InSpectres and Donjon

[Tim Denee]

OK. So. I didn't get to play Star War/Questing Beast in the end, but I did play a game and a half of InSpectres and a little Donjon.

InSpectres went well. There were three players, and the adventure involved a leprechaun from Borneo (with an, um, irish-french accent) taking over a sausage factory. Nice.
After that they were all psyched for some more, so we played again. This time the adventure involved triads, dead waitresses, and possession. We never really finished it satisfactorily.

Lesson one for me: no matter how much you enjoyed the first game, and no matter how much time you have left, don't try and squeeze another game in. You won't have the energy, everything will fall apart, and you'll have to end the evening's gaming on a sour note. Resist the temptation. Especially with InSpectres; I found it requires more energy and input from the players than many other games. If they ain't trying, everything goes to pot.

Lesson one for the players: don't put more than 6 dice in the bank. The chances of you getting to use the excess before you roll a 1 and lose it all are slim.

Donjon we didn't actually get to play much with. Interest started to wane when we ran the first combat... Mainly it was because one character, an old knight, had discernment 6 and a combat-speed skill pumped up to 4, so he had 11 dice for initiative. Which meant 11 actions every round. The gargoyle was only getting 5 actions. One player was getting twice the fun-time as the other, and with all those d20s to roll it meant a lot of waiting around for the gargoyle player.

Other revelations:
- I like my games short and sweet. I like 'em quick. InSpectres took about 2 and 1/2 hours to run the first adventure, including character creation, and that was just right.
- I need a more permanent gaming group; people whom I know the playing styles of, who know my gaming style, and who I click with. One-off games (even though it was with old friends) are tricky and disappointing.
- I don't like role-playing much. I mean, the game in retrospect was fun, but at the time I wasn't as entertained as I am by a movie or playstation game. I think I want more character interaction and snappy dialogue. More Pulp Fiction, less Die Hard. It's more of a problem with the players than the system. They were always thinking ahead, always doing things, only saying things in-character when absolutely necessary.
    But it's not just them. Every gamer I've ever gamed with has been like that. Hell, I'm like that. The thing is, we have amusing banter as players, which is my favourite part of the session. Now why we can't simply transfer that banter to the characters?

[contracycle]

Hmm.  I like to ask players to reinforce their characters physical presence by doing an explicit description in each session.  I feel that the identification of other players with their characters can start to fade if not explicitly reinforced.    I think it might help, as we have had quite a lot of in character conversation and banter.  But that may be a broader thing.