Dec. 18th, 2020

canyonwalker: Roll to hit! (d&d)
In the world of roleplaying games there has always been an emphasis on narrative communication. The founding idea of roleplaying is that you're portraying a character. Ergo, you should speak as that character. You describe actions "you" take, and the Game master (GM) likewise describes what "you" experience. This in-character interaction is narrative communication.

There's also meta conversation, or meta-gaming as it's often called. This is when players talk about the game, as players, rather than as their characters. This has traditionally been regarded as weak gaming, a habit or crutch of people who lack sufficient creativity or simply "don't get it". This has had a big part in slowing acceptance of Session Zero, IMO.

Recall that Session Zero is about discussing how characters fit together, as a group, in the setting, and as protagonists in a shared story. This is obviously a meta discussion. Parts of it can be narrative, but parts of have to be meta. And that's where a lot of the objections from experienced gamers come from.

Example: Going Meta when Narrative Discussion Fails

Here's an example from back at the same time as my Batman and the Joker in the same party story. While I wasn't as adamant as I should have been back then about characters being able to work together, I was serious about working with players to develop backstories that a) tied them in to the rich world I had created and b) gave them reason to participate in the broad story arcs I'd crafted. My game was not going to be one of those, "So, you all meet in a tavern, 5 strangers who become instant friends, and you decide to go on an adventure...." (Yes, that sounds preposterous, but if you're an experienced gamer you know it's also literally been done about a million times.)

One player was refusing to participate in crafting a workable character backstory. He created a character that had no reason to work with the party and no reason to care about the plot. I took a narrative approach first. I offered, one at a time, 3 suggestions on character backstory that would lead him to meet the group and care about the plot. He shot down each one. Next, I asked him to offer his own idea, but he pointedly refused.

At this point I "went meta" and reminded him of a line similar to this one, which I've seen elsenet recently as a description relating to Session Zero:

“Part of participating in a group storytelling experience is to make a character that can tell a story with the group.”

The player was livid at my admonishment. He ridiculed the very premise, complaining it’s creatively limiting and a cheap oversimplification on the part of the GM to require characters that fit the group and the plot.

We went back-and-forth a few rounds on this. It was tough on me because this player was well respected in our community. Friends whose opinion I value considered him “Best. Storyteller. Ever.” I tried really hard to make it work. Long story short, though: I told him he was unreasonable and asked him to leave.

After several successful game sessions with the remaining players, one of them offered a different perspective. “He was pissed the group picked your game idea over his. He was going out of his way to be a jerk to you.”

Three Lessons Learned

My takeaway lessons from this were:

1) The meat of Session Zero— alignment of characters to the group, the story, and the setting— is important. Do not let anyone talk you out of this.

2) Try a narrative solution first... but do not be reluctant to address issues at the meta-game level if narrative attempts fail or sooner if a player seems uncooperative.

3) While meta-game communication can clear up lots of misunderstandings, sometimes it reveals a problem deeper than a mere misunderstanding— an expectations mismatch too wide to bridge, or a person operating in bad faith. It's your prerogative to exclude from your game people who don't and won't fit into it. You and all the other players will enjoy it better!

canyonwalker: coronavirus (coronavirus)
Coronavirus is getting worse in California, rapidly. Our new case rate has increased significantly. This graphic I adapted from The New York Times "Coronavirus in the U.S." (retrieved 18 Dec 2020) shows the steepness of the curve.

New Coronavirus Cases in California - NY Times 18 Dec 2020

Most news articles I see focus on the raw number of new cases in California. While the raw number is a fact, it is really a factoid — a thing that can actually be counterproductive to understanding if not placed in proper context. The context most of us are looking for is "What's the rate?" The statistic epidemiologists have settled on is New Cases Per 100,000.

The 7-day average of new cases per 100k in California as of today is 97.6. This compares unfavorably with a national rate of about 65 as of today. In fact California is now the 3rd worst state in the US on this metric:

States with Highest New Cases - NY Times 18 Dec 2020

This is a big turnaround. As recently as two weeks ago California was well below the national average. A month ago we were in the healthiest quartile. Back in May our New Cases per 100k rate was just 6— compared to almost 98 today. Even at the peak of the summer surge in late July it was just 25.

Within my home area, Santa Clara County (pop. 2 million), the rate is better than the state as a whole though still quite high compared to before at 62 (NY Times, ibid). Other jurisdictions in the SF Bay Area are slightly better off. San Mateo, between us and San Francisco, is at 52. San Francisco city and county is at just 32.

Profile

canyonwalker: wiseguy (Default)
canyonwalker

May 2025

S M T W T F S
     1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 29th, 2025 02:28 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios