Hi, I got sidetracked going from wushu -> traits in general -> creative tension at this link 

http://www.lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=390

Some people just aren't very good at coming up with names.
Heck, just look at names in real life.
Most place names are boring and descriptive.
GM "Why is it called Oxford?"
P "Because, 'um... there's this river that guys in wagons used to ford.. and uh, the wagons were pulled by oxen?"

People's names tend to be really dumb too.
GM "Why are you named Cooper."
P "Because my father made barrels for a living."

Don't get me started on pets.

Maybe your player's problem is that he is approaching names from the wrong direction?
He pulls a random name off the top of his head, and when you ask him about it, he tries to come up with a lame justification for it.
Maybe he should come up with descriptive details first, then make those descriptive details into a name.

It's better than what my players do in D&D games at least. All they do is write down random arrangements of vowels and consonants with no meaning. We end up with a bunch of guys named things like "Mienten" or "Guirialiar" or "X'qupztniezzarreaux'thaugghuaughhhhr"

Those D&D names are 10 times better than coming up with the cast of Reservoir Dogs, like we were getting. 

Not just names, Im talking about those times where someone, basically just talks ill-considered, jarring nonsense.  Or at least thats what it initially sounds like to someone else.  Saying "Thats rubbish!" or something similar is not going to be the ideal solution.  For one thing its bad blood right then and there, and also it puts a nasty pressure on other players - nobody at all in the world likes to be criticised, even the most even-handed, sugar coated criticism still rankles and the I think the danger is that the most common reaction will be not saying anything at all for fear of criticism.

So Im just interested in ways that other people deal with the situation.  Saying nothing at all, which is my current solution, is just perpetuating the problem.

Maybe bring a Thesaurus to your game sessions.
"The green tower? What if we call it... The Ambergris tower?"

You don't have to yell "That's Rubbish!" but you can give people calm, constructive criticism. If you think someone might take it the wrong way, try softening the blow with a complement.
"I like the way you described your character's appearance, but perhaps you could apply that same language to coming up with a more evocative name. It's just that your guy is so awesome, that he should have a name that matches the awesomeness. Can I give you some suggestions?"

If that doesn't work, kill them and take their stuff.

Why do you think I should kill them and take their stuff?

stefoid wrote:
Why do you think I should kill them and take their stuff?

I was just mucking with you Kevin.

OK, here is my rules on collaborative/contributive narration for my game:  what do you think?
-----------------------------------
Everything that occurs during story phase 'just happens' -- no dice rolling or anything else is required.  Players just assert or suggest things as they see fit.  If it concerns the actions or decisions of the player’s own character, then they can be made as positive statements -- assertions.  “My character does this”  “Agent Smith decides to run”.  If it concerns anything other than that, it should be a suggestion.  “What if…?”  “How about…?”

Any player can ask ‘Why?’  With multiple people contributing to the narrative, there exists the possibility that someones contribution is going to jar with someone elses imagination.    When this happens, the rule is that any listener can simply ask:  Why?  Why would that happen?  Why did she do that?  etc…  This is not an attack or critique, it is merely a request for more information.  The person making the contribution can then explain why it makes sense to them, and hopefully, bring everybody else back to a happy shared imagined space.    In any case, if the contribution is about the narrating player’s own character (the characters decisions or actions) then that is the end of it.  Players are allowed to make any assertion about their own characters decisions or actions that they like. 

Any player can suggest.  Any and all players can make suggestions, even contradictory suggestions about the same situation – that is how the game is played.  The GM will choose which suggestion to adopt, modifying it as she sees fit.  If a player makes a suggestion, anyone may still ask “Why?”  But there is no need to critique or discuss the answer.  Merely leave it to the GM, or come up with a counter suggestion, as is every players right.

I love these rules.

In the context of your first post, the "why" rule is basically just a framework for people to be passive-aggressive and avoid the real problem. The real problem is people aren't invested in the same fictional space to the same degree. Neither of these rules will address that, and the "why" rule in particular is just a stick that people can use to hit each other over it.

For making sure you understand a player's intent behind an action, it's of course very effective to institutionalize the right to ask "why," but that doesn't have much of anything to do with creative tension as you describe it.

Mike wrote:
In the context of your first post, the "why" rule is basically just a framework for people to be passive-aggressive and avoid the real problem. The real problem is people aren't invested in the same fictional space to the same degree. Neither of these rules will address that, and the "why" rule in particular is just a stick that people can use to hit each other over it.

For making sure you understand a player's intent behind an action, it's of course very effective to institutionalize the right to ask "why," but that doesn't have much of anything to do with creative tension as you describe it.

Steve,

I think that being creative, on your own, is actually quite difficult. (In Play Unsafe, I take a very positive tone, but doing it on your own is hard.)

Here are some circumstances that make it easier:

1. When everyone else is doing it too. That way, everyone's improvising, building on each other's ideas. Try to do it on your own, in a traditional GMing-a-scenario role, and it's difficult. It might work if...

2. There are strong genre expectations. For example, in Call of Cthulhu, when the Investigators ask an ally for help, he will get out some books to help them research. In Lacuna, the friend in authority is obviously a double agent. With strong genre expectations, you can improvise all day.

Further examples! As a GM, Poison'd is easy to improvise, because you simply set the players against each other. Lacuna is easy to GM in a different way, because of those genre expectations.

It sounds to me as though you were trying to improvise a plot, by yourself, in a weakly-defined setting. That is very difficult. It sounds, too, as though the plot was drifting long before you ran out of ideas: the thugs failed to capture the PCs, so they went to someone in authority...that sounds like a drifting plot, to me. So I suspect things went wrong before you ran out of ideas.

Can I ask you a question? Were you desperately trying to think of creative, amazing things to happen? (Your comment on Bangs makes it sound as though you were.) That is often a recipe for disaster. One of the main ideas, in Play Unsafe, is that you should be obvious.

Thus, if it's obvious a fight should happen, have a fight. (You can always cut straight to the end of the fight or something.) If it's obvious the friend-in-authority should betray them, then he should betray him; but if it's obvious he should help them, then he should help them.

What do you think? I hope some of that helps.

Bollocks! I was reading two threads at once and posted in the wrong one.

stefoid wrote:
Whats your alternative, simply call the player on it?  In my example, its pretty straight forward case of "investment mismatch" , but maybe its a bad example.  If it really is just a case of "something you said doesnt match my imaginary world", actual creative differences.  what then?

In an ideal world everyone is on the same page and contributes stuff that is instantly appreciated by all.

This could be some kind of failure to invest, to take the play of the game in an unserious light.  But it may also as you say just be a kind of creative difference.

You try to talk about this do this directly.  "I find your abtsract names disruptive to the game.  It makes NPC's into tokens instead of people". Or, you might bring a book of names to the table, or print out a list of real names, or even just bring a telephone directory, and say: "If you are struggling for names, look in this".

If that doesn't work, then you might have a more serious problem related to differing buy-ins to the tone or nature of the setting.  But people often struggle to come up with names on the fly, I think it's a sort of skill that regular GM's learn, but which most players in most games don't need to.  There is a reason for the existence of online random name generators, and if it's only names in which problems are found, then providing some kind of resource for finding them might be all you need.

We're dealing with collaborative play here, so solve the problem through collaboration. It looks to me like the guy doesn't care about names, so I doubt he'd object delegating naming to one or more other players. Maybe suggest he provide titles (The president of the largest continent; the leader of the pirate fleet, etc) and have other players fill in names later.

Simon Hibbs