here's the plan: by introducing friends to various extensions of their current gameplay, I'll hopefully be able to get them interested in indie type games as well

(currently, I've run one or two Squeam games, but other attempts have been a hard (read: no) sell)

for example, let's say whenever you crit in D&D the effect isn't an "amazing" success or extra damage, but the opportunity to describe what you want to happen, ANYthing (read: directorial power)

(yup, it's been an idea I've had for a while, and quickly became a simple adaption of the MoV concept)

so the trouble is balancing directorial power, for example, as a tacky add-on (squished into D&D) versus a core aspect (pick yer favourite example)

previous attempt:
in a GURPS space game we got to a Final Climactic Battle, with the players trapped between the Rebel Base and Invading Soldiers -- bad at running heavy combat as it is, I decided to try a mutation of the Story Engine/FitM effect: after getting an idea of what the characters wanted to do, and the balance of forces in the battle, I let the players know that I would make a roll for the whole thing in one go... and it would be up to them to describe HOW they won or lost, died or got away, et cetera

it kinda worked... we established that the Rebel base would lose, and that the characters were getting out of Dodge, but events slowly turned towards a situation where the Rebels were losing and the characters were attempting to get out of Dodge... and we were back at rolling-to-see-if-they-did-stuff

now this was a little unfair, as I sprang it on them ('though explaining the situation, I thought, clearly) -- so, to what degree have others found they need to chew the cud over new methods?

to review
- introducing concepts, where to start & how?
- is directorial power as a "treat" too lame?
- authorial vs directorial?
- discussion about concepts, critical or no?

It looks to me like you're suddenly throwing a narrative tool at your players while playing non-narrativist games, D&D and GURPS. What are you trying to achieve by introducing this limited directorial control?

Consider D&D ... I'm playing D&D, so I'm trying to win, right? So if I get a crit, and I'm allowed to describe what happens, then I pick from:
(1) decapitate him
(2) chop off his sword arm
(3) cut the straps holding together his Full Plate Mail +5
etc., all very unbalancing effects (i.e. very bad from a gamist perspective). Limiting the heroes directorial power in any way defeats the point of giving it to him in the first place.

Now let's look at your GURPS Space example. If you had already resolved the outcome of the fight (by a single die roll), why the hell were you still rolling dice? Did the players not realise that the outcome was now predetermined? It seems that the players missed the whole point of your single die roll. Why? Well I'd guess that it was because they were stilll thinking in a simulationist way. It does seem unfair to spring such an "innovative" concept upon your players in the middle of a game.

My feeling is that giving players directorial/authorial power in a non-narrativist game is difficult. If your D&D game is not about winning (e.g. the players are retired heroes setting up previous adventure sites as tourist attractions) then directorial/authorial power is fine - but if winning is the goal of your D&D game, then it's about the players vs. the challenge. Giving them power over their environment changes the challenge and probably neuters it.

It seems to me that what you're wanting to do is introduce narrative concepts to your players. I have no idea how you do this effectively, but throwing them titbits is probably not the answer.

Tim

hey tim!

well done on finally getting a login ;)

yup, I guess you raise a good point; my intention was rather than throwing players in the deep end, as it were, to introduce them to narrativist concepts (eg, directorial power) in a 'familiar' environment, partially by way of an experiment and partially because I haven't tried any of this stuff out properly yet

the idea was to introduce concepts, then say, "and here's a system that's _all about_ this neat stuff..."

how have others' found reactions from just-yer-normal-game gaming groups to this kinda stuff? how did you introduce these ideas to them?

by way of answering my own question, I'm keeping track of tor's intentions and suggestions as to what he's doing with his Gaming 101 class over at Actual Play » SOAP! test-run, frex

perhaps reading material would be a good starting point?

I think giving players director power on a crit in DnD is a great idea, although it will not happen often in a given night. Good way to slowly introduce old-fashioned gamers to newer concepts.

When I used The Pool the first time, the players loved it. They really got into describing their actions, as well as the whole gambling thing. Kinda hits on narrativist and gamist concepts at the same time.

James V. West

Theos (Tim?),

I think you've raised a good point, and this thread is great reading. However, in the interest of clarity and fairness, I have to make one little quibble ...

"If you're playing D&D, you're playing to win, right?"

Well, I'd put it the other way around. A lot of people who role-play to compete/win will gravitate towards playing D&D or similar games.

It may be that in David's case, he has players who might like the Narrativist approach, or aspects of it, who are committed to D&D for other reasons.

If that's the case, then a Pool/D&D hybrid would seem ideal.

Best,
Ron