Table-top RPG play style flowchart

[Ronin Storm]

DIE DIE DIE DIE!

(How could you, you fiend, after such a wall of text?!? )

 

[Zooggy]

Hoy,

Warning: wall of text follows!

You draw your conflict resolution concept from DitV?

No, Jikarr is correct, it was merely an example. Not the rolling mechanics, even, but simply the fact that, if you're playing by the rules, then before the dice even hit the table, everyone around the table must be very much aware of what is at stake, what it will actually and concretely mean to win or to lose.

This is something that is usually not done with task (or situation) resolution, wherein the true meaning of succeeding or failing is only made clear (usually, but not always, by the GM) after the roll/draw is evaluated.

I find that assuming upfront stakes negotiation as a part of the system (or rather, by your terms, the game contract) does wonders for the health of the long term campaign.

Tsk. Splitting semantic hairs, I think.

Yes. Well, a different terminological framework, but yes, intellectual honesty demands that I admit I understood what you were saying.

(The following is out of order: )

You see, I've played a pretty wide gamut (seriously, over 25 years so far) and I'm back from the land of hardcore immersion play and wandering in the land of "don't give a monkey's as long as its fun for me and the group". I don't subscribe to the GNS model but if one were to use that then I'm now running narrative-oriented games with a light dose of gamist system in a simulationist world.

Similar time frame for me, about 24 years. I do subscribe to the Big Model in its entirety, although it's not the only framework I use to theorize about RPG sessions and game design. However, I would contend that your usage of the terms is incorrect, or at the very least, severely outdated.

Creative Agendas are about RPG sessions and arcs of play, and specifically about the social interactions between the real people at the table. The terms cannot be directly applied to either systems or worlds.

There is valid short-hand when talking about systems, but it must be used with care. "Gamist system" simply means "a system whose reward mechanisms tend to reinforce the social alignment of players that enjoy gamist sessions". Worse yet, because the application of rules-as-written is so widely varied, this is really only valid for my usage of the term "system", which maps to your term "game contract". The texts themselves generally aren't gamist, simulationist or narrativist, unless they specifically attempt to prescribe modes of social interaction. To date, I have yet to see a game text that does this.

Similarly, there is no such valid short-hand for the fictional world, simply because it doesn't make any sense. An attention to the inner self-consistency of the game world, no matter how strongly it is adhered to, does not transform the session into a simulationist one, and it never will.

Reading back on my three paragraphs above, I realise I may have sounded a bit pedantic. I apologize if that is so. It's just that, over the years, I've had many, many a conversation about the pros and cons of the Big Model. You'd be surprised about the amount of people out there that are vocally against its very existence. I've found that most of those people simply failed to grasp the correct application of the model.

Anyway, now that I've waxed poetic about all of this, I'm ready for your big question:

What do you feel role-playing actually is, or perhaps is for?

First, let me get the answer "for fun" out of the way as one of those useless and empty truths, similar to answering the question "whereabouts in the world are you" with "the surface".

Second, let me state outright that I have very different answers to "what it is" and to "what it's for".

I have a very clear picture of the operational boundaries that define role-playing: a social activity centered on shared, negotiated imagination. Each of those five terms has a very specific meaning. Some are more obvious than others.

As to what it's for, well, I can pretty much engage at full fun into any of the three Creative Agendas. If I want to revel within a certain genre, I'll dive deep into Sim play. Primetime Adventures generally does that for me very well (even though most people claim that PtA is a "narrativist system"). If I want to put the pedal to the metal, and engage my problem-solving side, I willl totally groove out on Gamist play. Lately, I've been doing that through 3.5 and 4E, but Shadowrun is wonderful for that as well. And if I want to go into deep emotional stuff, I find Nar play thoroughly cathartic. I've been using Solar System for that, specifically, The West. (That was developed by my gaming group, so you should definitely check it out. )

But mostly, for me, role-playing is a process of self-discovery, and a process of getting to know more about the people I'm playing with. I find that any of the three Creative Agendas do that very well for me, as long as I can be made fairly certain that everyone else is playing to the same agenda, i.e., that we have a coherent table. That's the big thing for me: If you and I are not aligned, agenda-wise, then I really can't glean anything about you from your play, and thus, your play ceases to be fun for me. I can still have fun at the table, but it's diminished.

To have fun exploring and playing with an imaginary world through a lightly orchestrated sequence of story-linked scenes where the characters are always the central focus, purely because they're the player characters. [...] I guess that's in the realm of "orchestrated collaborative improv"

Hmmmmno, not so much. In reading though your description, the first thing that jumps to mind is that you're playing rules-light Narrativism, which, by the way, Ron Edwards says is what most functional groups play without realizing it. That's very much a solid mode of role-playing, as far as I'm concerned.

The problem with RP in MUSHes and MMORPGs is just the "orchestrated" part: without "orchestration" (or, to use a better term, "scene framing"), play decays into a self-centered portrayal of everyone's character and jiving off of everyone else's portrayal, but there are no scenes and there is nothing to engage, in any of the three agendas. Because I can't do anything to you if you don't consent to it, in the absence of an actual role-playing "system" that enforces that consent, I can't frame anything for you. Only you can frame stuff for you. The "imagination" part ceases to be social. Only the dialog is shared. Role-playing is no longer taking place.

I contend it's all role-playing as it succeeds at the test of "players taking on roles in an imagined circumstance".

Ah, I see! (Disclaimer: at first reading, this is going to sound like more semantic hair-splitting, but I promise you it's not.) My usage of the word "role" in role-playing is not fully compatible with that sentence.

To me, in role-playing, it's not the players that take on the roles, but rather, the characters. The players are there to explore the characters' roles, not to act them out. In this, I'm using the social sciences meaning of the term, rather than the theatrical meaning.

Anyway, yeah, I've written a lot and you've written more just as I was writing, so, on to reading your next post.

Cheers,
J.

 

[Zooggy]

Hoy,

I like to think what my players get out of one of my games is discovering to various extents what the situation, setting and story is really all about. (1) I cannot however be devoid of providing players what they get a kick out of - which is numerous. If the Mother May I approach can be utilised to achieve that, and hence hopefully fun, I see no problem. (2)

I think ultimately, being a format of gaming that is very much defined by the people involved through its sheer nature parallels are always going to be able to be drawn between it and other mediums, and other games. As to "Mother May I", I don't disagree that a parallel can be drawn at some level however, due to the malleable nature it is able to shift focus or eliminate that aspect if that's what the group wants to do. (3)

(Rather than do the line-by-line, this time, I flagged the spots that my responses apply to.)

1) Were I you, I would abandon the "like to think" thing and endeavour to make sure, through some open dialog with your gaming group. Then again, you strike me as a player with a rather diverse portfolio and background, so you probably know this already.

2) Correct, there isn't one. Camp n. 1 is a very cool place to be at.

3) This, however, is key. Most groups don't even realize these phenomena exist and are eroding the fun value of play, so they actually aren't able to shift out of or eliminate their only model of the fundamental structure of role-playing.

As for your two questions, I think I answered them in my previous response to Ronin. Let me know if my answer was incomplete or failed to hit your questions.

Cheers,
J.

 

[Zooggy]

Hoy,

Isn't this all about permission to play? If so, isn't defining permissive boundaries what game contract is supposed to help with?

First part, no. Second part, yes. (Weird, huh?)

The Mother May I parallel isn't so much with the May I part, but rather, with the fact that the "lead" (for lack of a better word) is the one specifying the form and number of steps, with the "player" being happy to engage.

In traditional play, the GM frames all the questions and extrapolates from all the answers, while the players are happy to provide minimalistic answers in terms of what their characters do or think. It's good for Sandbox play and it's very good for certain types of Participacionist play.

Mother May I is not really about permission to play as much as it is about how to play correctly.

As for the boundaries of the game contract, yes, you're very much there. You wouldn't believe the kind of vitriol that something as innocent-looking as providing Thematic Information, as described in my Part IV, has elicited from some of the more vocal opponents to my articles. Yet ultimately, that's just what your "permission to ask no-BS questions" thing does to the game. It's easy to underestimate the structural impact such a "minor" point of game contract has regarding the mode of play at the table.

[Mother May I games] seem to be the games where the needs of the game story outweigh the needs/interests of the players (or, perhaps, their characters).

Again, not so much. They can be, mind you. But, they can also be a GM that is overly invested in catering to the characters and/or to the players. It's just that the players, and indeed the GM himself, has no tools, no tools whatsoever, to let the players, well, play. And so, lest play falls flatly into the Boredom red box from the chart, eventually, the GM has to hand out something. And now, it's not about whether that "something" has needs or not and whether those needs outweigh the needs of the characters, but rather, it's about the fact that, outside of that "something", there's... nothing!

Some friends still game once or twice a week but I find that my interest in sitting on the player side of the table has dwindled hugely (partly due to me being one of the few who actually talks game contract) and for my own purposes having larger gaps between sessions allows me the preparation time I desire to keep a coherent game.

Wow. You'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I read this as one of the most eloquent descriptions of Agenda clash I've ever seen.

You see, a lot of people, the author of the chart in the OP included, are out there yelling loud warnings about GM Burnout, but for some reason, the darker, more insidious aspect of Player Burnout gets almost no attention, comparatively speaking.

It seriously boggles the mind how something as hugely critical as a game contract is not only not seriously discussed by everyone, it's actually actively avoided by vast numbers of gamers, under the guise of "enough theory talk, I just want to have fun". People don't seem to realise that, just because there are a gazillion game rules texts out there, it doesn't mean that any one of them is actually more formative than a deck of cards. I mean, I love to play Bridge, but I didn't learn the game from staring at the King of Diamonds! Yet, despite the fact that almost no game text out there actually has any rules for how to actually play the damn game, no one seems to care...

It seriously boggles the mind...!

Cheers,
J.

 

[Ronin Storm]

I'll keep this one a little shorter (okay, I lied... it's not shorter at all), but it does bring me to a question at the end. I'm also drawing together quotes from multiple previous posts to converge the discussion a little.

However, I would contend that your usage of the [GNS model] terms is incorrect, or at the very least, severely outdated.

Yep, sure, I'd buy that I'm out of date. Last time I engaged in anything approaching serious role-play discussion was probably pre-2001. I'd say my interest in sitting on the player side of the table declined rapidly afterwards; can't really speak to a causal link, though I'll come back to that a little later.

Creative Agendas are about RPG sessions and arcs of play, and specifically about the social interactions between the real people at the table.

I think I would have italicised the part about "real people". What I call player-player interactions. I wrote an article a while back stating "you are not your character". Took a lot of fire for that, as I remember.

Still, I see where you're coming from on that. The trouble I find is that they're terms that only seem to help those already well versed in their meaning and interested in the mechanics of player interactions within their role-playing sessions. I've asked role-players of many years experience "what do you want from this/any game?" and they look blankly at me. The trite "uhm, have fun" answer is the obvious return.

My answer to this is to not ask the question so directly and instead spend a shared pre-session discussing the nature of the game, the characters we're interested in playing, the ways that will mean that the players may interact (which is particularly of note when a leader role comes into play) and what style of game the players can expect from me and each other. This started off pretty heavy weight maybe six or seven years ago but I've lightened the tone a lot and this seems to help get to the shared understanding we're looking for.

As to what it's for, well, I can pretty much engage at full fun into any of the three Creative Agendas.

I read through your description there and I found it difficult to identify my own play in that. I guess, as you say, the default ground is in narrative but I can't help feel that this doesn't really describe what I look for and that I'm more a pick-and-mix gamer.

But mostly, for me, role-playing is a process of self-discovery, and a process of getting to know more about the people I'm playing with.

Partly as a result of being so whacked out generally (Aspergers traits mixed with a dose of Bipolar just for kicks), I find I do my self-inspection outside of role-playing so I'm generally not looking for any understanding of myself or others from games. Instead, I'm looking for discovery, in a world exploring sense, and as much heroism as I can lever into a small room.


Hmmmmno, not so much. In reading though your description, the first thing that jumps to mind is that you're playing rules-light Narrativism, which, by the way, Ron Edwards says is what most functional groups play without realizing it. That's very much a solid mode of role-playing, as far as I'm concerned.

The problem with [online] play [is that it] decays into a self-centered portrayal of everyone's character and jiving off of everyone else's portrayal, but there are no scenes and there is nothing to engage

Ah yes. The "sit in the bar and pose about nothing in particular" scene. They can be fun, occasionally, from a creative writing point of view but I find the implicit contract for a particular location varies according to its use and level of public traffic. Thus, a public bar might attract craziness with a minimum of consent but generally a total lack of depth, where a private structure may draw an invite-only crowd gathered for a particular purpose.

Still, I think your point there, in part, is that creative writing is not role-playing and in that I'd agree.

To me, in role-playing, it's not the players that take on the roles, but rather, the characters. The players are there to explore the characters' roles, not to act them out.

I think I see where you're coming from in this, though I'd argue that the players are the only vehicles through which the characters are realised and thus the players are responsible for taking on their character's roles. Not in a method acting sense, necessarily. Just that the players themselves adopt, on behalf of their characters, particular stances that are appropriate for their character. Simultaneously, they are also players with agreed interactions (e.g. we don't talk over each other, or even though your character is the leader we still agree direction as players).

It's a fairly fine point, though.

Mother May I is not really about permission to play as much as it is about how to play correctly.

Right. I see where you are with that, now. And I think we're in agreement that this is firmly game contract territory: if we've agreed to play like this, then that's what's correct, for us, in this game.

It's easy to underestimate the structural impact such a "minor" point of game contract has regarding the mode of play at the table.

Maybe. Though not for me. I know of one or two who now can't play with me as a result as their wish is for absolute immersion to the point of "lie to me". Just not my cup of tea.

But, they can also be a GM that is overly invested in catering to the characters and/or to the players. It's just that the players, and indeed the GM himself, has no tools, no tools whatsoever, to let the players, well, play.

Tools to play. Interesting concept. What're you thinking, here?

I read this as one of the most eloquent descriptions of Agenda clash I've ever seen.

Yeah, to an extent. I don't do well with ambiguity so explicit game contract or GTFO, if you see my meaning.

for some reason, the darker, more insidious aspect of Player Burnout gets almost no attention

Here's a test question for you: who owns a player's character?

Yet, despite the fact that almost no game text out there actually has any rules for how to actually play the damn game, no one seems to care...

I care.

Bit of a brainstorming thing, then. What should we be discussing, pre-game, that would help us play together without any of us burning out or otherwise spitting curses at each other?

I guess I'm wondering if there's a level of proforma for game contract that is worthwhile, perhaps even tilted towards particular Creative Agenda if that's your thing.

 

[luc]

Not the rolling mechanics, even, but simply the fact that, if you're playing by the rules, then before the dice even hit the table, everyone around the table must be very much aware of what is at stake, what it will actually and concretely mean to win or to lose.

Say hello to another one of my ambivalent suppositions (oh yes, I went there) where I would like to argue that understanding "what is at stake" for a character can be a very acute method of obtaining intrigue. Yet again we're onto a "what style of gameplay" question, and as much as I agree that a clear understanding of overarching or personal objective is good (albeit malleable), one doesn't necessarily require to understand what is at stake on more depth. After all one could argue we could simplfy to "I either get what I want or don't" or even "I enjoy playing the game (for whatever reasons to avoid the hate-filled emptiness of fun) or I storm off as this is <expletive of choice>".

waxed poetic

I've already made my point on this, but I just want to add that I did gyre and gimble across to the wabe, and pedantry was not found in this bandersnatches lair of words.

(NB, I hate being literary, literally.)

The problem with RP in MUSHes and MMORPGs is just the "orchestrated" part: without "orchestration" (or, to use a better term, "scene framing"), play decays into a self-centered portrayal of everyone's character and jiving off of everyone else's portrayal, but there are no scenes and there is nothing to engage, in any of the three agendas.

Firstly lets get off the bat the tabletop RPG vs. MUSH vs. MMORPG vs. video game RPG vs. roguelikes etc. etc. are all variations on the common theme (which I fully understand you are not disputing). I would argue that it's not necessarily the case that without scene framing does it decay in such a way. As an EvE player, this mammothian (I like my bastardisation) sandbox, there is a very fine line as per what we can and can't call RP - but then again we're back onto the semantics of terms; but just to elaborate in EvE a lot of my personal assumptions can come into play and with varying degrees I can get involved in this so called Naritivism which can then lead to personal investment in the game and almost blur the lines of me and the character. Not overly advised agreed, but possibility is there.

***

1) Were I you, I would abandon the "like to think" thing and endeavour to make sure, through some open dialog with your gaming group. Then again, you strike me as a player with a rather diverse portfolio and background, so you probably know this already.

"You can truly never know what another is thinking" as the age old idiom goes, and I agree. This here is the typical, what us critical individuals would describe as covering our own arses. I have talked to people, and I have a very good gaming group that without my prompting will give me feedback. As a self-prescribed lover of GMing I've done a lot and continue to do more research into what it means to be a good GM; which I'm arguably either close to or far from.

3) This, however, is key. Most groups don't even realize these phenomena exist and are eroding the fun value of play, so they actually aren't able to shift out of or eliminate their only model of the fundamental structure of role-playing.

I could be snarky here and point out your own concept of roleplaying for fun being an empty truth, but I won't. A creature of habit is hard to break from their nature, and so it could be true that the removal of this dynamic could be more harmful than good for the players fun. The key proponent here is experimentation, something which the indie market has a good choke hold on, hence why I would turn there to experiment; beyond ones own endeavours of course.

Mother May I is not really about permission to play as much as it is about how to play correctly.

I didn't overly want to touch on this as I believe it's a very contentious issue. Playing correctly can bring a slew of assumptions, as well both positive and negative connotations. Now I personally feel that you can have a remit of people and groups. One group may have a person they feel is a great RPer, whereas the other would scoff and scorn (neither rightly nor wrongly so). Again we fall back to group dynamics and this concept of malleable games. Trying to understand how to play correctly is good for each player to grasp from their own perspective, as much as I learn how to be a better GM for what I get the kicks out of and to facilitate my group. Now this far from encapsulates every area, but the tl;dr of this: discussing how to play correctly is a very complex area that is also subjective.

Yet, despite the fact that almost no game text out there actually has any rules for how to actually play the damn game, no one seems to care...

This issue is directly addressed in Robin's Laws and I recommend you check it out. Part of this issue, with Player Burnout, is that often it's in regards to GMs discussing this (not a slur, just seems to be the way of the world). We also have to remember the territory of "they were a bad GM" or "they were a bad player" which can mar this type of frank conversation.

***

My answer to this is to not ask the question so directly and instead spend a shared pre-session discussing the nature of the game, the characters we're interested in playing, the ways that will mean that the players may interact (which is particularly of note when a leader role comes into play) and what style of game the players can expect from me and each other. This started off pretty heavy weight maybe six or seven years ago but I've lightened the tone a lot and this seems to help get to the shared understanding we're looking for.

Similarly, I often run a couple of weeks of setting hints, get people thinking what they want to do, then gradually often have the group sit down for a session discussion who each character is, how they view one another, and that player-player dynamic you talk of. Recently I even tried with nWoD as "on first impressions do you like to dislike each other" idea where everyone wrote down if they like or dislike another person purely on what that player had said as part of the character gen. I tend to have this as part of my standard game prep.

I think I see where you're coming from in this, [...]
It's a fairly fine point, though.

I agree to some degree, though this is getting almost into a psychological point. I remember having a rather in-depth discussion about the utilisation of, what they called, the façade of how one presents oneself. Now this was much wider in the context of method acting, day-to-day life and beyond however, this pretty much hits part of the nail. One could also bring in concepts of immersion and ideologies of the self - but I think that's a bit heavy for now.

Here's a test question for you: who owns a player's character?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll chime in. This is going to sound frank, but it's an approach (not the only) I use. A players character is owned by the player (not necessarily the one who gen'd it). It is theirs, and solely theirs to guide as they see fit. A system can then be utilised to put boundaries on that character, or to aid in the boundaries based off of communal interest. Now this is where it gets tricky, the impact (or efficacy) of that character is something that is described and taken on board by the group at large. I would certainly say the impetus comes from the player, but how that plays out is a woven mess from both the player, the player trying to utilise a façade, other players (including the GM), or even down to an area of inspiration such as source material.

I will make it clear that this is not the only way, but fairly standard I feel.

What should we be discussing, pre-game, that would help us play together without any of us burning out or otherwise spitting curses at each other?

Ok, I'm game for looking at that area in more detail.

I'll open my end of the discussion with a basic bullet-point of how I approach it.

• At my local group I scout my ideas and concepts. The style of game I'll be running and the potential systems I'll be using. I tend to include what I would like to get out of it, and hint at some very basic arcplot ideas for it. This can be a mixture of quite detailed, or quite short and simple if it's a group I know that will have basic assumptions about what is going on.
• I ask people to start to think about what they would like to play, there and then basing any system restrictions I have. This primarily takes the form of me saying "I don't want any..". Now this can either be classes/jobs/archetypes. Otherwise I may just say "sure whatever."
• Now I'll ask people to start doing a group gen session, everyone together getting character sorted, how they work together and what they want to do. Beginning to transcribe into the system, or the statline is done here.
• Then it's just a matter of final aspects, such as a nice sheet, communal funds if they want it and/or is allowed and the last knockings of any group decisions (such as Chancels and Imperators in Nobilis).

Now this generally takes 3 sessions to do, sometimes more, sometimes less. But the game isn't seen fully on the table by the second session (beyond point one). This is done with the luxury I have of time, but certain tools can help - by e-mail/forum sorting, and the much hoped Google Wave which seems to have died a horrid death in light of Google Docs.

I would like to see this go to particulars, and see what you do, to learn more about it. As for world building Ronin, may I point you to Obsidian Portal as an excellent tool.

 

[Zooggy]

Aheya,

I daresay the post length is diverging...

I wrote an article a while back stating "you are not your character". Took a lot of fire for that, as I remember.

Linkage?

The trouble I find is that they're terms that only seem to help those already well versed in their meaning and interested in the mechanics of player interactions within their role-playing sessions.

That's the one criticism that pops up a lot. This kind of stuff takes some wrapping one's head around it. In addition, a few misplaced explanations from people that sounded like they knew what they were talking about but didn't (and yes, I used to be one of them) put some people into defensive mode, and from there, it's hard to think about stuff with an honest perspective. I guess ultimately, either people keep an open mind when it comes to getting the most out of their hobby, or they don't.

I read through your description there and I found it difficult to identify my own play in that. I guess, as you say, the default ground is in narrative but I can't help feel that this doesn't really describe what I look for and that I'm more a pick-and-mix gamer.

That was just a rather superficial listing. You might perhaps enjoy this more detailed description from one of my L5R sessions, a few years back.

In any case, the "default" is not actually Narrativism. That's the default for functional groups that happen to converge on their own. The actual general default is non-coherent, dysfunctional auto-pilot-Simulationism where people don't have a shared vision of what the game is about. The group in that description I linked was actually in that category. Still, even through all the dysfunction, or maybe even because ot the dysfunction, the various players' tendencies and preferences were there.

As for being "pick-and-mix", well, so am I... to an extent. I will happily play different games for different things, but within the scope of one single game, I, and virtually everyone I know, will converge into one mode. Now, if everyone converges onto the same mode, you have coherence. Otherwise, sooner or later, you're bound for agenda clash. On that session I linked above, about half the players were quite bored...!

Your lightweight pre-game session sounds like it puts in a metric fuckton of leverage towards achieveing coherence, though, so, kudos for that.

The "sit in the bar and pose about nothing in particular" scene. They can be fun, occasionally, from a creative writing point of view but I find the implicit contract for a particular location varies according to its use and level of public traffic. Thus, a public bar might attract craziness with a minimum of consent but generally a total lack of depth, where a private structure may draw an invite-only crowd gathered for a particular purpose.

Yeah, well, that's part of that focused attention to RP I was talking about earlier. It's true that in a smaller group, players can get someone managing a TinyPlot and they can have something to engage. But it's also true that they might not have that someone, and then, they're right back where they started. They're sitting at some out-of-the-way place, but they're still posing about nothing. Well, not nothing, they're probably posing about something a bit deeper. Hell, they might even get into a bit of TinySex, if that's their thing. But it's still just posing.

I'd argue that the players are the only vehicles through which the characters are realised and thus the players are responsible for taking on their character's roles. [...] the players themselves adopt, on behalf of their characters, particular stances that are appropriate for their character.

Naturally. The characters aren't real. That last sentence is key, though. In my humble view of what good RP is, there's no way to tell which stances will or won't be appropriate before Actual Play takes place. That means it becomes the players' job to find out. And that's done by ongoingly defining and exploring the character's role, to actively play that role.

Conversely, if we already know what will and won't be appropriate, well, we're just acting it out. Structural differences not whitstanding, we're back to posing.

Tools to play. Interesting concept. What're you thinking, here?

It's just a pompous term, you already know what Im thinking. But to be explicit, I'm talking about stuff like: acting in character, first person speech, spending Hero Points, your "no-BS question", stakes negotiation, shared scene framing, etc, etc. Some games have some tools, other games have other tools.

Here's a test question for you: who owns a player's character?

Boom! Twenty million dollar question. Here's the only valid answer: the character, as a whole, is owned by all of the group, just like any and all other elements of the fictional world. Every one in the group must accept every contribution from that character in order for play to progress.

However, you're not just talking about ownership. You're also talking about authority and about credibility. Regarding who gets to actively say stuff about what the character thinks, says or does, the player of that character has limited authority and (hopefully) full credibility.

Authority means the group doesn't need to override the player. It's necessarily limited because it's bounded by the authority over whatever other elements the character might be interacting with.

Credibility means the group doesn't need to second-guess the player. In a functional group, no one ever goes "I wonder if his character would really do that".

What should we be discussing, pre-game, that would help us play together without any of us burning out or otherwise spitting curses at each other?

I guess I'm wondering if there's a level of proforma for game contract that is worthwhile, perhaps even tilted towards particular Creative Agenda if that's your thing.

I've been experimenting with different formulas, but I've never been able to get real results with general players.

With people with an open mind, it's easier. Just play different games with different tool sets, then talk about what was fun and why. Accept that some games will crash and burn hideously. As more and more experiences accumulate, a shared vocabulary will emmerge.

In any case, I'm going to say that, from what you tell me of your pre-session chats, you're already way ahead of me on this variable.

--//--

Firstly lets get off the bat the tabletop RPG vs. MUSH vs. MMORPG vs. video game RPG vs. roguelikes etc. etc. are all variations on the common theme (which I fully understand you are not disputing).

Well, factually, no, I wasn't disputing that. But, generally, yes, I do dispute that statement, and I do so vehemently.

As an EvE player, this mammothian (I like my bastardisation) sandbox, there is a very fine line as per what we can and can't call RP - but then again we're back onto the semantics of terms; but just to elaborate in EvE a lot of my personal assumptions can come into play and with varying degrees I can get involved in this so called Naritivism which can then lead to personal investment in the game and almost blur the lines of me and the character.

You sort of lost me, there.

One, it's not possible to play Narrativist unless someone else is framing problems for your character. I guess it's conceptually possible that you have someone among your EVE group that takes on that role, but if you do, you're the exception. Of course, EVE's natural PvP environment poses its own natural problems, but the (admitedly few) EVE players I know aproach those not from a role-playing mindset, but rather, from a competitive player mindset, and CAs don't really apply.

Two, blurring the lines between player and character can mean one of two things: "my character is me and this is what I would do about that if I were there", or "I am become my character and only doing what the character would do if he were real". The first one is totally compatible with Narrativism, though not stricly necessary. The second one, however, is completely incompatible.

I didn't overly want to touch on this as I believe [playing correctly is] a very contentious issue. Playing correctly can bring a slew of assumptions, as well both positive and negative connotations.

I agree. Just to clarify and qualify, I meant that Mother May I is about the limitations of playing correctly, as it applies to the group and the game.

Recently I even tried with nWoD as "on first impressions do you like to dislike each other" idea where everyone wrote down if they like or dislike another person purely on what that player had said as part of the character gen. I tend to have this as part of my standard game prep.

Interesting. I want to know more about how you work that in.

A players character is owned by the player (not necessarily the one who gen'd it). It is theirs, and solely theirs to guide as they see fit. A system can then be utilised to put boundaries on that character, or to aid in the boundaries based off of communal interest. Now this is where it gets tricky, the impact (or efficacy) of that character is something that is described and taken on board by the group at large. I would certainly say the impetus comes from the player, but how that plays out is a woven mess from both the player, the player trying to utilise a façade, other players (including the GM), or even down to an area of inspiration such as source material.

Hmmmm... While at first reading, your answer and the one I gave above seem incompatible, I have an eerie feeling that we're actually saying the same thing...

Cheers,
J.

 

[Panda with issues...]

Being one of the players in Ronin's current game, I'd like to point out that his set up sessions were very effective for myself, as a fairly novice (but perhaps, natural, I would contend) roleplayer.

To give a little background:

I'd occassionally picked up and put down a few rpg's fairly quickly over the last 10 years or so, possibly due to being young and not mature enough, or for lack of an interesting system/decent gaming group.

THN and Ronin's move to southampton snuck drew me in to Ronin's boardgame sessions. THe Battlestar Galactica boardgame has some light RPG elements that I enjoyed indulging in, and (I would contend) Ronin noticed me enjoying, which led to an invitation to play in his next RPG group.

Enough of this history crap though.

The way Ronin ran his introductory sessions was particularly favourible for me as a novice roleplayer, but also for us as a group.

2 introductory sessions were run, both with predefined ('pregenerated?') characters.

This allowed us to do a few different (and i think keenly beneficial) things:

Firstly, it allowed Ronin to introduce his universe, without having to worry about planning a game session for unknown character types. - He could put together a self contained story within a (gradually unfolding) greater story arc that could play out over 1 gaming session (essentially 1 and a bit days).

It also allowed us to begin to piece together a group dynamic, both within the group of players (3 of us) and between the group of players and the GM (Ronin).

One session was more of a 'think and probe and explore', the second was slightly more action orientated. This allowed ronin to see how we were likely to act and develop as players and as a group, as well as to understand what we (as players) wanted out of the game.

When these two sessions were complete, we then held a group character design session.

It allowed us to take a step back (metagame-wise) and identify what sort of characters we'd like to play, and ensure the was a balance of character types and functionality, whilst tailoring those 'attributes' (in the loosest of senses) to the players that were most fitted to them. A 'natural fit' best on our group dynamic of the time, if you will, and Ronin could then think about how to fit these characters into his setting, and environment and 'missions' - The kind of way I think about our character sessions. - They feel somewhere between the length of a book chapter and a long film, in real time, taking around 2 loose days, and in game time, between a few hours to a few days.

I feel that this method of introduction, THEN character design based on relatively detailed knowledge of the setting ended up in a much better start than if we'd sorted out characters first.

 

[Ghostwolf67]

Having followed this thread from day 1 (outside of my 48 hour week) I have to say that as an amateur GM i'm finding this thread totally enriching. I just wanted to say thanks.

I refrained from posting because in all honesty i dont have anything to add that i think is worth while. I have been GMing now for about 5 yearsish. On and off, not continuous. Right off the bat i'm going to say i consider myself an average GM and to be completely honest my freinds and i sat down one day in college and said 'we want to roleplay, who is going to GM?' and i took the task because i was the only one with a job so i could to buy the books.

Having tasted the GM world i'm both daunted and hooked on it. The one certainty i have about it is that i can be better.

If you want to find me on the flow chart i end up at GM burnout. I've been there once or twice already. The good news is i bounce back fast. Bit of an amateur novelist apparently...

 

[Zooggy]

Hoy,

I feel that this method of introduction, THEN character design based on relatively detailed knowledge of the setting ended up in a much better start than if we'd sorted out characters first.

Coolness. For rich settings in a traditional game environment, you're probably right. For skeleton settings or group-developed settings, it's likely to be overkill, though. Conversely, for non-traditional games, it's generally not about exploring the setting, so it's probably not necessary either. But from what Ronin wrote about his play style in this thread, yeah, that sounds like it totally rocks.

If you want to find me on the flow chart i end up at GM burnout. I've been there once or twice already. The good news is i bounce back fast. Bit of an amateur novelist apparently...

Here's the thing, though. That chart is more than just a chart, it's a bit of a cautionary tale, and the moral of the story is "Illusionism Is Bad"(tm)! I feel for you, because it's how I used to roll as well.

But sooner or later, you're going to burn out once and for all or your group is going to figure it out. Now, you might get lucky and land in participacionism when that happens, or you might be forced into changing the way you play, under penalty of having your whole group blow up from under you.

I've seen all of thiese things happen around me. They ain't pretty, they put the whole hobby at stake*, and they are all completely avoidable!

If you find yourself in the burn out box often, my advice to you is take a good, long look at that chart and find the one question you yourself can give a different answer to. The quality of your game sessions will change overnight.

Cheers,
J.

(*) Yes, it's a stretch, but the connection is there.