The Forge Archives

I have created a group of misogenists.

This is how it played out:

The cast

Sir Tengel - a pious knight seeking redemtion for crimes unspeified.
Calem - a mage seeking a lost art of magic.
Liam - a rootless ranger who has begun to tie to the two above.
Gorin - a dwarf seeking to rekindle the Eight Virtues in his people.
Sir Locklear - a knight who wishes to join a dying Knightly Order.
Joshua -*absent* on the run from his former friends posing as a soldier.

The Situation

Calem the Mage wanted to explore the ruined city of Cribannogwend, and the rest had been assigned/released to join him in this quest.

The Story

We got of to a "great" start with a one hour debate on the virtues of travelling stealthy or in force. It was particulary Locklear's player that kept on insisting on riding in fully armoured since they were bound to be discovered sooner or later. It was not until Calem said it was his mission and thus pulled rank that the Knight relented.

Liam the ranger went ahead to scout out the ruins, but the omnious silence kept him from entering the forest. He also found troll-tracks leading into the silent forest.
He joined the rest who had set up camp halfway there. Three days hard march later, they struck camp and set out the final few miles to the ancient town wall.
Expecting trolls the knights donned their armour.

We chose not to fully implement the new artha rules, but followed som of the new guidlines, particulary the one with giving artha for playing the character when it would be inconvinient to do so. Gorin the dwarf was awarded a point for his thundering snoring  (actually I gave it to him to stop his player acting it out as he really got into the part here)

They were ambushed by trolls by the old wall, but a well placed axe and some arrows finished the fight before it began. They climbed the wall and entered the silent overgrown ruins.

Without warning an undead dwarf appeared in their midst. This dwarf proclaimed himself to be the Herald of the forest and welcomed the characters. Saying the stage was set, and asking (rethorically) if they would lift the curse or wander the forest as one of the Draugi.

To punctate his speech five of the Draugi (undead warriors) attacked the heroes, but thanks to the mage's well timed spells and some amazing archery they fell quickly.

Putting their will agains the forest they came to the first of four locations of intrest, The Council Halls, home of the Aelcened, a sentinent scrying pool. Its female form rose from the waters and the characters learned one version of the backstory. They also learned one way of undoing the curse that had laid Cribannogwend to waste (Unite and destroy the two wedding bands. Don't worry it will be explained).

Here there were some great in character acting with several subplots being called upon. Unfortunatly there were some moments when Locklear's player went against the grain of the party and though this drove the overall campaign plot forward it is debatable whether some of this was OOC or fitting to his character. I shan't discuss this here as I have yet had a chance to speak with the player.
It did however bring about one great moment:

Locklear, despite Gorin's vocal protest that somethings were not meant to be known by mortal men, asked the Aelcened for eveidence that the Shadow was rising. The pool obliged but was disrupted before it could show them its excat nature. With the pool disrupted and its ward gone rougly 40 Draugi rushed into the ruins upon which Gorin stated:" We now have a new dwarvish word for foolishness, Locklear"

I gave him an artha for that comment

As not to bore you, the pool reformed saving the heroes a hopeless fight, but as they settled down to discuss this new information Liam heard trolls approaching. A running battle ensued as they were driven from the council halls and into the wilds.

The trolls, though planned for another encounter came upon them because I feared another two hour discussion on whether to trust the Aelcened and Locklears rashness. In all fairness to my players the troll Kornsworth (see previous installments) had warned them "she is not to be trusted". It was actually he is not to be trusted, but then Aelcened had originally been male until they entered the Council Halls and subconciously decided it was a she. Who was I to interfer.

Following a path shown by the pool they ended up in a cul-de-sac facing roughly three times their number. Kept alive by their armour the warriors held the line, while the two others did their best to aid. It was a brutal and long battle.

I was sceptical to running such a long melee in the scripting system of BW, specially worried about the time it would take me to script the actions of 15 - 20 trolls. At the same time I felt that by using the quick melle rules posted on the BW website would draw some of the drama out of the scene. But by scripting two or three different responses and divide them by groups it went remarably smooth and the entire battle took no more than 45 to 60 minutes realtime.

Standing in the charred remains of 1400 square paces of burnt forest they had another short discussion. It was cut short by the need to find shelter for the night as they had been warned that hte Draugi became more active after dark. Again putting their will against the forest they went to Car Nestadren (the Healing House, a chapel).

Entering the suprisingly intact and peaceful building they met the shade of Glirithil. With great sadness she told her version of the backstory, and how to lift the curse. There was not much variation in the backstories so far. but her solution was totally different. She showed them her corpse, and one of the items that was instrumental in lifting the curse, her wedding band. The character spent the night in the chapel listening to her lament.

All slept but two ,the dwarf which didn't trust all this "foul magic and the dead walking - grumble, grumble, grumble" and Liam who went out to gaze upon the stars. His thoughts of his lost wife were interrupted by the fourth major NPC in this sad part of the world, Maeind, the dead druid. They talked and Liam learned that the stars had had this position only twice before, those time heralding the end of that age.

This was the first real concrete evidence the characters (all the players know) had gotten, except for rumors, that the end of the third age is coming.

The next day Liam told the others and the dead elven Princess specifically said that she did not want to bring niether Maeind nor his wedding band into her chapel. Having failed to reason with her they went to see Maeind, in the Gwanath Tham (dying hall).

Like the chapel the former hall of Cribannogwend was in surisingly good shape for such an ancient building, but it was dwarven craftmanship after all. Here they met the lord of the Draugi, the druid that had cursed the town and the one they chose to belive. Did I say he was male.
He humbly told them his story and submitted his wedding band to them. Willing to let them bring it into Glirithil's chapel so that she could decide when to bring them together. He also let them take his spell-book, some ancient weapons and armour (a subplot: the trolls were looking for the Herald's remains for some undislosed reason.).

I can't for the life of me figure out why they chose to belive this NPC. He gave them some stuff, didn't try to hide the evil of his actions and seemed willing to repent. But why did they belive him? My only guess is that he was male. But keep reading it gets worse.

Promised safe passage they make haste to Glirithil's chapel (the forest seemed to aid them). Here Tengel approaches Glirithil and asks if she wishes to have Maeind's ring to do with what she please. She tells them not to bring it into the Chapel. Not getting anywhere Tengel then exits, and Locklear carries the ring into the chapel despite the princess' wishes.

She grows dark and angry, pronouncing a doom upon Locklear for his mercenary ways. Then Maeind enters the chapel and again strikes his wife down, casting Cribannogwend into darkness. Locklear tries grab the rings but is struck down by a spell and only because of Calem attracting the attention of Maeind is Liam able to rescue him.

Fleeing while cursing their own stupidity they run into the Herald, who duels Gorin for the right to bear his garb. gorin barely wins. The Aelcened mocks them when they seek her help and refuses to help since she is trapped by the change in the curse. They have to flee the council halls as she refuses to shelter them.

Having to fight the will of Maeind they are nearly swallowed by the forest before the stubborness of the dwarves see them through and they escape.

End so far.

Summary

When introduced to the new artha rules my players where sceptical. When I asked them to set down four goals for their characters they found this hard as they had not yet reached a point where they felt that their initial exploration of their concepts had begun to pay off yet.
But as I gave out artha during play they began to understand that artha would keep flowing, and thus began using it more liberally. Putting my fear that they would horde it to get grey shade skills/abilities to rest.

BW scripting combat works with larger groups to some extent if one takes a few shortcuts. We sorted out some movement issues and I think we all are getting the feel for it. As it grows on you it speeds up and it gets to be second nature.  

G7 will against B3 should be a foregone conclusion. It was but not to the extent one would expect thanks to artha and some pathetic dice rolling on my part.

The biggest case

I have handed out a lot of world-info to my players, trusting that they would be able to keep player knowledge and character knowledge seperate. Some do really well, others have a harder time (actually one, but it is tricky considering his character may have asked some of his questions. But I'll confront him with this in person.)


the end of this post is and it rushed but it is friday and I have to get home.

Oh! any thoughts on my misogenistic players?

Until Monday

peace

K

Whats the beef with whether a characters question was "in character" or motivated by out of character player desires.

Its the players who are playing after all.  Play should be about what the players want it to be about, not what the characters want.  The characters are just scraps of paper after all.

If in order to get the enjoyment he wants out of play a player needs to author in a little OOC knowledge...where's the harm?  

I find the idea that players must purge and seperate all OOC knowledge and only act on IC knowledge to be somewhat dogmatic, rather pointless, and even potentially damaging to game play.

Kaare,

Don't be too hard on them. It seems like you've got a rich and detailed game going on, but even I have a hard time following all your subplots and references and I'm just reading it. I can imagine some of the players are having a devil of a time.

Unlike Ralph, I think IC/OOC information in play is fun and appropriate. However, you've got to set down your rules and guidelines for this with your players before the game starts. Discuss with them their character backgrounds and what is appropriate OOC info for them to call on and what is inappropriate. I've found just talking about this smooths out a lot wrinkles.

Lastly, I'm glad to hear you handled such a massive combat! sheesh, 20 combattants is a lot in any game! But you're right, using "general scripts" -- one script with a few variations -- works well in speeding up conflict overall. As the combattants get whittled down, I start throwing in individual quirks and moves.

Anyway, it sounds like a lot of fun. I wish I could play!

-Luke

BTW, talk to your players more about Artha and Goals and stuff. Get their thoughts on the matter. From my experience, everyone has resisted the new system, but they love it when they cross over. Tempt them with this: Everytime they spend artha, they get closer to an epiphany!

Hello,

I guess I don't see the misogyny. You've presented two NPCs, both of whom seem to be powerful and more-or-less have their own plans and agendas. Either one could be lying or telling the truth, and the players don't seem to have any particular reason to care about which one they like or not.

And that's the key: it doesn't matter about the prophecy or the third age or any of that crap - what matters is whether the players like or don't like the two NPCs. One of them asks them to do him a favor. The other stands in the way and tells them what they can or cannot do.

The players have no stake, no connection, no interest, and no goals that are relevant to the scenario.

Here's what I do not see in your presentation:

Sir Tengel - a pious knight seeking redemtion for crimes unspeified.
No explicit opportunity for redemption, and I mean explicit to the player (not to you)
Calem - a mage seeking a lost art of magic.
No opportunity to learn about that lost art.
Liam - a rootless ranger who has begun to tie to the two above.
Since neither of the above have any stake in what's going on, there's none for Liam either.
Gorin - a dwarf seeking to rekindle the Eight Virtues in his people.
A ton of dead dwarves, but no Eight Virtues or interest in them.
Sir Locklear - a knight who wishes to join a dying Knightly Order.
Which is evidently nowhere near this scenario (also, it might be worth reviewing why this player is involved in the game at all)
Joshua -*absent* on the run from his former friends posing as a soldier.
Which seems to present nothing whatever to do with dead dwarves and wedding rings.

All of the above concerns the characters, but what I'm really driving at is that you're not engaging the interest of the players, not even through the only indication you have of their wishes, their characters' goals.

In other words, you proposed to them a pair of contradictory back-stories, a clear problem ("how do we get past this bitch who won't let us complete the mission"), and a few time-consuming fights to interrupt any decision-making, none of which is connected to any of the players' interests.

Therefore, faced with one fairly humble NPC who seeks their help and gives them presents, and with another who plants herself in their path and tells them what they can and cannot do, they decide to accept the Mission (which you offered them, period) and kick the arrogant bitch's ass, and all her dead dwarves, too. Who, I might add, had attacked them for no reason early in the scenario anyway.

I don't see any misogyny. I see players who, in the absence of any particularly engaging issues to them in the scenario, simply go with the NPC who doesn't piss them off in terms of basic adolescent "respect" issues.

Best,
Ron

(Edit: looks like other folks beat me to the punch, and were a lot more articulate. I think Ron hits the nail on the head, and explains their behavior a lot more succinctly that what I'm driving at below.)

Misremembering "she" for "he" seems like a pretty honest OOC mistake, though without the context of the original information, it's tough to say if that was a big flub. I might've corrected them, if I thought their characters wouldn't have made the mistake.

Question: you mentioned that there were two ways of lifting the curse. I think one was what they ended up doing. What was the other way? As I was reading the account, it sounded like what might've happened was that the players were having a tough time getting their heads around what they were "supposed to do"--a common occurance in investigation-style games, where the party shows up somewhere and has to figure out how to fix what's broken. In my experience, players in that situation sometimes take the path of least resistance. In other words, if some guy is giving them a possible solution, they tend to try it in the absence of other information. So when they were on the lookout for an untrustworthy "she", and a "he" approached them with a solution--voila, they tried it in the absence of other ideas.

Also, did the Princess know what would happen if they brought both rings into her area? If so, why didn't she warn them? It seems like the players weren't operating with very good intel on the situation... but again, tough to say without being there.

A huge caveat: I'm really being a Monday morning GM here. Everything I'm saying is with the understanding that I wasn't there, and I'm probably projecting my own GMing issues in a big way. If things just didn't happen the way I've described, feel free to ignore as you see fit. Just brainstorming. They might be raging misogynists. :)

The various combats sounded like a lot of fun, and the dwarvish witticisms were priceless. Sounds like a fun group.

Thanks both Ron and Loki,

Truthful, harsh but true. Let it be said that I am not taking a defensive stand here, I just posted badly.

My "miosgeny problem" is that my characters instantly distrust any female NPC. If I try to present a strong woman NPC, she is instantly labelled bad. (Even if a character gets involved with her). But then again this isn't a problem as such, but more an observation and the result of way to many honey-traps over the years. I don't think they are women haters. Its just my female NPCs which they do not trust. (this is a sliding scale, more beautiful, less trustwothy)

As for character motivation, well again it is my format that fails me.

We are having a shared exploration of the characters. Meaning that they all brought more or less the general consepts above to the table. We then explore their backgrounds at the same time we explore the world.
The scrying pool was invaluable in this as it let me push the envelope a bit, by setting off some ideas in my players' heads.
This also tied in with the new artha system that Luke has introduced. I'll get them to accept it.

This story was all about Calem wanting to explore the ruins of Cribannogwend looking for the "lost magical art", the magic of the true druids. (yes abzu, this is abstractions). It was his player who requested this scenario.

My post was unclear. Next time I will post more along these lines:

Sir Tengel - a pious knight seeking redemtion for crimes unspeified.
Fulfilling his Lord's obligation to Calem knowing well that the life of sgt. Barringer depends on his safe return.

But you are right, Liam's player stated that he had no reason for being in the forest when his job (guide them there) was done. It was then my challenge to make it ineresting for his character, and his goals, to stay in the forest. Now he wants to go back despite the changed curse.

QuoteQuestion: you mentioned that there were two ways of lifting the curse. I think one was what they ended up doing. What was the other way

They where given three solutions and three motivations:

Aelcened (the scrying pool): Take both weddingbands, unite them and melt them in the forge of the Water Tower.
Motivation: Lonely, no one seeks her council as long as there is a curse.
Glirithil (elven princess): Take my husband wedding band and melt it in the Water Tower. Do not bring my husband's ring here.
Motivation: Vengance for herself and her people at the cost of her self.
Maeind (the husband): Unite our wedding bands; give mine to my wife so that she can decide when.
Motivation: Love and redemption and an end to the curse. (they knew Maeind was insane)

Since my players are reading this post I shan't be telling you which is the correct one.
But they never sought out the Water Tower and learnt what was there, Thus they missed out some more clues. The entire misogeny issue was that they questioned everything the two females said, while the man who had killed a whole town searching for immortality was believed on the drop of a hat.

QuoteAlso, did the Princess know what would happen if they brought both rings into her area? If so, why didn't she warn them? It seems like the players weren't operating with very good intel on the situation... but again, tough to say without being there.

She explicitly said: Do not bring him into my chapel.
She also said that melting his ring would destroy him, no journey to the other side, no afterlife, destroyed. With hindsight this may have been the deciding factor.

QuoteI find the idea that players must purge and seperate all OOC knowledge and only act on IC knowledge to be somewhat dogmatic, rather pointless, and even potentially damaging to game play

I agree. I have been trying to give them world information to create a sense of history and a deeper immersion in the world. It would be unfair and counterproductive no to let them act on this.
But like Ron put it :"the end of the third age crap" is backstory. It is the overall campaign plot, I am moving towards it but it is all background.
Most of my group sees this crucial point, and though they guide their characters in that direction or set themselves up in situations that will futher this, they don't go there much IC beacuse it isn't time yet.

This one player however resides there, and neglects his characters short term goals (he wants to marry a woman named Gwen among other things). Feedback from other players supports my opinion that this is disruptive. I'll talk to him, but any thoughts?

Thanks for the response, this is the type of feedback I was hoping for.

QuoteThey where given three solutions and three motivations:


Since my players are reading this post I shan't be telling you which is the correct one.
But they never sought out the Water Tower and learnt what was there, Thus they missed out some more clues.

Hmmm.  I must say that the entire idea that one of these choices was "correct" as labeled by the GM, and that the point of the scenario seems to be for the players to find the clues that allowed them to discover which one that was would leave me decidedly cold as a player.

It seems to me that the players took the view of "whatever, this isn't exciting us, lets figure out any solution that will get us the hell out of here and on to something we like better".  

As Ron noted above, I don't see any of the goals of the PCs being used here.   Were the undead dwarves indicative of one of the 8 virtues Gorin sought to rekindle.  Were they undead because they were so incredibly focused on their duty (one of the virtues perhaps) that they remained performing it even after death.  Or were they cursed with unlife because of failure to live up to the virtues.  Don't know if you used it, but this could have been a great key to Gorin's goal.  If Gorin's player was legitimately interested in that goal, then the player would have some motivation to make sure the situation got resolved "correctly".  Where "correctly" here means in a manner consistant with the 8 Dwarven Virtues.  In other words, a player choice based on a players sense of a just ending as represented by character goals.


Each of the other players could have had their own tie in to the plot.  The crime of Maenid could have been the same as Sir Tengel's crime...making Maenid's redemption symbolic of Tengels.  Glirithl may have had access to a portion of the lost magic Calem seeks.  Aelcened the scrying pool may have been a popular figure in the lore of an old Knightly Order.  Maybe even a source of wisdom for them and part of their early strength.  The curse may be denying them access to the pool and this may be why the order is now dying.

You now have 4 of the characters with strong ties to the story through their key character goal (which I can only assume is a goal the players are actually interested in and not one thrust upon them that they couldn't care less about).

1 is motivated to see the curse lifted so the pool can be restored as a source of wisdom and use this feat to help gain entrance into his knightly order.

1 is motivated to attempt to acquire secrets from the elven princess (by fair play or foul)

1 is motivated by seeing the source of the curse redeemed so he can believe in the possibility of his own redemption.

and 1 is motivated to see the entire situation gets resolved according to the 8 Dwarven virtues with the undead dwarves being either redeemed (if they represented a failing of the virtues) or emulated (if they represent the virtues well)

Now the players have a reason to step in front of this train rather then simply try to treat it as an obstacle to be escaped from.

Any solution they work out is the "right" solution.  Each will have its own consequences, but the players choice as to those consequences says alot about them, their characters, and the direction of the story.  If there is a little intraparty squabble over which course to take...so much the better.  It means they find the story interesting enough to want to press their solution...as opposed to being indifferent and not caring as long as it ends.

QuoteThe entire misogeny issue was that they questioned everything the two females said, while the man who had killed a whole town searching for immortality was believed on the drop of a hat.

This is great!   Go with this.  Embrace it.  Don't squelch it.  This is premise in the making here.  

QuoteIt is the overall campaign plot, I am moving towards it but it is all background.
Most of my group sees this crucial point, and though they guide their characters in that direction or set themselves up in situations that will futher this, they don't go there much IC beacuse it isn't time yet.

This one player however resides there, and neglects his characters short term goals (he wants to marry a woman named Gwen among other things). Feedback from other players supports my opinion that this is disruptive. I'll talk to him, but any thoughts?

I'm having trouble parseing this.  Are you saying that your expectation is for players to voluntarily move their characters in the direction of some predetermined campaign story arc.  And that one player is a problem because he's doing this too fast?

I got to tell you "player neglects his characters short term goals is disruptive" is a huge red flag to me screaming "danger, danger Will Robinson"

Characters don't have goals.  Players have goals for their character.  Hooking a character is completely useless, because the piece of paper isn't going to play itself.  You have to hook the player.  

It seems to me that you HAVE hooked the player...but not to whatever his "short term goal" is supposed to be.  Sounds like the player isn't all that interested in whatever that "short term goal is" and I shudder to think that you and your group are going to suggest to him that he should be interested in it for the "sake of the group" or some other such thing.

I wonder if the rest of your players really care at all about THEIR short term goals either...or if they are just quietly resigned to having to go through the motions in order to get past it and on to the real stuff.  From the sounds of their uninspired performance in this adventure....I think this is a real possibility.  

Maybe (and I'm saying maybe here for a reason...as something to consider as a possibility) maybe the problem is that your players really want to get to the good stuff, and aren't really interested in wadeing through sessions of filler to get there.  

You have one player who sounds like he'd rather just skip ahead and the rest of the group seems to view your adventure as something to get through and out of as quickly as possible.

All simply speculation based on what I've read here.  But honestly.  If those goals had been tied solidly into this adventure I think it COULD have been quite a stellar adventure.  But the players have to care first.

The definition of "filler" is what the *players* care about.  Not what the GM thinks is important.  If the players really care, then its a core scenario they'll remember for years.  If they don't its filler, regardless of how important it seemed to the GM.





Thanks for the response, this is the type of feedback I was hoping for.
_________________

Thanks Ralph,

This is all good and I'll note it. It reflects the thinking that drew me to the Forge in the first place. My dilemma now becomes how to respond to this without sounding like a petulant child.

I play with a great group. Some of them I've played with since the 8th grade. We know each other and I dare say they are happy with the games I bring to the table.

As of late (past two years) I have suffered some sort of ennui. Both as player and as screenmonkey.

A friend raved about TROS and I followed his lead and bought the game after checking out its website. This led me here and eventually to BW.

To explain my point of view I'll here explain my design philosophy for the current campaign:

Philosophy

I'll start in the background and work my way forward.

In the background there is the overall campaign plot. This is where my game will reach its conclusion. It is the ultimate thread to connect everything, the entire campaign world will be built around this.

Then there is the story arc. This is a part of the overall Campaign plot, but where the Campaign plot is very broad, this is slightly more specific and it leads to a turning point in the above plot. This can be compared to four hobbits going from the Shire to Rivendell. It has its own narrative structure, its own beginning and end with all the chunky bits in the middle.

But this is still at a macro level.

Futher down you them have the Chunky Bits, the stories we communally tell. These stories also have their own plot archs, with beginnings and ends. Built up of yet another layer of Actual play story bits.

So at the bottom lies the actual play part. Here are the things my players deal with. From running from the Draugi to stopping Kaldbane the troll. Each a story with a beginning and an end, each linked to the overall campaign plot through several layers of plots but each single session somehow driving the plot forward.

This is where the challenge lies. For to keep player interest and motivation they have to be driving the plot and not visa-versa. I might have an overall plot, tons of storyarcs within story-arcs, but if I say you must go from A and you have no choice but to end up at B it will be railroading. And there is no quicker interest killer.

I also try to build a theme and a mood into my stories. This relates to both the characters' current situation at the start, and the needs of the overall plot.

Overall this gives me a structure to weave the tale upon, and my goal is to cooprativly create a story of epic proportions that will be fun for all involved (including me).

Back to the discussion.

QuoteAre you saying that your expectation is for players to voluntarily move their characters in the direction of some predetermined campaign story arc

My players are all well aware that there is an overall story arc. It is why I give them all the world information. They are free to act upon this, but it must make sense for their characters to do so. If you had a magic ring, and no idea that it had to be brought to Mount Doom to be destroyed, there would not be any reason for you to travel to Mordor and aformentioned volcano.
When Locklear based on a rumour starts a third degree interrigation of the seeing pool, it is not IC. It is OOC questioning of an NPC. It breaks with the way the rest of us played. (which is something a SIM/NAR mix).
Does this explain the problem better?

QuoteEach of the other players could have had their own tie in to the plot. The crime of Maenid could have been the same as Sir Tengel's crime...making Maenid's redemption symbolic of Tengels. Glirithl may have had access to a portion of the lost magic Calem seeks. Aelcened the scrying pool may have been a popular figure in the lore of an old Knightly Order. Maybe even a source of wisdom for them and part of their early strength. The curse may be denying them access to the pool and this may be why the order is now dying.

You now have 4 of the characters with strong ties to the story ....

This is what I should have done. Here I failed, and thus they failed to lift the curse. Will amend next time. Thanks Ralph.

QuoteHmmm. I must say that the entire idea that one of these choices was "correct" as labeled by the GM, and that the point of the scenario seems to be for the players to find the clues that allowed them to discover which one that was would leave me decidedly cold as a player.

All my current campaign stories have a backstory. This ties in with my aspiration to generate a type of epic setting and mood. And it serves to give the players a feel for the world.
This ties up some of the plot, fair enough, but it also prevents my players from feeling that the outcome of the story is arbitrary and totally based on my whims. Which is the way the social contract works in my group.

The scenario was a failure in the aspect that they made the curse worse. IMO this was not a bad thing as it gave me more options in the future when they deal with these consequences.
For the players this ended like this:
For the mage, the scenario was a success beacuse he got away with an ancient treatise on magic.
The dwarf now carries the garb of the dwarven High King's (long dead) herald.
Locklear is doomed to die alone in a futile battle.
Liam has learned that his missing wife is alive.

Campaign wise they have learned of the rising shadow. Pushing my plot forward. They are also getting to the point where I can start to threaten their "home-base" and give them something to fight for.

We haven't gotten to the start pit yet, and with your advice I am sure my next story will be much better and bring my plot even closer to them. I'll keep you posted.

Glad I could help.  But this one part does have me a bit concerned.

QuoteThis is where the challenge lies. For to keep player interest and motivation they have to be driving the plot and not visa-versa. I might have an overall plot, tons of storyarcs within story-arcs, but if I say you must go from A and you have no choice but to end up at B it will be railroading. And there is no quicker interest killer.

I'm thinking you might be full bore into what is often referred to as "The Impossible Thing to do Before Breakfast".

The Impossible Thing stems from the years of gaming tradition which suggests that the GM controls the story and the players control their characters.

At some point, these are mutual exclusive things.  Either the player's control of their characters break the GM's story, or the GM's story takes all meaningful choice away from the players.

I'm impressed by the depth of your multi level plot arc, but am left wondering what's left for the players to do.  Is their role primarily to ride along via their characters while your story unfolds around them?

Obviously thats not your desire (based on what you wrote above)...but if your players know what they're supposed to do (because you've given them alot of OOC world info) is there not the possibility that they are simply editing their own choices from "what I want to do" to "what Kaare wants me to do".  That they are, in essence, voluntarily riding the rails (something we've called "participationism" here in the past).

I've no doubt that your group overall has enjoyed itself emmensely.  Listening to a skilled story teller is entertaining in its own right.

I'm about to reach quite abit into the bag of speculation here, so forgive me if I'm way off base...but some food for thought.  A possibility to consider.

Perhaps there is so much your players enjoy about your GMing that they are willing to supress their own choices in order to continue to enjoy your story.  All else being equal they might not actually enjoy being passengers on the train, but they are willing to buy a ticket because there is so much that they do enjoy that they'd rather sacrifice and get on board then miss the ride all together.

Perhaps the one player's efforts to act on the OOC knowledge represents a bit of passive aggressive lashing out against the train.  A desire to actually make an impact on the story rather then simply ride along with it.  Your other players reactions may be to view this as disruptive because its spoiling the ride, but they may not be entirely unsympathetic to the desire to actually DO something that isn't already carefully structured through multiple plot layers.

Perhaps your own recent ennui and the lack of spark in your group recently is not so much a failure to use specific techniques, but a growing disatisfaction with the overall style of play.  Not just disastifaction from them, but perhaps you as well.  GMing the way you describe takes a lot of work.  Perhaps you're not as jazzed about mapping out a story for others to participate in as you once were.  It can be alot of fun for the GM to actually put the players in the drivers seat for a while and let them do the heavy lifting while you enjoy and react to them rather than the other way around.


As I say, just speculation and food for thought.  I certainly don't know enough about your group to offer any kind of definitive diagnosis.  But if any of these possibilities sound familiar I'd be happy to go into greater discussion on them.

This thread on Situation Based Play may be of interest as well

Hello,

What Ralph said. I was just about to quote that passage with a bit more of its surroundings:

QuoteThis is where the challenge lies. For to keep player interest and motivation they have to be driving the plot and not visa-versa. I might have an overall plot, tons of storyarcs within story-arcs, but if I say you must go from A and you have no choice but to end up at B it will be railroading. And there is no quicker interest killer.

I also try to build a theme and a mood into my stories. This relates to both the characters' current situation at the start, and the needs of the overall plot.

Overall this gives me a structure to weave the tale upon, and my goal is to cooprativly create a story of epic proportions that will be fun for all involved (including me).

[all emphasis mine]

Well, which is it to be?

Do the protagonist-characters decisions, produced by the players, produce The Plot - which includes resolution, and hence includes theme?

Or does your imposed theme and tale-weaving generate, for all significant intents, the resolutions and outcomes?

If you start with the theme, then you will have to railroad to get it expressed in terms of story-outcome. If you let theme be the final creation, via play itself with the players' decisions driving the resolutions and outcomes via the system, then your role becomes what I call  "bass playing" - you facilitate that outcome.

Most of my writings on this topic may be found in Sorcerer & Sword, the first supplement to my game Sorcerer. My upcoming essay on Narrativist play is predicated on this issue.

Best,
Ron

QuoteI'm impressed by the depth of your multi level plot arc, but am left wondering what's left for the players to do. Is their role primarily to ride along via their characters while your story unfolds around them?

My plot-arcs can be described "simply":
For the next stage to happen they must complete part A (success or failure will give their own unique outcomes). This will lead to part B which will reflect their actions in part A and build upon this.
How they choose to solve the problem in part A will be up to them. I will gently give them pointers, clues, NPC-wisdom, but in the end it is up to them to get to the solution. And there is not one solution, just a set of objectives that much be reached for them to achive something siginficant (read world-scale)against their opposition. How they do determines how steep a hill they have to climb next arc.
At the same time the enemies plan rolls forward, subject to what my players do, yet at the same time he has his objectives that he'll try to reach. Thus the players can, if they so chose react to his moves and try to counter them. But they don't have an evil unseen army to do their bidding and this will make it a so much harder path to chose.
Any clearer?
And now I have two impossible things to do.

QuotePerhaps the one player's efforts to act on the OOC knowledge represents a bit of passive aggressive lashing out against the train.

Disregard any comments about this, I have done what I should started  by doing and spoken to him. Major miscommunication between the two of us. I stand corrected and humbly ask for forgiveness.

QuotePerhaps your own recent ennui and the lack of spark in your group recently is not so much a failure to use specific techniques

This ennui is NOT with my group but with the lack of innovation in the RPG industry. To all at the Forge, you have rekindled my fire. Thank you!

QuoteOr does your imposed theme and tale-weaving generate, for all significant intents, the resolutions and outcomes?

Ah, good point.
Theme: what does my tale highlight? Is it about sacrifice, well then how does that colour the story. (I don't always succede at this)
Weaving was used to describe the framework upon which my players and my threads interact to create the story. Which is a fancy way to say I take input from my players put this up together with what I have planned and let this combination dictate the outcome.

So

QuoteWell, which is it to be?

A mix of the two.

QuoteObviously thats not your desire (based on what you wrote above)...but if your players know what they're supposed to do (because you've given them alot of OOC world info) is there not the possibility that they are simply editing their own choices from "what I want to do" to "what Kaare wants me to do". That they are, in essence, voluntarily riding the rails (something we've called "participationism" here in the past).

He is triksy that one.
The OOC world info is given to create a sense of history.  The famous lost art of magic is really the magic of the True Druids, who vanished from memory during the beginning of the third age. It gives the player controlling Calem a bit more flavour when he seeks it out, though Calem does not know this.
It is to add to the experience of the game and the story.

To summarise a too long reply

My players are playing my game based on a given premise:
This tale is about the end of the third age. Man has lost his virtue, the dvarwes shut their gates, the Elves are lost in their lamenting(and so on). You will be heroes. Will your characters be able to turn the tide or is it too late?.

I have given them a goal and the final question to be answered. These are the rules and the structure. You want to play an evil necromancer hell bent on ending the world. Fine, but not in my game. Not this time.
This has given me Liam, the ranger who seeks his lost wife (discovered between session three and four). When he finds her (big IF Christer) we will deal with the question will he hide from the coming war or will he then join it to save his war. They know the war is coming making this entire question and the time up to it more poignant. And Tengel who needs to deal with his past before it may force him on the wrong side. Amongst and the other four they are no better or worse.

Kaare,

I'd just like to start with the caveat that in the past I've run all my games just like you have. It's only since reading the Forge that I've started to think about my games differently.

Here's what I think Ron, et al are getting at. Let's take the ranger Liam. His Character Story is that he wants to find his wife. Your Campaign Story is:

QuoteThis tale is about the end of the third age. Man has lost his virtue, the dvarwes shut their gates, the Elves are lost in their lamenting(and so on). You will be heroes. Will your characters be able to turn the tide or is it too late?

Those two stories don't really intersect, as far as I can see. Therefore, you're setting up Liam's player for a lack of motivation when the session is all about turning the tide of evil, etc. Unless you start with "Liam's wife was kidnapped by [insert bad guy name], who is the one behind all this badness", Liam is only going to be incidently interested in that plot.

What the Forgites are getting at is that if you start with Liam's story and make that the basis for your adventures, his player will be much more engaged and you'll both have more fun.

That's not to say your "end of the age" idea is bad. Just that it's not the plot, it's the setting. Kinda like in the movie Mad Max, the setting is "end of the age", but the plot is "Max gets revenge". You might re-think your game along those lines.

Hi everyone.

I have played RPGs with Kaare for the past 15 or so years and rpgs with other GMs for almost 20. Out of all the GMs I have played with, Kaare is the one I have enjoyed the most. I'll try to describe the reasons why since I think it is very related to the discussion you are having.

I have not had the pleasure to be a part of Kaares latest Burning Wheel campaign (kids, a wedding to plan and a pregnant wife-to-be will do that to you), but after reading this I wish I had.

All fresh GMs I've played with (including myself when I GM-ed) have done a (to me) fatal mistake. They wrote the whole story before the play session.

"You are at an inn..." stuff happens, GM reads out descriptions from a notebook, get by some evil minions, solve a puzzle or two, kill the evil monster/vampire/wizard/etc with little or no chance of going anywere else. Sometimes the night would end early because we had gone too fast and the GM was out of notes. He had not planed this far.

Granted, some more elaborate than others, but the story was decided beforehand. For me as a player this is not very satisfying. Whenever I realized that we were supposed to get here because the GM had decided so (a plot device, a good idea, some other reason) I got slightly ticked off since it left me with a feeling that the past 2 hours of roleplaying was for naught. We would have ended up there anyway. This is also why I never liked the printed scenarios that you buy in the shops.

Some GMs have been worse than others, some learned slow and some found a Better Way early.

What Kaare has excelled is at having few notes. In the beginning I think he was just pressed for time or lazy, but in the end it became one of his virtues. It forced him to "think on his feet" and our campaigns/sessions became much more "real". We could do more what we wanted, we were sometimes nudged in a direction to facilitate a plot, but if that did not work he would do something else instead.

We did not drive the Kaare Train like Valamir suggests. The players were in the driver's seat of their own story, Kaare was (and is) just very good at inventing the world around us and making that fit into a story that is unfolding around us. We as the players have had our options open to us, we could run and hide (which we sometimes did), hope that what ever was happening did not affect us (which it invariably did) or stand up and face the music.

This is one of his huge strengths. As any mortal man (and some immortal) he as weeknesses too and some of them have been adressed here. I thank you all for putting up this forum and helping me get an even better GM.

As for the reasons I mentioned:

The sessions and campaigns that stand out as excellent and glorious all have some similarities.

1) The party had something really bringing them together. A common greater goal, family ties, a common employer, etc. But there was a strong reason for the players to stick together and help each other. To often the characters have had loose connections, or only connections to one or two characters. If A has sworn servitude to B and C is a companion of B there is no good reason for A and C to work together.

A "thing" in our playgroup lately has been intrigue. The idea being that intrigue between the players was a Cool Thing and that it encouraged Role Playing. I now see this as untrue. At least it did not work for us. Players become more interested in writing notes to the GM and furthering their own goals than the goals of the party. And often the character's goals are completely opposed to the goals of the party. Perhaps we handled it wrong, perhaps it was just a bad idea. It did not work.

Also, often the players have little or nothing bringing them together. Even the old "You're at an inn..." stories have had more team spirit that we had sometimes. At least then we were a bunch of mercenaries all looking for loot. Now the players have complex motivations and deep backgrounds, all well for describing a player and basis for roleplaying, but we have to often forgotten to include a strong motivation for staying together.

2) Players cannot drive the story alone. After having complained a bit with being railroaded the players were put in a completely different scenario. You can basically do what you want. This was fun for a bit, but it quickly lost it's appeal. See also 1). There was nothing driving the session forward. It was like reading Bridget Jones' diary without the funny stuff. In one case the idea was that we should focus on the social intrigue in the setting we were in but we did not do well. When we got some goals and common intrest it got much better. Another thing that made it better is number 3)

3) A threat. The players (and thus the characters) need a reason to do what they do. Survival is a good one. This is not the same as 1) but is deeply connected. Of course we could play characters just on the road looking for happy stuff, but deep down there has to be a threat. Not nessecarily a massive army lead by a witch queen burning your country bit by bit (although that did work well) or a threat to their life, but a conflict or threat that must be faught or avoided. This conflict could be internal in the player too.

4) Some freedom for the players. One of the best campaigns we played was the one with the witch queen (although we never got to play the last session, curse you Kaare! :-). A massive army is invading our lands and we are called upon by the King (or some representative, it's been a while) to perform a task. As patriots we all accept and thus the common goal is set. We had a goal, but it was largely up to us how we wanted to solve it. And more tasks came, some introduced by players, some by NPCs. Kaare offered some clues and hints, but it was ultimatly up to us what we wanted to do about the Threat. Meanwhile the army marched on and things happened around us. We even managed to screw up royally and the King died when we failed a task.

This freedom was perfect. We could do what we wanted, when we wanted it, but our characters had certain obligations and motivations that we would tend to follow. And no one had goals directly conflicting to the party. Well, I ended up as a spy for the witch in the end, but that was only because I was forced to. She stole my heart. Literaly, she kept it in a glass container at her keep and would crush it if I did not do what she wanted. Kaare would nudge us on sometimes with and NPC or some conflict but not railroad us. In this campaign (and several later) I believe he found or came close to a perfect mix of the GM setting a theme and the players producing the story.



These are some of the things that our group have been missing for a while and I think Kaare is starting to find his way back to. As I can read from these posts Kaare is just setting the stage, the Threat is not clear to the players yet. The characters have met, they know each other a bit now, but, as some of you have pointed out, they lack some common goals. "You will be heroes." is not good enough.

But like Kaare says:

QuoteThey are also getting to the point where I can start to threaten their "home-base" and give them something to fight for.

Here is where the campaign will start. He will have characters with goals and beliefs that (hopefully) will unite before this common threat. At the same time the characters (and thus the players) will have their personal motivations that run along side this common goal, not against it.

All in all I believe it will produce a truly great campaign. Time will tell.

Good night everybody! I hope it was not too late in the evening for me to produce a readable post.

Blush.

Loki,

QuoteThose two stories don't really intersect, as far as I can see

Liam's quest to find his wife is tied into the main plot by him stating that she fled from a troll raiding party carrying something. He dosen't know what but he fears she has been killed (he just learned she has not passed over).

Even if they did not intersect, the dilemma Liam(and his player) would face would be:
The world is ending, do I try to hide with me wife until we are subjugated by evil and killed. Or do I risk death to fight for what I care about (my wife). This conflict is dramatic dynamite.
And who said his wife is passive, this player has already indicated she is involved.

QuoteWhat the Forgites are getting at is that if you start with Liam's story and make that the basis for your adventures, his player will be much more engaged and you'll both have more fun.

I get this, and I do not disagree.

However I do not belive "GM plot" and "player plot" is mutually exclusive.

My assumtion is that a GM has overall narrative responsibility.
The players bring their motivation and inspiration to the table, the GM his overarcing plot and together they create the story. The GM nudges and guides, introduces twists, and ties it all together.

It is a matter of perspective, and I love a good discussion.