[Fastlane] A difficult beginning

[Filip Luszczyk]

Last Monday, after a nearly five-month break, I finally managed to schedule a game with my regular group. The players were:

Michal - he's been into table-top RPGs for four years (started from D&D), and most of the time he's been playing in my group, so I know him pretty well. Apart from D&D he has some significant experience with L5R, Exalted and New WoD. Also, he is practically addicted to trading card games.

Aga - she joined us nearly a year ago, and in the first half of the year played in about ten sessions of Exalted and one session of D&D (due to scheduling problems she omitted lots of games). Aga has no other experiences with table-top RPG I know about, although she could have had some contact through her brother's group. She plays a lot of Japanese console RPGs (and I mean: *a lot*).

Bartek - he's quite an experienced gamer for our country, as he's been playing for over ten years. I think he's been playing a lot of Warhammer and Old WoD (mainly Werewolf) in the past, but some years ago he switched to D&D. He knows me and Michal for nearly three years, played with both of us in some convention games, and in the last months of the last year he joined our regular Exalted campaign and run some D&D for us. Addicted to console games.

Only Aga had no previous contact with "indie" games (nor with anything other than Exalted and D&D), while the rest of us had contacts with dozens of games. Both Michal and Bartek had some occasional experiences with Forge-ish stuff during the last year. Bartek is quite enthusiastic about it. Michal still remains slightly skeptical to the new ideas, but he usually grasps new games instantly anyway.

We generally share interests outside role-playing, and socialize together from time to time.

Monday's game started a bit late and was pretty short, mainly due to Michal not making it on time. Also, we hadn't expected Bartek to arrive, as experienced some problems trying to contact him - but just before the game we tried once again, successfully, and he came in the middle of character creation. His arrival slightly disturbed the rest of the session, though, as he came with some news and brought his PSP, which kind of absorbed Aga's attention. In the end, the session lasted a bit over two hours, with an hour of preparation. Basically, it was more learning the game than playing. Also, we were all in quite a silly mood, and it affected the game.

Not expecting Bartek, we decided on the system without him - there was a proposition of Exalted, but I didn't felt like continuing our neverending campaign (in slightly more than two hours we wouldn't progress much with it, anyway), and so I gave them a choice between Fastlane and modified Wushu. Fastlane got picked by Michal, as Aga was indifferent.

(Note: after analyzing the game and talking with Alex, I decided on a number of small houserules, e.g. no zero-level Lives during character creation; collecting favors limited to an amount of chips invested in support of the debtor; paying a favor requires at least one conflict; offering interest requires the character to spend one chip or burn an equivalent; and collecting favor between two protagonists adds its value in chips to the croupier's bank - none of these changes came up during the game, though.)

I explained that we need to decide on the setting, and asked for propositions, but this created a problem. No one but me had any ideas, and it ended with them choosing between cyberpunk and pirate game, and picking the latter. This in turn turned out problematic, as they instantly got into "Pirates of the Caribbean" mindset, while I haven't seen the movie yet, and I've been thinking mainly in 7th Sea categories. I think we had more or less the same ideas about the genre, but Michal and Aga (and later Bartek, too) probably expected the session to emulate the film - although I stated clearly there's no chance it would be like that. At least once it created a certain disconnect. Obviously, we should have discussed the setting a bit more before we moved on.

Character creation was disturbed by Bartek's late arrival, and went with some problems with Aga. While Michal and Bartek quickly grasped the meaning of stuff on the character sheet, she had an obvious difficulty with getting the differences between Facets, Styles, Lives and Favours, and now it seems to me that my explanations were not sufficient, as she was still somewhat confused later in the game. Also, she was completely clueless when it came to choosing Lives - I asked her to define what is most important for her character, and I gave her some examples that would be typical for the genre. In the end, she chose "adventure" (which was previously taken by Michal) and in addition simply picked one of mine examples. Also, she gave her character a silly name, but seeing our slight disapproval she renamed her character to Lirael - still not very in-genre in style, but better.

Looking at past experiences, Aga has some problems with envisioning her character - possibly due to being accustomed to being forced to play a specific character in console RPGs - and we worsened the problem by sparing her this effort in Exalted and D&D. In Exalted, since she haven't played table-top RPGs before, we had to help her in character creation. Back then, she was practically clueless even as to the general character concept, and after she managed to establish it, we've been trying to guide her through the mechanical side of chargen - but she gave us minimal input. It took hours, anyway. In D&D, she simply told us to create a fighter for her, and spent the process learning for her classes. Both Exalted and D&D are pretty complicated mechanically, and she wouldn't be able to create the character without any help - but I suppose we shouldn't do as much work instead of her. But the real problem is activating Aga's creativity, and it touches not only character generation - she is either afraid and reluctant to share her ideas, or maybe she is simply overly receptive and has no desire to influence the game in any way other than through combat decisions (probably due to her console RPGs habits). As I examine her performance in Exalted, outside combat she was way too passive, and given an opportunity to make any important decision (even character-specific) she seemed kind of frozen. Also, she rarely ever added any color, while everyone but her has been adding a lot of it (stunting seemed to be difficult for her). I could suppose Aga is s a casual player and has mostly social interest in gaming, but I still wonder if she can be engaged more, and by what (actually, I've been curious how will she do in a game with less complex mechanics, but it seems Fastlane isn't really much less complex).

Anyway, the group created pirate ship's crew. Michal's character was Captain Swift, and adventure, the ship and honor were his lives (Michal stated that "honor" is specifically *his* sense of honor - and I think he's being instinctively defensive here; note that during his first two years of gaming Michal was often exposed to various degrees of illusionism, he's an extremely illusionist GM himself, and he plays card games in an environment dominated by people who consider illusionism to be the proper way of playing RPGs, often frowning at anyone who doesn't provide railroaded stories to their players or who expects the GM to give players any real freedom). Aga created the first officer (note how she puts herself in a follower's role) named Lirael, with adventure and her sword as lives. Bartek made the boatswain, Greasy Hans, with adventure and treasure as lives, and an Evil Eye as a style (he explained that he wants to cause supernatural fear). He picked adventure as life without knowing about Michal's and Aga choices. Michal bought captain's brotherhood as one point faction, and both he and Bartek took 5-point favors. Generally, they seemed disinterested in taking favors from the moment I told them it requires balancing with favors owed, and increases NPC's Appraisal (even though I explained them it's the way of introducing new NPCs to the game, and provides chips).

I quickly created some supporting characters, spending 73 out of my 108 chips, mostly building antagonists around the Lives: commander of the crown's fleet with the Appraisal of 20, two officers of the mercenary ship both with Appraisal of 10 and natives with Appraisal of 10. In addition, I asked Aga if she has anything against her sword being possessed, and (as I expected, eh...) she agreed without any discussion - so I added sword's spirit NPC with an Appraisal of 15. Four 5-point NPCs were added from favors: Bartek owed a beggar from the port, and an old gypsy owed him; Michal had a favor from the port's governor, and owed Jack Sparrow. This is were we encountered the disconnect in our visions - when I've been summing up the cast I described this NPC on the basis of what Michal told me about him, but the whole group reacted with "this is not like Jack Sparrow!" - and I asked Michal to change his name, because with me not knowing the movie the disconnect would be too big. Reluctantly, Michal agreed that it won't be the same character, but asked me to leave the name - and I think I'll insist that he changed it next time, to avoid potential trouble (unless I manage to watch the movie, at least). I've spent some chips to add governor's niece (for the captain to rescue) and Polly the parrot.

I explained conflict and betting rules promptly (surprisingly, it turned out both Michal and Bartek played roulette before), and we moved on.

I gave the first scene to Aga, as I wanted to instantly throw her into a deep water. I narrated the ship being caught in the storm, and her descending into the cargo hold to check the recently acquired transport of slaves. The whole cargo, including the slaves, wasn't properly secured, and consequently endangered by the ship's tumbling. In addition, Lirael's sword demanded blood of the helpless slaves. Unfortunately, there were some problems with Aga. First, when I asked her to describe her character, she tried to avoid it, explaining that she has to think about it and she'll do it later (and by "later" she obviously meant "umm.. let's forget about it, okay?") - and despite our encouragement, none of us was able to change her mind. Her character remained covered by the shadows - but as I look at it now, I should have been more decisive and try stronger in encouraging her to use her imagination. Also, when we started the conflict, not being accustomed to conflict resolution Aga was pretty confused, and had troubles with deciding who of the other players can get involved, as well as with placing her bets. In the end, she asked that the boatswain go down and help her secure the cargo (and he brought the parrot). In addition, explaining how the Lives work turned out to be difficult (in part, I suppose, due to the linguistic issues). We rolled the dice, and Bartek managed to save the day - but unfortunately Aga lost all chips she bet, and couldn't stop her sword from possessing her and slaying some of the slaves. The scene ended with cargo hold partially demolished, Aga's character standing confused with slaves' blood on her sword, up to the knees in seawater turning red, and a parrot getting drunk with rum from a broken keg. And here, another issue. I explicitly ended the scene and proceeded to framing the next, and while both Michal and Bartek didn't find it a problem, Aga tried to artificially prolong it after a dramatic cut. I'm not sure if she actually tried to act on her own this time, or thought she's expected to deal with the mess - but judging from her confusion during the scene, I supose it's probably the latter. Now I wonder, how much of these problems resulted from her not having previous contact with conflict resolution and this kind of scene structure, how much from her general passiveness, and how much from me explaining things poorly.

We played two more scenes, and this time each of the players allowed the rest to get involved. I moved the time forward and I threatened Michal with crew's rebellion lead by the parrot, with the ship of the crown fleet's commander, carrying governor's niece Swift agreed to bring back to her uncle, appearing on the horizon. Michal completely crushed my opposition after rolling his lucky number. He won both the contest with the parrot and with the commander, and paradoxically he used Bartek's support as an opportunity to collect a favor from him. He humbled both the commander and the parrot to zero, and removed them from the game, narrating how he shoots the loud-mouthed bird from cannon, sinking the enemy ship, and still left himself an opportunity to collect the girl (he seemed to kill the parrot unwillingly, as no one at the table liked the idea, but it seems to me he instinctively acted in a defensive way and eliminated potential threat; now I regret that at the moment I didn't thought about explaining he doesn't have to completely remove the NPCs reduced to zero Appraisal from the game). Note that there was lots of humbling, but after the game I discovered that I totally forgot that humbling adds chips to the bank, so it could turn out some other way if not for my mistake.

Then, I framed a scene for Bartek, moving back in time and making his character an unknowing target of gypsy's curse. Again, Michal managed to win a straight bet and dominated the conflict, humbling the gypsy for 11 point favor and using the rest of his take to reduce her newly raised Appraisal to 2. Bartek and Aga both managed to win some secondary contests (it was already late and I think I messed up some rules then), and while Bartek made the gypsy fall in love with him, Aga, who attempted to make the gypsy tell her the secret of her sword, completely frozen when I told her "ok, you win, so now narrate what the gypsy tells you". She asked that somebody other resolves the contest for her, but I insisted she do it herself. She eventually produced short narration, but it was rather uninspired. Then, after a full round of conflicts I explained the spending of winnings, and we finished the game. (I despaired a bit about my bank falling down to 29 chips while Michal got to over 60, but fortunately it turns out I should have 73 chips total).

All in all, despite the issues with Aga, the session was enjoyable in a way - but due to all the problems I can't really describe it as better than so-so. In the end, we created the characters and learned the basics of the system (not getting to using favors), but we didn't get much of the living in the fast lane, mostly due to our silly mood, I think. Notably, the roulette mechanics didn't seem to interfere with the genre, but then I used themed roulette sheets. Michal and Bartek left discussing the probabilities of a roulette wheel, so I think I'll try to continue the game in the future - but I'm not really sure what to do with Aga in that case. I'm pretty sure she's going to come if we call her, but I'm not sure if she will enjoy this type of game, even after getting accustomed to the system (it seems she felt better in Exalted, where she could passively participate in the events). It would be easier if she actually complained about anything, I think.

[Eero Tuovinen]

I'm going to outright assume things about your players here based on what you wrote. I might be accurate, might be not, but I don't care to put in mediating clauses at the end of each paragraph, so just remember that you know much better than I do what's going on. I'm going to discuss some of the phenomenons you describe in your report. I hope you find this interesting.

Then, I framed a scene for Bartek, moving back in time and making his character an unknowing target of gypsy's curse. Again, Michal managed to win a straight bet and dominated the conflict, humbling the gypsy for 11 point favor and using the rest of his take to reduce her newly raised Appraisal to 2. Bartek and Aga both managed to win some secondary contests (it was already late and I think I messed up some rules then), and while Bartek made the gypsy fall in love with him, Aga, who attempted to make the gypsy tell her the secret of her sword, completely frozen when I told her "ok, you win, so now narrate what the gypsy tells you". She asked that somebody other resolves the contest for her, but I insisted she do it herself. She eventually produced short narration, but it was rather uninspired. Then, after a full round of conflicts I explained the spending of winnings, and we finished the game. (I despaired a bit about my bank falling down to 29 chips while Michal got to over 60, but fortunately it turns out I should have 73 chips total).

This attracted my attention in particular. Could you tell us why you told Aga to narrate for the gypsy? It might be inconsequential, but it seems to me that what you're doing here is what some call "no myth" style of playing, where you don't have prepared backgrounds for the game. That's well and good with Fastlane if you can spare the chips, but it also seems that you're combining no myth with shared backgrounds - you expect the player to participate in creating the background situation for the game, in the manner suggested by games like InSpectres. In other words, not only is nothing fixed, but you also insist the players to help in fixing it during the game.

I take this particular tidbit up because while no myth + player contribution works in some narrow situations really well (it's much more narrow than you'd think), passive and thematically hampered players participating in an exacting genre is not it. I've had lots of experiences with players very similar to what you have here, and Agata sounds like the kind that you have to bring up by hand. By which I mean, what you should offer her is very simple and basic means of having input in the game, and ramping up from there when she picks it up. When she stumbles and asks for help, give her a suggestion or two, perhaps explain how you can think up those suggestions, and in general help her feel like you're actually helping her play. I've never got positive results in these situations by throwing a person in the deep end and forcing them to stumble in the dark.

If you're wondering why the above situation should be particularly difficult, consider that it is far from obvious an arrangement that the players should participate in creating the backgrounds of the game. That's the gamemaster's job. And this is not just a traditional viewpoint, but a matter of practical game theory as well: if a player expects you to take her kicker (cursed sword) and run with it, lobbing it back to her corner can be an easy way to fizzle the whole idea. You're essentially saying that you don't know what to do with the element she introduced, after all.

As a practical data point, I spent much of last winter and spring playing The Shadow of Yesterday with a number of teenages hereabouts, and at the beginning of the game we pretty much had three Agatas in a group of five people, me included. From the beginning my position was that I would explain and demonstrate, explain and demonstrate how to play the game as many times as it takes. We just wrapped up the campaign a month ago and started playing Primetime Adventures with the same crew. The players I'm thinking of have improved immeasurably during the campaign: while they still perhaps have only a tenuous control of what they're actually expressing, at least they have no hesitation whatsoever now about expressing themselves. Our game turned, largely thanks to the input by these players, from a heroic space opera to a nihilistic crossbreed of Clockwork Orange and Atlas Shrugged. But that's fine, because they are learning, and nothing is a better way to learn than seeing what others make of your creativity. So I'm forced to conclude that while I previously never had any efficient method of really reaching the dull, glazed people who only played to be passively entertained, the method I recommend above apparently works.

We played two more scenes, and this time each of the players allowed the rest to get involved. I moved the time forward and I threatened Michal with crew's rebellion lead by the parrot, with the ship of the crown fleet's commander, carrying governor's niece Swift agreed to bring back to her uncle, appearing on the horizon. Michal completely crushed my opposition after rolling his lucky number. He won both the contest with the parrot and with the commander, and paradoxically he used Bartek's support as an opportunity to collect a favor from him. He humbled both the commander and the parrot to zero, and removed them from the game, narrating how he shoots the loud-mouthed bird from cannon, sinking the enemy ship, and still left himself an opportunity to collect the girl (he seemed to kill the parrot unwillingly, as no one at the table liked the idea, but it seems to me he instinctively acted in a defensive way and eliminated potential threat; now I regret that at the moment I didn't thought about explaining he doesn't have to completely remove the NPCs reduced to zero Appraisal from the game). Note that there was lots of humbling, but after the game I discovered that I totally forgot that humbling adds chips to the bank, so it could turn out some other way if not for my mistake.

Michal's actions here are also quite familiar from experience, as I imagine they'd be to most roleplayers. There's a simple trick to this situation, too, I think: make a point of introducing friendly and useful NPCs to the player, and let these NPCs get into adversial relations towards his character naturally, and over small stakes. For example, have a wife who wants to talk the character to come to a dull party with her, to coin an example. Or rather, let's look at his Lifes... well, any social conflicts with his crew are such that answering with extreme prejudice (read: killing everything) is probably not in the cards. The purpose of putting the player on this kind of regime is to show him in concrete terms what non-adversial, non-victory oriented play means in practice. Conflicts do not need to be about destruction of the opposition, and losing can be interesting, too. When the player practices situations outside the familiar envelope of survival commando games he'll quickly figure out what the point of the game is. He won't necessarily be interested in it, but at least he'll get it.

While the scene framing you describe above is very good and I'd love to have been there to play in a mutiny led by a parrot, I suspect that Michal will have trouble getting out of the D&D mindset as long as you bring up situations that can be understood in terms of survival and vanquishing the opposition. Even talking about it is not as good as showing, as the penalties for losing in games like D&D and WoD are so harsh that most long-term players of those games don't want to risk anything like that on something as vague as the GM saying that this is a different kind of game. So are D&D and WoD supposedly, and character survival and mission accomplishment is still the main focus in both. Returning to my practical example from my own game, one of my Agatas was also a Michal when we started playing. He turned around pretty quickly when his character got into a leadership role and had to choose between following orders or saving his friend. By introducing non-tactical issues, I gave him an opportunity to interpret play in terms other than skirmish battling.

Anyway, that's my take on what I read, cooking is about heart. An interesting and thoughtful actual play report, thanks for that.

[Filip Luszczyk]

Whew, my answer turned out to be much, much longer than I expected, as I've been covering more and more stuff about my players. Way too long, in fact. I won't be surprised if it gets ignored due to its length. If not, keep in mind I'was mostly writing stuff my intuition told me, and it's late.

It might be inconsequential, but it seems to me that what you're doing here is what some call "no myth" style of playing, where you don't have prepared backgrounds for the game. That's well and good with Fastlane if you can spare the chips, but it also seems that you're combining no myth with shared backgrounds - you expect the player to participate in creating the background situation for the game, in the manner suggested by games like InSpectres. In other words, not only is nothing fixed, but you also insist the players to help in fixing it during the game.

Well, I usually describe this style of play as No Myth, or at least something pretty close (it may not be important, but the most important influence on the direction of my GM-ing style development was probably Christopher Kubasik's "Interactive Toolkits" I had a chance to read eight or so years ago). And this is basically what keeps me GM-ing. I have a history of dropping many elaborately prepared adventures and campaigns in frustration after only some sessions early in my RPG career (being convinced by RPG magazine that detailed preparation is the only "proper" way of running games, not having contact with any other gaming style, and often being the only person willing to GM at all). The moment I ceased preparing things in advance and started going with the flow and improvising, I began actually enjoying GM-ing, and running games successfully. For three or four years now, the majority of my sessions was either prep-less No Myth or close to "Story Entertainment" prep-low (not including some combat heavy dungeon crawls - which I ultimately stopped running due to them requiring extreme amounts of difficult preparation in relation to the actual gaming time; and some occasional illusionist Exalted sessions - which turned out to be quite unsatisfactory for me anyway).

But as for the shared backgrounds, I've been open for the players establishing background facts most of the time, especially when it came to the character's background (although normally I still claim the right to veto player's proposition). Only in Exalted I've been providing large, although fragmentary, chunks of character specific background myself when it came to First Age flashbacks - but then, I've been running interactive, sometimes full-session flashbacks, putting players in media res and then leaving them with complete or only slightly constrained freedom to work with the situation. I rarely ever experienced any problems with this, and it often led to fun results. E.g. I remember a very fun one on one full-session flashback I run for Michal, when I simply threw him in the middle of past situation, presenting only the most immediate situation, without explaining the background or providing any more than immediately reachable information - and he instantly picked it up and started freely establishing stuff, building on the limited context. It definitely works for us.

But as for Agnieszka's case:

Could you tell us why you told Aga to narrate for the gypsy?

She won the contest, and by the rules of Fastlane she acquired complete authorial power over its resolution. Also, I think I oversimplified it in the report - we explicitly outlined Aga what she should do then, including explaining her how to do it, e.g. Michal suggested that she take inspiration from some book, or something (also, by then she had already seen how other players resolved their contests). Still - I was careful not to let anybody suggest her any content, and I'll explain why in a moment.

Most importantly, this was the first time Aga won narration rights in a game that gives so strong authorial power to the winner. No one but Aga had any right to narrate the results of the contest - and I didn't want her very first such experience to end with nodding to anybody's suggestion.

I take this particular tidbit up because while no myth + player contribution works in some narrow situations really well (it's much more narrow than you'd think), passive and thematically hampered players participating in an exacting genre is not it. I've had lots of experiences with players very similar to what you have here, and Agata sounds like the kind that you have to bring up by hand. By which I mean, what you should offer her is very simple and basic means of having input in the game, and ramping up from there when she picks it up. When she stumbles and asks for help, give her a suggestion or two, perhaps explain how you can think up those suggestions, and in general help her feel like you're actually helping her play. I've never got positive results in these situations by throwing a person in the deep end and forcing them to stumble in the dark.

I had some passive players in my games previously, but I don't remember running games for such players regularly. Last time I had such a case, it was in a voice chat Paladin mini-campaign I ran this summer. Back then, one of my players, very experienced, was into "indie" stuff and No Myth play, and the other, with limited experience, grew up almost exclusively on a standard "shut up and listen to the GM" Polish-style Warhammer (and, judging from his accounts, he wasn't satisfied with the games he ran himself). First game was a shock for the second player, as he couldn't believe the events can unfold in such a "natural" way, and with player's meaningful input, without having pre-determined results. Till the third session, he was mostly silent, following the experienced player and observing things - but it didn't took long till he understood that he won't get far without showing any initiative. E.g. there was a scene in which an NPC samurai mercilessly slayed a young girl NPC, who obviously would be strongly important if it were a typically constructed adventure (because the experienced player decided to leave her fate in NPC samurai's hands and the second one declared he waits to see what happens) - something that would be simply unthinkable in a game ran according to the standards widely accepted in Poland, GM protecting the plot and saving the girl by deus ex machina that is. This "crash course" visibly worked, as by the end of the third session the passive player suddenly started to do interesting stuff on his own initiative, and continued doing so till we finished the Paladin campaign, in a way that would be totally disruptive in a typical game (but satisfying for both me and the experienced player).

But Aga's case is not like that. She wasn't exposed to the typical Polish way of playing (unless through her brother's group - but I doubt that, as she didn't play with them before the summer break, and was working in Germany for the whole summer). Also, there was no opportunity for her to get "indoctrinated" in the "shut up, listen to the GM and don't try to disrupt his scenario" philosophy which is disturbingly often served for fresh gamers in this country, unless she had some discussions on RPG matters with Michal (who was and continually is exposed to this stuff in local gaming store) - but Michal is neither self-reflective type nor a theory-head, so I seriously doubt he would formulate and communicate any such ideas to her. As I examine the case, I feel the problem lies in us spoiling her, exactly because we were way to helpful and didn't made her take her first steps in RPG on her own. It occurs to me we critically botched the whole thing.

For over ten sessions both me and Michal were helping her whenever we felt she might have problems with the complex mechanical stuff (e.g. with character creation and development, or with optimising tactics in combat, by clearly outlining pros and cons of her options). And since she still stumbled, we've been continuing to lend her hand. The effect is that she visibly started assuming we'll be doing work for her forever and ceased making effort to learn the system (note: when it comes to console RPGs she is a hardcore gamer). In Exalted I've been giving her simple and basic ways of having input in the game nearly constantly, but if she was picking it up, she was rather doing it by switching from "idle observation" mode to "showing visible interest in passive participation" mode. Whenever I tried to gently push her, it was the same. Observing like Michal or Bartek do stuff didn't help, too, as she was as best going into "follow the herd" mode. On the other hand, she sometimes got a bit more interactive when I role-played her pet demon in an amusing way (but I couldn't really do much with this, as in Exalted we had a hard rule that any NPC written as a Background on the character sheet is functionally an extension of the character, and thus "untouchable", at least not more than the character itself - e.g. I could have narrated demon's actions as long as it remained only color and didn't interfere with her instructions, and I practically couldn't take him out of her order's reach or endanger with removing from play without her consent). Still, she obviously started expecting that we will put fun right under her nose, and whatever opportunity for input she had, she's been closing herself in the comfortable shell we created for her.

So much for the results we got from being helpful and trying small steps - she sits back and consumes, getting active only in combat (which in turn boils down to her declaring repetitive tactics we taught her to be effective). In short - she visibly started approaching play like it was Final Fantasy, that is "push attack button when you have to and wait for another cut scene otherwise". But what's really bothering me is that by letting her be lazy and wait for being provided with fun, instead teaching her from the start that she won't get any candy unless she actively looks for it and contributes for the group's fun, we let her develop something disturbingly similar to the GM's girlfriend syndrome.

And now this is what Aga does when she suddenly finds herself in a pinch. In one of our last Exalted games, the group reached a laboratory complex under the ruins of First Age city. Through flashbacks I established that Aga's character was leading the research there in one of her previous incarnations, and Aga was visibly interested in the lab and possible continuation of the research (I'm not sure if it was due to it being connected with her character, or due to strategic benefits - the whole group certainly had a strategic interest in any toy they could find in the city, and they had obvious hints of some super-soldier genetic tinkering, pretty atrocious and inhumane, too). In the lab complex, they found a cloning facility, with hundreds of red-headed female clones vegetating in life support units (enough to bring Scarlet Empress or Mnemon to mind, and point out this is a big stuff). Bartek immediately drew his katanas, saying he cannot allow such an abomination to continue, and started destroying the clones. Aga was all like "Hey, don't do that!", but Bartek was obviously resolved to finish it and serious about it. I stated that if they don't react, Bartek will destroy all the clones. She cried for Michal's help, but Michal concluded he was actually indifferent and could just as well let Bartek continue. Then she looked at me with pleading eyes and asked me to make him stop, but I answered that it's his choice and if she wants him to stop she can only make him stop herself. Obviously, it wasn't something I could interfere with, as however Aga looked helpless, it wouldn't be right for me to rob Bartek from his decision having serious impact. I really hoped Aga will take her stand, but she simply resigned. By teaching her through being helpful and taking small steps we only taught her to depend on us instead of standing on her own two feet.

At this point I'm pretty convinced we won't know if she is able to enjoy more active play (that I would prefer on her side, and I think the rest of the group too), unless we get rid of those knots we stupidly allowed ourselves to tie, and I don't really see any means of doing this other than cutting them with an immediate shock treatment before it's too late. I feel we should limit our help to the most basic things, and most importantly avoid allowing her to depend on us when she has a decision to make. Also, I feel I should put her in situations in which turtle tactics simply can't be effective, as often as possible - until she learns to walk on her own and will actually be able to consciously say whether she enjoys it or not (or until it becomes obvious she is not able to enjoy such play and there's not much sense inviting her to play games that require an active contribution).

That's the gamemaster's job. And this is not just a traditional viewpoint, but a matter of practical game theory as well: if a player expects you to take her kicker (cursed sword) and run with it, lobbing it back to her corner can be an easy way to fizzle the whole idea. You're essentially saying that you don't know what to do with the element she introduced, after all.

This, you got wrong. It wasn't her kicker, and technically it wasn't kicker at all. I stated in the report that cursed sword was my proposition, for which she nodded without any sign of resistance when I asked. It was my attempt to create some way to involve her in the game stronger, by having a conflicting factor that wouldn't make it possible for her to retreat into her comfortable shell without dramatic consequences. The moment she finally managed to win the contest with the gypsy, she got a chance to define the issue I presented her with, and I really didn't want to spoil that. However uninspired was her narration (she basically repeated the facts that were obvious to all of us, only narrowing the nature of sword's curse to demonic possesion), I still consider it better than any of us deciding for her.

You say we should at least give her some suggestions - but notice how she treats our suggestions. Normally, I can give suggestions to Bartek or Michal, knowing they will consider them and either work with them or reject them and pick something else. Basically, I know that my suggestion to Michal or Bartek will remain a suggestion. Now, examine Aga's choice of Lives - she didn't treat the examples I gave her as suggestions, but as a closed list of options to pick from. Notice how she agreed for the sword to be cursed instantly. I don't like how she continuously accepts my suggestions without giving it any thought - it makes me feel I'm not giving her suggestions, but actually make those decisions for her. And it's always the same with her - we start from giving her guidance, and wind up playing for her. And I'm not comfortable with this.

I'm perfectly sure the moment any of us suggested her any content, she wouldn't bother considering it as a suggestion, but simply nod and go with it. This feels wrong. Thus I insisted that no one suggest her any content, and kept our help limited to outlining what she can do ("narrate what the gypsy says about the sword", Michal's suggestion to think of books etc.).

You see, in Poland there is a whole school of thought that teaches GM's how to effectively turn players into vegetables and glorifies players who make themselves vegetables willingly. Hell, on some conventions there are GM contests in which railroading is judged highly, and player contests where they give extra points for not disrupting GM's scenario. I've been in way too many games in which players were essentially obsolete, and I've run my share, too. And it's not like anyone explicitly tells the players they are there only to watch GM's spectacle - it's considered a high art to perfectly maintain the illusion (jeez, recently I talked with a guy who was seriously shocked when he discovered I knew all the time about him fudging every single die result in his Mage game on a convention two years ago), and it's like a sin for the player to "ruin the scenario" by actually trying to add anything but character-related color.

I don't want this kind of vegetable play on my sessions. The moment someone starts to make decisions for the player, I feel like the player in question turns into an attachment to the character sheet. And at this point, since such a player only passively participates and no longer contributes in any meaningful way, he could just as well be non-player audience, without character that absorbs time, effort and attention of others. It's simple economy. I tend to keep the number of players on my sessions at three or less, with an absolute maximum of four, to maximize individual player's spotlight time. The thought of running a game for vegetables scares me.

And now I'm afraid Aga, despite not being exposed to the vegetable play, is on her way to become a vegetable - and thanks to us.

As a practical data point, I spent much of last winter and spring playing The Shadow of Yesterday with a number of teenages hereabouts (...) So I'm forced to conclude that while I previously never had any efficient method of really reaching the dull, glazed people who only played to be passively entertained, the method I recommend above apparently works.

Yes, I remember reading your AP report. Obviously, you got some effects. One thing makes me wonder now, though. I know teenagers are especially susceptible to shaping, if they get an impression of doing something special. E.g. all the time I see how fast and strongly they get influenced by the whole Polish school of gaming I wrote about, and the more ambitious and elitist the ideas presented to them seem to be, the greater the impact. I was a teenager myself once (^^) and I well remember how it was. The ideas from people who gained authority in my eyes were mostly accepted uncritically. The procedures they presented were followed whether they actually led to fun play or not. If they didn't, I blamed other players or myself, not the ideas and procedures, and sticked to them, with growing feelings of frustration and guilt. Took me some years till I started questioning things (and I know dozens of people who never did). And then I found myself in a new group, in a game in which I suddenly didn't had to pretend I'm having fun. Now, that was a shock.

But to the point - I'm not trying to say your methods are wrong or something, as they obviously have certain effects. But I want to point your attention to the nature of the players you were trying them on. Unless you also have experiences with using these methods to reach adult people, there's no guarantee these would work with the same efficiency, I'm afraid.

[Filip Luszczyk]

And as for Michal:

Michal plays with me long enough to know that PC death tends to be extremely rare in my games. Also, he knows my games are very mechanical and that I stick to the rules or write down my changes for everyone to see. In the games we've been running most often in the last two years, penalties for losing were not so harsh (e.g. in New WoD it was easy to lose consciousness, but quite difficult to die, while in Exalted creating a virtually indestructible starting character is no problem), some other games we tried had rules that blocked unwanted PC death (e.g. 7th Sea, and to some extent L5R that allows for "additional life" advantages and flaws), and sometimes I introduced such houserules. The penalties for losing in my games rarely include death or even losing accumulated stuff - more often these were story level consequences. And Michal is aware of that.

Also, victory certainly lies amongst our points of game, but more and more often we keep mechanical and story level victory as separate things. (Actually, I think Fastlane lends itself pretty well to this kind of play.)

I'm pretty sure the fault lies on my side here, as if I stated more clearly that humbling NPC to zero Appraisal allows, but doesn't automatically force him to remove the NPC from the game, and that the removal doesn't have to equal death, he would probably played differently (at first, he simply declared that he gets rid of the parrot by shooting it from the cannon - he changed his mind when I reminded him about humbling option). Also, if I didn't forget that humbling returns tokens to the bank, I suppose he would have certainly had tactical reasons not to humble.

I don't think the problem of Michal's mentality is not simply "survival commando" mode, although certainly old D&D habits are one of the factors. Examine these things:

First, Michal plays a lot of card games, and he's hardcore. I don't know how he fares currently, but when I still played CCGs, he tended to create overkill decks which worked by completely dominating play and crushing the enemy as fast as possible, without giving him any chance to pose opposition (e.g. Unicorn cavalry decks in L5R CCG which, combined with his extreme luck, frustrated everyone he played with immensely). Ruthless, kind of paranoid, but careless as well, since Michal often depends on his luck. This is partially reflected in the way he creates his characters, I think. He rarely optimizes them well, although he certainly wants them optimized - but he's way too careless to tinker with the numbers enough to get the best possible effect (I'm suppose it doesn't help that it is practically impossible to get an optimized deck before testing it in play a few times and adjusting stuff - so he has a habit of worrying about the mechanical details only when they start getting in his way). The moment I started introducing social and mental challenges in WoD and Exalted, he automatically started optimizing his character to deal with these kinds of challenges as well as combat. Now, when it comes to story level "threats", he instinctively "optimizes" himself as well against them, hence preference to eliminate the opposition (although we discussed the fallacies of "enemy flaws" in many games a lot - that is, no matter how many enemies the character has, it doesn't really hurt the player, cause there's practically no session without any conflict, and only so much conflict can fit in one session). That's why he explicitly states his honor is his own sense of honor - so that it couldn't be used against him. And I anticipate that as soon as family or followers of his character start being conflicted with him, he's going to start playing loners. Basically, both of us are able to analyze story in "tactical" terms.

The second thing is, Michal's mentality is rather like cat's mentality, and he likes playing with mice before he eats them. This is visible in the way he stunts in Exalted - often highlighting how his character belittles and carelessly dominates his opponent, no matter how I try to portray the NPC. This might have been the case here, as he simply prefers to hurt the opposition as much as he can (also, notice how he reduced Gypsy's Appraisal to minimum after humbling a high value favor out of her). He obviously aims for total domination, whether it includes killing or not.

Also, I don't think Michal shows any initiative unless he is somehow threatened first (and it doesn't include being threatened physically, or even personally - I remember WoD games when he was pretty passive for half the session, until one of his character's underlings got kidnapped). Earlier I mentioned an Exalted game in which I placed him in media res without any non-immediate background - and it's the only instance when he got active without actually being threatened I can think about now. But usually he waits till he's threatened, and then proceeds to secure himself by defeating the threat. I've already learned that I need to hook him with some kind of threat in any game if I want him to be active.

Basically, it's all nothing compared with Aga. Michal is entangled in this "needs to be threatened but instinctively avoids exposing himself for threats" paradox, but he's certainly making progress with that, and the domination thing isn't really an issue for me.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Interesting character sketches, Filip, thanks for taking the time to lay them out. Now that you've done it, consider directing your friends to this thread. Should prove interesting for them to read in such detail about what you see.

I won't try to contest your evaluation of how these people play. Rather, let me note one rules-thing just to make sure it's not overlooked:

She won the contest, and by the rules of Fastlane she acquired complete authorial power over its resolution. Also, I think I oversimplified it in the report - we explicitly outlined Aga what she should do then, including explaining her how to do it, e.g. Michal suggested that she take inspiration from some book, or something (also, by then she had already seen how other players resolved their contests). Still - I was careful not to let anybody suggest her any content, and I'll explain why in a moment.

It's been a while since I read the rules, but I'm pretty sure that Fastlane doesn't support explicit no myth in the sense you mean here. What I mean is, while the player certainly has the narrative power of the moment, it is in no way intented to override the gamemaster's prepared backgrounds or to retcon the past of the fiction just because the narrator of the moment says so. In this sense it's completely reasonable for the player to expect you to participate in the resolution: she might have the job of narrating how the she gets the gypsy to talk, but it's your gypsy, so what she reveals to her could very well be up to you as the GM.

Of course based on your extented description it seems clear that this is just a minor point, so let's leave it as a technical aside for now. From what you write Agata seems quite a passive person socially, as well. Do you think she has any wish to be more active or to gain any kind of social esteem in the group? I'm asking because of course it's difficult to help anybody learn anything if they don't see the value in the effort. If she's happy with the kind of play she's currently allowed, of course she's not going to change. I think that is a much more important thing than whether she's teenage or adult, myself. As to whether she should learn to play differently, that's up to you as a group - if you can accomodate her role as a spectator (I tend to call this kind of player a "boyar", a fat russian noble who laughs and throws pennies at us dancing bears), go ahead. I know I've played all kinds of games with folks that had no genuine interest in being creative, only in being there.

But all that is ultimately up to your own evaluation of the situation, I wouldn't know. I hope you'll continue with the game, as the fiction seems pretty colorful and interesting from this perspective. Fastlane, in my experience, gains speed with subsequent sessions. Perhaps the in-built reward cycles can become a motivation for all the players to play in an engaging manner.

[Filip Luszczyk]

I won't try to contest your evaluation of how these people play.

Obviously, my evaluation might just as well not be accurate.

It's been a while since I read the rules, but I'm pretty sure that Fastlane doesn't support explicit no myth in the sense you mean here. What I mean is, while the player certainly has the narrative power of the moment, it is in no way intented to override the gamemaster's prepared backgrounds or to retcon the past of the fiction just because the narrator of the moment says so. In this sense it's completely reasonable for the player to expect you to participate in the resolution: she might have the job of narrating how the she gets the gypsy to talk, but it's your gypsy, so what she reveals to her could very well be up to you as the GM.

Hmm, I checked the book once again, and it seems there really isn't anything that suggests InSpectres model. I might have suggested myself with the acknowledgements for The Pool shared narration model, or maybe Capes mindset lingered after two months of exclusively playing it (and both Bartek and Michal, who played Capes last month, automatically got into "we can describe the results as we like" mode). But then, I'd say the limits of narration are not really stated explicitly enough in the game - there's lots of rules about how to resolve conflict, but no real suggestions as to how much can be achieved and established if the contest is won. And however I look at the rules, no matter the authors intentions, I don't really see anything that would hamper the model of narration distribution we assumed, and I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't work (I still don't see it as the root of the issues with Aga, it's rather the problems with Aga surfaced when she got confronted with this narration approach).

Also, it wasn't really about "my gypsy" as much as about "her sword" - and this is the part of character background she should have the right to flesh out, gypsy being only, well, the medium for that.

From what you write Agata seems quite a passive person socially, as well. Do you think she has any wish to be more active or to gain any kind of social esteem in the group? I'm asking because of course it's difficult to help anybody learn anything if they don't see the value in the effort. If she's happy with the kind of play she's currently allowed, of course she's not going to change. I think that is a much more important thing than whether she's teenage or adult, myself.

In general, she is geekish, but she seems to be a rather sociable person (e.g. she's definitely much more sociable than me). But whether she is active or passive socially I can't be fully sure. We two didn't socialize too much outside gaming yet, but she's rather passive around me, I think. And yes, this might be an important point here. Since after over ten games she still sacrifices her time to play with us, she must have her reasons - and I suspect these might be mostly social reasons now. It's certainly possible she's currently running mainly on our attention, and feels no real need to look for ways of increasing her enjoyment with play itself (possibly not really being conscious there are different levels of play that can be enjoyed).

This is turn is another reason why I'm trying to throw her in deep water and give her a taste of different things, before she gets completely fixed on one single aspect of gaming. Neither she nor I will know whether she enjoys something before she actually tries it, and inviting her to try things with small steps method turned counterproductive for now. Actually, I'd like to see how she'd perform in a much less complicated system, and one that rewards being active more strongly.

Fastlane, in my experience, gains speed with subsequent sessions. Perhaps the in-built reward cycles can become a motivation for all the players to play in an engaging manner.

I'm not fully sure what you mean here, as Fastlane doesn't really reward playing in an engaging manner, or I don't see it clearly at least. Two forms of rewards in Fastlane are winnings and favors. Winnings are gained with luck and smart betting, favors either produced by winning/losing, or by supporting/being supported by others. Both these things seem to be mostly tactical play rewards to me, although there's a bit more to favors than that (but then, we didn't get to calling favors yet, and I believe the group doesn't really see their value after the first game).

Oh. It may be of note that when I've been explaining the system, Aga asked if there is something like stunts. Unfortunately, I didn't inquire her why was she asking about that. Actually, I've been considering some ways to do stunts in Fastlane, but I didn't want to mess with the rules so much before I get a good grasp of them.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Hmm, I checked the book once again, and it seems there really isn't anything that suggests InSpectres model. I might have suggested myself with the acknowledgements for The Pool shared narration model, or maybe Capes mindset lingered after two months of exclusively playing it (and both Bartek and Michal, who played Capes last month, automatically got into "we can describe the results as we like" mode). But then, I'd say the limits of narration are not really stated explicitly enough in the game - there's lots of rules about how to resolve conflict, but no real suggestions as to how much can be achieved and established if the contest is won. And however I look at the rules, no matter the authors intentions, I don't really see anything that would hamper the model of narration distribution we assumed, and I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't work (I still don't see it as the root of the issues with Aga, it's rather the problems with Aga surfaced when she got confronted with this narration approach).

Agreed on all counts. The reason for why Fastlane doesn't say anything clear about narration vs. background preparation is - as far as I can see - the same it's been in all the descendant games of Dust Devils: in 2002 we (you know, the Forge) didn't really know what would work in that regard, so the most prudent solution was to just call it narration and let the individual play groups sort out what it would mean in practice. Personally I'd say that the fact that these games fail to stress the possibility of overriding GM prep - in stark contrast with InSpectres and the games it's influenced - is partial proof for those designers having already understood the necessity for honoring the prep, in practice if not in words. And if you stop to think about it, it is pretty obvious in the roleplaying context that prep is prep. It's only mixing the ideas of no myth with prep-utilizing systems that might cause problems.

But that's not really the topic, even if I'd like to question the idea that Fastlane runs smoothly as collaborated-background no-myth system. Another time, another thread.

In general, she is geekish, but she seems to be a rather sociable person (e.g. she's definitely much more sociable than me). But whether she is active or passive socially I can't be fully sure. We two didn't socialize too much outside gaming yet, but she's rather passive around me, I think. And yes, this might be an important point here. Since after over ten games she still sacrifices her time to play with us, she must have her reasons - and I suspect these might be mostly social reasons now. It's certainly possible she's currently running mainly on our attention, and feels no real need to look for ways of increasing her enjoyment with play itself (possibly not really being conscious there are different levels of play that can be enjoyed).

Everything you write paints me a somewhat stock picture of a shy, beginner female roleplayer, of which I've played with quite a few. Personally, I like the shy kind much more than the ones that have something to prove. Anyway, my experience here, as I wrote, has been that this kind of player responds well to simple yet insistent tutoring, where you play with them fully, but are always ready to explain, elaborate and open up their options. You do this OR you do that, and this is how I might do it, and this is why I might do it this way. I don't know if this is the small and easy steps approach you wrote about, but if it is, I've never had anybody get stuck in the preliminary stages: as a player gets one aspect of what you're trying to teach, you drop the explanations and concentrate on some finer points next.

But that's all speculation at this point. I hope you'll play more with these people, I'm curious to see how the play between you develops.

Fastlane, in my experience, gains speed with subsequent sessions. Perhaps the in-built reward cycles can become a motivation for all the players to play in an engaging manner.

I'm not fully sure what you mean here, as Fastlane doesn't really reward playing in an engaging manner, or I don't see it clearly at least. Two forms of rewards in Fastlane are winnings and favors. Winnings are gained with luck and smart betting, favors either produced by winning/losing, or by supporting/being supported by others. Both these things seem to be mostly tactical play rewards to me, although there's a bit more to favors than that (but then, we didn't get to calling favors yet, and I believe the group doesn't really see their value after the first game).

Don't forget Lives; using and improving them is also a reward, probably the most important one of all. Both Lives and favors benefit from the second session, because of the natural tendency of storylines to reach a climax at some point. As both of those mechanics have great potential of input in any situation of heightened drama, you haven't really seen them in action before playing through a complete dramatic arc, preferably with characters losing and gaining complete Lives. As for tactical rewards, in my experience Fastlane is almost devoid of them. Players bet, as they should, based on how much they care about winning a given contest (this is after learning the limited tactics of the roulette board, of course). All the other reward mechanics are based on this simple maxim, it seems to me.

As to why this leads to engaging play, that's because your need to win a given conflict will drive you to make decisions about calling in favors or risking your Lives, which are both engaging decisions at the heart of Fastlane. So when the players get more familiar with the system and end up making these choices, play will gain in engagement.

[Filip Luszczyk]

Ah, I understood that what you meant was "rewards for playing in a manner that engages others". And yes, I forgot about Lives.

Still, I think the tactics in Fastlane are not limited to the roulette bets only, but also to using favors, involving Lives etc. can be approached tactically, to minimize loses for as long as possible. I anticipate we might wind up drifting the game in this direction, with mechanical choices and color in the foreground and story more in the background.

Anyway, my experience here, as I wrote, has been that this kind of player responds well to simple yet insistent tutoring, where you play with them fully, but are always ready to explain, elaborate and open up their options. You do this OR you do that, and this is how I might do it, and this is why I might do it this way. I don't know if this is the small and easy steps approach you wrote about, but if it is, I've never had anybody get stuck in the preliminary stages: as a player gets one aspect of what you're trying to teach, you drop the explanations and concentrate on some finer points next.

By "small steps" I meant both trying to involve her in the events bit by bit and teaching her the game exactly how you describe. And it was mostly counterproductive in Aga's case, as we eventually wind up doing work for her. I suspect this might be connected with her possible social reasons for gaming. If she's attention hungry, she's getting what she wants from us at this stage, so she doesn't need to progress with what we try to teach her (this is "if", as I may just as well be wrong in my suspicions). That way we will never get a more complete "map" of what she enjoys and what she doesn't, since she won't move past this point from her own initiative.