This is about a GM who lost his momentum. It is about a game that has already died.

Context

One day I found myself chatting over google talk with Johan, someone I hadn't spoken in a while. The last time I played an RPG with him it was the Midwinter Harvest game, which I posted about at http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=23272.0 . That game fizzled because people kept canceling even though we all promised commitment so I pulled the plug at some point. Johan told me he was running a game and using some of the tricks I used when running Midwinter Harvest, especially the character creation part (read: have a reason for the character to stick together and define goals beforehand). He invited me to participate some time. I was quite curious!

The modus operandi of his group was that the default was to play every tuesday evening but cancelation was common and accepted as long as it was announced a few days in advance. It had worked well for multiple years.

Not much later one of his group was emigrating and they were starting something new and  he invited me to join the new game. I happily accepted.

Setup

The first meeting was at the place of the emigrating guy, a few days before he was to leave. We went out to dinner in his honor and afterwards Johan was going to describe the world we were going to play in and we would start character creation.

People

I knew all people involved. We're all somewhere between 20 and 30 years old. All graduated from or were still studying at the same university.

Jasper: that's me. Graduated and with a full-time job. Played some mainstream games, generally dislikes the games he played with them and is trying his hands on the indie stuff. You can learn more of me by checking the Midwinter Harvest threads if you feel the need.
Johan: in the process of writing his final paper and nearly finished with his study. I played D&D with him a few times, me being the GM twice and he never. I would say he's an active player, who wants to kick ass and play funny characters. I'm not really sure if he wants challenge or only glory.
Rogier: in the middle of university life. Played one session of D&D with him as GM. As far as I can tell he likes to act, especially weird, funny, or otherwise extreme characters. He plays LARP games.
Bouke: combining a job and a study and probably a year or two older than me (I'm 28 by the way). He's the quiet and gentle type, someone I knew from college but who never left much of an impression on me.
Kah-kin: the emigrating guy. He graduated at about the same time that I did. His girlfriend dropped by after dinner.
Steven: also dropped by. Another student and ex-member of this group. I've played with him as well, D&D and Shadowrun.

Story Time

Johan had played and as far as I know is still playing D&D with another group, biweekly or less often. He's the GM and they're playing in a world he created. He wanted us to play in that same world, but at a later point in time. So he used the status quo left after one campaign of the other group as the starting point for this group's adventure.
We were cool with that. There was already a setting developed and Johan was obviously more invested in it that in a boilerplate D&D setting, so why not use it?

So Johan was going to tell us about the setting. Actually, he was going to read to us what he had written down about it. He told us a creation story and told the legend of a group of heroes (the other group), all in one big sitting that must've taken at least an hour. It started like a draft for a campaign setting but became more like a campaign log and more matter-of-fact along the way.

It started fun. It was about a world which creator god had died, among other things (that's one reason for the name of this thread, the other one will have to wait). The creation story had some cleverness in it and did a good job of describing the world and the important power groups. Then it became tedious. A group of people did A, then B, then went to C, and then went somewhere else. So what? Yes they did some important stuff for the setting so that was interesting for us, but most was needless information at that point. I suffered an irrelevant information overload and warned Johan about that, but at that point he assured me it was almost done. About ten minutes later indeed he was.

So that part started fun and useful but became tedious and useless. I think it was the same for Johan when he wrote it, and again when he was reading it to us. At the end he was really droning. I think he shouldn't have tried to convert a campaign log into a complete story but instead should've only related any noteworthy events and forget about the details.
Is this some folly induced by pride or a need to preserve everything? And why did we sit through the whole thing while as far as I know no one really enjoyed it? I was the only one to say something about it, but even when doing so I felt rude. In hindsight it might've been best to have said “dude, just summarize and let's not agonize through this anymore” but that's because now I know there wasn't anything shiny at the exit.

The long story, the addition of a girlfriend and an ex-member slowed things down enough that we ran out of time. We tossed some concepts around but left character creation for another session. I'll write about that later.

Question

This never happened to me before and I feel bad about it. Does this kind of introduction happen more often, and if so is there some type of play that can generally be expected to follow it? How long should you wait before you demand to get to the point or to stop if there isn't any?

I've never really come across this in actual play where the gm actually droned on and turned it into a story but I have had a gm who would bring up things in play that he had done years ago set in such and such a location.  He would go on at length about characters and events from some game long past, a floating upside down pyramid dungeon was his big claim to fame.  He did it well though and never let it get in the way of the game we were playing, more of as a short side story that gave him some street cred.

It sounds to me almost like setting creation in D&D.  The Forgotten realms seemed to be loaded with characters and places that had obviously been used in previous campaigns.  Maybe Johan picked the idea up from there, felt that all the background material was relevant and helpful in setting up the campaign.

I once had this bit of Rifts lore, written out like a story handed down through generations, from one of the Rifts books. It was only about five paragraphs long, probably took seven minutes to read it. Seemed like a nice atmosphere starter, like lighting candles is or setting up music tracks is. This group was a roleplay club I'd joined awhile before this. And I could literally feel them chaffing during it. I think to a degree, fair enough - when you don't know how long the GM's going to go on for, it's hard to enjoy it. But jesus, I've seen people mid game go on about movies they've seen, for seven minutes or more.

I think you could have handled my seven minutes okay, since you went through a whole hour (damn, that's too long!). But basically I went in thinking I'd get attention and people absorbing the ideas. Neither your GM or myself had a very realistic expectation, it would seem.

In my opinion, a lot of role-play has the expectation that after the game is over, the players will be left with a tale of adventure, akin to Tolkein, Moorcock, L'amour, Clancy, or Lovecraft (depending on genre). 
However, storytelling (in the classical sense) is a skill, and one which is not necessarily related to roleplay.  It is often hard for a gamer to communicate the feelings that they had playing and creating the tale of adventure, in the same way that not every person can write a novel.

My advice is smile, not, and move on: you just got told a boring story.

This never happened to me before and I feel bad about it. Does this kind of introduction happen more often, and if so is there some type of play that can generally be expected to follow it? How long should you wait before you demand to get to the point or to stop if there isn't any?

Hi Jasper,

Here's my question: yes, the introduction was boring, but what about play itself? I recognize that the first may be an indicator for upcoming problems in the second, but it might not have to be that way. If play presents (or presented, I'm not sure) no hassles, then the bumpy introduction might simply be left in the past, or discussed without pressure in retrospect.

Best, Ron

Hi!
  I didn't think that happened anymore, lol
  Yeah, I have been in some D&D campaigns that started that way.
  Something about D&D hits a lot of those pressure points and brings out the same reactions in inexperienced DMs. There is the two parties, one is the good guys one is the bad guys, etc. And when its all drawn together the GM wants to retell it, but sometimes there is not much fun in the re-telling...
  Sorry man

I have a delightful home-brewed supers game I've been running for years. The one constant through every campaign has been my poor wife. Every time a new game started for years, she had to endure the Big Back Story, explaining history and origins. She told me, after several occurrences of this, that she really didn't need to hear it anymore.

After patching up my wounded GM heart, I came across a great alternative - probably from a pod-cast. Planting the history and world story in the game is way less cumbersome. The PCs get to take it in in bite sized peaces. I've noticed a lot of movies and computer RPGs begin in media res, kind of assuming you know everything, then reveal the world, backstory and all, to you slowly.

Also, remember every GM makes mistakes, especially when he's excited about sharing a wonderful world he's crafted.

I've been away for a while. Thanks for the reactions people!

It seems I'm not the only one who believes that RP sessions generally make bad source material for storytelling. In case of an actual play session even more so: I'm here to play, not to exclusively listen. If I could've seen it coming I probably would've tried to stop it, though I can't tell if that would've shot the whole deal to hell. I've noticed trying to talk about the act of play itself tends to alienate mainstream RPers from me (and I don't use any fancy Forge lingo or anything).

I guess the point was that there wasn't anything set up or agreed upon in advance (heck, this was to be the first orientating session). The deal to tell a bit about the setting was made there and accepted. Only while it was being carried out did it manifest itself as something I considered bad. By then he who would stand up would be the party pooper.

It would probably have been alright had I included in the deal "yea but if it gets boring we can cut you off, ok?". Ah, hindsight. Counter-intuitive as it might seem, being formal in a casual situation makes me more at ease. (Tangent: I abhor true freeform play; gotta have explicit rules or it's meaningless to me.)

So with that out of the way, as Ron asked: what about play itself? I didn't make it very clear but the game in question ended about a month before I started this thread. Anyway, indeed a bumpy start can be overcome, but in this case the initial momemtum rapidly vanished. I'll write about that in a later post, which will come in a few days. Sorry for the wait!

Some other good point people made in this thread:

How long is it gonna take?

I think Callan hit something big here:

wrote:
[...] I could literally feel them chaffing during it. I think to a degree, fair enough - when you don't know how long the GM's going to go on for, it's hard to enjoy it.

Matt wrote:
[...] But, I do know of many groups -- including mine! -- who spend one session and other odd times setting up a "campaign." Very often, I find this very unfocused, and the interest level among various group members varies widely. Often, the GM is very, very excited about it and has a particular vision. Maybe one or two other players are into it. Most folks, though, are thinking "Yeah, yeah, Big Bad. When do we PLAY?"

David wrote:
After patching up my wounded GM heart, I came across a great alternative - probably from a pod-cast. Planting the history and world story in the game is way less cumbersome. The PCs get to take it in in bite sized peaces. I've noticed a lot of movies and computer RPGs begin in media res, kind of assuming you know everything, then reveal the world, backstory and all, to you slowly.

Quote from Jasper

I think that's an interesting technique but I'm not sure if it accomplishes the same gaol as a BBB, by which I assume you mean a big opening dialogue to set the stage. In Johan's case the purpose was to give us an idea about the setting, or genre if you will, and to give hooks we could use to integrate our PCs into the setting. A slow reveal won't serve that purpose. If your goal is creating mood, then small doses indeed seem better than big chunks. If your goal was to bask in world-builder glory, well... then... shit... I guess small chunks are a reasonable concession.

Hi!
  Slow reveal works in fiction, because the writer can add an "exposition character" either a no-it-all that won't show up or a dimwit that can't stop asking questions all the other chars know the answer to.
  I think this technique is problematic at best for RPGs. As you won't have any guarantee that such a character will exist. Meaning the PCs may not want (or potentially be able to) to fill either of those roles and casting GMPCs in that role can be problematic.
  Ideally the theme of the campaign needs to be laid out, but maybe in a more natural/casual style so that questions can be asked, etc. The reality is, he probably had a bunch more he would like to share, but wasn't sure what lvl of detail you guys would want. I imagined if he could get a Q&A going instead, it would have been a little more fun...

I wonder if your response is common -- I've had the same thing, a response curve that flares upward, hovers for a minute or two, then drops below the baseline and stays there.  I think there's a sweet spot that comes pretty quickly after the intial premise is expressed, where the imagination is powerfully stimulated.  "A world without its creator?  Cool!"  After a couple minutes, you see all the possibilities getting closed off, and then it's just listening to somebody read their notes. 

I suppose this is why play-before-play is so deadly.

Yeah,Din, but they do it all the time in crpgs - or does that work better in that format than table-top rpgs?

Hi!
  Its Dave. And of course it would work better in CRPGs, this is another format that allows for the developers to script events and tack on characters without garnering undue attention.
  Where as, if the GM suddenly has a GMPC floating around the group being a know-it-all or asking dumb questions from the NPCs the group encounters, then that creates a situation where the GMs motives are questioned.
Don't get me wrong, I think in many ways a slow reveal is one of the best ways to immerse the players into a deeper setting. But, I think to blindly crib techniques from other media without stopping and thinking how applicable it will be in a role-playing setting, could invite disaster.
  I think settings like Nobilis, where the setting is deep, but the PCs are not necessarily expected to be well versed in the "real setting" of the game world, creates a situation where role playing is not impacted by a player's familiarity (or lack there of) with a setting.
And of course, creating an exposition character might be perfectly viable, as long as the GM states clearly, this guy will hang around and work with the group to explain the setting as we go. And then there is always the technique of the GM just laying info out there if it is something that one or more PCs would intuitively know. (e.g., "the guy following the group has a tattoo of a red serpent on his forearm. Based on his skill/trait/background, Fred's character would know this is the sign of a known drugs gang in the area").
  In the end, its probably best not to use any one technique too heavily, but to use a lighter mix of several techniques.

Dave,

I think you and I actually agree on this. Slow reveal is a great tool in the GM tool-box. It can't always be used, however using it, or any other technique we can borrow from other forms of media does not necessarily equate to "blindly cribbing".

Having an npc around asking stupid questions wasn't really what I had in mind. What I was trying to get across was what I believe you also have touched on. Sometimes you can slowly reveal history, culture, and wonders without having to throw everything out to the players at the start of the game. What I was trying to express was that, while in the beginning the GM certainly needs to give your players a sense of "feel" for the world. The GM may have more info in his introduction than he needs (the topic was one of long-winded GM intros). The info not necessary for the players to grasp the world can be saved and revealed as the story unfolds. This not only saves time and lets you get into the action faster, it gives the GM hooks and interesting facts to share down the road.

The technique has worked in crpgs, but also in novels, comics, tv shows, movies - every form of story media. And it works in rpgs.

I think there are two different issues here.  The first is, how much information is needed to play effectively.  The second is, how much information is needed to fully internalise the setting. The first is possible in an introductory lecture.  The second is not.  This turns into a problem only when the two are confused, with a couple of caveats.

In Romeo & Juliet, the chorus comes on first and tells you that:
- the story concerns two families "alike in dignity"
- that we are in Verona
- that the lovers are doomed
- that their deaths brings an end to the feud
- and its going to take 2 hours.

The opening crawl to Star Wars tells you that:
- it is a period of civil war
- the rebellion has just won its first battle
- in the process they acquired the death star plans
- Leia has the plans and is being pursued
(and we know how long its going to take from the billing)

In both cases the initial data dump is very limited but gives you enough information to understand what is going on.  There is still plenty of stuff to be discovered in the development of each story, though.

Certainly RPG is not directly analogous for multiple reasons, possibly the most important being that we need to make informed decisions at character creation.  However I think we can still get carried away over-estimating how much is required, especially when working with a Sim aesthetic.  You can do quite a bit of exposition within character creation itself; part of the problem I think is that we take the view that the character should be fully authored by the player without let or hindrance by the GM, but perhaps if we let go of that idea a bit, and allowed/expected characters to be altered, rewritten, or simply swapped for another at a later date, many of those problems may go away.  The player then does not need perfect information with which to create the perfect the perfect character, but only enough information to create a functional character.

This may even have an element of positive feedback because if you accept that the first characters made for a given game/setting are conditional, temporary, disposable (or at least potentially so), then the GM can also agree with a player to bump a PC off in order that they can be replaced, and this could itself be done for with an eye to exposition.  In fact there are probably some forms of exposition that you can only do with a character death; it can be exploited, for example, to show a villain getting their credentials, or demonstrating just how dangerous a noxious environment or predatory beast really is.