Hey all,

I have a long-term group of friends with whom I have been gaming weekly for around 6 years.  I've had several dysfunctional moments with one particular member of the group over the years, who also happens to be a good friend outside of gaming.  We continually disagree over approaches and meanings surrounding gaming in general, and by extension real life relationships.  He is a hardcore Gamist, and I primarily a Narrativist, although I can enjoy his games on occasion.  The group has recently been discussing reconciling these differences and trying to expand this particular person's gaming horizons by allowing me to introduce new games to the mix.  I've chosen Sorcerer as the first introduction to Narrativist gameplay for this other player.  Another friend and I have come up with what we think would be a pretty cool Premise for our first game, but I'd like to hear what others think.

We'll call the Gamist in question Player A.  Player A has an interesting outlook on life.  He does not enjoy introspection, he revels in his use of cliche, and proudly remains "stagnant" (his words) in all areas of gaming, food, women, etc.  Needless to say, introducing new games to our group is a study in dysfunction when he's involved.  Some might question whether it's even worth trying, but you'll have to take my word that he's a good enough guy to be worth incorporating in our group.

The other friend and I were discussing possible Premises for the first game, and wanted to both hook Player A and demonstrate the value in creating meaty, emotional play by addressing real world concerns in a roleplaying setting.  So here's the Premise:

• What does it take to "break" you?

Basically, each person's demon will have the qualities the player defines at first, but will be played to the max as far as cunning, manipulative measures, designed to drive the character "over the edge" and into further Sorcery.  The demon's methods will be guerrilla tactics and subtle twisting of desires, including giving the character "what they want" but in such an extreme manner as to make that desire unappealing; i.e. be careful what you wish for...  For Player A, the demon will deride introspection, glorify cliche and superficiality, minimizing the value of creative effort, and encouraging "stagnation" as a quality to be upheld, ruthlessly if necessary (based on Player A's real world traits).

So, each demon will have some subtle tailoring suited to the player's real-life perspective.  This will all be up front, and explicit when we begin.  Player A will probably not respect the ability of roleplaying to have any sort of "breaking" impact upon him, but that's precisely the point.  If Sorcerer (and Narrativism in general) is as powerful as I think it is, I believe it might show him the value of new gaming styles, if nothing else.

What do you think?  Is this a valid application of Narrativist principle?  I understand Narrativism to be about real, emotional drama, and have the ability to impact a person, possibly very deeply, through rolelpaying/storytelling.  Do I expect too much from Sorcerer?  Or is this exactly the type of depth Sorcerer was designed to explore? 

Thanks,
Tony

Hey hows it going!

Maitete wrote:
Hey all,

I have a long-term group of friends with whom I have been gaming weekly for around 6 years.  I've had several dysfunctional moments with one particular member of the group over the years, who also happens to be a good friend outside of gaming.  We continually disagree over approaches and meanings surrounding gaming in general, and by extension real life relationships.  He is a hardcore Gamist, and I primarily a Narrativist, although I can enjoy his games on occasion.  The group has recently been discussing reconciling these differences and trying to expand this particular person's gaming horizons by allowing me to introduce new games to the mix.  I've chosen Sorcerer as the first introduction to Narrativist gameplay for this other player.  Another friend and I have come up with what we think would be a pretty cool Premise for our first game, but I'd like to hear what others think.

What Rob said. And to back off even further, consider that the incompatibility may be insoluble. It makes sense to try out Sorcerer anticipating that it may support/promote Nar, but not as a tool to "break" it to A. Is he interested in exploring new styles of play? It sounds more like you're interested in him exploring.

Having said that, I'm in your same situation. Leaving aside GNS, the stagnant comment gets my attention. By that do you mean that he is unmoved by what is irrelevant? And by cliche, do you suggest that he values consistency over novelty? Assuming I'm seeing him right, the way I get at guys like this is to get really clear on what they're after. Then I make sure that they explicitly assent to the scene framing. Then, regardless of physics or what's on a list, when they attempt something, I make sure that it's resolved as a step back or a step forward.

It can be exciting, learning about GNS and learning to play Sorcerer, specifically. It's a real Nar darling. But what you've shared regarding premise for a game sounds like floaty enthusiasm. I mean, it's still an RPG. You still roll dice and kill stuff, only now your choices are pregnant with meaning. And the focus of play shifts to creating that meaning. Sorcerer won't make you accomplish that shift, but it supports that focus if you have it.

In my Sorcerer campaign, I had a real shoot 'em up player who said he wanted to play a bitter old man obsessed with immortality and the might of violence. Sheesh. So during play, I framed scenes to pose an escalating series of questions: Even if your victims are innocent and haven't harmed you personally? Even if it means betraying the trust of those who love you? Even if they must die, painfully, by your own hand? Even as they beg you through tears? Even for nothing more than to satisfy your own selfishness? Even though a psychopathic sexual predator becomes your master?

To which he answered yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, YES!! Everyone at the table became utterly disgusted with this character (not the player). They hated him. How could you not?! And his player really loved the campaign.

I encourage you to collaborate with A to come up with something concrete.

Lamorak33 wrote:
I think you sound like gamist guy thinks you nar guys are sanctimonious holier than thou roleplayers.

Bill wrote:
What Rob said. And to back off even further, consider that the incompatibility may be insoluble. It makes sense to try out Sorcerer anticipating that it may support/promote Nar, but not as a tool to "break" it to A. Is he interested in exploring new styles of play? It sounds more like you're interested in him exploring.

Bill wrote:
Having said that, I'm in your same situation. Leaving aside GNS, the stagnant comment gets my attention. By that do you mean that he is unmoved by what is irrelevant? And by cliche, do you suggest that he values consistency over novelty? Assuming I'm seeing him right, the way I get at guys like this is to get really clear on what they're after. Then I make sure that they explicitly assent to the scene framing. Then, regardless of physics or what's on a list, when they attempt something, I make sure that it's resolved as a step back or a step forward.

Hiya,

Guess we'll have to start with the main issue first.

you'll have to take my word that he's a good enough guy to be worth incorporating in our group.

First, thanks for the detailed post.  I appreciate your passion for the topic, as well as your obvious experience with situations exactly like mine.  I expect, in the end, I'm going to have to go the road you mention with Paul Czege and Matt Snyder.  But I'm not ready to give up without at least one more try.

Ron wrote:
When a person expresses solid, unswerving, and when necessary obstructive input into play which militates against Narrativist goals, at every step in his or her previous play history

Hi Tony
Unlike Ron I do not fear that lives will be lost if you proceed your attempt to unite incompatible elements in your game. (Okay he didn't write that, but it was close ;). But like everyone else here I do think you're setting yourself up for disappointment and wasted efforts. Mostly because you wrote that you think this player will be open to giving the game an honest try out of respect for you, and yet nothing else you've written about him indicates that he has ever been inclined to do that. I'm thinking of terms like "purposeful obstruction". If one is exceedingly bored with a game the mature person tells his group that this isn't his kind of game and votes himself home. He (or she) does not hang around to ruin it for everyone else out of frustration; this implies a severe lack of respect for fellow gamers. As for feeling left out of a game he doesn't actually want to play......Isn't there something else you could do together? Video night? Boardgames? Something?

The real world premise is likely present in some form in most roleplaying games as the whole thing works better if it is in some way or other dealing with issues that the people around the table are interested in exploring, which again relates to their real personalities somehow. But I'd personally be a little sceptical of your "tailor made model". Not that I don't model my games: If one player likes his character to go through lots of heavy, emotional angst, another likes it more action oriented and so on, I do try to give them what they want. But if I got the feeling that my GM was trying to be my selfappointed therapist I'd feel a little mentally groped. But of course it doesn't sound like the issues you're planning to home in on is anything this particular player is sensitive about, so it might not be a problem. 

All this being said I wish you the best of luck with your game - and if anything I wrote sounded very harsh, I didn't mean it like that ;)

~May

Maitete wrote:

To bring it back to the current thread, that is the kind of thing I expect from "gamist guy".  His name's Dana, by the way, I just didn't know the ethics behind using someone's name on this forum.  Anyway, I expect him to act on the respect for me he continuously talks about, by taking a leap and being open to something that might seem at first to be cliche, stupid and silly.  To delve a little deeper and try to .....