Just wanted to add some points of clarification. As Mike says (and a lot of other people for that matter,) social issues and ground rules for acceptable social behavior is important stuff for having a good game. This is a non controversial point. So, in that, I agree with what has been formally termed around here as The Social Contract™, or as the first half of TSC.
From there it gets sticky in my mind, because now that we’ve agreed that we’re going to act nicely to each other, say please and thank you, and all of that ‘stuff’, we have to agree on what kind of game to play, and the logistics of said game.
After having read a pile of GNS articles over the past few months, I find myself comparing the advice given with my own experience w/ my troupe. According to GNS, some of the greatest gaming experiences I’ve had should not have been.
Let’s break it down to specifics:
In one particularly great game, we had three very strongly ‘aligned’ (for lack of a better term) personalities. One, a gamist, the other, a simulationist, and the last (me) a narrativist. I ran the game, and based on an informal vote, we picked WWtA, using the genero setting straight from the books. Other than questions such as ‘What tribe are you going to be? What city are we basing the campaign out of? And other general character creation questions, we did not discuss what ‘type’ of game was going to be run. Just so happened that the three of us were great pals who had very firm social interactions outside of gaming.
Now, I knew that my gamist player really liked the idea of winning, whether that be saving the day from the bad guy through a series of events, or achieving minor goals, or whatever. By ‘winning’ scenarios, this player feels rewarded and entertained.
My simulationist player, by contrast is a by the book sort of fellow. He likes published metaplot, he likes linear, straight forward play. He likes to know where the campaign is going at all times. This is fun to him.
I, in contrast to them both, have an ‘anything goes’ attitude. The story is where it’s at for me, and if the story will be made better by taking unconventional actions, that’s not only ok w/ me, I prefer it.
Obviously, because we had never heard of GNS, we did not apply any of its principles. According to what I have read in these forums, that campaign should have been a trainwreck. There were no surveys, no data collected, no discussion of what was going to happen other than ‘Hey, we’re playing Werewolf tonight!’
If you add in Robin’s Laws designations to the mix, we were further diversified as a group. The only thing we had in common was friendship, and a desire to play.
Using GNS designations, the campaign swung wildly from one spectrum to the other, frequently mid-session as I, being the storyteller, purposefully provided aspects of each category to satisfy each player, myself included.
Now, the argument here is that someone had to give up game time for something they liked in order for someone else to get something they liked. THIS IS TRUE!
The other argument is that if I had said ahead of time, ‘This is a narrativist campaign, and I only want players who will play *this* game *this* way according to *these* rules’ that the campaign would have been even more fun. This is patently false.
Why? And here’s where GNS starts to disintegrate for me.
By saying that someone had to give up aspects of what kind of game was their particular favorite, everyone assumes that this will automatically cause friction. In fact, I’ve read account after account that this sort of friction drives groups apart. It’s this friction, caused from not feeling satisfied/entertained/ rewarded/ whatever by *not* getting to play a certain way, or in an expected way that causes problems (according to the GNS theorists that I’ve read here.) Furthermore, players act out against a game that is not in their GNS preference, causing strife in the Social Contract. In other words, the game goes bloohey.

This was not my experience. The game went great, phenomenally so, in fact. According to GNS, it should not have. (Yes, I know that GNS says that no elements are mutually exclusive in a game, and that they can blend.) However, and here’s the caveat, GNS specifically states that one element must be primary, and must be the agreed upon preference of the players prior to play in order for no friction to occur. Correct me on this if I am wrong here, btw.
Now, I look at that restriction and think if I had tried to impose that sort of Social Contract on my players, that we would have missed out on a great game. I also think of how micro managing my players and the game itself that way would have dimmed the enthusiasm for that game. Hell, I can see it happen now when I try to discuss GNS stuff with my players (with one exception.)
Why did the game work? I return to my original point, which is that the social trumped everything else. My players respected my preferences, and I respected theirs. This is what I visualize of when I think of the first part of The Social Contract. The players gave me the latitude to run wild sometimes, and I gave them the various things they wanted. We all got what we wanted in the end and did not feel cheated in any way because we focused more heavily on what drew us together to begin with, rather than focusing on our individual differences.
So how do you put a formula on that? Good damn question, and I’m still not sure of the value of attempting to. Perhaps the simple answer is that flexibility is the key ingredient in making a game successful. Add in a dash of mutual respect, and willingness to let minor issues ride, and something golden can happen. Granted, each player has to be open to that possibility.
I am open to constructive comments about this line of thought.
Warm Regards,
Lisa

Lisa, I get the impression that you think your group hasn't formed a social contract because you haven't agreed on a single style of play. In fact, you've agreed via implicit contract to have a game that varies style of play to accommodate the needs of all players. This is not only fine, it's peachy!

I don't recall anything in GNS theory saying that you have to play a single style to have fun. I think it is a tautology that a group comprised of players with different styles can't all have the play style the want at the same time. Yes, players will have to give up spotlight time or play a style they do not prefer to let the others have fun. With many groups, this is not a problem.

Indeed, in my own group, the role-playing-heavy players were happy to forgo that kind of personal interaction to let the role-playing-light players to have their fun pushing the buttons on their character sheets to cast spells and kill monsters, even if it did little to advance a story. It was the latter group that failed to be flexible, however, and this is what caused a group rift.

I don't think having diverse groups necessarily drives groups apart, but it does make it more challenging to keep them together. You're obviously doing a great job of juggling spotlight time to satisfy the varied styles among your players. Great! But even you have to give up doing exactly what you want to do part of the time, if you prefer the fast and loose "whatever makes a good story" style of play, you're stuck catering to other styles and you have to cater to other styles two-thirds of the time.

Maybe that's fine. I certainly enjoy running a very gamist-sim game for one group and a very narrativist game for the other group. I like both styles in different ways. I don't enjoy arguing though, and I don't like seeing half my group sitting there bored, so it's a good thing we split the group.

The above two posts were split from Play contract "checklist"?, as I think it's a distinct topic.

Carry on!

Best,
Ron

Howdy Lisa,

You've got all kinds of interesting stuff to say, and it sounds like your group has figured out a fantastic way of working together despite what GNS might term differing priorities. Before anything else, I think it's important to note that Ron makes a pretty explicit statement that if your group is already working and your having fun, then GNS isn't for you. Admittedly I think it has value as a platform for discussion about games whether you're functional or not, but it's application is of most worth in games and within groups that need help. The easiest response though, is that GNS isn't for you.

Now that said, I'm sort of curious on some of the statements you make at the end of your post. Namely:

I also think of how micro managing my players and the game itself that way would have dimmed the enthusiasm for that game. Hell, I can see it happen now when I try to discuss GNS stuff with my players (with one exception.)

>>Howdy Lisa,

Heya, Tim.

>>Now that said, I'm sort of curious on some of the statements you make at the end of your post. Namely:

I also think of how micro managing my players and the game itself that way would have dimmed the enthusiasm for that game. Hell, I can see it happen now when I try to discuss GNS stuff with my players (with one exception.)

Can you go into a little more detail on this? In my experience being able to have a common lexicon to discuss from, as well as a clearer picture of mine and my player's priorities have lead to much less in the way of micro managing. I'm wondering if maybe I'm not getting what you mean by that term.<<

Perfect example just happened thirty seconds ago. How's that for timely. ;) One of my players and I are getting ready to walk out the door to go shopping. He told me that he'd checked out the other GNS thread, and this one, and his view was, "Why are you even talking about it? It's boring, let's just play."
To which I say, "Why is it boring to you to talk/read about?"
To which he says, "If we know what each other likes, why do we have to catagorize, or even try to catagorize who does what? Who cares."

Good point.

The easy answer is that I don't care about GNS.
The hard is answer is that I care very much about it because this topic is important to another player of mine, and in an effort to make his experience more enjoyable, I have choosen to open constructive dialogue about this topic in attempt to maybe learn something that will make his leisure time more fun. It all comes back to the art of compromise, something that in the other thread was glossed over, and in some cases discouraged. I want my GNS player to have a good time...no, that's wrong, I want him to have a *great* time. So here am I, hashing this stuff out when everyone else in the group could care less.
I'm not saying that to be inflamatory. Nor am I saying that our way is the right way, or the one true way. I merely question how useful GNS really is in a practical setting. It seems to have conflicting messages to me, and this casts it in a negative light in my view.
Blah, I'm going shopping!
:^D

Hey Again,

The GM wrote: He told me that he'd checked out the other GNS thread, and this one, and his view was, "Why are you even talking about it? It's boring, let's just play."
To which I say, "Why is it boring to you to talk/read about?"
To which he says, "If we know what each other likes, why do we have to catagorize, or even try to catagorize who does what? Who cares."

Good point.

The easy answer is that I don't care about GNS.
The hard is answer is that I care very much about it because this topic is important to another player of mine, and in an effort to make his experience more enjoyable, I have choosen to open constructive dialogue about this topic in attempt to maybe learn something that will make his leisure time more fun.

It all comes back to the art of compromise, something that in the other thread was glossed over, and in some cases discouraged. I want my GNS player to have a good time...no, that's wrong, I want him to have a *great* time. So here am I, hashing this stuff out when everyone else in the group could care less.

I'm not saying that to be inflamatory. Nor am I saying that our way is the right way, or the one true way. I merely question how useful GNS really is in a practical setting. It seems to have conflicting messages to me, and this casts it in a negative light in my view.

It's pretty obvious to me by how much effort you seem willing to go to as to why your game has been so successful. Is your GNS guy new to the group? New to GNS? What's his stated preference? How many other players are there?

This all seems so moot. GNS does not say anywhere that any game in which there are players who have different opinions on how to play that it won't work. Lisa, you've got to get past that point. GNS specifically, and repeatedly says that if you're not having a problem then the theory does not apply. It very much acceeds that GNS problems will not arise in every group where there are conflicts.

So, your anecdotes aren't relevant. I, OTOH, can provide anecdotes of the opposite happening. Which are proof positive that GNS issues can be a problem. Note, "can be", not "must be".

All GNS says is that there are some groups where the problems are great enough that they have to be addressed. And you know what? Nowhere does it say that the only way to address GNS problems is to adjust the style of play. It completely leaves open the option that players can work these things out on the social level sometimes. So nobody is saying that your solution doesn't work. Marco, a frequent poster here advocates exactly the same thing that you do. And nobody disagrees with him that he has a valid solution.

IOW, there's no argument here. Nothing that you've said contradicts what GNS says.

What you'd have to prove to say that GNS is wrong is that adjusting play style is not a method that will ever help, when this sort of problem exists. That everybody's problems can all be solved on the social level. But I posit to you that your anecdotes simply don't represent the sort of situation where GNS would be the right analysis to apply. For you to say that my annecdotes are inadequate to prove the opposite would be to say that I lack the social skill to be able to fix theings as you do. In addition to being insulting, I'd say that, even if true, it misses the fact that then GNS would be the logical recourse.

So, I'm wondering where the conflict is. It seems to me that it's all in your expectation that GNS is something that it's not. Namely the only cure for every problem. GNS is one cure amongst many for a very specific problem that only certain groups have.

So, is everything copacetic now? Or do you still see something that contradicts your experience.

Mike

Hey Matt,

I must admit I feel a bit odd doing GNS commentary about someone who's been around here far longer than I have. I've gotten myself in this far though, so I figure I may as well keep going. Ron and others are pretty good about jumping in when someone's misstating their points. On that note, when you said:

Play begins, but actual play does not often occur as it was stated vocally by group assent. Is the actual play broken? For the "old" social group, I think there's little amiss. For relatively new guy me, I'm bummed that the agreement of how the this game would be played is not fulfilled.

Second point: I'm usually very disinterested in participating in illusionist play. Our RoS campaign had some growing pains in this regard, and we've since crafted a wonderful dynamic that very satisfactorily (that is, satisfactorially to me) avoids illusionism.

I wonder if there's some disconnect between what you take from what they're saying and what they actually mean. That for example you're reading a GNS preference where they're expressing ephemera?

Is this to mean that in general you feel like the group leans towards illusionist play? The fact that you bring it up implies to me that you still see issues on this front somewhat. Am I reading that right? Also, do you feel like there are others that are currently frustrated with how play is going, or are you on your own about it?

I'm not sure what you mean by ephemera here, Tim. Can you point me to an explanation by Ron, or explain it yourself?

But the issue is in getting players to not only say they understand what "player driven" play is, but also to show that they understand it in play -- whether as GM or player. That is, getting everyone to recognize that their choices in play can dramatically affect what's going on in play has been a stuggle, I think. I think the group sometimes waits for cues from the GM, if for no other reason than because that's what's familiar and traditional. In kind, the GMs (myself included!) have done an insufficient job injecting conflicts and compelling scenes.

Eeeech! The "ephemera" thing is clouding the issue of Lisa and Matt's game. Tim, you're butcherin' it just a little.

Guys, let me get to that topic in my own time. It's not really an issue for this thread.

Thanks,
Ron

Ugh. Well, then there ya go Matt. Ignore my explanation of ephemera. I'm still curious how you answer the point of the question minus the term though.

-Tim

Fair 'nuff, Tim. I'll attempt to answer the question. . . .

I think you're asking about Stance and Techniques, but I could be misreading.

I don't think that what's happening is that I say "Let's do Narrativism, all in favor? Aye. Motion passes" while they hear, "All for Director stance? Aye? Motion passes."

Rather, I think what's happening is we say "Let's have player driven play? Aye. Motion passes." Then, I'm seeing "Cool, Narrativism here we come." Meanwhile others maybe seeing "Ok, so there's not plotline," and maybe not much else. Simply put, they aren't "seeing" stances or techniques, because they aren't thinking of game play in such atomic bits. It's just "play." So, it's hard to change the discrete bits consciously.

Matt Snyder wrote: Rather, I think what's happening is we say "Let's have player driven play? Aye. Motion passes." Then, I'm seeing "Cool, Narrativism here we come." Meanwhile others maybe seeing "Ok, so there's not plotline," and maybe not much else. Simply put, they aren't "seeing" stances or techniques, because they aren't thinking of game play in such atomic bits. It's just "play." So, it's hard to change the discrete bits consciously.

Good question. Is our RoS play narrativist? I think one of the challenges in answering that lies in that RoS is probably one of the few workable hybrid games. I suspect we "go simulationist" almost as often as we "go narrativist." If the premise of that game is "What will you kill for?" or "What is worth killing for?", I can point to key events in the game that indicate where the game 'goes narrativist.' (BTW, it is much easier for me to say, that yes, _I_ was making narrativist choices at that point, however, far less easy for me to speak for others. Yes, probably they were.) However, I think I can reasonably point to other events where people are dreaming the dream, seeing what it's like to live in a near-renaissance city, etc.

What you're still missing, I suspect, is who's GM-ing what and when. Our RoS GM is Tony (aka Asaraludu here on the Forge). Lisa and I are both players in RoS. Whereas, one of us is GM in other games, invariably. So, we have three GMs, as many games (indeed more as we've changed games), and triple the dynamic to work through.

Matt Snyder wrote: Good question. Is our RoS play narrativist? I think one of the challenges in answering that lies in that RoS is probably one of the few workable hybrid games. I suspect we "go simulationist" almost as often as we "go narrativist."

What you're still missing, I suspect, is who's GM-ing what and when. Our RoS GM is Tony (aka Asaraludu here on the Forge). Lisa and I are both players in RoS. Whereas, one of us is GM in other games, invariably. So, we have three GMs, as many games (indeed more as we've changed games), and triple the dynamic to work through.

Tim just wrote: I sort of wish I wasn't the lone voice here; that you could get some additional input from folks.

Hey MJ,
Just a couple of things here as it’s late and I’m a bit tired. I plan on responding to a whole host of other points that people have brought up later, perhaps early next week. There’s some good stuff going on here, and some stuff that leaves me wanting to bang my head against the monitor and scream, no! no! no!. As my weekend is more booked than seems humanly possible, I’ll not be able to get to everything that I want to address for a bit.
However, you said something that instantly caught my eye, and so I wanted to take a moment to get to it.

>>Arguably it doesn't work as well for any one individual as having a game that never drifts away from his preference, but since there are issues of socializing at play here as well (that is, we wanted to get together with our friends and play a game to pass the time while we socialize) this aspect of drift is the cost of playing together. I suspect this is what you're doing.<<

You place a negative connotation on this type of play, as though it’s a bad thing. You call it the ‘cost’, implying that somehow there’s risk involved for said players.(i.e. you pay for this style of play by giving up what you want so someone else can have what they want, thus coming out on the short end of the entertainment stick.) We call it the benefit of playing together. It’s rewarding for a number of reasons, primarily social, however, there’s the side beni of getting to play in different styles and grow as a player and GM alike. What’s not to like about that? Obviously, Matt’s not grooving on it (the whole reason I’m trying to figure this stuff out to begin with.) The rest of the group is okie dokie with it, as am I. I think Matt has agreed to this point, (step up and disagree here, Matt, if you need to.) The rest of the group is fine with what you term ‘cost’ and what I term ‘benefit’.

>>However, if a player feels as if the decisions of his character will not alter anything about the story that matters to him, he will rapidly become disenchanted.<<

Agreed, absolutely. This is why I feel it’s important to go with the flow depending on who (as in which player) I am focusing on at any given moment.
For instance, if I, as a GM, am dealing with Matt, I know I have to give him options that allow him to go out and create something that means something to him/his character. By contrast, another player of mine, Wendy, wants to respond to my cues, and in fact, requires those cues to ‘know what to do.’ Matt’s style of play is *not* better than Wendy’s, it’s simply different. Since we’ve all agreed that we want to play together, I have to give them both what they not only want, but need in order to have a good time. IOW, back to the compromise issue.
Maybe here’s the problem. Matt watches me give Wen ‘illusionist’ play, and automatically assumes that this is not the sort of game that he wants to play, when in reality, I’m ready and willing to shift gears to give him the narrative that he wants in the same game, same session. Don’t scoff, I’ve done it, it works. ;D
An addendum to this is that as soon as Matt decides that a particular game didn’t meet his expectations, he’s in favor of moving onto something else, thinking that changing games will solve his conundrum. Prior to Matt joining our group, we played long campaigns, the shortest one was 3 years in length. Now we bounce around all the time (w/ the exception of the RoS game). It’s like he doesn’t take the time to ‘warm’ to any given game. If it doesn’t work out in the first 3 sessions, he’s done. Not only is this hard for me as a GM, because I’m constantly trying to re-tool to fit his preferences, but it’s hard for the other players, and for me as a player, because we come up w/ these great ideas for games and characters, and then Matt bails, forcing us to start all over again.
I Am Not Pointing Fingers! Nor am I being accusatory or nasty. This is just the way it is. I like Matt, he’s my pal, and I want to accommodate him as much as I can, just as I would for any other player/friend so that he can have a good time. It just seems as though he doesn’t allow the time for the opportunity to come around where a campaign gels and is satisfying. He takes an immediate like/dislike and that’s it.
He gets frustrated, we get frustrated. This is not cool, especially when you look at the rest of the group and how well we play and I think, ‘man, why is it not working for this guy? Is it because he’s micro managing gaming, and thus making it too complex and when we fail to meet that complexity, he shuts off? Is it that he thinks that I’m trying to impose other player’s style of play on him, and then he shuts off?
Now, don’t think that Matt and I don’t discuss this stuff, we do. When a game doesn’t work for him, which it’s been a high percentage that haven’t, I ask the why, and make a concerted effort not to repeat what he doesn’t like. Unfortunately, it seems like new dislikes keep popping up like weeds.
BTW, Matt is not a disagreeable sort guy. All of this looks kinda negative, I don’t mean it that way at all. I’m just trying to get to the bottom of this so he can have fun too.

>>(Narrativism is not telling a coherent story; it's addressing a moral, ethical, or personal issue to raise questions and possibly suggest answers.)<<

I do this all the time, as I like this sort of thing a great deal. My other players are not adverse to this either. Why isn’t it working for Matt? Again, good question. This is the solution I seek. I’m reading everything that he has to say, I talk to him and I nod my head in full agreement of what he wants to see in a game and I say to myself “YES! This is cool!” Then I try to dish it up, and for various reasons, the execution isn’t quite to his taste. Is it because I blend so many modes of play in the same game/system/setting? Maybe.

Gawd, I wrote more than I meant to. I’m off to bed. So much for short comments. ;)

Warm Regards,
Lisa

Like MJ, I'm joining this thread a little late, and I hope what I have to say hasn't already been said. It looks like it hasn't.

The GM said:

Now, I knew that my gamist player really liked the idea of winning, whether that be saving the day from the bad guy through a series of events, or achieving minor goals, or whatever. By ‘winning’ scenarios, this player feels rewarded and entertained.
My simulationist player, by contrast is a by the book sort of fellow. He likes published metaplot, he likes linear, straight forward play. He likes to know where the campaign is going at all times. This is fun to him.
I, in contrast to them both, have an ‘anything goes’ attitude. The story is where it’s at for me, and if the story will be made better by taking unconventional actions, that’s not only ok w/ me, I prefer it.
Obviously, because we had never heard of GNS, we did not apply any of its principles. According to what I have read in these forums, that campaign should have been a trainwreck.

... snip ...

Using GNS designations, the campaign swung wildly from one spectrum to the other, frequently mid-session as I, being the storyteller, purposefully provided aspects of each category to satisfy each player, myself included.

Hi folks,

I have a couple of points that I don't think are *too* tangential.

1. GNS is not just for groups that are having a problem. I see that from time to time and it's very problematic for the theory. There are quotes in the GNS essay that say it's for anyone who wants *any* kind of improvement in their gaming--of any sort (microscopic or otherwise). So the idea that "it's not important if you're not having problems" is (and there was a thread that went into this explicitly) not so.

2. There *are* people here (long time, vociferous posters) who have (IME) gone strongly on the record saying that indeed GNS preferences had bloodly well better line up (maybe that's their strong preference for tight mode focus speaking, or intolerance of other modes, I don't know). So, I think that a reader of this board could get a distinct feeling that, yes, GNS theory "in the wild" (in actual usage) should involve people who line up on the same axis (and this, IME, is entirely not true).

Both these statements (despite not getting much support here) do and have gotten support on other threads I've participated in.

I still think there's some work to be done in introductory documents for people because there are some strong preferences that aren't cannonical.

-Marco

Lisa The GM (first quoting me) wrote:

>>Arguably it doesn't work as well for any one individual as having a game that never drifts away from his preference, but since there are issues of socializing at play here as well (that is, we wanted to get together with our friends and play a game to pass the time while we socialize) this aspect of drift is the cost of playing together. I suspect this is what you're doing.<<

You place a negative connotation on this type of play, as though it?s a bad thing. You call it the ?cost?, implying that somehow there?s risk involved for said players.(i.e. you pay for this style of play by giving up what you want so someone else can have what they want, thus coming out on the short end of the entertainment stick.)

to what you, again quoting me, wrote: >>However, if a player feels as if the decisions of his character will not alter anything about the story that matters to him, he will rapidly become disenchanted.<<

Agreed, absolutely. This is why I feel it?s important to go with the flow depending on who (as in which player) I am focusing on at any given moment.
For instance, if I, as a GM, am dealing with Matt, I know I have to give him options that allow him to go out and create something that means something to him/his character. By contrast, another player of mine, Wendy, wants to respond to my cues, and in fact, requires those cues to ?know what to do.? Matt?s style of play is *not* better than Wendy?s, it?s simply different. Since we?ve all agreed that we want to play together, I have to give them both what they not only want, but need in order to have a good time. IOW, back to the compromise issue.
Maybe here?s the problem. Matt watches me give Wen ?illusionist? play, and automatically assumes that this is not the sort of game that he wants to play, when in reality, I?m ready and willing to shift gears to give him the narrative that he wants in the same game, same session. Don?t scoff, I?ve done it, it works. ;D

You wrote: By contrast, another player of mine, Wendy, wants to respond to my cues, and in fact, requires those cues to ?know what to do.?

Nice stuff, MJ. Thanks for your response. 
Still, what you’re saying doesn’t quite fit.
A great example happened this weekend. The ‘old school’ group sat down to play Shadowrun. Matt was not there. The weekend up to that point had been rather hectic, and I had no pre-designated idea of what to do for plotline or anything else for that matter. This particular campaign is about two years old, so characters are fairly seasoned. I started the session with these words: “So guys, you’re in Seattle. What do you do?”
From there, it was out of my hands as the players crafted their own adventure. It was funny, because at the end of the session, I was getting some pats on the back for ‘creating’ an adventure that was full of all kinds of plot twists and unexpected turns. In reality, I did none of it. (And told my players so.) The players did. They were making up everything on the fly, including npcs, vast reaching conspiracies, and other general goodness. Everyone was glued to their seat as each ‘theory’ about what was going on became more interesting than the last. All I had to do was sit there and do some basic referee work.
I had to laugh, because by definition, that game was pure narrativism, the very thing that Matt wants.
So, is this still trailblazing?
Also, why did it work out that way?
I think the reason that the game went that way is because the players have ‘warmed’ to their characters enough that they feel comfortable to take the reins and really run with the game. I’ve seen this happen in our RoS campaign in which Matt and I are both players as well.
Now, I’ll be the first to admit that it takes a bit for this warming to occur. (Not 2 years, but not 2 sessions either.) Matt calls this growing pains. Maybe it is, although I see it as everyone syncing up and getting on the same page. So, when Matt says after a session or two, ‘this isn’t working for me,’ and we change games in an effort to compromise, it essentially starts that warming cycle over again, only each time it negatively reinforces that the next game will only last a few sessions as well, and so why bother trying to put a lot of thought into it. So in a very real sense, we wait for him to settle on a game before we get excited about it because we’re afraid that he’ll want to move onto something else, and all of the time spent on thinking great ideas up for game X this week will have been wasted when we’re starting game Y next week.
Giving Matt the boot is not an acceptable solution. I believe that we can make it work. So how do we shorten that warming period so that Matt gets satisfaction?
Thoughts?
Warm Regards,
Lisa

First, regarding the example of play from this weekend

Without more information, it's impossible to say whether this was narrativism, even though I know the group pretty well. Based on my experiences with the group, my gut tells me it was not narrativism, as the Forge defines it.

Did the session take as its fundamental premise a moral question (or, possibly, questions) which the players then prioritized as the key factor in their making decisions and ultimately in answering, or working towards an answer, the moral question at hand? If so, what was the moral question or questions? How did the players answer the question(s)?

If this was not happening, it was not narrativism.

The players used their long-existing characters. So, what within their extensive histories allowed them to "go out and do stuff?" Were they tying up loose ends from previous sessions? Were they doing stuff they've "wanted to do for a while?" Or, did they pretty much venture out into wholly new territory? Based on my limited experience and knowledge of the group, I'd be surprised if it was the latter. It seems to me more likely that they had plenty of "go do stuff" ammunition from many, many previous sessions. Is this correct?

Eitehr way, what did you as GM do to respond to their actions? How were their actions complicated?

How many pre-existing NPCs entered into the game session?

How many wholly new NPCs entered the game session? What was the actual nature of their "creation"?

Did the players partake in any jobs, aka Shadowruns? Did they receive any in-game rewards for doing so (nuyen, gear, etc.)? What about metagame rewards, like karma? For what specific events/accomplishments/etc. were they rewarded?

How many times during the session did the players roll the dice / "use" the system?

How much of the session involved combat dice rolls? How long did those combat scenes, if any, take in real time?

What were the key conflicts of the session? How did they pan out?

Second, regarding changing sessions, etc.

The issue from my perspective is not that I seek only Narrativist play, and cannot be happy with any other form of play. Rather, the issue is that in seveal instances, the group agrees upon a mode of play (usually using no or little Forge terminology), but then proceeds in actual play to not carry out that agreement, often reverting back into a "groove," a play style and set of techniques the group is largely used to.

To be sure, I do want to see some of these things happen in play -- narrativist games, more frequent directorial stances, non-illusionist play, etc. But I am not limiting myself only to wanting these things in play. However, I think the group is playing largely within the same mode (or rather, individuals are playing within their own modes/comfort zones), not fully grasping what all this stuff is and is about. They just want to play. They agree to play some new game, and then "rubber band" back into the usual tropes and techniques, because that is what they know and want. Can't say I blame them much!

I argue that they (that is, we!) "get it" with Riddle of Steel because it's encoded into how the game is played. They have Spiritual Attributes that help them, even require them to resolve specific issues, and often specific moral quandaries. (In other words, the system matters.) Other games, like Shadowrun (which I have played only once with the group) and Mutants & Masterminds (which I have played several times), have no such reinforcements besides "an agreement to agree" on how the game is played. In fact, my experience has been that those agreements are not being fully met consistently. Yes, some successes have occurred, but not sufficiently for me, I guess.

To put it another way: I believe, argue, and attempt to show in play that system does matter, and significantly. I think the group, for the most part, does not agree that system does matter, having much tradition and experiences to "disprove" that statement. I actually see the current situation as clear proof that system does matter, rather than the other way around. I think that point, simply stated, is the crucial point. (Of course, in actuality, that's a very complicated, many faceted point.)

Hey! There you are. ;)

>>Did the session take as its fundamental premise a moral question (or, possibly, questions) which the players then prioritized as the key factor in their making decisions and ultimately in answering, or working towards an answer, the moral question at hand? If so, what was the moral question or questions? How did the players answer the question(s)? <<

The background of the campaign is that the characters are reincarnated and have met in a different life to right some wrongs they didn't get around to the first time. So, Asaraludu vocalized this at the start by saying, 'if we had a second chance to change things, how would we do it? Plus, what needs fixed?'
This was the premise of the adventure.

>>The players used their long-existing characters. So, what within their extensive histories allowed them to "go out and do stuff?"<<

Obviously, stuff like setting stayed the same. The group had come off of a rather generic run, and so this was a new point for something to happen.

>>Were they tying up loose ends from previous sessions?<<

Nope, it was fresh.

>>Were they doing stuff they've "wanted to do for a while?" Or, did they pretty much venture out into wholly new territory? Based on my limited experience and knowledge of the group, I'd be surprised if it was the latter. It seems to me more likely that they had plenty of "go do stuff" ammunition from many, many previous sessions. Is this correct? <<

There was a bit of this at first. 'IE, I call and grease my contacts because I've been out of town for awhile,'
However, this didn't last very long, because I had no real plan and that's when the new stuff got injected. IOW, the players rose to the occasion. Their desire to play was so strong that it didn't matter if I was ready or not.


>>Eitehr way, what did you as GM do to respond to their actions? How were their actions complicated? <<

I honestly didn't have to do much, other than provide npc dialogue where needed. They provided a lot of their own conflict. IE, Wen thought this was the best route, Flash thought this was, and Ton a different. It was pretty neat character interaction.
From my end, I just took their assumptions about what was 'scary/dangerous' and affirmed them. "Yeah, it would be devastating if XYZ happened."

>>How many pre-existing NPCs entered into the game session? <<

One, at the begining, none after that.

>>How many wholly new NPCs entered the game session? What was the actual nature of their "creation"? <<

Good question. If you're talking about a major one, just one. If you include minor, there were several.

>>Did the players partake in any jobs, aka Shadowruns? Did they receive any in-game rewards for doing so (nuyen, gear, etc.)? What about metagame rewards, like karma?<<

No, no and none.

>> For what specific events/accomplishments/etc. were they rewarded? <<

They were rewarded by having a good time together and creating a really cool story. IOW, the reward wasn't karma, it was in the act of creation itself. I didn't even think to give karma when it was done, nor did they ask.


>>How many times during the session did the players roll the dice / "use" the system? <<

None.

>>How much of the session involved combat dice rolls? How long did those combat scenes, if any, take in real time?<<

I let them describe to me what happened rather than dice rolling. Because the guys are very well versed in what is possible in the physics of the SR world, they only took actions that they deemed 'realistic.' I, of course, was more than happy to let them describe to me what happened rather than rolling scads of dice for hours on end.

>>What were the key conflicts of the session? How did they pan out? <<

The key conflict is that there's a evil prescence in the city that seeks to destroy and taint. The object was to find out more about how far reaching this taint was. The players decided that this taint was very far reaching, in fact, much more so than I would have had I 'planned' the adventure. This particular adventure is still ongoing.

Oh, missed one:

>>What was the actual nature of their "creation"? <<

The players were talking about whether or not the 'threat' was so huge as to enter into world governments, and if so, which leaders might be involved. The players decided that one of the 'big players' of what the players have termed 'the game' (IOW, the conspiracy) was a guy they called 'The master of the tower.' The master, they surmise, is a great magician who has an innate talent with technology, and thus he can become the ghost in the machine, essentially being able to spy on any and everyone. They also surpmised that the master was tainted by evil, or a servant of evil forces.
It was a pretty cool idea, I thought.

Matt says:
>>To put it another way: I believe, argue, and attempt to show in play that system does matter, and significantly. I think the group, for the most part, does not agree that system does matter, having much tradition and experiences to "disprove" that statement. I actually see the current situation as clear proof that system does matter, rather than the other way around. I think that point, simply stated, is the crucial point. (Of course, in actuality, that's a very complicated, many faceted point.)<<

I would say, and have said, that system matters in that it needs to do what you want it to, to recreate physics or what have you. As you know, when I think system gets in the way, I'm more than happy to drop it. (and then I say, system doesn't matter! ;D ) Do I think a game has to have SAs to make for player driven play? Nope. I do think you have to have a clear idea of character motivation though. So, you could make the argument that SAs and mechanics of that nature are the crutch players use to constantly be reminded of what those motivations are.
Looking back on it, you are right, play doesn't always happen the way we say it's going to.
Hmmm....
Now, the question is, how to keep from reverting to old styles of play when trying something new. I would venture to guess that this is a question of making sure we're each on the same page. I mean really on the same page, not just with words about how a game is going to go, but maybe some real examples prior to play.
I'm certain that our group has played at some point, most styles/ modes, so I can't see that the understanding of such examples would go unnoticed.

The GM wrote: Hey! There you are. ;)

The background of the campaign is that the characters are reincarnated and have met in a different life to right some wrongs they didn't get around to the first time. So, Asaraludu vocalized this at the start by saying, 'if we had a second chance to change things, how would we do it? Plus, what needs fixed?'
This was the premise of the adventure.

From my end, I just took their assumptions about what was 'scary/dangerous' and affirmed them. "Yeah, it would be devastating if XYZ happened."

>>Did the players partake in any jobs, aka Shadowruns? Did they receive any in-game rewards for doing so (nuyen, gear, etc.)? What about metagame rewards, like karma?<<

No, no and none.

>> For what specific events/accomplishments/etc. were they rewarded? <<

They were rewarded by having a good time together and creating a really cool story. IOW, the reward wasn't karma, it was in the act of creation itself. I didn't even think to give karma when it was done, nor did they ask.

>>How many times during the session did the players roll the dice / "use" the system? <<

None.

>>How much of the session involved combat dice rolls? How long did those combat scenes, if any, take in real time?<<

I let them describe to me what happened rather than dice rolling. Because the guys are very well versed in what is possible in the physics of the SR world, they only took actions that they deemed 'realistic.' I, of course, was more than happy to let them describe to me what happened rather than rolling scads of dice for hours on end.

The key conflict is that there's a evil prescence in the city that seeks to destroy and taint. The object was to find out more about how far reaching this taint was. The players decided that this taint was very far reaching, in fact, much more so than I would have had I 'planned' the adventure. This particular adventure is still ongoing.

Matt says:

>>If so, there aren't any group-recognized themes or moral questions to answer. Rather, there is a group-recognized theme by which all answer the same: "Yes, I will reform my life; here's how." This seems to me to be a pretty simulationist premise. Other folks might have better insight than I do, however! (Whaddya say, folks?) <<

Whatever the case may be, this wasn’t something that I came up with. This was a player driven choice. (For lack of a better term.)

>>To be blunt, why is it sufficient to only award "enjoyment"? Aren't all games supposed to be enjoyable? If you're not offering mechanical rewards, why are you using a system at all (in fact, it seems like you're not, given no dice-based conflicts, etc.) <<<

It had nothing to do w/ not awarding karma, I just didn’t think to, and they didn’t remind me. You’re right about not using system sometimes. Sometimes I don’t, and the guys go w/ that because they respect that I prefer rules lite games. Sometimes, when playing SR, I go through the whole ugly ordeal of a vehicle crash test, just like the book says, because Ton gets a kick out of it. Just so happened, that we mutually (if non verbally) decided to ditch the system for the session. The system seemed unimportant for the type of game we wanted that particular day.

>>You are, then, in effect, playing freeform Shadowrun? That is, using the setting, schucking the rules? At what point do you utilize the system? When are dice rolled? <<

Probably next session, or maybe not. I intuit a lot of stuff when it comes to when to use the rules, when to focus only on story, etc.. I don’t have a formula or theory for this, Just my guts and the feedback from players.


>>Plainly, I'm pretty disinclined to play in this style. If that's what the group's used to, or if the system is there to keep game monkeys pleased, it's not the game for me. If, for example, you run a bunch of dice rolls in a quick combat to keep Flash interested in that aspect, that isn't sufficient for my interests in the game Shadowrun. (i.e., this ain't how I envision SR, and it isn't what the game was made to do, despite its neato setting) <<

I understand what you’re saying. This is why we made SR a side line game, apart from Tuesday night’s regular session. We want you to have fun on game night, so no point in making you play a game that’s not fun for you. This is what I’m trying to hammer down here, Matt. I care not about theory and so on. What I care about is your enjoyment, and specifically how to achieve that. Furthermore, I’m wanting to know how to blend your preferences in w/ everyone else’s. I’m interested in where the rubber meets the road. That’s all. Hey, if I ran an illusionary, gamist, simulativist, isolationist, whateverist game, and you and the guys liked it, score! Now, I’m being a little dramatic here, but honestly, so many terms get thrown around here and I’m hearing conflicting views of where to take this situation. Not that I don’t like differing viewpoints, or healthy debate. I do. I just don’t want to get so caught up on theory that we’re missing the real issues.


>>In other words, why are you playing Shadowrun in the first place? Is the only answer, "The players like the setting?" It seems drastically different from the game Shadowrun as published. Could you use another system (like, say, the Pool) that is very simple (aka rules "lite") to accomplish the same type of play with similar, or even better, results? Would the players not like this because "it's not Shadowrun" with all the neato gear and wares and setting elements? <<

This is a debate that has raged many a time at casa de Fleishman. So rather than change the system, we compromise, and just go with the flow.
I’m not going to point by point the rest of this SR game commentary right now, mostly because I’m not certain that anyone will really get any value from seeing a point by point critique of a game that we all had fun playing to begin w/. If it wasn’t narrativism, it was pretty damn close to the definition I see on these very forums.

Thanks for the commentary, everyone. 

Warm Regards,
Lisa

GM,

Lots of talk about nothing, I think. What does it matter what mode you're playing in? Narrativist, Sim, whatever, what does it matter? You're having fun, so the discussion doesn't make a difference. Oh, it might be of some academic interest, but it won't help your play to figure it out. Because that's not what GNS is about.

It's only important if there's a conflict in player interests. Which I fail to see here.

Above, responding to MJ, you say:

Matt watches me give Wen ‘illusionist’ play, and automatically assumes that this is not the sort of game that he wants to play, when in reality, I’m ready and willing to shift gears to give him the narrative that he wants in the same game, same session. Don’t scoff, I’ve done it, it works. ;D

Matt Wrote:

Furthermore, if you are indeed effectively running a freeform storytelling game, using the Shadowrun setting, by what means do players become empowered to tell the story? How do they resist you as GM? Can they? If there is no system, even a simple system to say, "No, GM, I don't want that to happen that way," how the non-GM players really get to contribute to the story at crucial junctures?

Mike Holmes wrote: Marco, though it would seem that you'd like for GNS to be about more than it is, in order to discredit it, how can you ignore the fact that Ron has said a jillion times that it's only about problematic play related to the modes, and how to solve those problems? If you're going to say that GNS theory says that all problems are solved by it, then please cite where it says so. Yes, people get that idea all the time, and some even say that incorrectly, but it's not for a lack of people who understand it trying to convince them otherwise.

To make another bad analogy, it's like people who self-medicate. We try to be the label that tells people when to use the drug. But some people just don't read the fine print, and take the drug for the wrong ailment. But does that mean that we have to take the drug off the shelves? Is the theory to blame for these problems with it's use, or the people who missapply it? Could we write a better label? Well, what am I trying to do in this thread other than correct misperceptions?

There is a question as to how prevalent these problems are, and some would say that GNS problems are pandemic. Which is not the same as saying that they are all problems. And in any case we've acceeded isn't something that can't be acurately determined without unavailable data.


As to your second point, yes, GNS preferences have to "line up" after a fashion. That doesn't mean that they have to be the same, that's just one possible solution (and the simplest solution for a design trying to get it's players on the same page). That does mean that if you have a group like Matt and Lisa's, where the players don't seem to mind dirfferent modes, that they've "lined up" in terms of all agreeing to play in this multi-modal way. Creative Agenda doesn't have to mean "we're only playing Narrativist", or even "we're only playing Hybrid GS", it can mean "We're all playing the way we want, whenever we want"*. It can mean anything, as long as all the players agree to what it means. I would posit that agreement to have players playing different from you is uncommon, but that's a tendency I can't prove.

GNS is about players who don't agree about what the Creative Agenda is (specifically in GNS terms). If the players agree, then there's a coherent Creative Agenda. If the players don't agree, then there's incoherence. It's a simple as that.

Mike

Hi,

Gordon's right. I think the ideas are useful even, or perhaps especially, for people who do have fun with role-playing but perhaps would like more.

Best,
Ron

Thanks all for the great commentary. I'll be exiting this thread and not tracking it anymore.
Take care!
Warm Regards,
Lisa

Lisa, in regard to your described recent Shadowrun game, I have two observations:

• You clearly were not trailblazing at that game, but were much more in the mode of bass playing.• It does not sound like your usual mode of play, particularly in regard to the previous descriptions of the techniques you use with Wendy.

I'm not sure that it was narrativist, but that may be because your group is constantly looking for the action adventure game, not the moral issues game, and so left to their own devices that's what they created.

I suppose that this is too late, since you're apparently leaving us; but I do hope you and Matt manage to work out the problems.

Has anyone considered letting Matt run a game?

--M. J. Young

M.J. and others --

To clarify once more. I DO run a game. Our group has primarily three potential GMs. Over the last year, here's how our play has progressed:

Last year, starting in September or so, we played Riddle of Steel for several months (of nearly weekly play). The GM was Tony (aka Asaraludu).

Tony then took a break from Riddle of Steel in the winter. We played my own game, Avatar-13, a cyberpunk homebrew I created. I ran the game for several sessions.

Following that, we then played Mutants & Masterminds. Lisa and I "took turns" running the game with varying levels of success. Ultimately, the sessions fizzled. (Tony also ran a "sub-campaign" of M&M, but I participated in only 1 of those sessions, as a player.)

During this time, Tony began running Riddle of Steel again, which we played for a few weeks.

Then, about a month or six weeks ago, we playtested Nine Worlds, which I ran. We continued to play RoS. We then decided to set up a formal rotation of three games, three GMs, each taking a turn every third week. Tony would run RoS, I would run Nine Worlds, and Lisa would run a modern horror, vampire hunters game (using the Avatar-13 rules set).

Throughout this process, we deliberated on which games to play. This is especially true following our Mutants & Masterminds play.

We play on weeknights, though we have played a rare session on during the weekend.

Finally, and importantly, all throughout this time the "rest" of the group participated in MANY sessions (as often as weekly), typically of Shadowrun run by Lisa. They play on the weekends, when I'm often not available.

So, in short, yes, I "get" to run games. Tony runs most often, because of our successul RoS campaign. More power to him!

Marco wrote: Gordon Landis had a whole thread about that. Ron posted on it. IIRC the strong conclusion was: It's for anyone who wants something more from their gaming. I cannot imagine how this is seen as discrediting it.

it's for anyone who wants *any* kind of improvement in their gaming--of any sort (microscopic or otherwise).

If I was misunderstanding them when they were really saying "Marco, in order for people to 'get along' they must first 'get along' " then maybe it was all the swearing or something.

But I'd suggest you argue with *them*--I agree completely with your second point. But, you know, I can see how a person coming here could get the other idea.

Mike,

Roger. If I ever say that "GNS is the solution to every problem" you may give me a virtual smack. I'm way on the other side of the fence. And I don't think anyone is saying that GNS is the solution to every problem.

I don't even think "knowing the theory" is necessiarily the "solution" to *any* GNS problem. That is, I don't think "the theory" addresses the resolution of GNS-based conflicts (and I don't know that anyone else does either. The closest I've seen--and it was in PM's--and contained profanity--was that "knowing the theory" is 'necessary' to allow more concrete solutions to arise.)

Dunno. Maybe it's a YMMV thing.

But consider this:

Saying to Matt that you don't care about theory, but about how he feels is simiular to saying, "I know that you're hungry, but I only care about how you feel." GNS exists, whether you like it or not; players do have preferences. Like starvation, which can only be addressed by food, a GNS problem can only be addressed by applying an appropriate solution. The one difference in the analogy is that you can ask Matt to change his preference (something you can't do with hunger). Again, this is all about having an agreed to vision for play. But, then that's what GNS is all about -getting on the same sheet of music as to what play is about.

Marco wrote: Is a pretty strong suggestion that GNS is, in fact, required for her and Matt to iron out their game.

Hi everyone,

Lisa seems to be done with this thread, so I'd guess it's time to let it close - but as far as the side issue of when to apply GNS goes: it looks to me like Mike and Marco eventually got to the right place. No, no one (I hope!) would ever say GNS is the only solution to all problems. My other thread was just to be clear that it's not ONLY in a massively dysfunctional game that GNS can be helpfully applied.

Gordon

Obviously I'm of the belief of a wider abilty to use GNS, I'm the guy who advocates it's use in design. So, I'm going to agree with Marco to be more careful in my phraseology in the future. I could have been more clear.

In any case, sorry for dragging the thread out longer than it needed to go.

Mike

All closed!

Best,
Ron