Blood, Magic and Sandals

[JamesDJIII]

Last night was the second of a long term Fantasy Hero game. Here are my observations that I think are relevant to folks in this forum.

Our group: diverse set of adult men, all 26 or older, married (some twice - not at once), half with children, college educated, technology focused, 1 PhD, a couple of graduate degrees, and at least one verypowerful telescope.

About 2 months ago, our group decided to try a couple of long-term games as means of acoomodating a player who, up to that point, was put off by a favorite RPG format of mine, the one-shot/short-term game. I offered a format that would accomodate both of us: a long term connected game that would offer continious PC development for him (what he desired) and rotating GMs or change of pace and the ability to have different stories and GM styles (my desire).

My portion of the game (the other parallel game was science-fiction) was a fantasy game, strongy influenced by Sword & Sorcery. I was a big Harn fan for many years, and decided to take a radically different tack for this course. I refuse to hyper-engineer the background. I involved the players in game creation to a point I would have balked at but months before. I demanded Kickers. I managed to coax real Kicker from all but half of the 4 who showed up to the first game. Bad sign? Maybe.  Disconnect. Yup, think so.

Players: T, P, J, and C. (real names withheld)

Preperation: relationship map based on Dashiel Hammet's The Maltese Falcon. Now, this not being Sorcerer I wasn't looking for a moral perspective to hang the map on. What I was looking for was ample oppurtunities for PC ambition and greed. The map was made up of vairous city elements wheeling and dealing to acquire the dreaded Dagger of Yeng(tm).

The Dagger was actually right from T's Kicker, so in with it and out with what I had written down. His PC was warned off of the Dagger's trail by a mysterious persona. A weak Kicker, sure, but as Ron put it in one of his writings, a weak Kicker can also mean a player who is really asking for it. And considering I was looking for baby steps, I was fine with it.

J mentioned during PC creation that he wasn't sure he liked this "new" GM style. I said that that was OK, I wasn't sure it was going to work, but that if it didn't I would not be offended if we abandoned it. I am pretty clear with these guys that it's OK in my book to have different tastes in all things.

The Game itself: (next post)

[JamesDJIII]

What Happened (Or the things that I noticed):

J was very disinterested in the game. (There's more to this than just this game, but perhaps I'll talk about this later)

P at one point, while becoming involved with an NPC who was on the map, stopped and asked "Is this NPC important to your plot? If not, I can just move on." I was distrubed by this attitude and told him the NPC was important "if he is important to YOU."

T was quite fun. He really began to get into things. At one point he rode along with one NPC on the map, formulating plans to ambush the NPC's rival, basically being a good little plot-pilot. In the space of a few minutes he turned around and asked me about what other power brokers existed in the town, such as merchants or orther nobility. He then came up with his own plan to acquire the dagger, paying a gang of mercenaries to ambush the ambushers afterward. Wow! Cool! Just what I was after!

Unfortuneatlely, I can't say I had much fun. The fact that J wasn't into things, and after a point, I found P reading rules books for other games when dealing with T and J. I took that to mean that I failed to provide an engaging game for them.

When I finally made it home I admitted to my wife that I would rather have stayed home than GMed. Trust me, my wife was shocked: "You normally run to these things."

I'm still in shock today - how long have I felt like this? Have I just kept pressing the button hoping the food would come out? I'm hoping that it's just because our play styles are drifting too far apart and that it's not because I Suck At Being A GM (tm).

[Mike Holmes]

Is this a new style for the group?

I assume that at some point in your GMing career, that you had a good time doing it. What made that play fun?

I won't bash the choice of systems. Not because I like FH (I do quite a bit), but because I don't see anything here about how the system affected play. That is, I don't see a ton of long, drawn out combats. You seem to be promoting and getting Narrativist play from the active players, and boredom from the rest. Which I'd have to guess might be due to other factors...Perplexing.  

Mike

[JamesDJIII]

Mike:

Is this a new style for the group?

Absolutely.

Mike:

I assume that at some point in your GMing career, that you had a good time doing it. What made that play fun?

Oh sure! I had a great time! When things worked well, and all pistons were firing, I never had better confidence and joy in things. I knew what an RPG was, so did the players, and that was that.  Our play priorities were very very much aligned and we were very good at detecting and implementing sub-plots, co-GMing opportunities, etc, aimed at ensuring WE ALL HAD A GOOD TIME.

As I progressed as GM, however, I found my anxiety levels ramping up with each passing game. I read everything and anything I could about how to be a better GM - a better GM has fun, right? Why wasn't I having fun!?!?!

I think that I attatched a disproportionate levels of "sucess" for the games I ran based on certain notions about what a "real" RPG is all about. And it turns out that the perception that there is a single way to play is an illusion, right? I was chasing an illusion, and never realized it.

Mike:

I don't see anything here about how the system affected play.

Hmmmm, I'm not sure I'm overly concerned with that. I know the essays, I've read 'em, and frankly, I don't agree 100% that it matters to me. We've played a Hero game with another GM and it had long, drawn out combats and it sucked. We played twice now with several combats, none of which lasted more than say 10 minutes of game time. I'm very good at keeping players away from analysis-paralysis.

So, yes, I am promoting Narrativist play, if I understand the meaning of it. I like the style of play described in Sorcerer and here at the Forge. I crave it when I play as a player, and never really get it. Lot's of deprotagonization just makes me angry as hell.

I want to see if my gaming group likes it. I hope so. If not, then maybe it's time for me to drift out?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi James,

Definitely take this as an armchair comment. You're the guy who's there, and I'm not.

... but it looks like some GNS-type disconnection to me.

Unfortuneatlely, I can't say I had much fun. The fact that J wasn't into things, and after a point, I found P reading rules books for other games when dealing with T and J.

Isn't that consistent with my definition of Incoherent play? One or more desired GNS priorities are not being met through the activity. Solid turn-off, and switch to hangout-mode with snippets or bits of play, instead of play-mode. "Twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours of play."

I took that to mean that I failed to provide an engaging game for them.

Ummm ... maybe this is my "group dynamic" outlook coming out, but it sounds to me in addition as if they similarly failed to provide an engaging game for you. Two-way street.

Best,
Ron

[JamesDJIII]

Ron said:

...it sounds to me in addition as if they similarly failed to provide an engaging game for you.

That is true. I hadn't thought about that since I played Toon, where players were rewarded for making the GM laugh uncontrollably.

And, yes, the Incoherence dial was at 11 for a couple of us last night. [edit]

Ok, so let's not mope here: I need to focus my energy on either "get busy living or get busy dying." By that I mean, either fix things, and find an acceptable mode of play, or  I Bow Out Gracefully.

I curse you Ron Edwards! The Forge is the crucible that has broken my soul! (Just kidding. I bet that would sound really neat with a big sound system and some lightning.)

[Mike Holmes]

Uh, go back to what you were doing when you were having fun.

Narrativism isn't a superior way to play. It's just a choice or a preference. If the other modes are more satisfying for you and the other players, then why not go back and do that?

Mike

[Marco]

From what little is there, it looks like they were after a story that (maybe) didn't exist (the is-this-person-plot comment, for one).

You say that J didn't like the "new style"--was that Kickers? Or the rotating GM's or... ?

I happen to like free-form play (and as a player, I'll make up my own goals pretty consistently)--but I can also see how that could make me feel like the game was 'adrift' if I didn't feel a solid sense of pacing (and I'd be worried--what if my kicker is too much of a curve-ball and the GM can't think of anything good to do with it--and then, what if *I* can't think of anything good)--in other words, if I felt I was having a hard time coming up with a kicker I might feel that "none at all" was better than "a weak one" if I thought the GM had the requisite "a lot of meat" for me to go after in terms of situation.

I guess what I'm saying is that it looks to me like the Narrative thrust here didn't take hold real-well. And there's no reason to expect that that shouldn't happen occassionally (that I can see).

As Mike said, that's a preference--not a superior mode of play.

Maybe next time you come up with a tight, interesting (at least to you) situation and frame them into it.

-Marco

[JamesDJIII]

Mike,

I don't want you to misunderstand me: I'm not of the mind that Narrativism is better or worse. I merely wanted to try it and see if it was better for me. The jury is still out, but from what snippets I've tasted, I liked it.

Marco,  that's right, I had no pre-programmed story. There was a powder keg, some matches, and a bottle of Grape Wild Turkey on the table.  One player seemed to get the gist of things, but the other didn't, and the third wasn't interested enough to try.

After thinking about this on the drive home, the only question I have now is 1. How do I go about fixing it? OR 2. How to I go about Bowing Out Gracefully?

I refuse to spend another evening not having any fun.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi James,

No one can make other people like things. It's up to you to decide whether you want to keep playing in this fashion with the same group of people. If you do, you might be in for more No Fun, hours of it plus the let-down based on commitment to your prep. If you don't, you'll never know whether the next time might have been all-fun.

So it's all up to you, based on your knowledge of the people involved. I suggest you put aside thoughts of "fixing it," as there's nothing to fix.

Best,
Ron

[RaconteurX]

James, my suggestion is to ask everyone what didn't work for them... a few minutes of conversation can clear up a week's confusion. People are not always distracted at game sessions because of boredom. It could be sometime painfully ordinary, like J feeling under the weather or stressed out about something unrelated to the game.

Ask and ye shall know... :)

[JamesDJIII]

All good advice, thanks fellas. Er, and gals.

[John Kim]

Preperation: relationship map based on Dashiel Hammet's The Maltese Falcon. Now, this not being Sorcerer I wasn't looking for a moral perspective to hang the map on. What I was looking for was ample oppurtunities for PC ambition and greed. The map was made up of vairous city elements wheeling and dealing to acquire the dreaded Dagger of Yeng(tm).

The Dagger was actually right from T's Kicker, so in with it and out with what I had written down. His PC was warned off of the Dagger's trail by a mysterious persona.  

I have a question:  what were the PC motivations, including T but especially for J and P?  Did the dagger have anything to do with them personally?  

It sounds to me that P had the impression that you were set on arranging a plot involving the Dagger of Yelm.  He felt that he was jumping through the hoops of a plot which you designed.  My concern would be that the Dagger seems like a thin plot device which doesn't support much variety in direction.  Now, maybe they could have gone off and done anything, but it seems that P felt that you were set on them pursuing a particular  and further felt constrained by that.  

I don't know the PCs or the players here, but with this general concept I would lean toward giving them the Dagger at the start of the scenario.  This gives them immediate impetus -- i.e. a Kicker.  They have to decide what to do with this Dagger and how to deal with all the people looking for it.  Since they are the ones who know where the Dagger is, this empowers the players, compared to trying to sift through clues from the GM.

[JamesDJIII]

John Kim:

It sounds to me that P had the impression that you were set on arranging a plot involving the Dagger...

Ummm <scratches head> not really. In fact I made a fairly clear point early on that I would not arranging any such plots. The whole dagger business was a specific outcome of T's  kicker - it could have been a person, or a casket of wine, who knows? Clearly, the sort of play I was looking for really didn't take root in 2 out of the 3 players present. Oh well.

[John Kim]

It sounds to me that P had the impression that you were set on arranging a plot involving the Dagger...

Ummm <scratches head> not really. In fact I made a fairly clear point early on that I would not arranging any such plots. The whole dagger business was a specific outcome of T's  kicker - it could have been a person, or a casket of wine, who knows? Clearly, the sort of play I was looking for really didn't take root in 2 out of the 3 players present.

I accept that that was what you really did -- but it seemed like P perceived it differently (i.e. mistakenly).  And really, perception is everything in a game.  Are you sure that he (P) clearly understood what you were trying?  

From the point of view of P's control, it doesn't really matter if the plot came out of T's Kicker or from something you invented.  It is still something out of his hands.  

This was an interesting revelation to me when I talked to Chris Lehrich here on the Forge a few months ago -- talking about an old campaign that we had been in together.  He perceived the last several sessions of that as close to GM railroading on my part.  However, from my point of view, I was responding to a player plan which came out of the blue to me.  I thought of it as a uniquely original player plan that would shake things up in the world.  I kept the game action moving by pushing ahead with the results of the PC's plan -- but Chris perceived this as me advancing my plot.