I am preparing the next "Emergent Techniques" article for the Scattershot forum and I think I'm having problems. I want to 'capture' more of the usual unspoken dynamic that drives a game forward outside of the narrative itself. After thinking about the many 'whining sessions' I have been in or read about, that seemed pertinent too.

But I've been really struggling with this one. I feel like I am missing something and would like to invite fresh commentary. What I am specifically looking for is twofold; I need to know if this goes anywhere in the first place and I need to know if you can suggest anything I am overlooking.

Before I get this going, I think I should mention its relationship with the other parts of Scattershot's Techniques, both presented and 'in the works.' As far as we have put into the game, there are four basic 'realms' of control: Proprietorship, Leadership, Spotlight Time, and 'Who is Speaking.'

• The Speaker - This person has the 'reins' of play at the very instant they are speaking. This is only one person with 2 exceptions (that I have witnessed), dialogue and Q & A descriptions. This 'bounces around' a lot usually, but problems occur when confusion reigns.
• Proprietorship - I have gone into this before; unless you 'pass it on' anything you introduce into the narrative (while being the Speaker usually) belongs to you. You are its proprietor. Nothing significant can be done to something in your proprietorship without at least your tacit permission. (In Self-Conscious and Auteur play this can include sub-plots too.)
• Spotlight Time - The Speaker has the ability to 'shine' the Spotlight on another character (and therefore their player) without giving up the role of Speaker. (Often this comes out as 'what do you do?') Most of the rest of the time the Speaker also holds the Spotlight.
• Leadership - I give this one last because it's the one I am having trouble with.

With that, I give you what I have so far:

There are a few roles I have observed in actual play. Roles that have little to do with gaming but have everything to do with how one games.

Who's in Charge?

Being the Leader is about giving the game a direction, nudging it onto a specific course, and taking a certain amount of 'ownership' of those proceedings during the time you serve as such. There is also a subsidiary responsibility to keep things engaging enough for each person playing.

This role traditionally went to the gamemaster, but considering the long-term deleterious effect this can have on player initiative, engagement, or even momentum, I don't think that's it's healthy in strict reserve. There's no special reason that a player (even outside of their role in the narrative) couldn't assume the mantel of Leadership; it's their actions that move the significant portions of the narrative forward after all.

Leadership can change hands as often as 'who the speaker is' does, but not usually. During Mechanical play, each player rigidly takes turns being speaker; anyone who forfeits an action only gains enough 'speakership' as to 'join in conversation.' Once the forfeit has played out 'who the speaker is' returns to the player whose turn it is. And when that turn is over, 'who the speaker is' passes to the next player. On top of all this is the Leader, usually 'the guy who got us into this.' A Leader can go, "Well, it pretty much goes without saying that we win this battle," and then the group will just 'tidy up' the scene and move on.

The Leader doesn't control what happens (at least not like a micro-manager would); they give it a direction 'to consider.' Think of the narrative 'space' as a bubble; without a Leader it just sits there. What a Leader does it apply pressure to one side, even from the inside. Co-leaders are fine, but then a third-party moderator is probably needed if conflict occurs between them.

Another thing to consider, if the Leader of a scene in Self-Conscious, Theme-Ambitious, Auteur play isn't the gamemaster, they almost have to be the protagonist. This is because such a scene is 'about them.' Since they have to 'address the theme' to create a 'message' or 'statement,' what happens in the scene must 'revolve' around their character; the easiest way for this to happen is if they are the scene's Leader.

One of the toughest parts of being the gamemaster for any game is the fact that when Leadership comes into question, the gamemaster must 'take over.' Whether they assume Leadership for the situation, call for the designation of a Leader, or simply invoke conflict-resolution, it becomes their responsibility if absolutely no one else will. That's part of being the 'ultimate facilitator' for the game. With a title like 'gamemaster,' you would expect that at the least. Mind you, I think that rational adults can always see such a solution in these situations whether player or otherwise, but sometimes the emotional engagement¹ of play can rob one of their reason. So this is one of those times where it becomes necessary to say, when it comes to Leadership, "anyone can, if not, gamemaster must."

Sometimes a Moderating Influence

Whenever you get people together, doing something that has rules (or Mechanix or Techniques or guidelines or whatever), sooner or later they're going to disagree about them. Basically there are four ways to work this out.

• Quit playing with hard feelings; probably not the healthiest solution.

• They figure it out on their own. (You know, you don't need a system to do everything.)

• If there's a 'system' to satisfy it, invoke and use it. A lot of games have in-game task resolution (and sometimes conflict resolution) systems, but what can be needed here is an out-of-game player conflict resolution system.


I'll go into Scattershot's Technique for player conflict resolution in a different Emergent Technique later on when it's ready. To be too brief; contenders bid Experience Dice against each other, the winner gets their way, the loser gets the Experience Dice.


While this can be used to satisfy mechanical interpretation questions, we don't recommend it. If you're having strictly a 'nuts and bolts' Mechanix problem, we suggest you...

• Call the referee. When it really only comes down to a Mechanix question, you can designate a 'rules monkey' who can be looked to as the final arbiter of how to interpret the Mechanix.

I know the tradition is to have the gamemaster do this, but in certain circumstances this causes problems. Even a gamemaster can become emotionally¹ attached to something and leaving them as the sole arbiter of the Mechanix invites them to make bad decisions during situations of conflict of interest. Likewise, having the gamemaster do all of this will no doubt bring the game to a complete stop each time, on top of increasing their workload and required knowledge-base.

That's why we suggest that, for each game, at least two people (or a minimum of 20% of participants, whichever is greater) be designated Moderators. One is the 'final authority' the group feels has the best grasp on the Mechanix and is most reliably objective (and just in case the Moderators disagree) and the rest are for those situations when anyone feels that the primary Moderator may have a conflict of interest (meaning something in their proprietorship clearly benefits by one of the possible rulings). More Moderators can easily be had, in fact the ideal situation is that all of the group are ready to function as Moderator. (That way conflicting parties can settle on a Moderator of choice as arbiter.)

Some will cry that in cases of mechanical controversy things should be decided not objectively but in favor of their Approach to gaming. If you go that route, then the Mechanix become something that cannot be depended upon (pretty much useless in my opinion). It may take a little getting used to, but in Scattershot the Mechanix are meant to be used as written without invoking the aged 'golden rule of gaming;' "if a rule gets in your way, ignore it." Once the whole group gets used to letting the rules be final arbiter, different methods may become the practice of choice to support their Approach. It's only a matter of getting used to doing it differently; nothing is actually 'taken away' by letting the Mechanix (and the Moderator) have ultimate authority. (After all, they cover so little.)

Getting by with a Little Help from My Friends

One of the most frequently unmentioned roles 'played' in gaming is that of Supporter. Certainly the gamemaster is meant to be the major facilitator and frequently the Supporter of play, but here's a secret; everyone does it.

When one person is Leading a scene and having a grand time of it with everyone engaged (though not necessarily active), most of the rest of the group are Supporting them. Being a good Supporter is a lot like being a good sport. You don't do things to disrupt what others are doing, you pay attention, you're polite, you know 'the whole bit'. Good gamesmanship begins with knowing how to be a Supporter.

Now there are other, more 'active' forms of support. 'Pitching in,' is probably the most familiar, but so is knowing 'when to stop' (switching back to the role of Supporter). When you see a need you 'jump in' and fill it, whether it's as a bit character or relevant atmospheric description, filling in the 'gaps' is prime Support.

When playing in an exceptionally Gamemasterful sharing game, being a Supporter becomes almost identical to the gamemaster's role of 'facilitator of play.' In fact, when thus practiced, the gamemaster becomes a Supporter too. Ultimately (and especially when playing more with Self-Sovereign sharing), if no one else is actively being a Supporter and it is needed, like Leadership, "anyone can, if not, gamemaster must."

What's Wrong with You?

A lot of play sessions break down when people get into Analysis without a goal. I know it sounds a little strange, but if you're going to engage in group-level Analysis, make sure you have a clear Leader with a stated goal. Otherwise the Analysis will likely meander about, touching off 'tender feelings,' never really amounting to anything.

Certainly anyone can raise an issue and yet be unable to articulate a goal; that would be the time for a Leader to 'pursue' the problem. I find that 'the interview' is good for ferreting out 'what ails ya.' Once that's found, it becomes the goal and the Analysis can result in effective illumination.

Now, I'm not saying that 'shooting the breeze' (Analyzing for its own sake) is a bad thing; go ahead, socialize, gaming is a social gathering. The problem is when aimless Analysis becomes the point of a session; that's bad.

Anything Worth Doing, is Worth Doing Well

Now what do you suppose one does with the results of effective Analysis? One tries to Improve their gaming. Not every addition to a game is necessarily Improvement, but when there's a need, don't be afraid to make a few changes. (Heck, that's almost the whole point with Transition, but I'll get to that much later in another Emergent Technique.)

Not every Improvement is like pulling out an engine and replacing it. Many are small and, at times, nothing more than a shift in how things are interpreted. The way the group manages the Mechanix, what the current Critical Juncture threshold is, which way to 'lean' the Transition, these are all relatively minor-seeming changes. Miss too many of them and one finds themselves playing a completely different game.

This is why Scattershot requires a quorum before any Improvements that a group wants, are made. (A quorum is "a gathering of members of an organization large enough to transact business;" you'll probably want to decide how many that is with everyone present early on in a game.) This way few are 'left behind' and no one feels that unilateral decisions are made affecting their game (everyone shares ownership after all) in their absence.

The Secret's in the Mix

The real trick is bringing these all together. There are lots of problems having a group play together on something they share, and these five roles are meant to equip people with the terminology to discuss what they want, need, or have problems with.

Problems occur when more than one person wants to be Leader going in different directions at the same time. This is why sometimes you want to stop and explicitly decide who the Leader is. More often than not, Leadership won't even be an issue, but when things go roughly we suggest that first you determine who is the Leader and then find out 'what's up.'

Another problem occurs when everyone tries to be a Supporter or to provide Analysis. This tends to cause play to go nowhere at all. I mean we've all had situations where everyone spends all their time in Analysis of play and no one actually gets around to playing. Purposeless Analysis is often useless. The same is true when everyone wants to Support but no one thinks to Lead. So if you think you are caught up in a situation where Analysis is meandering or the Supporters are achieving nothing, simply state you want to know "what's the point?" or "who's the Leader?" If know one answers, it's time to take a break and find a new Leader.

And let's not forget Improvements, certainly having a Leader to chart the course through them is important, but a quorum is needed to avoid 'losing everyone.' The same is true for Analysis and Moderation, if you don't have a quorum on who's doing it or why it's being done, it usually leads to trouble.

Ultimately though, we hope you never use any of this. Why? These are included primarily to help you clarify your thinking when problems occur. We don't wish anyone problems, but we will keep coming up with ways you can identify and address them.

Hey Fang,

I think you've got a lot good stuff in there. The section on addressing problems is a nice, incisive outgrowth of the prior notions that I think has quite a bit of practical value.

Let me tell you what I think of when someone raises the issue of leadership in the context of RPG's, and you can translate it into your thinking on techniques: I think of the guys I used to game with back in high school and early college, one guy in particular, and the dynamics of how the players all jockeyed for leadership significance. I've used the phrase "niche selection" before, and people always re-state it as "niche protection." I don't think they're synonymous. Niche protection is something the system does for you, on behalf of you enjoying some significance in gameplay. Classes in AD&D protect the significance of player characters by apportioning chunks of effectiveness across the game's concept of a typical party. Niche selection is something you do to gameplay, on behalf of the significance of your character. This group of guys and I used to play a lot of Stalking the Night Fantastic, a dreadful, awkwardly realized attribute + skill system that had somehow managed to capture the imagination of the group.

Niche selection, as I understand it, crosses both in-game and metagame effectiveness. And this one guy in particular took niche selection to a high art. The idea is that the player chooses a metagame niche for which they want recognition from the other players, and then they create a character that allows them to demonstrate their metagame skills to the group. The guy I keep referring to was very much interested in getting recognition from the players, his peers, for his tactical skills. So, for him, character creation was an exercise in unusual, but effective combinations. And when a conflict situation emerged within the game, he would quickly steer things in the direction of a tactical solution, asking questions in such a way that they functioned as delegations of responsibility to the other players. "I say we need to know what's in the woodshed before we go any closer to this damn house."

And y'know, it worked. His ability to control the in-game conflicts, and make everything an exercise in tactics, translated to the real world. We were all friends. If we needed to get a bunch of supplies to a party, guess who got looked to for leadership?

Anyway, that's what comes to mind when I think of leadership in RPG play, players interpreting game situations in ways that create a niche of significance for their characters.

Paul

Paul's excellent post helped me look at all of this with fresh insight. Let me share what occurred to me after re-reading the original post again.

Game Leadership is similar to leadership here at the Forge, so I'm going to offer an analogy to see if that helps. Ron & Clinton are obvious leaders and equivalent in some ways to GMs or Scattershot moderators, but there's many a time when someone else is able to lead the group into a specific direction in a thread or topic, based on three things I think.

1) Personal charisma
2) Experience with the subject matter
3) The interest other people share in the suggested topic or goal.

Hey Paul,

I'm sorry for taking so long in getting back to this, but I wanted to give it a good deal of thought (and an emergency root canal and my first ever vaso vagal syncope can be really distracting).

Paul Czege wrote: Let me tell you what I think of when someone raises the issue of leadership in the context of RPG's, and you can translate it into your thinking on techniques:

I've used the phrase "niche selection" before, and people always re-state it as "niche protection." I don't think they're synonymous. Niche protection is something the system does for you, on behalf of you enjoying some significance in gameplay....

Niche selection is something you do to gameplay, on behalf of the significance of your character.

Paul Czege wrote: Niche selection, as I understand it, crosses both in-game and metagame effectiveness. And this one guy in particular took niche selection to a high art. The idea is that the player chooses a metagame niche for which they want recognition from the other players, and then they create a character that allows them to demonstrate their metagame skills to the group. The guy I keep referring to was very much interested in getting recognition from the players, his peers, for his tactical skills. So, for him, character creation was an exercise in unusual, but effective combinations.

...We were all friends. If we needed to get a bunch of supplies to a party, guess who got looked to for leadership?

Anyway, that's what comes to mind when I think of leadership in RPG play, players interpreting game situations in ways that create a niche of significance for their characters.

You make some really good points, Laurel. I think what you discuss touches on a couple of different issues, so I'll address them separately.

Laurel wrote: Game Leadership is similar to leadership here at the Forge, so I'm going to offer an analogy to see if that helps. Ron & Clinton are obvious leaders and equivalent in some ways to GMs or Scattershot moderators, but there's many a time when someone else is able to lead the group into a specific direction in a thread or topic, based on three things I think.

1) Personal charisma
2) Experience with the subject matter
3) The interest other people share in the suggested topic or goal.