[TSOY] Better scene framing, but conflict still lacking...

[Chris Geisel]

Here is the AP of our first IRC session of TSOY.

Tonight's session went a lot better, from my perspective, and I owe that to the suggestions for more aggro scene framing. I'm still getting my framing fu down, but it went a lot better. I also started the session off by explicitly asking my players to go into what I think is "Director Stance" and invent things during a scene. I also polled them for which scenes they wanted, and they called for 2 out of 3 scenes we played, so I think that idea is definitely taking hold.

The major problem that we're still having is that while one player is really running with TSOY, the other two players don't seem to be getting the spotlight time for their characters. Partly it's because of the way the game played out tonight, but mostly I think it's because I haven't got the hang of Bangs.

Here's an example: we started with a scene where one character tried to brew a mushroom potion, even though he has no abilities at all to help him out. Another player, who's character does have Complex Crafts and such, started IC arguing with him, and I glommed onto this, asking him if he wanted to try to take over the brew, argue for it, etc. The first player was excited to do a contest, but the second player backed off and just let the first player's character go for it (and fail). It kinda seemed like he didn't want to mess up the first player's fun... sorta the way that typically in D&D characters don't interfere with each other.

The same player, in another scene, had his goblin character working as a waiter at a big banquet, while the other characters did contests to get guests to drink their foul potion. At first I tried a what I hope is a Bang, by having the Baron's majordomo try to eject the goblin character from the room, since he was introduced into the story (by me) as a kitchen worker. The player objected and pointed out that it was I who specified that his character was a mere dishwasher, that his intent was to blend in at the party, etc. I backpedalled, realizing I was being a pushy SG.

He wanted to blend in, so he was blended in as a waiter, in proper attire, etc. He said he wanted his character to scope out the guests. I wanted to give him something to work with, and knowing his player had been a sorceror's apprentice (in his backstory), I put his former master in the crowd, but since he was in disguise, didn't put him in danger of being recognized (maybe that was a mistake). He didn't bite, so knowing his Key of Revolutionary and backstory army unit, I put the commander of his former unit in the crowd. Unfortunately when the player said something like "i see, he's a target", I backed off, not wanting to be too obvious... not sure exactly why I had that reaction. I think it had to do with not wanting to push him into a conflict of purely my own making.

I think he might have done something if the other players hadn't been so successful in their intended actions: browbeating the guests into chugging the potion. But I'm not sure--I tried to set up a conflict when the NPC came after him, but once I retracted it, it sorta seemed like he got what he wanted out of the scene. To be present, so he could help the other characters out if they got in trouble.

The other player who didn't get much time was at least involved in foisting the poisoned brew on the party-goers. He had a contest versus the Baron's guards to see if he could sweet-talk them into drinking, and despite the penalty die from their employer actually watching, gift and bonus dice carried the day, and they caught the spirit of the party and joined in the fun. I think this player would've also done more, but the third player who has jumped into TSOY whole-heartedly BDTP'd the Baron and that sucked up a lot of time (but what a great time, from my perspective).

Anyway, overall I'd say it was a success. But I am a little concerned about the two players that are getting somewhat overlooked. I don't know what the problem is... but it definitely seems like I don't have a handle on what their characters want. The mushroom plot is so concrete, it's very easy to get into, but the others, not so much. Although a revolutionary surrounded by Maldorite nobility seems like it *should* be generating conflict.

One weird thing that happened was that after the two poisoners succeeded in poisoning the party-goers and their guards, the two players had a bout of IC chattiness. The goblin ran around robbing corpses... and the elf molested dead people. Side-stepping the necrophilia (let's), it seemed like these two really wanted to go nuts with IC chat and random non-conflict oriented stuff. I kept saying "okay, so you rob everyone you want to rob" or "okay, you have sex with as many dead bodies as you want" but what's the next scene?

In the end, I injected some conflict into the raping/pillaging by having the majordomo NPC (who'd hired the incompetent goblin brewmaster and suggested the black poiture) get up from his chair, unaffected by the brew, and thank them for their assistance, then try to leave the party. They supposed that he'd taken the "real" magic mushroom and was now making his escape. The PCs tried to talk to him, but after answering a few questions and otherwise acting suspicious, he left.

At one point I even said "unless someone tries to stop him from leaving, the scene is over" but still, no one got up from their robbing, raping or waiting. It seems like I still have yet to figure out Bangs...

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

I'm not sure where to start ... I hope others reply as well.

1. With respect to all the folks here who are enjoying IRC play, perhaps it's good to acknowledge that for your purposes, it blows chunks. You don't see these people. They don't see each other. There's no social glue (unlike most Forge-ish IRC get-togethers).

2. I think that at least one of the folks you're playing with is not interested in role-playing. By this, I don't mean "won't get into character" or anything like that, but rather, not interested in any particular gelling of imagination among the group of you.

The combined effect of these points is an interaction in which ... well, imagine this - a few folks are standing about and talking. One of them says strange, off-the-wall things like "My dick has green spots!" and as most of the folks in the group kind of look at him funny (which is a powerful social signal), one or two of the others just have to laugh - either out of embarassment or because, well, it is a bit fun to acknowledge that there are always hundreds of things we never say.

As the guy keeps going, getting odder and odder, most of the group basically tries to keep their own conversation going, but a couple of folks decide (without thinking about it) to join in the weirdness a bit themselves, just for kicks.

Now - in your case, there's no "group."

And in that situation, frankly, I think that any and all attempts on your part to do what we call role-playing, are void. You're trying to have that conversation, but with who? Maybe the mushroom guy. There's no group, hence no Social Contract, hence everything else in the Big Model is just gone. No role-playing, no matter how you try to frame scenes, etc.

So I think the "lack of conflict" comment is a little like saying, "Wow, there's no paw," when the real problem is the lack of a dog.

Best,
Ron

[Chris Geisel]

Hey Ron, I'm with you on IRC blowing chunks for this kind of thing. That said, all of us used to be part of the same game group for a couple years, which ended when I moved away in December, so there may be more glue there than a group of strangers meeting on IRC for the first time. But yeah, the medium sucks.

Just out of curiosity, which of these players is the one who is not interested in role-playing? Is it the necrophiliac, who sorta started the crazy-ass behavior, or the player who didn't bite when I offered his character some things to chew on? (Or both?)

I hope that some other folks chime in here too. I definitely feel as though I need some perspective on what's happening, and whether there really is no "dog" as you say...

[Brand_Robins]

Hey Chris, here's some thoughts on things going on from my perspective. I'll preface with all the usual I don't know these guys, don't know the whole situation, yadda yadda, and with that let's go:

Partly it's because of the way the game played out tonight, but mostly I think it's because I haven't got the hang of Bangs.

That could be part of it. However even a lame bang can fly with support from the players. You didn't get much of that, and let's look at some of the reasons why.

I glommed onto this, asking him if he wanted to try to take over the brew, argue for it, etc. The first player was excited to do a contest, but the second player backed off and just let the first player's character go for it (and fail).

Here the player shied away from conflict, despite the fact that at least two others in the group were interested in it. This could be typical D&D think, as you suggest or it could be part of a bigger issue of conflict avoidance and seeking for the GM to tell him what to do. Alone this wouldn't neccesarily be a problem, but with what follows....

At first I tried a what I hope is a Bang, by having the Baron's majordomo try to eject the goblin character from the room, since he was introduced into the story (by me) as a kitchen worker. The player objected and pointed out that it was I who specified that his character was a mere dishwasher, that his intent was to blend in at the party, etc. I backpedalled, realizing I was being a pushy SG.

That could be pushy, as you indroduced the conflict and it wasn't a conflict (apparently) that he wanted. However, he is yet again ducking a conflict.

I probably would have handled this by reversing on the eject, but keeping the basic conflict. "Oh, I see -- okay, he doesn't go to kick you out then, instead he's looking for those that don't fit. If you want to fit in it'll be a contest of your ability vs his." I might also mention that his former master is in the room.

Which brings me to a question -- does he have any kind of Key related to his former master or is it just a background element? Background elements can be important, but may not be. Key elements, however, should always be important to the character and the player, that's why they took them after all. Which brings us to:

He didn't bite, so knowing his Key of Revolutionary and backstory army unit, I put the commander of his former unit in the crowd. Unfortunately when the player said something like "i see, he's a target", I backed off, not wanting to be too obvious... not sure exactly why I had that reaction. I think it had to do with not wanting to push him into a conflict of purely my own making.

Now this should have been a hit for him. It is part of one of his Keys and he should have been on it like white on rice. It wasn't just a conflict purely of your making (yes, you'd used a lot of force to get him there and not perfectly, but even so he was there) it was a conflict that his Keys said he wanted. You were giving him the kind of conflict that his keys said he wanted on a platter, and his reaction was to put it in D&D think terms of "oh, there's the plot the GM wants me to follow." Now maybe you did stage it that way, but this is a habit you're going to have to break him of. He avoids all conflicts save with those that are GM mandated targets.

Another word about Keys -- keys aren't things that the GM gives you XP for when you follow them. They are things you give yourself XP for when you follow them. The goblin should have up-jumped and smacked the army guy in one way or another, gotten himself into trouble, then given himself a whack of XP for doing it. Thinking about it that way makes players focus on the fact that it is their responsibility to make the game move, not yours.

You can't have a game with good conflict if you have players that duck conflict. While you probably do need to focus your staging better, you also have to have players that are in it to win it, and not just to hang about and wait for direction.

Although a revolutionary surrounded by Maldorite nobility seems like it *should* be generating conflict.

I'd agree. The fact that it was the others that poisioned the nobility while the revolutionary stood around says quite a bit, I think. Did they have Keys related to this? Was there a reason that they were poisioning everyone? Or was it something they did for random kicks while the guy that had a reason did nothing?

One weird thing that happened was that after the two poisoners succeeded in poisoning the party-goers and their guards, the two players had a bout of IC chattiness. The goblin ran around robbing corpses... and the elf molested dead people. Side-stepping the necrophilia (let's), it seemed like these two really wanted to go nuts with IC chat and random non-conflict oriented stuff.

See here is what Ron was talking about. IC chat can be fine and all -- but if you're looking for a tight and energetic plot it should fall into line with the themes you're hitting. This kind of random spazz seems like all the old adolescent tropes of RPing hitting in full force. They aren't there to tell story and make exciting conflicts and choices, they're there to fuck off and do stupid shit.

I may be too harsh here, they may have had reasons for what they did, but mostly it sounds like they're not only not on the same page with you, they aren't even in the same book.

At one point I even said "unless someone tries to stop him from leaving, the scene is over" but still, no one got up from their robbing, raping or waiting. It seems like I still have yet to figure out Bangs...

How interested were the players (not characters) in the mushroom plot? If they had no interest then it was a mediocre bang -- as it didn't have any reason to grab them and yank them into making a decision. Bangs have to push buttons and cause, well, BANGS -- things to go boom pop.

However, at this point it really sounds as though the players had gone full off of any type of plot, conflict, or RP and were just enjoying the stupid crap of the moment. If they aren't interested in telling a story with you it doesn't matter how good of bangs you give them -- they won't do anything with them.

[Chris Geisel]

There are a lot of good observations here and I need some time to digest, but really quickly...

The conflict-avoiding player does not have a Key related to his former master, so that means that it's probably just window dressing. I guess that one was my mistake then.

One of the two characters who poisoned the guests *also* has the Revolutionary Key. However, it doesn't seem like the player running that character is particularly invested in playing a fanatical revolutionary either... if I had to guess, it was more a random act of violence, retrofitted to the revolutionary key.

As for the mushroom plot, the player running the character with the Key that's been driving the mushroom plot seemed into it up until that moment (his character has Key of the Mission: Find the Mushroom of Life... which is some type of magic mushroom). I was really stunned that at least that player didn't jump into action at that point. It was the final minutes of our allotted time, which could have had something to do with it. I *think* he might've said something like "I follow him", but I honestly don't remember.

[gregkcubed]

(I'm one of the players and I've been enjoying this thread and tsoy a lot - i'm the mushroom guy..)

I think that for all of us, it's been a harsh transition to such a different style of play.. For my own actions (especially at the end regarding the mushroom key) I purposefully stepped back to try and let the other players take the spotlight.

For the first two sessions, my character had been driving the story and most of the action and I wanted to let other folks have some interest.

I think the piont about giving ourselves XP was totally missed by us, but I really like it. The elf character's whole reason for being at the party was to indulge his worldly experiences, and although he never stated that he was focusing on his key, that was definitely his motivation.

I realize that my own motivation at the end to pursue the mushroom was dropped (purposefully) and I hope to pick it up again next time by chasing after the servant.

Also, in all the looting my char got the baron's signet ring, which he's planning to use for many micological purposes.

:)

anyway, it's a great game, and we've all been having a good time playing it. I think that what is being derided as IC chatter still has a narrative purpose. Possibly it could be replaced by bangs and scenes, but it's still creating the links between these otherwise disparate characters.

And all the chars had motivations for murdering everyone at the party - although the one who ostensibly had the greatest motivation didn't partake directly, he was making indirect attepmpts to help - he wanted to poison the food as well as the drink :)

And although it was idle IC chatter, the decision to poison the party had been made at the last session as a way for everyone to further one of their ends. (And the language that we used (in character) was somehow fulfilling to me as a gamer.)

Gimlix was going to kill the man who was the best mycologist in those parts, and get his signet ring, so he could order fungi (ok, so he' not that smart and maybe a smart goblin would have tried to capture him to learn more about the toadies), the elf was going to partake in necrophelia, which fulfills both his revolutionary tendencies and his love of the evils, and the other gobby was (albeit reluctanctly) going to get to do some revolutionary stuff.

So if anything all the raping and pillaging at the end of the session was us saying: Nice one dudes! We just got XP!

:)

btw we're going to get better at the IIEE thing, scene framing and bangs. It's a good sign that we're all still having a lot of fun with it, even over IRC.

gk

[Chris Geisel]

Greg, we should probably just talk about this in person, but in the interest of getting more feedback on this thread, I'll tell my perspective on some of the things you mentioned.

I think that for all of us, it's been a harsh transition to such a different style of play.. For my own actions (especially at the end regarding the mushroom key) I purposefully stepped back to try and let the other players take the spotlight.

That is what I suspected, but regardless of whether you'd stepped back or not, the other guys did nothing, so ultimately it didn't work out. It's too bad that your character missed a chance to hit his Key of the Mission, and for what? Nada. But I appreciate that you're giving space for the others.

I think the piont about giving ourselves XP was totally missed by us, but I really like it. The elf character's whole reason for being at the party was to indulge his worldly experiences, and although he never stated that he was focusing on his key, that was definitely his motivation.

Interesting. Although it occurred to me that you guys were forgetting to give yourselves XP because of our newness to the rules, it hadn't occurred to me that some of that might be because we don't know the Keys very well. From the Elf player's key:

Gain 1 XP every time you can apply this question to the situation your character's in. Gain 3 XP every time your character risks harm in pursuit of the answer. Buyoff: Answer the question.

Applying the question "Does one achieve self-knowledge through indulgence or denial?" to this situation... I guess that's possible ("apply the question" is pretty vague, actually). However, he certainly did not risk harm in pursuit of the answer, because his intent to rape corpses was never mentioned during the whole contest to poison the party-goers. He thought of that afterwards, maybe because the party's abrupt end deprived him of other avenues of indulgence.

Also, in all the looting my char got the baron's signet ring, which he's planning to use for many micological purposes.

Come on. :) You are totally retrofitting the poisoning to your Key. For one, up until now the Baron wasn't established as any kind of mushroom expert (that was the NPC that fled the final scene). Maybe I'm wrong and you mentioned this before, but it doesn't ring any bells.

I think that what is being derided as IC chatter still has a narrative purpose. Possibly it could be replaced by bangs and scenes, but it's still creating the links between these otherwise disparate characters.

It's not the IC chat that I mind, it's the IC chat when all the conflict in a scene is over. Then it just seems like noodling around, when we should be doing cool stuff, hitting Keys, and so on. You had me rolling on the floor laughing with your IC chat during the BDTP with the Baron.

And all the chars had motivations for murdering everyone at the party... Gimlix was going to kill the man who was the best mycologist in those parts, and get his signet ring, so he could order fungi (ok, so he' not that smart and maybe a smart goblin would have tried to capture him to learn more about the toadies), the elf was going to partake in necrophelia, which fulfills both his revolutionary tendencies and his love of the evils, and the other gobby was (albeit reluctanctly) going to get to do some revolutionary stuff.

I guess we really crossed wires over your character's (Gimlix) motives for the mass murder. I thought he was murdering the Baron so he could devour the object of his Mission (the mushroom) without fear of reprisals from the rightful owner.

I didn't know the Baron was supposed to be a mushroom expert. I may have forgotten that detail in all the chat, but I definitely am hearing this signet ring plot for the first time. You sure this isn't retrofitting? Likewise with the necrophilia... never mentioned as a goal until after the conflict was over.

And to say that the third character was a reluctant revolutionary... well, he was a spectator, not a revolutionary. You could say that since his revolutionary goals were being fullfilled by the other characters actions, then in that sense he was a happy camper, but the Key specifically mentions risk to get XP. I think he was just playing it safe, and wasn't opposed to what you all were doing.

Anyway, I don't want this thread to become a back-and-forth between us, when we can just talk about it whenever we want. I'm hoping we might be some more feedback on how to address this stuff from the Forgites.

[Brand_Robins]

Anyway, I don't want this thread to become a back-and-forth between us, when we can just talk about it whenever we want. I'm hoping we might be some more feedback on how to address this stuff from the Forgites.

Actually, a back and forth between the two of you is the best way to fix it. With the amount of singal-crossing I see here I don't know how much I can do to help until you've both gotten onto the same page. Others (like Ron or Mike Holmes) may be able to help, but it's out of my league.

[gregkcubed]

Anyway, I don't want this thread to become a back-and-forth between us, when we can just talk about it whenever we want. I'm hoping we might be some more feedback on how to address this stuff from the Forgites.

Actually, a back and forth between the two of you is the best way to fix it. With the amount of singal-crossing I see here I don't know how much I can do to help until you've both gotten onto the same page. Others (like Ron or Mike Holmes) may be able to help, but it's out of my league.

yeah we've identified a few major problems that we had going.. i think there was IC chatter that continued after the Chris left the first session which is when we decided why we all wanted to murder the party.. again, this would have probably been more interesting w/ the GM around :)

but our intentions for the scenes were not clearly spelled out. So we've got the conflict intentions down (sorta) but now we need to have the scene intentions stated. I think this might have helped to explain the orgy of looting and mayhem that took place after the party "ended".

So next time we'll make sure to do that and i'm sure it will go more smoothly..

But I do have a question here: In a game like this, is retrofitting generally frowned upon.. I can imagine that it might make it hard to keep track of a cohesive plot, but it also lets players fill in gaps after the fact. For example, Gimlix (as i said he's not smart) wanted to rifle the pockets of a wealthy mushroom collector, thinking he might find info, mushrooms, or something else of utility. Once this scene has sort of played out, there are any number of nice story elements that gimlix could have found in the pockets. Is it up to me as a player to come up with that and place it in a future scene? Is it the SG?

It doesn't seem to make complete sense that I would intend a whole scene so i could rifle his pockets looking for X, when i 1) don't know how the scene will play out and 2) don't exactly know what X is..
As it was, i inserted X = signet ring, because I thought that later gimlix could use that to further both his mission and his addiction.

And of course, my overall scene intention(s)/possibilities were in my mind and not clearly stated :)

gk

[Chris Geisel]

Anyway, I don't want this thread to become a back-and-forth between us, when we can just talk about it whenever we want. I'm hoping we might be some more feedback on how to address this stuff from the Forgites.

Actually, a back and forth between the two of you is the best way to fix it. With the amount of singal-crossing I see here I don't know how much I can do to help until you've both gotten onto the same page. Others (like Ron or Mike Holmes) may be able to help, but it's out of my league.

Hey Brand, do you mean that some back-and-forth in this thread would be a good idea, or just some communication between Greg and I offline?

[Brand_Robins]

Hey Brand, do you mean that some back-and-forth in this thread would be a good idea, or just some communication between Greg and I offline?

I'd do it offline -- but you could bring it here if you were having problems grocking ideas or something. Which reminds me:

But I do have a question here: In a game like this, is retrofitting generally frowned upon.. I can imagine that it might make it hard to keep track of a cohesive plot, but it also lets players fill in gaps after the fact.

That's something that changes from group to group. Everyone has their own sweet spot, so I can't give a definitive answer to the question.

However, in my games we generally insist upon enough coherence that players know what is going on with each others stories. So rifling pockets and later saying you found a ring would be okay (unless it causes plot conflicts in other ares), but only if everyone knew that you were searching for rings in general and why you were doing it.

Now there are times where players will say to everyone else "trust me on this, I'm feeling my way through something" or somesuch, but in general the rule is that you have to make things make sense to the people you're playing with. They're there to do cool stuff and see you do cool stuff, and if they can't keep up with what you're doing from moment to moment there is a problem.

As it was, i inserted X = signet ring, because I thought that later gimlix could use that to further both his mission and his addiction. And of course, my overall scene intention(s)/possibilities were in my mind and not clearly stated :)

My gut says the first is okay, the second is the problem. If you keep clear and open OOC communications with people, so they know where you are and what you're doing, then things work out much better. In this case that didn't happen, and I think that's where you and your group went different ways.

[gregkcubed]

thanks for the response.. yeah that makes sense. This style of play is so new to me :)

btw one thing i completely agree with in this thread is that IRC doth suck. We're all having enough fun with it that we'll continue, but I can imagine just some simple softwares that could make it like 100x better.

having a web page that just listed everyone's current intentions and had a quick line for the scene setting.. would help.

greg

[Brand_Robins]

btw one thing i completely agree with in this thread is that IRC doth suck. We're all having enough fun with it that we'll continue, but I can imagine just some simple softwares that could make it like 100x better.

I too hate IRC. I've had much better experience with other setups, but most of them (such as using MUSH space) require hosting of one type or another.

I've also wondered about using Netmeeting for groups that all have high-speed, but never actually tried it.