Learning the interface

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Gareth (contracycle),

That makes a lot of sense to me, including your critique of Chris' (clehrich's) suggestions.

In that discussion I mentioned, I forgot to give my friend Julie credit for describing the Tomb Raider training scenarios to me, which illustrate the whole concept perfectly for video games. (It also explains certain portions of the movie which I had enjoyed but hadn't realized were so specific to the video game.)

Which raises the question: what would a training scenario for role-playing (pick whatever sort) look like, if it were highly, highly focused on exposing and working your way out of potential "interface-learning" instances of character psychosis?

Best,
Ron

[jrs]

I keep turning over in my head the process of learning how to play card games, and wondering if that can be translated into rpg training.  I'm thinking of two different types of scenarios.  

First, learning a new game.  I'm wretched at figuring out how to play a card game by reading the rules.  It's much easier for me to learn a new game when someone else explains it to me, and I particularly like playing an open hand (all cards exposed) when it's a game with an unusual card sequence, marriages, rule change events, etc.  This would be equivalent to the training session with practice characters.  An "open hand" type scenario would have to require everyone at the table to commit to full disclosure and cooperation.

The other scenario is when you know the rules and how to play the game, but you lack confidence in your skills or you're just not certain the *best* way to play.  I've experienced this primarily in learning to play Bridge. After the game one or more players will re-create their hands and discuss what options were available for play and if the hand could have been bid or played better.  This de-briefing can be very useful, and it doesn't disrupt the actual game.  It can also be used to ask an experienced player why they chose to lead a certain card at a certain time.  It seems that a similar type of de-briefing could be incorporated into rpg play and would not necessarily have to be initiated by the GM or the spastic player.  

Julie

[clehrich]

That makes a lot of sense to me, including your critique of Chris' (clehrich's) suggestions.

It makes a lot of sense to me too, but I thought Gareth was referring to Sean's relatively elaborate suggestions for transforming PC odd behavior into a huge story hook.  Brilliant, as he describes it, but requiring a lot of very fast footwork on the part of a GM who's probably reeling a bit.

My suggestion was intended to be low-work: ignore the behavior, but also do so in-game; that is, not only the GM but also the world in a sense ignores the behavior.

Sean and I are really talking about slightly different things, as is evident from the way he talks about teaching -- all of which I agree with.  My sense was that we're talking about a player/student who's become a game/classroom problem.  You want to use the established situation to make the person recognize the problem, and deal with it.  

Sean is talking about a situation in which the player/student is not particularly trying to cause a problem, but is deeply confused about appropriate ways to contribute.  Here you want to transform the person's creative input into something appropriate, guiding the person in future to contribute more in the lines you've suggested.  I think this can be very difficult to do, albeit something we should all strive for.  The only worry here is that if the person is actually being a problem, you don't want to give that person the impression that the sticky wheel will get the oil.

All of which gets to your new question:

Which raises the question: what would a training scenario for role-playing (pick whatever sort) look like, if it were highly, highly focused on exposing and working your way out of potential "interface-learning" instances of character psychosis?

The big trick would be to provoke such psychotic behavior, then deal with it.  Sounds agonizingly difficult for everyone involved.  I really would prefer a more symptomatic solution.  After all, you don't want players who can already do the obstacle course blindfolded to be bored, nor annoyed that those who can't do it so well are getting all the screen time.

Frankly, I think you have your own answer in hand: make them play some Sorcerer.  Force them into a situation that demands non-traditional play methods, and then have good mechanics to support dealing with the problems caused thereby.

Chris Lehrich

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Yeah, Chris, I may have mixed up my thread-subjects there. Poor brain ...

Frankly, I think you have your own answer in hand: make them play some Sorcerer. Force them into a situation that demands non-traditional play methods, and then have good mechanics to support dealing with the problems caused thereby.

Damn. That has been my solution these past years, along with a variety of other games. I was kind of hoping for an easier one.

Although that brings up another question: people who are wholly new to role-playing vs. established role-players with an unfamiliar game. And that strikes me as a very big issue relative to the psycho bat-shit phenomenon. Seems to me it shows up a hell of a lot more among the latter group.

Best,
Ron

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Although that brings up another question: people who are wholly new to role-playing vs. established role-players with an unfamiliar game. And that strikes me as a very big issue relative to the psycho bat-shit phenomenon. Seems to me it shows up a hell of a lot more among the latter group.

Best,
Ron

Easy analogy, Ron.

Let's say I play Ultimate Street Blade X in the arcade. I know all the combos and whatnot. I decide to play Final Fortune of Fighting! I'm going to whip at those keys like no man's business, trying AA + B + side jump or whatever, seeing what I can do that's similar to what I have done before. If I'm new to fighting arcade games, I'm going to proceed somewhat cautiously at first. (What does A do? How about A + Up? Ok, B? A + B? A + B + Up?)

If I've been playing D&D, and start playing Riddle of Steel, I'm going to try and see how I can bust down a Power Attack or Great Cleave as soon as I can. If I'm new to role-playing, I'm going to test the interface I have without trying ideas from previous interfaces.

[Christopher]

I went through a brief phase where I kept converting between game systems for my werewolf game to best fit how the gameplay was progressing.  When things went combat heavy, I moved away from everyway, and onto Sihouette, and later when things were hitting a very central line, I converted back to storyteller.

The biggest thing I learned is that that System provides players with a way to formulate expectations as to how their actions effect the world.  It takes time for players to shake down that system (even players who normally aren't that interested, if at all, in System vs other things) and players try (either directly through character action or indirectly via asking the GM questions) unusual things and test the edge cases of their new abilities.

It is reasonable to assume, for the sake of discussion, that players will do this sort of thing with Premises and Settings as well.   They will test the edge cases and shake down the boundries of somethign unfamiliar to understand where the scope of acceptable action is in the middle.

The solution that I eventually settled on to this sort of "shake down" behaviour is to provide "mid action" feedback before the action resolves.  I'll tell them what their characters knowledge of the setting leads them to believe the consequenses of such an action to be.  Sometimes (to place the feedback more squarely in the character's bailwick (for players that need this sort of justification)) I'll use a knowledge skill of some sort on the character sheet to justify the feedback.  Like Pyske, I'll use this to lead to a discussion of expectations.

The more removed the culture of a sutting is from our own, the more "shake downs" it takes to get things moving smoothly.

This is more like the behaviour of pre teens than it is of video game players.  If I recall my developmental pychology correctly (which I probably don't, psychology isn't my field) children of that age often deliberately break rules, or lie, or otherwise test what their social power is again the consequences that face them.  It is how they learn their own culture, and is generally a very efficient way of doing so.  

The position of PC's in (say) a samurai game is one where at least one player probably doesn't understand the game culture as the rest of the group does.  It's much the same position as a 9 year old understanding their own culture, and that the same learning techniques are used shouldn't be suprising.  If a character is obstinate, then appropriate consequences should be leveled at the character (though perhaps tempered in the same manner as they might be for a 9 year old).

[Harlequin]

Taking a leaf from a long-ago discussion of social contract, one option might be to give both sides a relatively inoffensive, yet mechanically significant, way to express the statement: "Whoa, that was not really what I expected to have happen there."

The best solution I've come up with (and the one I'm implementing in my game) has to do with by backing your words with the expenditure of a single increment of resource, made strictly to give your expression a weight that comes in independent of force of words (which can feel critical without meaning to, all too easily).

So maybe just acknowledge the problem, especially in games where the chance of psychosis is high - ones where the interface looks similar to expectation, but is actually very different, like say TROS - and provide this mechanism.  Either the unfortunate player, or the GM, has the right to say "Hang on, that's... um... not what I expected.  Are we working from the same page?"  And give them the ability to spend, say, a CP die, to say, "No, really, listen to me.  That did NOT work the way it was supposed to [or, 'you thought it would'].  One of is is on the wrong page here."

Then leave the rest to back-and-forthing, per the Bridge example above.  Let the rest of the group chip in with what they would have considered and would have expected to have happen, too.  The GM may or may not run a takeback, he may spiff off a lovely IC spin like Sean's suggestion if he can come up with one, but in either case I think that interrupting with mechanical force to express that this is an OOC disconnect is important.

I think the willingness to back one's words with a mechanical sacrifice will minimize disruptors, too, personally.  It's a much greater social offense to fail to listen when someone has literally paid for the right to speak, than it is to "not notice he was annoyed."  So it won't stop pedal-to-the-metal disruptor players, but it lets halfway cases (such as the bored/impatient/spotlight-starved player) acknowledge their action, and gives them a moment to state their beef.

It's a lesser step than the "training scenario" level of treatment, which pretty much handles opening an entire session of play up to the level of discussion this implies.  TROS, for example, probably still benefits from the "training level" simply because it combines (a) looks familiar but it's not for many players, with (b) and it can get your character killed faster than you can say "overextended."  But as a lesser form of "psychosis control," and one usable with a single-player-joining situation, I think it's probably valuable.

- Eric

[clehrich]

The best solution I've come up with (and the one I'm implementing in my game) has to do with by backing your words with the expenditure of a single increment of resource, made strictly to give your expression a weight that comes in independent of force of words (which can feel critical without meaning to, all too easily).

I'm totally with this, but I'd like to see the GM have expendable resources as well.  That is, I'd like to see the GM have to pay to overrule things.  If the player does something "psychotic," there's always the chance that only the GM sees it that way.  When the GM says, "Uh uh, you have to pay for that if it's going to happen that way," one of three things can happen: (1) the player says, "OK, I pay"; (2) the player resists, in a functional or dysfunctional manner, depending, which is the central issue here (I think); (3) the rest of the crew says, "Hey, Dave!  That blows!  I think this is awesome, and you have to pony up if you're going to overrule!"

I just think that #3 tends to get forgotten, but I've sure seen it happen often enough.

Chris Lehrich

[Harlequin]

Si - absolutely.  Sometimes tricky to implement, because the whole thing works better if it diminishes a side - the psychology of "increase the players' resources" is quite different from "diminish the GM's," even if the two are mechanically equivalent in the case in question.

And I don't think this issue is enough to support giving the GM limited resources, which in general I dislike.  Applying it to NPC resources (as relevantly as possible) is the obvious solution here, if it's applicable, but it isn't always so.

Hmm.  I'd forgotten this brainstorm, but... one thing I've talked about is giving the GM a "fiat index" which is a running record of the number of times he's had to overrule something.  Basically a log of overt Force.  Keying to this, instead of a resource, would work if it were carefully done.

- Eric

Edited on rereading your post, Chris... none of this is "pay if you want it to happen that way."  That way lies dysfunction.  It's "pay to be heard, no refunds," in my world.  Clearer that way and puts everybody on the same side.

[Blankshield]

The best solution I've come up with (and the one I'm implementing in my game) has to do with by backing your words with the expenditure of a single increment of resource, made strictly to give your expression a weight that comes in independent of force of words (which can feel critical without meaning to, all too easily).

I'm totally with this, but I'd like to see the GM have expendable resources as well.  That is, I'd like to see the GM have to pay to overrule things.  If the player does something "psychotic," there's always the chance that only the GM sees it that way.  When the GM says, "Uh uh, you have to pay for that if it's going to happen that way," one of three things can happen: (1) the player says, "OK, I pay"; (2) the player resists, in a functional or dysfunctional manner, depending, which is the central issue here (I think); (3) the rest of the crew says, "Hey, Dave!  That blows!  I think this is awesome, and you have to pony up if you're going to overrule!"

I just think that #3 tends to get forgotten, but I've sure seen it happen often enough.

It's a good point.  Eric's game deals with this by making any instance of 'apply consequences to a character' pay some number of the 'I reject that' currency to the player; it's built into the mechanic at a fundamental level.  

I'm not sure how you would apply that in an existing system, but since it's probably a house rule to add this in most games anyway, I would suggest that just a flat reversal of what is paid to say "hey!" probably works - if Joe must pay a CP die in TROS to push an issue, the Senechal must pay a CP die to Joe (and give him back the one he paid for bitching priviledge), so Joe ends up with a net gain to ease the social sting of being over-ridden.

James
[edit - crossposted with Eric.  rereading makes me want to replace the 'i reject that' currency above with 'bitching priviledge' currency, with the proviso that it isn't the only way that currency can be used.]

[clehrich]

Eric, I suspect you and I are getting off-thread, but until somebody steps in to say so for sure I'll guess we're close enough.

My own Shadows in the Fog (old draft at weblink below, currently seeing an overhaul, don't hold your breath) is quite up-front about the GM limited-resources thing to deal with exactly such issues as this.  Essentially everybody has the power to bend the universe quite drastically, most especially the GM, but certain types of behavior cannot be directly overruled.  In particular, when a player directly bends the universe's structure, the GM either has to compete on a level playing-field or overrule.

How this links up with the current topic is this:

When a player goes batshit freakazoid and starts breaking things, I find that there are really two rough classes (apart from the "destructive" vs. "confused" thing).  First, there's the "My character is going batshit, so sue me, that's the way he'd act" -- a particular form of My Guy syndrome.  Second, there's the "No, I the player have this power to bend and break things, and I'm using it."  Very rarely have I seen the second used completely destructively, i.e. where there was no way to incorporate the apparently batshit behavior into the story.  The former?  Oh, all the time.

So I'd further break down the second type of behavior into three types:

1. I'm doing something wild and crazy that I really believe will excitingly change the game in a cool way.
2. I'm doing something wild and crazy that I really believe... [insert above], but I'm actually totally wrong and everyone is now very ticked at me.
3. I'm doing something wild and crazy because you've given me some nice TNT to break the game and I can't resist lighting the fuse.[/list:u]So I think for the first, the GM, like the other players, should have to pay to change the events.  

For the second, the GM does (in my game at least, and it sounds like in yours) have the power to say, "No, Dave, come on; that's pretty nuts, you know?  I mean, these are the tentacles of a live squid, not elven ropes a la Lord of the Rings"; here the important thing is that the group is approving the GM's approach, and that's simply a matter of feel.

For the third, the GM should be able to overrule brutally, in essence making a punishment-call.

I just think that the third as a GM method comes up far more often than it needs to, because GM's don't always realize that they can overrule in cool ways as well as punishing ones, and they don't always realize that overruling can be perceived as punishment.

So my previous suggestions about "ignore the behavior within the world" are really good ways, I think, of dealing with behavior halfway between 2 and 3, and actually a good way of telling the difference.  If the reaction is, "Oh, bugger.  Okay, I kneel," or whatever, you've got #2 and lesson learned and no harm done.  If the reaction is, "Oh yeah?  Well I draw my sword and cut my way to the throne, and you can't stop me, because it's allowed in the rules," you've got #3 and should kill the guy.  The character, I mean.  Probably.  Unless you're sure nobody knows where he is at the moment and the body won't be found for a long time.

My own feeling about overrules is that if the actions that provoke them are perceived by the group as cool, i.e. the crew says, "No way, that's awesome!" is that the GM should either change his mind and not overrule, or else beg on bended knee, abase himself, and so forth.  As in, "Okay, I'm a loser, I can't come up with anything clever, you got me, I suck, please please please change that action because I'm just not clever enough to keep up with you."  Try it -- it's hilarious, and everyone will remember it very positively.  And the action will change, I promise.

What you have to watch out for is a player going batshit and you overruling, only to find that everyone is ticked off at you.  I keep using the same example, but here goes:

In a Ken Hite pulp game called "The Insidious Dr. Fang and His Zeppelin of Doom," we escaped a deathtrap and found ourselves in possession of a mini-submarine with shore-landing capability.  We were totally supposed to go to Murmansk; this had been made clear in no uncertain terms.  A friend of mine said, "Nope, I think we should go to Casablanca."  Ken was really annoyed, because he figured this was batshit derailing behavior.  I chimed in, saying, "No wait, Ken, this is awesome.  We should go to Casablanca, it makes more sense for us.  Besides, you can do your Sidney Greenstreet impression -- we promise we will go to the Blue Parakeet."  Ken stared at us for a bit, then said, "Okay, you land on the shore of Casablanca in the dead of night.  What now?"  Correct answer: this was

not the batshit behavior he thought it was, and made a great story.

Besides, he does a great Sidney Greenstreet.

Chris Lehrich

[Harlequin]

I'm sure he does. And much of that dissection I'm good with.  But I have to again go back to the issue of one thing:

So I think for the first, the GM, like the other players, should have to pay to change the events.

I think this is a fundamental mistake.

I don't think it's wise to have the GM pay the players for anything of the sort, except in a prearranged context as part of the normal ruleset.  I don't in fact think that it's wise that the currency in question change hands at all, for the operation we're discussing.

Nor do I think it should be permissible for the payment to imply any right whatsoever to actually change the action. That way lies serious Force, not always stemming from the centralized GM.

What I'm suggesting is simply that anybody, GM or otherwise, gets to ask why - and to back that up, you use "And I'm willing to get weaker" for emphasis.  That's it.  Not "and I'll make you stronger" or anything of the sort.

IMO this cuts through all the Gordian knots of taxonomy and who-pays-what.  Who pays is the person who finds that more subtle ways of going "Huh? You really want to do that?  Are you sure?" just aren't cutting it for him.  Whoever that is.  The payment is a way of raising the bar, of saying "either be reasonable and help get us back on the same page, or accentuate how unreasonable you're being by ignoring this.  Take your pick."

So the question isn't GM resources at all.  It's how one gives a similar state of emphasis to the GM's interjection into the social contract, while avoiding ever giving anyone an increase in resources as a result of how the discussion goes.  It's what the equivalent GM trick to "I'm willing to get weaker for this" should be.  And if there isn't an antagonist with whom the GM can be identified, just enough that sacrificing that antagonist's effectiveness carries the same message, then we get down to system nitty-gritty.  One such possible nitty-gritty uses the GM having limited resources, but that's a separate debate and the limits should stem from better reasons than just giving him a way to make this statement of emphasis.

But you're right that we risk threadjack, and while I'm happy to talk nitty-gritties of GM-limited pools and in fact of the "sacrifice for emphasis" trick in general, I think we should take those elsewhere.  It's a trick, it can be applied to the problem at the head of this thread, exactly how to best implement it is a discussion on another level.

- Eric

[clehrich]

Definitely threadjack time.  I'll think about it and one of these days soon we can have another thread about GM resources and whatnot.  Very, very interesting -- but we have waaaay dragged this aside.

You may now return to your previously scheduled thread....

Chris Lehrich

[AnyaTheBlue]

To answer Ron's new question, "What would an RPG training scenario", a couple of things occur to me.

First, examples help.

Second, monkey see, monkey do.

Work the scenario out in such a way that one individual player (preferably an experienced one) starts off alone and faces some challenge that excercises the interface -- ie, some combat, and maybe some social interaction and skill use in most games.

Then, add the rest of the players in, and give them a similar set of challenges.  They got to watch from the peanut gallery, now it's their turn to try it out.

I keep seeing the man from scene #47: "You must answer me these questions three ere the other side you'll see!".

The other thing is that I definitely corroborate Ron's point that experienced RPGers who are being introduced to a new game are far more likely to go apeshit than those who are new to RPGing altogether.

I think this is a learning curve issue, partially because they know how this class of games works even if they don't know how this particular one works.  The total newbie stretches his learning out over a long time, twiddling things carefully in case the character dies or something.

The experienced role-player isn't invested in the game or the character yet.  You can always role up a new character, and by going apeshit you strain the system really quickly.  It's tough on the game and the character, but it provides a lot of information about how the game and gaming group interact and problem solve.  I don't think it's good gaming, because it hijacks the game and steals the spotlight from the rest of the group.  It's a selfish breaking of the social contract to learn about the current game and group.

Of course, it also seems to happen with experienced RPGers who are willing to play the new game, but would much rather play something else.  They aren't invested in this system/game/setting, so they tank the game and make it unfun for the others in an attempt to amuse themselves and/or in the hopes of playing the game they really want to.

[contracycle]

Hmm.  I can't help feeling that much of these suggestions may contribute to making the problem worse.  Because, having now established the capacity of the player to deploy Force through currency, we have, it seems to me, only legitimised the destructive behaviour in the first place.  

The way I think about this is roughly the following: if the Daimyo has an ability which is 'People Bow To Me: 15w2', the GM can just ask the player with the disruptive action to dice off and accept the judgement of the system.  The player has already committed, by and large, to accepting the systems judgement as final and that no correspondance will be taken thereinto.  If the player insists on this course, then clearly they are violating the social contract they entered into with all the players, and large part of the disciplining would likely emanate from the players peers rather than from an authoritative figure.

Even better, if the player stands to benefit from such a rule - for example, the player ALSO has a 'People Bow To Me', but it applies only to feudal underlings and the peasantry - they can see the benefits in this form of power and have no motive to rock the establishment boat.  Hopefully, they will instead aspire to having a mightier 'PBTM' ability, thus producing genre-reinforcing action as a natural property of system adherence.