I had an enthusiastic group together for a short series of sessions with White Wolf's Mage game.  I've been enamoured with the system for several years, running a few games here and there but not quite ever being satisfied with the result.  So!  I thought that with the education I've received from this site, I can succeed where other times I've failed!  And I'll start with a group collaboration on character creation!

And man, did that not work.

We got me.  I'm Jon.  I can't really describe myself.  I know my biggest flaw is that I tend to slip into "teacher speak", as I am, in fact, a teacher in terms of career.  Teacher speak is my method of teaching, I start at the building blocks of a concept and build up to the more complicated pieces.  It can sound patronizing when I'm outside of a classroom. I Gm most of the time with the groups I've been in. 

We got Lisa.  She hates it when I slip into "teacher speak" and says as much when I do.  She's played Mage with me before.  She's also had experience as Gm, and often is running games that I play in.

Then Chris.  Chris was weaned on Battletech and Robotech, and is a fan of tactical games.  He is naturally a quiet person, slightly introverted.

We Have Donovan.  A confident, young man with a passion for Live action gaming, with a half-dozen years of various White Wolf games under his belt.  He's the one that initially tossed in the idea of playing Mage.  Very enthusiastic

Kristy is next.  She's relatively young, newer to gaming, with more experience in Live action gaming than in tabletop.  Again, enthusiastic, but uncertain on the whole concept of Mage. 

I have us all seated comfortably on sofas in a rough semi-circle.  After drinks are poured, I tell them that in order for the Mage game to proceed, I need to ask the group some questions.

Lisa rolls her eyes and then begins to tell the rest of the group that I'm using my "weird ideas I got from some site filled with RPG geeks".  I cringe inside.  I've been guilty in the past of uh... extolling the virtues of the Forge.  It didn't go over well, I tend to get excited about the stuff I read here, so I probably sounded like some kind of brainwashed cultist.  I since learned to keep my mouth shut about the Forge and just use the ideas here in my games.

I push on, and ask the first question.  What kind of subject matter do we not want to deal with as players?  I took this directly from Matt's amazing Primetime Adventures.  I wrote down their responses, including the silly ones suggested by Lisa, and then read them off.  I crossed off the silly ones when Lisa said she was joking about them.

After this, I explained to them that I wanted character creation to be a collaborative work.  I wanted all of us to have a hand in each others characters, and for there to be some definite links between each person's character so that they can interact.  I then began asking people what they thought they would play for characters. 

Lisa wanted to reprise an altered version of another character she played, a sort of Brit-punk tough girl who used computer hacking to supplement her income.  Some people suggested stuff, and initially she bristled right up.  I was worried this wasn't going to work.  Lisa's a social force, easily the most vocal.  But she softened and incorporated a few things into her character based on suggestions from others. 

I should mention that suggestions were coming from Donovan, Kristy and myself.  Donovan and Kristy went with my idea of collaborative process, and were excitedly suggesting ideas to each other and to others.  Donovan wanted to play a person obsessed with tracking down artifacts and lost lore.  Kristy wanted to play a free spirit who trained her magic arts during the day, but worked as an exotic dancer in the evening.

Chris was silent through all this, and when we asked him what he wanted to play, he completely clammed up and said he didn't know.  We suggested a few things, asked him some questions about what he might want to play.  He kept saying he didn't know.  He had the arms crossed, an annoyed expression on his face, and his "I don't knows" were growing more and more irate.  I called the session at that point, realizing that it was getting a little late, but more that Chris was getting really nervous at the attention.  I suggested we get together sometime this weekend to continue the process, and spend the rest of week giving it a little more thought.  Chris later told me he was tired, and overworked, and just couldn't think of what he wanted to play.

After that particular session ended, I reviewed what occurred and decided to write it up as an Actual... almost play.   And now I ask for some help and personal opinion with what happened.

First off, did you see me make any mistakes?  Was I on the right track in terms of avoiding incoherent play in the game?  Was there anything I could have done differently?  Is there anything else I should do in the early moments of the game to ensure that everyone is in agreement with how they're going to be playing? 

I'd welcome any thoughts on this.  Thanks!

I have just a quick observation.

"Group character creation" can mean that everyone inputs basic stuff into other people's character, but it doesn't have to. One pretty functional variant that is easier to take for people who have a strong sense of character ownership is just for everyone to say a little about what they want 'their guy' to be and then to riff off that in terms of _connections_ between the characters - "Oh, so we're cousins!", "My mentor was the same guy who betrayed your father," that kind of thing. So that instead of being perceived as territory violation it's like everyone makes more stuff together to tie things together.

Sometimes this leads to people actually changing their character concept, but it doesn't have to, and it can produce a certain kind of group investment in the shared background because (mostly) of the shared NPCs.

This might help with some of the resistance you encountered, if you assure people like Lisa that their character is _their character_ and use the collaborative process as a way of getting everyone to _contribute more_ to the characters put forwards and find connections between them, letting actual changes come up as a voluntary matter.

On the other hand, it might not, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

Hi, John,

Let me start by trying to understand what you're asking. You started off by saying:

Glendower wrote:
I'll start with a group collaboration on character creation!

And man, did that not work.

Glendower wrote:
Lisa wanted to reprise an altered version of another character she played, a sort of Brit-punk tough girl who used computer hacking to supplement her income.  Some people suggested stuff, and initially she bristled right up.  I was worried this wasn't going to work.  Lisa's a social force, easily the most vocal.  But she softened and incorporated a few things into her character based on suggestions from others.

I should mention that suggestions were coming from Donovan, Kristy and myself.  Donovan and Kristy went with my idea of collaborative process, and were excitedly suggesting ideas to each other and to others.  Donovan wanted to play a person obsessed with tracking down artifacts and lost lore.  Kristy wanted to play a free spirit who trained her magic arts during the day, but worked as an exotic dancer in the evening.

Glendower wrote:
Chris was silent through all this, and when we asked him what he wanted to play, he completely clammed up and said he didn't know.  We suggested a few things, asked him some questions about what he might want to play.  He kept saying he didn't know.  He had the arms crossed, an annoyed expression on his face, and his "I don't knows" were growing more and more irate.  I called the session at that point, realizing that it was getting a little late, but more that Chris was getting really nervous at the attention.  I suggested we get together sometime this weekend to continue the process, and spend the rest of week giving it a little more thought.  Chris later told me he was tired, and overworked, and just couldn't think of what he wanted to play.

After that particular session ended, I reviewed what occurred and decided to write it up as an Actual... almost play.  And now I ask for some help and personal opinion with what happened.

First off, did you see me make any mistakes?  Was I on the right track in terms of avoiding incoherent play in the game?  Was there anything I could have done differently?  Is there anything else I should do in the early moments of the game to ensure that everyone is in agreement with how they're going to be playing? 

Glendower wrote:
I push on, and ask the first question.  What kind of subject matter do we not want to deal with as players?  I took this directly from Matt's amazing Primetime Adventures.  I wrote down their responses, including the silly ones suggested by Lisa, and then read them off.  I crossed off the silly ones when Lisa said she was joking about them.

After this, I explained to them that I wanted character creation to be a collaborative work.  I wanted all of us to have a hand in each others characters, and for there to be some definite links between each person's character so that they can interact.  I then began asking people what they thought they would play for characters. 

Ricky wrote:
So before we can continue here, I need clarification. Are you looking for help specifically with Chris' lack of participation? Or is there something else that I'm not seeing?

Glendower wrote:
Some of the techniques I've already employed, such as getting people to discuss what themes and aspects they don't want in the game, and the collaborative character creation, have helped keep the lines of communication open.  I've met resistance, and I would really like some advice specifically on helping out Chris, who's struggling with a character concept.  

Glen, have you been upfront about WHY you are doing this?

Telling Chris; "Hey, why I'm asking for this is so you can have more fun during play!"

But it might have been as simple as he simply didn't have any ideas to contribute... and then felt defensive and isolated as the others participated.

A recent group chargen, I was in that boat.  We had forewarning, that the game was to be a dimensional hopping series of adventures and that we had been a team of superheroes for some time.  That the group chargen was to not only create our characters, but to create the backstory of us as a team.

I came to the table with two concepts.  I was the last to speak my concept, as we were simply going counterclockwise.  And by the gods of gaming, both of my concepts were trotted out by other players!!!  It was so funny.  And one player, J, had come up with something so identical it was frightening.

The thing was, J tends to be the wallflower, and his character concept was so totally proactive and exciting, I WANTED him to have it.  I wasn't going to fight for my concepts at all.

I spent that entire evening going "duuuhhh... I dunno what to play!?!?!"  Which is so totally NOT me.  I come up with concepts at a drop of a hat.  But it was a tightrope to find something that I hadn't done before, something that fit inside the group chargen concept, something that didn't step on toes of other schticks.

In the end, a couple of comments from other players did create the ah-hah moment... I literally had an Insight (which became the entire concept of the character, a mystical sorcerer based on Light and Seeing...called, Insight.).  It was a perfect compliment to the Leader character, as I could be the advisor and contribute to group direction... and play off  the "dark, semi-lone wolf" character, as we decided that while our powers and outlooks were almost opposed... but our respect and comradeship to each other was to be the constant source of conflict and resolution to keep us together.

My point to all this was I really needed to sit and stew on it for two hours as the others made their characters... and simply keep bouncing ideas off of me.  I (and we) must have rejected probably 20 concepts in those two hours to get to one that really works.  Sometimes, one is just not in the creative space.  

And just a suggestion, sometimes being a duo within the group can really help.  Siblings.  Or apprentice-master relationship.  Or fellow students under a single master.  So the powers and skill set might be similar to another player, and built-in reasons to be there.  You don't always have to be different than everyone else.  Sometimes, being similar is great gist for the drama mill.  Maybe Chris could hook into Donovan's PC... being an assistant or someone with specialized knowledge useful to Dononvon's PC (Pilot, bodyguard, private investigator... all perfectly reasonable PULP ideas that can co-exist with Mage ideas) or grad student, brother, father (hey, If it works for the Jones!....)

Now, that kind of "duo" idea doesn't straitjacket a personality for Chris, but does give some focus to the chargen.  Just a toss off idea....

Jon,

My advice is probably going to seem a little harsh to you but bear with me.  It comes from my own personal experiences and I think it is relevant to your situation.  Nothing I'm about to say is being negative, disrespectful or antagoistic towards you or any of your players.  Okay, now for my take on the situation...

Lisa reminds me of one of my players.  He's a good friend of mine and he gets all defensive (and offensive) when I'm talking with others in our group about our gaming and theory.  He does this even when the other people are interested in the discussion.  Lisa's comment above about your use of the Forge sounds exactly like what he'd say.  He thinks I take playing too seriously and I think his play is unexamined and uninspiring.  That doesn't mean I don't like him or that we aren't friends.  Chris seems like a turtle and I've had those in my group too.

Here's the deal.  I don't ask them to come play in the games I run anymore.  It isn't worth it.  I've got 2 or 3 players who like the style of game I'm shooting for and are on board with it.  I invite them.  I can still hang out or even play in a game that my other friend is running but inviting him to my games is asking for trouble.  I want to have fun with the games I run and my chances of that decrease if there are people there who are pulling things in another direction or are simply dead weight.

So, my advice is to ditch the two players who aren't helping you get where you want to go.  I don't mean ditch them as friends or ditch hanging out with them.  I mean don't invite them to play these kinds of games with you.  They aren't helping you.  They're hurting you.  You said Lisa runs games too?  Game with her when she's running, if you enjoying playing in that context.  But play your game with the 2 players who are aiming at the same target you are. 

Anyway.  That's my 2 cents.

I agree strongly with points made by Storn and Calithena.

Firstly, definitely explain why you are doing it, and what kind of problems you have experienced yourself that you are attempting to solve.

Secondly, I think "collaborative" character generation is too vague, we need to set specific goals.  I've had very good results by letting players pretty much bring whole character concepts to the table, but then demanding one non-reciprocal dependant link to the other characters.  Also consider having one explicit leader on whom all the others are dependant, that can work too.

You can then talk out these links and alter the raw concepts as needed.  You do not want the links to be reciprocal becuase this leads to the formation of cliques; and you do want the links to be strong, like some form of dependancy, rather than vague "we know each other" stuff.  The question is not whether they know each other, its why they turn to each other for help in a crisis.

What you should end up with is something like a relationship map between the characters, with a path from any one to any other, even if this path runs through a third party.  This can even resolve situations in which characters actively dislike each other.  People may react against the strength of the bonds, thinking these restrict character play, but really they are just another character attribute to exploit.

Paka wrote:

Glendower wrote:
I push on, and ask the first question.  What kind of subject matter do we not want to deal with as players?   

What were their responses to your question?

Glendower wrote:
We didn't want to deal with UFO style aliens, large bugs (especially spiders), depictions of graphic sexual violence, and depictions of graphic torture.  It established a set of boundaries on what was explored in play.  I really liked that particular exercise once we got a little less silly and mocking about the stuff we didn't want to see.

Glendower wrote: Maybe I missed a step here, should we have gone through the setting first, then characters second?  My thought was that focusing on characters first would have a lot of influence on the the setting we decide on afterwards... but maybe that's why we're stumbling.

wrote:
Maybe I missed a step here, should we have gone through the setting first, then characters second?  My thought was that focusing on characters first would have a lot of influence on the the setting we decide on afterwards... but maybe that's why we're stumbling.

My 2¢ more.... And they may sound harsh, but... well, OK, I don't have a lot of positives, in my analysis. Do not take anything that I write here personally: I am critiquing methods and choices, not those doing them. Cool? Then hang on.... :)

  First, I pretty much agree totally with Gaerik: I wouldn't have gotten ten minutes into that session, with Lisa's undermining commentary, before I invited her to leave or go make sandwiches.
  However, I would not throw out the baby with the bathwater: Chris might have actually been tired and overworked and drained. Couple that with a perhaps confusing play prep (see below), and it is understandable that he'd clam up and, eventually, go defensive.
  But if he does it NEXT time: sandwiches or the door.

  Second, it was wise of you to eliminate setting elements from the get-go: most folks can faster tell you want they DON'T want than what they do--as is prooven every time a group of more than three people try to plan where to go for lunch!
  However, you moved too quickly into character concepts. I firmly believe it is a GM's responsibility to present SOME kind of setting lead-in or flavor, to get character concepts rolling. I think it can take a long time for a group-build method to "bubble out" a setting which can embrace all initial concepts.
  Further, by eliminating unattractive elements, you should be able to eliminate a slew of settings. So, frankly, your job as GM was made easier by their efforts to eliminate... and then you threw the weight back on them to find not only interesting characters but ones who would be tightly knit... in a situational and setting vacuum. It's possible that a group of creative folks could get to fully formed PCs by this route. But I wouldn't want to invest the hours (days? weeks?) of session time trying.

 Third, if your greatest fear is incoherent play, and you are a Forgite, then you already have the tools to discuss coherence: The Big Model. As very general and basic questions about Agendas; it shouldn't be hard to sort out the Gam, Sim, and Nar heads.
 Then, once you have a unanimous decision on Agenda (otherwise, you will be incoherent AND abashed), take a little time to discuss basic techniques: Do the players want a granular, miniature-like combat fest? Or complex social interactions and influence peddling? Do they want opportunities to shape the game world? Or do they want to be lead through your Fun Park of Dreams?
 The Agenda unanimity and general Techniques concepts will provide you with both some hooks to hang your Setting on AND will help the players build PCs that not only hang as a group but are also well built for the setting and situations YOU will determine from your inquiries.

 Fourth, how you interrelate the PCs is not nearly so relevant as what will emerge from the relationships (IMHO, Dogs Theory notwithstanding). Rather than speak to your players about things like "how do you each KNOW each other?" speak to them about things like "what would you most like to accomplish in your relationship to these other characters?"
 Master-apprentice means nothing, nor does father-son, brother-brother, etc. However, Jealous Apprentice to a Traditionalist Master means a LOT; Doddering Father of an Impatient Scion (inheriting son) means even MORE; Law Enforcement Brother to Criminal Brother... hell, that can be half your game play on its OWN.
 So, next time you try this group-work, every time someone proposes a relationship, your first follow-up question should be, "So what?" Push the players to invest something into or expose themselves to risk from other players. Basically, what contracycle said about dependency, but expanded a bit to include vulnerabilities and animosities as well.

 Last, I recommend an "uber relationship" if you want to maintain party cohesion in the face of these codependencies, chaffing relationships, and vulnerabilities. Love should hold a few together, but after that you will want either some unifying organization or goal... or players willing to try out a bit of PvP fun.

HTH;
David

I disagree with a lot of what David is saying. That is, I sympathize with Lisa, in that theory talk in a game group is not appreciated. Why should she have to suffer through pedagogy about somthing this completely unneccessary? Why unneccessary? Because I've never heard of anyone managing to discuss their way into a coherent game group. But there are tools for creating coherent play, they're called coherent game systems.

If you're playing a coherent game system, and play is still not coherent, no amount of discussion will fix that. I've never seen it work once to date. The theory here doesn't tell anyone how you can talk another person into changing their minds. It's about designing games that will do that convicing for you with the people who can be convinced. Lisa is simply being defensive at what she has seen as attacks on her style of play. Which is what the original poster's use of the theory comes down to, "Lisa, I don't like the way you play, and I want you to change." Heck, I'd respond "Go to hell," much less the roundabout social methods she uses to tell you to shut up. What this has done is entrenched Lisa in her play style. And Chris, too, likely, he's simply not being vocal about it. It's almost a sure thing he's not having any fun, given the body language you describe.

If there's a problem in coherence, and it's not the players simply having strong preferences, then it's in that you're playing Mage. It's not likely that any amount of technique will overcome the problems of such a system, or more importantly in this case, the damaged social contract that you are playing with.

Where I would agree with David and some of the others is that you have to remember that the GM, too, is a player, and needs to have his input. Allowing players to have some creative control over elements that are traditionally the purview of the GM can be a good thing in some cases. But that's not an excuse to abdicate all of your duties as GM. These players are looking to you for leadership, and it sounds like you're not providing any in return. One can create a sense of mutual ownership of play without handing over the entire game to the players.

Framework is important. If you don't provide it, then if nothing else, work with the players to create it before you make characters. It can be sparse, but have some positive elements. Something to fire the imagination. The lines that you're drawing about what not to play (while potentially good at forestalling problems later in terms of players being uncomfortable) are reducing the options from Infinite to Infinity minus 5. Not much of a framework improvement. Each statement should cut the infinities down by 90% each. "Everybody is from the same village." "The characters are all involved in the Lunar/Heortling conflict at the border." "The central conflict is about which of two paradigms is going to win out over this one little pocket otherworld."

Those are constraints that people can work with.

Mike

There's a great deal here to digest.  As Mike Holmes identified, Forge theory is not popular around the table.  My over-zealousness soured a few friends to the Big Model Theory, and I really regret this.  I've attempted to fix things a bit by linking the site and mentioning the articles in an email or two, and then leaving it at that.  My hope now is to focus on playing and running fun games using the theory, and the things I have learned from the reading the Actual Play forum.

I do want to thank Gaerik and David Artman for their contributions regarding the players themselves. There are groups that are better served However, I don't agree with removing players in this particular case.  I understand Lisa and Chris's reluctance, they saw some idiotic behaviour on my part from me being a Forge and Big Model crazy.  and besides, her annoyance and Chris's uncertainty is my fault.

I need to give them something.  Even a sentence of setting or situation.  David and Mike, I agree with you regarding Framework. You two are bang on correct.  Something Dogs in the Vineyard showed me, but I didn't pick up until now, is that constraining the setting and character allows for a great deal of creativity.  I tell them we're playing Mage.  I haven't elaborated on anything regarding the situation or setting or even color.  Then I say... "Create Characters.. GO!"  I realize that were I in their position, I would be as lost as they were.   Tommi, you are totally correct in that the players needed me to provide something, in exchange for them to have some idea of characters to put together.  Paka, thanks for focusing the discussion to what was specifically the root cause of all this.  Contracycle and Storn, I'm going to try out your suggestions next time the groups meet.  I've used R-Maps before with great success, and family relationships are great stuff in play.   

The reason I did this was because I was worried about completely taking over, and overriding their game goals.  I've done this with other groups, check out my first AP attempt here.  I got a rap on the noggin in this place for steamrolling over the player goals, laid out clear as day, in favor of something else I wanted.  To tell you the truth, the hard words Ron Edwards gave me in that first AP was instrumental in sealing my conviction that this forum, this site... is awesome.

What I need to get together now is a firm grasp of the setting and some added color so we can make characters.  We have picked a system that we can use to determine in game events.  That's the five basic food groups for roleplaying.  I got a plan.  I will write another AP when I have met with this group again, to update on how things went.

Mike wrote: Each statement should cut the infinities down by 90% each. "Everybody is from the same village." "The characters are all involved in the Lunar/Heortling conflict at the border." "The central conflict is about which of two paradigms is going to win out over this one little pocket otherworld."

Mike wrote: Because I've never heard of anyone managing to discuss their way into a coherent game group. But there are tools for creating coherent play, they're called coherent game systems.

Glendower wrote: My over-zealousness soured a few friends to the Big Model Theory, and I really regret this.
...I understand Lisa and Chris's reluctance, they saw some idiotic behaviour on my part from me being a Forge and Big Model crazy.

Glendower wrote: However, I don't agree with removing players in this particular case.

Lisa rolls her eyes and then begins to tell the rest of the group that I'm using my "weird ideas I got from some site filled with RPG geeks".  I cringe inside.

Maybe you need to make sure things are cool with Lisa at the social level, and between you guys as players? She has some major skepticism built up, and everyone could use some re-assurance. (Speaking from my own experience, I had my own incidences of crashing up my own game by mis-applying my early experiences with Forgestuff; I can understand how someone would be wary o fthat.) Reassure the players that they don't have to ready essays or anything like that; it's just advice you're using to help run a better game.

I also feel that some of those questions you're hitting the group with are a bit overbroad - trying to come up with the scope of the campaign and the themes from scratch can be kinda rough, and that's tying into the idea that a well designed game should do this stuff for you, more or less. Maybe the Mage game itself can provide the right starting points for discussion.

Are you guys playing the old or new version of Mage? There's quite severe thematic differences between the two.