My group recently ended its fourth 4e campaign within the last year or so.
I suspect incoherent play caused each attempt to fail. (E.g., People "checking-out" when not spotlighted, lots of talk about WOW, computer use etc..)
We have agreed to meet and discuss what we want out of gaming before we try again.
I'm posting here, asking for advice on how I can facilitate this discussion.
What are good questions to ask?
What are good ways to avoid antagonism?
What are good ways of reflecting back what people say in terms of GNS, without them feeling pigeon holed?
(None of the other players in my group have any familiarity with The Big Model. When I tried, in the past, to use Big Model language they reacted defensively or incredulously or both).
Rusty,
First, don't use GNS terms. Some people have strong feelings about GNS terms and may take an unnecessarily adversarial role if you do.
Second, start by asking everyone to mention one thing they loved from the 4 sessions played so far.
Third, don't come with an agenda, gamers are more socially savvy than a lot of people give them credit for. so, if you try and push your idea of a good game, you will get all kinds of weird resistance.
Combine open-ended questions (what do you like) with directed questions (do you like alignments). No one technique will help you hone in on what you want.
If there is already tension in your group over the perceived level of fun, then avoid allowing anyone to complain about what happened. This will probably only aggravate the situation.
When someone answers, stop and listen to what they have to say. Don't let others interrupt and don't ignore them, even if they go on for a bit. If you want them to engage, you have to give them the space and time to do it on their terms. Also, if someone doesn't feel like their opinion mattered, they may undermine the game (possibly unintentionally).
Also, try and set the tone by stating something like "I feel like we are all having fun. But, if we discuss our games, we might be able to make it more fun" or something like that. Give people an idea where you are coming from, right?
Hi Rustin,
Have you had some moments in those 4E campaigns or any RP session that were enjoyable, that you could tell us about here? There needs to be an actual play account of some sort anyway as it's like the requirement/door fee for the AP forum.
DinDenver,
Thanks for the reply and suggestions.
Callan S.,
I was hoping after: "Yeah, let's play a game," Actual Play had begun, and figured that was enough concrete stuff to say play had started for the requirements for posting. But yeah, let me give you some history, which I think will help. Let me try to answer your question.
As for past play with this particular group (I've known members of for over twenty years), there are many moments of fun; too many fun ones to count really.
As for specific fun 4e moments for me:
-One fun combat (me GM, I'm GM in all instances of 4e play) where I pushed them to the limit using table top miniatures, combat on a tower with a bridge and specters attacking. Sort of fun, not super fun, but I used tactics and they used tactics; they gamed the system as did I. It was a good bit of competition; the group against me.
-Last time we discussed how to change up the Campaign, again. We brainstormed together a different setting with an agreement to try more "roleplay" than just go to the dice so quickly. Use more of a vanilla fantasy setting. I was excited after that discussion and found the idea of generating a political situation fun. But that never came to fruition. When I say roleplay, I mean, the Players narrate actions, and they'd trust me as GM to rule what would and wouldn't happen—almost a karma/drama system.
-The second to last time we discussed a campaign setting, and we came up with ideas of an underworld adventure, with a dragon deep in the depths which dominated the underdark. That was fun for me right after we had nailed down the general color and tone of the game and I began to imagine preparing fun stuff.
Fun stuff beyond the 4e era has a different context. We could play for longer stretches of time, more frequently and I generally did not GM those. Also, this was before WOW. All my players love WOW. I dabble, but don't really live WOW.
Even still, I think we simply pushed through the problems that we're having now, back then, with hours and hours of a kind of mostly fruitless, wandering play. But there are moments that are recalled and retold fondly, with great laughter and such.
Rusty,
Two things will be actual barriers though:
1) Players that are not very introspective. In other words: if they haven't thought about it, they may not be able to put to words what is fun for them.
2) Generally, there are certain players that do not like to over-analyze or re-hash their games. There are a variety of good reasons for this, so don't look at it as a blocking maneuver or anything like this. If you think one of your players is like this, try and get them to identify that for you. And then, if that is the case, come up with a method for helping them find a good fit in the group that doesn't force them out of their comfort zone regarding analyzing play.
Basically, there is a group of players that feel that if they analyze play, it takes the magic out of the game. If they stop and analyze why it is their characters always jump to the defense of defenseless women, then it's like spoiling the ending of a movie for them. and still others that want to check their brain at the door. The thing is, these are valid play styles and not unhealthy or counter productive to fun at all. So, you need to find a way to smooth this out without pushing their buttons, right? I'd suggest that for these players, keep all the questions directed (e.g., "X was fun for me, did you like it or hate it?") so they can't misinterpret the reasoning behind the question and then don't share your analysis of their answers with them. But, be extra careful that their answers get rolled up into a bigger summary at the end of your brainstorming session though.
Does that make sense? Either way, I hope it helps.
Dave,
The issue here is: Can my group use the language and methods of Roleplay theory to help us improve our future gaming. I am not just interested in seeing a historical review, where someone labels and describes our past play in GNS terminology. Perhaps that is a necessary part, but I don't want that to be the end of it.
My understanding is that, once we identify Creative Agenda, through compromise, focus and attention, our fun will increase (E.g., We can pick the correct system).
I am looking for help requesting specific methods to identify and communicate that Creative Agenda.
Your #1 and #2 give a pretty good description of the players in this particular group.
How does an individual enter that pre-game discussion, knowing full well social or creative forces (or both) hinder reflection and analysis? Conversely, I don't want to go into the discussion feeling like I'm walking on egg shells.
Something like:
If your group can answer X, Y and Z you can identify your group's Creative Agenda before you start to Explore. With that knowledge you can then chose the best System for your purposes.
When would you suggest I share any analysis I make.
Let's say, I do ask them questions such as "I like X, did you?" and I get an answer that hints at Sim as their preferred goal of play. How would you suggest I communicate that conclusion without sharing my analysis? Do I go directly to suggesting a particular technique/system?
Hi again Rustin,
I've been in your situation, where I've been trying to round up all the desires of people so as to include them all.
What, if any, responsiblity would you say they have in terms of getting fun for themselves?
Callan,
Assuming all players should come to the table expecting to contribute to the fun (maybe a bit disproportionate for GM vs. Player), do you think the first issue we should resolve is deciding how much effort each player is expected to contribute?
Can you think of an effective way of introducing this issue to the discussion?
Have you had success in introducing the issue of "everyone must contribute to the fun" in the past?
Would it help if we nailed down specifics at-the-table-behaviors that we can request and expect?
I think even before that, the very first issue to resolve is whether they are responsible for deciding if they will attend an activity, with that responsiblity including, by their own standards, giving the activity a good honest go (even if they don't know much about it). And if they don't like the sound of the activity or their not prepared to give it a good, honest go, they are responsible for not participating.
Would you say they have this responsiblity? By that I mean in your gaming culture is that an responsiblity the norm?
Yes, I think most of the players are willing to take on responsibility. They have in the past. Though, I think "liking the sound of the activity" is critical. So, the issue might be: are they willing to trying a different and new responsibility.
Rusty,
The trick is that using GNS terms at the table, can lead to antagonism.
Any of your group who have internet and check out places like rpg.net have been exposed to GNS terms, but may have preconceptions or different understanding than you of what they mean.
And you can't pre-program these questions. You have to "wing it." You can make a menu of more open ended questions, then zoom in on those answers. So, for instance, you can ask, "what was your favorite moment in the last campaign?" Then depending on the answer, you need to ask a different question depending on how you interpret the answer. But, if you want to stay truer to GNS, ou need to focus o actual play. The terms are totally meaningless outside the context of actual play, you know?
Finally, if you have a player/players that actually dislike self analysis, then you need to respect that or you will be adding to the internal tension of the group, right?
Ultimately, I think its wisest to use plain language to discuss "at the table issues." There is no real value to trying to train them to understand GNS at the table and if you won't do that, there is no point to using GNS in that discussion.
Either way, good luck getting your group together man!
Quote from: Rustin on December 10, 2008, 09:55:36 PM
Yes, I think most of the players are willing to take on responsibility. They have in the past. Though, I think "liking the sound of the activity" is critical. So, the issue might be: are they willing to trying a different and new responsibility.
This is going to sound a little rough, but you haven't answered my question at all. Have a read my previous post through again. Or if you don't want to answer it, fair enough and I'll leave it at that.
Callan,
Thanks for pointing me back to your original question. I had to read it through a few times before it clicked. (I hope). I don't mind if your posts have to sound a little rough; whatever it takes to communicate, as I really want to solve this problem.
QuoteAnd if they don't like the sound of the activity or their not prepared to give it a good, honest go, they are responsible for not participating.
Let me try to answer, and let me know if I get what you are asking.
You're asking about two sets of responsibilities that describe one major responsibility.
In other words:
Responsibility #1: Play only if the game sounds like something you can jump into.
Responsibility #2: Step out if you feel like the game is something you can't jump into.
Major Responsibility: Play only if you are serious.
I would say this group does not follow the major responsibility. The norm is to allow people to show up and play whatever their scale of interest in the game might be.
Perhaps this might work: it worked with my group, but my situation was (a) it was Everquest, not WOW, and (b) I had one player with a Dramatic Arts degree, one player with a Masters in English, and one player with a Psychology degree as three out of five of my players, and I've got a degree in Seconday Eduction. Our communication and analysis about our own desires and goals was extremely articulate, so YMMV.
I didn't play Everquest, but I took the time and read up on the basic concepts: character classes, possible actions, and types of missions.
Then we discussed what they liked and disliked about the online game. It tried to map the things they enjoyed doing online to the things they enjoyed doing face to face. I tried to supply the things that were lacking in the online game. The game only ended when people moved out of town, so I count it a success.
We ended up with a homebrew Gurp-ish game. It was pretty fascinating from a design standpoint, where one of the design parameters was the amount of real-world focus needed to accomplish certain tasks: They liked the fact that in online combats, they could click away while discussing out of game stuff, but they liked how in the tabletop games that every adventure was a "quest" adventure, and there were no "farming" or "wait for the item drop" missions.
-Fred
edited to fix formatting - RE
Fred,
Thank you for the reply.
When you mapped the enjoyable online things to the enjoyable face-to-face things, did you use GNS/Big Model language?
Did you just ask them for specific instances of play that they enjoyed which you then followed up with your own private GNS/BM analysis, or did they express what they liked in more GNS terms from the get go?
I'm very curious to know more about your Gurpish homebrew in GNS terms. Maybe one specific example going from your facilitation, to the analysis to the rule(s). That would be helpful.
I first did some GNS analysis of MMO games (finding them to be systematically designed to reward Gamism, some players like to work "outside" the system for a Simulationist model, and the limitations of being Massive means there's very little Narrative elements(*)). I was hoping we could talk in terms of the GNS/Big Model.
However, when we talked about what elements they liked about the game, the discussion was entirely about Ephemera in the Big Model: Color, Situations, Immersion levels, etc. There wasn't much talk about the reward system, because it became very clear that the MMO model was what my group considered a "roleplaying game." The System was almost considered to be neutral: different systems rewarded different types of "adventures," and a widely flexible system was better than a narrowly focused system. GNS never entered into it: Our group's social contract determined the GNS: Players wanted their characters to increase in effectiveness as a result of Stepping Up, and they also sought social rewards from the group ("Good roleplaying") for excellent Support of the Dream.
As far as the Gurpish homebrew: characters were stat/skill based, with the higher skills indicating higher effectiveness. It was actually very similar in system to the WWGS system, excepting that the dice (and therefore mathematics) were different. But, again, GNS/CA was set by the social contract, by the definition of "This is what Good RolePlaying is." The system didn't matter to them, except as it facilitated or hindered their ability to Immerse themselves when they wanted to. The system also had rules for social, mental, or physical solutions to the challenges.
The players wanted what I like to call "Reverse Illusionism." They wanted to be able to exert Force upon the plotline, so that a certain point, they could realize they're at the Climax of a story, and afterwards they could look back and reminisce about the Narrative. However, they didn't want there to be any mechanical system around it, nor did they want to have to overtly signal that they were using Force. It was the task of a Good GM to take the various Forces which the characters were exerting, weave them around, and knit together coherent Narrative Events.(**)
With the GNS model, - I've found it paradoxical to put in practice in "live play." The reason is that, either as a player/GM, there is a particular Creative Agenda that I wish to pursue. However, GNS describes the reward system: which is not controlled by me. If I am a player, my GM determines what actions give me effectiveness points, and my fellow players determine the social kudos for pursuing my agenda. If I am a GM, then the player's feedback determines my success.
And both sides of that that involve feedback! It means that even if I think I was funny and dramatic and challenging and interesting to ME, if I didn't engage fellow players, then I failed. I can't control my own roleplaying experience, which is why I feel that many in the "gamer" subculture aren't interested in the "roleplaying" part of it: If they can't control their own levels of fun, then they aren't interested. (I now get off my pulpit)
-Fred
(*) Most MMOs have a "get gear->fight monsters->get better gear as loot->seek out tougher monsters" play system. That's rewarding Challenges, to me. Many players (RP servers) try to heighten Immersion, and give social Kudos for characters that try to "roleplay" why the character is sent out to kill 100 frog people to save the village. I find that Simulationist, because it reinforces the SiS, and not Narrative, because the plot and direction of the metastory is never under the player's control. Every player has the same basic plot: I start as a newb, and become leet, having adventures along the way. Rarely does a player has the ability to come back to the quest-giving NPC and say "I decided instead to talk the Frog People out of attacking your village. All of you go in peace."
(**) Remember that Masters degree in English, and the Theater degree? The Psychology degree had a minor in Creative Writing, too. Our group was very high in the Ability to Tell Stories.
Hi Rustin,
QuoteMajor Responsibility: Play only if you are serious.
I would say this group does not follow the major responsibility. The norm is to allow people to show up and play whatever their scale of interest in the game might be.
I wouldn't say play serious - it's like learning to ride a bike. It takes a little bit of effort and perserverance, but after awhile its not serious, its just easy to do and fun. Well, usually - I'll grant some systems are more like learning a unicycle...
Anyway, you got the gist of what I meant. Doesn't this seem a dead end to you even as you say it?
This idea comes to mind: They have to have gotten to X point in the game after Y minutes of real time (say 30 minutes or an hour), otherwise play closes for the night wherever they are. Bring a movie or a boardgame in case this happens, because it's not a bluff.
Hi Fred,
I was interested to hear that account. But the blending of the hard mechanics of a computer game I was hoping I might see seemed to evaporate into freeform something.
QuoteAnd both sides of that that involve feedback! It means that even if I think I was funny and dramatic and challenging and interesting to ME, if I didn't engage fellow players, then I failed. I can't control my own roleplaying experience, which is why I feel that many in the "gamer" subculture aren't interested in the "roleplaying" part of it: If they can't control their own levels of fun, then they aren't interested. (I now get off my pulpit)
I'm not sure if your advocating this or denouncing it? I could read either tone. To me it sounds ghastly (though I'll grant most people laud it as good gameplay and I gunned for it in the past) - it'd be like if I wrote up a spiritual attribute in the riddle of steel and if it failed to engage my fellow players, I failed. There's a certain punk attitude that mechanics can facilitate - a 'Take this and suck on this, like it or not!' attitude. The value of that is when someones forced to actually think about something they don't like for awhile, they might see some value in it (or something they didn't previously). But if they get to say you fail for not engaging them, then they'll never see the value in anything thats outside their harmoginised little world. Hmmm, I seem to be standing in a pulpit at the moment as well...
Of course it's alot easier to take having to 'suck on this' if you had a random chance of avoiding it first or could have resource manouvered out of it somehow. I think 'you have to engage me' is a sort of wonky attempt at that, where if the GM can't engage you on something, then you don't have to suck it up. That's the 'stage' for chance and manouvering to avoid it. I was really hoping to see the hard mechanics of computer games transfering over, even if in simple ways (like "Oh, I hate that jungle zone in the mmorpg...so I'll just go the long way around").
I've been trying to explain Big Model stuff to my play group ever since I read all the articles hear at the Forge. The problem with this has been the hit/miss nature of the conversation. None of the people I was talking to had read the articles themselves, so I easily spent as much time teaching theory as talking about how to apply it. So, my first suggestion would be to direct your players here and have them read the articles, or, before even that, ask them if they're interested in having a theory level conversation and if so, if they'd be willing to learn so Big Model terminology to facilitate this. If so, making sure everyone is using the same words to mean the same thing is a great starting place.
In my own group, a very gradual increase of awareness has started to have an effect on play. People are starting to think of they do play and how they could play, and that's good and worthwhile, but I'd say 2/3rds of theory conversations end with someone getting defensive about "how they play," whether or not we managed to reach any kind of understanding by then.
I think I went a bit OTT with the ghastly comment - a chord was struck like with the TROS example and...yeah. Sorry, Fred!
Callan,
I like the suggestion of playing for 30 min, then evaluating and deciding on if we need to adjust or change activities. In many ways this has sort of happened, we take a beverage break, and end up shooting basketball for awhile. So, we are breaking, just not communicating why we are interrupting play.
With over 20 years of playing with this group I don't see it as a dead end; more like things changed and we need to adjust.
Fred,
Thanks for the reply. Your group is much different than mine, most significantly in the willingness to talk about what they want out of play.
Masq,
My attempts (several years ago) to discuss Forge stuff have been huge misses. Which makes me suspect Big Model language does not help in that Facilitation phase of gaming. This makes me feel there is a niche there for a primer on social rules that coach on agreement, boundaries and communication.
I am thinking this discussion never quite settled into an Actual Play experience as much as I thought it would. So I don't know if we should continue with the thread.
I'm toying with the idea of coming up with some Pre-Game discussion guidelines or rules or maybe even make a game for pre-game things. If I settle on any rules, I plan on posting them in the First Thoughts forum. Maybe this has already been done. (Does someone know if there is anything like this in Play Unsafe? Play Sorcerer?)
Rustin, no, that wasn't my suggestion at all. I didn't suggest evaluating and deciding adjustments. If they are not at point X by Y minutes, you cease playing.
It's probably jarringly different. But to quote Albert Einstien "Problems cannot be solved at the same level of consciousness that created them."
No prob, Callan.
It wasn't quite freeform. Opposed noncombat and combat actions had skill/stats determining a target number, with a Fortune Roll to reach that target.
I allowed a well stated Intent phase statement to earn a bonus (or penalty) to the Fortune roll. After the roll, unsuccessful players got to Narrate the outcomes (my group seemed to accept failure better if they got to narrate someone else's successes along with their own failure).
The unspoken Social Contract included "don't be a jerk," so I didn't really have a problem with people overreaching on the Narration.
Not to fork the thread, but is there an official Glossary Term for "Reverse Illusionism?"
It's like we had a solution for the "Impossible Thing Before Breakfast": Make the GM do a lot of work, some of it bordering on telepathy.
-Fred
Hi Fred,
There is indeed a term: Participationist play, courtesy of Mike Holmes. You can run a search on "participationist" and "participationism" for some really long, really involved, and often baffling threads which eventually produced great results. I most recently wrote about it in detail in [NWOD][VtR] New Game - New Possibilities - New Questions! (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=26750.0), which I think is pretty relevant to your question, starting about halfway down the page.
Rustin, one quick point: the discourse and terms at the Forge were developed strictly as a discussion among interested parties and were never intended as an outreach device. You're absolutely right that such a device is needed.
Best, Ron
Rustin, from the examples of what you enjoyed in play, it seems to me that perhaps you're trying to make this campaign do several things at once, which might not be possible.
The tactical gaming with miniatures is something you and your group like. It's based completely on systems that let you get into friendly competition/adversity mode, where everyone is on the same level: You're all controlling the same type of resources, following the same rules etc. Yet, you say you would also like to play in a style where the GM is final arbiter of consequences. These two things don't match.
You and your group seem to have enjoyed making up stuff before the game - but that's, in my experience and opinion, a very different activity from actually playing the game. Unless the things you create before-game actually affect the game (for example, what resources the players can use at specific times, or what adversity they will face), the game can easily fall flat despite great pre-game brainstorming.
Your players are very into WOW, while you're not that fanatic about it. Perhaps this indicates that you have different desires from the D&D game? Your players might want more tactics, more resource management, more encounters, while you're looking for something more/different? If so, you've got some thinking to do.
Quote from: Rustin on December 09, 2008, 01:19:07 PM
My group recently ended its fourth 4e campaign within the last year or so.
I suspect incoherent play caused each attempt to fail. (E.g., People "checking-out" when not spotlighted, lots of talk about WOW, computer use etc..)
This is a tough problem to combat.
One of my most successful techniques I have employed is having players write game recaps and rewarding experience points for doing so. The exp rewarded for the recaps is based on the quality of the recap. This alone has helped keep some players paying attention as there is a tangible reward. And, just pulling one or two players back into the game can disable the others who were not paying attention.
I would recommend finding ways to draw each player back in individually. Typically from what I've seen as long as you can keep most of the players focused, the other will follow suit.
Quote from: Erudite on December 22, 2008, 10:36:37 AM
Quote from: Rustin on December 09, 2008, 01:19:07 PM
My group recently ended its fourth 4e campaign within the last year or so.
I suspect incoherent play caused each attempt to fail. (E.g., People "checking-out" when not spotlighted, lots of talk about WOW, computer use etc..)
This is a tough problem to combat.
One of my most successful techniques I have employed is having players write game recaps and rewarding experience points for doing so. The exp rewarded for the recaps is based on the quality of the recap. This alone has helped keep some players paying attention as there is a tangible reward. And, just pulling one or two players back into the game can disable the others who were not paying attention.
I would recommend finding ways to draw each player back in individually. Typically from what I've seen as long as you can keep most of the players focused, the other will follow suit.
I instead use the "player roll everything" tecnique. If a monster attack a PC, I do not roll "Monster Attack vs Character AC", the player rolls "Character AC vs Monster Attack"
Add 10 to the monster attrack bonus, subtract 10 to the Characters AC, and you'll have the same math results
If the monster has +8 to attack, and the Character has 22 AC, the monster usually need a 14 to hit (30%)
With my rules the character will have +12 AC (22-10) and the monster will have 18 attack. The player will need a 6 to avoid being hit (70%)
This help a lot taking player into the game during combat.
You can apply on every roll. If you need a result of X to hit, you need a result of 20-X to avoid being hit.
Quote from: Leilond on December 22, 2008, 11:21:05 AM
I instead use the "player roll everything" tecnique. If a monster attack a PC, I do not roll "Monster Attack vs Character AC", the player rolls "Character AC vs Monster Attack"
I have occasionally had players roll for me instead of me rolling things. This can also help get the players pulled into what is going on. Also, on this note. Often during combat or when players are involved in tense action, the other players pay attention anyway.
Thinking about it, a lot of the time when the focus is on only part of the group, I don't mind the rest of the group not paying attention. It makes it easier for them to RP when the group is back together and they have to fill each other in.
I think the only time I mind players slacking off is when they don't readily get back into the game when it is time or if their side action distracts the active players. I've seen this as more of a problem with some than others. I think that comes down to group dynamics.