In an online group where I'm a player we have this situation. The GM is a pretty coherent Simulationist player. At least that is my observation from playing with him for the past 15 or so years. Our group is composed entirely of Gamist players. This has caused some frustrations in the past and I'll give some examples. We're using 3e D&D btw, which from my understanding is a pretty Gamist system when played as written.

The campaign that we just finished revolved around the small town of Ball which was being besieged by a hobgoblin army. The characters were all in the town for one reason or another. All the player were interested in defeating the hobgoblin threat. The frustration arose when the GM noticed that the players seemed somewhat confused and did not proactively come up with things for their characters to be doing but waited for some indication from the GM on which direction they should go. The GM thought it would make sense given the situation for the characters to conduct recon missions and quick strikes against the superior hobgoblin army but unless the GM pointed them in that direction through and NPC or some in game method, the group just milled around wondering which direction to go.

The problem as I see it, is that the GM's CA was to see how the characters would react in the given situation and pushing them through some artificial means to go in any specific direction was a "bad" thing to do. The players, on the other hand, wanted a clearly definable goal and once they got one they put on their tactical thinking caps and went about accomplishing the mission. However, they just got bored and confused when there was no mission.

I guess my question boils down to this. What types of practical things could the GM and the players do to help each other so that both leave the game feeling that their CAs were being fullfilled?

(On a side note, we just finished the campaign. The hobgoblins took the city and most of the characters died. This was a fine and logical conclusion from the standpoint of the GM but was a bit bitter for the Gamist around the virtual table, I'm sure, who felt like they didn't win the game. Oh well, you can't win them all. :-)

Hi there,

This example is interesting, because it shows that not only might GNS priorities differ, but the details within each priority are tripping one another up.

By details, I mean the actual means by which Situation is brought into play. It has to do with the difference between strategy (overall deployment, engagement, and managing larger-scale resources) and tactics (attack, defense, maneuvering, and small-scale resource management in moment-to-moment circumstances).

According to the GM, if you're interpreting correctly and if I'm reading correctly, the player-characters are already in a Situation: the beseiged town. But according to the players, they are still waiting for Situation: specifically, an opportunity to exercise the Feats and weapons and spells listed on their character sheets.

Here's my call: character creation and development, in D&D3E, are almost all explicitly tactical, not strategic. That means they are best employed in the context of specific foes, specific small-scale maps (e.g. corridors, floor plans), and specific threats and opportunities (most crudely, but not restricted to, mortality and profits).

So the GM has provided a strategic crisis, and now is happily awaiting the players' strategic response ... and the players, armed with tactical firepower, are awaiting the tactical circumstances of the encounters.

That disconnection would be enough to make an all-Gamist group a little puzzled, but it would also probably not be too hard to solve. But if there's really an S-to-G difference at work, which is more fundamental, then we are indeed, Houston, looking at a problem.

It's the same problem I discussed just a little while ago in an Actual Play thread about Exalted (to be looked up in a minute). If all decisions about scene framing and overall scene outcomes are GM-driven in a certain kind of Simulationist fashion (specifically, a large-scale "story"), and if all decisions about moment-to-moment combat are player-driven in a certain kind of Gamist fashion (analogous to "combos" in Magic: the Gathering), then getting those two aligned is ... well, unlikely past the first few stories, especially after the players have mastered the details of their tactical options.

What types of practical things could the GM and the players do to help each other so that both leave the game feeling that their CAs were being fullfilled?

Ron,

I think you have a pretty good feel for the issues at hand in the group. The GM has essentially set up a large-scale Situation and then is waiting for some coherent (not in GNS terms) response from the group. Meanwhile, the group is waiting around for some specific small-scale Situation that they can react to. As an example...

The Guard Captain in the town sent us on a mission to destroy a hobgoblin force that was occupying a mine near the town. (He did this after the GM got frustrated waiting for the characters to do something.) The group attacked the mine, rescued some dwarven workers and human prisoners, and returned to the town. At that point, the GM once again waited for the characters to come up with some specific plan on what to do next, while the characters just sorta took care of between mission character stuff. One went and tried to get some magical armor repaired. Two went off to learn some new spells. One got some healing and rested... etc. etc. This went on until the Guard Captain once again stepped forward and said, "The hobgoblins have built catapults! Go destroy them!" Then the characters jumped right in and went to destroy catapults.

I must say that the GM's expectation isn't that the group do something specific, just that the group do SOMETHING that addresses the larger issue. I talked to the GM on the phone and he indicated that had the group all said, "Screw this. We aren't dying for this town." and we had all bugged out for greener pastures, he'd have been okay with that. Of course, as players, we weren't interested in that course of action but were waiting for a more clearly defined direction from the GM... who felt like that would be railroading the players.

At what point is pushing the players in a certain direction not railroading but simply giving them what they want in terms of clarity?

Andrew

Hi Andrew,

Glad to know that I'm pointed the right way! Let's see what you think of this ...

At what point is pushing the players in a certain direction not railroading but simply giving them what they want in terms of clarity?

Thanks for the clarification. I pretty much explained as much to the GM in question when we talked. I just don't think I was as clear. I'm sure we'll talk again though. In any event, we're starting a new game and I plan on simply taking a broader view of things and using my character to point the other characters in a general direction this time around. Maybe this way the GM won't feel like the players aren't proactive and the players will be happy to have a specific goal provided by someone. Me? I don't care either way... just so long as there's something to do. :-)

Andrew

I'm wondering how much of this stems from players who have been trained to "trailblazing"--in many modules, particularly the more gamist and tournament-oriented ones, there is a line tacitly written in the social contract that says something like, "the players will attempt to find the signposts set up by the referee, and so follow the plot he has prepared to the best of their ability". Win/loss conditions in this sort of gamist play focus on whether the players are able to follow the path and beat the planned events to reach to the end. Thus players who are accustomed to this sort of play are typically looking for whatever the clue is supposed to be that will tip them off.

For an example of trailblazing, in Multiverser's version of The Dancing Princess the character is dropped into this medieval kingdom and given a bit of time to settle into it, and then starts hearing about the reward offered by the king for whoever can solve the mystery surrounding his daughters. That's a hook. It's expected that the player will send his character to be the hero, and a player trained to trailblazing will see the hook and say, "O.K., that's the way we're supposed to go," and go there. There are several more subtle clues after that which should help the player solve the mystery (such as it is) and rescue the princesses, as long as he follows the path that's been designed and manages to overcome the obstacles in his way. On the other hand, a player who doesn't care for trailblazing will often ignore the hook, even if it's dangled several times, and pursue his own interests in the kingdom. Some referees will see this as failure on the part of the player to "play right", and will try to force the issue, finding some way to make the player character go after the princesses. What the world description says, though, is that this is the wrong approach for Multiverser play--if the player doesn't want to rescue the princess, let the demon plot play out until the demons have emerged and are claiming the throne of the kingdom, changing the nature of the adventure entirely.

By contrast, NagaWorld (in the same book, The First Book of Worlds) contains no plot, no hooks, nothing that demands attention. It has a few safe places where players actually can live long quiet lives if that's what they want to do. It has a lot of dangerous places that have interesting and valuable objects, if the players are attracted to such things, but there's no compelling reason to do any of them or go anywhere other than that the player wants to do it. There is no "next prepared adventure" here; there are places constructed where adventures can happen if someone looks for them.

So it seems to me you've got players looking for the hook that tells them where the referee has set up his "next prepared adventure" and a referee who is just waiting to see where the players go so that he can respond to them.

At that level, it would appear to be a conflict in play style--a question of who is supposed to define the starting point for an adventure. The referee thinks that he's provided the world in which adventures are waiting to happen, as soon as the players decide to undertake one; the players think that they should wait until the referee announces that the next adventure is ready (subtly, through in-game cues) and see what he's got up his sleeve. Thus each side is waiting for the other, and nothing happens.

How is this solved?

Well, the easiest way is for one side to accede to the other's desires. That's what your referee did, when he had the guard tell the player characters what to do. It would also have worked if the players realized that they had to decide what to do and go do it. But that doesn't always work, particularly as one side or the other will feel like this isn't the way it "should" work, and they'll be thinking (as the referee clearly was) that if only it gets started with a sort of priming event, the other side will get the hang of things and keep the ball rolling from there (while the other side thinks, there it is, why didn't it come sooner, and when's the next one going to come?).

What I prefer in these kinds of situations is give the situation motive energy. This hobgoblin scenario is a perfect example. The city is threatened by the hobgoblins, but the hobgoblins don't actually seem to be doing anything. If the players don't leap to action here to find out what the hobgoblins are doing, it pays for the referee to set up a timeline--these things will be done if the players don't act, in this order, at these times. This information can be reported back to the players--the stables were raided last night, and quite a few of the best horses killed or wounded; something is being built out there that could be a defensive barricade; hobgoblin movements aren't making sense. By letting the players know that the situation is in flux, but not giving them sufficient opportunity to directly engage the enemy without making a choice to do something, you push them to choose. This can also be enhanced by creating incompetent authority--someone in charge who has never faced a battle before, whether because he's just an elected official or because the real commander has been assassinated by the enemy or for some other reason, and this person now in charge keeps asking the player characters what should be done. This in some ways gives the players strategic assets (e.g., you can decide whether the town can send scouts, what defenses are available, how many soldiers can be mustered, and give the players a lot of influence over the deployment of these) while at the same time forcing them to make the decisions which will lead to their opportunities for tactical play.

In the end, either the referee has to take some of the players' freedom from them and tell them what the next adventure should be, or the players have to realize that they can and indeed should seize the reins and lead the game where they want it to go.

Those can be difficult attitudes to learn, if you have learned otherwise. Right now I've got a guy playing in Prisoner of Zenda, which has a very heavy trailblazing foundation, and he is breaking out of the story in all directions--it has been very challenging for me, as referee, to roll with the punches. But I'm committed to letting the player define the story the way he chooses, and to meeting his choices with interesting outcomes which flow reasonably from the game world, so I'm managing. Constantly as referee I have to ask, "now that he has done this, how will the enemies react? how will his allies react?", and see how that plays out. It looks like that's what the referee expects--both sides seem to be expecting that their job is to respond to the other, and no one is taking the lead to start something when it stops.

This is not to say that any of the CA observations are mistaken; I think they're quite solid, and very informative in this situation. I think, though, that this is something to consider--it might be something that can be resolved by adjusting a few techniques here and there to get everyone on the same track.

--M. J. Young

Sadly I have no insights to add, and what I'm about to suggest is just a version of trailblazing. I hope it adds something.

Essentially the idea is to have tactical stepping stones over the strategic sea. Each stone is a zone of tactical engagement. To give a sense of the greater strategy, the players are given different directions of stepping stones (T junctions) that they can choose a path from, and clear road signs to each path.

Of course, this means the GM has to realise he needs to provide this (rather than wait for players to instigate all stuff) and the players need to realise that even though its a tactical game system, those T junctions are important to consider strategically (they'll be instigating some stuff outside of clear win situations, by taking them).