Paganini wrote: Narrativism is about setting up a specific kind of choice for the characters to face. Call them urgent choices. For one reason or another, an urgent choice can't just be waved away or ignored. Because of the situation or the character or *something* in the context of the shared reality, the choice must be resolved one way or another. It won't just go away. The characters can't just laugh it off.

*This* is what addressing premise is really about! To imagine situation in such a way that the urgent choice is presented.

I have similar experiences with player-led games being (a) more fun to GM and (b) more fun for the players. I'm afraid my theoretical conclusions are very striaghtforward and I may not have much meat to offer for discussion. My conclusions are:

(a) Allowing players the lead means more surprises for me as GM, which I enjoy.

(b) Because the players have originated stuff - be it creating an NPC or a plot - they have a greater level of investment in it. They have a greater level of engagement with the cool plot because it is their cool plot.

Hi John,

Ian has pretty much summed up my thoughts on this as well. Why is it more interesting when the player chooses to involve his PC in a romance? Well, because the player is clearly interested in the romance, so there's more interest right there in the action and choices of the player.

I'm not sure though, that this is counter-intuitive. It's certainly counter to what we've all been trained for two decades to think: that the GM is the driving force of the "story"; that the players are waiting around (if not lost) without the GM acting as the guiding agent for their fun; that the GM role is to craft the encounters, world and events that the players will find interesting.

That's been the logic. And if I'd thought about for five seconds in years past I would have realized that it makes no sense whatseover. It's this point of view -- manifested and disseminated in RPG rule books, game articles, published modules and chat boards -- is the one that's counter-intuitive. How could it possibly be true that if the GM, alone and in anticipation of actual play, plans everything the palyers will be interested, that there will be more interest at the table than if everyone at the table is manifesting what's of interest at the moment?

Its embarassing to me it seems like such a no-brainer now, but I could never get my head past this obvious point years ago: How to keep interest strong at the table? Ask, listen, pay attention, respond and deliver. And when this is done, the GM invariably recieves the same in kind.

Best,
Christopher

John,

This is exactly the set up I've been using for my Narrativist 3E game, and so your post definitely strikes a chord with me. It clearly defines a few items I've been trying to put into words for a while about the differences between the first stretch of sessions and the rest of the game.

After a very difficult beginning, where I was still trying to run the game (GM as pacesetter and originator of the action), I finally managed to work my way into giving the players the job of guiding the action.

This had the results you describe: increasing complexity of events caused by player reaction to events. As I've said a number of times in my posts about the game in Actual Play, the game is going places I never imagined.

As an additional note to this, the player who "took the ball and ran with it" is also the newest to role-playing. It was the older, more established role-players who had trouble coming to grips with being the directors of the action, often waiting for me to "do" something or tell them "what happens next" while the other would quickly respond with what they wanted to do now.

(At least in this case, it supports Ron's theory that newer players have an easier time with this player-driven method of play than do experienced role-players.)

So, I don't have much to add except that "It makes sense to me."

Christopher Kubasik wrote: Why is it more interesting when the player chooses to involve his PC in a romance? Well, because the player is clearly interested in the romance, so there's more interest right there in the action and choices of the player.

I'm not sure though, that this is counter-intuitive. It's certainly counter to what we've all been trained for two decades to think:
...
Its embarassing to me it seems like such a no-brainer now, but I could never get my head past this obvious point years ago: How to keep interest strong at the table? Ask, listen, pay attention, respond and deliver. And when this is done, the GM invariably recieves the same in kind.

Hi John,

I should clarify. There were two phases of my gaming career: high school, which was fun; and full gear sim mode (usually as a player) combined with working within the field of RPG publishing.

In High School, it was giving them what they wanted, following up what they seemed interested in and so on. I did this intuitively, and without problem.

Once I got into publishing, well... Remember, published modules that try to be "stories" (not gamist dungeon crawls), were "stories" with absolutely interchangeable protagonists. It was assumed that the players would be interested because modules included hooks for the *characters*. This flies in the fact of actually letting the session be built by the interest in the players becasuse the publishers never met the players.

However, I was trying to buck this the whole time. When I worked on the design for Torg, I was the one who said, "We need to give the players more control, we need to give them a mechanic for helping shape the story to what they want it to be."

Thus, in the Trog Drama Deck, you had the Romantic Subplot card. When you played it, you named an NPC and you and the GM were off and running. (Note that this was desgined to throw the GM off as well, so that, to a degree he got to enjoy thinking on his toes just like players normally do.)

Once I spoke to another game designer about this. He said, "If one of the PCs is going to have a romantic subplot in a game I'm running, *I'll be the one to make it happen."

I was stunned. I didnt't know how to phrase the response. Because the entire publishing industry was based on producing source books and modules that assumed "This is the way things are, you will be interested in this elaborate background, this mission from Mr. Johnson." The idea was always to justify the PC interest in these things. I knew this was wrong, but by this time my thinking had been so addled by the needs for publishing and the general habits of the groups I had played with, that I couldn't think in terms of the players. For the most part, it was assumed that game world just sort of went on without any input from the players.

I'm not saying everyone experienced this. But I certainly did.

I tried in different projects to alter this: In Earthdawn, for example, a PC could dedicate himself to one of a dozen Passions, and clearly, if you were really into Home, Hearth and Healling, the GM might pick up on the clue and offer you more of it. Or he could simply see it as "You picked these powers." I really couldn't camp out at every game.

Hence leaving the hobby. If I had firmly and consistantly argued the point I might have worn someone down. But the truth is, the entire publishing model was built on the idea that the players just wanted to play -- and would play any damned thing as long as the "genre" color was correct for their taste. That what mattered was the PCs involvement in the story, and not the players.

So, in short, this isn't how I ran my games at first, but, as I was paid to write material that sold, my thinking about games changed.

Bumping into the Forge, and Ron's blunt and aggressive observation that what matters is what matters to the players, not the characters, in terms of getting a story moving, was like an electroshock to the temples.

I had simply forgotten. But, also, I was available to remember because I had no concern for publishing matieral for thousands of strangers, but just sitting around playing with a few people.

Christopher

Christopher Kubasik wrote: I should clarify. There were two phases of my gaming career: high school, which was fun; and full gear sim mode (usually as a player) combined with working within the field of RPG publishing.

Christopher Kubasik wrote: Because the entire publishing industry was based on producing source books and modules that assumed "This is the way things are, you will be interested in this elaborate background, this mission from Mr. Johnson." The idea was always to justify the PC interest in these things. I knew this was wrong, but by this time my thinking had been so addled by the needs for publishing and the general habits of the groups I had played with, that I couldn't think in terms of the players. For the most part, it was assumed that game world just sort of went on without any input from the players.

I'm not saying everyone experienced this. But I certainly did.

Hi John,

One more point: it wasn't just working for The Man.

Two groups I played with (who may or may not have been heavily influenced by modules, I don't know, I joined them after they were a "group") had a lot of influence on me as to what playing was "supposed" to be like.

The first was the Northwestern crew: programmers and physicists. To them, it was all about the world. They wanted, and got, a multi-GM world running with five groups concurrently at the game club. In in our private sessions, it was all about creating this thing that could keep going even if the PCs never showed up.

The second group were what I call Story Simulationists: Justice Inc, CoC, and Star Wars were the games of choice. The idea was to recreate all the genre trappings and what not and -- importantly -- make sure each PC fit into his or her "role" appropriately of "that kind of story."

Note that in the preceding two paragraphs, the concern was the PC -- not the player. Everythere related to how the PC fit into the world or narrative. The players job was to enable the PC to work propperly within the world or story. It never occurredt to either of these groups to ask, "What really, really matters to you? What matters to you that you want to co-create an evening of conversation about?"

Also, importantly, the second group obsessively, and the first group lightly, was into the whole "players only speak in character" thing. It was seen as a sign of "experienced" sophistication. I know I'm about to step on some toes when I say this, but I now see that habbit as pernicious and god-awful.

In light of this conversation, such a technique removes the voice of the player, leaving only the voice of the PC. Again, we're left with only the PC and his interaction with the world or the GMs story. How can the player matter if his voice can't be heard? To me, and I know there are plenty of people who love this, its a horrible piece of the the "Shut up and learn your place" school of RPGs.

Finally, keep in mind that with the Story Sim, and even the Environmental Sims, there was no need to railroad or have a definite plot. I know there was a lot of Illusionism going on with the Story Sim boys. The point is, it was all an illusion to craft a story that felt like a story -- the shadow play of a story thing I referred to earlier.

See, for me a story actually, truly has to be about something that matters right now. Emotionally and intellectually, right now. Other than that, its fan fiction or eye candy CGIs. When Antigone is arguing with Creon that her brother, who betrayed the State, has to be buried because he's family, and does this knowing if she doesn't shut up, Creon is going to kill her because he's set the law and he can't lose face -- that's a story. (I suspect you might consider this "melodrama." You and I work from different schools of story. Mine is the older one that has lasted a long, long time.)

So, that's story. When we sat around with my Story Sim group, with lots of great charcter work (really), and really great bits of color (really), it was still about nothing. No choices were being made. No issues that mattered to those of us at the table were really being laid out at the table.

Now, to a degree, I might just be missing the boat. If these guys only wanted to make up stories that were like stories -- then everyone was being listened to as a player and all there needs were being met.

However, this was one of the most angry, fractuous group of players I'd ever bumped into. I can sum it up this way: After leaving town for a while and stopping back, I spoke to one of the wives of one fo the players who had stopped playing with the group. She was really happy. I asked why. She said, "Because Mitch doesn't come back really angry at Joe anymore."

All they did was get together to "play" -- but as far as I could tell the friendships were as thin as the winters' first sheet of ice.

I truly believe now that this is from sociallizing with folks who you never reveal anything to, and never learn anything about. And this can only be addressed by actually revealing what matters. Not in terms of what "kind" of story you want to create, not what sorts of "genre" elements you want, or clever bits or funny voices -- but to really, honestly, balls to the walls, set out in front of god and all, what matters to you, as a person, and establish the stakes, like a good story does, to make the stakes have consequences, and follow those consequences through to the end.

That would be, to me, respecting what the players want. Creating an enviroment where everyone, in whatever calm or freaky way they want, can reveal who they are and explore all the passions, ideas, and feeling of being human.

Christopher

Christopher Kubasik wrote: Note that in the preceding two paragraphs, the concern was the PC -- not the player. Everythere related to how the PC fit into the world or narrative. The players job was to enable the PC to work propperly within the world or story. It never occurredt to either of these groups to ask, "What really, really matters to you? What matters to you that you want to co-create an evening of conversation about?"

Also, importantly, the second group obsessively, and the first group lightly, was into the whole "players only speak in character" thing. It was seen as a sign of "experienced" sophistication. I know I'm about to step on some toes when I say this, but I now see that habbit as pernicious and god-awful.

In light of this conversation, such a technique removes the voice of the player, leaving only the voice of the PC. Again, we're left with only the PC and his interaction with the world or the GMs story. How can the player matter if his voice can't be heard? To me, and I know there are plenty of people who love this, its a horrible piece of the the "Shut up and learn your place" school of RPGs.

Christopher Kubasik wrote: When Antigone is arguing with Creon that her brother, who betrayed the State, has to be buried because he's family, and does this knowing if she doesn't shut up, Creon is going to kill her because he's set the law and he can't lose face -- that's a story. (I suspect you might consider this "melodrama." You and I work from different schools of story. Mine is the older one that has lasted a long, long time.)

Christopher Kubasik wrote: I truly believe now that this is from sociallizing with folks who you never reveal anything to, and never learn anything about. And this can only be addressed by actually revealing what matters. Not in terms of what "kind" of story you want to create, not what sorts of "genre" elements you want, or clever bits or funny voices -- but to really, honestly, balls to the walls, set out in front of god and all, what matters to you, as a person, and establish the stakes, like a good story does, to make the stakes have consequences, and follow those consequences through to the end.

That would be, to me, respecting what the players want. Creating an enviroment where everyone, in whatever calm or freaky way they want, can reveal who they are and explore all the passions, ideas, and feeling of being human.

A bit of a follow-up to my own reply to Christopher... As I read it, I think it may have come out as more opposed than it was meant to be.

My preference is definitely to play with people whom I know, and socialize with outside of gaming. Thus, I sympathize with disliking a group who insist on in-character and in-game interactions. On the other hand, I have greatly enjoyed mostly in-character play with friends, where I do not commit to an out-of-character stance on what my PC is doing. When I think back over the times that I really remember and enjoyed in gaming, it is times like these that I recall.

A really interesting thread. I think the common theme being seen here is what I called Situation Driven Roleplaying

Its interesting to see all of the different routes people have taken to get there, and the different variety of techniques you employ while doing it.

There are two things going on here, it seems to me. The first is the appearance of Metagame in play. That is, John wants less, Chris doesn't mind more. The second thing is authorial control. Both John and Chris want more.

Now, John's method doesn't prevent authorial play. One can be just as Autorial in the first person, as in the third. So there's no conflict between your opinions, really. What John is saying is that you can have a coherent creative agenda with first person play and lots of authoring potential. Chris is saying that some play in the past has been marred because the texts that advocate first person don't make it clear that you should also be able to author. Which is to say that incoherence is bad.

Coherence is good. Incoherence is bad. We all agree. The only questions are to what extent certain techniques may tend to cause incoherence. And I'd say that it's mostly an issue of the way in which the techniques are taught to the players. Hence the importance of good texts, assuming that you use them. Note how you say, John, that you didn't use published adventures. Well, no surprise that you were more able to keep on track with your CA. But it's hard to imagine that companies put out gaming materials intending for them not to be used. So I do think they were to blame for the problems that did occur when people did use them.

Mike

Jonn and all,

Good points.

Christopher

Mike Holmes wrote: There are two things going on here, it seems to me. The first is the appearance of Metagame in play. That is, John wants less, Chris doesn't mind more. The second thing is authorial control. Both John and Chris want more.

Now, John's method doesn't prevent authorial play. One can be just as Autorial in the first person, as in the third. So there's no conflict between your opinions, really.

Mike Holmes wrote: Coherence is good. Incoherence is bad. We all agree. The only questions are to what extent certain techniques may tend to cause incoherence. And I'd say that it's mostly an issue of the way in which the techniques are taught to the players. Hence the importance of good texts, assuming that you use them. Note how you say, John, that you didn't use published adventures. Well, no surprise that you were more able to keep on track with your CA. But it's hard to imagine that companies put out gaming materials intending for them not to be used. So I do think they were to blame for the problems that did occur when people did use them.