Being in vacations in my native land, I was invited to take part in a game. I wasn't the DM, this wasn't my product, nor my typical group of players, that was going to be a change. It was fun, I had a good evening. Here are some of my observations.

The context
I was going to play a main character in an ongoing campaign. I was the governor of the city and they would have to negociate with me. They had been playing this campaign for over a year and half, playing once every two weeks. Already a strong dynamic in the group, be it the players or their characters. The setting, Constantinople 12th century, was very nice. And the DM really worked a good plot, with a lot of characters.
They are playing a vampire like system, which they bend a lot. There's not much left of it. But, they've been using it since so long ...

The game
Quite short, three hours at the most. I only played a scene, the main one. But, it was really fun to see them play. We had a good time. And I had a very interesting character, the main scene was kind of a trial, with a lot of political matters.
I have to mention, and this is important, that there was two types of players at the table. Two players, out of five, were definitly gamist.
Some scenes were played only for them, where they would throw dices.

The DM
We're here in the context of a long term campaign. For the DM to manage it, it needs to be documentated. That was a real mess. But, he's almost there. He showed me something that was like a relationship map, but that was impossible to read for me. What I mean here, is that he's doing a pretty good job with his campaign, he managed to develop some basic tools to help him. And he came up with some pretty good concepts. But he`s quite alone. When I see the kind of tools, concepts, that are developed here, or elsewhere on the indie scene, it`s a real shame not to use them.

The system
Now, they find me very annoying. I really believe they should change their system, promoting TSOY. Even the DM says he`s there : I believe he is becoming unconfortable by his system. Some examples of how things are played :
1. Intentions are never stated. The player describes what he wants to do (things like a big sphere of light), then he throws dices, they look at how many success the player had and then the DM describes. But that`s a problem : this is where negociations begin. That`s becoming a problem for them I think.
2. The DM has found a way to transfer pools of dices from one player to the other, just like in TSOY, when helping someone out. But this is complicated and takes a lot of time to manage.
3. Their big gamist scene is where the characters play out their nature and gain some bonus for future actions. Franckly, the DM is no needed to describe those scenes.
4. I do feel players are screaming for narrative power. That said, they have a lot, but it turns out that each time their throw dices, they lose it, because it is the DM who describes.
Now, there are having fun. No problem with that. But, I really believe they could have even more, using the right system for they what they try to do. Now, three main problems :
- they say they can integrate 1, 3 and 4 (mentionned above) into their habit of play, without changing the system and simplify 2.
- the two gamists. They do consider it as a big problem.
- Old habits. They are so used to their system, althougth they have bended it even more over the years.
I'm trying to tell them, it changes a lot of things : it changes the way you perceive the game.

Coming up next ...
I had to take my responsabilities here, so I organised a game next week : I`ll DM a part of my campaign, using TSOY. I hope to convince them that way.
Yeap, system does matter.

Hi Sebastien,

This is always a situation I find interesting.

Why do they find you annoying? This statement seems to contradict the list of things they'd like to change. Are they not eager to hear these things? Are you just needling them, "Oh, this would be so much better if you..."? I'm not really clear here if they are receptive to your notions or not.

I think you're on the right track with running a new game for them instead of trying to persuade them to change the existing game. Let us know how this goes!

Well, well ... back from vacations and, what a shame, didn't have a chance to play with them as a DM, thought, I've played another as a player. That said, I've learned things ...

Why do they find you annoying?

Are they not eager to hear these things?

Are you just needling them, "Oh, this would be so much better if you..."? I'm not really clear here if they are receptive to your notions or not

I think you're on the right track with running a new game for them instead of trying to persuade them to change the existing game.

Hi Sebastien,

I have a different suggestion: don't try to convert people who aren't interested. In reading your original post, I could not understand why you would tell people they should play differently from what they are doing. It doesn't matter if you think they would have more fun, or would benefit, or anything at all. The question is only whether they want to learn about other ways to play.

I think this behavior doesn't help you, doesn't help them (they don't need help), and only causes problems.

All of the details you describe about the group reinforce, over and over, that they are happy with their methods of play and even utilize those methods as a means of enjoying their friendship. By challenging the methods, you devalue the friendship. That's the message you gave them, although you didn't mean it.

"How do we reach these people," you ask. My answer: Talk only to the ones who have reached out already. Don't bother people who aren't interested in being pulled anywhere.

Best, Ron

Well, I just hope I'm not looking like a fanatic here !!! That said, I agree with you Ron, but I'd like to explain a couple of things to put everything in the right context ...

I have a different suggestion: don't try to convert people who aren't interested. In reading your original post, I could not understand why you would tell people they should play differently from what they are doing. It doesn't matter if you think they would have more fun, or would benefit, or anything at all. The question is only whether they  want to learn about other ways to play.

All of the details you describe about the group reinforce, over and over, that they are happy with their methods of play and even utilize those methods as a means of enjoying their friendship. By challenging the methods, you devalue the friendship. That's the message you gave them, although you didn't mean it.

"How do we reach these people," you ask. My answer: Talk only to the ones who have reached out already. Don't bother people who aren't interested in being pulled anywhere.

Hi Sebastian,

That said, Ron, I totally agree with you. If the DM had told me "I don't want those kind of games, I don't want those ideas, they seem useless", then I would say as I was very wrong to continue talking to them about it.

Sebastien,

There are some things in your last post that drawn my attention:

The DM is not that happy with its methods. Proof of that : he's always adjusting, changing his system.

And finally, about friendship : the game ended with player A attacking player B, not succeeding in killing him. So, player B killed player A in response, and player C killed player B. Strange ways to express friendship ... I'm not judging here.

Hi Sebastien,

I don't know what to do with your post. It disagrees with me at multiple points and then finishes by saying that you agree. At least one of your points is nonsensical, about "I didn't just meet them to convert them, they're my friends," which has nothing to do with anything I wrote. I have no idea what the thread you linked to is intended to indicate - what do you mean, "what happened to you"?

I stated what I think about your anecdote. When I get responses that, frankly, look totally cuckoo, then I think more is going on than what you reported, either regarding the group you're talking about and you, or regarding some kind of issue you have here at the Forge. If you think can clarify either of those for me, I'd appreciate it.

Best, Ron

Hi Ron !!!

Okay, I'll try to explain myself as best as I can (and asking myself "how am I going to get out of this without looking very bad). But first things first :
I started this thread after playing with them and discussing with some players, having planned a game of TSOY (using Avalanche) for the week coming. All the players (and myself) were pretty excited about it. It turned out we didn't play and I left the country (so I won't be playing with them anytime soon). And that's the problem.

A little history
Two years ago, last time I was in Montréal, I played with them a couple of games using Avalanche, with almost the same group (in fact this is the AP present in my teaser). At that time, I told them "we can use any system you want, it doesn't matter to me. I can do anything given any sytem." Turn out I was wrong about that, but still, we had fun. In the meanwhile, a year later, I discovered the forge (I'll come to that later) and what people were doing here.
At that time I was (and still today) playtesting Avalanche with my regular group of players, using d20. Having read a lot about narrativism system, I decided to give it a shot. But still, I was doubtful, as my players were. Was it worth it ? Would it change things in a good way ? Changing system in the course of a campaign is a real mess ! And I knew what the system was about, and read the rules. I play mostly with newcomers to rpg, except two players, and even them were doubtful ... But we had a pretty good idea of what we were going to try. Well, we tried it.
Everyone had more fun, it was a great game, we used the system as we never did before. That was great. Even more than we could have had expected. Was it worth it ? yes. Did it corresponded more to the way we wanted to play ? yes.
What I'm saying here, is that you can read about it, talk about it, as long as you don't play it, I don't think you can get it (I mean the real difference). At least, that was my case.

About the forge
Sometimes, here, people can be harsh on newcomers (that said, since theory and design are inactive, I believe this is less frequent). And this is not a complain, nor an issue for me. Well, at least, that's how I felt things, especially in this first thread of mine. What I mean is that my attitude toward those players was not the kind "you don't know anything about rpg" or "you don't play the right way". But, then again, maybe I see it the wrong way.
That said, it was quite useful. Just that I think I learn many things here, and among them, some the hard way. But this is no problem for me : I'm quite stubborn !!!

About the group
Yes, maybe I do have a problem with the two gamists players. But, they didn't even knew that I proposed a new system : they were not interested ; and fine with them !! I talked about TSOY with the DM and the three other players, and those were the four I was supposed to play with.
Also, from the conversation I had with the DM, I believe he really wanted to give away some narrative power to his players, as the resolution of some scenes did cause him some real problems.

About agreement
Maybe I feel defensive for nothing. Well, maybe this is mostly because I don't think I was acting badly. I really think I was exchanging ideas with people who were pretty excited about them. I didn't fell like helping nor rescuing anyone, nor pulling anyone toward any place. Being my friends, I felt it natural to talk about things, exchange about ideas that changed the way I see rpgs. And it wasn't like if they didn't want to play and I had to insist over and over ... Those weren't guys I meant for the first time from nowhere, telling them "let me tell you about things I know !".
Quite franckly, if I had been seated at a table with players using d20 (for what it does) and having fun, then it would have been my mistake to tell them to try other things, to judge the way they were playing, telling them that they got it wrong.
Finally, about new ways of playing : I read posts here at the forge everyday, and it becomes somehow so intuitive to talk/read about systems and related matters, that I forget sometime that some players know nothing about it. You're telling me : "The question is only whether they  want to learn about other ways to play". And I'd say yes, at least for the DM and the three other non gamist players. Like myself two years ago : I was eager to learn, but I didn't know there were other ways of playing. I wasn't even looking for it, because I couldn't imagine the kind of things that other people were doing regarding this aspect.

Well, well, well ... I hope I explained myself a little and don't look too bad on this !!!! (and sorry for the mess of this thread)

Hi Sebastien,

You don't look bad to me! I appreciate you describing the situation and I think we've managed to understand each other.

I wanted to get back to the moments of actual play that you described, because I think they're interesting:

- one player, who played a mage, just decided at one point to throw some dices : "I'm throwing this on those stats ... Here we go : 4 success!". I (as the DM) never got a clue about his intention !!!
- a couple of minutes later, I stated an intention, asked for how many success I needed and then threw dices. Unfortunatly, I didn't succeed, so I didn't have the chance to take the narration stance by myself (and never threw a dice after that).

Consider running a side thing with just you and him. Then talk about how awesome it was in earshot of your friends and wait and see if any others reach out to know more.

Is there a possibility that this GM is continually adjusting his system not because he's really so unhappy with how the game works, but rather because he's actually having fun tinkering with the rules?

Could you elaborate on that?

You don't look bad to me! I appreciate you describing the situation and I think we've managed to understand each other.

This reminds me a lot of the concept of "murk" that I proposed in the final page of Bangs & Illusionism - in which Ron beats down confusion. I suggested that in much role-playing, in fact pretty much as a standard feature of the activity, that the basic routines and processes of play are often not known, except for "islands" of specific situations (like a fight).

I've seen the same behavior, or technique, that you described, many times. To roll first and then quickly announce the effect seems to me like a way to take advantage of the fact that no one really knows how announcements and dice-rolling are related.

This doesn't really have to be a bad thing, in a given instance, but I find it enlightening to watch as a guest player.

What strikes me is the whole "taking advantage" part. What I see here, is a group of players who I suspect were taught that they should moderate themselves in using the system for common good - most probably because whatever they had been playing up to this point were systems designed with an assumption that the mechanics won't really be used (or that it's ultimately GM's part to adjudicate stuff, and all the rules are there simply because "there need to be some rules in RPG, but ignore them, please"). The kind of games where it's actually not possible to functionally take advantage of the system, as it would invariably break the whole thing (due to unrealistic/unbelievable/comical results of using some rule by the book, infinite loops and similar bugs) or at least produce some serious mess due to mechanical inconsistencies and stuff. In such games (and I'd say lots of old WW games are of the kind), the moment anyone wants to actually use the rules during sessions without GM solving every problem by fiat, it's not possible to avoid "patching". But then, "patching" never ends, as it usually solves only the matter at hand, while the problems lie in the foundations.

It reminds me about playtests of one Polish game, in which the developers wanted to include special attacks emulating the kind found in Japanese console games. Everyone involved felt they should be reserved for spectacular finishing moves, and there were propositions for enforcing it mechanically. One of the playtesters reacted very strongly against it, though, arguing that he could simply talk with his players and ask them not to use uber-powerfull killing blows right on the start of every combat. "They will wait till the opponent gets on the brink of losing the fight, anyway" - he went on and on.

Now, the presence of "gamist" players, who don't have inhibitions against using the rules as they are, ruins fun for the rest of the group - and it's not really because of the "gamists" taking advantage, but because the group is defenseless. E.g. player A didn't use his Willpower and destiny points although he could, probably because he had some, ekhm, moral objections about going all out when it was needed, and maybe believed the over player will also play according to the "unwritten code of honor". No surprise the group objects against games that give more power to the players - they know that "gamists" would use the rules to the fullest, and see it as a sin against their strict code of self-moderation. I suspect that playing The Pool or something similar with the "non-gamists" would result in them consistently trying to fit their narration into GM's plans and downplaying the results of their successes, feeling it's wrong to simply reach for what they want as soon as the rules allow.

That was exactly the plan. That said, I'm just asking myself : since there are somehow two different games at the table (the gamist and non gamist one), would it be possible to use two different systems at the same table ? I guess this would be a real mess, but is it possible in theory ?