This will be a quick post, mainly to hit a few points sloshing around inside my head.

A few nights or a week or something ago I up and played a quick, hour-long game of ORX with a couple of the folks on the #indie-rpgs channel. It was a pick-up game, meant to introduce some interested players to the rules and to test out one of the tweaks -- a new play dial -- being inserted into the text of the print version (more on that some other time, in another post).

Though I had the opportunity, I never did test out the tweak. My excuse was that this was the first game of ORX for some of them, so I wanted to concentrate on just getting the basic rules explained and play through some examples. IMO, things didn't go so well: that is, I felt the game didn't do what it should have. I felt unsatisfied at the end, and I'm trying to figure out what collection of circumstances led to that.

I gave my usual demo spiel, explaining each rule as we went along and encountered the place where it was explained "what happens now" or "what you must (or can) do now". ie: "This is the start of a Scene, I go first or pass to you. I'm going to go, and so I set the Scene. I get these three dice at the start of each Scene." etc.

To begin, I explained the various Moods the game could be run in, and the players chose a full-bore "comedic" mood for the game. On reflection, this is possibly where some of the later "problem" behavior came from.

Now, I had billed character creation as a five-minute affair, because it really is. Thus I figured fifteen-minutes at most, since Raven's First Rule of Internet Gaming was in effect: that is, everything takes three times longer in electronic chat than it does at the table.

It ended up taking about a half-hour, as I recall. At any rate, it took much longer than it should have and there were complaints about it dragging on. However, there was a lot of "goofing off" going on during character creation -- talking smack, making rude comments, and general silliness/mockery -- which was interfering with my ability to stay focused, explain the rules, and get characters down on paper.

The characters developed were intensely funny. We had a traveling anvil-salesman, a guy who said only one word, etc. They seemed like they would work great. So, characters finished, we started play.

First thing we did was the old "first roll introduction": that is, the basic game rules are used in a one-roll minigame to determine who gets narration rights to set the situation. It's a great way to get people rolling and introduce them to the basics, as well as get them comfortable with the idea of narrative control and freely created situation (ie: the GM really doesn't have a plot in mind, he's developing the situation right here with us NOW).

However, I did realize I need to explain better the way the initial Stakes are created and what they're about, however, because it seemed to me there was some confusion about what, exactly, was allowed and accepted in such. The players seemed to "fill in the blanks" on their own, though, without any problem.

Some wild and very zany ideas were pitched for the initial situation. I was not certain I could handle some of those that were pitched, even! But I figured if it was too out-there for me to figure out where to go with it, I could just pass my turn right back to the players and have them develop it further instead of taking charge.

The goofing off and joking of character creation continued on during the game. I personally felt it really took away from time spent playing and understanding the game, and I know it distracted me: I missed a number of statements of intent, either because they were buried amid the jokes and I didn't take them seriously, or because I just scanned right past them amidst everything else and never even saw them. But they seemed to be having fun with it.

This was the number one "thing we did" that was unsatisfying about play to me. Yes, the game was supposed to be funny, but the socialization around the game about the game was what ended up receiving most of the time and most of the jokes. I didn't like feeling so flustered and distracted from play. I even felt a bit "not listened to" -- that is, like a guy trying to explain something important to his giggling teenage buddies and only sort-of being heard.

The number one "thing that happened" that was unsatisfying was play lasted literally only one Scene. Thus, each player got one spotlight moment for their orc, and then the game was over because our hour was up. I felt we should have been able to do more than one Scene in the time we had, even on-line. (After all, I ran a full mini-scenario at Forge Midwest in the same amount of time!)

Because of the latter, I walked away thinking the game could have gone much better than it did.

I felt maybe the problem was we had not concentrated on playing, that we should have saved the jokes for in-the-game rather than around-the-table. I also wondered if I should have "laid down the law" as soon as I realized it was a problem. I briefly considered the "real" problem was trying to play a fully comedic game, or not taking the reins more firmly in hand as GM (which, possibly, are the old traditional Illusionist "OMG the players are rebelling!" feelings coming to light).

That isn't to say the social goofiness factor wasn't a problem. It interfered with my play experience, at least, though I recognize that while the players engaged in it, the frustration with it was all me.

Why didn't I "fix it" at the table and bring up the difficulties it was causing for me? Mainly because I felt a little out of my element in handling the goofing off: that is, I didn't handle it at all.

I figured these guys are playing with me, this is the first game most of them have played of ORX, they're having fun, so I don't want to bitch slap them and make them not want to play. At least that was what informed my decision about whether or not to say anything or lay down the law, though its only clear verbally looking back. At the time, it was just a series of feelings I ran with, right, wrong, correct or incorrect.

I have to wonder if things would have gone more smoothly, if behaviors would have been different, or if I would have felt more confident in speaking up if I had insisted on a more serious mood for play. I also have to wonder if the medium contributed to the problem: IRC gaming has always been hit-or-miss with me, either lots of satisfying play, or very little-and-unsatisfying play (with much more of the latter than of the former in the past decade I've been playing on-line).

(ie: When I play on-line for fifteen minutes, I want to feel like I've played a game for fifteen minutes, not watched a cutscene and maybe pushed a button. It's even worse when I've only watched a cutscene and pushed a button or two over the course of two or three hours.)

So, what happened? What could I have done differently? What can I try next time? If you game on-line regularly and successfully, what has worked for you in similar situations (with similar goals in mind)?

And for the players who participated in that game: feel free to pipe in with your own perceptions of play and any of the above, let loose. Am I wrong and how do you see the situation? How was the game for you? What worked and what didn't for you?

Hmm. Every first game of Universalis, even if me or Ralph is involved, is goofy. Every one. I think it's a defense mechanism. You'd think that the indierpgs crowd might not need this, but it may simply be something about these designs.

It also happens that after a bit, players play more straight, and concentrate on play more. So it might not be as big a problem as it seems right now.

Mike

Weird, yet comforting. Thanks for pointing that out, Mike.

I'll try giving it another couple go's and see what happens.

Hey,

I guess I'll address Mike's point first. I don't really think a defense mechanism is needed (or was involved in this case) for playing a game about orx (knowing next to nothing about the game I was like, "Oh, a game about Orx/Orcs/Orks/Orques/Etc."), particularly when everyone involved has played with each other multiple times (over a span of years) in very serious games.

Raven, you definitely should have stepped up and voiced your preferences if you were having issues. Not speaking up when something is bothering you is always going to be a recipe for a not so fun time. If you wanted to play a more serious game you should have just made that clear. 'Suburban Crucible' and many other games get played quite seriously on Indie-Netgaming. You gave us the choice for comedy, we decided we felt like comedy, and that's what we went with.

It's my observation that if there is a bunch of game-related chatter in the out-of-character room it means that people are enthused about playing. I know I was excited to play in this instance, and wished that I'd had more than an hour to give to play. I wouldn't have minded at all if you'd asked us to settle down a bit in the interest of speeding up play. I would have made an in-character joke of course, but then I would have settled down. :)

The system issues I can't really say anything about. I'd need to experience a bit more play to get a better feel for the game. So, if you'd like to give it another try sometime, by all means, let's do it.

-Chris