Collaborative Roleplaying “Games”
August 9, 2006I recently recieved the wonderful first volume of a journal about roleplaying entitled PUSH. The first article, entitled Collaborative Roleplaying: Refraiming the Game by Emily Care Boss, got me thinking quite a bit and I thought I’d put down some of my thoughts on the subject here.
First, I must say upfront, I’ve been identified by a friend and the editor of PUSH, Jonathan Walton, as a grognard. Old-school. 25+ years roleplaying But he has assured me in my case (I can’t speak for anyone else) that this is a good thing. I’m “quality” grognard. That said, I will sadly admit to a deficiency in playing many of the ‘cutting edge’ games that I continually read about in PUSH and in on-line forums. However, in my defense I did attempt to wrangle said editor and friend into running a game of Nobilis, but sadly it was not meant to be (it’s all your fault, Jonathan!)
Second, I was (and I guess still am) a professional actor. I have been involved in the craft of acting for longer than I’ve been roleplaying (DANG! That old, eh?) and have a Master of Fine Arts in the field. I’ve also done an extensive array of directing and in many ways feel my strengths are more grounded in this area of the craft of the theatre then acting.
All of that was not to toot my own horn (yeah, right!) but as an introduction to help give some credence to what I’m going to ellaborate on below. This way, you may think I’m a close-minded crackpot or just a crackpot but at least I’m speaking from experience (whether that experience is any more valid that anyone else is for another debate and I’ll be on the side that derides myself for such a claim.)
Now, on to the good stuff.
Boss’ article is well-written, clear and concise and, as I’ve already mentioned, a slap in the face to an old grognard who reads many of the names of these roleplaying games and says, “I’m so old.”
She mentions many very interesting tools that are available to folks to incorporate into games that in her words “empower player choice and creativity.” Many of these tools, I have found developed in my own games throughout the passing years. Tools such as a player’s ability to change and effect both setting and story are both intriguing, inviting and highly desirable. To throw out my own references, I’d say many of these aspects were developed long, long ago. Mayfair Games defunct DC Heroes RPG had two major aspects of which I have always incorporated into my games in one aspect or another. Hero Points were not only used for experience but they could also be used to affect the environment of the game in much the same way that Boss’ states games like Universalis or Soap do. Also, Subplots was an aspect of the game that players could fully intergrate their characters into, design and as they were run if the player that was the focus of the subplot ever became disinterested in the subplot or disliked its outcome or development could pull the plug. Granted these may not be the full blown ‘collaboration’ Boss infers in the other games but they certainly provided a start.
Boss’ main through line in the article seems to be that of collaboration. As an actor and director (as well as a roleplayer) I’m all for collaboration…to a certain extent. Over the years, having worked with a number of varying personalities I have seen one thing that overwhelming stands out on any artistic venture I’ve embarked: collaboration only works WELL with direction.
For example: many moons ago I worked with a group to form a ‘collaborative’ theatre. There would be no ‘boss’ per se, or leader. All would have an equal hand in what was developed, how things were chosen, responsiblity of time, everything was done to ‘by the committee’ (as I quickly started to call it.) The method lasted through two (and a half) productions. No one could agree. Things that shouldn’t take long took forever to get accomplished because it had to be ‘agreed upon.’ Bureaucracy took over and instead of the purpose being focused on the art and crafting of the play, the purpose tumbled into making sure it was ‘approved’ or ‘okay-ed.’ Also, even the end result (the two finished productions) were never good. They lacked, for a better word, direction.
In a roleplaying game scenario, I enjoy having my players not have to work to think in meta-gaming terms. For a player to be concerned with how the plot is unravelling or whether a scene is progressing as it should takes them ‘out of the moment’ (an acting term) and, to me, brings a falsification or dishonesty to their ‘in-character performance.’ I’m someone who doesn’t often even like to have dice involved (I have been known to run entire sessions where not a single dice was ever thrown.) However, I also understand that this is not theatre, this is a game. It’s not called a roleplaying theatre but roleplaying game. I leave the dice in because it does provide a great deal of chance that neither my players nor I can control.
That said, I also love my players to let their imaginations run. I have no qualms with them adding spice to a scene:
ME: You walk into a bar. It’s dark and smoky and the sounds of good business tumble out as you pull the door open.
PLAYER: I stop for a minute to enjoy the music that is happening in the back by the nearest fire pit. It’s melodic and nice and my character loves the flute.
Right there a player added depth and character to it. I’d love for all of my players to do that. But, and this is, again, where the issue of full collaboration without control leads, some players just don’t have that ability. Creativity can be developed to a certain extent but there is also an innate talent to it as well. Much like raw talent will only get you so far, lack of raw talent will also only get you so far. And this can cause some players to feel left out, set aside, or in some ways, deficient. By maintaining control as a gamemaster, I can temper the overzealously creative individual while encouraging (and here’s the important part) assisting the less gifted or developed player. In a perfect world it would be nice to think that even the players would help out in both instances but this leads back to my problem with metagaming and having the players think about the ‘game’ rather than the honest and truthful characterization of their respective characters.
Boss’ article is a terrific read. Very concise, very clear and structured wonderfully. She raises a number of interesting points and all should be experimented with in practice. Myself, though, I find that the moderate view (between total GM control and completely player control) to be the model that provides the most opportunity for everyone involved in a game.
[…] Michael Babbitt just wrote a neat review of Emily Care Boss’ article for Push 1. […]
Michael,
I’m here from Jon’s link over on the Push site, so I’ve got a bit of bias coming into things… Still…
The question that often arises in my mind when these sorts of discussions come up, especially when people cite the sort of things that you have as reasons that GM control of some sort is good (and I’m not disagreeing), is this: what do you get out of GMing?
It seems clear that you feel that your players are at their happiest when they get to perform ‘honest and truthful characterization of their respective characters’, and when they get some amount of creative input. What is it that you get out of GMing? I ask because you seem to indicate that it can’t be the same thing, since considering metagame issues precludes the most honest/truthful characterizations.
If your fun is coming from creative control, or something like that, then it seems (well, ‘selfish’ is too strong a word, but I’ll use it anyway) selfish to deny them that fun and stick them with some other fun (the characterization stuff) as a substitute.
It is, of course, possible that they simply prefer characterization-fun and you prefer other-fun, or that all of you prefer characterization-fun, but someone has to take one for the team and run the game. How does all of this match up with your own experience in play?
Thomas
Thomas,
Awesome questions! And I don’t mind being called selfish at all. In a way I agree with you about the ‘label’ but it is a gray area because I also feel in some ways it is self-less.
What do I get out of GMing? Much the same thing as I get out of directing. I’ll explain that shortly. Let me just state up front I prefer directing film – which, admittedly – provides more creative control to the director than the actor; stage directing I think gives more creative control to the actor. However, I also love directing for the stage so it’s kind of like enjoying two different desserts. Pie you like for one reason. But cake for another.
Anyway, when I direct and, by extension, when I GM, what I most enjoy is crafting the overall picture. Watching this tale unfold (I’m a big advocate of open-ended storylines – meaning I never script out a story but do know or focus varying elements in order for the players (actors) to engage) is what excites me and I find creatively fulfilling.
That said, with your question about ‘denying them some other fun’, I completely agree. It DOES deny the players/actors this aspect – to a certain extent.(1) However, in my experience, during the game, just as with acting, they shouldn’t be worried about this. And if they want to they’re completely welcome to GM something themselves.
As I mentioned in the article, I’ve seen the collaborative thing first hand. I’ve seen it only once in a gaming situation (it was a disaster.) I don’t deny that’s limited experience, and I’m certain there are probably folks out there who could make it work, I’ve just never seen it. In the long run, it’s like the old saying ‘too many cooks spoil the broth.’ If everyone is worried about cooking it, no one every gets the experience and enjoyment of eating it.
Now, collaboration BEFORE the game begins? That’s a whole other issue. I have aboslutely no problem with that sort of input. For example, I’ll often say “I’m going to run a fanasy game” and then ask the players, “What do you guys want to do with it?” In this part of the process we banter and neogitation, creating what I think a good deal of the collaborative points Emily was trying to make in her article. I’m all for that. In fact, the game would be a mere shadow of itself without this (for the record, I do this with my actors during a production as well). I just feel that once the game starts, we need one chef/chief in order for the process to be enjoyed at its best by everyone.
Now that was entirely too long winded and I hope I didn’t bore you. Thanks for stopping by and by all means, let’s continue the debate. I’m actually more and more intrigued by this stuff as I read stuff from Jonathan’s site (he’s my looking glass into the cutting edge for this ol’ grognard.)
(1) In my experience, I’ve found that during the game players don’t get to enjoy this element of gaming, but afterwards, as they reflect back on how the game went and they talk to each other about it, they then DO take part in it because they can see how the story unfolded – it just doesn’t happen DURING the game.
Michael,
Awesome answers, and some possible context. I’ve met most of Emily’s playing group, and most of them want what you want out of a game. They’re the type of people who prefer to direct rather than act. My own local group is mostly the same way.
Basically, if we were to have just a single GM and everyone else had to play ‘just’ their character (especially if they weren’t ‘allowed’ to think about and utilize meta-stuff during play), then everyone but the GM would feel somewhat robbed. They would be acting so that someone could direct, even though they’d all rather be directing.
Not all groups are like this. In fact, the ‘traditional’ group seems to be built around a single director and a party of actors. Though it’s somewhat unclear whether this is based on actual desires for play, or simple cultural pressure, at least some significant number of groups are extremely happy with this paradigm.
As you say, such players are free to start their own game, but organizing a game is actually more than just the directing. My theater experience isn’t all that great, but being the GM is sort of like being the director and the producer and the company manager all at once. What if you just want to direct, but not do any of that other stuff? The current ‘traditional’ model makes that awfully difficult.
So, what about your own group? Do you see any players who might be good ‘directors’? Or even players who might, if given the chance, love to direct, but feel that that’s not their job?
Thomas
Well, my own group. I’ll speak mostly about past groups as the current group has been in such a state of flux that it wouldn’t be fair to at least one of them who I haven’t gamed with long enough.
To be perfectly blunt and forthright, I think over the past years of gaming there haven’t been many that I think would make good GMs. They didn’t have the … expansionist vision (that’s sounds terribly pretentious but I can’t think of another way to describe it right now) that a director/GM needs. There’s usually, however, been one in every group (at least) who has the potential, but more often then not, when pressed (or encouraged) they never liked doing it. Currently, I’d say that Jonathan (although he’s now gone to bigger things in MA :P) had that potential. As I mentioned before, I was trying to get him to run a Nobilis game (I have it, read it, read it again and still had tons of questions but LOVED some of the ideas). But he wimped out and ran like a dog.
You’re definitely right about the organizing. I hate that part myself. If I had a player who would take that on and gather everyone together, it make life much more enjoyable but, alas, as you pointed out, that generally falls to the GM. But now that you brought it up, I may actually push this issue at the next session. Maybe even do a round robin sort of thing. I did this once for a while with a long runing VtM game. I assigned one player each session to record (diary or whatever form) the session and then posted it to the website. One of the players loved that and wrote wonderful synopsis. Another liked having it done, and even enjoyed reading his own, but it was like pulling teeth to get him to do it. The third hated doing it at all. It varied but it was an experiment. I won’t actually do that specifically again, as it didn’t go over exceptionally well. But I’ve also decided that I won’t write synopsis for the players either. If they don’t take their own notes, and they forget something it’s not my job to remind them or correct them if they remember it wrong. If they want to be more immersed, their welcome to do it but you can only hold-hands so far.
Funny, the above makes it sound like I’ve got a lot of lazy players. And in a sense, it is true. I think most players, much like most ‘actors’ are lazy. They don’t want to ‘work’ to make the game better. They’d much rather just show up, hang out, roll some dice, interact a bit and then go home. I envy Emily’s group in one way, they’re all dynamically motivated to make the game better. I would love to have more players who get involved (and believe me, I encourage it a lot, it’s not for lack of ‘not feeling it’s their job’ or ‘not knowing they could do that.’
With Emily’s group as a model, how do things actually get played? With everyone trying to ‘direct’ or wanting to and feeling unfulfilled if they don’t, how do decisison get made? I think more time would be spent discussing how to do something (when there is decension) than actually playing. This is my own expereince at least. I’m curious how they handle these situations. As a GM, if a rule discussion or a plot development discussion happens, I prefer it be before or after the game. We can debate it as much or as little as preferred. In game, though, I’ll take some suggestions during, but I don’t dwell very long before making a decision and moving on. That way, we play, we don’t metagame.
You can tell I’m not a metagame fan. I absolutely see how some people would love it – reading Jonathan’s blogs always makes me wonder how he could stand being around me ;)) but I still think it lends to more debate and not playing.
Whew, you keep getting me all longwinded. Hope that’s coherent.
Michael,
I was trying to figure out something that might help, and all I could come up with is this.
That’s a 2-hour recording of a playtest of Ben Lehman’s forthcoming game The Drifter’s Escape that we played at Gen Con. It’s sort of GM-less. It’s a long listen, and it’s got some aggravating background noise, but I think it’s probably much more useful than me trying to explain how this stuff works…
Thomas
Excelllent, Thomas!
I’ll give the first one a listen tonight at home.
When you’ve got a link for the other, send it my way and I’ll have a go at it as well.
Michael
Michael,
At the moment, the only other recordings I have on-hand are one from the game of Agon we played at the con, which is significantly more traditional in design and play, and a pair of recordings from our local Capes game which I don’t have permission to share publicly (yet).
That said, I’m totally willing to discuss the recording above…
Oh, and if you’re curious, here’s the recording of our Agon game.
Thomas
Hey T,
Took me a bit longer than expected but I listend to drifter’s escape recording from Gen Con.
Funny thing, this reminded me a lot of ‘table talk’ when I direct a play. To clarify, when I direct, I tend t have individual meetings with my actors to discuss their character and the relationship to the ‘world’ they’re in. Then the first week of rehearsal is spent sitting around a table, reading therough the play, and hashing out all sorts of details that flesh out the backgrounds of everyone in relation to everyone else. That sort of thing.
I think this is a wonderful tool and it creates a strong base from which the actor can leap when the full blown rehearsals launch.
For gaming, I’ve tried various methods to do this in the past (i.e. profiles that ask explicit questions, etc.) I very rarely get players that will take it to heart and run with it. I’ve tried it as well on the first session of a game, much like what it sounds like in this recording, that seems to work best and usually entails some very intersting stuff.
I will say one thing about the recording. Judging by the sounds of everyone and the input (and I know I wasn’t there so this is an incomplete assumption at best) it seems to me that all of these people love CREATING the game more than PLAYING the game.
Not that there is anything wrong with that at all. As I said, that’s actually why I love GMing and directing more so than playing and acting.
A questions, if this is the case (and we’re going with an assumption not a truth here) do these games last long or generally do the people get to a point where they would rather go back and start creating again and the game itself gets put to the wayside?
No problem on the delay, I had a grueling weekend anyway, and wouldn’t have seen this 🙂
I think we’re running into a terminology clash at a fundamental level here. When you say ‘it seems to me that all of these people love CREATING the game more than PLAYING the game’, all I can do is scratch my head… Here’s why:
Here’s my breakdown of what play was like:
First 5~10 minutes, basic rules explanation. From there to about 0:35 or so is scenario setup (which, in most games, is done as GM prep). From there out? That’s what I call play. For us, at that table, that’s what playing is. This means that I’m a bit unsure what distinction you’re making between ‘creating’ and ‘playing’ here. (Also, it’s worth noting that the ‘prep’ stuff is really a part of play too…)
So, could you clarify the difference you’re getting at?
As for length, many of these games are designed for ‘short-term’ play. Something on the order of 6 to 30 hours of total play from start to finish. That said, I’ve seen them run significantly longer (multiple hundreds of hours).
Assuming I’m correctly understanding the ‘creating/playing’ distinction you’re trying to make (which I’m not at all sure I am), then because play always sounds like this, there’s no need to start a new game to ‘get back to it’.
Thomas
[…] Now, what happens in the case where the gamemaster doesn’t think it makes perfect sense. Do we give some sort of ‘fortune or fate’ pool that allows each player to effectively over-ride the gamemaster? That’s the one thing I’m not sure of. We don’t want to allow the player’s to run rough-shod over the major storyline (and, for reference you can read this article that says I’m still not convinced that the gamemaster shouldn’t be the final arbiter) but then we also don’t want to dampen character creativity and given the gamemaster equal opportunity to enjoy discovering just where the story goes. […]