Here is the AP of our first IRC session of TSOY.

Tonight's session went a lot better, from my perspective, and I owe that to the suggestions for more aggro scene framing. I'm still getting my framing fu down, but it went a lot better. I also started the session off by explicitly asking my players to go into what I think is "Director Stance" and invent things during a scene. I also polled them for which scenes they wanted, and they called for 2 out of 3 scenes we played, so I think that idea is definitely taking hold.

The major problem that we're still having is that while one player is really running with TSOY, the other two players don't seem to be getting the spotlight time for their characters. Partly it's because of the way the game played out tonight, but mostly I think it's because I haven't got the hang of Bangs.

Here's an example: we started with a scene where one character tried to brew a mushroom potion, even though he has no abilities at all to help him out. Another player, who's character does have Complex Crafts and such, started IC arguing with him, and I glommed onto this, asking him if he wanted to try to take over the brew, argue for it, etc. The first player was excited to do a contest, but the second player backed off and just let the first player's character go for it (and fail). It kinda seemed like he didn't want to mess up the first player's fun... sorta the way that typically in D&D characters don't interfere with each other.

The same player, in another scene, had his goblin character working as a waiter at a big banquet, while the other characters did contests to get guests to drink their foul potion. At first I tried a what I hope is a Bang, by having the Baron's majordomo try to eject the goblin character from the room, since he was introduced into the story (by me) as a kitchen worker. The player objected and pointed out that it was I who specified that his character was a mere dishwasher, that his intent was to blend in at the party, etc. I backpedalled, realizing I was being a pushy SG.

He wanted to blend in, so he was blended in as a waiter, in proper attire, etc. He said he wanted his character to scope out the guests. I wanted to give him something to work with, and knowing his player had been a sorceror's apprentice (in his backstory), I put his former master in the crowd, but since he was in disguise, didn't put him in danger of being recognized (maybe that was a mistake). He didn't bite, so knowing his Key of Revolutionary and backstory army unit, I put the commander of his former unit in the crowd. Unfortunately when the player said something like "i see, he's a target", I backed off, not wanting to be too obvious... not sure exactly why I had that reaction. I think it had to do with not wanting to push him into a conflict of purely my own making.

I think he might have done something if the other players hadn't been so successful in their intended actions: browbeating the guests into chugging the potion. But I'm not sure--I tried to set up a conflict when the NPC came after him, but once I retracted it, it sorta seemed like he got what he wanted out of the scene. To be present, so he could help the other characters out if they got in trouble.

The other player who didn't get much time was at least involved in foisting the poisoned brew on the party-goers. He had a contest versus the Baron's guards to see if he could sweet-talk them into drinking, and despite the penalty die from their employer actually watching, gift and bonus dice carried the day, and they caught the spirit of the party and joined in the fun. I think this player would've also done more, but the third player who has jumped into TSOY whole-heartedly BDTP'd the Baron and that sucked up a lot of time (but what a great time, from my perspective).

Anyway, overall I'd say it was a success. But I am a little concerned about the two players that are getting somewhat overlooked. I don't know what the problem is... but it definitely seems like I don't have a handle on what their characters want. The mushroom plot is so concrete, it's very easy to get into, but the others, not so much. Although a revolutionary surrounded by Maldorite nobility seems like it *should* be generating conflict.

One weird thing that happened was that after the two poisoners succeeded in poisoning the party-goers and their guards, the two players had a bout of IC chattiness. The goblin ran around robbing corpses... and the elf molested dead people. Side-stepping the necrophilia (let's), it seemed like these two really wanted to go nuts with IC chat and random non-conflict oriented stuff. I kept saying "okay, so you rob everyone you want to rob" or "okay, you have sex with as many dead bodies as you want" but what's the next scene?

In the end, I injected some conflict into the raping/pillaging by having the majordomo NPC (who'd hired the incompetent goblin brewmaster and suggested the black poiture) get up from his chair, unaffected by the brew, and thank them for their assistance, then try to leave the party. They supposed that he'd taken the "real" magic mushroom and was now making his escape. The PCs tried to talk to him, but after answering a few questions and otherwise acting suspicious, he left.

At one point I even said "unless someone tries to stop him from leaving, the scene is over" but still, no one got up from their robbing, raping or waiting. It seems like I still have yet to figure out Bangs...

Hi Chris,

I'm not sure where to start ... I hope others reply as well.

1. With respect to all the folks here who are enjoying IRC play, perhaps it's good to acknowledge that for your purposes, it blows chunks. You don't see these people. They don't see each other. There's no social glue (unlike most Forge-ish IRC get-togethers).

2. I think that at least one of the folks you're playing with is not interested in role-playing. By this, I don't mean "won't get into character" or anything like that, but rather, not interested in any particular gelling of imagination among the group of you.

The combined effect of these points is an interaction in which ... well, imagine this - a few folks are standing about and talking. One of them says strange, off-the-wall things like "My dick has green spots!" and as most of the folks in the group kind of look at him funny (which is a powerful social signal), one or two of the others just have to laugh - either out of embarassment or because, well, it is a bit fun to acknowledge that there are always hundreds of things we never say.

As the guy keeps going, getting odder and odder, most of the group basically tries to keep their own conversation going, but a couple of folks decide (without thinking about it) to join in the weirdness a bit themselves, just for kicks.

Now - in your case, there's no "group."

And in that situation, frankly, I think that any and all attempts on your part to do what we call role-playing, are void. You're trying to have that conversation, but with who? Maybe the mushroom guy. There's no group, hence no Social Contract, hence everything else in the Big Model is just gone. No role-playing, no matter how you try to frame scenes, etc.

So I think the "lack of conflict" comment is a little like saying, "Wow, there's no paw," when the real problem is the lack of a dog.

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron, I'm with you on IRC blowing chunks for this kind of thing. That said, all of us used to be part of the same game group for a couple years, which ended when I moved away in December, so there may be more glue there than a group of strangers meeting on IRC for the first time. But yeah, the medium sucks.

Just out of curiosity, which of these players is the one who is not interested in role-playing? Is it the necrophiliac, who sorta started the crazy-ass behavior, or the player who didn't bite when I offered his character some things to chew on? (Or both?)

I hope that some other folks chime in here too. I definitely feel as though I need some perspective on what's happening, and whether there really is no "dog" as you say...

Hey Chris, here's some thoughts on things going on from my perspective. I'll preface with all the usual I don't know these guys, don't know the whole situation, yadda yadda, and with that let's go:

Chris Geisel wrote: Partly it's because of the way the game played out tonight, but mostly I think it's because I haven't got the hang of Bangs.

I glommed onto this, asking him if he wanted to try to take over the brew, argue for it, etc. The first player was excited to do a contest, but the second player backed off and just let the first player's character go for it (and fail).

At first I tried a what I hope is a Bang, by having the Baron's majordomo try to eject the goblin character from the room, since he was introduced into the story (by me) as a kitchen worker. The player objected and pointed out that it was I who specified that his character was a mere dishwasher, that his intent was to blend in at the party, etc. I backpedalled, realizing I was being a pushy SG.

He didn't bite, so knowing his Key of Revolutionary and backstory army unit, I put the commander of his former unit in the crowd. Unfortunately when the player said something like "i see, he's a target", I backed off, not wanting to be too obvious... not sure exactly why I had that reaction. I think it had to do with not wanting to push him into a conflict of purely my own making.

Although a revolutionary surrounded by Maldorite nobility seems like it *should* be generating conflict.

One weird thing that happened was that after the two poisoners succeeded in poisoning the party-goers and their guards, the two players had a bout of IC chattiness. The goblin ran around robbing corpses... and the elf molested dead people. Side-stepping the necrophilia (let's), it seemed like these two really wanted to go nuts with IC chat and random non-conflict oriented stuff.

At one point I even said "unless someone tries to stop him from leaving, the scene is over" but still, no one got up from their robbing, raping or waiting. It seems like I still have yet to figure out Bangs...

There are a lot of good observations here and I need some time to digest, but really quickly...

The conflict-avoiding player does not have a Key related to his former master, so that means that it's probably just window dressing. I guess that one was my mistake then.

One of the two characters who poisoned the guests *also* has the Revolutionary Key. However, it doesn't seem like the player running that character is particularly invested in playing a fanatical revolutionary either... if I had to guess, it was more a random act of violence, retrofitted to the revolutionary key.

As for the mushroom plot, the player running the character with the Key that's been driving the mushroom plot seemed into it up until that moment (his character has Key of the Mission: Find the Mushroom of Life... which is some type of magic mushroom). I was really stunned that at least that player didn't jump into action at that point. It was the final minutes of our allotted time, which could have had something to do with it. I *think* he might've said something like "I follow him", but I honestly don't remember.

(I'm one of the players and I've been enjoying this thread and tsoy a lot - i'm the mushroom guy..)

I think that for all of us, it's been a harsh transition to such a different style of play.. For my own actions (especially at the end regarding the mushroom key) I purposefully stepped back to try and let the other players take the spotlight.

For the first two sessions, my character had been driving the story and most of the action and I wanted to let other folks have some interest.

I think the piont about giving ourselves XP was totally missed by us, but I really like it. The elf character's whole reason for being at the party was to indulge his worldly experiences, and although he never stated that he was focusing on his key, that was definitely his motivation.

I realize that my own motivation at the end to pursue the mushroom was dropped (purposefully) and I hope to pick it up again next time by chasing after the servant.

Also, in all the looting my char got the baron's signet ring, which he's planning to use for many micological purposes.

:)

anyway, it's a great game, and we've all been having a good time playing it. I think that what is being derided as IC chatter still has a narrative purpose. Possibly it could be replaced by bangs and scenes, but it's still creating the links between these otherwise disparate characters.

And all the chars had motivations for murdering everyone at the party - although the one who ostensibly had the greatest motivation didn't partake directly, he was making indirect attepmpts to help - he wanted to poison the food as well as the drink :)

And although it was idle IC chatter, the decision to poison the party had been made at the last session as a way for everyone to further one of their ends. (And the language that we used (in character) was somehow fulfilling to me as a gamer.)

Gimlix was going to kill the man who was the best mycologist in those parts, and get his signet ring, so he could order fungi (ok, so he' not that smart and maybe a smart goblin would have tried to capture him to learn more about the toadies), the elf was going to partake in necrophelia, which fulfills both his revolutionary tendencies and his love of the evils, and the other gobby was (albeit reluctanctly) going to get to do some revolutionary stuff.

So if anything all the raping and pillaging at the end of the session was us saying: Nice one dudes! We just got XP!

:)

btw we're going to get better at the IIEE thing, scene framing and bangs. It's a good sign that we're all still having a lot of fun with it, even over IRC.

gk

Greg, we should probably just talk about this in person, but in the interest of getting more feedback on this thread, I'll tell my perspective on some of the things you mentioned.

gregkcubed wrote: I think that for all of us, it's been a harsh transition to such a different style of play.. For my own actions (especially at the end regarding the mushroom key) I purposefully stepped back to try and let the other players take the spotlight.

I think the piont about giving ourselves XP was totally missed by us, but I really like it. The elf character's whole reason for being at the party was to indulge his worldly experiences, and although he never stated that he was focusing on his key, that was definitely his motivation.

Key of the Eternal Question wrote: Gain 1 XP every time you can apply this question to the situation your character's in. Gain 3 XP every time your character risks harm in pursuit of the answer. Buyoff: Answer the question.

Also, in all the looting my char got the baron's signet ring, which he's planning to use for many micological purposes.

I think that what is being derided as IC chatter still has a narrative purpose. Possibly it could be replaced by bangs and scenes, but it's still creating the links between these otherwise disparate characters.

And all the chars had motivations for murdering everyone at the party... Gimlix was going to kill the man who was the best mycologist in those parts, and get his signet ring, so he could order fungi (ok, so he' not that smart and maybe a smart goblin would have tried to capture him to learn more about the toadies), the elf was going to partake in necrophelia, which fulfills both his revolutionary tendencies and his love of the evils, and the other gobby was (albeit reluctanctly) going to get to do some revolutionary stuff.

Chris Geisel wrote: Anyway, I don't want this thread to become a back-and-forth between us, when we can just talk about it whenever we want. I'm hoping we might be some more feedback on how to address this stuff from the Forgites.

Brand_Robins wrote:

Chris Geisel wrote: Anyway, I don't want this thread to become a back-and-forth between us, when we can just talk about it whenever we want. I'm hoping we might be some more feedback on how to address this stuff from the Forgites.

Actually, a back and forth between the two of you is the best way to fix it. With the amount of singal-crossing I see here I don't know how much I can do to help until you've both gotten onto the same page. Others (like Ron or Mike Holmes) may be able to help, but it's out of my league.

Brand_Robins wrote:

Chris Geisel wrote: Anyway, I don't want this thread to become a back-and-forth between us, when we can just talk about it whenever we want. I'm hoping we might be some more feedback on how to address this stuff from the Forgites.

Actually, a back and forth between the two of you is the best way to fix it. With the amount of singal-crossing I see here I don't know how much I can do to help until you've both gotten onto the same page. Others (like Ron or Mike Holmes) may be able to help, but it's out of my league.

Chris Geisel wrote: Hey Brand, do you mean that some back-and-forth in this thread would be a good idea, or just some communication between Greg and I offline?

gregkcubed wrote: But I do have a question here: In a game like this, is retrofitting generally frowned upon.. I can imagine that it might make it hard to keep track of a cohesive plot, but it also lets players fill in gaps after the fact.

As it was, i inserted X = signet ring, because I thought that later gimlix could use that to further both his mission and his addiction. And of course, my overall scene intention(s)/possibilities were in my mind and not clearly stated :)

thanks for the response.. yeah that makes sense. This style of play is so new to me :)

btw one thing i completely agree with in this thread is that IRC doth suck. We're all having enough fun with it that we'll continue, but I can imagine just some simple softwares that could make it like 100x better.

having a web page that just listed everyone's current intentions and had a quick line for the scene setting.. would help.

greg

gregkcubed wrote: btw one thing i completely agree with in this thread is that IRC doth suck. We're all having enough fun with it that we'll continue, but I can imagine just some simple softwares that could make it like 100x better.