[Avalanche] - two problems

[pells]

Well, I continue play testing Avalanche and we had a game recently. For the purpose of this thread, I don't want to elaborate about the mulit plots aspect or the calendar. In the last game, I came up facing two problems that I wish to adress here.

Example of a scene - limitation of system used
I've said it before, I almost play freeform, meaning we throw almost no dice, discussing each scene with the players, referring to the system when we (me, as DM, them as players) agree we need to. Alas, on our last session, I came to a limitation of this. Just a note about the context : I'm using d20 but want to use TSOY in our next session. I'll explain why.

So, my players are watching the orcs gathering in a place and building up a camp. They manage to become invisible and silent and thus visited the camp for a night, getting used to it. They found out that there seems to be major tents in the camp. So, they chose to return there the next night. On the calendar, I knew that on the course of this week, new reinforcements would come to the camp and impact the plot. As the players walk near the camp, I've informed them of a group coming. Finally, they saw them entering the camp and take the opportunity to rush toward the big tents. From there they saw the orcs celebrating the coming of new forces to their help. Black orcs left the scene toward another part of the camp, unreachable for the players at the time being. So, the problem.

My players decided to enter the biggest tent. There they found many gray orcs, mostly leaders, great warriors, celebrating. One of my players decided to try to put poison (which he had in his possession) in the barrel of wine the orcs were drinking from. They could see the barrels, but it was surrounded by orcs. I stopped for a moment and asked my players : what do we roll ? Stealth ? What about if he missed that roll ? At the end, the players decided the risk was too high and forgot about that plan.

Bottom line for me is this : d20 is not meant to resolve that kind of conflict. At least, not in an exciting way. I really think this could have been fun to play, trying to reach the barrel, even an unsuccessuf dice would have bring some excitment. But not in d20. Rolling three times on stealth ? I didn't want that. Of course, on a failed roll and a big battle resulting from it, d20 would have been fine. But for that specific conflict, I really felt like I didn't have the proper tools at hand. Even if I want to play (almost) freefrom. But, maybe I'm missing something here. Anyway, that's another reaon for me to go with TSOY.

The rise of a new problem
One of the specifics of my product is that the prewritten scenario is not about the players (their PCs) and that they have to came up with their own story. Among the many characters I present for the purpose of the plot, they are some major characters who goes from one plot to the other. They are something like PCs in themselves. That said, they are very important to the plot. On our last game, my players decided to follow and help one of those characters. They were quite useful, helping him enter the orcs' camp and later on my players killed a major character in a big battle (note that this NPC should have survived, normally). I'd say we had fun, no problem with that. Now, my problem.

My players are interested in a major plot in which this main character has a big part. They might chose to follow him and continue to help him. I don't say we wouldn't have fun that way, but this really concerns me, as they might not come up, finally, with their own story. Following a main character like this might come up following a predefined path, filling up a hole in the plot. That is not the intend of my product.

I still have some thougths to give it, but I think I will put that main character aside. Meaning, if my players want to go in a given place where the NPC should go, that character would just say 'OK, then, I'll do something else meanwhile'. I hope this way they will come up with their own story.
That said, maybe I repeat myself but, surely following this character might be fun for the players, but not much for me !!!!

[Tommi Brander]

For the poisoning:
Disguise and a bit of time, in D&D by rules, at least. Alternatively, invisibility and move silently.
Failing the roll could cause a chase scene or a fight. The former D&D doesn't handle well, though.


As for following a big important person, big important persons can always be assassinated/corrupted. Or they can send other people to do interesting stuff.
You could add something along the lines of "This commander is likely to promote some outstanding individuals to [somewhat high rank] and send them to do [another default plotline]."

[Christoph Boeckle]

I don't really know how to help on the poisoning bit, but I think TSoY is a good move for getting the excitement from all sorts of conflicts.


Your new problem, sorry to pester you with that, is in my eyes exactly what I've been trying to tell you over the various PMs and threads.
Your product not being about the PCs, the story is not going to be about the PCs, except if they make an additional effort which often will result in a weakening of the importance of the calendar in AP (at least as long as you don't want to take into account the PCs).

Nevertheless, your players seem to enjoy playing the second roles for the while being. Use that to your own advantage. As Tommi suggests, add a "Big Character" will be the victim of an assassination attempt in your calendar and see how the players will react next session. Suddenly, the story is about their characters, in the sense that their purpose (following a big figure) is being put to the test. What will they do to protect him? Will they take his place after he is dead? etc.

If you want them to come up with their own stories, you must start their interest by introducing events and characters that imply PC reaction (you can always try groping in the dark, throwing unrelated events at them until one works, but you might get old before that happens). From there on, chances are big that the players will start taking initiative themselves so as to be more in charge of what happens to their PCs. Then you sit back, listen to them and just give a little input from time to time when the rhythm stalls.

There are ways to describe characters that work better for that kind of play than others. I think TSoY's way of doing it will work better for you than d20, so go ahead!

[pells]

For the poisoning:
Disguise and a bit of time, in D&D by rules, at least. Alternatively, invisibility and move silently.
Failing the roll could cause a chase scene or a fight. The former D&D doesn't handle well, though.

Well, they were already invisible and silent, but clad in full armor, the tent full of orcs. That's where the difficulty came from, going unoticed. I think my main problem with d20 was the success/failure mangement. Either they succeeded or they were going to flee/fight. I was looking for something to give this scene an exciting pace. If you can manage degree of success, then I think it's all different. I guess I was looking for something like bringing down the pain in TSOY. I didn't like the idea of seeing this scene played in a single roll.

You could add something along the lines of "This commander is likely to promote some outstanding individuals to [somewhat high rank] and send them to do [another default plotline].

I was thinking of something along this line. The idea is to separate the PCs from this main character.

Your new problem, sorry to pester you with that, is in my eyes exactly what I've been trying to tell you over the various PMs and threads.

Artanis, I know your doubts about this project, so let me comment, and please, keep an open mind.

Your product not being about the PCs, the story is not going to be about the PCs, except if they make an additional effort which often will result in a weakening of the importance of the calendar in AP (at least as long as you don't want to take into account the PCs).

That's true, they need to make an effort. The story is not there waiting for them. But, so far, our game is about them. They had big impact and changed plot frequently. My main problem here is really that main character. He will be going thru many events. But that is his story, not the one of my players. I'm afraid to come back to a linear plot...

Nevertheless, your players seem to enjoy playing the second roles for the while being. Use that to your own advantage. As Tommi suggests, add a "Big Character" will be the victim of an assassination attempt in your calendar and see how the players will react next session. Suddenly, the story is about their characters, in the sense that their purpose (following a big figure) is being put to the test. What will they do to protect him? Will they take his place after he is dead? etc.

Killing the main character might be drastic, but still possible. I'll have to give a thougth. For sure, the players would feel pressure for that !!! The important thing here, still, is that, as a DM, I have choices.

If you want them to come up with their own stories, you must start their interest by introducing events and characters that imply PC reaction (you can always try groping in the dark, throwing unrelated events at them until one works, but you might get old before that happens).

In fact this works pretty well. Some events are not directly related to them, but as the PCs are part of the world, of a living, moving world, they really tend to take side. From that implication, I have to create events directly related to them. They do react well to the world moving and care about what's happening. They want to be part of it. Back to my problem is that the main character, if he is implied too, will do things by himself. And don't want to see my players just following him. The problem didn't occur before because they didn't follow a NPC with whom they share commons values.

From there on, chances are big that the players will start taking initiative themselves so as to be more in charge of what happens to their PCs. Then you sit back, listen to them and just give a little input from time to time when the rhythm stalls.

I'd say that's what happens normally. They take initiave, lead the story, I add some inputs. And, from time to time, I have events to throw at them. What I like is that those events occur in coherence with the time and space and might come from any plot. So, my players are always challenged at making decisions about what they care the most.

There are ways to describe characters that work better for that kind of play than others. I think TSoY's way of doing it will work better for you than d20, so go ahead!

I think you're right and I'm very eager to play TSOY. That said, as you can see, there are many ways my scenario can be played.

[Tommi Brander]

Well, they were already invisible and silent, but clad in full armor, the tent full of orcs. That's where the difficulty came from, going unoticed. I think my main problem with d20 was the success/failure mangement. Either they succeeded or they were going to flee/fight. I was looking for something to give this scene an exciting pace. If you can manage degree of success, then I think it's all different. I guess I was looking for something like bringing down the pain in TSOY. I didn't like the idea of seeing this scene played in a single roll.

I know. I have ranted on the subject in D&D forums. Twice. If it is not combat, use another system.

Killing the main character might be drastic, but still possible. I'll have to give a thougth. For sure, the players would feel pressure for that !!! The important thing here, still, is that, as a DM, I have choices.

For softer one, have the players know about the assassination before it happens. But preventing it ought to cost something. And you have created a bang.
This is what Artanis was saying, too, I think.

[pells]

For softer one, have the players know about the assassination before it happens. But preventing it ought to cost something. And you have created a bang.
This is what Artanis was saying, too, I think.

Ah !!! Now I get it !! Sorry for my assumption of the killing of the character. That said, I'd like to focuss a bit on how do things, and what can be done.

What you are talking about, adding bangs directly related to the PCs, I consider this the DM's job, based on what's happening in his game. There is nothing, absolutly nothing that prevents that in what I'm doing. This is very important. You can add those as much as you want. Now, I'd like to show an example of the way I manage scene.

Management of scenes
Getting into the orcs' camp
There is nothing in what I do, in what I write, that takes for assumption that any PCs will go unoticed into the orcs' camp. What I provide is that, for a given time, the camp is in construction, how many orcs are there and how they manage to work in the camp, establishing it. That's all.
My players decided to go into the camp invisible and silent. They were with the main character (his name is Theobald) who knows the orcs' language. So here's how it looks :
- Players : we head toward the camp, at night, from the mountains. There's a forest there, between the camp and the mountains, no ?
- DM : Yes. There's about a half mile with no forest between it and the camp.
- Players : It's pretty dark, so we try to cover that ground until there's a chance we get noticed and then cast our spells.
- DM : all right. Now, what are you looking for ?
- Players : You said the camp is in construction, so there must be some kinds of breach in the palissade ?
- DM : Yes. But orcs are working there. You can always find one where no one is working, but it's further.
- Players : Okay, we take that one. When we are at the palissade, what does it looks like ?
- DM : [description of the palissade in construction]
- Players : There are tents nearby, no ? [They propose a description of the tents.]
- DM : Yes, that looks like this, except you see there are mainly two kinds of tents : for warriors and workers.
- Players : We head toward the tents, trying to listen to any conversations. They must be speaking in the tents, no ? We avoid main alleys.
[end of example]
The important thing here is that there is nothing in what I do that tells you how to manage that scene. There's not even a description of that scene. For myself, I prefer to see my palyers propose things and react to it, adding some inputs. But you can do it very differently. You want to add a bang while there are there, no problem with that at all. But you won't find it in the scenario.

Now, the coming of other orcs' reinforcement. I knew in the calendar, that some orcs were coming in on that week. Were they coming because of the PCs' presence ? No. They were there in coherence with their own story, which lead them there after 4 months or so. In fact, my players manage to learn that story. It was on a complete diferent plot, in which they didn't take part. But, the orcs' presence had impact on another plot in which the PCs took part. My players didin't understand some of the things that was happening at that moment (they didn't know of the orcs' presence). When they learned the orcs' story, they understood many things. This was really easy for me to manage that coherence.
Also note, that when my players were there for the coming of the reinforcement, their intrusion into the tents, there is also nothing that tells you how to manage it. Maybe your game would have been completly different.

The main character problem
The presence of Theobald in the last session really serves my purpose, althougth the PCs came, somehow, to follow him. They found new allies, participated in a big conflict, took side and got information. I'd say That's great for one session, not all of them.
At the end of the session, they came to cross another plot (again !!!) and participated in a big event. Following this event, and the end of the session, I told them : "so, you're heading south ?" "No, we're heading north, we are aiming at that plot."
My main problem is that Théobald is on that plot. So, I clearly undertsand what you mean with your assassination's attempt (and it might serves my purpose) but it does not solve my problem if Théobald survives. I guess if my players are heading north, then Théobald will go south, or something like that.

Bottom line, I think, is that with what I provide, you can add many things, there is a lot space for the DM to manage the game as he sees fit. Maybe some would want to play that game, seeing their players follow Theobald. That is just not my case. I really wish to provide a plot that does not come in the way and allows the management of a believable, moving setting.

[Tommi Brander]

So, bangs are not relevant to the product, right?

Do you want to speak about the product or your game?

[pells]

So, bangs are not relevant to the product, right?

Bangs are revelent to my game and, for that matter, might be revelant to any game. The thing is, I do not provide bangs in my product, since it is not about the PCs.

Do you want to speak about the product or your game?

I think there are both inter related. Here, I want to speak about my game. That said, as I am playtesting my product, I find it most interesting to see what types of games can emerge from it, what are the limits inherent to what I'm doing and how it can be used adequatly. I can talk about its design for hours, unitl I play it, I won't have the answers those previous questions.
So, when discussing actual play of my product, I think I need to still put it into perspective. The decisions I made, the freedom I (or my players, for that matter) felt must be seen thru my design. Another thing important is, I think, based on my report of AP, to see the possibilities that could have been offered to me, or let's say other ways to do things.

[contracycle]

My players are interested in a major plot in which this main character has a big part. They might chose to follow him and continue to help him. I don't say we wouldn't have fun that way, but this really concerns me, as they might not come up, finally, with their own story. Following a main character like this might come up following a predefined path, filling up a hole in the plot. That is not the intend of my product.

I think you might be being a bit paranoid about this danger, precisely becuase your intent is not to railroad.  Because what is apparent is that this is their choice, not yours, so I would suggest that it is still their story.  They are interested in that plot, they might follow that NPC, its still there choice.  In fact, I might bsuggest its a good sign, becuase it shows the characters have bought into this PC and its place in the world.

So sure, lets say the players decided to follow this NPC and strike up as relationship.  That is just another set of inpouts to the game space; there is no particular need for you to use the NPC as carrot and stick, or as the GM's Vox Dei.  Characters do not have to be masterless freebooters in order to have a story; in fact that sort of setup limits what sort of options are available.  For example, if they are to give allegiance to the NPC, for example, the game could go on to use the existing plot web to address some issues about loyalty, say.

The way this may be a change in the content of the story does not in itself seem to imply to me that your players have now surrendered control to your direction.  In fact, it may feel more like that to you than it does to them, if you are used to using a more forceful style.  Have you asked them what they thought about it?

That said, I'm not so keen on the mention of critical NPC's that are "like PC's" in regards the plot.  By that I assume you mean, "have script immunity" or similar.  This may be a real issue; and it makes it hard to comment further without understanding why these characters need to exist or need to exist in this form, what function they fulfill?

[pells]

I think you might be being a bit paranoid about this danger, precisely becuase your intent is not to railroad.  Because what is apparent is that this is their choice, not yours, so I would suggest that it is still their story.  They are interested in that plot, they might follow that NPC, its still there choice.  In fact, I might bsuggest its a good sign, becuase it shows the characters have bought into this PC and its place in the world.

I guess you're right, I'm being a little paranoid. The point is, I'm quite certain you can use my product into a linear scheme, but I think the main strength of it is the multi plot non linear aspect. So that's what I want to play test. That said, maybe a little note about play testing. When I offered my players to use TSOY instead of d20, one of my players made the following remark : "You know, this is your chance to play test it with d20". But, then we agree than we learn nothing from d20 while playtesting !! What we play test is the structure of the plot. And, we both agree, at the end, that it would be interesting to see another system, especially if it fits our needs.

Have you asked them what they thought about it?

Not for the moment, but I intend to. And you're quite right, this is still their story, their choices.

That said, I'm not so keen on the mention of critical NPC's that are "like PC's" in regards the plot.  By that I assume you mean, "have script immunity" or similar.  This may be a real issue; and it makes it hard to comment further without understanding why these characters need to exist or need to exist in this form, what function they fulfill?

This is on the verge of design, but I'll still comment. In fact, this has to do, with a main concept I didn't presented yet.
First of all, those characters are not numerous (3 out of 40). They will be present in more than one scenario (Avalanche is the first). Also, regular NPCs tend to stick to one, maybe two stories. Those "main characters" travel a lot and take part in more than three each. Their function is to be the link between stories.
For example, Theobald is the god of reconciliation and equity, althougth he hasn't goldy strength in the context of Avalanche (he is kind of a reincarnation). He tends, because of his believes and attitudes, to reunite people around him. Those characters don't have 'script immunity', althougth they may, or not, die in the prewritten scenario. And even if they die, they will be present in future scenario (that has to do with my concept).
Bottom line is they make things happen. When they are on a plot, they make things move, making new alliances for example.
That said, those characters are optional and you can play without them. You can substitue them to your PCs.