Highs and Lows from an old campaign

[ewilen]

Over in a thread I started about distinguishing GNS modes, Ron suggested I post some actual play experiences. (Original thread here)

By way of introduction, I've been gaming off and on for over 25 years, but with virtually no RPG activity over the last decade. The descriptions of play here come from the longest-running campaign I was involved in during college in the 80's.

The campaign was run by another person whom I'd met in the context of a really awful AD&D campaign where the typical interaction around the table was encouraging each other to stay awake all night, and the interaction inside the game was a combination of petty infighting (sometimes with flirtatious undertones) and encounters with extremely powerful beings who would fight the party to the point of exhaustion, at which point the weaker side would either offer a bargain (if it was an NPC) or be forced into a quest (if it was the party). When the GM from that campaign failed to return to school the next year, one of the other people, a woman who had often been one of the instigators in the infighting episodes, offered an entirely new campaign.

We used a homebrew which roughly melded AD&D class/level/hit dice structure with a Runequest-like hit location system. Magic used some kind of spell points but I never played a magic user. In practice, the GM was very accommodating with respect to character conception, to the point that  if your character wouldn't fit into one of her classes, she'd essentially make up a new class for you, along with a progression in relevant percentile-based skills.

The campaign took place in a cosmopolitan setting--a number of countries and territories situated around an inland sea, with a major island somewhere in the middle. The various cultures were largely ripped from the Mediterranean world circa 800-1400, often with the same or similar names: civilized but exotic Arab/Persian types (subject to some discrimination but no significant religious controversy), highly cultured, slightly decadent Byzantines caught up in constant intrigue, and if I remember correctly, other areas that were more Celto-Frankish "feudal" and/or reminiscent of Venice. A certain stretch of the coast, and much of the area deep inland, was more savage, less civilized, and more wildly imaginitive (thus harder to peg as far as influences). Oh, yes, typical fantasy roleplaying crosscultural pantheon superimposed on all this.

My character, Hassan, was one of those Perso-Arab types and a Rogue by class--maybe a Thief with a little more fighting ability and more streetwise people skills. The other characters were a hodgepodge from various cultures all with some amount of backstory which would occasionally crop up, particularly when the party was in their home turf. So Hassan would occasionally be troubled by rival gangmembers from his past, and other people would sometimes have complicated family politics to deal with.

Overall it was a very enjoyable campaign and I remain good friends with many of the participants. It petered out after a year or two. Not sure why. Could have been increasing academic demands, or possibly certain in-game incidents that weren't to the taste of the players--related to the GM's tendencies toward deep offstage psychological drama between NPC's, and often the gratuitous portrayal of disgusting fluids and physical dismemberments.

I would like to offer three incidents from the campaign. The first was a low point and nearly killed the game for me at the beginning. The party had assembled for whatever reason and, also for whatever reason, had been tasked with investigating some sort of mystery. Among the first actions taken by several of the party members was to get into a fight with some minor NPC bad guys, slaughter most of them, then threaten the last man to get information out of him. Having gotten what they wanted, they summarily dispatched him, which horrified both Hassan and me. We thought that the other characters were wicked, and I was annoyed at the other players for doing things this way. Later in the adventure, as we were preparing to travel into the wastes, we encountered a mysterious stranger who gave us vague warnings about a "him" who would "get us" if we went out there. We went anyway. I suppose it's significant that I can't really remember why we were doing any of this. Partway into our travels, we ran into some sort of human opposition--bandits--and fought them off, though I believe Hassan received a wound to the head due to a fumbled bow shot by one of the other PC's. At this point, he'd had enough. He told the other characters they were nuts, took his pack-animal, and headed back toward the city. I think the GM was visibly pained, but she took me aside and played out the results--after a time travelling alone, Hassan was ambushed by "something" and blacked out. I assumed he was dead. I don't rememeber if I left at that point or just crashed in the game room. Later, I was told by the other players that in the course of completing the adventure, they'd rescued an unconscious Hassan from a huge lion which had dined on his pack animal.

Recounting these events I find that I'm rather proud of this character. He stood up for his principles and refused to compromise in the face of standard RPG-party-unity. But at the time, it was a pretty rotten experience, only redeemed by the fact that the GM had found a reasonable way for Hassan to continue as a character.

The next incident was a high point. Much, much later in game-time, the party found itself on the other side of the sea and had encountered a gang of pirates. Somehow Hassan's fate was (again!) separate from the others--he was captured by the pirates, possibly while doing some kind of recon. The pirates wanted to sell him as a slave, but Hassan laid it on the line: "As a slave, I would be useless. But as a comrade, I can help you enormously." So he didn't sell out the rest of the party but he managed to persuade the pirate-king to let him join up. (I don't recall if this was done entirely via roleplay or if some dice were rolled.) It seems that was the end of a session, and that I may have missed some subsequent sessions. The next time I joined the group, I was told that Hassan had been a pirate for some time and was, at that very moment, relaxing in his quarters in the pirates' island hideout, when an alarm was sounded. Jumping out of his hammock, Hassan ascertained that a group of intruders were being hunted down, and he realized that some of them were familiar members of the old party. This set the scene for an amusing series of running battles, with Hassan pretending to be on the pirates' side when advantageous. ("There they are, get them!" Only to attack a group of pirates from behind.) Perhaps a little too convincingly as one of the new players kept saying he wasn't really sure which side I was on. Anyway, we ultimately escaped.

The overall arc of "story" was extremely enjoyable, not least because Hassan got to express traits of guile, quick-thinking, and persuasion.

The final incident, which occurred at an unknown point relative the pirate adventure, was a low point. Sometime in the course of play, Hassan had picked up an orphan sidekick, a young girl named Gilly. While I personally wasn't particularly keen on this sort of development, and I doubt that I conceived of Hassan as being especially interested in watching out for a child, somehow a connection was made (probably on the basis of assuming responsibility because no one else was going to). I really don't remember what role the Gilly character had in subsequent sessions, except that there was one session where I arrived late to a table full of guilty-looking people. I was told that the party had run into some kind of adversity where the enemy had a sort of magical, animated ribbon which had wound itself around Gilly, after which the party was told to surrender. At least one of them had made an attempt to fight, and the little girl was instantly sliced into pieces. I found this rather upsetting, and I was annoyed both at the player and I think at the GM, although to a lesser extent.

I think it's clear that the player and the GM were operating on different wavelengths, with him taking the usual D&D attititude of "I've got enough hit points to take down the mooks" and her trying to force the story in a particular direction. Had I been there, I think I would probably have intervened and warned the other players off doing anything stupid. On the other hand, as I wrote above, the campaign also eventually reached a point where some of the situations we were finding ourselves in were frankly off-putting no matter how we approached them.

In spite of the criticisms, I have to say, again, that it was generally an enjoyable game. There was a strong sense of both world and character. I really can't remember what it was we were doing together, or what we were trying to achieve, but when we played out the scenarios I had a lot of fun. We went on to play in another highly enjoyable game with a different player now taking on the GM role, and while I liked the tone and feel of his game somewhat more, I think that my subsequent efforts at campaign creation and RPG banter on rec.games.frp were often focused on reproducing the high points of this sort of (picaresque?) campaign while finding solutions to some of the problems we'd encountered.

[TonyLB]

Cool!  Sounds like it was a lot of fun!

Your phrasing is provoking thoughts in me.  You talk about Hassan "expressing" certain traits, where I suspect that I would naturally be talking about my characters "developing" certain traits.

Do you feel that Hassan-at-game-end was, in the important ways, the same person as Hassan-at-game-start?

[Bill Cook]

Having gotten what they wanted, they summarily dispatched him, which horrified both Hassan and me. We thought that the other characters were wicked, and I was annoyed at the other players for doing things this way.

This has happened to me before. I find in-game callousness to be deeply upsetting. If I'm going to tolerate it, which is most often the case, I express my disgust through my character. (e.g. "My guy leans over the side of the carriage and pukes. His buddy urges him on, but he just lays there, moaning. Finally, he and another fellow drag my guy into the yard.") What's worrisome (to me) is when players do things like that because they're in kill-bot mode, where I see character actions as an expression of their soul.

Sometime in the course of play, Hassan had picked up an orphan sidekick, a young girl named Gilly. While I personally wasn't particularly keen on this sort of development, and I doubt that I conceived of Hassan as being especially interested in watching out for a child, somehow a connection was made (probably on the basis of assuming responsibility because no one else was going to).

Hello! It's time to step outside character and tell the GM (as a player) that your fun is not about a hostage, so let's not start. (This is a classic hook to the character's nose-ring.) Also, in fairness to your GM, it behooves you to make plain what your fun is.

** ** **

I notice two things about your style, as a player: (1) you like to author fresh direction, unfettered by group concerns, and (2) you prefer subtle machinations that do not broach the grisly or grotesque.

[ewilen]

Cool!  Sounds like it was a lot of fun!

Your phrasing is provoking thoughts in me.  You talk about Hassan "expressing" certain traits, where I suspect that I would naturally be talking about my characters "developing" certain traits.

Do you feel that Hassan-at-game-end was, in the important ways, the same person as Hassan-at-game-start?

"Expressing" is definitely what I was enjoying. I wanted to be a crafty Rogue, and to be is to do as it were.

But no, he wasn't the same person at the end. The death of Gilly affected him and I think before the game petered out he was trying to find a way to make up for it. It could have been something as cheap as a resurrection, though that would have been rather poor thematically and, unless handled deftly, a violation of the low-magic genre of the game.

[ewilen]

Hello! It's time to step outside character and tell the GM (as a player) that your fun is not about a hostage, so let's not start. (This is a classic hook to the character's nose-ring.) Also, in fairness to your GM, it behooves you to make plain what your fun is.

Although Gilly was a hostage in that unfortunate incident, the character had had a lot of life which didn't have anything to do with that. In fact I think the GM introduced her (and several other dependent NPC's) not as hostage-fodder but either out of her own creative-emotional agenda, or as a subtle challenge to the character concept. In other words, there was a bit of the same thing going on that had been expressed via in-fighting in the awful AD&D campaign--an in-game proxy for out-of-game interaction.

I notice two things about your style, as a player: (1) you like to author fresh direction, unfettered by group concerns, and (2) you prefer subtle machinations that do not broach the grisly or grotesque.

(1) I'd put it more as, I'm not entirely willing to exercise authorial control in the service of metagame agenda where it conflicts with character or in-game cause. At least, that's what happened then. In other games, I think I was more willing to go with the flow and take party unity as a given.

(2) I definitely enjoy subtle machinations. Many of my favorite roleplaying moments are related to characters who were rogues, illusionists, or tricksters. I did have another favorite character with whom I deliberately tried to break type by making him a semi-barbarian warrior. That was in the subsequent campaign. However, I initially found myself frustrated by the rules and vagaries of the dice (getting knocked out by a head blow at the beginning of a fight). As well, while the character was supposed to be an imposing presence, I am not, and it was difficult to get the other players to acknowledge the role. The first memorable expression of character came in applying guile to the problem of capturing a monastery...remembering an incident out of a chronicle, I reasoned that Warnachar might get the same idea from his folklore. He feigned death (probably with the help of another character's spell), and the rest of the party brought his "corpse" to the monastery requesting assistance with burial. In barbarian tradition he was brought in with his weapons on the litter, so the mourners and the corpse could all jump up at the crucial moment and subdue the monks. Later in the campaign, the quirky dice subsided, Warnachar acquired a fine warhorse, and the operations of the party led to several large skirmishes where enemies could be properly skewered by lance or run down. This gave more opportunities for Warnachar to be Warnachar, and may also have led the other players to give the character the respect he deserved.

In a way, I suppose the initial difficulties may have helped the character so that he wasn't a typical Grog the Barbarian type. However I think I already had a pretty good idea that wasn't what I was going for. I will say that one problem (if you can call it that) with the second campaign was that all of the characters were extremely colorful (though not in a way that was entirely incongruous either with the setting or party unity), while some of the players themselves were extraordinary hams. So it was sometimes a bit of a multisided struggle for attention.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Elliott,

At last! I've gone over this thread and your others at some length.

First, the bad news: if you're looking for a "GNS detector," you're out of luck. Your history, the type of play you're describing, and other details lead me to state that Incoherence is the order of the day for your play-experiences, and in some cases, a certain dedication to Incoherence that forces CA-expression into covert shapes. A good example would be a tendency on the part of your GM (the second, female one) toward Typhoid Mary, or on your part, toward Stealth Narrativism.

But these are hints and echoes, not Creative Agendas in any realized sense. I directed you to some older threads earlier to try to emphasize an important point: what a particular person wants to see in CA terms is not "his CA." It is merely a desire. An actual CA is a phenomenon that is expressed and occurs as a function of play, which requires, at the least, group reinforcement. As far as I can tell, based only on the incidents and descriptions you've provided, such expression simply wasn't part of the landscape of play for any meaningful length of time - certainly not in terms of levelling up, which would be the system element of the reward cycle for the game in question.

What's a little depressing, although certainly familiar to me from my own experiences as a similarly-aged role-player, is that the most successful play for you seems to be in those glimmerings and hints of possible CA occurring. But the most persistent play seems to be a baseline, Color-heavy Exploration. So is that Sim? No, I don't think so. It approaches Zilchplay, "being there" and "talking" but not really hitting any kind of group-level reinforcement - not, as one poster has put it very well, Playing On Purpose.

(In the past, I and others would unfairly have tagged this as Sim. That's because we were inclined to think of incompetent Narrativism or general "blah" play as Sim. The 1999 and 2000 essays tend toward this unfair view, and the Sim essay represents coming out of a little. The corollary point is that Sim is not the most widely-observed form of play; rather, that would be incoherent and "blah" play. Successful Sim is, I think, out there to be observed, but probably rarer than the relatively-common successful Gamist play.)

Again, if we were to look at those glimmerings and hints and echoes in your play-experiences, it seems to me based on the data so far that we'd see some nascent Narrativism, both on your part and the GM's part - both not in tandem, not mutually-reinforcing, and certainly not in any way to do with the rest of the people there. It is not curious or surprising that you were able to play your character as you liked best mainly when no one else's announced actions were immediately involved. Their participation at that level was a drug on your goals. In your account of the pirate scene, note that you describe amazingly successful Premise-heavy play as too successful exactly when it works the best. As I see it, that is an indication that you recognize that your fellow players were literally clueless about your CA-level enjoyment.

Nor is it a shock that the GM's attempts to provide anything resembling Premise didn't work well, but your own attempts to get it in there did - she had to guess (or at worst, simply assign what interested her, and you didn't. The death of Gilly is a perfect example of a common dysfunctional-Narrativist GM attempt, because it's all consequence, but no informed choice.

Now - you talk about it as "successful" because there was a strong sense of world and character. I'll give you my feedback on that, which is harsh - that this is like saying, wow, the food wasn't actually poisonous, so relative to my other experiences, it's successful! Never mind that it didn't taste great or that as a group we never did manage to share one another's enjoyment. A strong sense of world and character, as I see it, is a minimal and painless requirement for successful play ... but it's absolutely not sufficient and frankly, a rather poor bone to gnaw on compared to an expressed CA in action.

As a final point, I'll focus on your second post:

... I'm not entirely willing to exercise authorial control in the service of metagame agenda where it conflicts with character or in-game cause.

If there were a medical textbook for diagnosing cognitive confusions about role-playing, this statement would be listed as a key symptom. I can't count the times I've heard it. I can't count the times it's been flung up as a ferocious defense against various discussions of Narrativst play, in particular. (I'm not saying you're doing so.)

Think about it - how could authorial control conflict with character? If the character is yours, and if you are really exercising authorial control, then that is the perfect guarantee of preserving character and, for that matter, in-game cause. No, this phrasing isn't an argument. In my experience, it's the sign of someone who's been burned by railroading, and as such, considers "playing my character" even if it's meaningless to be preferable to being Forced. It's the scar of Narrativist tendencies which have been wounded. It's a hole to hide in.

Best,
Ron

[ewilen]

Hi, Ron. Thanks for the assessment, which as far as it goes I think is quite insightful. Just a few quibbles or whatever.

I wasn't really looking for a GNS detector, just giving some meat to provide context for discussion over in my GNS thread--some idea of a few things that really stand out in my roleplaying experience so that we might be able to hit the ground running. Not that the analysis isn't appreciated, and in fact both it and the self-analysis that went into this thread and the other one was helpful for my understanding of the GNS terms & concepts.

Now - you talk about it as "successful" because there was a strong sense of world and character. I'll give you my feedback on that, which is harsh - that this is like saying, wow, the food wasn't actually poisonous, so relative to my other experiences, it's successful! Never mind that it didn't taste great or that as a group we never did manage to share one another's enjoyment. A strong sense of world and character, as I see it, is a minimal and painless requirement for successful play ... but it's absolutely not sufficient and frankly, a rather poor bone to gnaw on compared to an expressed CA in action.

Hey, I don't really mind the evaluation; to the extent that my recollections of other parts of the campaign are limited, that might suggest I didn't partake of significant group-oriented enjoyment. But it was 20 years ago! For what it's worth, I think there was a lot of what, based on our GNS discussion, would be either non-directed Sim (character hijinx and "personality costumery") or directed Sim (participationist and/or trailblazing set-piece scenarios). I think the Warnachar campaign would fall more strongly in the "directed Sim" category--again based on memories that are nearly two decades old. Fully realized, any of it? The Warnachar stuff was more consistently successful, I think--things meshed better, and there weren't any clashes over the tone and direction of the game. Now, I might have liked a little more input, it's true. The overall thrust of the Warnachar campaign was a political goal which seemed to have been provided by the GM, possibly with input from one of the other players. (Or to put it another way, the overall thrust of the campaign may have arisen from the GM's desire to please a certain player, with the rest of us along for the ride.) The scenarios were a lot like the CoC stuff you described in my GNS clash thread--pretty linear within each session, with a great deal of mood-setting on the part of the GM and opportunities for problem solving (freeform, skill-based, and combat). The direction of each subsequent scenario was basically agreed on by the group in advance, subject both to the in-game stature and role of the characters and the actual player relationships (to what degree, I don't know--I'm reconstructing here). So, does the fact that I remember not having full input mean that I was unhappy and there was no expressed CA? I mean, someone might prefer Narrativistism, but do a few pangs on the part of one player mean there isn't a CA?

As a final point, I'll focus on your second post:

... I'm not entirely willing to exercise authorial control in the service of metagame agenda where it conflicts with character or in-game cause.

If there were a medical textbook for diagnosing cognitive confusions about role-playing, this statement would be listed as a key symptom. I can't count the times I've heard it. I can't count the times it's been flung up as a ferocious defense against various discussions of Narrativst play, in particular. (I'm not saying you're doing so.)

Think about it - how could authorial control conflict with character? If the character is yours, and if you are really exercising authorial control, then that is the perfect guarantee of preserving character and, for that matter, in-game cause. No, this phrasing isn't an argument. In my experience, it's the sign of someone who's been burned by railroading, and as such, considers "playing my character" even if it's meaningless to be preferable to being Forced. It's the scar of Narrativist tendencies which have been wounded. It's a hole to hide in.

Ron, I have to protest--at least at first glance, this is an uncharitable interpretation of my comment. Clearly, the low points I quoted were highly dysfunctional play; the "leaving the party" incident was a classic no-win situation for everyone at the table because there was no explicit agenda and it turned out that expectations clashed badly.

Or maybe the first glance isn't what you're saying. I think maybe you're jumping on the language because it connotes something I didn't mean and hits a pet peeve. When I say "authorial control" I mean, simply, that I don't like to use Author Stance (or probably Pawn Stance) to suppress a clash between the character conception and other players'/GM's proposed elements of the SIS. Or rather that, given there was no formalized system for sharing credibility (and the implicit system was: you know your character better than anyone else), and there was no explicit understanding regarding party unity (but the implicit system was: the party sticks together), I had only two choices: use Author Stance to engineer a radical change in my character, or leave the party (*). As for the GM, I don't know why the lion attacked Hassan--she could have been doing whatever she thought was most plausible, or she could have been punishing me. I think likely the former since it would have been simple to just let Hassan go back to town with the understanding that he was out of the adventure.

What I think you're saying is just that true authorial control (lower-case) isn't just a guarantee of preserving character--it is character. No argument whatsoever there.

Regards,

Elliot

(* Edit: correction--I had a third choice which would have been to raise my objections at the social level and in particular ask the GM for clarification. I should have, but I doubt I did.)

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Sure, you and the group could have had a great Sim CA going for a great deal of your experiences. I can only work with what you've posted. In this last post, yes, your Sim-description does seem consistent with my definitions. It's a given in these conversations that you have to stay on-target - tell me X, I can tell you what X may be or seem like; if you then switch to Y, it doesn't refute my comments.

If your first post had included

I think there was a lot of what, based on our GNS discussion, would be either non-directed Sim (character hijinx and "personality costumery") or directed Sim (participationist and/or trailblazing set-piece scenarios). I think the Warnachar campaign would fall more strongly in the "directed Sim" category--again based on memories that are nearly two decades old. Fully realized, any of it? The Warnachar stuff was more consistently successful, I think--things meshed better, and there weren't any clashes over the tone and direction of the game. Now, I might have liked a little more input, it's true. The overall thrust of the Warnachar campaign was a political goal which seemed to have been provided by the GM, possibly with input from one of the other players. (Or to put it another way, the overall thrust of the campaign may have arisen from the GM's desire to please a certain player, with the rest of us along for the ride.) The scenarios were a lot like the CoC stuff you described in my GNS clash thread--pretty linear within each session, with a great deal of mood-setting on the part of the GM and opportunities for problem solving (freeform, skill-based, and combat). The direction of each subsequent scenario was basically agreed on by the group in advance, subject both to the in-game stature and role of the characters and the actual player relationships (to what degree, I don't know--I'm reconstructing here).

... then my post would have had some very different content. These conversations are long-term, in this forum, when they're at the level you want (hard-core Big Model analysis, simultaneous skepticism about the model). Please don't do the switch-to-Y thing, because as long as we stay on target and you recognize that I'm feeling the elephant you're describing, then statements like this one are unnecessary:

does the fact that I remember not having full input mean that I was unhappy and there was no expressed CA? I mean, someone might prefer Narrativistism, but do a few pangs on the part of one player mean there isn't a CA?

To answer, of course not. Only you can assess whether you were unhappy or happy, not me, and only you can tell me whether a "few pangs" is plain old social adjustment (for instance, my good friend and I got rather grumpy at one another while playing a card game yesterday), or a response to undesired Incoherence. I can never tell you whether you were unhappy or having Bad Times or whatever. Any such text in my post is an attempt at paraphrasing, or an attempt to ask whether or what was the case. Let's stick with that.

I don't know what to tell you about the whole author/character thing. You protest what I say, then you agree with it. OK, we agree. This happens a lot, in my experience.

Let's not get into a "how I feel about what you said about how I wrote about how you felt" conversation. On the off chance that you'd like to work out our interaction better, then contact me through PM. (This is really a general-purpose announcement, for the multitudes who've joined up recently, not based on anything specific for you, Elliott.)

What really matters is whether this thread topic has served its purpose for you. It has for me; the very point that you have not played for 10 years tells me buckets, and that you played an immense amount of derived AD&D tells me even more, and your play-accounts and details are incredibly well told. We can have some pretty strong conversations in the GNS forum now, and the more actual play you post in new threads, the more we can do that. For this one, let me know if its topic is done, or if not, what specifically you want to discuss about these instances you've presented.

Best,
Ron

[ewilen]

Basically done, although if anyone's looking to interpret where I'm coming from based on my not having played for a long time, it might help to briefly give my take on that. Which is: the fact that someone plays RPGs doesn't seem to be an indicator (positive or negative) of whether they're someone I'd enjoy spending time with. Perhaps if the content of my post-college RPGing had been more satisfying, I might have put more effort into either locating compatible people among gamers or (re)introducing friends into roleplaying. But I think a great deal can also be attributed to a changing social atmosphere (i.e., after college, it's harder to meet new people in general) and the niche quality of the hobby. The number of people to draw from is radically reduced by both factors.