Last night I went with my wife to my friends game. I still didn't play. I can only imagine what they are all thinking about that, but it isn't important. The important thing is I didn't bring a book or anything so all I did the entire time was sit and listen to them play. I noticed two things.

First, before the game proper got underway, the GM had a little pep talk of sorts. First thing he did was hand out a sheet for their characters likes and dislikes because most of the group had not filled one out or had failed to give it to him after filling it out. This game had been going on for a couple months now and this was part of character creation. He then talked about other things like the relationship map between the player characters and such.

What struck me about it was how the GM kept saying "motivate your characters" while I was thinking "motivate your players." They were griping about having to fill out the form, not know what likes or dislikes to put down and things of this nature. The sad thing is that I had tald the GM about motivating the player not the characters before and it fell on deaf ears.

The second thing, and this was pretty interesting to me. I hope I can express it properly. The second thing I noticed when the group was attacking a bad guy in his farm house. It was a simple, one room, thatched roof, farm house. Two of the PCs climded on top of the roof to see if they could get in. Then one player asked "Is there a chimney?" The GM said there was.

What I found so interesting about this how it illustrates the lumpley principle and this groups social contrat regarding the shared imaginative space.

You see, in some groups, when the player asked if there was a chimney and the GM said there was, the chimney would have 'magically' appeared on the house in the shared imagined space (director stance on the part of the GM with help from the player) The way this group works, the chimney was always there in the shared imagined space created by the GM. It was just up to the players to explore this space to ask about these details. So essentially there are two imagined spaces, one the GM has in his own head and the shared space that is made as the players explore and try to gain details from the GM about the space inside his own head (and notes and such). So there's the original and the hand-traced copy, so to speak.

This seems to be heavy duty the GM controls the world sort of play and it explains the GM's attention to detail since he needs to provide this detail is the players should ask for it.

I'd rather not argue of the particulars of this example. I mean, certainly the GM might not have considered if the house had a chimney or not. He might have just assumed that the house had a chimney because well, of course. Don't all houses have chimnies? Perhaps one of the players on the roof could have said "I go to the chimney" without asking if there was one first. I do not know what is going on inside their heads. Ibut I have played with this GM for nearly nine years and once this realization hit me, this is how he plays.

Just some observations I thought I would share.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: First, before the game proper got underway, the GM had a little pep talk of sorts. First thing he did was hand out a sheet for their characters likes and dislikes because most of the group had not filled one out or had failed to give it to him after filling it out. This game had been going on for a couple months now and this was part of character creation. He then talked about other things like the relationship map between the player characters and such.

What struck me about it was how the GM kept saying "motivate your characters" while I was thinking "motivate your players." They were griping about having to fill out the form, not know what likes or dislikes to put down and things of this nature. The sad thing is that I had tald the GM about motivating the player not the characters before and it fell on deaf ears.

Hi Jack,

Very interesting stuff. I'm curious if you can provide some detail as to what sort of questions were on the sheet the GM handed out?

I don't know, of course, but my guess is that the players may have been irked not by the task of filling in the questionaire but by the perceived lack of applicability of the questions? In many writing guides and courses, it is recommended that you know your characters inside and out -- down to the types of foods they like to eat (or hate) and the type of music they prefer. This is supposed to help get you inside the head of the character, and I'm guessing that's what this GM had in mind.

But I would argue that these details are, for the most part, inconsequential and can actually become a barrier to figuring out what really drives a character. What you really need when creating characters (for narrativist-oriented play) is to drive down into those characters' central conflicts -- the unresolved questions around which their stories turn. Framing that conflict in a way that will address the Premise will lead to "story."

Once that's in place, the questions about food and music preferences and so forth either fall into place or no longer need to be answered at all because they just don't matter to the story.

Sorcerer, I think, drives down to that central conflict very well with its Kickers and demonic relationships and Humanity, although I would venture to say that there is a possiblity of a superficial conflict without an agreed upon Premise for play stated before character creation. That's only speculation as I have not run or played the game yet. I can also see how a well-formed definition of Humanity may allow you to allude to a Premise without the need to state it.

Riddle of Steel, I think, uncovers characters' central conflicts even more directly with its Spiritual Attributes -- especially the Passion, Drive and Destiny SAs. Because of the way character creation is designed in this game, players must choose at least one of these SAs, creating a central, passionate relationship laden with inherent conflict. The GM need only apply pressure to that relationship to activate the character's story.

However, I would point out that in my first Riddle of Steel session, my players were a bit hesitant about SAs at first -- sounding much like the players you describe. I think it comes down to that old school notion that built-in conflicts and relationships will only be used to screw the character (i.e. the reason why so many characters seem to be orphans with no friends), or worse, will simply be ignored once play actually begins. Confronting that is a scary thing, and old habits die hard. It really took showing them that the conflicts they created mattered in play.

As to the second part of your post, I'm a little unsure of what you see going on. I did a search on the "Lumpley Principle," and unless I'm mistaken it seems the idea is that character creation "mechanics" are of prime importance in facilitating narrativist play. How do shared imagined spaces slot into that, and what do you see as the significance between whether a chimney exists prior to being stated or only after it is stated?

Thor Olavsrud wrote: Very interesting stuff. I'm curious if you can provide some detail as to what sort of questions were on the sheet the GM handed out?

As to the second part of your post, I'm a little unsure of what you see going on. I did a search on the "Lumpley Principle," and unless I'm mistaken it seems the idea is that character creation "mechanics" are of prime importance in facilitating narrativist play. How do shared imagined spaces slot into that, and what do you see as the significance between whether a chimney exists prior to being stated or only after it is stated?

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: I don't know what you found but the lumpley principle IIRC is that the system is the method by which items and/or events are entered into the shared imaginitive space, which is where the game takes place. So the significance is how the GM is final authority of what does or does not enter the shared imaginative space. If the player had said "I got to the chimney" and the GM said "There is no chimney" then there is no chimney. I'm also noting that it seems that these details are already decided on and they are in a way already assumed to be in this shared space even though they don't really enter it until someone asks the GM or the GM decides to mention it. I also have just realized how similar this is to the old parser text adventures.

Hey, Thor

I'm not sure how you got the notion that this group plays even remotely narrativist but for that I apologize. Maybe I should clairify.

Part of what the little pep talk was about was that nearly everyone had things in their backgrounds, mostly conjured up using Central Casting, that are important for the rest of the group to know and nobody has talked about it. Things like they have an enemy that is trying to kill them.

The other part was about how some of the characters have pre-existing relationships with each other but this does not make a web of relationships and he told them to decide how the lines of relationship interconnect, but I did not hear this get resolved before play.

As I said before, I don't think this is narrativist play going on. Were I to guess what's going on I would say it was Gamist/Simulationist play expecting Narrativist results, at least for some. This is probably because of the Impossible Thing To Believe Before Breakfast.

I have just remembered some further detail I recall and I shall share it now. One of the players was late. This player's character was left in dire peril at the end of the last session. Turns out he had wandered off without the rest of the party and had nearly gotten killed. So as a penalty for following his "my guy" mentality, this player got to sit for the entire session because his character was completely ineffectual after being nearly dying. This ia a homebrewed system BTW where wound translate into a penalty to all actions until healed.

Since last session, this player had discussed with the GM the possibility of rolling up a new character since this character would be out of action for months game time. The GM read of the stats of the proposed character. What I mostly caught was that the player had irored the arbitrary cap on skills for begining characters and that he had maxed out combat stats/skills. The GM said something like "Isn't that ridiculous?" and I was thinking "Why? The way this game plays, combat skills are the most important skills. So it is only natural to want to spend character points where they would be to the best advantage and be most useful."

That said, this is the same player who tried to have his GURPS Minotaur, IQ 3, invent a medival flame thrower.

Question: Why weren't the players excited about filling out the form? Were they not interested in these details?

On the surface it looks to my like the GM is pretty Sim/Char/Actor and is trying to create that sort of game. Based on the 'detail your character damnit' form and the 'your traits are ridiculous (unrealistic)' position he seems to be taking. If the group isn't interested in exploring Char, then there exists the possibility the GM is railroading the other elements of Exploration as variable control, to highlight Char.

Most of my experience with that 'my guy' mentality is just being insensitivity to the needs of other players - an unwillingness to comprise and try to foster a fun experience for all. I don't have a lot of patience for it. So, this player works against the group and gives up when things don't go his way (his way being contrary to everyone elses). Maybe I'm being a little harsh, maybe I don't fully understand the situation, but it sounds like that'd bug the crap out of me.

If player motivation is a problem, maybe they aren't interested in exploring Char. What actually interests these people (in non GNS terms), action movies, love stories, dark angsty heros? Has the question been asked? And would people disagree?

And...

Lumpley wrote: The lookie-me-I'm-a-principle principle is that what a game's rules do is facilitate consensus among the players.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Hey, Thor

I'm not sure how you got the notion that this group plays even remotely narrativist but for that I apologize. Maybe I should clairify.

Part of what the little pep talk was about was that nearly everyone had things in their backgrounds, mostly conjured up using Central Casting, that are important for the rest of the group to know and nobody has talked about it. Things like they have an enemy that is trying to kill them.

The other part was about how some of the characters have pre-existing relationships with each other but this does not make a web of relationships and he told them to decide how the lines of relationship interconnect, but I did not hear this get resolved before play.

As I said before, I don't think this is narrativist play going on. Were I to guess what's going on I would say it was Gamist/Simulationist play expecting Narrativist results, at least for some. This is probably because of the Impossible Thing To Believe Before Breakfast.

cruciel wrote: Question: Why weren't the players excited about filling out the form? Were they not interested in these details?

Most of my experience with that 'my guy' mentality is just being insensitivity to the needs of other players - an unwillingness to comprise and try to foster a fun experience for all. I don't have a lot of patience for it. So, this player works against the group and gives up when things don't go his way (his way being contrary to everyone elses). Maybe I'm being a little harsh, maybe I don't fully understand the situation, but it sounds like that'd bug the crap out of me.

If player motivation is a problem, maybe they aren't interested in exploring Char. What actually interests these people (in non GNS terms), action movies, love stories, dark angsty heros? Has the question been asked? And would people disagree?

Thor Olavsrud wrote: Do you feel their play was dysfunctional, or just not to your taste?

I'm just gonna make some judgements based on my experience, I've never met this group, and am working off second hand info. You be the judge if I'm wrong.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: "I don't know what to put down" was a common response.

My feeling is that two-weapon fighting ability confers a certain tactical advantage in combat that cannot be had without this ability (at least not with the arbitrary skill cap, anyway) and he was simply trying to gain the best advantage for this character because this could make a difference to the character's survival. That's the way I see it.

I don't believe this question has ever been asked or it has not been answered. Or maybe I just have not been paying attention. I suspect people would disagree on some points.

One thing that did stand out was when one player suggested they kill the prisoner. The GM said no, and it was a very definitive no. The reason he gave was "because the characters are not evil." I'm not entirely sure what this means. He has often talked about how he prefers heroic stories and refers to the PCs as "the heroes" (often "slap-happy" heroes but I digress).

The "role-playing" I witness involved the GM's girlfriend doing most of the talking. The party had taken a prisoner and she asked most of the questions. It reminded me of text adventures again as she struggled to come up with just the right wording for her questions. She also seemed to be getting pissed and frustrated by this, but maybe that's how she enjoys herself.

cruciel wrote: YMMV, and Jason may be talking out his ass.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: I'm not sure where you got the idea that Exploration of Character was a priority, but I don't think so. I know that I personally saw the like/dislikes sheet as work. I can't speak for the others, really.

It seems to work, but the GM has to twist arms to get players to do certain things, like talk to the other players about their backgrounds, so I wonder.

I don't know, of course, but my guess is that the players may have been irked not by the task of filling in the questionaire but by the perceived lack of applicability of the questions?

Sounds to me like this group has what I think of as the "welcome to my world" problem. The GM has this vision in mind of the game, from top to bottom, and he's using any trick he can think of to shoehorn the group of players into liking that vision. What almost necessarily happens is that he's got this great movie in his head, and the players are struggling to get a glimpse of it.

The GM understands that it's necessary for the players to be into this, and to think of themselves as creatively involved. So he says, in effect, "Here's something for you to be creative about. Fill out this questionnaire. See? You're creatively involved. Now the film is yours, so you have to participate in it."

I think this is why you're linking up the questionnaire to the chimney example. Out of context, the chimney thing could mean nothing at all; from the fact that you, a fly on the wall in effect, pick it up as a disturbingly consistent detail suggests to me that this is how the whole game runs. It sounds like when the players said, "Is there a chimney?" they were really saying, "I'm guessing that in your vision a chimney wouldn't be out of place; do I see things right or am I still just flailing?" So you've got an RPG as weird 20 Questions.

Out of interest, does this campaign currently have a Big Plot Running, which the characters are supposed to Figure Out? Perhaps with a pre-determined Deadline? Just a guess.

Mike, clehrich,

Thanks. These last two posts have been insightful.

Out of interest, does this campaign currently have a Big Plot Running, which the characters are supposed to Figure Out? Perhaps with a pre-determined Deadline? Just a guess.

I've been on both sides of this fence and can also give my own observations, but like most other people, can't definitely say whats right or wrong.

My gaming group, which is not currently in form, but may be again, consisted of a couple of my friends and myself, and mostly my cousins, so ages ranged from around 30 down to around 15, and my aunt played for one campaign, as "The Baroness". My friend, 30+, who ran the game, enjoys role-playing as a psychological observation of the players and their developments and how they approach things, so he is very liberal with activities and character freedom, in the interest of individual projects within the game.

The problem has been, most of the players like role-playing/roll-playing, doing exciting stuff, but don't have the attention span or interest or creativity to really work on things like backgrounds, coming up with motivations, character-specific goals, interesting quirks, etc. They'd like them but they're just basically non-issues to most of the players.

Role-playing is passing a night (or series of them) with a group of your friends, having fun, cooperating in some fashion, even if its cooperating with them to have an orderly way to fight each other - so motivation sheets and background info questionnaires, etc. would meet stony gazes from my group, some would try even though they really had no clue what to do or why they were doing it, others would register unmistakable and harsh resentment for that sort of 'domination' by the referee.

The thing is, the system we use is Warhammer FRP, so its not like theres a whole lot to it, and no big deal is ever made out of perfect bookkeeping, and usually players would be rewarded for interesting attempts to solve problems, whether they had a skill to do it with or not. Well it ended up with me having to change characters because my Good Halfling Priest would soon be in danger by the other players, most of whom became Chaos God initiates of Khorne, Nurgle or Slaanesh, or went the opposite and became Paladins or Nobles of Law - my new character I went with was an evil necromancer who dressed garishly to throw off suspicion.

It worked and was fun, but even during all the plotting and scheming against each other, you could see a visible unwillingness or inability in some of them to actually put effort into character depth; this is going to sound bad, but its like they simply were not SMART enough to actually use their imagination in an external way to come up with an idea for how they want their character to be. Now, that wasn't the case of couse but thats what it seemed like, and I myself have trouble PLAYING, and doing bookkeeping and putting clues together, but LOVE making characters and backgrounds and motivations.

I ran WFRP a few times and quite honestly, my friend basically 'ruined' the players for me, they all wanted to run off, set up their own bases, gain followers and plot and gain power and prestige, basically independent of the others - this was a difficult tendancy to come back from, and at the same time I had to also bring them back from wanting to play genocidal miscreants - basically none of them have the ability to play a 'good' character one night and an abomination the next - they get in a mindset and their next fifteen characters will have carbon markings on them from being copied off that first one. Even the non-evil ones seem to have this obsession for a certain theme and doesn't care much for the in-between; in fact, even the Paladin, who liked Law and killing Chaos, chafed against the rules, and when his buttons were pushed enough, he killed one of the other unarmed player-characters on the spot, in cold-blood, after both the referee and myself pointed out all the effects this would have.

Dysfunctional could definitely fit this group, though it ran for almost two years, once a week, and I'd say everyone had a good time and had fun about 90% of the time, so... basically, don't feel alone.

Hi there,

Good post, Dr. V. What do you think of these tiny conceptual tweaks?

1. "Smart" isn't really the issue so much as one of priority. You're talking about the relative importance of Exploration (and its applications, GNS) - to these players, it's pretty small. The hanging-out and so forth are the priority, so "what happens" can be minimally intense, and that's that.

2. In groups that I've seen matching your description, when a player does feel strongly about what his or her character does, that it can be traced directly to a social interaction between the real people that probably occurred right in that session or just before. Does that sound like it fits?

Best,
Ron

I have to agree - meta-game speaking (I guess I use these phrases correctly, I read them here and in other forums but a lot of them are just a bit too technical for me to adopt them), the players want to have fun and enjoy the game, and for most, its really only a slightly evolved version of 'kill the monsters and take their stuff', though everyone does enjoy *some* actualy role-playing opportunities here and there - just not frequently. While it doesn't bother me that they dont' like to role-play for role-playing's sake (I don't like to do interaction segments as I also consider the game should be 'not a lot of work' and having to be on the ball to talk to NPCs can be taxing), I do wish they would be more interested in the creative and cooperative aspect, but, they do what they enjoy and overall, the game stays interesting and fun so I guess thats what really counts, and it really WAS interesting to watch how the players would react, both to game obstacles and each other's actions - you could see the personal conflicts, given illusory form as in-character rivalries, which, after some more than heated episodes, eventually resolved themselves, in and out of game.

Secondly, following that up, yes, a lot of the strong convictions held by the players relate either to their own personal player convictions (as would be expected) and/or experiences they are currently undergoing, such as being frustrated at work, domestic trouble, teen rebellion, etc.

The high-level Elven Paladin-Mage (the referee was VERY liberal) in my example who killed the other PC is a friend of mine, a bit older than me, so in his mid 30's. The PC was a low-level iniatiate with no spells, played by my 16 year old cousin, whose previous character gained infamy (and not a small amount of player concern) for being able to play about the most evil, ruthless, brutal, blood-thirsty murderer we had ever seen depicted, even in movies or books. Attempting to play a neutral character now though, the PC decided that, upon finding a giant well of warm, bubbling blood in a cavernous crypt in a Necromancer's lair, the natural thing to do was to drink it. Well, while this was of course stupid and would lead to no good, the Paladin PC warned him, since it was obviously tainted with Chaos, he would have no choice but to kill the initiate immediately if he did that.

From this, you could tell the Paladin player was not only reacting to the current situation but also the other player's previous minsanthrope (who almost killed the Paladin). Since then, we have all played together, and while the initiate player has changed his style and worked on more unusual, creative characters (FINALLY!), he consistently butts heads with the Paladin player, regardless of game system or worlds or characters, even though, surprisingly, the players themselves actually get along quite well and good-naturedly with almost no hint at all of rivalry in anything. The things of interest are the 16 year old going through his rebellious teen, moving into adulthood phase, the the Paladin player, having a wife and two well-cared for children and being a very hard worker to provide for his family - my friend suggested the "Dad" archetype, for lack of a better word, was very obvious in the conflict between the two. My aunt (in her 40s, creative but not an experience role-player), who played the Baroness, a logical, law-minded character, was most interested in order and keeping things running smoothly and everyone cooperating and having the same goal, which of course neither the Paladin nor the "bad" characters were comfortable with, though the Paladin sided with her most times by default because they were closer to being allied than any of the other players. She, or her character, rather, being the real mother of a lot of the other players, including the miscreant PC, seemed exceptionally irritating, in her "Mom" role, even in-game, I suppose making the young players feel like even in a fantasy hobby, they could not feel they were independent and make their own decisions.

It was a tremendously revealing campaign, and while we've played many others since then, that was the first and the one that everyone will always remember, as there were so many strange and creative events, mostly, I think, due to the person-to-person reactions to each other, more than to anything the referee came up with.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Interesting. There is a plot involving a search for some artifact or other, yaddah, yaddah. I don't believe there is a time limit, but there was in the last one (see when the GM says threads) The whole Welcome to my world idea is precisely it. My hat goes off to you for showing the relationship between two things I thought were unrelated, the sheet and the chimney thing. It also explains the morality thing as well. It is his story. Yet the players supposedly control the protagonists of his story. Therefore, it is the Impossible Thing in action. Woo-hoo. Thanks.

clehrich wrote: I think this is why you're linking up the questionnaire to the chimney example. Out of context, the chimney thing could mean nothing at all; from the fact that you, a fly on the wall in effect, pick it up as a disturbingly consistent detail suggests to me that this is how the whole game runs. It sounds like when the players said, "Is there a chimney?" they were really saying, "I'm guessing that in your vision a chimney wouldn't be out of place; do I see things right or am I still just flailing?" So you've got an RPG as weird 20 Questions.