[TSoY] I fought "The Party" and "The Party" won
Joel P. Shempert:
Chris,
Quote from: Christopher Kubasik on April 09, 2008, 12:38:54 AM
The Player did not say she was doing nothing. She said she was waiting to help the slaves if they got hurt. That is a choice. She might have been passive in her body language, she might have spoken softly. I don't know. But I do know is that she made a choice for her character that was active.
Ok, fine, she wasn't doing nothing. She made a choice as a player that involved her character acting a certain way in the fiction. I believe I've already acknowledged that. It wasn't a choice I liked. "I wait until someone I supposedly care about is wounded and possibly killed before stepping in" seems an awful lot like "nothing" to me. . .but whatever. it's not an interesting choice to me in any case, at least in context of the particular game--both the social dynamic of the players and the narrative scope of the fiction. It wasn't "Ooh, you're just letting them get themselves massacred! Hardcore!" with any accompanying Thematic statements like "They got themselves into this mess, I'll be there to m\pick up the pieces." There was no buildup or tension to the decision that would have made it "pay off" in this regard. It just sorta "hit" the table with a dull thud and sat there.
Which is partly my fault, as I've acknowledged! If that was truly the choice she was gonna make, then people shoulda died over it. Then there can be remorse or protective vengeance or "see I told you so" or whatever. I've learned my lesson well on this score. If I'd done my job then the ball would be in Petrea's court to make something interesting of the choice and its consequences. Can you just take my word for it that the vibe I was getting offa this player (which of course you can't perceive directly) was not one of active engagement but one of passivity and opaque motivation? If I had to guess (and it IS nothing more than a guess) I'd say she was simply into some sort of character "portrait" for its own sakeadpoting the pose of this sweet, meek little Ratkin with no expectations that the character would be a dynamic force to influence the game's conflicts.
These posts have been immensely productive for me so far, but it's hitting a threshold now where we're just treading around and around this one issue that shouldn't even be that important set against the backdrop of the very real progress we're making in communication and I'm making in Nar GMing. I'm getting a sinking feeling regarding Petrea's reaction if she does happen to find her way to this thread. I'll give ya one more post for closing arguments if you want, but I'm done discussing this particular sub)topic.
Quote from: Christopher Kubasik on April 09, 2008, 12:38:54 AM
The ability to see that as active and to go "Ah! I'm close!" is vital to spotting the cues and clues the player is giving.
Now this! This is a productive insight. This I'll take to the bank!
I think this statement in conjunction with the more concrete examples and principles in the thread gives me a good springboard for how to approach "the job."
Peace,
Joel
Joel P. Shempert:
Oh, and Petrea, if you do read this, I apologize if this furious debate hurts or offends you. I wish we had been able to hammer out better communication at the table (this thread will lay bare a dozen ways I suck at that!). I hope you had a fun experience; I did despite what it looks like with the game's warts under the forum microscope.
peace,
-Joel
Christopher Kubasik:
Hi Joel,
I'm on the edge of being an ass. Trust me, I know, and I hesitate to post the following.
But if you're able to write this:
Quote
Which is partly my fault, as I've acknowledged! If that was truly the choice she was gonna make, then people shoulda died over it. Then there can be remorse or protective vengeance or "see I told you so" or whatever.
Then whatever I was trying to do to communicate to you has failed. And since I'm failing so badly, I'm certainly will willing to let the matter drop after this post.
How you can possibly say that people should have "died over" her choice to heal people should they become wounded boggles my mind.
As a GM, here's a tact you could have taken: Someone is wounded (or many people are wounded) and she steps up to try to heal them. At this point dice would be rolled. Some people might die. Some might not. But this is where we'd be finding out if her efforts failed.
The notion that you would simply jump over even giving her a chance to heal anyone -- going straight to vengeance or remorse -- is, in my mind, perverse. You are simply dicking over the Player for not stepping up to the situation you thought she should have. You had a clear image in your head of what should have been happening. In a previous post you wrote: "It seems (though I can't speak for Petrea) that she wasn't impressed with the drastic immediacy and sheer crisis of the situation. This wasn't "a bunch of people are fighting, including these people fighting those people." This was "the pacifist slave laborers armed only with artisan tools are desperate enough to attack trained soldiers."
Okay, that's all your excitement and all. You you clearly had a clear vision of what was supposed to be happening. But you know what? That's just not your call -- not when it comes to the PCs, and the Players controlling them.
She clearly wasn't getting the vibe. Maybe she just wanted to sit in her head. Maybe you didn't communicate in a way that sparked her. Maybe you did -- and it still didn't spark her!
You're talking about taking away the chance for her to do with her character what she said she wanted to do (heal) because you're pissed she's not excited about the circumstances the way you want her to be and not fitting into the picture you had already built in your head? Um, no. You're railroading under a different guise. You're trying to shove her into a state of passion and excitement that she either didn't feel -- or didn't feel yet.
You're saying you'd kill NPCs so that "Then there can be remorse or protective vengeance or 'see I told you so' or whatever..." See? You're doing it again. You're expecting her to respond a certain way to the Bang you're providing -- which you're not allowed to do.
I got a couple of more things to say:
Not everything is going to be a big Thematic Statement. Even when you see the opportunity, that doesn't mean the Player is going to see it as such. Just slow down. Especially in the first session, which this essentially was, the Players are often feeling their characters out. For you, it was time for big thematic statements... for her, who knows? Maybe she was in her character, someone passive who hadn't yet made that big choice to take action...?
But we don't know what was going on in her head, so its a tough call.
But this, not knowing what's going on in someone's head, is a big deal! I remember taking note of this at a LARP years ago. I was invited to tag along, but I didn't participate, so I just watched the events, like a guy at a 3D movie. (It was pretty cool.)
Anyway, there was this woman there... an elderly woman, who barely spoke or said anything to anyone. But there was this intensity to her -- in her eyes, and the way she observed things. And for the life of me, for a while I couldn't figure out what was going on. And then it hit me -- because I'd seen this in LARPS before but hadn't recognized it -- she was REALLY INVOLVED. I mean, in her head, she was building layers of relationships and thoughts and what she thought of the other characters and so on.
Of course, she wasn't articulating any of it. She wasn't giving it shape in what we call "The Shared Imaginary Space" around here. But instead of blowing her off for not bringing all her stuff in to play, I just remember thinking, "Wow, there must be a lot going on there."
My mission after that revelation was to help people bring stuff into the SIS. Bullying certainly wasn't going to help, since that might well be why such people shut down in the first place. I decided to try the tactic of small engagements. If the person seemed interested in such-and-such, I would offer such and such. I couldn't expect them to come blazing out with Thematic Statements blazing. I had to treat their choices (even their quiet choices -- even choices that might not look like choices) with respect. I had to say, "Okay, so kids are important to your character. Okay, here's a kid. Okay, so now you've got a relationship with the kid. The kid comes to you with a tough question about life. Okay, the kid is trusting you with something: her mom's a witch and she's coming for her."
You can see how, through a slow building of beats, the Player might be more willing to go out on a limb to assert herself into a dangerous situation than if a child came screaming into the PC's hut and shouted, "There's a witch! She's mom! Help!"
So folks just need to take it slower. Why? Sometime to get comfortable with the fiction. Sometimes to get comfortable with the character. Sometimes to get comfortable with the GM. See, in this kind of game, they're going to need to know you won't dick them over with what they care about. Many GMs do dick over Players with fictional elements they care about. Let's say we twist that example above. The Player creates a child as part of the Player's background. We know there are GMs out there who are gonna crush that child within three sessions. "Okay, she's dead! Now what are you going to do?" I've read of this very situation happening on these very Internets. A woman clearly invests her female PC in an NPC child -- and the GM, thinking he's providing an awesome Bang KILLS THE CHILD. Hey, guess what? The Player thinks her fun's being taken away from her. You why? 'Cause it WAS.
So some Players are going to need to time to realize, with one small example after another, that investing in fictional details -- and making them public -- isn't going to get her fucked over. (Like, I don't knows, saying I want to be medic during a battle, and the GM killing everyone off because I didn't take aggressive enough action right away....? Hmmmmm???)
Your Player: She frustrated you. I get it. She was passive. I'm seeing clearly a certain slump of the spine and shoulders. A certain lack of energy in the voice. Her declarations always came after a pause of some kind.
And all I'm saying is, hitting her with some sort of Thematic Bitch Slap is not going to encourage her to engage more. Dude. Slow down.
In the example I offered in my last post, I said, "She says she wants to heal them if they get hurt, so let some of them get hurt so she can heal them." And you jump the fence and have them dropping dead so she can feel remorse or vengeful or what the heck....
Hey. Slow. Down. Let her get a chance to heal a fallen slave. Let her get to know that you're going honor her requests about what she wants to do. Maybe she's decided her PC is scarred by battle and only wants to help others. Maybe she's decided that she wants to see more of the system and how you run it before she runs into a fight. I don't know. Maybe she should have said something out loud -- but some people are bad on this stuff... And a lot of it is unspoken and how you handle yourself. And she's a girl and it sounded like the rest were boys, and that's going to matter, too.
Finally, fiction.
I know you saw it as the big climax. All I can say, some people might need more fictional foreplay, if you will.
If you look at stories -- well, movies at least, and plays, and most fairy tales -- you'll discover that every character wants something at the start of the story. And an opportunity presents itself to get that thing. But that as the character moves toward that thing, the obstacles become greater. The character is tested in new ways, what what seemed maybe a relatively easy path to get what she wanted becomes more and more difficult.
Which is all to say, the Player said she wanted her PC to wait and heal the slave if they were wounded in battle. Which is was in keeping with her desire to protect them.
And my thinking is... if she had been given the chance to heal a few of them, she would have been protecting them... But if the battle was still raging and that her healing wasn't enough she would have been in more forward motion than she was before, but not enough yet to get what she wanted?
Would she have taken the opportunity to become more engaged? I don't know. You don't know either.
I do know you and I are looking at the situation you've described like we're looking at an Escher print: you're seeing one thing, and I'm seeing another thing. I'm seeing opportunities with this Player -- not matter how long the odds! -- and you're seeing a dead end that could only be resolved by pushing her into a whole new direction of your choosing.
I'll say it one more time: Slow down. I'll repeat: Don't expect Players to make the Big Thematic Statement when you think it's time. Toss down Bangs, but be open to any response. Be open to the clues a Player offers about what she wants to do or is interested in, and feed that interest. Don't even think of punishing or trying to force Players into certain avenues of Thematic Choice or Play. Earn the trust of your Players -- especially early on -- by meeting them at the level of speed or investment they are willing to make; if the Player is coming in small and quiet (or even passive) come in small an intimate and tease something out slowly.
I get that I wasn't there and you saw her passivity in action. I get you might not buy what I've been saying.
But I've said my peace now, and am done.
I want to thank you for the various exchanges we've been having around here, by the way. It's really forced me to pay attention and sharpen my expectations for myself and what I'm trying to communicate.
CK
dindenver:
Hi!
I'm still getting the hang of "nar" games. And on separate occasions, I have been accused of being "passive" and/or "Clinching."
There is more to it than that though. There are a ton of moving parts that go into the roleplaying. Its not just a matter of doing what your char would do. Why not? Because its a group activity, you don't wanna be the person who acts like a dick and then says, "I was playing in character..."
So, what feeds into it for me:
1) System support for players directing the narrative
2) GM support for players directing the narrative
3) Buy in from the other players. Meaning if I want to introduce a new story element, am I going to be playing that story element alone? Cuz, that's no fun...
4) What other story elements are already in play. In other words, There are times where I would rather support another player's contribution, than try and introduce another moving part, you know?
5) Understanding of the Social Contract (Are we playing No one gets hurt or I will not leave you or?). What can I expect to get thrown at me, what can I expect to be accepted as reasonable response to conflict, etc?
6) What is the PvP action going to be like? Will we be doing intra-party conflict? Will we be fighting each other? Or is it more of a pro-party atmosphere or?
See what I mean, I try and figure all this stuff as I go and sort of re-calculate it as the game progresses. So, sometimes I am slow to decide and sometimes I just want to join in someone else's reindeer games...
Anyways, good luck guys, sounds like you know what you want, you just have to get there.
Joel P. Shempert:
Chris:
Quote from: Christopher Kubasik on April 09, 2008, 07:11:03 PM
But if you're able to write this:
Quote
Which is partly my fault, as I've acknowledged! If that was truly the choice she was gonna make, then people shoulda died over it. Then there can be remorse or protective vengeance or "see I told you so" or whatever.
Then whatever I was trying to do to communicate to you has failed. And since I'm failing so badly, I'm certainly will willing to let the matter drop after this post.
How you can possibly say that people should have "died over" her choice to heal people should they become wounded boggles my mind.
Oh, God. I really need to address this. I know I declared myself done, but I've just got to.
You seem to have misinterpreted me. I never meant that there would be no wounded slaves. . .I just said there would be some dead ones as well.
I stand by that call. If I were to call the results of the Zaru/Ammenite clash without player intervention, my gut decision is that the Zaru would be routed with one or two fatalities and several wounded. That's the outcome that I believe satisfies both Player and GM desires and sensibilities. I'd be only too delighted to allow Petrea the opportunity to heal some slaves. I would probably have even had the guy to heal be the important NPC, the leader, so her healing contest would be fairly momentous. I'm just saying the decision to hang back and wait until after the fight to heal folks carries a risk of people getting killed before you can heal them. I believe that's my call.
But look at what you're doing. All of a sudden there's some magic rule that says when a player declares they don't want people to die, then nobody can die in that scene without a roll. Talk about restricting choice--now there's only one possible option for the GM on the table: player wants to heal wounded, therefore have some people wounded but none killed. I don't buy it.
My "Then there can be remorse or protective vengeance or 'see I told you so' or whatever..." is nothing more than my off the cuff list of some possible (and different!) ways to respond to some Zaru dying in that situation. None of that is "the one way I felt the story should go" or anything. No railroad, just a hypothetical list to say "look! there's still player choice if some Zaru got killed!" Dead Zaru just become another Bang following from the player's reaction to the previous Bang. That's the way this is supposed to work, right?
Also: this isn't D&D. We're not talking about some abstract loss of hitpoints, followed by an application of Cure Moderate wounds. We're talking about a deadly situation where sharp pointy things are getting stuck in people and hesitating or waiting could mean the difference between life and death. I don't think that's punishing or herding. That's my natural response to her response to my. . .and so on. Back and forth. Lobbing pitches. That's exactly what we did (excepting my tripping up on rolling it rather than deciding for myself). Nothing says I have to like her contribution.
Point taken about pacing, though. A gradual buildup is helpful and preferable. My problem is, this was a con game, so this session is it. So naturally I was wanting things to pop. If there's anything I still want out of this thread, it's some solid grounding in the art of facilitating a con experience with this kind of game that delivers the necessary oomph for this style of play. I suspect the rest of your HQ account will be helpful here.
I've never run a con game before. Hell, I've never been to a con before. This was a new and terrifying challenge which I think I did OK at considering, but with tons of room for improvement. The con game presents unique challenges for consensus building as well as pacing and climax, which I hope to continue to learn and improve on. But I'll be damned if I'll cop to charges like "perverse" or "dicking over" or "railroading" simply because I made (hypothetically! in coulda-shoulda-woulda-land!) a call about the fictional results of fictional action that I believe is completely justified and compatible with Nar aims in general and your principles in particular.
I'm exhausted. But I won't declare anything over (since I obviously can't stick to it). I'll leave it up to you-honestly though I'm half dreading it I'm dying to hear what you have to say.
Peace,
-Joel
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page