Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8597121" data-attributes="member: 6696971">On the concern of "the people I (you) play with," here are some thoughts to supplement what others have said to you already.  My take is that these games are not a problem for introverted people at all (I've GMed for several introverts).  However, there is a subtype of introvert who will be (1) below in which this game can be a problem for.  Here are 3 player traits that can be a problem for Story Now games like most (but not all...some of them, like Monster of the Week, have a fair amount of "Trad DNA") PBtA games:(1)  Passive players who have either the internal wiring or have uploaded the software patch that predisposes them to behave as though they believe they should be participating in a metaplot of the GM/module's construction and implementation.  These games are the antithesis of both passive participation and a metaplot of the GM/module's construction and implementation.  While these games are not remotely GM-less (they require extremely deft, conscientious GMing at every moment of play), the requirement of players is what is most unique.  They have to bring both creative energy and purpose as well as flexibility and the understanding that they need to be curious participants.  These aren't games where you bring in a conception of character and ruthlessly work to map it onto play nor are these games where the GM is looking to fulfill some kind of power fantasy...quite the opposite.  These are games where you (the player) have some ideas of who this PC might be, advocate for those ideas thematically, the GM frames thematically appropriate obstacles which oppose the dramatic needs of your character...and we all find out who your character is.(2)  Players whose cognitive biases (this is typically a combination of a particular type of mental model that is groomed over the course of decades + an internal wiring that predisposes them toward that mental model) impose upon them an insistence for granular process simulation at each moment of play.  Genre logic + game conceit logic + a certain type of abstraction/zoom = frustration for these types of players.  A rare few players of this archetype can toggle out of this.  Most can't.  These games are centered around genre logic + game conceit logic + a certain type of abstraction/zoom...so take that into your calculus as the handling of the 7-9 result and the 6- result (so 75 % of play) is premised upon these things.(3)  Players whose mental framework predisposes them toward perceiving success with complications (the 7-9 result) in a "glass-half-empty" rather than a "glass-half-full" sort of way.  From the players side, you can aptly describe these games as "spinning plates."  You're managing a collection of accreting fictional parameters and new stuff that will fill your life with thematically/genre-appropriate adventure/danger/struggle/discovery.  You have a huge amount of capability (equal parts playbook + PC build design + integration with game engine/principles of play) to bear this load...but if you're a "glass-half-empty" type and "a lot of emergent stuff continuously happening > resolving > happening again" makes you feel overwhelmed?  Story Now games of the PBtA type are probably not the game for you.[HR][/HR]So if those are traits that your group possess, I would suggest you have a very frank thought on this yourself...and have a very honest interrogation with your players on the issue.  If you/they can convince yourselves that (1) - (3) aren't ossified traits that can't be toggled off or made sufficiently malleable to enjoy themselves...have a go and enjoy!But if those (1) to (3) traits are bedrock features of any/all of them and exposure to this kind of play is likely to trigger them rather than soften/change them, then you should stay away because the player in question is likely to have a bad time.EDIT - On the bright side, I think the tendency to assume that these traits above overwhelm the playerbase and/or the players who possess them are incapable of becoming malleable/developing a toggle after exposure to new concepts is overblown.  As a singular point of data, I've introduced (meaning "GMed games for") dozens of players (probably approaching 40) who are mostly of a trad orientation/past to these games in the last half-decade.  Only two of them didn't enjoy themselves; one was trait (3) above and the other was trait (2).  I think overwhelmingly the "trait (1) archetype" is a social construction (due to a deep history of play experience that "put and kept them on their back foot or passive" and they've just uploaded that software patch) and they are trivially the most capable of resolving this new paradigm of play while at the table.</blockquote>

Verification