Stepping Away from the United Party Mentality

[Judd]

I am about to run Blood Simple on New Year's Day, it looks like and we're in the preliminary e-mail stages, flirting with the game idea before any foreplay takes place.

One of the players, an old buddy of mine started e-mailing everyone asking what they wanted to be, what kind of united party front they wanted.

Eek.

I let them know that they need not worry about a united party and that individual kickers would drive the game more than a pre-set adventure.  

I have found that more than any other part of Sorcerer, it is this concept of not having a united party, of actively watching the rest of the players will in an off scene that takes getting used to from long-time gamers.  I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on how to gently nudge the group away from party unity and what to do if they end up divvying up their niches as if they were going on a dungeon crawl.

Thoughts?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Judd,

One of the nice things about Sorcerer is that you don't have to do anything, as GM, to prevent them from doing this or to nudge them toward doing that. Just be up-front with concepts like what you're describing, say them once, participate in character creation in a helpful way, and GM the game.

After all, if they want to "be a party," they can. You don't have to try to stop them. However, also, it doesn't mean you have to cater to that outlook as GM, during play. It's wise not to consider how you can make or nudge them do a damn thing, but rather to consider what you plan to do, as a participant.

Party play assumes a "tactics phase" in which they are free to prepare for a confrontation. The GM is expected to lay off during the tactics phase. (I'm not talking about an in-the-moment dialogue during a fight scene, but rather hours of actual play at the scene-by-scene level, as well as character creation.)

Party play assumes a threat which is to be taken equally seriously by every member of the group. The GM is not supposed to provide threats or opportunities which represent a conflict of interest among the group members.

Party play assumes niche maximizing, which in traditional play often concerns "reconnaissance," "hit hard close up," "gunner," "meta-manipulation," and medic, corresponding roughly to thief/assassin,  fighter, archer + fireball/MM, weird magic guy, and cleric. People who are accustomed to White Wolf games perpetuate these D&D-derived roles more than anyone. The GM is expected to provide threats in such a way that the niche-specializations get a chance to shine, without being stifled by the immediate circumstances of the confrontation.

Sorcerer does a wonderful job of permitting fairly-specialized characters but not permitting niche specialization, and there's really only one way that entrenched gamers discover this. Be wary and realize that many of them do not want to discover it.

It's up to you to decide which expectations you'll conform with, as GM, and which you'll ignore and replace with some other engaging input. I don't suggest thinking of any extent to which you conform with them to be "good" or bad." Just recognize that the choice is yours and to arrive at whatever combination you want based on enjoyability.

Best,
Ron

[Judd]

I feel like I answered my own question by typing it out.  I just needed ot put my fears to rest.

Thanks for the helpful response, Ron.  It helped considerably to put my fears at ease.

[greyorm]

Just note about this very thing: my whole group had a heart-to-heart recently, and I ran smack into the "party mentality" in the following statement: "I don't feel there's really any reason for us to play together as a group if our characters are all going to be seperated anyways."

Now, I can understand where the player is coming from, even agree to a certain extent, but it still makes me grind my teeth. My response was: "Then make characters who are a party. I don't mean some random assortment of bar flies who end up together because of circumstance X, Y, and Z, but a group that has a solid and lasting reason to stick together and stick around."

Interestingly enough, they didn't. The story/background was created -- what it was the game was going to "be about", rather than my designing a scenario -- and then seperate, compelling reasons for all the various characters to be undertaking this venture were put forth. It was (again) a random assortment of bar flies who end up together because of circumstance X, Y, and Z.

Interesting, eh? Especially given the rejection of non-party play?

At least, however, the game has direction in the form of a story/quest/goal they all created together, rather than being both a random assortment of unconnected characters and a GM-created plotline ("Double-blind Play").