Hello,

It's been a while since I've posted anything with substance and anything I have posted has been rather short and curt. The reason being that my gaming experiences of late have been more depressing than ever and I've been trying to refrain from posting empty rants that amount to nothing more than me complaining about my personal preferences coming to conflict with my player's personal preferences.

The result is that I've been pouring over my past scenarios trying to see what worked, what didn't and so on. In my studies I keep coming back to this one Chill adventure I call: The Art Gecko. I've run that adventure three times, with three different groups and everytime it's been a HUGE success. My player's (the ones who were there at the time) say it's the best thing I've ever written. The second group I ran it for had a blast. I just ran it at a Con a few weeks ago and people were asking me if I'd be running any more Chill games at future cons. I've never had this kind of reaction before or since, so I had to figure out what the hell was so special about this adventure.

Now I wrote this adventure before I'd ever heard of GNS or stances or any of that. However, the more I study this adventure the more I realize that this adventure has a completely Narrativist design to it. Let me show you what I mean.

First of all the scenario has a strong Premise and a fixed backstory centered around that Premise. Ironically, the Premise is similar to that of Sorcerer. It's a faustian tale of 'What are you willing to do to gain success?' There are basically three artists in a local community who have done various things to achieve recognition. Each one is slightly more abhorant than the last.

Felini - A painter who sold out his pride and started actually taking secret correspondence school art lessons to improve his technique.

Williams - A photographer who used her skills to blackmail an art critic into giving her good reviews.

Barahi - A sculptor who uses her pet basilisk to turn summer vacationers into, 'amazingly life-like depictions of fear and terror.'

To some degree there is a relationship map. If I'd known about the relationship map technique at the time I would have made a more conscious effort to flesh it out because what few relationship map elements I have really drive home the ramifications of these peoples' actions. For example:

The critic being blackmailed decided to give up the game, bite the bullet and turn Williams in. Williams' boyfriend Drake caught wind of this and murdered the critic. The critic's ghost is now plaguing Drake nightly looking for revenge.

A curious child crawled in to Barahi's basement and was turned to stone. Barahi is guilt striken and the child's mother is driven mad when she sees a statue resembling her 'missing' son in the local art gallery. The child's father is left a bitter and angry man after losing both his son and his wife.

Again, had I been thinking about relationship maps I would have added some similar conditions to Felini and perhaps linked them all together through other relationships. But as it stands the three are pretty isolated.

And to top it all off the actual 'in game' events are all either location based or non-railroady 'bangs.' For example:

The art critic animates his body and goes after drake if the player's find where it is located and dig him up.

If the player's start asking questions about missing art critics in Williams' or Drake's presence then Drake will start following the players around.

And so on...

It is at this point that Narrativist Design turns into Simulationist or Gamist Play. See, the premise (I REALLY wish we had a different word of this) of Chill is that you're all members of this secret organization called SAVE. SAVE monitors various world events and dispatches envoys to investigate anything they think may involve The Unknown. In this case SAVE's computers have correlated several missing people with the rise in fame and fortune of three artists all in the same community. SAVE dispatches a team of envoys and suggests that they might be looking at an art centric cult of some sort. The result is, of course, the following:

1) The PCs are divorced from the Premise. That is, thier characters are built to be SAVE envoys and no way relate to the moral nature of the problem at hand. This isn't that big a deal since Ron has stated that the Premise can rise from the setting which in this case I think it does very nicely. The bigger problem is:

2) The PCs are completely divorced from the events. They are cold outside observers. It's true that they must make moral judgement calls (Do we expose Felini's secret? What do we do about Drake the murderer? If we kill the basilisk what do we do about Barahi since no jury will believe us?) and they are free to do as they choose but they are still just outside obsevers running an investigation.

I've determined that it is this devide between player and scenario that is the source of my depression about gaming (At least when the game is good. When the game is bad my depression stems from players who refuse to take things seriously.) Ultimately, the players don't ADD anything new to the story. They uncover the backstory and remove the source of evil and that's it. Despite the non-railroadyness the scenario plays out almost identically everytime. I keep wanting the players to really be enmeshed in the goings on but I don't know how to fascilitate that. Is this more of a character creation issue? Should I let the player's design characters as they see fit but simply focus more on Sorcerer style Kickers or 7th Sea style Backgrounds? Can I do this some how in the scenario design itself by putting in certain types of NPCs or by pacing the actual running of the game differently?

The problem is that I think my players (well a lot of my players) would take to Narrativism given their reaction to this scenario. I think it's so popular because the Premise really grabs the Players on that emotional and moral level. If I could somehow fascilitate more Narrativistic participation on their part WITHOUT trying to explain a lot of jargony concepts to them I think they'd really enjoy it. I start talking about Premise, Theme, Author and Director stance and they look at me like I'm a space alien. I want them to take more ownership of the story and really bring something unique to the table but I don't know how to bring that quality out of them. Some of them I KNOW can do this, others I suspect can do it, and the rest can leave as far as I'm concerned.

Advice?

Jesse

Maybe the best game I ever ran was a serial killer game and I started character creation with:

Make a character who cares about at least one of these murders.

Worked like a charm. I'd say that there's plenty of room in your scenario for the same kind of thing.

It's always a trick to get pcs connected to each other and the world, though, isn't it? Not a sentimental bone in their bodies.

-lumpley

Hey Jesse,

The PCs are completely divorced from the events....they must make moral judgement calls....but they are still just outside observers running an investigation.

I know exactly where you're at. It was the same way with the Everway scenario I ran last winter, my first full-blown effort at Narrativism. The characters were all from separate parallel universes, and none of them were from either of the two universes where the scenario took place. I understand the idea of a game's Premise hooking the player, but in the situation I was in, no matter how hard I tried to expose the universally relevant aspects of the scenario and draw the players into personal interest in the outcome, it never quite happened. They had characters who were too much outsiders to the relationships of the scenario itself. The characters were spherewalkers who could too easily maintain an outsider mentality and a lack of connectedness to the NPC's of the relationship map. I've heard this described in Everway circles as the Star Trek: The Next Generation factor. Characters arrive, solve a problem as outsiders by promoting understanding between conflicting parties, and leave.

Should I let the player's design characters as they see fit but simply focus more on Sorcerer style Kickers or 7th Sea style Backgrounds?

In the scenario I'm currently running, I combined Sorcerer-style Kickers with the mechanics of The Pool. And I was very impressed with the awesomeness of the character creation session, so much so that the combination of Trial and Annotations I developed for The World, the Flesh, and the Devil is based on Sorcerer-style Kickers and Pool-style character descriptions.

It's actually quite a shame that Ken Hite didn't grasp Kickers in his reading of Sorcerer, because the more I think about the mechanic, the more I think it's the most awesome thing about the game. A Kicker is more than just a linkage between the player character and the relationship map. It's a way for the player to articulate what kind of story he's interested in telling with his character. Regardless of their history with RPG's, I think people have an intuitive understanding of the stories and themes that are interesting to them. They might not be able to describe why they like Fight Club and The Harp and the Blade, but they can create a Kicker that starts them out with the right raw material for a narrative that they'll be really interested in.

I would definitely recommend character creation with Kickers, and then some really psychological analysis on your part of what your players came up with. Think about the movies they like, and the kinds of roles their favorite actors take. They may not be able to tell you what themes they're most interested in, but you'll figure it out. I know, for instance, that one of the players in Silent Tamatama's Theatrix game really wants to have a character who has powerful friends. It's obvious from the way he played Everway, and from his movie preferences. And then all you have to do is set that stuff against the backdrop of a tense social or political situation, which you could certainly have come up with prior to the character session, or stolen from a published game.

Paul

On 2001-09-19 16:17, Paul Czege wrote:
I've heard this described in Everway circles as the Star Trek: The Next Generation factor. Characters arrive, solve a problem as outsiders by promoting understanding between conflicting parties, and leave.

It's actually quite a shame that Ken Hite didn't grasp Kickers in his reading of Sorcerer, because the more I think about the mechanic, the more I think it's the most awesome thing about the game.

Jesse,

And the worst part is that PCs often don't have what keeps Star Trek compelling despite the isolated outsider nature of the episodes.

<snotty vocal anti-Trek fan>Something kept Star Trek compelling? Dammit, people are supposed to inform me of these things!</snotty vocal anti-Trek fan>

So anyhow, I think it's worthwhile to note that having characters who are engaged in the conflict on an emotional level is good, solid game design regardless of which corner of the triangle you're aiming for.

If you're hungry for more emotional involvement with the characters, I think you're on the right track. Don't talk to the players about "kickers," just say, "Hey, so your character here -- what's important to him, or interesting to you? What's your idea of an ideal challenge to confront him, that'd let you play him in the most interesting way?"

Non-jargonny, works for people who wouldn't spit on a dead Narrativist cat. Hope it helps.

From what I can tell (not actually having managed to get a group together to play Sorcerer yet, but loving the whole thing just the same), most Kickers can be negotiated up from being mediocre to great, as long as the player is willing to work with you. Frex:

"My character is an FBI agent and his superior has just assigned him to a series of strange serial murders."

"My character recently recieved a letter from a lawyer. The letter claims that I've recently inherited a fortune from an Aunt I didn't know I had."

Hey Jesse,

...when you try to explain to the player that these really aren't suitable kickers they give you hell....How do you explain what a suitable kicker is without infringing on the player's creativity or wishes?

I'm with you man. I had a problem with the character one of my friends created for the Everway scenario. The character was ex-warlord, basically his realm's equivalent of Hitler, who the gods had banished from his sphere, and "cursed" with immortality, agelessness, and almost complete and total instant healing ability. He was like a highlander, except he healed quickly, and couldn't be killed by beheading. The gods had supposedly instructed him to do good deeds to redeem himself. The player conceived of him as pursuing of peaceful solutions, but as a monstrous force in battle when provoked. He was like a smouldering fire, who always traveled heavily armed and armored. The player took a zero point power of "weapon mastery" that allowed the character to use any and all weapons he may come across with proficiency. And when I explained that his score of 3 in earth would mean he felt pain like any normal man, he almost took a 1 point power in "resist pain". In the context of a narrativist game, the character just didn't seem like any damn fun to me. He had no emotional ties to anyone. He was a one-trick pony, with no abilities or personality traits that would give the player any chance to appreciate NPC interaction. The problem wasn't the character's power. He could be overpowered, and imprisoned, or frozen in carbonite, or just buried underwater by a ton of bricks so he keeps drowning and resurrecting without the ability to take any action. What I didn't like was that he was monstrous. A better swordsman cuts off his head and the character grows a new one and keeps swinging. And I didn't want the game to revolve around people rising up and expelling him from their realms, or coming up with creative means to encase him in molten steel or something. The "quiet enforcer" type of character is hugely annoying. I had suggested variations on the "curse" that included perhaps an inability to use any weapons at all as he worked to redeem himself, or the possibility that the gods implanted false memories in him to create a foundation for human connectedness. But the player didn't like any of those ideas.

So I turned to Ron for advice. And he told me I had to have the player make up a different character.

Now how's that for a tall order?

The way I handled it was by essentially playing dumb. I wrote the player an email and explained that because I'd been heavily prepping the scenario prior to character creation, I had created a scenario that wasn't suitable for his character. The problem was mine. I was stupid. And I proposed two possible solutions. He could make up another character. Or I could split the group, run the scenario I had for two of the players, and after that, write a scenario to run for him and the other player. I would have been happy with either alternative. And I would have never written that second scenario. My entire goal was to run the scenario I'd been developing for players with suitable characters. He chose to create a new character.

My advice to you is to play dumb. The problem isn't with the Kicker the player wrote. It's with your stupid scenario. You're just learning this stuff after all :smile:

Paul

Hi all,

I'm kind of puzzled about one element of a lot of recent discussion: the idea that the GM is dragging reluctant, baffled players into a Narrativist context for role-playing.

I don't really see how this can be possible, and certainly it's not necessary. In my experience, finding others who share one's own proclivities in play is very easy. They may not be aware of how powerful a system or other aspects of an RPG may be, in terms of the orientation, but they are already predisposed to latch onto it when they see it.

That statement applies, I am sure, to all functional modes of role-playing. If someone has Turku leanings, it's easy to describe them or use some coded-phrase ("Man, I don't even care whether anyone understands my character, I just want to feel it") that will attract like-minded individuals. If someone has particular Gamist leanings, say of the classic 1980 bent, they can do the same. ("The best thing, and I mean the best, is when you get those last few points to level up again.")

Again, these are coded-phrases, not especially substantial but indicative of all sorts of other, very coherent things.

People who'd like to develop more Narrativist play should practice the very same tactic - find others who are similarly inclined. Do it with phrases that capture some of the essence of the orientation, not with horrible jargon.

It's pretty hard in some ways - "story" is a debased term in role-playing culture, often associated with metaplot or with railroading. I've had to be very careful about saying "CREATE story," and specifically contrast it with "ENACT story." My starting-a-group advice in another thread on this forum brings up some of my thoughts about it.

But why bother dragging people who are NOT interested into a mode of play they distrust or dislike? Say Bob has participated, over months and years of play, in a role-playing group who is quite oriented toward the "my guy in a metaplot" mode of play. Maybe he did a lot of Forgotten Realms in high school, maybe he discovered Call of Cthulhu in college, and now he and a few friends are looking for the perfect game for them, that combines the metaplot of the one with the modern-ish horror of the other. [Note: this is NOT autobiographical]

So then Bob (who's always the GM) finds The Pool or Ghost Light and flips his lid. "Hey guys!" he gushes. "Narrativism, man! We gotta do this! It's what I always wanted!" Cue months of struggles on Bob's part to grasp the potential of what he's seeing, of agonizing resistance and resentment from his friends, and generally a plain meltdown.

Basically, Bob has done a fine thing by honing his understanding of why he role-plays, but he has committed a social error of grave proportions. Bluntly, he needs to found a new group, probably by hand-picking its members one by one. Maybe one or two of the old group will be inclined to join him; maybe none will.

This, I believe, is one of the most important aspects of GNS theory: that it is perfectly all right to enjoy modes of role-playing that are not OTHERS' favored modes. Therefore trying to "change" others is not advised. Conversion is NOT part of the GNS proposition.

The suggestion is this: if one presents and demonstrates one's favored mode well, and if anyone is interested, the they'll come looking and asking more questions and wanting to play. If they aren't, they don't.

Best,
Ron

jburneko wrote:
To some degree there is a relationship map.
[Snip.]
For example:

The critic being blackmailed decided to give up the game, bite the bullet and turn Williams in. Williams' boyfriend Drake caught wind of this and murdered the critic. The critic's ghost is now plaguing Drake nightly looking for revenge.
[Snip further examples, only for space.]

And to top it all off the actual 'in game' events are all either location based or non-railroady 'bangs.' For example:

The art critic animates his body and goes after drake if the player's find where it is located and dig him up.

If the player's start asking questions about missing art critics in Williams' or Drake's presence then Drake will start following the players around.

[Big snip.]
The result is, of course, the following:

1) The PCs are divorced from the Premise.
[Snip.]

The bigger problem is:

2) The PCs are completely divorced from the events. They are...just outside observers running an investigation.

I've determined that it is this divide between player and scenario that is the source of my depression about gaming.
[Snip.]
Ultimately, the players don't ADD anything new to the story.

Despite the non-railroadiness the scenario plays out almost identically every time.

I keep wanting the players to be [really] enmeshed in the goings on but I don't know how to facilitate that. Is this more of a character creation issue?

Should I let the player's design characters as they see fit but simply focus more on Sorcerer style Kickers or 7th Sea style Backgrounds? Can I do this some how in the scenario design itself

by putting in certain types of NPCs or by pacing the actual running of the game differently?

I want them to take more ownership of the story and really bring something unique to the table but I don't know how to bring that quality out of them.

In response, Paul Czege wrote:
A Kicker is more than just a linkage between the player character and the relationship map. It's a way for the player to articulate what kind of story he's interested in telling with his character.

jburneko later wrote:
This is EXACTLY the problem I'm struggling with. And the worst part is that PCs often don't have what keeps Star Trek compelling despite the isolated outsider nature of the episodes. There's a lot of inter-character relationships on the Enterprise that generally don't form between PCs. If anyone has any advice on facilitating this kind of behavior, that would interest me as well.

There is ONE pitfall regarding kickers that can become a problem. It's real easy to write a kicker that just reverts to the outsider mode.
[Examples Snipped.]

And then when you try to explain to the player that these really aren't suitable kickers they give you hell because it's their character and this is the way they see it going. I'm not sure what to do at this point either. How do you explain what a suitable kicker is without infringing on the player's creativity or wishes?

To jburneko’s example:
"My character is an FBI agent and his superior has just assigned him to a series of strange serial murders."

The Amazing Kreskin replied:
Perhaps a series of strange murders... in your hometown?

Hey,

I agree with Fang's post in every particular.

For the record, both in this thread and the first presentation in an earlier one, Fang's material is 100% consistent with the presentation/use of relationship maps in The Sorcerer's Soul, especially as they relate to player-characters' Kickers.

Best,
Ron

I'm kind of puzzled about one element of a lot of recent discussion: the idea that the GM is dragging reluctant, baffled players into a Narrativist context for role-playing.

Hi Jesse,
I don't know if anyone mentioned this (limited time today), but I think the problem is this: when you play it with other people, you are playing a one-shot. So the Players/characters will get into the drama and tension you've created. Because the players are more tied into your SCENARIO's Premise, rather than Chill's Premise.

When you play with your regular group, you're basically playing X-Files or GhostBusters using the SAVE backround for all of the characters... Like was mentioned above, you have the FBItis syndrome. Using Sorcerer, or perhaps making unique Chill characters for the adventure, and playing it as a one shot with the same group would most likely prove far different, and probably a lot more rewarding for you.

I love one shots. :smile:

(I apologise if this discussion has gone far beyond this, our internet access is cut off at work right now. Damn viruses.)
Sean

Hey Jesse,

Play a different game entirely. Play SOAP, or some other GMless game. This will force your players to learn how to do author and director stance. Then ask them if they want to play the original game in a similar fashion to the game they just played.

Don't be surprised if they say no, however. You are at a point where I ws a while back where I wanted to convert my players. Well, they are bright guys all, and they understand Narrativism, now. Some just don't like it. For them I continue to run Sim style, while the others who do find Narrativism engaging I play narrativist with. You'll find that there are just some people who don't like it.

But you won't really know until you show them something like SOAP where narrativism is blindingly obvious. Then you can point and say, "Director mode, you know, like how you play that SOAP game!"

Interestingly, if you really wanted to impress upon the players what narrativism is like in your regular game, just use technique that I used when teaching some newbies SOAP for the first time. Just keep saying, "I don't know, is it?" Like if a player says, "Is there a bottle on the table?", just respond, "Why are you asking me?" Or if you get, "Are we there yet?", respond, "I don't know, are you?"

"I assume that there's a staircase that goes to the second floor?" should get the player, "Whatever you think is best."

All the while look at them as though you asked the question first. If they say, "That's the GMs job", respond, "Not in a narrativist game." In SOAP the response is, "I'm not the GM, I'm a player, doofus."

As I said, though, prepare for potentially disgruntled players.

Mike

On 2001-09-25 17:05, Mike Holmes wrote:
Play a different game entirely. Play SOAP, or some other GMless game.

Don't be surprised if they say no, however. You are at a point where I ws a while back where I wanted to convert my players.

Interestingly, if you really wanted to impress upon the players what narrativism is like in your regular game, just use technique that I used when teaching some newbies SOAP for the first time. Just keep saying, "I don't know, is it?" Like if a player says, "Is there a bottle on the table?", just respond, "Why are you asking me?" Or if you get, "Are we there yet?", respond, "I don't know, are you?"

"I assume that there's a staircase that goes to the second floor?" should get the player, "Whatever you think is best."

As I said, though, prepare for potentially disgruntled players.

REALLY good advice. Thanks. This of course where I have to break myself of habits. Player's ask a question. I snap a response. Hard to escape that mold when you've been doing it for 12 years.

Oh, I'm prepared. I've already been put through the, 'you have no right to be a GM if you're not prepared to cater to the lowest-common-denomenator player' ringer.

Well, I hate to say it, but I'm kinda on their side.


I agree, and I'm disgusted by some of the attitudes that I've seen expressed on this thread. When it comes to the crunch, the GM is there to entertain the players, not vice versa. If you behave in some kind of passive-aggressive manner towards them then expect to rapidly lose them as friends.

When it comes to the crunch, the GM is there to entertain the players, not vice versa.

Folks,

This thread is spinning slightly out of its goals.

First of all, the very question, "Whose job is it to entertain whom?" is already dysfunctional. It's a lot like asking who has the "right" to commit an atrocity during a feud - the very asking of the question reveals the problem.

I agree with Josh regarding the functional situation - role-playing is an entertainment activity for everyone. This may be misread to mean "no one loses," "no one fails," or "everyone hugs," but all I mean by it is that everyone is satisfied with spending their time in the activity.

As I've said before, I cannot see why or how a GM is to be distinguished from players when it comes to "people issues" during play. Roles and spheres of activity of role-playing, yes; people-interactions and goals of role-playing, no.

Second, much of this discussion is specific to Jesse's group, and he seems to be in an odd position - he insists that some or all of his players do want to play in a Narrativist fashion; he "knows" this and wants to develop such play with them. I cannot argue with this, because I'm not there and don't know the people.

However, my previous posts to him have always stated that - in my experience - one should not be dragging other people to play in a particular way. If y'all play something like Soap or Extreme Vengeance or Story Engine, and if other people in the group go "boink" and want to do more of That Stuff, then fine. If not, then find other people to play with.

However, that may be a biased viewpoint and if Jesse is SURE that he's getting somewhere with his "this is how to do it" approach, then OK. It worries me, but OK.

Thirdly, I think that Mike's statement about player-satisfaction was exaggerated by Knight. I tend to agree with Mike - no one's satisfaction should be SACRIFICED by another person in the group - but not with Knight - that the GM is subordinate to the players in terms of actual, human, personal enjoyment of play. "The GM's job is to entertain the players" baffles me - it is not the bassist's job to entertain the other members of a band; his job is to play good bass and facilitate their awesome play.

It may be - and Knight, correct me or clarify for me - that you've experienced a lot of GMing that railroads or otherwise interferes with your enjoyment of play. Thus ANY talk of this business of GM-enjoyment seems potentially abusive. Is that a fair view? Especially given Jesse's presentation?

My view, for Narrativist play, is that the GM facilitates the players' authorship. That can include maiming, hosing, and killing the characters; it can also include all manner of nicer things.

But for ALL functional role-playing, Narrativist and otherwise, the PEOPLE'S goals are to play GOOD STUFF together, and that's not a GM vs. player issue at all.

Best,
Ron

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-09-26 10:52 ]

Sure Josh, the GM should have fun too. All I was saying is that everyone should agree before hand on what the game will be like and that anyone uninterested in that style should not play. If I as a GM have four players who want to play Simulationist, then it's a realy bad idea to try and force Narrativist on 'em. No matter how much I like it. I have three choices then; not play, play Sim, or find new players.

Discern tastes. Select a group including GM with non-clashing tastes to play a certain game that caters to said style. Play game.

Anything else runs the risk of being dysfunctional.

Mike

First of all, the very question, "Whose job is it to entertain whom?" is already dysfunctional.

There's no such thing as a dysfunctional question.



As I've said before, I cannot see why or how a GM is to be distinguished from players when it comes to "people issues" during play.

A GM is not necessary to roleplaying, but if there is a GM, then in many ways they fill the role of the host (irrespective of if they're the actual physical host). Of course the host enjoys the party too, but they also have the responsibility of ensuring that their guests have fun.



However, that may be a biased viewpoint and if Jesse is SURE that he's getting somewhere with his "this is how to do it" approach, then OK. It worries me, but OK.

I think that's basically a more polite way of stating my first point.


It may be - and Knight, correct me or clarify for me - that you've experienced a lot of GMing that railroads or otherwise interferes with your enjoyment of play

With respect, that's a classical Bulverism, Ron. I might as well ask if your focus on the troupe play style is due to a mistrust of GMing in general due to your prior bad experiences.

What I have experienced a lot of is the attitude that players are "playing it wrong" by adopting a certain style. I realise that it must be tremendously exciting to come across a critical theory of roleplaying, I know I was when I first encountered the Threefold, but that's not an excuse.

Whoa! Whoa! Chill out guys! Let's not let this get nasty. I know sometimes I have a harsh way of stating things because I'm like that. (My girlfriend repeatedly suggests that I have a condesending tone whenever I'm just expressing surprise at something). So let me try to clearify what I was saying more calmly.

All I was getting at was that I have certain priorities and interests when it comes to gaming. I'm trying to either find new people with similar interests and priorities and figure out who among my current group has similar interests and priorities. Those are the people I'm interested in GMing for. The others are welcome to join if they're willing to try something new but if they're not, that's cool, we're still friends but it's not going to be much fun for us to game together. That's it.

Ron said it best in the "When the players think the GM is trying to kill them" thread. I'm sitting on one side of the table waiting for a story to happen and *SOME* of them are sitting on the other side of the table waiting for me to hit them with my best shot. This isn't going to work.

Jesse

Hi Knight,

I apologize for taking it line-by-line, to any extent, but time constraints are hitting. I know it doesn't mean anything at the outset of the post, but I believe you and I are agreeing more than we're disagreeing.

"Me: First of all, the very question, "Whose job is it to entertain whom?" is already dysfunctional."
"You: There's no such thing as a dysfunctional question."

I agree with you. My sentence is the result of bad editing; its proper phrasing might be something like, "Asking [the question] may indicate an already-dysfunctional situation."

"A GM is not necessary to roleplaying, but if there is a GM, then in many ways they fill the role of the host (irrespective of if they're the actual physical host). Of course the host enjoys the party too, but they also have the responsibility of ensuring that their guests have fun."

Here's where things get sticky … I agree with this statement insofar as it is a POSSIBLE element of a social/role-playing situation. I disagree with the claim that the statement is a solid, foundational, definitional element of the situation. Perhaps this is one of those times that we can merely be happy with our contrasting views and be done.

"Me: It may be - and Knight, correct me or clarify for me - that you've experienced a lot of GMing that railroads or otherwise interferes with your enjoyment of play"
"You: With respect, that's a classical Bulverism, Ron. I might as well ask if your focus on the troupe play style is due to a mistrust of GMing in general due to your prior bad experiences."

I see what the problem is; I needed to explain myself better. I did not ask that question of you to invalidate your point, but rather simply to get a better grasp of its personal context - the kind of thing one can't pick up from written text. However, since people DO often use ad-hominem questions to invalidate others' points, I apologize for giving that impression.

For the record, my answer to your turnabout question is "yes," to some extent, although my Narrativist inclinations precede my role-playing.

"What I have experienced a lot of is the attitude that players are "playing it wrong" by adopting a certain style. I realise that it must be tremendously exciting to come across a critical theory of roleplaying, I know I was when I first encountered the Threefold, but that's not an excuse."

I agree. Our experiences dovetail perfectly here. My hopes for GNS thinking is that it is supposed to HELP with the existing problem of person/person mismatch of role-playing goals. My conversation with Tim (Galfraxas) in Actual Play expresses a lot of my views, and serves as a good partner to my comments in this thread.

In conclusion, I maintain that we are much more in accord about the general issue than we disagree.

Best,
Ron

Yes, I think that's pretty much it, Ron. Basically, it comes down to a semantic argument about the meaning of the word GM.

I did not ask that question of you to invalidate your point, but rather simply to get a better grasp of its personal context - the kind of thing one can't pick up from written text.

Sorry if I was being overly defensive, but the personal context didn't really strike me as important.

My conversation with Tim (Galfraxas) in Actual Play expresses a lot of my views, and serves as a good partner to my comments in this thread.

Yes, that was very interesting. You always seem to be able to deal with misuse of your model in a level-headed manner.