Trying to Describe "Narrative-Style Gameplay" to a Current Player in Real-World Terms

[pemerton]

If the goal of these discussions was to improve gaming it would be using English.

I've improved my RPGing quite a bit over the past 20 years. Other people, including posters on these boards, tell me that they have improved their RPGing too, and some of that has been as a result of discussions in which I have participated. @innerdude is one of those people - see, eg, this post: Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

I don't know why you want to stop these conversations.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure that that the OP is fundamentally a discussion about "stances."

Just to add to this: I'm pretty sure it's not!

I mean, "stance" is a pretty flexible word in English - similar to "perspective", "orientation", "disposition", etc - but to me the OP doesn't seem to be concerned with the player's perspective or orientation in any very strong sense.

It seems to be a concern with what the play of the game is about. As in, why are we all here saying this stuff together? And what sort of stuff should we be saying?

 

[Aldarc]

It seems to be a concern with what the play of the game is about. As in, why are we all here saying this stuff together? And what sort of stuff should we be saying?

Lay off the jargon! I can't follow any of this!

 

[pemerton]

The most obvious scenario (in D&D especially) is meeting town guards. PCs do something or come upon something in the street... the town guard show up and inquire what is going on (with whatever personality traits the GM gives them). For a lot of players, their first reaction is "The guards are a roadblock to what we are trying to do! Kill the guards!"

I was struck by this. It suggests an approach to play where there is little or any social or normative overlay.

To me, that sort of approach makes much more sense to be done as classic dungeon-crawling, where the social and character aspects are just a fig-leaf. (See eg the ways that White Plume Mountain, the G-series or Ghost Tower of Inverness "motivate" the action.)

It doesn't really seem to fit, once more substantial social elements of the fiction are made salient - eg town guards. Unless the town is just another "dungeon" and so there isn't really meant to be any genuine social-ness about it. (I think some video games might be a bit like this? And so maybe some RPGing too?)

 

[Pedantic]

"What sparked our conversation last week was him getting hyper-focused (to an extreme degree) on how to make money so I can make my character better."

My reading is that it doesn't seem that character motivation is the chief concern for the player. It's likely more of a post-hoc rationalization of the player's own goals, hence the reason why innerdude likely asked the aformentioned question about conflating the player's goals with the character's.

I think that reads a lot more like "I don't like the character motivations my player picked, they don't produce a loop I'm interested in." The thing I was pointing out is that any game with progression will always encourage players to assign "get better stuff/at stuff" as a character motivation, because it will inevitably support their success in pursuing any other goal.

It seems a lot less about trying to separate the player's goals from the character, than it is trying to separate the character's from the player. The ideal player in this case wants something separate from the character, and is not fundamentally motivated towards that character's success at achieving whatever they want, and thus doesn't need or necessarily want to bring all of that mechanical crunch to bear.

I don't think it's terribly surprising that a player will generally assume they share the same motivations as their character, and behave in the most success optimizing way they can as a result. It's not really about character's goals, it's about the goals of the player. They're being asked to play for something other than their character's success, and a frank discussion of "I want you to try and get this out of the game, maximize for this thing" is more likely to help than any analysis of what the character's motivation is.

 

[pemerton]

"What sparked our conversation last week was him getting hyper-focused (to an extreme degree) on how to make money so I can make my character better."

My reading is that it doesn't seem that character motivation is the chief concern for the player. It's likely more of a post-hoc rationalization of the player's own goals, hence the reason why innerdude likely asked the aformentioned question about conflating the player's goals with the character's.

I think that reads a lot more like "I don't like the character motivations my player picked, they don't produce a loop I'm interested in."

Given that @innerdued "loved" @Aldarc's post, I'm confident that Aldarc's description of the situation is accurate.

any game with progression will always encourage players to assign "get better stuff/at stuff" as a character motivation, because it will inevitably support their success in pursuing any other goal.

This isn't universally true.

Suppose, for example, that progression in the game is - in the fiction - taken to be luck or divine blessings or increased self-resolve. It often won't make sense for a protagonist to aspire to being luckier, or more blessed - these are things that are "by-products" of aspiring to other things, such as things that might lead a hero to being blessed, or gaining in self-resolve.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@innerdude

Interesting OP! Giving it some thought, I think a possible way to handle the situation would be in game in some way. Does the player’s character have any social connections? Anything along those lines you could use to maybe get your point across?

If he’s very mercenary in his approach, give him something else to care for. It worked for Han Solo, it worked for the Mandolorian. Figure out a Baby Yoda for him. Put the Baby Yoda at odds with his quest for more stuff… see what he decides the character does. See how that affects him and the other characters.

Help him find things in the game about which he can care. It’s hard to make a suggestion more specific without more details, and I’m sure you’ve thought of this, but beyond having the discussion you had with him, it’s what seems the next step to me.

It's only efficient if it's understandable.

It’s all understandable. Sometimes, it just takes a little effort. Usually, just asking the person what they mean.

This idea that jargon is this impenetrable obstacle is just tiresome. It’s a discussion board… exchanging ideas is what it’s for.

If you don’t like jargon… or more specifically as it seems from the many anti-jargon complaints, jargon not derived from D&D and its wargaming influences… you can just ignore it.

Alternatively, if someone uses a bit of jargon with which you’re unfamiliar, you can ask them what they mean. Most of the time from what I’ve seen here, they’ll happily tell you.

Contrary to many complaints, the use of jargon is not an attempt to shut down discussion, but an attempt to make sure folks are all on the same page. It’s done to clarify and enhance discussion.

I've improved my RPGing quite a bit over the past 20 years. Other people, including posters on these boards, tell me that they have improved their RPGing too, and some of that has been as a result of discussions in which I have participated. @innerdude is one of those people - see, eg, this post: Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

I don't know why you want to stop these conversations.

Add me to that list! My gaming has benefitted greatly from my time here, and through people sharing their ideas and those of others. I’ve learned a lot, by folks explaining things to me, but also just by being forced to really examine my games and methods.

Having a vocabulary for a lot of these things has really helped. I’m not even a heavy user of jargon myself, but that doesn’t matter… it doesn't change that it’s helped me a great deal.

 

[Pedantic]

Given that @innerdued "loved" @Aldarc's post, I'm confident that Aldarc's description of the situation is accurate.

My post is a reading of the conflict, not a disputation of @innerdude's report. Obviously, I have no special insight into either party.

This isn't universally true.

Suppose, for example, that progression in the game is - in the fiction - taken to be luck or divine blessings or increased self-resolve. It often won't make sense for a protagonist to aspire to being luckier, or more blessed - these are things that are "by-products" of aspiring to other things, such as things that might lead a hero to being blessed, or gaining in self-resolve.

Unless you're describing a game that accretes progression strictly to the player but not the character I'm not sure that actually much matters. It would be trickier to consistently portray a character in such a game while sharing their goals as a player. You'd need to pretend ignorance of whatever action would most effectively lead to improvement, if it's a precondition of the setting that characters cannot understand the underlying progression mechanism (even through an abstract proxy, like wealth usually works out to be in most games). Honestly, I think play would get a little degenerate, in that you'd essentially be looking for ways to justify making the "correct" decision from the character's perspective.

The fundamental ask in this situation seems to be the same; the player should not share the character's goals and play in pursuit of something other than the character's success.

 

[pemerton]

Unless you're describing a game that accretes progression strictly to the player but not the character I'm not sure that actually much matters. It would be trickier to consistently portray a character in such a game while sharing their goals as a player. You'd need to pretend ignorance of whatever action would most effectively lead to improvement, if it's a precondition of the setting that characters cannot understand the underlying progression mechanism (even through an abstract proxy, like wealth usually works out to be in most games). Honestly, I think play would get a little degenerate, in that you'd essentially be looking for ways to justify making the "correct" decision from the character's perspective.

The fundamental ask in this situation seems to be the same; the player should not share the character's goals and play in pursuit of something other than the character's success.

In practice, I have not experienced the sorts of problems you predict.

States that are essentially [as in, necessarily] by-products are an interesting phenomenon outside the context of RPGing: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/053901848102000301

As Elster's paper shows, there are very interesting things to be said about these states, from the point of view of philosophy of action, social psychology and social theory. But they are not normally very mysterious in practice.

 

[Kannik]

In this case, the specific instance was, they had defeated a group of nexu (the ferocious wild animal/cat things that appear in SW Episode II) that had been cybernetically enhanced.

I think I've run that adventure...

Obviously not quoted word-for-word, but the substance is mostly there, I hope. But I'm curious if others out there might have approached this conversation differently, even if (or perhaps especially if) the game in question isn't Star Wars: Edge of the Empire.

This has been a fascinating thread for me to read through. Introducing players to something new and outside of their previous gaming experience (no matter what direction that might be) is a task unique to each player, and can be even more tricky if their experiences are heavily weighted to non-tabletop-RPGs (whether board games, wargames, sports, CRPGs, etc) where getting better for the sake of getting better is a core (and can be fun) loop.

For my own group we kinda organically expanded our range of games and game types to include more games that de-emphasized character power growth to lean more heavily into character character growth & story making. The first of two things I would say that made it 'easier' for us in going that way was knowing we were doing so. So, in the case of introducing players to this style of gaming, it would be to up front introduce that this is a different game intent and gaming loop and letting them all give it a try (and I think many of the metaphors posted in this thread already can be great bridges to guide them as they explore the new playstyle).

The second was that we dove headfirst into that kind of game, leapfrogging any games that might have straddled the two or taking small steps in that direction. That prevented any distraction with any familiar bits of or temptation to get caught up in that power growth/optimization loop. Plus the scenarios are generally geared in such a way that its safer to play out vulnerabilities or to not have to focus on pure combat effectiveness. Or it's a game where you know you'll fail, and that in of itself can be liberating as well. We also gave ourselves permission to take a while to get it and to have it be awkward for a bit.

And I agree that this is also to a large degree system agnostic. As others have noted already, coming from your character vs you as the player's motivations is a skill that can be developed and engaged with no matter the system, if that's your thing. The game system may not be geared to it or 'reward' it, but if the GM is willing to work with and incorporate it (and not 'punish' it) along with the players, it's doable and rewarding. Our group plays a variety of games that could be categorized in many different ways, and no matter the game we pretty much always are keeping that character focus at the forefront. So I guess all our games, no matter the game, straddle those lines.