Okay, I ran my second session of TRoS this week.. I can't say it went particularly well.

The problems:

First off, the player of Gailen couldn't make it, due to a stomach infection. So I was forced to remove him from play for the most part. As he was currently central to the plot, this was problematic.

Character dispersion was another problem. After Gailen took off toward Eisenberg to find the man who killed his wife (my way of removing him from play temporarily), Roland Gossschuter headed back into town for dinner, and Bridget set out along the border to the next border town in search of better business than this one offered.

My attempts to solve the problems:

I sent Gailen on his merry way, trusting to my plot designs and the goodwill of the players that they would meet again. Not the wisest course of action perhaps, but the player kinda caught me last minute, so I had to improvise and hope.

Roland met his employer's (a Stahlnish noble who occasionally sent specific jobs his way, but mostly employed him as a furrier/trapper) messengers who sent him on to Eisenberg with promise of lucrative opportunities to be had by meddling in politics. Problem solved. With Bridget, I tossed a few "random" encounters in her direction to lay a few clues that all was not right in Stahl, in hopes that she would be curious enough to investigate. Eventually, the player just gave in and turned toward Eisenberg, taking my weak bait, because it was coming to the point that the character was totally leaving play otherwise.


Overall, I (personally) think it ended up being quite boring. The session was mostly taken up with travel to Eisenberg (about 10 days altogether, I believe.) I did my best to drop various hints as to events going on, but either the players chose not to pick up on the big picture, or simply did not put it together. This is problematic, because until they can grasp the big picture, their SA's will not directly apply to the story.

Mechanical issues: Movement ratings require you to either calculate exact travel time (and god forbid that the movement ratings change.. eesh!) or eyeball it, and thereby lose some of the realism. I chose the latter so that I wasn't spending time calculating numbers while the players twiddled their thumbs. Not a big issue in and of itself, but one thing I did note.

I'm not handing out the SAs enough, which means I'm doing something very wrong. I can't seem to work any more toward their SAs, though, and keep any semblance of story. I think the problem ends up with the players insisting on creating their characters in a vacuum from each other, which is what they are used to. I did my best to guide things, and I don't think I'm doing TOO bad of a job.. But how to play more to their SAs? Both players agreed that the session would have gone considerably better if Gailen's player had been available, but that's only a small part of it.

Well, I've another week to work it out, I suppose.

I think actually you learned a valuable lesson. Unlike the good dungeon romps of my youth where characters could spontaneously develop the Sleeping Sickness and be left snoring in the Inn while the present players went ahead and explored level 3...the types of games I prefer playing today demand player attendance.

My recommendation to you would be this: next time the key character in your campaign can't make a session...play something else. Pull out Inspectres, or Eldritch Ass Kicking, or some other such game for the evening and don't try to force that square peg into a round hole just because its "RoS night".

As for your specific question...I can't be certain based on the information you provided, but it sounds to me like you've got a pretty scripted plot and are attempting (not entirely successfully from the sounds of it) to use the illusion of free will to rail road your players towards your source of story.

I think that's doomed to failure, In RoS, the players choice of SA should be the source of story. Nothing should be happening in the game that doesn't directly involve an SA or directly lead to involving an SA save for brief interludes where they catch their breath.

On a personal note...10 days of travel...Uggg...I sincerely hope this wasn't one of of those D&D style roll for wandering encounters trips <shudder>.

Sorry, I really should be more constructive than that. What was it you were attempting to illustrate along that journey that couldn't have happened with a simple "10 days pass and you arrive, somewhat tired and very dusty". I'm guessing you were dangling plot hooks in front of them like a fishing lure waiting for a strike, but the fish weren't biting.

You may wish to explore the various threads on bangs here. Which to continue with the simile are more like fishing the way my friends and I did it as a kid...with M80s. Each encounter should have been customized to appeal to at least one character's SA, or it really wasn't worth happening.

This is where the difference IMO come in between using RoS to support simulationist play vs using it to support narrativist play. In a simulationist style there would be things going on in the country side and the PCs passing through the country side would witness those things and choose how to respond or not in true slice of life fashion. IMO playing RoS in this way really loses the power of the SAs and leaves just a pretty cool combat system...at which point you might as well just have fun fighting duels with RoS and play some other game for a slice of life campaign.

To use the SAs effectively (again IMO) you have to think like a novelist (a good one, not some Forgotten Realms tripe). The only people who have any real importance in the campaign are the PCs. Events should not just happen based on what's going on in the country side, events should only happen that tie directly in to the PCs (note I use the word "only" here as something of a hyperbole to make the point). What connects the PC to the event should be an SA. If it isn't, and if that event doesn't tie in somehow to one that will, you should seriously consider scrapping it and finding another.

Hope some of that was helpful commentary.

Hi there,

I agree 100% with Ralph, with the additional note for his last paragraph that, not only does the GM do well to get into novelist-thinking, but it won't work out well unless the players do too. This may be a gradual process (ie it's no good to berate anyone for "not doing it right") but if it's not happening to some tiny degree, the TROS system will be as Ralph describes: a rather brutal dueling game, and not much more.

Best,
Ron

On a different note, I've long since given up letting players make their characters in a vacuum. There are people who believe that a limit ruins creativity, but frankly there's an infinite number of possibilities in Weryth, and there's an infinite number of possibilities of Stahlnish nobles. I find the latter easier to GM, because the players are more likely to have some common threads.

Things I'm not saying:

- I'm not saying the GM has to impose the limit; there's player feedback, group decisions, and ultimately buy-in on all parts.
- I'm not saying that you have to start with a limit. Maybe your group wants to tie things together as they create their characters, e.g. "You're making a con-man? I'll be your straight-man brother in arms."
- I'm not saying that your limit must revolve around culture or social status. It can be anything. A common one I've used in Sci-Fi is to toss a starship at the players and ask them to make the characters on board.

I think most GMs tend to hit on this at some point: saying "anything you want" is just asking for trouble.

-Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Your points about limits being nesecary for creativity are right on the money... And people who try to create without limits are doomed.

But... I'm baffled. (A normal state of affairs for me, but I digress...)

When you write, "On a different note..." do you mean that what you're about to say is in any way contrary of different than what Ron and Ralph wrote? Because if so, I missed it.

Briefly, I thought in their essence, the two posts above yours suggested using the SAs a focus for both character and story... five attributes is a limit, yes? Since the SA's should be worked out with the GM (so he has an idea of what the player actually wants, and he can negotiate to make sure he's actually interested in the SA as well), this seems to fit within your parameters.

I may have misunderstood your intent, but I didn't see anything in the first three posts to suggest anyone encourage "anything you want" from the players. By defining SAs clearly, the GM and the Players have a vested interest in playing to them, which offers focus, clarity and limits for the evening's session -- not only in terms of who players are, but what they are going to do.. (ie: if I've got a player with a character who needs to avenge his father's death, and we both know the player's going to get experience for pursuing that plot, then I as GM have a pretty good idea he's going to chase that plot down.)

I think what Ron and Ralph are offering Lance are different kinds of limits, but they're still limits.

Now, if you were referring to characters floating away from each other... this brings up several points... Why are the players floating away from each other? Is it because the players don't know what they're supposed to be doing? (Playing to the SA's would certainly help in this matter.) Do the PCs have nothing in common? (Some shared SA's could solve this, I believe.) Do the players need to be together all the time, or can scene framing and cutting solve the problem? (Not the expected strategy, but it is a solution, it keeps everyone engaged and gives the GM plenty of control in terms of when scenes start and stop, pacing and so forth.)

Again, I've typed out a lot here, and if I misread the intent of your post, I apologize. I hope some of these comments are helpful to someone, though.

Take care,
Christopher

One post talked about using the SAs by thinking like a novelist, the next post pointed out this only works if everybody, not just the GM, is on the same page.

I wanted to point out that this is as much an issue of creation as use.

-Jeff

Jeff,

Absolutely.

Christopher

Okay, to recap the suggestions made:

1. Explore the use of Bangs.

2. Play to the SAs.

3. Group Character Creation.

4. Play to the SAs.

5. Scene Framing and Cut Scenes.

6. Play to the SAs.


I think that about covers the suggestions, so now I will reply.

1. Bangs.. Okay, I'll look for 'em. Can't work any worse than dangling the bait.

2, 4 and 6. I'm trying. Explanation further down.

3. I didn't partially as a matter that I really dislike limiting characters if I can avoid it (or if it's just that sort of game) and because they refused. More on this further down as well.

5. I'm perfectly willing to use cut-scenes and the like for separated characters, so long as they are linked in some way. If someone branches off on something which in no way relates to the other stories, and doesn't look like it will return to the "main" story, I won't do it, though. I refuse to try to run two or more separate games at the same time.


Main SAs for Roland Gossschuter - Drive: prove himself to his ex-comrades (Stahlnish soldiery); Faith: 3-in-1; Passion: Loyalty to Stahl;

Main SAs for Bridget - Faith: Epona (celtic deity of horses and fertility); Passion: Love/Loyalty to horses; Destiny: To always live free/never bend knee to anyone;

As you can see, I may have made a mistake on approving Bridget's SAs.. She doesn't care for much beyond herself and her horses. I've been trying to appeal to the Destiny SA by hinting that Angharad may soon be conquered and dominated, but it seems that she has no loyalty to Angharad, only to herself and her horses, so doesn't give a damn so long as it doesn't affect her directly. My mistake on that.

Roland, on the other hand has several that I can work to. I'm trying to play to his loyalty and drive to prove himself by getting him involved in the maneuverings which may lead to Stahl's fall before Gelure. (yes, that's where all of this is going, unless the PCs can do something about it.) However, things are not quite working out as I'd hoped.

As for how the character's were created.. The players refused (except for the player of Gailen) to fully define the SAs prior to putting down everything. When I pushed to have them do so, (actually by putting the SAs up front, before assigning priorities) they both got defensive, and stated that "they didn't create characters that way." They like to get the numbers and such down before conceptualizing the personality, et al.

Anyhow.. I think things are likely to get interesting soon. What I'm not certain of, however, is how much of this "interesting" will play toward their SAs. Bridget's SAs have nothing to do with what is currently going on, and it would honestly make the most sense if she'd just kept wandering rather than catching up with the others. She has nothing whatsoever invested in this story, or the events going on.

5. I'm perfectly willing to use cut-scenes and the like for separated characters, so long as they are linked in some way. If someone branches off on something which in no way relates to the other stories, and doesn't look like it will return to the "main" story, I won't do it, though. I refuse to try to run two or more separate games at the same time.

Main SAs for Bridget - Faith: Epona (celtic deity of horses and fertility); Passion: Love/Loyalty to horses; Destiny: To always live free/never bend knee to anyone;...

As you can see, I may have made a mistake on approving Bridget's SAs.. She doesn't care for much beyond herself and her horses. I've been trying to appeal to the Destiny SA by hinting that Angharad may soon be conquered and dominated, but it seems that she has no loyalty to Angharad, only to herself and her horses, so doesn't give a damn so long as it doesn't affect her directly. My mistake on that.

Hi Lance,

I feel compelled to add that there was a seventh point suggest, which forms an umbrella over the first six.

7. The player characters are the story.

Now: I know this point of view runs almost (if not completely) contray to the way GMs set up adventures. Normally we create the story or plot and push/pull/beret/pray the players will get it/be interested in it. A lot of the time it doesn't work -- and we get situations you've described above. (Sometimes it does, and if it it works for your group, great.)

I don't see these matters as a problem with the players. Nor do I think little patches attached to the standard plot-generation technique is going to work. The reason I keep bringing this matter up (in various threads) is that I really truly believe that when this problem arises, a real reworking of scenario-think is required -- and, again, it can be best summed up as The Players Character are the Story.

So, in you're RoS game, we've got Bridget. Now, Bridget's players has made a couple of things clear: she wants to play a character who cares passionately about horses; and she wants play a character who's destiny is to live free.

Great. Now you know what the story is about. It's a story about a woman who protects horses and retains her freedom. What's great about it is there's no guessing involved. You just have to supply the threat to horses and her freedom, and BAMMO, you got a story.

Listen: John McClain in Die Hard is a cop. Does he care about the LAPD's problems with terrorists? No. He arrives in L.A. to save his marriage. He has a passion to save his marriage. First his marriage is threatned by his behavior (before the movie starts and in the first act) and his wife's new job (ditto). And then the terroriss arrive. BANG (as we say here at the Forge). The marriage is really threatened. Dead wife, no marriage. John is now completely invested in stopping the terrorists.

Normally, as GMs we reverse that. We think, "Okay, I'll have a really smooth, German terrorists and his goons coming to take over the Bearer Bonds... blah, blah, blah..." Then we drop the PCs in and assume (or hope) the players will invest in this story. But without the passion to save the marriage, they must just decide to bolt out of the building and let the FBI handle it. "But that's ruining the adventure!" the GM declares. No. It's make a choice for the character... Because they don't know what they're supposed to do. Their job is to make decisions. They did. No problem there at all.

The problem is that the GM and the Players have no shared values on the character sheet. But RoS solves this problem: SAs. The player states what his character cares about, the GM puts the SA at risk (or offers a vital opportunity, or whatever), and there you go....

So: Bridget. Making this up as I go along (so forgive me), you want (I believe) a story about national warfare. So there's an invasion. However, the invaded land has these horses that are the most beautiful horses in all the land. Prized, left to run free but for one horse take a year by the lands ruler, blah, blah, blah.

The invaders arrive. Two things need to be know about the invaders: the run their army through brutal conscription, enslaving those they capture and forcing them to fight as foot soldier fodder.

Bridget is threatened with capture. Is she captured? I don't know. It doesn't matter. It's her destiny to be free, so she'll work like hell to be free. (Another charcter's destiny might be Rise Through the Ranks and would think, "Here we go!" get captured and start rising throughthe ranks. That would be his story -- and the campaign's story -- because the PC is the story.

Now, why doesn't she run away from these jerks? Because these fuckers don't give a damn about protecting these beautiful horses. They capture them by the bucket load, strap 'em down with battle armor and ride 'em to death in combat. They must be stopped! And, of course, Bridget's player is going to work like hell to have her character stop them -- cause she's explicitely said "This is what I care about for this character" and because the system will reward her for engaging in this specific activity.

Since the PCs are the story, there is no reality that matters outside the concern of the PCs, so of course the bad guys are the kinds of guys who do this kind of thing. (Note that there's a gazillion ways to play to her SAs -- that's how I would do it, having thought about it while soaking in a bathtub a short while ago.)

****

But wait! There's more!

It has to start NOW. There's no plot brewing. The fucking conscripting, horse-abusing bastards are coming over the border NOW. Why? Because until they do, theres' no story (the PCs are the story, and until their SAs are engaged, they can't engage the GM, so there's no story.)

It's like this. Ripley in Aliens doesn't get to Acheron until 30 pages into the script. HOWEVER, she wakes from a terrible nightmare about an alien on page 2. Ten pages later all contact is lost with the colony on the planet where her crew found the alien eggs... Then she goes to the planet and finds the ruins of the colony.... And so on.

The first thirty pages isn't about a failed starship crewman hanging around on earth while terrible things are happening on Acheron. The first thirty pages about a woman haunted by the horrors of an alien creature. Each page enages her right off the bat of her SA (Passion, perhaps, save humans from aliens, or maybe, Destiny, Battle the Source of the Aliens -- but you get the point...)

It has to be (in my humble though emphatic view) the same way with an RPG session, or the Players are put in the position of viewers of a movie that's "waiting" for the second act for things to get cool. We sit there thinking: "What's the movie about? What's she doing? When's something gonna happen?"

So, until you hit Bridget with a Bang (ie. word comes the horses are threatened; scouts for the slave driver spot and pursue her) she's not engaged in her story, so the story isn't happening. She's just wandering around like Jim Carrey in "The Majestic."

Do you have to do it this way? No. Will you keep having the same problems if you don't? I don't know. But it certainly seems possible.

*****

Now. Some GMs might suggest that by letting Bridget dictate the nature of the story this way, the GMs got nothing to do.

Well. No. Simply. No. I came up with my threat to Bridget's SAs. Another GM will come up with the details that stokes his coal engine.

Moreover, there's so much more to fill out. I've already come up with the NPC "horse-whisperer", the guy who knows all about the wonderful horses. This guy might turn out to be a mentor, lover, ally. (I wouldn't presume to know ahead of time, but I can certainly set up possibilities.)

Then I immediately thought that the "horse master" from the invading country is the "horse whisperers" brother, or maybe an old rival in love for a woman who died at the "horse master's" hand. Either way, I'm setting up ties of relationships. Maybe bridget ends up falling for the bad guy after the "horse whisper" tells her the "horse master's" tragic tale (a third possibility) and she changes his heart with the help of the whiperer (because the whisperer wants the love of his brother back in his life.)

Already I've got two NPCs with background starting to bulge and personal relationships that will hook bridget deeper into the story. The GM makes all this up, not the Players. Really, the GM just needs two to three "prongs" that lead into the PC's SA "sockets." But after that, what the cable leads to is all up to the GM.

Given the fact that the still GM gets to play with so damned much, it seems a small price to pay to feed the conflict into the PCs SAs to make sure he's a) focusin the story on what the Player said he or she wants the story to be about (in one form or another); b) feeding the story into the mechanics that hook the player into action for bonusesl; c) kicking off the story NOW, with a focus on the PC's SAs, and not lots of plot and detail taking place off camera and out of sight and sound of the PCs.

In this way the GM engages the Players directly and there far less risk of having the PCs wander around indifferent to what's going on.

****

Finally, to hook the players up, just make sure that (in my example), the nation with the horses is the nation he is loyal to. Or -- his ex-comrades say something like "Any man who'd stand up against those slave driving horse torturing bastards sure would have my respect."

The specifics of your background will vary -- but you get the idea. Just make the threat/opportunity to the SAs of different PCs tied from the same or allied NPCs and they'll be working together without having to tie them all up and dropping them on a set of railroad tracks.

****

Okay. I hope this is of some value -- if only for something to think about. And yes, I know it's not the way things are normally done. But I think you'll find it quite usueful, engaging, and works well to solve the specific problems you're having.

Take care,
Christopher

Just to be the Narrativist nit-picker today:

This probably already occurred to you, but it looks like the only choice might be to threaten the damn horses. Consider the prospect of long strings of broken and mistreated beasts being led off by the invaders to toil in some mine somewhere. Especially if they used to be the free-roaming population of some idyllic place. Could work, especially if the best way to save them would also involve Bridget bending her knee to someone. (I realize this might be difficult to connect with the rest of the current story...)

Hi everybody,

Just had to add I was composing my doctoral thesis while Walt posted... but clearly a bunch of independent minds are thinking alike on this...

That's the beauty of SAs. The solutions to engaging and focusing the players are right there on the characters sheet.

Take care,
Christopher

Christopher hit it right smack dab on the head Wolf.

You have instructions from your players right in front of you as to what should compell them to action. Maybe its Stahl that wants to turn the horses into cavalry to resist the upcoming invasion. Maybe there's a way to bring in the two character's opposing faiths.

This won't necessarily do you much good now, but as an example of how to "kick it up a notch".

First scene of the game could have gone like this.

"Stahlish Soldiers coming to take horses, go."

Right there is a bang. Right there is something your player CAN'T ignore (assuming they aren't lousy players). No build up, no introductions, no waiting until they travel 10 days to point B...hit 'em between the eyes right up front, boom. Such a scene works on so many levels, it directly involves the character, and it works as perfect foreshadowing to the events that will be unfolding regarding the war.

How to incorporate Roland into this...what's Roland now, a soldier or mercenary or something...maybe he was ordered / hired to collect those horses and he's among the soldiers getting them. Maybe he's just a witness to it. What does his faith say about the way the soldiers wind up treating Bridget. How does that contrast with his loyalty to Stahl. How can that player rectify the two.

Anyway, that's the kind of thinking I think is necessary to play RoS successfully.

BTW you missed #8) don't feel obligated to play when key players are missing.

Okay, a lot of good suggestions and ideas. Let's see if I can respond pertinently without missing anything important.

BTW you missed #8) don't feel obligated to play when key players are missing.

Maybe in between sessions the player of Brigitte? should consider if this character is going to be as fun and interesting as they originallty thhought.

If not, they should create a new character....enlightented by what they can have seen going on in the game...

bob mcnamee

Hi Lance,

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Just so I'm clear.... The example I laid out for Bridget wasn't to make her the "main" character. It was an example of how to tie her into a story. You had stated she had no investment in the session because of her SAs. I wanted to point out that the SAs *are* the investment.

I completely understand you're not interested in re-working your style of GMing without a pre-planned plot, so please understand the following notes are for our viewing audience, who might be looking for new points of view on actual play:

* When you say, "although it wasn't quite the action I was hoping for" this is exactly where many of us on this board find a disconnect in joyful play at the table. When the GM is expecting a certain result from the players actions for their characters, it seems to me they're either expecting to a) be able to read the future, b) be able to mentally manipulate the player's will to their own design during play, c) are just wildly hoping for the best -- because in all three case the GM kind of offers unlimited choices to the players, but is hoping that the player will act from a very finite set of options. Why would we GMs do this? Do we actually think this makes sense? I have no idea anymore. Why set up infinite options, but only expect two or three actual choices? It seems a recipe for frustration ("Why did he do that" from the GM; "She keeps pushing me in these directions I don't want to go," from the Player. It seems, to me, doomed from the get go.

The other option, of course, is to offer the characters Bangs, and let them choose, really simply choose, what happens, next until the bang is solved, and then hit them with another Bang.

* And I just want to make clear, I was not invoking a "plotline" of any kind in the in example I offered above. Eveyone note: I offered threats and opportunities for the PC's SAs, and I offered NPCs who had hooks into those SAs and were tied emotionally (in stress lines of family or romance). After that, it was up to the Players to make the story by their actions.

Again, these are very non-traditional tactics. I think they cure the symptoms most people post on chat boards when they're having trouble with their RPGs, but the entail really jettisoning the basic framework of how we GMs build sessions. Essentially, standard scenarior design is the players being told, "You control the protagonists in the story; figure out what I want you to do." It just seems like bait for trouble.

******

Lance, two things:

If I just overstated the case of pre-plotting in your game, I apologize. I can only go on what's here.

Second, I really hope the game goes well this week. I'll be particullary interested in hearin about how the two more "active" characters tie into the "plot". Obviously my guess is the players will still be scooting around under every shady rock they can find as you try to shine your storyline on them -- but I really hope I'm wrong and look forward to hearing it went great. If it does, I'd love to hear what you or the players did to keep things running smoothly.

Take care,
Christopher

If I just overstated the case of pre-plotting in your game, I apologize. I can only go on what's here.

Oops, one more thing. (And Lance, this isn't addressed in any way as a rebutal or any kind of challenge to you, so please forgive me for putting it on this thread... but again, this is all public stuff for people dealing with actual play... [edit] In fact, I posted this while you were posting, and it's not a response at all to what you just posted.)

Judging from statements I've seen other people make about the above tactics there seems to be this idea that the tactics are strange, pretentious, or not for "meat and potatoes" kinds of players.

I would offer just the opposite. Given my belief that standard scenario design ("guess what I want you to do till you get it close enough") seems, in my view, difficult to run, it seems to me games run so that the players 1) state what they want to be engaged by in the session, 2) the GM offers them threats and opportunities involving the elements, 3) the players respond by pursuing what they want their characters to without trying mind-read the GM's intentions of the "plot" and 4), the GM, having set up a host of interelated NPCs and Bangs involving the PC's concerns, simply keep tossing new threats and opportunities -- are actually easier to run in some respects than the standard scenario methods. The mind reading is gone, there's no frustration the players aren't doing the "right" things, the players aren't frustrated their not "getting" the plot, the players are involved in stories they themselves are committted to, and the GM just has to throw more problems at the players instead of leading them subtley with clues.

This isn't about being artsy. These are tactics that engage and hook people at the most blunt level. They're new... so there's the learning curve. But the tools themselves are designed to make things easier... and in most cases do.

Take care,
Christopher

my usggestion: make them give you a short biographical monologue. Then you write the SA's based on what you think is really motivating those characters. Players might be writing them from IC perspective.

I still like what Chris came up with. And I don't see why it has to be so hard to get in even from a standard Sim sort of view. Horses are her thing? Then the guy that player #1 wants to kill is associated with Chris's horseflesh robbers. There, an interesting plot twist. He want's to kill the guy, and she wants information from him. It'll be interesting when they finally get to the guy to see what heappens. If it takes it, Give her a Bang straight from her god. If that doesn't motivate her, then there's a problem.

Nobody is suggesting that you privelige her story. Just that you motivate her character as well. Which isn't that hard.

OTOH, from your description, it sounds like she, and possibly the other player, might have "My Guy" syndrome. As evinced by their hesitancy to select SAs, and the one player selecting non-humans to care about. Seeing that the SAs are ways of hooking the characters in, they retreat from these mechanics as do all My Guy players. If this is the case, then you've got a bigger problem, as this is a serious dysfunction. You'll have to discuss this with them, and ask them to play slightly differently. Players must like the fact that their characters have SAs, and play to them. If not, then play will likely be dull (though I suspect that there is a particular subset of My Guy players who actually play to see the GM suffer as they try in vain to reel the characters in; for them such play is a delight).

Mike

One thing I haven't seen addressed: passions are supposed to be (by the rules) for a single person or entity. "Horses" doesn't fit this.

I'm not simply being a rules-lawyer here. I think the reason the rules limit passions is for story-telling purposes. In particular, a person or entity can make demands of the player, and a player who ignores those demands can lose points.

Assuming you're going to stick with the passion as-is, though, I think your only choice is to (pardon) beat that player with dead and mistreated horses at every opportunity. A whole herd destroyed, with the mares & stallions dragged off, and the foals left to die. Get nasty, and if your player still doesn't respond, you really have a different problem.

Btw, I have a player who I think is similar at the core. He's told me that he dislikes the SA's - his words: 'The situation with "drives" when one is used to playing neutral characters is a challenge.' I, too, am having difficulty engaging this player.

-Jeff

Accidental double post deleted. (Anyone else ever seen a "could not insert new word" error message before? Is our vocabulary becoming so abstruse that even the computers can't keep up?)

- Walt

Christopher wrote: That's the beauty of SAs. The solutions to engaging and focusing the players are right there on the characters sheet.

Walt-

Good post, and I really enjoyed read the Genre links you posted. I got a lot out of it.

One thing that was overlooked here in Lance's game, and most ROS games--despite the rules and the book--is an element of group character creation and GM/Player cooperation in choosing and defining SAs. It's all over the book, especially in Chapter 8 (about Seneschaling/GMing).

Basically, any concerns about Genre expectations (a very valid issue if I understand it right...which I rarely seem to, I admit) are moot if the Player and the GM pow-wow on the SA's to build a mutally agreeable storyline. From the looks of it Lance is really struggling to engage his players into his story line via their SAs, because the two (or 4 or 5, as there are many participants) goals and ideals don't mesh at all. Choosing SAs, much like defining Humanity as a group in Sorcerer, defines the premise of each individual game/campaign/adventure. TROS, like many older fantasy games, isn't very Genre specific--maybe more so than D&D, but still leaves tons of room for interperetation. I think it's one of TROS's strengths (not too much Genre over-specialization, limiting appeal and market), but without a group consensus via the SAs, thing just aren't going to be properly focused, and aren't going to work out.

I agree, this has become a very important thread, for me and most of us.

Jake