In my playtesting of Final Hour of a Storied Age (download current rules here, listen to podcasts of relevant playtests here and here, or read the text playtest reports here and here), I've noticed that a lot of my playtesters are bringing in expectations from other indie games that are causing friction when they try to play my game. For example, in my game the first thing that happens in each chapter of play is for the "spotlight player" to select a location for the chapter to begin. A lot of people seem to interpret that as "aggressively frame a scene", even though the game doesn't ask them to do that. I believe that this is because there's such a strong design trend toward aggressive scene framing in a lot of influential games -- the problem comes in when people assume that what works for those games applies to my game, too. My design goal for having the spotlight player set the location is to 1) set limits on a certain mechanical parameter (the "tax" that players will be subject to for bringing particular characters into the chapter) and 2) give the "adversity player" idea seeds for the kinds of adversity to introduce (my theory is that it's easier to answer "what kind of adversity would a character face in a mountain pass?" than to face the blank page of "what kind of adversity do you want to throw at him?"). When the spotlight player frames the scene too aggressively, the adversity player ends up a little overconstrained -- instead of a helpful guiding constraint he ends up with a potentially challenging task of how to fit the kind of adversity he has mechanically available into the context that was framed. I'm still puzzling through how to address this in my text. In some sense it's frustrating since other games don't face this problem (the rules for Monopoly don't have to tell you that your piece doesn't turn into a queen when you reach the other side of the board), but I also have to work in the reality that an RPG will be played by players who exist in a culture which has expectations.

I'm also facing this problem in getting people to realize that there's no "freeform roleplay for a while, then switch to the mechanics" cycle in my game. One of my design goals is to have strong mechanical guidance for story creation. This strikes some people as very odd, to the point that some wonder where the roleplaying is, although I don't think it's that outlandish. One of my design inspirations is the DITV conflict system. Roleplaying doesn't stop in DITV once a conflict starts -- the conflict framework provides lots of cues to inform the roleplaying. My goal was to take that strong mechanical guidance and expand it to cover 100% of play, eliminating the sometimes difficult "should we start using the mechanics now?" question from the game entirely. In the context of board games, etc., the RPG convention of having "should we use the mechanics now?" rules is pretty strange, but since I'm designing an RPG I need to deal with the expectations.

Dan,
  OK, I have suggestions:
1) As far as scene framing goes, there is really only two fixes. One, give good guidelines, like make sure you can think of at least three completely different scenarios for your scene.. Two, Add mechanics. In other words, put in a Supporting Player veto power or scene modification mechanic for the Adversity Player. Something like that.
2) RE: Roleplay, then mechanics dichotomy: the only way to fix that is to build in a narration step. DITV is a perfect example of this. You play the dice, then you explain what the dice mean.

  We can discuss alternatives if any of these suggestions are helpful.

Dave, I don't think the problems I am having are problems with my mechanics, or even necessarily with the way they are communicated. If I gave the game to someone who had never played an RPG before, I don't think they would try to aggressively frame a scene when the rules ask them to "choose a location". They wouldn't try to "freeform roleplay for a while" when the rules ask them to present a source of adversity. I suspect that my ultimate solution will be to add a chapter of advice text targeted at people who have played other RPGs, explaining ways that mine differs. I doubt I will want to use something as clunky and adversarial as explicit "veto authority" rules.

That's fine.

I would recommend baking your advice into the relevant rules though. Instead of breaking it out into its own section.

I mean, if it is good advice for seasoned RP'ers, then it is good advice for noobies as well, no?

(my theory is that it's easier to answer "what kind of adversity would a character face in a mountain pass?" than to face the blank page of "what kind of adversity do you want to throw at him?"). When the spotlight player frames the scene too aggressively, the adversity player ends up a little overconstrained -- instead of a helpful guiding constraint he ends up with a potentially challenging task of how to fit the kind of adversity he has mechanically available into the context that was framed.

there's no "freeform roleplay for a while, then switch to the mechanics" cycle in my game.

I'm also facing this problem in getting people to realize that there's no "freeform roleplay for a while, then switch to the mechanics" cycle in my game. One of my design goals is to have strong mechanical guidance for story creation. This strikes some people as very odd, to the point that some wonder where the roleplaying is, although I don't think it's that outlandish.

I mean, if it is good advice for seasoned RP'ers, then it is good advice for noobies as well, no?

If the frame is just there as a suggestion - can't the other person just...ignore it. Utterly, if they wish?

Well, presuming the rules give some general prompts, are they forfilling the prompts to any degree? Isn't that roleplay there?

Dan wrote:

If the frame is just there as a suggestion - can't the other person just...ignore it. Utterly, if they wish?

Why would the adversity player assume it was "just a suggestion"? When people frame scenes they usually do it in very definitive terms: "I am riding through town, eating a sandwich, thinking about X." In general I dislike retconning because I find it disruptive to the smooth flow of play and story development, and I think that most people instinctively try to avoid it. Therefore, I'd prefer it if people not say things that would need to be retconned or ignored as "just a suggestion".

Even if "ignoring it" is allowed by the rules, the words are still likely to have an influence on the ideas that the adversity player comes up with, and if that influence is to make the other player feel uncomfortably constrained (rather than constrained in an empowering way) then the game isn't going to be as fun for that player as it could be.

Well, rather than prefering, that's what you write rules for (unless you want to keep the expectations of other games, where they don't write rules and instead rely on the 'spirit' of the game and just say what they prefer).

I'm sorry, I can't take this as a serious issue - people aren't delicate flowers.

It's the same as telling someone else how to make their move in a game, except using narration as the medium of telling someone else what to do with their own choices, rather than plain english.

I think there are some problems here, as in practical not just preference, that are being overlooked as you've focused on me rather than the problem (ie, amatuerish, black and white view, etc). Just noting it, because I think aiming the focus on me personally then figuring out reasons to write me off didn't actually approach the problem I describe, should it actually exist (hey, maybe it doesn't cause I'm wrong somehow). I think my approach can be as alien as, say, having a roleplay game which has strong mechanical guidance all the way through can be alien to some people. For some reason. Good luck with it, hope the effort I put into my posts showed some genuine goodwill toward your project.