No, not one of those dumb quizzes (although I am MUCH bigger than a breadbox). I have a problem fitting in to my gaming group, and, being too mean to pay a professional, I wanted some free advice on exactly what's going on in my head. I'm not sure this is the right place to ask, but the terminology came from here, so...
Here's the situation. Our gaming club has in it three groups. All are, generally speaking, Simulationist, as far as you can generalise such a thing. The GM creates a world (or, more realistically, picks up a book and uses a world someone else has created), creates a story, creates scenes within the story. The players create characters, then describe the character's actions and roll the dice. the GM may fudge a few (or a lot) of the rolls to heighten the game, but the stress is certainly on Exploration, Setting and System (in varying orders of importance), and rarely on Character. I haven't seen a clear situation of Narrativism in 20-odd years.
And that's the problem. In 20-odd years I've been a Simulationist. RuneQuest, traveller, GURPS, the lot. And I'm bored with it. game tables depress me. I write up my own fiction about my characters. I devise all sorts of motivations, moral dillemas, plot hooks. But when I try to play Narrativist, I hit a brick wall (players don't respond, GMs don't have a rule for it). When I try to GM Narrativist I get blank stares. Mind you, I've not entirely escaped the Sim mindset, I LIKE realism, and I detest a system that fails a 'reality test'. I just don't want to have to look it up in a table all the time...
But... our group is possibly the oldest, both in terms of establishment (some of us started in 1979) and in player age (I'm **hrumphle*** years old myself...). And we're showing clear signs of game fatigue. Slow play, frequent out-of-game distractions, minimal progress, no excitement. The most animated we've become recently is when playing filler games of ZOMBIES!!! Hero Wars drifted off, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer is lethargic and mechanical (and no, I don't mean the Buffybot). I believe the others need a bit of a shove and encouragement. Hell, they turn up every week, they must want something. Maybe we have a complete group of Casual Gamers? They're my friends, and I'm not walking out on them.
I've tried playing with the other, newer, younger (damn them...) groups, and they're faster, more focussed, more involved... and Powergamers and kill-crazies and rules lawyers. No burnout there, but not my cup of tea.
Now, clearly, that's not enough to go on, but, generally speaking,
HELP ME!
Wulf
My own gaming goes in cycles Wulf. I hit the point where you are now about 10 years ago and for most of the last 10 years had pretty much withdrawn from Roleplaying (except for a couple dabbles which confirmed why I didn't do it much any more).
Instead my attention shifted to board games. Avalon Hill classics like Civilization or Brittania or History of the World which I had always enjoyed were now the main focus of my, and my gaming groups, time. From there the flood of European-style games really brought excitement back into my gaming. It got me past the burn out. I had continued to stay "in" the RPG world as a buyer of games (looking for something that might get me excited) but rarely played. Then I stumbled on 7th Sea, joined the 7th Sea mailing list, witnessed the departure of JW and followed the development of Orkworld. Orkworld led me to Gaming Outpost where I discovered a whole bunch of roleplayers talking about roleplaying...and actually sounding like they were having fun. I eventually migrated most of my time over here to the Forge and for the last couple years have been enjoying roleplaying again (taking time out to crush Seth and his wife beneath the heals of my Samurai in Tenjo, of course).
So, shareing moment aside. You may just need a breather. Try spending a few weeks or months (hopefully you won't need years like I did) playing other types of games for a while.
Hmm... interesting. The other potential Narrativist in the group (with two of us, there was someone to play against at least) just left due to family commitments (two young kids). Now we're boardgaming on irregular nights...Settlers of Catan card game last week, Nomad Gods tomorrow.
But the problem is I don't feel burnt out or lacking motivation, I feel more excited and ready to game than I have the last 10 years or so. There are so many games I want to play. I just have to figure out how to motivate the group (which, I agree, may mean a break or change in gaming). Specifically, I want them motivated for HeroQuest in March...
Wulf
Quote from: WulfSpecifically, I want them motivated for HeroQuest in March...
Have you talked to them about this?
That is, physically stood up and said, "Hey everyone, in March we're going to play Hero Wars. I'm really excited about playing it, but I want you to be, too, or I don't see a reason to play. So what excites you about Hero Wars?"
That specific question, phrased just that way is the lynchpin...you don't want to ask it any other way, because it should get them thinking (they'll naturally want to provide an answer) and it doesn't provide an easy "out."
Of course, this doesn't work if you haven't mentioned to them before that you'd like to play Hero Wars (or the above comes off as we're GOING to play Hero Wars -- nyah!). So if you haven't, drop it into conversation, "I think I'd like to try Hero Wars sometime." And leave the book out for them to flip through during/before/after other sessions.
However, the thing is if one of them answers, "Nothing." Then ask them what they think would be exciting? If they give you blank looks after that, your group has a lot of talking to do about the activity of role-playing itself as a group.
Here's the other thing, if you really want to play all these games, do the "X-games" thing: one new game every month or two. That way there is no pressure to keep playing, or to feel "locked into" something if they don't like it: 3-5 solid sessions, and then you move on. Mention this and be clear about it and the number of sessions.
If they like it, you can keep playing, of course, but the point is to get them to at least try it. Otherwise, to use an analogy, it's like saying, "We're having monkey kidneys for dinner, but I don't know when we'll stop having them for dinner." It's far more palatable to accept it once or twice if you know for certain you aren't trapped into having monkey kidneys every night until whenever (only tonight, tomorrow and then once next week...never again if we don't like them! Yay! But those poor monkeys...).
As well, it may take a while for you and your group to get out of your old habits. I started a 3E D&D game with the intention of having it be some funky Narrativist-style play and it went to crap on me...it took me something more than a year to "get it" and actually start playing Narratively -- so don't beat yourself up OR your players if you don't "get it" immediately.
Just have fun and do what seems fun.
Wulf,
My best recommendation is to run a game of InSpectres. The rules can be taught quickly, and everyone knows and likes the genre. Present it as a light diversion. After a successful run you'll have taken the edge off the blank stares.
One thing you should know though. Narrativism doesn't mean sacrificing realism. Aggressively Sim games try to capture realism mechanically, via system. But invariably, cracks emerge. Narrativism has appeal to a lot of Sim gamers, I think, because they recognize that the human brain is intuitively a much more reliable engine of probability and realism than they've ever experienced from system mechanics.
Paul
Quote from: greyormQuote from: WulfSpecifically, I want them motivated for HeroQuest in March...
Have you talked to them about this?
That is, physically stood up and said, "Hey everyone, in March we're going to play Hero Wars. I'm really excited about playing it, but I want you to be, too, or I don't see a reason to play. So what excites you about Hero Wars?"
Actually, we've been playing HW for two years, on and off (mostly on). HeroQUEST motivates me as I'm hoping this time they'll (Issaries, Inc.)get it right (it's the only game I've seen where a rigidly Simulationist setting has ground a free-flowing Narrativist system to submission...). The problem isn't the game as such, it's the style.
I've suggested they create their own HeroQuests that I can detail & write up - great idea! Not one appeared...
I've asked all about their characters, finding motivations and hooks/kickers. Wow, you mean I can get involved? - they look at the sheets and read the numbers.
I've talked to them about the 100-word writeup to create a character. Very interested. Two appeared, both wandered in about 60-70 words, and would have created fewer abilities than the list method. Some of them haven't even NAMED their characters.
I don't think they actually KNOW how to play Narratively, or any other way but Simulationist, they never have. It interests them, but it's too much work, or too different, or just plain scarey. They'll play Hero Wars/HeroQuest, but they'll play it Simulationist.
Quote
Here's the other thing, if you really want to play all these games, do the "X-games" thing: one new game every month or two.
We're doing that now. What follows Buffy I'm not sure. If I can get 2-3 players alone, I'll spring Donjon on them...
Wulf
Quote from: WulfI don't think they actually KNOW how to play Narratively, or any other way but Simulationist, they never have. It interests them, but it's too much work, or too different, or just plain scarey. They'll play Hero Wars/HeroQuest, but they'll play it Simulationist.
On the other hand, it may be that they really
like Simulationist play. It certainly sounds like you have made reasonable attempts at introducing Narrativist play and it hasn't seriously interested them. It seems to me quite possible that you could keep trying one Narrativist game after another at them and keep getting the same results.
In this case, if you want to keep gaming with them you need to find a compromise or (ideally) hybrid which excites both you and them. I would look at what does interest them -- especially in terms of source material. Are they into superheroes, or espionage, or Star Wars, or what? Then look for what inside of that would interest you.
Good point, John. Wulf, have you considered looking for another group, one that matches your priorities better?
Mike
Quote from: John KimOn the other hand, it may be that they really like Simulationist play. It certainly sounds like you have made reasonable attempts at introducing Narrativist play and it hasn't seriously interested them. It seems to me quite possible that you could keep trying one Narrativist game after another at them and keep getting the same results.
I'd be perfectly willing to agree that they prefer Simulationist play, but at the moment, they haven't got too wonderfully excited about that either. The Narrativist concepts I've discussed have interested them, they've SAID they'd like to try.
QuoteIn this case, if you want to keep gaming with them you need to find a compromise or (ideally) hybrid which excites both you and them. I would look at what does interest them -- especially in terms of source material. Are they into superheroes, or espionage, or Star Wars, or what? Then look for what inside of that would interest you.
We'll probably try Superheroes (Mutants & Masterminds) soon, we tried Star Wars (OK, but none of us is too sure about writing scenarios). We tend to be a fantasy-oriented group.
I may try Donjon. It's got simulationist mechanics, if you ignore the 'extras'. The idea of a 5-player Donjon game is a bit frightening though...
Wulf
Quote from: WulfI'd be perfectly willing to agree that they prefer Simulationist play, but at the moment, they haven't got too wonderfully excited about that either. The Narrativist concepts I've discussed have interested them, they've SAID they'd like to try.
Fair enough. Has there been anything in play, however small, that has gotten them excited? i.e. a particular fight went better than usual, or a certain NPC was popular, etc. If possible, it is better to look at things which were actually liked in play, rather than things which sound like they might be good.
Quote from: John KimFair enough. Has there been anything in play, however small, that has gotten them excited? i.e. a particular fight went better than usual, or a certain NPC was popular, etc. If possible, it is better to look at things which were actually liked in play, rather than things which sound like they might be good.
Certainly the most fluid 'campaign' we have played through (actually a part of the ongoing Hero Wars campaign) was my adaptation of Mononoke Hime (Princess Mononoke), 'tweaked' to fit into Glorantha.
What
I noticed about it was that the player characters were permanently
REacting, not initiating action. Provided with suitable stimulus, they all got very inventive and started all sorts of plans, cooperating with each other and NPCs. This, I have taken to mean, shows how they are interested in exploring the setting and their own characters, so long as they don't have to think it up themselves.
Which I think is Setting Exploration Simulationism...
EDIT ADDITION: By the way, I should stress that these plans were almost diceless, excepting some rather heroic action on the part of the normally most reticent player. END EDIT
Anyway, what I would say is that (being uncharitable), if you spoon-feed them plot, they will lap it up. So, the job is, to provide loads of detail, and present it fluidly and in depth... no problem...
Wulf
Quote from: WulfCertainly the most fluid 'campaign' we have played through (actually a part of the ongoing Hero Wars campaign) was my adaptation of Mononoke Hime (Princess Mononoke), 'tweaked' to fit into Glorantha.
...
Anyway, what I would say is that (being uncharitable), if you spoon-feed them plot, they will lap it up. So, the job is, to provide loads of detail, and present it fluidly and in depth... no problem...
OK, here's where the clash of styles comes in. Offhand, it sounds like the players had a fair bit of fun with this, while you as GM did not. i.e. You felt like it was a lot of work to provide all the detail and "spoon-feed" them the plot, with not much of what you would consider payoff. Does that sound right?
What I would do would be to look at what -- within the things they like -- are there things which you like as well. Were there times of payoff for you in the Mononoke sub-campaign? On the other hand, what were the parts you liked the least?
Quote from: John KimOK, here's where the clash of styles comes in. Offhand, it sounds like the players had a fair bit of fun with this, while you as GM did not. i.e. You felt like it was a lot of work to provide all the detail and "spoon-feed" them the plot, with not much of what you would consider payoff. Does that sound right?
Well, in this specific case, it was no work at all. I know the movie so well, all I needed were NPC stats and a few sentences to remind me of the right sequence of details. I had a whale of a time, it was smooth, fluid and focused. But to do it again (and again and again) with original plots would be a challenge (hell, if I could pull it off, I'd be damn proud).
QuoteWhat I would do would be to look at what -- within the things they like -- are there things which you like as well. Were there times of payoff for you in the Mononoke sub-campaign? On the other hand, what were the parts you liked the least?
Well, what I like, and what I'd like more of, is character interraction (PC and NPC). Which would mean providing those situations where people are more significant than skills or setting, I guess. I'd like there to be more player-led plot, mind you, but so far that's not forthcoming. I can truly say there was nothing that did NOT work in that campaign (other than a couple of bits where I was losing track of how PC actions could be brought back to the plot). So maybe the predictability of the plot (I'd seen the movie, I knew how it ended) was too great for me.
Food for thought. Thanks.
Wulf
You're also welcome to come play some sessions with the indie-netgaming group at Yahoo.
We set up games over the internet. Playing via IRC and E-mail.
We seem to have quite a few GMs playing so we lean a bit toward the Narrativist-side (or at least Directors stance).
We have an ongoing Universalis game, and are just setting up for a game of Cornerstone,which looks to be playable as "as much or little Director stance as you want" Sim?
It could give you an outlet for play (you may even find you don't like Nar in Play that much after all...or that you like it a Lot!... or you may just like mixing up the Stances of Sim)
Quote from: WulfI may try Donjon. It's got simulationist mechanics, if you ignore the 'extras'.
Wulf,
Might I suggest you're not really grasping GNS, and this is affecting your attempts to try things out based on that comprehension?
I'm saying this because of the context of a few terms you've tossed around -- what cinched it is that Donjon is a blatantly Gamist game, and mechanics, while they can influence or support a particular style, are not G,N or S.
Actually, you sound a lot like I did about a year-and-a-half ago when discussing my players, my attempts at Narrativist play and so forth, so I have to wonder if you're doing the same thing I did.
I have a suggestion: let's dump the GNS terms and get down to the Social Interaction level of the group. Without saying anything about style priorities or using any game theory, let's examine what's happening in the group itself physically.
You've stated that you've unsuccessfully tried a couple things to get others in your group to play or approach certain games. In all cases, you report a a lack of response and disinterest.
Let's figure out why that is specifically
without using the theory shorthand -- meaning you'll need to do a lot of examination on your own and bring up these problems with your group as individuals directly -- again, without using the theory terminology.
I think this might help clarify the situation both here (for us) and for you.
Quote from: greyormMight I suggest you're not really grasping GNS, and this is affecting your attempts to try things out based on that comprehension?
Possibly, possibly..
QuoteI'm saying this because of the context of a few terms you've tossed around -- what cinched it is that Donjon is a blatantly Gamist game, and mechanics, while they can influence or support a particular style, are not G,N or S.
Yes, but if you were to play Donjon and NOT make use of the success=fact exchange it would support Simulation just as well. My group has made little or no use of similar mechanics (Hero points, Drama Dice, etc) to change or add to the seting/situation, but only to jiggle numbers in their favour, so they are likely to start by using successes as carryover dice.
QuoteYou've stated that you've unsuccessfully tried a couple things to get others in your group to play or approach certain games. In all cases, you report a a lack of response and disinterest.
Let's figure out why that is specifically without using the theory shorthand -- meaning you'll need to do a lot of examination on your own and bring up these problems with your group as individuals directly -- again, without using the theory terminology.
Right... No.1 pronblem is the ease and frequency with which distractions and out-of-game conversations bring things to a halt. This slows down the game and breaks up the flow. It happens less when players are presented with a plot or situation where they don't have to initiate actions, but just ask the GM questions and act on the answers, or when they are presented with a situation where they can figure things out out-of-character (puzzles, tactical situations, etc).
Allied to this, they let the dice run the game, relying on listing off suitable skills to solve any conflict or problem, without much description or in-character discussion. Until they find a problem or situation which interests them, whereupon they start to discuss, although usually player-to-player, not PC to PC/NPC, and come up with some nice ideas.
Once they get into a run like that, they get more focused and atentive, and DO start to interact in-character and with NPCs, but the momentum fizzles out if they don't get enough GM guidance and support. They won't create their own plots, don't suggest future storylines, and, despite lots of initial interest and ideas, have failed in the past to come up with their own material (character backgrounds, myths for Hero Questing, etc.).
In short, the group is lethargic and easily distracted, let their character's skills and abilities (not personality) run the game, and seem to be unwilling or unable to create material or scenarios for their own use. They are not competitive with one another, in fact usually cooperative, with any competitive activities being pretty reasonably in-character (warriors boasting, skill comparisons, etc) even though usually carried out by talking about the numbers on the character sheets, not by in-character conversations. They are not adversarial or competitive with the GM (except in a reasonable manner with some NPCs). But despite all problems, they turn up every week they can, and buy new games and gaming material regularly.
Thanks for all this, just defining my problem is enlightening.
Wulf
Hello, I'm new here but I'm going to throw in my 2 cents based on my 2 1/2 decades of gaming.
Wulf, I think the first thing you need to do is print out your last post and read it, aloud, to your player group. I would like to hear your players' responses, because I'm betting that they would either:
1 - Disagree with you, because they feel that their interests are not being catered to. In other words, there has been a miscommunication on exactly what style of game they would like to have...and unless your players also read this site and are all familiar with the GNS terminology, they are going to misunderstand what you are talking about.
2 - Agree that they are lethargic about the gaming, because they indeed show up every week expressly for socializing, and the gaming is just an excuse or added bonus. They will probably ask why you are taking all this so seriously.
Beyond getting your players' responses in this discussion, my advice to you is to check out some other groups, and bring up this subject with them, in the context of their games.
Have you considered running something (such as Donjon you mentioned) for more than one group of people? I have found that GMing the same scenario for two groups of players who don't know each other can be revealing of one's gaming style.
One more thing...I regularly game with some people who are little more than half my age so I can relate to your feelings of "gamer generation gap". I have made a special effort to fit in with the younger players' mindsets in relation to the gaming. I actually find younger players to be somewhat blundering and slow...especially when dealing with certain subjects...but the payoff of gaming with different people is well worth the time.
-TJ
Quote from: WulfRe: sub-campaign based on Princess Mononoke
I had a whale of a time, it was smooth, fluid and focused. But to do it again (and again and again) with original plots would be a challenge (hell, if I could pull it off, I'd be damn proud).
...
Well, what I like, and what I'd like more of, is character interraction (PC and NPC). Which would mean providing those situations where people are more significant than skills or setting, I guess. I'd like there to be more player-led plot, mind you, but so far that's not forthcoming. I can truly say there was nothing that did NOT work in that campaign (other than a couple of bits where I was losing track of how PC actions could be brought back to the plot). So maybe the predictability of the plot (I'd seen the movie, I knew how it ended) was too great for me.
OK, so it sounds like that overall both you and the players enjoyed themselves a lot in this sub-campaign. However, you were somewhat dissatisfied with the predictability. I'd like to ask a few more questions about it, since I see it as a prime source of information on what works well for you and your group.
Had any of the players also seen Princess Mononoke, or were you the only one who knew it? Were the PCs playing roles corresponding to characters in the movie, or were they all additional figures? Was there character interaction which you liked?
However, tentatively, I'd like to offer a bit of advice. I would try for a campaign where the PCs have a built-in driving plot goal that give a concrete direction for their plans. For example: there is a large-scale war, and the enemy must be defeated. Having the larger goal set, though, there is room for lots of character interaction and improvised scenes along the way. Ultimately, the story need not be "about" the plot -- but rather the plot can simply be a driver for the stuff you really want.
I think my group has some similarities. While they are pretty good about individual interactions, the overall plot direction seems to come from me as GM. I think it is partly a question of group dynamic: the PCs are all closely related, but they aren't an organized group with a leader or a single direction.
Regarding your comment about the challenge of doing it with original plots:
the old truism is "There is no such thing as an original plot." I would say don't be afraid to steal mercilessly. But also, don't be afraid to mangle and change and distort to suit.
QuoteI think my group has some similarities. While they are pretty good about individual interactions, the overall plot direction seems to come from me as GM. I think it is partly a question of group dynamic: the PCs are all closely related, but they aren't an organized group with a leader or a single direction.
I think you might try to think about ways to reward PC interactions with plot things. The classic example would be the old PC's getting together to work out a plan of action. Since you're in the room while they do this, you can try to encourage this to be done in-character, and then reward them for doing so by having their plan work pretty well. You can also toss challenges and difficulties at them based upon character difficulties rather than setting/mechanics ones.
Quotethe old truism is "There is no such thing as an original plot." I would say don't be afraid to steal mercilessly. But also, don't be afraid to mangle and change and distort to suit.
Too true. Steal steal steal. But try mangling and distorting as you go, rather than in advance. If you want to "run them through" a plot, as it were, you can, if you know the elements very well, simply make things happen in ways that facilitate the sorts of play you like. If your players start finding that you're ready to give them a game that reacts to them, and that rewards their acting in particular sorts of ways, then they'll naturally gravitate toward the fun zone.
The only problem, of course, is when they start noticing this as such, at which point with more Sim-oriented players they may start feeling that you're "cheating" (or whatever term) to make the game go "your way." You'll need to compromise on this, because once you've broken the frame negatively, you'll never get the toothpaste back in the tube (to mix a metaphor horribly).
Quote from: clehrichQuote from: John KimI think my group has some similarities. While they are pretty good about individual interactions, the overall plot direction seems to come from me as GM. I think it is partly a question of group dynamic: the PCs are all closely related, but they aren't an organized group with a leader or a single direction.
I think you might try to think about ways to reward PC interactions with plot things. The classic example would be the old PC's getting together to work out a plan of action. Since you're in the room while they do this, you can try to encourage this to be done in-character, and then reward them for doing so by having their plan work pretty well. You can also toss challenges and difficulties at them based upon character difficulties rather than setting/mechanics ones.
Well, this might be partly me, but I usually find that group planning problems are an issue with the design of the PCs and the campaign, rather than an issue with how the players are handling it. For example, in my current campaign, the PCs really shouldn't be a coherent unit -- either using in-game logic or story logic. They are closely related: Poul is the uncle of Kjartan and Thorgerd, while Skallagrim was their trusted retainer, and Silksif is their cousin. However, as time passes they are driving apart for good reasons -- notably getting married. Originally all of the PCs lived in the same house, but now they are scattered among four homesteads.
If I were writing this as a saga, I would likely split the characters up into two or three separate but interacting storylines. However, for purposes of play it is much nicer to have everyone playing at once. RPGs are peculiar in this respect compared to story writing. In a story, there is nothing wrong with having a given character not be around for several scenes. However, in an RPG this can mean that a player can be cut out from participation.
The point is that this is a much easier issue for certain campaign concepts. For example, if the PCs are all chief officers on a starship, they will all go to the same places together and face the same threats. More loosely structured PCs have other advantages, but they definitely make it harder to operate as a group.
Hello,
Guys, I'm not sure that this discussion is about GNS any more, if it ever was. Wulf, do you think you could review this thread in GNS-terms, and see whether that's still the issue? If so, we can continue it here. If not, then maybe a new thread in Actual Play is the right way to go.
The whole group-planning, together-vs.-separate characters issue, for instance, is a real drift from the topic, and it definitely needs its own thread (which will garner multiple links to already-existing threads, by the way).
Best,
Ron
Quote from: John KimQuote from: WulfRe: sub-campaign based on Princess Mononoke
I had a whale of a time, it was smooth, fluid and focused. But to do it again (and again and again) with original plots would be a challenge (hell, if I could pull it off, I'd be damn proud).
Had any of the players also seen Princess Mononoke, or were you the only one who knew it? Were the PCs playing roles corresponding to characters in the movie, or were they all additional figures? Was there character interaction which you liked?
One player had seen it all, but was only able to take part in the first and last sessions of play (pure coincidence, but still...). Another had seen the first 10 minutes or so before, but was intrigued enough to rent a copy and watch it all over the time we were playing. Which irritated me a touch, as he then knew the plot before I introduced it, but he did not give anything away. The others (3-4 players) hadn't seen it at all. They replaced the central character as a group (it wasn't an exact copy, naturally).
Assuming you know the plot yourself, the time after Iron Town was besieged by the army the characters got into the town (using Orlanthi Great Leaps and the like) and set about organising the women of the town into a defence force, whilst one PC (the fastest) went out to get the men back. The organisation was well-played (Orlanthi PCs trying to organise Lunar NPCs...) and quite realistically played to character (with continual asides of "Why do we actually WANT to save these Lunars?" "We want them to beat THOSE Lunars outside"). Surprisingly, San, the wolf-girl (now a Telmori wolf-worshipper) was pretty much written out of the plot by the players, even though one of them did an excellent job of rescuing her from the townspeople when she was shot, with good and inventive use of magic.
QuoteHowever, tentatively, I'd like to offer a bit of advice. I would try for a campaign where the PCs have a built-in driving plot goal that give a concrete direction for their plans.
I think my group has some similarities. While they are pretty good about individual interactions, the overall plot direction seems to come from me as GM. I think it is partly a question of group dynamic: the PCs are all closely related, but they aren't an organized group with a leader or a single direction.
So, in essence, you recomend a 'drop them in at the deep end' plot with a clear, single, solution, but lots of nice gritty complications on the way, involving talkative NPCs? In Hero Wars/HeroQuest at least this is easy, "The Chief has a job for you". My idea for a Buffy scenario (pregen characters for the first session) starts off "So, you're all strangers on a Subway train, when...". So, I think I can keep that part of the idea up.
This is good stuff. Until I wrote this I hadn't realised just how much I had enjoyed the Mononoke run...
Wulf
Agreed, Ron, the conversation didn't go the way I had planned, although I acknowledge my plans were flawed, and the results were most edificatious :-)
Thanks all. Thread closed, I think.
Wulf