robin_d_laws: Gaming Hut: Eliminating Mannerisms

robin_d_laws (

robin_d_laws) wrote,
@ 2005-05-10 09:54:00

Entry tags:

gaming hut

Gaming Hut: Eliminating Mannerisms

When revising a work of fiction, the author attempts to find and eliminate mannerisms — the telltale words, phrases, even situations that crop up too often in a manuscript, because he tends to reach for reflexively and use them unconsciously.

Gamemastering is even more prone to repeated mannerisms, because it’s improvised. No going back and cutting out the bits where you zipped automatically to your favorite choices.

I’m starting a new series (playtesting a thing I’m writing for a game book) and decided to deprive myself of access to my standard bag of tricks. I’m not saying these are bad, per se, and I’m not giving them up forever. But to give this series a distinctive flavor, I made the following vows:

No open-ended problems or extended continuity. All cases are discrete episodes unto themselves.

No ongoing villains.

No statless or impossibly powerful antagonists.

No ascensions into godhood or interactions with divine or semi-divine entities.

I’m also considering a restriction on comic GMCs, but have declined to formally commit myself to that one.

In exchange for these restrictions, I’ve made a single demand of my players:

You may not, jokingly or otherwise, refer to yourselves as incompetent, bunglers, unlucky, etc. You are playing competent professionals. Do not undermine this, even out of character.

(Post a new comment)

	eyebeams 2005-05-10 06:58 am UTC (link)
	Good idea! I'm a big fan of apotheoses myself. It'd be nice to cut 'em out . . . (Reply to this)

	memento_mori 2005-05-10 07:22 am UTC (link)
	Man, sucks if you're running a Vampire game, eh? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	eyebeams 2005-05-10 07:25 am UTC (link)
	About as much as if you're running Sorcerer. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	thebitterguy 2005-05-10 09:32 am UTC (link)
	One can only hope not. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	shiffer 2005-05-10 01:34 pm UTC (link)
	Well, I tend to think in that case you're kind of screwed already. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	wordwill 2005-05-10 01:42 pm UTC (link)
	I weep. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	cpxbrex 2005-05-10 07:47 am UTC (link)
	Oh, you'd THINK that professional writers would cut that stuff out. But as I'm reading some old X-Men comics, let me tell you, some don't. If I read about the "ultimate expression" of something one more time, I do not know if I will be able to stop myself from finding Chris Claremont and breaking his kneecaps, hehe. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	eyebeams 2005-05-10 07:50 am UTC (link)
	My current hate-on is for the phrase "closely guarded secret." Sometimes, though, I find there's a point where genre and fan expectations demand a certain degree of repetitiveness. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

cpxbrex
2005-05-10 09:27 am UTC (link)

Which, in some ways, is worse than "ultimate expression". No matter how overused and cliched, it at least tries to describe something. As opposed to a closely guarded secret . . . as opposed to the non-guarded secrets? So that phrase combines triteness with redundancy.

I don't object to a certain amount of formalization and repetition in serial media. I mean, sure, we all know that with great power comes great responsibility, and that Wolverine is the best at what he does but what he does isn't very nice. But Claremont ultimate expressionized three different things in one page, and there's not a lot of text in one comic book page, hehe. I was wondering not only about his own discipline as a writer, but also his editor's commitment to editing at that point. ;)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	cheetahmaster 2005-05-10 09:47 am UTC (link)
	So, you mentioned Chris Claremont, but what about any professional writers? :} (Reply to this)(Parent)

mind_of_richard
2005-05-10 08:12 am UTC (link)

No open-ended problems or extended continuity. All cases are discrete episodes unto themselves.

No ongoing villains.

No statless or impossibly powerful antagonists.

No ascensions into godhood or interactions with divine or semi-divine entities.

I did the same thing with a project I am working on. So far the results have been very good, especially the having "...all cases are discrete episodes unto themselves." This has freed the game I am working on, has given it the tone I was looking for.

(Reply to this)

	orrin 2005-05-10 08:33 am UTC (link)
	This is only passingly related, but I'm curious to know your take on it. Do you think that the, how shall I say, theory behind pen-and-paper RPGs has moved away from episodic adventures and more toward storyline-driven campaigns? And, if so, what do you think the repercussions of this shift are, and do you think that the change is likely to remain? (Reply to this)

mikegentry
2005-05-10 08:47 am UTC (link)

All cases are discrete episodes unto themselves.

This is maybe the most valuable constraint I've ever discovered. I've actually discovered that sticking to this makes it easier to add things like ongoing villains or extended continuity, because I can now draw a sharp distinction between those things and the things that are meant to be rewarding here & now, during this particular instance of play. I can add a dangling plot thread, and it's much easier for everyone to construe it to mean, "This is a bit of extended continuity. It's something that you may find entertaining, if you come back for the next session. But it's not something that you have to agonize over during this session, and rest assured that you'll have a full and satisfying resolution to this session regardless."

(Reply to this)

	etrigan 2005-05-10 09:03 am UTC (link)
	Let me know if you're scoping for another player some time Robin? I'd love to give your table another shot ;) (Reply to this)

sambear
2005-05-10 09:04 am UTC (link)

I think this kind of scathing self-inventory is what is useful in any artistic profession, and equally as useful in game mastering.

I think you've inspired me to sit down and try to come up with my personal mannerisms and try to push myself outside of those constraints.

However, I have this question: at what point does writing style / personal style end and mannerisms begin? Is "having a style" a bad thing?

I would answer that it isn't necessarily a bad thing; but like all things should be examined and used with awareness, not in an unconscious way.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

wordwill
2005-05-10 10:18 am UTC (link)

On the border between mannerisms and style: That's a great question. Right now, I'll float this possible answer: It's about control. When you employ it, it's a style. When it freeloads in your work without your invitation, it's a mannerism. If you don't have the control over your craft to spot and correct that stuff, then you've still got work to do.

Writers who can translate their voice onto the page with clarity and verve are a treat, and they can proud of their skills. But writers who can command other voices, who can craft work of a particular tone and style through rewrites, editing and careful self-scrutiny are pure sterling.

If you've got a good voice, you can be a popular and successful singer. If you can control your voice, you can be a genuinely good singer.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

mcroft
2005-05-10 10:03 am UTC (link)

We've just started a Dogs In The Vinyard campaign, and I'm running it. I've found that my GM-ing instincts are counter to the advice Vincent gives on how to present the scenario to the players. Just running a few sessions has helped me be more decisive in my regular Everway campaign.

I guess my question would be "what were you trying to achieve with each of those manenrisms and are you skipping those objectives or achieving them with alternate tools?" For instance, if you were using ongoing villains to
A: not have to write a new complex villain every week AND
B: increase the player's emotional buy-in by letting them develop a desire to defeat the villain.
You might be passing on A and have some other mechanism for B.

(Reply to this)

wordwill
2005-05-10 10:25 am UTC (link)

Excellent. Please do post a follow-up to this, so that we may all learn from your work.

For the last few years, I realize I've been doing the opposite of this: I've been actively, but without much strategy or formality, trying to avoid my mannerisms and many of my old tricks when running games. It's been all right, but ultimately, my old tricks were just fine. I may have learned a few new ones in my effort to shy away from highly cinematic gaming (complete with color palettes, implied camera moves and so forth, of which you are familiar), but ultimately, the players have a better time when I go with what I know how to do.

This is especially true at convention games, which feel more and more like gigs as the years progress, because these adventures are often new for the "audience" (sic) but old hat for me. The fact is, though, that in the end I feel the best after a game when the players have a fun ride, and that's where my sense of accomplishment comes from. Me growing as a storyteller (and, by extension, hopefully a writer as well) is nice, but there's a time and a place for that. When the orbit of personal betterment aligns with the orbit of an entertained audience, the tumblers of the universe click into place and All Is As It Should Be. But more often, of late, I'm teaching myself to appreciate a good adventure, well played, in place of a work of genius, forgettably performed.

(Reply to this)

	I did the exact same thing for my present campaign. codrus 2005-05-10 02:07 pm UTC (link)
	At least two of the rules: Gods cannot directly act in the world, they can only act through intermediaries. The PCs won't always be rushing to stop some big ritual spell from going off. (Reply to this)

	Eliminating Mannerisms (Anonymous) 2005-05-11 05:31 am UTC (link)
	I think that should read, Do not undermine this, especially out of character. Charles (Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…