This may not be the right place for this, but I didn't know where else to post it.

I had a conversation with Moose recently about why I haven't been enjoying the games I've been playing in lately. Games that I've played for years and enjoyed have become dull and unfulfilling. I think part of the problem lies in my introduction to narrativism.

I consider myself to be a Simulationist at heart, but I find myself being attracted to aspects of Narrativism. I really enjoy the freedom Narrativist games provide in regards to creating a story, but something about the Narrativist games I've played (Sorcerer, The Pool, Chalk Outlines) have left me unsatisfied. Perhaps I am still breaking free from the "old style" of gaming that we are all so used to.

Now, the things I "like" about Narrative Games have left Simulationist games a bit to dry for me. So now I find myself unfullfilled by both styles of play and I'm not sure how to rectify the situation.

I've been trying to deside what kinds of games I "really" want to play, and this is what I came up with.

I want to play in a game that will allow me to witness not only the physical, but the psychological advancement of the characters. I think we can all agree that we are no longer the same person we were 10 years ago. Things happen in our lives that change who we are and how we view the world. I think our characters should be no different. In most cases a character's personality will be the same at the end of a campaign as it was at the beginning. I think this is a diservice to not only the player, but the character itself. Of all the characters I've played throughout the years, the ones I've had the least fun playing were the ones that have had no psychological profile; I simply didn't know who they were and thus had no emotional attachment to them.

I tried to satisfy my desire in a Mage game I ran recently. The Premise for the game was "A Right of Passage". I had the players create characters that were weaker than normal. The characters in most cases were only vaguely aware of their power (one was completely clueless). My desire for the game was to guide these characters through a story of self discovery that would end with them being full mages. I wanted to incorporate flashbacks and flash forwards throughout the game to help facilitate the passage of time and establish a history for the characters. I wanted to end the last session with each player fully knowing who their character was and why. The game fell short of my expectations to say the least.

I feel the main cause of the game's failure stems from me not knowing how to get where I want to be in regards to the games I play and run.

I'm kind of lost right now. Any suggestions?

,Matt

Hi Matt,

I suggest that GNS is not really the issue at stake so much as the larger, time-scale issue.

Another thread somewheres 'round here is currently addressing whether the time and/or number of sessions allotted for play is going to have a significant effect on what the game experience is like. I think that the answer to that question is "Yes," and in fact part of the Sorcerer rules are explicit about that.

Here's my point: it sounds to me as if you prefer a more modulated, slow-growth context for establishing a character and bringing him or her into action. A reflective approach, if you will, in which you can think over small or large events between sessions, and gradually grow the character into a hero over time.

I'm not talking about competence and skill levels, of course, but about "him-ness," or protagonism, or whatever you want to call it that makes the character imaginatively interesting.

Now, if this were an ordinary conversation, at this point I'd wait for your confirmation or disagreement with my impression. After all, further development of this idea is meaningless if I'm totally not on track. But since I'm pretty familiar with your play group and have spoken to nearly everyone in it at length at one time or another, I'll forge ahead.

So! Since you guys tend to run shorter-length games (roughly 4-6 sessions, usually), I suspect that you are just getting revved up right when the show is over. I also suspect that the pressure to "perform, do the protagonist thing, right now" is not comfortable for you.

This is a lot like my players in the Hero Wars group, who put up with my 4-6 session paradigm for a while, but (when we found this system) insisted on longer-term play. They took their time, and wanted their characters to experience several runs' worth of input and reaction, before "stepping up" to full-blown protagonist-author type role-playing. They like to do novels, not TV episodes or even movies.

I mention them especially because they are hard-core Narrativist sorts, and their interest in Exploring the characters for a while without authoring protagonist-type stuff much doesn't contradict that. They use it - and need that time - because it makes more sense to them, once the "make a story" material starts to mount up.

In sum, I suggest that some compromise about this is possible, in which you can maybe shorten the curve a little, and the others can decrease the "now-now-now" pressure, and maybe the group can do something that's pretty meaty with (say) ten sessions, at least.

Hope that sounds reasonable.

Best,
Ron

Here's my point: it sounds to me as if you prefer a more modulated, slow-growth context for establishing a character and bringing him or her into action. A reflective approach, if you will, in which you can think over small or large events between sessions, and gradually grow the character into a hero over time.

This is a lot like my players in the Hero Wars group, who put up with my 4-6 session paradigm for a while, but (when we found this system) insisted on longer-term play. They took their time, and wanted their characters to experience several runs' worth of input and reaction, before "stepping up" to full-blown protagonist-author type role-playing. They like to do novels, not TV episodes or even movies.

Hi Matt,

Glad to hear I was on the right track. To forestall any misunderstanding, I was talking not so much about longer individual sessions, as about more sessions.

I share your concern about the alternation pitfall. Originally, when I started a group in 1996, I had envisioned two or three games going on simultaneously, trading off week to week - now I know that one-group one-game at-a-time is probably best.

Therefore ... and this is kind of a big If ... you might consider getting another group together for longer-term play, with one system, one GM, and one "thing," and still continue play in the rather wild & crazy experimental group as well. That's pretty much what I've ended up doing, although it was inadvertent rather than planned. I have to say, it's been pretty satisfying for me.

Best,
Ron

Personally, my best experiences with character growth (in terms of personality, not necessarily power) have been in long-term "campaign" games.

I think part of this is because before you can really start to get into changing a character's personality, you have to get into that character's personality to start with. I tend to be a develop-in-play type when it comes to character personalities -- I'll start with a few ideas about what the character is like and his/her history, but I have to actually play the character a few times to really learn what that character is like.

Also, it's realistic for character growth to take time. I may not be the same person I was 10 years ago, but I'm almost exactly the same person I was a month ago. Even with flashbacks and such, I think the actual amount of playing time is going to matter in making real character growth.

(I'd better explain that a bit better. By "real" growth, I mean that it's not following a pre-scripted "growth pattern". For example, if I intentionally make a character who's naive, knowing that he/she's supposed to lose that naivete in the game, that's not hard to do in a short period, because I know the endpoints. If, however, I'm given a character whose personality is X, and don't know what he/she is "supposed" to become after being exposed to the experiences in a game, it's going to take longer. IMHO, this is also true to life -- people's personalities don't normally change instantly because of an experience; it takes time spent reflecting on the experience and the lessons learned from it before personality really changes.)

A second element that can help is a permanent change to the character -- especially a loss. If, say, a character who's deeply in love loses the object of that love, how does that affect the character? If a naive, idealistic character loses his/her idealism, what happens to the idealism? Does it stay in a new, stronger form, or is it abandoned? If a character who has always solved problems by physical means is permanently crippled physically, how does that character handle the changes?

As I mentioned before, though, these are hard to handle well unless you already have a solid grip on the character. It's easy to give stereotypical answers. It requires a reasonably deep understanding of an individual character to give an appropriate answer for that character, and it may well involve a process of exploring. (And again, this reflects the real world -- someone who's going through a major life change may go through multiple short-term personality changes in the process of coping with it.)

--Travis

A couple of the guys in my group are like you, Matt, as well as Ron's Hero Wars players. They love the long-term games, because they get really attached to their characters & want to see them change & develop. The love the narrativist thing, but they want it as a long run, rather than a quick sprint. They tend to get somewhat exasperated with me, because I have a short attention span, & while I like the idea of a long run full of character growth & change, I get bored with games pretty quickly & want to move on to something else. Especially now, since there are so many new games I'm being exposed to that I want to try.

Actually the idea of focusing on character(not stats) and personality changing over time is exactly what I was trying to address with my Persona system. My goal was to focus on the internal growth, maturity and lessons learned rather than proficiency at skills or powers. I was looking at what makes a moving story, and it is always the personal revelations that affirm or change a characters beliefs and values, not the massive power mongering at a climax.

This also links into the thread I had about Group vs. events, in that the more interesting aspect is how the group interacts with each other as characters rather than the events themselves.

Since most games reward points for actions taken in response to events, or for "good roleplaying" without defining what that really is, it encourages the type of play that isn't based on playing the role. I personally define good roleplaying as expression of character, which is how I see most good stories focusing on. So for me, growth isn't a level up, but rather deciding that one has to change one's ways, or personal realizations about the way one has been acting all along. It's the maturation of a character and personality, which I think is what we're aiming at here. The type of characters that you remember their personality more than their stats, skills, or powers.

Chris

Therefore ... and this is kind of a big If ... you might consider getting another group together for longer-term play, with one system, one GM, and one "thing," and still continue play in the rather wild & crazy experimental group as well.

Hey Matt,

You know, it doesn't sound that bad. I mean, sure, you have War Cleaver Guy, but the other player seems right on target. One or two more like that, and you'll be set to play Sim/Char, with the occasional dust-up to satisfy WCG.

Also, I have no idea why you are tagging the option you mentioned ("let the players determine how much experience they wanted before the session begins") as Gamist. It sounds like it's perfect for the kind of Character Exploration you're trying to encourage.

I'd suggest a simple page/word limit as opposed to the age-based limit, due to the elf option. Remember that Narrativists and Gamists, metagame-prioritizing bastids that they are, are very cunning about finding loopholes in Simulationist design/play to exploit for their purposes.

Looking it over, Matt, I think you're in pretty good shape. One group of indie/experimental primarily Narrativist Forge-rats, and one of D&D-happy primarily Sim/Char folks who "just want to play"? Some people on this forum are probably envying your situation.

Best,
Ron

I don't think Matt is tagging the technique. He's tagging WCG's use (abuse) of the technique and stated goals. A few pages of well-conceived background to flesh out the character is good. 200 pages of drivel for the sake of maxing out XPs to get an insane number of levels and a "War Cleaver" is something else. OTOH, the act of writing 200 pages would take him a while...

Hi Logan,

I think you're misreading my post to Matt a little. It wasn't the story/pages background that he was calling Gamist, but the idea of letting the players decide how many XP's (character points, basically) to start with.

I agree that the first technique is readily exploitable, as War Cleaver Guy has demonstrated, but the second seems less so. Especially if I'm reading it correctly and the players are to set a common level of starting EP's for their characters. It does bring up some currency issues regarding what may be bought/used by different characters with those points, but that's another topic.

We have unfortunately begun a "I say X about what you said Y about what you think I said Z about what he said A" kind of discussion. I'll try ...

I think Matt may be seeing "balance" (in this case, parity of PCs-to-opponents, as well as parity of PC-to-PC) as some sort of indicator of Gamism, and I am saying, let's not be that simplistic.

Best,
Ron

I think Matt may be seeing "balance" (in this case, parity of PCs-to-opponents, as well as parity of PC-to-PC) as some sort of indicator of Gamism, and I am saying, let's not be that simplistic.

Matt,

I've never heard you talk about the "experience points prior to play" idea before, but it sounds killer to me. There may be some bugs to work out, like how to prep for a game if you're not sure how much XP you'll be handing out, but I'm certain it's doable.

People play D&D the way they do because of the way the reward system works. Change that up the way you suggest, and you almost have an entirely different game. Could be pretty damn cool.

- Moose

Changing XP was a must for me when I started GM'ing Rolemaster. My XP reward system feels more like "Who's Line is it Anyway?" than anything else.

Of course, if I'd abandoned the other encumbrances of the system years ago, who knows what great things I could have accomplished.

But there is something so satisfying about beating small sentient creatures to death...I just can't stop.

-Skippy