Hi there,

I wanted to follow up on the The bass metaphor a little and talk about players during that sort of play. It so happens Chris scooped me a little bit, in his new Scattershot thread on Committed passive players, but honest, I composed most of this while drivin' around the 'burbs yesterday ...

Anyway, quite some time ago, I used the word "drummer" to describe a player in conversations with Josh Neff after the GM-bass metaphor was established in conversations or touched upon here at the Forge/GO. He picked up on what I meant immediately, as his and my play-preferences are very similar, and I hope I can convey the concept for a wider group here.

One guy I've role-played with a lot in the last couple-three years is named Mario. Some of you might remember him from the last two GenCons at the Adept booth. He's my, or rather "the" drummer in most games we've played.

What I mean is that I, as GM, usually present quite a bit of stuff to the group via verbal depictions, out-of-character conversation, and role-playing NPCs. By "stuff" I usually mean "eventual material for choices," often not knowing what the players will focus on, but just as often knowing a juicy topic when I see one or working from a player's input anyway. Slavery + romance in my current Fvlminata game is a good example, but Mario's not in that one, so never mind. The point is that here I am, playing bass, doing the Walking thing and seeing who lays down what on top of it.

Mario consistently plays a character who is not high central-protagonist potential: more often a hanger-on, a best-friend, a hired thug, or low man on the totem pole in-game. He prefers not to include serious back-story with characters, and his Kickers in Sorcerer tend to be a freaky thing that just now happened rather than an extensive or heavily-pregnant development in a long-term problem. The character tends to get fleshed out strongly through interaction with other characters during play and often has a commentative or supportive "jester" or "backup muscle" role. He's always doing something in play, but it usually has a "still fleshing out" feel, integrating the character deeper into what's going on, but not usually driving at a definite comment on it either.

It took me a while to realize it, but looking back over most of our games, I see Mario's characters becoming absolutely necessary to throw the other players' characters' choices into high relief. If the other ork characters try hard to hide their fears and stand up to the swamp witch to uphold the honor of their chieftainess, Mario's gibbers and whines, then swings into action festooned with good-luck bangles, a "gonna die now" look on his face. He often starts a scene with a snapshot of whatever the character's doing, which generates a "contrast to the hero" effect when the other characters get going.

Obsidian: the 'borg assassin-contractor muscle guy, who turns out to be the "save his Humanity" project for the two female protagonists.

Orkworld: the yellow-as-hell bard/skald who was terrified that he had to witness the heroics of the other characters
Munchkins: the murderous one who didn't care about where beer came from, but just listened to the Glowy Box
Little Fears: the littlest, most spoiled, least intellectually-active kid with the most grim and appalling possible outcome for his adult life
The Dying Earth: the rottenest and most self-indulgent (and least scheming) of the rogues, and the one who was most badly used & abused
Violence Future: the most straightforwardly perverted and butchery-oriented of the characters, and he was the least interested player in hitting Endgame

As I say, his input is constant, or shall we say, evenly-provided as an ongoing accompaniment to my scene-setting. It hits the Premise in a particular way, ongoing, highlighting, occasionally dramatically "crashing" when his character does something whacked. He plays cowards, grim martyrs, doomed traitors, and buffoons better than anyone I know - and most importantly, without defining the character as a stereotypical sort from the git-go, but rather integrating and fleshing-out the qualities of the character over at least two or three sessions. On paper, his characters aren't much; after the first session or so, they are "on" and - never central, but always there.

I also think it's interesting that he isn't as comfortable, in my opinion, with a Bang that forces him to choose regarding a Premise. Endgame mechanics aren't his favorite; if his character just goes on keepin' on, that's all right by him, while the others rise to the challenge of the overriding emotional/moral question of the story. He likes them to do that, and he likes his character to be helping to set the measure of those outcomes. If he does go into "solo," or "I'm sayin' X about the Premise" mode, it has to be unforced and it might not happen in a given story.

He's drumming. My bass-line gets emphasized, clarified, heard by everyone, and ties together everyone more explicitly, as well as commenting occasionally, through his characters' presence. I get cues from him a lot of the time, or he finds a way to cue people in ways that I don't anticipate. The rhythm of play (no metaphor, I mean the real pacing and back-and-forth among players and me) gets defined and "known" largely through his input. When he does swing into direct-character action, everyone sits up and dives to participate: it's the "It's time" signal for everyone.

His play "says" something about the Premise, but rather than answer the question the Premise poses, it makes it matter more and clarifies what it's about right there in in-game, character-decision terms.

Way back when, I was frustrated by his minimal input about a character prior to play, or rather, a little suspicious or worried about how play was going to go. Now, I grasp that it's part and parcel of one of the most valuable assets to the group, including me. He can't drum 'til he knows what the bass is up to, and once he does, the ongoing chikka-chikka sets in, occasionally adding a crash-crash, acting as its own set of cues, short statements, and connections among everyone. Without him, the protagonists would have to "speak" only in reference to what I provide, and that ain't no way to run a rhythm section.

Best,
Ron

Interesting analogies. You could keep going with rhythm guitar and soloists. The RG would definitely be similar to the drummer, but would add color in different areas.

Also gets me thinking about "casting" a game with certain players in lead roles and others in supporting ones. As you describe it, it tends to happen organically in your games, and I see it happen in just about every one I'm in. But why not make it an actual rule?

Hi Matt,

I'm not too sure about the casting idea, myself. I tend to take a more music-like approach to that, but maybe that's a personal social thing rather than a recommendation to anyone else.

One thing that some games have formalized is setting power/ability levels at different ranges, most obviously in Ars Magica. At first glance, that looks like the casting you're talking about.

However, I'm not sure that this distinction really means much in terms of player and character roles at the social and aesthetic level; a Grog may well be a central and starring protagonist in story terms even if his game-abilities are far inferior to the magus' ...

Best,
Ron

Hmmm.... IF we had a diagnostic tool so developed that we could identify a player with enough precision to give them an instrument, maybe. But I am not aware of such a tool.

It is an interesting idea... if for no other reason than knowing the "instruments" your players favour might be a very valuable thing to know at design time (assuming it is knowable and real).

Say, does anyone know someone who plays an instrument they suck at even though they're really good at something else? I never like the Star Trek universe because their society was based on funneling people into 'what they were good at.' I know a lot of people who spend all their time doing things...terribly. I'm not comfortable with a discussion that goes towards casting players based on ability rather than preference.

Given preference, is there a point of discussing casting outside of self-selection?

Fang Langford

Hey Ron:

I was thinking it in terms of practical storytelling. If you have 5 lead guitars and a bass player, you've got a weird ass band. My idea is for the group to talk about this idea of yours in the open and be aware of what kinds of stories will come up if there's no drummer, for example. Someone in the group might choose in such case to take that role for the benefit of the story, and play a supporting part. If Narrativism is about telling a good story, then everyone trying to play the lead guitar might be counter productive.

And Fang:

Didn't mean to imply that it would be forced upon players. I don't know my way around a piano, but I'm compelled to play every one I see.

Hi Matt,

Talking about it beforehand is a little weird too. It's like GNS - pre-game dialogue that illuminates the relevant issues is crucial, but literally getting into the nuts and bolts of theory as the topic of conversation is deadly.

For instance, to stick with Mario (I really hope he doesn't mind being talked about like this), pre-game goal-oriented dialogue isn't his thing. He "came to play," and he'll drum for a band which isn't real spiff if he has to, just because his input is almost always going to help everyone have more fun anyway, except in the most outrageously dysfunctional groups.

So what sort of pre-game dialogue would help? I think it comes down to the metagame component of characters. Letting one another know about the metagame aspects really lets us all know about "player and character roles" (from my little Character Class deconstruction), and that feeds right into the band thing. It doesn't determine "band roles," but it does feed into it and let people know that we all like and care about the Explorative action we're up to.

Paladin and Orkworld offer some great mechanics and general approaches that put this process explicitly into pre-play prep.

Best,
Ron

...but literally getting into the nuts and bolts of theory as the topic of conversation is deadly.

Hi Matt,

I'm referring to getting together with some folks to play, and launching into a verbal version of "GNS and related matters of role-playing design," complete with jargon like Stance and Currency and whatnot. My "deadly" comment is based on accounts from Actual Play in which people have found this to backfire.

Regarding the role thing, I'm suggesting pre-game discussion, yes, but not anything hugely technical or directly, "OK, you play lead guitar" oriented. All this is simply my take and my suggestion, not a prescription or telling you, or anyone, actually what to do. If you think a music-metaphor approach would work for the people you know, then go for it.

Best,
Ron

The biggest advantage I can see here is in helping people become aware of what role their charcater is playing in the game - and what kinds of input and contributions from the player are likely to work best because of that. Thinking back on it, I can see lots of times when I decided (e.g.) I wanted to change to a character who wasn't the group leader, and that was a shock to the other players because my previous character had been.

I was going to avoid the music analogies - not that there's anything wrong with 'em, and I think I understand 'em, but I'm not really knowledgeable in that area. But taking a stab at it - I think I tend to change which instrument I'm playing a lot, and it's VERY valuable just having it be conciously established (for myself and the other participants) just which one I have in my hands at the moment.

Hope that makes sense,

Gordon

Hi all,

It seems that most RPGs try to cast all of the players as lead, and of course all have some formalization of the GM role. Would it be possible to formalize some mechanics for taking a particular "part"?

Now, of course, I can see that the part Mario plays is a personal preference (and skill), because he does it consistently. In literature, this might be called a "foil." Not every player is going to enjoy the role, but could we make the role a rewarding option?

Just as narrativist game mechanics reward behaviors that address a premise, could game mechanics do this job for "drummer?" Ideally the mechanic would be seperable from the character design, so players could play different parts in different sessions as they preferred.

In some groups I have been the rhythm section. But that comes from the social aspect of the group before play begins. Which is never discussed, it just happens.

In the group with Ron, we always had "big" conversations about subjects that I don't know too well, and played games that had a different style and approach that I wasn't used to. These things kind of pushed me to the back of the group, which apparently came across in play as well.

In my other groups I have a tendency to be the lead. Because there are others that want to "play the drums", I guess I just have a natural way of filling out a groups dynamics.

I think that the personality of the person makes a big difference to where they will fall in the group. People with large personalities will tend towards the lead positions, while shy types for instance will fall to the back. The situation where this doesn't work is when the personality doesn't fit the role. A band example, Phil Collins of Genesis. He started as Drummer but it really didn't fit his personality so he eventually became the lead which did fit. This same idea happens with the GM as well, some may put themselves in the wrong position. Instead of keeping the beat, they try to set the melody.

Mario

I'm referring to getting together with some folks to play, and launching into a verbal version of "GNS and related matters of role-playing design," complete with jargon like Stance and Currency and whatnot. My "deadly" comment is based on accounts from Actual Play in which people have found this to backfire.

Regarding the role thing, I'm suggesting pre-game discussion, yes, but not anything hugely technical or directly, "OK, you play lead guitar" oriented. All this is simply my take and my suggestion, not a prescription or telling you, or anyone, actually what to do. If you think a music-metaphor approach would work for the people you know, then go for it.

Based on Marios comment above, I wonder... is it possible that the drummer is a necessary feature? I'm not sure a drummer could be mechanically replicated - a mechanical system does not emote and would be able to provide no thematic input per se, which I think would be importent to the diegetic content.

Alan wrote:
It seems that most RPGs try to cast all of the players as lead, and of course all have some formalization of the GM role. Would it be possible to formalize some mechanics for taking a particular "part"?

Matt Wilson wrote: I was thinking it in terms of practical storytelling. If you have 5 lead guitars and a bass player, you've got a weird ass band..

Well now I have a question. In a system that properly allows the players to construct a fulfilling character, won't people just natureally fall into roles? I n some ways I am much like MArio as a player, and I tend to play similar characters most of the time. I do not feel slighted when another player seems to get a lead role, as long as I get my day in the sun as it were.

Now obviosuly the danger is getting Fleetwood Mac, a band where there are three lead singers, and where one (Stevie) is so much more popular (and infinitely more talented) then the rest and it leads to ego wars, affairs, drug abuse... well you know what I am saying

The point I am getting at is that unless your sitting down with 3-5 mature people who have no or can forget all their preconcieved notions of one another, then I think any pre-game role selection and placement is doomed.

Now with the right group its possible but I have hard time seeing it as a GAME mechanic that can be generally used.

Sean
ADGBoss

Hi there,

I have a couple of points to make about this thread.

1) Mario is easily the most-valuable-player I've ever role-played with. With him in the group, everyone has more fun, play makes more sense in terms of the shared aesthetic, and all sorts of other good details are more reliably present.

2) I regard the possibility of formalizing the various possible social roles very dubiously. I don't see any particular reason why it would help play, as the expression of any social role/interaction is, itself, 'worth more' than any game-rule or guideline can possibly be. It's hard for me to imagine the latter doing anything besides facilitating the former, at most, and only with the former already, to some degree, being in operation.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: I regard the possibility of formalizing the various possible social roles very dubiously. I don't see any particular reason why it would help play, as the expression of any social role/interaction is, itself, 'worth more' than any game-rule or guideline can possibly be. It's hard for me to imagine the latter doing anything besides facilitating the former, at most, and only with the former already, to some degree, being in operation.

Hi Fang,

I agree with you - especially the business about fixing (i.e. fixing-in-place) the social roles not being functional.

I also agree with you, if I'm reading your post right, that social roles exist - especially those that directly affect the aesthetics of play - and that functional role-playing requires those roles as a top priority.

How to arrive at this insight in a gaming text? That's a good question. You drive at in in your articles, I drive at it in mine, and we all kick it around. How to keep from laying out "step in these shoes" categories like classic character classes ...? How to keep, conversely, from providing trivial designations that, although descriptive, don't really help a group organize itself better ...? Is, perhaps, exactly the right silence at the right time the best way to treat the topic ...?

These are rhetorical questions and I expect individual authors to have very different answers. I'm happy to see a lot of games in development try to address them.

Best,
Ron