Becca Scott Gives A Master Class On Player-Driven Keeping

[klecser]

If you followed the Calyx Actual Plays, you would have seen what I consider to be excellent exemplification by Becca Scott of how to have player decisions drive a game. The latest run, of Mister Corbitt, shows heavy deviation from the written text based upon strategic adaptation to player decisions. I discuss in this RPG Imaginings video: 1) how this Actual Play is a model for Keeper adaptive decision-making, 2) the importance of deviation from published material to run fun games and 3) how gatekeeping and the attitude that there is one "right" way to play ttrpgs continues to be a liability for the hobby that just needs to stop.

Note: Spoilers for Mister Corbitt!

 

Edited January 28, 2021 by klecser

[Israeldor]

I really enjoyed this video (and I am excited to have discovered your channel). I had been looking for more intermediate discussion regarding the game. There is a lot of advice for being brand new, but rather little as you get further in (outside of specific advice for the big campaigns.) I think all three of your major points are well argued. (Granted, I already was of similar opinions regarding adapting premade material, responding to the evolving narrative the players weave, and discouraging gatekeeping.)

In the video you mentioned one NPC the players were given some subtle hints for, that they never followed up on and I am curious about your opinion regarding allowing the players to guide the narrative (& adapting the scenario in conjunction with it) with regard to obvious clues (or the three clue rule if preferred). There is a substantial train of thought that clues that are absolutely essential can't (or at least are exceedingly difficult) to miss. I am not so familiar with the scenario (I have skimmed it once a while back) to know if this NPC's information truly is essential or not, but figured it might be an interesting discussion nevertheless.

[klecser]

10 hours ago, Israeldor said:

In the video you mentioned one NPC the players were given some subtle hints for, that they never followed up on and I am curious about your opinion regarding allowing the players to guide the narrative (& adapting the scenario in conjunction with it) with regard to obvious clues (or the three clue rule if preferred). There is a substantial train of thought that clues that are absolutely essential can't (or at least are exceedingly difficult) to miss. I am not so familiar with the scenario (I have skimmed it once a while back) to know if this NPC's information truly is essential or not, but figured it might be an interesting discussion nevertheless.

Spoilers for Mister Corbitt!

 

I think that the historical "meta" of most Call of Cthulhu games is an overabundance of caution in investigation. Many Call of Cthulhu players learn very rapidly to tip-toe around a potential threat and gather as much information as possible before engaging with a threat directly. I think Tomazewski's function is largely to provide that major avenue of "adjacent" investigation that allows a group to "confirm this ain't normal" before deciding what to do next. Truth be told, I don't think interaction with Tomazewski is even needed at all. Most clues in this scenario are "nice to have," not "need to have." In fact, I'd argue that the only really critical clue that can't be missed at all is the little arm falling out of Corbitt's bundle at the start, indicating that somethin' ain't right here. But then it is up to investigators to want to "play along" and decide that they want to know more. And how much more is entirely up to them. Most of the other clues are there for the simple joy of clue-finding. They give details into backstory and enrich the narrative, but don't really provide any critical information. The exception might be Corbitt's journal, because it serves to show that Corbitt is doing something that could have much bigger consequences for the whole world, the idea being that groups are supposed to enter "everyday hero" mode and stop him. I think that Mister Corbitt was written during an era of role-playing in which the mentality very much seemed to be "this is how the game works and is played." And there isn't anything inherently wrong with that. Note that another way to interpret it is that it is very much an early sandbox. You can do anything you want in any order in this scenario! That was indeed still pretty uncommon, even in the early 90s.

I find it absolutely fascinating how modern groups choose to contend with older scenarios. If I were to make an argument as to how the hobby has changed over time, it would be that modern gamers are much more likely to expect more freedom of agency and outcome. People refer to the "Mercer Effect" and I don't consider that to be a problem at all. When some people say "The Mercer Effect" they're really saying "I shouldn't have to get better at GMing." Matthew Mercer opening up role-playing and modelling a great game doesn't stop people from improving. People often don't like to improve and don't like things they struggle with showcased by someone in a spotlight. But people having insecurities doesn't mean that Mercer is bad for the hobby. Quite the opposite. GMs not willing to improve is bad for the hobby.

I don't want to come across as knocking role-playing's early days because it is what it is and people had fun. I feel like that fun was much more structured, if we take early scenarios as the model. Early investigative scenarios seemed to follow a pretty standard progression:

1) The initial hook (somebody hires you, you witness something strange, someone is missing)

2) Intellectual investigation (newspapers, library, police station, interviews - get clues)

3) Explore a place and discover scarier clues!

4) Confrontation

And that is perfectly fine. I personally would enjoy the hell out of that, despite knowing in my mind that I personally may not "arm myself with knowledge" before investigating something I was curious about. It's strategically wise, but whether a librarian would actually think to do that is debatable. Not because the librarian isn't smart, but because it is human nature to walk towards the candle flame. The counterpoint is that it is narratively fun for a lot of people! 

Now, as to your last point, there are many scenarios that are written that have clues that can't be missed. I'm a big believer that that is not a problem. There are techniques that Keepers have learned that allow for the narrative to progress in a fun way. You move the clues. You increase the time it takes to find a clue (increasing dramatic tension). 

I also want to thank you for your post because I am very much interested in meta-analysis of games!

What do you think?

Edited January 29, 2021 by klecser

[Israeldor]

On 1/29/2021 at 8:14 AM, klecser said:

I think that the historical "meta" of most Call of Cthulhu games is an overabundance of caution in investigation. Many Call of Cthulhu players learn very rapidly to tip-toe around a potential threat and gather as much information as possible before engaging with a threat directly. I think Tomazewski's function is largely to provide that major avenue of "adjacent" investigation that allows a group to "confirm this ain't normal" before deciding what to do next. Truth be told, I don't think interaction with Tomazewski is even needed at all. Most clues in this scenario are "nice to have," not "need to have." In fact, I'd argue that the only really critical clue that can't be missed at all is the little arm falling out of Corbitt's bundle at the start, indicating that somethin' ain't right here. But then it is up to investigators to want to "play along" and decide that they want to know more. And how much more is entirely up to them. Most of the other clues are there for the simple joy of clue-finding. They give details into backstory and enrich the narrative, but don't really provide any critical information. The exception might be Corbitt's journal, because it serves to show that Corbitt is doing something that could have much bigger consequences for the whole world, the idea being that groups are supposed to enter "everyday hero" mode and stop him. I think that Mister Corbitt was written during an era of role-playing in which the mentality very much seemed to be "this is how the game works and is played." And there isn't anything inherently wrong with that. Note that another way to interpret it is that it is very much an early sandbox. You can do anything you want in any order in this scenario! That was indeed still pretty uncommon, even in the early 90s.

While perhaps a bit off topic for this thread, I think discussing running improvised Call of Cthulhu sandboxes would be an interesting topic of discussion (probably for another thread (I guess this is a content request). Particular for homebrewed scenarios/campaigns. Call of Cthulhu is fortunate to have a huge catalogue of great premade content that people don't have to make their own. But it certainly can be very rewarding to do so.

 

On 1/29/2021 at 8:14 AM, klecser said:

I find it absolutely fascinating how modern groups choose to contend with older scenarios. If I were to make an argument as to how the hobby has changed over time, it would be that modern gamers are much more likely to expect more freedom of agency and outcome. People refer to the "Mercer Effect" and I don't consider that to be a problem at all. When some people say "The Mercer Effect" they're really saying "I shouldn't have to get better at GMing." Matthew Mercer opening up role-playing and modelling a great game doesn't stop people from improving. People often don't like to improve and don't like things they struggle with showcased by someone in a spotlight. But people having insecurities doesn't mean that Mercer is bad for the hobby. Quite the opposite. GMs not willing to improve is bad for the hobby.

I agree with the idea that people often decide good enough is fine, when it could be better. When I was first trying out running Call of Cthulhu (actually the first game I ever ran), listening to actual plays like HowWeRoll, IntoTheDarkness, and EncounterRoleplay really helped with getting a feel for how the game plays & runs.

The first benefit being you can study the scenario based on how the keeper ran it and the group tackled it. This can provide useful ideas for adapting the material or even making plot changes. One example of this is IntoTheDarkness' play of Crimson Letters gave the NPC Anthony a lot of other student friends. I used that idea to give him a handful of other friends when I ran it and it worked wonderfully. It made his faction a more menacing threat.

A second is you can see how other keepers run things in general. Because most GM's mostly run, and rarely play it is easy to develop a style and never see alternative approaches to running games. As the saying goes practice doesn't make perfect, it makes permanent. It is easy to develop sub-optimal routines in isolation, whose weaknesses would be demonstrated by seeing other examples of GMing.

The above having been said, it is worth remembering that actual plays are performances, whether that is first or second to playing doesn't change that. And as performances certain styles are better for that than others. The most notable example of this is voices & accents work incredibly well for the performance side of the game (and it works great for the game side of it too.) But, that shouldn't scare new keepers off. The important part is clarity of the NPC's voice, which doesn't necessarily have to mean using an accent or throwing ones voice. It is entirely possible to create unique voices with diction and syntax to differentiate speakers, and this is probably easier to achieve to start with than accents. And keepers can try to add some accents in as they are more comfortable (so an NPC here or there) IMO.

On 1/29/2021 at 8:14 AM, klecser said:

I don't want to come across as knocking role-playing's early days because it is what it is and people had fun. I feel like that fun was much more structured, if we take early scenarios as the model. Early investigative scenarios seemed to follow a pretty standard progression:

1) The initial hook (somebody hires you, you witness something strange, someone is missing)

2) Intellectual investigation (newspapers, library, police station, interviews - get clues)

3) Explore a place and discover scarier clues!

4) Confrontation

I only got into this a few years ago, so I can't speak to the games early history. In my experience most groups I have had tend to:
1. Get the initial hook.
2.Go to the most direct scene/witness and either look around or interview them.
3. Follow up from there until they witness scarier clues
4. Maybe do some intellectual investigation
5. Return to the scarier clues and have the confrontation

I actually really like the above. It feels more "realistic" to me. The players look into history, records, etc after finding something that seems dreadful. Where they rarely start with assuming, maybe the "haunted" house is actually haunted until they have seen strange things there.

How does this compare with your experience with more modern groups?

On 1/29/2021 at 8:14 AM, klecser said:

Now, as to your last point, there are many scenarios that are written that have clues that can't be missed. I'm a big believer that that is not a problem. There are techniques that Keepers have learned that allow for the narrative to progress in a fun way. You move the clues. You increase the time it takes to find a clue (increasing dramatic tension). 

I also want to thank you for your post because I am very much interested in meta-analysis of games!

What do you think?

I think necessary clues are ok in small numbers. Too many and the tools to "fix" the issue start to remove some player agency. So the ways I am familiar with fixing necessary clues are:
1. Obvious clues, they really can't miss them.
2. Have several clues leading to the same conclusion
3. Fail forward for failed rolls, imposing a cost for the failure rather than gating progress.
4. Moving clues around a bit as necessary.

The reason I say having to use these too much reduces player agency is that I feel player agency allows for players to fail as well as succeed. It is reacting to their decisions and approaches to playing the game and providing the appropriate consequences. Sometimes nudging things in a direction here or there isn't a big deal. But the more it is done, the more it infringes on the natural consequences of decisions. Sometimes this can make it a more fun game, but in excess it can hurt player investment (and thus enjoyement). But I am definitely somewhat of a player agency extremist. A lot of people will disagree with me on this, especially to the extent I view this.

Have I missed any big ways to "fix" necessary clues? And your thoughts regarding safeguarding the players the scenario in conjuction with it's impact on player agency?

[klecser]

18 hours ago, Israeldor said:

While perhaps a bit off topic for this thread, I think discussing running improvised Call of Cthulhu sandboxes would be an interesting topic of discussion (probably for another thread (I guess this is a content request).

Great idea. It's on the list!

18 hours ago, Israeldor said:

The above having been said, it is worth remembering that actual plays are performances, whether that is first or second to playing doesn't change that. And as performances certain styles are better for that than others. The most notable example of this is voices & accents work incredibly well for the performance side of the game (and it works great for the game side of it too.) But, that shouldn't scare new keepers off. The important part is clarity of the NPC's voice, which doesn't necessarily have to mean using an accent or throwing ones voice. It is entirely possible to create unique voices with diction and syntax to differentiate speakers, and this is probably easier to achieve to start with than accents.

Excellent point. And in thinking about the main NPC of our campaign, it is more cadence and meter than "accent" for me. Accents are usually a disaster.  When I was thinking about how to play him (a Cat of Ulthar), I wanted him to have a unique voice, but not necessarily accented, because I knew I wouldn't be able to maintain an accent. I also go into "scratchy lizard voice" with a main Serpent Person NPC in our campaign, but I can't maintain it for long because it destroys my throat. So, I always start with it, and then switch to my normal voice and just ask my players to imagine it continues. They are understanding. It HAS encouraged me to increase the variety of voices I use for Serpent People.

You make a good point that Actual Plays are performances and the best groups are usually composed of professional actors. I can't stand to watch not-theatre-trained gamers do Actual Plays. And to be fair, other people probably couldn't stand an Actual Play of me.  I didn't want to ASSUME too much about Becca's professional training, in case I was inadvertently pigeon-holing her or patronizing her, but I don't think it is unfair to say she has had significant theatre training and that influences all of her work. But, as you say, that shouldn't mean that someone who isn't trained in those professions can't do well. It took me 29 years of GMing to develop skills that Becca likely had right out of the gate. The sad truth is that while many of us applaud her immediate success and enjoy it, we all know that there are a lot of insecure gamers out there that treat excellence in others as a threat. 

18 hours ago, Israeldor said:

In my experience most groups I have had tend to:
1. Get the initial hook.
2.Go to the most direct scene/witness and either look around or interview them.
3. Follow up from there until they witness scarier clues
4. Maybe do some intellectual investigation
5. Return to the scarier clues and have the confrontation

I appreciate you posting your own list because there are certainly many flavors of table norms out there. A bit about me: I'm a high school science teacher and college education professor who ran a Game Club for my high school for 16 years. I've gamed with people ages 14 to 70 and there seem to me to be definite generational differences in terms of what some gamers value. It varies by individual as well, of course. My current group, composed entirely of Millenials aged 26 to 38, very much prefers action and social engagement akin to your list more than the traditional route of investigating newspapers. Why might this be? Newspapers have greatly fallen in their perceived utility by younger generations? I sometimes need to remind my group members that newspaper is an option. Not because they don't understand the role that newspapers played in the 1920s. They just don't have a gut instinct there sometimes. I also think that young people are much, much better at direct social engagement than older generations. And so they favor that in our games. They would rather get right to brass tacks than spend time fiddling around with secondary sources. Once again, every individual is different and not all generational norms show up in every member of a generation. I also want to say that I admire and support young people. I teach graduate students because young thinking keeps me growing. And I will admit that it bothers the ever-living hell out of me that some gamers treat young players as lesser just because they are different. Of course, my profession is a collection of specific skills; the most important among them is empathy. You can spot a gamer that lacks empathy a mile away. In addition, younger gamers have grown up in a world of unprecedented economic inequality (at least in the States, can't speak for other countries) and I think that the concept of creative control over a story is very attractive to them. Because they don't have that in their actual lives!

18 hours ago, Israeldor said:

I think necessary clues are ok in small numbers. Too many and the tools to "fix" the issue start to remove some player agency. So the ways I am familiar with fixing necessary clues are:
1. Obvious clues, they really can't miss them.
2. Have several clues leading to the same conclusion
3. Fail forward for failed rolls, imposing a cost for the failure rather than gating progress.
4. Moving clues around a bit as necessary.

Excellent additions to my original list. I hope our posts here continue to aide new Keepers.

18 hours ago, Israeldor said:

The reason I say having to use these too much reduces player agency is that I feel player agency allows for players to fail as well as succeed. It is reacting to their decisions and approaches to playing the game and providing the appropriate consequences. Sometimes nudging things in a direction here or there isn't a big deal. But the more it is done, the more it infringes on the natural consequences of decisions. Sometimes this can make it a more fun game, but in excess it can hurt player investment (and thus enjoyement). But I am definitely somewhat of a player agency extremist. A lot of people will disagree with me on this, especially to the extent I view this.

This is the real "elephant in the room," isn't it?  This is the tricky thing in role-playing games: the balance between player agency and preparation/adaptation. How much needs to be prepared in advance and how much can be adapted on the fly? I think that the "nudging" becomes a problem only when it leads to pre-determined outcomes rather than creation. And maybe this is the important thing: when I "nudge" my players, I don't do it to push them towards a particular outcome. I nudge them to make a decision, whatever that decision happens to be. And then my hope is that I can sufficiently adapt what has been prepared in advance to both let them drive the outcomes within (or adjacent) to the preparation. Players understand that if they go too far afield it becomes harder to have a rich game. I think the unspoken contract here is: Keeper: "I will do everything I can to let your creativity and curiosity drive the narrative." Player: "In return, I will acknowledge that preparation is a thing, I will trust your ability to adapt, but will also acknowledge that the further afield I push us, the harder it will be for you to adapt effectively in the moment."

Note that "adversarial" GMs really struggle with adaptation. Because they've hamstrung themselves from the very start. They don't view role-playing as a mutualism. And it is easier to adapt when the goal is common. My personal opinion is that one of the greatest liabilities in this hobby is people thinking Gary Gygax was a good GM. He had a very narrow skill set, and I would argue that he was an incredibly poor model of crafting social capacity. And I know this isn't a popular statement. Gygax was peddling a very specific type of dungeon-crawling that his players preferred. A lot of people have convinced themselves that everyone should prefer that style of gaming and that all GMs should aspire to "be like Gygax." If anyone here is actively trying to emulate Gygax, you're probably running a really crappy game, unless it's OSR "traditional" dungeon-crawling. We've learned so much about mutual narrative story-telling as a hobby. Many of us actively eschew this Gygax-worship as completely counter-productive to growing the hobby.

You can tell I enjoy digression. 😜 

Coming back to your point: I also believe deeply in player agency and my current group has really pushed me to take active steps to improve how I approach it. I think an underlying point of the video is that GMs can learn to adapt within an established framework. It is all a matter of recognizing that a scenario gives you a set of tools, and a scenario often prioritizes which set of tools the author perceives to be the most important. But, truthfully, any of the tools could be creatively useful if adapted effectively. And Becca demonstrated how to do that. She is fiercely intelligent, was well-prepared, and most importantly not afraid to deviate from the scenario as written. I've sat at so many tables over my life where the GM is clearly mortified of deviating from the text. Many GMs have told me directly (or implied) that what is written in a book is "sacred" to them. They treat "author's intention" as a significant variable in their calculus and basically treat an author as if their edited scenario is the one right way to run it. And that is not a knock on authors. Authors are human beings. Authors (and especially Call of Cthulhu authors!) encourage Keepers to deviate from the text. And some people struggle to listen to that excellent advice. Because they've built up gaming authors to be something super-human in their heads and they doubt their own abilities. Now, it isn't your job, or my job, or Chaosium's job to help people sort out their insecurities. But sorting out insecurities, for a lot of people, is what is separating them from going from "OK Keeper" to "Great Keeper." And we all can continue to improve.

I happen to believe that the key to getting a major gain in player agency in games is the following philosophical and practical approachs:

1) Any scenario (published or homebrew) is a set of tools, nothing more. None of it should be treated as prescriptive. If you end up running it as written, it should be because players were curious to find that end. And if they weren't, you be a railroader. 

2) Offer your group a minimum of three potential major avenues of investigation from you at any given time, but stay open to avenues of investigation from them. I don't prep one published scenario at a time. I prep at least three. And sometimes what happens is the best parts of all three!

3) Try to end sessions on cliff-hangers or new investigation paths so that you as Keeper then have time to plan what they indicate they are interested in. If your players suddenly go left field, you don't have to show that field until the next session. 

4) Your body language and inflection says a lot about what you value. Good Keeping means complimenting and acting appropriately excited about player ideas. A huge tell of a GM that lacks an adaptive mindset is that they get flustered when players do things they don't expect. One of our worst Con games (and what ultimately drove us away from Cons entirely) was a WW2 pulp serial game in which we had a "you can't do that" GM. Every single creative idea we had was shot down and the game ended with us mortified at how ridiculously controlling and ineffectual the GM was. He got slaughtered in the reviews. Not because we wanted to be cruel, but because that guy should not be running games at Cons. Period. People sometimes come from hundreds of miles to a Con to have fun. Not be told that their ideas can't ever work. He happened to draw a group of fun-forward gamers who weren't going to tolerate role-playing being modelled as "this is my story and you're along for the ride." Every Keeper should practice: "Yes, and..." and "Yes, but..." and "What a fun idea! How will you pull that off?" As a teacher, a skill that pre-disposes me to GMing is effective questioning techniques. Effective questions are an art and they make a huge difference for encouraging thought and creativity. Open-ended questions.

5) Make peace with the fact that most of what you prep may not be used, or will have to be used in a completely different order than what you expected. Becca knew that scenario front-to-back and didn't hesitate to go to wherever was needed based upon what players did.

6) Develop the mindset that you and your players are on the same side, that you want them to succeed (but will make it challenging), and that player agency means that you are only one voice at the table. If Gygax convinced you that you are effective by being "Lord High God Of The Table™," then you are just replicating insecurity-driven social ignorance.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.