I keep wondering if there is a way to appeal to both types in the same game. A way to reward both types of play without demanding players all do the same thing. I've been wrestling with this a lot in my own design work as my core player group is almost evenly split and it can make games rough.
It's interesting that for the older generation of gamers (like me), there was only the immersion style of gaming. If fact, if a player tried to inject any element that wasn't within the direct purview of what their character could control, we called it "metagaming" (and that was a bad thing). Although my personal preference will always lean towards the immersion style, it's nice to see that the hobby has expanded to include different styles re: the GM and player roles.
I find that people with a decent amount of GMing experience are more likely to adopt a participation approach. A veteran GM in a player role can feel the present GM shifting the pacing gears, limiting or opening up agency at different sections and leaning into pre-written structures. The vet is more likely to connect to the adventure than their character. I GM 90% of the time but when I play I can find myself 'back-seat GMing'; not that I step on anyone's toes (I hope) but I can sometimes feel the way the GM wants the game to focus and I lean into that. Most of my fellow players are focused on their characters but I'm trying to bring the game around to the fidgety player's PC before they fireball the next room and 'reading' the GM like I try to read players when I GM.
As a GM, what techniques can be used to move a game towards the Participation approach without beginning a mini-tutorial about game design and play styles (which can make eyes glaze over, as much as I'm personally into it!)
I am finishing off a game system that has mechanics regarding a character’s narrative. I feel the choice to fail has always been a part of a good RPG. As well as simple tasks are auto success. Mr. Cook, your article is encouraging as well as insightful. Thank you.
In response to Kaleon, I think there is. Invisible Sun has several systems that bridge that gap. The player purchased story arcs that Monte mentioned for one, those are taken out of gameplay, the player is spending XP, they aren’t dictating the exact flow, just guiding the GM in terms of what they want to have happen. The XP cost of the arc keeps it from feeling arbitrary. In a larger sense the Desideratum that the party chooses at the beginning of play let’s them decide their core group motivation making sure that the GM is not just giving them a reason to do things, but giving them the right reason for their characters. Or Hidden Knowledge which is mechanically a currency that lets them buy bonuses to their roles but that had the diegetic explanation that the players have gathered a bit of information that they are using for an advantage and players are allowed but not required to say what it was. Or of course the biggest lever, that core character advancement requires failure generated ‘Despair’ as well as success generated ‘Joy’ to achieve. That doesn’t force player contribution but it encourages sub optimal play in a way that opens that door in the minds of many players.
Or in the FATE system players may choose to spend resources to declare aspects in the world. They aren’t asker to directly but they can do it to create advantage for themselves. Or more subtly by the fact that when players take actions to create an advantage rather then directly attack they win on a tie roll. That encourages them to think of ways they can change the world to make the play of others better. Sub optimal play is encouraged in an interesting way in that system as well since loss in conflict does not by default result in death and loss gives a fate chip reward that lets players boost rolls later. Given that the system was built for noir stories it encourages players to lean into getting beat down in the first half of the story so they can come back strong in the climax.
This article is well positioned and all the responses I have read, is a full education into the intelligence of the gaming community as a whole! Thank you, all for this wonderful collection of insights into table top gaming.
Very well written. Thank you! I love the approach you take that both systems are valid, it's just a different take on what players and or GM see as fun.
I find that people with a decent amount of GMing experience are more likely to adopt a participation approach. A veteran GM in a player role can feel the present GM shifting the pacing gears, limiting or opening up agency at different sections and leaning into pre-written structures. The vet is more likely to connect to the adventure than their character. I GM 90% of the time but when I play I can find myself 'back-seat GMing'; not that I step on anyone's toes (I hope) but I can sometimes feel the way the GM wants the game to focus and I lean into that. Most of my fellow players are focused on their characters but I'm trying to bring the game around to the fidgety player's PC before they fireball the next room and 'reading' the GM like I try to read players when I GM.
As a GM, what techniques can be used to move a game towards the Participation approach without beginning a mini-tutorial about game design and play styles (which can make eyes glaze over, as much as I'm personally into it!)
"Players don’t get immersed (feel that escapist thrill of being someone else, in a different situation), but they do feel empowered and creative."
Here's the rub tho, I don't find "What do you do?" style play immersive. It bores me and I am less connected to the character as it is just an single vessel to move about, much like in a cRPG.
However, in games structured with "Participation" in mind, I really feel immersed my character *becuase* I'm keyed in to pull the strings not only the single character but also the surrounding motivation and narrative. The creative thread helps me become lost in the single character.
To me the difference you desicibe to my mind isn't tied to immersion in the character vs participation in wider narrative. Instead of see it as a matter of authority over the narrative as a whole. Perhaps hierarchal and collective would be better terms?
Isn't this the difference between a Role Playing Game and a Collaborative Storytelling Game (CSG)? They may seem similar as they both involve a group of people, imagination, a story, and a game of sorts, but they are very different beasts.
The purpose of a Role Playing game is immersion ("playing a role"). The world and the situation are bigger than the players. You have to find your way through by engaging with the world however you can. Collaborative storytelling is the opposite - you are bigger than the story and you can change it from the outside.
I guess the reason they get bundled together a lot is because in games like D&D there are two games going on at the same time - the players are playing a RPG, and the DM is playing a CSG.
The issue I think is when you are playing the role and the game system is preventing you from acting as your character would. Immersive games usually provide constraints on the kinds of roles you can play and how you are allowed to play them. Players can still represent their characters and be playing from their perspective when the *players* ate given more autonomy. The notion that a player, or GM would allow sub optimal play to ruin a game or result in unwanted player death is not intrinsic to that kind of play. I ‘have’ seen that happen, but it was in a immersive style game with a inexperienced player trying to do sub optimal play and a traditional GM insisting on sticking to the ‘believability’ of the world at the cost of both the story and all the players. For the kind of play that Monty is talking about everyone has to be bought in and up to the task. It’s harder! And it’s taken years of practice to get good at it! But oh man is it ever worth it! That said I still like immersive style games sometimes! :)
In the abstract, I respect the commitment to roleplaying by the player who wanted to miss the saving throw. But if I were a player at that table, I'd probably be mad at them, especially if it was a really tough battle. "Oh great, we were holding our own until Marlon Brando over there decided to go all 'method' on us...!"
Yeah I'm inclined to feel the same. Can you imagine if that resulted in another character's death?
Also, I guess I'm an immersion player because you may feel like your character "should" have failed the roll but the fact is... they didn't. What does that tell you? What realisation just happened? Did the character just grow? Why did they succeed when they thought they should fail? What did they believe about themselves that turned out not to be true?
That is the story, not what the player thinks should happen.
Few of my players would engage with a philosophy shift or an explanation of immersive v participative role-play. The KISS approach I sometimes adopt is to say 'if you suffer a detriment because of your in-character decisions then everyone will enjoy it and commend your richly developed character. If they suffer that detriment they will curse you for selfish 'it's-what-my-character-would-do-ism'.
I do think there's something 'Participative' about ret-conning a reason why the dice rolled as they did.i.e. he fumbled that strike because of his guilt about his father's death; instead of deciding to fail because of the same guilt.
I keep wondering if there is a way to appeal to both types in the same game. A way to reward both types of play without demanding players all do the same thing. I've been wrestling with this a lot in my own design work as my core player group is almost evenly split and it can make games rough.
It's interesting that for the older generation of gamers (like me), there was only the immersion style of gaming. If fact, if a player tried to inject any element that wasn't within the direct purview of what their character could control, we called it "metagaming" (and that was a bad thing). Although my personal preference will always lean towards the immersion style, it's nice to see that the hobby has expanded to include different styles re: the GM and player roles.
I find that people with a decent amount of GMing experience are more likely to adopt a participation approach. A veteran GM in a player role can feel the present GM shifting the pacing gears, limiting or opening up agency at different sections and leaning into pre-written structures. The vet is more likely to connect to the adventure than their character. I GM 90% of the time but when I play I can find myself 'back-seat GMing'; not that I step on anyone's toes (I hope) but I can sometimes feel the way the GM wants the game to focus and I lean into that. Most of my fellow players are focused on their characters but I'm trying to bring the game around to the fidgety player's PC before they fireball the next room and 'reading' the GM like I try to read players when I GM.
As a GM, what techniques can be used to move a game towards the Participation approach without beginning a mini-tutorial about game design and play styles (which can make eyes glaze over, as much as I'm personally into it!)
I am finishing off a game system that has mechanics regarding a character’s narrative. I feel the choice to fail has always been a part of a good RPG. As well as simple tasks are auto success. Mr. Cook, your article is encouraging as well as insightful. Thank you.
In response to Kaleon, I think there is. Invisible Sun has several systems that bridge that gap. The player purchased story arcs that Monte mentioned for one, those are taken out of gameplay, the player is spending XP, they aren’t dictating the exact flow, just guiding the GM in terms of what they want to have happen. The XP cost of the arc keeps it from feeling arbitrary. In a larger sense the Desideratum that the party chooses at the beginning of play let’s them decide their core group motivation making sure that the GM is not just giving them a reason to do things, but giving them the right reason for their characters. Or Hidden Knowledge which is mechanically a currency that lets them buy bonuses to their roles but that had the diegetic explanation that the players have gathered a bit of information that they are using for an advantage and players are allowed but not required to say what it was. Or of course the biggest lever, that core character advancement requires failure generated ‘Despair’ as well as success generated ‘Joy’ to achieve. That doesn’t force player contribution but it encourages sub optimal play in a way that opens that door in the minds of many players.
Or in the FATE system players may choose to spend resources to declare aspects in the world. They aren’t asker to directly but they can do it to create advantage for themselves. Or more subtly by the fact that when players take actions to create an advantage rather then directly attack they win on a tie roll. That encourages them to think of ways they can change the world to make the play of others better. Sub optimal play is encouraged in an interesting way in that system as well since loss in conflict does not by default result in death and loss gives a fate chip reward that lets players boost rolls later. Given that the system was built for noir stories it encourages players to lean into getting beat down in the first half of the story so they can come back strong in the climax.
This article is well positioned and all the responses I have read, is a full education into the intelligence of the gaming community as a whole! Thank you, all for this wonderful collection of insights into table top gaming.
Very well written. Thank you! I love the approach you take that both systems are valid, it's just a different take on what players and or GM see as fun.
I find that people with a decent amount of GMing experience are more likely to adopt a participation approach. A veteran GM in a player role can feel the present GM shifting the pacing gears, limiting or opening up agency at different sections and leaning into pre-written structures. The vet is more likely to connect to the adventure than their character. I GM 90% of the time but when I play I can find myself 'back-seat GMing'; not that I step on anyone's toes (I hope) but I can sometimes feel the way the GM wants the game to focus and I lean into that. Most of my fellow players are focused on their characters but I'm trying to bring the game around to the fidgety player's PC before they fireball the next room and 'reading' the GM like I try to read players when I GM.
As a GM, what techniques can be used to move a game towards the Participation approach without beginning a mini-tutorial about game design and play styles (which can make eyes glaze over, as much as I'm personally into it!)
"Players don’t get immersed (feel that escapist thrill of being someone else, in a different situation), but they do feel empowered and creative."
Here's the rub tho, I don't find "What do you do?" style play immersive. It bores me and I am less connected to the character as it is just an single vessel to move about, much like in a cRPG.
However, in games structured with "Participation" in mind, I really feel immersed my character *becuase* I'm keyed in to pull the strings not only the single character but also the surrounding motivation and narrative. The creative thread helps me become lost in the single character.
To me the difference you desicibe to my mind isn't tied to immersion in the character vs participation in wider narrative. Instead of see it as a matter of authority over the narrative as a whole. Perhaps hierarchal and collective would be better terms?
Isn't this the difference between a Role Playing Game and a Collaborative Storytelling Game (CSG)? They may seem similar as they both involve a group of people, imagination, a story, and a game of sorts, but they are very different beasts.
The purpose of a Role Playing game is immersion ("playing a role"). The world and the situation are bigger than the players. You have to find your way through by engaging with the world however you can. Collaborative storytelling is the opposite - you are bigger than the story and you can change it from the outside.
I guess the reason they get bundled together a lot is because in games like D&D there are two games going on at the same time - the players are playing a RPG, and the DM is playing a CSG.
The issue I think is when you are playing the role and the game system is preventing you from acting as your character would. Immersive games usually provide constraints on the kinds of roles you can play and how you are allowed to play them. Players can still represent their characters and be playing from their perspective when the *players* ate given more autonomy. The notion that a player, or GM would allow sub optimal play to ruin a game or result in unwanted player death is not intrinsic to that kind of play. I ‘have’ seen that happen, but it was in a immersive style game with a inexperienced player trying to do sub optimal play and a traditional GM insisting on sticking to the ‘believability’ of the world at the cost of both the story and all the players. For the kind of play that Monty is talking about everyone has to be bought in and up to the task. It’s harder! And it’s taken years of practice to get good at it! But oh man is it ever worth it! That said I still like immersive style games sometimes! :)
In the abstract, I respect the commitment to roleplaying by the player who wanted to miss the saving throw. But if I were a player at that table, I'd probably be mad at them, especially if it was a really tough battle. "Oh great, we were holding our own until Marlon Brando over there decided to go all 'method' on us...!"
Yeah I'm inclined to feel the same. Can you imagine if that resulted in another character's death?
Also, I guess I'm an immersion player because you may feel like your character "should" have failed the roll but the fact is... they didn't. What does that tell you? What realisation just happened? Did the character just grow? Why did they succeed when they thought they should fail? What did they believe about themselves that turned out not to be true?
That is the story, not what the player thinks should happen.
Few of my players would engage with a philosophy shift or an explanation of immersive v participative role-play. The KISS approach I sometimes adopt is to say 'if you suffer a detriment because of your in-character decisions then everyone will enjoy it and commend your richly developed character. If they suffer that detriment they will curse you for selfish 'it's-what-my-character-would-do-ism'.
I do think there's something 'Participative' about ret-conning a reason why the dice rolled as they did.i.e. he fumbled that strike because of his guilt about his father's death; instead of deciding to fail because of the same guilt.