[LoL] New Player and New GM equals bad mojo

[dindenver]

Hi!
  OK, My Thursday Playtest group is IRL and we get a new player this week. They come from a CRPG background and have never played a Tabletop RPG before. Not only that, but it is being run by my Wife (she has very little Gm experience).
  Like over half of all the players in my small circle of playtesters, he wanted to make a Thief (what's up with that?), but I talked him down to Mystic (He knew he wanted to make a Vampire though).
  So afterwords I asked my wife what she was thinking, she said she thought that our group needed a boost before the campaign got underway.
  What happened was she had set aup a nice little village for us to start in, including a gambling house.
  The new character walked in, and hypnotized the cashier to give him a bag of silver. Another character created a distraction and she decided to let it go down successfully.
  I was shocked, but she wass happy and he was happy, but it just seems wrong to me...

  Is this just a personal preference issue or is there a flaw in my game design or..?

[Eero Tuovinen]

Some clarifying questions:

- Why didn't you want a thief in the game?
- Why do the events seem wrong to you?
- Was there overt character motivation in play? In other words, what caused the action you describe?
- What is the goal of your game design here? What should have happened in general terms?

I can say right now that the more I understand roleplaying, the less credence I give to "personal preference" as a diagnostic theory. It simply doesn't have enough explaining power to justify dragging it up.

[dindenver]

Hi!

- Why didn't you want a thief in the game?

Well, in my opinion, Thieve's are disruptive to a normal group. Unless the whole party is in on the Thieve's schemes.

- Why do the events seem wrong to you?

Well, fitst it is supposed to be a heroic game. Second, the character would know that they had a power used on them and alert the managementm causing some osrt of continuing plot complication.

- Was there overt character motivation in play? In other words, what caused the action you describe?

Nothing, the new player just got an idea and the new GM didn't see anything wrong with it since she felt we needed more money. This notion is flawed since we all had plenty of Destiny Points. If I were GM'ing, I would have used this opportunity to better explain the setting and the theme of the game to the new player.

- What is the goal of your game design here? What should have happened in general terms?

Basically it is a heroic game, I would hope that players would be motivated through the Reputation System and general cooperation to try and make a positive change in the game world.

  Maybe I am blowing it out of proportion, but still, was curious what others would do about a situation like this.

[TonyLB]

Well, in my opinion, Thieve's are disruptive to a normal group. Unless the whole party is in on the Thieve's schemes.

Honestly, I'd say that any character type can be used as a tool by a player who wants to do something the rest of the player group isn't interested in.  If you're trying to foster party unity and a cohesive focus of action then that's disruptive.

A proselytizing priest who went around citing the heroism of the party as a testament to his God would be disruptive if the other players didn't want to pursue that story-line.  It's not just thieves, right?

Basically it is a heroic game, I would hope that players would be motivated through the Reputation System and general cooperation to try and make a positive change in the game world.

Maybe I am blowing it out of proportion, but still, was curious what others would do about a situation like this.

Uh ... this is basically playtesting of your own system, right?

Because if I've got that right then what I would do about a situation like this is say "Alright!  Valuable playtesting!  The Reputation System isn't gripping people strongly enough to immediately drive them towards heroism.  Now I'm going to keep playing, with eyes wide open, and see whether it gradually brings them around.  If not then I probably need to redesign the system, taking these new insights into account."

[Sydney Freedberg]

Thieve's are disruptive to a normal group......it is supposed to be a heroic game....I would hope that players would be motivated through the Reputation System and general cooperation to try and make a positive change in the game world.

What's "a normal group"? What's "heroic"? What's "positive?" And how are your players supposed to know?

It sounds like your Reputation System is supposed to show players the answers to at least two of those three questions. Except the message didn't get across (this is Tony's point), which could mean any of a number of things:
- Your players and GM didn't really understand the Reputation System. This implies that they're not paying attention, or your rules aren't clearly written, or both. Since you're writing the game, the burden is on you to make them excited enough to pay attention -- so this is on you, not them, either way.
- Your players and GM understood the Reputation System, but they didn't care. This implies that they just like different stuff than you do, or that the Reputation System's rewards for doing things "the right way" are too small compared to the rewards of doing things "the wrong way" (e.g. scamming people out of money). Since you're writing the game, the burden is on you to make them excited about doing things "the right way" -- so this is on you, not them, again.


[quote ]the character would know that they had a power used on them and alert the managementm....

Okay, let's assume that's true -- it's your game world, you're probably right about it. But, again, how are your players and GM supposed to know that? As above, either your rules aren't clear and they didn't understand this (and it's your job to make them understand), or your rules are clear and they just didn't care (and it's your job to make them care).

...causing some osrt of continuing plot complication.

What's wrong with a continuing plot complication? What's wrong with unheroic elements in a heroic story?

Think about Star Wars (you've seen the original Star Wars, right?): Han Solo did shady stuff before the first movie even started, he got in trouble with Jabba the Hutt, and it kept dogging him through all three movies until he and his friends finally faced that part of his past and dealt with it. Was this "continuing plot complication" something that ruined the main, heroic theme of the movies, or something that made the main, heroic theme even more cool?

the new player just got an idea and the new GM didn't see anything wrong ....If I were GM'ing, I would have used this opportunity to better explain the setting and the theme of the game to the new player.

Let me get this straight:

I'm a new player in your group. I come up with an idea I think is cool -- "hey! Let's scam some cash off people!" Now:

Alternative Reality 1: Your wife is GMing. She says, "fine!" We spend the rest of the session doing the scam.

Alternative Reality 2: You are GMing. You say, "no." (Or you talk to me about how risky it will be, and how much "continuing complication" it will create, until I give up -- same thing as "no," just slower). We spend the rest of the session with you "explain[ing] the setting and the theme of the game" to me. I don't get to do my cool idea.

I'm sorry, but I think I'd rather play with your wife as GM.

[Eero Tuovinen]

What to do about the situation: depends on whether you're the game designer, GM or a player. Different responsibilities and privileges.

That being said, it seems to me that insofar as this isn't what you'd like the gameplay to look like, one could say that there's a problem with your game design. Had the new GM read the rules? If so, did the rules instruct the GM to intervene this way or that in a situation like this? Likewise, is there any rules or procedures the players are supposed to follow that, when applied, lead towards a heroic game?

If the perceived problem is orthagonal to the rules (that is, the rules do not address the issue), it seems you have your work cut out for you in designing rules that cause the kind of play you want. Likewise if the issue is addressed, but that address is inefficient. I suspect that even at best the latter is the case; your game seems to be rather traditional in allocating GM duties, which means that the GM can do exactly as he pleases in this kind of situation. You'll note that (apparently) you didn't intervene in the situation yourself during the game. Why not? Probably because it's the GM's pregorative to intervene or allow this kind of stuff, right?

That latter is an interesting question: if you thought that the management should have interrupted the scheme of the character, why didn't you cause that to happen? Are other players made impotent in your rules in this kind of situation? It seems to me you stumbled on quite tricky a problem here; if a player disagrees with how the GM runs a situation, there's no recourse anywhere. You the player just have to take it. Whether this is a lack or feature of the rules depends on your expectations.

What I'm coming to, however, is that even if your game explicitly said somewhere that the GM should punish villainous action, for example, I doubt even that would be efficient. A traditional GM is fundamentally overburdened by the routine of running a game; a novice GM has little chance of running additional plot-control measures on top of adjucating the rules. That's why it takes so long to learn to GM. From this perspective the problem is not in your rules or the GM, really, but in the whole idea of a GM; it simply takes time for a GM to learn the craft, and there's little you can do if you insist on traditional power duties.

From your answers I gather that your main solution to getting players to play heroic characters is GM instruction; you yourself would have blocked the events in the game and instructed the players in proper heroic values and the purpose of the game. Do I have that right? If I do, would you say that the reason the new GM didn't do this is that the game doesn't have rules to that effect, or that the game has the rules but the new GM didn't follow them? In other words, is the course of action you describe for yourself a part of the game's rules, or is it just how you prefer to run the game?

--

Thieves, an interlude: if you don't think thieves make good characters, why is there the option of playing them in your game?

--

From your description I imagine that the GM was slow in establishing situation in the game, and that's why the new player took initiative in this manner. Do I have that right? How does your game system address that interminate moment when everybody sits down to play, characters at ready, and somebody should start the adventure? Who does it? How? How do you make sure that the adventure will be heroic?

It seems to me that the player in question had initiative, which is a good thing. Perhaps you should be considering how to direct players to heroic endeavours instead of villainy? Alternatively, you could lose the preconceptions and work on supporting villainous choices, too.

--

What I would do in this situation if I was the game designer: I would ensure that my rules make it easy to start heroic adventures, and give some reason for doing so.

What I would do in this situation if I was the GM: I would validate the player's action; if we were supposed to be playing an adventure game, then I'd probably portray consequences in the manner of a trickster story, with light heart and ironic posture.

What I would do in this situation if I was a player: I'd play counterpoint to the initiative the other player took; perhaps my character would try to solve the crime, or he'd come along and become a sidekick of the master criminal.

[dindenver]

If you thought that the management should have interrupted the scheme of the character, why didn't you cause that to happen?

lol, funny thing was, we started on this train of thought of the new player looking for ways to use his Dominate Technique. His first few suggestions, I explained why they weren;t such good ideas. And then he latched on to the idea of using it on the cashier and by then I was tired of being a negative nelly, so I just said, "I don't think so".
  Then, I had to go to the bathroom. I was only gone a minute or two. When I came back the wheels were in motion and his victory was all but assured.

  You asked a ton of questions. But I think you did point out where there was a disconnect. The rules for Dlominate are kind of loose. And it does not specify, one way or the other, if the target is aware of the fact they are being Dominated. This was the first time the power had been used in play, so the issue had never come up before. I'll go back through the Techniques and really try to iron out the descriptions.

  As to the overall arc of the rules, they reinforce heroic play to a point. There is support for Villainous play. And it does not require Genre rules or optional rules or anything like that. They key difference is that players vie to accumulate Negative Reputation instead of Positive.

  I don't feel that it is a GM authority issue. By and large, in the case of scene framing, the game is supposed to follow more like Improv, with the GM being a Judge between two opposing directions of action when there is a disparity.

  When I GM, I try to let the players do what they like and just have the world react according to the setting. With new players, I try to give instruction and warning before they do anything that might end up in the game turning out to be "not fun". Certainly, I am not some kind of dog trainer (I don;t think you implied that I was, just trying to be clear) that leads every player on a leash through the possible/acceptable actions and outcomes. But in the case of a new player. Who has never role played before, I would take extra time to set the right mood and precedence.

  As to my emphasis on Thieves as inappropriate characters for most groups, it comes from the fact that the thieves have skills that most players don;t buy, or don;t buy much of, like Stealth. Imagine the movie "Italian Job", now imagine every character is a Boxer, suddenly it becomes a different movie, no? A highly complesx and intricate caper becomes a Farce. Don;t get me wrong, it can be done. And witht eh right group, it can be insanely fun and interesting. But, I feel that it is an advanced role that requires a certain amount of player skill/maturity to pull off without taking a disparate amounf of game time or derailing games into "How are we going to bust the Thief out of Jail/get him resurected"...

  Thanks for taking the time to read this thread guys, it is definitely giving me something to work with!

[Adam Dray]

I don't think the loose rules for Dominate are the problem. The problem is that you want your game to be all things to all people and yet you don't want people to play your game in certain ways. Can you see how you can't have it both ways? When we asked you, weeks ago, "What is your game about? What do the characters do?" this is what we meant. The answer is that you hope the adventures are heroic, yet you put in support for villainous anti-heroes.

I also get the feeling that you were GMing from the back seat -- not letting your wife do her thing on her own. You basically say, paraphrased, "everything was going great till I turned my back on those pesky kids, then they went and did something I didn't like." Well, if you hadn't been there at all, that's how they would have played your game. If you're going to be a player in your own playtests, don't also be the GM. Let the mistakes be made, take notes, and see why your game leads people to do what they do, even if you don't like them.

[dindenver]

Hi Adam!
  Well, I don;t think I am trying to make a game that is all things to all people. Yeah, I put in rules for what happens to your character when you do something bad, but let's face it, even the good guys sometimes do something bad...
  I think I understand your point, but I don't think it is valid here. I know what I want the players to do. And I know how far I want to take the rules in order to push people in that direction. I feel that I am pretty close to that point. I admit that some tweaking might be in order, but I don't think that is why this situation occured.

  As to backseat Driving, I don't think that is the problem here either. I've been the player, not GM, in our Thursday night games for over a year and I have learned to let go and be a player. Also, I work from home Thursday nights, so it is hard for me to do much more than play. When the new player bandied about the idea of using Dominate on this or that character, we all were pretty much kibitzing them with suggestions as to why that was a bad idea or why it needed some work before the character tried it. I have been giving GM tips to my wife, but I have tactfully waited until the session was over and so far my comments have been welcomed.
  Thanks for reading this Adam!

[Judd]

  I think I understand your point, but I don't think it is valid here. I know what I want the players to do. And I know how far I want to take the rules in order to push people in that direction. I feel that I am pretty close to that point. I admit that some tweaking might be in order, but I don't think that is why this situation occured.

Here's the problem.  The player wanted to play a Thief.  You had to step up and bargain him down to a different choice.

Why is taking a Thief, that I am assuming is a valid choice in the game's rules a problem?  Is there anything in the rules to let GM's who have your book without you at the table that a Thief is going to be a problem character and why is it a problem again?

[TonyLB]

  As to backseat Driving, I don't think that is the problem here either. I've been the player, not GM, in our Thursday night games for over a year and I have learned to let go and be a player.

You so really haven't.

Look at this pattern:  Player A wants to do something.  Player B tells him why he can't.  Repeat.  Repeat.  Repeat.  Player B gets up and goes to the bathroom.  When he gets back, everyone is having fun.  Player B immediately discovers that their fun derives from the fact that they have done something that he would have vetoed if he were present.

I recommend in the strongest possible terms that you arrange playtests which you do not attend.  In fact, let me state my strong terms:  If you do not do this I am utterly confident that your game will tank when played by anyone not personally trained by you.  I think people will testify that I have personal experience in this regard.

[Josh Roby]

When the new player bandied about the idea of using Dominate on this or that character, we all were pretty much kibitzing them with suggestions as to why that was a bad idea or why it needed some work before the character tried it.

What exactly were these suggestions?  That he didn't have enough Power Points to activate the power?  That he might get caught?  That he might invalidate his character concept?  That it might derail the game and bore the other players?

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Tony, I'll PM you and ask how to set that up. I have no idea.

  Josh, Most of the player's objections centered around us being in this town for another day and not wanting to get caught/worse just so he could try his new doodad.

  Just to be clear, I didn't raise a stink or anything. But after it was all done, I wondered how we got there. I don't think it's the end of the world or anything, but I did try and ask some questions to figure out how that happened. Try to get at was it just a random idea or was there something in the system encouraging this behaviour.

[Valamir]

Of course there was something in the system to encourage that behavior...you put the Dominate Power in the game...

You can't put powers in the game and then be shocked when player's use them.  I mean really...if I had the Dominate Power in real life the first thing I'd do is figure out a way to use it to get mad cash...ok...well...maybe the SECOND thing...but really, why is it so astonishing that a player would do that?

Don't put it in the game if you don't want players to use it. 

Honestly one of the silliest game designer statements I've ever read on these boards is "Well, in my opinion, Thieve's are disruptive to a normal group."  Dude...YOU put the thief into the game...and then you don't want players to actually use it?

Here's a hint...find a way to make thieves in your game fun and not disruptive...or ditch 'em.  Any sense of "I put them in there because people expect to see them, but I never really want one in my campaign" needs to be eradicated from your mind or your entire game design effort is a collosal waste of time.

And I mean that in the most constructive way possible.  Design the game YOU want to play and make rules to support the way YOU want to run it.  If you don't like thieves in your games...don't put them in your games.  If you don't want players dominating NPCs...don't put that power in the game. 

Game design tip #2:  take the total number of pages you have written about your game right now.  Divide that by 3.  You'll be ready to start serious playtesting when you cut your page count down to that 1/3 number.  Why?  Because then you'll be forced to decide...to REALLY decide what it is that's important to you and what you're trying to accomplish with this game.  I don't care how good a game designer you are, I guarentee 2/3ds of what you have written is shite.  That's not insulting, I apply that same rule to me as well.  Cut Cut Cut Cut...when you go to a steak house you want the best cut of meat...when you go to a game store you want the best cut of game.  Force yourself to make the hard choices you need to make.  If you're sitting on stuff in your game that you don't use all the time (and I mean all the time not maybe-once-someday) ditch it.  Cut it.  Dump it.  Its a malignant tumor in your design and you need to get it gone.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  I did not let the player bring a thiefly character.
  There is no "Thief" built into my game. It's classless. Andonly one skill that could only be used by a Thief (pickpocket)

  As to your second point, I'm doing my best to edit it to be the game I want to play. I've added some stuff, I've deleted some stuff. It's shaping up rather nicely. I'm typically not very verbose, so in all likelihood, I need to add, rather than delete. But I will take that under advisement and see what can go.