Welcome back to Narrative Control. This episode Fattig and I are talking about getting games off the rails. Whether its intentional or accidental, if the gamers are frustrated by the lack of influence the players have, here are some things we think help.
Hosts: Sean Nittner and Eric Fattig
Length: 27:52
Show Notes
[00:26] Intro to the show. A response to my own LJ post about railroading and the frustration it causes both players and the GM: http://seannittner.livejournal.com/92349.html
[01:48] Best game EVAR! Let me tell you what you do Fattig.
[03:01] This story sucks. Blame Nittner for it.
[03:55] Sometimes games get so heavily scripted that the players lose their voice in the game.
[04:32] Tour de Thea 7th Sea module example.
[05:34] The players perspective: surprising and frustrating.
[06:34] Benefits of a strong story structure for players: Clear direction. Support from the GM if they follow that direction.
[07:30] What does the GM get? Best case scenario: Telling an awesome story. Worst case: A giant headache and enormous amount of work.
[09:27] Why does this happen? Perception. The GM feels the need to keep things moving and give everyone direction.
[11:50] A fair concern, what will happen when the GM says “You’re in an inn… what do you do?”
[13:05] Another factor: Pride. I’m going to tell the BEST STORY EVER!
[14:11] The Narrative Control drinking game.
[15:30] The new paradigm. Everyone contributing to the game in amounts that make them happy.
[16:38] Some player empowering techniques: Setting stakes, framing scenes and narrative control.
[20:18] Addressing the issue directly. Talking about the game before it ever starts. Describe setting and situation.
[21:41] Establishes an environment to create characters and stories out of.
[23:00] Adding an arbitrary pacing mechanic that ensures the story is moving forward independent of the players or the GM’s actions.
[24:14] Some examples: My Matrix Game, Burning Empires.
Direct download: NC_Episode_042.mp3
My gaming group has been struggling with full group participation at the table for the past few months. When we all started gaming we played in a railroad fashion because we were all new at gaming, and didn't really know how loose and open games could be. It took years but we broke the mold.
More recently I have been trying to foster a more collaborative style of play, one in which all players have stakes in the game. Anyways, what we have been doing lately to get into the habit of full table participation is play one-off games loosely based on Penny For Your Thoughts.
We ditched almost all the rules. The one thing we kept was the scene cue cards before each scene. Each game is 5 scenes, and there is one scene cue card that is selected before each scene. The cards have the words: sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste written on them. The player who's turn it is must start the scene incorporating the sense on the card. Each player says their piece, and then the player to their right adds on to that, and so on and so on. Nothing can be taken back, everyone must build on and add to the story. Before each scene we determine who will begin it, and who will have the last say.
The first scene must begin at the BIG conflict of the story, each player only gets to add one detail and then the scene is retired until the other 4 scenes play out, at which point we return to the BIG conflict and play it out. The other 4 scenes all happen prior to the BIG conflict and shed light on how the BIG conflict arose. It's like those writing exercises you did as a kid in school where you write a sentence on a piece of paper and then it gets passed around the class and you see what everyone else wrote and added to the original concept.
Sorry for the long explanation. Ultimately, this has been really good for everyone because it requires everyone to get involved, everyone has narrative control, everyone gets to frame a scene, everyone gets to close a scene, and everyone needs to pay attention and contribute.
We are now taking what we have learned from doing these one-off games and trying to apply it to our more traditional multi-week campaign using Fate 2.0. I am hoping railroading will be reduced, more sidequests will be taken, more conflicts will be introduced, player investment will increase, and weight will be lifted from the GM to provide all of the scene framing and player cues.
Good podcast, keep them coming.
That game sounds awesome. I like the predetermined narrative structure giving the players (all the players) some direction while still giving them license to build scenes without "in fiction" restraints. Tell me if it goes Gonzo. Our first Penny game, I think because we realized we could go anywhere, went to dark, dark places. Since then however, the stories we've told with penny have really improved and I've grown to love the game even more.
When you switch back to fate 2.0 my advice would be to not worry if at first it seems like everyone is reverting. One thing that I noticed was that some players would do find in an collaborative storytelling game but once they went back to a mainstream system their mainstream mindset re-engaged. So, if it feels like they lost everything, don't worry and give them some time to bleed between the two different mindsets.
Sean
Regarding out Penny games: we had 2 solid games but the third we tried to play a Sci-Fi game and we ran into a wall. We didn't go to those "dark places" like you mention, instead we had very different ideas of what was possible, which resulted in some seriously continuity problems by the end. The game weighed heavy on the Science and lacked on the Fiction. We were so busy trying to hammer out our technology and gadget limitations that we couldn't resolve any of the characters problems due to inconsistencies with the game-world dynamics.
We learned that before we try to play games like this we need to establish a genre and a rule set in terms of what is possible and what isn't possible. It's easy when you say: lets play a Vampire game in modern day Chicago using the Masquerade as our rule set, or let's play a historical fiction Civil War drama. The rules are clear for those, but if you say lets play a post apocalyptic space odyssey, everyone winds up arguing about how the end of the world came about, and how all the technologies work. It seems if you want to play an open format you have to have a quick pitch session before you begin to lay the ground rules and set up some back story to build off of.
Again, this advise translates right back into an traditional games. Whenever the game world is left completely open there are always going to be frustrations between players and the GM because, as a player, it seems like the GM can make up whatever they want and you are helpless to control character opportunities and the outcomes of your actions. In creeps railroading...
Totally!
I think PTA's pitch session is actually perfect for any game. Even the established settings can lead to some confusion and frustration if you don't talk about what the game will be about in advance. My wife was in a Changeling game a while back and one of the players was playing a very political character who was trying to gain favor with the Summer Court, while the other players (and the Storyteller) didn't think that was going to be part of the game. It's huge to start a game saying "here is the situation" that we're going to deal with.
Regarding your Sci-Fi game, I can see where that would be really hard to nail down because Sci-Fi has a such a broad definition and at it's core isn't about science at all, but about the human condition. What would people be like in situation X?
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!