Catch Your Hare

So there you go. This week has turned into Status week. I hope it was interesting.

There’s a few more improvisation posts to go. Some of the things I want to talk about are:

• Accepting your status responsibilities. Many people realise the need to play low status occasionally (shut up and listen, let someone else have a turn, follow rather than leading). But it’s also your responsibility to play high status, when the game needs it.
• Different sorts of reincorporation.
• A bit more on that “tension graph”.
• Lots of random item tables.
• And perhaps some stuff about protagonists.
• And perhaps even some stuff on active listening.

As always, I’ll probably think of other things to talk about as I go.

Two other quick things!

Firstly, if you haven’t started looking at Acting At Work (www.actingatwork.com), please do. I could really use some feedback. Oh, and I’m about to tell you how to act drunk.

Secondly, I’ve now released a PDF version of Play Unsafe, for $10. I think you should go and buy it.

So far, I’ve talked about status at the gaming table as a static thing. One guy is high status; one guy is low status. The GM is higher status than others.

But, on reflection, this is completely misleading.

Here’s the most functional way for status to work around the gaming table. It shifts. For five minutes, I’m high status around the table and everyone else is low. During the next five minutes, I keep quiet and someone else takes high status. The status shifts from player to player.

Why do I say “functional”? Remember we’re talking about status at the gaming table, here. Essentially, we’re talking about who controls the game. Who gets to speak? Who gets to talk over other people? Who makes decisions for the group?

Now, if someone is constantly high status, they constantly speak more than others, make decisions for the group and control the game. If someone is constantly low, they always speak less, acquiesce to others’ decisions and are controlled. If that’s a constant thing, I’d say it’s dysfunctional.

To clarify, consider “being high status” as “taking a turn”. On your turn, you take control, speak a lot, make the game about you. But then it’s someone else’s turn, so you hand the status to the next player.

In that sense, being constantly high-status means you’re not letting anyone else have a go.

Now, it may be that, overall, one guy runs the game. That’ll probably be the GM. That’s fine. But it’s important that, in running the game, he passes the status baton to someone else: gives a player the chance to make the scene about their character, for a while.

In your games, be careful that no one person is controlling the game. Share the status. Let everyone have a turn.

So, here’s two common arrangements of status around the gaming table. You’ll recognise these without trouble.

Both of these are touted, in different circles, as the “right” way for the status to be distributed. I’ll argue that, although both have benefits, both are flawed.

1. The GM runs the game

Here’s the traditional arrangement of status: the GM is high status; everyone else is beneath him.

The GM runs the game. He keeps the secrets. He arbitrates. When he speaks, people are quiet. Often, he implicity gives permission for others to speak: he’ll do an opening spiel, then pause, and that’s your cue to speak.

There are advantages and disadvantages to this style. Keeping secrets can create a fun, mysterious game; having a single, high-status arbiter can resolve disputes quickly.

But there can be disadvantages. Giving the GM more time to speak can mean quieter players don’t get a turn. There is a tendency for the GM to speak, rather than listen to the players and respond. The GM’s high status can lead to his forcing an adventure on them, rather than players playing and the GM responding.

If you’re a high-status GM, be careful. Are you giving players adequate chance to speak? Are you forcing decisions on your players or letting them decide?

2. Everyone is equal

The idea that everyone should have equal status is an obvious one. Many modern, small-press games, especially those without GMs, recommend egalitarianism.

Again, there are advantages. It’s likely that everyone gets equal say.

But games like this miss much fun. It can be fun to have someone (usually the GM) who’s constantly higher status: who keeps the secrets, who makes the decisions. This is using status to add spice to the game: the group grants status to one of them, because it enhances the experience for the group.

If you have an egalitarian group, ask yourself: are there occasions when one group member takes higher or lower status? If not, try it, and see how your game changes.

____

So! There you go. Two status arrangements, which, in different ways, I have scientifically proved to be bad and wrong.

But, actually, I’ve made a bad assumption here. I’ve assumed that status stayed constant throughout the game. In the next section, I’ll consider what happens when we think about table status as a fluid thing: you’re high status one moment, I’m high status the next.