I ran three games this year, one off the books due to an RPG.netter asking me to run a game because my two on the books games were sold out.  The games I ran this year were Burning Wheel, Sorcerer and Dogs in the Vineyard.

I have had good luck with con games so far.  I'm waiting for my first really difficult player but he or she just hasn't sat down at my table yet.  Its always nerve-wracking, a mixed feeling of fear at having people sit who are just nto compatible with me and my style of play and a kind of pressure to live up to my internet actual play hype.

So far, having run two games at Dexcon and three at Gen Con, I'm doin' alright.

Burning Wheel:  The King in Gray

I entirely modelled this scenario on Luke's con scenarios, paying particular attention to The Gift and Poisonous Ambition.  This game was about an elven king succuming to Grief as the game's kicker and the players maneuvering for the now vacant throne.  I was careful to arrange the Beliefs and Instincts and traditions so that none had a clear line to the throne but everyone has the option to go for it should they want it.  Barring going for it, they can always step behind someone else who wants it and back their claim.

I have found that running BW with its three Beliefs, the player chooses the one that interests him or her and sticks to that one hard, letting the others fade into the background.  I've asked players why they did X action instead of Y and I often get a Belief quoted to me, even though a hard reading of another Belief could allow for an entirely different reading on the character.

It works, makes every game a bit different.

I had run this scenario with my home group but the game ran more than one session and several players were no-shows to the second game, hamstringing the whole vibe.

This game was made up of Smithy, from RPG.net, Steve from the Scotland Contested Ground Posse and the four buddies I came to the con with from home.

I don't think I forced enough Grief checks but the theme of Grief was deep in the adventure.  In the end, Steve decided that his character would go west, not because his Grief was at 10 but because life was just too fucked up to go on.  Ouch.

This type of Belief-driven GMing is fairly minimalistic and I didn't have to do much.  At one point things were a little stalled and I said, "Alright, folks, allow me to drop a bang on the table and we'll see where we're at after that."

He Who Rules with Whip, Sword and Spell's Hatred Bearer comes to court asking that this citadel's elves not interfere with their pillaging of the northlands...*BANG*

In the end we were running a bit late and I had to wrap things up fast.  My buddy, Rob was insisting that his character wouldn't be killed by an arrow shot and we got into a kind of debate if his character could deliver a song with a helm on...

Because he is my buddy and I've gamed with him since I was 13 years old, I blutnly declared his P.C. dead, as the rules dictated.

Other than that last hiccup with Rob, the game was good, immortal-tragical-politicking fun.

Sorcerer: Dictionary of Mu

I am really happy with how Mu is working.  Reading the kickers to the players as the way of offering character choices has rocked, insuring that players are still invested in their kickers, even if they didn't author them.  I explain to the players first thing my problem with running a Sorcerer con scenario and the lack of player authorship in this medium.

In this game the players all chose juicy, high-powered Sorcerers: The Damsel Messiah, The Primite Prince and The Witch-King of Stygia.  They're all fabulous powerful characters, two of whom rule nations.

The Witch-King drove his character right into 0 Humanity, the first time that has happened for me, making me entirely gleeful.  The Dictionary's 0 humanity rules were put to the test and I think they could use a re-write but they work.

In every scenario I have run the Witch-King ends up the target of any P.C. vs. P.C. conflict and this game was no different.

One of the players said some interseting things:

Player: Sorcerer is a game no one plays.  I was excited to see it offered at the con.

Me:  Um...its played.  I play it.  I play it all the time.

Player: Well, you're a small fish in a big pond.

Me:  This is Gen Con...who isn't a small fish in a big pond here?

Player: *shrug*

This same player seemed pleased that he didn't lose any Humanity in the session.

When a player decided to summon the dead fire spirits within Olymons in order to make the dormant volcano the size of Arizona erupt, killing his father, King of the Primites and all of his people I announced that I couldn't possibly top that. The game ended on that note, with one of the players sacrifcing captured Primites in order to destroy his civilization, making them a footnote in the history of Marr'd.

The game ended early, it ended right there where it belonged.

I saw the small-fish-big-pond player later, buying all of the Sorcerer supplements at the booth.  Welcome to the pond, man.

Dogs in the Vineyard: (Bridal Falls City) Jericho Flats

This game runs itself.  What is on the character sheet is the perfect amount to allow everyone at the table to know their characters really well.

Most of these characters didn't have doubt in their Faith or in the King of Life but in their abilities to do His Will competently. 

I love running accomplishments.  I could do that every day, all day, making sure that I drove home the following points:

• Dogs have a mandate, living instruments of the King of Life's will.

• Sometimes you have to cut off the arm to save the body.

• We here at the Watchdog's Temple do not love you, but we only love the congregation you will be serving.

Bridal Falls City is currently my favorite town to run.  It involved a Dog abusing his poewrs in order to court a girl who bears his bastard spawn and spurns her suitors.  Her ma, a former Dog, approves of the whole ordeal.

But its a tricky thing.  Only some groups will go back into Bridal Falls City after being given their guns, Book of Life and quilted coat.

I put out the hook and the players didn't take it, saying that there were those in Bridal Falls City who could handle it.  I didn't give the hard sell and we went on to the next town.  Last time I ran Bridal Falls City at Dexcon, there was a Dog v. Dog conflict on whether or not they should stay or move on.  I told the players flat-out that they could do either.

But they made their decision and it was right and just, oh yes, praise be the King.

That said, I believe what I will find is that the way I phrase things when I send them out is incredibly important for

Onward to Jericho Falls.

What stands out to me at Jericho Falls is that a player made an argument so compelling that I folded  a conflict right away.  A father is leeching the town dry, having named his son Jericho because he beliefs that his son will be Steward and own the town some day.  The Dog said, "You are abusing this town.  It bears your son's name.  Would you want to see your son treated this way?"

*Whoa*

I fold.

An accomplishment was folded into this adventure and that, as always, made the game rock.

The players were excited, especially when they saw the town's sins coming together and how they could solve them.  They really loved seeing the town become healed.

It was great stuff, everyon was excited and two of the players ran to the Forge booth with me and bought Dogs straight-away (along with some other stuff).  Neat.

Carl took an extra table of players and GMed a game at the table next to me.  We talked about getting through character generation, accomplishments and a town in four hours.

"How fast do you introduce the problem?"

"Immediately."

Dirty little half-naked kids run up to the Dogs with their only toy, a broken wooden hoop and asked if the Watchdogs were in town to depose the no-good drunk Steward.  *BANG*

In Dogs there are two habits, things trained into long-time gamers that are in desperate need of breaking to make Dogs run well.  I find that players often look for a higher authority; there is none.  I find that players often look for a mystery; there is none.

I should have taken one of these scenarios and run it at the Embassy Suites.  Next year...

Out of curiosity, could you offer us the Kickers for the Mu scenario? I'd like to chat a little bit more about this technique.

Also, what do you do to break the ice at the table? How do you introduce the players to one another? Do you attempt to work out the atmosphere first or do you let it organically develop between the players?

I was just curious, because you've said you have no problem players yet at a con (a merciful thing!) and I'm wondering if you've been lucky or if you are creating a context that minimizes those potential problems.

Congrats on the games, seems inspiring.

--
Garett

Old_Scratch wrote:
Out of curiosity, could you offer us the Kickers for the Mu scenario? I'd like to chat a little bit more about this technique.

Old_Scratch wrote: Also, what do you do to break the ice at the table? How do you introduce the players to one another? Do you attempt to work out the atmosphere first or do you let it organically develop between the players?

Just for the record, it wasn't that I disagreed with the character dying, I just didn't understand it.  I don't know the combat or mortality rules all that well yet.  The helm-singing thing, I will leave off discussion of :).  I'm sorry to have been the sole blot on an otherwise fun game.

Oh, and we've been gaming for like 18 years :).

Rob,

Rather than making defensive excuses and sullying the place with smileys, why not tell us more about that scene, about your experience with the game, and any details of demoing that might apply? It also strikes me that you two may be more inclined to stall things with bizarre little debates because you've been playing together for so long.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

I think it's not accurate to describe what I wrote there as defensive excuses.  I was clarifying what happened.  Judd said I was inisisting that my character wouldn't have died from the wound, and that's not so.  I didn't understand the rules and was asking for an explanation of them.  I was told my character was being killed and I asked to understand why that was happening mechanically.  That's not a bizarre little debate.  (For the record, the current post I'm writing is certainly characterizable as defensive.)

I wanted to clarify rather than debate the issues behind it because it was an unpleasant moment and I didn't want to reawaken it and argue it out here.

I am reminded of an issue I have with Burning Wheel.  I don't know the combat rules super-well yet, but from what I've seen you can choose as the defender where an attacker hits you in combat.  Due to some mechanics, it appears to me that you would always choose to get hit on the foot, and that bugs me.  It just doesn't seem realistic that in a fight people would be using their foot to block, but it's suicidal not to do that.  In this game when I got shot, I chose to have my heart be the target.  (Even if I had chosen my foot in this case it wouldn't have mattered because the guy had so many successes.)

RobNJ wrote:
  In this game when I got shot, I chose to have my heart be the target.  (Even if I had chosen my foot in this case it wouldn't have mattered because the guy had so many successes.)

I can understand why you'd think that, now.  I was thinking that if he's going to get hit, it ought to be the heart.  But that was more a "rightness" level, than it was a desire for the PC to die.  Also, I still don't think I was arguing.  You clearly thought I was, and I knew that pretty quickly, but that isn't what I was doing.  I wanted to know how it happened rather than just saying, "Yeah, you're dead now." 

As to the helmet issue, it seems to me that you ought to be able to sing with a helmet on, since elven warriors are singing in combat all the time.  I was also thinking that the character would be there in full battle gear to take the blame (as well as suspecting IC and OOC that the bastard was out to kill me).

During the actual game, it felt to me at the time as though Judd thought I was trying to weasel a win for my character, and that wasn't my intent.  I wanted to understand how and why he was dying mechanically.  I could sense Judd's impatience, so I didn't push the issue as much as I might have otherwise.  Basically by that point I felt like everyone thought I was being a dick who didn't want "my guy" to die, and the explanations weren't getting me anywhere, so I better just let it go.

So I guess what we have here is failure to commun'cate.  Judd thought I wanted my character to die, and then was confused by my change of heart (no pun intended), and was also feeling pressure to end the game on time.  I wanted to understand how this was working in the rules, and thought that he and maybe some of the other players felt I was trying to "get over", so I just let it go.

Another thing I didn't really love about this scenario was the heavy PVP element to it.  I am much happier usually when the scenario has characters that basically have the same goals, and where the friction is mostly color rather than the point of the game.  I prefer in-character and out-of-character cooperation in gaming, and prefer to have one person playing the antagonist(s) for the rest of us.  I found during the game that there was a lot more cooperation than I feared there'd be, which was a nice surprise, but the setup was still about who was going to win, and I don't really love that.

Rob,

If I could go back and make the rules more clear to you I would.  The other big difference is I would have given you the final word, a kind of last gasp soliloquy before your heart stopped with the arrow lodged in it.

Its all good to know.  I'm glad that you are not seriously tweaked and will learn from this for next time.

It is also good to know that you like character cooperation games more than scheming and rather competitive games.  I think you had said it before but it hadn't sunk in until now.

Judd