Investment, or: How smart players do dumb things

[Jenn]

@Gashlycrumb said in Investment, or: How smart players do dumb things:

@mietze They are less invested in the larger plot.

I think BOTH of you make valid points. This isn’t the kind of thing where there is either a right way nor a wrong way to do it. Some folks like crowds and are open to roll with anything strangers throw at them. Some folks prefer smaller settings and more predictable schedules/outlines.

But. It seems in bad faith to assume that BOTH can’t be fully invested in plot. Meeting ten different people alone in a dark corner booth of a restaurant to tell them about the McGuffin you found for an hour or two each is no less plotty as inviting ten people to meet you in the back alley to tell all of them, plus the dumpster raccoons about the same piece of McGuffin all at once, in far longer and perhaps less satisfying scenes - particularly when it means you have ONE shot of introducing McGuffin, and all ten folks you wanted to tell about it instead decided they dgaf about McGuffin, did you see that person in the corner wearing white after labor day?

[Gashlycrumb]

It seems like people have decided that this is a critique of players not being invested in GM-run plot.

Not at all.

This is a critique of GMs who do not offer recognizable avenues for intelligent action and then are surprised or annoyed that after a while, players throw themselves at the plot in whatever way they can think of, even when they are more than bright enough know it’s a bad idea, won’t get the goal, will kill their PCs, will trash other people’s plans if they exist. These players are still good players.

[mietze]

@Gashlycrumb on my end, I have had plenty of PCs that were very invested in the world plot, even if they couldn’t make any events, primarily as support agents of those who could. My argument is that I don’t think you’re seeing all the ways that can make someone feel invested in the world/world plot, in favor of making assumptions about the appearances of others. That’s fine if you’re just joe blow player, but a wasted opportunity if you’re staff.

When you do have staff that are able to ‘see’ beyond public appearance though, it’s amazing.

[Gashlycrumb]

@mietze I think you’re just on another topic.

If players find they can’t affect the plot, they will tend to loose investment in the plot and either stop interacting with it or interact with it in ways that seem dumb.

This isn’t a fault.

I am arguing FOR looking for ways to make players feel invested, rather than critiquing them for being stupid or bad players when they Leeroy the swan.

[Jenn]

@Gashlycrumb said in Investment, or: How smart players do dumb things:

I am arguing FOR looking for ways to make players feel invested, rather than critiquing them for being stupid or bad players when they Leeroy the swan.

I think this is where your points are getting lost by your words… Saying that people who are playing smaller, more private, non-event characters are EQUAL to those out doing all the plot stuff and events, even if it’s just to kill someone else’s swan…

It doesn’t really sound like you BELIEVE they’re equal when you’re saying they need more ways to feel invested without even knowing if they’re investment satisfied or investment oversaturated first.

Please see also, the quote from your words of my last comment in this thread: “They are less invested in the larger plot.”

No matter how often you say they’re both, you’re still using greater and lesser terms, and that’s always going to confuse people who - do to greater and lesser words - assume greater or lesser opinions.

[Gashlycrumb]

@Jenn Well, that’s a puzzler to me, because equal didn’t enter into it, nor did any of these value judgements. I listed some things that players are likely to do if they can’t break into GM story, because they’re human, and somehow I’m seen as saying that it’s wrong of them when I’ve directly said otherwise. Because the adjective “less” can have negative connotations?

You’re probably right, but I’m flummoxed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity would help.

[Jenn]

@Gashlycrumb

I’m well aware of the principle of charity, or, as the communities I typically associate call it, assume best intentions.

And, I don’t know how to explain this… But. There are two pieces that make that difficult to do here.

1. Even when people are agreeing with you, in parts, but asking if you’ve also considered other parts… You’ve not considered that either/both/neither could all have merit. You’ve just repeated over and over again that:
   A: People without much to involve them will either quit the game, or murder swans.
   B: If people don’t quit the game or murder swans, it’s because they’re in private or relationship-driven RP.
   Relationship-driven plot is LESS of a game investment, even if it’s siblings, enemies, rival houses, etc… Because they’re not GM run.

So. If you’re looking to find these answers as a player, the answer from a lot of folks seems to be that they’re feeling more or less satisfied.

If you’re looking as a GM, maybe trust your players are writing what interests them, and if you see someone murdering a swan, reach out to ask what or if they’d be interested in from GM’ed plot, and help them find it. Or. Keep making more swans they can chase if that’s what they prefer.

Or. Do what it sounds like you’re doing already… Try to sway people to agree with you elventy thousand percent - or throw the entire conflicting opinion out in whole.

Because when I /was/ assuming your best intentions, I tried to clarify. I asked if maybe there were better words you could use than better or worse, because that’s the part of your critiques and posts that has me confused.

Rather than assume my best in that question, and rather than clarifying it without weighted terms so that whatever it is I seem to be missing, maybe I’d better understand you…

When people are asking for clarity and you ‘well actually’ why it is you’re not going to be clearer… That’s murk in the water I can’t help any of us see through.

So, at this point… The best I can offer is simply, good luck. I really do hope that you can find the answers you’re looking for from folks who understand what you’re asking. This is starting to feel more and more like a fight where I was aiming for common ground and mutual understanding. And I’m pretty sure (or at least hoping hard) that fighting isn’t why you posted it. So. I’m gonna bow out and let others than me with better skills at I guess both reading and writing tackle.

[Gashlycrumb]

@Jenn Naw, I’m not trying to fight. Thank you.

I should have been more clear that I don’t think any of these responses are wrong or bad. Not even the attacking other PCs.

Doc: Look darlin’. It’s Johhny Ringo. Shall I hate him?"

Kate: You don’t even know him.

(OOC) Johnny Ringo: Please do, it’ll be awesome.

cue tense music

is good stuff.

Also I probably should have been clear that “when players can’t descern paths to wise action, they are likely to choose unwise action,” doesn’t mean that all players who choose unwisely are having a hard time finding smart stuff to do. This is a cause, not this is the only cause.

Yeah, I’m a disaster. But didn’t say better or worse anywhere. I’m sorry I didn’t clarify, I guess I misunderstood what needed to be clarified.

The thing I want to sway people to agreeing with me about is that people who Leeroy the swan aren’t necessarily being stupid or bad players even though it was an IC stupid action.

[Jenn]

@Gashlycrumb

Genuinely. I really appreciate that clarification. And. I agree. I have Leroyed more than one swan in the past.

But, I also think folks Leroy to tell stories, not for lack of them - at least sometimes.

There are a lot of times that as a typist, I’m staring at this thing on the screen I’m typing for and like… Trust me. I know just as well as everyone - this bish about to go kill someone’s beloved pet for dinner on Tuesday.

But it’s never, at least for me, been out of boredom. It’s a swan that’s old and dying, and that swan needs to be out of the way for new breath and life.

It’s the swan of someone who had lost their spark and needed purpose, even if all they could muster was revenge against the swan killer to keep them going.

Sometimes, a story-teller carefully crafts a swan, by hand, feather by feather, then releases it to the wild. There’s a PLOTHOOK around it’s neck. And then? The swan just quacks and floats, floats and quacks. No one notices its nametag. Someone had to go kill that danged bird and take its McGuffin tag back to town in remorse.

No one’s ever cut me out of stories for killing their swans though. Because = at least in ideal worlds - even when we play faulty characters who make poor choices and turn into dumpster fires… We’re in good OOC communication with the other parties, especially the swan and the swan’s player.

In the end… We’re all responsible for our own entertainment, and, as frustrating as that can be when we’re out of inspiration and ideas… I think it’s the better option.

Of course staff and story-tellers should be hosting events and sewing seeds, and passing out snippets to anyone looking for ways into meta-plot and game-wide events.

But, as a character… What’s the point in saving the entire planet once a month if my character has no life or joy or whatever else fills the hours from one apocalypse to the next?

Honest, real communication between the players behind the screen is what shows wisdom or immaturity. A life-saving cure-finding only hope for humanity in this plague character typed by a jerk isn’t going to make it through the wastelands long enough to do their job.

Absolute idiots of Leroy Jenkins who are honest and upfront with the rest of the heroes along that journey? They’re gonna get that scientist to the lab in the nick of time EVERY time. And they’re gonna do so much bone-headed idiocy along the way.

Because without bad decisions, without tension, and without conflicts to resolve… That’s when stories actually dwindle. Once you’re at the happily ever after… Then what?

I love both Leroys and Swans, just so long as both of their typists keep respecting me behind the keys, and as long as the OOC communication behind that IC nonsense is strong and solid.

Because honestly. Tell me one person who never had a mistake in their lives, huge, catastrophic disasters. There may be a couple, but. If there are? Their stories were boring af.

My ‘solution’ to what actually wasn’t a problem now that I understand your points? Collaborate. Find your joy. Help others find theirs. The stories will always be out there for the people who want to write them.

[Pavel]

@Gashlycrumb said in Investment, or: How smart players do dumb things:

rolling your eyes and going off home to build a miniature opera house for your ant-farm is not RPable

Well now I have a future character aspiration!

[Gashlycrumb]

@Pavel Somebody told me once that an unscrupulous staffer who liked to go DARK and spy on PCs once told them that they, the staffer, had seen a player who would RP alone, posing cooking her meals, eating alone, and so on. I love youtube videos of people building tiny dioramas and it would be a lot more fun to describe doing that in writing than to pose about frying an egg. Maybe. Hmm. Frying an egg.

[Gashlycrumb]

@Jenn I think you’re spot on in every way.

I wasn’t really thinking of swans that ‘belong’ to other PCs. Or even of swans that don’t just sail serenely on, unharmed. I’ve Leeroyed a few of those ‘owned’ swans too, and have mostly had people have and be awesome fun in dealing with the setback my character created for them. I’ve seen it just tick people off, too.

Collaboration or lack of seems to me to be the difference there most of the time. Same as starting a feud with a more-or-less random PC is maybe great or maybe the most obnoxious way you can create action.

Something not nearly so annoying has caused me to remember a game where there was a sort of culture of laughing at groups of new PCs who attempted stuff that was bigbad endgame built for teams of dinos to take on. Rutch. “Haha, no, don’t help them they’re too dumb to live.” Aww, man, really they probably just thought they needed to run a gauntlet to get to the next hook.

[L. B. Heuschkel]

Most of what I think has already been said so I’m just going to chip in one thing: The more options players have to make things happen themselves instead of waiting for a story teller to do things for them, the more likely they stick around, too.

[Alveraxus]

Two things I want to comment on - players making the ‘wrong’ choice ICly (when they know what the right choice should be OOCly) and incorporating player choices into the story.

There’s a LARP principle that we talk about at the start of every game during our opening workshops that I see a lot of MUSH players take to heart, which is don’t be afraid to make good mistakes - if you are faced with a choice, sometimes making the choice you know is the wrong choice OOCly leads to more fun RP than if you were to make the right choice ICly.

I think if you come from a perspective where winning = the thing, then yes, not being able to do what you want when you want it can be frustrating. If you come from a perspective where the journey = the thing, then sometimes it doesn’t matter.

I have a very firm storytelling principle when I run a scene or a plot which is that if a player comes up with a clever move that I didn’t anticipate, I don’t no sell it. Even if it undoes the entire plot, and shifts to an entirely different resolution. Because ultimately, the players are not the NPCs in a story that I am writing, they are the PLAYERS and I am putting up a scenario for them. Even if it means that somehow the really cool dragon I was looking forward to them fighting never shows its face because they find a way to defeat the big bad WITHOUT having to get the MacGuffin hiding in the dragon’s hoard, well, good on them.

I can always find a way to use that dragon later, right?