[InSpectres and Capes] Two-game night: fun, but not all it could have been

[Andrew Morris]

I had another meeting of my semi-regular indie gaming group tonight, and we decided to play InSpectres. We whipped through three missions and still had some time left, so we took a break to hit up a diner and came back to run some Capes.


The Players
Krista -- one of the core members of my indie group. She's a somewhat passive player, and, on those occasions when she becomes more active, she tends to carve out a niche area that other players aren't so interested in. Outside of being in my indie group, she doesn't have much role-playing experience at all.

Jon -- doesn't like to be put "on the spot" creatively, despite being a really creative guy. Likes a bit of strategy and enjoys supernatural elements. Not a very active player, since he's still relatively new to role-playing.

Mark -- this was the first time he came to the group, and he's recently become interested in trying out some of the indie games after hearing a mutual friend rave about them. The more I talk to Mark about different games and his preferences, the more it becomes clear that he likes long-running campaigns with plenty of opportunity for strategy and tactics, as well as consistent character improvement.

Phil -- I've known Phil for a few years through LARP experiences, but I'd only played in one table-top game with him. It was a recent session of Universalis, which he liked well enough to inspire him to come to the indie group to try out some more new stuff. Like Mark, this was his first session. Phil really seems to enjoy getting into character and doesn't seem to really enjoy tactical elements.


InSpectres[/u]
We sat down to play InSpectres, and the prep work of coming up with the franchise was great, with lots of collaboration between players, and some really funny elements. Then we started on the missions, and...well...the game kinda limped along.

I've loved InSpectres every time I've played it, so I was a bit dismayed that it wasn't as good as usual. I attribute this to five main factors.

One, I was a bad GM and didn't brush up on the rules the night before, so I had to fumble through the rulebook several times. I screwed up the first Stress Roll so badly Phil had to question it, even though he'd never played the games or seen the rules. Ouch! GM knowledge and readiness are vital.

Two, as stated, Jon's not comfortable with adding creative elements on the spot. He mainly took suggestions from other players and acted when someone suggested he do so.

Three, Mark really wasn't into it. As he later said, it was amusing, but not his cup of tea.

Four, I really didn't hit them with enough Stress Rolls. I realized this about halfway through, so they got progressively more and more.

Five, only one player used the Confessional chair. Phil used it two or three times, but no one else did. I even took a turn, despite being the GM, just  to show them how it could be used to add a Characteristic to a character, but they still didn't run with it. This was probably the main reason the session was so unsatisfying.


Capes[/b]
Now, I love Capes. It's tied with Dogs in the Vineyard as my absolute favorite game. This session was fun, but not as much as a usual game. Some of the same reasons applied as in the InSpectres session (players blanking when it came time to add elements to the game, lack of interest in some players), but we all took heroes, so there wasn't as much over-the-top super-brawling as usual. Sure, a few heroes knocked each other through some wall while fighting over who would be in charge, but that's about it.

As soon as I was able, I brought in a villain, but it was really too late in the session (and the evening) to spice things up much. We called it quits after only a few scenes.


Overview[/b]
All in all, I wouldn't say that the gaming was unsatisfying, but it was definitely not all it could have been, for a variety of reasons. Mark and Phil are both a good distance away (and about $20 in tolls), so I don't know if they'll be back for more sessions. I hope so, since I think they could really groove on some stuff, but I can understand if they don't,

[TonyLB]

It's hard when you have a group that's new to each other and also new to the system being played.  Much as I love Indie RPGs, I must confess this is a big benefit of mainstream games:  you get a group of people together who don't know each other but they know the game, and the game provides (often) a common ground for them to play.  Then next session you have a group of people who know each other.  You can try a game that is new, and their knowledge of each other will provide a common ground for them to play.

I do not think this is inherent in anything, mind you.  I think it's a failing in much of current game design (including, sadly, in Capes).  Many games do not get across a sense of "This is how you play" in a form that people can get without reading the book, without ever playing the game, without even really knowing the rules.  Most rules don't give folks a list of instructions "Do this, then do this, then do this ... it'll rock."

Which is why I look at this and immediately wonder "Hrm... I wonder how that would have worked out if they'd played Dogs in the Vineyard?"  Because what blows my mind is how much DitV does step people through.  It's a feature I think all us design-jockeys should imitate.

[Larry L.]

Tony,

I do not think this is inherent in anything, mind you.  I think it's a failing in much of current game design (including, sadly, in Capes).  Many games do not get across a sense of "This is how you play" in a form that people can get without reading the book, without ever playing the game, without even really knowing the rules.  Most rules don't give folks a list of instructions "Do this, then do this, then do this ... it'll rock."

I'm glad you are at least aware of what I'd like to see in terms of game design. (That's a half-joke.)

I can't agree with you on that "benefit" of mainstream games. Dysfunctional systems just result in a group of players who assume they enjoy the same thing, but with no common creative agenda they get dysfunctional play -- or at best enjoy everything except the game -- and scratch their heads thinking it must be one of those other assholes ruining the game.

What I'm really enjoying about the 24 Hr RPGs / Ronnies is they are usually short and to the point.

Andrew,

Do you think this group of people (including yourself) would have a good time together in a non-roleplaying context, say even a boardgame night or such?

[Andrew Morris]

Do you think this group of people (including yourself) would have a good time together in a non-roleplaying context, say even a boardgame night or such?

Without a doubt, yes. Mark and Krista and I were all at the same New Year's party, and that's when I mentioned putting Mark on the list for my indie group. Jon's my roomate, and I've known Phil for years, as I mentioned. At the start of every game session, I put aside about an hour of time just to hang out and talk and be social. My requirements for my indie group are that I genuinely like the person as a person, outside the context of RPGs, and that they've either expressed an interest in indie games, or that I think they would enjoy indie games. Also, they need to fit with the other members of the group, which is why the sessions are invite-only, and I'm the only person who can give an invite.

[Sydney Freedberg]

what blows my mind is how much DitV does step people through.  It's a feature I think all us design-jockeys should imitate.

Amen.

we all took heroes...

And if there's one piece of stepping-people-through advice that's missing (or hidden) in the current edition of Capes, it's "don't everyone play a hero in the first scene!"

Now, "advanced" Capes player (i.e. Tony, me, Eric Sedlacek, and, uh, maybe no one else on Earth) can all play heroes at the same time and merrily torture each other anyway, because we've gotten into a groove where anything can be a Conflict, including subtle interpersonal or even internal stuff. (One of my first eurekas in playtesting was putting in "Event: Shell [my character] is persuaded to do something" and then letting the other players fight over it).

But "I'm the good guy, you're the bad guy, let's thrown down!" is way, way easier as a starting point. Tony once did a demo where he handed out villain and hero character sheets in alternation, himself took a villain and introduced an instantly mobilizing Goal ("Kill the President on live TV"), and let it rock from there.

There's a residual traditional-RPG thing in the current rules, ironically, of "each of you create your own protagonist and identify with him/her primarily." Which you do, and which is important for any kind of continuity in the story -- as opposed to everyone switching characters madly every scene and never coming back to the same role twice -- but combine that starting point with "everyone's the GM providing adversity for each other" and even mildly traditional player expectations, and you get, "uh -- well -- you do something!"

[Andrew Morris]

Sydney, I think you're right on about giving players the easy, traditional out of "good guys and bad guys fight." That was my impression, too, but it's good to have some outside confirmation of that.