Post Pre-Play Uncertainty
Paul T:
Do you absolutely need to focus on the specifics of things like GNS priorities?
What happens if you just present really focused situations, mechanics, and/or settings/fictional premise?
I mean very, very tightly focused, so that there is no doubt left over other details, like whether combat will be balanced or not.
I think that players with a lot of experience playing very incoherently tend to associate fun with specific details and/or techniques. Maybe they haven't yet experienced a game that was fun despite the fact that combat was unbalanced, for example? But I doubt you can convince them of that--they have to learn it through experience.
Rustin:
Last time I GM'd I tightly focused on Gamism. It fell apart because they wanted "more from the roleplaying." Maybe I didn't run it as tight as I should have. Or maybe I ran it too tight.
When the usual "let's talk about the next campaign, what setting, who GMs etc..." discussion happened, I thought that the recent failed experience would encourage more joint buy-in. And it has, to be sure. Yet, as from my Facilitating thread points out, I wasn't sure how to drive that without bringing GNS or even using it at all.
And now, here I am, back dooring GNS into the discussion. I don't know if I "need to focus on" GNS. Rather, it is just a hard issue to avoid when discussion what kind of game you want to play.
I could try to take the reigns and just drive toward focused situation (Sim), but without everyone on board I doubt, alone, I could pull everyone along. Any suggestions? Have you ever done this in the past?
Joel P. Shempert:
Dammit. I had a fairly chunky reply written up, like Friday or so, but there was a weird error preventing me from posting it. And now Paul's gone and said something similar, and you guys've moved the discussion beyond that point. So I'll just note that I too thought it looked like the terminology was impeding discussion. It sounds now like you have been using "plain terms" to talk about this stuff with your group, which is good, but I'd say it might not be a god idea to even be thinking or worrying too much about the GNS framework at this point--you're still wrestling with some concepts, so using them as a baseline for your thought and discussion is perilous. Even if you're putting it in different words when you carry discussion to your group, you're still thinking "SIm" or whatever in your head, then translating it into your group's "language," perhaps imperfectly. That could even be one reason they're turning up their nose at your description. You might be garbling the description to the point where something they'd enjoy looks totally unappealing.
Trust me, I've been there. I still don't think I've quite undone the damage I did to our shared understanding and game enjoyment when I excitedly went to my brother with all this new Forge stuff and GNS and blah blah blah, and he heard my descriptions as, for instance, "Narrativism is where you act out of character for the good of the story." Ugh.
One thing I've learned from that and some years of Forge discourse is that it's best to, as Paul says, describe something you'd really like to play from a position of laser-sharp focus and enthusiastic advocacy, then see if it jazzes 'em. That's what Ron's talking about as "Color and Reward" in my thread, Cascadiapunk Postmortem. I found it an insightful formulation of just what someone is "buying into" when they buy into a game, which in turn becomes a handy way to pitch it. We can't talk about a think unless we know what we're talking about.
I'd probably avoid negative descriptions ("it's not about balanced combat"); at their best they're absolutely true but unnecessarily off-putting, like saying "In this game you don't do this list of potentially fun things!" And at their worst they're not even strictly true ("Balanced combat" or "genre-appropriateness" do indeed feature in a lot of Narr play!), so you wind up with a false dichotomy that even more unnecessarily alienating players with the impression that all their fun stuff has no place in your refined gaming--like I did with my brother.
On the other hand, there is this pervasive belief in roleplaying culture that you can and indeed, SHOULD) just "have it all," and that somehow all the competing desires and priorities will work themselves out and satisfying play will "just happen." That's an idea that should be killed dead. It's not an attitude that has any legs in any other creative endeavor OR leisure activity, and even good examples of mixed-media or mixed-genre creativity are based on artful combinations, not kitchen-sink whatever-ism.
Now as for how to kill it dead, I'm afraid I'm stumped. Especially as, like I said, it seems like a good idea to keep negativity out of the conversation. Perhaps if we examine your dialog-to-date we can shed some light. Bear in mind that I wasn't there and certainly don't know all the nuances of communication that occured. But anyway, I'll start with terminology mixup of yours, only because it's pretty endemic of your approach:
Quote from: Rustin on December 29, 2008, 02:48:48 PM
this player also writes rich, complicated histories (i.e., Kickers) for his characters.
That is not, in any way, what is meant by a "Kicker." A Kicker is an immediate situation that the character must respond to. It's an opening scene pregnant with crisis or decision. "rich, complicated history" is it's own thing and not necessarily bad, but it's not even veering into Kicker territory. The rich history can either be a fertile backdrop for proactive play (like Kickers), OR it can be a paralyzing amber-drop that the character is frozen in, because everything interesting has already happened, or the beautiful creation is too fragile to risk marring or destroying. this is a good example of new, half-digested concepts tripping you up.
The bottom line, though, is that it's pretty perilous to deduce Creative Agenda from individual techniques. There could be any number of reasons a player develops complicated histories, for example. It'll probably take some probing to get at what the players are really after. Which is tricky, because as you point out you've got an interest in the proceedings. Like when you asked one player that rather leading question, "to beat the GM?" It kind of cuts off any reason he would've given instinctively, on his own. You may have been on to something, but I'm dying to know what he would've said without the prompt.
Just asking "Why' or "Why not?" might go a long way toward getting good solid and useful answers without leading the discussion too much. For instance:
Quote from: Rustin on December 29, 2008, 02:48:48 PM
"I would not enjoy that game, at all" is what he said in response to IAWA.
I'd love to know why he thinks he wouldn't enjoy IaWA. Just asking him might yield some understanding. It might even be that something in the way you described it turned him off, but he'd actually enjoy it in play after all! But who knows, unless you ask?
Maybe that would help your further attempts at dialogue? I hope so.
Peace,
-Joel
Rustin:
Joel,
Well, yours and Paul's comments were a bit prophetic.
They glommed onto the negatives and didn't really address the issues of prioritizing play.
I've made a terrible mess of things.
On a side note, the rich history included a kicker (man wakes up in front of an alter with no memories). He also included some back-story (excessive by Sorcerer standards) and that's where I got muddled.
Since I can't go back in time, I still think I need to focus on the "you can have it all" issue, and describe it in terms of ranking, so that it is not a negative. Maybe depict it in a way where other aspects are not eliminated, but support the top level. I think that gives it a positive tone. I do have several actual examples of our play where I think lack of priorities squelched the fun. I might bring those examples up, but I worry that it will make whoever was GMing at the time, feel bad. And that bad feeling is all they will focus on (try to defend themselves, etc..).
I'll ask more "why" questions rather than try to leap to the GNS conclusion.
On a different topic, if I was to do this again, with a clean slate. Can you expand on your understanding of laser-sharp focus and enthusiastic advocacy? I think I get it, and I think I see how it ties into Ron's Color and Reward, but I'm not sure.
Ron's description of Color and Reward focuses primarily on Sorcerer. I think I get the Color part, but when he starts in on Reward, he talks of the "four outcomes in the book" which I don't have handy right now. I assume he's talking about a CA reward (gam, sim, nar)? Or rather, payoff for getting a result that happens to fall into a CA category. Is that your understanding? I'm not confident I could summarize Reward in terms of games like d20 Swashbucklers or other more mainstream materials. Leveling your character? Buying new Gear? Maybe get a magic drop? Somehow, I feel those are not exactly the rewards Ron was talking about.
Thanks for the replies, I really appreciate them.
Joel P. Shempert:
Hey, Rustin! Sorry to hear things have gotten so muddled. But the reason I was able to be so prophetic is that it's a verrry familiar situation to me, unfortunately.
Which reminds me! I reused some material from my post that wouldn't post, but not the P.S.! And looking it over, I think it'll be helpful in an encouraging comeraderie sorta way. So here it is:
Quote
PS. Let me just echo with Jesse that I feel your pain. I've been in that awkward spot of pursuing barely understood concepts and finding the right group dynamic to try something new. in some ways I'm still in that place; I still play regularly with a group that doesn't necessarily "get" me and my play goals. It's only by improving my communication methods that I'm gradually getting to the point of playing in mutually fulfilling ways.
That's all I've got time for now, but I think I'll put some effort soon into compose a "Color and Reward" pitch for a game I know and love that isn't Sorcerer*, as a hopefully helpful example. And it'll be a good chance to practice the skill for myself! That should give you an inkling of how to construct one for your D20 game. I'm pretty versed in D&D/D20, but it's not my darling or anything, at least to the point where I could do a good pitch. I'd look forward to be informed by yours, actually. But first things first.
If you want to give input, you could tell me which of these games I'm considering would be most instructive to hear a pitch on:
Shadow of Yesterday, Dogs in the Vineyard, Capes, In a Wicked Age. . . or Heroquest.
Peace,
-Joel
*The "Four Outcomes" are the four categories of eventual story resolution for Sorcerer protagonists, which Ron lays out in the final chapter, "Theme and Meaning, under the heading "Thematic Points." The are: Retribution (hero fails, sorcery has disastrous outcome), Remorse (Hero succeeds but it's an empty, broken victory), The Outlaw Prevails (hero succeeds, sorcery kept under control) and Redemption (hero wins by putting aside sorcery). As for CA, while I'm sure Ron would tell you in no uncertain terms what CA that game progression facilitates--and I agree with him--I maintain that right now you should focus on the direct appeal of such a progression to your sensibilities, or the appeal of whatever progression a given game has, to you and your fellow players.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page