About to give it a try; need advice..

[hyphz]

Well, I've just had another lame session of That Game Related To Medieval Underground Prisons (Which Aren't) And Fire Breathing Lizards.  Lame because the GM was really trying to get us to role-play, but nobody seemed to want to, because everyone had the (unfortunately correct) perception that all we were doing was playing "guess the correct sequence of actions".  

Fortunately, the players have just decided (based on a demo game) that they're keen to play Godlike, and after running it I've decided I'm keen to run it too (sufficiently so that I imported the rulebook!), but I also want to use it to try out some of the new GNS-like ideas (bang-driving, etc.) that I've gotten from this book and from reading the Sorceror line, to see if it can pull us out of this rut.  
Any advice on which ones to apply and how to introduce them?  I've already asked the players to try and think of a 'theme' for the game and given them a few suggestions on possibles..

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

It's awfully hard to suggest specific techniques. In a lot of ways, it's a bit like telling someone how to write a story, or how to play a song.

Keeping it as general as possible, I recommend encouraging all of the following:

1) mild Director stance, permitting players to insert their characters into scenes ("That's when I show up") or to situate NPCs or objects, physically, around the characters as they see fit.

2) out-of-character conversation, including kibitzing and suggestions, but putting a brake on it if it's not constructive or threatens to take the character away from the player.

3) monologues of victory, ie, letting the player describe the specifics of how a resolved action works out.

4) any metagame mechanics the system might include - make them a bigger deal than they might be in the rules, worth more for doing more stuff.

I guess the main thing, though, comes in my previous phrase: encouraging. The goal is to get the players into a mind-frame where this stuff is normal, within their reach, to be used at whatever rate or extent they most enjoy.

Best,
Ron

[Christopher Kubasik]

hyphz,

Looking over what Ron suggested, I see that's offering you a whole list of ideas that are spread out all over this forum.

What I suddenly realized was (as a guy who's been out of the hobby for a while and wants to please his new players) is that I've got this buffet of options to try out.  There's no need to get it "right," or in the propper combination, or sort it through.  It's just time for me to load up my plate.

Between the Sorcerer books and the Forge you're going to find lots of great ideas.  All I can recomend, to you and to me, is use them.  Don't make it an intellectual concern.  The tools themselves will help guide play the way you want it to go.  That's what makes them great tools.

That open and trusting approach will also facilitate Ron's vital point of encouragement.

Christopher

[hyphz]

It wasn't worth it.

I tried to discuss themes and intentions several times.  They ignored me.  One player couldn't be bothered to make a character, so just copied the one from the playtest rules - background and all.  Another has now spent three or four weeks creating his character... but has spent that time working out how to break the system sufficiently that he can have a starting character with ten hard dice in Harm.  (It's a generic power that lets you hurt stuff, and his character would have ten dice (maximum possible) which all automatically roll 10.)  Not only that, but he's said (or implied by making jokes) that if the setting isn't one that will allow him to use that power, he'll blame ME for hosing his character in "revenge".  (The irony is that with that power, and the disads he's loaded onto it (Loud and Glowing), he's likely to get sniped the first time he uses it.)

It's pretty much a standard now that whenever I get a system which I am keen to run, and it doesn't use a d20 style system smackdown to limit their character generation, then after one attempt at making characters I'll be laughing, second I'll be crying, and third I'll just feel like throwing the book out.  

First it was the cyberpunks with 10 humanity.  Why the rush to play such empathic, caring individuals?  Because they can rules-legally be given more cybernetic weapons, of course.  (What idiot put that contradiction in the system, and indeed made it an RP genre trope, I don't know.)  Then it was the Exalted game in which everyone was keen to play but nobody could turn the TV off when the books were available, and where the 10-Harm munchkin described above, on being told that Exalted was a system that could tolerate overpowered combat monsters and indeed in which they were standard setting items, announced that he wanted to play a pacifist politician (in violent conflict with the one player who had actually made a character at that time).

There are pretty much no other groups available (and I'm not a good enough runner that I could form another; even if we get the characters done it then tends to me coming down to being unable to write a sufficiently coherent adventure, which would be a major annoyance to any other group but one I'm already established with).  Can anything be done, or shall I just give up RPGing?

[Mike Holmes]

Hmmm.. For one thing, I think you may have made a basic mistake or two. First, you mention "GNS stuff"... "like in sorcerer". Which would imply to me Narrativist stuff. Which is problematic since Godlike is straight Sim if I ever saw it.

Second, you simply have players who prefer Gamism. Trying to make converst quickly can be difficult to impossible.

Another has now spent three or four weeks creating his character... but has spent that time working out how to break the system sufficiently that he can have a starting character with ten hard dice in Harm.  (It's a generic power that lets you hurt stuff, and his character would have ten dice (maximum possible) which all automatically roll 10.)  Not only that, but he's said (or implied by making jokes) that if the setting isn't one that will allow him to use that power, he'll blame ME for hosing his character in "revenge".  (The irony is that with that power, and the disads he's loaded onto it (Loud and Glowing), he's likely to get sniped the first time he uses it.)

Let him use it. If you're not really worried about Gamist balance, then what's wrong with a character with this ability? If the system allows it, go with it. And give him chances to use it. And to have all the repercussions of such power come down on him. Build the character up. Make him the most important talent in WWII. Then watch him squirm as the plot begins to revolve on the bad guys attempts to eliminate him. Watch the other characters either support him baravely or leave him to fend for himself.

Sounds like fun to me.

It's pretty much a standard now that whenever I get a system which I am keen to run, and it doesn't use a d20 style system smackdown to limit their character generation, then after one attempt at making characters I'll be laughing, second I'll be crying, and third I'll just feel like throwing the book out.  

I'm guessing because you want Narrativism (or maybe dramatic simulationism). And you're using a Sim system to get it. Try a Narrativist game. With Narrativist players.

First it was the cyberpunks ... Exalted ...the 10-Harm munchkin

All Sim systems.

There are pretty much no other groups available

How "near London" are you? I live in the middle of the US, and am aware of some groups in London that do exceptional role-playing, the sort you'd probably really enjoy. IIRC, London is a pretty big burg, I'm certain there are lots of groups. How come you are unaware of them? Your lack of will to look for a new group is the only thing preventing you from finding one. Are you worried about haveing to travel some? I just drove what would be half-way across England to play a game this last weekend. Put a little effort into it.

(and I'm not a good enough runner that I could form another; even if we get the characters done it then tends to me coming down to being unable to write a sufficiently coherent adventure, which would be a major annoyance to any other group but one I'm already established with).  Can anything be done, or shall I just give up RPGing?

With that defeatist attitude, perhaps there is nothing that can be done. I suggest that your will to GM may alone be enough to get a new group together. Or perhaps you could play in another group instead? Must you GM? You might learn what you need to be a better GM. Besides which, one of the nice things about a lot of Narrativist gmes is needing to do less preparation, and getting a lot of help from the players.

I think there are lots of solutions to your problems.

Mike

[hyphz]

Hmmm.. For one thing, I think you may have made a basic mistake or two. First, you mention "GNS stuff"... "like in sorcerer". Which would imply to me Narrativist stuff. Which is problematic since Godlike is straight Sim if I ever saw it.
[/quote="Mike Holmes"]

Well, that really confuses me.  How can a game which abstracts RANGE in a WW2 setting be Simulationist?  

Anyway, I didn't want pure narrativism - just some narrativist CONCEPTS.  Heck, I just want to know what the players will enjoy doing or fighting against, is that too much to ask?

Let him use it. If you're not really worried about Gamist balance, then what's wrong with a character with this ability? If the system allows it, go with it. And give him chances to use it. And to have all the repercussions of such power come down on him. Build the character up. Make him the most important talent in WWII. Then watch him squirm as the plot begins to revolve on the bad guys attempts to eliminate him. Watch the other characters either support him baravely or leave him to fend for himself.

Sounds like fun to me.
[/quote="Mike Holmes"]

I am not that worried about gamist balance.   I am worried that if he can use that, he can blow through any challenge I've got written up and I'll never be able to produce enough material to fill a few hours gaming.

First it was the cyberpunks ... Exalted ...the 10-Harm munchkin

All Sim systems.
[/quote="Mike Holmes"]

Exalted at least is dramatic-sim, though.

There are pretty much no other groups available

How "near London" are you? I live in the middle of the US, and am aware of some groups in London that do exceptional role-playing, the sort you'd probably really enjoy. IIRC, London is a pretty big burg, I'm certain there are lots of groups. How come you are unaware of them? Your lack of will to look for a new group is the only thing preventing you from finding one. Are you worried about haveing to travel some? I just drove what would be half-way across England to play a game this last weekend. Put a little effort into it.
[/quote="Mike Holmes"]

I avoid groups of "exceptional" role-players, because I'm not much of one myself (yet) and when I've tried to play with them the result has either been embarassing, unwelcoming, uncomfortable, or all three.  I am normally too shy to meet many new people, to meet them and effectively "perform" in front of them is unthinkable.  I couldn't even join a con game.  I am unaware of them because when I've finished a day's work there I can think of nothing other than getting the heck out of London! ;)

(and I'm not a good enough runner that I could form another; even if we get the characters done it then tends to me coming down to being unable to write a sufficiently coherent adventure, which would be a major annoyance to any other group but one I'm already established with).  Can anything be done, or shall I just give up RPGing?

With that defeatist attitude, perhaps there is nothing that can be done. I suggest that your will to GM may alone be enough to get a new group together. Or perhaps you could play in another group instead? Must you GM? You might learn what you need to be a better GM. Besides which, one of the nice things about a lot of Narrativist gmes is needing to do less preparation, and getting a lot of help from the players.
[/quote="Mike Holmes"]

 That is part of why I wanted to add the narrativism concepts.  I have been told I am quite good at GM'ing, I am just not very good at making up scenarios or improvising (yea, I know that's a bit like being 'quite good' at car maintenance but not knowing how to use a spanner...), but if I have a prepared one to hand that is adequately comprehensive then in my experience the players enjoy themselves (although I will on occasion have a trembling voice and sweatdrops)
 I do not particularly "have to GM" - I just thought it might be nice if I did because our present GM says he's getting a bit tired and wants to play more.

[Clay]

Hyphz,

We have one fellow in our regular group who is a major power gamer, and we all have the tendency at times.  He's also a damned fine roleplayer if his power trip is held in check, and there's something to catch his interest.

One game master handled this very nicely.  He promised us opponents who are always well-matched to our own. In this game I play the role of an excellent horseman.  So when I'm pushing my envelope, it's a safe bet that I'm going to be matched against good horsemen.  In hand-to-hand combat, where I'm considerably weaker, I tend to be matched against weaker foes.  Likewise, our power gamer goes up against excellent swordsmen, to counter his own ability.

So deal with uber-munchkin the same way.  If he's min/maxing, do it right back to him.  Put hardened forces across from him.  Sure, he can take out a machine-gun nest every round.  But how will he do when that machine-gun nest is paired with a couple of snipers?  The power of well-placed bullets to screw up anybody's day is well noted.  There might also be some way to directly affect his power as well, and it wouldn't hurt to employ it.  After all, my Game Master has taken my horse from me before, when I got a little too cocky with it.  It added some adventure to the mix, when I had to "acquire" (read: pay someone to steal it for me) a stead and flee over the border.

[Le Joueur]

Let him use it. If you're not really worried about Gamist balance, then what's wrong with a character with this ability? If the system allows it, go with it. And give him chances to use it. And to have all the repercussions of such power come down on him. Build the character up. Make him the most important talent in WWII. Then watch him squirm as the plot begins to revolve on the bad guys attempts to eliminate him. Watch the other characters either support him baravely or leave him to fend for himself.

Sounds like fun to me.

I am not that worried about gamist balance.   I am worried that if he can use that, he can blow through any challenge I've got written up and I'll never be able to produce enough material to fill a few hours gaming.

Aren't you getting caught up in the old 'fight fire with fire' mentality?  As I have always said when confronted with 'the big guns' of munchkindom, "Sure he can kill any foe that stands before him, but will he kill his wife because she wants a divorce?"  What I am saying is; here is a character predicated on doing one thing very well.  Of course you need to afford him opportunities to make use of his character as written, but if you design every scenario specifically so that force is the only solution, you're shortchanging the narrative possibilities.  Do something similar to what Mike suggests, give him a chance to overdo it (at least once).  Certainly he won't use this awesome power on a harsh commanding officer, would he?  Will he use it in a military court, facing court-martial?  (If you go that way, make sure to stop frequently and ask, "Is that really what you want to do?")

The point is, the player has got you thinking in his terms; don't.  If his superpower is overwhelming, then spend most of the game dealing with the consequences of its use, not that actual usage.  Take the power for a walk, and then spend most of the game letting the player(s) pick up the do-do.  In Scattershot, we call this 'giving them enough rope.'  If the player chooses to use this 'harmful' power as a solution to everything, the game becomes tailor-made to the old 'power corrupts' storyline, see how far it goes.  This is one of those occasions when you want to fight fire with water.  Let him have his fun, and then make him pay for it.  If he likes it, all will enjoy; if he doesn't, make him shut down the game.  (Honestly, I have seen more games turn fun when the munchkin bites off more than they expected; sometimes the troubles make the uber-power more fun.)

(And I have to disagree with Clay, if you "do it right back to him," you're only asking for a spiral of impossible escalation.  Do you really want the whole game to be about battles?)

Fang Langford

[contracycle]

Well, that really confuses me.  How can a game which abstracts RANGE in a WW2 setting be Simulationist?  

OK.  Some game think that things like measuring range are quite unimpiortant and that if you, as the GM, or even the players, decide that they are in range, they are.  This game makes a point about range being important to it, even if it cant be bother to count the inches.

Anyway, I didn't want pure narrativism - just some narrativist CONCEPTS.  Heck, I just want to know what the players will enjoy doing or fighting against, is that too much to ask?

All right, I really sympathise with this.  I guess has to do with the different ways people think about plot and story.  I am also intyerestedin examining the way stories use their content in various ways, and, for want of a better desription, for rules of thumb for putting together stuff that will be playable.  Perhaps you might be interested in the 36 dramatic situations, easy enough to find in an internt search.  I find them uite useful for figuring out ways to use NPC's and you might find something there that you can exploit.  

 That is part of why I wanted to add the narrativism concepts.  I have been told I am quite good at GM'ing, I am just not very good at making up scenarios or improvising (yea, I know that's a bit like being 'quite

Well, these are not my great strengths either; the more structure the better.

[Clay]

Fang & Hyphz,

I think maybe I wasn't being clear what was going on.  The very fact of well-matched opponents is what kept us in check.  They weren't well matched in terms of gamist balance.  They were well matched in that without playing to the very limit of our ability, our collective posteriors would have been grass.  Our GM is a former Marine Corps mountain warfare instructor who likes to keep people from getting cocky.  

So we get to be heros and all, because that's what our particular game is about (7th Sea).  But we only get to be heros because there's always something bigger than us to fight against.  We fade into the sunset the minute we can overcome opposition with no challenge.

[hyphz]

Fang & Hyphz,
I think maybe I wasn't being clear what was going on.  The very fact of well-matched opponents is what kept us in check.  They weren't well matched in terms of gamist balance.  They were well matched in that without playing to the very limit of our ability, our collective posteriors would have been grass.  

Mm.  The problem is that the way he's designed that power there isn't going to be much of a margin.  Godlike on Realistic settings is a very harsh system.  Screw up and you get dead very easily, and there's no "raising" in WW2.

Against any competent foes, a Talent who makes a big bang happen and glows while the person opposing him collapses in a pile of gore (did I mention that he put the "Graphic" disad on his Harm as well?) is not going to survive.

The same player has now announced - guess what - that after his "politician" act to break Exalted, he now wants to play a politician in Godlike as well.  Interestingly though he has actually come up with an interesting character concept for it (politician with a power to control people's actions to a limited degree, used that Talent to get his power, then had it discovered as part of surveillance and was forced to go to war because the Govt. couldn't waste such a useful Talent - and possibly because they were annoyed that he had used his talent to subvert process) which is quite a change for him.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I'd like to go back a bit on this thread. In my previous post, I offered a techniques-based approach that would encourage certain elements of play.

I am not surprised that pre-game discussion of "themes and intentions" did not pan out especially well. Frankly, such discussion is too abstract to be effective, as demonstrated by several others' accounts. To use a teaching analogy, students have heard far too much bullshit about course goals to believe anything you say - what matters is the first test/assessment, and whether the in-class experience actually helped them to do well. That's what matters, they know it, and a teacher who doesn't know it is screwed.

I do think the techniques I presented are effective in practice, given that any of the players is at all interested in the goals they promote. There's really only one way to find out - I have discovered that some of the biggest talkers about "yeah, theme, character, man" will never change their old-school habits; I have discovered that some of the meekest internal-character-experience people become rabid and terrifying Narrativists given half a chance.

I think this talk-about-talking-about the upcoming play has some serious limitations, and to a great extent I think the main effect is to talk oneself out of playing.

Best,
Ron

[Clay]

Ron's techniques do work, since I've used them before.  Talking about them at a high level with your players won't work.  Something like "Step in if you want to become part of the scene; don't ask me for permission" probably will work.

After a couple of blunders with my own group, that's more or less how I handled things.  The first attempt at having a player narrate a scene fell flat on its face.  Her brain didn't work that way, and it was a very unfamiliar task. The second went slightly better when I prompted him for things that we might be intrested in knowing about. Only on the third attempt, when I hopped in and filled in the part of the other characters in the scene, did player narration really work.

Once they saw the power they had, and what we could do with it, we hit stride.  Shortly after this, one player in particular was telling me about subsequent scenes that she wanted to see, and what she wanted to get out of them.

I don't swear that you're going to  get that same sort of result in your group, but if I could do it with a group that were half neophytes, and another player a strict simulationist (his ideal game has a table for everything, and he's told me this directly),  you can probably see some sort of results.