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

[hawkeyefan]

You don't it's helpful to consider the possibility that the player, once they understand what the OP means by narrative play, might simply not be interested in giving up the kind of play they're used to entirely? If the situation was reversed and I was trying to explain my playstyle to a player that was playing a different way than I want in my campaign I would certainly want to keep that idea in mind.

If the question is “how can I effectively explain X to this person” then no, I don’t think it’s helpful to comment on what the person will do after they understand X. It’s jumping way ahead.

I mean, if the player isn’t interested in the offered type of play… we kind of know the potential answers to that.

If you started a thread about teaching someone traditional play, I would not jump in and start saying “well what if they might like another form of play”. I’d think such comments would be counter productive to the stated purpose of the thread.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the question is “how can I effectively explain X to this person” then no, I don’t think it’s helpful to comment on what the person will do after they understand X. It’s jumping way ahead.

I mean, if the player isn’t interested in the offered type of play… we kind of know the potential answers to that.

If you started a thread about teaching someone traditional play, I would not jump in and start saying “well what if they might like another form of play”. I’d think such comments would be counter productive to the stated purpose of the thread.

Fair enough. I would never have a problem with you jumping in there, because it's a fair point I would address.

 

[Emberashh]

If the question is “how can I effectively explain X to this person” then no, I don’t think it’s helpful to comment on what the person will do after they understand X. It’s jumping way ahead.

I mean, if the player isn’t interested in the offered type of play… we kind of know the potential answers to that.

If you started a thread about teaching someone traditional play, I would not jump in and start saying “well what if they might like another form of play”. I’d think such comments would be counter productive to the stated purpose of the thread.

I think the disconnect is that this isn't just teaching someone about a different playstyle but about trying to make them play differently cause the GM vocally doesn't like how they play or the kinds of games that cater to that preference.

This is generally why I think all this playstyle talk is counterproductive, and often seems to be a sidestep from just acknowledging that you don't like the game you're playing but you're, for whatever reason, forcing yourself to play it. Some people, I think, have long since gone past the point where they just shouldn't be a part of a particular gaming group if the preferences have grown that divided.

As others said throughout the topic, its pretty clear somebody just isn't compatible with the group, and while picking the right game (ie, not the one they picked) might alleviate that incompatibility, its still fundamentally there.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think the disconnect is that this isn't just teaching someone about a different playstyle but about trying to make them play differently cause the GM vocally doesn't like how they play or the kinds of games that cater to that preference.

This is generally why I think all this playstyle talk is counterproductive, and often seems to be a sidestep from just acknowledging that you don't like the game you're playing but you're, for whatever reason, forcing yourself to play it. Some people, I think, have long since gone past the point where they just shouldn't be a part of a particular gaming group if the preferences have grown that divided.

As others said throughout the topic, its pretty clear somebody just isn't compatible with the group, and while picking the right game (ie, not the one they picked) might alleviate that incompatibility, its still fundamentally there.

While that’s possible, we don’t know if the conflicting approaches of player and GM will remain. That’s the point of the thread… is how can @innerdude try and bridge that gap.

It’s quite possible that the player could eventually understand the differences and could adjust to better fit with the expectations of play. And maybe he’ll wind up loving it. We don’t know.

I don’t agree with the sentiment that a conflict of playstyle means absolute incompatibility between participants. People learn and grow and change all the time. People like multiple things.

 

[Emberashh]

I don't think any conflict thats ultimately rooted in "what you like sucks and I am so over it" is something that can be overcome with teaching without undermining how that'd have to work.

 

[Staffan]

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. And if you've played the FFG Star Wars system, you know that while there is a decent and fun gear mini-game built in, with extensive upgrades and component building, etc., it's really just a fun nice-to-have. It's not a core part of the gameplay loop in any particular sense, other than it does give the residual min-maxers something to idle on from time to time.

I'm going to Devil's Advocate a little here. Could it be that the reason the player is pursuing power upgrades is that they feel their character is underpowered?

I mean, look at A New Hope. The PCs clearly are Leia, Luke, and Han. These characters are really badass.

Leia faces down Grand Moff Tarkin, and successfully bluffs him into believing the Rebel Base is on Dantooine (even though it doesn't help Alderaan). She faces down Darth Effin' Vader, and resists his torture droids. And once she's out of her cell, she is kicking all sorts of butt against the Stormtroopers who previously held her captive.

Luke might start out a bit whiny, but he soon finds his footing. He's the one who gets Han Solo to tag along on the Leia rescue mission, he does an admirable job shooting down pursuing TIE fighters, and of course he's the one who places the one-in-a-million shot that kills the Death Star.

And Han Solo is a stone cold badass. He deals with bounty hunters like Greedo like it ain't no thang, he's done the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs, and he outmaneuvers tiny little fighter ships that are basically just engines with guns in his big honkin' space truck.

Starting characters in Edge are... not that. I mean, they're OK, but they're not Han Solo or Leia Organa. Could it be that your player just wants to get strong enough that they feel they can do the kind of stuff Han Solo does?

"Doyleist," as best as I can tell, is not a term that comes from the Forge or TTRPG jargon.

It's a term that originates in Sherlock Holmes discourse, with its counterpart being Watsonian. Basically, if you ask why something happens in a Sherlock Holmes story, you will get a different answer depending on if you're asking John Watson, the fictional narrator who will give you an answer within the narrative, or Arthur Conan Doyle, the actual author who will tell you why he chose to write the story that way.

Essentially, Doylist means out-of-universe and Watsonian means in-universe.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think any conflict thats ultimately rooted in "what you like sucks and I am so over it" is something that can be overcome with teaching without undermining how that'd have to work.

I don’t think that’s how the discussion was presented to the player in question, even if @innerdude shared those kinds of thoughts with us. From his summary of the conversation and the way he approached it, it seems like a topic he approached with tact, and from a place of being concerned about the game.

 

[niklinna]

You don't it's helpful to consider the possibility that the player, once they understand what the OP means by narrative play, might simply not be interested in giving up the kind of play they're used to entirely? If the situation was reversed and I was trying to explain my playstyle to a player that was playing a different way than I want in my campaign I would certainly want to keep that idea in mind.

Well, I haven't seen any responses helping with that particular outcome.

In any case, @innerdude's goal would have been achieved: The player would understand where he's coming from. And if the player walks, that's a better outcome than them continuing to work at cross purposes.

 

[niklinna]

Maybe Im reading things that are not there? I;ve seen a few folks pushing back on the OP for not allowing stuff collection in a game that has a lot of stuff. Though, I think the intention was to convince the player that the game has more than a singular purpose of collecting stuff.

It wasn't about not allowing stuff collection. I was about how the player was going about it—ripping apart the remains of a cybernetic creature and going after loot and gear—and with no other purpose than to increase numbers on a sheet. Part of @innerdude's response to that player about what his options were to provide challenges was very much something I've seen more trad GMs do: "Oh you are going after this thing (that provides numbers)? Well I am going to make it more numerically difficult/expensive for you to get it!" No goals, no principles, no values being challenged, just stats on items.

And so @innerdude explained to his player a different way he could approach things. He didn't present it in terms of what would just provide himself more enjoyment, either, but the player.

As @kenada mentioned, the game itself putting implicit (if not explicit) emphasis on collecting stuff with numbers is a problem with the game itself. @innerdude was explaining one way he dealt with that, given that the problem did indeed crop up.

 

[Emberashh]

I don’t think that’s how the discussion was presented to the player in question

It doesn't matter if thats still where they're coming from; the attempt is already tainted. No methodology is going to mask that the motivation here isn't rooted in making things more fun for the player, but in convincing them to give up something they clearly enjoy so the GM can have more fun.

And as an aside, I cannot imagine OP appreciates being tagged several posts in a row, so Id say cool it?