What Went Wrong?

[Tancred]

I think framing is important here. Maybe if you said that they wouldn't get out there alive unless they did some sort of deal, I don't know the game, before he went in. But when he gets there then just reneging must have seemed a good or reasonable idea and they probably percieved your not letting them off that lightly as railroading again.

Just a few thoughts.

Regards
Rob

Yep I think you and Brand could be right. More OOC discussion before the scene and clearly setting the stakes for conflicts would have helped I'm sure.

[Tancred]

Let me put forth a hypothesis:  I think Jack's Kicker was resolved at precisely the moment you thought things went wrong (well spotted, by the way).

You heard "He finds his lover in the arms of another man," and thought that meant that Jack needed to prevent that man from ever coming between them again.

He heard "Jack comes home from the war and sees something that shows him that everything has changed," and thought that meant that he needed to understand the new world he's been dumped into.

So you guys both get to this scene, and you think you're both on the same page ... and then you explain what happening to Jack.  And Jack's player is left there thinking "That's it?  Well, I guess I understand the world I've been dumped into.  So I'm done, but ... well, that was quick."  Meanwhile you're sitting there with your eyes on the "Stop this man/spirit/whatever from being a problem" prize, and you're bewildered by Jack's sudden loss of interest.  I mean, this is where the good stuff starts, isn't it?

How does that sound?

It does sound possible... wow, that would suck though - we've resolved his kicker (and therefore story arc) midway through the game. It certainly explains the loss of interest in the scene.

The only good thing is that we left the scene with Jack still having to face his father and formally transfer the love, and Jack's player is looking for a way of getting round this. Since he hasn't actually decided to make that decision finally, it might still have mileage.

Thanks for all the responses, they have helped me clarify things. I think I definitely have to be more careful how I introduce the fate point invocations and make sure (as much as possible) that everyone's on the same page and knows what the stakes are before getting to the decision stage. We've done a lot of this in-character, when I think it should have been discussed and clarified out of character.

Certainly everyone's given me food for thought. Any more suggestions/analyses welcomed of course!

[Callan S.]

I think Jacks player had made his address and it's that his girl will have nothing to do with the forrest spirit. That includes ignoring any deals the spirit demands for a deal, because the address is that strident - no deals! I take my girl back and that's it!

I think there was a lack of escalation about the 'no deal' thing. There was no 'Well, if you don't deal with me I'll shoot my darts of agony into your skin" which would find out what it would take to make Jack open up his ears and make a deal about his girlfriend. Instead, he's said 'No deal' and the GM's just kept asking for a deal. There needs to be escalation, so Jacks responce will tell us something new. As is, he's telling us the same thing 'no deal' and the story is stagnating.

[nilsderondeau]

I think framing is important here. Maybe if you said that they wouldn't get out there alive unless they did some sort of deal, I don't know the game, before he went in. But when he gets there then just reneging must have seemed a good or reasonable idea and they probably percieved your not letting them off that lightly as railroading again.

Just a few thoughts.

Regards
Rob

Yep I think you and Brand could be right. More OOC discussion before the scene and clearly setting the stakes for conflicts would have helped I'm sure.

Wat here.  Yeah, more OOC would have helped.  I realize now I felt stymied--Wat had a secret mission whose failure he wanted to report as soon as possible.  Was also enjoying the climbing task that Tancred laid out for me.  He's wringing his hands here, but the set up for the scene was Very Cool.  I took the fall (literally) because 1) I trusted that Tancred wouldn't impose a character death (he told me as much); 2) because goofy little Wat falling into the midst of a serious negotiation seemed comic to me; and, 3) because I wondered how the hell Tancred was going to handle it.

So, if we had set out intents, stakes, etc., I would have brought up why Wat wanted to get the hell out of the hole he was in--the reason remains secret in-game, so I won't mention it here.

Cheers,
N.

[Tancred]

Wat here.  Yeah, more OOC would have helped.  I realize now I felt stymied--Wat had a secret mission whose failure he wanted to report as soon as possible.  Was also enjoying the climbing task that Tancred laid out for me.  He's wringing his hands here, but the set up for the scene was Very Cool.  I took the fall (literally) because 1) I trusted that Tancred wouldn't impose a character death (he told me as much); 2) because goofy little Wat falling into the midst of a serious negotiation seemed comic to me; and, 3) because I wondered how the hell Tancred was going to handle it.

So, if we had set out intents, stakes, etc., I would have brought up why Wat wanted to get the hell out of the hole he was in--the reason remains secret in-game, so I won't mention it here.

Cheers,
N.

Hi nils,

Good to hear your thoughts here. It's all about communication! Until I read your post here I had just assumed you found the scene unengaging and was leaving it ASAP - never occurred to me you might be enjoying the escape and be leaving to report on Wat's mission.

I think setting clear OOC stakes is probably the single most useful thing we can do to avoid this reoccurring again, not least since the clarification of intent will clue me in to what the players want ahead of time, rather than retroactively.

Thanks again for all the advice, it's been very helpful,

Thanks,

Adrian