Well, I ran my new D&D 3E campaign on saturday night and things didn't go quite like I had hoped.

The main problems was that I wanted the players to concentrate on their own character's story along with the overall story. I had the players write out backgrounds for their characters and everyone seemed pretty happy with their characters and fealt a connection with them.

Well, I started the session giving each player a scene with their character. Most of the players really enjoyed being able to do stuff that was centered on their character. The problem was that when I was running a scene for one player the other players could care less about that player's story and got bored (but they seemed pretty interested when it came to their turn).

At first I thought that it just wasn't going to work out and that they weren't into character exploration, but later on a few of the players suggested that we run their individual stuff over email or ICQ instead of on Saturdays when everyone is together. We came to the conclusion that having six players left too much time between a character's scenes.

I am wondering how I can get everyone interested in each other's personal stories? I have plans to tie all of their personal stories into the "whole" story, but if I can't get everyone interested in what the other players are doing maybe I'm just wasting my time.

Things seamed to flow much smoother when everyone was together fighting mosters (which I reluctantly resorted to), but according to the survey I had the players fill out, that is the least interesting part of the game for them.

Am I doing something wrong or is 6 players and 1 DM too many people for this type of campaign? or maybe they're just lieing to me

,Matt

Well this would depend on the kind of game you're envisioning playing and how tightly scripted the unique scenes are. But one method thats been used with great success in a variety of games is to make the other players participants in the other player's scene.

In many D&D games when the party would split up I'd have then non present players run the "bad guys" for the inevitable monster encounter. This worked really well, and the other players were far nastier to each other than I would have been.

Also if you don't already have an agenda for certain scenes letting the other players run key NPCs can work, especially if the scene is a player initiated one. If player A wants an audience with the king to ask for a boon let player B be the king, and player C be a royal advisor (one who is known to not really like the party anyway), and player D be the King's daughter who might be convinced to help...I've run scenes like this in even the most old school games (I guess you could call it stealth player authority because none of us figured we were doing anything unique) and often times the DM can just sit back and relax and watch the players entertain each other.

Of course Ars Magica formalized the troupe concept. Ultimately if the individual sessions are too tight to allow other players to scramble them up with their involvement, let the other players roll up a cast of "supporting characters" and side kicks to use while the spot light is on one of the primaries. I've done this before in D&D too when 1 player would repeatedly want to go off on "Theives Guild" business. I eventually had all the other players roll up minor theives and thugs of the guild so they could all participate in robbing the rich wizard's tower.

Hey Matt,

I don't think the issue is the amount of time between a character's scenes. Read my post here.

Paul

In many D&D games when the party would split up I'd have then non present players run the "bad guys" for the inevitable monster encounter. This worked really well, and the other players were far nastier to each other than I would have been.

Also if you don't already have an agenda for certain scenes letting the other players run key NPCs can work, especially if the scene is a player initiated one.

I don't think the issue is the amount of time between a character's scenes.

Matt,

What's wrong with the players' suggestion that you guys do most of the individual/Exploratory stuff on-line? Character Exploration focused play sets the internal experience as the priority, and it strikes me that the suggestion is valid, based on the goals you all have agreed upon.

In other words, from this perspective, you all have to "play together" because the characters are together in the imaginary game-space, which requires the real people to be interacting with one another. When the characters aren't together, then the players are just as well off not being in the same room.

There is no way to make the players interested in one another's characters. They have to do that, in both directions, and for that to happen, they have to want to do it.

I guess I'm saying you can't have it both ways. If the goal is to "feel one's character," then yes, waiting while someone else gets the necessary input to do this is boring, and you guys should take some proportion of this activity on-line, and do "characters are together" material in face-to-face play. If the goal is to "entertain one another via our characters," in a thematic way, then deliberate and explicit metagame interactions about that are necessary (ie Narrativist play).

My impression was that you were playing mainly toward the first priority (Simulationist/Character). Again, if so, then I agree with the on-line solution, and suggest putting the "get everyone interested in one another's characters" idea aside.

Best,
Ron

What's wrong with the players' suggestion that you guys do most of the individual/Exploratory stuff on-line?

In other words, from this perspective, you all have to "play together" because the characters are together in the imaginary game-space, which requires the real people to be interacting with one another. When the characters aren't together, then the players are just as well off not being in the same room.

There is no way to make the players interested in one another's characters. They have to do that, in both directions, and for that to happen, they have to want to do it.

Hi Matt,

Well, let's hold on one minute here ...

"Doing things so they'll be best for the story," given that the GM is steward of the story, is Simulationist (of a given sort).

But that's GNS talk, and we're really talking about concrete play. So I'll stick with that.

It seems to me that the question goes like this. If you're actually playing, and running a scene, and XYZ is happening with someone's character, how can the other players be shown that what is happening is important to their characters?

1) Utilize NPCs and events to "cut across" characters, including secondary or truly irrelevant details. If character A talks to the milkmaid, have the milkmaid walk through the room during character B's scene, for no reason. If character B casts a spell, have someone gossip about it during character C's scene.

2) Some of the effects described in #1 will, of course, not be irrelevant at all. Think of the most important reactions of NPCs (like the shopkeeper you mentioned) - and have aspects or details of their reactions appear nearly continuously through the scenes of different characters, as background if not centrally.

3) Go for the spectacular - what can each character "do"? Provide the most challenging, interesting opponent or problem for that character, playing specifically to his or her strengths.

4) Most importantly, don't waste time. Learn that system cold and fly dazzlingly fast through dice rolls, modifiers, movement rates, and terrain description. Use a dry-erase board for set pieces, don't say "um," point to a player and demand response, and move to someone else if they're not quick enough.

All of the above were my most potent weapons as an Illusionist Champions GM. #1 became a Narrativist tool later, although used in a different way.

Best,
Ron

All the above advice is sound and good, if it applies at the road-surface level. To me it sounds like a lot of assumptions are being made that I personally can't see. Normally, I wouldn't put something like this up, because of a strict, 'walk the walk' policy, so....

Basically? Get the other players involved. I don't really care how, just stop trying to look at it in terms of getting the players involved in the other character's stories, let that happen naturally (the only way it'll ever happen anyway, you can't force it).

I do it basically in one of three ways. The first, and possibly hardest, is captivating presentation; just be a good 'storyteller' and have your words 'keep' them. (I said it wasn't easy, but I usually depend on pacing and 'when all else fails run an action scene.') The second is the obvious, 'have them play the other characters in those scenes' sort of thing.

The last has to do with a technique I am developing for Scattershot called 'Exposure.' Whenever I see a character write-up, in whatever game system and playing mode, I look for Exposure. I guess the simplest way to describe Exposure is anything the player is unconsciously (or consciously) 'throwing out' character hooks with. What 'counts' as Exposure varies from playing style to playing style, from GNS mode to GNS mode, but it must alway serve the style, mode, or whatever you play.

If a player takes a near superhuman rating and has an 'experienced' character, I take it that there will either be some kind of subtle reputation or something that will draw special note from all present whenever used. If a player puts anything into their history, I expect to play on it at least referentially. This all seems part and parcel with the preliminary stuff you've already done.

What the technique of Exposure does is make the specific 'hooks' more explicit in your thinking. These are the strings that you have to bring into other player's personal character stories. If one player's character is interested in finding something out, lay some of the clues out in another's 'personal' time, even though they can't use this knowledge directly, it will most likely get their attention. You know, if one is 'looking for the Maltese Falcon,' simply give it to a different, yet completely unknowing, character; just watch how closely the first player attends the second's character's story.

Some forms of Exposure also qualify as weaknesses for the character; be exceptionally careful using these. Constantly casually throwing others' characters in jeopardy is poor play. Revealing these weaknesses in play centered on another player's character becomes a tantalizing (and hopefully empty) threat that will also get their player's attention.

The real trick with Exposure is becoming conversant with things a player doesn't realize they have as Exposure in their character and not overdoing it. Both are very subtle, both should remain so. What Exposure does for you here is it gives you 'threads' to pull into a story they appear unrelated to that will result in interest on the part of the other players (whose characters the 'threads' are 'attached' to).

Before I forget, Exposure works both ways. It comes from the personal stories for the characters and is used to fuel those stories, and it also lets you 'attach' characters together in a 'destined to work together' or 'small world' sort of way.

Fang Langford
(Who apologizes if this is hard to follow, I've had a horrid influenza for five days and the meds make the world spin and spin and spin.)

1) Utilize NPCs and events to "cut across" characters, including secondary or truly irrelevant details. If character A talks to the milkmaid, have the milkmaid walk through the room during character B's scene, for no reason. If character B casts a spell, have someone gossip about it during character C's scene.

2) Some of the effects described in #1 will, of course, not be irrelevant at all. Think of the most important reactions of NPCs (like the shopkeeper you mentioned) - and have aspects or details of their reactions appear nearly continuously through the scenes of different characters, as background if not centrally.

Fang Wrote

I do it basically in one of three ways. The first, and possibly hardest, is captivating presentation; just be a good 'storyteller' and have your words 'keep' them. (I said it wasn't easy, but I usually depend on pacing and 'when all else fails run an action scene.') The second is the obvious, 'have them play the other characters in those scenes' sort of thing.

I guess the simplest way to describe Exposure is anything the player is unconsciously (or consciously) 'throwing out' character hooks with.

This all seems part and parcel with the preliminary stuff you've already done.

Eloran wrote:
Am I doing something wrong or is 6 players and 1 DM too many people for this type of campaign?

Matt,

I have another comment. In many ways, this thread has been something of a bait-and-switch. You opened it with questions about GMing technique, with the only reference to the players being that they are not necessarily interested in one another's playing-time.

Then a few posts later, we learn that (a) one player did not prepare at all, and you allowed him to play anyway; (b) another did not prepare and (functionally) lied about it, and you permitted him to continue to play; and (c) players frequently practice "mess with other players' characters" as an ongoing part of play.

In other words, there's a lot of stuff going on here, far more deeply significant than "gee, how can I get them to pay attention to one another's scenes." Please note, I do not necessarily consider (c) above to be dysfunctional. I do think that you have an ideal for how these people should be playing, and approaching playing, and at least some of them do not accord with that ideal - and your solution is to continue to pretend that they do, hoping they somehow "change" to meet it one day. We can't help you with that; clearly, the only real-world solutions are to adjust your ideal or to adjust the composition of the group.

Best,
Ron

In many ways, this thread has been something of a bait-and-switch. You opened it with questions about GMing technique, with the only reference to the players being that they are not necessarily interested in one another's playing-time.

Then a few posts later, we learn that (a) one player did not prepare at all, and you allowed him to play anyway; (b) another did not prepare and (functionally) lied about it, and you permitted him to continue to play

I do think that you have an ideal for how these people should be playing, and approaching playing, and at least some of them do not accord with that ideal - and your solution is to continue to pretend that they do, hoping they somehow "change" to meet it one day.

Hi Matt,

I must tell you that phrases including, "... it makes me feel like you think I was ..." are not going to be useful in discussions with me. I'm very straightforward - if I'd considered you to have been deceptive, I would have said so (probably privately, and told you to stop). The effect of the thread was bait-and-switch; whether it just worked out that way, or what, is irrelevant.

Your latest post leaves me further in the dark. Are the players according with your goals (enough), or aren't they? It's not a matter of degree. Either the amount of overlap among everyone's priorities of play is functional, or it isn't.

Fang, Paul, Ralph, Mike, and I represent a broad spectrum of approaches to play. We've offered quite a lot of stuff to consider, and I know you put a lot of time and effort into preparing. At this point, I'm very interested in your game (as you know, we talked all about being in-between Narrativist and Simulationist goals and how to deal with that), so please don't take my terseness for personal criticism. Go for that second session, and keep us posted.

Best,
Ron

Well, I ran the second session of my game on Saturday and I have to say it went much better than the previous one.

I ran the game quite similar to last week, but did some crossovers between each character's story. It worked out pretty well as far as keeping people interested. We were also short one player so I think that sped things up a little.

We also had a couple scenes that we desided would be better played out privately.

More of the main story came to light and I think the players were pretty intrigued with what was happening. the bard was going crazy because she had no idea who to trust and the paladin was completely frustrated trying to keep the other character's morals in check. It was pretty entertaining.

The few problems we did have all revolved around the one problem player I mentioned before. For starters, he guessed that the cult of the dragon was the main villain. Props to him for figuring it out, but he didn't have to announce it OOC to everyone. I'm contemplating altering the story to keep the players guessing, but I don't know if I'd be doing it just to spite him. The only thing that really pissed me off was that he spent about 50% of the session playing games on his palm pilot. In part I guess it's my fault for not giving him stuff to keep his attention, but I refuse to load the game down with combat just to satisfy one player.

I do think there is hope for him however. There was a moment when I thought I was drawing him in, but alas I failed. There were two NPCs that he included in his background: his mother and the weapons master that trained him. His character was actually living with his mother and the one scene he had with her showed him to be kind of a momma's boy of sorts. So, of course, this week I had her kidnapped by the villains. The villains tried to make a deal with him. He was to keep his group distracted from their current investigation. In exchange he would be rewarded financially and his mother would be spared.

I could see it in his face that he wanted to care about what was happening. It was frustrating because I could literally see him convince himself that she was already dead and there was no need to let his charcater get emotional about it. Is that kind of pesamistic attitude a standard fixture amoung Gamists?

By the end of the session he did betray the party by giving the villains valuable information about the investigation, but I think it was more for the money than his mother's life.

I'm not sure quite what to do now. I think I need to prove to him that his mother is still alive and that her fate does indeed revolve around his actions. For a while I was considering kiling her in front of him to show him that he was responsible for her death, but he did make an attempt to help the villains so I will probaly hold off.

Overall I'd have to say that I'm pretty happy with teh way the session played out.

,Matt

Matt,

As a real quickie note here, I don't recommend killing off the mother NPC. I suggest that doing so would communicate to the player that such personal connections were, in fact, not important and that taking them seriously is a waste of time - the precise opposite of the message you would like to send (if I read your post correctly).

Best,
Ron

As a real quickie note here, I don't recommend killing off the mother NPC. I suggest that doing so would communicate to the player that such personal connections were, in fact, not important and that taking them seriously is a waste of time - the precise opposite of the message you would like to send (if I read your post correctly).

Hi Matt,

Again, this is where personality and preference differences are going to make it hard for me to help ... it seems to me that by saying ...

"I need to do it in such a way that he doesn't immediately assume its an illusion or a trick of some kind"

... you are proposing an impossible goal: to specify how another person will interpret your action.

It seems to me that the goal (if I'm reading this whole thread right) is to have the player actually give a shit about the character and his mom, and that, frankly, is not something you can "make" happen. I suggest that by killing the mom, you would be making it impossible (which is why I suggested not doing that), but I also suggest that the best you can do is make it possible, as opposed to "making" the player do it.

Anyway, so, I'd just be blunt. Have the player find out that his mom's alive, in terms that seem to you to be pretty straightforward. How much he cares, i.e., whether he cares enough to find out if it's a "trick" or whatever, is up to him.

Best,
Ron

It seems to me that the goal (if I'm reading this whole thread right) is to have the player actually give a shit about the character and his mom, and that, frankly, is not something you can "make" happen.

Hi Matt,

Are we discussing your upcoming game or are we arguing about something? I believe I may have hit a nerve with my comment about "making" people feel or think things. As you are neither an advertiser armed with mass media, nor a cult leader armed with a cult, I suggest that your points about them do not apply to your situation as GM. Let the nerve tingle (if it did in the first place) and let's stay on track.

To stick to specifics, I will take it as given that the player is at least capable of caring about what's going on. I submit again that your best bet is to provide any evidence, as good as you can make it, that the character's mother is alive and needs him. It also might be good to provide some retroactive information that makes the mom a more interesting NPC in general.

If that point is understood, then I'm done with this thread until next time, unless another point of inquiry is raised.

Best,
Ron

Are we discussing your upcoming game or are we arguing about something? I believe I may have hit a nerve with my comment about "making" people feel or think things.

As you are neither an advertiser armed with mass media, nor a cult leader armed with a cult, I suggest that your points about them do not apply to your situation as GM. Let the nerve tingle (if it did in the first place) and let's stay on track.

It also might be good to provide some retroactive information that makes the mom a more interesting NPC in general.

Eloran wrote:
If I gave this player a +5 long sword loaded down with special abilities I guarantee he'd care about it if I later took it away. What I want to know is, how can I make an NPC as important as a +5 longsword to this player.

Okay, this is odd, one, because I know the people involved, and two, because I just made a connection between this and the discussion going on about WYRD.

I've been agonizing over ways to make Tragedy signifcant in WYRD and I keep coming back to the idea of mechanical reinforcement. Make it actually do something in the game.

My solution to Matt's problem? Make a +5 Mother. Seriously.

This idea is all over the narrativist designs - Trollbabes and whatnot - so why not carry it over to Gamist design as well. Make the relationships matter by giving characters bonuses when those people are the scenes, or when they can invoke those relationships. If that's what matters to the player, don't waste your time trying to make him care about something he isn't interested in - give him what he wants.

I can see it now: +3 Vorpal Girlfriend of Holding. Kicks ass.

- Scott

Hi Matt,

You have stated the mom/sword question beautifully. Here're some threads that might help ...

Hooking the players
PC/NPC emotional bonding

Best,
Ron

Heh, that's beautiful Scott...with thinking like that you'll make a great Universalis player :-)

But seriously, the idea isn't really all that bleeding edge that it couldn't work in D&D. Pendragon Passions had the ability to call on the power of relationships to boost other skills (usually involving sticking someone with a pointy stick), and that is pretty solidly old school

In fact, during one brief episode of insanity where I had toyed with the idea of converting Pendragon to D20 (...I got better...) I had noted how easily things like Passions could work in the new D&D rules. That might be something to consider as a mechanical aid.

I do like the +5 Mom... but I'm a big believer in the mechanical enforcement of setting/genre values.

One thing that concerns me in regard this specific example - is "mom" a character, or a McGuffin? Has mom spent all game time off screen so far? If so, she's just a notional concept - neither the player nor the character have a relationship with "mom", they only know that they have a notional relationship with "a mom".

Thus, if I were establishing this scenario I would make sure to bring mom on stage a few times, to walk and talk and basically take on a specific rather than generic identity. So reinforced, the dilemmas to which the NPC is exposed will have greater resonance for the PC.

What is it about mothers anyway? Why this particular realtionship? Probably becuase it is arguably the most intimate - if nothing else, every square inch of you has been inspected, washed and handled by your mother. Play this up - bring on mom to make embarrasing ancedotes about their early, early youth. Have mom ruffle his hair, adjust his collar, all on autopilot, without thinking, prefereably while there is someone the character is romantically involved with present. Reinforce the intimacy of their off-screen relationship with symbolic on-screen acts.

Lastly, players are much more motivated by personal decision that either the carrot or the stick. Therefore, in the spirit of grand illusionism, it might be plausible to have, say, the players stumble upon the artifacts of a kidnap victim, only to find that one of said artifacts is clearly and obviously recognisable to a player character. The reaction then is, hopefully, "my god they've taken my mother" rather than the dry presentation of a mission objective. Another approach would be to have the charcter imprisoned somewhere accessible, but under official sanction of death. Breaking mom out of prison, therefore, condemns everyone involved to permanent exile at the most optimistic, death at the least, and presents a major conflict of loyalties issue. Mom does not need to be rescued, she needs to be cleared, or the characters face the prospect of attending their own mothers beheading. Would you want to be in that crowd, to share a last glance? Watch them while they think about it... and then show them the headsmans axe.

Anyway, most of these ideas would not be consistent with one another, and probably have no direct utility in your situation, but that outlines my approach.

Has mom spent all game time off screen so far? If so, she's just a notional concept - neither the player nor the character have a relationship with "mom", they only know that they have a notional relationship with "a mom".

Thus, if I were establishing this scenario I would make sure to bring mom on stage a few times, to walk and talk and basically take on a specific rather than generic identity.

Play this up - bring on mom to make embarrasing ancedotes about their early, early youth. Have mom ruffle his hair, adjust his collar, all on autopilot, without thinking, prefereably while there is someone the character is romantically involved with present. Reinforce the intimacy of their off-screen relationship with symbolic on-screen acts.

Lastly, players are much more motivated by personal decision that either the carrot or the stick. Therefore, in the spirit of grand illusionism, it might be plausible to have, say, the players stumble upon the artifacts of a kidnap victim, only to find that one of said artifacts is clearly and obviously recognisable to a player character.

Eloran wrote:
I've already done this somewhat. In the one scene he had with her she kind of hassled him about forgetting about all this adventuring business and going back to school (he was trained in his youth as a blacksmith).