|
|
|
Wag
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, November 21, 2008 7:33 PM
Posts: 1,456,
Visits: 2,020
|
|
Nath (4/29/2008)
This seems to me to be a classic case of player-led players jarring with a story-led organiser.
I've had similar experiences in table-top in reverse, trying to run player-led campaigns with the players all assuming it was a story-led. I once made the mistake of saying there was a castle on the horizon, the players spent the rest of the session trying and failing to break into it. They seemed astonished that the occupants had not made some obvious easily exploitable route by which they might sneak into the castle. They had absolutely no reason to enter the castle at all, they had very clearly just attempted it because it was in the adventure so that must be what they were supposed to do. In fact it was in the adventure because it made a more interesting description than "trees"...
The relationship between players and refs tends to be weaker in LRP, if only because there are more people involved, even with linears and small events. Consequently I think the difference in expectations can be even more damaging in LRP and often harder to spot.
Thinking back to that game, it had one very experienced tabletopper and two who were new to it. The two who were new to roleplaying kept saying "It's a castle. We'ren't they really hard to get into traditionally? Maybe we can't get it?" And the experienced player kept telling them "We must be able to get into it somehow, we just need to keep trying". And since he "knew how to roleplay and they didn't" they followed his lead. I have a sneaking suspicion that nobody starts out as a player-led player or a story-led player, I think we just end up with our minds suitably stunted after we've gained enough experience.
It's also makes we wonder if there is a relationship between 'simulationist plot' and 'pc-led' (or 'character-driven') plot. It seems to be that a simulationist approach by the organiser is important to support player-led plot. I've never understood the GNS model very well, so I can't really comment. I think it's true that games that focus on dramatic elements (narrativist?) are implicitly less supportive of player-led plot. If the rules and the setting are (or can be) flexibly interpreted to provide maximum dramatic impact, I think that inherently undermines a player-led approach which relies on predictable if undramatic outcomes.
History is an important source for LRP. Along with other works of fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:29 PM
Posts: 1,129,
Visits: 1,758
|
|
| Pretty much every event I've run (admittedly it's been a while HT excepted)worked on the premis of- Background, world, history etc, created (or nicked)by organisers (all of whom were players), which the player characters lived in and started to affect from the moment they went live, at which point it became player led- on the understanding that I and my crew were also players, working within the same framework (and restrictions). I don't think it became plot led, just because events reacted to player actions or even pre-empted them.
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:36 AM
Posts: 861,
Visits: 2,456
|
|
| Many years ago back when I was running the local CamUK vampire game, I was trying to run a high level of player-led plot (not that we called it this back then). A few players got the hang of this and swiftly rose to the top of the IC tree, but some never managed to get it, because they weren't use to this play-style. From what I recall the same happened first maelstrom; it's took everyone some time (and some never managed it) to alter their play-style to fit with the game. I've also found it interesting watching people experienced with live vampire trying to play tabletop again. Suddenly they see the setting in a whole different light  Rather than going off and doing adventurer-style heroics, they ignore any plot ('it looks a bit dangerous, and my unlife is too valuable to risk'), and start trying to amass influence and work through minions. If the ST didn't expect this, it rather ends up taking the story out of the 'plot.' However . . . Consider Herofest. It's fairly clearly a plot-led game: the players are regularly given (literal) missions to complete to gain IC currency. However, when I turn up (with a proactive approach to characterisation and slightly more experience than a lot of the player base) I say I want to set up an IC casino out of the blue (ie. player-led), they are massively supportive of this. It actually looks like it's doing a good job of catering to both play-styles, through it is written with the expectation of players who need to be given 'missions.'
------ <insert really amusing sig here>
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
Famer3 (4/29/2008)
However this can only really be done with people who actually want to drive an event.
Hence the importance of clear advertising and keeping the definition of player-led clear. Attending a game were refs provide plot, but do everything they can to make sure it responds to player action is totally different from attending a game where you and other players have to initiate all actions.
It's like the difference between public-speaking and replying to someone else's public speech - not at all the same thing!
Matt Pennington (4/29/2008)
Sometimes players would try and engage you in discussion of the ref plot for the weekend, but you can just ridicule them IC until they stop talking about the ritual that is needed to stop this years cataclysm/apocalypse/eschaton.
I think this is a positive example of player-lead and story-driven play _don't_ get on well together. I wouldn't be happy blatantly ignoring the basis of the game someone else has turned up to play. Ignoring an IC significant story - on the grounds that you're just not interested OOC - seems as bad as ignoring IC setting material on the grounds that you're just not interested OOC (why should I have to have an opinion on religion just because I want to play an Amunsari? I don't like religion). That's what I think is basically offensive about the Gathering - whatever you do, you're shitting on someone's game, unless you drop out of character and ask each person what game they are there for - the result seems to be that people play in bubbles, which seems to rather undermine the point of attending such a big event.
Matt Pennington (4/29/2008)
Their plot only ceases to be injurious to player-led plot at the point where players stop taking it seriously.
People can - and on occasion do seem to - attend Maelstrom as a story-driven game (some players deciding that they are going to play a particular plot) and prevent player-led plot being injurious to their story arc by simply not taking the setting seriously. Occasionally you bump into people who very obviously don't like the idea of slavery, say, and so have edited it out of the background - rather than, say, playing a radical abolitionist/Tritoni/New Worlder, they are playing an orthodox (non-Tritoni/non-Freiboden) Old Worlder who is from a parallel universe where slavery is viewed in "normal" 20th century terms who just looks puzzled if you try to suggest otherwise.
In theory, the realistic IC response would be to open up an IC sanitarium where delusion people can be looked after and receive appropriate treatment but in practice you don't pay your money to play with people who want to play a different game - facing IC opposition is one thing, facing OOC opposition because you're forcing someone to partake of a game they clearly don't want to is draining so in practice the bubble is invoked.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
Nath (4/29/2008)
It's also makes we wonder if there is a relationship between 'simulationist plot' and 'pc-led' (or 'character-driven') plot. It seems to be that a simulationist approach by the organiser is important to support player-led plot.
I think the meaningful distinction is between "Gamist+Simulationist" games where _means_ are specified and players are normally allowed to choose their own ends so long as they only use sanctioned means (i.e. don't cheat!) and "Narrativist" games where it's important that everyone agrees on what the ends should be and means deployed are less important.
I realise I've just paraphrased Matt P, but I think it's a bit more emphatic - if you attend a game where it's made clear that the goal of narration must be your most important goal and the proceed to adopt other goals are more important then you're cheating (albeit in a manner which is harder to enforce).
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
Andy Rimmer (4/30/2008)
which the player characters lived in and started to affect from the moment they went live, at which point it became player led- on the understanding thatI and my crew were also players, working within the same framework (and restrictions).
Affecting things doesn't make a game player-led - I would expect to be able to affect things in a story-driven game. Ditto, NPCs/refs that use the same rules as PCs don't make a game player-led, they just make it a story-driven game which has a consistent approach to the rules (which may or may not be a good thing).
I'd say it's a player-led game if the most "significant" events are due to player-led action. DUTT interactives had a fairly energetic year where the most significant thing that happened was that Durholme invaded Newcroft. Newcroft (Newcastle) had been in the background as long as the background had been written. It wasn't a response to any refplot involving Newcroft - they hadn't done anything more provocative than being near by - the guy who seized control just decided that he wanted to invade, seize and loot it and so spent the year gearing the city up to do just that.
In the background ref-generated story plot of the type you seem to be describing was still being knocked out - but it was on a much smaller scale/much less important/involved far fewer people (for any individual plot).
Nath (4/30/2008)
I say I wanttoset up an ICcasino out of the blue (ie.player-led), they are massively supportive of this.
It actually looks like it's doing a good job of catering to bothplay-styles, through it is written with the expectation of players who need to be given 'missions.'
Obviously, player-lead games need to be player-supportive/player-helpful - but those dosn't make a game player-lead anymore than taking player feedback on story plot makes it player-led.
Put it like this, if you said "I want to set up a casino so I can suck up enough money to afford to buy mercenaries, kill the Brewmaster and take over the Well of Life/buy off the guy writes the missions" and they agreed then it would be (potentially) player-led because the significant story elements are less important/lower volume than what you can achieve through direct player action.
I think that would probably be a very _bad_ move because it would trash their plot/their ability to provide what they've advertised/destroy the simple noob-friendly setup - I really don't think all games should aim to be "player-led" any more than I think it's obvious that all games _ought_ to be "story-driven".
In theory you could do what people often do at the Gathering and turn up, deride the missions and anyone who thinks they are important and basically use force of will/bullying to create a little pocket of player-led game in the middle of a story-led game. In a game like the Gathering where they aren't at all clear about what sort of game they are trying to provide I think that's acceptable - necessary in fact (whichever kind of game you're enforcing). In a game which is clearly advertised I think that would be rather overtly antisocial.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 1:12 AM
Posts: 67,
Visits: 449
|
|
Marios (4/30/2008)
Nath (4/29/2008)
It's also makes we wonder if there is a relationship between 'simulationist plot' and 'pc-led' (or 'character-driven') plot. It seems to be that a simulationist approach by the organiser is important to support player-led plot.
I think the meaningful distinction is between "Gamist+Simulationist" games where _means_ are specified and players are normally allowed to choose their own ends so long as they only use sanctioned means (i.e. don't cheat!) and "Narrativist" games where it's important that everyone agrees on what the ends should be and means deployed are less important.
I realise I've just paraphrased Matt P, but I think it's a bit more emphatic - if you attend a game where it's made clear that the goal of narration must be your most important goal and the proceed to adopt other goals are more important then you're cheating (albeit in a manner which is harder to enforce).
Marios
Its all about what the rules support. The vast majority of LRP sits somewhere between pure Gamist (focusing on rules to allow people to win/lose conflicts) and Pure Simulation (where the primary purpose of the rules is to reinforce the world-consensus).
There really isn't much in the way of Narritivist LRP(that I've encountered), as it requires the rules to support a specific story arc, which isn't really the way most people play. Closest thing I've seen to this is Sweedish Friform / Jeep style LRP.
I don't think its a matter of which part of GNS works best for "Player-led Plot" (Still a horribly misleading name), its more about other factors in the game style.
What seems to be required for this sort of, non-gm initiated action is for the game to have boundaries - either an established world with its own explicit rules/politics/history or game mechanics against which various levels of conflict can occur. Or ideally both.
Namewise...Perhaps it'd be better to make a distinction between "Player-Led Plot", i.e. OOC decisions being taken at a player level to encourage conflict, and "Character-Driven Exploration" where focus is more on IC decisions and where they take you.
LT - Evan Kinmarc - Scout-y, Healer-y, Ritual-y Armengarian Type
EOS - Luca Demetrius Shard - Rapidly Cooling Corpse
Insurrection - Dr Julius von Bismarck - "I love the smell of applied science in the morning!"
"Why are we digging? I'm not sure really. Probably something to do with Genetics."
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:29 PM
Posts: 1,129,
Visits: 1,758
|
|
Marios (4/30/2008)
Andy Rimmer (4/30/2008)
which the player characters lived in and started to affect from the moment they went live, at which point it became player led- on the understanding thatI and my crew were also players, working within the same framework (and restrictions).Affecting things doesn't make a game player-led - I would expect to be able to affect things in a story-driven game. Ditto, NPCs/refs that use the same rules as PCs don't make a game player-led, they just make it a story-driven game which has a consistent approach to the rules (which may or may not be a good thing). I'd say it's a player-led game if the most "significant" events are due to player-led action. DUTT interactives had a fairly energetic year where the most significant thing that happened was that Durholme invaded Newcroft. Newcroft (Newcastle) had been in the background as long as the background had been written. It wasn't a response to any refplot involving Newcroft - they hadn't done anything more provocative than being near by - the guy who seized control just decided that he wanted to invade, seize and loot it and so spent the year gearing the city up to do just that. In the background ref-generated story plot of the type you seem to be describing was still being knocked out - but it was on a much smaller scale/much less important/involved far fewer people (for any individual plot). Nath (4/30/2008)
I say I wanttoset up an ICcasino out of the blue (ie.player-led), they are massively supportive of this.
It actually looks like it's doing a goo | | | |