The problems of players.

[Sidhain]

Not all players. However, my normally good players seem to have a problem with Hearts and Souls--my superhero rpg.

In it they are given more control over the various events that occur in the game (as compared to your nominal commercial game). In this playtest we had two player characters---Nexus, with the ability to manipulate gravity and Storm Dancer  a winged weather controller. A terrible fire raged through a multi-block section of tenements. The heroes arrived on the scene both skimming the rooftops and looking down upon the blaze--where they discovered that a number of people were trapped inside, and the fireman were using a powder type fire retardant, rather than their normal water cannons on the lower levels. Stormdancer didn't get it and called rain--spreading the fire (since it is chemical propellant fire), Nexus realized what was up so they instead attempt to enter the building and rescue the people. They accrue wound flavored stress from fire and heat--and failure in using their attributes and skills, and eventually manage to rescue the children and fireman trapped in the blaze. The game of course was shorter than a GM controlled campaign because the players didn't use the rules /themselves/ to enact narrative events triggered by stress as much as I the GM would if the game put all the control in my hands. However, one redeeming thing was Nexus triggered his own phobia--by describing a water jet from a fireman trying to reduce the upper level fire (normal burning materials there) accidently hits him since he can't be seen in the fire and smoke--he was trying to drop his "Stress" and did so by triggering his fear of water--shutting off his powers and causing him to take wound flavored stress from a fall into fire. This forced Stormdancer to go back in and rescue him. So it wasn't a total loss, but neither one spent much time hamming it up afterwards (As superheroes should do with each other, and the press in this setting)


That's the basics of it.

So how to get players to understand the length of the game is made more by their choices in this style of play, than mine the GM?

[Andrew Martin]

So how to get players to understand the length of the game is made more by their choices in this style of play, than mine the GM?

Positively reward the players for desired behaviour. Don't punish any behaviour.

[Zak Arntson]

If you've noticed that the game gets over too quickly you may want to build in some kind of time-rules into it. Instead of just a time-limit, you can also insert a resource-driven way to end the game.

These could be "scenario isn't solved until X points are reached" and dole out points as GM.

Or "scenario doesn't end until you've used up a pool of points/dice" and write the rules in such a way that it takes a bit of time to use up this pool. Long games will have larger pool.

Things like that. Jared Sorensen's Inspectres (http://www.memento-mori.com and my own Sitcom (//www.harlekin-maus.com) have different methods of a built-in time/resource limit.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Well, let's back up and think about this some more.

I hate to sound overly arty-thespian, but, "Where's the conflict?" I don't see any. People are trapped in a fire; the heroes rescue them. Where's the issue? The interest? Whatever?

In the great superhero comics, no one "just" rescues people. The rescue is always wrapped up in the context of some further, more emotionally-arresting issues. The recent Spider-Man movie (which is in my view a complete triumph) gets this perfectly - when our hero gets involved in a fire-rescue, it is all wrapped up in (a) his dicey relationship with the authorities, embodied in the cop; and (b) his hearts & minds duel with the Green Goblin. The rescue itself is important, in that Spidey is definitely going to help people who need it, but it is not interestingly important except as (a) and (b) are its context.

So taking this to a superheroes RPG situation, and your (itself a bit odd) concern with "how long it takes" to play out, I'm not surprised that an esentially non-conflict situation doesn't take long at all. It seems to me suitable, appropriate, and desirable that that would be the case.

One final issue - your desire for the characters to banter and deal with one another and so on. Bluntly, this reads to me like a GM who not only wants his players to play, but wants them to play just like he wants. I think that's a bit over the line, myself - you might consider (a) making sure that larger-scale conflicts like the ones I describe are involved, and (b) taking the character-behavior cues from them, rather than expecting them to take them from you.

Best,
Ron

[Zak Arntson]

One final issue - your desire for the characters to banter and deal with one another and so on. Bluntly, this reads to me like a GM who not only wants his players to play, but wants them to play just like he wants.

Conflicting GM/Player desires can cause problems. Alternately, if you and your Players agree, you could add in design elements that support witty banter.

[Sidhain]

In this context it's them against the fire--because they are still establishing the relationships of the characters. Conflict isn't /always/ emotional. There are several layers in any narrative construct "Them vs the fire" is one. (Along with "Them versus themselves" ")

Spiderman for example--in the comics, /often/ rescues people without it being a huge plot element. It's often done in a few pages of the issue rather than take the whole issue--the rest is him dealing with whatever else is going on in his life and secret ID--and that was the environment the players/gm and game should create--the emotional backdrop. The fact is, it's up to the players to establish that through play. I the GM cannot foister relationships with those around them on them beyond the traditional (and all too common) "bad guy" who shows up to beat them/maim or hurt others, and being that this isn't the focus of the game rules, much less the establishing ideas the players provided.


As for banter--no it's not what I want--its what /they/ stated they wanted--now I can't control them saying one thing and doing another. Since one of the drives of the heroes specifically and backstory was "Community" and "Wants to find a place to belong and not be thought of as a freak because of her wings and powers" this suggest that at least one of them carried it into character creation.

[Ian O'Rourke]

Spiderman for example--in the comics, /often/ rescues people without it being a huge plot element. It's often done in a few pages of the issue rather than take the whole issue

Exactly. It is done in a few pages - so it should be a relatively short interlude in your story as well.

With respect to character relationships - it is a two-way street on this issue, you can't divorce yourself from the responsibility entirely. I realise I have assumed something here, so if that was not your intention I apologise.

Your characters should come to the game 'before play' with some level of relationships built in. I'm not saying these relationships have to detailed, but they should be present. A sister the character feels responsible for (such as Peter feels responsible for Aunt May) or the girls across the street they've always facied (such as Mary Jane - in the movie at least).

When it comes to villains they are not going to love or hate them unless you provide reasons for them to do so. Any villain robbing the bank is going to a passing issue - but someone who has a normal identity linked to that 'girl next door' is going to be an interesting villain.

Getting back to the point though, unless there is a dramatic issue at hand may be the scene should be short? How interesting is a game that involves lots and lots of action none of which has no emotional investement. Hollywood often makes films like that, and most people find them pretty shallow.

[Zak Arntson]

... There are several layers in any narrative construct "Them vs the fire" is one. (Along with "Them versus themselves" ")

Did your group discuss this at all before playing?

The fact is, it's up to the players to establish that through play. I the GM cannot foister relationships with those around them on them beyond the traditional (and all too common) "bad guy" who shows up to beat them/maim or hurt others, and being that this isn't the focus of the game rules, much less the establishing ideas the players provided.

As a gaming group, you should be fostering relationships together. Love interests, family members, childhood buddies, bitter rivals. You and your players can work to bring all these things into it. Say the Player introduces her own love interest. Then you make sure the guy's ex-wife or mother or father is tied into the plot.

A big part of gaming is working together. You can't expect things to go one way if only half of you are working towards it.

Lastly, if you want to encourage things, put rules in there to do it! Roleplaying games have definite reward/punishment options which you can use, as a designer, to produce the play you want.

As for banter--no it's not what I want--its what /they/ stated they wanted--now I can't control them saying one thing and doing another. Since one of the drives of the heroes specifically and backstory was "Community" and "Wants to find a place to belong and not be thought of as a freak because of her wings and powers" this suggest that at least one of them carried it into character creation.

So if they want witty banter, why not come up with a reward? Make it intermittent (so they don't spend the entire game in banter-mode) and noticable. In a game with d20 XP, something like 100-200 XP per scene if there's a line of good banter.

Also, how does "Community" and "Seeking a place" tie into the rules? If you want a superhero game that goes beyond the cool powers, neat gadgets and flamboyant villains, you're going to have to either
a) Hold big discussions with your group on how things should play out, and make sure you're all on the same track, or
b) Incorporate the way you want play to work into the rules themselves. This would mean, if your group is interested in banter and Marvel plotlines (where the antics are a backdrop to the emotional plot), your rules should support this.

My recommendation is b).

[Sidhain]

Exactly. It is done in a few pages - so it should be a relatively short interlude in your story as well.

The issue however is I provided as GM other things going on A) The fire was arson--a propellant of unusual form was used (it was initiatlly a chemical fire)  add to that the tenements seemed to be very crowded for their size--even though large.

With respect to character relationships - it is a two-way street on this issue, you can't divorce yourself from the responsibility entirely. I realise I have assumed something here, so if that was not your intention I apologise.

I provided several interactions which was meant to lead to relationships--one was a friendly fireman, one was a rude and disgusted at superhero intervetion, and I've got a character whose spying on the pc's because he was a mentor/caretaker of previous superhero teams.

Your characters should come to the game 'before play' with some level of relationships built in. I'm not saying these relationships have to detailed, but they should be present. A sister the character feels responsible for (such as Peter feels responsible for Aunt May) or the girls across the street they've always facied (such as Mary Jane - in the movie at least).

I agree, but I can't force them on the players--some of them came with a few, but they were central last time we played.

When it comes to villains they are not going to love or hate them unless you provide reasons for them to do so. Any villain robbing the bank is going to a passing issue - but someone who has a normal identity linked to that 'girl next door' is going to be an interesting villain.

True, but that takes more than one game session typically to establish.

Getting back to the point though, unless there is a dramatic issue at hand may be the scene should be short? How interesting is a game that involves lots and lots of action none of which has no emotional investement.

Your presuming too much--there is emotional investment, but there is not emotional conflict---there is a difference. These are people with powers who are trying to live up to iconic imagery of being superheroes and finding that it's a lot tougher than it looks, there is their fundamental caring for other humans, and the fact they are risking their lives for strangers, all are emotional elements, but not all are in conflict /at the moment/

[Sidhain]

Did your group discuss this at all before playing?

We discussed the potential "stories" and the elements there of, but not this specific one occuring (it was one that fell under "things would like to play" non-combat, but still challening adventure elements.

As a gaming group, you should be fostering relationships together. Love interests, family members, childhood buddies, bitter rivals. You and your players can work to bring all these things into it. Say the Player introduces her own love interest. Then you make sure the guy's ex-wife or mother or father is tied into the plot.

Note I said /foister/ which may not be a word, but the intent is I cannot force relationships on them and except them reasonably to work--I can provide the /elements/ and let them choose to follow them or not.

A big part of gaming is working together. You can't expect things to go one way if only half of you are working towards it.

You too presume a significant amount, how do you know I'm not---there is a difference in gaming between providing options, and /forcing/ people to play a particular way--I provide options, if players choose not to follow them I won't force the issue, unless as an absolute repercussion.

Lastly, if you want to encourage things, put rules in there to do it! Roleplaying games have definite reward/punishment options which you can use, as a designer, to produce the play you want.

No.

I do not believe that is what I want from this game nor do they.

So if they want witty banter, why not come up with a reward? Make it intermittent (so they don't spend the entire game in banter-mode) and noticable. In a game with d20 XP, something like 100-200 XP per scene if there's a line of good banter.

There is no XP or similar mechanic--there is no advancement rules in the game, there is no advancement of the character /except/ as the they choose the direction of their character--the "Radiation accident" of comics, or the "sudden change of powers" is entirely a players and GM's choice when they both feel it's appropriate to make the game fun and interesting. The Reward is in this case the /telling of a superheroic comic book story/ so that both players and GM have fun.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Sidhain,

I have to ask: what are your goals with this thread? So far, several folks have given their take on things as you presented them - and it appears that you're pretty invested in defending your approach to the game.

It won't help if we keep spinning into definitional or clarify-this side-points. A good example - and I can see this happening - is if I were to take each of your clues or "things to notice" about the fire and show how, in my experience anyway, such GM-tactics almost unilaterally fail. Then you might defend yourself against that, and so on.

Your thread title firmly places your topic with the players, as does your opening paragraphs in the first post. The general response, which (including me) questions the "problem with the players" topic in the first place, doesn't seem to be working for you, if I'm reading you right.

What - precisely - are you looking for in terms of feedback about this? What is the question or issue that you're presenting?

Best,
Ron

[Sidhain]

Your thread title firmly places your topic with the players, as does your opening paragraphs in the first post. The general response, which (including me) questions the "problem with the players" topic in the first place, doesn't seem to be working for you, if I'm reading you right.

    In this case it's a matter of asking essentially "why do Players fail at their own stated style of play?"
In addition to "how do we help add interaction, within the game--that is not a mechanistic approach."

What - precisely - are you looking for in terms of feedback about this? What is the question or issue that you're presenting

     I want solutions darn it! :), I'm trying to find out /why/ players do what they do and make the choices they make, when given more control of the game. I was trying to get "how do you handle this" type information.
   I did discuss specifically with the players what kind of game they'd like to play, how they'd like certian things handled all before hand, because that's /written/ in the game. For example there is PC death in this game but only by player decision. That was a choice I and the players covered before the first "intro" session (which I spent more time explaining the rules and giving examples than actually playing the game)

 In most games that they I've run, and that they choose to play (My FRPG  which is fairly Simulationist), our recent Adventure! game, BESM and in a few others normally I have them make characters, then create the situations they are involved in--for a game I've not yet run Witchcraft (Nomads), I was going to have a set up be a Spec Ops unit put together then abandoned on a mission--because they are being tested to see if they can be used by offscreen NPC manipulator guy.
   Most of the games I GM, I control all the world, I give setup situation then let them act and react from that initial impetus. Literally throwing the "adventure" in their path--I decide what new challenge will face them "this time" and let them face it as they choose but my Superhero game is meant to give the players more choice in the challenge aspect. I began it because I myself like choosing bad things and good happenning to my character (as opposed to things occuring because of bad die roll, or simple GM fiat)

These players expressed an interest in playing this game, as written with them having significant control. One player triggered his own phobia, a step in the right direction but only a step.

 This is not the first game which gives them more freedom we've used but we've only done a few such games and this is the first that I wrote and thus have more interest in finding solutions that may help /others/ with similar problems.

The issue isn't just the concept of "adventure/plot" itself but the fact that the players didn't seem to want to interact with anything that wasn't /directly/ related to the rescue of people--even after the rescue was done they chose to seperate and go where they went, and /not/ interact with the NPC's in their lives (one has almost /no NPC's/ tied to them, a situation I was working on remedying with the friendly fireman--but if they nod and walk off, and ignore the "hey wait a minute" I can't very well have the fireman strap himself to a catapult and launch himself after the character to try and continue the conversation. It be silly :) and that's not what I'm aiming for. That doesn't mean it won't show back up--maybe the next time they help the firefighters that fireman is killed, helping them--but what happens next time doesn't help increase the interaction/game time  this session.

I wanted  "perhaps try this" but got what amounts to "Who can we blame?", which doesn't resolve the situation at all.
Zak and Andrew gave some good ideas  (even if Zak's doesn't work in that format for this particular game.)

I don't want to sound irritated but I am. I wanted some help, insight, not blame throwing and thats what these statements feel like

Bluntly, this reads to me like a GM who not only wants his players to play, but wants them to play just like he wants.

Your characters should come to the game 'before play' with some level of relationships built in

.

How interesting is a game that involves lots and lots of action none of which has no emotional investement. Hollywood often makes films like that, and most people find them pretty shallow.

Come of as being very presumptious about the nature of my gaming, and seem to be wanting to blame someone without actually providing solutions--I concede that yes it is possible it is someones fault, mine, theirs, the moons, but this isn't providing a solution--and thae fact is that I provided all the hooks, all the bait, but they didn't for any of it.


Perhaps we shouldn't have gamed that day--maybe it was the day's fault, or the time the game took place--but that can't really be altered since sadly I'm not prescient.

[Sidhain]

Also, how does "Community" and "Seeking a place" tie into the rules? If you want a superhero game that goes beyond the cool powers, neat gadgets and flamboyant villains, you're going to have to either
a) Hold big discussions with your group on how things should play out, and make sure you're all on the same track, or
b) Incorporate the way you want play to work into the rules themselves. This would mean, if your group is interested in banter and Marvel plotlines (where the antics are a backdrop to the emotional plot), your rules should support this.

I missed this part earlier, I read it but didn't have it sink in.

In this case the characters Drive--the reason she is out doing superheroic things is Community--further defined by "Seeking a place", this means that she can re-test  (re-roll) any action she failed at if she can justify it (via Internal Monologue) as fitting her drive--So in this case when Nexus was hit with the water and fell, she rushed in after him because of her drive--even though flames licked her wings she went in anyway. When she found him trapped flames moving in--unconscious and grabbed him she realized she was not strong enough to carry him, and so chose to summon winds to help lift her--she rolled and the test was a "failure", however in Hearts and Souls, only the final die roll matters--so she said something to the effect of "He's one of the only people who will understand what it is like to be so different from the rest of humankind, I cannot fail him" she therefore got to reroll--and succeded (She took stress for this, sort of "paying for the roll" because her first one wasn't successful--but she still got to push herself and suceed--real time it took two rolls yes, game time it was simply a minor vein in her forhead throbbing as she struggled to use her powers that way. Monologues play a big role in the game as does stress--I forgot the "witty" banter part and may allow people to use that to "buy off" stress if they make the gm laugh and it's in character appropriate (I loved MSH's Karma reward for humor)

[Ian O'Rourke]

If my post came off as offensive, then I apologise. I assure you that was not my intention. At times I feel the need to make analogies to make a point, under no circumstances ever take these analogies to be a direct reflection on your game.

Sorry, if I offended.

[C. Edwards]

Hey Sidhain,

Maybe your players just aren't very proficient or comfortable with a game or playstyle that allows them more character "freedom".  From your previous posts I gather that you normally run games that drive (or lead) the characters to an adventure's conclusion.  If that's the case then your players probably just need time to loosen up and get in the swing of a playstyle they have limited experience with.  Old habits die hard.  Give them some time, and a little direction, and don't look at these initial play sessions as some kind of failure.

Chris