I was reading "5 minutes of fun packed in 4 hours of dysfunction" thead and a very loud bell went off.  Take a look at these threads:

The original L5R thread:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16515.0

The In Nomine game described here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16001.msg170753#msg170753

The In Nomine and Changeling game described here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=601.0

These games all have something in common:

1) The PCs are given some random or vague goal/situtation.  The whole scenario consists of the characters encountering unconnected colorful but ultimately meaningless encounters that present neither real conflict nor real challenge.

2) They were all con games.

Question The First: Is this a conscious deliberate scenario design choice?

It strikes me that GMs of such scenarios might have an incredibly rigid definition of "role-playing"  Not just "talking in character" but "talking in character amongst each other."  So the idea is for the GM to present things that will prompt in character discussion of said thing.  Hence the anoying shrinking dude in the L5R game.  The wave after wave of wanna-be vampire hunters and absurd weaponry in the In Nomine game.

Such a rigid definition of "role-playing" would explain why "hot-sauce" guy above got awarded "best roleplayer" and similarly why my portrayal of an above average intelligence demon obsessed with the philosophical definition of "to live in" was similarly lauded.  Or why my refusal to frolic randomly with my fellow PCs in the Changeling game was chastised.

Question The Second: Is this a result of con game laziness or do people actualy play like this long term?

What I'm wondering is, does this style crop up from an attitude of, "Well, it's just a con game all people really want to do is dick around in character anyway..." OR do some groups actually play like this on a regular basis?  I'm trying to imagine a group showing up week after week with the GM starting each game with, "Okay this is what you're up to..." and then just let the players socialize in character over what ever the "up to" is.  Whenever the conversation seems to be dying out the GM just throws some wacky thing for commentary out into the scenario and spurs the fires of conversation.

Jesse

Hi Jesse,

Oh yeah, there are groups that play like this ever and ever. I have seen them. To an extent, it can be said that I have done it myself, and had fun with it. Check out this thread about a Star Wars d20 campaign for a good example.

You might be right, though, that this kind of adventure design is more present on Cons, because many GMs seem to have the notion that goals and conflicts need a long time to be introduced and resolved--longer than one session. This is owed to the die-hard legend that you must play out everything that happens. Well, at least that's my take.

- Frank

Hi Jesse,

Yes, there's a lot of groups that play this way all the time.

I think this style of play is a natural effect of a lot of bad GM advice, and conventional wisdom you get in those games. You know the kind I'm talking about: Players shouldn't be allowed to talk out-of-character (or only through "designated OOC channels"), don't use the rules because they'll get in the way of the story, the player's shouldn't be allowed to mess up the GM's plans, that sort of thing.

The whole scenario consists of the characters encountering unconnected colorful but ultimately meaningless encounters that present neither real conflict nor real challenge.

Is this a result of con game laziness or do people actualy play like this long term?

I played in the "hot sauce" game, and I've just finished a 12-week series of cognative behavioral therapy to cope with the resultant post-traumatic stress disorder.

I think that at core, the GM of that game thought he was doing something very clever.  He thought irony would carry the day--and for the majority of people there it did.  He did not seem to know about de-protagonizing and was mostly concerned with impressing people with his cleverness in the end.  When my PC gave away the MacGuffin to the bad-guys 15 minutes into actual play (2 hours into the game's slot), I could see he was shitting himself over it.  The whole game was over and we'd never get to discover the Cool Thing he'd planned for the ending.

As to the general question, I don't know that it's answerable without taking a blind study on the subject.  I suspect however that "feel my plot" gaming is probably about a third or more of what goes on out there, outside of cons.  That said, I think cons are particularly susceptible to this, because there's no opportunity for character development and player choice to guide the story. 

I don't believe that the GM consciously thought of what he was doing as laziness.  I think he was very proud of himself, having thought of something clever to surprise us with at the end.

RobNJ wrote: As to the general question, I don't know that it's answerable without taking a blind study on the subject.  I suspect however that "feel my plot" gaming is probably about a third or more of what goes on out there, outside of cons.  That said, I think cons are particularly susceptible to this, because there's no opportunity for character development and player choice to guide the story.

jburneko wrote:
1) The PCs are given some random or vague goal/situtation.  The whole scenario consists of the characters encountering unconnected colorful but ultimately meaningless encounters that present neither real conflict nor real challenge.

Yes, people do run games this way by conscious choice. They have as long as I've been playing.

No, it is not unique to con games. There are GMs who think that this is what role-playing is, that it's their job to tell a story and the PCs job, basically, to go along with it, mostly contributing color.

I, and most people I've played with, regarded this as 'bad GMing' long before the Forge existed. People who GMed games this way at my high school club, for instance, gradually lost most or all of their players.

In my opinion though there are a certain percentage of people who think that his is the right way to role-play. The power given to the GM combined with the sincere desire of some GMs and groups to have their play yield 'meaningful stories' is one reason; products like the Dragonlance modules and, apparently, many Storyteller system products, and, apparently, the games mentioned earlier in this thread, which enforce this playstyle by event- and plot-driven scenarios is another.

To be clear, I don't think the problem here is coming up with a scenario that has some hooks and even a plan, the problem is when this scenario has nothign to do with the actions or choices of the players, and when things will happen regardless of what the players do.  That old deprotagonization thing.  I don't think that merely coming up with a plot ahead of time automatically deprotagonizes players.  It's only an issue if the plot isn't fluid and dynamic.

Hi Jesse,

In my experience, yeah, these are conscious design choices.  But all the random stuff that happens?  That's because there's "Some Really Cool Backstory TM"(that there's no possible way for you to find out) that the GM has going on.  I'm sure there's some reason for crazy shrinking people, and random stuff- it's just that there's no way you'll ever find out.  It lets you know that the game is epic and you are Part of Something Bigger.  Supposedly.

I'm flitted from group to group and encountered this stuff more than enough times to know that it's not a con game issue.

Chris

I'm looking over these answers and I see a lot of references to GM Plot.  But that's not what I'm seeing here.  They're a lot of games out there where the players are expected to follow the GM's plot but don't run like this.  Call of Cthulhu being one of the most enjoyable and functional ones out there.  There's always stuff going on and the 'game' is in engaging with it correctly so that it unlocks the next bit of cool stuff and in the end it all adds up to something coherent.  Everything in a Call of Cthulhu game is there a for reason and players are expected to engage it in a meaningful manner even if that manner is pre-defined upfront: Get clues from NPCs, go mad from books, die fighting monsters.

From what I see in these games there isn't even a GM plot to follow except maybe a bit at the end that ties into whatever vague thing was thrown out at the begining.  I see a BIG difference between a good old fashioned railroaded adventure (kill the bad guys, rescue the girl, save the world) and this.  This just consists of random events thrown out on the table to provoke 'reaction' but not towards the thing itself but amongst the player's in character discussion of said thing.

I think everyone recognizes Call of Cthulhu play as functional.  But in all the threads I quoted everyone, including myself, thought the style I'm discussing as pretty disfuctional and sad.  But I'm asking, is it?  Could we develop tools and technques for say creating better more frequent character cues to maximize the flurry of in character chatter if that's what these people really want?  Has anyone seen this style of play where it's clear that this is why everyone shows up on a weekly basis and is clearly the point of engagement for everyone?

Jesse

Has anyone seen this style of play where it's clear that this is why everyone shows up on a weekly basis and is clearly the point of engagement for everyone?

jburneko wrote: Could we develop tools and technques for say creating better more frequent character cues to maximize the flurry of in character chatter if that's what these people really want?  Has anyone seen this style of play where it's clear that this is why everyone shows up on a weekly basis and is clearly the point of engagement for everyone?

encountering unconnected colorful but ultimately meaningless encounters

jburneko wrote: I see a BIG difference between a good old fashioned railroaded adventure (kill the bad guys, rescue the girl, save the world) and this.  This just consists of random events thrown out on the table to provoke 'reaction' but not towards the thing itself but amongst the player's in character discussion of said thing.

I think everyone recognizes Call of Cthulhu play as functional.  But in all the threads I quoted everyone, including myself, thought the style I'm discussing as pretty disfuctional and sad.  But I'm asking, is it?  Could we develop tools and technques for say creating better more frequent character cues to maximize the flurry of in character chatter if that's what these people really want?

Joshua wrote:
I do, however, think that we need games that can function on this level, and also can function on the high-octane Narrativism-or-Die level we hold so near and dear to our own hearts (or whichever CA you want to root for).  Games that require players to leap head-first into active participation are all well and good, but games that give folks the option of playing either way is a market segment that I find sorely unprovided for.

Part of the appeal to this style of play is, basically, "get the in-joke."  It's about the exact same thing as all our high-brow bleeding edge stuff:  social interaction.  What these games offer is the very very basic social dynamic of "in or out?"  Being in one of these games, if you're an outsider, is entirely unfun.  Like being a nerd at the football rally or a jock at the chessclub.  There's all kinds of references and jokes and stuff going on that completely passes you by.  But other folks are nodding, or laughing, or whatever.  They're included, you're excluded.  If you have the patience and social needs to stick around for a long, long time, you'll start to "get it" too.  The shrinking weirdo will make sense.  You'll stop trying to do things that aren't "how we play".  You'll start having "fun".

Clique formation and doing things because "that's how it's done" and because we'll get it when you won't isn't exactly advanced or intense social interaction, but it is.  And that's how they play.

James

Blankshield wrote:
If you have the patience and social needs to stick around for a long, long time, you'll start to "get it" too.  The shrinking weirdo will make sense.  You'll stop trying to do things that aren't "how we play".  You'll start having "fun".

Clique formation and doing things because "that's how it's done" and because we'll get it when you won't isn't exactly advanced or intense social interaction, but it is.  And that's how they play.

Judd, I agree with everything you've said. Thanks for saying it.

Paka wrote:

Blankshield wrote:
If you have the patience and social needs to stick around for a long, long time, you'll start to "get it" too.  The shrinking weirdo will make sense.  You'll stop trying to do things that aren't "how we play".  You'll start having "fun".

Clique formation and doing things because "that's how it's done" and because we'll get it when you won't isn't exactly advanced or intense social interaction, but it is.  And that's how they play.

I disagree.  The shrinking wierdo was not an in-joke, that was a GM teaching the players a lesson, just like the named NPC freezing Rob's character in our In Nomine Hot Sauce Fiasco with no rolls and a warning from the NPC/GM was all about power.

These games are about social interaction but it isn't healthy interaction.  It is an hour long power-play, being lorded over by a GM without any real ability to pull anything from the players or put them in a compelling situation and then a punch-line.  Maybe the joke is funny and maybe it isn't but the set-up was hours from my life.

I find the hippie-dippy, let's hold hands and say that all play is good play tone to be hogwash.

There is such a thing as a game that isn't fun and isn't functional.

Some of the games in those threads are good examples.

The Forge really cured me of my snobbery.  I used to think that story focused games were the only authentic way to play.  Now I see dungeon crawls and competition and all ranges across the gaming spectrum to be rockin' but these games are not that.  It is a slur against good gaming, not my style of gaming but fun gaming where people are connecting and having fun to include the two games that I know of in these threads as functional play.

I've re-read your post and I apologize for mis-reading it to begin with.  I've got it.

I think of many people hung around with those kinds of players for long enough we wouldn't get it or "get it" or have fun nor "fun" but we would stop gaming with them, many would stop gaming all together.

We agree.  Let's not do that forum thing where we argue about our agreement.

Also, though, Jesse did ask something like 'how can we take this playstyle and understand it as functional and/or find the functional part of it and write games for that', or something like that.

Is your answer to that 'you can't', Judd?

I wonder a little. It does sort of seem like the point of play here is just to 'celebrate color' in the sense of making in-jokes about shared imaginary content.

Maybe the trick then would be to write a system that still gives the GM iron control over what happens but give the players more control over what in-jokes get told and what color gets celebrated somehow. (I have this weird idea that there already are such systems...Call of Cthulhu in some people's hands, not in the form Jesse described (GMs story unfolds but there are set-piece scenes that can at least make some minimal difference and the GMs good enough so that you're sort of interested in 'what happens next' even though you don't have much control over it), but more in the form where everyone knows Lovecraft well and most of the game is just chuckling about bad mythos puns and/or seriously wondering how x might work in the world of the dread elder gods.)

It seems like you'd have to use non-GM generated settings. Because GMs who run this sort of play probably won't tolerate collaboratively generated ones, that probably means you have to mine pop culture and lit.

I admit that from a gaming point of view I have no interest in this question.

In my experience of conventions, the RPGA and gaming clubs, this kind of what you might like to call dysfunctional gaming is actually the norm. Not only is it common, it is celebrated. The person who comes up with the best "hot sauce" gag is held up as a paragon of what roleplaying is all about. And rightly so.

It's not something I want to do, but plenty of people seem happy to do, and they're not killing puppies far as I can tell. And I don't think preaching is going to change that. On the other hand, the Forge Gen Con sales are up for a third year in a row. The best that can be hoped for is to present a serious alternative and let the market chose. I think the Forge does that, does it well and is being noticed. I don't think "dysfunctional" con games are a challenge to this, I think they're an opportunity.

jburneko wrote:
It strikes me that GMs of such scenarios might have an incredibly rigid definition of "role-playing"  Not just "talking in character" but "talking in character amongst each other."  So the idea is for the GM to present things that will prompt in character discussion of said thing.  Hence the anoying shrinking dude in the L5R game.  The wave after wave of wanna-be vampire hunters and absurd weaponry in the In Nomine game.

Hey folks,

Instead of getting more specific and staying rooted in actual play, this thread topic seems to be floating upward and outward. Let's get it back down to earth ... and conceivably, consider whether you'd be meeting our shared goals better by starting related, specific actual play threads of your own.

Best,
Ron