How to Run a Game (Part 18) - Red, Amber, Green

Looking back on the last post about a welcoming environment, I probably should have included it far earlier in the sequence. A good, welcoming, and inclusive environment is probably one of the most important elements of running an enjoyable game that people want to come back to. I just figured it was better to get a good grounding of concepts and understanding of the elements I've seen regularly appear over decades of playing and running games. 

...anyway...

Red, Amber, Green.

Traffic Lights.

I've mentioned the tension that pulls on a game. That tension can add drama and dynamic story, or can rip it apart if it isn't managed well.

One of the key things I've found over the years is that the game tends to run smoothly if everyone is involved in the game's tension at some level. From the perspective of the three-way tension analogy, This keeps the pull smooth, reducing sudden jerks on the line when someone hasn't been paying attention then suddenly decides to make a dramatic decision in the game.   

A generally do this by regularly analysing the group, and ensuring everyone is getting a fair share of "screen time" in the story. I went into this during the sixth post of this series, but I felt that I needed to explain a little more how I do this. It's mostly instincts, and it's something that takes practice, but it's a system that has generally been pretty successful so far. 

Green

Players set to green mode are given free rein to move their story forward. As a rule of thumb, I try to make sure I divide the amount of time in the game by the number of players, and no one player get more time at Green Light status than this amount. It basically equates to screen time where this character is the main one "on screen". A six player game for 3 hours, no single player should get more than half an hour of spotlight time. A four player game for the same time might allow 45 minutes at green.

Even though some players don't like the spotlight, I also try to make sure everyone gets some time at green. How they deal with this offer of narrative control is up to them, but the offer has been made. 

Amber

Players set to amber mode are generally permitted to move the story forward as long as they bring someone else along with them. Amber might be a player adding their own elements to someone else's time in the spotlight, or might be two players working together. Although I previously mentioned the maximum time I'll allow someone at green, typically a player will spend less than the full allotment at green, probably only half as much, and the more time they're willing to share their screen time the more time is available for other people to share screen time with them. Some players always want to share the spotlight, so I try to make sure they get the most opportunity to do so. 

Red

Players set to red are currently brought to a halt so that other players can have a turn. Sometimes it feels mean doing this, but in many cases you've just got to draw the line against one player so that everyone else gets their fair share of the story. 

Tracking this is usually pretty easy, there'e no specific stopwatch that limits players once they get to their allotted quota of time. If everyone seems to be enjoying the flow of the story, just keep going with it. If players are starting to get bored or want their share of the action, apply more amber and even red lights to those players who seem to be hogging the session. This gets harder to track toward the extremes of player number involved in a session.

1 player, 1 narrator - This is tricky because that one player is also in "green light mode", they don't get a break because their always actively doing things, or reacting to things around them.

2 players, 1 narrator - In this case players are pretty much always involved in the action. In an evenly split narrative, you can probably split the time into thirds. One third has both players working together, the other two thirds have the players working alone with their own agendas or actions (and often these "individual" narratives will impact on the other player's experience in some way anyway). With the right players who can remain switched on for extended periods, these can be some of the most fun games I've played, but it only takes one player to stop their tension on the narrative thread for the session to start breaking down.  

3-4 players, 1 narrator - This is the low end of the sweet spot. Players can work together as a group, they can work in pairs (or trios), they can work alone...or they can sit back for a short while, watch the unfolding story occurring to other participants in the session while they gather their thoughts about the best way to move their own story forwards. At this level of play, I try to make sure everyone is at amber level for as long as possible. It's only when a player really seeks to dominate the play space that I might shift them to red, and if I see a player starting to feel left out or left behind, I'll shift them to green and maybe even prompt them with a vignette to get them back into the action. With this size of group, if one or two players want to hold back then it isn't really a problem because there's another one or two players ready to take up the slack. This biggest issues to watch out for here are those possible dominant players who  

5-6 players, 1 narrator - This is the high end of the sweet spot. Many of the factors applicable to the 3-4 player groups still apply. The upside of a larger group is that it becomes harder for a lone player to take the reins of the narrative, because there are more other players able to work against them. The difficulty as numbers rise is making sure everyone is occupied. With two or three players at a time engaged in an action and helping each other out, you can alternate back and forth between the groups. This really works well if you've got a couple of players who like the intense characterization of "actor stance", because they can really get immersed for a few minutes, then cool off for a bit before their next intense period. It also works well if you've got a few players who prefer "pawn stance" because they can sit back and enjoy their characters from a distance, then watch other players engage the narrative with their characters. The issue here might come from author stance and director stance, but for two entirely different reasons. Players who take author stance might be fine, because a break from the actions lets them consider their characters motivations before they reengage the narrative. However it's possible that their break from the flow might make it harder for them to re-engage. Players with the mindset of a director stance might have a tendency to get involved in the narrative involving other players if they've been given time to think. Whether this issue becomes a benefit or problem depends on how that player's suggestions are treated.     

7-9 players, 1 narrator - Here's where things start to get unwieldy, but an experienced narrator can start to handle bigger groups. There's an idea in psychology that the average human mind can handle 7 things (plus or minus two), I've looked at this from the perspective of creating games and creating characters sheets for games, but the same applies for a narrator. The seven things in this case might be six individual stories of six characters, while the seventh is the overall narrative that ties the stories together. At the simplest level, the narrator is switching the lights between red, amber, and green for each of the players in their group, moderating the flow of traffic and moderating the degree of tension that different players are being permitted to exert on the narrative thread. The more players you have, the harder it is to keep track of who still holds tension in the story...and some people (especially the quiet ones) start getting left behind, and then struggle to reassert their position in the story. This is probably a better explanation for what I looked at in the sixth post of the series, when I said I didn't know why certain narrators just started breaking under the weight of excess players. 

10+ players, 1 narrator - I don't think I've ever seen someone successfully manage a tabletop game this size. I've seen people claim that they can do it, and have then sat in on one of their session, only to watch half of the players bored and distracted. Just split the game up into two (or more) smaller groups.