So I got to run people through some fun in InSpectres last night. Good stuff, but with lots of places where I felt I could do better.

We had a good time with character creation, with everybody doing good riffs. Folks were opting for (initially) characters who had no reason to actually view the franchise as important: Independently wealthy dilettantes who were doing this job because... well... they're PCs. But I kept up the "Why do you need the franchise to succeed?" and folks created some really nice circumstances, from a CEO who originally bought into the franchise hoping for it to lose money (for tax purposes) but then lost everything else in the dot.com bust, to a Slayer who (having closed the hellmouth and saved the world) had discovered that 'kill vampires' is not a job skill many people look for on a resume, and was reduced to living on instant ramen in a dingy one-room apartment. These folks needed the franchise to succeed.

When they started kitting out with tech, I hit my first confusion: We roll to discover how good (say) their internal computer network is. I get a result, and I dutifully note it down. But does it ever directly come into play again? Or is it just an inspiration for me, the GM? If it's low then I give them trouble (and stress checks) about the network, whereas if it's high they talk about how cool it is?

The same thing hit me once I started play. People liked rolling skill checks. They particularly liked rolling in their specialties, so that they routinely got sixes, and could narrate anything they wanted. I kept wondering "Do these results have meaning beyond the Task? And if so, how do I coax the rules into giving me some direction about what that meaning is?" Do I restrict when they're allowed to roll, or what skills can possibly be applicable to a situation?

And, on a specific rules note, are franchise dice earned only during field work? Because our franchise earned more than half of the dice for the job before I could even get the client into the office. If I hadn't forcefully interrupted their riffing on each other, they would have finished the mission before it was assigned to them, and I don't see how that can be right.

I think my confusion about this is what led to my confusion about Stress Checks. By the time they got to field-work, they were one franchise point away from completing the mission. Yes, I'd applied a lot of stress at the office, but I didn't feel I could justify calling for 3-die stress rolls just because the furniture was being repossessed. If it had been actually possessed, then yeah, maybe. It took them just a few rolls to get the final franchise point they needed on-scene, and as a result, they were barely scathed by the mission. They doubled their franchise dice while giving everyone full vacation, which surprised me. It didn't sound like we'd had the same experience other people were reporting in Actual Play.

And then I couldn't convince them that they really had to do the next mission. Which, frankly, I can understand... without anyone being stressed out from the previous one it's hard to see how tension is building in the interpersonal relationships. Still, I'd have liked a better opportunity to do multiple missions, and I hope to get such an opportunity soon.

So I'm liking the feel of the game, and I'm liking the general idea of the mechanics, but I have the creeping certainty that I am applying it all wrong. Before I whip it out to inflict on a new group I'd love to hear ways that I can be more skillfull in my InSpectres-fu.

Hiya,

This surprises me, Tony - I would have thought you guys were good at generating adversity for one another.

See, all those successful rolls are supposed to be adding stuff into play. It seems to me that what happened was that you proposed "problems," then players "solved" them. InSpectres rolling is aimed, I think, at the idea that every roll makes the setting/situation meatier, regardless of success or failure.

I suggest that as GM, one of your primary roles is to encourage successful narrations to generate back-story. You don't make up that back-story (or at least, not any more nor less than anyone else) - each speaker does - but you can help them remember that's what they can do.

I could be way off on this analysis. But let me know what you think.

Best,
Ron

Well, this isn't the same group I normally play with. It was a pick-up game at a roleplayer-rich party... so not ideal circumstances, on many levels.

I agree that the players went deeply into reactive problem-solving mode, and that giving them more narrative power didn't change that. I'm not so clear on what you're recommending that I add to my arsenal of tools to GM InSpectres: "Encourage successful narrations to generate back-story" isn't parsing easily for me. I may be mentally blocked. Back-story between the players? Back-story about the mission? Something else?

One point I notice is that you give out franchise dice for stuff that narratively isn't about the mission at all. Why? I mean, how do those rolls that happen before even getting the mission help solve the mission? It would seem more intuitive if you only gave dice when they actually do something that has something to do with the mission.

Encouraging players - if the players are locked into problem-solving mode, then it's up to the GM to help them out of it. Probing questions for example: for each roll, deal with it like a cross-examination. Ask pointed questions from the player until he's furnished the situation with enough meat to take the game forward. "OK, what happens?", "That's fine, but what's in the dark room?", "Sounds cool, what does the vampire do when you stumble on it with the hairspray?". Keep at it until the players start doing the whole narrative control thing of their own accord. That's what I think Ron meant by encouraging narrations creating back-story.

Hiya,

Ah, must clarify. By "back-story," I mean any kind of history to the agency but most especially to the current mission.

When I run InSpectres, typically all I do is come up with a couple of people, a locale, and some weird "symptoms." Maybe a couple of potential menaces or threats about what is going on. The players' narrations tell me the rest ... what the Horrible Thing is (and whether it's so Horrible), what it's done, why the "symptoms" have appeared the way they have, and, well, just about anything else which in traditional play is considered GM prep.

In InSpectres, you have action first, then explanations of what the hell it was and what the hell might be coming.

I hope I made more sense this time. Let me know.

Best,
Ron

The phantom copy of InSpectres (taken back to Mystery Agent headquarters for further study) states quite clearly that Franchise Dice are only earned when the players advance the story (and by that, means the characters are doing research or fieldwork).

Of course, this phantom copy is only rumored to exist. A shame.

Note to Tony: stop thinking so hard about it and just play.

Okay, cool. I was wrong on the franchise dice (which is actually a relief). I am very hopeful that the next time I play I will be able to encourage people to get into what I term (for lack of a better phrase) "Scooby Doo mode." I'd love to have them wandering around, splitting up ("to cover more ground") and generally poking into everything with no clear plan. I think that would be a blast, and make my life as a GM pure bliss.

If anyone's got recommendations for this (beyond "use the rules correctly") I'd be pleased to hear them.

Well, I tend to be a little simplistic in these matters, but how about just suggesting it to the players? Like, they're going to explore this haunted house, and you go "Well, what're you gonna do? How about Chris the wererat takes the cellar, while the pretty boy over there gets to explore the attic? Or what, huh?" Dress it up with a NPC if you feel like it, and look real enthusiastic so the players understand that you have something fun prepared.

On a more general level, nothing stops you from telling the players that it might be MultiFun to split up and play real curious characters. If they have trouble with turtling or survival-mode playing, tell them to consiciously set that aside. From what I've seen, somewhat over 70% of roleplayers are quite capable of following a plan - tell them that you want Scooby Doo mode (damn, now I have that f***ing "Neko Mimi Mode" song from Tsukuyomi Moon Phase in my head), and you get it. The players who cannot set survival mode aside when reminded about it explicitly are pretty rare, in final consideration.

I let Franchise Dice get earned as soon as the client walks in the door. I also throw Stress at the InSpectres for everything they come up with and anything I can think of.

Splitting The Party
I introduce at least one personal story to encourage people to split up. I'm also finding that having the beasties be in bigger locations (a movie theatre, a university, a mansion) seems to encourage splitting up. Of course, by now most of the characters in this franchise can't stand to be in the same room as each other, so that helps too.

Heya Eero,

I dunno, that sounds pretty close to 'system doesn't matter' to me. If you want to play it by the rules, adendums like this seem much like "my GM Herbie can run anything. The game can suck, but he can toss out what he doesn't like and then it rocks."

Here were tossing what the rules motivated everyone to do, and instead follow Herbies lead on what to do.

Noon: my advice is general because the great majority of rpgs supports it, not because system doesn't matter. It just so happens that this particular technique (talking above the board about story ideas and play goals) works in almost every game you care to name. This is, however, an accident of history, not a property of roleplaying games; for instance, some extreme immersionist games actively forbid or discourage communicating desires in this manner. For those games, obviously, I wouldn't suggest this particular technique.

Anyway, I suggest that you scan my advice again, and contrast it with what we're talking about. Namely, InSpectres and encouraging Scooby Doo -like behavior in characters. I'd be surprised if you didn't yourself come to the same conclusion: the easiest way to introduce color motifs (which the Scooby Doo mode is in this game, if I understand it) is to discuss it with the other players. If you want it, ask for it. If others agree, then you're on the same page about it. Common sense.

Not every problem need to have a complex, rules-based solution. Especially as it's a rare game that really articulates even the majority of possible techniques in it's play. For all I know Jared's phantom copy of the rules might say that players should communicate their wishes to one another to generate the kind of play they want.

However, all is not lost: I'm full of it IF it's true that the InSpectres rules motivate characters to group together and play defensively. I myself don't see it, but if you do, then I'm indeed advising playing against the rules, which is my mistake. I think that the rules are pretty value-neutral in this regard - the players don't garner any specific advantage or disadvantage from splitting up or grouping together, and if the GM is doing his job it's no use whatsoever to play defensively. So the Scooby Doo mode is just a matter of color preference most of the time, and I can't imagine why the GM (or any other player) couldn't suggest it if that's what they enjoy.

But whatever. This is pretty far from the topic of the thread, so let's take it to RPG theory if you want to discuss rules text interpretation.

My quick rule of thumb (I thought something like this was in the non-phantom copy of the rules): Equipment rolls NEVER earn Franchise Dice. You got something cool & shiny (or cool & screwy), that's your reward for a good roll. Now make a Technology roll to use it to advance the mission, and you'll get FD.

Also, no franchise dice before they get the mission. I mean, really.

Also, those equip-the-office rolls are great fodder for multi-mission play. THey rolled for an awesome coffee machine. Then they lose lots of franchise dice on the first mission. The coffee machine (which teh PLAYERS care about becasue they rolled for it) now breaks down, or better yet, runs out of the right European filters that cost too much, but without them, the coffee tastes like it was made from engine oil--but they're too broke to do anything about it. Better go on another mission!

Okay, guys... thank you for the productive advice you've given.

No thank you on the dismissive comments implying that I should have intuitively known when to take the literal rules seriously and when to ignore them. When I play I am not designing. I don't rewrite rules just because they don't seem to make any sense. I have seen many non-sensical seeming rules turn out to be gold when they're accepted as written.