There has been a lot of talk at the Forge about how the system influences playing. As a result, a lot of the discussion of roleplaying has centered on roleplaying texts, perhaps at the expense of overlooking the human element. I want to shift the focus from the text to the players and develop a methodology that has practical application to other gaming groups.

Before getting to the point of this thread, I think I need to share a bit of my current roleplaying situation. One of my current gaming groups consists of 5 players, four of which meet regularly (names altered): Dan, Pete, Roy, Bob, and myself. Pete and Roy get the most enjoyment from the immersive aspect of roleplaying. Bob enjoys creating characters that are the best at their niche. I am strongly Narrativist. I make characters and design scenarios focused on an issue or question I'd like to engage more deeply and personally. I even find myself thinking about other characters and scenarios thematically, so much so that I am genuinely thrown for a loop when the immersionist players do something that is in-character but not thematically appropriate. Dan is somewhere between Pete, Roy, and me, probably favoring Pete and Roy's style but intrigued by the concepts and ideas I bring.

Until recently, there has been noticeable tension in the group when we roleplay because of our divergent CAs, most strongly between Dan and I and Pete and Roy. Bob to a lesser extent favors the immersionist style since he doesn't necessarily have to sacrifice his niche to do that. A prime example of how that tension reveals itself is our discussion about metagaming. They adamantly refused to believe that there was such a thing as good metagaming. They could not fathom that immersion is not the only valid way to play a character. They never knew that players would seek different roleplaying experiences beyond immersion and powergaming. A few weeks ago, we started up a game that we left on the shelf a while ago. This time around, I think things will be better, but I still have questions and observations.

The observations will come first because they're simpler to deal with. What I have noticed from dealing with this group is that a group can support each of the CAs if that group puts forth the effort to understand, respect, and accomodate them. It's easier said than done. People do not often like to think or to listen or to consider that they are not the only ones who matter.

Now for the questions. I understand that you can't completely excise system from gaming discussions, but would prefer that we focus on the human element. I think that "System Does Matter" qualifies to be etched in stone, so I don't want to have this entire thread reiterating that point.

1. What do you believe each CA contributes to a play experience?
2. How do you think a group or individual players can facilitate particular CAs?
3. How, if at all, does a player's own CA and how they can facilitate other CAs coincide?
4. What are some things that anybody can do, even without an understanding of the different CAs?

Hi Green,

This is an excellent topic for discussion. I think the first two questions can be best understood with a little review of the essays, and more importantly, looking at actual play experiences, those of others, but most importantly- your own.

With that said, the third question- how do we try to balance different CAs as a group... that's a tricky and complex one. I don't think anyone will be able to give you a full on answer, as no one really knows all the details of your group or the individuals involved, and regardless of how much detail you give us, that's still limited in terms of understanding these folks' personalities.

What may be useful, is to try out some games that support a couple of different CAs, or have room to range between a few. HeroQuest and Burning Wheel immediately spring to mind, although Riddle of Steel might also be of interest. The main thing is not looking to these games as "the magic one for your group", but as experiments into what combination of techniques and support are satisfactory to the group. Once you all start getting a feel for that, you can then make better decisions as to what's going to be good enough for everyone(if its possible).

What isn't going to be useful, is a lot of talk about metagame issues and trying to produce understanding in others. It's like trying to get someone to try out an exotic food- it's better to just have them taste it, rather than either explain the recipe, the ingrediants, poetically describe the tastes, or scientifically break down the nutrients.

Bypass all the preconceived notions of how a game ought to work, or the "one way" and just say, "Hey, let's do a one shot of this" and see if folks like it or not. Maybe the whole group will dig it enough to run a campaign, and get a deeper feel of it. The key is to make it a light, non-commital affair. If you get too deep into explaining the theory behind it, or why its good, the personal differences between you all will jump up as a point of contention, and you'll never get to actually play.

For people who have already decided in their head the style of play they like, its easier to just say, "Here, try this" than to try to convince why they should try it. To sell them on the one shot- focus on the ephermeral genre bits that get anyone excited("Burning Wheel is perfect for Lord of the Rings..."). If you can get buy in from 2 of the group, then just say, "We're going to do this one shot, do you want to play?" and make sure to run it with or without the naysayers. If people like it, word will come around and the naysayers might be interested in trying it. Otherwise, if you wait for everybody, you'll never get around to it.

It is unfortunate, but the same tactics you use with a child to try out a new food are exactly what you do here.

Chris

Chris,

Regarding getting people to try a new style being like getting small children to try new food, I was having the same intuition, but I thought (or rather, hoped) that legally adult gamers would be a bit an exception. Goes to show that we never really grow up.

Anyway, your point about using games that support several CAs got me thinking about Mythophany, and the things you can do with it seem to be pretty interesting.

Green,

Figure out what it would take to get you to "try a new CA" and go from there. I think thinking of your peers like small children is askin' for trouble (if they figure out what's in your head you're just settin' the game up for failure).

Anyway, I think 'CA' is less important than the specific sub-CA (i.e. if you're going to do Gamism, for me, it's way more important to know if we're going to be doing Competition or Step-On-Up. One I like fine. The other you'd have a real hard time selling me).

What I do is this: I talk about what I expect out of the game (no special terms) and the players (in a general sense) and what the sorts of challenges might be. I try to be specific upfront--so people can decide if they wanna play or not.

Chris is right about playing only with people who sign on though. If you're gonna try something new, try it with a small group.

-Marco

Hi Green,

In general, I wouldn't recommend such tactics, but assuming that 1) you are commited to playing with these particular folks, 2) you are trying to find a common ground that is adequate(if not ideal) for everyone involved, its going to require a bit of experimentation. Based on the fact that it seems from your description of discussion between folks, if they already aren't open to the idea that there are different ways to play, and/or that those ways might be legitimate or possibly fun, in all likelihood without having experienced them... well... just like kids...

"Try the pudding"
"No!"
"Why not? You might like it!"
"It's nasty!"
"You've never tried it, how do you know?"
"I just know!"
"Here, just taste it"

Etc. By no means am I saying that your friends aren't otherwise capable and mature folks, but assuming that they ALSO are committed towards playing with you, and each other, but aren't willing to face up to the fact that the current methods aren't doing it... It's like wanting to be fit without taking the effort to excercise.

I'm not recommending that you lie about what you intend to do, you simply want to try some one-shots of some different games. That's not a commitment to having to play those games for long periods, nor is it a commitment to totally changing the style of play they use, nor crusading to convert them to a different mode. It's simply encouraging experimentation, which is going to be necessary to find whatever techniques will be a sufficient middle ground for everyone. And by avoiding discussing it, you avoid preconceived defenses("It tastes yucky!") and instead provide the chance for them to experience it, and figure out what they like and don't like.

You all might find yourselves coming back to the games you usually play, except applying a few different techniques, and that might make all the difference.

But, if folks aren't even willing to try out new options... you're at an impasse, and no one can really help you there. Compromise is only made when everyone is willing to meet halfway.

Chris

Robin Laws' advice in Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering is aimed squarely at giving every player enough of what they're after that a mixed group doesn't schism.

Paul