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 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.
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 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.
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.
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...!"
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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...!"