[D20 Eberron] Lost that Spark, a Lost Gm seeks advice.

[Bill Cook]

Ron has it exactly.

I'd like to mention, as an alternative style of play, if you'd handed out pregens, each with a function tied into your plot ("reads the vital clues in angry slander," "traverses underground caverns," "steels self against unspeakable horror," "bravely dispatches waking terror"), read a synopsis aloud ("In this session, you'll discover a tower of bug people who've been preying on trade caravans and revenge them to ease the plight of the linked cities") and begun with the group dream of the Benefactor, it would have been a very different session. Maybe even enjoyable.

Note that roll, shmoll, ask, shmask. You tie them in like so: "As [PreGen A] crosses the field, he spies a badger hole, overgrown with moss. Leaning close, there is a dank smell, and he senses a great hollow. He wades through the green and disappears into the earth." Then be quiet.

This frankness and tour guide mentality is the GM counterpart to assimilating character background. It is perfectly legitimate and enjoyable. You may think, I can't just tell them what's going to happen! That would spoil the surprise! Or you may think, I want the players to make the decisions. I mean, they're not hand puppets! But here's the thing: Knowing what play is about trumps the value of a Back-Story revelation ten times out of ten (IMO). Furthermore, once you eschew player input to character background (which is the correct choice for this style of play), you must then provide direct, unhesitating guidance. If they say, "My guy goes into a bar and gets drunk," you say, "No, he doesn't. He journeys with the party to the next trade city to interview the populace and compare reports."

You want them to tell you what they want play to be about, and for those who've told you, shame on you for flatly ignoring them. That's Ron's point. But consider further. They may have just as great a desire for you to tell them what play is about .. and yet you refuse? Insisting that they "discover" its purpose, piece by teasing piece? It's almost sadistic.

I apologize if my tone is a little severe. That probably reflects the pure torture I've endured from GMs using this exact mismatch of techniques. I remember how scared I was when I first posted at the Forge. Ok, the first several times. Anyway, take heart that your desire for satisfying play is redemptive. Also, I think glyphmonkey made a great call: I second TSOY as your top Forge game to try.

Welcome to the Forge!

[Ron Edwards]

Whoa, hold up, guys! The dude wants some help with his Eberron game. Let's not go into "play these other games" and so on, not yet anyway.

Bill, in this case specifically, I actually don't support your suggestion of handing out characters with pregenerated goals. (It works great in other cases, yes.) The core of the problem seems not to be with characters lacking goals, and with these guys, some very interesting and open-ended goals. They have'em.

No, the primary issue is that these three characters get picked up and dropped into a string of connected situations which do not "grab" the existing cool stuff sitting there in the back-stories to be used.

The system/texts being used is of course important, and perhaps part of the problem. I am not familiar with Eberron, but I am familiar with the long-standing tradition in D&D texts, of whatever version or edition, of establishing that "get to fight scene, then fight, then re-group, repeat" is the core of play.

Glendower, your thread title concerns "lost that spark." I suggest that the spark is there, but that it only turns into a flame when everyone particpates in putting on some kindling, blowing gently on it, and checking in with one another to make sure that you all agree before putting on the bigger wood.

It seems to me that three of your five players provided the spark. You responded, I think, by calling them over to another campfire entirely, this one with big logs stacked on it already but with no spark. Oh, this one could burn, if the players decide to start all over with brand-new sparks that are perfectly suited to it. But I can certainly understand, from my own perspective and experience, that I wouldn't be inclined to do that. I'd just spent quite a while making up a complex d20 Eberron character, with a cool back-story, and I'd be pretty inclined to hang onto my own spark, and those of my friends, while wondering when in the world we were going to get around to seeing our fire happen.

You'll have to excuse Bill saying "shame" - as he recognizes, he really resents the many years of making up cool sparks and looking forward to fires ... and never seeing them happen. The very fact that you posted here means that you are already 100% improved from the DMs and other players that he played with. So Bill, here's a pillow with a picture of those guys on it; chop it up with a hatchet and do an orc-dance ... how're ya feelin'?

Best,
Ron

[Glendower]

You know what I'm seeing or rather, not seeing? Let's see if you do too.

1. Across three of the five characters, we have an indentured mother relying on her son to free her, a guy who's trying to balance seeking power and avoiding notoriety while evading a demon, and a traumatized war veteran seeking a role in peaceful life. It's not surprising that the three players for them are also most tightly-linked as friends, as well, and I expect that each of them at least appreciates one another's characters' back-stories.

2. In the game, I see an NPC who tells the characters what to do, a missing caravan which he tells them to check out, and a tower they have to clear floor by floor. More specifically, I see a tactical decision about a ladder, a fight with some ant-creatures, and collecting some treasure.

As I wrote and rewrote my actual play report, I began to get a sinking feeling that I was getting closer to why there was such a disinterest to what I was running in the Eberron game.  Ron and Bill, you both spelled it out.

The kick in the gut to all this was that I played in a game that was run in the same way.  My contribution, my backstory, was ignored in favor of the Gm's own vision.  And I HATED it.  The game was so frustrating and boring that I eventually gave up and joined a different gaming group.  So I'm right with Bill in remembering all the facinating backgrounds and concepts wasted in games that discouraged any kind of collaboration.

This isn't pleasant, to realize I've been running something I'd hate to play in for 8 months.  I'm feeling plenty guilty over it, but with that is determination to take this realization and use it.  I want to thank all that have replied to this thread thus far for your assistance, and for not sugarcoating anything.  Telling it like it is really hit it home for me.  This reminds me of my old peer reviews in University, and those were memorable and important experiences. 

The question now is whether to start fresh, knowing what I know now, or to head back into the Eberron campaign and try bringing all the players' material front and center.  I do agree with Bill and the Glyph in that D&D and D20 doesn't 100% support player input in terms of system (Eberron's like Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, just a setting using D&D style rules).  I still messed up in this game, and take full brunt of the fault, and I don't want to point fingers at a system, but it would help if there was something to support and encourage player input built right in.  Maybe it'd keep me from being such a Tyrant!

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya Jon,

Here's my suggestion: run one session which hits a couple of the characters' back-stories right in the nose - no waiting, no set-up, no jockeying into position. That's what Lance was talking about with Bangs and Kickers; basically, you'd be treating the back-stories as Kickers and responding with Bangs.

You can even use a lot of the combat-prep and NPC-prep you already have, as context rather than central subject. Actually, let me clarify that - no need to justify or tie in all the previous sessions' material. Instead, I'm talking about, if you need a foe, just grab some dude you have in your GM folder and make him the foe.

Try it once and see what they do and say. I mean, makin' up those characters and doin' all that prep was a lot of work, right? See what kind of payoff the whole group of you is capable of.

One remaining question is whether to come clean with the rest of the group regarding your conclusions in this thread, right away, or whether to move into this new/different session as the first step. Opinions about that will probably differ greatly, among all the people reading this thread, but I suggest that you know the others and we don't, so it's your call.

Best,
Ron

[Storn]

this thread sparked quite a bit of discussion in our own gaming group.  It lead RDU Neil to come up with a "Character Cover Sheet"... a series of questions to put to the Players to help GM's navigate those "cool bits".  And players communicate with players what is neat about the directions they want to go in.

It is not silver bullet.  And it might not even be needed.  But I thought I should link to the thread where it put.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18398.0

[CSBone]

Just a thought...
Arakis, you wake up screaming. The dream you just had is the most terrifying thing you've seen since the Demon destroyed your home. The Benefactor spoke just two words and those as if it were gasping it's last words through a tightening garrote. Just two words and then an overarching darkness that strangled your dream like a night with no stars. Two words.

"He comes."

You awake screaming into a stillness that is unbroken even by the sound of the wind...then entire world seems to be waiting on the portent of those two words.

What do you want to do?
[/i] What happened? A possibility is the Sorcereress just summoned the Demon and bound a bit of his essence using a dragon shard ...temporarily into one of her Formian Kings. Have the King kill her in an absolutely terrifying manner that would be beyond the pall of a Formian King's abilities as they get ready to confront her. That weakens the King to a defeatable level. Group has a limited amount of time to kill the Formian king before it is subsumed and the Demon is completely drawn to this location. As they kill the king his blood acts as acid (1 hp to characters per hit) and carves glowing pustulant non-House dragon marks that can do a Cantrip level effect once per day at a cost of one hit point damage to the user and each time they use it, it grows...and, oh yeah, acts as a beacon to the Demon.
Just a thought.

C. S. Bone

[Mason]

I have a question about Jon's situation.  Its a problem I'm having, but I think it might help him too so I'll ask it here.  Namely, how do you introduce the concept of creative control to players who have no experience with it?  Most players will sit somewhat glumly through months of play that has nothing to do with the character they designed because they don't think there is an alternative.  (Side question, would this be an apt description of The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, that the characters seem seperate or tacked on to the story?)

Among the players that I know (that is, GM's included), players trying to exert creative control over a game will be seen as trying to usurp the GM's authority.  I've noticed that this tends to spread more resentment among the other players than it does with the GM, but that may be because in a strongly gamist style group, a player is trying to exert creative control for selfish reasons.  I'd say that this is probably the case in most mainstream games that assume sole authorship of the plot lies with the GM.  Well-meaning players may resist a change of this type because they think it breaks the social contract of the group. 

[Bill Cook]

Let's not go into "play these other games" and so on, not yet anyway.

Bad ad monkey.

So Bill, here's a pillow with a picture of those guys on it; chop it up with a hatchet and do an orc-dance ... how're ya feelin'?

I feel embarassed. Mea culpa.

The core of the problem seems not  to be with characters lacking goals, and with these guys, some very interesting and open-ended goals. They have'em. [Ron]
..
So I'm right with Bill in remembering all the facinating backgrounds and concepts wasted in games that discouraged any kind of collaboration. [Glendower]

My point was tangential. That your wallflower types are as much waiting for you to take them on a tour as you are waiting for them to reveal the seeds for creating a player input-connected back-story. I think you really have two groups.

[John Kim]

The question now is whether to start fresh, knowing what I know now, or to head back into the Eberron campaign and try bringing all the players' material front and center.  I do agree with Bill and the Glyph in that D&D and D20 doesn't 100% support player input in terms of system (Eberron's like Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, just a setting using D&D style rules).  I still messed up in this game, and take full brunt of the fault, and I don't want to point fingers at a system, but it would help if there was something to support and encourage player input built right in.  Maybe it'd keep me from being such a Tyrant!

Hmm.  Well, the D&D rules only support player input through PC design and action.  However, that still allows for a large amount of player input depending on how important the PCs are to the whole.  The more information, control, and power you give to the PCs in relation to their surroundings, the more power you give to the players.  There are some games where the only power is PC action, so I wouldn't just think that this point of design inherently makes players unimportant. 

I am currently planning a player-focused D&D game myself, so I'm thinking fairly critically about this.  Anyhow, I think there's a fairly large amount of room for player input in D&D.  It involves you nailing things down, though, and letting the PCs take the initiative.  (I might suggest my essay on Proactive Player Characters and Related Issues.) 

So I think that there is a fair amount which you can do within the D&D system -- but that doesn't mean it is the best choice.  One problem with this is that if you stick with Eberron, your old habits are there and the players will naturally have expectations based on what has gone before.  You might try some sort of revolutionary change in-game.