[TSOY] well, they say they had a good time...

[Jasper Flick]

They know it in theory, but don't really realize it in practice, I think. I avoided pointing out the situations where "had you done that, you would have an XP", but maybe I should to get them starting.

That's kind of setting the stakes, but afterwards? Pointing it out that way will help to get things starting, but I advocate figuring out what's possible before actual decisions are made. If a decision point comes up, pauze a few times and figure out possible options and their consequences together. Alternatively, work out some hypothetical examples and when appropriate refer back to them, like "this situation you're in is just like example X, only..."
I think people with actual TSOY knowledge should take over from here now.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Thierry,

I have some counter-balancing advice. Everything that everyone has written so far is quite accurate in content, but I'd like to draw attention to your timing.

You, as GM and as the guy who's introducing this game to them, have a primary concrete obligation to them before you can call them on their primary obligation (or expectation). Your obligation is to show that you're not a dick. Yes, this may seem like a basic and meaningless point after all these years of dialogue at the Forge ... but to them, it's an open question. Is this guy a dick? Is this game going to be worth any of the social time and effort, much less learning curve, that we're devoting to it? And if not, then why don't we just suffer with the system that we know?

Once you fulfill that obligation and simply continue to GM as you're GMing, that is to say, providing neat situations mainly on your own until they start kicking in with their own situations, then you can expect them to start playing more in line with what the rules offer.

But ... if you start pressuring them with your obligations before they learn that you're not a dick, guess what they will conclude? They'll think that your expectations are disapproval and bullying. They'll think, in fact, that you are a dick.

This has happened a lot with people taking games like Dust Devils, TSOY, Sorcerer, and even TROS to other people who aren't used to such things and indeed have been trained out of any perception that they're even possible. These games do not play themselves. They require people who can get into the reward mechanics and start utilizing them as motors. So when you bring them to people who willing but simply not yet able even to see the reward mechanics as a possibility, you have to be patient. Give them more than just a single session. Give them a couple, or three, and be patient. Trust the game to do its job, because it will, when anyone even tries.

Again, I agree with all the advice you're being given and I think you should apply it ... but slowly. In my experience, gamers are hyper-sensitive to perceived criticism and do much better with one friendly suggestion per session, than with a whole manual of Forge-freak pressure thrown at them before they can even stammer out, "I hit him." Take your time. Enjoy the game, build the NPCs into characters you really like to play, and practice your scene framing and your general enjoyment of imagining stuff together.

I think the attention to timing will make the advice work.

Best, Ron

[Simon C]

The natural inclination for a roleplayer, when confronted with potential emotional investment, is to distance himself from it by one of various means (myguyism, disruptive play, whatever). You as a fellow player should set the example by taking the situations and choices you set up very seriously: comment on the choices of other players, speculate on the consequences and in general, give out social signals that make it clear that you expect firm answers. Traditional GM neutrality often becomes GM indifference; your job is to combat this expectation with your behavior.

I just wanted to say that this advice really made me sit up and think.  This is something I guess I'd kind of noticed, but never really thought about.  As a GM you get so used to the idea of not influenceing the players' decisions, it's easy to forget that you're allowed to be interested in the outcome, and express that.  It's rewarding the player for getting their character into a difficult situation if you jump in with lots of comments and ideas.  Talking about what each choice might mean, possible repercussions, implications for the character and so on reinforces the idea that it's a real choice.  I'm really excited to start employing this more consciously in my own games.  I have a player who's very worried about making the "wrong" choice, and I think this technique is a great way to reinforce that there is no "wrong" choice when making a decision.  The choices are thematic, not tactical.

Thanks!

[Thierry Michel]

We had the second (and closing) session yesterday. It was mainly player driven this time, which is a good thing since I had run out of ideas myself to shake them out. I recapped the main rules, insisting on Keys and how XPs could be spent during play.

To start with a bang, the soldiers caught up with them while they were trying to organize the ratkins, and devastated the village, killing or driving away the rats and catching the slave and elf (who both pretended that they were abducted and were still working within the original plan). The ratkin player used her sneak skill to follow and eavesdrop on the group, but she really kick-started things by buying off her Key of the Precious and saying she was now bent on revenge after witnessing the fate of the village. Basically, from this point on, I had no more work to do, except I gave the ratkins allies. Since the player had them portrayed as fun-loving pacifist, I added the support of the nearest ratkin tribe, who were more into looting and killing.

Elf and slave agreed on their story: there is no escape route, it is a scam perpetuated by the rats to drive slaves in the swamp and rob/eat them. The soldiers spare the slave's life conditioned on him reporting that back to his flock. The ratkin manages to pass the message that something is up, so once in the camp, the slave gets the elf to poison the soldiers. I wanted to give the slave the opportunity to makes his grand gesture by inciting revolt or whatever, but he let the opportunity drop.

It all converged on a bloody ending, with rats fumigating, then attacking the sick soldiers, the slave nobly dying trying to protcet his flock by disarming the veteran captain, the ratkin helping the fleeing (outmatched) and the elf playing his selfish key by using the debacle to retrieve artefacts of interest from the wealthy mansion, only to be faced with a rogue ratkin and slaughtered.

Debriefing, it was interesting to see how protective of their character they felt, even though it was a one shot. They stuck to the safe route whenever possible, even when they would have earned XPs by doing otherwise.

[Callan S.]

Hmm, that self protective play does seem to be reflective of the issue Ron brought up.

In regards to that issue - further into it than them learning your not a dick, is that were these people willing to game with someone who they don't hold any amount of trust in (trusting you not to be a dick)?

That's kind of dangerous because if their willing to buy into play without trusting you to some small degree to begin with, why would they even start looking to see if they can trust you, as play progresses? They wont - they are satisfied with non trust 'play'. Even if you show signs of being trustworthy, if their not looking for it, it wont have any chance of changing play behaviour.

Did any of them look for signs of whether they could trust you to some small degree, before the game? Small talk for example - talk about the whether or sports is often a way of judging how you think and then thinking "Ah, I understand him a bit better now...". Its not about big trust straight away, just them looking for a small foundation which can be grown upon, if your not a dick, as Ron puts it. Those people will pay off.

[Thierry Michel]

We get along fine, but I think that, whatever Key they might be buying, the main drive for them is still to solve my "puzzle", i.e. find the safe way out whenever I throw something at them.  I deemed feasible all the ideas they came up with and tried to make them interesting, so hopefully they'll be a bit less guarded in the future.