Mike's Standard Rant #7: You Can't Sneak Up on Mode

[Mike Holmes]

SOAP may not be what you want for a particular group, and a particular desire to move. I'm not advocating specific games so much as advocating radically different games. Like I said, for a group of canalized Sorcerer players, it would be D&D to get the to understand Gamism. Or whatever. Just not adding EXP to Sorcerer (perish the thought).

Personally, in play of SOAP, I've found the Gamism broken, and players all just end up playing very narrativist according to the genre expectations that everybody knows. OTOH, I'm talking about the pre-publication playtest edition so take that with a grain of salt.

But Ralph is right about what it will do. In any case, if you have doubts about SOAP, play The Pool instead. Or, for you who wants less in the way of Director Stance stuff, try Sorcerer. The particular game doesn't matter, just that these will force players to understand that there are fundamentally different ways to play RPGs, and that they all represent functional choices.

Again, it's at that point that you can then reasonably consider a permenanty move. Remember, I'm not advocating moving to the teaching game for anything more than even part of a session - just long enough to teach what it's about. You can always go back to something else. So even if you don't like the ideas behind SOAP (are you sure, have you actually tried it - I sound like mom), a little play can be an eyeopener that doesn't really take away from any other play.

Educate by play. Don't sneak. There's nothing to be ashamed of that requires sneaking. I think sneaking is about GM fear that the players will hate what they're proposing, and then there'll be a backlash, if it's done unsubtly. But if you agree to play a game that presents a coherent play vision, the worst that they can do is say that they honestly don't like it. In which case I really believe that no amount of "sneaking" it in would ever work. People just don't "convert" over time with slight nudges.

Mike

[John Kim]

Remember, I'm not advocating moving to the teaching game for anything more than even part of a session - just long enough to teach what it's about. You can always go back to something else. So even if you don't like the ideas behind SOAP (are you sure, have you actually tried it - I sound like mom), a little play can be an eyeopener that doesn't really take away from any other play.  

I never said I didn't like Soap at all.  It looks neat to me.  I did say that it doesn't seem Narrativist to me.  I own it but not actually tried it yet, so I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.  But I'd want some explanation.  I have played games like Pantheon, Baron Munchausen, and Once Upon a Time.  I've also read some Forge threads like http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3087">Soap -- Dark Shadows style, and it sounds mostly like what I'd expect from my other experience.  

Educate by play. Don't sneak. There's nothing to be ashamed of that requires sneaking. I think sneaking is about GM fear that the players will hate what they're proposing, and then there'll be a backlash, if it's done unsubtly. But if you agree to play a game that presents a coherent play vision, the worst that they can do is say that they honestly don't like it. In which case I really believe that no amount of "sneaking" it in would ever work. People just don't "convert" over time with slight nudges.  

Well, I'm also against "sneaking" in the sense of trying to foist things off on players.  But the original subject was about trying things like, say, having moral situations and maybe adding Whimsy Cards to your RuneQuest variant campaign.  Or one might run a James Bond 007 game which highlights issues lingering from WWII.  These both seem to fit the profile from the start of this thread, i.e. "nudging" or "sneaking" towards Narrativism.  

I don't think of it that way because I'm not trying to push them to, say, play Sorcerer or somesuch.  Mostly I'm looking for cool and emotionally-charged play of my own favorite systems, like Champions or James Bond 007  or maybe Ars Magica -- or perhaps a system which I design myself.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

John, did you see my reply to your post above? I thought I provided a very clear reason why your play-experiences do not correspond to Mike's "sneaking up." In other words, you're not an example of the problem.

For what it's worth, I think your points about Soap are well-taken and that Mike was over-enthusiastic in citing it, although I've done the same in the past.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

John, did you see my reply to your post above? I thought I provided a very clear reason why your play-experiences do not correspond to Mike's "sneaking up." In other words, you're not an example of the problem.

Sorry, it got lost in all the responses.  Yes, I did see it, though, along with Mike's response.  I'm not sure I agree about the distinction, though.  Mike put this as that my players were playing Narrativist at least in part before -- so I am just "empowering a mode which is already there".  But as I see it, for the mode switch to work at all, the players have to like Narrativism.  It seems to me natural that this inclination would show itself at least slightly prior to an aggressive push for change.  

While I have read a number of unsuccessful "sneaking up" stories in Actual Play, I'm not convinced that these would have been successful if the GM had tried, say, playing Sorcerer instead of modified D20.  Indeed, most of the posters seem to have tried to convince their players to play an Indy game and only went with the "sneak" approach when they couldn't convince their players.  My impression has been that such players -- who are resistant to the idea of Soap or other Director-stance play -- do not suddenly get into pervy Narrativism after their eyes have been opened.  I'm not sure about this, but that's my feeling.  

It seems more likely (just from vague impression) that the resistant players are not into Director-stance or pervy approaches which the GM tries to push on them -- but they might be into other forms of Narrativism.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi John,

I think we agree about this - vanilla may be the way. And it's not a way for conversion, but rather realization of a preference - perhaps overcoming pre-set habits, or in some cases, not even that. Just developing the goals/desires that are there. So the whole GM-wants-players-to-go-X is, in my view, rather broken in the first place.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

I haven't said otherwise. I'm not saying that this method will make converts 100% of the time. I'm not saying that you have to use SOAP or any other system particularly, just one that you feel has a clear and forceful Creative Agenda that will make it impossible for the lesson in question to be missed. Because what I am saying is that this will work better than mixing up your players with sneaking, or nudging or any other form of incrementalism.

The biggest advantage by far is that it takes much less time (another reason for the games I suggested is that they're short). Because of the difficulties involved in the incremental approach, even if you are successful, I think it'll take waaaay longer to accomplish your overall goal, that of altering the mode. So why would you use that method even if it wasn't more danger prone? Why not find out now, and move on.

Because I agree that some players won't "see the light" and never will. But at least you'll know at that point. With the incremental method, you may have to go through a lot of painful play just to discover much later that the players hate the idea. So why not get it over with in short order?

Getting back to your example, John, there's a substantive difference between players who are already playing narrativist (and who obviously know how), and those who don't even realize that it's a potential mode. If your players are already exhibiting lots of narrativist play, then giving them more tools is just empowering them. If they aren't then giving them these sorts of tools is educational. All the attempts that I see of people trying to move incrementally are from people who's players have no idea what they're trying to get at. Hence the problem of not presenting the clear CA to them.

So, yes, this doesn't apply to players already playing narrativist, but that was the original supposition, wasn't it? We're talking about trying to get players to play in modes that they're blissfully unaware of.

Further, on top of all this, the people who are trying to make these shifts are often doing so because they want to try something like Sorcerer or Inspectres. But, again, they seem to think that making such a radical move would be too terrifying for the players or something. So they move that way incrementally instead, hoping that their current game will eventually be such that they can at some later date hop over to what they want to play.

Can we all at least agree that there's nothing so scary in Sorcerer play (or whatever coherent game) that people shouldn't just dive right in if that's what they want to play? That taking ten session of adjusting a Rolemaster campaign slightly over time is never going to really prepare the players for Sorcerer, and is entirely unneccessary?

Mike

[John Kim]

Can we all at least agree that there's nothing so scary in Sorcerer play (or whatever coherent game) that people shouldn't just dive right in if that's what they want to play? That taking ten session of adjusting a Rolemaster campaign slightly over time is never going to really prepare the players for Sorcerer, and is entirely unneccessary?  

This I agree with.  If what you really want is to play Sorcerer, then it's better to just try it.  If they don't like it, then nudging and so forth won't help to bring them around.  However, this does not mean that they aren't amenable to Narrativism.  They might love having a Rolemaster campaign where they wrestle with moral issues, for example.  

Getting back to your example, John, there's a substantive difference between players who are already playing narrativist (and who obviously know how), and those who don't even realize that it's a potential mode. If your players are already exhibiting lots of narrativist play, then giving them more tools is just empowering them. If they aren't then giving them these sorts of tools is educational. All the attempts that I see of people trying to move incrementally are from people who's players have no idea what they're trying to get at. Hence the problem of not presenting the clear CA to them.  

So, yes, this doesn't apply to players already playing narrativist, but that was the original supposition, wasn't it? We're talking about trying to get players to play in modes that they're blissfully unaware of.  

I don't think this is really true.  Of the three players in my James Bond 007 game, David and Dennis have had a history of purely Gamist and/or Illusionist play.  David had just GMed a solidly Illusionist LotR campaign.  Jim has played in my Vinland RuneQuest game -- but he joined my RQ game two years earlier with the same experience as David and Dennis.  Prior to LotR, he GMed a HarnMaster campaign which was pretty much GNS Simulationist.  

I think this group at least roughly fits the profile.  The four of us played HarnMaster GMed by Jim, then LotR GMed by David.  Now I'm GMing, and I'm trying JB007.  Now, admittedly, I'm doing this because I love JB007 for itself, not as a sneak towards playing Sorcerer or The Pool.  But I plan to have moral choice be a real element of the game.  Now, the campaign is just starting.  Maybe it will be a failure or maybe the Nar bits will fall into GNS Sim or something.  It remains to be seen how it will turn out.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Mike,

I'm good with your "can we at least agree" concept.

Best,
Ron

[james_west]

Hello all -

Agreed, that if your goal is to play pervy narrativist, you may as well go straight to it; there's nothing to be gained by sneaking up on it.

Further, if your goal is to play vanilla narrativist, using pervy narrativist as sort of a system shock is likely to have a salutatory effect. I've used this method before, to positive effect. Everyone I've tried it with, even if they don't want a steady diet of it, has had fun with these games in the short run, and it widens the scope of the possible for them.

However, it is quite possible to run games designed as simulationist as vanilla narrativist, with only slight modification, and if your intention is to move a group from straight simulationist into vanilla narrativism, I don't think it's essential to use pervy narrativist as a waypoint.

Finally, if your players are used to straight simulationism, or perhaps illusionism, then moving into vanilla narrativism by changing the plot structure (attempting to empower players via empowering character decisions, rather than through director stance and the like) has the advantage of familiarity, and an easy fallback position.

- James

[Mike Holmes]

I think that James West's method will work if you're James West.

Basically, James, most people don't have as good a handle of these things as you do. That is, most of the people thinking of doing the "sneaking" probably don't have the clearest vision on these things in the first place, meaning that they aren't as likely to be as successful as you might. For example:

Finally, if your players are used to straight simulationism, or perhaps illusionism, then moving into vanilla narrativism by changing the plot structure (attempting to empower players via empowering character decisions, rather than through director stance and the like) has the advantage of familiarity, and an easy fallback position.

I've seen people try this a lot, and they usually come back complaining that they left the decisions open, but the players still thought that the GM had pre-decided things, and acted as if it were so. "Oh, sure you want us to think that there are loads of solutions, but I can tell that you want to do X, and so I'll be a good player and do it." I've seen that repeatedly. You're making my case for me with the good examples. Yes there's a "fall back" right back to the standard mode, and nothing has changed at all.

Moreover, I've failed personally to do exactly what you've described in terms of using the sim system with nar techniques. In one attempt with GURPs, using a relationship map and all that good stuff, I still ended up with Sim/Gamism. Why? Talking to the player worst affected this way afterwards, he just couldn't see what I was trying to do. Because of that the game fell apart.

And I knew why it was falling apart. And there was no way to make the player in question "get it". Because some players won't without that shock effect. Tellingly, the same player had no problem at all getting into the mode when playing Inspectres.

Heck, I'm willing to say that there may be cases when sneaking might work. But how do you know before hand? I can't really say that it's impossible. But I will say that I've seen it blow up so many times that it's not worth the risk involved. Because what's the benefit of that solution? Familiarity is exactly the problem. You need to get the player out of their familiar zone to learn. That's something that I learned as a PSIA trained ski instructor. People don't learn anything until they're out of their comfort zone.

So, at this point I think we're splitting hairs. This thread will serve it's purpose for me to at least get people considering the alternative to sneaking. It won't convince 100% of the people anyhow (they never do). And that's all that I'm looking for is something to say to people that there may be a better way, and that they may be stepping into a booby trap. Because then if they do still go that way, at least they'll have their heads up, and have the suggestions of all the people who think that it's got more potential than I do.

Mike