Topic: [tMW] First game...
Started by: John A
Started on: 10/22/2006
Board: Actual Play
On 10/22/2006 at 10:15pm, John A wrote:
[tMW] First game...
Yesterday a group of us met to play the first half of a game of the Mountain Witch, lasting about 7 hours in all. Myself, Alex F, David, Bjorn and Alex. Me and David and Alex F are old school friends and used to game together 10+ years ago - we've just started gaming again. Bjorn I know from work and he similarly hasn't gamed in 10+ years. Alex I have only gamed with once or twice, he has been playing D&D for a long time and has just starting playing indie games. Bjorn and myself have been doing martial arts for a while now (me about 8 years) and have an interest in Japanese history. Everyone else has no particular interest. I won't replay the game in detail - the in-house record of the game is here if you are interested: http://www.sunnyblue.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=48.
I haven't GMed in a long time and even then only a few games (Paranoia/Shadowrun) so I was a little worried about the game. In the past I would plan out a whole story and while I would reshape things according to circumstance, I used to try to guide players along it, and I would have got quite upset if the clever twist I had in mind never happened. However, I recently played Capes and loved it. I really liked not having to plan a game and having to really focus on other players interests. I didn't want to plan too much for the Witch in case I ended up forcing the players along a prepared path but on the flip side I was worried about people not engaging with their Dark Fates. I spent a while compiling a large list of bangs and I lifted heavily form other peoples postings on the Forge (thanks all). I prepped the first act better than the second act and I think that showed. However, in the end, the players did pick up on their Dark fates and everyone really enjoyed the game!
No players fates are overlapping yet - I think I may have overemphasised the danger of deprotagonisation. However, we realised that all fates meet at the Witch and so effectively the fates are bound in this way. What was interesting was the different strategy of the players in thinking about and revealing their dark fates. Bjorn obviously had a pre-prepared idea and was foreshadowing from the beginning, having his character disappear off to be almost caught in conversation with a woman in white. Alex F didn't seem to have a set idea but took something I had introduced into the game (a couple of starving child gaki) to narrate a romantic interest in someone who had become a gaki and how she might be cured. David is playing his cards close to his chest and is at once everyones' best friend and a bit suspicious. I have been trying to follow his lead since I have no idea what fate he drew ( we did it totally blind and totally random). For example, he told some Tengu his name and so I had them back down a little. I think he wanted that but I'm not sure. I shouldn't do that I know - I should let players do it themselves - but I think my players are still being too reverent towards my GMiness.
My favourite Dark Fate so far is the other Alex. He wasn't foreshadowing at all, which turned out because he had drawn the dreaded "Worst Fear" card - which we think should maybe be withdrawn from the deck for a bunch of first timers. I know I would not have liked to have drawn this card as a player. At the start of the second act I hit him with the "head on a spike, whose is it?" bang. I caught him dozing and put him on the spot a bit, but after some umming and ahing he said that he didn't recognise the head, he recognised how it had died. The telltale markings on the face indicated a terrible disease, and that it was one of the only things of which he was afraid. After a bit of chatting at the table we all agreed that was a very cool idea, that the disease may have been brought from overseas by those foreigners and that it made sense that a samurai should fear dying in such a manner. Alex also hypothesised (OOC) that eating the flesh of those who had died of such a disease might lead to others to develop the disease. They had earlier accepted some rather appetising bowls of stew from the parents of the gaki... (I'm trying to play up the irony of the samurai view of dead bodies as stigmatising and unclean). None of these things have been narrated in yet; yes there is a disease, yes Alex's character is afraid of it, yes the witch has a cure but whether the character has this disease or what his connection to it might be is unclear. In short I was very impressed at the suddenly very fertile story that emerged from such a (seemingly) unsexy and vague Fate.
We had a few problems. While other games (e.g. Dogs in the Vineyard) give you some restrictions on how you narrate, in this game, it was sometimes hard to get an idea of what to narrate - but we'll get better with practice I guess. We had a lot of problems with partial successes - we decided that too many conflicts were of the form "Person wants A, GM wants not A". Our solution was to make conflicts bigger by using "and" (e.g. "person wants A and B"). We started to pre-play them a bit by thinking ahead of time what a partial success would represent, but that tended to slow things down and intrude a bit on the winner's narration. Afterwards we decided that more orthogonal goals might have been a good solution, with the GM wanting a counter goal - not just the complement of what the player wanted.
The other main problem was group conflict. It seemed like if I had 4 gaki vs the 4 PCs, if the PCs wanted to run away (for example) they could make just one roll against the four to escape - effectively "taking out" the four. Maybe I just need to narrate in things to make them not run away. Similarly if one player set the goal, "distract guards allowing all PCs to escape", their success buys escape for all others. Again this is likely just be a fault with the stakes we set. Because of this it felt like PCs seemed to be able to dictate the grouping of conflicts.
On a purely mechanical front, two rule clarifications required; firstly, what if more than one person wants to buy narration? Secondly, if you get a double success against an two able creatures, is that only a take out or a take out and a flesh wound?
That aside, everyone really enjoyed the game and we're busy organising the second half. Despite my best efforts to seed doubt, everyone is working together at the moment - the players know that I don't know if one of them is working with the Witch. Only two players have reduced trust in each other so far, but they are all expecting to be at each others throats at the end.
On 10/24/2006 at 1:03pm, timfire wrote:
Re: [tMW] First game...
John wrote:
No players fates are overlapping yet - I think I may have overemphasised the danger of deprotagonisation. However, we realised that all fates meet at the Witch and so effectively the fates are bound in this way.
So did you discuss overlapping Fates before play? Just curious.
What was interesting was the different strategy of the players in thinking about and revealing their dark fates.
Yeah, it's something I've really come to like. I love it when players pick up on stuff that happens in play, like your Worst Fate, which is great. Now you just need to start pressing him on his fear. It seems almost a given that somebody should start showing possible signs of the sickness... It would be interesting to me if it was one of the other PCs... There might also be fertile ground with exploring the foreigners...
David is playing his cards close to his chest ... For example, he told some Tengu his name and so I had them back down a little. I think he wanted that but I'm not sure. I shouldn't do that I know - I should let players do it themselves - but I think my players are still being too reverent towards my GMiness.
I'm not sure, your response seems appropriate. Sometimes, if I'm not sure, I ask the player how the NPC should be reacting in a general sense. But I just go with what seems appropriate alot of the time. Later, when he reveals more, you can tweak how the NPCs are treating him. It's pretty easy to play off stuff that might not be 100% appropriate. Players are usually forgiving in that regard. Also, there's a certain give and take between player and GM, and often the player will take the things you do and incorporate them into their story.
We had a few problems. While other games (e.g. Dogs in the Vineyard) give you some restrictions on how you narrate, in this game, it was sometimes hard to get an idea of what to narrate - but we'll get better with practice I guess. We had a lot of problems with partial successes...Our solution was to make conflicts bigger by using "and" (e.g. "person wants A and B")...
Narration, particularly Partial Successes, has a learning curve. Usually it takes a session or two to get the hang of it. Also, certain conflicts are easier than others. I would say you should NOT frame conflicts like "player wants A + B". I tried to be clear in the book that 1 success = 1 concrete fact or effect. A Success is meant to be a unit of currency for narration. If you're having trouble, you can always narrate a partial as damage for a follow-up conflict. You can also try to think of partials in terms of potential for spin-off conflicts.
Like in example in the book with the dude trying to sneak through the courtyard. A partial might mean that the guard sees someone but doesn't recognize it as an intruder. That's great material for interaction between the confused guard and the PC.
The other main problem was group conflict. It seemed like if I had 4 gaki vs the 4 PCs, if the PCs wanted to run away (for example) they could make just one roll against the four to escape - effectively "taking out" the four. Maybe I just need to narrate in things to make them not run away. Similarly if one player set the goal, "distract guards allowing all PCs to escape", their success buys escape for all others. Again this is likely just be a fault with the stakes we set. Because of this it felt like PCs seemed to be able to dictate the grouping of conflicts.
You know, I'm not sure I've ever had that happen, though I know what you're saying. It's a little cheap to "try and run away" with a single Success. There are a couple things you can do. First, you're right that running away effectively Takes them Out---so go with that! Say that running away is a matter of Taking Out the enemies, and narrate the "battle" as a chase scene. (Remember that "all conflict is a form of combat".) Second, you could make the PCs all roll seperately, ala my alternate resolution methods. This way, some PCs might escape, and others might get trapped. The inverse is true of the pursuing enemies. Lastly, something I don't prefer but is a valid option is that you can claim that running away doesn't remove the enemies from play forever, and that they might re-appear later at an "unopportune time".
I would be all for the "distracting" conflict though---with the understanding that the distracting PC is giving up his option for escape himself, or at least will be forced to face the full wraith of the enemies all by his lonesome. I think that's great. 1 PC vs 3-4 enemies is not good. If a player wants to volunteer for that, great!
On a purely mechanical front, two rule clarifications required; firstly, what if more than one person wants to buy narration? Secondly, if you get a double success against an two able creatures, is that only a take out or a take out and a flesh wound?
Buying narration---whoever calls it first. Double Success against Able creatures---Take Out + a Flesh Wound (this is the only time you can divide a Double like this).
On 10/24/2006 at 3:03pm, John A wrote:
RE: Re: [tMW] First game...
timfire wrote:
So did you discuss overlapping Fates before play? Just curious.
Before dealing out Fates, I emphasised the importance of players taking control of narration of their fates and told them they could just jump in at any point and narrate their fate by either introducing something new or linking it to anything in game. I said they could even involve other characters in their fate but avoid de-protagonisation. Then we all discussed what "de-protagonisation" meant (i.e. the dictionary definition). It would have been better to then have agreed examples of what was cool and what wasn't.
narrate the "battle" as a chase scene.
Arg. Good idea!
Thanks for the help and clarification. I forgot about being able to make the PCs face conflicts one at a time.