tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Feb 18, 2015 15:27:24 GMT -8
I met up with Matt Smith this last Strategicon, an UPSTANDING gentlemen I've played with before. And since then I have read his post about "Honest Gaming" (he self-admits it may not be the best term here) defined in his article here: www.playtofindout.blogspot.com/2015/02/honest-gaming-death-of-gm-screen.htmlMy summary of his article is: Based on the premise that 1. Players hate to be duped, 2. Players love to participate, and 3. Players have great ideas, he has started his games with sharing what prep he's performed with the players, including little things like: And he goes on to say: Sounds amazing. A conversation around this approach would be great, including any really cool examples of when something like this worked really well, but also where you think this might not work (like when the premises are wrong, such as a situation where the player would like to be duped). Additional note for those not reading the article and then jumping to say that some systems do aspects of this already: I will mention that he uses Dungeon World, and that some of the approach of his games (especially the con games he ran this last time) is to come in with zero to minimal prep that is recommended with that system. The system itself advocates that the scenario shouldn't really be created prior to the PCs being created and involved in that process. (Something I know the HJ hosts have alluded to as well in numerous conversations.) But it seems like he's taken it a little further than that.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Feb 18, 2015 22:18:08 GMT -8
Well, I'd hate it. I do not like to be duped, and I bring what appears, in the vocal hobby mainstream here, to be "a metric shit tonne" of trust to the game (whatever role in the game I play). I prefer to play system blind; being that social guy who asks questions of the GM rather than picks up dice all the time. [You know, Stu Venable, the guy the GM appreciates but the other players/optimized builds think is taking time away from getting on with it.] I see no place for me to insert myself into the game tomes describes. Maybe this is the furthest extension of the system player security blanket comfort zone I have ever read – aside from PC death being the GM’s “story-furtherance” call rather than as a consequence of dumb player agency/luck (game). If I know the story of a film or a book, I might read it anyways just to appreciate the auteur’s technique relating the story. Knowing the story might actually make me want to engage with the artist’s art. But, since I am one of the actors within the story at the tabletop, the game becomes a pointless self-congratulatory exercise: my listening to the GM’s brilliant idea dims my excitement in the game. This goes way beyond reading the synopsis on the back of a module and getting player buy-in. I am VERY interested in hearing how this topic gets hashed out. I would be interested in reading the Show Topic Thread afterwards too. The trollfaces here make me feel unwelcome, ostracized and well outside the hobby; though just how far outside the hobby mainstream I cannot know sitting so far away from home. This discussion would go a long way to answer that question I think. I second tomes’ suggestion.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Feb 19, 2015 1:14:16 GMT -8
I have to agree with CreativeCowboy that the provided example seems to spoil the mystery a bit. However it does do at least two things that I like: 1. it gets everyone on the same page as to what the adventure will be, in a broad sense; 2. it helps the players make characters who would get involved in the suggested adventure; It does feel a bit like reading the synopsis of a book or a film and then trying to watch or read the media with fresh eyes. But in this case, if the characters know they're being set up right from the beginning, then the interesting part of the story will happen after they get back. The focus doesn't seem like it would be on the setup, but on what happens because of the setup. I don't see how this becomes a "pointless self-congratulatory exercise" where the players "listening to the GM’s brilliant idea dims my excitement in the game". At least not any more than any other game that has been planned out by the GM beforehand. I also don't see how this has anything at all to do with system CreativeCowboy.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Feb 19, 2015 6:07:38 GMT -8
Yeah, the whole Honest Gaming title is at best pretentious, and at worst pretty dickish. Especially since there are a lot of flaws in his argument. It's not that player's hate being duped. It's that they hate being duped with no clues what-so-ever for them to discover it, and try to prevent it. Hell, even the game he's citing (Monster of the Week) doesn't suggest this approach. And there is a reason for it. Because it spoils the mystery. Continuing with the MotW examples. The twists are in finding out who the werewolf is, in discovering why the ghost haunts the old mansion, in learning what diabolical plan the master vampire is trying to enact.
I ran a session of my Pax Imperia game where I wanted it to have the feel of a police investigation/procedural (I had been binging on Law & Order for a while due to a bout of unemployment). But I wanted to "yes and" and let the players decide who was responsible for the events. So, I decided, to keep with that theme where they investigate several leads and only one pans out, that the third theory they come up with would be the "right" one. I think it worked great, because they came up with one kinda weak theory, one decent enough theory, and finally, out of the blue came up with something that I never thought of that turned out fantastic.
Also, if he's following MotW prep suggestions, then his using 90% of his prep has more to due with it's prep light style and less to due with his "honesty".
There are a bunch of other ways to accomplish this without "spoiling" the twists and turns of the story. MotW's playbooks and Hunting Party discussion is one. Laying out the criteria in the pitch (a la Stu's "Four people stand up") is another.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Feb 19, 2015 8:12:52 GMT -8
To me this sounds to me like the concept of collaborative story telling being taken too far, at least for me.
Part of the fun of playing is, it seems to me, unraveling the reality of the fiction, exploring the rabbit hole, uncovering the motives of those around you. I love being duped, caught of guard and totally surprised.
I also like being immersed in the story.
Not for me.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Feb 19, 2015 8:21:36 GMT -8
It'd make horror games, like Call of Cthulhu, pointless . . . Given that the immersion and 'enjoyment' comes from the PC's/Players lacking control over events having very little information to guide them - unless you want to give them max Cthulhu knowledge and no sanity from the off: eg: roll up your PC, "well he's so overwhelmed by what faces him he walks straight to Arkham and books himself in to the padded room, permanently - roll another character?" Aaron
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Feb 19, 2015 9:48:46 GMT -8
To me this sounds to me like the concept of collaborative story telling being taken too far, at least for me. Part of the fun of playing is, it seems to me, unraveling the reality of the fiction, exploring the rabbit hole, uncovering the motives of those around you. I love being duped, caught of guard and totally surprised. I also like being immersed in the story. Not for me. I can see how a player could be immersed in the story of such a game as laid out, Stu Venable. It is like let us play a Star Wars re-enactment, and players play the main characters: Han, Vader, Lea, Luke; on the Red Dwarf. And, players are like scripted actors, going all Method Acting with the script with little individual variations, like my ship example. Players know what is scripted to happen, like theatre actors, so there are no surprises and (as Gygax expressed it in AD&D1e) the wonder of the game is lost. The only interaction in the whole game is within the individual player. It is a privately shared immersion, which I have experienced to be akin individual masturbatory fantasy, rather than a shared fantasy at the tabletop. In short, it is all about me…. sound familiar spotlight people? (I have played Pathfinder with such players in Poland for the worst part of 4 years.) But this immersive game play is not engrossing game play. I point out the difference in game play because I think it is an important distinction when gathering together a group of players, and identifying what do they want. The Pathfinder group could not distinguish between engrossment and immersion. So, I had to learn that the hard way – hence I stereotype all gamers and prefer new-to-hobby-players who will be more engrossed than immersed (according to my experience in Poland with mixed groups). Put metaphorically: a good scuba diver can be immersed in water without being engrossed in it. A drowning person or a scientist testing the water for impurities will be engrossed rather than immersed (though the scientist may have been immersed, may also have been engrossed in academic studies to get the degree). Put me/my PC into a room with a Sphere of Annihilation (that perennial cardinal abomination) and I will be extremely engrossed. My engrossment will reveal itself by my excitement and questioning of the GM. I do not need to know the rules of the game to be engrossed (leaving rulings to the GM, and learning the game at the table; system blind). Engrossment is system agnostic. But immersion is not. Immersion will be all about system and standardized language. It has more to do with knowing all the rules, as evidenced in character building. The thespian builds a character on paper he/she intends to play at the table: the gimped narcoleptic sniper with the appropriate disads, for example. The optimizer certainly does likewise, although not to play a gimped character. Despite their differences, even despite the fact one of them might play Farmville on their mobile phone during the game, these players are immersed. The immersed player can simply say: I roll perception. The two styles are not mutually exclusive but.... well that's another thought I have rattling around my head for when baby is asleep and I am caught up on my work. This was merely a good opportunity to point out what I believe is the characteristic difference between an immersed player and an engrossed player. I favour one over the other because that's the system I play. ps. The Method Acting link is a 45 minute video cued to the definition. The entire video has application to the system of role-playing that demands first person interaction over social skill checks. Again, another thought for another time maybe.
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Feb 19, 2015 10:23:36 GMT -8
...But in this case, if the characters know they're being set up right from the beginning, then the interesting part of the story will happen after they get back. The focus doesn't seem like it would be on the setup, but on what happens because of the setup. Which is exactly what I think is interesting about this type of play. No, it isn't what you want if you'd want to surprise your players with the setup, but if you just want a good story, and can sacrifice this little bit ahead of time, it does ensure everyone's on roughly the same page, and it doesn't necessarily mean there aren't good surprises to be had from the game. I agree that for a game that relies on the surprise (perhaps some mystery or CoC scenarios) this wouldn't work in the same way, but still I can see it quite useful in some games. But most importantly, the immediate and intense dialog, to me, indicates a good topic. :-)
|
|
|
Post by archmagezemoc on Feb 19, 2015 11:03:42 GMT -8
I do something kind of close tho I disagree with the way it's shown. At the end of the session, the group typically hangs out and finishes our beers or whatever. As a GM\Players we review the game a little bit and talk about what went well and what didn't. We go over important points, and then the PCs tell me what they want to do the next week, like what plot hook they wanna chase or what faction they plan to side with. Then I plan off of that, I typically plan by just world building tho so I typically have pretty "vague" (for lack of a better term) prep. I like the idea of it but Idk about the implementation.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Feb 19, 2015 11:08:03 GMT -8
but if you just want a good story As if everyone else isn't interested in a good story? And that to me is the fatal conceit of a lot of these sorts of theories. That somehow they distill the game down to some purer, better form. They really don't. They're just a different route to the same destination. No faster, no prettier. Just different. And don't get me wrong. If you're having fun, and your group is as well, then you're doing it right. Personally. This would drive me up a wall. But if it's working for you, the God bless and rock on.
|
|
sbloyd
Supporter
WHAT! A human in a Precursor service vehicle?!
Posts: 2,762
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller; Dresden; Mage
Favorite Species of Monkey: Goddamnit, Curious George is a CHIMP not a monkey! Stop teaching my daughter improper classification!
|
Post by sbloyd on Feb 19, 2015 12:45:32 GMT -8
Every time I get excited and say something like "Any of your characters know what a Ghoul is? That's a ghoul!" I feel like I've failed my players. I don't think I'd enjoy this style of COMPLETE exposition.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Feb 19, 2015 18:50:23 GMT -8
Finally read the article (yes, I responded without reading the article first) and after doing so, I have to echo the sentiments of the group. Giving the players the session prep sheet goes a step too far for me. It's spoiling the mystery.
I thought it was kind of weird how the author mentions he's playing Monster of the Week, but then defaults to the standard fantasy example. Why not use an example from the game being played?
|
|
fredrix
Master Douchebag
Posts: 2,142
Preferred Game Systems: Fate, L5R, Pendragon, Gumshoe, Feng Shui
Currently Playing: Pendragon, Song of Ice and Fire, L5R, Feng Shui, Traveller
Currently Running: Fate, Coriolis, Nights Black Agents
Favorite Species of Monkey: 1970's NTV, dubbed by the BBC (though The Water Margin beats it)
|
Post by fredrix on Feb 23, 2015 13:30:12 GMT -8
I've not read the original post, but your précis is a little like how Fate Core says a group should get a game together. I've only started one campaign so far wherein the players knew the "reveal" was going to be carnivourous body-snatching aliens, because that's what they had ordered. But everything else we discovered during play. I was surprised how well it worked, for a horror game especially. The game has become something else now, entirely organically as the characters, not just the players, know OF the threat but don't know who has been "replaced" .
According you your précis, perhaps I should be telling them exactly who I've decided is and alien. But actually I prefer not to know myself, until through play, we've created NPCs who might be, and others who might be red herrings.
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Feb 23, 2015 13:44:36 GMT -8
According you your précis, perhaps I should be telling them exactly who I've decided is and alien. But actually I prefer not to know myself, until through play, we've created NPCs who might be, and others who might be red herrings. I don't know that the original article advocates that you must them "who") I don't think the premise is that you must be up front about absolutely everything. Just being up front about what makes sense, and sometimes that might be more than you originally assume. I think as GMs our trap is that we sometimes assume that the PCs want to be surprised by certain pieces of information or planning, which may not be true. And sometimes testing these bounds helps us understand other methods that work. E.g. you mention how well it went given they knew one of the big "spoilers" of the game, to your surprise (so it sounded). I think that's all this is about... moving that line of expectations and requirements to try new things that might work quite well. In your case you haven't decided what who is the alien. Well, there is no reason that you necessarily need to plan that far ahead, and even when you've decided there isn't anything which says you MUST share that information either, since by now the players are bought into the scenario. However, that is a second line that can be experimented with... being up front with them on that next mystery, or having them in on it. Maybe having the PCs suggest who the alien is or agree amongst themselves who might work well (with the premise that the players have a lot to contribute to the game) and see where that goes. Is it worth doing? I don't know... could ruin the game. Or could move on to the next awesome step and surprise you that that level of honesty and communication works too. Who knows? I just think it's a great tool that can be in a GM's quiver, and with the right players and game can work wonderfully.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Feb 23, 2015 15:00:19 GMT -8
Hi guys, I'm Matt, the guy who originally wrote the blog post. I've read all the comments so far and I'd like to clear a few things up if I might. But first, thank you Tomes for sharing this with everybody here at Happy Jacks. The feedback has been remarkable and quite helpful about blindspots and assumptions I've had or made.
So, on to the good stuff.
On my own level of doucheism: My use of "honest" gaming was not intended to call other forms of gaming "dishonest" but rather to play around with the imagery of quite literally placing my cards on the table.
On "spoiling" the twists: In my experience, stories in games are either so simple that everyone has a pretty solid idea of what's going to happen next or they are so convoluted that no one cares by the time the "big reveal" happens. Either way, it comes out in the wash. There was no benefit in holding back the information. This may not be everyones experience, but I have yet to see an exception. It is such a fine line to walk. As a GM you have to be so creative that you can at once keep players on the same page and conceal the key elements so they don't spoil the reveal. You have to place your intelligence against that of your players, and for me that's not what RPG's are about.
For me, placing my simple elements on the table allows the players to pick them up, mess with them, and allows us to come up with something better. Despite how counter-intuitive it seems, placing ideas on the table actually allows for MORE surprises and twists than when they are held back. What the players, and you, get to be surprised by is all the nuance, all the questions of what, when, where, why, and how. The best part of it all is that you are placing your intelligence in line with that of your players. They are helping you make it amazing instead of "spoiling" your reveal.
On brevity: I fully agree with those of you who pointed out that my 90% prep usage is due to brevity. This is a key element of "open" or "honest" gaming. Keep it short, get excited about a few key ideas, and then let everything else go! Play to find out.
For those of you who have a distaste for this idea and are sure that you hate it, it goes too far, or worse, I just need to ask: "How do you know that?"
Not that it matters to me. I'm having a great time, but it seems like you might be cutting yourselves short without any actual experience to stand on.
Thanks again for all the comments/response. This gives me a lot to work with as I move forward.
-Matt
|
|