From: dqk412@kepler.unh.edu (David Q Kennard)
Subject: quiet players (was: Re: Joys of Dice)
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:18:23 GMT

In article <BsxvDx.I25.1@cs.cmu.edu> cscott+@CS.CMU.EDU (Curtis Scott) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.161227.13016@newshost.unh.edu>, dqk412@kepler.unh.edu (David Q Kennard) writes:
>|> 
>|> the combat doesn't have to bog down. In fact, it can often go quite a bit
>|> quicker than other games. Part of the "roleplaying description" on which
>|> player success is based requires pacing. If the player seems to be dragging,
>|> deliberate and cautious, then so's the character. One poster said Amber
>|> combat should play at the pace of Paranoia or Toon. I agree. Keep moving.
>|> Keep up the pace -- like real combat. If I'm GM in a diceless combat what
>|> I'm really looking for is not the little tricks and knowledges that the 
>|> player might not have; what I'm looking for is the impression that the player
>|> feels *in the role and mindset* of combat, that she's acting *as her
>|> character would in this situation*. Yeah, there's the potential problem
>|> of the player acting as the player in that situation, but I try to account
>|> for that as best I can and try to draw out the *character*.
>
>So, in response to previous posts by others that a glib player will
>succeed, if we use you as an example of an Amber GM, that's not an
>accurate characterization. You're looking for signs of absorption into
>the role, not signs of clever dialogue.

Note that I've also characterized this as a potential problem, especially
in diceless games. As a "glib" player I have been known to overshadow other
players, even when their characters are supposedly more competent, and I
have been known to snowball GMs into letting me get away with things my
character should have found much more difficult. I try (sometimes not very
successfully) to rein in my "glibness level" to that of my character. As a
GM (in whatever game system) I try to be sensitive to the problem in myself
and in my player group.

>
>I'll give an example which concerns me. One of my players is an experienced
>roleplayer, but speaks up very little in games. In conversation with him,
>I find I often have a lot of trouble understanding his point of view.
>Some of this is just manner: we have different interaction styles. Some is
>(it seems to me) a lack of confidence. I've read his writing, and he's neither
>dumb nor inarticulate (in the sense of being unable to find the right words).
>His ideas are solid, and he's got some insights into roleplaying which I
>find stimulating and obviously well-thought-out. He's just not good at
>face-to-face conversation.
>
>In a "diced" game, his character's abilities are not totally dependent
>upon his ability to interact, because he can roll the dice and use his
>character's skill. Assuming that everything I've said is true,
>how would I judge his absorption in a diceless game?
>
>Curtis

This is a clear example of the problem of player vs character ability.
What I try to do, as GM or as fellow player, is to *know* that player's
character as best as possible -- and to know the *player* as well as
possible. The better knowledge of how that player views that character the
better I can describe things or ask questions that make sense to the player,
and to the character. Of course, this is a problem that exists in any RPG
whether it uses dice or not. I agree that dice can make this sort of situation
easier, because the GM can just ask for a skill roll or something. The
bottom line, however, is that "drawing out" the player and character means
putting the player on the spot, perhaps quite uncomfortably. 

I had a player (Hero system) who ran a spy/assassin kind of guy. If I left
it up to the player's initiative and ability the character would have been
pretty ineffective. What I tried to do (as I try to do in all games I run)
was to describe the character's world from the point of view of the character.
The Amber game talks about "finding your character's voice". The spy had a
voice, as the player wrote up his background and character sheet and as he
talked with me about ideas for the character. I tried to pull into play
(in small ways) the voice he showed me outside of play. In a sense I spoke
as the GM in the voice of the character. It seemed to work. As the player
better saw the presentation in play of what he had outlined on paper he was
better able to speak from the point of view of the character himself.

This "difference in interaction skills" can be used. If the player can't
really speak his character in group play, maybe he can get enough of it 
across in other ways. Amber encourages things like character diaries and
other written materials produced by the players. These can be useful in 
any game -- and can be worth points in a point-based system, as an 
encouragement. The player writing them and the GM reading them can really
get "absorbed" into the character with this. And again, the better the
player and GM know the character the better the GM can understand what
the player really wants in a given situation, whether he's glib or not.


Dave Kennard
DAVE@UNH.EDU
-----------
this posting account (dqk412@kepler.unh.edu) and its news access goes away 
soon. dave@unh.edu remains but with no news access. I'm more than willing
to continue discussions by e-mail.