Welcome to the LOST EPISODE. The one that should have come before, but didn’t. Because sometimes there are things lost between the GM and Player. We’re talking about that communication.
Hosts: Sean Nittner and Joe Harney
Length: 32:38
Show Notes
[00:24] Welcome Joe Harney. The Lost Episode
[00:45] When things are lost between the players and GMs.
[01:13] GM as the window to the world.
[1:40] You walk into a cargo bay. What image in evoked?
[01:58] The cargo bay of Serenity.
[02:30] Value of a license setting. Establishes setting, tropes, situations,etc.
[02:58] Challenge: License settings are great… assuming you know them!
[03:28] Licensed settings require that you get everyone to a baseline understanding.
[03:45] The Battletech universe. Over 100 books. Outside our normal scope of understanding.
[04:20] Medieval Fantasy – more commonly understood setting and topes.
[05:08] Using a setting with reflexive knowledge.
[05:54] The strength of the World of Darkness settings.
[06:25] The Tolkien Syndrome – Detailed descriptions that bore the players.
[07:14] And effort to “show not tell”.
[07:48] Focus on what the scene is about.
[08:12] The opening scene from CSI – Displaying a lot of information.
[09:00] Announce what a scene is about. You enter the scene to do X.
[09:37] Players trusting the GM to give them the information they need. GMs trusting players to take information and push forward in with it, not…
[10:02] “I attack the gazebo”
[10:34] We’re not all looking to tell the same story, but we want our stories to be compatible.
[11:12] Discrepancies about what is actually happening in a game.
[11:42] Be willing to back up a step, if necessary.
[12:35] All the work GMs put in to their games, sad if it doesn’t come to fruition.
[13:16] Benefit of not planning a game. Nothing holding you to a plan if things change.
[13:40] Middle ground: Planning a game based off flags presented by the players.
[14:09] Discrepancy in expectations of consequences. A bugbear to untangle
[15:25] GMing Seminar with Robin Laws and John Wick on what happens when GM and Players have different expectations of consequences.
[16:41] Easier to undo a calamity before it happens.
[17:10] The mood of the game can also shift into a different space if not held in check
[18:04] This isn’t the game I thought I was playing.
[18:18] Inspiration for this episode: A LiveJournal post. Stakes not agreed upon in advance.
[19:15] Sacred cow turned into sacred-cow-burger
[19:42] Why are we here? What is this game about. Are we playing to tell a cool story? Are we playing to win?
[20:46] Are those goals tied to game styles (traditional – narrative games)?
[21:43] Games that have specific mechanics to add story elements: Fiasco plot twists.
[22:36] Joe does some brain surgery.
[22:54] Win conditions, however, are easier to mechanize
[23:20]Agree about what the game is focused on. Can I trust the GM to make mistakes.
[24:35] Secrets. Do you trust the GM to expose them? Burned players.
[25:28] They downward spiral of mistrust.
[26:01] GM afraid to offer up game elements that the players will “break”.
[27:46] The Superman metaphor
[28:18] Tangingting… again. Player fulfilling power fantasies.
[29:32] Know where you are on the spectrum of “do you want win?”
[30:41] Hording the cool. Afraid that the cool will be lost if you spend it.
[31:15] Wrap up. Thanks Joe!
Direct Download: NC_Episode_060.mp3
Good episode. You guys hit the nail on the head when you talked about the importance of everyone being on the "same wavelength."
It doesn't matter what style of game play you prefer, if you cannot find a group of people who want the same things out of a game, it is doomed from the beginning. This has been my experience as of late. My game group has disbanded, and I have turned to writing fiction because to me, fiction is therapy. But there is still a dilemma.
People who enjoy narrative gaming enjoy the storytelling as much as they enjoy the collaboration with others. There is a certain surprise in interactive storytelling that isn't present in writing fiction by yourself. I am happy writing, and I meet with a group of writers to discuss our work and encourage each other on a monthly basis. Lately I have been running oral storytelling games (but I call them exercises with the group) that are a bastard version of Penny For Your Thoughts. It's a blast doing this with other writers. Everyone is creative, and the exercises (games) aren't about winning, its about making a good story, and generating inspired ideas.
I want to keep writing, but I also want to game. I am trying to see if I can get a few of the writers to join me in playing some short narrative games as of late. I found people who are on the same wavelength through solo fiction writing, now the goal is to get them to game with me.
We want the control that comes with solo writing but we yearn for spontaneity of group-play at the same time. The idealist in me thinks that gaming can be fun, exciting, and rewarding; and the better part of me thinks that no matter how hard we try it will always be a struggle to keep gaming a part of our lives.
I'm curious to know how other people find their gaming groups, and how successfully they keep everyone together? Does gaming come easy, or are you always trying to change each others minds about what gaming means? How long do most people's groups last? Is "wavelength" only a problem in narrative games because there is more wiggle room in how players approach the material? How do you get people to subscribe to the narrative game wavelength.
Sorry for the downer response :)
Hey Adam,
Not a downer at all, I can totally understand why you would co-op your fellow writers into gaming with you, as you know that they have similar goals.
As for answering your questions, I can only say for myself. I've been gaming with the same batch of gamers for about five years. There are more of us than would fit in any one game though, so the specific groups are usually composed of a few steady figures (who will be in every game they can) plus the others that have interest in the game and/or can make the game time/location.
As for finding them, I met some of them going to cons nearby and saw a badge that listed where they were from, from their I gamed with (and met) the others. Because we've got more gamers than will fit in a game it is usually not a problem keeping their interest. If one person doesn't want to play a game, someone else will. This was a little tricky about three years ago when I first started pushing indie games and most of the people in my group had never heard of them and weren't really interested. It took some time but eventually they latched on and now most all of the locals are up for anything.
As far as getting on the same page though, this is a continual challenge, as I know that we have different goals as gamers and thus going to want different things out of games. I've talked a lot to players about what they want out of games. It's a tough conversation to have because most people aren't ready to articulate their specific interests. I try to use examples from game "hey, when you tricked that dragon, you seemed really excited, was that cool for you because of the classic reference to Smaug, or because you liked being crafty/tricky, or because you roll really well?"
But even knowing gamers motivations doesn't mean they will fall in line with mine, so I try to be explicit about them whenever I start a game. I think there is a room in most games to give everyone a little of what they want provided you're okay with compromising and having a game that is a bit schizophrenic.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!