Hello. My gaming group is in the middle of a TROS campaign right now. My Seneschal places priority on discovery as a means of progress. I see the following ends of a range along this dynamic: at one extreme, things are too transparent, and the group quickly cuts past potentially satisfying engagements; at the other end, everyone is stymied in confusion; antagonist motivations never read from play; consequently, there is nothing to decide about.

(Personally, I prefer a more full disclosure and a co-authored approach to advancing the game experience. Why should the GM have to come up with all the ideas? But progress through discovery and that flavor of game experience is our accepted tenet.)

So. We're currently stuck on the end of dim clarity. Has anyone ever had a similiar contextual dysfuntion? What seemed to work to get you out of it?

Have you talked to your GM about it? I don't mean neccessarily trying to change what he does, but rather just asked him why he does it that way? Figure out what his play goals are, and maybe he'll start asking after yours.

Jake

Jake's right. This problem is pretty common. In fact, I'd suggest its one of the most basic forms that dysfunctional play takes. However there are many reasons that your GM may be doing this. Some include.

1) Its just the way he's always played. Many gamers get so indoctrinated by the method of play used by the group who first taught them roleplaying that they can't concieve that there are other possibilities. They then go on to use these same techniques with others.

2) Your GM may seriously believe that "uncovering secrets" is the main source of player enjoyment in roleplaying. Perhaps it is indeed his main source of enjoyment (or perhaps this is another example of #1), but that doesn't mean it is for the rest of the group.

3) Your GM may have control issues. Having you "uncover secrets" may just be the covering excuse for what is essentially a GM railroad job. Kind of like that scene in the Italian Job where they hack into the traffic lights in order manipulate traffic and make a certain truck go a certain way, he may be using his "clues" as signals to make you go a certain way...his way.

4) He flat out might just not be a very good GM...(you'd know better than I on that)

There are certainly others, but those are some common possibilities.

I would definitely recommend talking to him about it, but first I'd make sure that you can clearly articulate what your own preferences are. If you go in with just a vague notion of it "not feeling like we're getting anywhere" or the like, most GMs of this type will be well armed to shoot you down.

If you don't have a clear notion of what it is you'd want to see (not just what the problems are but a solution too) than you're likely to be ignored; or at best a token effort will be made to address whatever part of your vague issue the GM understood, and at worst you'll be painted as a dissatisfied trouble maker.

So yes, talk. But first know what you're going to say.

Yes, the whole group talked. Basically, about what we should do next. I brought up the point that actual play revealled a priority of discovery.

It's an interesting suggestion, to ask my GM what his play goals are. In the sense of "why."

He's new to GM'ing. His strengths are: high prep of setting/situation, IC dialogue and setting a relaxed tone. But it's kind of like Zelda without the prologue: yes, I'm wandering around, and it looks cool, but what am I supposed to be doing?

I'm thinking along these lines: all types of play can be enjoyable; accepting the priority of discovery, there must be some established procedure to pursue it.

I appreciate your observation to prepare articulated solutions. That sounds constructive.

Thx.

accepting the priority of discovery, there must be some established procedure to pursue it.

bcook1971 wrote: yes, I'm wandering around, and it looks cool, but what am I supposed to be doing?

Hi Bill,

I'm still a bit unclear about what's happening in play. The word "discovery" really isn't giving me an image of what you mean.

Is it - to take the most extreme case - a matter of "Guess what I'm thinking?"

One of the most difficult play experiences I can remember arose from a GM who had a very specific concept, in his mind, of how I and another player should address a particular piece of evidence in the game he was running. He had it all worked out - he wanted us to enlarge a piece of film and go over it bit by bit, just like in Bladerunner.

And there we were, running other analyses or asking questions that he wasn't interested in seeing us do or having us ask. So he kept hinting, "Like Bladerunner! Remember? Like that!" Without, of course, with any more specifics, because that would ruin it, of course. He wanted us to come up with how he wanted the player-characters to act, with exactly the same combination of homage and enthusiasm that he felt.

Needless to say, it was a bust in all possible ways.

So, are you encountering situations like that? Or perhaps slightly less extreme ones, in which you are to interpret hints like "the hall is all muddy" in the way that he wants you to interpret them and considers to be obvious?

Or is this totally off track? Please give me a complete example of what you mean by "discovery," in play.

Best,
Ron

Just a brief word to say I'd be intriuged by this as well.

As far as I can see, having a true and significant "discovery" appear in a game is a very difficult thing to happen indeed. I mentioned the example in a previous Actual Play thread - for the players to find that the emblem or logo outside the shop/tavern (or whatever) that they've been passing by all game, was actually the bad guy's insignia - transformed or hidden somehow - all along, seems impossible without either railroading (already described here as "guess what I'm thinking") or on it being player initiated.

This and this are what's happened so far.

Well, now that I think about it, most discoveries take place during breaks, inbetween sessions or by player divulgences.



• Duran murdered Isabelle. Her suicide was staged. Alejandro was culpable for Isabelle's state but not her death.
• Duran sought to research the Fey fertility crisis.
• Myron is trying to involve other countries in the war between Gelure and Farrenshire to unseat the disapproving benefactor of his love.



Other things, we did find out from actually playing.



• It was Duran who ordered the shipment of Fey artifacts.
• Duran was Melinda!
• Nicholas achieved his goal of clearing his name by leaving Duran's purchase order with the burgaled crate for the authorities to find.



I was talking with Luke (ZazielsRephaim), my group's Seneschal, at the end of last session, trying to gain insight into his agenda for play. I infered (I assume, correctly) from his manner of allowing unstructured play streams that he wants we players to use our characters to explore the game world, following clues and chasing down leads on theories we formulate. This is the process I term "discovery," whereby we will (presumably) reveal a chain of causality that will direct our efforts in achieving our goals.

Ok. Accepted. It's not the way I would do it, but I commit myself to seeking the value of this approach.

The back story is rich. The characters have fair depth. We've had some activity, and it's really been exciting when it rolls. (e.g. My favorite climax thus far: the break-in at the Picotti warehouse.) My frustration, which I feel is shared to some degree, is that the kindling won't spark unless we walk through the right door. I mean, I want to flip a switch and see cell division instead of having to run ten more trials.

What I had in mind to gain from this thread are procedural suggestions. Something appropriate that I can do, do, do. And Valamir and Mike have provided just that. (Thx again.)

Ron Edwards wrote: I'm still a bit unclear about what's happening in play. The word "discovery" really isn't giving me an image of what you mean.

Ron Edwards wrote: Is it - to take the most extreme case - a matter of "Guess what I'm thinking?"

Ron Edwards wrote: Please give me a complete example of what you mean by "discovery," in play.

hyphz wrote: As far as I can see, having a true and significant "discovery" appear in a game is a very difficult thing to happen indeed.