As usual, I'm posting this as shorthand for a post that I make all too often. It's not intended to generate feedback, but I'd be glad to debate it, or clarify any questions people have about it. Also, as is usually the case, a particular thread tripped this off, but what matters is that it applies broadly.

----
You Can't Sneak Up on Mode!
Frequently I see people trying out a new mode of play - OK Narrativism (no surprise as it's the one people are unfamiliar with), and trying to sneak into the mode. That is, they take a game that's familiar to their players and do one or more of the following:

• Talk to the players and ask them to try to use some stance that they're unfamiliar with.
• Add a few rules from another game that matches the mode.
• Try to encourage the mode in play as GM.

I've never seen it work. Sometimes it ends up a horrible train wreck. The reasons are simple. These slight changes do not constitute a clearly stated Creative Agenda. In fact, if you're coming from a coherent creative agenda, then these sorts of messages that the players get only serve to confuse matters. I think that, typically, players feel that they're supposed to do what they were doing before, plus some other things.

So, if you're game is going fine now, don't change it. You may be messing up a fine thing.

The most common thing that happens when you do make such alterations is that no change in play mode occurs at all. The players still only see the game's original message, and they don't adjust in any way. Which is hugely frustrating to the GM in question as they really thought that the little changes would be fun and get the players to participate in the desired mode. Often whole rules just get entirely ignored.

The second most common thing is that the players alter their mode a little, but then complain that they're being made to do things that are uncomfortable, boring, or just not what they expect out of play. Canalized players know what they want, and even when they're presented with something that’s potentially fun, they might not see where it's fun. Especially if it happens to conflict with what they normally consider fun. Again, this is just making things incoherent.

And it doesn't matter how long you discuss matters like this outside of the game. Play of any mode has an intuitive sense that one can only obtain through participation. Remember those people you introduced to RPGs, and their first awkward moments with it? None of it is really "natural" and so expecting to be able to talk someone into an understanding of it is just asking too much.

Prompting in play can be the worst option because then the player may come to resent the GM for the above reasons. They "just want to have fun" and here you are trying to "fix" their play.


Does this mean that you can't change the play mode of a group? No, actually there's a simple solution. Just play a game that strongly supports that mode from the ground up. This has all sorts of advantages as a solution, but primarily, the players will have transmitted to them a coherent Creative Agenda of the sort that you'd like to see. As such, they usually latch on right away, and have fun playing in that style. Which means that your odds of a "conversion" are much, much higher.

In fact, I'm of the opinion that almost all players really want to try all three modes (whether they know it or not), and would love most games in the other modes if they were coherent. Yes, there will be a few curmudgeons, old dogs who don't want to learn new tricks. But once you've played a game like this, you'll know who they are. With the "sneaking up" method, it takes forever to determine who will like a particular style, if you ever do find out.

Now, what if you want to play your own vision of a CA, and that doesn't exist in a published game? I'd suggest playing one session of the proven game first. Fortunately this can be very short. You'll be able to tell in that one short session all you need to know. You'll have given the players a view of what one Creative Agenda incorporating that mode is like, and they'll have responded in such a way as to show you whether or not they'll enjoy play of that sort in the future.

Now, what about the curmudgeons when discovered? Lot's of people have suggested ways to "bring them about" but if they don't see the value in playing a tested game that others like then it's likely that they'll never be a fan of the mode. Time at that point to make the hard decision about how you want to accommodate that player's choice of mode. I don't intend to talk about that here, but it should suffice to say that at this point you really don't need "more play" of the mode in question or any other convincing.

In short, don't "sneak up", just play a coherent game in the mode you like, and move on from there. One session, very easy, best results. By the way, one of the reasons I'm so sure of all this? Because I've made the mistake myself. I can tell you frok my own experience, as well as that of many posters here, that sneaking is a big waste of time and effort.

Mike

I second this. Great points, Mike. From my own experience as well, I can tell you that attempts to "narrativize" d20 and other games were met only with frustration on my part and confusion, at best, on the part of the players.

I would've been better off running the Pool or running Donjon, which both switch mode as a matter of course.

Scott

Mike Holmes wrote: That is, they take a game that's familiar to their players and do one or more of the following:

• Talk to the players and ask them to try to use some stance that they're unfamiliar with.
• Add a few rules from another game that matches the mode.
• Try to encourage the mode in play as GM.

I've never seen it work. Sometimes it ends up a horrible train wreck.

Hello,

As my experiences with the Hero System (or rather, Champions) parallel John's very closely, I tend to agree ...

But then I realized something else. Mike, if I'm not mistaken, you're talking about a fairly sudden shift to (e.g.) Narrativist play-expectations on the part of the GM. Sure, he says it's a gradual change, and he's perhaps introducing such stuff gradually, but he really does expect that the others' mode of play will ... you know, just transmogrify. And I agree with you that it's unlikely.

And John, if I'm correct that our uses of Hero System are similar, then we're talking more about a group evolving its own preference for Narrativist play of some particular stripe, going more by the seat of our pants, our shared love of whatever thematic meat the imaginative content prompts for us, and a willingness to shift a thingy or two about the system if it meets a need. By "our," I'm referring to the members of our respective groups.

If I'm right about the difference in the above two approaches (the latter can't even be called an "approach," really; no one attempted to achieve the goal in question), then there's no real disagreement at work.

Best,
Ron

Hello, all -

I think I'm going to strongly disagree. I think you're thinking that to be narrativist, the players (or the rules) have to include directorial stance on the part of the players. This is profoundly unnatural for most traditional players. However ...

Say you're playing a normal, simulationist-designed game (GURPS or something). You design your game around a complex moral situation. You let the players approach it however they like. I can't imagine that the players will object to this.

In what way is this not a narrativist game? And you've imposed it on them, by fiat, without them even noticing, or even changing rules. (Note: it is -not- narrativist if the players essentially refuse to address the moral questions; it's kind of hard to imagine this happening, though.)

- James

in what way is this rant different from saying "system does matter"?
I found James' West argument concerning simulationist systems very convincing (in that it _is_ possible to drift) and I doubt anyone is going to deny that it takes time to shed ingrained habits (for instance wehn introducing the group to Narr play).
Now, going through a series of games with progressively more player empowerment (to reach "pure" Narr games, ultimately) and having a slight drift within each seems a perfectly reasonable approach.

So, could you clarify a bit on that rant?

I personally read the original post is more than "System matters". I take it as saying that trying to change modes by changing System alone isn't going to do it.

It also (for me, at least) reinforces the idea that satisfying play comes from having a *consensus* on what mode will be used. A GM can't jump to a new node simply for his own sake. There have been several Actual Play threads in the past which exhibited this issue (a GM trying to unilaterally shift to Narr), and I've personally been guilty of it.

I dunno, I thought this was more along the line of "if you want to break a habit, make a clean break first". If you're used to playing Vampire a certain way, it's real easy to slip back into that, while if you've nver played Sorcerer before, it's tough to have old habits -- and your "generic" habits are harder to fall back on.

It's like the difference between quitting smoking cold turkey and trying to quit cigarettes by smoking cigars.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Mike, but this rant is about trying to modify a system with incremental tweaks to move players toward a different mode slowly; that is what Mike says doesn't work. I would be more inclined to say that such tweaks are usually non-productive, but in the main I agree.

If I've got the concept right, this would be an example (one I use frequently). The group plays a lot of games in which you kill monsters and get treasure to build experience points which make you a more powerful character at killing monsters and getting treasure. The referee wants the players to "role play" more and "become more involved in the story"; so he modifies the reward system so that you'll get experience points for "good role playing" and "exploring the story". He wants to take the emphasis off building powerful characters and put it on building interesting stories. What happens is that his players start exhibiting the sort of conduct he wants, but not for the reasons that he thought would underpin it: they learn to play their characters more vividly and to add to story elements because it increases the rate at which they can build powerful characters. You have created conduct that is more "role playing oriented", but it's still gamist--you haven't moved toward narrativism at all.

A change of mode is a fundamental change in play. You can drift between modes, but only if the players are jazzed by both/all and adjust their play accordingly, and the system doesn't hamper their efforts to do so.

--M. J. Young

I take the rant to be less about system and whether you can make incremental changes to it and more about how all the individuals in a game group relate to creative agenda. In particular, the impossibility of one player (the GM) tricking or cajoling or luring all the other players into a change in creative agenda. Creative agenda is shared. You can't sneak it on people.

If that's a fair reading of Mike's point, then I would say I agree in full.

Hello, all -

I still think y'all aren't thinking about how things generally go in your 'standard' RPG; the GM presents a problem, the PCs resolve it. If they're used to resolving problems involving a roomful of orcs, that doesn't mean they won't be equally happy to tackle thorny philosophical issues that plumb the depths of their souls.

It is true that you can't sneak up on fancy mechanics; they're there, or they aren't; if you try to tack them on, they feel like tacked on problems. But, I've never failed to see a roomful of players get engaged in premise, if strongly presented, even if they didn't know that was what they were getting into.

To phrase this a different way: certainly, games designed for narrativist play give players tools to further their own creative agendas. But at root, there's no particular reason why you can't run pretty strong stuff using nothing but the rules you've always used.

- James

Go away to a Con for a couple of days... I thought this one was going to end up with no comments at all.

I think people are getting me closely enough. Basically, yes it's System Does Matter, but as it pertains to this particular case. John, as Ron says, it's about trying to convert players who aren't really "narrativists" mostly because they're really not used to playing like this. That is, if Hero System worked for producing narrativism for you, then likely you were already a group who were playing narrativist at least in part. IOW, you weren't sneaking up on a mode so much as empowering one that was already there. But the assumption of the thread is that those trying to make this change are assessing their groups correctly, and are trying to do what they say - change the mode of play of the group.

Because Andrew is right. If changing the system alone were enough to change mode, then those nifty alterations would work. For example, John, in my own experience, I put in something very much like Whimsy cards (got them from a magazine, IIRC - Shadis?) in my Rolemaster game. They were actually ignored, even at times where they could have been used to save character's lives. The problem wasn't that the cards were ill designed, it was that the players were still thinking in their old patterns. Where in "what would my character do?" does the player consider when to play his "News From Afar" card? He doesn't, actually.

It's not that these systems that I'm suggesting are better systems particularly, it's that they represent a cognitive break. They're significantly different enough from the ones that the players are likely playing that they can't help but change how they approach the game. Think of trying to change to Gamism. What if you had a group who had only ever played Sorcerer and you wanted to get them to Step On Up? Would putting in little puzzles and extra mechanics do it? No, they'd still be stuck on the overall premise. Throw them into D&D, however, and see if they can ignore the gamism then. Not likely.

So, yes, Kirt is right. It is the cold turkey approach. You can't "wean" somebody off something that they enjoy and see no reason to change. There's nothing wrong with the mode that the players in question are playing now, so they're entirely justified in wanting to continue to play in it. Only by getting everyone to agree at once to try something else will they consider the new mode on it's own merits.

So, James, if you did switch to GURPS or Hero System and did put in that moral situation, then you might get the effect you're looking for. OTOH, System Does Matter, so you might get something else like exploration of system - that's what you get from me when I play Hero System. I love exloring Hero System so much it actually distracts me from most anything else thats going on (I'm far more fascinated by the fact that my character flying at 250 MPH can ballistically penetrate three levels of a factory, and a concrete floor of a sub-basement than I am with what he's fighting about). So, switching to such a system is better than not switching, but, well, see System Does Matter. Why swim upstream. Anyhow, not the point here.

Montag, I've seen players adopt narrativism, not having previously realized that it was even an option in play previously, in just ten minutes. Play SOAP. The first time a player says, "What happens next?" just stare at him expectantly until the light in his eyes goes on. Instantly you've made the player understand. Now, this is extreme, but that's the sort of cognitive shake up that I think many players need. And when you do it, they can play narrativist just as well as anyone instantly. We all have all the skills we need to play in any mode. All we have to have is a ruleset saying to play that way and we're off and running. Instantly.

Why take the partial approach when that just takes time and may confuse the player? Why not show him the clearest example possible? There is no downside. If the player at that point says that they don't like it, then at that point you can determine if it's director stance that he doesn't like, or just the metagame presence, whatever. And you can adjust. But at that point you all will know as much about the subject as you're ever likely to know. Part of going to a more "extreme" sort of game is so that the cognative break is more certain, so that the player will see the difference clearly. Once they have that you can fine tune to your heart's content.

Doing things partially seems to only make people wonder what you're trying to get at as they assimilate the differences. Again, we see it time and time again here, and it never works. IOW, MJ has it right. Small changes mean that players will take those changes and make them into adjuncts of their original style - assuming they acknowledge them at all.

Rob says it very clearly. If you did actually get a player to understand mode and all the theory, then, sure, you could all just agree to change consciously to a new agenda with whatever system. But the problem is that players don't understand mode, and won't likely short of having them log on here and become theorists. Worse, it seems that doing so tends to alienate players (much like a lot of people who are new here). So just skip the talking about it, and take the shortcut to agreeing on a new Creative Agenda - play a game that has it encoded inexorably in the rules.

Does that make more sense, James? I'm worried that the sort of phenomenon that MJ talks about will occur - they do occur. Sure another system might do, but why not use a system that makes it inescapable? Just for that one run, mind you, just for the "test" if you will. Because in doing so, the players are presented with a game that not only says, "It's OK to play this way," which players will tend to ignore for their original mode, but a game that says, "You must play this way." Your way relies, as does John's on the idea that the players will, given the opportunity, play narrativist. But that won't always work, many times they don't, and then they don't get the lesson. What I'm promoting here is a way to teach mode quickly. To educate players so that you can then move on to deciding whether or not it's something that you're all interested in.

Put it another way, I think I know the theory as well as just about anybody, but I personally wouldn't trust to my own skill to ensure that the players will follow my lead. I'd rather have a system that required them in this case. Much moreso for the GM who isn't really all that certain about this mode stuff himself.

This is important, because it works, and the other method doesn't seem to at all. Not just from my own personal anecotal evidence but from numerous posts here and elsewhere. What going at it half-heartedly tends to result in is people who don't understand what the attempt was about, and who may even resent what the attempt represents. Bad sessions of incoherent play make players never want to hear again about narrativism. And that's too bad. Because even if they really don't prefer it, we don't really know, because they haven't really tried it.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Montag, I've seen players adopt narrativism, not having previously realized that it was even an option in play previously, in just ten minutes. Play SOAP. The first time a player says, "What happens next?" just stare at him expectantly until the light in his eyes goes on. Instantly you've made the player understand. Now, this is extreme, but that's the sort of cognitive shake up that I think many players need. And when you do it, they can play narrativist just as well as anyone instantly. We all have all the skills we need to play in any mode. All we have to have is a ruleset saying to play that way and we're off and running. Instantly.

Why take the partial approach when that just takes time and may confuse the player? Why not show him the clearest example possible? There is no downside.

SOAP is a player empowerment thing. Player empowerment on some level is required for narrativist play. Players cannot address premise unless they have the freedom to effect the game world in a way that actually matters.

Traditional roleplaying generally stiffles player empowerment. Sometimes it goes to great lengths to actively discourage it (like the text of Arrowflight which goes on at length instructing the GM how to avoid having players ruin their game by doing strange things).

Many players are so used to being on a GMs leash that when put into a situation where the GM says "heres some empowerment" they're literally like deer in the headlights and have no idea what to do with it.

If those people happen to still be surrounded by the trappings of a comfortable familiar game system, they're most likely reaction is to simply ignore these strange words coming out of the GM as him having eaten a bad burrito for lunch, and slip comfortably back into play-as-usual.

In order to teach players like this how to use player empowerment in a traditional game, you first have to completely shatter their leash-trained habits. And often the best (perhaps only) way to do this effectively is to throw them into the deep end of the pool.

You literally can't slip into comfortable old play-as-usual habits in a game like Soap...or Inspectres...or Universalis...etc. Its just not possible. The game won't work. But because player empowerment is so easy to do...in fact, I'd say MUCH more natural and easy than learning to play on a leash, most players can pick up these games pretty easily and go on to a rollicking great game.

In the process they learn about player empowerment. They learn that its OK for the PLAYER to get his views into the game and how to do this through social interaction with other players who are also expressing their views.

Once they master the more obvious, overt, pervy, in your face, unavoidable, no where to hide aspects of player empowerment...they're much better equipped to return to a traditional game and employ those techniques more subtley, yet still effectively, in their traditional games.

Once they have those techniques mastered, they can begin to truly explore Narrativist play.


I get the feeling from your posts over the months, John, that you've never been a leash-led player and never been a leash-holding GM, so you may not be seeing the benefit of such training exercises to break players of old habits.

Valamir wrote: Once they master the more obvious, overt, pervy, in your face, unavoidable, no where to hide aspects of player empowerment...they're much better equipped to return to a traditional game and employ those techniques more subtley, yet still effectively, in their traditional games.

Once they have those techniques mastered, they can begin to truly explore Narrativist play.

Valamir wrote: I get the feeling from your posts over the months, John, that you've never been a leash-led player and never been a leash-holding GM, so you may not be seeing the benefit of such training exercises to break players of old habits.

SOAP may not be what you want for a particular group, and a particular desire to move. I'm not advocating specific games so much as advocating radically different games. Like I said, for a group of canalized Sorcerer players, it would be D&D to get the to understand Gamism. Or whatever. Just not adding EXP to Sorcerer (perish the thought).

Personally, in play of SOAP, I've found the Gamism broken, and players all just end up playing very narrativist according to the genre expectations that everybody knows. OTOH, I'm talking about the pre-publication playtest edition so take that with a grain of salt.

But Ralph is right about what it will do. In any case, if you have doubts about SOAP, play The Pool instead. Or, for you who wants less in the way of Director Stance stuff, try Sorcerer. The particular game doesn't matter, just that these will force players to understand that there are fundamentally different ways to play RPGs, and that they all represent functional choices.

Again, it's at that point that you can then reasonably consider a permenanty move. Remember, I'm not advocating moving to the teaching game for anything more than even part of a session - just long enough to teach what it's about. You can always go back to something else. So even if you don't like the ideas behind SOAP (are you sure, have you actually tried it - I sound like mom), a little play can be an eyeopener that doesn't really take away from any other play.

Educate by play. Don't sneak. There's nothing to be ashamed of that requires sneaking. I think sneaking is about GM fear that the players will hate what they're proposing, and then there'll be a backlash, if it's done unsubtly. But if you agree to play a game that presents a coherent play vision, the worst that they can do is say that they honestly don't like it. In which case I really believe that no amount of "sneaking" it in would ever work. People just don't "convert" over time with slight nudges.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Remember, I'm not advocating moving to the teaching game for anything more than even part of a session - just long enough to teach what it's about. You can always go back to something else. So even if you don't like the ideas behind SOAP (are you sure, have you actually tried it - I sound like mom), a little play can be an eyeopener that doesn't really take away from any other play.

Mike Holmes wrote: Educate by play. Don't sneak. There's nothing to be ashamed of that requires sneaking. I think sneaking is about GM fear that the players will hate what they're proposing, and then there'll be a backlash, if it's done unsubtly. But if you agree to play a game that presents a coherent play vision, the worst that they can do is say that they honestly don't like it. In which case I really believe that no amount of "sneaking" it in would ever work. People just don't "convert" over time with slight nudges.

Hello,

John, did you see my reply to your post above? I thought I provided a very clear reason why your play-experiences do not correspond to Mike's "sneaking up." In other words, you're not an example of the problem.

For what it's worth, I think your points about Soap are well-taken and that Mike was over-enthusiastic in citing it, although I've done the same in the past.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: John, did you see my reply to your post above? I thought I provided a very clear reason why your play-experiences do not correspond to Mike's "sneaking up." In other words, you're not an example of the problem.

Hi John,

I think we agree about this - vanilla may be the way. And it's not a way for conversion, but rather realization of a preference - perhaps overcoming pre-set habits, or in some cases, not even that. Just developing the goals/desires that are there. So the whole GM-wants-players-to-go-X is, in my view, rather broken in the first place.

Best,
Ron

I haven't said otherwise. I'm not saying that this method will make converts 100% of the time. I'm not saying that you have to use SOAP or any other system particularly, just one that you feel has a clear and forceful Creative Agenda that will make it impossible for the lesson in question to be missed. Because what I am saying is that this will work better than mixing up your players with sneaking, or nudging or any other form of incrementalism.

The biggest advantage by far is that it takes much less time (another reason for the games I suggested is that they're short). Because of the difficulties involved in the incremental approach, even if you are successful, I think it'll take waaaay longer to accomplish your overall goal, that of altering the mode. So why would you use that method even if it wasn't more danger prone? Why not find out now, and move on.

Because I agree that some players won't "see the light" and never will. But at least you'll know at that point. With the incremental method, you may have to go through a lot of painful play just to discover much later that the players hate the idea. So why not get it over with in short order?

Getting back to your example, John, there's a substantive difference between players who are already playing narrativist (and who obviously know how), and those who don't even realize that it's a potential mode. If your players are already exhibiting lots of narrativist play, then giving them more tools is just empowering them. If they aren't then giving them these sorts of tools is educational. All the attempts that I see of people trying to move incrementally are from people who's players have no idea what they're trying to get at. Hence the problem of not presenting the clear CA to them.

So, yes, this doesn't apply to players already playing narrativist, but that was the original supposition, wasn't it? We're talking about trying to get players to play in modes that they're blissfully unaware of.

Further, on top of all this, the people who are trying to make these shifts are often doing so because they want to try something like Sorcerer or Inspectres. But, again, they seem to think that making such a radical move would be too terrifying for the players or something. So they move that way incrementally instead, hoping that their current game will eventually be such that they can at some later date hop over to what they want to play.

Can we all at least agree that there's nothing so scary in Sorcerer play (or whatever coherent game) that people shouldn't just dive right in if that's what they want to play? That taking ten session of adjusting a Rolemaster campaign slightly over time is never going to really prepare the players for Sorcerer, and is entirely unneccessary?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Can we all at least agree that there's nothing so scary in Sorcerer play (or whatever coherent game) that people shouldn't just dive right in if that's what they want to play? That taking ten session of adjusting a Rolemaster campaign slightly over time is never going to really prepare the players for Sorcerer, and is entirely unneccessary?

Mike Holmes wrote: Getting back to your example, John, there's a substantive difference between players who are already playing narrativist (and who obviously know how), and those who don't even realize that it's a potential mode. If your players are already exhibiting lots of narrativist play, then giving them more tools is just empowering them. If they aren't then giving them these sorts of tools is educational. All the attempts that I see of people trying to move incrementally are from people who's players have no idea what they're trying to get at. Hence the problem of not presenting the clear CA to them.

So, yes, this doesn't apply to players already playing narrativist, but that was the original supposition, wasn't it? We're talking about trying to get players to play in modes that they're blissfully unaware of.

Hi Mike,

I'm good with your "can we at least agree" concept.

Best,
Ron

Hello all -

Agreed, that if your goal is to play pervy narrativist, you may as well go straight to it; there's nothing to be gained by sneaking up on it.

Further, if your goal is to play vanilla narrativist, using pervy narrativist as sort of a system shock is likely to have a salutatory effect. I've used this method before, to positive effect. Everyone I've tried it with, even if they don't want a steady diet of it, has had fun with these games in the short run, and it widens the scope of the possible for them.

However, it is quite possible to run games designed as simulationist as vanilla narrativist, with only slight modification, and if your intention is to move a group from straight simulationist into vanilla narrativism, I don't think it's essential to use pervy narrativist as a waypoint.

Finally, if your players are used to straight simulationism, or perhaps illusionism, then moving into vanilla narrativism by changing the plot structure (attempting to empower players via empowering character decisions, rather than through director stance and the like) has the advantage of familiarity, and an easy fallback position.

- James

I think that James West's method will work if you're James West.

Basically, James, most people don't have as good a handle of these things as you do. That is, most of the people thinking of doing the "sneaking" probably don't have the clearest vision on these things in the first place, meaning that they aren't as likely to be as successful as you might. For example:

Finally, if your players are used to straight simulationism, or perhaps illusionism, then moving into vanilla narrativism by changing the plot structure (attempting to empower players via empowering character decisions, rather than through director stance and the like) has the advantage of familiarity, and an easy fallback position.