In another thread I spoke about the odd ways in which my players would use the limited narrative control I handed them to gimp their own characters. Over the past two sessions I had an opportunity to try something different with them, and it's been revealing. I'm just not sure what it revealed.

I'd been hammered in real life, and was left with little time to prep our game, so I tried a trick I read in John Wick's Wilderness of Mirrors, which has the players script the adventure and then hands it to the GM to muck with. The idea here is that the players perform legwork prior to hitting a mission, and the GM gets to mess with the details by claiming bad intel.

We're currently playing 7th Sea, and the group belongs to a secret order of church assassins clearly based on the Templars. To date, however, they've not had an assassination mission. I figured one of those would fit the bill for this kind of adventure setup perfectly, and rather than make it overly involved, their first time out could be a reasonably vanilla run. So I made the basic objective: assassinate those gathering to set up a smuggling ring, and make it look like someone else did it. I created the ring leader and left everything else in their hands.

They huddled up and passed ideas around for most the session. By the end of the night, they handed me their list. I had to do a double take and ask "Really?"

"Oh yeah!"

They handed me a list of 10 separate targets, each of whom had some sorcerous or technological power that was special. All of them had entourages ranging from 10 to 30 men, and one of them was a local government official. This was far more than I would have put them up against, but they seemed pretty enthusiastic, so I said okay, have at it. There was some head scratching once they had to face their own opposition, and though one party member never gave up on the idea that they could just storm the meeting with everyone in attendence and slaughter them all in a grand melee, the eventual plan was to split up and attack four of the members en route to the meeting, and converge at the spot where they'd take on the rest as a party.

Because they were splitting up, and because they had created these people they were going after, I decided to hand play control of the NPCs to those players not currently playing someone "on camera." When needed I told the players what dice were available for the NPCs, based on quick approximations of their descriptions, and otherwise let them run the show themselves.

Two sessions later, only one target was dead, and that assassin was captured alive (because he stuck around to fight all the guards who showed up, even though he had a free round to dive out a window without being seen). Another was insane. Someone else had a broken sword arm, and the last was now a wanted man throughout the city, with a description and name floating around. This was only from the solo missions; no one's gotten to the meeting yet, and two of the four players won't be showing up to that, obviously.

What I noticed was that when the players got the control of the game, they stopped being goofy. There was no tripping over untied shoes or any such thing. Failures were greeted with a quick nod or maybe a "Damn," and play moved on. But the other thing that came out was how amazingly vicious they were to one another. One player went out of his way to kill a player character when he was playing the bad guys, and it's hard to die in 7th Sea. Another time, players playing the part of guards began asking reasonable but very sharp questions of one of the would be assassins trying to make his way toward his target.

In my games, I have a reputation for being out to get my PCs, but I have never put them in situations like this. To be completely fair, I don't think they realized what they were getting themselves into at first, but even when it became apparent, there was no backing off, and if anything they got rougher with each other as we moved around the table and dealt with each solo foray. My quesiton is this: is this indicative of gamist play? Between the way they went for the throat when handed control, and the one character's refusal to leave when he had the chance until he took out every single guard in the compound, it certainly began to look like a game where they were trying to win against some standard, be it each other or a kill count.

The other question is: if this is gamist play, what can I do with that information?

I should clarify my last question. Clearly, if my players are gamist, then they'd enjoy seeing a more competitive element to the game. Seeing as how I'm most interested in character exploration and transformation though, is there a game, method, or anecdote that can help bridge this divide?

I realize this might be trying to accomplish narrativist and gamist play at the same time, which doesn't work, but given that any method can tell a good story, I'm hoping there's a way to do that enough to give me my jollies as well.

With the usual reservations about my psychic powers and their ability to divine what others are thinking based on textual descriptions, what I would be thinking myself were I one of your players and acting that way would not be gamist thoughts; rather, I would be putting my character up against serious, colorful threats and heroic, impossible challenges for dramatic reasons. If our characters are heroic assassins and the GM explicitly gave me the task of prepping some adversity, it wouldn't occur to me to make this adversity commonplace, boring or minor in the setting. The mere fact that I'm given the chance to set up some adversity pretty much means that I have to make it memorable and unique - what would be the point of deviating from normal procedure if I was expected to turn in something common?

The process of play itself sounds to me like it's very rooted in the internal logic of the fiction: the things the players do in your tale are nothing I wouldn't do just to express my vision of the fiction when I've bought into the fiction in the first place. Thus it's not a given that the players are fucking up each other's characters for gamist, challenge-based oneupmanship reasons. It could be, of course, but it wouldn't probably be why I'd do those things in that campaign you describe.

Hi Cliff,

To me it sounds gamist, rather than trying to be faithful to genre for the sake of being faithful to genre. Particularly that example of the player playing the bad guys trying to kill the other players PC, going out of his way to do it. Particularly that 'kill every fucker in the room' guard take down attempt.

I'll throw in a side comment about 'gamist', as in it sounds like a series of mini games with fictional relation between them, rather than one, big game. But that's just stating it to make the distinction.

I think you can gear shift between gamism and nar, but for the love of god don't try to do it non explicitly and just somehow convey it purely in scene description! I'd actually recommend being as blunt as saying 'Okay, were stopping adventure mode and now this is drama mode' then latter 'okay, drama mode is over - adventure mode now!' and so on (I'm trying to avoid forge jargon - I think everyone kind of gets adventure and drama to some degree). I know it sounds blunt, but this is actually using the explicit clutch to shift gears.

So I think you can get your jollies too, but the shift between each is going to be (necessarily) obvious.

Also this is just a shift to which comes first as the most important thing were doing in the moment of play. You'd probably find nar like stuff sits in the background of the gamist play. But it just doesn't come first. I'd say it's a bit like Asimov's rules of robotics - which priority/rule comes first and overides the rest is the important one and the rest it's bitches. But it probably sounds confusing to say that!

If I were a player, and it was the first time the GM had me take authority for the antagonism, especially if I hadn't run a lot of games myself... I would probably go too strong just to make sure that I didn't go too soft. So many players are taught from various game text that "meta-gaming" is the most evil thing in RPG's, so, if for a second they do anything that the bad-guys "wouldn't do" is cheating, so, if this guy would is a guard he's "got to" ask hard questions, if he's an evil smuggler he's "got to" go for the kill...

Of course I'm just saying what I would do (and have experienced myself), but it seems like it might be part of the equation. I wouldn't be surprised if some combination of all three of these factors (wanting it to be dramatic (Eero), wanting to win (Callan) and wanting to "play right" (myself)) all contribute to the problem.

Hi Cliff. 

I reckon the difference between the gag cracking players and the 'serious' players is that you gave them some control, which is a bit like them becoming a stakeholder in the game -- its not your game anymore its our game.  Sorry to say I think the gag cracking and so on is the players getting whatever fun they can out of a game which is otherwise boring them or frustrating them.

The insane level of opposition they came up with is because they want to play characters that CAN deal with that.  In their imaginations, their PCs can chop their way through hordes of mooks to get to the big bosses, manga/chinese martial arts style, and after a climatic battle, emerge triumphant -- in other words they want a dramatic style of combat rather than a mechanical cause and effect style that will leave most of them dead or whatever after two whole sessions of play. 

Cliff, I'm assuming that so far they have enjoyed it, despite the PC body count/damage? Like they are leaning forward in seats during play? I mean, on fails they say dammit then get back to business pronto, compared to before with the fail song? Are they responding to the PC body count as if the whole point of the activity has failed? Or are they responding in a way that...well, they just wanna play it out and still try and win this thing? It doesn't sound like they think the point of the activity has been failed.

I'd say everyone wants to play characters that can wade through guys and emerge triumphant. But to them the activity hasn't failed if that doesn't occur the first time through?

Callan, theres two reasons why the players might want to get 'serious' - one is that they are really into the game and the other is that they defined the opposition and help play it out, so they have to treat their own input seriously.  either would be an improvement, while both would be fantastic.

My gut tells me that their up-front knowledge of the full scope of the opposition is a factor in their newfound seriousness.

Paul

Callan wrote:
Cliff, I'm assuming that so far they have enjoyed it, despite the PC body count/damage? Like they are leaning forward in seats during play?

I mean, on fails they say dammit then get back to business pronto, compared to before with the fail song? Are they responding to the PC body count as if the whole point of the activity has failed? Or are they responding in a way that...well, they just wanna play it out and still try and win this thing? It doesn't sound like they think the point of the activity has been failed.

I'd say everyone wants to play characters that can wade through guys and emerge triumphant. But to them the activity hasn't failed if that doesn't occur the first time through?

Hi Cliff,

When they went just as badly, I must have gotten a look on my face, because one of the players started pointing at me and yelling. "This is not over yet, and you are not ending this campaign! We are going to pull this out, even if a particular person at this table needs to get The Hand of Fate involved. You hear me?"

Callan wrote:
But then the 'hand of fate'? Who's the particular person at the table and what is the hand of fate?

I would read that as you saving the setting/saving the cool secret order from being unraveled, rather than saving them from losing as players. Which is cool for gamism, AFAICT, as it's just setting repair and not interfearing with the players own win/lose result.

What I wonder is that this is all pretty organic for them so far - as you say, you asked them what they wanted before and they just say 'to have fun' or whatever. They haven't really thought about these things they do as gamist goals or whatever - they just have naturally gravitated to them. Now in terms of the game as I understand it, there is no point in the rules that will say they have lost? I wonder when they will organically come to such a point, how many more battles and twists and turns? I just wonder if they'll undercut their own gamist agenda by continuing to play - because really if you can't die and you keep playing, eventually your going to meet the goal. And if the only thing you can do is eventually win, you've undercut gamism. Or have they already admitted to themselves that they failed the assassin task?

Anyway, did my idea on gear shifting from before seem applicable to any small degree?

Callan wrote:
Now in terms of the game as I understand it, there is no point in the rules that will say they have lost?

I wonder when they will organically come to such a point, how many more battles and twists and turns? I just wonder if they'll undercut their own gamist agenda by continuing to play - because really if you can't die and you keep playing, eventually your going to meet the goal. And if the only thing you can do is eventually win, you've undercut gamism. Or have they already admitted to themselves that they failed the assassin task?

Anyway, did my idea on gear shifting from before seem applicable to any small degree?

Cliff - D&D (all versions) is considered a gamist design.  In my own opinion, it is more accurate to say "almost all D&D games are carried out in gamist fashion", but I think the more savvy members here would simply state that D&D itself is gamist by nature.  So that gives you an easy example (and also a very large straw dummy for battering with narrativist weaponry).

This thread highlights two especially valuable insights (my opinion, of course).  One is that vesting the players with control over the adventure gives a huge burst of energy and participation from them.  I think this would prove true in general, in any group where players were accustomed to having little control over setting and plot. 

Eero identifies the volatile caveat to player control:  They feel obliged to make the adventure 'larger than life'.  Suddenly they have a chance to make gaming as it should be (in their minds), and they have perhaps no experience at designing a large-scale or high-power adventure.  The more ambitious their characters are, the grander the scale of action, regardless of the system's ability to support that level of action.  They see it as a shortcut to long-term success, perhaps, and fall into the same trap as any GM who tries to make a single adventure that is far beyond the scope of the "normal".  There is simply too much power in play, goals that are too large in scope to be handled in a practical manner, short of creating an entire campaign around those goals. 

I enjoy gamist play but would like to see *some* elements of narrativism included, and especially of player involvement (and investment) in the story world.  Given the pitfalls of your example, I think it shows the great potential in opening up campaign control to players at different levels.

Great account, Cliff!

Yet when the assassination mission began to go bad, stray comments here and there began filtering their way to me. How are you going to save this situation? No game this week on account of snow (we've had a lot of that lately), well, you've got another week to figure out how to get us out of that. Etc. I'd come back to them with the idea of removing the safety net from the campaign overall as well as the characters. That is, you screw up badly enough, and the game ends badly for you. I said I wouldn't be specifically gunning for them, but that I wouldn't take specific action to course correct a bad outcome due to player action.

That was not met well. I got everything from "You created a story and we should see it through to the end," to "I think that would lead to a disconnect from games, all of which would be ridiculously short." Maybe it's a matter of trust, since they feel like I do in fact put them in the crosshairs all the time, but if they want that thrill of potential death to be with them constantly, this seems to be a natural extension of that. I'm very seriously considering pushing the issue back into discussion, because I find this assumption that I'll always right their boat more unsatisfactory the more time I think on it. It removes any sense of victory, as you note, and more than that, it takes all responsibility and consequence out of their hands. No matter what they do, no matter how inane the action, it'll all ultimately turn out okay for them. That, more than the potential that the story could come out badly for them, seems like it would create a disconnect from the game.

Callan -

I think you're onto some key issues/weaknesses in gamist play with these thoughts.  It seems there is so much potential for a gamist rpg to simply be a proxy for other social issues, such as (your suggestion) dumping your responsibility for your actions onto someone else.  The GM is, indeed, frequently victimized this way.  I think actually some gamist players simply have a predatory outlook upon the GM:  "I am going to get whatever I can from him and beat him in the process.  His ethical obligation to keep story/gameplay moving along shall be his downfall."

Your death/not-death mechanic is particularly interesting to me.  I see exactly the same issue that you do (at least, i think I do), but my solution is that, as an ethical GM, it is my responsibility to inform players of a potentially fatal action *before* they commit to that action.  Example:  Players are exploring that volcano.  One wishes to jump from ledge to ledge, because something shiny is barely visible on the next ledge.  With no attempt to mask the truth in story fiction, I say:  "You might be able to do that.  However, if you fail the jump roll, your character will die."  I think this is extremely important in preventing the GM from playing headgames with the players (the opposite of the predatory player).  Although one might reasonably think that leaping around inside a volcano is obviously potentially deadly, I disagree:  In a fantasy RPG context:  The illusion/hint/suggestion of certain death is so common in all situations, players become numbed to what is truly dangerous and sometimes do foolish things.  As we play the game, our perceptions become warped in strange ways, based on prior experience and god knows how many other, subtler elements.  So I therefore think setting firm points of reality is important from time to time ("This could kill you.  Go ahead and roll if you like, but I am not joking -- your character will die if he fails this roll").

If I understand you correctly then, my solution is the other-coin-side of your solution:  Defuse all such situations to prevent player bravado from undoing the story fiction (i.e., prevent them from committing suicide).

Lumpley/Vincent observed in one of his articles that the character should never die, except as an act of ultimate protest.  I believe he adopts this idea from good fiction writing, and I basically agree with him.  However, another solution would be if character death can somehow be made meaningful within the fiction, even for the player whose character died.  I don't know of any systems for accomplishing that, however.

Anyway, not to stray too far from the original post, I think Cliff sort of opened a Pandora's Box of hidden player wishes and motivations in his game.  Lots of good material to put under the rpg microscope!

Callan wrote:
It sounds so macho to be all grave danger all the time, but it's actually the act of giving up responsiblity for ones own actions and dumping them on someone else.

So, punch them in the face or say no (whichever is more fun) when they try to push forward the tokens and keep them there. They have to wait until the moment where you have decided without any knowledge of their choice, whether they would live or die. Then after you have chosen in absolute blindness, they choose to push forward or not.

And guess what is probably the next stage is for some (but hopefull not all) of them? They will say 'Why would I ever, ever push forward, huh? What's the benefit in that?'

And you say 'Because it puts you in grave danger. The thing you want to be in, right?'.

Jeff wrote:
Your death/not-death mechanic is particularly interesting to me.  I see exactly the same issue that you do (at least, i think I do), but my solution is that, as an ethical GM, it is my responsibility to inform players of a potentially fatal action *before* they commit to that action.

I feel for you, Cliff.  Reading this over again, I'm beginning to agree that what you have is a group seeking a simulation of gamism, and that you yourself are a simulationist GM (or at least, that aspect of your GM'ing has become the present issue). 

You have the option, of course, of simply dishing out exactly what they want.  I assume that is somewhat unsatisfactory for you, and that in turn is why I think you have simulationist tendencies:  The arbitrary hand of fate violates the proper function of a balanced, detailed, imaginary world.  Furthermore, you also aren't interested in finding ways to trick, punish, or destroy the characters (except possibly that it added great value to the fiction), and so I think you are not one of these sadistic GM's who's real agenda is sowing anguish and frustration upon a group of players who mistakenly believe they have come together under a common social contract.

I think I encountered something like your situation in the distant past.  Let's say that during play I, as the GM, am at a loss to resolve a player's action -- I am trying to keep the campaign world balanced and looking for something of an impartial way to decide consequences for an action.  The player in this case says frankly they don't care about the system and think I should just decide what happens.  I try to explain to the player that what he's proposing isn't a game -- it's just "whatever Jeff says" imaginary play, with me re-evaluating my role every few moments in order to be consistent with player preferences.  But I was completely unable to drive the point home that what's being suggested here isn't any fun for ME!  Not only does it lack any sense of play or interest for me, but I cannot fathom what interest anybody would have in such a system, where the GM is all-powerful (not even beholden to any rulebook at all), so long as the players are having a good time.  And since they have no responsibilty toward the sessions, story, game, or system, then any potential fault in play is placed squarely in my lap.  In my opinion, this sort of interaction is not roleplay, nor is it a game.  I'm not sure what it is.  Never have been able to figure it out.

It sounds like you're experiencing some of the same thing:  When character get themselves into an unfixable mess (or are otherwise doomed), you are supposed to step in with the greatest subtlely and delicacy and fix the situation.  They interpret this as "living on the edge".  You interpret it as "breaking the story constantly to bail them out".  Your actions don't usually disrupt their sense of danger -- they turn a blind eye as the hand of fate sets the chess pieces back into a playable formation.

I slowly discovered this attitude was pervasive in this particular group.  I am sorry to say I never did figure out what creative goals or values motivated these people.  In my opinion, they and I sat down for two rather different reasons.  One thing I do know, however -- none of them ever GM'd a game.  I'm willing to bet none of your players ever have either, at least not any kind of "successful" stint at GM'ing.  Beware player groups who categorically refuse to have anything to do with GM'ing. 

Everybody comes to the roleplay table with their own agenda in mind.  If this group is open to discussion of this type, you might have an open discussion with them about what their personal goals are for the night's session.  It seems to me that these people are completely unable to understand your role and what your goal is for the session.

I am sorry to say I eventually stopped roleplaying with that old group of mine, period.  I began to feel that they were interested more in having a personal bard perform whatever tune they called, without pay.  And although they would say that as GM I hold all the power over the session, nothing could be further from the truth:  Their positions justified their inflexibility to change or negotiation of agenda, while mine was expected to conform to the needs of the group, moment by moment.

I am now thinking this was the very same phenomenon as suggested in this thread:  a simulation of gamism.  I believe GNS has a term called "illusionism" that means much the same thing, but don't quote me on that. I'm no expert.  The GNS definition of gamism seems to only define pure or "true" gamism, overlooking the fact that a great many RPG'ers have a secret goal of dominating a session, dominating other players, gaining attention not given them elsewhere, or otherwise indulging in social dysfunction, all of it done under a gamist banner.  I think an RPG session can even be a simple mask to disguise a group's true goal of simply arguing with one another and of being proven right in the end, without regard for any story fiction or simulated action.

I hope you have a better resolution to your situation than I did.  They sound like a very creative bunch, and presumably there is some way for all to be well satisfied and happy with the campaign.  If you think their understanding of play has any leeway at all, I would definitely try something like death/not-death mechanic/lesson/experiment/ordeal.  Heck, maybe they'll love it.  It could become an occasional feature by popular demand.

I may going off the deep end here, but what I would do in this situation is talk to the players. It seems they are more engaged with the game now than before - why is that? What was it they enjoyed now that wasn't there before, and is there something they're not enjoying now?

I would not, however, try to push them into a theory-heavy discussion, or make them think that the future of the game depends on their answers, but just engage them into a light talk about what they like more or less about the game.

Jeff wrote:
I feel for you, Cliff.  Reading this over again, I'm beginning to agree that what you have is a group seeking a simulation of gamism, and that you yourself are a simulationist GM (or at least, that aspect of your GM'ing has become the present issue). 

Anders wrote:
I may going off the deep end here, but what I would do in this situation is talk to the players. It seems they are more engaged with the game now than before - why is that? What was it they enjoyed now that wasn't there before, and is there something they're not enjoying now?

I would not, however, try to push them into a theory-heavy discussion, or make them think that the future of the game depends on their answers, but just engage them into a light talk about what they like more or less about the game.