I have a few GMs that I have been trying to sell some of the techniques
I have found here. I haven't yet tried any of the techniques, and so far
have met with varying levels of resistance to these changes. I want to
try something different because a lot of the stuff at the forge strikes
a chord in me, and I see a few problems in the games I'm in that seem
like CA conflict, or perhaps just conflict of authority in regards to
exploration of the SIS. I'm still unsure which CA the game play I most
like falls under, Narrativist or Simulationist.

As a side note, I'm still coming to grips with the terminology used
here. Hopefully I don't mangle it too much.

My problems selling these ideas seem to be mostly my own poor
salesmanship. I get varying reactions that seem to be 'nothing's wrong
here, stop challenging' to 'it'd be too much work to do that' to 'it
would be too stressful to do that' to seeming to listen, but getting no
real change. I've made a little progress so far, but not enough to make
any real difference so far as I can see. It could be I'm too impatient.

I do have a fair amount of fun in my games, but I see that it could be a
lot better. For me it seems to be medium to long stretches of not much
involvement with minor bursts of a lot of fun in the game.

Let me give an actual play description, then how I wish it would have
gone. This is easily the worst scene we have been involved with in a
long time. It's not exactly standard play for this GM, but he does seem
to be leaning more and more towards this style of GMing.

This particular game is 7th Sea. As such we expect to be swashbuckling
heros. We learn that an NPC our characters have come to like is going to
be executed. The GM tells the players ahead of time that there is
nothing we can do about this. Our characters are there, watching, but
the crowd is too big and we can't get up front to do anything effective.
The NPC is killed. We all gritted our teeth through the scene and let
the GM do his thing. Nobody liked it.

How I wished the scene would go would be something more like this: GM
told us that this hanging was planned, through an NPC informant. We get
there and do our hero thing. The NPC is a fate witch that had read the
future and decided that her death was the catalyst by which the
revolution her country was in could eventually be stopped (this was
during the Terror in Montaigne, roughly like the French revolution). If
we rescued her we would learn this, and then we have to decide what to
do.

Playing it out in the latter manner would have put choice back into PC
hands, and could easily have ended up in the spot the GM wanted it to go
anyway. We let her go back, get hanged, and the populace gains sympathy
for the nobility. Heck, it might have even have gotten more sympathy and
gone further than the GM had originally intended.

I have brought up that I want more player control of such plot elements.
I have brought up that I want more focus on plots that the players have
put into their characters, rather than on events that the GM comes up
with. In the middle of bringing up these points we get a surprise end to
the campaign. In the end we were going against villains we have never
met before, in a plot that's not really connected to any of our
characters.. it's just a story straight out of the 7th Sea books.

We've starting a new 7th Sea game on the same night as the surprise
announcement of the end of the old campaign, and the last story of that
game. The new game will be coming after the old one in game time, but
with new characters and a different location in the game world. I tried
to ask for shared character creation, player input before hand, and some
player directed story hooks. Instead my input is argued away by the GM
and other players as either not what the GM wants, or too much work. We
are told to just give 3 summaries of concepts, and let the GM choose one
for each player. There is no connected story for the various characters,
and no planned involvement with them. The direction of the game story,
the types of plots and the locations the GM is going to use is announced
before he has any of the character concepts.

In the previous game many of us gave several plot hooks to the GM, in
terms of our character backgrounds and such. Most of these were ignored,
never resolved, or left static... brought up as a bit of color but never
furthered in terms of resolving these plots.

Reading this seems to make him sound like a bad GM, which I don't think
he really is. I do have fun in the game, and I think he could easily do
better if he tried. I mostly blame myself for my poor salesmanship on
these ideas. I think that if he tried some of the changes to his game,
he also would enjoy them. I just can't seem to get him to try.

I've tried kicking around some scenarios in my head, but am unsure where
to go from here. Finally, a point. How do I sell these ideas to my GM?

---
David

You could play one game as the GM yourself, SHOWING them what you mean.

I have considered trying to GM again, in spite of being rather bad at it last time I gave it a go. I have a problem with finding a game that suits me. I could play a game that we have played before, but that gives me the old mechanics that are not really supporting the style of play that I think I want. Switching to a new game would be difficult for me, as I'm more than a little picky in the game setting and such. I don't care for most of the settings in games.. it takes a lot for me to have fun in spite of that, and I still lose some fun from playing in a setting I don't enjoy.

My GMs say they want to get input, but they just don't seem to respond well to the input I give. I'm not sure if it's because they wouldn't enjoy the same type of game experience as me, or if they just don't want to change, or what.

I suggest Dogs in the Vineyard. It's really fast and easy to GMs, you can do a "story" (a town) in a single session, there are a lot of already-made Towns to play, and it is a really good show of "forge techniques"

(it is, in fact, the game they used to show me these techniques)

This is one of the many games mentioned here that I think has some very  interesting sounding mechanics, from what I've heard of it. The problem is that I completely loath the setting and premise of the game. A huge amount of my enjoyment of a game comes from a setting that I enjoy playing in, and it takes a huge amount to overcome this. I loath religious extremists, and having that the focus of a game is big time anti-fun for me. I grew up in Utah, and any game that reminds me of that little corner of hell isn't welcome on my gaming shelf. :)

Burning Wheel and Riddle of Steel somewhat struck my fancy, from the  descriptions I've read. They're also a fair bit of change for me right now, but I might be willing to give one of them a try. The main problem with running rather than playing is that I suck as a GM, and the folks I game with enjoy being GMs and are good at it, in general. I just feel some clash in our gaming styles at certain points. I'm just trying to get them to experiment and try out new things to hopefully put more of what I enjoy in a game, and hopefully find something new that makes it more fun for them as well.

About Dogs in the Vineyard: it really isn't a game about religious extremists. Reading the rules would dispel that notion instantly. Even those players who go into the game planning to play stereotypical religious extremists will be playing "real people" by the end of their first adventure.

But if you're dead set against that, I suggest Conspiracy of Shadows. It's Doom and Destiny mechanics give players the kind of plot control you mention is important to you. The system is sneaky: it looks a lot like a more traditional game in many ways, but has lots of little touches that will help ease the players into the more player-centric mindset you want to encourage. You can also read the rules for free on the website, to see if it'll suit you.
It's described as a horror fantasy game (and is perfect for Ravenloft-style games), but can be played with absolutely no changes at all as a standard fantasy game.

That game seems a bit more neutral to my tastes, from the sales pitch there and a few reviews I googled on it. There is not much there that looks attractive to me, and only a few things that I minorly dislike. This is about at the level of game that I probably wouldn't turn it away if someone wanted to run it, but I wouldn't seek it out. If we're moving this into the direction of games to recommend for me to try, though, it's something that I've found nearly impossible to do for myself, in the years I've been looking. I've only found a few I liked, most notably 7th Sea and L5R, but most I don't. Even the ones that I like I have a fair number of issues with.

Something that focuses on political intrigue, doesn't have religious questions that can be reflected in RL (Mormons in DiTV and it seems a Christian overtone if not outright take off on that in Conspiracy of Shadows). I tend to shy away from (or run quickly from) the darker games. I enjoy flashy heroes, fun adventures, political machinations, low magic, renaissance-ish level tech or so for fantasy games. I enjoy other people as the villains, rather than monsters. A game of only humans in the game world would suit me just fine, but I'm not against a little other stuff at the edges.

I do a lot of reading of RPG reviews, searching for stuff that might interest me. About the only things I've come up with so far that I have not played but that sound like it might suit me are Burning Wheel (a game without a setting), The Riddle of Steel, and Transhuman Space... though I have zero idea how to actually play an interesting THS game, rather than just looking at an interesting setting.

As to the plot control, I'm still unsure about what elements of the plot I would like to have more control over, and which I would be happier to leave up to the GM (or which I would want to let players run and which I would want to keep control over were I the GM). There are a number of different elements, and I would not wish to step on toes, such as with the world setting and NPCs backgrounds and such. I'm still trying to figure out where my boundaries are for that. This is one of the reasons I'm trying to talk over things with my gaming group, to figure out these boundaries.

---
David

We'll, I'd also advise you to try DITV and maybe attempt a different setting, as suggested on www.lumpley.com... The focus of DITV, despite the pitch, is about making moral choices, not being told what choices to make (which is explicitely forbidden by the rules.) Good middle ground for introduction to Narrativism, good way to GM without too much involvement. You describe the problem, then let players handle it without interfering. Great way for them to responsibilize in taking the scenario in their hands.

Two of my players are strongly atheist and agnostic, and they did find the system quite fascinating despite a rather cold reaction to religion. I'd also say that the DITV setting is so stylized, so "surreal", that I don't find much in common with the real world (e.g. polygamy? ceremony to drive off demons?). Of course, if you're an ex-LDS, that's different. :)

You could easily turn DITV into "The Untouchables vs the Mob" for example, or "Delta Green", or even "Demon hunters in New York". There are resources available for these.

Other games could also do the trick, like My Life with Master or Polaris or Capes, but they're much more different from classical RPGs so you may scare off your "vanilla" players with them.

Good luck!

Erick

Yeah, I would also suggest DitV (specifically, I would dump the Old West setting and use Afraid. It's a modern supernatural horror game, by Vincent, using very similar rules to DitV -- currently in playtesting; that link gives you the playtest documents you need to modify DitV for it).

Burning Wheel might work for you, but I personally find it way too crunchy for my tastes. It does have a lot of good stuff in it, however. I can't comment on The Riddle of Steel, but I have heard good things.

If you just want to use a system you are familar with, you could try and just use the Flag Framing and Conflict Web techniques to set the game up. I don't know much about 7th Sea, but I would have thought it would fit with this technqiues quite well.

I'd suggest at least reading The Shadow of Yesterday.  I think you'll find it fits your setting tastes almost perfectly, you can read it for absolutely no dollar investment, and it's a pretty fair introduction to a variety of interesting game techniques.

That said, as far as an introductory example text, nothing beats Dogs in the Vineyard.  Even if you never play it, it's worth the read.

Regards,
Daniel

Hello,

This discussion needs an instant overhaul. Elysium did not ask for a series of suggestions about what game to use, nor would simply landing another game book in front of this group accomplish anything, nor is such a series of suggestions what this forum is for.

Elysium, I'd like you to describe that play-situation with the witch in much, much more detail. What actually happened among the real people at the table? Was anyone trying to signal the GM that he or she was not having a good time? Was any particular player clearly having a good time, and how was that shown? Was this at the beginning of a series of connected sessions, in the middle, or toward the end?

I'd like more basic information too - who is playing? How many? How long has this group been playing together? All of these are actually important to understand and discuss your next choices or thoughts about role-playing.

Best, Ron

Dang, Ron beat me to it. :-)

David, listen to Ron's advice. I think I know what he's heading for, and it'll be way more useful to you than suggestions about what game to play.

Thanks Ron,

First up, our gaming group. This is a group of gamers that, save for a couple people new to the group, have been gaming about in the 20-15 year range, mostly together. It is part of a larger group, with various GMs for various games, and different mix of players. They try to give each other advice, support on games, etc. Overall it's a pretty
good group to be gaming with.

I'm in three different games with this particular group, each with a different GM, and save for one of the games, those GMs as players in the other games. The 7th Sea game that had this scene in it has been going on for about a year and a half or so, meeting monthly for most of a Saturday. It's had a slight bit of turnover in that time, one player leaving and another joining the game.

I'd like to restate that this kind of scene isn't exactly standard for this GM, but I do think the general viewpoints
and style of play that caused it are still there there. He seems focused more on telling a story, and running
PCs through a plot, rather than shared story creation. It's this that I'm trying to work with him to start to change.

There were I think 6 or 7 players (not all show up at every game) and the GM there that day. 7th Sea game, our characters were in the middle of the Montaigne revolution. We had previously worked up a good rapport with the Emperor's wife, I forget her name. She was to be executed as a noble and such. Before the game started the GM announced that he knew this would suck, but that it was needed for the story. Most of the players wanted to do something to save her instead. Many voiced objections to not being at least allowed to try. Several of us complained that it wasn't very swashbuckling to do nothing. Nobody enjoyed the scene, not even the GM. I think the GM's lack of enjoyment had a lot to do with none of us having fun.

Basically we all gritted our teeth, got through the scene and went on. Everyone seemed rather grumpy at sitting through the GM going through that scene, and we knew we could do nothing about it.

We played through only a few more sessions after that. We thought it was going to be a much longer game, as we had a lot of character plot points we haven't really even started to address, much less resolve, and had seemingly a direction to go. The GM announced at the start of one game that this would be the last session. We proceeded to run an adventure directly out of the books, something this GM hadn't really done before. He usually only uses the books for a starting point and goes from there. In this last adventure we fought villains we had never met before and didn't really care about, and won the day. Some players had some fun, but nobody in the group really seemed to me to be getting into it. After that we started to make characters for a new game. We've yet to play this new game. I'm trying to get some of my desires for the game direction thought about, at least, before we start. I've had a less than successful time of it.

---
David

Try asking them to really check this site out. They seem hardcore & it has potential to add to their experience & broaden their horizons. Maybe they need to learn & decide for themselves.

Hi everyone,

Guys, it's not time for casual advice. You don't know this group, you don't know their deal, and you don't know their game. Let David get us deeper into the situation through more dialogue.

In particular, everyone - quit trying to fix or change anyone for David's sake. This is about his choices in reality, not waving a magic wand at the group and making them into something they're not.

David, I gotta say, your description shows all the hallmarks of a long-term group of friends for whom the role-playing, in the most general sense of the term, is no longer the point. The current GM is clearly more into his story and how he wants things to turn out than he is in anything concerning the real play among the real people. I'd lay odds that some, maybe most of the other players are willing to put up with "whatever" as long as the group of friends keeps meeting in semi-regular fashion. And I wonder whether a certain amount of system-shifting is going on, in the sense of a given person getting excited about a new game (probably one with lots of supplements) and offering to GM it, for a good game "this time." That might have happened, ohhh ... let's guess twice in the last two years.

All right, I stated all of the above in very harsh, extreme terms. I'm interested - is any of that even half correct, in your view? That's what I'm shooting for. If I'm half correct or more, then I know what sort of questions and ideas I can present to you; if I'm not, then I can start over. You might have to step out of your own shoes and look upon yourself and the others as if you were a Martian anthropologist to answer fully.

Best, Ron

Ron,

Hrm.. how to discribe it. Our gaming usually follows a fairly long term game with one system. World of Darkness,
Shadowrun, 7th Sea, etc. Most of them are fairly happy with most any game that's not a hack and slash/dungeon crawl. Superhero type games, Deadlands, Mutants and Masterminds... doesn't seem to matter terribly much to a lot of them. There a few that are fairly focused on only a few systems or genres or themes. The GM that's running the 7th Sea game I'm currently in mostly focuses only on that right now. I count myself in one of the fairly focused ones, only having found a few games I am somewhat happy with.. the Shadowrun game that I'm in I enjoy in spite of the game setting.

There is a fair amount of buying of new supplements or new editions of older games, as well as a lot of buying of new game systems. This is pretty true across the board for the GMs I game with.

As to the long term group of friends, this is definitely a group of friends at the core of this. We go out to movies, occational dinners, BBQ, etc. Some have stood in as best man/best chick at weddings. A bit of discontent with games isn't going to spoil that. :)

There has been a fair amount of game systems shift in the last couple years in the gaming group, but only once in the three games I'm in. Other games that my larger gaming circle have been in have switched, but usually due to the end of a story arc in their game. They then move on to something different. The switch that happened that I was in was, I think I recall, because the GM wasn't  so into the setting. I may be misremembering there.

Let me know if you have further questions or clarifications on these points that I should make. It does sound like you are getting at a more extreme situation than what my group goes through, but generally aiming in the right direction.

---
David

So, fifty percent right, or not? My call is that I'm way over fifty percent right in my description.

What I see: the gaming isn't all that important in terms of content or specific enjoyment. Not because it would have to break up the friends in being important; that's not what I mean. But because you wrote,

I count myself in one of the fairly focused ones, only having found a few games I am somewhat happy with.. the Shadowrun game that I'm in I enjoy in spite of the game setting.

Having read all of this thread (which is pretty rare for me, so I felt it merited a mention), I was struck with a couple of realizations:

-At one point, you mentioned that 6-7 players at that game... and not all of them had shown up.  For the love of fuck, man!  That's one helluva group!  I'll shoot back to this in a moment.

-The GM knew the storyline, as it stood, was going to blow at this moment, but it was so said GM could "bring it on home" in the end.  Hmmm, I guess... sounds a bit uncreative to me, in the end, but, hey, maybe there is some super-secret(tm) plan that we are not privvy to (for some reason).

-You folks are waaaaaay good friends, I get that, and some of you are likely "better gamers" than others... I'm sure there has been them discussions about "seriously, X needs to lighten up!" and such over the coffee and whathaveyou.

Okay, here's the thing.  6-7 players?  Plus GM?  GM wants to map a plotline and stick to the hook?  You guys are good from the Days of Way-Back?  All makes sense, of a sort. 

6-7 players is not conducive to any roleplaying.  That is just too many balls to juggle.  You cannot seriously have any type of storyline explorations, or deep character interaction with that many players and a GM... the GM will seriously fucking lose his mind.  The reason is, because as you focus on one or two players for a few minutes, the other four to five get bored and wander off to grab chips, soda, talk amongst themselves, heckle & snipe from the peanut gallery, and so on.  It happens.  Why?  Because sitting and waiting your turn sucks.  Always sucks.  Sucks to high heaven.  When you have to wait through two or three iterations of character highlighting, it REALLY sucks. 

Ron mentioned that your poor GM seems to be an ur-narrativist... mayhaps, even... not gonna argue that one without shaking the GM's hand and looking for that geeky gleam in his eye.  But with 6-7 players, that will NEVER NEVER NEVER develop, if it was going to.  My advice there:  next time the storyline in the GM's head dictates plot, ask said GM to explain the plot arc (or, if he says it will "ruin things", or pulls some sort of "GM only" knowledge crap, tell him that players can do three things when faced with a GM who loves his story: 1) conspire to help him, if they can understand why or how, 2) conspire to fuck with his chi (killing NPC's, generally messing with the plot, not being present so there are no PC witnesses to his great and powerful scenes, etc.), or 3) be passive and play it out.  Of those choices, only #1 is really any fun for the players (#2 is amusing for about ten minutes, then notsomuch). 

Anyway, not to derail things with my ramblings even further, but, my Quention That I Need Answered is:  How Many Times Has Your Group Been Whittled Down to 3-4 Players And A GM Due To No-Shows (etc.) And You Good Kids Have Played On And Then Realized That Your Game Was Much To The Awesome With Fewer Players, And That Even More Got Accomplished, And Wasn't That One Scene Awesome, And How Cool Was This (etc.)?  That happen for you guys every so often, does it?  Because if it does, and it is under the same GM as your current 7th Sea game, then I would humbly submit that your GM is not an ur-narrativist going Typhoid Mary (great term), but rather a full-fledged pubescent narrativist, replete with new curlies and wants to show them off but displaying them to that many people is scary.

That's all.

Dav

And also (damn no editing of posts!), I would think your game might be better served by having the GM run 2 sessions.. split the group to 4 and 4, or whatever is manageable, run one this night and one that night, have the group catch wind of rumors and such that the other group is doing, then bring them together for that Big Scene, then split them again, etc.  That way, the GM can more easily manage the group play, make certain that everyone is having the input, and can more effectively focus on having the players conspire to aid in storyline direction.  Let he GM know that play fast and loose with a story is better than mapping it out, as things become amusing and creatively challenging to pull back together once the players get a chance to mess things up.

That, in the end, is my advice to you on how to sell game play techniques to your GM.

Dav

Elysium wrote:
The main problem with running rather than playing is that I suck as a GM,

I am one of those three GM's (I am the Shadowrun GM to be specific).  I can only speak to my own experience (which includes a lot of hashing stuff out with David in a dialogue), but part of the problem for me is that every time I think I'm grokking what is being said in this forum, someone says something that shows that I do not get the jargon or phrases something as an absolute that should be an opinion.  For example, Dav (not to be confused with David) said that 6-7 people in a game makes it impossible to have a good role playing experience, while my own experience is that the best non-one on one play I've ever been involved in was in a group that big that, during the times one character was in focus, played interactions between ourselves.  The character the GM was working with then added new information, or opened doors for someone else to become the focus.

If I understand David correctly, I've been sort of doing some of what he'd like already (which is why he's stayed in my Shadowrun game despite not liking the basic premise of Shadowrun).  If I may be so bold as to attempt to reword what he wants, it's to have some methods of rewording the jargon heavy premises here such that the three GM's (including me) don't have to spend hours of time to just get to the basic level of communication required to understand his requests, that we might actually implement stuff sooner rather than later.  I personally can sometimes end up working 30 hour days (seriously), so some method of making the theory here accessible to lay people might help.  (I am trying to grok the jargon here, but I tend to get a headache with the way things are presented here, and my work-related learning does come first so I can pay my bills, so the going is slow)

Now, as to the 7th Sea GM, I really have no clue what he gets a charge out of when running a game - it may be fair to call him incoherent (from a creative agenda standpoint) - he gets into the rolls, the roles, and the thematic or legendry elements (to oversimplify things some) and I can't tell what he gets the most charge, not even based on what he says.  I think the third prefers to explore characterization and interactions more than thematic elements, but without the thematic elements (we're talking things as simple as the iconic Hero's Journey to things as complex as "at what cost?") he doesn't seem happy.
However, we're talking about three very stubborn and opinionated (I use these words deliberately and without malice) individuals who want to do better, and an equally stubborn (and I say that also without malice) player who wants change, but has a language rift to cross.

I welcome input from anyone that actually tries to cross the gulf of language.  I don't have the months to do dedicated study of the Big Model or Creative Agendas if I want to make things better for David (and probably my other players) as soon as possible.  Some ideas of how to integrate what he wants now, without dropping my game likewise now are what I would hope he gets from you (and I likewise hope to get that, as I do want to run the best game I can for my friends).

I hope this helps, and if anything I said needs clarification just ask.  I will try to answer to the best of my ability.

-V

Ron,

Your description seems to be somewhat correct, and somewhat not. I'm not sure about percents. Some of our gaming group seem to be focused more on getting fun from the role-playing, some more on the social thing, with fun at the games secondary. That's cool with me, save if it interferes with me having fun at games.

As to the Typhoid Mary behavior, I am fearing that this may be accurate. I'm hoping it is not. This particular GM realizes he has weaknesses as a GM. He's currently thinking that he's relying too much on player directed plots and not enough on plots that he provides.

My theory is that he doesn't have a good system for bringing about, allowing, and focusing on player inspired plots. When I tried mentioning some techniques that I thought would allow this, I met with resistance, and it seemed he dug his heels in further. It could be that I'm trying to change the games too much too fast, or that these just weren't good techniques for that particular GM. I don't know.

I am looking for different ways to try to introduce this GM to these concepts, and different tools to use to try and show him that player inspired and player focused plots can be fun, and could potentially easier to run than having to come up with his own plots and having us inspired and player focused plots can be fun, and could potentially easier to run than having to come up with his own plots and having us run through them. I don't know that this would be true for our group, because we haven't really tried it yet, but I want us to try it out.

I've sent off the Flag Framing link that Warren mentioned to the 3 GMs I play under. Two haven't read it, including the 7th Sea GM, but the GM that runs my Shadowrun game was interested. That article seems to cover a lot of what I want to try out, and said in a better way than I could. Thanks Warren! I haven't heard back yet from my other 2 GMs. Hopefully it will inspire some thought and changes.

---
David

Hi V,

Thanks for joining me here and working with me on this. :)

---
David

Dav wrote:

6-7 players is not conducive to any roleplaying.  That is just too many balls to juggle.  You cannot seriously have any type of storyline explorations, or deep character interaction with that many players and a GM... the GM will seriously fucking lose his mind.  The reason is, because as you focus on one or two players for a few minutes, the other four to five get bored and wander off to grab chips, soda, talk amongst themselves, heckle & snipe from the peanut gallery, and so on.  It happens.  Why?  Because sitting and waiting your turn sucks.  Always sucks.  Sucks to high heaven.  When you have to wait through two or three iterations of character highlighting, it REALLY sucks. 

May I strongly suggest that this thread follow the model of the Frostfolk thread with only the principles posting, and one or two specific people helping them work through to where there is a shared language and understanding about what's actually happening at the table?

From there it can be opened up a bit and actually produce potential useful advice, but right now advice is coming from all over the map, from people with different understandings, and it's an ugly, ugly mess.

It's not my thread, so I can't say "make it so!", but I can say to the original poster:  "Please make it so?  You'll get much more useable input eventually."

thanks,

James

I wouldn't be against such a format change in this thread, but I can see the value in more open discourse as well.

I seem to have developed two different questions. Is my 7th Sea GM heading towards 'Typhoid Mary' land, and if so how do I constructively deal with it if that is the case? Secondly, how do I more generally introduce a discussion of change in gaming style with my GMs in general? I seem to be doing a little better on the latter question now, among one or two GMs, but it is too soon to tell if it's been effective with the 7th Sea GM yet. The discussion here is happening faster than the RL discussions with my GMs, so I haven't gotten any new feedback yet, save from my Shadowrun GM, V.

I can't really say 'make it so!' either, James. But I can ask that if anyone thinks it woud be a better direction to go, and would volunteer to be that one or two specific people that I talk with, then I'm game.

---
David

It's your topic, David.  You get to decide (within reason) what you want to talk about in it, and we, being polite and civilized humans, will behave accordingly.

Ron is laughing at me with glee in his voice, because this is me volunteering to be one of those people, should you desire it.

thanks,

James

Agreed, James. I was just trying to point out that I don't think I could fairly say 'I'm only talking to X now!' as they might be finished discussing things with me, at least as far as this thread goes. I am quite willing to have a go, since you volunteered. :)

I've given a few different questions in my previous posts that I'm interested in talking over, and I'm not sure which would be the most productive to focus on. Is there any further information you need from me to discuss any of these issues I raised?

---
David

Hi there,

This is a moderator post.

It is perfectly OK for Dav to have voiced his experience with game groups of a particular size. It is also OK for his points not to apply to a given other person's experience. Dav offered his thoughts in good faith that they might be considered, and in full knowledge that if they didn't fit, they could be ignored. There is no point to debating over a point which is not up for debate. He offers it, it fits for you, or it doesn't. No need for wrangling.

Please note, those thoughts were not directed at your game, V. Yes, Dav writes in extremes. But he was not talking about you, so there's no need to defend your game or your preferences as a GM. It would help, however, if you were to present your views on whether the other GM, the one who is being discussed, might benefit from a smaller group.

I appoint James to be the Main Man for this thread including anyone who plays in this group. Everyone else shuddup. James, when you think the discussion has reached a point where others' input is called for, open it up.

I suggest focusing on the idea that David wants to change or inspire the GM in question. James, I bet you have some thoughts regarding that idea. I'm shutting up now and letting the rumpus begin.

Best, Ron

Ok, here's what I'm going to do.  I'm going to keep my trap shut for a bit (with one exception as below) and reread the thread a couple times deliberately and for comprehension.  I've already read it, but in a "keeping up with the AP forum" kind of way.  Once I've done that, I'll come back and post with what I think the state of the union is and where we go from there.

Now the exception: To get somewhere, we need a very clear goal in mind.  David, am I interpreting correctly to say the following?

You want to get more and better play of the kind you find fun without substianially changing the overall composition or style of your play group?

That is to say: You mostly like what you're doing, you like these people, you like these games, you just aren't having much fun.  You  have had some really awesome moments of fun, and want to know what has to change to increase the frequency of those awesome moments without stomping on anyone else's fun or toes.

Please reply with either a "yup!" or "Nope, I want X".

thanks,

James

James,

You are correct with one clarification/addition. I am perfectly willing to go about suggesting substantial changes to our play style, so long as that is something a GM is willing to try out with me. The easiest way I currently see to go towards getting improvements in our games is to suggest more gradual changes.

Consider that for the most part a 'yup!'  :)

---
David

Oh, one other quick note before I shut up (Ok, two, having just seen your reply):

From now on, anyone who uses "forge jargon" or terminology in this thread (things like narrativist, or GNS or typhoid mary, or pretty much anything that isn't plain english and descriptive) will get beaten with a flaming club until they relent and beg for mercy.  This includes me; Ron can beat me if I slip up.  Nebulous terminology like "story" and "fun" will merely get jumped on and chewed like a dog toy until the meaning is wrung out of them.

Second, having seen your reply: Ok, cool.  Final clarification: Are you willing to change the overall play style if it is very clear that someone else is having less fun as a result?

James

Sounds good. Yes, I am willing to change my style of play a fair bit to allow others to have more fun, and I do that currently. I'm looking to reduce that give and take, in finding new ways to play that everyone enjoys without as much compromise. If I find I'm reducing other people's fun, I would say I'm going in the wrong direction, at least as it regards that game group. I don't ever see some degree of flexibility and compromise in game style going away entirely. I'm cool with that.

One final point of clarification that V, my Shadowrun GM and another player in the 7th Sea game I'm in has asked. Is anyone in that group free to post in this thread, or is it just you and me for now, James?

---
Thanks,
David

Anyone who sits down and plays games in your group is welcome and encouraged to contribute to this.

thanks,

James

Ok. Here's where I think we are: about three feet farther down the road than when the thread started - this is a good thing, because we're stopping to get a map.

We have a clear example of play you didn't enjoy, we have some description of what was actually happening at the table during that scene, and we have a bit of background on the group in general.  We know what you want to get out of this.  We know you have tried to introduce suggestions to move play in a direction you want it to go, and they have not been well received.

Let's start with something I'd like a bit more information on: rough makeup of the group. 

Let's focus specifically on the 7th Sea group for now, and to avoid confusion, we'll talk about the recently ended campaign as opposed to the one just about to start.

David, you've said that most of the group has been gaming together for 15-20 years.  Is it safe to say that, barring one or two exceptions, the group is between 30 and 40 years old, with the bulk of the people within a couple of years of each other?

How many people have created characters for the game this GM was running?

Of those people, how many show up for three games out of four?  I'm not intested in "7-8 each game" - we already know that - I'm interesting in how many people are consistent attendees.

For this next question, you may need to step outside your head a little, as it requires a bit of an impersonal self-check:

You've said the group does movies and stuff together as well as gaming.  For most of those non-gaming social events, which of this is more frequent:

"X and Y aren't going to be here this week, and I'm totally burnt from a crappy week at work.  Do you guys want to catch a movie instead?"

"Hey, Pirates of the Carribean 2 is coming out, let's go see it!"

Now, pick a scene in the 7th Sea game, similar to the "burned at the stake" moment that you give in the first post, except this time pick one that was a high point you want to see more of.  Just like with Ron earlier, I'm less interested in the raw fictional content than in the actual people at the table, and their reactions and what they were doing.

All of these are questions that both you and Vulpin and anyone else from your group who wishs to join in is welcome and encouraged to answer.  One caveat: please don't reply right when you read this.  Go away, think about the questions, come back later tonight, or better yet tomorrow.  This kind of back and forth is vastly improved by a slower, more thoughtful pace.

thanks,

James

Ok, I'll try to handle these questions in order.

With a few exceptions, the group is in the general 30-40 year range. We spread fairly evenly across that spectrum, though, not all within a few years of each other. I'm 30 myself, and have been gaming with the folks in this general group for about 10 years, off and on.

I'm a little unclear on the character creation question. Are you asking if we had more players create characters for the game, and then narrowed it down to just the people that played in the game, or are you asking if the characters were created by the GM and given to the players?

I'll describe character creation for the 7th Sea game that just came to a close, to be clear. The players of the game were known ahead of time, and all the players created one character, that they would play. There was a slight degree of talk among the players during the previous game, for character creation... I recall that most of the player input focused around where to set the game. The GM then added points and tinkered with the characters a bit, adding various minor things... that was something that was new to me.

As to attendance of this game, it was very rare to have somebody not show up. One player was an exception, due to having a pregnant wife, and then a new baby needing more of his time. That definitely comes first.

For the movies and such, it is definitely all the later, where we go to movies or other events during non-game times. If we're too burned out to game, we usually cancel until the next session, with as much warning as we can give. I can't see anyone objecting if a game were to be called due to being brain dead from work, and them asking if folks wanted to see a movie instead. We would just appreciate the warning ahead of time. I could see it happening, and can think of a few times that it probably should have been a movie rather than game while burnt out. I just can't recall anyone doing that.

The most fun I had in the 7th Sea game... there were quite a few fun scenes, mostly little interactions with other characters, but not many really stand out. One that does stand out for me was in a series of scenes linked by a plot concept. It didn't end well, but I had fun with what was included, and was very much looking forward to it being finished.  I'll try to include as much player interaction and as little plot as I can. The plot is what stands out the most in my mind, unfortunately, as I wasn't too focused on watching the reactions of the players at the time. Most of it was quite a while ago, so the memory is fuzzy.

Before one game, the GM gave us all a bunch of Everway fantasy art cards. I don't remember the exact framework that he used, but we were told to come up with a possible story/plot/idea based on the art on one of the cards we had... basically the GM was fishing for ideas with that prop as the focus. The GM would use the ideas or not, as it suited him. I eventually came up with the idea that linked my character in with a big event I knew was coming up in the published game world's timeline. The GM seemed pretty happy with the idea, as he wanted to get to that story and hadn't known how to link it to our group. A couple of players that also knew the future of the game world's timeline a bit were nodding and seemed happy with the idea too.

It wasn't until a session or two after I gave the GM that idea that the GM gave the intro for it. He gave my character a dream, which I chose to have my holy knight character view as a divine warning. This story was a side note to the GM's plots, and spread out over the course of many sessions. I turned my character from a warrior into more of a scholar as he researched this. There was a bit of banter between characters on this subject that was pretty enjoyable, and a couple other players seemed to get into it, when it came up.

Eventually the GM had all the 'mystic' types in the game world have the same dream, finally convincing folks that my character wasn't just a crazy. After this researching the dream warnings became more and more the focus of my character. It was still a sideline to the stories the GM was running us through, and rarely mentioned or dealt with.

The next to last session of our game ended as my character was traveling to a town just a little ahead of the rest of the group. Everyone else was going there to perform a task the GM gave them rather directly through an NPC. My character had no reason to go along. Not wanting to split the group up, I invented a plot point related to the character's focus story and gave it to the GM to approve, which he did.

The GM cut the game short unfortunately, as I think I mentioned before. My character discovered nothing in that town, just a rumor coming to nothing. We did a final adventure that was pretty much disconnected from any of the previous games. I don't think any character got to finish their particular focus story for their character, so many ending up in worse spots in their story lines than when they started.

I wish that this or another story focus had been there from the start of the game, had been shared among the characters, not just focused on my character, and that we had actually played out that story to the conclusion.

---
David

Ok, I'm going to be a pedantic ass here and note that you didn't actually give what I asked for.  Useful information, absolutely, in figuring out where the play you want is, but I can't tell from what you posted what the one, single scene of awesome was.  Was it the Everway cards?  The second to last game, something in between? 

Pick a single scene, similar in scope and length to the witch burning scene, that you enjoyed.  I'm not asking for "chorus-of-angels, multiple orgasm, dear-god-that-was-perfect" gaming, just something that was fun to play out.

Beyond that, I've got a set of very system specific questions:

How did you folks use the 20 questions?

How often are Drama dice awarded (above the base "start of Story" amount)?  Related question, how often do you resolve Stories and refresh Drama dice?

How many characters have backgrounds, and how often are they used?

Ditto for Virtues/Hubris?

thanks for being patient as we work through these questions!

James

Today I realized I'd been limiting myself to trying to think of scenes that I enjoyed that had my character as a part of the scene. I don't think I need to do that. Here's a scene that mainly focuses on another player, which I did some small bit in, but which I enjoyed it greatly as a whole.

A slight bit of set up first. The other player's character was Die Kruzritter, part of a secret society of anti-sorcerous knights. Officially the character was a dead man, while his very much look alike cousin was alive. In actually he assumed the cousin's identity and went to a remote town far from his family.

One game the GM surprised that player by having a former love interested of the dead cousin come to the remote town we were living at. The NPC announced she had finally tracked down her husband, who she had secretly eloped with, but shortly after ran off and left her.

Watching the player's surprise over the situation was a laugh. He dealt with it great, claiming he had head trauma and forgot many things.

We had a fun with character banter and teasing, and everyone was enjoying it. Later the 'wife' was spied sneaking off to secret meeting, and was discovered that she perhaps knew a bit too much about Die Kruzritter. This meant she had to die. We could all tell the player didn't want to carry through with the killing. He was going to, however, and had his character take the 'wife' for a walk around a nearby lake. I decided my character and his lover were walking along the same lakeside that the killing was planned for, and so there I was, interrupting the killing in a rather 'accidental hero' sort of way, with my character clueless that any problem was happening. It was played out as a rather funny comedy of errors.

The GM after that ran the other character through a bit of story that allowed the other player's character the option to watch his 'wife' further instead of killing her to hide his secret. We were all happier with that resolution to the problem.

As to your question on the other scenes I described previously, the cards weren't really important to me. What I cared about was that my character had direction that was of significance to the plot of the game. It gave me a focus to do more in the game than just react to events happening, but that I had hoped would actually influence the direction of the events. The scenes that I enjoyed because of this were with my character telling other characters about his first warning dream, and having them just think he was crazy. A few game sessions later after everyone had the same dream, it was amusing having my character vindicated to some degree. The players of course all knew the dream was real, but I had fun playing out the reactions between characters.

On to your other questions.

We all filled out the 20 questions and gave it to the GM. We also have an optional 100+ question sheet that we often use for various games, that was altered to fit 7th Sea world. This was used the same way we used the 20 questions, with more/different details. I don't think anyone was keeping them private from the other players, but nobody went out of their way to talk about them with each other either. I didn't get any feedback from the GM, and am unaware if anyone else did either.

Drama dice awards are something that the GM was trying out a few different house rules for. I'm not sure if this was his intent, but in general how it worked out is that we had a large number at the start of the session, were awarded only a few during the actual play, and ended randomly with most or all of them, or very few of them. It seemed to me to be mostly useful for insuring that very few dice rolls would fail, unless you didn't care too much if the roll failed or not. XP was unlinked from spending drama dice, so there was no motive to hoard them, aside from perhaps saving them 'just in case' for the final scene of the session.

We resolved a story about once a session, with the next session starting where the other left off. A game session would be about 10+ hours of play, plus a 2 hour break for food. Drama dice refreshed at the start of each game session.

I think all the characters had backgrounds. They were dealt with to greater or lesser degree, maybe 2 to 4 times per background in the entire run of the game. My character's background was probably dealt with the most in terms of game time, with much of one session devoted to it, and a few other smaller scenes in other sessions. Many other backgrounds did little more that get a brief mention every so often by the GM. Some backgrounds were starting to be hinted at starting to be explored, but were not developed more than a brief intro.

I think we all had either a Virtue or Hubris, fairly evenly split. They were brought up fairly infrequently, maybe once in a game session, every one to four game sessions.

Hopefully these will answer your questions a bit better. Thanks for your patience as well, and feel free to apply boot to the head if my answers wander too far off the path from your questions.

---
David

Awesome, thanks.  Two last questions, one's a quicky, one's a "think for a while":

Quick: Were any of the backgrounds tied into the main plot of the story?

Why were none of the scenes you highlighted as enjoyable involving your background?

James

There were a couple backgrounds that were tied in with the main story of the game, but only minorly. The plot could have been run the same without them. Most of the backgrounds were not tied in at all, and were only brought up as side stories.

None of the scenes I highlighted involved the background of my character. I didn't particularly enjoy or dislike the game play during the times my background came up. It was always a 'hrm, this could develop into something really interesting' sort of reaction.

---
David

Ok, here's what I'm seeing fairly clearly from all the information here.  Fair warning, it ain't exactly pretty.

1: It's very clear that, whatever brought them together initially, this group is friends first and roleplayers second.  When they get together, they do so to spend time with each other, and roleplaying is secondary to that.

2: You want roleplaying to be primary.

3: That's a fundamental incompatability and there's fuck all anyone can do about that.  You have different priorities than the group does.  You're the golfer who wants to make the US Open, and you're teeing up with guys who are there to kick back with a few beers where their lives can't find them for a day.

-------
Now, all that being said, you've got a choice.  you can:

a) Shrug, and live with it.  Agree that with these folks beer and golf cart races are where the fun is, and decide to enjoy that.
b) Shrug and move on.  Don't dump your friends (screw that!) - keep doing movies and BBQ's and the rest, but find another group to roleplay with that's more up your alley.
c) Try to change this group.

C is what you've been doing, and what you came here for advice about.  So, I've got some stuff there, but before I say any thing, be very aware that using option c is telling your friends, straight up, "your fun sucks."

That is really the big reason you haven't gotten anywhere with your suggestions and attempts so far.  It's really nothing to do with jargon or them being resistant to new ideas or whatever, it's because you are saying "This isn't fun." It doesn't matter if you add the "...for me" caveat on the end, you're still telling your friends that the way they game isn't fun, and you know what the "right" way is.

So, how can you constructively try option c? 

First, back way off.  Leave off the forge-jargon, stop talking about cool new games you read about, or that awesome Actual Play thread.  Drop all of that stuff.  Your friends, the 7th Sea GM in particular, are dug in behind sandbags with a .50 cal pointed at you.  Anything that comes from that direction is going to get shot down without even a fair hearing.

Second, apologize.  Think about what I'm saing in this post, and if you honestly agree that you've been playing the "forge gaming is awesome" with the implicit "and your gaming sucks" card, apologize for that.  Acknowledge to this guy that you went over the line in pushing for what you want by not realizing you were stepping on their fun.

Third, recognize that in a traditional GM-players setup, the GM does 90% of the work, both before, during, and after the game.  So anything you suggest, especially to someone who's been GMing for a long time, translates instantly as "more work" and "do this for me".  Doesn't matter how carefully it's presented, it goes through that "fuck, more work" filter first.  Kind of like phone calls at suppertime go through the "asshole telemarketers" filter even before you get to the phone and see who's calling.

Fourth, start very simple.  Ask - ask - if it's OK to have one of your backgrounds tied to the main plot, because you think you would enjoy that more.  A supporting cast member as your Nemesis, or the villian's daughter as your Romance, something like that.  If he says "No", you say "OK" and show good faith by not bitching about it.  Ask again next time the game changes.

If you are able to make changes, and that's not guaranteed, it will be slow, and happen over time, and you need to be very up front about what you're doing.  You need to develop the patience of a saint.  Think of yourself as the one jazz fan in a roomful of country and western folks, and you get an idea of how slowly and patiently you need to suggest possibilities.  And always being prepared to hear and accept "Naw, I prefer Hank Williams."

However, don't dismiss options A and B out of hand.  One of the reasons I hopped in here, is that there is a weekly 7th Sea game in my basement that's been running forever, and that gaming group could be cloned person-for-person from the group you describe.  My wife still plays that, and has a frickin' blast.  She's decided that option A is a good one, and just kicks back and relaxes.  I don't play with that group anymore, and we're still friends - some of us overlap in other games, we go to movies together, and do all that other social stuff that friends do.  We just don't play 7th Sea together on Monday nights.  Option B. No harm, no foul.

thanks,

James

All of my GMs have told me they have a stated goal of becoming better GMs and that they want their games to be more fun for their players. I have not been attempting to use forge jargon save with Vulpin, my Shadowrun GM, who wanted to learn it along with me to better understand some of the articles and positions here, and to improve communication. I have not been mentioning games that I saw mentioned at the Forge save for with my weekly L5R GM, who owns a couple of the games in mention, and I've since found out is wanting to try out Polaris or Capes sometime. I passed along the suggestion of Dogs in the Vineyards to him, as so heavily pushed by others. I think he might enjoy that game, actually.

My 7th Sea GM has said that he realizes he has a weakness as a GM. He thinks, as advised by other GMs and players in our gaming circle, that this weakness is that he is failing to provide a distinctive plots to his games. He feels his players have been largely floundering with not much to do, if he doesn't do that.

Your fourth point seems like a good suggestion. It would likely take reworking the new character a little bit as we've already made characters but have not yet started to play. I tried to make the character in general suit what the GM said he wanted out of the game already.

Luckily, patience is something I have in abundance. :)

The discussions with my GMs has progressed a bit further. I have passed on a couple links to them, http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html, which universally had a 'I hate this' reaction. I then passed on the link
suggested here http://bankuei.blogspot.com/2006/02/flag-framing_03.html which both my L5R and Shadowrun GMs rather liked. I've not yet heard back from my 7th Sea GM on that.

I've talked over with the L5R and Shadowrun GMs about why they hate it, and found they interpreted these articles wildly differently than I did. I've since explained what I found useful in them, and what I liked about them. This has been more helpful, and I've gotten some level of agreement between us now, I think. We're making some progress. I've yet to heard back from my 7th Sea GM.

I can say we've gotten a partial success so far, at least.
---
David

Hi there,

Time for me to step back in again ...

Because although James has tried heroically, and although you've certainly been willing enough to consider his minor points, I'm seeing that this thread no longer has any reason to continue.

Compare your last post to your first one. At first, you were saying, "I'm not happy with this game I'm in and specifically not with the way this guy GMs." You were pretty forthright about that and sought our help in justifying your position. Now, you're saying, "Everything's really OK, and on its way to being better."

For all I know, you're saying exactly how it is and the whole game-situation, group and all, is improving just as you'd stated earlier that you wanted it to. In which case, fantastic, we're done here because the ground conditions for the thread are now transformed.

It is also possible that you aren't willing to examine the larger points that James just made, and that I had talked about earlier in the thread, which is that this group is simply not giving you what you want, period. In which case, all right, those points are not what you want to hear, and that's pretty much all we have to give for that issue, so we're done here because there's nowhere to go.

Either way, that's all there is. I really don't see that any discussion remains, so I am inclined to close the thread. Since I don't want to be a complete ogre about this, feel free to suggest a new topic for discussion, regarding this game, if you'd like, and if you think some aspect of this thread has remained undealt with.

Best, Ron

Except for my 7th Sea GM, I would say things are improving, yes, thanks in part to some tips I got here. The 7th Sea GM may or may not come around. Perhaps the other two GMs can pass on what they're learning, in their own way. He's a player under both of those other GMs, in various games, only one of which I am also a player in.

As to not considering James' points, I don't think that's an accurate statement. I think in part we are talking past each other. Perhaps I'm not explaining my situation well enough or James has seen a few too many situations that are similar on the surface that do have the underlying problem that he sees in my case, I don't know. I do think it's a definite case of misdiagnosis in a couple key areas here. Other parts were helpful and accurate, though, so it was far from a futile thread, for me.

2 of my 3 GMs have started actively and helpfully discussing some of these gaming methods with me, so I consider it a win.

I will likely post a new thread once we have actual play experience where we are trying out some of these methods. As a side note, seeing that some people actually use Dogs in the Vineyards to run Serenity games have caused me to rethink my earlier position on that game. Perhaps we will give it a try.

Thanks everyone,
---
David

Blankshield wrote:
Ok. Here's where I think we are: about three feet farther down the road than when the thread started - this is a good thing, because we're stopping to get a map.

We have a clear example of play you didn't enjoy, we have some description of what was actually happening at the table during that scene, and we have a bit of background on the group in general.  We know what you want to get out of this.  We know you have tried to introduce suggestions to move play in a direction you want it to go, and they have not been well received.

Let's start with something I'd like a bit more information on: rough makeup of the group. 

Let's focus specifically on the 7th Sea group for now, and to avoid confusion, we'll talk about the recently ended campaign as opposed to the one just about to start.

David, you've said that most of the group has been gaming together for 15-20 years.  Is it safe to say that, barring one or two exceptions, the group is between 30 and 40 years old, with the bulk of the people within a couple of years of each other?

How many people have created characters for the game this GM was running?

Of those people, how many show up for three games out of four?  I'm not intested in "7-8 each game" - we already know that - I'm interesting in how many people are consistent attendees.

For this next question, you may need to step outside your head a little, as it requires a bit of an impersonal self-check:

You've said the group does movies and stuff together as well as gaming.  For most of those non-gaming social events, which of this is more frequent:

"X and Y aren't going to be here this week, and I'm totally burnt from a crappy week at work.  Do you guys want to catch a movie instead?"

"Hey, Pirates of the Carribean 2 is coming out, let's go see it!"

Now, pick a scene in the 7th Sea game, similar to the "burned at the stake" moment that you give in the first post, except this time pick one that was a high point you want to see more of.  Just like with Ron earlier, I'm less interested in the raw fictional content than in the actual people at the table, and their reactions and what they were doing.

All of these are questions that both you and Vulpin and anyone else from your group who wishs to join in is welcome and encouraged to answer.  One caveat: please don't reply right when you read this.  Go away, think about the questions, come back later tonight, or better yet tomorrow.  This kind of back and forth is vastly improved by a slower, more thoughtful pace.

thanks,

James

Blankshield wrote:
Ok, I'm going to be a pedantic ass here and note that you didn't actually give what I asked for.  Useful information, absolutely, in figuring out where the play you want is, but I can't tell from what you posted what the one, single scene of awesome was.  Was it the Everway cards?  The second to last game, something in between? 

Pick a single scene, similar in scope and length to the witch burning scene, that you enjoyed.  I'm not asking for "chorus-of-angels, multiple orgasm, dear-god-that-was-perfect" gaming, just something that was fun to play out.

Beyond that, I've got a set of very system specific questions:

How did you folks use the 20 questions?

How often are Drama dice awarded (above the base "start of Story" amount)?  Related question, how often do you resolve Stories and refresh Drama dice?

How many characters have backgrounds, and how often are they used?

Ditto for Virtues/Hubris?

thanks for being patient as we work through these questions!

James

vulpin wrote: