An Interesting Comparison Between Approaches

[Hussar]

MerricB has a fantastic thread started over here at Random Post with a Cave Neat idea.

Reading through, something struck me immediately about the approaches players take to this sort of thing. Compare these two posts:

Hm, does it seem like the grooves have been made or used recently?

What am I wearing? What time of day is it? What kind of weather?

I stay still, but ready to defend myself if needed. I keep my breath. I blink my eyes, thinking that I may be able to see more clearly in some moments. I wont attack unless attacked, but if something attacks me I will either throw the spear, and draw the dagger if it is still in my belt, or use the spear and my fists. I will try not to move too much though, I don't want to cause an other fall.

Now, first off, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with either approach. Please, don't think I'm trying to say one is better. But, I do find that these two illustrate two very different approaches to gaming.

MattColville takes a very traditional approach. Instead of assuming anything, he asks the DM for more information. The DM is the source of all facts in the game world and the player then uses those facts to come up with a plan of action.

OTOH, anest1s makes presumptions. He has a spear and a belt and a dagger, none of which were specified previously. He didn't ask if he had these things, he simply assumed that he did and handed these facts to the DM. This is a much more "new school" approach to gaming where the divide between player and DM is blurrier than before. The player has editorial control over the world - at least in a limited fashion - and can add details to the narrative without the DM's permission.

To me, it was very interesting to see these two approaches juxtaposed one on top of the other in the thread.

Something I would like to see more of in DMing advice, and perhaps player advice as well, is a clearer description of these two approaches, which approach a given game intends to take, and what to do when the two approaches clash.

After all, I've seen DM's get very intense when the player starts adding in details without asking. OTOH, I've seen players fumble and stumble around because they're looking to the DM to provide more details instead of coming up with their own.

 

[Wik]

Yeah, that cave thread is really very cool in what it's showing about playstyles. What I really like is how Merric's entire situation changes depending on who he is "playing" with (definitely something I'm guilty of!)

For what it's worth, I prefer the "new school" approach where Players can assume control of the setting. That being said, my games inevitably turn into "old school" because my players are usually rather laid back and don't like taking charge of things in that manner. When I game, I am definitely a "new school" player, often creating things for the campaign setting relevant to my character - new organizations, fashion trends, and everything else. Because I'm strange like that.

 

[mattcolville]

I thought exactly the same thing. It was frankly amazing how that thread instantly became a litmus test of play style, psychology.

It's worth noting that those two styles of play were equally in evidence even at the table in 1986 when I started.

 

[Hussar]

Mattcolville - oh, totally agree. I think that what I called "new school" isn't all that new, but, I do think it's a bit, erm, newer than traditional play.

If that makes sense.

What I do wish though is more time would be spent educating DM's on the differences, how to recognize those differences and what to do when groups display these differences.

Heck, there's people on this board who claim that player editorial control causes an RPG to stop being an RPG and become a "story" game. That's pretty extreme, IMO.

 

[Janx]

i added to the cave thread late, so I got to see the different approaches, including the one where they got back in their ship, and nuked the site from orbit.

To me, since it was obvious that Merric would accept preconditions set by the player, I could make up what I wanted. So I set mine in the modern time, and I've got 3 friends with me, one of which is a deputy, so he has a gun.

But the city is still about to get blown up, and I still have to face a lizard man.

I'm also trying to give Merric a set of options, my main choice of action, with some IF statement to imply what I'll do if that doesn't work. Basically showing my intent, not just command for my avatar.

Speaking of which, I've got to see if I've got a dead lizard man yet, or a new ally

 

[Thasmodious]

My real introduction to a more shared narrative approach came with play-by-post games out of necessity. This conversation:

DM: You take a seat at a table in the tavern and look around [description]
PC: I look for a waitress
DM: You spot one she's [desription]
PC: I call her over to order a drink.
DM: "Whatddya have?"
PC: whiskey and information

takes just a few seconds at the table but in a pbp game would take a few days unless the DM and player are sitting at their PCs at the time. I played in and ran pbp games where the DM, more out of necessity ceded some narrative control in the name of expediency.

I noticed, though, that player buy in increased when the players had a hand in shaping the world around them, it made it more alive and the players interacted more with the environment rather than it being just being the backdrop. I started telling my tabletop group to make more assumptions about the game world, especially for flavor and in ordinary situations, like a tavern or shop. We still play more of a "traditional" look to the DM approach, but more tempered and with better player buy in.

 

[lin_fusan]

In mattcolville's defense, not that anyone is criticizing him, but I think in this context, his questions make sense, because he's trying to establish the context, both in-game and meta-game.

Merric's initial post is so vague, it might be hard for anyone to figure out what they want to happen. My questions would have been "who am I", "why am I here", "what's my motivation to explore the cave".

I recently played a game of Apocalypse World, a story game by Vincent Baker, and evidently, the GM is supposed to be constantly asking probing questions, forcing the player to define the world.

One example was (my character was the driver of the group, with a armored school bus), "Does your bus have flood lights? Do you keep them on?" Since I was playing my character as a grumpy old loner, I said that I wouldn't have lights, because why would I want other people to know where I was, even though it was not benefiting the other players who, at the time, needed to see what was out in the dark stalking them.

Another question was "Does anyone else have keys to your bus?" And I answered, "Hell, no!" Since my character loved his bus more than other people.

It's an interesting way to get player narrative control, but because it's the GM that's asking the question, he/she is making a point to focus on certain things in the game world. I think at one point, he asked a player if "is it OK that your teammate is feeding this biker to a cannibal?" which was a pointed way to start an inter-party conflict. I thought the potential was awesome!

 

[Redcrow]

I don't have a problem with players taking a bit of narrative license so long as there are some understood guidelines and boundaries to whatever they may add to the scene. I think more players would be willing to add some narrative input if there were some type of codified guidelines/boundaries of what is acceptable for a player to add.

I try to encourage players to add a bit of narrative to their characters adding in details when/where appropriate to help everyone better visualize them. Typically, I think most games begin with each player giving a brief description of their character as they are introduced and shortly after those details are forgotten. By reaffirming those details from time to time can help to maintain a better visual image of the character and the scene.

Additionally I try to use and encourage the use of 3rd person when narrating PCs/NPCs. When the player sitting to my left says something like "I draw my sword", its a little more difficult for me to envision the character instead of the player performing the action. By using a 3rd person narrative "Hank draws his sword", its much easier for me to conjure up an image of the character. It may seem a trivial difference, but it has really changed my games for the better since I began using it. I also think it is a little easier to add narrative elements to the character when describing things in the 3rd person. YMMV.

 

[Janx]

I don't have a problem with players taking a bit of narrative license so long as there are some understood guidelines and boundaries to whatever they may add to the scene. I think more players would be willing to add some narrative input if there were some type of codified guidelines/boundaries of what is acceptable for a player to add.

I agree. Boundaries is the tricky one. Generally, if I'm running a serious world, I'd prefer that players not make up silly stuff. I'd also like that they not contradict anything I've already set in motion that i can't resolve behind the scenes easily.

In Merric's game, I invented 3 extra henchmen (not NPCs) as my friends at a park, where we discovered the cave. I saw one other player do that.

Like the Aliens player, I declared a setting, namely, a park within view of Houston (an area I know), and put us in the modern era. That doesn't contradict his cave, or the stuff falling from the sky. So, Merric seems cool with it.

Odds are good, what Merric is doing is saying "Yes, you do/can try to do that, this is what happens next" to anything we say.

In my game, I've declared relatively little action. I suspect I could declare a bunch of stuff I got done, and he might allow it. However, I've been wary, as for each thing I want to do, I need more information before I commit.

For instance, I plan on going out to the truck. But in another game, it's burning outside the cave. it might not be safe to go to the truck. So I don't want to blindly issue a go to the truck order only to be burnt.

Speaking of which, I need to see what happens next.

 

[Oryan77]

The player has editorial control over the world - at least in a limited fashion - and can add details to the narrative without the DM's permission.

I've been accused of being a bad DM and being a "controlling" DM because I didn't let a player tell me how the world worked. Even when I explained that I don't DM that way, it didn't matter to this player. I prefer that a player ask me more questions or make a suggestion rather than impose on me how the world works around their PC.

I don't even have a problem when they do take editorial control. But if I correct them and say, "Oh sorry, that won't work", I don't appreciate it if they argue with me. That's pretty much what a person did to me and that's when I learned that some DMs allow players to have complete editorial control over the game world.

I've added history into our campaign because a player requested it for their character creation. But I've also denied requests for content because it didn't work with my idea of the world (and then the player(s) condemned me for it). I suppose that makes me controlling, but I don't see that as being a bad thing. I see it as being my job as a DM.