[Actual play] Dark Border

[CPXB]

(a) You consider use of seer powers as unsavoury - dunno whether that's your value judgement or a value judgement in the setting or both (and in any case my apologies if I misunderstood);  and
(b)  the player expected seer powers to be "cool".  

(a) is fine, taken on its own.  (b) is fine, taken on its own.  (a) and (b) in the same game won't mesh.  You'll get a lot of grief out of that seer stuff if you have both (a) and (b).  Do you think that might be the case?

I'm Stephan's player.  I can't speak for Adrienne, obviously, but a Seer's powers aren't "unsavory" in the setting, no.  There is plenty of room for use.  There are laws about what Seers can and (more importantly, really) can't do -- they can't violate a person's thoughts, for instance.

What I think is happening is that the player is extremely cautious, despite being told repeatedly that Adrienne is not going to screw anyone in the game (and demonstrated it -- she is far more interested in the players having fun to consistently do something to a player that player doesn't like), to extent of being an entirely passive player.  I mean, it isn't just the player not using his powers.  Time and again the player choses to put his character into situations where the character does nothing.  "I hang back", "I sit back and watch", "I make sure I'm not noticed" -- things things happen again and again.

In this game, I got on the verge of upset.  We had gone into the first house with the boy and the sick woman.  We were told by the boy that most of the people were up on the house on the hill.  So, Stephan says, "Well, let's go over there and see what's up."  Both Barbon and Lokesh objected, saying that someone needed to stay with the woman.  Stephan argued that, y'know, she was unconscious and not going anywhere but they were adamant.  So, Stephan (who is an aristo and sees himself as the person in charge most of the time) goes, "OK.  Barbon comes with me while Lokesh" -- who has said he has some experience with tending diseases, if only in livestock, hehe -- "stays here with the woman."  But Barbon objected and Stephan said, "OK, you say, then, and Lokesh comes with me."  It is important that Barbon chose to stay with the woman.

So, Stephan and Lokesh go up to the house and do some stuff.  I'd say that they were sans Barbon for half an hour of real time.  When they go back to get Barbon, Barbon's player snaps something about, y'know, how they're finally getting back to him.

Perhaps I am venting, but it was pretty frustrating for me.  First, I wanted to keep the party together because I felt that some of the players might be frustrated if the group got split up (specifically Barbon's player).  Second, I specifically offered to Barbon the opportunity to go where the action was to keep him in the play (I felt Lokesh's player would have been comfortable just watching us play; I am more familiar with Lokesh's player's play).  But he specifically rejected the opportunity to go do something to hang back and tend the sick woman.  And then he got upset because he was out of the play.

I think there's some dysfunction here, hehe.  I am willing, I think, to concede that I might be part of it but I also don't know what Barbon's player wants from the game.   I have some hints that he wants a very, very traditional top-down hierarchial gamist sort of game where the GM creates an essentially linear adventure with conflicts created in such a fashion that every character's talents are accounted for (enemies best defeated by the fighter, enemies best defeated by the wizard, traps for the rogues to disarm, with a cleric healing everyone up between battles).  But that is not this game.  This game was not sold as that sort of game.  Adrienne got us all together and said, y'know, "I want to run a game but I need to have players who, on their own, will generate a lot of the plots."  She basically asked us for kickers and ideas for bangs.  From the inception she was clear she had neither the time nor the inclination to run a heavily traditional game where the GM shepherded the players through a linear game.  So while I -- from the position of player -- want to help Barbon's player have fun I am at my wits end for both of these sessions.  I'm hoping he'll warm into the game, but I'd strongly prefer he warm into it swiftly.  ;)

But my upshot here is that while it might be true that Barbon's player sees his Seer's powers as unsavory due to the legal and moral restrictions on a Seer's power (restrictions that were made clear at chargen, which isn't meant to diminish the fact he seems an ill fit for the game, now, but just a statement that Adrienne was quite up-front about the restrictions to Seers from the beginning), I think that this is mixing with his incredible timidity in play to create a reasonably toxic mix.

[Adrienne]

So what was the bang for Barbon? :)

Oh!  Heh.  Just a li'l tiny one.  I wanted to see what he'd do with the note.  As it turned out, he kept an eye on Nayan, and eventually showed the note to the other PCs (but was pretty much silent as they discussed it).  He didn't even ask the inkeeper who'd brought it.  I still have a lot to learn about Bangs.

(a) You consider use of seer powers as unsavoury - dunno whether that's your value judgement or a value judgement in the setting or both (and in any case my apologies if I misunderstood);  and
(b)  the player expected seer powers to be "cool".  

(a) is fine, taken on its own.  (b) is fine, taken on its own.  (a) and (b) in the same game won't mesh.  You'll get a lot of grief out of that seer stuff if you have both (a) and (b).  Do you think that might be the case?

I think both (a) and (b) might be around, yes, plus what CPXB said about the player's timidity (I didn't highlight it in my session report because I was more interested in getting input on the extended contest stuff).  Abuse of Seer powers, like reading someone's thoughts without permission, is definitely unsavory in the setting.  I also would consider it so, but with case-by-case exceptions.  Now, though, the player seems to have retreated from any use of them, legal or otherwise, even when I suggest it as a possibility.  I'm not sure if I've scared him off, if it's the general timidity CPXB mentioned, or some combination.

My way of thinking about it is illustrated by my false assumption that you meant "unsavory" clients above.  In my mind, if word quietly got around that Barbon would read people's thoughts, nasty people asking for his services would be inevitable (although they might be mixed with or preceded by more sympathetic cases like you suggested).  I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable changing that for him, because a big theme of the game is supposed to be troubles at court.  I'd feel bad if I gave him only positive consequences while the other players took their lumps... but then, I might be reading too much into your suggestion.  As you've probably noticed, much of my confusion comes from trying to figure out where my biases end and his actual motivations begin.

[Kerstin Schmidt]

...I was more interested in getting input on the extended contest stuff.  

First things first then. I had wanted to ask questions about the extended contest, but wasn't sure how much you wanted to discuss this.  

After Lokesh investigated the pigs, everything that happened was part of an extended contest. I thought it would be cool to use those mechanics to handle the day-long struggle against the forces of plague and Shadow in the village.

Further down in your post you say the result was ambivalent and that simple contests might have worked better for both Barbon and Stephen.
What exactly did you expect extended contests would deliver in their cases that a simple contest wouldn't have? Why didn't it work, do you know?  

Well, okay, so I suggested splitting the "enemy" of the contest into sub-tasks like diagnosing the disease, properly disposing of the dead, etc.

What input did you get from your players for defining each PC's "enemy"?

After the enemy was defined, did the players each stick to their assigned enemy?  I was wondering whether using an extended contest in this situation might have locked the players into doing one specific thing, by giving each of them a specific "enemy" to deal with.  

Since Lokesh's efforts focused on investigating the disease and seeing to the proper rituals, I decided that his enemy (broadly speaking) was ignorance and confusion.

His own ignorance and confusion? Or some outside influence that was concealing the truth from the PCs?

Did the player get a chance to use different abilities thoughout the contest?  (I'm assuming yes because he had a wide scope of things to do, what with investigating the place, talking to anyone not in a coma, examining animals, seeing to rituals etc.)  What about the other players?  Barbon's nursing sounds like he had only one single thing to do, which takes away much of the fun of an extended contest.  

After a long string of verrrrry cautious bidding (2 or 3 AP, every time) Chris finally pointed out that with an aggressive bid and willingness to spend a hero point, he could finish in one round. He tried it, and the gamble worked, as he drove the disease down to -6 AP.

So he spent one HP to win his contest?  Did the other players spend HPs to bump?

Oh, and who decided that Barbon nursed the woman all night?  Was that simply for practical reasons because his extended contest went on for so many rounds, or was it for another reason?

For Stephan, I had the hardest time pinning down the opposition, in part because the ideas I had were tied into secrets his character doesn't know yet.

So you gave him an enemy but didn't reveal who or what the enemy was? Hm, it's no more than a hunch but that seems to speak against using an extended contest for me. (If not against using any sort of contest.)  One of the cool things about HQ is that the player can elect to to use unusual abilities creatively to exploit a weakness of the opponent, and that's even more important in an extended contest, when you try to get a high AP starting total (and a low one for the opponent at the same time), and then change around using different abilities later on as the contest develops. There's not much chance of doing this against blurry entities like "secrecy" and "the Shadow". (Unless you have already established a clear profile for the Shadow to give the player a way to tackle it in creative ways, that is.  Not sure how you can give "secrecy" more profile unless you tell the player what the secrets are.)

He helped Lokesh with the funeral rites, stayed alert, and then risked much on a high bid when the goblins attacked.

Was the fight against the goblins still part of Stephen's contest against secrecy and the Shadow? (And of Lokesh's contest against ignorance and frustration?)

Final AP total: 95 to -35. The village will be safe from attack for some time, and in the next session he'll be finding out some of the secrets behind the plague.

That's a complete victory. If that is the outcome of Stephen's contest against secrecy and the Shadow, shouldn't this contest now be resolved for good?  Meaning that Stephen finds out whatever secrets there were that "secrecy" was hiding from him, rather than only a few?  

Would it destroy your plans if Stephen found out more at this point than you're planning to give him?  (And on a side note, would it destroy your plans, or would it be a no-no in your group's style of play, to give Chris information OOC to help frame the contest in an interesting way? Even if Stephen might not know the information, giving the player access to it could work.)

For Stephan and Babon, a few simple contests would probably have worked as well and been much easier. For Lokesh, though, I think the extended framework was great for showing the development of his mental state over the night.

Why did it work so well for Lokesh when it didn't work for the other two?  It sounds a bit like you defined Lokesh's conflict (and only Lokesh's) in a way that enabled the player to bring the character's personal issues into the contest.  

In Barbon's case the conflict wasn't dramatic enough to warrant an extended contest rather than a simple one.  (Just one because all he did was coax the delirious woman back to consciousness.) Did he have any reason to care particularly about this particular patient? Unless he knew her well, had fallen in love with her at first sight or had some reason on his character sheet to get involved intensely emotionally in healing random strangers, where's the drama?  

In Stephen's case I'm not sure I understand what the opposition was.  Were you sure even?  I mean, you were keeping the bits you were really thinking about out of the contest because you didn't want Chris to know them yet, and were replacing them with what sounds like a bit like a faceless and strangely undefined thing.  At the outset of the contest it was "secrecy and the Shadow". After Chris's complete victory it was "he has rendered the village safe for some time and will learn some secrets", if I read your post correctly.  Even ignoring the level of victory for a moment (which I think warrants much more extreme consequences than you applied, as I've said above), how do these consequences fit in with the definition of the opposition you gave him?  Where does making the village safe come into it whe he was figthing secrecy?  Was he really fighting secrecy all night, or was he changing goals/pursuing a bunch of different goals, such as gain information from villagers, fight goblins, help with Lokesh's rituals (was that an unrelated action to augment Lokesh btw?)?

[Adrienne]

First things first then. I had wanted to ask questions about the extended contest, but wasn't sure how much you wanted to discuss this.

Lots!  As your questions indicate, I screwed lots of things up.  I'd love to have some advice on extended contests, because right now I'm inclined to avoid them until I know how to use them.  

Further down in your post you say the result was ambivalent and that simple contests might have worked better for both Barbon and Stephen.
What exactly did you expect extended contests would deliver in their cases that a simple contest wouldn't have? Why didn't it work, do you know?

I think a big part of the problem was that I hadn't prepared explicitly for the contest.  I had a pretty good idea of what they would find in the village, what caused it, and I had some general events planned (like the attack at night, and Barbon's use of Seer powers that turned out not to happen).  As I was finishing off my notes an hour or two before the game, I thought, "Hey, it'd be cool to make this an extended contest and let the characters determine how well the village recovers."  So, I didn't plan enough.

What input did you get from your players for defining each PC's "enemy"?

After the enemy was defined, did the players each stick to their assigned enemy?  I was wondering whether using an extended contest in this situation might have locked the players into doing one specific thing, by giving each of them a specific "enemy" to deal with.

Not really much, that I can remember (CPXB should jump in if he remembers anything).  I don't think it occurred to me to get their input; I was pretty confused at the time trying to sort it all out myself.  I decided each character's rough "enemy" by the first action they took in the contest:  Lokesh tried to diagnose the disease, Stephan questioned the boy, and Barbon tried to make the sick woman more comfortable.

Barbon stuck exclusively to his original task, except for the attack round.  Lokesh varied a little more, handling the funeral rites as well as investigating for physical clues.  Stephan tried questioning two different villagers, then staked a big bunch of AP on the attack and won completely.  (Lokesh and Barbon's contests, for comparison, lasted five rounds to his three.)

Since Lokesh's efforts focused on investigating the disease and seeing to the proper rituals, I decided that his enemy (broadly speaking) was ignorance and confusion.

His own ignorance and confusion? Or some outside influence that was concealing the truth from the PCs?

Did the player get a chance to use different abilities thoughout the contest?  (I'm assuming yes because he had a wide scope of things to do, what with investigating the place, talking to anyone not in a coma, examining animals, seeing to rituals etc.)  What about the other players?  Barbon's nursing sounds like he had only one single thing to do, which takes away much of the fun of an extended contest.

I didn't have a clear idea in my head of whether it was his own confusion, something outside, or both.  Looking back, the narration focused on his internal dilemma of whether to help the village or leave to go to his family.

Lokesh's player commented after the game that he'd gotten to use a lot of the abilities on his character sheet, which matches my impression.  Stephan and Barbon both used one single thing, apart from the attack round (persuasion and nursing, respectively).

So he spent one HP to win his contest?  Did the other players spend HPs to bump?

Oh, and who decided that Barbon nursed the woman all night?  Was that simply for practical reasons because his extended contest went on for so many rounds, or was it for another reason?

Everyone used all of their HP, I believe.  I'm trying a variant rule where HP become experience points after you use them, which obviously encouraged those decisions.

I think it was a combination of practical reasons and the player's lack of interest in doing anything else.  I was a little surprised that he stayed with her all night, myself, especially after she was moved up to the house holding everyone.

For Stephan, I had the hardest time pinning down the opposition, in part because the ideas I had were tied into secrets his character doesn't know yet.

So you gave him an enemy but didn't reveal who or what the enemy was? Hm, it's no more than a hunch but that seems to speak against using an extended contest for me. (If not against using any sort of contest.)

Yeah.  In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have done the extended contest at all.  It seems to have been mostly unsuitable.

I have stuff to say to the rest of your post, but I have to head off to class, so I'll post this and get to the rest tonight.

[Mike Holmes]

Cool stuff. I have some thoughts.

I'm a little fuzzy on how long "wounds" should take to heal, or what that healing will entail.

If a wound goes out of "dramatic scope" then it's healed. For example, if it goes until another session and that session is mostly in another place, then don't worry too much about it, unless the player brings it up. If they mention it, that means that they're still interested in having the impediment, and it should remain. But generally play fast and loose with this sort of thing.

As for healing, propose a scene for such to the player, and let them come up with a solution. If they don't have any ideas, then just keep the penalty for the moment and move on. They'll either call for a scene to heal it up ("I find the count and tell him that the rumors are untrue!") on their own at some point, or they're not really interested.

Lastly, if you see an opportunity for a Bang, go for it. Healing is often a great place to stage a bang from, because we can assume that it's something that the character wants. So its something like, "I'll speak to the count for you, but first you have to do a little favor for me - what do you say?"

Even for the contests that did involve NPCs, I usually found myself using the default resistance of 14. That's something I might try to practice next time--getting into the habit of thinking, "would this person have an ability to resist?" to vary contest difficulty a bit.

It all has to do with the NPCs desires. If they have no active opposing interest then 14 is the way to go. 14 is my friend, and I use it a lot. Does the barmaid want to resist being picked up? I dunno, 14. If, OTOH, you know that the character has a motive that would make them opposed to the attempt, then assign them the appropriate ability right then and there. "Ah, that's Esmerelda, and she thinks your a slob for having already hit on her sister - roll against her Hates Ragnar augmented with up to 15W!"

I'm currently working on the hypothesis that as long as I have a "benchmark" in mind for an NPC (roughly, the number of masteries in their best ability) I'll be able to be halfway consistent without worrying about details too much

Good call. What I often do is to set up an important keyword, often their occupation. So the count is Noble 10W. Then allow for individual abilities to be up to about a mastery higher than that or so if they relate to this.

I usually come up with this on back calculation, however. That is, first contest I want to give the Count a Rapier Wit 10W2. So we do that, and then I start thinking of the Count as Noble 10W. Which makes setting other abilities to match an easy range. We know his wit is his strength, so everything else related to being a noble will be from 10W to about 5W2 for his 'second-best' abilities.

As for the Stephan-Barbon family contest, I don't remember whose idea it was to roll.

Not a huge deal. Two things. First, I agree with Kerstin, that if the player wants to roll for it, roll for it. Don't take that away from him. Then, no matter what happens, give him the information anyhow. Here's a little trick from the old illusionism tookit. "What, failed? Well, all you can remember is that they're from your lands, and the father is a vintner." Or, "What, succeeded? Well, you manage to recall that they live on your lands, and you even remember that the father is a vintner."

The information gets across, and the effect of the failure or success still occurs. It's a myth that narration has to vary with success or failure. There just has to be a better and worse condition than the one presented, so it could have been better or worse.

I don't know how to cure that, but I can at least throw him a couple of softball contests to try to draw him in a little more.

That won't do it, nosir. You get rant #7: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9812

If you want narrativism from him force him to either play that way, or ask out of the game. Either way things will be better off than they are now.

So my solution for this guy is Bang, Bang, Bang! Hit him with really hard, undeniable Bangs. He'll either come out of his shell, or you'll know that it's time to let him go.

What's a Bang? Well, it's a situation that presents choices that the player must make for the character, simply put. For example, Barbon is declared an outlaw, and the psycops are coming for him. He's done nothing wrong, but he hears that the Count (I dunno, somebody suitable) has accused him, and they're not going to listen to reason. OK, now what does he do? Submit, and throw himself on the mercy of the court, or run like hell. If he "does nothing" he's deciding to be caught. So he can't avoid an important decidision here. If the player doesn't like this, then we know that he'll never be interested in this sort of play.

Why does the Count want him gone? Make something up. The Count believes that he's read his mind, and knows the secret plans. Or isn't sure, and is just being careful by cleaning up Barbon. This makes Barbon important because he'll probably learn that the Count has an evil plan. And then as soon as he's in custody, give him another chance to escape after he learns of the corruption of his captors, which will automatically succeed - the question is really only if he'll take that way out (of course, if he runs the first time, then you know you've got a live one on your hands).

Just an example. What you really want to do, is look at the character sheet, find out two things that are really important to the character (and more importantly put there with enthusiasm by the player indicating his interest), and find some way to put them in conflict with a bang. Show the player why his character is cool in dramatic terms. Again, if he can't see it, then tell him you tried, and it's not going to work.

In Barbon's case the conflict wasn't dramatic enough to warrant an extended contest rather than a simple one.

Disagree, actually. I think that the idea of the extended contest was a good one. And that a disease is a really neat thing to make a contest out of. I'm going to have to do that in one of my games (hmm, that's about the last thing Isadora would need right now, a disease romping it's way through the camp...swamp, camp hygiene, close living quarters...thanks for the idea Adrienne!)

That said, I think that you bit off more than you could chew, Adrienne, by making three concurrent extended contests, and by not having a clear vision of what they'd be like. That is, as soon as you started floundering, you should have changed your mind. If it doesn't jump out at you and tell you how to make it an extended contest, then it shouldn't be an extended contest. When it's time, you'll think, "Oh, now this is when an extended contest is right!"

Now that said, I think that you're like Kerstin somewhat in that you beat yourself up too much for percieved flaws in your narratoring. First, everyone makes bad moves. You don't see it, Adrienne, because I don't type it, but quite often I'm on the other side of that screen going, "Aw crud, I shoulda made that a contest" and the like. But then I shrug and move on, because nobody's perfect. Second, you're doing fine, I don't see any fatal flaws with your game or even anything unfun about it. Lastly, you'll learn and do better. Slowly, but it'll happen. So there's nothing to worry about. Know that you're going to do a good job next time you play, and focus on that.

I'm trying a variant rule where HP become experience points after you use them, which obviously encouraged those decisions.

Alarms going off. How does this work precisely? If it's the version where you can't spend HP until you've spent them in play as HP to bump, I'm very agin it. HP represent a choice that has to balance out. Do I want to bump and make my character look cool here, or do I want to raise ability levels with them? If you go with your method, then everybody will always bump, and there's no thinking about when you want your character to be cool, and when it's cooler to fail.

Mike

[Kerstin Schmidt]

As your questions indicate, I screwed lots of things up.  

Nah.  You did lots of things right.  Your players were having fun obviously, so were you hopefully; you're getting a game off the ground that you're running in a new system for a new group that hasn't played together before.   I was asking questions as much to learn more about how you framed the contest and how it went, as to suggest possible-seeming solutions.  If not more. I learn out of this, too.

I'd love to have some advice on extended contests, because right now I'm inclined to avoid them until I know how to use them.  

Judging by new narrators' threads on the Forge, most people seem to feel like that at first. Heck, I practically sent my players to sleep in my first extended contest, sounds like you did a lot better than me.  

The usual advice I've seen is to play through a few extended contests until the group gets the hang of what to do (and not do) with them dramatically.  That said I agree with Mike, it's only an extended contest when it feels like one.  It's hard to explain abstractly but you'll know one when you see it.  If you think film, it's the moment when things go into slo-mo - when there's lots at stake for the character and as the audience, you sit forward and grip the armrests of your seat. Or something.  (That's why I was saying that nursing the one woman may not have been dramatic enough for an extended contest in Barbon's case.  Of course it all depends - if there's something important for Barbon at stake, it'd be different.)

Oh and another thing Mike said somewhere else, ask your players.  Do you want a contest here? Do we want to make this one an extended contest? I've been following that advice and it's been great for us. It means I have my players on board with this stuff, it isn't just my lonely responsibility.  

After the enemy was defined, did the players each stick to their assigned enemy?  I was wondering whether using an extended contest in this situation might have locked the players into doing one specific thing, by giving each of them a specific "enemy" to deal with.

Not really much, that I can remember (CPXB should jump in if he remembers anything).  I don't think it occurred to me to get their input; I was pretty confused at the time trying to sort it all out myself.  

Tell me about confused. I thought my brain would explode the first time I ran an extended contest.  Players can help a lot here.  

First, before I forget: players can keep track of the AP total of their opponent as well as your own. And an invaluable help in FTF play are poker chips to represent AP:  much easier to keep track of than scribbled notes and much more dramatic because you see the stacks pushed out and retrieved, grow and dwindle.  Not to mention those satisfying little clicks when you stack them.  I've heard someone say recently that he felt using poker chips caused great temptation to make higher AP bids...

Second, players can help with framing the contest.  Have them state exactly what they are trying to achieve and take the opponent from that.  Not always easy to make a choice on that, so again, you could discuss the options with the player.  
If the player states something like, "I want to nurse this woman back to health", it's the disease, or whatever causes the fever.  (Could be something like my Root of Evil, see below.)

If the goal is "I want to make this village safe again," the opponent is whatever is threatening the village.  In this case, perhaps it's simply the disease and the goblins (two opponents).  

Or perhaps it's the same sentient lurking Root of Evil is behind everything (causing the fever, making villagers confused or reluctant to talk, and shuffling all the underground rocks in the area to the graveyard to make digging harder).  That doesn't necessarily mean you have to make this the opponent, although you could.  Maybe the opponents are still the fever, confusion, and rampant goblins, only they are augmented nicely by the Root of Evil.  +5 augment for Taint of Evil? Tough goblins;  an unusually tenacious fever;  some very confused villagers and a really, really stony graveyard.  

If you decided to have the Root of Evil as the active opponent, your initial high target number might have been appropriate - and individual characters would have been defeated, yes.  What with working together, mutually augmenting each other, AP lending and stuff they could still have made it winnable.  The Root of Evil presumably wouldn't have the same high resistance against every PC action, so it would start out with a high AP total but might show surprising weaknesses later on.  Its "Worm Plague" ability might be much higher than its "Taint Person's Mind", for example - and what if it couldn't reach children so easily? Then suddenly the youngest kids in the village might become not only the most reliable witnesses, but even valuable allies in driving the taint out.  

Many choices. Did you feel you were screwing up when you had trouble defining the opponent? (I know I did the first time round.) Not true. Framing a contest involves many creative choices, for both the narrator and the player. Sometimes it doesn't need more than a snapping of fingers, but sometimes it does - and I think that cool and complex situation you had in the village was an "it does" case.

I don't even think you could have planned ahead for that properly. It was necessary to have the Root of Evil (or whatever you were using) and the rough details of fever, goblins and confusion defined - but beyond that you couldn't even be sure what the players would want to take on.  Stay with the village?  Or scatter to track sick animals, get in a proper healer, warn surrounding settlements and alert the nearby militia? Just as an example.  So I don't think you planned too little, not if you had decided roughly what the Root of Evil was and how it operated.  

I decided each character's rough "enemy" by the first action they took in the contest:  Lokesh tried to diagnose the disease, Stephan questioned the boy, and Barbon tried to make the sick woman more comfortable.

I think the enemy needed to be defined on the basis of the player's stated goal for the conflict as a whole.  

Lokesh's player commented after the game that he'd gotten to use a lot of the abilities on his character sheet, which matches my impression.

Cool.  For that alone it may have been worth to have the extended contest. Even if two players may not have got full benefit out of it this time, the third player definitely did;  and now you've run your first extended contest and the second time will go much more smoothly, even if you don't change anything.

[Kerstin Schmidt]

You get rant #7: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9812

If you want narrativism from him force him to either play that way, or ask out of the game. Either way things will be better off than they are now.

I have to agree actually. Mike was chipping away tirelessly at my resistance to this approach - until I tried it in our last session with one player who was a bit reluctant to "come in and play", and it really, really worked.  I believe now that a player who has difficulties adapting to style needs clear guidance, not timid attempts.

For example, Barbon is declared an outlaw, and the psycops are coming for him. He's done nothing wrong, but he hears that the Count (I dunno, somebody suitable) has accused him, and they're not going to listen to reason.

Aha, the big GM club.  

Adrienne, does that make you shiver with apprehension?  I had a "nononono I can't I can't" response when Mike first made similar suggestions for my game.  I tried them though, and they worked.  

Now that said, I think that you're like Kerstin somewhat in that you beat yourself up too much for percieved flaws in your narratoring.

Hey! Just striving to better ourselves.  

(I think he's right btw. Again. How annoying. ;) )

[Adrienne]

I'll try to finish answering these questions, then move on to Mike's post and last night's session.  One of the themes of the game is supposed to be intrigue, so revealing all to Stephan would indeed upset my plans.  (That means that "secrecy" shouldn't have been his enemy, of course, but I already know that.)  I talked to CPXB, and he was quite willing to come up with other ways for Stephan to have a strong lasting effect--like the village  being safe from goblins forever, or getting a reputation (on both sides of the Border) as a great goblin killer.

Why did it work so well for Lokesh when it didn't work for the other two?  It sounds a bit like you defined Lokesh's conflict (and only Lokesh's) in a way that enabled the player to bring the character's personal issues into the contest.

If I had a definite answer to this question, I'd be much less interested in advice.  :)  I don't think I did a better job of defining his conflict, but he and CPXB brought in the fact that Lokesh had family in the area to add some narrative punch to his failures.

Did he have any reason to care particularly about this particular patient? Unless he knew her well, had fallen in love with her at first sight or had some reason on his character sheet to get involved intensely emotionally in healing random strangers, where's the drama?

I'm not sure why he latched on to that NPC so strongly.  My uncharitable side says that he wasn't paying attention much at the session, so he probably stayed with her because anything else would have been too much effort to think of.

For Stephan, I wasn't sure what the opposition was.  But, I think the player and I have retrofitted things to allow him a complete victory without overturning my plans.  He was very understanding about the chaos of the extended contest.  When Stephan helped Lokesh with the funeral rites, that was just narration, not a contest or an augment for Stephan.

Whew.  I hope that I answered most or all of your questions.  This week gave more food for thought, which I'll hopefully get around to explaining below...

[Adrienne]

(Snip advice I will steal)

That won't do it, nosir. You get rant #7: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9812

If you want narrativism from him force him to either play that way, or ask out of the game. Either way things will be better off than they are now.

(snip)

Just an example. What you really want to do, is look at the character sheet, find out two things that are really important to the character (and more importantly put there with enthusiasm by the player indicating his interest), and find some way to put them in conflict with a bang. Show the player why his character is cool in dramatic terms. Again, if he can't see it, then tell him you tried, and it's not going to work.

Ulp.  I'm still struggling with Bangs, because this is the first game where I've ever used them.  I actually had one planned for Barbon for last night's session, but we didn't quite get to it, so I'll tell how it went after next session.

I'm also struggling with Barbon in particular, because it's hard to figure out what's important to him.  The player sounded most interested in having psychic powers, but he's avoided using them and hasn't even told the other characters that he's a Seer (which isn't something that people normally hide in the setting, although he might not realize it).  I just came out and asked him why Barbon was keeping his powers a secret, and his response was pretty much, "to keep from being pestered about insignificant things, and he's not really keeping them a secret, but no one's asked him."  So, I'm trying to hash that one out right now.

I'm going to have to do that in one of my games (hmm, that's about the last thing Isadora would need right now, a disease romping it's way through the camp...swamp, camp hygiene, close living quarters...thanks for the idea Adrienne!)

Sigh.  This is all Kerstin's fault, asking me questions!  *shakes fist*

That said, I think that you bit off more than you could chew, Adrienne, by making three concurrent extended contests, and by not having a clear vision of what they'd be like. That is, as soon as you started floundering, you should have changed your mind. If it doesn't jump out at you and tell you how to make it an extended contest, then it shouldn't be an extended contest. When it's time, you'll think, "Oh, now this is when an extended contest is right!"

Yeah, it turned into a much bigger deal than I expected.  So far, my plans for the future are to keep extended contests a little simpler, make sure the opposition and PC goals are clearly defined, and enlist the players' help whenever possible.  Plus, next time they'll keep track of their own damn augments.

Alarms going off. How does this work precisely? If it's the version where you can't spend HP until you've spent them in play as HP to bump, I'm very agin it. HP represent a choice that has to balance out. Do I want to bump and make my character look cool here, or do I want to raise ability levels with them? If you go with your method, then everybody will always bump, and there's no thinking about when you want your character to be cool, and when it's cooler to fail.

It is that version, yes.  They don't have enough HP to bump every contest, so there's still some decision involved, but you might be right that it's not worth the change.  Although it's worked fine in the IRC game, I'm not completely comfortable with the default rules, so I wanted to see how the variant would work.

[Adrienne]

Session Three

We opened in the wee hours of the morning, as Nayan rode in from Manjipor with a small group of Healers and soldiers in tow.  He immediately changed horses and departed again, to scrounge a few more men from his estate.  With all the necessary duties taken over, Lokesh headed outside to take another look at the surrounding farmland.  When he was out of sight of everyone else, he was hailed by a dirty and slightly wounded figure--Sujit, the son of his mentor in the whipsword.  In the name of his father, Sujit asked for sanctuary from Lokesh.

Before he could explain himself, two soldiers arrived--men Lokesh recognized as serving his father.  They respectfully announced that they had to return Sujit to Lokesh's father's land to stand trial for defacing a family monument.  (There are no graves in Manjipe, so this is as close as it gets to grave desecration.)  Sujit repeated his plea for help, but said he couldn't explain more.  Lokesh, curious, excused himself to ride back to his father's lands to investigate.

There, he learned that a monument dedicated to his ancestors had indeed been defaced by Sujit, who did not deny the crime but wouldn't explain himself.  Lokesh tried to persuade him, and managed to learn that his ancestors had done some wrong to Sujit's family; the young man got drunk one night and damaged the monument because of it.  Lokesh wanted to help, but was loyal to his father.  So, he went and persuaded his father to let Sujit travel with him instead of going out to do dangerous Border service (not a guaranteed death sentence, but poor odds for survival).  His father agreed, discharged the young man into Lokesh's care, and they returned to the plague-stricken village.

There, meanwhile, the soldiers brought Stephan's attention to a small pile of bones in the fireplace, blackened by smoke and carved with indecipherable writing.  Stephan questioned the woman who had been tending the room when he arrived, and she claimed ignorance.  Seeing no other option, he arrested her on suspicion of witchcraft.

Later in the day, Nayan returned, and Stephan filled him in on what they knew.  Nayan thanked him for his help and said that his obligation was discharged, but asked one last favor--would he transport the bones back to Manjipor for examination?  Barbon said he could translate the words, given a library.  Stephan agreed to carry the bones, after one last look around...

So, he and the now-returned Lokesh rode out to make a final, thorough examination of the surrounding land.  Thanks to Stephan's methodical search pattern and Lokesh's knowledge of the local plants, they realized that the vegetation surrounding the village was ailing, with the village apparently acting as both the temporal and spatial origin of the blight.  They decided to see what was at the center of town, and it turned out to be the village well, which smelled a little on the funky side.  They pulled up the bucket, and found that it contained a skull, with more characters carved on the forehead.

Checking around, they discovered that both people who were unaffected by the plague (the woman accused of sorcery and the little boy) had been recently drinking something other than well water.  Furthermore, a strict accounting of bodies burned and living plage victims revealed five people who were completely missing.  They reported these findings to Nayan as well, who was glumly pleased to have the extra information.  We ended with the group ready to head back to Manjipor.

[Adrienne]

I had a bang for each character ready to try, but we only got to one of them because everyone stayed in the village much longer than I expected.  The one that happened was for Lokesh, of course--would he help the son of his mentor, or side with his father?  I was childishly gleeful when the player said, "Huh.  I don't know what to do."  He ended up taking a middle route, trying to please both his father and stick up for Sujit.  He might be adding him as an official sidekick or retainer, which would be the group's first.

This whole thing might reveal much more about Lokesh in the long term than I expected, because he apparently feels an obligation to make Sujit's service as bad as Border duty in one way or another.  Lokesh is starting to show hints of a cheerfully sadistic side, as he jokes about finding shit jobs for Sujit to do.  "Sujit, go down in the well to see if anything horrible is there.  Sujit, carry these cursed bones back to Manjipor."  Poor guy.

I also introduced variable augments for the first time, with Lokesh getting a +4 to help Stephan search for a pattern around the village (it ended up making the difference in success level, which was cool).  Other than that, contests were pretty straightforward; I'm getting pretty comfortable with using 14 for a default, 18 if it's "pretty hard" for some reason, and of course an opposing rating if one exists.

The unexpectedly long stay in the village resulted in Lokesh's abilities getting lots of screen time, and Stephan's persuasion and sword skills getting little.  I'll do my best to remedy that next session.  CPXB quite gamely kept looking for clues, even though Stephan's closest thing to a perception ability was Quick-witted 18.

And now, the inevitable Barbon section... The most interesting bit with him, from my point of view, was the conversation where Stephan told Nayan about the bones found in the fireplace and the woman he'd arrested for witchcraft.  Nayan said that he didn't know anything about the occult to check for himself, and that he'd have to send for a Seer to question her, to see if her story was true.

Barbon, who was watching the whole conversation, didn't mention that he was a Seer and he could check for himself.  (Part of me wants to have her lynched for witchcraft after the group leaves, before a Seer can arrive.)  Instead, he used his Sense Lie ability on Nayan, but got a marginal failure.

As a follow-up, I asked the player via email why he was choosing for Barbon to hide his abilities.  He's now saying that he didn't know what Barbon could do, and wants to go over "the whole Seer thing" with me to learn.  I find myself regarding it as an ambivalent sign.  One one hand, at least he's showing some interest now; on the other hand, it only follows direct questions on my part.

I'll probably start another thread this afternoon, where I can present my bang ideas and solicit advice away from CPXB's eyes.

[Mike Holmes]

I'll follow up here with some thoughts on what has transpired so far.

One of the themes of the game is supposed to be intrigue, so revealing all to Stephan would indeed upset my plans.

This is a complex topic. There's an inherent problem here, which is that, sans information, players have nothing to work off of in terms of making choices. Something that Ron and Paul always talk about is that NPCs should exist pretty much to divulge information. In typical RPG play, NPCs are roadblocks to completing adventures, challenges to be overcome. But even in standard play this is obnoxiously problematic. As Kerstin mentions above, what happens if the players fail to get the info? What if they don't even think to ask? Then how can they choose their next action? Often this devolves into, "I try another way to get the information." Which is often dull as dirt.

Now, does that mean that you have to spill all of your secrets? Well, no, not right away. But it means that this is what you should be doing with NPCs, generally. Have each of them have a small bit of the puzzle, and have them willing to give it up for some reason. It's tempting to create bangs out of this - do X thing that challenges one value to get information Y that's important to another value. But this is potentially very problematic. Because players are likely to see this as a railroad. Oh, I have to do X, because if I don't we don't get the information, and play stops in it's tracks. So avoid this like the plague, unless you're absolutely sure that the players understand that they can get the information some other way. They have to feel free to say "no" or its not a bang.

Information that comes out around bangs is a good idea, however. For example, an NPC approaches a PC and tells them some bit of information to get in their good graces, and then asks for a disagreeable favor. This is a bang itself - do I do the disagreeable thing for my new friend, or do I disappoint him? Information as the result of a decision is good too. Let's say that the Bang is being asked by a lover to kill somebody. If they go off to kill the person, the NPC gives them some information as a reward. If they decide not to do the deed, then somebody else learns of the refusal, and rewards that with information. Perhaps the same information.

Again, as a reward, however, never pose it up front - if the player feels that this is the only way to get the information, then it's not a free choice. Give it afterwards as a suprise reward.

One of the problems that you're having here is that I sense that you're not playing scene play per se. Which I'll get to more below.

That means that "secrecy" shouldn't have been his enemy, of course, but I already know that.

I kinda like the idea of abstractions as enemies in a way. But I think that part of the problem was the level of abstraction here. Instead of "secrecy" as the opponent, it should have been "The Count" or somebody holding some particular secrets. This way it's easier to set the resistance, and to determine what the opposition is doing on their actions. I might actually even let the players in on the fact that he was the opposition, even if their characters were unaware, but that's optional. You could just think about his maneuvers and say stuff like, "Somebody has been threatening these people so that they won't tell who knows the information." Stuff like that.

I think another part of the problem was that you didn't know what the player goals were. Or at least you didn't follow them if you did. If the actual goal was to "figure out what the secrets were" then you have to allow for the chance of revealing them, or not do the contest. The latter case is important. If you set up a situation like, "There's a chasm in front of you, what do you do?" and the player says, "I learn about dragons from the chasm" you're completely in the right to disallow the contest (technically you improv mod the contest away). Similarly, if a player looks at a situation and says, "I want to learn the secrets involved" you can say that this is just not available from the opposition at this time.

This has to be reasonable, of course. So don't ever set things up like, "There's a pot of gold on the other side of the chasm" and then not expect players to leap to the other side to get it. That is, if you present the opportunity to get information in theory, then you have to allow that the player goal will be to get the information, meaning you have to deliver if you let things progress. So don't set up that situation if you don't want to deliver.

That all said, there's another approach here, which is just to give them the information. Let them know the secrets. Because you're going to reveal them at some point. And if that seems to "blow" the suspense, you can always create more secrets.

For example, with Isadora, I didn't think that she would learn about the details of what the expedition was really about (the stuff Fred forced Salast to dump) until later. But now that it's happened, I'm just adding more elements to what's going on of which she's unaware. You can do the same thing. If they learn something "prematurely" then you have two options. Just make up more details for them to learn, or consider actually going with a shorter game.

Sometimes it's just better to let the cat out of the bag and let the story finish up. We're used to games going for a long time, but that doesn't have to be the case. Perhaps they solve the mystery here, but then move on to something else. The key to pacing is not in terms of the mystery itself at all. It's always in terms of where the characters are with their development. The mystery should wrap itself up about the same time that the characters resolve their personal issues.

I'm not sure why he latched on to that NPC so strongly. My uncharitable side says that he wasn't paying attention much at the session, so he probably stayed with her because anything else would have been too much effort to think of.

Well, it is an interesting response to say "I'm not going" and then to lament not having gone. But I think this speaks of classic sim/non-sim incoherence. "I have to behave like my character would, but I don't want to split up the party, because then I don't get to play!" The pressure to make decisions based on in-game priorities, and the player desires are conflicting here.

Generally I think that the problem may have to do with the fact that you don't seem to be framing scenes. I'm guessing that you're using the old, "So what do you do now?" method? Allowing play to sorta meander from place to place? Or is my reading of your recaps incorrect?

In my game, you'll note that I'm always saying, "Let's have a scene with A and B" or the like. This may seem random, but there's a method to my madness. You'll note that I usually include at least one, if not more, NPCs. These elements are all being thrown together because there's something that I want to accomplish that requires these characters to be together. Sometimes its an infodump, sometimes its a bang. Sometimes I think that a bang will just occur naturally from throwing the characters in question together. Other times, I allow you folks to say who you want to have together in a scene. Presumably, if you want to have a scene, you're doing some info sharing, or making bangs for each other.

Basically I just don't allow haphazard play at all. Every scene has a purpose, meaning that it should be interesting for everyone to watch. Not just an individual player going off and puttering around with something that they think is marginally interesting, but something that really advances the plot.

The point being, that, hopefully when I'm doing things right, eveyone is engaged even if they don't have a character in the scene. IRC play might not be the best way to give you this example, but I hope you can see what I mean. The idea is that players will not be in every scene, but that this is OK, since the sharing is regulated, each scene you are in has impact for your character, and when you're not in the scene, you know it's time to act as audience (and for IRC, do all the helpful stuff that you all do in terms of helping each other with mechanics and such). Everyone stays involved with things like the metagame competition to see who can have their character be the first in the session to make some sort of meaningful gesture. Downtime isn't just waiting for your scene, it's participating in the scene in a way that just doesn't involve your character.

Again, not sure how agressive you are with the framing, but I think you might do better in general if you started to move to a more directed agenda of trying to get to the meat of things. Basically I think this means bangs. The way to present bangs with scene framing is not to wait for the characters to stumble into them, but to bring the bangs to the characters. You mentioned that the characters didn't go to the right place for some of your bangs - well, any place is the right place for a bang. If the bang is "The Count says he'll give you a parcel of land if you vote for his proposal with the council" then you don't have to wait for the player to say he's going to the Count. At the very least just have the Count show up looking for the character (or, "Ah, good fortune, just the man I need to see!"). If you want to get really aggressive, then just frame the character there, "Eventually you have to go see the Count because protocol demands it - you now stand before him as he greets you and asks a question."

Now, it could be that your play is producing interesting interactions already, and you don't need to artificially insert bangs. I can't say. But if you have a character who's turtling, it sounds to me like you're going to have to use your GM authority to make these things happen. Again, you're not going to get the player out of his shell by just asking, "What are you doing next?"

If you're not sure what's interesting to Barbon, use the garunteed angles. There are a few things that really can't fail. For example, incarceration, as I mentioned. Freedom from it is a universal value. Hit the character's sexuality - have some character that's very attractive, but somehow problematic, throw themselves at the character (the Count's Wife). Threaten with bodily harm. Offer large potential advancement socially.

What about his family? I assume he's got a relationship with them on the character sheet. Have somebody show up, and get in trouble. Yeah, this is classically used for railroading, I know. But just do it right, and it's valid. That is, if you're not using it to force some particular decision, but instead using it to set up a decision for the player to make - then hopefully they'll enjoy what you've done.

Again, if after all of this the player still doesn't bite, you know that he never will. I don't believe for a moment that it's a problem with knowing what a seer can and can't do. It's precisely a problem with the player not understanding that he can make up plot, or not wanting to participate in it. I agree with the earlier assessment that he's waiting for the dungeon so he can use his Seer abilities there to get through it alive responding to the GM presented challenges. This isn't the mode you're playing, so you have to slam him hard with the mode, and make him understand what's going on.

Although it's worked fine in the IRC game, I'm not completely comfortable with the default rules, so I wanted to see how the variant would work.

I'll admit that the slow pace of the IRC game has made the HP distribution a tad odd. I've played with the amounts for a while now, trying to figure out what to do with it. But the fact is that just the way it's supposed to work does create the effect that's sought. It shouldn't be "win this, or win that" it should be "win this, or gain ability." So that players do have the ability to play Frodo, who wins a lot, but never really improves in terms of ability levels. Or they can choose to play the gritty character who looses a lot, but just keeps getting cooler and cooler anyway. Or something in between.

He ended up taking a middle route, trying to please both his father and stick up for Sujit.

I've been kinda fascinated with this sort of tactic for a while now. That is, often players will indicate by their character's responses that they want to wiggle out of making a decision one way or another. Now, you don't have to let them do so, but I've been finding that it's OK to allow it. Basically the response says that the character values both things a lot and is undecided about it, which actually adds to the character. If indecision were not interesting, we'd not have Hamlet.

Here's the thing, however. Hit them with the same bang, essentially again at a later date. You might even allow a wiggle a second or third time. But, at some point, you probably want to have the inescapable bang. Often this involves an ultimatum from an NPC, "It's either me, or them!" If the decision has been a long time in the offing, I think it's even more interesting when finally the decision has to be made. And, heck, if the player comes up with a really latteral solution to the problem that allows him to have his cake and eat it, too, then allow that as well. In that case, the message is that he wants both things so much that he invented a way to do it. Which is pretty cool.

Just don't let em get away with it a lot. :-)

CPXB quite gamely kept looking for clues, even though Stephan's closest thing to a perception ability was Quick-witted 18.

Tailor situation to match character ability. Let's say that the clue that he might find is that there are some goblins still about. Instead of thinking that this is a visual thing, and he's looking for footprints or something (ala the Scooby-Doo clue), come up with a quick mental puzzle for which "Quick Witted" is the most appropriate thing. If he succeeds, he puts together that the farmer's complaint about missing grain, and the sounds of drumming that the carpenter heard the other night, means that there are still goblins in the village. You get the idea. Alter the facts to make the character's ability be the correct one for the contest, to make the character seem useful. Don't wait for the "right" situation to come along to make the character shine.

Generally this is true. Don't set up a situation and then just "play it out" like "things would happen." Instead think about what would be cool to happen, and then back-generate any facts you have to do so to make it happen plausibly. If the players haven't seen it yet, then it's not fact, and you can change it to fit your latest needs.

Mike

[Adrienne]

Session 4

Returning to his house in Manjipor, Stephan found two pieces of mail waiting:  an invitation to a party the next night from Dhavlesh, and an unsigned note saying "Asha knows what Nayan is hiding.  She'll talk."  As he finished reading, his servant announced that the lady Asha had arrived to see him.  

She came to ask him to escort her to a party, the same to which he was invited, because she wanted protection against a noble who'd been bothering her.  After some teasing, he agreed, and then asked her about the note.  She became distraught, saying that someone had been slandering her father.  He persuaded her that he was trustworthy enough to hear more, and she admitted that Nayan did go a little mad when his wife died several years ago, but he hadn't done anything really terrible, and things had been quiet since.  She couldn't think of anyone who hated him enough to cause such trouble.  They parted on friendly terms, planning to be fashionably late to the party the next night.

Next we went to Barbon, who had a letter of his own waiting at his inn:  a plea from one of his cousins to send money, saying that the family had just gotten a big commission but might not be able to meet it.  As soon as he digested that, he received his first of several callers.  Delfino, assistant to the Portonan envoy, came to ask him to read the thoughts of someone he suspected of sending threatening notes to his friend.  In return, he said, he could have Vitale exert his influence on behalf of Barbon's family.  Barbon refused, saying it was against the Hasturs' laws, and Delfino left looking glum.

The next morning, Barbon received his second caller, a masked and well-dressed gentleman.  This fellow said he wanted to invite Barbon to join an association of individuals who studied powers not taught in the Seers' universities, "things your teachers kept from you because they feared your potential."  In exchange for access to an extensive library, friendship, and other training, all that was needed was an oath of secrecy.  Barbon said that it sounded good to him, and his visitor assured him that he'd be contacted soon.

Lokesh, meanwhile, had been invited to the same party as Stephan.  Recognizing himself as a rustic fellow with no idea what to do at a fancy party, he appealed to Stephan for advice.  Stephan instructed him to always remember to act as if he was the most important person in the room--unless, of course, there was actually someone more important present.  But not just someone who looks more important, mind; Lokesh must be able to distinguish between apparent and actual importance.  Also, he should make free with other men's wives, and be ready to fight if it seemed the least bit appropriate.

Barbon and Stephan then met briefly, to discuss the bones they'd brought back from the plague-stricken village.  Stephan gave Barbon a letter of introduction to Fiora, who had mentioned previously that she had a library.  Barbon departed to her house, and his research there revealed that the writing on the rib bones consisted of invocations of disease spirits and various obscene threats.  The writing on the skull said, "My blessings will fall on those who have opened the way."  Barbon reported these findings to Stephan.

Back to Lokesh, who decided to visit Delfino, of all people, for a second opinion on how to conduct himself at the party.  He found Delfino's counsel remarkably similar to Stephan's, with a few helpful tips such as "don't flirt with the wife in front of the husband" and "try not to break anything when you're fighting, as it annoys the host."  Lokesh left considering himself well-prepared to mix with high society.

The final part of this busy day saw Stephan call on Vitale.  He wanted a letter of recommendation for his character, to assist him in gathering a troop of soldiers to call his own.  He would, of course, owe Vitale a favor.  The worthy (and bored) envoy from Portona agreed.  Then, Stephan asked him if he knew of anyone who would wish Nayan harm.  Aside from the usual friction between Border landholders and the Crown-appointed vicar of the province, Vitale could think of nothing--but said he would look into the matter.  Stephan departed, satisfied.

[Adrienne]

Last night, I dreamed about needing to prepare bangs for people.  I think that's a side effect of moving the session up a couple of days, causing me to go into a frenzy of preparation.  I have until next Friday for the next session, and I think I'll need the time, because I see a couple of magic keywords on the horizon.  Good thing I'm on vacation right now...

In the above session summary, only the first part (up through Barbon's masked visitor) was planned by me.  The rest of the happenings were entirely suggested by the players, which was very fun.  I'd never have thought of Lokesh's quest for good social advice (after which he purchased Seynyorean Etiquette 13), and I can't wait to see how he actually does at the party next week.  

The two visitors to Barbon were quite funny.  He was all about following the rules when Delfino offered to help his family, but I saw his eyes light up when his masked visitor dangled new powers in front of his face.  I didn't think I was being especially subtle with the Dark Side schtick, but he didn't seem at all perturbed that a masked man wanted him to swear an oath of secrecy for access to rare texts and training.  Oh, well.  I'll have the "blood opera" talk with him before it goes as far as the character getting a magic keyword, and we'll see where things go.  The player won't be around for two weeks, anyway.

The only other major point was something CPXB mentioned to me after the game.  Towards the end of the conversation with Vitale, Stephan tried to persuade him to actually share anything he learned about Nayan (as opposed to just saying he'd share).  He got a major victory, and the resistance was lower than Chris expected.  I admitted that I was making things up as I went along, and would have made the resistance higher if I'd had it to do over.  So, I think I need to draw up some sketchy NPC sheets before the next game, at least to assign ratings to what I see as the core competencies of each character.  All in all, though, I had a fun time and I think the players did too.  I really appreciate the advice from everyone, here and on the other thread.

[Mike Holmes]

He persuaded her that he was trustworthy enough to hear more, and she admitted that Nayan did go a little mad when his wife died several years ago, but he hadn't done anything really terrible, and things had been quiet since.  She couldn't think of anyone who hated him enough to cause such trouble.  They parted on friendly terms, planning to be fashionably late to the party the next night.

Did this seem like a Bang? That is was CPBX really interested in the potential choice to have pressured her for information? In point of fact, he had his cake and ate it too. That is, he got the information and the girl. So did he have to make a choice at any time, really? CPBX, was it interesting that way? Or did you let him off the hook? Did she ever say, "please don't bring it up?"

The reason that I strongly suspected that it would turn out with Stephan helping her, is because no matter Stephan's goals, the hidden Sex keyword came out in spades here. You women don't realize the power you have over males. That is, given the choice between following your curiosity, or of being nice to a woman, that's really little choice at all for most. Most male players playing male characters will have the character fall all over himself just to help out. She didn't even need land. She's a potential sex partner (to men every reasonably attractive woman is a potential sex partner - yes every one), so the male needs some very strong incentive to go against this.

But what do I know. Was it a bang? Do we feel we know Stephan better now than we did before?

Next we went to Barbon, who had a letter of his own waiting at his inn:

You should keep this up, it might become a fun motif.

a plea from one of his cousins to send money, saying that the family had just gotten a big commission but might not be able to meet it.

Cool. Pressure by a little covert exposition.

Barbon refused, saying it was against the Hasturs' laws, and Delfino left looking glum.

Again, did the bang go off (they don't always, even when they're good)? In this case, was the player still turtling here? Or do you think he had fun revealing his character's ethical nature?

In exchange for access to an extensive library, friendship, and other training, all that was needed was an oath of secrecy.  Barbon said that it sounded good to him, and his visitor assured him that he'd be contacted soon.

Cool. That sounds like you've hit a hotspot. I think what we might be seeing here is a player who likes his character to accumulate power, even if he doesn't use it. If that's the case, then you have a good angle for bangs in the future.

Recognizing himself as a rustic fellow with no idea what to do at a fancy party, he appealed to Stephan for advice.

Isn't it cool when the players start making up action like this themselves?

Barbon departed to her house, and his research there revealed that the writing on the rib bones consisted of invocations of disease spirits and various obscene threats.  

Cool infodump. But did you have Fiora interact with Barbon at all? Can you think of a Bang you might have created there? Interesting that she has a library with occult info in it...and that he was offered a chance to join a group with a library with occult information in it...

Lokesh left considering himself well-prepared to mix with high society.

It's cool to give opportunities like this for players to buy abilities. But, again, be thinking "where's the bang in this scene?" You could have had Delfino ask Lokesh to help him since Barbon would not. Sure he's no seer, but he could be asked to eavesdrop or something similar.

The final part of this busy day saw Stephan call on Vitale.  He wanted a letter of recommendation for his character, to assist him in gathering a troop of soldiers to call his own.  He would, of course, owe Vitale a favor.  The worthy (and bored) envoy from Portona agreed.  Then, Stephan asked him if he knew of anyone who would wish Nayan harm.  Aside from the usual friction between Border landholders and the Crown-appointed vicar of the province, Vitale could think of nothing--but said he would look into the matter.  Stephan departed, satisfied.

Sure, but was the player satisfied? Probably, players can hang on through a lot of information gathering and whatnot. But why not have Vitale have something that he could act on? Better yet, why not have Vitale only help him with the troops and information if Stephan actually did a specific favor for him?

Well, fortunately you can still do that - Stephan owes Vitale. :-)

Always be thinking bangs. Don't worry if they don't always come to you - it's not neccessary to have them in every scene. But if you're thinking about them, they'll happen a lot more frequently, and play moves along a lot more quickly in terms of plot evolution.

This all probably sounds rather critical, but, heck, I only got out two or three bangs in the IRC game last night. With seven players that means that only some of them got em. So I know it's not always easy to get them in there. But I'm always trying. Given the IRC environment, if I wasn't constantly looking for opportunities, there'd be even less bangs than there are now.

Fortunately with you guys, you make bangs for each other left and right - that scene you had with Fred last night to kick things off was spectacular that way. Things were resolved, but they weren't completely resolved, if you know what I mean. Which is pretty darn perfect. :-)

Sounds like your players are getting into the swing of this a little. But try this - give your players some really conflicting goals. Have NPCs ask one to work against another, etc. Then we'll see how willing the players are to create their own Bangs for each other. :-)

Mike