kibitz n
1. To look on and offer unwanted, usually meddlesome advice to others.
2. To chat; converse.

kibitz v
1. make unwanted and intrusive comments

I noticed something in from the Elfs session I had run recently. There was tons of kibitzing going on. I don't know if they could be considered true kibitzing since the suggestions seemed to be rather welcome. In the other game, giving suggestions to another player is strictly verboten. I was wondering what other people have had experiences with commenting on how a player plays their character.

If you means vhat I tink you means then it no bad in my group.

"Hey, you should do blah."
"Hey, you should say blah."
"What should I do guys?"
"Ooooo! You do this and I'll do that."

If you mean that kind of stuff - more power to you. Creative, and welcome, advice can lead to a lot of cool/funny shit happening. Greater pool of creative energy and all that; like clustering. Seems to mostly get used for humor purposes in my group; just a tendancy; dramatic/tense situations can be real character driven so the immersion level kicks up and hence the kibitzing drops off.

Side note: If the other group forbade this kind of stuff that would make me personally feel creatively/social/participationally (word?) stifled... Sorta like saying 'Shut up!' in a more polite way. Seems overly controlling if the majority of the group wants to offer suggestions. Of course, if the majority doesn't bend that way it's just setting the social contract and I suppose I can't legitametely criticize that.

Long-time lurker, few-times poster, great topic, love the show.

Our recent restarted run of HeroWars/Shadow World is RIFE with sotto voce kibbitzing. We never presume to actually tell each other what to do, though. It's taken in the spirit of camraderie, at least as far as I can tell.

Mike Holmes as GM is fairly loose with the reins as far as that goes. I think he's experimenting with us, actually.

Josh Neff as a GM is also pretty lax about that, but then I'm biased.

Other GMs I've played with have been less so, but it has never been a point of contention.

I think it's a good, cohesive, functional group that can kibbitz and stay on track simultaneously. We have that. Our social contract is tight.

I welcome suggestions from other players. From a sim perspective it's almost necessary when playing a character that's smarter than you are. Sometimes it takes four people with a 14 intelligence to equal one character with an 18. As long as it's included in the social contract, everything is cool.

,Matt G.

Julie wrote: Mike Holmes as GM is fairly loose with the reins as far as that goes. I think he's experimenting with us, actually.

cruciel wrote: Side note: If the other group forbade this kind of stuff that would make me personally feel creatively/social/participationally (word?) stifled... Sorta like saying 'Shut up!' in a more polite way. Seems overly controlling if the majority of the group wants to offer suggestions. Of course, if the majority doesn't bend that way it's just setting the social contract and I suppose I can't legitametely criticize that.

I think it's a good, cohesive, functional group that can kibbitz and stay on track simultaneously. We have that. Our social contract is tight.

I usually allow it as long as the player characters can communicate in some way or for beguinners, but I often use an in story barrier to force a player out on their own. Sometimes I do this for challenge, but most often I do this to bring a background player into the game focus.

One interesting note: In a Sci-fi game I ran ages ago, kibitzing out of character was used to create an NPC. Any time a player was kibitzing the other players would ask "who are you?". We were most often on starships or other facilities so at one point a player, realizing they were not involved in the immediate play, responded that they were the janitor. The players told him to get back to work. This soon became a running gag, the janitor would show up in the middle of jungles and top secret bases with no explination. He never did anything but offer advice and was always dismissed after his inital comment. It was a fun and bizzare element to our game that I think of fondly to this day.

The kibbitz is a strong part of my group's method of play. I view the game as a collaborative experience, and we don't have any restrictions on suggestions. It often makes the scenes far more interesting.

On the other hand, rude comments made 'out-of-character' are restricted. Generally, if someone is going to get a dig in on a character that could be interpreted as 'in-game', the player must suffer the consequences of having his character make the comment. This arose out of too many instances of "Oh, my character didn't say that..."

Of course, when active play isn't going on, rude comments are totally appropriate. I think this portion of our social contract arose from a desire to avoid confusion regarding 'in-character' and 'out-of-character' comments.

I think kibbitzing is great as long as:
1) it doesn't disrupt the action in the game with long off-topic ramblings
2) it doesn't become a means for players to dominate or belittle others (such as by always coming up with a cool thing before anyone else can or insisting that his advice be followed)

Occasionally, I'll ban kibbitzing during combat - I enjoy the sense of confusion that comes when players can't spend minutes planning every action. It just feels much more authentic. But I need to have a group of players who also enjoy that and who all know the rules well enough to understand what they're doing.

Kibbitzing is particularly valuable when PCs get split up. The GM can focus on one group at a time, but let the other players stay involved by making comments and suggestions.

Kibbitzing is something I don't really mind in most of my games. When I shove the players with a rather sticky ethical situation that they have to work through I'll let them go at for as long as I feel it is nessisary. It is a nice time to get up and go to the bathroom, refill the drink, and browse possible ideas for what is going to happen next. Usualy I have Kibbitzing happen slightly in charecter that way should I ever feel like moving on I can usualy force the situation on them. This way they have an oppertunity to discuss a bit about what they would like to do next, but they still have the real world feel that the planet holds still for no one. People seem to like that a lot and it can lead to some interesting situations.

I do not allow Kibbitzing in combat. I beleive that combat should be a whirrlewind of confusion and action and that there is no time to sit down and make lengthy plans once the action has started. I make a few exceptions to this rule but in general it is one of the few things I am firm about. Also combat can be the slowest part of the game session, if I write a game session without combat it is usally a good hour or two shorter than if I had thrown in some random encounters. With the time constraints of some of my players in mind I usualy try to hurry through combat and that is a big part of it.

Now there is the bad part of Kibbitzing. These are the random jokes, sexual comments, and digressions that just sort of happen. It is these that I am rather torn about. I mean I can't demand them not to joke and have a good time. It is also sometimes the only oppertunty I get to see some of my freinds so it tends to happen quite a bit. Normaly I let it go untill a certain point. Then I usualy make them buckle down by getting them to do something. I look at Kibbitzing as a part of the game, I mean it is a social activity for some people I know it is the social activity of thier week so having some normal conversations is always nice. But not every game session and not for to long otherewise nothing happens.

I used to be in a group that subscribed to the whole "shut up, you're not there" kind of mentality, strict actor stance and all that. I knew there was something about it that I didn't like, I didn't know what it was or why.

Something I realized a while ago, though, and I've made it a point to tell my players: If other players are making suggestions about what your character should do or say, take it as a compliment. It means they're paying attention, and they care about your character. And taking those suggestions is not 'cheating'. I'm taking an active role in fostering what Ron called (in this thread) 'cheerleading interaction'.

Personally, I've had quite enough of each player trying their absolute best to ignore what's going on with the other PCs, because it would intrude on their sense of immersion, and only interacting with the other players for actual PC to PC dialog. And I've had enough of campaigns consisting of a GM running four or five separate little games, one for each player, and calling it a group.

-- Ben

Ben Morgan wrote: I used to be in a group that subscribed to the whole "shut up, you're not there" kind of mentality, strict actor stance and all that. I knew there was something about it that I didn't like, I didn't know what it was or why.

I tend to enforce "shut up, you're not there" at times. Why? A few reasons: it emphasises and makes more meaningful the parties decision to split; it places the players more firmly in actor stance; it keeps the game movng quickly at high tension points and it requires players to solve their own problems.

That's an interesting point, Jack.

The reason that a lot of "narrativists" support the idea of lots of kibbitzing is so that people don't have any disincentive to split up. Because often it's good for the story for that to happen. Players in such play should never feel that there's any reason why they shouldn't split up. And so allowing them to continue participation via kibbitzing is extremely important.

Hadn't put that together until now.

And, as you say, it works conversely if you want to keep the characters together, or punctuate the separations.

Mike

Hey Mike,

The reason that a lot of "narrativists" support the idea of lots of kibbitzing is so that people don't have any disincentive to split up.

Nah..."reason" is too strong a word for that. The reason is what Ben said. The Narrativist metagame is managing the interest of other players in your character.

Paul

Please replace the "The" at the beginning of the statement with an "A". My response was a subset of Ben's.

Mike

The reason that a lot of "narrativists" support the idea of lots of kibbitzing is so that people don't have any disincentive to split up.

I really don't think of kibitzing as bad, but it is a two edged sword. It can slow the game quite a bit, but in some instances you cam make the kibitz part of the game. In that light it cam be very enjoyable. I will usually allow players to kibitz during combat as long as they can talk, or radio or use telepathy etc. After all a trained fighting group is taught to communicate to fight coherently. In this light, I'll allow comments that in general take thirty seconds or so (not a strict rule, but a guideline). Longer than that and a lot of debate erupts and play slows. But I allow more chatter than would be possible in the game world for several reasons. One, the players are not the profesionals that they are supposed to be in the game. Most characters that have military intelegence skills or some expertise would instantaniously come to the conclusions that occur after a minute of dialog. Two it lowers stress levels to have a group effort and makes the game more fun. Three, as some of you are aware, I big into the players being a cohesive group. Kibitzing aids this.

But . . .

As I stated earlier, I restrict kibitzing in some instances to acive an effect. I tend to run little "horror" themes in my games and how afraid are you if you have five people supporting you? It adds to atmosphere. This is especcally true when the player attempts to poll the group for ideas and I tell them "They're not with you, they can't help". It's kind of mean but It gets their pulse up and that little gleam of panic in their eyes.

Another reason I restrict kibitzing is to cut out players that have all the answers for a short period and let the other players think. Some players are the go to guys for a group, and can dominate out of game decision making. Often I will work things so that they are needed for their particular skills in one place, when the rest of the group is needed elsewhere. The dominator gets to play the star and the other players get to think for themselves for a while.

In my friend's game (a homebrew far future SF game), we have what's referred to as "the big brain rule." Except under certain circumstances (trying maintain a mystery, an isolated character under a time constraint, a stupid character, etc.), players are allowed to make suggestions to a player who is currently "on stage", even if the suggesting player's character is not present. The rationale here is that in the game, the average intelligence of 10 is smarter than the average intelligence now. As such, our characters are, for the most part, smarter than we are, and are more used to dealing with the situations that they deal with than we are. As such, these suggestions are considered to be the character's "big brain".

There are several advantages to this. First, everyone stays involved as everyone can contribute. On those rare occaissions when we're not allowed to make suggestions, we're all paying attention closely as something is about to happen, or, in the case of one of our few stupid characters, making absurd suggestions.

Second, it allows players to confidently play in areas where their characters are adept but they aren't necessarily. The player must still speak for their own character, but you never wind up with a player sitting there like a deer in headlights when their character is expected to make some rousing speech or to perform some really adept interrogation.

We've had some interesting outcomes, too. One time, a character was subjected to some severe trauma, and the player decided that his character would crack. For the next two hours of real time, the rest of us were all playing the voices in his head. It was quite entertaining.

It can be a problem, and sometimes we do have to drag the game back into focus.

There seem to be two different levels of Kibitizing being talked about:

I will usually allow players to kibitz during combat as long as they can talk, or radio or use telepathy etc. After all a trained fighting group is taught to communicate to fight coherently.

Mike Holmes wrote: For example, Emmett, would you allow a player whose character had died three scenes ago to tell another player where he'd hidden the buried treasure?

BTW, welcome to The Forge. I'm about to go all Forgey on you, so I thought that I'd prepare you. :-)

mikeryan wrote: The player of the character in question is also expected to not use information his character wouldn't have. [\quote]I assume that this is true in almost all styles of play. If we're playing in the 10th century BC on Earth, I'd expect that a player who knows how to make gunpowder will not have his character do that. It's rare that OOC knowledge is "valid" to be employed as part of decision in an obvious manner.

OTOH, we expect that it happens constantly in play in a form called Author Stance. Basically, often players decide on what they want to happen from their POV, and then come up with a good rationale for why the character does what they do. The point is that all we really want is that there be an acceptable rationale.

Some groups have a greater tolerance on these things than others. The classic example is the "Finding the Guy at the Park" example. The Actor stance guy playing the Private Detective sees a scene in which the bad guy arrives in the park late one night. The Actor Stance player says, well, it's late, so he goes home, because that's what he'd do. The Author Stance player, however, says, he goes to the park because he always takes evening constitutionals.

Now we all know that the player is simply making up an excuse to go to the park. Some groups will call this acceptable; after all the excuse would not be beyond believability in other circumstances. It's only potentially problematic in this circumstance because players might see it as taking unfair advantage of things. But this assumes a certain style of play in the first place. Like you said, one in which the player isn't trying to "win".

It helps to have a group of good roleplayers who are looking for more than just "winning" or beating the bad guys/scenario. They need to be looking to be entertained and be involved in the entertaining story.

This is what we refer to as modes of play. See the Articles link above, and specifically the GNS article for clarification.

Mike has a good point about it being a difference between simulation and narration.

That's Simulationism and Narrativism. These have very different meanings in use on these boards than simply thinking of it as simulation and narration.

The point is that "good roleplayers" is a relative statement. It's problematic to say that those who want to "win" aren't good roleplayers (gads that sounds politically correct, doesn't it?). It's simply a different mode. But one that you probably rightly peg as not as suitable for the Kibbitzing treatment. As I said above, what we call Gamism requires that certain information be kept from the player in order to ensure that the challenge remains intact. OTOH, information not pertaining to the challenge can be open without harm; most of these games make it illegal on principle however, and to be consistent.

So these considerations are inter-related, but the interaction is complex to say the least.

BTW, there's also a potential form of play that's somewhat post modern where OOC information is very much expected to be used. For example, one could have a game where the character was aware of the player, and they could talk to each other. Lot's of other possibilities. See the game in development here called, IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong guys), "Ever After".

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: BTW, welcome to The Forge. I'm about to go all Forgey on you, so I thought that I'd prepare you. :-)

I assume that this is true in almost all styles of play. If we're playing in the 10th century BC on Earth, I'd expect that a player who knows how to make gunpowder will not have his character do that. It's rare that OOC knowledge is "valid" to be employed as part of decision in an obvious manner.

The point is that "good roleplayers" is a relative statement. It's problematic to say that those who want to "win" aren't good roleplayers (gads that sounds politically correct, doesn't it?). It's simply a different mode. But one that you probably rightly peg as not as suitable for the Kibbitzing treatment. As I said above, what we call Gamism requires that certain information be kept from the player in order to ensure that the challenge remains intact. OTOH, information not pertaining to the challenge can be open without harm; most of these games make it illegal on principle however, and to be consistent.

Through the GNS lens - I can't see kibbitzing being inappropriate in team (i.e. inter-player cooperative) gamist games.

Ignoring the GNS lens attibuting competitiveness to immature roleplaying and and cooperation to mature roleplaying is frankly nonsensical. Is everyone who plays chess immature because they like the competition?

Ian Charvill wrote: Ignoring the GNS lens attibuting competitiveness to immature roleplaying and and cooperation to mature roleplaying is frankly nonsensical. Is everyone who plays chess immature because they like the competition?

OK - I may have expressed myself a little tersely there, sorry for any offense. Let me expand a little. I'm going to use the word experienced, rather than mature because that seems similar to what you're saying - someone who has seen a lot of different forms of role playing and understands there are different ways to play games - without being so emotive.

Some people are eclectic and some people are specialists. Some people like lots of stuff and some people like one particular thing. I don't recognise that one is better than the other: the eclecticist might find it easier to have fun in a variety of gaming groups; the specialist might become really good at their particular type of game.

I don't see any logical way in which experience neccesitates a shift in style. Experience doesn't require that someone becomes eclectic, it might just lead to them becoming more focussed.

I've read a lot of nineteenth century poetry (there's an imprint in England which means you can get the complete work of Keats or Wordworth or Poe or Whitman for a pound. And I was unemployed for a time with little to do but go to the library or buy cheap books). The only thing that tought me was that I don't much like nineteenth century poetry*. Experience has taught me that, chances are, I wouldn't like to read 19th Century poetry. Experience has not broadened my tastes.

Experience, as I see it, has no direct bearing on what type of game people like and whether they prioritise competition or "the purposes of the story, the character or the way the game universe works".

Ian

* I mean 19th Century English poetry, the French kicked a certain amount of ass around then, but I only start to see their influence on the English language scene during the modernists - also there are certain 19th century poems which are strong, but I'm talking about the body of work. My point here - well basically it's a certain amount of showing off to counter the idea that I might be an unreconstructed luddite gamer with no appreciation of the finer points of things.

If I can commit the soleicism of following my own post - and in response to the fact that there was little on-topic in the previous post:

Kibbutzing can have an powerful effect on inter-player relationships. The "My Guy" response doesn't need to come from GM abuse - I've seen quieter players have their characters half-run by other more dominant players in the group - and I've seen that result in non-fun play for the people concerned.

No problem, Ian.

Your reclassifying it as "experienced" is spot on.

I pretty much agree with what you're saying, although I don't think I was putting forth experience neccesitating a shift in style (at least I didn't intend to). I meant it more as the option being there. Your poetry analogy works. As you're exposed to more styles of poetry, you can decide what you like and don't like. As a roleplayer becomes more experienced, he can make a conscious choice of whether to be ecclectic or specialized (or somewhere in between). Until he has that experience, though, he's only going to be able to play in the mode that he originally came in at and won't recognize the other modes for what they are. Even if the experienced gamer has decided to be competitive, he's seen the various modes of play and can understand that someone may be coming from a different approach. He's also able to recognize when those modes will be incompatible.

Your point about quieter players is excellent.

I think kibbutzing is a good idea for players who need a little nudge for group cohesion. If they all grew up or worked on the same kibbutz, they know each other when the game starts...

*ducks*

Shalom,

Hello,

This thread is wandering. Jack, can you provide another question or specific topic for some focus?

Everyone else, wait for it, please.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Jack, can you provide another question or specific topic for some focus?

Hi there,

That's it, then, people. This thread is closed.

Best,
Ron