Keeping Interest - Mine And The Players

[Alcar]

I've read the sorcerer site and some of the indie one (some new stuff has come up since I was by last) and just discovered the forums). Since I like making worlds and rpg systems, I'll toss out a question that's been bugging me:

How do I keep myself interested in a game?

I know it's a weird one, but if the GM isn't into a setting the players may not be to the same extent.

As I tend to devote a lot to making a world and setting, I'm finding my inability to get into the setting or continue updating it etc.. once it's off and running. This is a rather new development and I was wondering if others have the same problem and how they deal with it?

[Bankuei]

The only way I could see this being a problem is if the players are amped for a game, an the GM is not.  If both the GM and the rest of the players don't care, its time to pick a new game.  

If you're referring to over a long campaign, you might want to either consider doing short story runs of 3-5 sessions, interspersed with one shots, or cocurrent campaigns, so that players can switch off to whatever they're in the mood for.

But, mainly, you might just want to stop thinking in terms of campaigns, which require a lot of time and interest investment, and run short series.  Nothing keeps players amped like seeing the beginning, middle and end of a story completely.  And if you want to bring the characters back for a sequel, you can, if not, then don't do so.

Chris

[Ziriel]

Welcome to the Forge Alcar.

I have a good friend that has a similar problem.  He gets very excited to run a game then puckers out in the middle.  He seems to get overwhelmed.  It has really helped him to run shorter games and also to prep more in between sessions.  The extra prepping seems to give him back some of his enthusiasm and then he doesn't feel underprepared or stressed out when characters go running off in a way he didn't expect.

Of course, I feel I need to ask... Do you actually like to GM? Not everyone does.  A break from it might do you some good and it's always nice to kick back and play.

[Ben Morgan]

Alcar:

But, mainly, you might just want to stop thinking in terms of campaigns, which require a lot of time and interest investment, and run short series. Nothing keeps players amped like seeing the beginning, middle and end of a story completely. And if you want to bring the characters back for a sequel, you can, if not, then don't do so.

An absolutely excellent point. Nothing used to piss me off like a campaign that went on forever, and then just... died.

Just one thing to add to this ( and this comes straight from Sorcerer & Sword): You don't have to prepare every detail of a setting beforehand. Start with just a little bit (just one small neighborhood instead of a whole world), and work outward. There are several reasons for this, but for purposes of answering the initial question, consider this: which is easier to walk away from, once you've discovered you can't get excited about it anymore: a setting that you've spent countless hours mapping out in exhausting detail, or a setting where you've only had to do enough to get you through the next two sessions?

-- Ben

[Enoch]

I have this problem too.  I'll get very excited to run something, and it just doesn't end up like it was supposed to be.  This usually takes about 3 or more sessions before I feel this way.  The thing is, my players have huge amounts of fun no matter what I run.  While that's very flattering, it can also piss them off when I declare that I'm having no fun and do not want to continue.

I used to just cut it off.  Now I try to just run something else.  That's a good part of having two groups.  It helps recharge you.

-Joshua

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I see two layers to this issue - the easy one and the really scary one.

The easy one has been dealt with already on this thread, but another way to look at it is to ask yourself, "When do I have fun? What exactly happens during a role-playing game that I enjoy?" Then consider either length/number of planned sessions or content that encourages that kind of enjoyment.

The scary, deeper layer may or may not apply to you, Alcar. I don't know. But I do know a lot of folks who really, actually don't like role-playing much at all. They like to imagine stuff, and they like to prep stuff because it's imaginative work - but the actual play always carries an unpleasant, dissatisfying, all-labor-no-payoff feel. This outlook is most common among those people who always insist on being the GM (or whose friends always insist that they be the GM) and who feel obliged to entertain their players in a kind of one-way-street manner. When they try to answer my question above, they may come up with a disturbing answer: "Never. Not during play itself."

I have some suggestions for people in this state of mind, but I'll hold off on that for now.

Best,
Ron

[Alcar]

Wow. Thank you all for the replies.

I think quite a few of the problems have been covered. I have had games that just end (I run online so sometimes that's unavoidable) but over the years have been able to find out when I'm reaching that point and figure out a good ending for the campaign in question. IMO, it's best to end a campaign while players still really like it *grins* This happened to a campaign I ran that evolved from a one-shot game. Oddly enough, the next campaign set in the world died (mostly because I'd miscalculated an assumption - I never expected all the pcs to decide to run away from a threat). The 3rd one is currently still being played, but since I have not set time for it it's getting a little worrisome.

As for GMing, I do like to do it. It's fun to make worlds and have players roam them and alter them with their own ideas and input. But I do think I may have fallen victim to the world-making problem, simply that GMs do put a lot of effort into making a world, and I get annoyed at players who make their characters in, say, 20 minutes. Where's the thought, the background, the detail, the PCs family etc.? Granted, I do know players of mine who can pull off a very good pc like that, and some players prefer to make background as they go, but for the most part I find a lack of .... consideration, perhaps - for a setting that annoys me. If a web page is made about the world, and players told to go to it, and they still make PCs that aren't in the setting it gets frusterating. Not because the PC sucks, but because the player didn't take the time to read and think before making the PC. Sometimes it's understandable, most of the time it can get annoying. (I once ran an unknown armies game where - having been told it was modern earth and given info on making a pc - a player submitted a D&D pc. I was somewhat stunned.)

As for the issue of entertainment, I find it a two way street. The players need to entertain ME as well, or the game might die. One player pointed that out once as a joke, but it seemed to have some measure of truth. I don't consider entertainment or world creation to be one-way streets, even if player contribution to the world occurs only during the campaign and PC actions.

Hmm, this is getting rather long, and I'm not sure if I'm resolving my thoughts, but it's good to be able to discuss them. It's disturbing to see worlds you make die affter the effort put into them .... which is one reason I try and get lots of player ideas and feedback while making a campaign - hoping to keep the spark alive.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Alcar,

I'm happy that our responses are making some sense. Here are some thoughts about your latest post.

One possibility to consider is this notion: nothing "exists" in role-playing terms until it's been introduced into play. It might be introduced indirectly, but if it exists only in the GM's (or anyone's) single head, it doesn't "happen" at all. It's not too unreasonable for your players to say (if they do, I don't know them), "Dude, we don't care how much work you put into it pre-play. What matters is what happens."

Another possibility to consider is that some games are constructed such that the characters are very rich and intense pre-play. Sorcerer is a good example; a character isn't made up off the cuff. Other games are just the reverse - a character is made up off the cuff, and develops mainly through play, over several sessions. Castle Falkenstein is an excellent example of this approach. I've discovered that until people consider this issue critically, they may be taking sides without knowing it. In other words, a player or two might be assuming that pre-play character consideration simply isn't relevant.

And finally, I think your group might benefit greatly by a whole session spent on character creation and informal discussion of the game you are all planning to play. There's no way a person can make up a character to the depth and commitment you'd like from them, if they are basing it on written materials from you and no social interaction among the group as a whole. This is actually a pretty big deal, and for some reason, "gaming culture" tends to overlook it. All your information suggests to me that character creation, in your group, has you at the center and each player linked to you, personally - but not with one another. I could be wrong about this, of course, but if it's true to any extent, I suggest altering the very structure of your group habits and having a good, solid session devoted only to preparation for the upcoming game.

Best,
Ron

[Ziriel]

And finally, I think your group might benefit greatly by a whole session spent on character creation and informal discussion of the game you are all planning to play. There's no way a person can make up a character to the depth and commitment you'd like from them, if they are basing it on written materials from you and no social interaction among the group as a whole. This is actually a pretty big deal, and for some reason, "gaming culture" tends to overlook it. All your information suggests to me that character creation, in your group, has you at the center and each player linked to you, personally - but not with one another. I could be wrong about this, of course, but if it's true to any extent, I suggest altering the very structure of your group habits and having a good, solid session devoted only to preparation for the upcoming game.

*nods nods nods*  I agree very much so with Ron.  Having a session where you all go over character creation together can be beneficial in many ways.  You as the GM get to explain what you are aiming for in the coming game and make sure that the players both understand and are working in the right direction with their character concept.  It also allows the players and you to make sure you aren't going to end up with 4 elven rangers, if you get my drift.  (Unless of course that iz your goal.)

As for gaining entertainment as a GM from the players I have a certain philosophy that pertains to almost all my GMing and this as well.  I know my game iz going well, and I'm happiest, when I can sit back and just watch my players go go go for healthy stretches of time.  I find their plotting, theorizing and interacting with each other and the environment entertaining.  It also shows me that they are into the game and can really picture what's going on if they don't notice I've shut up for a spell.  It means I'm not leading them around by the nose.  (Something I personally loath when I am a player.)  I know nothing makes me more apprehensive than when I get done with my set up, or what have you, and all I get iz five pairs of eyes staring at me in silence.  I get shivers just thinking about it.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Alcar, I can't believe I forgot to ask this already ... what game(s) are you playing, and how many players are involved?

Best,
Ron

[Bankuei]

Alcar, a couple of considerations you may wish to also make:

I'm reaching that point and figure out a good ending for the campaign in question. IMO, it's best to end a campaign while players still really like it *grins*

Instead of running a campaign, and determining "as you go" when's a good time to end it, you might want to have an ending time prepared and let the players know.  

Players have a way of pacing with the game.  If you have an indefinite time period to play, they take their time.  If they know they've got 2 sessions to do this in, they start pushing and driving the game along accordingly.  Its the same sort of thing that makes movies and mini-series good, whereas longs seasons have either filler episodes or fall off as they go.

You might also want to think if perhaps the attitude of deciding when to end a campaign as you go is not very different from that of the players who don't consider your background world.  That is to say, you come with a few assumptions, such as long gameplay is good, campaigns are the best way to play, and that campaigns should have an indefinite ending period.  These may or may not bear out to be true for you and your group.

Chris

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Alcar, welcome to the Forge.

Ron's touched on this, but I'll put my own spin on it:

For years games have spiraled out of control on the backstory/world building.  GMs gather players to share/reveal elements of their "work" (whether published or self-generated).

What I'm learning is that the focus of play should be found in play.  (See Ron's note above.)

This means that instead of looking forward to revealing, the GM is looking forward to discovering.  He discovers what the world is like, what the story is, what the characters is like by sharing the power of creation with the players.

This changes the GM's role immensely!  GMing is no longer about having a three ring binder full of notes that he anticipates doling out over a long period of time.  He has no wonderful backstory to reveal.

He is a player, like the other players, in the active state of creation while in play.

I don't think this point can be stressed enough for GM who like creating, but lose steam half way through revealing the creation.

The answer might be to create more -- with the players, and stop concerning himself with revealing.

Does this mean no revealing?  Of course not.  Bangs, plot twists and such are all still part of play.  But they are tossed to the players -- really, trully given to the players.  The GM has to watch in amazement and surprise at the players do whatever they want to plot twists and revelations and reversals  -- and be open to recieve what the players have done with what he tossed them as they toss the story elements back to him.

This puts everyone at the table in the position of discovery and revealing at the same instant.  This may not be everyone's cup of tea.  (I know it isn't.)  But for some of us, this is exactly what the fun of RPGs rests on.

The prep then, is on PCs, the relationship of NPCs, and some sort of story driven element for the PCs.  The story is found, like a game of tennis between the GM and players, from that starting point.

Take care,
Christopher

[Alcar]

Point by point then:

Ron, currently a custom world (on hold because my schedule is eratic) and an unknown armies game that was just beginning when put on holod so might vanish into limbo (I had few players, wanted few players, but may revive it with some new ones of the old ones can't all make it when it begins again). I'm currently running a rules light game (a spin off of a modern d&d campaign) with 10 players, at odd times. It's mostly each pc does their own thing and pcs meet as I'm on and the players are online and the pcs can meet. It gets a bit odd that way :)

The other campaign is a really free form game (the players pick pc  name,description, ability (they have some odd power(s)) and that's it. They're on some world that no one (including me) knows much about ... it's being invented as the game goes on and I am finding Chris's comment about discovering is helping me really like the setting, mostly because no one knows what the world is like or what happens including me.

As far as world building goes, I tend to be the kind who makes the big world then does a specific setting and plays the game in it, expanding as needed. By big world I mean some sort of history, an understanding of geography and some important historical events. This allows for the game setting to have events occur in the outside world with a good impact on the game world.

The idea of setting a specific time limit for a campaign could be fun. I know my modern games tend to be slow because players do different things at different times so some sessions can cover a day or two and some days have taken over 7 sessions to end. (One of my campaigns lasted 26 sessions and went from a normal world to an apocalypse in less than 2 weeks of actual game time.)

I am definitly going to have "make a pc" sessions before campaigns. I try and do that to an extent before most campaigns begin (at least to get some idea of what players are playing and have in mind as goals for the game and their pc) but sitting all the players down at once and doing it might be more useful.

Once again, thanks to everyone who's replied so far :)

[Clay]

I've actually gotten away from creating any significant story before character creation. I've found that my players generally have an idea of what sort of things they want to do, and they're really good at telling me through the characters that they create.  I almost universally use kickers, as well. These help me, because it tells me what they're looking for, and it gets the players' minds geared up to think about the story.