I started up a play by post recently and near the start, an NPC character approaches a gap in a wall where a monster was. Da da da, it pops out and bites his arm off. The thing was, he's still alive, standing there, stunned and...all the player characters head off in other directions!

Now I'm tempted to say the thing bites him in half . But instead I phrase along the lines of wow, I'm surprised no one saved him (and said that's entirely valid play and cool) and that I'm not gunna say he gets killed right now, instead leave it so you know it wasn't that the GM didn't describe things well enough or that the GM said he died before you could post anything - instead it was just that no characters present saved him. Those are the characters. Just savour that as it's interesting. I also said sure, you could countermand that by posting you save him, but is that really what your character would do?

Of course, the very next post someone says their character saves him. And I'm wondering, did I bring up a moment to savour, or just bias the whole thing utterly in trying to draw some attention to that tidbit? Or is it actually wishful thinking on the players part, they were playing how the character goes, and the character goes in a non perfect ivory tower manner - but then their attentions drawn to it and bang, they slap on a coat of political correctness?

You can't really know, of course. But I did want to raise it as an interesting point that they all didn't (and just as cool a way to play). And I'm wondering how to talk about that interesting point without biasing it - or indeed, on a lateral thought, whether that if you can't help but bias it to them, then it is not an interesting point for them to begin with? That they are already polarised one way and don't find it interesting to look both ways (even though their characters, as far as I could tell, certainly did look the opposite way)?

On a seperate note I've set up the game with a primitive structural spine, where the ending of this campaign is defined at 1000xp, and instead of basing XP gain purely somehow on fictional events, there's a base line amount of XP for each contributing post. Not that anyone else really cares about potential weasel words, but just in case someone did *lol*, 'contributing' means if you write 'What do I see?' it contributes. If you write three seperate posts with 'What' then 'do' then 'I' then 'see' it's not four contributing posts. It's just getting around that, which is pretty objective AFAICT.

Anyway, the thing to note is that momentum toward the ending of the session (ie, the big finale! The big thing) isn't dictated by some sort of 'when it feels right' fictional judgement. It is mechanically paced (there are some bonuses on top for fictional things, but that simply speeds the game toward the finale rather than controls whether it moves at all). For anyone reading about murk recently, it's a contrasting design to consider. I'd propose that murk is at it's heart some sort of id or ego that grasps the mechanism it's presented where mechanically things don't move on unless they say it does, and takes that mechanism (in quite a display of system mattering) to stop anything happening until it's done right (by that id or ego's decree). Indeed on that matter I've been thinking 1000xp is not long enough and how am I gunna pack everything in - this applies to me as well. It's a kick up my bum as well - I don't have some supremely disciplined ego that'll dictate game pace ideally simply by purity of my soul or something. I err as well.

Otherwise there's the urge to spin things out until they are 'just right', and since the mechanics throw that ability in the GM's lap, it's simply system mattering when it happens. Railroading? It's as much valid system use as throws in the street fighter video game are (despite how people call throws 'cheap' as much as they call railroading 'cheap'). I dunno, but to me the 'fiction' is always the obvious facade or mask of someones inner wants/ego. When you hinge an activites progress toward it's ending on 'fiction', you hinge it on someones ego. Starkly and simply.

Callan,

Just one question to clarify your position on the biasing thing... and if this is an irrelevant question for some reason, please let me know.

Does the system that you're using have some sort of "morality" mechanic that might have pushed the characters into acting a certain way, like pushing him towards saving him? Like Alignment in D&D or Morality/Humanity in White Wolf, or something like that?

It's called a Rifts game, but that means I'm just canabalising bits of texts from the book (which is all you ever can do, really). The game has alignments in that text - I didn't ask anyone to fill one in (one player asked about filling in alignment...I think I forgot to answer them on the matter...). So apart from blind chance, nothing mechanical promotes a certain fixed in stone morality.

I want to reply to this... it seems like theres a really interesting discussion point here, but I have to admit that I can't follow your point exactly. Could you rephrase/explain so I can be sure I understand you.

Which part, Nolan? I'll assume the first part.

Okay, what I'm saying is that I tried to leave a moment where the guy doesn't die because the GM just says he does or the GM wasn't very clear - instead I gave a moment where they could countermand as players the action. So in that very moment they'd know that if the guy dies, it hinged entirely on their characters continuing as they previously appeared to, not some sort of GM fiat or misscommunication. And while that might not make the characters seem all happy and lovely, it is damn interesting.

BUT, in trying to draw attention to the moment, perhaps I triggered a guilt responce, or seemed to be giving some sort of GM cue? So in trying to make the gameplay of the moment about it, I made the gameplay of the moment not about it (with help from guilt responce or gamer GM cues training). Possibly.

Further, if you can't help but bias someone on this, are the capable of enjoying that moment? I'd say perhaps not. Atleast not unless they train themselves out of such an easy to trigger bias.

I'll quote my post from the game verbatim, shortly.

My second subject's probably more engageable.

I've had similar problems in face-to-face games: as GM, I want to draw attention to some detail that I'm not sure the players have fully grasped or a decision they may not have considered the full implications of, but I don't want to do that in a way that makes them think I want them to act on that detail or change their decision. I find it very difficult - I know that as a player it's damned easy to miss a vital detail, or not remember something the GM described three sessions earlier (which, at least with our bi-/tri-weekly play schedules, can be a couple of months ago). I don't want to make a decision that from my character's point of view would be idiotic because of that kind of mistake while I do want to have the option of making decisions that another character might find idiotic while they make sense to my character (assuming the social contract allows for that), and I also know how annoying it is when the GM tries to "nudge" you towards a certain path by dropping hints that "if you don't do this things will go badly" while meaning "if you don't do this you will upset my carefully laid plans", effectively a kind of railroading.

What may have happened with your players is that they are used to that kind of GM behavior: if the GM draws attention to something it means the characters are supposed to do something about it, not that the players are supposed to just find it interesting or think about it and then go on to do whatever they were doing; a kind of dysfunctional play coping mechanism, I guess. Or maybe they just hadn't realized what was going to happen, or had misunderstood the "tone" of the game to be one where leaving an NPC to die was the expected behavior, or something completely different.

Ah, I see what I did, I was trying to link the two points together some how... okay: here a reply:

1) Yeah, so it goes. I wish I had some sort of insight into making this work. All I know is I have a friend whose GM style is to sit their blank faced and to take everything you do at face value, so if you say it, you do it, and here are the consequences. I know I don't like this, I feel like I'm constantly being misunderstood or misrepresented.

2) I think thats a really good idea, making the game move forward regardless of what the fiction is doing, but I think it would require that the people playing learn how to pace the fiction with the forward-motion mechanic, which might be difficult to learn (at first), but sets a good real world time constraint and if everyone's in on it, makes sure the pacing happens... which can be a hard thing to accomplish. It seems like it would also make players set their priorities more, like, I know I only have three posts left, and man, I do want to go buy that +2 Sword of Swording, but I would rather get a chance to RP a scene with my character's dying grandmother or whatever... which I think is excellent. Infinite story economy seems to mean that most people are lazy about how they spend their in game time.

One way to handle the "I'd like to bring this to the players' attention" issue without it either interrupting game-play or leading to (perceived) railroading is to have a post-mortem after play. It's an opportunity for both players and GM to bring up what they liked or thought sucked, what they'd like to see happen next, who needs to bring pizza next time.

In a GM-fiat game I don't know of a good solution for "the players miss a crucial bit" that doesn't involve GM nudging. I've been on both sides of that coin, and don't care for it either way.

Masqueradeball: "Infinite story economy seems to mean that most people are lazy about how they spend their in game time." Yes, yes, yes. Just as bad is artificial scarcity: where it feels like there is pressure to succeed quickly and use your (character in-game) time well, but due to GM-fiat or group CA failure has no real repercussions. "Ah, we weren't able to rescue the kingdom tonight but nothing really bad happens because we'll get another chance to save the kingdom in the next session."

Thomas

Just speaking to the first point:  It's a tricky business.  I've certainly had players who were really indoctrinated into the "Are we doing what the GM wants us to do?" mindset, which can be extraordinarily difficult to snap people out of.

With your particular situation, I might be inclined to try to set up some sort of anonymous comments pile, where the players and GM can speculate about whatever is on their mind, free and clear.

Cheers,
Roger

Still on the first point, concerning the GM-given bias. I know I'm still pretty new at using these terms, specifically Agendas, but I'm going to give it a shot--therefore, please give me feedback if I'm using them the wrong way.

The whole "GM will give you hints or make it easy on you if you make the 'wrong' (otherwise known as 'off the rails') choice" scenario has two participants: the player who has been conditioned to believe it, and the GM who has been conditioned (or conditioned him/herself) to do it. There is not much that can be done about the one if you're not the others, but in a game where the GM has as much power as in yours then it's that GM's responsibility to change their behavior. IMHO, this models the way the game will go and, though it might initially cause some problems for the characters in the story, the players will then learn the GM's new behavior and model theirs to match.

(Here's where the Agenda talk begins, so forgive me in advance!)

It seems to me that it's very important here for the GM (and everyone else) to be made aware of what the Agenda is for the game. If it's more of a Narrativist game, then all of the players are there to investigate some themes. Therefore, the GM should inflict consequences on the players that fit in with this sort of thematic exploration. For example, if the players leave the NPC to die and the game is about heroism, then the fate of the NPC should teach them something about what happens when you don't engage that heroism... if the theme is something else, like "the fine line between good and evil", then their actions should have some sort of corrupting consequence. (Or something like that... I hope you'll forgive my bad examples).

If the game is instead a Simulationist game, then the GM should really have no position as to what they're doing or why. If the NPC would reasonably die from this, the NPC should die and the characters do not receive the information they would otherwise have had. This may or may not affect them later, if they needed that information.

If you as the GM decide to take it "easy" on the players and keep the NPC alive or give them a second chance at a choice, and it does not have a clear Narrativist purpose behind it... well, in my opinion that's Illusionism, and not of the functional kind.

P.S. My signature below gives my name, Kinch, but a lot of people have been missing it :P

Again, open to feedback on my use of these terms!

Just hold the fuck on.  Indoctrinated?  Snapping people out of things?  Let's not get carried away with pathologising other peoples actions here.

I make no apologies for being a strong, leading GM.  Whats more, as a player, I play in the way I would like players to play, and make it my business to follow the GM's lead.  And the GM's I have played with for the most [part have like this, and the synchrony between us has been good and functional and produces engaging and enjoyable play.  So much so, in fact, that in most cases I have become something of a central character/player and often the lynchpin which holds the players together.  This bollocks about indoctrination really needs to be knocked on the head.

None of this seems even relevant to the OP.  If I were your mom, or partner, or housemate, and as you were walking out the door I said to you "haven't you forgotten something", that would be an enirely normal prompt and cause you to review your situation.  Check for your keys, your phone etc.  Seems to me the action that Callan took had the same effect and isn't anything out of the ordinary for human interactions.  None of this requires any speculation as to how someone may be "conditioned", and to the extent that there is any such conditioning its origin would lie in a much broader range of stories and media than just RPG.

Kinch,

Where'd you get the idea it's taking it "easy" on the players? Or that a second choice matters? Ideally you could give someone several dozen second chances at a choice, and apart from wasting time doing so, if their characters going to do X, then they still will. Indeed I should be able to tell them what how apparent ongoing actions will affect the near future (to confirm I understand their action right - like your computer confirms 'are you sure you want to reformat your hard drive?' not to put you off doing so but because you might have missunderstood something), and they wont interupt their characters action because that is what their character would do. Yeah, for some it's a big old cue from the GM to change. Is that what I was doing, or are you just used to big old cues like that and so treat me as doing that? I'll grant, from the outside, ignoring my internal intentions, I'd look identical to a GM giving a subtle cue. That's part of what I'm asking - can I look any different to people who are used to such cues, ever?

I really have had too many players go 'Oh, but I didn't understand what you meant by, so I would have saved him' or 'I was just about to save him, but you butted in and said he was dead!'. How do you eliminate that without apparently looking like your giving a cue to change the characters behaviour? Or perhaps such people just want to blame it on the GM rather than soak up that their character might not be an ideal ivory tower person?

Also I think you've gripped the term narrativism to mean something other than the forge usage - you don't have nar games that are about heroism and if the players characters don't engage it, they are taught something about not engaging heroism. Your refering to some sort of teaching behaviour there. Indeed I think your reading my behaviour as one of the cues that teaching system uses, but not toward what you mean by narrativism.

Callan and contracycle,

I certainly didn't mean to make anyone upset. Sorry about the fact that I misunderstood Callan's point, after reading your latest post and in re-reading your original one, I think I have a better grasp of what you mean.

Callan, I have done it myself and I agree that it is difficult to differentiate, but I do think that in this case it is some sort of player conditioning. And by this, I don't mean "indoctrination" (for contracycle's sake), it's more of many years of roleplaying that have caused certain personal responses to perceived social cues, and not anything conscious on anyone's part. I think this is closer to one of the main points of your post.

When I'm playing chess or Risk or whatever, some sort of competitive board game, when the other player is taking a turn I wait patiently until they are finished. When they put down the piece, I can say something judgmental like, "Wow, I can't believe you didn't take my knight, he was right there," or even with praise, "Nice move!" Either way, the move itself is by agreement irrevocable for the most part, unless I'm teaching a beginner--you know you can't pick that piece up and make a different move based on my judgment of your move.

With RPGs, it's different. The moves aren't irrevocable, so when someone, especially one with so much perceived power as the GM (you dole out the XP, after all!) makes a comment on one of your moves ("Can't believe you didn't save that guy") you might mean nothing by it... but players are not only conditioned to take that as a social cue, but are also allowed by most gaming convention to "redo" their move.

So my conclusion here is that the only way you would be able to make a comment like that without being seen as a social cue for them to do something different would be if their moves were known from the start to be irrevocable, too. Then they might think, "Hmm, wonder what would have happened if I hadn't done that," but it's agreed upon to be impossible from the start that you might be nudging them in this way.

Also, thanks for your feedback on my grasp of Nar Agenda. It's the one I have the least grasp on, so I have to go back and do some re-reading!

I think Kinch makes good points.

I have resorted to dealing with these GM clarifications by explicitly pointing out that I'm not trying to make the other players change their minds and that I'm only offering additional information.

As a concrete example, the past several sessions of the D&D4 game I'm running has taken place in one specific city where the characters have been trying to forge a deal on behalf of the Wizard's Guild in another city. This has involved upwards of a hundred named NPC:s, some major, some bit players that have shown up in a scene or two. When someone they have had significant interactions with shows up I don't just introduce them by name, but also point back to one of those significant moments so they will remember who it is and what their role has been so far so they won't make mistakes based on misremembering the identity of the person they're talking to, or sometimes adding this information when they start to interact with this person. At other points I have prompted them with information about the situation in the city and the relationships between the various factions when it is something their characters know of but the players may have forgotten. Sometimes I have done this after they have annonced an action, just to make sure they had taken that information into consideration and at these times I have pointed out that I'm not trying to get them to change what they're doing, just that I want them to make their decisions based on full information.

(As a sidenote, they were free to fail to make this deal. I just didn't want them to fail because of misunderstandings.)