Our D&D group had a brainstorming session for our next campaign tonight.

I found it an exercise in frustration, as I was unable to get my ideas across. The others humoured me and my new-fangled ideas, so the evening's mood was more or less alright. There's at least that.

The problem, as I see it, is that the group both embraces and condemns gamism (or aspects thereof). Players' eyes glaze over at the prospect of another +1, they argue endlessly over tiny modifiers and positioning and always go for the optimal tactical choice -- but at the same time, they complain that fights take too long and that people don't properly roleplay their characters. Also, they wish to raise the GM screen again to allow covert fudging.

I had brought a list of concrete suggestions, a fact which already raised a couple of eyebrows.

(Example: Everyone determines two character traits. If adhering to them garners a disadvantage (e.g. a risk), the player is rewarded with a free action point. IOW, just the carrot, no stick. This was dismissed on the grounds that it offered a mechanical reward - and, as everybody knows, good roleplay cannot be forced or bought with bribes, it has to come naturally. And so on and so forth.)

In the end, they kinda pitied me, because they (erroneously) think I don't enjoy illusionism (a term I avoided, BTW).

In retrospect, I guess I failed in three ways:

*-*-*

(1) I assumed that they'd easily come to accept things like the lumpley principle, the validity of alternative styles and other things I regard as fundamental (should they come up - I sure didn't have that in mind).

Boy, was I ever mistaken.

*-*-*

(2) My list was too diverse. Because I'd be happy to resolve the incoherence I perceive in any number of ways, I suggested options for taking the game in different directions.

This just confused everybody.

*-*-*

(3) I was unable to communicate.

I had not come to spread the light and was aware of the danger of appearing to do that, but I feel - guiltily and more than ever - that they're indeed... 'blind' (that's the most flattering term I can come up with). But I'm unable to do anything about it.

*-*-*

I've commented on the range of games out there a couple of times, but I'd mistaken their reactions as accepting that there's more than one way to play when, in fact, it had just strengthened their belief that there are a lot of very weird people in the world.

For instance, I had teased them about the DM's ultimate authority a couple of times in the past, and they had conceded that it wasn't limitless. "Conceded" apparently as in "let's humour him - everybody knows that you can construct a hypothetical case with jackass players, but in a real game, the DM is always right, you couldn't very well have a game otherwise".

*-*-*

I'm utterly despondent right now. I didn't even mean to change their style, I just want to discuss how we might iron out some of the wrinkles.

Depressed,

Hal @ 2 o'clock in the morning

Have you read Ron's Gamism article? Not to proseletyze GNS, but there's a section in there about the bitterest gamer in the world. Is that your group? May or may not be, but it's what I thought of immediately when I read your post.

Sadly, I don't have advice for you, but I was just curious about that.

ethan_greer wrote: Have you read Ron's Gamism article? Not to proseletyze GNS, but there's a section in there about the bitterest gamer in the world. Is that your group? May or may not be, but it's what I thought of immediately when I read your post.

Sadly, I don't have advice for you, but I was just curious about that.

This was dismissed on the grounds that it offered a mechanical reward - and, as everybody knows, good roleplay cannot be forced or bought with bribes, it has to come naturally. And so on and so forth.)

Well, really, it's basic psychology, on an almost Pavolvian level. You should point out ot them that good roleplay is arguably already rewarded, in the sense that it gets positive social feedback from the group. And that any game system, by its design, whether by accident or on purpose, rewards certain behavior, and we're not just talking the advancement system. Anything behavior the system makes easier is rewarded.

Why is it okay to mechanically reward some behavior (i.e. advancement XP) and not others? That's the question to ask them. The fact of the matter is, if you want something to happen again and again, there needs to be something to support it. If they don't want to give a mechanical reward to good roleplaying, are they willing to give a social reward? Is there a social reward? Do people give each other props for good roleplaying, or just shrug and move on?

"Good roleplaying is its own reward" is a cop-out. Role-playing is a social activity, and therefore anything that happens has to mean something within the context of the social group. If no one pays attention to good roleplaying, why bother? You can get the same satisfaction writing a good short story and not sharing it with anyone. This is another thing to point out: If rewarding certain behaviors "sullies" that behavior, why should you engage in it at all with the group and risk it being "tainted"? Write fiction instead, it's more "pure". I mean, in a group, someone might say "That's cool" and that would be a social bribe, right?

Just in case anyone's wondering, let's keep going with this thread. Even as it stands, there's a lot of room for discussion.

Hal, I think your first posts were perfectly understandable and even poignant, so if you want to recover a bit and focus us a bit more, that's cool too.

Best,
Ron

My first suggestion is to define exactly what you are looking for in a game. Clear your brain of your current group's problems and identify what you want. Write it down, use the simplest terms possible and note Forge terminology in parenthesis (to jog your personal memory). After that, write down what you see as major issues with your current group’s playing. Use your “what I want” description as a guideline. Then seek out a couple examples of games that may facilitate what you are looking for.

I feel it is difficult to identify your cohorts’ perspectives. You are not in their heads, and as has been discussed here many times, many people find it difficult to vocalize what they want anyway (I struggled with this personally). I think part of the communication problem stems from not wanting to draw lines (IMO). Without lines you can avoid conflict and the potential consequences of that conflict. The other issue is in confidence. It is hard to be confident in your position when your position is not defined. I would encourage you to not fear the conflict and to gather confidence from a defined position.

Secondly, Ask the group for another get together. Read them your "what I want" description. Explain to them what you see as incoherent (or not working may be a better way to put it) with your current playing style. Suggest an experiment. You want to see how this new playing style will actually work (the one you want). It is not a set-in-stone permanent change. You want everyone to give it a honest try. Talk more about the styles, techniques, and agenda you are looking for to get everyone on the same page. Essentially before the “experiment” can have any success you need to redefine the game parts of your social contract. Set some new expectations. Get a commitment for a realistic length of time for this experiment. I would say four to six sessions would be an honest attempt.

Finally, run a game you want that facilitates what you are looking for. Pay careful attention during the game where people are falling into old habits. Note what parts the players are really enjoying and what parts they are “not getting” or that put them off. I recommend you establish a post-game discussion for these sessions to discuss techniques and goals and let them voice their opinions about the game.

Worse case – they think your ideas are a “weird” and they have a difficult time integrating them. However, they now understand what you could not communicate before. Seeing is believing. At this point the next discussion about campaigns and games should be a bit more fruitful as you are closer to being on the same page. The group may have actually enjoyed some of the new techniques you tried out, and you could integrate them into your regular game. You also spent some time observing your group and really paying attention to what they enjoy. This will make running the next game easier to tailor to the group if that is what you want.

Ideally – After actually playing a game and giving it an honest attempt, they see where you are coming from and identify with the challenges you are seeing. Now you can move forward with integrating your new experience into your regular game.

So far experiencing a game with different techniques than I am used to has proved far more fruitful in my education than all the discussions I have had or read. The caveat being I would not have explored those situations without these discussions. I feel the experience is worth more for the understanding of WHAT YOU WANT from the game.

Just my two cents…

xiombarg wrote: Why is it okay to mechanically reward some behavior (i.e. advancement XP) and not others?

The fact of the matter is, if you want something to happen again and again, there needs to be something to support it. If they don't want to give a mechanical reward to good roleplaying, are they willing to give a social reward? Is there a social reward?

I dunno - maybe non-individulized, 'group-achievement' rewards are the way to go, but I have no idea how such a thing might look (much less how to properly implement it).

A while ago, I got them to try out a houserule. Everyone had been complaining about the lack of flavor text (i.e., "I crit AC 34 for 84 points of damage" instead of something more dramatic). So I suggested that when you rolled a natural 11 and remembered to give an evocative description of your current action (or just try for one), you'd gain a +d6 bonus.

The houserule was a failure and was gradually abandoned. I think it wasn't designed very well to begin with, but more importantly, the players' hearts were not in it. In fact, I got the impression that one player kind of sabotaged it by delivering deliberately cheesy descriptions.

Halzebier wrote: In fact, I got the impression that one player kind of sabotaged it by delivering deliberately cheesy descriptions.

Maybe he was uncomfortable with having the spotlight turned on his stylistic skills and to counter this, he went for camp and sillyness. If you're not playing the same sport, you can't lose.

This is pure conjecture on my part, though - I'm still puzzled by his behaviour, as he's generally an eloquent and outspoken player.

My advice is more drastic, I think. Find games that break the molds completely, and get your group to try them out in small doses--a night of Universalis, a night of Inspectres, one of Squeam, or Little Fears or Puppetland perhaps, games which can't be played in their usual way. Don't introduce these as role playing games; introduce them as new ideas for games that you'd like to try with them as a break from your usual play.

A few of these will almost certainly let them see that their own notions of how to play are extremely narrow, and that a lot of great concepts in role playing are out there waiting to be explored. After you've hit the ones on the edges, then come back to games that are closer to what you really want.

The problem with picking up a game that is close to what they've always done but has the elements you want is that the group will almost certainly squeeze it into the mold of their expectations--"that's how these things are done". By first breaking those expectations entirely by using games that don't work at all in their traditional approach, you open the possibility of introducing games and techniques that are only a little different from what they know and having them fit into the group.

--M. J. Young

The relevant Rant from our own Mr. Holmes is this one:

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

-Trevis

bcook1971 wrote:
I've seen this pattern time and again. When I was studying singing in college, I was surrounded by fat-headed opera buffos who would press themselves into closet-sized practice rooms and wail, "Me, me, me!" until the walls shaked. During my lessons, my vocal coach would try to get my voice to come out; sound more operatic. At one point, out of frustration, I made this silly imitation of those egomaniac divas. And whadda y'know, I felt something happen. Didn't know what to make of it, but it seemed like a good kind of new thing.

Overcoming yourself often begins with mockery or exaggeration. And upon reflection, it is often the fear of appearing foolish that was holding you back.

I think that perhaps as gamists they felt out of their depth when it comes to being judged by a person, rather than how well they do at something showing up in solid system results.

Matt Snyder wrote:

I think that perhaps as gamists they felt out of their depth when it comes to being judged by a person, rather than how well they do at something showing up in solid system results.

I find this odd. As I understand it, Gamism is defined as being judged by other people. This is what Step On Up is all about -- garnering social rewards by expressing behavior that is provocative, clever, risky, etc. Players who fear this are likely inviting disaster for their games, I think.

(Callan, I do not find it odd that you've observed this; likely, you're right. What I find odd is that players who enjoy Gamism invite dysfunction into the form the enjoy.)

And so as to not just reply to replies, but also to the original:

Halzebier wrote: (Example: Everyone determines two character traits. If adhering to them garners a disadvantage (e.g. a risk), the player is rewarded with a free action point. IOW, just the carrot, no stick. This was dismissed on the grounds that it offered a mechanical reward - and, as everybody knows, good roleplay cannot be forced or bought with bribes, it has to come naturally. And so on and so forth.)

Halzebier wrote:
(1) I assumed that they'd easily come to accept things like the lumpley principle, the validity of alternative styles and other things I regard as fundamental (should they come up - I sure didn't have that in mind).

I think it is evaluation "of a person." It's one kind of evaluation "as a person." And it's the kind of evaluation common in Gamism.

Evaluation is synonymous with "judging" someone, in my book. I bring no special, negative connotation to the table with that term. Judging someone is neutral. Either someone behaves in a way that garners positive social feedback or they don't. Specially, we're talking about Step On Up. Either you Step On Up successfully (meaning, you get some good social reaction) or you don't. We judge each other. It's as simple, and as benign, as that as a term.

I think it's a red herring to get into discussions of judging people "as a person." When using that phrasing, I think we generally mean things like 'Oh, he's a decent guy; he helps at the soup kitchen." Or, "That lady's a racist bitch!"

But we're not talking about that kind of crap. We're talking about judging someone "as a person playing a particular game."

Here's the problem, as I see it: These gamers have rigidly defined for themselves what is "good" or "acceptable" in gaming. They have hard and fast limits on their play. Step outside those limits, and the result is a trainwreck. The game gets all screwed up, and people have No Fun.

But those limits, sometimes, aren't based on any good self-criticism or rational process. They're sometimes based on rote tradition ("Because this is how we've ALWAYS played it!") and irrational fears about "what people might think about me."

These gamers likely have very little evidence or reason to show that stepping out of the boundaries of what they think is "the game" is will cause them any grief. They have only mutual fears. They seek a comfort zone.

"I'm not gonna do that, you do that!"

"No way, I'm not gonna do that, you do that!"

"No way! That's not how we play!"

Normally, comfort zones are just fine. Hell, they're necessary. But when they're causing any kind of No Fun for the people playing the game, we have a problem.

When I look at the definition of 'Step On Up', I see it (partially) reading 'Social assessment of personal strategy and guts among the participants in the face of risk.'

So the evaluation, at that point, is of the strategy and of the guts in the actions taken. No evaluation 'as a person' - and storytelling or narrative skills might be taken to reflect heavily on their skills as a person.

Hello,
This struck me:

Halzebier wrote: We seem to be very shy about giving positive feedback. This is something I've seen in many groups and which I find hard to break out of. I usually try to give positive feedback to the DM at the very least, but I'm uncomfortable if everyone else remains close-mouthed because I don't want to seem as if I am sucking up (that's an irrational fear, I'm sure) or as if I'm assuming the role of judge of what's good (and, by elimination, of what's not).

(Another group I game with has a different atmosphere in this regard. There's a lot of post-game chat and analysis by all involved. This may have something to do with the fact that we routinely have to clean up and give each other rides, so there is quite a bit of time after the game. Mary K. Kuhner on RGFA noted that her group's post-game dinners were a major contribution and part of the fun in all sorts of ways.)

(Stuff snipped - not to discount it, but because I could not think of anything to reply - and not to derail further).

I agree with a lot of what you just wrote, Matt. I certainly don't have any negative connotation with 'judging' as a principle, for instance - and I would imagine none of my players do so either.

I agree that we're judging a person playing a particular game. In my friend's case, I think that making him describe a result of an action not his character's, or having the results of his character's action described by another player, might be outside his 'comfort zone'. I sometimes worry that it might be so far outside that zone that he starts feeling (his capabilities at doing) it reflects on him outside of the game.

Whoa! It seems like you're suggesting these things aren't Gamism. Who said "storytelling" and "narrative skills" are contradictory to Gamism? They absolutely are not contradictory. They can be complimentary, and usually are. I find them great fun in Gamist play.

The appreciation of "Guts," for example, could easily be understood to mean appreciation for a colorfully described maneuver in combat, for example. Boom! Narrative skill that is all about a Gamist decision.

Back on track

How does this apply to the situation in question in this thread? I think the players do not recognize the realm of their experiences "outside" the game. They find refuge in "mechanically supported rules" rather than some "freeform narrative stuff" because they do not recognize that the game exists outside of the game world. They retreat to the rules.

Why? Is it because that's what they truly, honestly like? Sure, could be. More power to 'em. Have fun! Seriously!

Could it also be because they fear social failure too greatly to speak about it, or even dare to try it? Yes, I think that's entirely possible. Uh oh.

But, people do not want to hear insulting things like "You're a coward; try something else." That's just not productive.

If, indeed, they do have reservations about taking social risks outside the mechanics, it's difficult to talk about. I recommend trying to show why you, the talker, like these things. You might say, "Hey, I've got this house rule. I like it because it really challenges all of us to make the game more creative and colorful. That's really important for my fun factor in this game, so I'm hoping you guys will give it a shot. Are there any things you really like that we should emphasize more, too?"

Excellent, Tobias. Good to hear we're agreeing on most, if not all, things here! Your last post confirms that for me as well.

I caught myself with language that seemed confrontational, and revised much before posting my previous item. I certainly meant none of it as a challenge to your views, but rather as a clarification or reminder of what Gamism is all about (or, at least, what I understand it to be about).

Noon wrote:

Halzebier wrote: I dunno - maybe non-individulized, 'group-achievement' rewards are the way to go, but I have no idea how such a thing might look (much less how to properly implement it).

Perhaps something like '*jim does somthing* ah, for these actions a point is added to the group reward pool!'. That way it isn't individually based....yeah, like hell! It's pretty clear Jim got a reward (even if its one he shares). But it's hidden in that someone/could be anyone (which doesn't make anyone more special than others by GM fiat) did somthing that deserved an award. Anonamous system, but really it does reward individuals (but since the reward pool is shared equally to everyone at the end, bling bling, no ones too prompted to complain if they figure it out)

Noon wrote: Isn't there a Mike Holmes standard rant on this, on trying to drift slightly...

I can't help thinking that Donjon might be a good game for your group to try. It is very gamist and it is in the fantasy dungeon crawl tradition, so people who are used to D&D shouldn't be too freaked out by it. Also, it allows for goofy, light-hearted play, and as a couple of people have pointed out, it is often easier for us to come out of our shells if we go over board and ham it up. However, Clinton is sneaky because even though it is a gamist dungeon crawl, the system forces the characters to be a lot more creative and descriptive and take more authority for themselves than games like D&D.

Quick disclaimer: I have looked at Donjon, but haven't gotten around to playing yet (although I intend to), so this is based on second-hand info rather than personal experience. But I'm sure there are people here who have played who could back me up.

Just to be different I'll suggest something totally different from everyone else. From the sound of things your group isn't fully interested in gamist play. They may be interested in powering up, becoming more competent but the talk of people "not roleplaying properly" makes me think they have a more simulationist bent. Maybe you should try something a little less radical such as continuing with a simulationist game that has a less complicated combat system?

Maybe after trying that for a time they will feel more free to try different things and you can eventually work towards more fully gamist or narrativist play but from the sound of things they may not be ready for the changes you are suggesting at this point. If they're content doing what they're doing then as the saying goes you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink.