I ran two games recently, with very mixed results.  The players were the same for both games: Nick, who is in my regular rpg group, and Mark, a very good friend of ours who is visiting from out-of-town.

When Mark was in town a few months ago, the three of us played the Shab-al-Hiri Roach, and had a great time.  Since then, Mark hasn't played any other rpgs and Nick has played in a very successful and enjoyable PTA season that I produced.  Aside from that PTA game, I've played a number of other games, including an extremely satisfying Trollbabe session.
 
So, our original goal was to give The Shadow of Yesterday a try.  We decided to split things up over two nights: one night for character creation and then another night for actually playing the game-basically so I would have time to prepare a scenario.  We decided to set the game in a free city on the Maldor-Ammeni border, which had become famous as the site of a newly founded university, dedicated to preserving and studying the artifacts and history of pre-apocalypse Near.  Mark's character was Grisbryn, a young history student; Nick's character was Lorenzo, a swashbuckling younger son of a Maldorite lord.  Grisbryn had the Key of the Mission: stopping the black market trade of Maldorite artifacts.  Lorenzo had the Key of Conscience.

I tried to follow the scenario prep advice given in the book: I created some NPCs that would engage with these keys.  I also threw together a relationship map (based on Wilkie Collins's The Moonstone)  and I even wrote some stuff out following the Trollbabe Stakes & Consequences format.

The game itself was a failure.  I basically consisted of me setting up scenes that Mark and Nick were unable to engage with.  I tried to throw stuff at them that would hit their keys, but they were reluctant to take action.  I ended up calling a halt to the game after we had stalled out for the third or fourth time.

But the session was not a complete bust, because, immediately afterwards, I realized what we had done wrong.  Though I had created a scenario in response to the player characters, we (as a group) did not embed the characters thoroughly enough in the situation.  My relationship map-stuff fizzled because we didn't pair it with player authored kickers, and the players felt that they had no way of actually getting in on the action because they were on the periphery of the relationship map.  The Trollbabe stakes/consequences stuff didn't work, either, because we did not have the specific, defined relationship of character, setting, and situation that that technique (like Dogs in the Vineyard town creation) requires.

Nick commented that he felt like he was playing a 1st-level D&D character surrounded by 12th-level NPCs.  Even though, based on stats and abilities, the PCs outclassed the NPCs, I had set things up so the PCs were too much on the fringes.

Anyway, though the game never really got off the ground, there was enough stuff in the system and setting that jazzed us that we are all looking forward to giving it another try-hopefully we'll have learned from our mistakes.

A couple nights later we got together to play Trollbabe.  I had high hopes for this game because the first time I played the game was one of the most enjoyable and satisfying rpg experiences I've ever had.  That time, I was playing with two people whom I had only recently met and started to game with.  This time I would be playing with two very good friends, one who I've done a lot of gaming with recently.  Also, I had a much better idea of the kind of preparation that was needed.

Mark's Trollbabe was Kratzia, a scholarly, magic-specialist (number=4).  Nick's Trollbabe was Inga, a perky, adventurous scoundrel (number=6).  (One interesting observation: Mark and Nick created very similar characters in both games).

Well, the game worked and we had fun, but it never really reached the level of my first Trollbabe game or the PTA episodes Nick and I had played.

There were a couple of issues:

First, the tone of the game was kind of incoherent.  The first Trollbabe game I played had started as a kind of light, high-fantasy, but had grown more serious, and even tragic, as it went on.  None of us at the table had planned that--it just sort of happened--so I kind of assumed that that the game would always work that way.

This time around, though, Nick took a very campy, jokey approach that did not resonate at all with Mark, who was approaching the game in a much more serious way.  Nick treated the various encounters and conflicts as stuff to riff off of, while Mark saw the encounters as puzzles to be solved.

For example, one of the encounters was with two trolls who lived near a bandit gang that the Trollbabes were searching for.  Play kind of bogged down around this encounter, as Nick and Mark tried to figure out a way around them.  I suggested that these trolls could also be talked to, but it never quite clicked with them that they were anything but obstacles to be avoided or disposed of.

Related to this phenomenon, between the two of them, they only made one Relationship during the entire game - even though I kept pointing out all the opportunities they had for getting relationships.

Another issue was that they decided to start in the same location, because they felt it would be easier on all of us to focus on one story instead of two.  Now, in my first, very successful Trollbabe game, the characters started in the same place, but, almost immediately, they split up, tackling different aspects of the situation.  However, in this game, Mark and Nick kept their characters together, party-style, for the entire game, and, because of the restrictions placed on magic, Mark's magic-using expert kind of faded to a support role.

But, again, despite these snags, the game was enjoyable, and it was another solid learning experience for me.  I really need to begin all my games by talking a little bit more explicitly about the group's expectations with regard to tone, mood, level of seriousness, and playstyle.

But the session was not a complete bust, because, immediately afterwards, I realized what we had done wrong.  Though I had created a scenario in response to the player characters, we (as a group) did not embed the characters thoroughly enough in the situation.  My relationship map-stuff fizzled because we didn't pair it with player authored kickers, and the players felt that they had no way of actually getting in on the action because they were on the periphery of the relationship map.  The Trollbabe stakes/consequences stuff didn't work, either, because we did not have the specific, defined relationship of character, setting, and situation that that technique (like Dogs in the Vineyard town creation) requires.

Hi Jon,

Could you give a brief transcript of the TSoY game? Since I'm preparing to run TSoY myself, I'm very interested in the actual fiction you created.

- Frank

Frank,

There really wasn't much story, as such.  Grisbryn and Lorenzo were invited to a fancy party in honor of Lorenzo's cousin-by-marriage, a beautiful Ammeni girl, who was the daughter of a powerful Ammeni House.  They met and hob-nobbed with some of the "important" NPCs, including the head of the university and some of the rich merchant rulers of the city.  I introduced a lot of color detail about the class situation in the city.  I tried to provoke some interaction between the PCs and various NPCs. 

However, all of this was mostly just me setting the scene, and saying what happened.  The players never felt that they could engage with what was happening.  Instead, Nick kept trying to engineer situations where his Key of Conscience would fire - but he kept trying to engineer them in-character.  That is, he wanted Lorenzo to trick people into thinking that he had helped them.  Mark focused on his character's interest in  Maldorite history, at the expense of everything else.  He had his character question NPCs about their knowledge of Maldorite artifacts, and he kept asking me to go into detail about the various works of Maldorite art decorating the Ammeni's hall.

Finally, I introduced a not-quite-a-bang: someone poisoned the head of the university in order to cover up the theft of a gift given to the Ammeni princess (the gift was a priceless, ancient Maldorite artifact).  In an attempt to trigger Lorenzo's "Key of Conscience", I had one of the "bad guy" NPCs accuse a Zaru slave girl of participating in the robbery (she had served food to the head of the university).

But the players did not feel at all connected to the situation.  They didn't care that some NPC had been poisoned, and, because they saw themselves as peripheral characters, they felt it wasn't their characters' place to deal with the robbery.

It was at this point, after a little over an hour of non-engagement, that I suggested we call it quits.  If I were to do this again I would have conspired with the players beforehand to bring them deeper into the relationship map: Lorenzo would have been in love with the Ammeni princess or the Zaru slave girl, Grisbryn would have been the adopted son of the head of the university, or something along those lines.  Also, I would have started it off with the bang, instead of fumbling around for an hour, mistakenly trying to set it up.

-Jon

One shortcut method for getting the PCs involved is to make them the funnel through which everything happens. Your bang with the poisoning is great, but what if the assassin approached the PCs the night before and asked for their help? "You're strangers here, no one will suspect you. I have money..." Or tried to blackmail them into helping?

What if a friend of the professor came to them and told them that he feared for his friend's life? "I don't know who to trust here. Anyone could be plotting to kill him! You're the only ones who can help me!"

What if, when the Zaru slave girl is accused afterwards, she points at a PC and says, "But I couldn't have done it! I was with him all night!"

Stuff like that. Grabby.

Ultimately, though, the players have to reciprocate. They have to push their characters and create connections and get involved in the world around them, or the game will fizzle, no matter how grabby you make things.

That's a good suggestion, especially for an inexperienced player like me, because it offers concrete choices.  Jon did a fine job of setting the stage, but like he says, Nick & I were having trouble finding direction on it--the moves we made just didn't fit into the way that Jon had plotted out the initial storyline.  When we make another go at it, for purposes of getting things going, I think it would be helpful if Jon gave us less freedom of action--really sheparded us through the opening act of the drama with a series of confrontations that require specific action.  (And to increase our freedom of choice as the drama develops and we become more comfortable in the setting.)

Hi John,

That makes sense to me.  One of the reasons I like Trollbabe (and DitV) is that it has a built-in reason for the NPCs to approach the PCs in that way. 

Hi Mark,

Thanks for contributing to the thread.

One of the problems might be that I was trying my hardest not to have a specific plot in mind.  At the same time, I was trying to put things into play that would engage with the characters' Keys.  In terms of the opening scenario, I had no particular resolution in mind: I was hoping that you guys would interact with the NPCs and bring resolution yourselves.

But rather than shepherd you through early scenes, what I think might work better is to make use of more aggressive scene-framing: for example, START everything off with the Head of the University keeling over, and everyone turning on the Zaru slave-girl.  At that point, you can decide what you want to do, but you have a much more immediate and pressing context for your choices.

This is kind of what I did in the Trollbabe game: moved quickly to the points in the game where your characters had to make some kind of choice/judgment on the situation.

However, I am interested in the idea of "training wheel"-style scenarios, to get you used to this kind of game.

--Jon