So, as I mentioned in my AP post, the second game I ran yesterday was an utter mess. Mostly due to two people who had very strong and very different ideas about roleplaying then the rest of the group.

We had three sources of argument, and I'm curious to see how others have handled similar complaints (if they got them).

1) "This is totally unrealistic."
We were playing a mafia game with one player playing the role of the Don. Whenever anybody interacted with him, he'd usually protest other characters acted in a manner he considered inappropriate. He'd occasionally also interrupt other players scenes, pointing out that "you can't do that as consiglieri" or "nobody would dare to act like this in the mafia". Since his buddy would usually chime in with "that's not how the mafia works", we ended up with those two dominating the others (more insecure players) into following their lead.

I tried pointing out to him that what's "realistic" for a mafia is not defined by what he and his buddy thinks.. but by our character's actions ('we create reality for this show'), our own ideas of how the mafia works and whatever makes the scene dramatically interesting.

To which the Buddy replied, clearly annoyed, you could just come up with any old reason to do anything you want... like shooting the President of the USA.

(That was of course the point, but by this time I was too fed up with both of them to bother arguing any more.)

2. "My character just reacts to what he sees in the scene. If that puts a bad light on the other characters, then that's how he will react to them."

After an attack on one of the Don's casinos, the Don arrived in person (after much arguing... "the Don would never go there himself, he'd send henchmen!") and had a look. He then continued to dress down one of the characters for not having "taken care of the bodies, started investigations about who was responsible for the hit, etc. etc.".
The problem was that the scene was intended to establish the beginning of the Family Feud which would have provided the backdrop for the rest of the series - a plot scene.
The Don used this scene to dress down one of the characters for incompetence, etc. A clear disconnect between purpose ("We've been hit, bring out the mattresses!") and execution ("You've failed me, Francesco. You've done nothing to sort this mess out. And now I have to do it for you.")

While it kept in line with the general style of the setting... the player simply refused to play the scene as framed... thus mostly undermining the intention of it.

3. "You request the scene, you get to decide everything about it."
This was an issue of player control during scene requests. After a while, most players narrated a lot of backstory to their scenes... to the extent that they made it almost impossible to create a conflict in the scene itself, since they had already taken care of any and all factors that could have complicated the matter.

During the actual playing of the scene most players "inspired" by The Don would establish facts to the scene in dialogue. I was conflicted about this. I had no problem allowing them to add colour to the scene, but I felt that they often added information that neatly circumvented any kind of conflict that might have come up in the scene. I'm not sure, if this was because I wasn't used to handing over control to my players... or if they actually did overstep their boundaries.

Comments? Similar experience? Questions?

That sounds like a real mess, Joe, but thanks for posting.

How much did you discuss social contract before playing, and how much was it actualy stated by the players what this game was going to be about? Do you think your players "bought" the ideas of the game or were just thinking "heck, it's RP, I am just oing to play like I am used to"?

What about the group: did you play together before and what, and who was in charge, if anyone?

Per

pfischer wrote:
How much did you discuss social contract before playing, and how much was it actualy stated by the players what this game was going to be about?

Do you think your players "bought" the ideas of the game or were just thinking "heck, it's RP, I am just oing to play like I am used to"?

What about the group: did you play together before and what, and who was in charge, if anyone?

Hey Joe:

Sorry for not responding sooner. I got a little sidetracked.

So there's three issues in the post above that I'll address. Two are pretty easy, and the other is pretty tough.

Tough one first: "This is totally unrealistic."

To me it's not the objections, it's the manner in which they're stated. There's nothing wrong with a player wanting to maintain genre conventions, or suggesting minor tweaks to a scene to make things more acceptable to his or her suspension of disbelief. I mean, I'd be annoyed if I were watching Alias and Sydney sprouted wings and started spitting acid. In this game, I might speak up and say, "they always wear cool suits, so let's say we're all wearing Armani," and you guys say "cool."

On the other hand, it's just a game, and you guys aren't mafia realism consultants. Why does this player claim to know so much about what's realistic and what isn't? After the eleventh objection, I'd ask the player to provide a copy of the Mafia Handbook - as he must apparently have a copy - to all the other players, so you're all on equal footing.

2. the plot scene. Okay, can you tell me more about the scene? Who requested it? As far as I'm concerned, if I request a scene, and I tell you "it's in the casino, the focus is plot, and the agenda is to establish the beginning of a feud," then the conflict is centered around that agenda in some way. Dressing down the characters is fine, but it shouldn't fill up the scene. That's the responsibility of all the players involved. If a player says, "well, I'm not going to do that," then it's the equivalent of playing D&D and not marking off hit points when you take damage in combat. You guys play the game and agree to abide by the rules. If you don't, then you're doing so at the expense of the other players.

3. "You request the scene, you get to decide everything about it." Actually, no, when you request the scene you state three things, and the producer decides everything else. Players can request details like "can I be standing in the corner looking badass," and that sort of thing, but the producer sets the scene.

The other thing is that conflict is an important part of the game and is agreed upon by everyone. If the controlly player doesn't want a conflict to be about X, what does he want it to be about? There's no benefit to having a conflict be about any specific thing other than that it interests the players. I think you might want to ask this player about what really interests him. It could be a conflict of creative agenda, but it could also be an inability to articulate it.

Hope that helps.

Re: Realism

I agree. I think it came down to one player unwilling to suspend his disbelief enough to allow others to bring their own ideas to the table. He was basically blocking other player's actions and hid behind his claim to realism. IOW, he was using the Sim-equivalent of the "I'm just playing my character."-excuse for being a prick.

Re: Plot Scene

That was one of the scenes in which I introduced what was supposed to be the over-arching conflict of the series - the family feud between the Saglieris and the Vittos over who gets to rule New York.
The problem was that the conflict had been hinted at, in earlier scenes and this was supposed to kick it into high gear: from mere intrigue to outright war. The scene itself didn't need much to acknowledge the agenda, a mere comment made by the Don would have been sufficient. It just seemed to me that the Don used this scene to push other characters into conflicts the other players didn't want to. In this case, the other character was supposed to be a capable and fairly well-respected subordinate of the Don. The Don's player OTOH treated him like an incompetent fool, i.e. blocking and downright ignoring that people's contribution.

I had the impression that he and his buddy were trying to prove tha narrative gaming 'doesn't work'. It seems in line with the questions he asked me before the game. Looking back, I should have just kicked him out of the game for being disruptive and downright refusing to play co-operatively. If this had been an on-going game, we would have had a GM-to-Player conversation... but for one-shots or convention games apparently, throwing people out of the game is sometimes necessary.

Actually, no, when you request the scene you state three things, and the producer decides everything else. Players can request details like "can I be standing in the corner looking badass," and that sort of thing, but the producer sets the scene.

Hi Joe,

seems some players just aren't fit for this sort of game. Shit happens. However, here's what I would tell a player who has never played PtA or the like before when I introduce a con game:

1) This game is different.
2) This game is DIFFERENT.
3) It's about a TV Show. Think the action on screen. If you as audience would think that it sucks, you are getting it wrong. If you would think that it rocks, you are getting it right.
4) It's cooperative. The rules don't provide means to settle player arguments. Be prepared to pay respect to the other player's ideas, even if they are something different than you imagined.

Plus: DON'T use words like Social Contract, Premise, Narrativism, Negotiation Process, Credibility, or the like. They will only confuse the average player.

When you GM with a player who doesn't pay respect to the other players and the rules, you have to keep him in line. There's no recipe for that, it's a question of judgement, communication, and authority. Especially in a con game, you can't discuss every single decision with the players, at least not if you have such a trouble maker in the group.

Player: "The Don wouldn't be there, he'd send henchmen."
GM: "We've been into this, man. This is a TV Show, not the real maffia. The scene is about starting a family feud, so the Don needs to be there because it can't start without him. Now, can we get going?"
Player: "But..."
GM: "Please?"

If this won't work, all you can do is tell the player to please leave the table. As Matt pointed out:

If a player says, "well, I'm not going to do that," then it's the equivalent of playing D&D and not marking off hit points when you take damage in combat.

Frank T wrote:
3) It's about a TV Show. Think the action on screen. If you as audience would think that it sucks, you are getting it wrong. If you would think that it rocks, you are getting it right.

Well, how can I rephrase that? You have to get across to the players that the things that happen in-game should follow the rules of TV and drama. You see, most gamers are not familiar with this approach to gaming. Especially the fact that plausibility of in-game events is not governed by the rules, but left up to the group.

As you already put it, they go: "If I can do anything, why don't I go and shoot the president of the US?" Your answer would be: "Because if that'd happen on a TV show, and you'd watch that show, you'd say it sucks."

Does that make any sense to you?

Frank T wrote: Especially the fact that plausibility of in-game events is not governed by the rules, but left up to the group.

As you already put it, they go: "If I can do anything, why don't I go and shoot the president of the US?" Your answer would be: "Because if that'd happen on a TV show, and you'd watch that show, you'd say it sucks."

Does that make any sense to you?

Hi Joe,

I think you have it backwards. In most social, creative activities, everyone engaged is already committed to "well, whatever it is, when we come to it, we'll have to work it out."

Gaming turns off a lot of people because, historically, this feature of the process has been warped into something hideous, unworkable, and stupid - the "central authority" in terms of creative input.

Now, many creative group endeavors need a leader. I also think that the concept of the Buck (as in "the buck stops here") is important. However, to concentrate every bit of each of these roles into the person who also happens to be playing all the adversity and context of the imaginary situation, is bogus.

It's like having the maestro at his Moog organ with the rest of us sitting cross-legged around him, clutching our penny-whistles and hoping he'll point to us once in a while so we can toot too.

The only people who have trouble with PTA (or Trollbabe, or Dogs, or My Life with Master, or Capes, or Dust Devils, etc, etc) are embedded in the gamer culture so deeply that they have mistaken its rather grubby and unworkable rituals for the actual activity.

Just remember: anything creative, carried out in a group, requires all the participants to come to agreement repeatedly on what is or isn't plausible or desirable. What games like these provide is an organized set of procedures that make this possible, rather than a set of procedures which scrabbles around in dead-end alleys, and ultimately shovels "authority" for the important stuff onto one person. And then requires everyone else to enter an essentially infantile state relative to that person.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
I think you have it backwards. In most social, creative activities, everyone engaged is already committed to "well, whatever it is, when we come to it, we'll have to work it out."

The only people who have trouble with PTA (or Trollbabe, or Dogs, or My Life with Master, or Capes, or Dust Devils, etc, etc) are embedded in the gamer culture so deeply that they have mistaken its rather grubby and unworkable rituals for the actual activity.

Just remember: anything creative, carried out in a group, requires all the participants to come to agreement repeatedly on what is or isn't plausible or desirable.

Hey Joe,

if I got you correctly, the main problem was this Don player, who obviously thought that playing a narrativist game meant that whoever shouts the loudest gets the say. I don't think that this has much to do with being used to classical GM "rituals".

It is more a matter of social dynamics, which you can observe in every assessment center, in creative workshops, or among the crew of a sailing yacht. I have witnessed the very same phenomenon in a game of Shadowrun. One player tried to force his idea of how the game should run on the others. Now, Shadowrun grants the GM full authority, but what do you do if a player just refuses to accept your ruling?

Or, in your case, what do you do if a player doesn't cooperate? The solution can't be to just take a turn and force your idea of play on that player. A situation like the one you describe needs a moderator, someone who can bring the subject to some sort of settlement that everyone can live with, so the game can continue.

I would not hesitate to take that role no matter if I was a player or the GM. However, sometimes it's a hopeless case. So maybe it just wasn't your fault, and any gaming group would have had trouble with that player.

While I'd vastly prefer the group working together to create an engrossing narrative, it usually takes a lot of time for the various players to get used to this concept and subsequently how to relate to other players.