Hi guys and gals...

Well, this Saturday I finally had my first chance to play My Life with Master (my first chance to play any indie game, for that matter) and I'm  not quite sure what to make of this experience. I post here to provide you with some untainted newbie thoughts (my players didn't know about these sorts of games before) and to get some rules-questions clear for me.
If this post is too specific, please be so kind to move it to the Half-Meme-Press Forums.

Let me first introduce my playgroup.
This group is a splinter of another regular roleplaying group in which we usually play Shadowrun but  we've also played one session of Cthulhu. This group has been playing on and off in varying constellations, most of the time with me as the GM. However, lately I have given up on GMing because I found it increasingly frustrating, for all the reasons that are discussed in detail here at the Forge.
The splinter group consists of:
Jana - my girlfriend. Of all the players (besides me) she probably knows most about Indie gaming, even though it isn't much. Being my girlfriend she couldn't really avoid my ravings about the newest indie games I've discovered. She's a very strong person who usually doesn't back down from a conflict. When playing Shadowrun she usually playes crazed psychotic killers.
Falko - A bear of a man. He's the tallest of us all, being almost 2 meters high. He's not exactly slim either, which makes him look rather brutish. I really don't wanna be in his way when he's angry. Fortunately he's a very sunny personality, it is very hard to actually anger him. He's also the jester in our group, always joking around. I was rather concerned that he might try to get out of awkward master-minion situations by ignoring the master's authority and making off-topic jokes but he played along really well.
Anja - our problem child. She always the one who's jamming up the game due to her shyness. In Shadowrun she usually doesn't know what to do because she's intimidated by the technology in the setting (this happens with any RPG she plays: she's intimidated by those parts of the setting that are new to her). She can't remember any rules, even if we explained them to her three times in the last 30 minutes. After playing Shadowrun for over a year know she still barely knows the basic resolution mechanic (and even that she forgets sometimes), leave alone the special rules for her mage character. I was worried that she might fold under the pressure applied by the master and that she couldn't cope with all the evilness going on but as it turned out this was the least of the problems...
Daniel - Anja's boyfriend. Now, before you jump to wrong conclusions, it's Anja who brought him in. He doesn't usually roleplay and he also doesn't belong to our Shadowrun group. He's also a bit shy but turned out to be really open during the game.
And last but not least me – Technically I've been roleplaying for quite a few years but with some very long breaks in it. This is my first time GMing in maybe half a year. I've given up GMing in traditional games like Shadowrun because I found it near impossible to do. (Buzzword: The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast)

This game session was a bit weired from the very beginning. We met at around 5 p.m. but as everyone was moaning how tired they where Jana and I decided to postpone the game to another day and rather go with some boardgames. After a few hours of gaming we where all laughing and generally having a great time so we decided to try MLwM anyways. It wasn't until 9 p.m. that we started. We set up some candles on the table, killed the electric lights, everyone had a rules-overview and a character sheet. I translated everything to German since I didn't want any awkward mixing of languages to destroy the athmosphere.

The master creation phase went really well. Everybody really got into it and in less than half an hour we had a master, a town, a demesne and the minions. I was really surprised how smoothly this went and how quickly everyone came up with ideas! Especially the boys where jumping at it instantly. The only exeption: Anja. She folded instantly. As soon as the master creation began she was lumped onto the table, drawing abstract figures on a sheet of paper. The only thing she contributed where a few rare objections concerning the master. Overall she looked very uncomfortable and "not pleased" before we even started with master creation. Creating her minion was a chore for all of us since she couldn't "come up with anything" (her words). Whenever we tried to get her going by asking very to-the-point questions ("Would rather play a strong person or someone who manipulates people through language?") she just answered with "I don't know". We finally got her to come up with something but I'm not sure why we had to press it out of her like that. Maybe she was intimidated by the creativity of the others and felt she had to live up to some standard or whatnot. She did express her doubts when I introduced the group to the game concept earlier that week but when I asked whether we wanted to play she was all for it.

Just for the record: we came up with a guy called Dr. Werner Ernst, a former doctor who experimented with humans and their brains in order to ultimately create an artificial uber-brain. He started of as a Collector of the Brain aspect but is now probably more of a Breeder I guess.

Once we had that done I retreated for a few minutes to make the first batch of tasks for the minions. In retrospect I wish I had done a few more and not just the first one for each minion. I was hoping that subsequent jobs would come up during play but they didn't. Or rather they did but they weren't enough for the number of players. One reason why I didn't take more time was that it was already late and I didn't want to let them wait for too long. This was a major factor for my later insecurity.

I won't really go into the story much for one because I can't remember all the scenes and for the other because it really doesn't matter much. I'll rather present some specific situations that got me thinking.

One thing that I noticed was that everybody was jumping onto the rules a lot. Not that this was a bad thing. For me it kindof broke the immersion a bit but I can live with that. Everybody else seemed to really enjoy tinkering with the rules and discussing different possibilities. One reason for this might be that we were all playing for the first time and we were just getting to know and exploring the system.

As I talked to everybody after the game they all semed to have enjoyed the game. All except for Anja. She really had a problem with the fact that it doesn't matter how you do something. Success only depends on a diceroll. You roll the dice, then you explain how you either succeed or fail. She wanted to come up with ideas and tricks to improve her chances but the only way to do this in MLwM would be the bonus dice. I noticed my players where fishing for those dice all the time but I think of this as a good thing since it really got the descriptions going in a good way.
One problem was that I oftentimes didn't see their attempts. Many interactions and overtures involved animals and they tried getting intimacy dice by patting and feeding them. I didn't see this at first and so they had to ask me for intimacy dice. This got better as we went along though. I am also doubtful about how well animals work as connections. Maybe Paul could give us his philosophy on that? My one problem is that it's hard to play relationships with animals and that you can get love by basically feeding and patting.
Another thing that bothered her (and me too, by the way) is that we couldn't really see a use for the more-thans and less-thans. If you can't use them in overtures or on jobs or against the master and other minions, then what do you use them for?

One of the major problems was the fact that we were still caught in old roleplaying patterns from our Shadowrun days. Conflict resolution was a real mind-bender for us to get into. We got used to it after a while but at the beginning everybody was describing their actions in acribic detail before we got to roll.  This way of rolling the dice seemed really counter-intuitive to us. Maybe this really is because we're so used to task-resolution systems but even Daniel the non-roleplayer fell for this.

Daniel was a really interesting player. He tried to trick the system wherever he could. His first job was to get an elderly lady for the master's experiments. He went to the ladys home, made a successful villainy roll and narrated how he successfully convinced the old woman that he was some distant relative of hers who wanted to take her for a walk. This lifted his obligation to do the job. However, he didn't plan to deliver the woman to the master but instead took her to the forest to feed her to a bear, one of his connections, intending to make an overture and gain some love from the bear. This felt really, really awkward to me and to some other players as well. He didn't do it in the end (can't remember why) but the thought of it didn't quite seem to be in the spirit of the game and most of all wouldn't justify gaining a point of love without gaining self-loathing.

Continuing on that storythread:
After he decided that he wouldn't feed the granny to the bear he brought them to the blacksmith. The blacksmith's son was a connection of his, so he said he could maybe convince his dad to take granny and keep her safe from the master. What the hell do you roll for something like this? Villainy? Overture? He decided to make overtures to granny and the blacksmith by telling them all about the master and gaining the sincerity dice for both overtures (for being open and telling everything). For some reason it seems to me that this isn't how sincerity was intended to be used. I thought it would have to be more... dramatic.

He was also the one who went for end-game first. At this point I have to say that we didn't finish the game. He didn't succeed at resisting the master but he did fulfill the endgame condition. He went straight to the master and when he got his next assignment he told him (me) straight in the face “Nope, won't do that, dude” in a very casual way. No respect, no fear, no trembling, nothing. He failed the resistance test so he had to do the task anyways but to me this situation was deeply unsatisfying because it was utterly non-dramatic.

So, my concrete questions would be:
Can you have animals as connections?
What do you really use your more-thans and less-thans for?
Can the master give an order to the same minion for a second time after the first attempt of doing the job failed?
When do you give out sincerity dice?

Anything else is up for grabs, of course. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions and go into more detail.

Thanks for reading all this and tanks for replying!

Sven

My first question to you is: any idea why Anja roleplays at all? If she can't be bothered to learn even the basics of a system and doesn't like to make even the minimal creative effort involved in answering specific questions concerning her minion, then what does she want to do? Maybe you should just play boardgames with her?

Concerning the amount of tasks you'd prepped: what you really need to do is write down the names of all the connections on a sheet in front of you. This is your To Do list. Need a task? Ask one of the minions to beat up, kidnap, kill or whatever the connection. That creates drama.

Can you have animals as connections?

What do you really use your more-thans and less-thans for?

Can the master give an order to the same minion for a second time after the first attempt of doing the job failed?

When do you give out sincerity dice?

Victor wrote:
My first question to you is: any idea why Anja roleplays at all? If she can't be bothered to learn even the basics of a system and doesn't like to make even the minimal creative effort involved in answering specific questions concerning her minion, then what does she want to do? Maybe you should just play boardgames with her?

Victor wrote:
Concerning the amount of tasks you'd prepped: what you really need to do is write down the names of all the connections on a sheet in front of you. This is your To Do list. Need a task? Ask one of the minions to beat up, kidnap, kill or whatever the connection. That creates drama.

Victor wrote:

What do you really use your more-thans and less-thans for?

You can use them in Overtures, and so forth. Absolutely. Any scene. What makes you think they cannot?

Victor wrote:

Can the master give an order to the same minion for a second time after the first attempt of doing the job failed?

Of course. Let him rage. Let him retaliate: "You brought her to the woods instead of bringing her to me? Now she knows too much, and I will have to ask Igor to kill her!" The player should fear the Master.

Sven wrote:
I fear it ain't quite so easy. In my eyes you do need some story to back it up. It can be punishment, yes. It can be "she knows too much". It can be "I need her for my experiments" but beyond that things get tricky. And with 4 players you go through those stock possibilities real fast.

What do you really use your more-thans and less-thans for?

Michael wrote:
Just because you still have to roll for Violence and Villainy even if a MTH or LTH applies, doesn't mean the MTH/LTH doesn't get used. It just means that the part of the task that the MTH applies to is not what you roll for. You roll for some other part of the task.

My take on your questions:

Sven wrote:
Can you have animals as connections?

What do you really use your more-thans and less-thans for?

Can the master give an order to the same minion for a second time after the first attempt of doing the job failed?

When do you give out sincerity dice?

Eero wrote:
The other person can never be the Master, though.

Ah, more enlightening answers!

One more question that I forgot to mention:
During the game there was oftentimes an uncertainty about narration rights. I know the GM sets the scene, the player announces the intent and the dice are roled. So far so good. But after that, who gets to narrate what? Do the players narrate the whole scene? Or the GM? Or what?

Hey Sven,

My Life with Master isn't a narration apportionment game. Scenes are collaboratively roleplayed by the player and GM to completion to accord with the dice result.

Paul

Victor wrote:

Eero wrote:
The other person can never be the Master, though.

Really? I love to give that Sincerity die when the minion tells the Master that Lydia is the only person he has ever really loved, that he would do anything for the Master if he just doesn't have to bring her to the dissection chamber, that he only feels food when Lydia is there, and so forth.

You'll know when you've thought about this game too much, when you retreat to a castle in the wilderness and start assembling a band of misfit outsiders to do your bidding while you hatch nefarious schemes in the dungeons.

No, you don't understand. They only appear nefarious to average men. I can assure you that all my plans are only concerned with the greater happiness of all human beings! The small sacrifices that inevitably have to be made are, though regretable, insignificant compared to the blessings that they will make possible.

Ah, yes, Victor points out the main feature of the Master's psychology, he's an egomaniac who can rationalize anything, absolutely anything, as the right way to act, so long as it matches his goals. He is god, and all morality stems from him, to his thinking. As he is the superman, he must be right. It's all so Neitzchean.

On a completely different tangent, Sven, you probably are getting the right message here, but I want to make it clear. All of the "criticisms" of your play here are just as much criticisms of the text. That is, if Mike says that you thought too much and didn't use the master as a club, that's because he's determined that by lots of play, and has extrapolated it from the text. Not that the text is obvious and that you missed anything. It's a pretty good text, but imperfect as is all communication. The advice you're getting here is "how to make it work," not "why it didn't work given what you did wrong."

I probably didn't have to say that, but felt like it anyhow.

Mike

Mike wrote:
As he is the superman, he must be right. It's all so Neitzchean.

I almost said what Victor said, myself.  ;)

Oh, man.

I was giving the master's POV, dudes. You don't think that he doesn't think he's the superman? Of course he thinks he can be sincere! Of course he doesn't realize his own fragility of ego in needing others as much as he really does. His egomania prevents him from seeing any of this.

Yes, I know that I am now the dorkier for having replied.

Mike

I'll raise the dorkiness. ;)

He might think he's the superman, but he's wrong.  The Master is, well, the master -- self-centered, egotistical, small-minded, brutal and powerful.  The interpretation of the master being identical with the superman is a literally fascist interpretation, which came about only after some serious editing of Nietzsche's works.  Nietzsche, himself, is clear that the superman transcends the master-slave morality altogether, whereas the Master in MLWM  wallows in his mastery, in the self-satisfied feeling of his own power.  The superman consciously rejects what the Master in MLWM is, and that some self-deluded "Master" jerk thinks overwise doesn't mean that he's actually going along with what Nietzsche wrote.  I'm reminded of the bit from A Fish Called Wanda when Wanda is talking to Otto about how, yes, apes can read philosophy, they just don't understand it.  The Master is very much like Otto.

MLWM actually defies a straight Nietzschian analysis.  The Master could be a Nietzschian master, but just as possibly it could be a Hegelian master.  Heck, even a Marxist one -- it would be an interesting MLWM game where the Master was a capitalist and the minions the repressed proletariat.  While the game is obviously all about the master-slave relationship, and obviously Nietzsche is a big part of any discussion about that relationship, I don't think the game is "about" a Nietzschian master-slave relationship, specifically.  One could certainly CHOOSE such a relationship for the purposes of a specific game, but it doesn't have to be that way.

This is actually interesting, but should be taken to the Half Meme Press forum. Chris, what about making that last post of yours into a new topic there?

Mike, I'm sorry for having misunderstood you.

I agree with Victor, and apologize for whatever extent this derailing has been my fault.

Back to some of the issues at hand, I think the question about MTH-LTH is a good one, really. That is, I'm not sure what people are trying to say. I think that Victor and Mike are saying that you can use a MTH-LTH in any scene in a non-mechanical way. That is, let's say that a potential connection is narrated as high in a tower. The character has, for MTH: Can leap any height except when carrying something. So he leaps high into the tower window, and then gets to make his connection roll. This is, of course, valid.

But the rules do seem say that a character can also use a MTH-LTH to succeed at things rolled for. Not overtures, Paul did address that a while back. But I thought that one could use these to succeed at Violence or Villainy, for example. Do I have that right?

Mike

I'm afraid not, Mike. MTH-LTH cannot be used to do anything that produce stats fluctuation.

I also asked myself these kind of questions. See the thread:
Question: Using More/Less-Than traits, and trying to avoid conflict.

Cheers,
Arturo

Arturo wrote:
I'm afraid not, Mike. MTH-LTH cannot be used to do anything that produce stats fluctuation.

The nice point about the MLwM system is that it is always pushing humanity to the front. Using MTH-LTH to avoid conflicts is a relief for the player that for my taste eliminates some tension.

We have used MTH-LTH during the game many times. As a Master I'm looking for opportunities to command them to do things in places or situations where MTH-LTH may arise (normally the last word is for the player to find the way to introduce it, or avoid it). And my players look for opportunities to use them in the narration. But if they somehow avoid the apparent conflict using them, we change the conflict nature or escalate it, creating another unsolved situation where the minion's humanity is tested.

For us it worked nice after some actual play.

Cheers,
Arturo

OK, I see the problem...Here's more of the quote.

I don't let a character's MtH or LtH produce fluctuations in stats. When a MtH or LtH is relevant to the outcome of a scene, the conflict resolution formulae and the various stat fluctuations of success and failure associated with them are set aside, and the scene is roleplayed to conclusion in keeping with the MtH/LtH.

I totally agree with the last part of your thread Mike. MTH-LTH can, and should be used in scenes if desired. The scene proceeds and includes violence or villainy or something that looks like an overture. But as the rules say, the normal mechanics are not used, and no stats fluctuation are produced because the minion has acted following his non human nature. Specifically, in overtures you cannot gain Love if you are not trying to be human.

But about totally avoiding rolling dice to accomplish the Master command, I don't think it is a good idea. This is an excerpt of a Paul's answer got from the thread I was referring to in a previous post:

Can a player use a MtH to avoid rolling in service to a command from the Master? No. The rules require one roll in service to the command.

Maybe I am just not seeing why people find this issue difficult. I'll give an example like Mike's and keep it non-humorous to avoid distraction.

The Minion has "More Than Human: insanely fast, unless he is observed"

The Master says, "Go fetch that actress, her larynx is exactly what I need for the Machine."

The Minion goes to the theater, sits through the play, and then waits for the lights to go down on the curtain call ... at which point he vaults onto the stage, seizes the actress, and dashes away. No roll.

Here's the point of the rules as I see them, though ... the scene isn't over yet. Yes, the Minion has fetched the actress. But no, the scene is not over yet, because at some point, in some way, he has to roll.

You guys seem to be all mixed up about whether the MtH can substitute for a roll or substitute for this rule. Of course it can substitute for a roll. It cannot substitute for this rule. How can that be hard?

Is it useless, then? No! The Minion did get the actress under his power and away from the townspeople, using his MtH. Oh, so it undercut the rule about rolling, then? No! The Minion's scene is clearly not over; the GM and player are obliged (and should be looking forward to) the next bit, whatever it is, which will require a roll.

One last point: the Minion may have fulfilled the obligation to roll before using the MtH as well, for instance, in getting himself positioned up front in the theater, or some other thing that involved setting up the situation where his MtH could be applied. In which case, using the MtH does finish the scene, because the requirement (a roll) has been fulfilled.

Best,
Ron

I has assumed that Paul's statement that the MTH or LTH sets aside the roll meant for the entire scene. I had thought that the rule that Arturo brings up (which I'd forgotten) was an exception to that rule, hence why Paul had made the ruling so. Your version is internally consistent, however, Ron. So I might be inclined to use it. But if Paul could make one more clarification verifying either version, that would be appreciated by me at least.

That is, I'm seeing two viable interpretations (without looking closely at the text, note):
1. MTH/LTH can substitute for the roll for a scene, in which case stats do not change. This, however, does not mean that it excuses a player from having to make one roll in service to the master if he fails to disobey. Which also could be interpreted as meaning that it has to occur in some scene, but not neccessarily the first scene (just as the minion can have overture scenes preceeding following the Master's orders, etc).
2. MTH/LTH do not substitute for the required roll in a scene, they resolve some other part of the scene in question.

The first does have the possible downside that people might see using MTH/LTH as a dodge. But I don't think it's non-viable (in point of fact, it's how I've played in the past).

Mike

Hiya,

One clarification to my explanation, given your points, Mike.

The term "scene" can be a little labile here, not exactly the same as "turn." So let's say my Minion snatches the actress using his MtH. Well, when that player's turn comes 'round again, the character is in the condition of "not having fulfilled command yet," because the player hasn't rolled yet. He still has to do that, some way, some how. Which means that the GM has to frame a scene/situation which requires a roll.

The way I said it before, it sounded as if the player got to keep going right then and there, but that's not quite right. Play should move to the next player, and the "not done yet" concept applies to the Minion with the actress when it comes round to him again. All confusion is removed - and stays absolutely consistent both internally and with the rules - if you avoid confounding turn (talking about my character), situation ("fulfilling Master's command"), and scene ("what my character is doing and facing").

Small note: If the player finds a way to use MtH or LtH this time as well, that just means do it again next time. It's not a competition; this is a viable thing to do in story terms.

Best,
Ron

The Minion has "More Than Human: insanely fast, unless he is observed"

The Master says, "Go fetch that actress, her larynx is exactly what I need for the Machine."

The Minion goes to the theater, sits through the play, and then waits for the lights to go down on the curtain call ... at which point he vaults onto the stage, seizes the actress, and dashes away. No roll.

Here's the point of the rules as I see them, though ... the scene isn't over yet. Yes, the Minion has fetched the actress. But no, the scene is not over yet, because at some point, in some way, he has to roll.

You guys seem to be all mixed up about whether the MtH can substitute for a roll or substitute for this rule. Of course it can substitute for a roll. It cannot substitute for this rule. How can that be hard?

Is it useless, then? No! The Minion did get the actress under his power and away from the townspeople, using his MtH. Oh, so it undercut the rule about rolling, then? No! The Minion's scene is clearly not over; the GM and player are obliged (and should be looking forward to) the next bit, whatever it is, which will require a roll.

Thanks Ron. This is exactly how I run it.

Paul

It's funny, Ron, but I was going to say something about the fuzzy nature of the things you speak of as well, wondering if that were part of the difference.

Thanks for the clarification, Paul. With Ron's note above I think that clears it up. Arturo? Does that work for you?

Mike

Sure. It is much better explained than I could.

The interesting thing is to understand the motivations of these rules and why are they working so well. As Victor said, it is not a matter of just agree with it because it is written in the game book. In my actual play experience we improved the fun when we begun to do it on this way. MTH-LTH were significant for the players but at the same time they were not interfering with the unavoidable Master's pressure and the constant humanity struggle.

Arturo

Indeed, the More Than Human (in this case) almost certainly makes the horror of the minion's actions greater.  Before MTH he could have committed violence against any number of anonymous, heavily armed guards.  That would have been very nearly a fair fight.  Likewise, he could have persuaded the canny theater owner to let him "borrow" the actress using villainy ... again, something that seems like a fair fight.  But after the use of More Than Human, the minion is now alone with the victim, and still has to do something terrible.  The only possible target now is the actress herself.

That's what I find that MTH does most reliably in the game:  it gets you alone with your victim, without "wasting" your required roll on something less horrifying than you're capable of.

First of all, sorry for my prolonged absence.

I find your discussion very interesting and these thoughts have occurred to me as well but unfortunately they don't solve my problem.
My players take a very conservative, gamist(-ish) approach to MLwM. The point is: the MTH and LTH don't make a difference to anything if the game is played like Ron and Paul suggested. I'm talking technicalities here, not story. For the players, when the bottom line is drawn, it doesn't matter if they did use they MTH or LTH at all. The success of the job still depends on a diceroll. They still risk self-loathing.
Part of this problem is the vagueness of the concepts of "scene" and "turn" and "conflict". I can break down a conflict into several sub-tasks and turns, each requiring a roll or I can wrap a whole job into one dice roll, including the return to the master. So, if I have to roll one dice anyways, why not just roll the dice, see whether I succeed and be done with it? Why use a MTH to prepare for a diceroll?

Oh, wait. Something is dawning on me... If they use MTH to complete a job they might technically be out of danger, meaning they can not fail the job any more. But they still have to roll. That is indeed cool. It has been mentioned before in this thread but I didn't quite see it that way back than. The success of the job isn't endangered any more but self-loathing still is. Does that nail it more or less?

Well, if that works for you, Sven. The thing is that MLWM is designed to support a decidedly narrativism mode of play. Meaning that if it's played instead with gamism in mind, that quite simply parts won't seem to make any sense. The horror revealed, for instance, will seem to be nothing but a "Lose a Turn" result at best.

Given that the system is designed this way, and that it should incentivize narrativism, it's hard to say what you can do to alter your player's play. But if you can't do so, or simply don't want to do so, then MLWM is just going to present some problems for you. Not terrible ones, actually. But MTH and LTH will either have to be adjusted in how they work, or, yes, they'll be non-important to play.

Mike

Hmm, I see.

For some reason I was probably expeting the narrativism to "just happen", especially since I've heard good things about people discussing things from a rules-standpoint in game. Well, I guess I'll have to talk to my players about that and see what they think. This probably won't happen in a while though since I just became the father of an amazing little boy who tends to keep his parents busy, as newborns have the tendency to do.

Thanks again,
Sven

Hello Sven,

I'm not sure whether a particular feature of the ideas being discussed is really getting understood, so I'll clarify, just in case.

No one can make any other person prefer a given Creative Agenda.

If you say to your group, "Hey guys, this rules-set won't work unless you play with Narrativist priorities," that typically will not be met with, "Oh, well then, I guess we'll do that." It is instead typically met with, "Oh, well screw this rules-set then."

In practice, the response is nowhere near that clear, and usually confounded by people thinking that if you play this rules-set, you must be playing according to a specific Creative Agenda, or confounding Creative Agenda with Techniques. That means the dialogue breaks down into confusion and hurt feelings, not the least because yes, one person is suggesting to the others that he doesn't like the way they want to play.

What I'm saying is, you cannot make them play MLWM the way you'd like, if they do not want to, or if their habits of play are firmly associated with a particular CA. Theoretically, a given person "can" enjoy play using any CA. In practice, most people are pretty dedicated to one of of them; the exceptions seem to be either vanishingly rare or experienced in playing the games by publishers mainly here at the Forge.

And most painfully, you cannot "just talk" to them to solve the problem. The issue might not be mere communication, but rather basic preference. All the communication in the world cannot solve a real conflict of interest; it can only reveal it.

Now, all of that is the worst-case scenario. It is possible that all you need is a little chat, and they'll say "Oh! We always wanted to play that way, but never realized we could," and all will be well. Unfortunately, the instances of seeing that, based on reports here, can be counted on one hand over the last six years.

Best,
Ron

Thanks for the clarification Ron.

These things are quite clear to me. I'm sorry if I wasn't explicit enough by what I meant by saying "talk to them".
My goal was to explain to them how the game is supposed to be played and see whether they like it. If they don't, well, I guess we'll play something else then. If they do, though, we can give it a try and play the game the way it was conceived. The thing is that none of us (exept for me) have ever even heard of narativist games, let alone played one (I'm talking about the style here, not the term). They simply might not know that such a thing exists. I'm not trying to convert anyone.

Sven wrote:
For some reason I was probably expeting the narrativism to "just happen", especially since I've heard good things about people discussing things from a rules-standpoint in game.

Damn it, Mike, that's just the phrasing that throws people off track.

It will "just happen" if it's something they want to do, which means it didn't "just happen."

What is correct, or rather, is an understandable paraphrase of your point, is that often people do want to play this way without being able to verbalize it and without knowing how.

Then, yes, it feels as if it "just happens" when they utilize a rules-set that is well-tuned to that desire.

But it didn't.

Best,
Ron

I was trying to communicate something close to your paraphrase, and further trying to be very careful about doing it. Basically this seems to be getting very near the sticky subject of consciousness, which is unimportant. Our agreement remains the same, that one shouldn't have to have some talk about play to make it happen "correctly."

I was trying to respond to the implication (possibly unintended) in Sven's post that narrativism can't happen without the group having some explicit up front agreement to play that way.

Mike

I still don't get it how a simple "Let's try to play this way and see if you like it" can be that wrong? To me it seems that they only know how to play gamist(-ish) because they simply don't know that RPGs can be played differently.

Hi Sven,

It's not wrong to do that. It's just fine.

Whether this is a case of (a) Gamist preferences, period; or (b) unfamiliarity, with potential for liking this new thing, is something only you and they can answer, not us.

Best,
Ron