TheRPGSite

I saw this essay on John Kim's site
http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/plot/proactivity.html

And got to thinking, currently I think my play is mostly alternating proactive in his terminology or proactive with the occasional prod.

So, let's brainstorm, what kind of games suit themselves to proactive player characters and what kind of things can the GM best do to help the players get there?

What does all this mean you may be wondering, well, I'm channelling my inner Forge-ite tonight - go read the essay :D

Edit:  Oh, let's tie this to actual game prep, I don't want a theoretical discussion, I'm interested in directly applying this to the next game I run or at least the one after that.

Fuckin' "proactive"! "Active" is the word you want. It doesn't become more active by being pro!

Anyway, that rant aside... how do you encourage PCs to be active rather than reactive? Well, first I think that basically it's a personality thing for the player, like extroverted or introverted, calm or lively, etc. Of course no-one is entirely one or the other, so you can bring out their active side a bit... still, it's well to bear in mind that in the end, people are what they are, you're not going to change them.

How to encourage activity rather than reactivity? As I've said before - give them choices to make, or an important NPC choices to make, and a reason for them to care about the choices made. Make them difficult choices - dilemmas. "Do I save the drowning baby?" is not really a choice, of course you do it. "Do I save the drowning baby or my drowning husband?" is a dilemma. Love vs duty, fear vs revenge, etc - these are dilemmas.

When PCs make decisions about their dilemmas, things happen, and more dilemmas pop up naturally. The players then feel that what they've decided has created the campaign, they feel invested in it - their activity is rewarded.

That's how I do it, anyway ;)

I've written some GMing advice that comes close to this. Someone (in my examples, the GM--but it can be a player) puts out a basic foundational idea ("We're all bank robbers") and then the players make characters and the GM preps off of them (so if the characters have stuff going on, that winds up in the prep-work).

Is it suitably proactive? I think so--although the phased campaign construction does allow the GM more leeway in prep than I think John's article suggests.

This method is part of the GM's section for JAGS Revised.

-Marco

Here's what I did for my OtE campaign , The Day of Living Dangerously. Here's a rough background of the campaign :

http://therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=46788&postcount=1

Now, normally I do all the research for the campaign. But this time, because of the massive amount of work involved, I told my players that if they were really...REALLY..interested in this, they would have to do some work themselves.

Boy, they really dug, this idea, because they really did their homework. Because the campaign is heavy on verisimillitude, a lot of background research on Thailand and it's politics had to be done. Add to that because the campaign, is based on a more action orientated take on Crisis Is Our Brand, research also had to be done on the reality of political consultants.

The latter also was to give the players some ideas as to what their characters were supposed/could do in the campiagn. I had a rough overview of both Thailand and political consultants, but the players dug a a little deeper.

This digging led to some interesting discoveries which they used to as fodder for their character motivations. Furthermore, mundane stuff like maps of the city, rumoured real life power brokers, maps of the country side etc had to be researched. I did most of this stuff but they also came up with some interesting tidbits which they incorporated into the campaign.

The good thing about players doing some reasearch, is that it really gets them under the skin of the campaign. They know as much of the setting as I do, and this perspective enables them to create characters who they can inject into the setting without much hassle.

Thus, characters creation was not done after the setting was created but rather during the period the setting was being created. They set down roots in the setting.

The players also set the scene for the opening of the campaign. What does this mean ? Before the campaign begun - 8 am game time - the players and I briefly discussed what exactly their characters were doing. For instance one character the night before had spent the night with someone (she did not tell the other pcs who) from the Chinese embassy. She was on her way, to their unoffical HQ, and was stopping to meet a "freindly" from the student union movement.

Another character, decided that he was checking the security arrangements for one of the main polling stations. And yet another character was at his apartment with his wife (another pc) in the midst of a domestic crisis...

So, the campaign begun with all this stuff going on, and I had yet to introduce any of the main story threads, which I had come up with, and which I intend to weave into the stuff they had given me.

So, not sure, this is an example of proactive play, but it's the way how I sometimes do things :D

Regards,
David R

If you want proactive players then make the things they do into the important things ... whether they're responding to a choice you presented them, or whether they're just suddenly haring off after an idea of their own that you'd never have anticipated.

There are a lot of tools that can support proactive play, but I don't think any of the tools will do it if you aren't keeping your broader goal in mind:  the broader goal being that the players can reach out and grab the reins of the story on their own, rather than waiting to have those reins handed to them.

I have, for instance, worked with the tool of handing the players charged choices:  Do you grab the invaluable ruby, or run and save your comrade?  Sometimes it's worked well, sometimes it's worked poorly.

It works well when I use those choices just to jazz the pacing a little bit ... the choices aren't important, per se, they're just a way to give the story a little kick when it slows down.  What's important is what the players do when the story has revved up again ... the big choices that they think to make that I didn't even realize were there to be made.

It works poorly when I use make those choices the centerpiece of events, with stuff leading up to them and denouement trailing away from them.  The players aren't stupid ... they can tell that my attention is focussed on what they do in that one moment of choice, and that the other stuff they might do at other times is going to get short shrift.  They become reactive again ... waiting for me to provide them with their opportunity to shine.

The restore vs. change the status quo criterion is very good. I like the openness it entails: Here's a static situation with lots of as yet loose threads lying about--now go forth and do some knotting. Sounds like the Wilderlands to me.

And, God, I hate "proactive." Action and reaction is what makes the world go round. Just read The Will to Power.

(I commented on John's article on my LJ a while ago; the following is an edited version of what I wrote.)

John lists three criteria or preconditions for proactivity:

   1. PC motivation to break status quo.
   2. PC ability to break status quo.
   3. Well-enough defined background to support.

However, John also points to pitfalls of proactivity:

   1. It depends on proactive players. If the players aren't committed and creative, not only formulating their characters' goals but developing plots to realize those goals, nothing will happen.
   2. As noted above, it requires a well-defined background, which can put a severe strain on the GMs ability to prepare or improvise.

Some comments on John's ideas follow.

Motivation

In describing motivation, John suggests that characters have "ambition" to break the "status quo". They must have "lofty or open-ended" goals. I don't think this is entirely necessary. I would suggest instead that it's enough for characters to have needs and interests. And rather than talking about the status quo, it's enough to say that the setting will automatically penalize inertia and reward action. Time must have a role in interaction between setting and character. (The Forge equation of setting + character = situation strikes as a useful way of thinking of things here.) A simple example would be a thief who has to develop capers in order to put food on the table. If the player proposes that the character will get a "decent" job, then that might be construed as a bid to either put the character into retirement or advance the time scale of the campaign. Perhaps with the proper character mechanics, such a move might be only temporary: the thief's self-respect will only allow him to be a wage-slave for so long. However, the hiatus might allow the balancing of other goals, such as taking care of personal issues or "lying low while the heat dies down".

Ability to break status quo

Ability is a straightforward requirement--just as a prepared module is useless if it's outside the capacity of the PCs, proactive player-characters must have the resources to at least attempt to reach their self-defined goals. As I've suggested, the "status quo" can be thought of not as a static situation, but as a dynamic environment which interacts with the player-character's needs and interests. So I would rewrite this requirement as "ability to pursue self-initiated courses of action". I would note that "ability" is more than "raw personal power as reflected on the character sheet". To meaningfully pursue his or her interests, the player-character must have access to information. Generally, this means that there must be a way of (roughly) evaluating the probability distribution of potential outcomes for any proposed action. For our thief, he should ideally have the ability to "discover" potential jobs through his contacts, observation, knowledge of the city, etc.

Well-defined background

A well-defined background is required because self-defined plans could take player-characters in literally any direction or focus within the campaign. But not only that--because the ability to pursue self-defined goals depends on information, a PC can't even attempt proactivity without a well-defined background. As noted above, the GM can provide a "well-defined background" either through preparation or through improvisation. Prep work for our thief's GM might consist of defining a number of significant businesses and presenting him with a "menu". Improvisation could consist of making up tips on the fly until the thief expressed interest in one of them. In some groups, though, it may even be possible for background to be developed (at least partially) by the very player who will interact with it. One way I could imagine implementing this would be through a very high-level conflict resolution system, where the thief's player simply declares the stakes and the odds--rather like placing a bet in roulette--and then resolves the caper in abstract terms. It would then be up to someone (normally the GM, maybe a sub-table) to fill in the details of anything "interesting" that happens as a consequence. E.g., an average level of success just generates some gold; a critical result generates a unique and valuable item; a failure allows the GM to introduce a chase scene, and so on.

Guys, the point is not giving the PCs meaningful choices, I already do that, the point is games where the PCs generate the plot in a direct sense.  Where the PCs actively initiate what happens in game, not where the GM hands them a hook but leaves them the freedom for how to respond to it.

Elliot gets this, in part as he clearly has read the essay I linked to, but I'm not sure everyone else did.  Giving PCs meaningful choices I view as GM 101, to be frank.  

I'm seeing lots of folk talking about handing the PCs choices, but that really isn't the point and to be honest is something I find very easy.  Right now I don't have plots the PCs follow.

What I'm interested in is not having predesigned hooks at all, in having games where the PCs choose their own priorities, decide what they want to do and do it.  Games where the GM has a world prepared, but no preconceived idea at all of what the PCs will choose to do in it.


I will look at David's link, which looks cool, but presenting dilemmas and dynamic situations is what I do now.  This is about something different.

Quote from: BalbinusGuys, the point is not giving the PCs meaningful choices, I already do that, the point is games where the PCs generate the plot in a direct sense.  Where the PCs actively initiate what happens in game, not where the GM hands them a hook but leaves them the freedom for how to respond to it.

I'm still working on a write-up of some AP from yesterday and then I'll tie it in directly to this thread with how it applies to this subject. I did a totally no-prep by anyone, with most of the players not even cracking open the rules before, and none of them having ever played a single session of the game, session. The setting and adventure was conceived of  and fleshed out jointly on the fly.

So, uh, hang in there...I'm kinda busy at the moment with the kids right now so the SO can have a mental health moment (out doing some drawing at a coffee shop) to prepare for looking after them alone while I go out to play SR tonight. :)

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell-defined background

A well-defined background is required because self-defined plans could take player-characters in literally any direction or focus within the campaign. But not only that--because the ability to pursue self-defined goals depends on information, a PC can't even attempt proactivity without a well-defined background. As noted above, the GM can provide a "well-defined background" either through preparation or through improvisation. Prep work for our thief's GM might consist of defining a number of significant businesses and presenting him with a "menu". Improvisation could consist of making up tips on the fly until the thief expressed interest in one of them. In some groups, though, it may even be possible for background to be developed (at least partially) by the very player who will interact with it.

The game requires not only a well-defined background but it also needs to be accessible to the players and their characters and not just the GM.

There is a scene in The Princess Bride that illustrates both the importance of of background as well as the problem I have with improvisation during proactive play pretty well:

Westley:  Who are you? Are we enemies? Why am I on this wall?  Where's Buttercup?

Inigo:  Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.  Buttercup is marry Humperdinck in little less than half an hour, so all we have to do is get in, break up the wedding, steal the princess, make our escape, after I kill Count Rugen.

Westley:  That doesn't leave much time for dilly-dallying.

Fezzik:  You just wiggled your finger! That's wonderful!

Westley:  I've always been a quick healer. What are our liabilities?

Inigo:  There is but one working castle gate. And it is guarded by... sixty men.

Westley:  And our assets?

Inigo:  Your brains, Fezzik's strength, my steel.

Westley:  That's it? Impossible. If I had a month to plan, maybe I could come up with something, but this...< shakes head >

Fezzik:  You just shook your head! That doesn't make you happy?

Westley:  My brains, your strength, and his steel against sixty men, and you think a little head jiggle is supposed to make me happy? Hmmmm? I mean, if we only had a wheelbarrow, that would be something.

Inigo:  Where did we put that wheelbarrow the albino had?

Fezzik:  With the albino, I think.

Westley:  Why didn't you list that among our assets in the first place?  What I wouldn't give for a holocaust cloak.

Inigo:  There we cannot help you.

Fezzik:  Would this do?

Inigo:  Where did you get that?

Basically, for the players to make proactive plans, they either need to know what their "assets" are or they you wind up with things like, "What I wouldn't give for a holocaust cloak," (or, as a real example, "Does this planet have a zoo?") as players grasp for something they could do.  While, "What I wouldn't give for a holocaust cloak," is funny and could work in a light game, for a serious game, I much prefer not to get into games of "20 questions" with the GM.  And while creating logical details on the fly sometimes works, they often involve more out-of-character thinking than I'd prefer to engage in.

One other thing I'd like to add is that I think many GMs and writers design scenarios that are purposely designed to discourage proactive play, because it's easier to run an adventure when the players aren't doing unexpected things.  Why do I say that?  Because the whole structure of many adventures is to put the PCs into an unfamiliar environment that they know little about.  Whether it's a dungeon or a journey to a far off land, the less the players know about the background and setting, the harder it is for them to proactively play their characters.

Quote from: JimBobOzFuckin' "proactive"! "Active" is the word you want. It doesn't become more active by being pro!

Proactive is used as an antonym of reactive. Both are active styles of play.

Ned

There´s a reason why reactive tactical decision making (frex current D&D) is the big fish:

Most people don´t (want to or are capable to) think strategically. Also a reason why there´s a lot of RTS and FPS computer games, but awful few turn based ones.

There´s only so many people that dig Europa Universalis, Empires in Arms or non-"small starship crew"-Traveller.

It´s an intellectual pursuit that lost (or never had) it´s mainstream audience.

Quote from: SettembriniThere´s a reason why reactive tactical decision making (frex current D&D) is the big fish:

Most people don´t (want to or are capable to) think strategically. Also a reason why there´s a lot of RTS and FPS computer games, but awful few turn based ones.

There´s only so many people that dig Europa Universalis, Empires in Arms or non-"small starship crew"-Traveller.

It´s an intellectual pursuit that lost (or never had) it´s mainstream audience.

All true, but I'm not marketing a game so I don't need to worry about the mainstream and what it wants, I just have to worry about what I and my group may enjoy.

The mainstream don't like historical gaming, but that doesn't stop me.

If you ever manage to run a proactive game, you should post an actual play. I'd be interested in knowing how exactly proactive play differs from the stuff I'm doing. And also it may add another dimension to the games I'm currently running.

Regards,
David R

Once you have interested & capable players, it´sall about preparation and thinking it through.

You´ll need a very good view about:

Factions & their Forces & Assetts
Of course, you´ll need their objectives.

Then you formulate their plans.

Set them in motion, model their interaction, their conflicts. Games that let´s you use it´s models are preferrable. For your historical gaming, that might mean you´d have to fight out sea battles with wooden ships & iron man. Oftentimes a coarser model will suffice, say the EiA naval combat rules for far away battles. A play partner comes in handy, because the group might not be at all involved. Take notes during the resolution of said conflicts, and think about how the real conflict outcome is translated to in-universe dispatches.
Have decision maker personalities ready, so you can model their reactions to the dispatches. Keep in mind the time-lag involved.

A good structuring tool is the so called "story engine" which is like a graph. It has the factions, their relationships, conflicts and influences as well as abstract ressources in it (It´s from signs & portents issue one, IIRC.)

Take a look at this pdf, there are pictures of it. It´s in german though, but you´ll get the idea (pdf):

http://hofrat.rollenspiel-berlin.de/The%20PrussianGamersSoundAdvice.pdf

Quote from: SettembriniOnce you have interested & capable players, it´sall about preparation and thinking it through.

Or not. Don't get me wrong, I often do preparation but it usually doesn't look the same as preparation that is associated with GMs. Here's something that I posted on the subject a couple weeks back. It was on the BW board so you can replace "Beliefs" with "what the player wants his character's adventure to be about".

Quote from: blakkie, crossposted from a different board.... It is a different kind of preparation. I see that ability to adapt relying heavily on the breadth of the GM's knowledge of the "atmosphere". You can deftly create world on the fly if you are really plugged into the atmosphere. To plug into the atmosphere I, at least, read and study the different fictions and facts of the sources that were inspirations for the world to start with. Then refine the themes down to a fine point. Sort of like what you do with a character's Beliefs. Then I work to understand, in a Zen/big picture sort of way, how this links with the PCs' Beliefs.

The good news is that if you do this right up front it typically requires only small bits of maintenance from session. As well for me I can do it in "background" thought. I concentrate on it really hard for an 1/2 an hour or hour, then let it perculate in my sub-concious for the week.

But the preparation isn't that big a requirement at all. Now for yourself from what I've seen you do think of everything in terms of preparations.  Also I've maybe done prep before two SR sessions is the last dozen and that was only to tweak some house rules.

On the other hand IMO it is a requirement to be willing and ready to throw out every last scrap of prep if it is necessary for following the players down a path that hadn't occured to you.

Last night the SR team blew up and burned down a warehouse using an IED causing an estimated 10's of millions of nuyen damage (according to news reports and what they could find of the insurance claims filed)....which was the culmination of a spat that started as a throw-away sideline task of intimidating a slum housing tenant manager over the matter of a fist full of nuyen in the very first session of the campaign.  A task I had come up with on the spot looking for a simple way for the PCs to pay for gaining some info for the 'main' thread I had planned for the PCs based on the discussions prior to the first session, a plot that hasn't really seen the light of day since session #2. Because the players have just ignored it. It is barely background. Basically I had to throw away any planning prep I had and it's all new.  And it's all happened during the sessions.

Quote from: SettembriniThen you formulate their plans.

What do you mean by 'formulate'? As is drawing things out? Is the relationship diagram you mention further down an example of what you are talking about? Codifying the ideas you are given ahead of time?  So if they plan to knock over a bank, you draw a map of the bank? What happens when they decide to turn left in the middle of a session and declare they are going to knock over a bank?  Or decide the friends/enemies they had didn't excite them and go off to find new friends/enemies?

I'm curious what you do then?

QuoteTake a look at this pdf, there are pictures of it. It´s in german though, but you´ll get the idea (pdf):

http://hofrat.rollenspiel-berlin.de/The%20PrussianGamersSoundAdvice.pdf

For some reason that file comes in an the raw binary for me. I see the PDF 1.4 format version tag at the top, so everything is gibberish. I've got Adobe Reader 7.0.9 installed (likely the latest available version) and I have never seen this before. It's like the MIME is screwed up for it or something, which is wierd. Anyone else getting this?

P.S. I'll have some AP up in about an hour David.  I'm not sure it'll be a huge difference from what you are doing but there is one thing I haven't seen you mention before.

Blakkie,

I think by formulate their plans, he means the objectives of the major NPCs in the setting.  For example, Count Merguez plans to marry the daughter of the Duke of Burgundy and intends to place himself so as to become regent to the crown prince on the King's death.

ie. understand the objectives of the key NPCs so you can then understand what they are likely to do when the PCs do their thing.  It's an improv tool in that sense.  If a PC decides suddenly to woo the Duke of Burgundy's daughter then you know he just made a powerful enemy, even though he probably doesn't know it himself yet.

On an aside, the idea of you playing Shadowrun offends against my stereotypes of indie gamers.  Please stop at once.

QuoteWhat do you mean by 'formulate'?

Thinking a lot about it, and deciding upon a plan.

As in:
"What is the Sultan trying to accomplish?"
"How powerful is he?"
"What are the Jannissaries going to say?"
"How about the Eunuch?"

or

"The Serenissima tries to snatch Komnenos wife, to genrate a claim to Cyprus, which they want because of levantinian trade. The first attempt to do so is by hired mercenaries from a catholic country. Should that fail, they are not above supporting a bastards claim only to have him asassinated later, with his wife inheriting. Thankfully she has been placed and will surrender the island to Venice."

EDIT: So once you have formulated and fired up the model, you can improvise for years, as you are basically extrapolating and using the sub models for backing that up. The groundworks must have been laid, though. And bookkeeping is neccessary to advance the schemes and economies of all involved parties.

Quote from: Settembrini"The Serenissima tries to snatch Komnenos wife, to genrate a claim to Cyprus, which they want because of levantinian trade. The first attempt to do so is by hired mercenaries from a catholic country. Should that fail, they are not above supporting a bastards claim only to have him asassinated later, with his wife inheriting. Thankfully she has been placed and will surrender the island to Venice."

I'd play that game in a shot, sounds great.

Cool, I think we share many tastes.

The pdf opens good for me, does it work for anybody else?

Quote from: SettembriniCool, I think we share many tastes.

The pdf opens good for me, does it work for anybody else?

Worked fine for me, save for being written in foreign obviously.

I've used similar tools to that graph in the past, it works very well in my experience, I must do so again come to think of it.

Quote from: BalbinusOn an aside, the idea of you playing Shadowrun offends against my stereotypes of indie gamers.  Please stop at once.

It is part of my deep, deep cover. You know, the one where I don't even know I'm an "indie gamer". :cool:

In this campaign we've been using my convertion of BW Circles and Resources to SR4 mechanics. Does that help aleviate the damage to your conceived stereotype? I mean the players just tear-ass around beating people up, shooting the guns, and leveling property in massive explosions.  But there is at least a seed of "indie" there. ;)

P.S. Last night they accidentally cut a whole in their bathtub (checking to make sure their monofilament chainsaw functioned underwater so they could use it to sink a boat) and found 4.5 kg of red orchid (magical heroin). The sociopath orc that's been driving the escalating circle of violence I mentioned decided to try it out and had a seriously magical carpet ride. It forces you to Astrally Project which is something that only mages can do. I have never, in over 10 years of gaming, seen this player play a mage before in any system.  Given the stuff in Street Magic book, and something the player made an offhand remark about earlier in the session before that, I think he is about to.

EDIT:  We'll see how far he takes it because red orchid is even more spooky than heroin. One of the PCs, a mage, saw a junkie OD and die from it. He was trying to determine how potent the junk they found is.  The guy died. Then a few minutes later, and the mage was viewing astral when this happend, something popped back into the body. The body then started nawing on his junkie buddies arm while his junkie buddie was on his own trip.

Shedim! :D

Quote from: blakkieIt is part of my deep, deep cover. You know, the one where I don't even know I'm an "indie gamer". :cool:

In this campaign we've been using my convertion of BW Circles and Resources to SR4 mechanics. Does that help aleviate the damage to your conceived stereotype? I mean the players just tear-ass around beating people up, shooting the guns, and leveling property in massive explosions.

That makes it far worse, by implying some kind of commonality of content between such different types of games.

It shows just how subtle your machinations are, first you introduce circles to Shadowrun, next thing your group are playing an rpg about exploring a middle aged man's crisis on being passed over for a promotion using a resolution mechanic based on searches of on-line job sites.  It's a slippery slope.

Sounds like a fun game though (your shadowrun one, my example one not so much).

Quote from: SettembriniEDIT: So once you have formulated and fired up the model, you can improvise for years, as you are basically extrapolating and using the sub models for backing that up. The groundworks must have been laid, though. And bookkeeping is neccessary to advance the schemes and economies of all involved parties.

See this is NOT what I think of with "proactive" players. You've determined and filled out all this background. You've shut the door on proactive play.

Proactive players tell me what the background is. They create NPCs and let the GM know [at least the main part of] what the NPC's motivations are. They define relationship links between NPCs. They write ancient history, they determine the existance of objects, they describe what the weather conditions are going to be on a give day. EDIT: They determine the state of the economy at a given point and it's impact on a given situation.

Quote from: blakkieSee this is NOT what I think of with "proactive" players. You've determined and filled out all this background.

Proactive players tell me what the background is. They create NPCs and let the GM know [at least the main part of] what the NPC's motivations are. They define relationship links between NPCs. They write acient history, they determine the existance of objects, they describe what the weather conditions are going to be on a give day.

Ah, that to me is coauthoring which is a different thing.

Proactive to me does not necessarily imply co-creation of content, the original essay I linked to is good on this.

I'm not saying co-creation is bad, but it's not what I was thinking about.  The point with proactive play is the feel of the PCs being active protagonists in the world, but for that feeling to be there for many of us the world has to be external to the players which means you need a GM creating it still.

Certainly that's my personal play preference.  I can enjoy creating backstory and NPC relationships and so on but I prefer the GM to do those things so I can discover them in play and so get a better sense of the game world as a real place.

Quote from: blakkieSee this is NOT what I think of with "proactive" players. You've determined and filled out all this background. You've shut the door on proactive play.

Proactive players tell me what the background is. They create NPCs and let the GM know [at least the main part of] what the NPC's motivations are. They define relationship links between NPCs. They write ancient history, they determine the existance of objects, they describe what the weather conditions are going to be on a give day.

I think this goes a bit further, than what I think of as proactive. I think this is more of story creation kind of play than the more trad stuff I'm used to.

Regards,
David R

QuoteSee this is NOT what I think of with "proactive" players.

You think wrong.

Quote from: David RI think this goes a bit further, than what I think of as proactive. I think this is more of story creation kind of play than the more trad stuff I'm used to.

Regards,
David R

I don't need the whole AP to demonstrate what I'm talking about here.  Situation is 3 PCs attempting to take a docked ship by force, playing BW.  One is a Dwarf in chainmail armor, and his on and only social skill is Conspicuous. He is a banner-bearer by trade. The plan is for him to act as a distraction on the dock near the gangplank. The other two are an Elf (generic Adventuring type) and a Rodin (basically Shredder from TMNT, only this guy is a Murderer by trade).

So they decide to try use cover of darkness so they can slip on board and slit throats without either of the spotters raising the alarm. But they know from recon that the ship has huge lantern fires burning at the ends of the ship to help thwart such attempts.  The Elf has Weathersong which is a divining magic. The player says, I think it's going to be foggy down at the docks. So we agree upon a Obstacle 2, the player rolls, and he meets that. He has earned the right to determine that it is indeed foggy providing them with good cover.  If he hadn't he would have predicted wrong and when they attempted to board it would have been clear skies with the moon shining down brightly.

So the character did not alter the world with weather altering magic. The player was able to choose the world state by using the character's divining magic. It didn't even have to be magic to do this. He could have used, if he character had had it, a mundane skill like Weather-Wise.

Yes, this is different from the idea of the GM as the keeper of all knowledge and secrets and divining and knowledge skills discovering those secrets.  The divining and knowledge skills define the secrets. It was a secret, an unknown, that nobody at the table knew prior. And the advantage is nobody needed to know what it was.

Quote from: SettembriniYou think wrong.

Yes, I'm a bad-wrong thinker. :)

Yeah, I thought it was something like this, blakkie. BW is Burning Wheel, right? This is a whole different kind of play. Would I be wrong in saying that what the player was doing was determining the "stakes" ? I think in more trad play, the meaning of proactive is different. Reading the article in the original post points to something else.

Regards,
David R

QuoteYes, I'm a bad-wrong thinker.

No, you are just in the wrong thread.

Like, when someone talks about Squad Leader and you ramble on with your Memoir `44 and the merits of card based command control.

As you are quite smart, I could get the feeling you keep on doing this on purpose.

Quote from: David RYeah, I thought it was something like this, blakkie. BW is Burning Wheel, right? This is a whole different kind of play. Would I be wrong in saying that what the player was doing was determining the "stakes" ?

I think I've seen Luke mention there aren't "stakes" in Burning Wheel but I think he's meant that in a more literal sense.  There was something at stake around the a point of contention of what the weather was. When the Elf's player rolled what was at stake was it was either going to be easier than an average night or much harder than an average night for the guards on watch to spot them rowing up in a small boat they had stolen.

But that isn't really the important part. "Stakes" and "story" are total red herring words here.  This could have been a D&D game just as easily.

QuoteI think in more trad play, the meaning of proactive is different. Reading the article in the original post points to something else.

Well you know what. Screw trying to hang a "trad play" label on something because I challenge what "trad play" actually is. Because people have been doing things like this for some time. I know I have. The wheel might be burning, but it's still a freakin' wheel and that was invented before I was born.

In that essay he states "It depends on finding an as-yet unknown resource that the GM must supply."  What I'm saying is that there is a way you can make it easier to have proactive play if you remove that requirement from the GM.  Now I used the Weathersong example above.  But it could just as easily be a Circles rolls to determine the exisitance of an NPC. Or some tool to solve a "problem" that the player just came up with. Because that's what they are doing, right? Saying the world is starting here and I'm going to go change it like this. So the GM has to have poured in a bunch of time to put the tools in place for that?  Some big-ass detailed simulation of a world? Which is what Set is basically talking about....because he is all about world building preparation. It's his main tool, it's the thing he likes, it is how he thinks.

EDIT: Me, I'm all about getting players to do work for me and entertain me. ;)  I still have to put effort into encouraging some players to do this work. Because it isn't natural for everyone but a LOT of players will do it when given some encouragement. Encouragement like not feeling that the world has already been planned out, that they are really just reacting to what GM has planned, that they are just a cog in Fate's wheel.

Settembrini, if one were to design a single page control sheet for each faction in a strategic campaign, what fields do you think would be useful?  I really want to use your approach in my next campaign, but I need to improve my organizational skills and generally smarten up.

Quote from: blakkieEncouragement like not feeling that the world has already been planned out, that they are really just reacting to what GM has planned, that they are just a cog in Fate's wheel.

To be clear though, the world being planned out in no way requires that the GM has a plan for what the characters will do in play.

Indeed, if the GM wants the players to run on the rails, if anything the world requires less planning rather than more.

Quote from: blakkieIn that essay he states "It depends on finding an as-yet unknown resource that the GM must supply."  What I'm saying is that there is a way you can make it easier to have proactive play if you remove that requirement from the GM.

Like I said, you are talking about a different kind of play here. The whole point (I think) of this discussion, is to encourage/discover ways of proactive play within the context of trad GM/Player dynamic.

(It's late, and I have a feelin' this could be one of those occasions where we have a "discussion"...)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: BalbinusIndeed, if the GM wants the players to run on the rails, if anything the world requires less planning rather than more.

Which is why I believe an improv style of play is the best way to encourage proactive play...but this works only for some players.

Regards,
David R

QuoteSettembrini, if one were to design a single page control sheet for each faction in a strategic campaign, what fields do you think would be useful? I really want to use your approach in my next campaign, but I need to improve my organizational skills and generally smarten up.

Wow, this is a nifty idea. I´ll come back to that, now there´s other work to be done.

I´ll be thinking about it and come back tommorrow.

Please feel free to start a new thread on the topic when you get a chance to address my question!

Quote from: David RLike I said, you are talking about a different kind of play here.

But is it different in a way that matters?  In your example you have the players determining a lot of setting details. Sure this is flowing from research they are doing, but they are still interpreting what they read and bringing in what they want.  That doesn't sound particularly "trad", does it?

QuoteThe whole point (I think) of this discussion, is to encourage/discover ways of proactive play within the context of trad GM/Player dynamic.

Well either you've already thrown 'trad' out, or I'm somewhere in 'trad' territory. Or "trad" is just another nigh useless label. ;)

One thing that struck me as odd though in your post.

QuoteSo, the campaign begun with all this stuff going on, and I had yet to introduce any of the main story threads, which I had come up with, and which I intend to weave into the stuff they had given me.

You are still coming up the main story threads. How much of these did you come up with? Isn't this what the players want to come up with?

QuotePlease feel free to start a new thread

Yeah, I´ll do that. This one is going blakkiewards anyways.

OK, see you guys later!

Quote from: blakkieBut is it different in a way that matters?

Yes it is.

QuoteIn your example you have the players determining a lot of setting details. Sure this is flowing from research they are doing, but they are still interpreting what they read and bringing in what they want.  That doesn't sound particularly "trad", does it?

Players helping to create a setting before play has been around for a long time. What makes it trad, is that once the game starts authority rests with me (the GM) and noone else.

QuoteWell either you've already thrown 'trad' out, or I'm somewhere in 'trad' territory. Or "trad" is just another nigh useless label. ;)

Trad is a useful term. Or maybe it's not, but this is a discussion for another time...preferbly when all gamers have turned to dust.

QuoteOne thing that struck me as odd though in your post.

You are still coming up the main story threads. How much of these did you come up with? Isn't this what the players want to come up with?

Which is why I stated that this may not be an example of proactive play. It seems to me, certain elements are...esp when the players set up their beginning scenes with my input, but I don't think it's proactive in the sense of the original essay....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: BalbinusTo be clear though, the world being planned out in no way requires that the GM has a plan for what the characters will do in play.

The GM still has to come up with the tools required.  The GM can actually plan themselves into a corner.  The more you predetermine the less room there is to maneuver to provide those "tools" for the players to implement their plan.

QuoteIndeed, if the GM wants the players to run on the rails, if anything the world requires less planning rather than more.

Well railroading can require less breadth of planning because you simply ignore anything outside the intended path. But the path itself tends to get planned with a good amount of detail.  It actually takes a lot of planning to keep some players on the path without tossing out the game rules, or at least planning which rules to toss out.

But the reverse is certainly not true, that less planning of specifics means railroading.

Quote from: David RYes it is.

Well you'll have to do better to explain how because:

QuotePlayers helping to create a setting before play has been around for a long time. What makes it trad, is that once the game starts authority rests with me (the GM) and noone else.

I'm still talking about the GM as the final guardian of the "setting".  In my example if the Weathersong spell was an alteration magic instead of a divination magic the in character outcome would be very, very similar. What is different is that although the magic is very powerful at the metagame level it is appears to the character in the game world as fairly weak.  It is like having a shmuck character that can perform the actions of world changing god but doesn't know it. He is still a nobody shmuck.

EDIT: Note that if we had been in a place where we had already determined that sort of weather was rare the Ob would have been set much higher. There is also a point at which I and the other players around the table would have been razzing the crap out of him for some weather suggestion. Like rain in the winter at the South Pole or something. Because I, as the GM, still have to approve what the player is rolling for I still am the guardian. I just have this attitude that encourages the player to come up with this ideas but far more often than not running with them. My first instinct is to figure out, if the player hasn't already provided the answer, how to make it work within the tone of game we have all agreed upon.

You are hung up on a temporal situation. The players do help define the setting in your case. In mine too. But in my case I did the equivalent of Quatum Mechanics.  I say, ok, we've decided the setting but our view of it is fuzzy in most places.  So as needed we'll use this set of procedures to determine what it is that we have already agreed upon. We have agreed upon whether or not Schrödinger's Cat is dead without knowing if it is dead or not.

Quote from: blakkieWell you'll have to do better to explain

This is the difference:

QuoteOriginally posted by blakkie
Yes, this is different from the idea of the GM as the keeper of all knowledge and secrets and divining and knowledge skills discovering those secrets. The divining and knowledge skills define the secrets. It was a secret, an unknown, that nobody at the table knew prior. And the advantage is nobody needed to know what it was.

In a trad game, the GM is the keeper of knowledge. He knows all. So, the question is (still) how does one, encourage proactive play within this dynamic.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RIn a trad game, the GM is the keeper of knowledge. He knows all.

Bullshit.  He doesn't know everything. Random encounter tables.  If you like think of this as random encounter tables that have a bit more intellegence and flexibility to them. ;)

QuoteSo, the question is (still) how does one, encourage proactive play within this dynamic.

Well I didn't see that in the OP. ;) Sure the essay is talking about it in that context.  But then you left the reservation yourself.

Quote from: blakkieBullshit.  He doesn't know everything. Random encounter tables.

Blakkie:  Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?  Or are you trying to find value and insight by examining other people's viewpoints?

I'll tell you that, from the outside, the answer to which one you're achieving seems awfully damn clear.  But I'm interested to know what you were intending.

I suggest ignoring Blakkie, at least in this thread.

Quote from: TonyLBBlakkie:  Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?  Or are you trying to find value and insight by examining other people's viewpoints?

The later, I'm really coming up empty on what the issue is. What is the ultimate goal, for players to make up their own adventure? Seriously, "trad" gaming includes the pervue of random tables, right? One might even throw that under the category of "old school"? In those cases the GM doesn't know.  Now the GM, in any case of the rules that I know of outside of chargen, rolls the dice. But does it really matter that much to you who rolls the freakin' dice?

It is like worrying about whether you are using prerolled numbers from a fixed list or rolling the numbers at the point at which they are needed. If you fixate on it sure you can blow up the difference in your mind. But when push comes to shove the difference doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

QuoteI'll tell you that, from the outside, the answer to which one you're achieving seems awfully damn clear.  But I'm interested to know what you were intending.

*shrug*  I get the impression that David is really hung up on this idea of some arbitrary, and somewhat contradictory, taxonomy a "trad" game. He didn't follow the "trad" setting generation, which I thought was a pretty cool example.....outside of that he then changed the tune about proactivity for the "main" plot thread.  Did it remain the "main" thread? Did David push hard for it to remain? Was it just an unspoken assumption with everyone that it was to be the main thread?  (and don't feel I'm sitting in judgement there whatever those answers)

Going back to the SR campaign I thought up a main plot thread based on input from the players. Apparently though I didn't listen hard enough (actually I think what happened is I gave it too much scary vibe for them to chase it). Because by the end of the second session it was no longer even in contention for the main plot thread.  Which is where the proactivity comes in. They had totally driven and blown up some other minor thing and were quite literally creating that path, with some serious input from me of course.  However I don't really even think of that campaign as being primarily proactive.

That's kind of a hard judgement to make though as things get a bit muddy because eventually even with the most proactive players you start getting a bouncing back and forth between who is reacting to whom. Which I think is much cooler than always proactive. Because the GM isn't some handmaiden, she's got some ideas too! Some damn cool ideas I bet.

---

I'm also trying to give my insight, as a longtime, extremely proactive player, on what kinds of things in rules and GM execution help me and what I've seen help other players make things happen. Because that's what proactive players are, they are people that take their characters and march them into somewhere where nothing much is happening and make shit happen! They build things, they destroy things, they manufacture kings, and they bring countries down. And the game ends up revolving around this player created stuff with any initial GM provided stuff as backdrop at most. For the sole reason that the players and GM find this new jointly created stuff is compelling fun and totally Metal.

On that last part, I guess I need to talk more about limiting players too. Because of this effect I've seen people mention where you get lowest common denominator settings when you start taking everyone's input. You end up with Nazis ignoring MDC damage. Which is fine if you want gonzo, and lots of people do and that's fun, but not so fine when you weren't aiming for gonzo.

Once again back to the Weathersong and the shmuck with the metagame powers of a god. By making this metagaming power part of the character you set a rough limit on a player's input to whatever they can muster in this manner under the character creation and progression process.

Quote from: blakkie*shrug*  I get the impression that David is really hung up on this idea of some arbitrary, and somewhat contradictory, taxonomy a "trad" game.

Well, you give the impression that what you really want is to pick apart anything David says in order to show that he's wrong.

He's entirely right:  The default assumption in many games is that the GM knows everything that is going on, because anything he makes up is truth.  The GM is the gatekeeper of knowledge, and anything the other players want to "discover" they must discover through him.

That's a valid and important point.  When you immediately respond "Bullshit ... Random encounter tables," you are nitpicking.  Frankly, I think that if you were looking for insight, rather than arguing for argument's sake, that nitpick wouldn't even occur to you.

The sad thing, from my point of view, is that I generally approve of a lot of the play-style that you seem to personally enjoy.  But I am appalled by the ham-fisted, close-minded negativity that you are shovelling out to people who enjoy different styles.

Quote from: David RIn a trad game, the GM is the keeper of knowledge. He knows all. So, the question is (still) how does one, encourage proactive play within this dynamic.

When I'm playing, I find myself thwarted by how impossible it is to prove a negative ("There's no reason I know of that I couldn't successfully firebomb the prince") by asking positive questions ("Does he have bodyguards?  Does he have helicopters circling?")

So when I'm GMing, I try to make it clear to people that they can ask questions for which they hope the answer is "No," and I won't make up a "Yes" just in order to feel creative.  "Is there any reason we know of that we couldn't firebomb the prince?"  "Hrm ... well, there's that one ghoul body-guard, but he can't really stop a bomb ... well, golly, I guess there isn't any reason you know of!"

Anyone else use this kind of technique explicitly?

Quote from: David RWhich is why I believe an improv style of play is the best way to encourage proactive play...but this works only for some players.

I don't know about "best", but for some senses of "proactive" I certainly see that improv can encourage proactivity.

I think we may be running into another layer of difference in the way people might approach RPGs, though. A great deal has to do with how the player's expectations mesh with the GM's sense of responsibility. I can think of two examples that work, and one example that doesn't.

One example that works: the GM prepares a detailed map of the PC's environment, including notes on the strength and goals of factions and important NPCs. The GM conceives of this as a sort of dynamic model which will "run" with or without intervention on the part of the PC. The player then uses the PC to explore the model, investigate the interactions of its parts, and then, increasingly, master it and control its operation so that it produces outcomes that the player/PC desires. All information-gathering and manipulation of the model by the player is done through the agency of the character.

Another example that works: the player constructs the PC along with some vision of the way the PC will interact with the game-world. The GM doesn't prepare a detailed map at all, but instead improvises ad-hoc facts and descriptions to respond to the PC's investigations and actions. The GM takes notes to ensure that the improv is internally consistent, but is otherwise expected to "respond" to the PC in a manner that assumes the PC is always at least a minimally competent decision-maker, per the player's vision. That is, the "ability to break the status quo", one of the requirements set forth by John Kim, is taken as a given, and the "well-defined background" is generated in play, completely in service to that requirement. Basically this form of play can be served by several types of GM improvisation (aside from simply narrating PC success). One is to offer only obstacles which the PC has a fair chance of overcoming; another is to limit outcomes to those which allow the PC to "continue". Essentially the GM improv should not invalidate PC initiatives by turning them into bad risks with unacceptable downsides.

Now for the example that doesn't work, namely, trying to mix the above two. Take a player who expects to be presented with a world that operates as a pre-existing dynamic model, and pair that player with a GM who basically validates every PC decision as strategically sound, and the player will feel jerked around and lose interest. Conversely if you take a player who has a vision of their character which they require to have validated through play, and stick them with a GM whose model of the game world includes objectively right & wrong ways of moving through it, the player will feel blocked and be uninterested in the strategic manipulation needed to successfully impact the course of play.

It seems to me that John K., Balbinus, Sett, and I are most interested in the "dynamic model" approach and strategic manipulation. Which actually means that John's article presupposes the idea of the game world as a pre-existing reality, and is really about ways to reconcile that particular esthetic with the desire for proactivity, which can be separated as concept and used in other ways, too.

Quote from: TonyLBThat's a valid and important point.  When you immediately respond "Bullshit ... Random encounter tables," you are nitpicking.  Frankly, I think that if you were looking for insight, rather than arguing for argument's sake, that nitpick wouldn't even occur to you.

Nitpicking? :confused: It is very literally and in spirit that the GM doesn't know until the roll is made.  They don't conciously pick the contents of the world, they leave that up to some other party (combination of the author of the table and the dice).  The knowledge is elsewhere, the GM in a very real and tangible way doesn't know. Not every session or game that might get the "trad" label might have it but it is still prevalent.

The gist is that "trad" covers a extremely wide path. . There is random gen and also pre-fab determination that's set up like that supplement where you roam across a hex map and there is the look-up table of the map coords that tells you what monster you . If the GM chooses not to look at it you once again have a third-party as the keeper of the knowledge.

Now it is rare for using purely random gen and third-party secrecy but I'm not talking about pure GM not knowing either.

QuoteThe sad thing, from my point of view, is that I generally approve of a lot of the play-style that you seem to personally enjoy.  But I am appalled by the ham-fisted, close-minded negativity that you are shovelling out to people who enjoy different styles.

David seemed to be me telling me my points didn't belong because I wasn't talking in the "trad" sense (and if not I'm not sure why this "trad" thing came up?). When in fact his example wasn't "trad" either. Yet I am talking about players choosing adventures by having characters going off and making something happen instead of reacting to some aberation that is presented to them.

I'm speaking directly to the OP question of "what kind of games suit themselves to proactive player characters and what kind of things can the GM best do to help the players get there?"

.... as a proactive player.

I get what you're saying, blakkie. What you're seeing is reaction – this idea that games are divided in some hard-and-fast way into 'trad' and 'non-trad' has polarised people.

No, what we're seeing is a very common problem in online RPG discussion, where someone explicitly or implicitly defines a term for the sake of a given discussion, and then somebody else starts quibbling with the term instead of addressing the concept it's being used to describe.

It's very plain that John K., and Balbinus in turn, are interested in developing methods of encouraging PC proactivity in games where players engage in minimal use  of out-of-character resources, and the game world is being run on a model which is mechanically indifferent to the players' moment-to-moment desires.

Quoting B's original post:

QuoteSo, let's brainstorm, what kind of games suit themselves to proactive player characters and what kind of things can the GM best do to help the players get there?

What does all this mean you may be wondering, well, I'm channelling my inner Forge-ite tonight - go read the essay

BTW, Blakkie asks what is the benefit of the latter approach. One benefit is that it creates an opportunity for meaningful strategic thought, for those interested in pure challenge. Another is that it provides a strong sense of context and weight for moral decisions within the world. So, e.g., the complex ramifications of a given decision have causal linkages within the fiction instead of being obvious products of arbitrary metagame judgments.

However, if you don't understand the benefit, I suggest that this thread is not for you.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHowever, if you don't understand the benefit, I suggest that this thread is not for you.

We understand! But that base has been covered. My point is that the polarisation has progressed to the point where alternative approaches are instantly dismissed without proper evaluation.

For instance, if you roll Circles in BW, the outcome is still subject to causal linkages within the fiction, to borrow your phrase. I can't have a spaceship show up just because I rolled well.

Let's say that in a more conventional set-up, I want to find out whether I possess a contact in this town. Either the GM has prepared an exhaustive list of every inhabitant, or he makes a spot evaluation and rolls for it, or he simply makes a decision. None of those approaches necessarily break what you're talking about, and neither does rolling the chr's Circles ability.

Quote from: BalbinusEdit:  Oh, let's tie this to actual game prep, I don't want a theoretical discussion, I'm interested in directly applying this to the next game I run or at least the one after that.

At this point I'm remembering an old post I came across on rec.games.board the other day, where a particularly egregious wanker by the name of Patrick Carroll explained how others could keep him out of threads. And the answer was: discuss a specific game.

Max, I leave it up to you whether Blakkie or anyone else is offering anything of use to your next game run. If not maybe you can provide a better picture of what your game will be.

Quote from: droogWe understand! But that base has been covered. My point is that the polarisation has progressed to the point where alternative approaches are instantly dismissed without proper evaluation.

I don't think that's what was going on earlier, but with understanding established we can certainly move on.

QuoteFor instance, if you roll Circles in BW, the outcome is still subject to causal linkages within the fiction, to borrow your phrase. I can't have a spaceship show up just because I rolled well.

Let's say that in a more conventional set-up, I want to find out whether I possess a contact in this town. Either the GM has prepared an exhaustive list of every inhabitant, or he makes a spot evaluation and rolls for it, or he simply makes a decision. None of those approaches necessarily break what you're talking about, and neither does rolling the chr's Circles ability.

Circles are actually one of those things that in my opinion are extremely well suited to "traditional play" (at least what we're calling that for the sake of this thread). Streamlined mechanics like that are one reason why I encouraged Settembrini in his Burning Empires thread.

Circles are defined in terms of the PC's relation to the game world at the moment the PC is created. There are a set of impartial guidelines on their use, related to the type of person being sought. It's taken as a given that the GM hasn't detailed everyone in the world. The existence of this particular trait, however, provides an abstract model for impartially establishing both the existence and the availability (to that PC) of a certain person, at a given moment in time.

This is different from the example Blakkie gave of using divination to effect a certain type of weather on a given day, even if he modifies the target number depending on the local climate. Suppose we grant that the GM doesn't ordinarily plan the weather or have a handy mechanic for generating it. If divination "really" allows you to predict the weather on a given night, the chance of having fog can't be dependent on the skill of the diviner. Now, if you change things slightly, so that the PCs can choose the night of the attack, then using divination to select a foggy night no longer violates the concept of an external game-world. But that option depends on whether there are other pressures which affect the time frame.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThis is different from the example Blakkie gave of using divination to effect a certain type of weather on a given day, even if he modifies the target number depending on the local climate. Suppose we grant that the GM doesn't ordinarily plan the weather or have a handy mechanic for generating it. If divination "really" allows you to predict the weather on a given night, the chance of having fog can't be dependent on the skill of the diviner. Now, if you change things slightly, so that the PCs can choose the night of the attack, then using divination to select a foggy night no longer violates the concept of an external game-world. But that option depends on whether there are other pressures which affect the time frame.

It's pretty rare for GMs to generate the weather beforehand in my experience. In fact, I once did it myself for an entire game year, and I never did it again. Let's have a look at what blakkie did:

QuoteThe Elf has Weathersong which is a divining magic. The player says, I think it's going to be foggy down at the docks. So we agree upon a Obstacle 2, the player rolls, and he meets that. He has earned the right to determine that it is indeed foggy providing them with good cover. If he hadn't he would have predicted wrong and when they attempted to board it would have been clear skies with the moon shining down brightly.

So the character did not alter the world with weather altering magic. The player was able to choose the world state by using the character's divining magic. It didn't even have to be magic to do this. He could have used, if he character had had it, a mundane skill like Weather-Wise.

This is a clever use of a divining magic. Let's say that the player had rolled badly. The night would then have been clear, forcing the players to choose either another night or another plan. Granted?

If so, let's see what might have happened using a different method. Let's say the GM has actually determined the weather for every night that year. The player makes his roll for divining; the GM informs him of the weather. If the weather is favourable, the plan goes ahead. If not, the players choose either another night or another plan. Best case (ie most well-prepped) scenario gives us exactly the same result.

If the GM has not determined the weather in advance, he must make a spot decision (either directly or by setting a target number and rolling). Again, the result is that the players must change either the timing or the plan. Moreover, unless the GM can stonewall the players and manage to hide the fact that his decision is on the spot, this results in some of that very feeling of an external world being lost.

So it was an efficient way to use a character power, generate a plausible result, and get on with the game. Now, I'm not saying it's the only way to do it, and I'm not saying this approach will work in every situation imaginable, but it looks good. My point was that people weren't really giving blakkie's posts proper consideration; instead simply dismissing them in an arbitrary manner.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen...where someone explicitly or implicitly defines a term for the sake of a given discussion...

For the sake of the discussion? It side-tracked the discussion. :p

Quote from: Elliot WilenBTW, Blakkie asks what is the benefit of the latter approach. One benefit is that it creates an opportunity for meaningful strategic thought, for those interested in pure challenge.

"Challenge" is pure bugaboo. I'm all about the challenge. Strategic thinking as in long term planning and schemes that take dozens upon dozens of gaming sessions time to finally spring? Oh man, you have no idea how close that is to my heart. Yet I'm OK with this thing that you imply does not present an opportunity for meaningful strategic thought? But how? :o

QuoteAnother is that it provides a strong sense of context and weight for moral decisions within the world. So, e.g., the complex ramifications of a given decision have causal linkages within the fiction instead of being obvious products of arbitrary metagame judgments.

Little secret, these worlds in these games are all made up. Even when it is premade it's made up. At best they could charitable be called a highly dubious simulation heavily coloured by ill-informed preconceived notions. If you don't understand this I suggest that this board is not for you. ;)

QuoteAt this point I'm remembering an old post I came across on rec.games.board the other day, where a particularly egregious wanker by the name of Patrick Carroll explained how to keep him out of threads. And the answer was: discuss a specific game.

Ironically this dragging of BW into this came about because of the request for AP. Although I've mentioned SR too.

But maybe you are right. Maybe this isn't the thread. So I shall create a new one.

Droog, I also wouldn't expect a GM to prep weather beforehand; at most I'd expect a sane GM to use a table, though I've heard of some crazy dudes who've actually tried to model weather systems for their continent. Again, I don't advocate that approach.

But here's the thing. You're saying: same effect regardless of whether the weather is determined independently or combined with the divination roll. I disagree.

Counterexample: One PC has Weathersong 3. Another has Weathersong 5. Then if the GM determines the Ob (target number) independently of who's making the divination, you end up with a better chance of a foggy night with the skill 5 person. At some level of ability, if the GM is being consistent in setting target numbers, you end up with a PC who can practically force the presence of fog at will.

All this is aside from the possibility that failure on the roll doesn't distinguish between a mistaken divination, and accurate divination but clear weather. Moreover, the description of the situation suggests that the PCs don't really need a lot of preparation--i.e., they could make a last-minute decision whether the fog was thick enough. So the use of divination comes up as just a metagame tool for "establishing narrational authority", rather than an in-game tool for interacting with the external world.

Now I should say how I'd handle it, shouldn't I? Given the goals of this thread, unless there was a table already, I'd simply announce a probability on the spot, but I'd be willing to discuss it with the players. Furthermore if knowing the weather beforehand was crucial to the timing or execution of the plan, I'd then layer the use of divination on top of that.

Quote from: John MorrowThe game requires not only a well-defined background but it also needs to be accessible to the players and their characters and not just the GM.



Basically, for the players to make proactive plans, they either need to know what their "assets" are or they you wind up with things like, "What I wouldn't give for a holocaust cloak," (or, as a real example, "Does this planet have a zoo?") as players grasp for something they could do.  While, "What I wouldn't give for a holocaust cloak," is funny and could work in a light game, for a serious game, I much prefer not to get into games of "20 questions" with the GM.  And while creating logical details on the fly sometimes works, they often involve more out-of-character thinking than I'd prefer to engage in.

One other thing I'd like to add is that I think many GMs and writers design scenarios that are purposely designed to discourage proactive play, because it's easier to run an adventure when the players aren't doing unexpected things.  Why do I say that?  Because the whole structure of many adventures is to put the PCs into an unfamiliar environment that they know little about.  Whether it's a dungeon or a journey to a far off land, the less the players know about the background and setting, the harder it is for them to proactively play their characters.

This is definitely the case.  It's a particularly thorny issue in an intrigue-heavy game, like I often run.  The players really need to have the revelant knowledge that their characters would have, like who might have wanted to kill the imam, or what kind of funding it takes to outfit a galleon for a year's journey (oddly enough, more than it costs to build the thing, IIRC).  

There are a few good ways to approach the problem:

1.  Base your game world on the real world.  This takes care of a lot of the work of communicating a common background (and it is work), but not all of it.  You've still got to communicate the ways in which the game world differs from the real world, and you've still got to communicate relevant real-world knowledge (like, say, what Venetian social customs were in the 1540's, or how nanotechnology works).  

2.  Base your game world on a fictional setting that all the players know well.  ALL the players.  Well, maybe all but one.  But that's the limit.  In any case, any fictional setting provides rather less common background than the real world does -- so there's more work to be done communicating background (well, maybe not, depending on when the real world based game is set, and the educational backgrounds of the players).  

3.  Have the game group collectively create and flesh out the game world.  This works in conjunction with 1 and 2.  If you've got a group of players who enjoy world building, this takes the work out of communicating game background.  Collective creation doesn't necessarily mean that all players have an equal voice; I generally use a mechanism I call "The Newsreel", where we all create game world events -- but these events are what's in the news; the truth behind the events can be left up to the GM (or not, as you prefer).

Quote from: Elliot WilenDroog, I also wouldn't expect a GM to prep weather beforehand; at most I'd expect a sane GM to use a table, though I've heard of some crazy dudes who've actually tried to model weather systems for their continent. Again, I don't advocate that approach.

Don't knock it till you've tried it. It did actually allow me to come up with some cool ideas which doing it in-game wouldn't have. For instance, I rolled up a storm that went for almost two weeks. Since the players were worshippers of the storm god, there was evidently something going on, and the most devout chr was visited by dreams that hinted at something relevant to their plans. I remember the atmosphere when I described the dream – it brought the table to a standstill and fetched one guy out of his room to listen. That was partly because the description of the storm going on for days and days had allowed me to build up a sort of tension.

QuoteBut here's the thing. You're saying: same effect regardless of whether the weather is determined independently or combined with the divination roll. I disagree.

What I'm saying is that if your concern is player strategy, it's the same effect. Also, divination is a notoriously thorny problem in most games, and this is a pretty slick way to handle it.

QuoteNow I should say how I'd handle it, shouldn't I? Given the goals of this thread, unless there was a table already, I'd simply announce a probability on the spot, but I'd be willing to discuss it with the players. Furthermore if knowing the weather beforehand was crucial to the timing or execution of the plan, I'd then layer the use of divination on top of that.

See, once you discuss it with the players, you're opening the way to their metagame input anyway. That's not a bad thing, but it's not as well-regulated as using mechanics. It may or may not strike people as being more plausible, and it may or may not break their SOD, and it may or may not lead to a great big argument.

Quote from: Lee Short1.  Base your game world on the real world.  This takes care of a lot of the work of communicating a common background (and it is work), but not all of it.  You've still got to communicate the ways in which the game world differs from the real world, and you've still got to communicate relevant real-world knowledge (like, say, what Venetian social customs were in the 1540's, or how nanotechnology works).  

I ran a V&V game in which the players played themselves, and I ran the world in real time (ie if two weeks had passed since we played, two weeks would have passed in the game world). I pinched this idea from an old Journal of the Travellers' Aid Society, and it worked really well.

Quote from: droogDon't knock it till you've tried it.

Okay...I mean, really, if somebody hands me a weather generator or an earthquake generator, I might use it. But I can do without tracking weather systems across a continent. When it comes to simulation for the sake of strategic thought, I'm happy to "fix" the level of abstraction and accept the exclusion of details. But once excluded, I don't want to strategize as if they're important, though I do plan on using details as after-the-fact explanations. (E.g. if someone botches a piloting roll badly, I think it's cool to say that a fly was trapped in the cockpit and distracted the PC. But I'm not going to subsequently make adjustments to the chance of a botch if the player later hangs flypaper around the hangar, nor am I going to waste significant time and resources, as a player, trying to keep the flies out--even though all that can be fun color as long as everyone understands we're not going on an infinite hunt for the effect of details.)

QuoteWhat I'm saying is that if your concern is player strategy, it's the same effect. Also, divination is a notoriously thorny problem in most games, and this is a pretty slick way to handle it.

I'm not going to belabor the point, but for me it fails to meet the test of representing player-character strategy.

QuoteSee, once you discuss it with the players, you're opening the way to their metagame input anyway. That's not a bad thing, but it's not as well-regulated as using mechanics. It may or may not strike people as being more plausible, and it may or may not break their SOD, and it may or may not lead to a great big argument.

This is true. As I see it, my approach clearly demarcates the in-game and meta-game responsibilities and allows the players (if they're like me) to enjoy worrying about a botched divination--assuming that it really is important to have advance knowledge of the weather. Whereas allowing divination to, effectively, provide a metagame resource for dictating results--that completely kills the representational correspondence between mechanic and fiction. Divination is for finding things out, not making stuff happen.

Edited to add: honestly, I'd throw up a percent chance, and if the players thought it was too low I'd let them pick whatever number they wanted on the assumption that this was a one-time event and it's their fun. If determination of the weather became a factor--as it might be likely to be, with a player who can predict it--then I'd definitely start looking for tables, or I'd abstract time scales and let the diviner specify the weather on the assumption that the PCs have discretion over when they'll execute their plan.

Quote from: blakkie"Challenge" is pure bugaboo. I'm all about the challenge. Strategic thinking as in long term planning and schemes that take dozens upon dozens of gaming sessions time to finally spring? Oh man, you have no idea how close that is to my heart.

Could be. I have doubts about our ability to communicate with one another.

QuoteLittle secret, these worlds in these games are all made up. Even when it is premade it's made up. At best they could charitable be called a highly dubious simulation heavily coloured by ill-informed preconceived notions.

This I understand, though; please look again at my use of the term "fiction". The causes are fictional, the dynamics are fictional, the effects are fictional. But it's still cause-based simulation as opposed to effects-based emulation.

QuoteBut maybe you are right. Maybe this isn't the thread. So I shall create a new one.

Good show.

Quote from: droogWe understand! But that base has been covered. My point is that the polarisation has progressed to the point where alternative approaches are instantly dismissed without proper evaluation.

It has nothing to do with dismissing other approaches droog. The fact is, for a lot of folks there is a certain dynamic, trad if you like(or don't), that separates the different playstyles.

I was not dismissing blakkie's experience, and if you think I was, please point out where....I was merely sayin' could we please discuss the issue of proactive play in the context of the admittedly vague concept of trad play(which is what I thought this thread was about).

Of course preference comes into play, but still, we can discuss the topic at hand without resorting to silly semantic side treks.

I don't think the problem is that folks have become polarised, I do think the problem is that folks don't want to acknowledge there are different styles of play, and sometimes, the best way to avoid needless conflict, is to address the style of play at hand rather than to push a preference.

There has been a few interesting developments since I last checked this thread and some interesting points raised, which I will address later :D

Regards,
David R

Quote from: blakkie*shrug*  I get the impression that David is really hung up on this idea of some arbitrary, and somewhat contradictory, taxonomy a "trad" game. He didn't follow the "trad" setting generation, which I thought was a pretty cool example.....outside of that he then changed the tune about proactivity for the "main" plot thread.  

I'm not hung up on anything. I am interested however in discovering ways to encourage proactivity in the style I play in. Again, I didn't change the "tune", I was merely giving an example of how, I though I encouraged proavtive play in my current campaign, esp with regards, to setting creation. I never once said, that the whole campiagn was proactive play and indeed, I am eager to discover was of making it so, within the context of my prefered playstyle.

QuoteDid it remain the "main" thread? Did David push hard for it to remain? Was it just an unspoken assumption with everyone that it was to be the main thread?  (and don't feel I'm sitting in judgement there whatever those answers)

No, it did not remain or rather it seems more like the players switch from proactive to reactive players depending on the situation.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: TonyLBSo when I'm GMing, I try to make it clear to people that they can ask questions for which they hope the answer is "No," and I won't make up a "Yes" just in order to feel creative.  "Is there any reason we know of that we couldn't firebomb the prince?"  "Hrm ... well, there's that one ghoul body-guard, but he can't really stop a bomb ... well, golly, I guess there isn't any reason you know of!"

Anyone else use this kind of technique explicitly?

Yeah, I get where you're going with this, but this is not really my style of running games. The players have to plan and discover things - if this makes any sense - they don't get an answer from me.

For instance, in your ghoul bodyguard example, I would not tell them, that the guard would not be able to stop a bomb (even if this was the case). During play they would discover this themselves.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RThe fact is, for a lot of folks there is a certain dynamic, trad if you like(or don't), that separates the different playstyles.

I disagree, at least in the specific context of what blakkie was talking about. He pointed out that 'trad' play, increasingly, seems to be very narrowly defined. Now, I happen to think that this is a result of the Schweinkrieg.

Note Balbinus's post #13:

QuoteAll true, but I'm not marketing a game so I don't need to worry about the mainstream and what it wants, I just have to worry about what I and my group may enjoy.

and #23 (in humorous response to blakkie):

QuoteThat makes it far worse, by implying some kind of commonality of content between such different types of games.

It shows just how subtle your machinations are, first you introduce circles to Shadowrun, next thing your group are playing an rpg about exploring a middle aged man's crisis on being passed over for a promotion using a resolution mechanic based on searches of on-line job sites. It's a slippery slope.

I'm not trying to put words in B's mouth here, but it seems to me he's asking for any ideas or techniques that people might have. He hasn't drawn some sort of line in the sand, which is what I'd expect given his nature. Neither he nor I see sharp dividing lines here, just techniques that may be used or not.

I've been playing these games a very long time, and I simply do not see such a sharp difference in dynamics as you suggest. Of course there are different styles of play, but as you said yourself, the concept of 'trad' play is ill-defined and vague. So is 'Forgey' play, for that matter.

Quote from: droogI'm not trying to put words in B's mouth here, but it seems to me he's asking for any ideas or techniques that people might have. He hasn't drawn some sort of line in the sand, which is what I'd expect given his nature. Neither he nor I see sharp dividing lines here, just techniques that may be used or not.

Fair enough. Then the mistake was mine. I was assuming that the discussion centered on methods to encourage proactivity in trad play which although ill defined, is certainly different from the kind of play blakkie was suggesting.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: droogI've been playing these games a very long time, and I simply do not see such a sharp difference in dynamics as you suggest. Of course there are different styles of play, but as you said yourself, the concept of 'trad' play is ill-defined and vague. So is 'Forgey' play, for that matter.

I've also been playing games for a long time too and I certainly see a difference. I think one of the problems as far as online discussions go, is that some folks don't see this difference and assume that methods used in one playstyle is appropiate for another.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI've also been playing games for a long time too and I certainly see a difference. I think one of the problems as far as online discussions go, is that some folks don't see this difference and assume that methods used in one playstyle is appropiate for another.

The point is that this 'playstyle' thing isn't even defined. Any playstyle is nothing more than an accumulation of techniques.

Here, see what you make of this: for a particular game in a particular campaign, I imported a technique I had read about. I gave each of the players an NPC to play; those NPCs being the leaders of their usual characters. The NPCs had no stats; only descriptions. They roleplayed a meeting of these leaders dealing with a certain issue; the decisions made at this meeting impacted back on their own chrs.

Now, 'traditional' or not? When do you think I played this game? From where do you think the idea might have come? How do you think the players might have taken it?

Quote from: David RFor instance, in your ghoul bodyguard example, I would not tell them, that the guard would not be able to stop a bomb (even if this was the case). During play they would discover this themselves.

But, for instance, would your players be surprised if they tried the bombing and it was stopped by the elite team of sorcerors who always follow the prince around, and who are perfectly visible (though discreet), but who were never mentioned because nobody asked?

In most games I've run or played in, people would feel dissatisfied with that.  And yet, I've seen that kind of thing happen in little ways because folks have to think to ask the right positive questions ("Does the prince have a team of sorcerors protecting him?") in order to get information that, honestly, their characters would notice and factor in without having to think about it.

Quote from: droogThe point is that this 'playstyle' thing isn't even defined. Any playstyle is nothing more than an accumulation of techniques.

Actually I do think it's defined. Now, I'm not into theory so whatever I say is based on what I've observed with other gaming groups I've come into contact with. A trad playstyle has certain elements. I know this sounds simple but from what I've observed, trad gamers more or less follow this pattern. The GM creates the setting. The players create and control their characters. The GM handles everything else except the characters the players create.

Now, of course there are some variations to this theme, but on the whole, this is the GM/player dynamic or what I would term trad gaming. Please remeber I'm clueless when it comes to jargon and theory, so I may be simplfying the situation.

I have observed that online discourse seems to be preocupied with blurring the bounderies between different styles of play. Now, of course even though I consider myself a very trad GM I'm sure others don't think so. I'm also aware that my groups playstyle changes depending on the kind of game we are playing.

So, yeah I understand your point about techniques, but I have to say, that there are some established (IME) rules so to speak that define a trad playstyle as I'm sure there are techniques that define other kinds of styles.

As for your example, do I think it's trad? No, I don't think so, but I'm sure you have a big reveal up your sleave.... (although I have done something like this before in my games)

QuoteOriginally posted by TonyLB

In most games I've run or played in, people would feel dissatisfied with that. And yet, I've seen that kind of thing happen in little ways because folks have to think to ask the right positive questions ("Does the prince have a team of sorcerors protecting him?") in order to get information that, honestly, their characters would notice and factor in without having to think about it.

I'm really having trouble understanding this part Tony. To my players at least asking the right questions or at least what their characters think are the right questions is what rpgs are all about. Like I said, I may be misreading your post entirely.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RAs for your example, do I think it's trad? No, I don't think so, but I'm sure you have a big reveal up your sleeve.... (although I have done something like this before in my games)

Well, yes. I played the game in 1995, based on an account of a game first played by Greg Stafford in the late 70s. This was years before I got online and saw people talking about 'traditional' games. This really isn't an issue of Theory.

QuoteThe GM creates the setting. The players create and control their characters. The GM handles everything else except the characters the players create.

See, again, way back when I was trying out techniques like getting people to play NPCs, players were contributing bits to setting, making their own interpretations etc. How do you account for this?

Quote from: droogSee, again, way back when I was trying out techniques like getting people to play NPCs, players were contributing bits to setting, making their own interpretations etc. How do you account for this?

So, some of us do things differently (maybe we have always done things differently). How does this detract from the fact that more gamers out there are playing in a trad way?

I mean are you sayin' that my observations are wrong ? They could be.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RSo, some of us do things differently (maybe we have always done things differently). How does this detract from the fact that more gamers out there are playing in a trad way?

I mean are you sayin' that my observations are wrong ? It could be.

I'm just saying that the real picture is more muddled, and this Kulturkrieg seems to have given it a false solidity. Experimental stuff has been with us a long time. There have always been variations between groups.

Look at us – you say you do some things differently. I say I do some things differently. My thesis is that, as blakkie said, 'trad' is not quite so neat a category as some people would have it.

Quote from: droogI'm just saying that the real picture is more muddled, and this Kulturkrieg seems to have given it a false solidity. Experimental stuff has been with us a long time. There have always been variations between groups.

Look at us – you say you do some things differently. I say I do some things differently. My thesis is that, as blakkie said, 'trad' is not quite so neat a category as some people would have it.

I'm not trying to be argumentative droog. I understand what you are saying. But experience leads me to believe that trad gaming  in the case of most gamers is a very neat category. Like I said, I've met more folks who game more or less the same way than gamers who do things differently. This would (IMO) explain the popularity of certain games.

Regards,
David R

Whew.  So, regarding my essay and the term "pro-activity".  

As I was writing it, I was defining pro-activity in terms of the player characters.  That means that they take actions without being directly goaded.  For example, you might have a GMless superhero game where the players invent villains to throw at each other's PCs.  This still has reactive player characters, because they're only responding to what the villains do.  

A lot of the discussion is about stuff that has nothing to with what I called proactivity in the essay.  For example, blakkie's example of divination magic in post #28 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=80264&postcount=28) doesn't seem to have anything to do with proactivity.  From the start it assumes that the PCs have a goal to take the ship and the only question is how they resolve their attempt.

To me, the question of proactivity starts much earlier.  Why are they after what is on the ship?  How did they decide on that course of action?  

Quote from: BalbinusI saw this essay on John Kim's site
http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/plot/proactivity.html

And got to thinking, currently I think my play is mostly alternating proactive in his terminology or proactive with the occasional prod.

So, let's brainstorm, what kind of games suit themselves to proactive player characters and what kind of things can the GM best do to help the players get there?

I'll put in a brief plug here for Jonathan Walton's journal PUSH, Volume 1 (http://plays-well.com/push/), which has an extended essay on setting up backgrounds with immersive, proactive play in mind.  

Quote from: Elliot Wilen(...detailed background example...)

Another example that works: the player constructs the PC along with some vision of the way the PC will interact with the game-world. The GM doesn't prepare a detailed map at all, but instead improvises ad-hoc facts and descriptions to respond to the PC's investigations and actions. The GM takes notes to ensure that the improv is internally consistent, but is otherwise expected to "respond" to the PC in a manner that assumes the PC is always at least a minimally competent decision-maker, per the player's vision. That is, the "ability to break the status quo", one of the requirements set forth by John Kim, is taken as a given, and the "well-defined background" is generated in play, completely in service to that requirement. Basically this form of play can be served by several types of GM improvisation (aside from simply narrating PC success). One is to offer only obstacles which the PC has a fair chance of overcoming; another is to limit outcomes to those which allow the PC to "continue". Essentially the GM improv should not invalidate PC initiatives by turning them into bad risks with unacceptable downsides.

Interesting.  Can you give some more detailed examples about how this works in practice, Elliot?  In my experience, without something concrete to riff off of, players are rarely quick to take action.  Offhand, I don't think I've ever seen a game work like this.  I think TonyLB mentioned something similar in a recent Story Games thread as the "Tyranny of the Blank Slate". I'd buy there are ways around it, but I'm not sure how they work.

Set Up: A Wererat gang is filching from rice shipments down on the docks.

Reactive: "Gee fellows, that sounds odd. What say we go investigate?"

Proactive: "That's interesting. Anybody want to go and see who's playing at the Gleeful Ogre tonight?"

Quote from: Elliot WilenAt this point I'm remembering an old post I came across on rec.games.board the other day, where a particularly egregious wanker by the name of Patrick Carroll explained how others could keep him out of threads. And the answer was: discuss a specific game.

Max, I leave it up to you whether Blakkie or anyone else is offering anything of use to your next game run. If not maybe you can provide a better picture of what your game will be.

I think the thread is basically a corpse, but in case...

Ok, the point with players not having direct input into the setting is that I enjoy discovering the setting through play, I enjoy the experience of exploring a world and I enjoy the feeling that the world has some kind of independent existence capable of discovery and experience.

This is true when I play, and when I GM I enjoy the players doing those things.

Accordingly, direct player creation of world details detracts from my fun, both as a GM and equally as a player.

What I am interested in, is tools that help encourage proactive play from players who are operating within a GM created world.  That doesn't mean I think coauthored worlds are bad, or that coauthored play is wrong, it just means that I do think coauthored play is a different thing and a different thing which frankly is not particularly closely related to the subject matter of this thread.

But I think a degree of deliberate obtuseness and frankly agenda pushing has killed this thread most likely.

I mean, for fuck's sake (and this is not directed at Elliott) can we not have a discussion on practical tools to use in a game with a GM creating the world and with players experiencing it through their characters without discussing indie gaming?  Indie gaming is great, but it doesn't have to be in every sodding thread.

Quote from: BalbinusBut I think a degree of deliberate obtuseness and frankly agenda pushing has killed this thread most likely.

I mean, for fuck's sake (and this is not directed at Elliott) can we not have a discussion on practical tools to use in a game with a GM creating the world and with players experiencing it through their characters without discussing indie gaming?  Indie gaming is great, but it doesn't have to be in every sodding thread.

My whole point was that these sorts of tools are found in all sorts of places, like Greg Stafford's game from Wyrm's Footnotes, or an ancient JTAS, or (OMG) Burning Wheel. I wasn't discussing indie gaming per se. I was discussing practical tools as you asked for.

If somebody argues with me, why not argue back? I thought I had some good points and I argued for them. I'm a bit sick of this stupid dividing line marked trad over here and indie over here and never the twain shall meet. I thought your earlier reply to blakkie indicated that you thought the same thing. Guess I was wrong.

Definitions of "Trad" seem to have nothing in common except for the extreme of "we play exactly like Diablo, only with a GM instead of a computer", while definitions of "indie" don't have even that.

So I don't think anyone can really say that they only play "trad" or "indie", or that there's this huge abyss between them. droog is absolutely right to be talking about techniques in play in this way.

Unless, of course, they make up their own trad/indie definitions, but then that's just like saying, "Bob likes Type A games, and Jim likes Type B games." It doesn't really contribute much to the discussion...

Quote from: droogMy whole point was that these sorts of tools are found in all sorts of places, like Greg Stafford's game from Wyrm's Footnotes, or an ancient JTAS, or (OMG) Burning Wheel. I wasn't discussing indie gaming per se. I was discussing practical tools as you asked for.

If somebody argues with me, why not argue back? I thought I had some good points and I argued for them. I'm a bit sick of this stupid dividing line marked trad over here and indie over here and never the twain shall meet. I thought your earlier reply to blakkie indicated that you thought the same thing. Guess I was wrong.

I wasn't thinking of you droog, I'm afraid I rather glossed over your posts while skimming through the David R/Blakkie/others debate which had rather made me lose interest.  I'll go back and check your points out.

Generally I do think the indie/trad thing stupid btw, but I did think ages back in the thread it was made fairly clear that the discussion wasn't about coauthored games such as say Mortal Coil and blakkie really did keep flogging that particular horse.

Edit:  Actually, looking over the thread I don't know if it was blakkie (whose divination thing is quite cool) or whoever, but I am struggling to see much by way of practical advice.  Mostly I'm seeing a theory debate and a lot of back and forth, I'm struggling a bit on the stuff I could apply in a game here.

It just gets frustrating you know?  I had what seemed a fairly straightforward query, and I now have a debate about trad and indie gaming, a distinction I do view as largely invalid.

Quote from: BalbinusI wasn't thinking of you droog, I'm afraid I rather glossed over your posts while skimming through the David R/Blakkie/others debate which had rather made me lose interest.  I'll go back and check your points out.

Sorry for derailing your thread, Balbinus. I didn't mean to turn this into a trad/indie playstyle discussion. I started out trying to describe something and just lost the plot.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RSorry for derailing your thread, Balbinus. I didn't mean to turn this into a trad/indie playstyle discussion. I started out trying to describe something and just lost the plot.

Regards,
David R

I don't think you did David, I think blakkie was a bit slow in catching on that we were discussing different stuff and didn't make it terribly clear initially how his posts related to it, and then the whole thread went into the standard indie/trad debate which lies in wait for innocent threads, pulling them down like gazelles pounced upon by lions, so as to rip out their tasty innards.

I view the whole thing as an object lesson in the dangers of theory, and indeed of lions.

I've been thinking about this a bit as I'd really like to get a player-led game going. My preferred systems are Classic Trav, Burning Wheel (using Harn as a setting) and HeroQuest. I could be talked into D&D using the Green Ronin Medieval Players' Handbook, but I'm a bit burned out on D&D.

Anyhow, here's what I've been thinking about:

1. Offering a Variety: You need to get player buy-in. It's not like the more normal (at least in my group) situation where we go "Oh, it's Garry's turn to GM, what have you got Garry? Oh, a dungeon, well, okay..." I think you need to get the players excited and keen to go along with you, so negotiating what is you will play is quite important. "What would you guys like to play?" rather than "I'd like to run this."

2. Setting: These are all setting-heavy games, so what's been said about a detailed setting is, I think, absolutely true. I think you could sit around and make up a setting together, but using a setting you can all broadly agree on removes a bit of heavy lifting, IMO.

3. Everyone on the same page: I have a number ideas for each of these games/settings, but I'm just using them as a way to get conversation going. The basic situation ("We're mercenaries! We're traders! We're a travelling circus!") should be a shared creation. Players must make characters that fit each other. (This is basic stuff, of course, I have no doubt that many of you guys do this already. With us it's more of a "My guy's a paladin." "Yeah? My guy's a chaotic evil cleric of the pain god." "So, what are we doing together again?" "Um, don't talk about it, dude.")

4. The PC are the bit that the NPCs react to. This is the tricky bit, I think. Around the same time as you are generating the PCs you need to find the compelling plot thing. My instincts are to tie them all together either against a NPC (basically a vengance plot) or as part of an enterprise (expanding a tribe/business/royal familie's influence. In some ways, the PCs take on the traditional role of the NPC antagonist: they are the ones invading the other land, they are the ones trying to take over the world or drive some guy out of business. I think this is the vital and tricky part: finding a goal that they can work towards, otherwise it turns into the usual old wotsit.

5. Provide real progress to the goal as the game goes on. I've played in lots of games with PCs goals where it's really just dangled as a way to keep shit moving but never gets close to being resolved. Eventually, the PCs will achieve their goal and you will either have to change the direction of the campaign or stop. I think stopping is the best idea.

6. Recognise that some people just want to throw dice and kill shit. In my group at least. Let the people who want to lead the story do so, but don't try and force it on the others. I have made this mistake before.

That's it at the mo. Real-life keeps getting in the way but I'm getting there, slowly. At least I have three interested players - now I just need to find the time!

Ned

I command you all to use Adventure vs Thematic.

Do not accept the connotations of trad/indie. It´s a marketing win for the Forgers!

Or we could just use neither. Stick to plain English, and stuff.

I've never found such labels particularly useful. In theory, when we meet some new gamer who's interested in joining our group, they could say, "I'm an Alpha-type player, with Betaist tendencies!" and then we'd know exactly their favourite game play style. But in practice, everyone has different ideas of what these sorts of labels mean. So the person labelling themselves, it just confuses the issue.

If you want to know what sort of game play style a person enjoys, it's easier to ask them about the gaming they've had, and what specific things they enjoyed about it. Labels are counter-productive.

I'm going to give this one more shot. (blakkie and droog, your comments are most welcomed)

As I mentioned before there are numerous plot threads in my The Day of Living Dangerously campaign. I think two could be considered examples of proactive play.

We have only played five sessions so far and there already 13 plot threads in play, one way or another. The following are just two examples which I think may be relevent to the discussion at hand.

Plot thread 8 - Two sessions back, one of the characters whose background includes a heart wrenching stint in the UN was in the midst of a tense negotiation with some factory workers when she noticed a group of young children hanging around the dangerous area the negotiations were taking place. Talking to them she discovered that they were orphans living in a decrepit orphanage close by.

Now, this was a totally improvised thing on our part. I didn't know she was going to talk to the background scenery so to speak. Furthermore she followed them to their "home" and discovered that there was some evidence that the children were being pimped out by a shadowy figure they were all afraid off.

So, now, with all this other stuff going on, this player has her own personal plot thread going on, in which she has enlisted the aid of another player. And I, who didn't even think of going down this route, have got a couple of npcs out of nowhere. And at least with this plot thread a Keyser Soze BigBad in the form of a very dangerous pimp. How, this will effect the main adventure remains to be seen.

Plot thread 11 - This has more do with the background research the players did for the campaign. In particular the player who did a lot of research in the way how the military operates within Thailand.

Now, I had already established certain military figures before play began. The players knew who the big guns were and had defined their relationships with them. But one of the players sensing that some trouble with Muslim hardliners could occur in a certain area decided to take some prudent measures (which I had not thought of) and contacted an unknown general in one of the Southern states with the aim of moving a small detachment of troops (covertly in the guise of a military parade) to a place nearby the possible trouble spot. Off course there will be complications....

So, during the game I had to create this general, whom the players had not heard of - a real shifty piece of work, with an agenda of his own - and shift the "map" dramatically in terms of which locations were in play.

Now, the only role I played in this and plot thread 8 was the npcs I created. The situations evolved from the active participation of the players...or something like that.

These could be examples of proactive play. Or at least it seems to me like examples of proactive play.

Regards,
David R

@JimBob: Whatever you call it, a distinction would have saved this thread. As predicted it went blakkiewards and now is deeply into the "If" and not the "how" again.
My life is too short for that shit. Handles would spare time. You know like in plain english...:rolleyes:

Quote from: SettembriniI command you all to use Adventure vs Thematic.

Do not accept the connotations of trad/indie. It´s a marketing win for the Forgers!

Well in this case it would serve the purpose of not including BW here. :haw:  Too bad I happen to think it's a wierd and even less useful label for the actual discussion at hand.  Anyway, off to that thread now.....

Quote from: jhkimInteresting.  Can you give some more detailed examples about how this works in practice, Elliot?  In my experience, without something concrete to riff off of, players are rarely quick to take action.  Offhand, I don't think I've ever seen a game work like this.  I think TonyLB mentioned something similar in a recent Story Games thread as the "Tyranny of the Blank Slate". I'd buy there are ways around it, but I'm not sure how they work.

Actually my second case was basically giving lip-service to the method of encouraging proactivity which seems to be endorsed in a number of Forge-style games and glosses of them. I'm thinking especially of Sorcerer, though my actual experience has been with (a tiny bit of) Polaris and a full game of The Mountain Witch. (The latter offers small-scale proactivity inside a mission-based scenario.) Based on those, I find the method pretty much antithetical to the feel of an external game world, but it meets the basic goal of enabling proactivity even while having the player act completely through the character (i.e. without use of out of character tools to influence the game world).

I think it might be possible to achieve a more "immersive" feel (that is a sense of an external world), though, if the GM operates with a strong vision of pre-existing facts, but the combination of PC competence and GM modulation of opposition is such that the PC(s) can't really screw up, in a strategic sense. So if the player maneuvers his PC into a confrontation with an evil sorcerer, we assume the PC knows what he/she is doing. Whether the player then describes the PC (a) sneakily ambushing the sorcerer, (b) brawnily hewing through his minions, or (c) magically overcoming him is basically an expression of the character's nature according to the player's vision, and we assume that the character is always smart or lucky enough not to step into a situation where s/he's hopelessly outclassed.

But I think this is outside of what Balbinus is looking for. I think if handled right, it could be a lot of fun. But I mainly described the method so as to draw a contrast with a method that's more "world as simulative model".

@Jeff: I made a new thread

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4715

Quote from: Settembrini@JimBob: Whatever you call it, a distinction would have saved this thread. As predicted it went blakkiewards and now is deeply into the "If" and not the "how" again.
My life is too short for that shit. Handles would spare time. You know like in plain english...:rolleyes:

So long as our labels are plain English, yes. If we make up new words (like "proactive"), or give new meanings to old words (like "Incoherent"), then we just get into endless arguments about what the word actually means. If we stick to everyday words with commonly-agreed meanings, then we can step around the "let's define our terms... no wait, that's a bad definition" bullshit, and get down to discussing the actual issues.

This could have been a thread talking about how to make quiet or reactive players more active. It could have been talking about how to have more interesting, fun and satisfying game sessions. Instead it went semantic on us, and instead is not really about anything.

Edit: though if you are going to invent new words and phrases, "the thread went blakkiewards" is a fucking funny one. Unfortunately no-one outside the forum would understand it, though. A bit like Forger jargon, really...

QuoteThis could have been a thread talking about how to make quiet or reactive players more active.

At least I thought this thread actually wasn´t about that either.

Quote from: blakkieWell in this case it would serve the purpose of not including BW here. :haw:  Too bad I happen to think it's a wierd and even less useful label for the actual discussion at hand.  Anyway, off to that thread now.....

LOL, stupid double negatives. I editted out one half of the double negative in my post and forgot about the other half. There, now it's fixed. :)

Quote from: JimBobOzIf we make up new words (like...)

Proactive (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proactive)

Don't you hate on-line dictionaries? :)

Quote from: JimBobOzSo long as our labels are plain English, yes. If we make up new words (like "proactive"), or give new meanings to old words (like "Incoherent"), then we just get into endless arguments about what the word actually means.

Er, that is a plain English word, used in its normal sense, at least within my essay.  The dictionary definition is:

Quoteadjective
1. descriptive of any event or stimulus or process that has an effect on events or stimuli or processes that occur subsequently; "proactive inhibition"; "proactive interference" [ant: retroactive]
2. (of a policy or person or action) controlling a situation by causing something to happen rather than waiting to respond to it after it happens

where here I was talking about #2.  

The usage is important because "reactive" is not the same as "inactive".  You can have a fun game where the PCs are doing lots of stuff where the PCs are still reactive.  They may be picking up on GM hooks and bangs, and enthusiastically pursuing them.  That is "active" but not "proactive".

Johnny-come-latelies!

Ned

"Proactive" is a tautogical nonsense, like "irregardless".

It's also a management buzzword, and therefore using it will turn off readers right from the start - at least, readers who've ever worked in an office and met management and HR people - and that's a majority of the sorts of people who read articles online, so there you go.

People don't say it in everyday conversation. They say "active", instead, and everyone knows what they mean.

In general, though, John Kim expresses himself in very well-written and plain English. This is just his one tiny flaw, this "proactive", like the whiteheaded pimple on the face of a handsome man. Pop it! Then your handsomeness will be unmarred.

FFS, it's not: it is the antonym of reactive and 100% totally, correctly used in this thread. Face it dude, you are wrong. If this was rpg.net we'd all be posting pictures of zebras by now.

However:

(http://www.btinternet.com/~mark.dear/carterdocks.jpg)

"You're a big man, but you're in bad shape. With me, it's a full-time job. Now behave yourself"

Ned

Ned wins the thread for quoting from Get Carter in a thread about proactive players...

Regards,
David R

Heh! (I love that movie, btw. Great soundtrack, too.)

Ned

Proactive is a stupid word, and its use a sign of a little corner of semi-literacy in your soul. Nonetheless, Ned wins the thread, as David R said.

Quote from: JimBobOzProactive is a stupid word, and its use a sign of a little corner of semi-literacy in your soul. Nonetheless, Ned wins the thread, as David R said.

JB, you're simply wrong.  Proactive and reactive are both ways of being active, proactive is not simply another word for active.

Learn the fucking language dude.