So, with school and work it has been more and more difficult to make time to play around my area with the regular group. I ended up looking up the local University gaming group and sat in on a session of D&D. It was interesting for a number of reasons:

1. I saw myself. The same groping for meaning and motivation that i struggled with within role playing for a long time, the lack of realization of the fact that i was looking for "something more."
2. I was able to observe a role playing group that was in its "raw" state with the outlook i have developed on the Forge. I saw elements of dysfunctional play, i was able to analyze Stances and (to a lesser extent) Creative Agendas in choices made. I was able to see where the system failed the players and where it really shined. It is often hard for me to observe this sort of thing as a player, but as an observer it was quite interesting and informative.

In the 2.5 hours that i was there we ran through:

-A brief explaination of the world for me.
-A recap of the current situation.
-A fight.
-The aftermath.

The most telling thing for me was the fight itself which i will try to elaborate on. First the DM had all characters roll Spot and Listen (10 characters i believe) and then some of us spotted this robotic scout thing. Everyone who spotted it rolled initiative to see if they could act before it ran away. One character had higher initiative and managed to grab it. Elapsed real-time: approx. 20 minutes. Then we had another round of Spot and Listen rolls to see if we spotted our enemy for this session. Initiative was rolled and everyone got to it. The last attack of Round 1 killed our opponent (critical hit). Elapsed real-time for combat: approx. 1 hour. Then we got a list of loot from the enemy and begin breaking it down and analyzing what we could of the magical stuff. Elapsed real-time for loot: approx. 30 minutes.

So in the two and a half hours i was there almost two hours was taken up by a fight and its attendant stuff. This really did not seem to satisfy any of the CAs very well: 1. There was not any tactical thinking, no one was Stepping Up here. 2. There was a hint of story behind the enemy (he was the minion of someone, that was clear), but two hours was far more than should have been spent here for the purpose of story. 3. We did get some interesting "that's what my guy would do" decisions in combat which were interesting, however with only one decision per character it was not really very interesting.

I got the very strong impression that these people got together and role played because they wanted to tell stories together. And they did so to some degree. It just seemed that they thought that this was pretty much as good as it could get, and in seeing that in them i remembered myself. It was interesting to see how my views have changed and my expectations have evolved.

Now i tend to agree with Ron that you should really be role playing with people who are your friends first, but in this instance i have this desire to expand some horizons. I realize that i might get burned, that they may not be as excited about what i have to show them as i am, but i want to try. With that in mind i am strongly considering putting together a game of one of the following and seeing what happens:

1. HeroQuest
2. Prime Time Adventure
3. FATE

Does anyone else have any suggestions? I am looking for games that have a note of familiarity somewhere in them. Superficially FATE and HeroQuest look like a strange form of "classic" role playing games, and who does not watch TV?

So, advice and feedback on all of this are welcome, and hopefully sometime in the next month i will be able to report a little bit of what i have learned through all of this.

Thomas

Hiya,

Thomas, that's really interesting. That was with ten other people, right? Were most or all of them university students? Were any of them notably older?

Also, I should clarify some of my points about Social Context, but they're often mis-interpreted. Some people say "Ron says you should play with friends," others say, "Ron says you shouldn't play with friends," and I'm pretty sure the actual hit-rate of grasping my point about that is pretty low.

So here goes.

1. Role-playing does not replace or function as friendship.

1'. Like all social leisure activities, it works very well as an arena of friendship.

2. One should strive to role-play with others whom one considers at least eligible for friendship, if they aren't already.

2'. One should not role-play with others with whom one would not be friends outside of the context of play.

3. Friends can still be friends and not role-play together.

3'. Role-playing or not role-playing with someone should neither define nor threaten friendship.

I hope that helps to clarify where I'm coming from about this.

Best,
Ron

Thanks for the clarification Ron. I think that i had grasped most of that, but there were some points that i was definately misinterpreting.

As to the group it was an interestingly (and for me suprisingly) mixed bag. In fact, if i had to guess i would say that attendence was split close to 1/3 college students and 2/3's alumni... In fact the game seemed to be driven (GMed, most active players, etc.) by the older people with the younger people seeming to be, at least partially, along for the ride. That said i do not believe i spent enough time with them to really determine where a relationship might/might not progress. I guess i will get something going and see where things go from there...

Thomas

Well, coming at this from a "have played AD&D with 9 people in high-school" as well angle, I can totally relate to what happened in your situation.

Remarkably, now that I look back on those games, I realise our 'tyrant' GM of that time, that would seem to play favorite, ignore the rulebook at his leisure, etc., actually often prevented the combat situation you mentioned - he basically highlighted the 'fun bits' (at the expense of some players who were ignored) and then tossed something else into the arena, highlighting some others. I won't say he didn't sometimes play favorites, but at least the pace was a whole lot higher.

Something else you mention also happened - each player had to make sure that they got the most out of the small timeslice they, out of necessity, got. The people that had the most fun weren't the tactical players (relatively small impact to make and very few moments to make it in) but the players that went for 'this is affecting my guy in this way, so I'll now do this'.

I have 2 very seperate recommendations. One would be to break up the group into 2 groups of 5 or such. This will give everyone a bigger timeslice and allow stronger personal relationships to form. On the other hand, we so very very rarely have the luxury of a large player group (at least, I've rarely seen it), if you want to run with that, I suggest you try to find a game that's designed to cater to large groups and run with that - unfortunately, I cannot help you there, but others perhaps can?

Good luck with it.

THe reason the whole thing took so long was due to the extreme number of people playing. Some games can handle ten players; DnD really can't. It works best with between three and five players, below and above that it breaks down unless the DM tailors the game very carefully.

Didn't anyone suggest breaking up into two groups? Or does this group have the DM shortage that seems so prevalent in DND circles?

A little bit of clarification is probably needed. We had ten characters played by 6 players. I realize that my earlier posts may have been confusing that issue. Now, that is not to say that two seperate groups would not have been good... They came right out and said that the problem was GM shortage. Their most prolific GM is leaving the group (reasons unclear and of a personal nature apperently). She happened to be there that night and seemed to be one of the more "dynamic" players (very involved, good at aquiring and using the spotlight).

Anyway, the more i read about PTA the more i think that it might be the most appropriate game... The question is should i run something a couple of short games until it comes out so that i can gauge their mood and ease them into some different play styles...?

Thomas

One thought on too many players and splitting into two groups...

This may not always work. I have done so in the past, and what ended up is that the group that got my prime game time of Saturday survived, and the other that got a weekday evening died out. A better solution to splitting of course is two GMs, but there is still the problem that the second group may not do so well. Large groups form when there is a dynamic GM (for whatever reason - I always wonder why I have been occiasionally successefull at attracting a large group of players - I certainly don't run the types of games that I hear people talking about as "you really should find the opportunity to play in George's game!"). In such a case, if the 2nd GM doesn't have the same style, that group may not do well (of course it might also flourish if the 2nd GMs different style is also attractive). A dynamic player can be a key sometimes also.

Of course six players running ten characters is different. Six isn't a huge group (though it is more than D20 is really desingned for). In this case, the ten characters may be the problem. Running two D&D characters requires a lot of thought shift that can slow down play.

Of course there's also the fact that a tactical combat system will simply take a while to run. I think an hour for a "good fight" is hard to improve on. Having choices to make equates to time to make them and implement the results. The key if you want to use a tactical combat system, and don't want combat to dominate the game, is to make sure a session only has one or two combats.

Frank

Hi Thomas,

I think we're getting a littl econfused as to what your goals are relative to the real live role-players you're talking about.

Are you trying to join the group as it currently exists?

Are you trying to become the GM for the group?

Are you looking for players with whom you'd like to play?

For example, Frank, it may not be important at all to Thomas whether "the group" survives as a whole. From my perspective, anyway, your two-group split story is a success, because you ended up with a smaller and happier group, and the one that couldn't get its shit together evaporated.

So Thomas, let us know a bit more about the goals in question, so people don't inadvertently project their own priorities and assumptions into discussing your observations.

Best,
Ron

Hm. I guess i have been a little obtuse regarding what i would like to accomplish here. I have two primary purposes, i believe that the first has slightly higher priority than the second:

1. Education. I would like to take an oppurtunity to introduce these people to some of the games i have run into on the Forge. Hopefully i will be able to generate for them experiences similar to the ones i have had since my introduction to "indie" games. I guess i want to show them what is possible.

2. Parnership. I would like to find a group to play with regularly. The group i am with currently is small and though we get together a lot we do not play all that often. I am by no means looking for a replacement. What i would like is a chance to experiment, see how other people play, get their reactions to all this Creative Agenda, Stance, Social Contract stuff. So, i want a chance to play with people who i have not played with before and see what comes of it.

I hope that clarifies things somewhat. That said, the goal for whatever i do (in terms of GMing a game) for them at least initially is one of education. I want to introduce them to some new concepts, specifically:

-Player Narration
-Kickers/Bangs
-Player input on scene framing
-Conflict (as opposed to task) resolution

In addition, if i can get it, i would like to introduce:

-Joint game setup
-Player awarded advancement (instead only GM awarded)

I hope that that clears up my goals somewhat. If more clarification is needed/desired feel free to ask. In addition any input in terms of what games/styles meet my goals in your own experience is greatly appreciated, especially if you can give me examples of what worked and why.

Thomas

Hi Thomas,

My suggested games include InSpectres, The Mountain Witch, The Great Ork Gods, My Life with Master, Elfs, and Fudge FATE. In GNS terms, I suggest that these all offer fast and punchy G and N preferences (should be easy to see which is which) without getting too far away from roll-for-it familiarity. Actually, add Dread too for a little easy-buy-in Sim.

I also suggest some not-quite-RPGs like Once Upon a Time. The more avant-garde stuff like The Pool, Primetime Adventures, Wuthering Heights, HeroQuest, Pace, Trollbabe, Dust Devils, or Universalis might be too hardcore for them if they haven't tried something like this card game first. But I don't know these people and you do, so that's your call.

If these are too freaky, though, then I suggest the Burning Wheel, The Dying Earth, Pocket Universe, or even RQ: Slayers. All of these have a pretty straightforward approach ("my guy tries to hit him") in addition to some very solid new-type thinking.

It's totally up to you whether you want to throw them in the deep end, which works best when the game has a lot of humor in it (InSpectres e.g.), or grade them in nicely with a bit of "yes, you do control your character" in the middle of a more familiar context (e.g. Burning Wheel).

However, I do want to provide some strictly social advice - you'll have to judge whether some or all of these folks are role-playing in order to hang out together, or whether some or all of them are role-playing because they specifically want to do this.

That's a big deal. If the group is mainly the former, then your input could well become a threat to them, in which case you're best off pirating the few like-minded individuals away and starting your own group with them. If it's mainly the latter, then it's safer ground for you to insert some alternative sorts of play.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron,

You don't mention Trollbabe. Do you think it might be too freaky? It's got some of the clearest scene-request and player "narration" rules I've read. (Low points of contact, I think its called).

Did too mention Trollbabe.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: [...snip] However, I do want to provide some strictly social advice - you'll have to judge whether some or all of these folks are role-playing in order to hang out together, or whether some or all of them are role-playing because they specifically want to do this.

That's a big deal. If the group is mainly the former, then your input could well become a threat to them, in which case you're best off pirating the few like-minded individuals away and starting your own group with them. If it's mainly the latter, then it's safer ground for you to insert some alternative sorts of play.

Best,
Ron

Hi Thomas,

I was just about to offer some specific game suggestions, but Ron beat me to the punch.

I'll settle for echoing one of his suggestions, FATE. I think this is a relatively easy transition form D&D, and the way in which Aspects are awarded over time is reminiscent of a 'levelling' mechanic, which may help.

I'd probably avoid the detailed weapon and armour rules option though. The idea is to use the time saved running combats to introduce some of the concepts you mentioned in the last post.

One other bonus is the ability to have 'retainers' as Aspects of the main character. It sounds as if the group likes multiple characters, and using this feature may help to reduce handling time further.

Two further (and hopefully, unnecessary) bits of advice:

1. One Step At A Time. Don't take them too far out of their comfort zone, if they like what you are doing, you can always give them more of it next time.

2. People usually like to be shown Cool New Things. They don't usually take so well to being Educated.

Whatever you decide to do, best of luck! I'd love to know how it works out.

Regards,

Doug

Doug Ruff wrote: [...snip]
2. People usually like to be shown Cool New Things. They don't usually take so well to being Educated.
[snip...]

You're welcome.... I usually need reminding lots!

You know, I don't think a new rule set is going to help with the group's problems much.

I've been reading over the original post, and if I have things right it took the group 2 hours to go through 3 rounds of very simple action. 1 round of spot checks, tacking the critter, 1 round of combat. That should be half an hour max, and more like 10-15 minutes for an experienced group. Even with 6 people, it shouldn't take 2 hours.

Did they not know know the basic rules? <snark> I doubt anybody knows the full D&D ruleset <\snark> but this isn't the Gnomic Rocketry Feats here.

If they've been playing so long I figure they must know the basic rules. My uninformed guess is that they spend a lot of time dithering and figuring out what to do. Maybe what they need is a GM that will have a stronger hand. "What are you doing NOW?"

I wonder if also some players tend to hog the spotlight, so action gets delayed while players check with the alpha players. You might be able to address this by telling players they don't have time to consult with each other. They need to act now.

This approach may break the group's implicite social contract, but in a good may. Tell them the group can't get to the good stuff unless it blasts though the little stuff.

Can you tell us more as to why the group took 2 hours over fairly trivial matters?

eef wrote: Can you tell us more as to why the group took 2 hours over fairly trivial matters?

I don't really have much to add in terms of helping you out, but I do have an observation which is related, and might be 'sort of interesting'.

For the past two years I've been involved in the Neverwinter Nights community, playing DM'ed games of Neverwinter Nights. One of the interesting aspects of that community is the 'role-playing world view' you encounter there. It's very different to rpg.net, the forge and even ENWorld. A core of the people there who have played tabletop role-playing games before have only really played D&D - and many of them like NWN better for exactly the reasons you describe in your posts.

In NWN they feel they can get on with the story and not have a fight take three hours - this is a common reason why NWN is said to be better (among a few immersion issues).

So I think the issue your describe can be quite common among D&D players.