Hi,

Last night I ran the Hanged Man from Dust Devils for five players as a one-shot. After play, everyone reported that they enjoyed the game - however, I was disappointed: we somehow fell into the model of GM leading the story, and the Devils didn't see much play at all.

The players and myself are largely new to narrativist play. I think we've all been playing largely simulationist-favoring games, and I suspect I have developed an Illusionist GM style (which I'm trying to shed for these games).

We did make new characters, rather than play those provided, but I matched certain important elements to several of the characters: one was a famous gunfighter, one was jailed with the hanged man, one was on the posse that caught him.

I kept my own preparation to a minimum - I made a relationship map of the characters and that's it.

We got started - I gave each character an entry scene with the appropriate kicker derived from the scenario, then let them go. They quickly converged on the saloon and began getting to know each other. This created the "Adventurers meet at the Inn" dynamic.

I now see that it would have been better if I had introduced each PC to an NPC first, let them develop relationships around town. Sigh.

So, back to play: they're chatting in the Saloon and no one is acting out their Devil. I decided to give a bang to make something happen. This produced the effect of all of them working together as a group - which really wasn't what their Devil's would have dictated.

When I realized what was happening, I urged the players several times to take control and to play out their Devils, but this was too little, too late.

Another effect which may have contributed was that I wasn't sure when to use the conflict rules. We played out a lot of heated conversation without drawing cards. I think that some more Difficulty early on might have forced players to start paying attention to their Devils.

As I said, the players had fun, but I don't think we saw any narrativist premises coming out. I realize a three hour game might not give enough time to get used to the idea, but I feel that I failed in encouraging the narrativist approach.

In future, I think I'll get them interacting with the NPCs first and keep things low key so they start raising hell themselves.

This is the second narr RPG session I've run. And the second time, I've coming away feeling I've got a lot to unlearn and learn. What's bugging me is that what I think was missing from DD is has no relationship to what was missing in InSpectres, so I don't have any general principles I can derive yet.

I realize there's been other threads on transitioning to narrativist play, but I thought I'd start my own thread to record the experience. In particular, others who've had the experience could answer the following questions:

*Was there any consistent rules of thumb you developed?*
(Eg. Introduce PCs to NPCs first; give them plenty of time to knock about the setting before launching a bang, etc.)

*What are some good methods for leading a group into narrativist-favoring games within a one-shot session?* What elements are required?

*Do any techniques work over a wide range of games?*
(I noticed that DD and InSpectres use radically different mechanics to favor narrativist play.)

Alan, I'm only going to respond directly here to your generalized call for comments, unless you want specific feedback about the game (which is probably either a seperate thread or left for SGA/offline chatter.)

Alan wrote: I realize there's been other threads on transitioning to narrativist play, but I thought I'd start my own thread to record the experience. In particular, others who've had the experience could answer the following questions:

*Was there any consistent rules of thumb you developed?*

*What are some good methods for leading a group into narrativist-favoring games within a one-shot session?*

*Do any techniques work over a wide range of games?*

Alan,

I came from the same sort of background that you did. My main games that I ran were Call of Cthulhu and Traveller. My last Dust Devils game (New Group for Dust Devils) was my best narrativist session so far.

First, I was playing with a group of people who were very comfortable together (at five years, I'm the new guy in the group). Every person is also a competent GM on their own. Both of these may have been a factor.

The big thing for me was to go in with a plan. Not a script for who was going to say what, but knowing motivations and what actions were possible or likely from the NPCs. I spent a lot of time in their heads, rehearsing scenes with them that I might play out. I looked for complications that people could get into and how I would deal with them. This is exactly the sort of prep that I do before presenting to a client as well. I go over everything I can think of and how I can deal with the contingency.

This is not to say that I know what I'm going to do at every step. I really can't predict what my players are going to do, just like I can't predict what my clients are going to do. But I do know my leadoff, and directions I can take things from there.

That said, the trick to running a good game is to keep throwing stuff at the players. I started my session with Gentleman Jim riding into Lost Oak and seeing that he had been well hung. The next thing he saw was the sherrif, watching him ride by, white as a sheet. When the sherrif greeted him he answered in Spanish. So we had our first bang right out of the gate. He liked bangs so much that he headed straight for Red Sally's Saloon. Where Zeke saw the man that he had helped to hunt down and hang two days before, and causing Sally to comment that she'd heard he was hung, but glad to see that they was wrong for once. Both Sally and Zeke had to go and make sure that the body was still in the tree. So two more bangs, just like that (and the players really didn't trust me not to have brought Gentleman Jim back from the grave).

That's how it went all night. We went from one bang to the next, laughing ourselves silly in between. Getting from bang to bang is really difficult. It takes prep, and you have to prep just like you would for anything else that you wanted to come off big and memorable. Most of the prep is mental, but there's a physical element as well. I made sure I was well-rested. I took some effort to make sure I was dressed just a little better than I would when I was a player (it influences how the players react). I limited myself to a single glass of wine with dinner.

In game I also made a point of prompting players for responses. I reminded them of the benefits of using their devils to their favor. I made it clear when I was willing to award stakes. I encouraged bidding for the narration. Because this was their first full narrativist session, I made sure to remind them of the things they could do. They've never played a narrativist game before, so they needed lots of cues to take advantage of the new ways of playing.

Clay wrote: The big thing for me was to go in with a plan. Not a script for who was going to say what, but knowing motivations and what actions were possible or likely from the NPCs. I spent a lot of time in their heads, rehearsing scenes with them that I might play out. I looked for complications that people could get into and how I would deal with them.

This is not to say that I know what I'm going to do at every step. I really can't predict what my players are going to do, just like I can't predict what my clients are going to do. But I do know my leadoff, and directions I can take things from there.

That said, the trick to running a good game is to keep throwing stuff at the players.

I started my session with Gentleman Jim riding into Lost Oak and seeing that he had been well hung.

Hi there,

Alan, I recommend any of Jesse's threads in the Sorcerer forum. In fact, I think you might be interested in reading all of them, in chronological order. It's quite a saga.

Eogan, one thing to consider is that, at least in your post, you're equating "story" with GM-driven twists and imposed events/outcomes. From my perspective, "story" is the outcome of character/protagonist decisions, and so separating "character" from "story" is nonsensical. Neither one is the be-all end-all definition of the term, but as long as we're talking GNS, your use of the term is incompatible with Narrativist play.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Eogan, one thing to consider is that, at least in your post, you're equating "story" with GM-driven twists and imposed events/outcomes. From my perspective, "story" is the outcome of character/protagonist decisions, and so separating "character" from "story" is nonsensical. Neither one is the be-all end-all definition of the term, but as long as we're talking GNS, your use of the term is incompatible with Narrativist play.

H'm,

See, this is why I don't like one-line replies ... I can't tell what you're saying. Smilies/emoticons don't work for me.

Understand, please, that I am not telling you that your use of "story" is incorrect in any possible way. I am saying that it's not going to work well for Alan - who is asking about a Narrativist/GNS issue.

If you're going to be able to help Alan out, then thinking about where "story" comes from is essential. Contrasting your use of the term and mine is a good start.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: H'm,
See, this is why I don't like one-line replies ... I can't tell what you're saying. Smilies/emoticons don't work for me.

Understand, please, that I am not telling you that your use of "story" is incorrect in any possible way. I am saying that it's not going to work well for Alan - who is asking about a Narrativist/GNS issue.

If you're going to be able to help Alan out, then thinking about where "story" comes from is essential. Contrasting your use of the term and mine is a good start.

Hi eogan,

Sigh. This is getting to be one of "those" threads.

Here's what I'll ask. We should both back off and let Alan take over. Everyone's contributed very, very useful comments about his initial question. If he's happy, or wants to raise another side of the question, then that's what we'll do.

Eogan, if you want to discuss the rubber-hits-the-road issue, or the wrangling issue with me, that'd be great, either in another thread or by private mail.

Best,
Ron

Hi Jeff:

(As you were one of the players in the game, I'm curious about any specific feedback you might have about how I ran it. Could you send me a private email?)

eogan wrote: I don't see that he is /nessecarily/ (sp?). I'm speaking towards my experience running games similar to the way DD is set-up, which just happens to be a N-style process.

Alan wrote: Hi Jeff:

(As you were one of the players in the game, I'm curious about any specific feedback you might have about how I ran it. Could you send me a private email?)

eogan wrote: I don't see that he is /nessecarily/ (sp?). I'm speaking towards my experience running games similar to the way DD is set-up, which just happens to be a N-style process.

Actually, I specifically want answers within the context of narrativist theory as mentioned in Ron's article. Reading my first post, I see that I didn't actually say that.

As I see it, there's a subtle shift in character-premise narrativist games from GM driving a prepared plot to players wrestling with a thematic premise. Dust Devils is set up to do the second.

I envision a game where players drive the story, pursuing their character-premise (Devil). I've seen players driving the story when we played InSpectres, so I know it can happen. It requires a different approach from both players and GM.

I think in our DD game, I unintentionally reinforced old habits of directorial power by handing out some pre-set "kickers" at the begining. My second observation is that the PCs came in contact with each other and bonded before anyone met an NPC.

Clay:

Good advice on envisioning _how_ the NPCs would bring the PCs into their concerns. I may have underprepared this time out. I chronically over-prepare, so I've been experimenting with the other end of the spectrum. I had a relationship map, but didn't take it much farther than that.

I can see that I may be under-directive regarding the rules and new style of play. I'm wary of falling into the GM-as-sole-authority model. Also, I may have assumed that, because other players had read the game and visited the Forge, their vision for it was the same as mine.

Ron Edwards wrote: . . . thinking about where "story" comes from is essential. Contrasting your use of the term and mine is a good start.

Alan wrote: As I see it, there's a subtle shift in character-premise narrativist games from GM driving a prepared plot to players wrestling with a thematic premise. Dust Devils is set up to do the second. I envision a game where players drive the story, pursuing their character-premise (Devil). I've seen players driving the story when we played InSpectres, so I know it can happen. It requires a different approach from both players and GM.

eogan wrote:

I envision a game where players drive the story, pursuing their character-premise (Devil). I've seen players driving the story when we played InSpectres, so I know it can happen. It requires a different approach from both players and GM.

To clarify, what do you see the role of the GM being in a character-premise driven game? (Actually, to clarify further, are we talking about character driven or player driven?)

Was having the PCs bond a bad thing? For myself, I was meta-gaming it into happening to keep things moving and to make sure everyone was involved with the game

Hi Alan,

Was there any consistent rules of thumb you developed?

I allways ask the players for what they want to do, and reminds them that they are in charge of the story as the story is about the choices they make for their characters.

Learning from my Sorcerer game, I allways have the players introduce and describe some of the NPC attached to their character. It work marvels to put the player in the right "feel" about their creation-power AND it hook them to the story as they have emotionally invested in those NPC. Frex, for my first Sorcerer session, a player came with the background and made most of the NPC, before I applyied some twist here and there, and we were all set.


*Do any techniques work over a wide range of games?*

In my first Sorcerer game, I heavily focused on scene framing. Almost aggresively.It was very helpfull as it put the players and I on the right tracks. We therefor all knew that the game was about the meaningfull choices of the players for their characters. One of the player enjoyed it so much that I let him frame his character own major last scene.

Kickers and Bangs. The major bonus with the kicker, is that the players are already engaged in the story...even before the session start. So there's no need to hook them as they actually hook themselves.
Bangs are another fun stuff. I generaly think about what kind of choice I would be interested to see, then I set up a bang that will bring this meaningfull (I hope) choice. As it's the choice itself that interest me, there's no need trying to anticipate what the player will decide.

IC/OCC discussion. At many point during the game, I reminded the players about the important rules (funny how in Sorcerer rules have such a big impact on the story), and asked them what they wanted to see, or how they imagined such and such thing.

and of course R-maps, but you mentioned them already.


*What are some good methods for leading a group into narrativist-favoring games within a one-shot session?* What elements are required?

For me it was a metter of strong interest in the story (thus in the choices they had to make), so I used primarily NPC creation by the player and scene framing.

Hope its helps,

Fabrice.