So after spending a long weekend preparing for my Fudge Tekumel campaign, I've having a crisis of faith. I'm feeling like I'm doing the wrong thing.

I'm not even sure this is the right forum for this...

Partly what it feels like is that I've been designing a game, which is something I enjoy, but isn't really what I want to do right now. This is happening because I want more structure from my game than vanilla Fudge provides, so I've been busy writing up skill lists, combat mechanics, magic systems, reward systems, etc. It feels like I've just taken a few mechanics from Fudge (and a mechanic from FATE and an idea from The Riddle of Steel) and writing a game system using them.

In part this is happening because of a bad reaction from two of the players to my college friend's system (ok, I keep talking about this, I need to start referring to it by name - Cold Iron).

If I was doing Cold Iron Tekumel, I would just be spending time meshing between Cold Iron's magic system and Tekumel's perception of magic (which isn't a perfect mesh, but could be done). Oh, the combat system might need a few weapons and armor defined. The skill system might need some work (Cold Iron doesn't really have a skill system).

But another part of the problem is that after being exposed to TROS, I've been giving a lot of thought to introducing a deeper level of play into my games. Cold Iron might not really support that, but neither does Fudge without some work (FATE comes close, but I have other issues with FATE).

I wonder, perhaps I should run one of the existing Tekumel games, but they all have aspects I don't like about them. I really wish Guardian's of Order's Tekumel was out, that might be a simpler solution (I could almost buy into the Tri-Stat system).

So where do I go? I spent half of the weekend looking at other things, other systems (even read Sorcerer - neat system but not what I want for this game). I like to run combats, but I also want a system that supports exploration of the campaign material available for Tekumel. The character's choice of religion needs to be relevant. I will probably even get some political intrigue going on (something I have shied away from in the past - but is an integral part of Tekumal).

Part of me feels like I should step back and cancel the planned character creation session coming up on Sunday, but I really don't want to lose momentum (I'm way to good at losing momentum and abandoning projects).

One thing I am having reinforced by my participation here is to be intentional about what and how I play. It's not ecxactly a new lesson for me, but it's a lesson I keep needing to relearn.

Thanks for any encouragement, thoughts, or whiplashings you can contribute...

Frank

Hi Frank,

I would suggest going ahead with what you've got. View it as an experiment for four or five sessions, to test how well what you've cobbled together approximates how you'd like play to be.

Be up front with the players: let them know this is what you're doing and ask them to participate.

It might also be wise, before character creation, to start with a discussion of play expectations: How familiar are the players with the milieux? Why play in Tekumel? What elements attract the individual players? Do they want to experience being characters in an alien culture, are there fascinating value choices to be made within the situation, do they like the opportunity to meet wierd new monsters?

After playing your month or two of sessions, you can take a break, reassess how things went, make changes, try again later . . .

I think my problem is that I'm just not finding what I want out of Fudge. I'm also frustrated because I really don't have a group of players. I have one player who has potential. I have another player who fills a seat, and contributes to the game, but doesn't really make the game. I have a third player who for all practical purposes just takes up space. The kid is the only one who has shown any excitement over the setting.

If my interest is to explore the setting, I've got the wrong group.

That was why I tried this thread on How to describe my play style.

Frank

Personally, I think the problem is largely with the group of people you describe much more than with the system. In a group with a conflict of goals, the dominant person usually winds up driving the game's direction. In this group, it sounds like the father is doing just that (assuming you're still dealing with the same group you describe in your last post). There needs to be a sort of negotiation between the two of you so that you can settle on a more unified outlook for the game. You may find that you just need to move on.

That said, I'll echo Alan's advice to just plunge ahead. At best, you can sort out the differences in style and at worst, it'll be what it has been. However, I do have a few things I'd recommend:

First, try pre-generated (or at least partially-generated) characters. Tie these people together and to the setting. If the players are all a family, it might be interesting to try casting them in their own roles, but in a fantasy setting. My first thought is to give the group authority over a limited area - petty nobles ruling a few hundred peasants, captains of the four ships in a small merchant fleet or whatever. Define some basic roles based on what you know of their characters and provide skills and equipment as you see fit. Then, let them finish fleshing out the personalities and backgrounds amongst themselves - keep asking questions like "How did you become a merchant captain?" or "How did you meet your wife?"

(pregens should also simplify the equipment and skill list issues you're having).

Second, give them some investment in the setting. Most GMs try to present a pre-generated setting and expect players to care; most don't. From your history, I see that you mostly use book settings, which is fine, but let the players customize elements. For example, ask them "What is the floorplan of your house like?" "Where is it located?" Use this information to start a map of the village/ships/whatever. Then ask some multiple choice questions to establish history. "Ten years ago, your people faced a draught. Did you tough it out? Move down the valley with those snooty low-landers? Ask the elves for help?" "Five years ago, there was a huge raise in taxes. Would you have illegally hidden goods, paid the taxes, or find income that wouldn't be taxed?" (obviously, whatever makes sense for the people and region). In essence, do some macro-roleplaying. Make sure to focus questions on each person so that they have to respond.

Third, if you think the group is up for it, ask them to define a personal goal for their character. Do they want to find true love? A lost heirloom? Prove their greatness by killing a monster? Buy their way out of slavery? Negotiate a truce between friends? Require that the goals have a clear end condition - "Get rich" is not as good as "Buy my own farm." You can use questions to draw out specific conditions ("How rich is rich?" or "What do you want money for?") Now, use these goals in upcoming scenarios, perhaps focusing on a single goal for each game (thus hopefully forcing a different player into the limelight each time). This may help get you the emotional or Narrativist stuff you were talking about in the other thread, but it's also a sound Sim or Gam technique, so it's very flexible. The choices people make here will say a lot about what they want.

Doing this has two advantages. First, it gives people a starting point (and in published settings, that's essential given their size). By dictating the starting point, you can ensure that you're at least somewhat interested in the options available and by getting their input, you make sure they're at least somewhat interested. Second, the act of creating history, maps, conflicts etc gives the people an investment. It's not a magic bullet, of course, and won't pull everyone out of their shell, but it's worked for me often enough to be worth using again.

Justin,

Thanks for the ideas. You are definitely right about the players much of the problem, which is one reason I was looking to recruit some new players. I seem to have three committed players, which leaves at least a little room to grow. None of the players are such a problem that I would un-invite them, though you are right about the father's dominance. There are three separate families involved in the original game (plus two totally unrelated players) mother-son, father-daughter, husband-wife. The son, the husband, and the wife are the committed players. I suspect/hope the mother will become involved once the election is over.

You are certainly right about the overwhelming nature of the type of published settings I like. I have been thinking about doing a session of Universalis to allow the players a structured way to provide input on the upcoming campaign.

Pregenerated characters does have some appeal, though it also is taking away from the player's choices. If I did the Universalis idea, I could use the output of that to generate characters.

The personal goal bit is what attracted me to The Riddle of Steel and it's Spiritual Atttributes. Providing metagame mechanics to make it worth the player to define some goals seems valuable. I always have trouble getting goals out of players. I got annoyed at the father when he had not communicated any goals, and then suddenly balked at an adventure because it didn't pay enough. Players need to have a say, but they also need to say what they need to say. Non-communication doesn't make a game.

But I'm still left with my sudden lose of confidence in Fudge. The existing Fudge implementations don't do it for me, and I'm really not in the mood for designing a whole game right now (which is what I feel is happening with Fudge - I'm trying to turn it into the game I want to play - I'd be better off playing the game I want to play).

And maybe the answer is I need to give more serious thought to the compromise position of RuneQuest/Glorantha. All three players are interested/willing to play that. But my "want to do something new" is really being activated by Tekumel. Plus, the current fan interest in Tekumel is closer to what I'm interested in as opposed to the fan interest in Glorantha is down the Hero Quest line.

Frank

ffilz wrote: You are certainly right about the overwhelming nature of the type of published settings I like. I have been thinking about doing a session of Universalis to allow the players a structured way to provide input on the upcoming campaign.

Pregenerated characters does have some appeal, though it also is taking away from the player's choices. If I did the Universalis idea, I could use the output of that to generate characters.

Hmm, good point on the voting not getting anywhere... There's also a point to consider about offering a vote, and then ignoring it (though there's also a difference between a vote and a straw poll).

My only reservation on TROS is that the SAs don't work as well with Gamists around (in my limited experience anyway).