Hi, I'm new to the Forge, although I devoured the intro to forge theory blog entries and read deep in the game start to finish.

I'm pretty dissatisfied with my current game rut, which looks like:  Get some ideas, know I could run a game in them, tinker with my homebrew system, and get exhausted at the prospect of getting everyone to buy into MY ideas.

Don't get me wrong - I LOVE to GM; I enjoy prepping content (not stats), combing through books for ideas, etc.  I can also think on my feet and handle mechanics on the order of Savage Worlds off the top of my head without skipping a beat.  The exhausting thing is always the "Okay, I know I can build a very well-structured enclave of brain sucking monstrosities or a scenario with an imperative threat or problem that players' characters will respond to because of their character definition... but how do I make the players buy into it?  How do I get the hooks in and make them care?  And why is it my responsibility to do that?"

The sad thing is that my players are telling me they're itching for a game, and they tell me they like everything I run, but I'm sick of knowing what should happen and being responsible for everyone's fun.

Sorry, deleted the last line, in which I ask what I should be looking at to help me out (my players like my system and most importantly don't like phased resolution, but they're pretty flexible if I want to add things like scene mechanics to the system).

Maybe that should read "my players like my core mechanic" rather than "my players like my system."

Hi! Welcome to the Forge! I haven't been here long myself, so I can give you some advice based on my (very steep) learning curve when I first started reading here.  This is what I did, and it worked for me:

First, read a bunch of threads, poking around into the old history of GNS and the like.  A lot of it won't make much sense to you, but you'll find a lot of links to the theory articles.

Second, read the theory articles.  These might not make much sense to you either, just yet.  Hust kind of get a basic idea of it.  You don't have to agree with it all, or any of it, just get an idea of the terms and what you think about them. Over in "Site Discussion" there's a really good precis of terms and ideas that are used around here.  Think about how they apply to your own play.

Third, read a bunch of games.  There are lots of free games linked from here, and people are discussing a lot of games in the indie forums below.  Check out as many as you can, and think about how they're using the theory you just read.

Now, the most important step:

Post in Actual Play with a description of an actual game you played.  Focus on the dynamics of what was happening around the table, rather than what happened "in-game".  You might get more milage out of posting about a less successful game, rather than the best one you ever played.  Either way, talk about what made it suck for you, and what made it great.  Think about the theory you've read and the games you've checked out, and ask some specific questions at the end of your post.  I promise you you'll get a really useful response.  I did.  The question you're asking above is a good one, but I think people will be able to answer it better, and you'll be able to understand the answer more, after following the above steps.

Sorry if this comes across as patronising, too.  Take it from one newbie to another - this worked for me and might work for you.  Someone else might come along with some better advice.

One thing you might look at is games that have a rules set up where the players have to have input into what's going on and have to share those ideas with the whole group. Universalis is my favorite, with Prime Time Adventures up there, too. Both games have forums down in the Independant Games section, and you can get some idea how that works just from reading threads or their homepages.

There are other games that have this sort of formalized "pregame/pre-campaign" group brainstorming, too, so hopefully other boardmembers will pop in with suggestions as well.

It's a neat idea that can be transferred over to lots of games regardless of the individual game's mechanics. At bear minimum, it's a good way to find out what the players think is cool about the game you're going to be playing, and gives you, the GM, some idea of what to hit them with, rather than making you feel around in the dark until something clicks.

my biggest advice is randomly messing with story and mechanic. and then letting the players see how well they work with it. and the key is play testing....when someone says, "hey, this <insert-random-player-gripe> doesn't make any sense....blah blah blah" you have to listen. Avoid using terms like "its supposed to" and "but you don't do it that way". etc etc.

your there to learn from thier play experience, not what you had in mind. They still have to enjoy it. some complaints you gotta take with a grain of salt, others need serious consideration.

Make the core mechanic loose, but exacting when needed. one term i'd use is to make it swiss army knife of resolution solveing, but make sure that they understand that they don't always need to roll on something. (i hated that as GM, constantly looking up stats cuz some nut wants to kill the lord that gives them the quest so that they can take the throne or some stuff like that. plain annoying)

other than that, all i can say is take alot of notes, then after its been played to a fine tuning, then write it all up for the system.

rycanada wrote: I'm pretty dissatisfied with my current game rut, which looks like:  Get some ideas, know I could run a game in them, tinker with my homebrew system, and get exhausted at the prospect of getting everyone to buy into MY ideas.

Hey, I'd like to second (or third) the notion that the best way to get concrete advice about GM'ing and problems with play is to post to the Actual Play folder.  Several other folders on the Forge would be helpful in getting your design up and running, but if there are some problems you're having in play that you either don't understand, or understand but can't seem to fix, AP is the best place for it.

Welcome to the Forge!

Hello!

I'm Ron, the site co-founder and moderator.

I moved this thread to the Actual Play forum, because (1) it's already partly about some actual play comments, and (2) posting about your own actual play is the answer to your questions. I hope I can demonstrate that by starting some dialogue.

You mentioned Savage Worlds - is that the game you're currently running, or have run a lot lately? If so, I think I can certainly see why you are getting exhausted. Tell me more about what games you've played and which ones you and the players are currently accustomed to.

How many players are there? Have you guys been playing together long, or not? Also, I know this is a little personal, but are you a bunch of college dudes at a dorm, or forty-somethings getting the old group back together, or what? Knowing that kind of social context helps a lot in trying to arrive at solutions for you.

To be absolutely sure of your situation, help out with a description of a session that really illustrates the lack of buy-in that you're describing, or perhaps, the buy-in that only occurs when you put in so much effort. I'm interesting both in what the players do at the table and in what happens with the characters and fictional events of play, during that session.

Best, Ron

Sorry, responding to Ron's questions is drawing out a lot, trying not to meander though.

I run a homebrew system that is similar to Savage Worlds in terms of rules depth and the list of stats, but that's about it - it evolved from a different direction.  The core mechanic is 2d6+Modifiers vs. Target Number (12 = crit succeed, 2 = crit fail), NPCs roll 7, variances in modifiers are small but important, and we all like that setup a lot.  Damage and hit points are also used, in that mechanic it's similar to D&D if D&D only had levels 1 to 6.

The key thing the mechanic does right is the action points - characters have a Conviction score, which regenerates daily (or more often), that they can spend to add a die, re-roll a die, or take an extra action during combat.  PCs have more than NPCs.  This has meant that the players can say "hey, watch this" and I can do the same for monsters, without anybody hogging the spotlight.  Conviction also raises the stakes on an action - when you succeed with Conviction, it's like "YES!" and when you fail, it's tragic.  PCs have "aspects" that make some uses of Conviction cheaper, so characters have a niche in the party.  The setting is fantasy loosely inspired by a combination of Conan-style Sword and Sorcery and ancient India.

There were usually 3-4 players from a tightly-knit circle of 6 high-school friends.  That's the "core group".  We've been through a lot together as friends, keeping in touch through university and into the horrors of the real world.  We had a bit of a diaspora as University ends, but there's sort of a "beta group" (also mostly connected via the same high school back in the day) that's wildly interested in gaming but less intimately acquainted with how things run in the core group.  If I want to game, I'm going to have to be flexible with a mix of the close and beta group  - and with spotty attendance.

The typical session (I can only talk about the core group right now) has everybody sitting around, really into the game, for about 4 to 6 hours.  I stand throughout the session, describing blow-by-blow details of actions sequences and roleplaying NPCs.  The players usually sit in a rough semi-circle facing me, then are up and down depending on how excited they get.  The system works for me especially because since I don't have to roll any dice and I can keep track of numbers in my head without sitting down at the table. 

There's been some very story-heavy stuff that I do that makes the fiction of the game coherent, but it's always very tightly written around the player characters.  For example, the most recent game was a coming of age story about young warriors in a traditionally mercenary tribe (called Akavars), going through their rites passage to manhood together and their early exposure to the outside world and its dangers.

The real "sweet spot" is when the players feel that great sense of comraderie from solving a problem or defeating a threat together.  That's why the action points are great - player characters have their place to shine.  Even if the dice go south on one player, ones play to their strengths to save him.  There's also a baseline of martial ability in the player characters that isn't something they can trade off - and this means that you don't have characters that need to be carried by the rest of the party.

The "buy in" is the way I get the players WANT to fall in and work together against the threats and problems.

Oh, and I see the convention on the boards is to introduce yourself by real name; I'm Ryan but I go by ry.

-- ry

Hello Ry,

Well, the first thing I can say is that you guys have certainly set up a "Ry entertains the rest of us" situation. Even the physical blocking of play emphasizes your role ... the very role that you are saying you'd like to de-emphasize or reduce.

In a way, you're reaping the rewards of the myth of the Great GM ... the guy who's so good, the rest of us don't have to do anything except show up and act a bit. The reason it's a myth? Because showing up and acting-a-bit doesn't really accomplish much, and the central guy eventually realizes (a) all the content is tautological (it's there because he puts it in, he puts it in so it'll be there), and (b) he's freaking tired.

So have you considered changing the physical space and action of play? How about you sit down for a while, and how about you only talk once everyone else has had his say? That'd be different right there. But more importantly, and on a larger scale of discussion, it's a good idea to let everyone else know that you need a change.

Here's the really serious issue that underlies your situation, though - the whole idea that buy-in is something that you must elicit from the other people. What do you think of the idea that such a buy-in is a baseline, required element of participation, not something you have to generate? Instead of them being wood, and you being Mr. Tinder and Mr. Flint and Mr. Kindling and Mr. Blow Air and Mr. Look-It's-Fire all at once, how about everyone showing up with a blazing torch?

Are you interested in talking about options of play that lead in that direction? Do you think they might be interested in that?

Best, Ron

So there's 2 issues here: 

1)  My role as the core of the entertainment
2)  The idea that buy-in is something that I must elicit from the players.

I know they're related, but if it's OK I'd rather focus the discussion on the second issue.  I like GMing, the role is a good groove, and even if I'm tired after the campaign, it's not the current thing holding me back.

Here's my thought process, and what I mean by "buy in" - because I don't really know the jargon around here yet.

Game 1 I have to work to get the players' character concepts to mesh into something like a party.  This is not too bad with the core group - most recent campaign they all made young men from the same small warrior tribe, who were raised essentially as brothers.  The campaign before that it was a small order of knights.  Both ideas came from me, and characters were built to match.  I told them a bit about their family and relatives in the village, set up a rivalry with another group of young men in the tribe, and the first session was focused on that rivalry (which helped build that sense of comraderie).  The game started with the two groups challenging each other to a big brawl outside of the village (without alerting their parents), the player-characters won, but then had to work with the defeated group to scare off some bandits (by pretending to be adult warriors).

"Buy in" here happened really well, and quickly, and the players were invested in the success or failure of their characters - and most importantly, each other's characters.  Once that happened,  were invested in whether or not their characters overcame the challenges lined up against them, and worked hard, and worked as a team, to overcome those challenges.  It was easy to take that comeraderie and jump right in when we had the next session a month or so later, and when I presented a problem or threat they went straight for it.

Hello Ry,

Do you remember how you felt before they bought into that 'same tribe' idea? Before that point, you would have had expectations for fun from everybody. But you can see that, only once they bought into an idea could they have any fun.

Does that come off sounding partly true - only they were in control of whether they had fun (because only they can buy into an idea), but they were expectantly looking to you for their fun? And that's a real missplacement of roles and jobs at the gaming table?

I'll give a similar AP account of my own, which I ment to write up but didn't. A friend, Chris, had invited me and another friend, Daniel around for some D&D. Chris has run some great games, but also has more of a habit of doing some shocking railroading. This time I went around with the thought in mind to ask him what climactic end scene he had in mind. I did, diplomatically*. He said he didn't really (which I thought was a ploy at the time to just hide the ending he had in mind), so I kept pushing and eventually (in a tone that suggested it was what he wanted/was looking forward to. ie he wasn't defending himself), was for us to 'just learn some things about the game world'. I asked "Like three big sort of things?" or something like that, and he said yeah and then I said yeah.

Boom, there it is! I could buy in for a game of snakes and ladders with these guys. Or playing kick the kick out in a park nearby. I can buy into all sorts of activities with these guys and now I knew what the activity was, I bought in! Honestly, it isn't really the excitement I expect of roleplay - BUT, it doesn't matter what I expect of roleplay, he'd just defined what this activity was. I then consulted myself and thought 'Oh yeah, I can see fun types X and Y occuring, I could go for a bit of that!'. What I expect from roleplay normally might be fun types A and B, but when I consulted myself, I found some hunger for X and Y. That's what I mean with snakes and ladders and kick the kick...I have a hunger for a wide range of games. If I'm told the game that's being played, I most likely have a hunger for it somewhere within me. :)

The game did engage finding out stuff, hitting those fun types X and Y - sadly part of me tried to go for what I usually do in RP, which wasn't the activity offered (nor the one I accepted). It could have gone even smoother and more fun, if old habits didn't show up. But that's cause I'm a battered old roleplayer - the principle is true, even if you find people like me trying to do some other activity than the one offered, cause of old habits.

There was a climactic ending - kobolds, stired up by our investigations, attacked the town and there was this scene where Dan's battle wizard was shooting magic from the first floor window of the local inn, which started to look like a wizard throwing down magic from his wizards tower. After, I said to Chris, with a smiling face 'You lied! You said there wouldn't be a climactic ending!'. He said 'Well it was possible there wouldn't be'. Basically I'd bought in for fun types X and Y, but then as a special bonus fun type Z had been thrown in! BUT at a mechanical and social level, I'd like to note that if I hadn't liked fun type Z, I could have just focused on the 'find stuff out' bit and would have been legit to do that.

Okay, sorry for going on - the crux of the account took longer to give than I anticipated. Here's a question - what if you had said to your players, well before the game day, something like 'The game will be about being in the same tribe and having a rivalry with another gang in the tribe and the fun thing about play will be seeing how that rivalry is resolved (partially or fully)'?

Do you think that'd remove your responsiblity to get people to buy into it, remove your responsibility for everyone elses fun? By the very fact that people who don't find it fun, simply don't turn up on the game day?

(although your probably thinking some people would turn up for A and B, even though your tribe offer is about fun types J and K, kind of like how I did a bit in my example. I think you have to kill the urge to try and forfil their A and B needs, even though a large part of your GM training has been to try and make everyone have fun).

Rambly of me. Any of it sound close or gives some perspective?

* I can literally feel the hair raising on some forgites necks, in terms of doubting I was diplomatic 'enough'. Which is probably due a thread itself.

Ah crap, that first sentence didn't come out right at all. Probably screwed my whole post. Bolded the changes.

Do you remember how you felt before they bought into that 'same tribe' idea? Before that point, they would have had expectations for fun being provided from you. But you can see that, only once they bought into an idea could they have any fun.

Callan wrote:
Do you remember how you felt before they bought into that 'same tribe' idea? Before that point, they would have had expectations for fun being provided from you. But you can see that, only once they bought into an idea could they have any fun.

Cool! Does that address your problem at all?

I'll ask you a bit of a difficult question though - regardless of how overwhelming it is to get buyin from them - is the question of how to do it still rather attractive, like a complicated puzzle or riddle might be attractive? I mean, you have pulled it off - you gave an example of it and probably have done it quite a few more times. It is possible, if hurculean in effort.

Callan wrote:
Cool! Does that address your problem at all?

Callan wrote:
I'll ask you a bit of a difficult question though - regardless of how overwhelming it is to get buyin from them - is the question of how to do it still rather attractive, like a complicated puzzle or riddle might be attractive? I mean, you have pulled it off - you gave an example of it and probably have done it quite a few more times. It is possible, if hurculean in effort.

rycanada wrote:
Yeah, I've done it many times, and it was very satisfying when I did it, but what I want is to get them on board without the huge effort.

Game 1 I have to work to get the players' character concepts to mesh into something like a party.  This is not too bad with the core group - most recent campaign they all made young men from the same small warrior tribe, who were raised essentially as brothers.  The campaign before that it was a small order of knights.  Both ideas came from me, and characters were built to match.  I told them a bit about their family and relatives in the village, set up a rivalry with another group of young men in the tribe, and the first session was focused on that rivalry (which helped build that sense of comraderie).  The game started with the two groups challenging each other to a big brawl outside of the village (without alerting their parents), the player-characters won, but then had to work with the defeated group to scare off some bandits (by pretending to be adult warriors).

That sounds like what I'm looking for, but I need a framework for my players to work with - just free-form "prodding" them has lead to some problems before.  Are there games out there with good rules for generating contacts and conflicts?  I need to put some paper in front of them to get this to work.

See what you think of the method I outlined in This Thread

Keep in mind that the original context was for a pick up and play game and the audience I was writing to was a bunch of people who already get it and play that way, but the concepts I was espousing there make for a great technique to make the players the driving force of the game's conflicts.

It also makes for a great exercise.  Run through a routine like this a few times in a game that has a low investment time so no one will be too broken up if its rough for practice.  Then when you roll out your "big game" everyone will have flexed those player driving force muscles a bit and likely see opportunities to take some initiative.

rycanada wrote:

Callan wrote:
Cool! Does that address your problem at all?

Not... really.  I mean, just knowing that their buy-in is required for their fun doesn't help me build that into the game.

Hi Callan,

If you're not interested in suggesting things that I can build into the rules (or the quasi-rules governing how to begin a campaign or session), I appreciate your interest but I don't think there's much here you can help me with.  Thanks for the input, but I get the sense that we're not talking about the same thing.

Jasper, that pretty much hits it on the head.  I guess I'm looking for some more structure in building the characters as a cohesive group...

and Valamir's link looks like a big help for figuring out that framework.  Valamir, do you have any ideas for how you would adapt that system for a game that was a bit more about player co-operation in solving problems (even party-internal problems) and defeating threats?

Jasper, that pretty much hits it on the head.  I guess I'm looking for some more structure in building the characters as a cohesive group...

Here's basically the crux of the issue as I understand it.

You have a group that has always relied on you to take ownership of providing them with fun.  That has left you pleased, but exhausted, and now you'd like them to start taking a little ownership of their own fun.  IMO that's a great goal.  By and large (and a lot of folks here can confirm this about their own play) ALOT more fun is had at the table when the whole group is equally committed to driving the fun forward than when most of the group sits relatively passive waiting for the GM to drive the fun forward...no matter how good the GM is.

But Jaspar's right.  There is no magic formula that is going to transform your group quickly and painlessly into that model.  There's alot of inertia there that is and will work towards keeping things exactly as they are...ESPECIALLY since you've been successful with things as they are in the past, and doubly successfully if your fellow players aren't equally committed to the idea that something needs to change.

Further, its something of a Pandora's Box.  If you do manage to overcome that inertia and nudge your players into greater proactivity, you can't expect to treat it like a gauge..."this much and no farther".  Its not a dial that you can choose to set at exactly the balance between GM does everything and Players do everything that you wish.  Different groups will settle at an equillibrium point they find comfortable, but that may well be far short or much farther than you envisioned.

So as to your specific question...yes, I can envision structures where players can be proactive and yet maintain the "party mentality" but I don't think that will help you at this stage.  Because it isn't something you can just put in place and have it work.  Transitioning to a more proactive playstyle is a road frought with peril.  Best case you can expect your first several sessions to be blah...most likely they will totally suck.  Suck because you aren't driving things towards fun the way you always have, and your players don't yet know how to drive themselves.  Its possible that you'll discover that some of your players are entirely unwilling to make the journey, and worst case...you might lose them altogether.

Instead, I'll repeat my advice above.  Set aside the grand campaign you're currently envisioning.  If its something folks are eagerly anticipating you don't want to spoil it with blah and suckage.  Disappointment will often lead to bitterness and anger if something important is involved.

Play something else.  Play a totally different game system that none of your players has any vested interest in.  Play something experimental...people are far more tolerant of blah and suckage in something experimental than with something they know and love.  They are also far more willing to step outside of their old comfort zone and try something new...this is one of the most effective ways of overcoming that old inertia.

Games that are particularly good for this because they are easy to get into, don't require ridiculous amounts of prep, and DEMAND that players behave in a proactive fashion or the game simply doesn't work:  Prime Time Adventures, Universalis, or for the more daring Dogs in the Vineyard, or 9 Worlds.  Shadow of Yesterday is also a good option but because it is less weird than the others its easier to fall back into old habits which defeats the purpose of the exercise. 

The point is that no ones ego gets bruised if these games don't work...in fact, I'd expect the first session or two NOT to work.  Your asking your players to stretch the way they interact with an RPG in ways they've never done except as a GM (if they've ever GMed). 

Give them some time to practice with games that don't matter to them but flat out don't allow you to even play without taking that proactive responsibility.  THEN after a good many sessions of a variety of different games when your group has settled into its own equilibrium of player's taking responsibility for their own fun and they've seen how enjoyable it is, and you've seen how much less work it is to just let go more completely than you may be envisioning...THEN go back and revist that grand campaign idea and see if your players can take the way they've been playing in these other games and adapt it to your current system...assuming anyone is even interested in playing your current system at that point.

That's really the best advice I can give you.  I can try and provide some answers to your question, but I fear it just flat out won't work that way.

Hmm... again, this seems kind of at right-angles to what I'm talking about.  Maybe I haven't been clear enough.  My goal is a lot less overarching than what's proposed.

I don't mind creating the context for play, presenting the problems and threats the players overcome.  I don't mind preparing that, and I have a pretty good set of resources for doing so.  What you're suggesting sounds like trying to get away from prep, or sharing responsibility for narration during the meat of play, rather than building player-characters into each other and into the setting, and connecting them to the conflicts.

What I want is just that the PCs start play having bought into the idea that they are a tightly-knit group that works together to solve problems and defeat threats.  They should be connected to the conflicts that exist in the world.  From the sound of it, there aren't indie games that are doing this without totally changing the structure of play.  If that's the case, then Jasper's comments that it all comes down to brainstorming are spot on.  I remember the Serenity RPG had a little piece about building a pilot episode, so maybe between that and Valamir's ideas I'll be able to hack together a procedure to encourage that brainstorming.

It isn't that simple, Ry.

There are tons and tons of ways to tie PCs together in a group to work together...literally thousands...and for the most part they're all shite.  Why?  Because grabbing the character is a useless pointless superficial activity.  Characters aren't real.

PLAYERS are real.  In order to get the end result you're looking for you have to grab the PLAYERS...this is what all the "buy-in" discussion earlier on was about.  You can tie up the characters 6 ways till tuesday, but if the players aren't into it, it isn't going to help you.

So, how do you get the players to buy into it?  And by "buy into it" I'm assuming you mean something more engaged than just being along for the ride.  A "yeah, whatever you say, lets just play" response is easy to get...and also not very helpful.

You said before that you'd had characters all be from the same village, or all be part of the same knightly order...that's fine...I'll bet you got what amounts to a "yeah, whatever, I'm cool with that, lets play" response.  They'd have agreed to just about anything that seemed reasonable while they waited with breathless anticipation for whatever you'd do next.

But imagine how much stronger the buy in would have been, how much more powerful the player's connection to the setting and situation, how much more aggressive they could have been at driving the story forward if they'd had more investment in that village or in that knightly order than just going along with an idea of yours (here I'm making a pretty big assumption they did not have any bigger investment...I could be wrong).

So how do you get players to put that level of investment into the game.  There are lots of ways, but the single most powerful, most effective, and most reliable way is to have them be joint participants in creating the situation to begin with.  That doesn't mean cedeing all GM powers and playing GMless...there are many ways to get there. 

Sorcerer, for instance, has a very traditional GM role.  But it also has a very explicit process for getting player buy in to the world and input into the situation.  Do a search on One-Sheets in the Sorcerer forum and you'll find a host of advice for coming up with the flavor and color of the game and getting the players on board with it.  The best Sorcerer advice of all is to fill in the back of the character sheets where players outline all of their connections to the world and come up with a Kicker.  The GM then takes all of that and comes back with situation tailor made to fit all of those component parts.

In orther words...
1) create the world in broad strokes and get the players jonesing about the color and the flavor of the setting. 
2) Then have them create characters they want to play but do it jointly so that everyone is feeing off of each other's ideas and starting to get fired up about everybody's characters...do all of the character creation publically so everyone knows everything their is to know about each other (and ideally suggested some of it themselves.  It doesn't matter if the other characters would know it...but its important that  the other players do.
3) Then identify the sources of conflict the players are interested in having those characters pursue,
4) and ONLY THEN start designing an adventure or campaign and make sure its entirely structured around those sources of conflict.  That's one technique.  There are many others.

The games I suggested above go WAY beyond what you're looking for, I know that.  But the skills they require players and GMs to develop in order to play them successfully are exactly the skills you'll need in your group in order to kick their buy in of your game up to the next level.  So my suggestion is not that these games will give you what you're looking for for your game.  Rather they'll give you the practice with opening up your play to greater mutual participation by everyone at the table.

THEN you can take that experience back and actually get somewhere with what you're trying to do.

Ok, enough beating that horse.

You've asked a specific question, and basically the answer you've got so far is "forget your question, you have to go back to first principals and then you'll have a better sense of what question to ask"...that can be pretty annoying for someone who thought they were asking for something pretty simple.

So in the spirit of at least trying to answer your specific question...check out this link to Wicked Dead's Fraternitas rules.  Its basically a mechanical way of building and reinforcing a sense of brotherhood among characters.

Valamir wrote:
It isn't that simple, Ry.

There are tons and tons of ways to tie PCs together in a group to work together...literally thousands...and for the most part they're all shite.  Why?  Because grabbing the character is a useless pointless superficial activity.  Characters aren't real.

PLAYERS are real.  In order to get the end result you're looking for you have to grab the PLAYERS...this is what all the "buy-in" discussion earlier on was about.  You can tie up the characters 6 ways till tuesday, but if the players aren't into it, it isn't going to help you.

Valamir wrote: But imagine how much stronger the buy in would have been, how much more powerful the player's connection to the setting and situation, how much more aggressive they could have been at driving the story forward if they'd had more investment in that village or in that knightly order than just going along with an idea of yours (here I'm making a pretty big assumption they did not have any bigger investment...I could be wrong).

Valamir wrote:
In orther words...
1) create the world in broad strokes and get the players jonesing about the color and the flavor of the setting. 
2) Then have them create characters they want to play but do it jointly so that everyone is feeing off of each other's ideas and starting to get fired up about everybody's characters...do all of the character creation publically so everyone knows everything their is to know about each other (and ideally suggested some of it themselves.  It doesn't matter if the other characters would know it...but its important that  the other players do.
3) Then identify the sources of conflict the players are interested in having those characters pursue,
4) and ONLY THEN start designing an adventure or campaign and make sure its entirely structured around those sources of conflict. 

Valamir wrote:
The games I suggested above go WAY beyond what you're looking for, I know that. (...) THEN you can take that experience back and actually get somewhere with what you're trying to do.

Ry,
This is a pretty common pattern for new posters to the Forge, who perhaps aren't ready to have their core assumptions about how gaming is supposed to look put in the spot light.

The pattern goes like this:

Gamer shows up with some deeply felt disatisfaction at the way their gaming is going.  They'll post useing phrases like:

"I'm pretty dissatisfied with my current game rut," 
"get exhausted"
"I'm sick of being responsible for everyone's fun"

Then, some advice will come that suggests the solution isn't some simple tweak to the way they've always done things.  The suggestion will be made that changing from their current rut might require a good bit more fundamental upheaval and challenging of assumptions then they'd initially anticipated.

The gamer's initial reaction to this...nearly every time...is to recoil with shock and to interpret the suggestions as some accusatory finger that they haven't been gaming right.  Their posts now consist of going out of their way to show how things aren't that bad...its really pretty good...we're very satisfied.

I see you falling into that trap here.  No one is accusing your group(s) of being broken, no one is suggesting you need a kiddie-pool because you're not good enough gamers, no one is claiming you're a bad GM.  Those quotes up above are from you.  "rut" "exhausted" "sick" those are the words you used...before you felt like you had to start defending your group. 

You didn't use those words accidentally. You came here with some serious issues...those are Not Good words.  Assuming you weren't exaggerating just to get attention, those words say "something has to change".

So I guess the ball is back in your court.  You're going to have to decide what you really want out of this thread.  I and others are happy to spend however much time needed to help work through these issues, but they have to be issues you're interested in working through or else its just a waste of our time...and yours. 

rycanada wrote:

Valamir wrote:
In orther words...
1) create the world in broad strokes and get the players jonesing about the color and the flavor of the setting. 
2) Then have them create characters they want to play but do it jointly so that everyone is feeing off of each other's ideas and starting to get fired up about everybody's characters...do all of the character creation publically so everyone knows everything their is to know about each other (and ideally suggested some of it themselves.  It doesn't matter if the other characters would know it...but its important that  the other players do.
3) Then identify the sources of conflict the players are interested in having those characters pursue,
4) and ONLY THEN start designing an adventure or campaign and make sure its entirely structured around those sources of conflict. 

OK, I'm with you from points 1 to 3, but 4 is not going to work.  My players aren't going to be consistent game to game, and I can't expect them to come over (many have an hour drives) to just talk about a game - I don't have the luxury of designing material away from the table.

Hi Ry,

Can I try and break down part 4 of Valamir's list.

4a) Think back to your broad brush stoke setting from part one, what kinds of potential scenarios did you envision or use to sell it to the players?

4b) Having been part of the discussions from part two, you will be familiar with the kinds of characters the players are interested in, and what their group and individual motivations are, and from Part Three the potential conflicts that the players are interested in. Based on these, make a note of at least one question that you think needs asking about each character. i.e. "how strongly does she feel about that contact/friend", "OK, so he is brave and fearless, let's see if that holds true even when...". In other words test the characters at face value, if possible directly use the suggested conflicts if they can be phrased as a question in your head.

4c) Ensure that the questions can be asked in a way that is compatible with the setting, both pre-defined and discussed.

4d) Start play straight away by setting up situations where those questions are asked up font and personal. Don't hold back the questions for later development or cool long term plans, just get right to it, use all the good stuff right away and force the players to answer through tough choices or dilemmas.

4e) Make notes on their choices and after the first session is over, use these, and your setting concepts to help develop more sophisticated dilemma's along with more fully fleshed out NPCs, back-story and other setting considerations. You see, as long as you ask questions in a direct and uncompromising way, you will never actually run out of the "good stuff", it keeps being generated by the answers to your questions.

If this sounds scary, like you are "running by the seat of your pants" then all I can suggest is either give it a try or stick to your old methods. It's either the hard slog, exhausting way, or the initially scary but not actually that different "let the player's drive the story forward" way.

From the sound of it, there aren't indie games that are doing this without totally changing the structure of play.

Rycanada, I hope you make it this far because it feels to me like you're drowning. We here, with good intentions, are piling rocks in your backpack while you're trying to stay afloat. This thread seems to have regressed into Rycanada vs The Forge and that's not helping anyone. You really seem lost at the forge now... are you precognitive or what?

Personally, I think that you don't need a complete overhaul or anything. Perhaps it's as simple as saying at the end of a session "Guys, I'm a bit exhausted, so I need help coming up with our next adventure. So here's the deal: without your input, there's gonna be no play next week."

You're not suffering from any horrible play experience, right? You seem to sense an approaching burn-out and want to learn a few tricks to prevent it. That's smart. I think you've got quite some material to think about by now and perhaps the best thing to do is to let it sink in for a few days.

Am thinking, will keep thinking.  Still interested in input, but not in comment today.  At the very least, I appreciate that everybody seems genuinely interested in me getting to run (or at least participate in) great games.

rycanada wrote:
Am thinking, will keep thinking.  Still interested in input, but not in comment today.  At the very least, I appreciate that everybody seems genuinely interested in me getting to run (or at least participate in) great games.

Very true. Everyone give Ry a little space for while, OK?

Best, Ron

I need to go back to the beginning of the thread and try to understand what people are saying.  I definitely misunderstood what Callan meant about not being interested in building buy-in into the game.  (I probably misunderstood Varamir too, but I'll start with Callan.  Otherwise, my posts will need their own Internet).

Callan said:  I'll be blunt, I'm not interested with helping you to build it into the game.
I heard:  You're asking a dumb question - this isn't something you build into the game.
Now I think Callan meant: I'm not interested in talking about how to make this into a mechanic.  What it CAN be is clear, up-front communication with the players before the game begins.  And I don't mind helping you figure out what you would need to say to them.

Now if I understand Callan's point, then, well, I disagree in part, but only because I think that a well-defined procedure that tells the players "build a team" (rather than the existing "build a bunch of individuals and the GM will make them into a team") would be a big improvement.  Likewise, something that says "At the start of the session, the GM tell the players what the pitch is before he makes it, and the players will figure out why their characters will swing, then the GM will actually throw the pitch." instead of "Show up, the GM will let fly, swing only if you think it's a good enough pitch, otherwise start alphebetizing the GM's DVDs." would be another big improvement. 

I want to figure out how to make that improvement, and I think part of that means putting some kind of structure in front of the players.  But maybe I still don't understand Callan's point.

To Varamir:  I really see your point.  Although the idea of Universalis or Dogs didn't fly, there's some interest in Primetime Adventures.  I'm going to give a few sessions of that a try, see who comes out of the woodwork.

Hi Jasper,

Thanks for considering my post further, its a real compliment :). I'm sorry I sounded negative - I wanted to just give an offer without coercement, and sort of withdrew personally to do that. :(

Onto business. :) Yes, I totally see how your examples are improvements and increase yield. However, I would say it's like building a better oil rig. It mines more oil, its more efficient with the oil it collects, it uses less fuel. All those things are great and absolute musts and I'd love to talk about them.

However, to get oil an oil rig must be sunk above a patch of oil. No matter how efficient it is, if there is no oil below, no oil can be mined.

Now that analogy may or may not fit the situation. But it's one I put my money in, for what its worth as a relative stranger to you on the net. So you can see why I'd decline to talk about designing oil rigs in isolation, with no talk about geology and locating oil deposits.

Now, applying that analogy to people - imagine one player who is seriously into spaceships. Loves them to bits and not much else. And imagine another player who's seriously into furies - cat girls in particular. Loves them to bits and not much else.

Now imagine the most efficient, effective rig designed to drill for 'cat girl oil', being sunk into the 'land' which is the spaceship loving player. It's been sunk into dry earth. There's no cat girl oil to draw forth. It's efficiency is lost - not because its a bad design - its a brilliant design! But the land is dry!

And of course a rig that drills for 'spaceship oil' sunk on a catgirl lover - same problem.

In terms of a well designed procedure to form a team, that's a great topic. But I don't want to talk about it in isolation - talking about how to 'get' buy in from players is to me, is talking about getting oil out of them with a rig regardless of whether that oils in them to begin with.

I've probably been a bit picky in not wanting to talk about 'getting player buy in', because I only really want to talk about 'getting the player buy in that's already there!'. I didn't really realise the distinction I was making or commincate well.

Hey Callan (I think you're talking to me instead of Jasper, so I'll just run with it)

I'm thinking about your oil rig example, something where Mitch the player goes:

"Hey, I like spaceships, Jess likes catgirls, and we both like scenes in bio domes and  extended nature metaphors."

I say: "Great.  I like life-hating chemical monstrosities."

Jess: "Eww!  Catgirls hate chemo-monsters!"  (Jed is grinning, so I can tell he likes the idea.)

Mitch: Sweet.  Do Chemo-monsters fly spaceships too?

I say: "Of course.  In fact, due to their advanced knowledge of chemistry, they can build larger and deadlier ships."

... Later, Mitch builds the cybernetically enhanced Space-Captainpants, and Jess makes Mikura Miyowa, spacefighting ace.  They have enough backstory that they work out and set up some conflicts in the world (Space Captainpants is getting through the fact that his personality has changed on account of having parts of his brain replaced, Mikura is overly hot-headed because she feels the need to prove Catgirls are better pilots than humans, cyber or no cyber)...

These players have bought in, and they've had lots of creative input into what's happening.

.... BUT ....

At some point, Mitch and Jess say "OK, we know enough, we're ready.  Can you surprise us?"

I say "I'd be happy to.  I may draw out some star charts and some other background around the stuff we've talked about, OK?"

-- ry

Yep, Callan mixed up our names. It happens.

At some point, Mitch and Jess say "OK, we know enough, we're ready.  Can you surprise us?"

The gamer's initial reaction to this...nearly every time...is to recoil with shock and to interpret the suggestions as some accusatory finger that they haven't been gaming right.  Their posts now consist of going out of their way to show how things aren't that bad...its really pretty good...we're very satisfied.

Hi there Ry

Hey Callan (I think you're talking to me instead of Jasper, so I'll just run with it)

rycanada wrote: These players have bought in, and they've had lots of creative input into what's happening.

.... BUT ....

At some point, Mitch and Jess say "OK, we know enough, we're ready.  Can you surprise us?"

I say "I'd be happy to.  I may draw out some star charts and some other background around the stuff we've talked about, OK?"

I think that Ralph (Valamir) is on target here. The 1234 method is just basic step-wise interaction. If you don't use that exact series of steps (or better yet, incorporate some more feedback into it where players might revise their characters a few times with each other's character's in mind) you can use a few different ones.

For example, the basic idea can come with some pretty concrete character-creation guidelines. I've very, very rarely wound up with random stuff at the end of the process because if something isn't fitting earlier on, I talk with the person who's input isn't jiving. Sometimes I've been convinced of a way to fit it in. Sometimes the person (and sometimes it's me) has changed my input.

Furthermore, this is probably just a formal way of doing stuff that Ry has already been doing to some degree. Very few games get built in a total vacuum. I suggest that simply thinking about how players are approached with ideas--how feedback can be requested, etc.

I'd also suggest that a lot of this work can be done using email, Skype, or phone. Putting out a one-page "Scenario Basics" document can get a lot of good feedback and doesn't require everyone to be in the same room.

-Marco