Hi there.

I ran a convention game of the Dying Earth RPG the other day and I thought I'm post my observations.  This is the first time I've run it for people I don't know, and about the 3rd time I've ever run it.  It generally went pretty well but there were a couple of hiccups.  I ran the 'Mermelants Unite!" adventure that you'll find in the 'Ascolais & the Land of the Falling Wall' supplement.

First, the good:

1. Even though the players weren't particularly familiar with the world and style of Jack Vance, and despite some reluctance after my (poor) description of the style of game it would be, most of them seemed to throw themselves into the story pretty quickly.

2. The taglines were delivered with panache and relevance, causing a good round or two of chuckles (not bad, I think, considering we were facing each other over a small table and didn't really know each other). 

3. As the GM, I found it a lot of fun to run.  I was frequently amused by what the players suggested and the outcomes of their attempts.  I suppose I normally get off on this when I run a game, but the DE mechanics seemed to make it all flow very easily.

4. Everyone seemed to quite enjoy attempting some Vancian language and I have to say it's true what they say in the rulebook: it's not as hard as you might think.

Overall, I'd heartily recommend the game for convention play.  And now for the not-so-good:

1. One player just didn't get it.  He was confused about the mechanics for the first half of the session, and when he finally figured them out he just hated them.  For him, the idea that he might waste all his Attack pool in the first hour of a game-day and then be poor at fighting for the rest of it was just 'unrealistic' to him.  I know what he was getting at and I tried to explain the point of the pools was really to give you influence over the story rather than give an absolute measure of consistent ability.  He didn't buy it - fair enough I thought - it's not everyone's cup of tea.

2. Policing when you allow a Persuade attempt is really important.  The specific example that sprung to mind was:

Player X is a slave, walking about a town, trying to act nonchalant while looking for a way to escape.
A townsman (NPC) comes up to him and tells him to come with him to do some manual labour.  The player says he doesn't want to, so I instigate a Persuade attempt by the NPC.  After a few Persuade and Rebuff rolls, the player is persuaded.  (I'd been reminding the players at various points in the session that you just have to 'go with it' when you temporarily lose control of your character.)  Now, I think I made a mistake here.  Perhaps I shouldn't have used a Persuade contest there at all, because what ended up happening was the PC followed the NPC even though they had something much better to do (i.e. try to escape).  The player went along with it, but we all felt afterwards that it just seemed wrong.  How can you persuade somebody to do something that they are supposed to do (by dint of them being a slave) even if they don't want to?  I've thought about this a bit since the session and I can't help feeling that if the GM can use Persuade in this way, then where do you draw the line?  I mean, it basically allows the GM to compel a PC to do pretty much anything when it suits them.  I'm looking for some rule of thumb here ideally - a method of policing the GM (more so than the players) that doesn't involve having to guess: guessing in the heat of the moment in a DE game is pretty tricky - it's just not like any other games I played.

Ben

On the bad:

1.  Pools can refresh, correct?  If so, then there shouldn't be any reason why a player would necessarily be "bad" at anything for the rest of a game so long as he was looking for opportunities to score a refresh?  Was this player reacting to the refresh rules or the pool rules?

2.  I'm a bit confused.  Regardless of whether or not the PC was a slave or not, you say he clearly didn't want to do what the NPC was asking/commanding him to do.  If that's the case, then persuade seems appropriate.  Where's the problem?

Now, if the GM is using persuade rolls to cram a certain storyline down the players' throat, then you've got a case of dysfunctional play.  Still, I'm curious to re-familiarize myself with the rules here.  Can the GM simply dictate what the PC does after a successful persuade roll; who gets to narrate?  Plus, wouldn't a lot of these problems be avoided with healthy stakes-setting (i.e. talking about the stakes before the roll with the players)?

Hi.

Yeah, pools can refresh, but he couldn't even get himself to that point in his mind.  I suppose that this adventure doesn't allow for a lot of refreshing anyway since it takes place over a short time (perhaps just a day).  I was thinking that during convention play like this it might have been a good idea to allow the player to refresh a pool when they deliver a Tagline well.  This would provide incentive to get that Vanician language in there, and avoid the lack of interest players have in advancing their characters' abilities during a one-shot story.

Let me try to give a better example of the problem with Persuasion (as I see it).  I'm imagining I could use the Persuasion rules to have an NPC Arch-Mage (say) persuade a PC that it's a good idea to let him cast the Spell of Folorn Encystment on him.  If he succeeds in the suasion, that'll be the PC effectively out of the game.  As the GM, any one player can get singled out for this sort of treatment.  Perhaps I'm not taking time to think enough during play because I find myself without any proper guidelines on where to draw the line when it comes to using persuade.

Perhaps I'll just give a penalty or levy of -3 to attempts like this, and thereby make them effectively impossible.  The rules don't seem to be keen on doing things like that, but I feel there is a need for policing the effects of persuasion at least a little. 

Has anyone else who's run a Dying Earth game come across this problem, or is it just my poor GM style?

Cheers
Ben

The idea of Persuasion is that it gets characters into amusing trouble (which they should embrace wholeheartedly) and then they have to use their wits to get out of it, usually with just the clothes on their backs.

The idea of Persuasion is not that you become a helpless automaton in thrall to the command, merely that you temporarily think a certain course of action is a good idea. The vital rule for persuasion attempts particularly by the GM is - will the PC being persuaded of a course of act result in fun for that player? A Persauded character immediately becomes the source of attention and amusement, and it's their chance to play it up. Persuading someone to do manual labour isn't really that exciting, but to temporarily look after a mermelant on heat, or hold up bridge, or grab something from somebody, or insult them, is fine. The PC doesn't have to follow the course of action for ever

Things that aren't fun should have big levies or be impossible. Imagine he's being chased by the palace guard, ready to escape, and the townsman approaches. For him to be persuaded not to escape, there will have to be some pretty heavy inducements (based probably on his temptations) to temporarily offer assistance - maybe a huge lump of roasting meat, a stack of coins, or a flagon of wine. The PC's player can then have fun with it - maybe disguising himself when the guards approach, persuading them that he is now in gainful employment and hence can't be taken into custody, or throwing the contents of the gold he's just acquired into the air while scarpering away.

Your Forlorn Encystment example is no fun for the player. Other spells might well be, for example, a spell which makes them look like a deodand when they get angry, makes them howl uncontrolably when they see a person they find attractive. You get the idea. For the GM, if you use the "fun" rule, it should be fairly easy. Pick on the players you know will run with being in trouble first.

I usually find all you need to do is set up a town, write a few things they might be persuaded to do, set the players loose, and they lead.

A resource management game clearly doesn't suit the player who was worried about his Attack pool. As a matter of interest, did he actually run out of Attack pool points, or was he just worried he might?

Thanks for the advice.  I get what you're saying and I think I had got myself into thinking that the Dying Earth rules allowed the GM to not have to think too much about persuasion attempts.  The idea that you can attempt pretty much any suasion seems to be mostly valid when PCs are persuading NPCs, and not so much the other way around.  It sounds like as GM I will need to veto attempts (from PCs and NPCs), when I was thinking I wouldn't need to.

The chap with pool worries never ran out of Attack pool, no.  He sat there for the last hour or so just not saying much while the others enjoyed themselves.  I tried several times to draw him back in but I could see he just wasn't interested.  I cut my losses.  Still it was an enlightening insight into the different things players will accept (which I often just hear about 2nd-hand).

Cheers
Ben

Ben

Ben wrote:
Thanks for the advice.  I get what you're saying and I think I had got myself into thinking that the Dying Earth rules allowed the GM to not have to think too much about persuasion attempts.  The idea that you can attempt pretty much any suasion seems to be mostly valid when PCs are persuading NPCs, and not so much the other way around.  It sounds like as GM I will need to veto attempts (from PCs and NPCs), when I was thinking I wouldn't need to.