[My Life With Master] Roszakabad

[John Kim]

OK, I recently played the second and final session of a MLWM game.  The Master was Dr. Charlus, French/German physician and natural philosopher.  He runs a sanitorium in this remote mountain village, Roszakabad, where rich people come to take "the cure" in special mud baths with galvanic wires and icky-looking straps and tubes and restraints. Charlus is handsome, with wild, mesmeric eyes. He looks a lot younger than he should.
Aspect: Brain
Type: Feeder
Want: To be reinstated in the Berlin Academy, which kicked him out
Need: Young, lively villagers so he can suck the vital electricity out of them
Fear: 3
Reason: 4

There were a few nods to Theodore Roszak's "The Memoirs of Elizabeth Frankenstein" -- hence the name of the town, Roszakabad.  Some of the ideas on mesmerism and electricity were drawn from that book, though only distantly.  I have a fairly complete write-up of the characters and the events of the two sessions on a web page at:
http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/mylifewithmaster/

After the first session, one of the players wrote out her thoughts on the game,

We played the cool RPG and had a great time. I liked it much better than Soap. Soap was neat. With practice we would become better at playing it, but My Life with Master was easier to get into. It had instant thematic unity or automatic plot coherence - or at least more automatic than we were getting with Soap. (John) points out that this may be because we are all more familiar with mad scientist plots than we are with soap operas.

(John) is very cool how he works in out of character issues with characters. I was asking him to help me come up with a good concept -- the first part of the game is really just a lot of sitting around thinking of the details of your characters and of the Master. It turned into me being the mad scientist's daughter: my "more than human" characteristic was that I was irresistibly attractive except when speaking. (this, rather cool because I tend to make characters who rely heavily on fast talking or orating or some verbal ability -- and just because in real life I also rely on this. So it was a good challenge.) My character's less than human trait was "falls asleep every hour on the hour, unless someone else is touching her." This was a fun concept but didn't come into play as much as I thought it would.  (Bill)'s char was a man / mouse combination - the result of a past experiment - and Cyn's was a cat / human combination.  The year was 1805, the place, Roszakabad, a village near a hot springs in the western Carpathian mountains. It is a small mountain village with only a single pass out of the valley. The locals have their fields and sheep and goats which wander up the slopes among the clear mountain streams.

It was certainly a kick playing.  Like Liz, I also preferred this to our attempt at Soap.  I guess my thoughts would be:

1) There were a number of questionable calls in character creation.  However, I saw that as inherent in the approach.  i.e. We all got together with nothing pre-decided and worked out characters over about two hours in a face-to-face session.  

2) If we play it again, I'd want to set up firmer conventions on how to decide on rolls.  It was always questionable how far we went before the dice were rolled, and what exactly the die roll would be.  I suppose one solution would be to always frame to be completely clear whether the scene was Command, Overture, Violence, or Villainy.  But I'm not sure I would prefer that.  

3) I kept to a strict turn-order, always going clockwise around for one scene with each player.  Most times there was a single die roll, though a few scenes ended without a roll.  This was suggested in the "Scenes and Sessions" section, but I'm not sure if it was intended to be this strict.  

4) This lead to an interesting twist in session 2, when one PC was asleep for a day while the other PCs were active.  I decided to go ahead immediately to a scene where that PC was waking up.  So that PC (Therese) was now in the future of what was happening to the other characters, and continued to be for several more rounds.  I thus kept up strange things happening to Therese which hinted at what had gone before without determining it.  

5) I was a little surprised at the endgame with the Master.  I had sort of viewed the death of the Master as an inevitable thing, but the PC who was confronting him was horribly overmatched (10 dice vs 4 dice) and just got worse each time he lost and gained Weariness.  We switched off and another PC attempted to kill him, but she was similarly summarily beaten.  Eventually the third PC tried it, and the other two tossed in aid, and I gave a bonus die, and the Master died.  And even then it wasn't a sure thing.  

Overall, it was certainly fun.  We're now gearing up for Season Two of our Buffy RPG campaign, though, and I'm not sure if we'll try something like this again soon.  The main difference from our usual style was the strict turn order and keeping things in single-roll scenes rather than narrated continuous time.  I'm not sure of the affect of that per se.  I don't think I'm likely to adopt it for other games, but it was fun to try it out, and exercise for the creative muscles.  MLWM seems in some ways in-between the GMless strict turns of Munchausen and Soap; vs the flow of a traditional GMed RPG.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Cool Master. Funny, I was just talking to a colleague about all the mystico-electricity mesmerism-esque practices in the 1800s earlier today. Gotta have the straps!

Your ending situation paralleled ours in the Black Ooze game almost exactly; my player-character prompted Endgame with an exceptional roll, but was hammered into a death-Epilogue by the Master, who himself was killed a bit later by another minion (the initially-high Self-Loathing one, apropos a recent thread).

So far, Paul's prediction has borne out that the players' shared loathing of the Master, given their role in creating him, will guarantee a sincere effort to bring him down once Endgame hits, and that the various bonus dice will take their toll for someone along the way. The pattern from actual play reports is apparently solid: if the players make up the Master, the Master will die, with no need for any extra mechanics-based elements to ensure it.

Anyway, one thing I wanted to ask you was your personal experience of the quantitative approach to so many emotional things in the game. Love is the top one, clearly, but the bonus dice, the overriding Fear, and the other attributes all count too. In approaching Connections for Love, for instance, did you find that the quantified aspect detracted from, or invalidated the "role-playing love" content of the game? Or anything else similar of that sort?

Also, did you GM? If so, I'm interested in how you did or did not use the Intimacy and Desperation dice in Charlus' rolls.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

So far, Paul's prediction has borne out that the players' shared loathing of the Master, given their role in creating him, will guarantee a sincere effort to bring him down once Endgame hits, and that the various bonus dice will take their toll for someone along the way. The pattern from actual play reports is apparently solid: if the players make up the Master, the Master will die, with no need for any extra mechanics-based elements to ensure it.  

I'll buy that it doesn't happen, though it seems like it results from GM cooperation as much as anything else.  The players shared loathing doesn't seem to affect it per se.  For example, in my game Bill really wanted to take down the Master, but he just had no hope given his stats.  

Anyway, one thing I wanted to ask you was your personal experience of the quantitative approach to so many emotional things in the game. Love is the top one, clearly, but the bonus dice, the overriding Fear, and the other attributes all count too. In approaching Connections for Love, for instance, did you find that the quantified aspect detracted from, or invalidated the "role-playing love" content of the game? Or anything else similar of that sort?  

Love worked fine, I thought.  The mechanics didn't particularly interfere as the players made emotional connections to NPCs.  Although actually, the mechanic is automatic.  i.e. You always get a point of Love from an overture.  So by deciding on an overture you were choosing an NPC that you liked.  The issue in question is how the NPC responds, which is roughly the same as a social skill roll.  

What felt rather forced was the PCs following the Master's orders.  In that case, there was talk like "OK, I guess I have to follow the orders until I make a die roll."  I never got much impression of inner life to the PCs which explained why they did or didn't follow orders.  

Also, did you GM? If so, I'm interested in how you did or did not use the Intimacy and Desperation dice in Charlus' rolls.  

Yes, I was GM.  I considered using bonus dice a few times, but I don't think I ever actually did.

[LordSmerf]

Also, did you GM? If so, I'm interested in how you did or did not use the Intimacy and Desperation dice in Charlus' rolls.  

Yes, I was GM.  I considered using bonus dice a few times, but I don't think I ever actually did.

I just wanted to step up and mention: In our one game of MLwM the absolute greatest moments for me, both as a player and a GM (one of the other players and i rotated GM duty), were the ones where the bonus dice came into play.  Where the master grabbed desperation and pushed players to make a run for sincerity were where the characters really shined.

Thomas

[John Kim]

I just wanted to step up and mention: In our one game of MLwM the absolute greatest moments for me, both as a player and a GM (one of the other players and i rotated GM duty), were the ones where the bonus dice came into play.  Where the master grabbed desperation and pushed players to make a run for sincerity were where the characters really shined.

I suspect this is something that depends on the person and/or the group.  As a player, I usually react negatively to GM-granted bonuses.  As GM in this game, I did granting bonuses to the players.  I'm not sure how much effect it had.  Offhand, the player dynamic didn't seem different to me than in other games where I don't grant such bonuses.

[Paul Czege]

Hey John,

Offhand, the player dynamic didn't seem different to me than in other games where I don't grant such bonuses.

This is what you'd expect, not having granted the Intimacy/Desperation/Sincerity dice, right? What am I not following?

Paul

[Valamir]

What felt rather forced was the PCs following the Master's orders. In that case, there was talk like "OK, I guess I have to follow the orders until I make a die roll." I never got much impression of inner life to the PCs which explained why they did or didn't follow orders.

I think you can put that down nearly entirely to your lack of using the bonus dice...sincerity...intimacy...desperation...that's the PC's inner life in laser beamed, locked in, targeted, full color focus.  Not surprising you didn't get that focus if you weren't using these dice.  Living a life surrounded by desperate intimacy and false sincerity is the veritable definition of dysfunctional relationships

They are particularly powerful when applied to the MASTER.

[John Kim]

Offhand, the player dynamic didn't seem different to me than in other games where I don't grant such bonuses.

This is what you'd expect, not having granted the Intimacy/Desperation/Sincerity dice, right? What am I not following?

No, I did grant Intimacy / Desperation / Sincerity dice to the PCs, and fairly liberally as recommended in the text.  I had the dice in the right colors and everything, and they were fairly prominent in play.  However, the Master (Dr. Charlus) never got a Desperation die -- he was never particularly desperate in the scenes when giving orders, prior to the endgame.  He might or might not have gotten an Intimacy die, I can't quite remember.  During the endgame, the PCs were so overmatched by him there didn't seem to be any point.

What felt rather forced was the PCs following the Master's orders. In that case, there was talk like "OK, I guess I have to follow the orders until I make a die roll." I never got much impression of inner life to the PCs which explained why they did or didn't follow orders.

I think you can put that down nearly entirely to your lack of using the bonus dice...sincerity...intimacy...desperation...that's the PC's inner life in laser beamed, locked in, targeted, full color focus.  Not surprising you didn't get that focus if you weren't using these dice.  Living a life surrounded by desperate intimacy and false sincerity is the veritable definition of dysfunctional relationships

Well, thank you for your knee-jerk diagnosis of what I did wrong, Ralph -- except that it's wrong.

[LordSmerf]

I just wanted to step up and mention: In our one game of MLwM the absolute greatest moments for me, both as a player and a GM (one of the other players and i rotated GM duty), were the ones where the bonus dice came into play.  Where the master grabbed desperation and pushed players to make a run for sincerity were where the characters really shined.

I suspect this is something that depends on the person and/or the group.  As a player, I usually react negatively to GM-granted bonuses.  As GM in this game, I did granting bonuses to the players.  I'm not sure how much effect it had.  Offhand, the player dynamic didn't seem different to me than in other games where I don't grant such bonuses.

You may be correct, but according to my reading of the rules in MLwM it is not really a case of the GM deciding: "Yes, this is a case of intimacy, have an extra die."  It is instead clearly laid out what constitutes Intimacy and Desperation.  There may be some slight judgement on Desperation, and well, Sincerity is even more nebulous, but if i remember correctly Paul specifically comes out and says that if you know someone is trying for the bonus (honsetly trying) then give it to them.  So it is not so much the GM rewarding the players, but the players reaching out and grabbing those bonuses...

EDIT: Crossposted with John.  Apologies, the above was written with a misaprehension of the actual play.  Feel free to disregard my comments.

Thomas

[Paul Czege]

John,

Aha! That was the clarification I needed. I misinterpreted when you wrote, "I considered using bonus dice a few times, but I don't think I ever actually did." That was specific to Charlus.

And now earlier, in your first post I see you mention giving the dice.

And my confusion seems to have infected others. Sorry.

Paul

[John Kim]

Aha! That was the clarification I needed. I misinterpreted when you wrote, "I considered using bonus dice a few times, but I don't think I ever actually did." That was specific to Charlus.

That's OK.  Looking back, I can see the confusion.  (And in retrospect, I was snippy to Ralph, but then he was overly quick to assign blame.)  The game was pretty much exactly by the book, I think, except that we gave the town a name.  :-)  I specifically went out and got a load of black d4s along with the red d4 (I couldn't find a real burgundy), orange d6, and white d8.  I started Fear 3, Reason 4 intending for a fairly quick (2-3 session) game, and that worked out fine.  

I think the bonus dice for PCs worked fine, as far as I can tell.  There were a few times when I wasn't sure -- but in all those cases I followed the advice and gave the die, and the other players saw and approved.  As for what affect it had...  my feeling is that overall it didn't have a big effect for these players.  There were other mechanics which had a strong affect.  For example, overtures were frequently played to as an integral part of the game.

[Valamir]

Well, thank you for your knee-jerk diagnosis of what I did wrong, Ralph -- except that it's wrong.

Was it wrong?

Charlus is the Master right?

When Ron asked how you used the bonus dice with the Master you indicated you didn't, at least not much.  You then said that you never got a good impression as to why the PCs would or wouldn't follow the Master's orders and that the game was lacking a sense of the PC's inner life.

Those two things are linked.  As I pointed out above, the use of the Sincerity, Intimacy, and Desperation dice by the Master (I emphasised by the Master) is very powerful at conveying that inner life.

You shine the spot light on the minion's inner lives through their interaction with the master...the dysfunctional relationship that is at the heart of the game.  That dysfunctional relationship is based on false sincerity, faked intimacy, and hysterical desperation...from the master...  

Those three areas are the tools the master uses to manipulate his minions, that inner life you indicated you were missing is completely tied up in those tools.   IMO using them for the Master is far more important to establish the proper tone of the game than using them for the Minion.

The way you highlight the dysfunction of the life of the minions is to have the master use the tools of intimacy, sincerity, and desperation.  If you weren't having the master use those tools (throughout the game, not just at end game) then it doesn't surprise me that you didn't get the highlight on the minions inner life that you were hoping for.

How is that a knee jerk diagnosis?  It seems like quite a reasonable analysis given the information you provided.

[John Kim]

How is that a knee jerk diagnosis?  It seems like quite a reasonable analysis given the information you provided.

You know, I started to answer this, but I don't think there's any point.  You apparently have all the answers that you are interested in.  Is there anything else that you would like to know about my game?  If not, then I'd say we'll just let the analysis stand.  I don't agree with it, but I don't think I have any questions for you, either.

[LordSmerf]

One more point regarding bonus dice, specifically as they pertain to the Master.  The Master is cut off from using Sincerity according to the rules, he is incapable of such emotion.  This does not prevent him from Intimacy and Desperation.  One thing to note is that only one bonus die can be present in any conflict, and Sincerity trumps Desperation trumps Intimacy.  So if players go for Intimacy you can force them to move on up to Sincerity by simply having the master grab Desperation.  You can push the players toward Desperation by having the master utilize Intimacy.  It is this rising emotion that fascinates me about MLwM.  The master's utilization of bonus dice, at least in my game, tended to push the players and their characters to new heights of humanity, highlighting the fact that as horrible as they are they are still human...

Thomas

[John Kim]

So if players go for Intimacy you can force them to move on up to Sincerity by simply having the master grab Desperation.  You can push the players toward Desperation by having the master utilize Intimacy.  It is this rising emotion that fascinates me about MLwM.  The master's utilization of bonus dice, at least in my game, tended to push the players and their characters to new heights of humanity, highlighting the fact that as horrible as they are they are still human...

It's interesting the way you put that, because I had the opposite problem.  I felt that the human-ness of the PCs worked fine.  As I said, the overtures were great.  Similarly, when they finally did resist the Master in the end-game, they also shined.  What felt forced was when, after role-playing out how much they hated it, they failed their resist roll and had to follow the Master's orders.  Now, I know that in principle the players should respond to the die roll by figuring out some way to make it believable that the PC should follow the orders.  However, in this game, I feel it usually didn't come off well (particularly for Felix and Therese).  

I'm curious about your experience with this.  It sounds like in your games, the players were good at being loathsome monsters but needed the push of bonus dice to show humanity.  That might just come down to different sorts of players.