Hi and welcome back to Narrative Control. This episode starts with a rather raspy intro as I lost my voice while doing the editing, but rest assured the main portion of the show was done with all voices intact. This episode Ryan Macklin came on to talk with me about a tweet he made regarding player trust. It resonated with me and I knew it would make for a good show.
Hosts: Sean Nittner and Ryan Macklin
Length: 33:27
Show Notes
[00:27] Intro to the show. Sean’s raspy voice
[00:52] On with Ryan Macklin. In front of the mic rather than in front of the coffee. Responding to this tweet.
[01:39] Player trust. What are we talking about? How did it resonate with Sean?
[02:02] Reactions one: Players jealously guarding their parts of the story.
[03:13] Reaction two: Players ignoring other player’s plot threads.
[03:58] Ryan’s confessional – Way back when he was a wee babe.
[04:32] What it feels like when people won’t validate your offers. Why players turn away from each other?
[05:19] When story elements have mechanical effects, they become more precious.
[06:14] What to do when players are playing their own private game.
[07:35] Causes for players not to trust each other.
[08:36] “Why’d you eat my girlfriend?”
[09:12] Ryan’s game. A Fate Heist game.
[09:59] Game started with the characters distrusting each other.
[10:46] Players not familiar with collaborating on the narrative. Oh... and I narrowly dodged being knifed by Ryan.
[11:49] Players all trying to do their own thing, intentionally separate from each other.
[12:20] Trusting the GM not to pull a “gotcha”. Player-GM baggage.
[13:49] Assertions of players being rejected/ignored.
[16:32] Secrets – notes passed. Making a public secret to encourage players to make their characters vulnerable.
[17:42] How do we address this distrust? Player-GM baggage, Player-Player baggage. “in character” distrust.
[18:14] It starts with the GM, who has to start forging connections between PCs by asking them questions.
[20:57] Game rewarding players for taking risks or doing things together (example: compels)
[23:00] Players building trust by backing another player’s offer.
[24:51] In a game of hyper competent sexy cool people, make the first thing you do make them look like hyper competent sexy cool people.
[25:18] Two set of advice here. How to encourage it as a GM and as a player
[26:10] What do we do if we realize in the middle of the game that this has happened? GM pulling back and creating interactions between the PCs.
[28:15] As a player, talk to the table about what’s going on in the game. This is risky: Schrödinger’s cooperative game.
[29:28] Advice to players who don’t want to share. You’re characters will be more awesome if they have changed and gone through trials.
[30:31] John McClain is the dude who gets the crap kicked out of him and is awesome because of that.
[31:19] Or just bring a taser…
[32:26] Closing, thanks to Macklin and a few bits to date the show.
Direct Download: NC_Episode_055.mp3
This was really interesting and insightful as well as being a bit of a bitter pill for me, as it is a reminder of one of my more unsuccessful recent games. But I've been thinking on this one for a little while, and hearing the two of you hash it out has helped a lot so hopefully I can avoid some of these pitfalls in the future and use some of your advice to make it better next time. In fact I'll probably be giving it another listen after I've digested some of the stuff you've said.
But here is one thing that stuck out on my initial listen, towards the end you talked about what the two of you could have done at the table that would have been different than just one of you being there. The two of you could have been an example, I as a GM would have definitely highlighted any scene were the two of you grabbed your characters and threw them at each other, and then I would have encouraged you to grab two other PCs and do the same with them. Then hopefully I could have gotten those players to grab in the others and maybe we could have gotten things cooking.
So I'd say that might be the difference between having only one hippy story gamer at the table as opposed to having two or more to bounce off each other. Building off infectious energy and showing by example that their characters could be connected and that the game could be taken in new and interesting directions by the Players might have made a big difference in the game. If nothing else it would have kept me energized and focused.
Morgan.
Hey Morgan, I'm glad the show had some ideas worth banging around, even if a bit painful.
I agree, the bigger the ratio of players really diving into a game, the more influence they will have on the others. I played in a Montsegur 1244 game where we had a player that was totally unfamiliar with story games (had previously only played D&D) and although she was having a hard time at first, interacting with the other players really opened her up. By the end her (male) character committed this tragic suicide, unable to reconcile the fact that his wife was pregnant with another man's child and killed the baby to prevent him from knowing, which of course he found out anyway. It was really intense (as Monsegur 1244 pushes for) but we we're all really impressed at how much she opened up.
If you're thinking on this and want to has it out sometime, I'd be happy to talk in front of the mic, as I think the GMs thoughts on this are really valuable.
This was a great podcast. I have encountered too many Players with trust issues like the ones you mentioned. I have stopped running a face-to-face Star Wars game (running on slimmed down Fate rules) as the result of me trying to bring in two new players (friends of friends). One of whom is not suited to the group as he is unwilling to deviate from his character's concept at all and is unwilling to share or take risks. It was a big bad choice of mine that I need to work through. I should have been more rigorous in vetting.
However, I've been wondering if many of the games we have played reward our lack of trust. Games that put an emphasis on combat or situations where our characters can be damaged or killed in particular. And ones without much if any Player outs, such as Plot points for example. I wonder if some games (or prevalent situations within them) corner us and we respond with tactics, or loading up on protective measures and exit strategies to limit the hurt? Especially so if we have been burned by trying to extend trust to other gamers and have had it slapped down socially or mechanically because the rules (in the game or in the group) did not support the efforts?
In particular, as a long time GM for Amber DRP games (which are usually point-based builds), there is often an emphasis on fortifying or protecting yourself. To not appear vulnerable because there could be enemies anywhere, even in a cooperative game. Betrayals and secrets from NPCs and PCs are common. How is this supposed to help Players and GMs build a shared trust and create an environment for all to take risks and fail forward if everyone is in- and out-of-character busy trying not to be vulnerable to attack or social embarrassment?
What do you think?
As a note, I'm actually trying something out now with a different group of Players for a crossover Amber game to challenge my own questions/assumptions and to improve Player and character relationships from before the campaign even begins. If it goes anywhere I'll post the results.
David,
Without wanting to lay the blame on any game system in particular, I think you're totally right here. Many systems train players to be extremely risk averse. Also, the grandfather of gaming, Mr. Gygax openly promoted a GM vs. Player environment where the GM was there to oppose rather than challenge the PCs. This mentality has led to the question "show me where the bad GM touched you". We joke, but it's a reality that many gamers are paranoid (even if they try not to be) that the GM and by extension the rest of the game (players as well) are out to get them.
Wick's Play Dirty advice of brutalizing players doesn't help here either. If they are already invested and see the upside of being screwed, then great. But if they see maneuvers like he suggests as punishments or attacks, they are likely to form the same kind of defensive, un-trusting posture.
I wish we had de-programming machines, but I haven't figured it out yet, except maybe to form a cult.
Definitely let me know how your crossover goes. I'd love to hear the results.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!