I almost put this in Actual Play, but since it's a game that DIDN'T happen . . . we're here in Theory.

I was going to start running a Sorceror & Sword game last week, but it fell apart before it even started. I had thought that keeping some elements familiar (retaining a basic fantasy approach/environment) would make trying some Narrativistic stuff easier. The opposite proved to be true - a couple (one in particular) of the folks I'd lined up were unable to conceive of fantasy outside the D&D box. If it was fantasy, they needed a cleric, a magic-user, a theif, and a fighter. After a while trying to work through this (I did have at least one ally), we decided to scrap the idea - I ended up getting together with some other friends for a really fun, we-just-barely-lost game of Reiner Knizia's LotR (with Friends and Foes expansion).

Both the strong D&Ders were open to the idea of something different, but not in anything approaching a "typical" fantasy environment. I'm gonna press them on this, as it may be they're just trying to be nice (these are folks I haven't gamed with before) - one way or another, I'm gonna run a game soon, dammit! Maybe I'll try a different set of players . . . that "Orbit" thing looks kinda interesting . . . anyway, I'll be sorting through this in days to come.

But I think this is an interesting phenomena - fantasy = D&D being so strong for folks that "experimenting" becomes a problem. Any other common associations out there (superheroes = Champions)? Any ideas on how to cope with the phenomena, or is it best to work around it by doing something TRULY different (and maybe then come back to an, e.g. , alterante fantasy)?

I imagine this can be highly individual (fantasy may = Rolemaster for some people), but I'm interested in what experiences folks have had in this area.

Thanks,

Gordon

Gordon,

What lept to my mind reading the first paragraph of your post was the closing section of Ron's The Literature chapter from S&S:

"Now, are you ready?" Or something like that. "I don't mean to sound pretentious, but have you read the literature..." Because I think he found, or guessed, that big bold clues like handing your players The Tower of the Elephant is going to do a lot to set your players on the Right Path.

I did have a strangely similiar problem once running Pendragon. I had plowed through Malory and other Arthurian legends. I clearly saw The Player Characters as Protagonists in their own legendary stories.

But I had a guy with a theatrical background and a love of F/SF movies, who know Arthur through Camelot, One and Future King, and Excalibur. Before I could figure out what had happened, he already assumed the PCs all sucked -- because the real story was with Arthur, Lancelot and Queen G. He knew some of the "source" material -- but not the same material I knew -- which was the tradition of knightly adventure making up a cycle of stories within the King's story arc.

I really think New/New is best. It's the only way to really crack habits open and leave the shards of shell on the floor. If you try to mix it, you'll all slide back into older habits -- just cause they're habits!

But you've really inspired me for my Witch's Brew prep... We're doing Character Gen Sunday, and now I know I need to bring some Hawthorne short story, or something, for the players. If I'm asking them to walk down an unfamiliar path with me, I'm obliged to offer them a flashlight.

Thanks so much for the heads up.

Christopher

Gordon C. Landis wrote: But I think this is an interesting phenomena - fantasy = D&D being so strong for folks that "experimenting" becomes a problem. Any other common associations out there (superheroes = Champions)? Any ideas on how to cope with the phenomena, or is it best to work around it by doing something TRULY different (and maybe then come back to an, e.g. , alterante fantasy)?

I think that fantasy is an exception because of the primacy of D&D and, interestingly, it's design. But only with regards to gamers in general. Champions will never be the only superhero game for anyone. Not because its design is bad, but, rather, given the open-ended nature of the game, there are few preconceptions about the contents of the game. Really, everyone already knows what superheroes are all about, and Champions does not mess with that.

D&D, OTOH, takes Tolkien for a weird spin. In classifying things as they have, the game has left its imprimature on what "Fantasy" means for gamers. What if your players had been new to RPGs? Think there would be a problem then???

Mike

Christopher -

Glad you found some value. As you point out, there's a general issue of being trapped by our preconceptions, about settings, story-types, and etc., that it is always wise to keep in mind.

Fang -

In my relatively casual reading of the Scattershot forum (and associated threads elsewhere), that's one of several aspects I find fascinating. I'm skeptical about your goal of a "heavy" system that can seem "light" to casual/new players, so I wonder if it'd be the best approach with folks brand-new to RPGs . . .

Mike -

So, I had four players - 2 long-time D&Ders, one "into games, but never really roleplayed", and one "haven't roleplayed in forever". My best support/understanding/alignment came from the "haven't roleplayed in forever" guy. And yes, the "fantasy is like THIS" resistance was from the D&Ders. So . . . to some extent, I'll bet you're right, "New players" as well as "New game style" and "New in-game environment" is "easier" in many ways. My instinct (and conventional wisdom) is to build a group with a mix of experienced and inexperienced players, but maybe that's NOT wise.

One of the D&Ders has admitted that he really just wants to play some D&D. Fine by me - he seems like he'd be fun to stomp around a dungeon with - but I'm not interested in *running* a game like that. So . . . thanks for the input (more is, of course, welcome), and I'm working on my next "pitch" . . .

Gordon

Gordon C. Landis wrote: Fang -

In my relatively casual reading of the Scattershot forum (and associated threads elsewhere), that's one of several aspects I find fascinating. I'm skeptical about your goal of a "heavy" system that can seem "light" to casual/new players, so I wonder if it'd be the best approach with folks brand-new to RPGs...

Gordon,

Let's be careful with the terms "exerienced" and "inexperienced."

In the context of your concerns, I'd go with "crusty" and "fresh." No matter how many years gaming, some people are fixed and dull, and some are open to new experiences and ideas. Some of the best Narrativists I've ever played with had never played and RPG before that session.

Christopher