is the only answer, "The players like the setting?" It seems drastically different from the game Shadowrun as published. Could you use another system (like, say, the Pool) that is very simple (aka rules "lite") to accomplish the same type of play with similar, or even better, results? Would the players not like this because "it's not Shadowrun" with all the neato gear and wares and setting elements?

The key conflict is that there's a evil prescence in the city that seeks to destroy and taint. The object was to find out more about how far reaching this taint was. The players decided that this taint was very far reaching, in fact, much more so than I would have had I 'planned' the adventure. This particular adventure is still ongoing.

Whoa, this is major. What is the nature of them having "decided that this taint was very far reaching?" Can you expound on that a bit?  How did this happen? How did they see evil taint where you didn't plan? Did you plan evil taint at all, at any point?

More generally, when did the evil presence first "occur"? Was it identified in this session for the first time, or has this presence been around for a while in the campaign? Who created the idea of having an uber-evil presence out there? Was it you? Or, did one of the players say something equivalent to, "You know, I bet there's an evil conspiracy behind all these sessons" or "Lisa, I'd like to pursue some evil-presence conspiracy in the city. So, I'm going to do that now, please react to my plans."

You as GM may have prepared a significant element of the game, before the game plays out, which would not be especially player-driven (nor does it necessarily prove that you're NOT doing "illusionism"). For example, do you, as GM, already know, even loosely, the nature of this evil presence? Did you sit down one day and think it up, perhaps even write it down? Is it a character? A monster? A group?

If you can honestly answer any of those questions in the affirmative or with details, then it's possible you're dancing with illusionism or trailblazing. You're laying clues that there's something evil "out there." Eventually, they'll track those down. That may take a while. Either way, though, it's evidence that this game is emphatically not soley "created by the players."

[The GM]

Matt says:

>>If so, there aren't any group-recognized themes or moral questions to answer. Rather, there is a group-recognized theme by which all answer the same: "Yes, I will reform my life; here's how." This seems to me to be a pretty simulationist premise. Other folks might have better insight than I do, however! (Whaddya say, folks?) <<

Whatever the case may be, this wasn't something that I came up with. This was a player driven choice. (For lack of a better term.)

>>To be blunt, why is it sufficient to only award "enjoyment"? Aren't all games supposed to be enjoyable? If you're not offering mechanical rewards, why are you using a system at all (in fact, it seems like you're not, given no dice-based conflicts, etc.) <<<

It had nothing to do w/ not awarding karma, I just didn't think to, and they didn't remind me. You're right about not using system sometimes. Sometimes I don't, and the guys go w/ that because they respect that I prefer rules lite games. Sometimes, when playing SR, I go through the whole ugly ordeal of a vehicle crash test, just like the book says, because Ton gets a kick out of it. Just so happened, that we mutually (if non verbally) decided to ditch the system for the session. The system seemed unimportant for the type of game we wanted that particular day.

>>You are, then, in effect, playing freeform Shadowrun? That is, using the setting, schucking the rules? At what point do you utilize the system? When are dice rolled? <<

Probably next session, or maybe not. I intuit a lot of stuff when it comes to when to use the rules, when to focus only on story, etc.. I don't have a formula or theory for this, Just my guts and the feedback from players.


>>Plainly, I'm pretty disinclined to play in this style. If that's what the group's used to, or if the system is there to keep game monkeys pleased, it's not the game for me. If, for example, you run a bunch of dice rolls in a quick combat to keep Flash interested in that aspect, that isn't sufficient for my interests in the game Shadowrun. (i.e., this ain't how I envision SR, and it isn't what the game was made to do, despite its neato setting) <<

I understand what you're saying. This is why we made SR a side line game, apart from Tuesday night's regular session. We want you to have fun on game night, so no point in making you play a game that's not fun for you. This is what I'm trying to hammer down here, Matt. I care not about theory and so on. What I care about is your enjoyment, and specifically how to achieve that. Furthermore, I'm wanting to know how to blend your preferences in w/ everyone else's. I'm interested in where the rubber meets the road. That's all. Hey, if I ran an illusionary, gamist, simulativist, isolationist, whateverist game, and you and the guys liked it, score! Now, I'm being a little dramatic here, but honestly, so many terms get thrown around here and I'm hearing conflicting views of where to take this situation. Not that I don't like differing viewpoints, or healthy debate. I do. I just don't want to get so caught up on theory that we're missing the real issues.


>>In other words, why are you playing Shadowrun in the first place? Is the only answer, "The players like the setting?" It seems drastically different from the game Shadowrun as published. Could you use another system (like, say, the Pool) that is very simple (aka rules "lite") to accomplish the same type of play with similar, or even better, results? Would the players not like this because "it's not Shadowrun" with all the neato gear and wares and setting elements? <<

This is a debate that has raged many a time at casa de Fleishman. So rather than change the system, we compromise, and just go with the flow.
I'm not going to point by point the rest of this SR game commentary right now, mostly because I'm not certain that anyone will really get any value from seeing a point by point critique of a game that we all had fun playing to begin w/. If it wasn't narrativism, it was pretty damn close to the definition I see on these very forums.

Thanks for the commentary, everyone. 

Warm Regards,
Lisa

[Mike Holmes]

GM,

Lots of talk about nothing, I think. What does it matter what mode you're playing in? Narrativist, Sim, whatever, what does it matter? You're having fun, so the discussion doesn't make a difference. Oh, it might be of some academic interest, but it won't help your play to figure it out. Because that's not what GNS is about.

It's only important if there's a conflict in player interests. Which I fail to see here.

Above, responding to MJ, you say:

Matt watches me give Wen 'illusionist' play, and automatically assumes that this is not the sort of game that he wants to play, when in reality, I'm ready and willing to shift gears to give him the narrative that he wants in the same game, same session. Don't scoff, I've done it, it works. ;D

If that works, its because Matt doesn't mind playing with other players who are playing in other modes. Which, I posit, is common, and non-interesting for purposes of this discussion.

Problems only occur when players don't like the play of he other players.

That is, it's not enough to ensure that the Gamist player gets to play Gamist, to make them happy. Some also want the other players to play the same way that he's playing. I use the Gamist example because it's easy to imagine the response from that sort of player when they encounter players not playing the same way. That is, if he's not comfortable with other players, playing in other modes, it may be that those percieved offenses will prompt him to say that those players are "cheating".

What this really means, is that the players in question are engaging in two different sorts of entertainment. For the one player, it's a competition that requires a level playing field. For the other player, it's something else. So, if the Gamist player isn't on-board with the other player getting to play a different game, then he'll be annoyed. This is just an example of one potential source of friction between players as a result of mode.

So, to give you a hypothetical, what if you were in my game, and you felt that the other players were cheating? What would you have me do? What social level adjustment would you have me make that would satisfy you?

Saying to Matt that you don't care about theory, but about how he feels is simiular to saying, "I know that you're hungry, but I only care about how you feel." GNS exists, whether you like it or not; players do have preferences. Like starvation, which can only be addressed by food, a GNS problem can only be addressed by applying an appropriate solution. The one difference in the analogy is that you can ask Matt to change his preference (something you can't do with hunger). Again, this is all about having an agreed to vision for play. But, then that's what GNS is all about -getting on the same sheet of music as to what play is about.


Marco, though it would seem that you'd like for GNS to be about more than it is, in order to discredit it, how can you ignore the fact that Ron has said a jillion times that it's only about problematic play related to the modes, and how to solve those problems? If you're going to say that GNS theory says that all problems are solved by it, then please cite where it says so. Yes, people get that idea all the time, and some even say that incorrectly, but it's not for a lack of people who understand it trying to convince them otherwise.

To make another bad analogy, it's like people who self-medicate. We try to be the label that tells people when to use the drug. But some people just don't read the fine print, and take the drug for the wrong ailment. But does that mean that we have to take the drug off the shelves? Is the theory to blame for these problems with it's use, or the people who missapply it? Could we write a better label? Well, what am I trying to do in this thread other than correct misperceptions?

There is a question as to how prevalent these problems are, and some would say that GNS problems are pandemic. Which is not the same as saying that they are all problems. And in any case we've acceeded isn't something that can't be acurately determined without unavailable data.


As to your second point, yes, GNS preferences have to "line up" after a fashion. That doesn't mean that they have to be the same, that's just one possible solution (and the simplest solution for a design trying to get it's players on the same page). That does mean that if you have a group like Matt and Lisa's, where the players don't seem to mind dirfferent modes, that they've "lined up" in terms of all agreeing to play in this multi-modal way. Creative Agenda doesn't have to mean "we're only playing Narrativist", or even "we're only playing Hybrid GS", it can mean "We're all playing the way we want, whenever we want"*. It can mean anything, as long as all the players agree to what it means. I would posit that agreement to have players playing different from you is uncommon, but that's a tendency I can't prove.

GNS is about players who don't agree about what the Creative Agenda is (specifically in GNS terms). If the players agree, then there's a coherent Creative Agenda. If the players don't agree, then there's incoherence. It's a simple as that.

Mike