Hello everyone,

My name's Jon.  Glendower is a handle of mine from a while back, I wasn't aware of the general policy to use real names here until after I registered.  This is my first post, I've been editing and re-editing this document to try to put the best foot forwards. 

I'm a big fan of the Forge, and this is my first real post.  I'm using the guidelines suggested by Bankuei on post #4 of http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14182.0, in an effort to contribute something coherent, share my session, raise some issues, and maybe get some suggestions on implementation of GNS theory.

I've read the 3 essays on GNS, I think I have a handle on what it's trying to say, so here goes.

Premise

The system I'm using is D&D 3.5, in the Eberron game world.  The current game is 8 months old.  This is our first Eberron game setting, though all of us have been using 3.0/3.5 rules since they came out (back in early 2000)

Gaming Group

Our gaming group has added or removed a few players over the years.

Jon - This is me.  I am the GM for this particular game.  I started as a player when I was 9 years old, learning at the gaming table from my friend and his Dad as Gm.  Twenty years later, I'm still a part of the hobby.  I've played quite a few RPG systems, starting with old school D&D, AD&D, Palladium games (Heroes Unlimited and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles being favorites, but I have also played Rifts and the Fantasy setting), Call of Cthulu, Paranoia, Battletech, Mechwarrior, and the more recent White Wolf World of Darkness, from First edition up to the current "revamp".

Somewhere in there I started Gm-ing, and found I enjoyed the challenge of getting the game "right" so that people were excited and having a good time.  But more recently, say in the last 3-4 years, I'm been having problems.  I've been having problems finding that "right"-ness, but couldn't articulate what it was I was missing.  Some of the newer players think I'm crazy, but the older guard agrees.

When I run games I really enjoy setting the scene.  I like adding little details to the world they are in, adding props ranging from scrolls to bits of "exotic food".  I like to see characters interacting with each other, and with NPCs I've put in positions of importance or significance.  I like linking up history with the character backgrounds, taking their ideas on their writeups and literally running with it as far as it can go.  So character interaction, lots of of background color, and a strong Setting are my favorite aspects.  I hope this helps explain the type of Gm I run.

I've come here to figure out some things, hopefully to gain some insights into my chosen hobby, and in doing so find out what is it I find fun in what I do, and what play style I like to favor.  The actual play I'll be detailing below will provide some clues. 

The players (using their character names) are:

Arrakis - This would be my younger (by a few years) brother.  Arrakis favors and thrives where there is a challenge and risk.  He likes consequences to what he does and his choices to have a real meaning for good or bad.  He has a strong personality and acts as De Facto leader in most of the games.  He plays a human Druid, who's backstory focuses on revenge.  A demon that destroyed his commune is now hunting him, and he needs power and allies to defeat it, while trying to keep a low profile an not attract attention.  These two conflicting goals often cause some of the best roleplaying in the game, as he has to make some hard choices and take some real risks.

Peln - Peln is originally a friend of my brother's, and over the years has become a friend of mine.  He has self-admitted low confidence, and can be quite shy.  His favored style is gamist.  Peln plays a human Wizard.  One of the problems I found with Peln is that he gave me zero back story, and therefore I had no indication of what he wanted out of the game.  I tried to make some guesses from his choices of skills and feats on his character sheet, but these were pretty much all off the mark.  He created an "effective wizard", not something he wanted to actually play.

Kharic - Kharic was a friend of mine from a prior gaming group that fell apart due to some very toxic players.  The two of us remained friends.  Kharic and Arrakis have become great friends, while Kharic and myself have drifted apart.  Kharic has a strong personality and is usually in charge if Arrakis isn't.  The two of them work together and drive a lot of the game's direction.  Kharic likes to create a very solid backstory to his characters, with goals and motivations.  His characters are always cabable to attack any challenge thrown at him, and he very much likes to forge his own direction through a campaign.  He's fond of putting NPCs that hinder or harm onto a "Hitlist" for revenge later, ensuring the punishment usually amusingly fits the crime.  However, he always does this with the other players in mind.  Kharic plays a Shifter Ranger , who wants to provide his human mother a better life than indentured servitude to some rather repressive Lords, and come to terms with his beastial, partially lycanthropic heritage. 

Forged - Forged is Arrrakis' friend from University.  He tends to react to events in the campaign, and usually wants to follow the majority than forge his own path.  His characters often have little backstory, so again I take what I can off of his character sheet, which shows a character built for combat.  Forged sometimes doesn't pay a lot of attention to what is going on, and attempts to engage him into the story recieve mixed results.  I simply don't know what he wants for his characters, and as a result have to make some guesses.  Forged plays a Warforged Monk, his backstory is limited to being essentially a tool of war, but his goals are clearly defined.  He wants to know what it means to exist, to feel, and have a choice.

The New Player

Nyx - Nyx is a new player and a bit of an enigma.  He's very shy and I haven't been able to pinpoint what style he seems to enjoy the most.  I'd love some help in maybe finding out what style of play he'd have the most fun in, perhaps in terms of what questions I could ask.  Nyx was once Arrakis' co-worker, and has since become about acquaintance level friends to the rest of us.  He plays a Changeling Rogue, who can shift his features at will.  Again no backstory about his character, no clues about what he wanted other than the skills he picked, which he later admitted were "skills he thought would be useful" rather than "skills he was interested in".

Former players

Gorrin - Gorrin had clear ideas about what he wanted to do, and what direction he took, and it was often not in the same path as the rest of the party. His presence was disruptive, causing long arguments about what path to take, which NPCs to trust, that sort of thing.  He had a habit of verbally challenging or even attacking any NPC the Gm was playing.  This was initially interesting, but the arguments would drag, and the party would be paralyzed.  From the big model, a whole lot of Zilchplay occured.  He ran in our gaming group until just before Eberron, when we pretty much had enough and asked him to leave.  His character in older games had the same features, a friendless, hard-edged loner who wanted to stay a loner.

Lliera - Lliera was another survivor of the group me and Kharic once played in (not one of the toxic players).  She enjoyed playing her character, especially enjoying the details of her appearance, activities, and her interactions with others.  She particularly enjoyed playing out elaborate scenes, and wasn't a fan of using dice, preferring to "roleplay" it all out. 

History

Our gaming group has existed for the past 3-4 years.  The first game I ran with this group was with Lliera, Arrakis, Kharic, Peln and Forged.  It was a D&D 3.0 game with a setting based loosely on the declining Roman Empire.  It had a strong central plot and the characters had backstories that linked them to the plot, and the central plot was king.  There was a lot of railroading in the name of the almighty plot.  Lliera and Kharic really enjoyed the game, Arrakis, Peln and Forged were mostly bored.  The game came to an end when several disagreements in the game caused Lliera to leave. 

The second game was a D&D 3.0/3.5 (we converted when the new books were available) Forgotten Realms setting. I was Gm.  We gained Gorrin and Nyx at this point.  In this I focused on events in game by players having longterm effects.  There was an over-riding metaplot (it was set during a war in the Nation of Cormyr - Death of the Dragon timeline for those in the know) that the characters brushed into a few times.  They mostly did their own thing, and I tried to listen to them more in terms of what they wanted to do with their characters (something Arrakis complained about last game).  The problem was that I didn't get any cues or direction from Nyx, Peln or Forged. 

Arrakis and Kharic worked together to drive the story, with Gorrin assisting.  This went great until Gorrin began to try to force the group down a particular personal goal (fighting an evil group far away from the war) and Arrakis and Kharic disagreeing.  This led to several hour sessions of just interparty bickering, and eventually I ended the game after a particularly bad session. 

The third game was run by Peln, D&D 3.5 with a setting and world made by the Gm.  The concept was a theocracy of good, neutral and evil pantheons, existing in uneasy truce against a more powerful destructive force that threatened the land.  The players were thrust into that setting as this force began to work against the land.  The game was heavily based on where we went and what we did, though there was a larger backstory and metaplot for what was happening in the world.  The problem of Gorrin trying to take over the game and control it reared up, and it eventually resulted in Gorrin being asked to leave the group.

Which brings us up to today.

Game Details

Our games occur on Tuesday evenings, from 7:30 pm to 10:30 pm.  They occur on a weekly basis, as this seems easiest to schedule for all involved.  This actual play report is last week's game, specifically the January 10th session.

The Game
How it went:i]
It went not very well.  We spent the first hour and a half talking about stuff out of game.  There was a real reluctance to actually get into the session, a sense that it was being avoided.

The game itself was a continuation of an adventure that put the characters up against some low level Formian bug-men and their mind-slaves.  They were in a four-story tower and had been in there the last several game sessions, fighting their way up to the leader, which was a Dwarven Woman who had changed herself into a proto-queen. 

The game itself played out in the remaining hour and a half, mostly fighting through the guards to the Dwarf, and then wiping her out.  It was almost all combat, and people just didn't care about what was happening.  There was a question of "why are we doing this?" coming from Arrakis and Kharic.  When I reminded them that it was to stop them from raiding a local trade route, the question was asked again.  "Why are WE doing this?" The other three players said little, and rolled their dice when told to.

The fact that they weren't commited to the conflict is pretty clear.  I had fumbled here, they couldn't care if they lived or died.  After killing the Dwarf woman, the game kind of broke down.  I was describing a reward ceremony, but Peln looked like he was about to fall asleep, and Nyx almost looked like he WAS asleep.  Forged was stacking dice carefully, not paying attention, Arrakis and Kharic interacted a little in the ceremony, but mostly just sat there and waited for me to finish things up.  Finally I wrapped it, and everyone immediately headed home.

A few days later, at a party, I met with the players.  We discussed what was happening, and "a fresh start, new rules, new setting, new everything" was decided among the group of us, to try for a clean slate.

So here I am in a quandry.  I want to play with this group, as when things are working they really work well, and it's a lot of fun.  But at the same time, I can't seem to figure out what is causing these disconnects in group, why I can't try to engage the group to enjoy themselves, and avoid the classic 20 minutes of fun in a 3 hour session.  I need some help, some suggestions on what aspect of the "big Model" myself and the others fall under.  I'm willing to try anything to keep me in the hobby and having fun, and I think the essays I've read here suggest that a lot of you know your stuff. 

With Eberron on hold, I also need a game to run.  I am absolutely in love with what I'm reading in Primetime Adventures, and I've tried to pitch the idea of it to the other players with some degree of interest.  But what other games might help this group achieve this goal of fun?  How do I get some of the shyer members to open up on what they want out of a game? 

I look forward to any kind of assistance, thanks for your time!

Jon.

Well, your more dynamic and outgoing players sound like they would enjoy a game like PtA very much.  The problem with the shy people is that they haven't tipped their hands to you in all this time, and you play pretty frequently.  It seems like even the new player has been around for a while at this point.

One good thing about PtA is that it will pretty much force the shy people to set scenes and make choices about their characters.  Whether they enjoy narrativism will be a mystery until they open themselves up.  And that's the bad thing, if they don't open up and learn to play their characters hard the game is going to feel like it has lead weights on.

There's another problem with PtA: I'm not sure if you could or should run it in your preferred style.  You are going to, by necessity, give up a great deal of narrative control.  Producing PtA is about rolling with the punches and providing effective conflicts for your characters to engage with, and it's usually on their terms.  You only set the scene occasionally.  Weaving backstories is not something easily done, or even constructive, really.  Prepping props and stuff is certainly possible, but you might need to bite the bullet and let them go unused if your players surprise you.

All this is pretty theoretical, though.  I think it might help if I heard more actual play.  How did they get involved in this quest?  You say that you like to take cues from the players; did a cue lead you into this dungeon somehow?  Why would the players be interested in assaulting these formians?  What interested you in the scenario?  Why didn't it interest them?

I have to admit that one of the problems I have with D&D is that I don't think that the character sheets translate very well into descriptions of what the player is interested in.  For one thing, players are expected to fill niches, so their choice of class might be deceptive.  Also, the player takes it for granted that combat survivability is important, even if they don't particularly care about combat (in which case, they probably shouldn't be playing D&D, in my opinion).  Using character descriptions can help, but they won't if they don't get written.

Hi!
  Well, the players that are shy, might actually be casual gamers. I have two in my group and there is not much you can do about them. They will not be spending any more time on the game except what is at the session, they will not get engrossed with the minutae of the setting and you will find yourself saying things like "A shifter is sort of like a werewolf" Casual gamers are not bad players, but they come with their own set of challenges. Ironically, there are ways, you can trick casual gamers into getting "into" the game.
  Set your game in a setting higlighted by popular media, LotR, Star Wars, etc. The setting/feel is already established and alot of the BG material will be known. Of course, as a creative outlet, you will be limited in what kinds of games you can run. Setting a game of political intrigue in LotR, will be nigh impossible, everyone is pretty much already taken sides, so subtle political maneuvers are right out.
  Also, the casual gamer can survive the spotlight. A game like PtA will be OK, as long as other players that have learned the rules get their scenes before the casual gamers so they can learn the rules, lol
  I could be wrong, you might have another situation here, but most players will tell you what they want from a game if you ask them, unless they are casual gamers who haven't thought about it.
  Finally, spending 90 mins catching up is OK. This is a social activity and it is good that the players like/want to know how their friends/acquaintances are doing. And it is usually not a reflection on your game/setting/gm style. I wouldn't read too much into it, as a GM, you may want to moderate it a bit and keep it down to 30 mins unless something major has happened (new bf/gf famiuly thing, etc.)...
  Anyways, it sounds like you are doing a good job as a GM and you have a good group, good luck!

Heya, I'm brand-new too, so I don't know how much help I can give you except to say I'm going through the same thing.  Having read your post I can say I'm fairly certain we're not in the same group, though a lot of the details are the same, right down to the day and times played.  I've had a disconnect going back a few months now, and it wasn't until I stumbled across The Forge a few weeks ago that I really had the terminology to describe why gaming (by which I mean, "the particular games we ran and the particular way we ran them") was no longer satisfying to me.

Instead of hijacking this thread and flying it to Cuba, I'll probably have to go start a thread detailing my own problems ("Hello, my name is Mason and I'm a Simulationist+Gamist style player," etc).  I will say that in my experience, players want what they want.  And some of them aren't great at expressing it.  I mean, gamers aren't exactly the incredibly outgoing and socially advanced individuals that we're always being portrayed as in the media.  Some people do just sit at the table, stack their dice and seem to be on the verge of falling asleep or storming out and when asked about their enjoyment of the game say things like, "Oh, yeah, fine.  Almost 9th level," in a tone that conveys the idea they are three days into the seven day waiting period for a deer rifle. 

What I am currently trying to do with my group is open up a discussion about gaming because it seems to me we've been doing it the same way for a long time, and the problems we're having tend to keep coming up in six month cycles.  This type of model might work for a marriage, but gaming is my hobby and I'd like to enjoy it if at all possible.  At least by putting the issues on the table, you might be able to get people to open up about what's bothering them and what they'd like to do differently.  That's what I'm trying to engage my group with right now.  "What stories do we want to tell and how do we want to tell them?"

Hello Jon,

One thing off the bat; Placing yourselves in the Big Model isn't anywhere near the most important thing. Attempting to find your own niche is difficult; Trying to figure out everyone else's niche is near impossible, and possibly disruptive to the group's social dynamic besides. Do NOT start using Forge theory or jargon with your group, unless one or more of them seem interested in it on their own, and then, restrict it to those people. Nothing puts people's backs up quite so quickly as being analyzed or pigeonholed.

It sounds to me that you need new techniques as much as you need anything else. The biggest thing you seem to be saying is that you don't know how to grab their interests. In some ways, a new game might help you out, because it will introduce some of the techniques I'm going to mention and do so in such a way that your group will be more likely to accept (as part of the written rules, rather than the GM trying "something new").

Kicker: If you've been around here long, you've heard this term. This thing is hard to do if you're not used to it, but it's crucial. A kicker is something that happens in the character's life that cannot be ignored, leaves several real options (as opposed to situations where there's only one feasible course of action) causes the character to react and to continue reacting, and has consequences that extend beyond the original situation, and whose resolution will take some time and effort by the player and the character. Sorcerer by Ron Edwards pioneered this technique, and offers good guidelines on how to create them.

Bangs: A bang is kind of like a kicker, but on a smaller scale. Specifically, it's an event that requires some sort of reaction (if any or all of the characters can ignore it, then it's probably not a good bang) without in any way encouraging or discouraging any particular choices. This technique was also, I believe, authored in Sorcerer, but it can be used with little difficulty in *every* game. Bangs are best used anytime the play slows down or begins to drag, and you should have a "bandolier of bangs" ready to drop on your players whenever you deem it best. It's best to have a few bangs that should work for the whole group, and a few bangs tailored to each character. Good ways to pre-generate Bangs is to tie some in to the Kicker, and others into any explicit Flags (see below.)

Flags: This is a somewhat new term I believe, but not a new idea. A flag can come in several forms, some mechanically encouraged before play, others are going to be things you're going to have to watch for as a GM. A flag is specifically a statement of what your players are interested in. Not the characters; the PLAYERS. This difference is crucial, because of the same thing you pointed out with Nyx's rogue and Peln's wizard. Their characters don't highlight what they're interested in so much as what they expect YOU to be interested in (and hence throw at them) and consequences they'd rather avoid (failure to pick a lock or disarm a trap, for example). Games like The Riddle of Steel, Dogs in the Vineyard and Burning Wheel do this explicitly with Spiritual Attributes, traits and Beliefs/Instincts/Traits written right on your character sheet. These things are less matters of effectiveness (which can be misleading, as you've discovered) as character definition, and are hence *somewhat* less prone to misinterpretation. Other than explicit Flags, you're going to have to pay attention to the things that get the players' attention. Things that make them sit up and take notice, take part. When they start getting into it, make a note of what happened, and make sure to explore that more later. This works hand in hand with bangs, as it can help you generate, in play, your "bandolier". Also, for your characters that like deep back-story there are usually flags galore in there.

Chances are, you've been using some of these techniques already, consciously or unconsciously. The key is to start doing so consciously (a hard thing; I still fail to do it pretty regularly) and to realize that effective use of these techniques does not work well with "scenario" play, where the GM prescripts modules or scenarios for the PCs and the PCs slog through to the end, or else they don't get to follow the GM's "plot". It's definitely okay to have an idea of the world's greater events, but don't let your story eclipse the group's story. These techniques will help you do that.

My advice for new systems, if that's what you'd like, were mentioned above. Burning Wheel and The Riddle of Steel are both "typical fantasy" enough that they should make a good transition from D&D. However be aware that the deadliness of TRoS has turned many players off, because a single hit can kill a "high-level" character just as easily as a low level one, and there's a good amount of *player* skill involved. Burning Wheel uses some somewhat unusual systems that tend to bend some players' heads (including my own) like pre-scripted combat and the resource system. (yes, you must buy shoes separate from clothes, damnit!) Ron Edwards' Sorcerer is fun and not too complicated or "pervy" in it's rules, but it tends to ask real questions where it's semi-lookalike V:tM really doesn't. It does tend to encourage more intense, visceral play than many players may be used to. Of course, it may be right up your group's alley.

Again, as far as your play group is concerned, forget about GNS for now. It never hurts to think about your gaming preferences, but it seems that you've got a pretty good thing going already, so don't mess with it. Just work on the areas that fail to satisfy first, then when you get it all worked out, you can advance to self-analysis by Creative Agenda.

Hello,

Quick clarifier: a Kicker for a character is authored by the player of that character, and as a term, is linked to the improvement/story system built into Sorcerer. So it doesn't translate to other games quite as easily as many people think. But that's not a big deal, and Lance (wolfen) is right to point it out as a technique to learn about.

More importantly, I'm having a terrible time understanding what you've written, because you're using character names for real people. This throws me into total confusion - if possible, please re-present using the people's names for the people and the character's names for the characters. A simple list will do fine.

Best,
Ron

(If this ends up a double post, I appologize... I hit "Post" and nothing happened....)

For our play group, I came up with something I simply called a "Character Cover Sheet"  (Storn will be forwarding to Ron for posting.)  It is a list of questions that is intended for group character creation, and should help drive the kind of discussion you were mentioning above.  If it gets posted, please let me know what you think.  Maybe it will be of some help to you (it is generic enough that most games could use it) or if you have suggestions on how it could be better written, let me know.  Storn and another friend helped edit it, after I wrote it up.

The subject of finding out what the players want has already been broached, so I'll just mention a few other ways to do that.

If your players are open about the game and their feelings, you can flat out ask them. I had an "interview" with a Mage player before the game this week and we both felt much better. I was able to present things that pique his interest, and he was more "in character" from the start, making decisions like a Willworker rather than a tired choir teacher. I asked him backstory style questions but in a very open format; admitting to him that I wanted to know what he wants out of a game session.

The shy players may not be as willing to offer up this info, so you may have to glean it from them. Not ideal, but if they truly are shutting away feedback, them you have to dig for it if you expect to get them interested. During the socializing, are the shy players more active? Do they jump into the conversation when a particular subject comes up? If so, note it down! This is something the player cares about, and it can be fuel for the game. When two people who dropped out of the conversation about Aliens vs. Predator suddenly pipe up about Lance Henriksen's abusive upbringing, that is grist for the mill. They don't want to slaughter dungeons full of bugs, but a story about protecting a child from a brutal elder may get them going. (Or maybe they just really like Millenium?) Imperfect, but necessary if you hope to bring someone out of their shell.

Another option you must always be aware of is your ability to pause the game, step back and talk. Don't just wait until after the session. If someone is asking "why are we doing this?" Stop the game and find and answer among the group. If you can't answer that question, then don't let them waste their time. Leave the bugs for another group of adventurers and go looking for what will make them ask "why AREN'T we doing this?"

To follow up on what RDU Neil has said...

... the cover sheet he came up with is simply a prop to facilitate those players who might not come up with a ton of backstory.  It asks them to NOT put down anything that the PLAYER is not interested in exploring.  And then prompts the HOW the player might want an element to be explored.

So, for Jon, this might be a way to get the conversation rolling on your Eberron reboot.  We are facing a very similar situation... a semi-reboot of the Red Dragon Universe (a long running champions campaign that Neil runs), where our new PCs are going to be from an alternative RDU dimension.  Dimensional adventure themes have been frequent in RDU of late.  This group of PCs is about to go on a series of dimension hopping adventures inspired by Marvel comics Exiles and some elements cribbed from Stargate.  We have some players who are not the most forthcoming about backstory or communicate the "cool hook for them.".  We are also contemplating multiple GMs down the road with this cast of PCs.

... and Neil and I have very different interpertations of things... so I've given him hooks/flags/drivers in the past and he has taken them to places I didn't want to go... and vice versa.  So it is a way for me to state my expectations very clearly.

Burning Wheel was mentioned earlier, and much of the discussion between Neil and I are from my perusing of BW.

I've tossed off an e-mail to Ron with the file... if he feels like it is germane... we will proceed.

Crap. I knew I'd mess something up. Yes, as Ron pointed out, Kickers are player-authored, and this is important.  However, I think I'll have to disagree with him about the translatability of Kickers. It may not be as centrally tied to the mechanics if it's used as a technique, but as a way to get things off to a good start and provide a basis for keeping things moving via related bangs, it's invaluable. While it's use in other games may not have the same mechanical strength, if you take a little time to tie it into the reward mechanic of whatever game you're playing, I think it should serve as well.

(had some weird keyboard issues, so half of my post was posted before I was done.. If the prior partial post could be deleted for clarity, that'd be spiffy.)

First off, thanks very much for the warm reception.  First posts are hard to do, especially in a forum filled with people who's opinions and thoughts I respect and, in some cases, am in awe of.  I'm a bit of a shy guy, so this really helps, thanks again.

I wanted to mention a few specific quotes thus far, before I add another post to this thread to fix up my Actual play experience. 

Wolfen wrote:
Again, as far as your play group is concerned, forget about GNS for now. It never hurts to think about your gaming preferences, but it seems that you've got a pretty good thing going already, so don't mess with it. Just work on the areas that fail to satisfy first, then when you get it all worked out, you can advance to self-analysis by Creative Agenda.

gains wrote:
Another option you must always be aware of is your ability to pause the game, step back and talk. Don't just wait until after the session. If someone is asking "why are we doing this?" Stop the game and find and answer among the group. If you can't answer that question, then don't let them waste their time. Leave the bugs for another group of adventurers and go looking for what will make them ask "why AREN'T we doing this?"

Ron wrote:
More importantly, I'm having a terrible time understanding what you've written, because you're using character names for real people. This throws me into total confusion - if possible, please re-present using the people's names for the people and the character's names for the characters. A simple list will do fine.

Premise

D&D 3.5, Eberron game setting.  We don’t have any particular House rules about system, just some general rules about behavior.

Gaming Group

Jon - This is me.  I am the GM for this particular game. 

The players are:

Dan - This would be my slightly younger brother. He’s usually team leader in whatever we end up playing.  He plays Arrakis, a human Druid.  He had a character history.  A demon that destroyed his commune is now hunting him.  He needs power and allies to defeat it, while trying to keep a low profile. These two goals often cause some hard choices and real risks.

Rob is a friend of my brother's.  He has self-admitted low confidence, and can be quite shy.  He plays Peln, a human Wizard.  Peln had no back story. 

Kyle has role played with me since I was thirteen.  We’re good friends, though Dan and Kyle tend to hang out a lot more outside of game.  Kyle has a strong personality and is usually in charge if Dan isn't.  The two of them work together and drive a lot of the game's direction.  Kyle likes to create a very solid back story to his characters, and he likes to forge his own direction through a campaign.  Kyle plays Kharic, a Shifter Ranger.  His back story focuses on providing his human mother a better life than indentured servitude to some rather repressive Lords, and come to terms with his bestial, partially lycanthropic heritage. 

Wes is Dan’s friend from University.  He tends to react to events in the campaign, and usually wants to follow the plot given to him.  His characters often have a short back story. Wes plays Forged, a Warforged Monk.  His back story talks about how he was a tool of war, and now that it is a time of peace, he needs to figure out what to do next. 

The New Player

Dave is a bit of an enigma.  He's very shy and I haven't been able to pinpoint what he enjoys in the game.  Dave was once Dan’s co-worker, and has since become about acquaintance level friends to the rest of us.  He plays Nyx, a Changeling Rogue, who can shift his features at will.  No back story about his character.

Game Details

Our games occur on Tuesday evenings, from 7:30 pm to 10:30 pm.  They occur on a weekly basis, as this seems easiest to schedule for all involved.  This actual play report is last week's game, specifically the January 10th session.

The Game

History
The Eberron game was a fresh start in a new world.  It followed a 2 year campaign in the Forgotten Realms setting.

Because I didn’t have a lot of player input I put together an NPC called The Benefactor to give the characters direction.  The Benefactor was a way to feed the characters missions, and to keep them together as a group.  I played him as an ethereal presence that could only visit them in dreams.  Sometimes he would “share” their dreams, so all could speak to him when he gave them tasks. 

This current task was to investigate a missing trade caravan in the borderlands of two bickering nations.  The missing caravan was causing even more tension between the nations, which may lead to a possible invasion.

The characters traveled to the town the caravan left from.  Dan suggested to Dave that he get Nyx to do some gather information checks.  He did so, and I provided some clues, a group of soldiers from one nation had already entered into the borderlands, and a strange colony of “bug-people” were wiped out in the area several years ago, one of the last times the two nations worked together on anything.

They traveled to a tower with no entrance, finding a way in through a cavern filled with giant ants.  They have been moving through the four floors of the tower, discovering the culprit of the bug people’s rampage.  The story of a crazy bug-obsessed sorceress who is trying to turn her and others into bug people began to emerge.  Now they are about to encounter the sorceress and her guards on the top floor.

How it went
It went poorly.  We spent the first hour and a half talking about stuff out of game.  There was a real reluctance to actually get into the session, a sense that it was being avoided. I said numerous times “ok, let’s get started”, and another conversation would spring up about the week’s events. 

Eventually, Dan and Kyle put their minis down on the table, and things began.  I started with a review of what had happened the last few sessions, as this was our first time back from a two week Christmas break. 

They were in a laboratory, standing around a ladder leading up to a trap door.  There’s some discussion on who goes first up the ladder, it leads to a brief argument between Kyle and Wes (both want their character first up the ladder), but is quickly resolved when Dan agrees that Kharic is the best choice to go up due to his high armor class.  Dave and Rob don’t get involved in the argument. 

Once Kharic gets up through the trapdoor, he’s beset by two of the queen’s guards, men who have been turned into partial ant-creatures.  The ground is covered in squirming eggs and slimy, sharp toothed grubs.  In the corner is a large misshapen woman, her features blending with that of an ant.  A swollen abdomen deposits another egg upon the floor.

Kharic is beset by these two guards, and fights to keep the trapdoor open while others scramble in to assist.  They begin to work together to get the guards taken down and the ground clear to the Queen.

Around the table players are suggesting tactics, measuring distance, asking questions about the world around them.  The game got bogged down a bit due to excessive requests on my part for balance checks due to the slimy, writhing ground.  Despite this, they worked together and defeated the Queen. 

After collecting her treasure they left and returned to the town.  I narrated the return without incident, as it was getting late and I wanted to wrap up. 

After killing the queen, the game lost the momentum.  Back at the town, describing a reward ceremony, Rob looked like he was about to fall asleep, and Dave looked like he WAS asleep.  Wes was putting his stuff away looking bored, Dan and Kyle were also looking rather tired.  Finally I wrapped it, and everyone immediately headed home.

Post game

A few days later, at a party, I met with the players.  We discussed a bit, and the general consensus was that the setting was a little stale, and that a change of pace might be needed.  My problem was that Eberron was the change of pace from Forgotten Realms, and it turned out to not be the right pace either.  What is the right pace for my group?  How do I find that out, is there a less painful way of finding that out?

So what’s going on?  I’m starting strong, people are interested, but the game just fizzles out, people lose interest, and eventually it’s an effort to even play.  I’m not looking for a laugh a minute, but out of that whole session I got about 10 minutes of interesting play. 

I hope this is easier to follow.  I’ve culled it down a lot, removing a lot of asides and focusing on the “actual play” of the actual play.

Glendower,

I've had similar problems in my games before and a good bit of it was not concentrating on what the players liked and tossing out the rest.  I'd spend too much time on describing every agonizing day of an overland journey.  I'd get guard shifts from the players.  I'd roll for random encounters.  All the good stuff the DMG and every DMing article I had read before told me to do.  The problem was that 80% of my game was BORING.  Hell, even I was bored and I was the DM.  Gah!

Finally, I was reading on the boards here one day and I came across an article about Scene Framing.  In the article someone said, "Just get to the good stuff and throw out the rest." and a light went off in my head.  Why did I bother doing all the crap that was boring?  It didn't forward the story.  It didn't entertain the players.  It really served no purpose whatsoever.  So, I thought, "Next session I'm not doing any of that."

The next session was one of the best sessions I had had in a very long time.  I framed the scene to a conflict.  The players settled the conflict.  I framed to the next conflict.  They settled that one.  I didn't bother having them make camp unless something interesting was going to happen and then I just had it happen.  I didn't spend a lot of useless time in villages when all they wanted to do was resupply.  I just had them get what they wanted and then got back to framing to the next interesting thing.  It worked wonders.  I'm not sure where all the threads on Scene Framing are (my Search-fu is weak) but it is a technique that can really liven up a game.

The real trick to getting it to work though is getting a good bead on what types of things they like.  What gets them jazzed?  Sometimes just asking will get you the answer but it sure didn't help me.  What did work a good bit of the time was to just watch for the signs of boredom.  If they get all glassy-eyed in the fight scene with the bugs, just annouce, "You wipe them all out.  What next?"  See if they'll come up with something.  Frame to whatever that something is and start there.  Glassy-eyed again?  Resolve the conflict in a couple of sentences and "What next?"  Eventually you should get to something someone cares about.

Hope this helps a little.

Hi!

You know what I'm seeing or rather, not seeing? Let's see if you do too.

1. Across three of the five characters, we have an indentured mother relying on her son to free her, a guy who's trying to balance seeking power and avoiding notoriety while evading a demon, and a traumatized war veteran seeking a role in peaceful life. It's not surprising that the three players for them are also most tightly-linked as friends, as well, and I expect that each of them at least appreciates one another's characters' back-stories.

2. In the game, I see an NPC who tells the characters what to do, a missing caravan which he tells them to check out, and a tower they have to clear floor by floor. More specifically, I see a tactical decision about a ladder, a fight with some ant-creatures, and collecting some treasure.

What I really see is that #2 has zilch, zero, nothing at all to do with #1. You know what I'd be like, as a player who made up a neat character with back-stories like this, if I were in a game where this was the case?

First, I'd be pretty reluctant to start playing at all. I mean, why do I care what the Benefactor tells me to do? I'd rather hang out with the other guys and shoot the shit, and get around to playing more-or-less as an excuse to justify getting together. And look, that's what happened.

Second, when playing, I'd be really reluctant to risk my character in any way. Oh, let's say I was playing Kharic - why risk losing hit points or losing my character entirely, when my whole deal with the indentured mom isn't going on? If it were involved, I'd have Kharic fight like a demon and get himself all wound up in all kinds of emotional ways. Or if one of my friend's issues was involved (like the guy with the demon gets the chance to run a guild, or something), I'd have Kharic be very supportive during that adventure. Since nothing like that is happening, then hey - risk-averse, wait-and-see, even verbally kind of obstructive play is what's called for. And look, that's what happened.

I don't think you'll ever see or hear the players verbalizing this. They may not even realize it in any coherent way. But they told you what they wanted in their back-stories, or three of them did. It's as if they ordered ham, ham-and-cheese, and cheese-and-salami. You keep giving them potato salad, and it even happens to be a lot like the potato salad they had last time. Sooner or later, they're gonna get pretty tired of making the effort to order. Their signal that a "change of pace" is an act of desperation on their part - they don't know how to ask for what they really want, or what to say that they haven't done via their sheets, so they're hoping maybe the game itself (the setting or something, who knows) will do the job.

Now, some of that is unfair to you, because it's really not all about you, alone, giving them, a group, X or Y or Z. This really is a group thing, and everyone has to communicate. Still, based on their back-stories, they did make a good effort. I'm really not seeing anything on your part that you and they are even playing the same game.

Best,
Ron

Ron's totally right, natch, but there's something else going on here: goals like "keep a low profile" are in direct conflict with telling a story. In fact, all of the players have respectfully given themselves back stories that won't interfere with your plots, and are waiting for you to activate their "hooks".

Here's what I'd want to see in this game:

• A way for the players to activate their own back stories to gain resources
• A way for the players to gain resources by strengthening their relationships (for better or worse)
• A way for the "secrets," like that of Arrakkis, to become resources when activated; that is, the player benefits from the revelation or hinting of the secrets
• A way for the relationships the PCs have with NPCs (like the mother) to be threatened in order to gain the player resources

... and this, right here, is why the nature of your system matters. Because merely handing out XP won't do it; they have to be able to spend it on something worthwhile to the players; buying a new Feat doesn't matter if it's not a Mother De-Indenturing feat.

I see a couple of avenues.

One, you can tweak the crap out of D&D, writing rules for relationships, secrets, and back story. Eventually, you'll realize you've written a role-playing game based on D&D. That's a Heartbreaker.

Two, you can write a system from scratch that does what you want. That's hard, it turns out. If you do that, you'll realize that you want to know how other people have done such stuff because they might have done it really well. See item Three, below.

Three, you can grab a system that supports what you want. It sounds to me like The Shadow of Yesterday, by Clinton R. Nixon (who, in the interest of full disclosure, is my friend and colleague), is the game for this type of thing. No one will get to play without a story, so if they're too timid to do so, they'll drop out. But you want a story, so that's cool.

The problem, as I see it, is that you're not Killing Things And Taking Their Stuff. You're shoehorning other things into a system that doesn't support it (though it clearly supports other stuff), and you're feeling lost. Read the Actual Play and listen to comments to see if the games mentioned are appropriate. Rummage around through the press fora at the bottom of the Forge page and see if any of the games there feel like they fit the bill. Most of them won't, some of them might, and all of them are interesting.

Ron has it exactly.

I'd like to mention, as an alternative style of play, if you'd handed out pregens, each with a function tied into your plot ("reads the vital clues in angry slander," "traverses underground caverns," "steels self against unspeakable horror," "bravely dispatches waking terror"), read a synopsis aloud ("In this session, you'll discover a tower of bug people who've been preying on trade caravans and revenge them to ease the plight of the linked cities") and begun with the group dream of the Benefactor, it would have been a very different session. Maybe even enjoyable.

Note that roll, shmoll, ask, shmask. You tie them in like so: "As [PreGen A] crosses the field, he spies a badger hole, overgrown with moss. Leaning close, there is a dank smell, and he senses a great hollow. He wades through the green and disappears into the earth." Then be quiet.

This frankness and tour guide mentality is the GM counterpart to assimilating character background. It is perfectly legitimate and enjoyable. You may think, I can't just tell them what's going to happen! That would spoil the surprise! Or you may think, I want the players to make the decisions. I mean, they're not hand puppets! But here's the thing: Knowing what play is about trumps the value of a Back-Story revelation ten times out of ten (IMO). Furthermore, once you eschew player input to character background (which is the correct choice for this style of play), you must then provide direct, unhesitating guidance. If they say, "My guy goes into a bar and gets drunk," you say, "No, he doesn't. He journeys with the party to the next trade city to interview the populace and compare reports."

You want them to tell you what they want play to be about, and for those who've told you, shame on you for flatly ignoring them. That's Ron's point. But consider further. They may have just as great a desire for you to tell them what play is about .. and yet you refuse? Insisting that they "discover" its purpose, piece by teasing piece? It's almost sadistic.

I apologize if my tone is a little severe. That probably reflects the pure torture I've endured from GMs using this exact mismatch of techniques. I remember how scared I was when I first posted at the Forge. Ok, the first several times. Anyway, take heart that your desire for satisfying play is redemptive. Also, I think glyphmonkey made a great call: I second TSOY as your top Forge game to try.

Welcome to the Forge!

Whoa, hold up, guys! The dude wants some help with his Eberron game. Let's not go into "play these other games" and so on, not yet anyway.

Bill, in this case specifically, I actually don't support your suggestion of handing out characters with pregenerated goals. (It works great in other cases, yes.) The core of the problem seems not to be with characters lacking goals, and with these guys, some very interesting and open-ended goals. They have'em.

No, the primary issue is that these three characters get picked up and dropped into a string of connected situations which do not "grab" the existing cool stuff sitting there in the back-stories to be used.

The system/texts being used is of course important, and perhaps part of the problem. I am not familiar with Eberron, but I am familiar with the long-standing tradition in D&D texts, of whatever version or edition, of establishing that "get to fight scene, then fight, then re-group, repeat" is the core of play.

Glendower, your thread title concerns "lost that spark." I suggest that the spark is there, but that it only turns into a flame when everyone particpates in putting on some kindling, blowing gently on it, and checking in with one another to make sure that you all agree before putting on the bigger wood.

It seems to me that three of your five players provided the spark. You responded, I think, by calling them over to another campfire entirely, this one with big logs stacked on it already but with no spark. Oh, this one could burn, if the players decide to start all over with brand-new sparks that are perfectly suited to it. But I can certainly understand, from my own perspective and experience, that I wouldn't be inclined to do that. I'd just spent quite a while making up a complex d20 Eberron character, with a cool back-story, and I'd be pretty inclined to hang onto my own spark, and those of my friends, while wondering when in the world we were going to get around to seeing our fire happen.

You'll have to excuse Bill saying "shame" - as he recognizes, he really resents the many years of making up cool sparks and looking forward to fires ... and never seeing them happen. The very fact that you posted here means that you are already 100% improved from the DMs and other players that he played with. So Bill, here's a pillow with a picture of those guys on it; chop it up with a hatchet and do an orc-dance ... how're ya feelin'?

Best,
Ron

Ron wrote:
You know what I'm seeing or rather, not seeing? Let's see if you do too.

1. Across three of the five characters, we have an indentured mother relying on her son to free her, a guy who's trying to balance seeking power and avoiding notoriety while evading a demon, and a traumatized war veteran seeking a role in peaceful life. It's not surprising that the three players for them are also most tightly-linked as friends, as well, and I expect that each of them at least appreciates one another's characters' back-stories.

2. In the game, I see an NPC who tells the characters what to do, a missing caravan which he tells them to check out, and a tower they have to clear floor by floor. More specifically, I see a tactical decision about a ladder, a fight with some ant-creatures, and collecting some treasure.

Hiya Jon,

Here's my suggestion: run one session which hits a couple of the characters' back-stories right in the nose - no waiting, no set-up, no jockeying into position. That's what Lance was talking about with Bangs and Kickers; basically, you'd be treating the back-stories as Kickers and responding with Bangs.

You can even use a lot of the combat-prep and NPC-prep you already have, as context rather than central subject. Actually, let me clarify that - no need to justify or tie in all the previous sessions' material. Instead, I'm talking about, if you need a foe, just grab some dude you have in your GM folder and make him the foe.

Try it once and see what they do and say. I mean, makin' up those characters and doin' all that prep was a lot of work, right? See what kind of payoff the whole group of you is capable of.

One remaining question is whether to come clean with the rest of the group regarding your conclusions in this thread, right away, or whether to move into this new/different session as the first step. Opinions about that will probably differ greatly, among all the people reading this thread, but I suggest that you know the others and we don't, so it's your call.

Best,
Ron

this thread sparked quite a bit of discussion in our own gaming group.  It lead RDU Neil to come up with a "Character Cover Sheet"... a series of questions to put to the Players to help GM's navigate those "cool bits".  And players communicate with players what is neat about the directions they want to go in.

It is not silver bullet.  And it might not even be needed.  But I thought I should link to the thread where it put.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18398.0

Just a thought...
[hr]Arakis, you wake up screaming. The dream you just had is the most terrifying thing you’ve seen since the Demon destroyed your home. The Benefactor spoke just two words and those as if it were gasping it’s last words through a tightening garrote. Just two words and then an overarching darkness that strangled your dream like a night with no stars. Two words.

“He comes.”

You awake screaming into a stillness that is unbroken even by the sound of the wind…then entire world seems to be waiting on the portent of those two words.

What do you want to do?
[hr] What happened? A possibility is the Sorcereress just summoned the Demon and bound a bit of his essence using a dragon shard …temporarily into one of her Formian Kings. Have the King kill her in an absolutely terrifying manner that would be beyond the pall of a Formian King’s abilities as they get ready to confront her. That weakens the King to a defeatable level. Group has a limited amount of time to kill the Formian king before it is subsumed and the Demon is completely drawn to this location. As they kill the king his blood acts as acid (1 hp to characters per hit) and carves glowing pustulant non-House dragon marks that can do a Cantrip level effect once per day at a cost of one hit point damage to the user and each time they use it, it grows…and, oh yeah, acts as a beacon to the Demon. [hr]
Just a thought.

C. S. Bone

I have a question about Jon's situation.  Its a problem I'm having, but I think it might help him too so I'll ask it here.  Namely, how do you introduce the concept of creative control to players who have no experience with it?  Most players will sit somewhat glumly through months of play that has nothing to do with the character they designed because they don't think there is an alternative.  (Side question, would this be an apt description of The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, that the characters seem seperate or tacked on to the story?)

Among the players that I know (that is, GM's included), players trying to exert creative control over a game will be seen as trying to usurp the GM's authority.  I've noticed that this tends to spread more resentment among the other players than it does with the GM, but that may be because in a strongly gamist style group, a player is trying to exert creative control for selfish reasons.  I'd say that this is probably the case in most mainstream games that assume sole authorship of the plot lies with the GM.  Well-meaning players may resist a change of this type because they think it breaks the social contract of the group. 

Ron Edwards wrote: Let's not go into "play these other games" and so on, not yet anyway.

Ron Edwards wrote: So Bill, here's a pillow with a picture of those guys on it; chop it up with a hatchet and do an orc-dance ... how're ya feelin'?

The core of the problem seems not  to be with characters lacking goals, and with these guys, some very interesting and open-ended goals. They have'em. [Ron]
..
So I'm right with Bill in remembering all the facinating backgrounds and concepts wasted in games that discouraged any kind of collaboration. [Glendower]

Glendower wrote: The question now is whether to start fresh, knowing what I know now, or to head back into the Eberron campaign and try bringing all the players' material front and center.  I do agree with Bill and the Glyph in that D&D and D20 doesn't 100% support player input in terms of system (Eberron's like Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, just a setting using D&D style rules).  I still messed up in this game, and take full brunt of the fault, and I don't want to point fingers at a system, but it would help if there was something to support and encourage player input built right in.  Maybe it'd keep me from being such a Tyrant!