Hey Guys (93, to those who know),

Long time reader, 1st time post. After reading Sorcerer (thank you Ron), I started to realize that I wasn't dissatisfied with my hobby, I was just trying to fit a round peg, ie: my gaming style, into a square hole. I decieded to round up the ol' crew for a new expierence. I tried to sit them down and discuss things pre-session. I encountered lots of resistance and, at player request, we just started playing. This was a HUGE mistake.

I found a used copy of Hero Wars at my local game shop and got started. The characters were three brothers who had all gone their separate ways and were called home due to the death of their father. He had tangled with an unknown foe and had met his match. I had bangs and relationship web maps (BTW, these techniques allowed me to have LOTS of fun, USE THEM)

Unfortunatly, the players kept "throwing the hook!" If I was not leading them by the nose, they were not motivated to do anything. They seemed to be paralyzed by the unconcious fear that they would do something "unplanned" and "mess up the story." I encouraged them to take the ball and run with it, but the game became harder work for me over time.

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the game. We were creating a great story and had some awsome scenes, but I wanted to be "in a band," instead of "a solo artist." Eventually I let the game drop.

The moral of this story is: you must have out of game discussions, you must be able to discuss what you like and what you don't like. This kind of openness is vital for a good gaming expierence, especially if tying something new. If your friends are strongly resistant to this kind of thing you have a potential problem that will probably not work itself out in-game.

Regardless of these problems the amount of "Narritivist technique" I could slip in worked GREAT, the game probably would not have lasted as long with out it. I'm looking forward to gaming in the future with a more cooperative group. Right now I'm trying to find the time to try out Trollbabe with my girlfriend, and a small-group Donjon one-shot. I'll let you know how it goes :)

Hey guys,

Upon reveiw I thought I should clarify my main point a little. I am not saying that a skeptical group cannot be introduced to new points of veiw in play. I am saying that if your group just flatout refuses to communicate in a "metagame" session, you have a pretty big problem.

Skeptism and doubt of anything new is common for human beings. A voiced doubt can be a good thing, opening the door for communication. I guess I am really trying to point out the importance of keeping those lines of communication open. We are used to having a prep stage and a game stage. ESPECIALLY when intoducing new ideas and techniques, a discussion stage is equally vital.

BPetroff93 wrote: After reading Sorcerer (thank you Ron), I started to realize that I wasn't dissatisfied with my hobby, I was just trying to fit a round peg, ie: my gaming style, into a square hole.

Hm. I dunno, I think that the Forge is a demon of some sort which actually forces people to either close their minds completely, or open them... But anyhow..

I've encountered similar problems, with people refusing to discuss. I think that it's probably been a matter of approach.. It comes across as you're trying to "fix" their gaming style to better match your own, which implies that theirs is somehow bad or wrong. That sort of thing can put up people's backs, but rather than get offended, they simply resort to the standard line.. "Just play!" It's not necessarily that they're close-minded, but it's something that must be approached right, if you want to try to get an existing group to try something entirely different.

Hey Roy, thanks for the encouragment, it's nice to meet you. I have often found that some of the most fun I have had playing is with newbies, so I look forward to testing my new found knowledge (mwah ha ha!!)

Hmm...roleplaying game as object demon spawning possesor demons called "characters"......that has possibilities......

I think that you are right Lance, unfortunatly this group was pretty much closed to anything "non-white wolf" it was a REAL effort of diplomacy to get them to try HeroWars...they ended up LOVING the game, but the style change didn't happen, which is primarily what frustraited me. I'm convinced that this was a personality conflict, some people are just like that. That's okay, they can play Whitewolf, and I can play something fun....er....I mean play something else...right ;)

93!

Some folks are die-hards when it comes to playing in the way we've been "trained." Some are unrecoverable, I think; those who want "deeper" play have probably already showed that leaning.

I think little mechanics help lead them away. Maybe one that rewards getting advice in a metagame way? Hm...mandated kibitzing. Could be interesting.

31, 31, 31,

Another good game for introducing 'new concepts'... InSpectres!

A very accessible genre...with all those directors stance mechanics sneaking in.

I kinda like the kibitzing points idea. At least for encouraging groups.

I was wondering if anyone would respond to my "bait." If you don't mind my asking, are you group affiliated or independant. Feel free to answer as you will ;). Personally, I am an OTO member, but I'm not very group oriented, so I kinda hang out around the edges and pop in every once in a while.

My email address should be available in my profile so feel free to respond that way if you prefer.


333-55555-333

I've actualy had mixed results with the game paranoia.

The time it worked: It was my first time game mastering anything really, I had a group of three. One of them was an old school D&D player and the other two were completely new to the hobby. It ruined the new players and myself for any productive RPG attempts, much to the chagrin of the old school D&D player who took over GMing with an awful D&D campain that crumbled relativly quickly.

The time it didn't work: When it was a group of old school D&D players. For some reason they didn't get the concept of the game. They were frustrated when things didn't go right during the main mission, and they worked together. It was the lowest paranoia body count that I have ever seen in my entire life.

Why it works sometimes: It works somtimes because it gives the player a lot of control over what they can do. It also removes the fear of something bad happening to them if they screw up. In most RPGs there is a sense of self preservationt hat can result in the players staying on the beaten path gaurding thier lives with their life. When you have 6 lives all the sudden that matters less. Who cares if you live of die because there is more of you where that came from. Also all sorts of cool things can happen to you when you come back from the dead. It shows the player that they are not bound to the prestablished storyline the GM is atempting to guide oyu on. In fact your secret society mission is activly telling you sabotage that mission. You don't want to suceed, you also don't want to get caught. Many of the players I've used to introduce my style of Gming have taken the lessons learned by paranoia and they apply them to thier other rpg experences. Usualy the lession is that they have a say in what goes on in the story. They are the stars and they they really don't have to do anything the way they are suppose to. When it works it works beautifuly. When it dosn't work all you have is an annoyed player.

Why dosn't it work?: Sometimes paranioa dosn't work. A couple of times it was my fault, not my night and what not. A couple of times the players got thier prioritys screwed up. They thought the computer's misison was the most important and their secret society mission was optional. These players were the most difficult ones to deal with, even though I would take them aside and tell them that thier SS missions should come first they wouldn't listen. If they did listen they would become further frustrated when thier attempts at sabotage failed. They refused to take proactive action to find out who was the cause of thier downfall and instead just blamed it on a GM bitch smacking. That is what happens when the old ways are just to ingrained and they need to be gentaly kneaded out. Also some people just don't like paranoia as a personality thing. THese same people tend to not like narativism.

A couple of random things also. Don't bother with the system for paranoia, it isn't very good. I just make up something as I go with bounuses for humor. In fact in one infamouse game I had players to my left roll over thier score and players to my right roll under thier score. Keep the system invisable and the action so fast that no one has a chance to catch thier breaths. Also if the players are contributing to that action which is so fast let them go do almost whatever they want. Don't interupt thier actions for yours. This is where thier sense of helping the story along comes from by and large.

Next, yeah search for new gamers amongst the uninitiated. Some of the very best roleplayers really do come from the ranks of the masses.

The forge as a deamon: I agree, I think this place mutates all who visit here in to weird sort of quasi fungloid creatures. I stopped liking pizza once I learned what narrativism was. Some how I think they are connected but I don't know how.

Oh one last thing. I would like to preface by saything that I am a dishonest person. Actually I am a bad person. So this stradigy might shock or offend some of you, sorry. Normaly I wouldn't care who I pissed off but I haven't enoutered one person here who I don't like. So I would like to stay on at least a few of your good sides. Having said that...I've gotten good players from group stealing.

Group stealing is the vile practis where you go to the local hobby shop and you hang around scouting out the gms. You look for the worst of the worst, they aren't hard to find really. In fact they stick out like sore thumbs as do thier players. You sighn on with the group and you play. Be a good player, do the very best that you can at roleplaying your charecter. Don't min/max and even go out of your way to come up with a clever/original charecter concept. If you chose the group correctly within a month it will of distintigrated/crumbled to the point where you can step in and say...I'll game master for a bit. I think we should switch games for awhile and take a break. Here I have a nice rules light game right here in my breifcase. We can make our charecter and just relax and play. If you steped in at the right moment then people will be willing to try anything, even Le Mon Mori which is about as far away from AD&D as you can possibly get. If you are good and they like it they'll stick around, the new playing style will be fun and exciting. Just be sure to be very open with your players, you will be dealing with some seriouse abused player syndrome if you do this. Be open with them, maybe institute a three game session do whatever you want no char death rule. Soon enought the players will loosen up and have all sorts of fun, its great. As long as the guilt dosn't get to you its fine. Well now that I have divulged my evil ways I'm going to go finnish my plans for world domination.

Brendan, I wouldn't give up on these guys yet... though don't bang your head into a wall forever.

My experience with gamers is that they 1) have a lot of personal inertia and 2) are used to GMs trying wacky ideas.

1 doesn't really need a lot of explanation. If you've had fun playing in style x for 15 years, why change?

What do I mean by 2, though? The perfect example is a GM I met at a convention who was trying out his new homebrew. He explained that the die mechanic gave results of "All you" "Your idea" "Compromise" "My Idea" and "All me" as ways of dictating who could narrate the result and to what degree. "All you" supposedly meant you could totally describe it, while "Your idea" meant you gave the jist of what you wanted and he implemented it. However, during play, he just said "You succeeded" or "You failed" and NEVER once let us narrate anything.

A lot of GMs do this. It's often related to the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast (a GM-scripted story with player choice - one has to give). Generally, the GM gets all excited, gathers the group together and explains the concept in his frenzy. Then you sit down to play and he does his usual thing, while expecting you to do something different. One GM insisted that we had control over the campaign, but we spent three months with the villain escaping at the last second, no matter what we did. Our choice, apparently, was what gun to use, but that's it.

Maybe that even describes you and you don't realize it - most GMs don't. For example, who's idea was it to have three brothers come back after their father's death? If it wasn't the players' idea, you're shooting yourself in the foot. You've literally said "Hey, let's do whatever you guys want. Now, here's what you should do..."

Instead, picture adventure ideas that look like a college message board. Travelers looking for rides to every destination. A friend looking for another friend. Someone looking to buy a book. Someone looking for a study partner. Translate this into a fantasy setting, let the players know all these jobs are available in their current town and let them pick. This way they know that you couldn't possibly have prepared for all of them. Additionally, they got to make a significant choice. Over time, they'll get used to this and start demanding it, but they're going to do this slowly (for both reasons 1 and 2 - they don't change quickly and they're not sure if you're really changing or just talking about it).

If I've pegged you wrong and you didn't just shove a scenario on them after your long OOC talk, then all I can recommend is to give it more time, offer them actual suggestions of what they can do, and see what happens. It may be they really don't want to change - many players don't.

Thanks for the constructive comments guys. My main reason for the post wasn't really a request for advice, although all the advice has been great and well founded. I am quite pleased with the way I handled / set up things. I just wanted to illustrate my expeirence in the problems that can occur if you don't have good communication out of game. That out of game communication is VITAL, especially when introducting new concepts.

Quite frankly I have no interest in gaming with these individuals again, but that is for reasons that have NOTHING to do with our shared hobby. A game style conflict would not make me stop gaming with them, just change my approach.

My mistake this time was that I assumed everyone would respond so well to the new approch, that I didn't need to insist on out of game theory discussions or reading that they refused to participate in. I was wrong, you must have discussion when introducting new concepts to old gamers.

I have been roleplaying for about 15 years now, with many different groups and I always seem to be able to intoduce new things, to the enjoyment of most of my gaming partners. Usually this is not a problem and I have no doubt that I will game again soon with other friends.

Peace, love and good gaming!

I realize that some of you have already posted this info, but for those who have not, we don't we share some actual stories about the first time you brought up new techniques to the old group. How did it go? What did you learn from this? I'm not trying to be critical of any of the great advice and friendly greetings I've gotten so far but let's make this thread a little more general, and not specific to my expierence.

A friend of mine, who was the "default" GM for the group I was in until about 2 years ago, was really used to having control over everything, even out of game.

Once, another friend suggested the idea of running a campaign set in a prison (we liked Shawshank, Green Mile, and even Tango & Cash, and we were all watching the first season of Oz at the time). Mr. Control shot it down summarily, as he didn't think it had "long-term potential."

Another time, during a game that I was running, we were discussing how to handle large gatherings of characters, with lots of NPC-NPC dialog. Rather than want to sit there arguing with myself IC for half an hour or more, I suggested the possibility of temporarily giving certain NPCs to the players to play for that scene (with possibly a hint of the direction that NPC is heading), especially for players whose PCs were not present. Mr. Control said (and I quote): "I'm not here to do your job."

See, he'd gotten so used to controlling every single aspect of the game that he considered it the GM's obligation to do such, and even to the point of believing that giving up any amount of control was to abandon one's responsibilities as God of This World We've Created. He expected everyone else to GM the same way. This is one of the major reasons that no one else wanted to GM. They were intimidated by the thought of negative comparisons to his style (mostly from him). It wasn't until I decided that I wanted to run, and almost by accident came up with a way of doing things that didn't require such micromanaging, that other players decided to give it a go.

Then there were more recent incidents (by recent I mean just over two years ago now) in which he'd gotten pissed off at someone else in the group for some out-of-game reason, and took it out on them in-game, something which years before he'd sworn he would never do.

I left the group entirely not too long after that, though mostly for unrelated reasons (but not entirely).

-- Ben

Hello,

A bit of background: My own close-knit roleplaying group has been together for about 12 years or more. Back here in the deep, dark, muggy heart of Asia, there really isn't much access to innovative games such as those that are reviewed and are continuously being referred to here at The Forge.

I picked up the InSpectres starter kit two weeks ago and decided to go for broke, and -- my god! -- sparks flew like there was no tomorrow. No fancy-schmancy theory stuff, I just handed it over to them and we were off like a rocket!

The group is now running an rather poor 3rd-world "illegal" InSpectres franchise based in Manila (illegal because we don't have the full version of the game yet, although that's going to change in a few days; a way of tying the campaign to the real-life situation). The players have been off on two adventures thus far involving "indigenous" ghostbusting tools and targeting all manner "local" spectral nasties. They have a clairvoyant fighting-cock (... er chicken) that they bring around to help them. They've made out the somewhat well-known Spirit Questers" (a real life anti-spook group here of some infamy) to be rivals on the turf. We're having a ball, and, since the ghostly elements are so local -- things we've all heared about when we where little kiddies crouched around our ama's knees, -- play is getting exceedingly scary even as it gets exceedingly hilarious.

While we still need to fine-tune, most of the players got the Confessional mechanic right away. Not much theory explanations on my part (I'm usually the GM -- yes, it's a curse.) I don't believe we're touching on the narrativist core of the game that much yet (since the our full version's still enroute.) However, the players are developing great experiences where director and actor stance is concerned.

In conclusion then, maybe a good way of introducing old school gamers to all the great new stuff on the indie scene is to start simple and give them many familiar things to play with. That way, they can ease themselves into a new outlook. I imagine, TROS would be a great game to try out for hardcore D&D players.

- W.