My apologies if this has been covered before on these boards but I am new here and have not yet had the opportunity to peruse everything here yet.

After talking with my long time GM today, I came to realize a minor dilema that I have faced over the past few game sessions and I am wondering how others would handle it.

I am always the thinker... the leader. No matter what game, no matter what group, no matter where and when, at some point, it usually falls to me to be the party leader. To unify the group in one direction, one goal and for some reason they always pick me. For some reason, they all think I'm good at it. :) Now, how can I truly put that off to the side and let a different person take that title, that role when they are the same ones that always defer to me? No idea but I figure I will give it a whirl.

So I go ahead and do just that. I make a character that is a follower. She is the twin sister of the voted party leader. So what do I do if I am the only one that truly sees where we need to go as a group, how can I hold back what I know? Should I let the party stagnante for the interest of "staying in character"? My character can kind of see it. She is not an Investigator like her sister so she does not have all the skills necessary to truly understand what she sees. But I as a player most certainly do see the plot point and the clue. I look at the faces of the other players and realize they do not see it at all. They even roleplay that they have no idea. But it is right there staring them in the face! They are just 'over thinking' or ignoring it. On one of our food breaks, they admit they have no idea and I just want to shake my head.

Now the party leader, the one that is actually an Investigator is not seeing it at all and this should just JUMP out at her character. So what would you do? Is it not part of the player's duty to make sure they help the GM push the story along? I know some people say that it is all up to the GM but frankly that is a lot to ask of one person! Part of the reason that gaming is fun to me is the fact that I help mould the story into what it becomes. So should I hold back in this instance? Should I let the game session flail?

Some I'm sure would say that this is a failure of the GM for not helping the players along. But honestly, who wants to be spoon-fed the story? He put the clues forth and I saw them. They didn't. *shrug* Don't we all play for the sake of figuring out the story? Solving the mystery? Rescuing the princess? Getting the money? Stopping those goody two-shoes from destoyting our evil plot? Etc, etc...

So should I challenge myself more and try to stay more with the character or should I push the clue to the party when I know it's there and they just can't (or won't) see it for the sake of story movement?

Why not simply point out these things in an out-of-character way? That way, your CHARACTER remains unable to lead, but as the PLAYER you still contribute what you're seeing.

Welcome 'Pagan,

I am the same type of player you describe yourself as. I always think I have the right answers and that everyone else, JUST DOESN'T GET IT! And I feel like when I take a back seat, the adventure/game just meanders. (much to my frustration!)

Well, I also GM -- a lot -- and I can tell you that from looking at both sides (even all three, if you include the other players), our style and answers are not the solution to solving this dilemna in your group.

Your instincts are right, though you don't like the answer -- it is the GM's responsibilty to address this problem. And I don't mean by giving out the answers to his puzzles and screaming, "You dumb fucks, can't you see it?" It's his/her responsibility to engage the group on a level that they find enjoyable. Note the keywords: engage and enjoy. If the group never gets it, then there is something wrong, and this needs to be addressed.

The other playes also have a responsibility in this, too. They have to come forward and be honest about what they enjoy and what they hope to get from the game. It doesn't sound like a terrible amount of fun -- sitting around together, shrugging shoulders, "I dunno." I've been there: I've been in adventures like this, and I've run adventures like this. It's just not pretty. The other players have a responsibility to speak up and say, "I'd/We'd rather do X" or "Can we try Y?"

Lastly, it's up to you and me, as the players who recognize that there is a problem, to do two things: First, to address the problem to the group and get a dialogue started. I don't know about you, but I always enjoy the game much more when everyone is invovled and having fun -- even if that means we play silly games of Marvel Superheroes as opposed to intense games of Burning Wheel. If that's what engages the group, and that's what we enjoy, then that's what we should play. Second, you and I need to learn how to have fun by NOT "solving the game". Personally, I couldn't conquer this demon in play. The only way for me to beat him was to go over to the other side -- to GM. But over the years, I've managed to tame him a bit so as to be able to enjoy an occasional game of BW or MSH (or Jake's Riddle of Steel scenario).

Seriously though, you are part of a threefold problem that can be solved, and you're on the right track. Now get the rest of your group involved in "solving" this, too.

-Luke

The Art of Kibitzing, 101.

I can see your dilemma, Urban, and Lx's solution is one that works. The question you need to ask yourself though is whether or not you made this follower character because you're tired of being the leader, or because you want to see if someone else can take charge. If it's the former, then you should probably mention this to your play group. If it's the latter, it's obvious now what happens. So you can either take Lx's advice, and be the person who helps direct the story out of character, or you can find an In character reason why your character would suddenly take charge.

But as an aside, and you can ignore this or take it for what you will.. The way you're playing, with the GM feeding a story and the players figuring out where to go, is not the only way a game can be played, or even should be played. If it's fun for your whole group to play it that way, then great, don't change a thing.. But sometimes it's the player who decides, rather than following the clues and plotpoints by the GM, to forge out and make their own story that makes truly memorable sessions.

I consider myself a decent GM, able to string plotpoints together fairly well.. But I've found that some of the most fun I've ever had is when a player took the reins and went off in another direction, where I was reacting and changing the plan as the play continued.. I still had my plotline, and my "kewl encounters" but I let the direction of play be guided by the players, and dropped my own stuff in there as appropriate, and gave the plotpoints as opportunities to be followed, not guidelines that should be followed.

Greetings all.

I am the GM of the game UrbanPagan is talking about. And I thought I'd throw in a few tidbits.

Lxndr, Out-of-Character discussion isn't really popular in this group. One and all tend to enjoy a very Simulationist experience. Anything like that might be viewed as 'metagaming' and would tend to be viewed negatively.

Luke, It's not a factor of anyone in the group disliking the style of game, or not knowing what they want out of the game. We've got a pretty solid social contract going on here. We took lots of time discussing what everyone likes and dislikes in gaming, and I think we've got something good going on.

I think what the problem is, is that I've run more games for Urban than anyone else, and that we have a tendancy to think alike.

In my games, I tend to put subtle clues in front of direct clues. That way, if the players see and understand the subtle clues, then they can feel like they've solved the situation despite the difficulty. Then, if they don't get the subtle clues, then the more direct ones keep them going so that they don't get frustrated. So far, all my players seem to enjoy this method.

Now, Urban can just see my subtle clues easier than the player who's character is supposed to be the leader. She's ready to charge headlong into the 'meat' of the plot, while the other players are still skirting around the edges. This isn't a problem for me or (as far as I can tell) for the other players.

Oops... look at the time... I'm gonna be late for work.

...this should just JUMP out at her character...

Just 'cause it's been coming up a fair bit recently in GNS Sim discussion, and it sounds like urbanpagan and technocrat13 aren't averse to using some GNS-terms in discussion . . .

Yes, it is very important to realize that IC vs. OOC has absolutely no - none, nada, zilch, zip, zero - direct relationship with Sim. As Lxndr points out, OOC can be a useful tool in the pursuit of Sim.

But if you don't like it, you don't like it. A preference isn't any less important because it's not directly GNS-related. But it does mean that just everyone being on-board as far as minimizing OOC goes does NOT mean everyone prefers Sim play. Maybe they do in this particular group - sounds likely, based on the info we see here - but minimizing OOC is not "proof" of Sim play.

What can happen (and I'm *not* claiming it is happening for urbanpagan and technocrat13) is folks are so trained/accustomed to an "OOC bad" response that they find it hard to accept even the little bit of OOC that can really help improve play. And the confusion of folks thinking that OOC=Sim can lead to people who'd really enjoy a low-OOC G or N game thinking they need to play S, when maybe they don't.

But there's no need to go down those paths unless the good advice here (handle it via the character, or maybe with a little GM-steering, or time spent flailing, and etc.) fails to work. This group may respond just fine to those methods.

For urbanpagan personally - the answer I'd give to your final question ("So should I challenge myself more and try to stay more with the character or should I push the clue to the party when I know it's there and they just can't (or won't) see it for the sake of story movement?") is to choose which ever you think would be more fun, both for you personally and the group overall. Either can work out just fine. Not having your character follow up on what you-the-player know can be frustrating, but if you're OK with that because you think it makes your overall enjoyment of play better, you'll be fine - just keep reminding yourself you're choosing that approach. "Pushing" the clue - which can be done in many, many different ways, per taste - is also fine, and if everyone is frustrated at a lack of "story movement," you'll be fine there too. If a certain amount of "metagaming" is required to do that pushing, you'll all just need to remind yourselves that that seemed like a lesser evil.

Hope that's in some way helpful - do let us know what you try and how it works out,

Gordon

I thank you all for your replies. I realized that I truly did not mention the style of gaming we are used to. After confering with my GM, I realized it would be considered more 'Simulationist' by the standards used here on these boards. We, in our group, try to keep more 'in character' than out of, trying to truly live in the game. While we do discuss things out of game, it is rare that we talk about the plot itself, more of how we did or how we figured things out, or the way we roleplayed a scene, etc, etc.

I have considered just sitting back and letting it flail. After all, Technocrat is my GM and we have been playing together for a very long time and at times I think that may be why I am seeing things quicker than most. I think that may be the best thing for me to try. I will think on this some.

I think the OOC solution is the one I'd prefer. A little "Hey, I just thought of x, and do you think your character might have noticed that?" is a sign of a top-notch role-player in my mind. It contributes to the group AND stays in character. It also lets other players share the spotlight and act like they figured out the cool clue.

There are more IC ways of doing this. I made one character who inept at tactics even though it's one of my strengths. I would sometimes have him say things like "Hey, my village elder had an epic song where they got up in trees and dropped rocks on the orcs. There's lots of trees here, what do you think?" It's still presented IC - having heard a song is no qualification for tactical prestige - but I can still voice my idea. In your case, similar things might subtly draw other's attention to important clues or whatever. "Oooh, this left corridor looks creepy" is a good way to say "Let's go right" without sounding like a leader. If there's a clue on the desk, have your character sit down at it or steal something off it (or whatever, to direct the other players' attention there). Most players miss clues because they're paying attention to window dressing.

However, this story makes me concerned about something else... often when two people have played together for a long time, they learn each other's body language, interests and though patterns. That makes it very easy to accidentally sideline other players. Your buddy knows what you like, and he can probably tell when you're having fun, giving him reinforcement on giving you what you like. But he may not know what everyone else likes and may not be looking as hard. With this being the case, your idea to just be quiet (at least for a while) is probably a good one. Take a more passive role and force the GM and the other players to feel each other out a little more without you in between.

Note that I'm not accusing anyone of playing favorites. I've just been in this same situation before (as GM) and found myself catering to the player I knew best precisely because I knew him best. The other players still had fun, but in a sort of secondary way. When my friend couldn't show to a few sessions in a row, I realized just how much I depended on my knowledge of him to drive the game and vowed to stop. The result engaged the whole group more effectively and turned merely fun into very fun. They also stopped looking to him as the leader.

urbanpagan wrote: I realized it would be considered more 'Simulationist' by the standards used here on these boards. We, in our group, try to keep more 'in character' than out of, trying to truly live in the game. While we do discuss things out of game, it is rare that we talk about the plot itself, more of how we did or how we figured things out, or the way we roleplayed a scene, etc, etc.

I have considered just sitting back and letting it flail. After all, Technocrat is my GM and we have been playing together for a very long time and at times I think that may be why I am seeing things quicker than most. I think that may be the best thing for me to try.

Reading all these replies again, I think I will try sitting back more often from here on out. After talking about it with my GM today, I realized that the gal that is playing my character's twin sister wanted to be the party leader. In every game she has ever been in, no matter who the GM or the other players, she has always been in the rear... the one in the back just sort of there and never once was able to be the party leader. It is something she has gone on about on many occassions. I even remember her asking me if I thought it was because she is female. Being female myself, I thought no, it's probably because she just doesn't step up when the party needs her or wants her to... but that is a different discussion... :)

I remembered that when we all made our characters for this campaign (because we made them together) she mentioned that she wanted to take a stab at it and we all agreed it would be wise of her to take the role since her character is more of the social character anyway.

So I am going to sit back. I am going to try the suggestion of rather than saying that door is the one we need to go through, saying "the air smells fresher near this door" or "the Fates favor the light coming through this door" or something of the sort. One of the reasons this gal bugged (yes bugged!) our GM to run something of the caliber he is, is because myself and the other player in the party are very used to the style of gaming our GM puts forth. This gal has never really experienced it and was desperate to try it. Mainly because I think she was sick of hearing us all talk about it all the time. :)

Our next game session will be in a few weeks. I'll let all of you know how it goes. Thanks again for all the advice. And thanks again for the warm welcome to the boards.

urbanpagan wrote: So I am going to sit back. I am going to try the suggestion of rather than saying that door is the one we need to go through, saying "the air smells fresher near this door" or "the Fates favor the light coming through this door" or something of the sort. One of the reasons this gal bugged (yes bugged!) our GM to run something of the caliber he is, is because myself and the other player in the party are very used to the style of gaming our GM puts forth. This gal has never really experienced it and was desperate to try it.

Heya Urban, my response is a little different than others, since I've noted a couple things here that strike me as possibilities, and am presenting them as items of consideration.

Firstly, I note your main worry seems to be about the plot not "taking shape" -- rather, that's the source of the conflict you're having right now in regards to what you should do with your character, whom you worry about not "being true" if used to correct the former.

What I see in this situation appears to be to be the occurence of a style conflict.

The reason I thought of this is that if you as a group don't discuss the "plot" as it were, being "living the life" sorts of players, then whether or not you're following the plot/clues shouldn't make a difference...correct?

As long as your desires are being met (in that your characters are behaving as they really would in that situation) failing to notice the clues dropped in play shouldn't be a bother, since that is what would actually happen (ie: the characters would miss the clues).

Now, you may be Exploring Situation (Sim)...but then again, in such a case, why worry about whether or not you're getting the clues to follow the plot...if that failure is what would actually happen, then does it matter?

Why such fretting about "getting it" or not if you're just looking at or immersing in the Situation? That style and the problem you're voicing don't seem to match to me.

If the character's attitudes/reactions/behaviors are first and foremost the point of interest, and you're Exploring Character (Sim), then your character's failure to see the subtle plot points is a point of interest to your character's personality, and shouldn't be causing this amount of consernation about that failure (ie: you should be reacting "It's cool because she doesn't see it" rather than, "Crap, she doesn't see it, what does this mean for our progress?")

Now, if this flailing about isn't what would really happen, if the characters (by virtue of being who they are) should notice the things they aren't? Then I would say the game's system is failing your group, it is not supporting the style, because it is not providing a way for the characters to actually be who they are and do what they do in a way that is agreeable to your goals as a group.

So, in looking at the problem (trying to solve/follow/discover the plot): it occurs to me that many Simulationists would be turned off by this behavior, and the attitude being expressed may be more Gamist than you realize. I could be completely wrong, but from what you've stated, I'm tempted in that direction of analysis.

Any of this strike a chord for you?

I talked with Technocrat13 (our GM) the other day about this. We have not had the chance to play L5R in over a month with the holidays, inclemet weather, etc, so it has been on my mind quite a bit. We plan to play this Sunday.

Anyhoo, after we chatted, I realized that I feel the 'flailing' because I am so used to being the one in the lead. Funny enough, it's really a matter of me not dropping the reins completely and her not taking them. She needs to take control. She is the one that really wanted to be the party leader but has yet to really and fully take that role on. After talking with the Techno, we both agreed that is really the situation. We (as a group) are used to things moving swiftly and since this is a new system for her and a new way of thinking and playing, that could very well be the reason she has not been playing the character to her fullest.

It's really a matter of the GM, myself and the party leader's husband have all gamed together for an extremely long time. The gal playing the party leader, while a rather accomplished gamer, has never gamed with us on this level of story or scenario. The three of us are very used to each other's styles. She has only played with her husband in a game they both left because of issues with that GM (a long, and rather boring tale) and has only played with us (Techno and myself) a few times and those were always 'pick up games'. Nothing on the level of the current L5R game.

It took all your replies and thoughts to really make me see that. Thank you folks! I appreciate the refreshing eye opener.

urbanpagan wrote: So I am going to sit back. I am going to try the suggestion of rather than saying that door is the one we need to go through, saying "the air smells fresher near this door" or "the Fates favor the light coming through this door" or something of the sort. One of the reasons this gal bugged (yes bugged!) our GM to run something of the caliber he is, is because myself and the other player in the party are very used to the style of gaming our GM puts forth. This gal has never really experienced it and was desperate to try it. Mainly because I think she was sick of hearing us all talk about it all the time. :)

urbanpagan wrote:
I am always the thinker... the leader.