Topic: The problems of players.
Started by: Sidhain
Started on: 8/23/2002
Board: Actual Play
On 8/23/2002 at 5:08am, Sidhain wrote:
The problems of players.
Not all players. However, my normally good players seem to have a problem with Hearts and Souls--my superhero rpg.
In it they are given more control over the various events that occur in the game (as compared to your nominal commercial game). In this playtest we had two player characters---Nexus, with the ability to manipulate gravity and Storm Dancer a winged weather controller. A terrible fire raged through a multi-block section of tenements. The heroes arrived on the scene both skimming the rooftops and looking down upon the blaze--where they discovered that a number of people were trapped inside, and the fireman were using a powder type fire retardant, rather than their normal water cannons on the lower levels. Stormdancer didn't get it and called rain--spreading the fire (since it is chemical propellant fire), Nexus realized what was up so they instead attempt to enter the building and rescue the people. They accrue wound flavored stress from fire and heat--and failure in using their attributes and skills, and eventually manage to rescue the children and fireman trapped in the blaze. The game of course was shorter than a GM controlled campaign because the players didn't use the rules /themselves/ to enact narrative events triggered by stress as much as I the GM would if the game put all the control in my hands. However, one redeeming thing was Nexus triggered his own phobia--by describing a water jet from a fireman trying to reduce the upper level fire (normal burning materials there) accidently hits him since he can't be seen in the fire and smoke--he was trying to drop his "Stress" and did so by triggering his fear of water--shutting off his powers and causing him to take wound flavored stress from a fall into fire. This forced Stormdancer to go back in and rescue him. So it wasn't a total loss, but neither one spent much time hamming it up afterwards (As superheroes should do with each other, and the press in this setting)
That's the basics of it.
So how to get players to understand the length of the game is made more by their choices in this style of play, than mine the GM?
On 8/23/2002 at 5:51am, Andrew Martin wrote:
Re: The problems of players.
Sidhain wrote: So how to get players to understand the length of the game is made more by their choices in this style of play, than mine the GM?
Positively reward the players for desired behaviour. Don't punish any behaviour.
On 8/23/2002 at 2:34pm, Zak Arntson wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
If you've noticed that the game gets over too quickly you may want to build in some kind of time-rules into it. Instead of just a time-limit, you can also insert a resource-driven way to end the game.
These could be "scenario isn't solved until X points are reached" and dole out points as GM.
Or "scenario doesn't end until you've used up a pool of points/dice" and write the rules in such a way that it takes a bit of time to use up this pool. Long games will have larger pool.
Things like that. Jared Sorensen's Inspectres (http://www.memento-mori.com and my own Sitcom (www.harlekin-maus.com) have different methods of a built-in time/resource limit.
On 8/23/2002 at 6:02pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Hey,
Well, let's back up and think about this some more.
I hate to sound overly arty-thespian, but, "Where's the conflict?" I don't see any. People are trapped in a fire; the heroes rescue them. Where's the issue? The interest? Whatever?
In the great superhero comics, no one "just" rescues people. The rescue is always wrapped up in the context of some further, more emotionally-arresting issues. The recent Spider-Man movie (which is in my view a complete triumph) gets this perfectly - when our hero gets involved in a fire-rescue, it is all wrapped up in (a) his dicey relationship with the authorities, embodied in the cop; and (b) his hearts & minds duel with the Green Goblin. The rescue itself is important, in that Spidey is definitely going to help people who need it, but it is not interestingly important except as (a) and (b) are its context.
So taking this to a superheroes RPG situation, and your (itself a bit odd) concern with "how long it takes" to play out, I'm not surprised that an esentially non-conflict situation doesn't take long at all. It seems to me suitable, appropriate, and desirable that that would be the case.
One final issue - your desire for the characters to banter and deal with one another and so on. Bluntly, this reads to me like a GM who not only wants his players to play, but wants them to play just like he wants. I think that's a bit over the line, myself - you might consider (a) making sure that larger-scale conflicts like the ones I describe are involved, and (b) taking the character-behavior cues from them, rather than expecting them to take them from you.
Best,
Ron
On 8/23/2002 at 6:55pm, Zak Arntson wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Ron Edwards wrote: One final issue - your desire for the characters to banter and deal with one another and so on. Bluntly, this reads to me like a GM who not only wants his players to play, but wants them to play just like he wants.
Conflicting GM/Player desires can cause problems. Alternately, if you and your Players agree, you could add in design elements that support witty banter.
On 8/24/2002 at 5:24am, Sidhain wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
In this context it's them against the fire--because they are still establishing the relationships of the characters. Conflict isn't /always/ emotional. There are several layers in any narrative construct "Them vs the fire" is one. (Along with "Them versus themselves" ")
Spiderman for example--in the comics, /often/ rescues people without it being a huge plot element. It's often done in a few pages of the issue rather than take the whole issue--the rest is him dealing with whatever else is going on in his life and secret ID--and that was the environment the players/gm and game should create--the emotional backdrop. The fact is, it's up to the players to establish that through play. I the GM cannot foister relationships with those around them on them beyond the traditional (and all too common) "bad guy" who shows up to beat them/maim or hurt others, and being that this isn't the focus of the game rules, much less the establishing ideas the players provided.
As for banter--no it's not what I want--its what /they/ stated they wanted--now I can't control them saying one thing and doing another. Since one of the drives of the heroes specifically and backstory was "Community" and "Wants to find a place to belong and not be thought of as a freak because of her wings and powers" this suggest that at least one of them carried it into character creation.
On 8/24/2002 at 9:44am, Ian O'Rourke wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Sidhain wrote:
Spiderman for example--in the comics, /often/ rescues people without it being a huge plot element. It's often done in a few pages of the issue rather than take the whole issue
Exactly. It is done in a few pages - so it should be a relatively short interlude in your story as well.
With respect to character relationships - it is a two-way street on this issue, you can't divorce yourself from the responsibility entirely. I realise I have assumed something here, so if that was not your intention I apologise.
Your characters should come to the game 'before play' with some level of relationships built in. I'm not saying these relationships have to detailed, but they should be present. A sister the character feels responsible for (such as Peter feels responsible for Aunt May) or the girls across the street they've always facied (such as Mary Jane - in the movie at least).
When it comes to villains they are not going to love or hate them unless you provide reasons for them to do so. Any villain robbing the bank is going to a passing issue - but someone who has a normal identity linked to that 'girl next door' is going to be an interesting villain.
Getting back to the point though, unless there is a dramatic issue at hand may be the scene should be short? How interesting is a game that involves lots and lots of action none of which has no emotional investement. Hollywood often makes films like that, and most people find them pretty shallow.
On 8/24/2002 at 2:09pm, Zak Arntson wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Sidhain wrote: ... There are several layers in any narrative construct "Them vs the fire" is one. (Along with "Them versus themselves" ")
Did your group discuss this at all before playing?
The fact is, it's up to the players to establish that through play. I the GM cannot foister relationships with those around them on them beyond the traditional (and all too common) "bad guy" who shows up to beat them/maim or hurt others, and being that this isn't the focus of the game rules, much less the establishing ideas the players provided.
As a gaming group, you should be fostering relationships together. Love interests, family members, childhood buddies, bitter rivals. You and your players can work to bring all these things into it. Say the Player introduces her own love interest. Then you make sure the guy's ex-wife or mother or father is tied into the plot.
A big part of gaming is working together. You can't expect things to go one way if only half of you are working towards it.
Lastly, if you want to encourage things, put rules in there to do it! Roleplaying games have definite reward/punishment options which you can use, as a designer, to produce the play you want.
As for banter--no it's not what I want--its what /they/ stated they wanted--now I can't control them saying one thing and doing another. Since one of the drives of the heroes specifically and backstory was "Community" and "Wants to find a place to belong and not be thought of as a freak because of her wings and powers" this suggest that at least one of them carried it into character creation.
So if they want witty banter, why not come up with a reward? Make it intermittent (so they don't spend the entire game in banter-mode) and noticable. In a game with d20 XP, something like 100-200 XP per scene if there's a line of good banter.
Also, how does "Community" and "Seeking a place" tie into the rules? If you want a superhero game that goes beyond the cool powers, neat gadgets and flamboyant villains, you're going to have to either
a) Hold big discussions with your group on how things should play out, and make sure you're all on the same track, or
b) Incorporate the way you want play to work into the rules themselves. This would mean, if your group is interested in banter and Marvel plotlines (where the antics are a backdrop to the emotional plot), your rules should support this.
My recommendation is b).
On 8/24/2002 at 10:36pm, Sidhain wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Exactly. It is done in a few pages - so it should be a relatively short interlude in your story as well.
The issue however is I provided as GM other things going on A) The fire was arson--a propellant of unusual form was used (it was initiatlly a chemical fire) add to that the tenements seemed to be very crowded for their size--even though large.
With respect to character relationships - it is a two-way street on this issue, you can't divorce yourself from the responsibility entirely. I realise I have assumed something here, so if that was not your intention I apologise.
I provided several interactions which was meant to lead to relationships--one was a friendly fireman, one was a rude and disgusted at superhero intervetion, and I've got a character whose spying on the pc's because he was a mentor/caretaker of previous superhero teams.
Your characters should come to the game 'before play' with some level of relationships built in. I'm not saying these relationships have to detailed, but they should be present. A sister the character feels responsible for (such as Peter feels responsible for Aunt May) or the girls across the street they've always facied (such as Mary Jane - in the movie at least).
I agree, but I can't force them on the players--some of them came with a few, but they were central last time we played.
When it comes to villains they are not going to love or hate them unless you provide reasons for them to do so. Any villain robbing the bank is going to a passing issue - but someone who has a normal identity linked to that 'girl next door' is going to be an interesting villain.
True, but that takes more than one game session typically to establish.
Getting back to the point though, unless there is a dramatic issue at hand may be the scene should be short? How interesting is a game that involves lots and lots of action none of which has no emotional investement.
Your presuming too much--there is emotional investment, but there is not emotional conflict---there is a difference. These are people with powers who are trying to live up to iconic imagery of being superheroes and finding that it's a lot tougher than it looks, there is their fundamental caring for other humans, and the fact they are risking their lives for strangers, all are emotional elements, but not all are in conflict /at the moment/
On 8/24/2002 at 10:50pm, Sidhain wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Did your group discuss this at all before playing?
We discussed the potential "stories" and the elements there of, but not this specific one occuring (it was one that fell under "things would like to play" non-combat, but still challening adventure elements.
As a gaming group, you should be fostering relationships together. Love interests, family members, childhood buddies, bitter rivals. You and your players can work to bring all these things into it. Say the Player introduces her own love interest. Then you make sure the guy's ex-wife or mother or father is tied into the plot.
Note I said /foister/ which may not be a word, but the intent is I cannot force relationships on them and except them reasonably to work--I can provide the /elements/ and let them choose to follow them or not.
A big part of gaming is working together. You can't expect things to go one way if only half of you are working towards it.
You too presume a significant amount, how do you know I'm not---there is a difference in gaming between providing options, and /forcing/ people to play a particular way--I provide options, if players choose not to follow them I won't force the issue, unless as an absolute repercussion.
Lastly, if you want to encourage things, put rules in there to do it! Roleplaying games have definite reward/punishment options which you can use, as a designer, to produce the play you want.
No.
I do not believe that is what I want from this game nor do they.
So if they want witty banter, why not come up with a reward? Make it intermittent (so they don't spend the entire game in banter-mode) and noticable. In a game with d20 XP, something like 100-200 XP per scene if there's a line of good banter.
There is no XP or similar mechanic--there is no advancement rules in the game, there is no advancement of the character /except/ as the they choose the direction of their character--the "Radiation accident" of comics, or the "sudden change of powers" is entirely a players and GM's choice when they both feel it's appropriate to make the game fun and interesting. The Reward is in this case the /telling of a superheroic comic book story/ so that both players and GM have fun.
On 8/25/2002 at 3:17am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Hi Sidhain,
I have to ask: what are your goals with this thread? So far, several folks have given their take on things as you presented them - and it appears that you're pretty invested in defending your approach to the game.
It won't help if we keep spinning into definitional or clarify-this side-points. A good example - and I can see this happening - is if I were to take each of your clues or "things to notice" about the fire and show how, in my experience anyway, such GM-tactics almost unilaterally fail. Then you might defend yourself against that, and so on.
Your thread title firmly places your topic with the players, as does your opening paragraphs in the first post. The general response, which (including me) questions the "problem with the players" topic in the first place, doesn't seem to be working for you, if I'm reading you right.
What - precisely - are you looking for in terms of feedback about this? What is the question or issue that you're presenting?
Best,
Ron
On 8/25/2002 at 7:10am, Sidhain wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Your thread title firmly places your topic with the players, as does your opening paragraphs in the first post. The general response, which (including me) questions the "problem with the players" topic in the first place, doesn't seem to be working for you, if I'm reading you right.
In this case it's a matter of asking essentially "why do Players fail at their own stated style of play?"
In addition to "how do we help add interaction, within the game--that is not a mechanistic approach."
What - precisely - are you looking for in terms of feedback about this? What is the question or issue that you're presenting
I want solutions darn it! :), I'm trying to find out /why/ players do what they do and make the choices they make, when given more control of the game. I was trying to get "how do you handle this" type information.
I did discuss specifically with the players what kind of game they'd like to play, how they'd like certian things handled all before hand, because that's /written/ in the game. For example there is PC death in this game but only by player decision. That was a choice I and the players covered before the first "intro" session (which I spent more time explaining the rules and giving examples than actually playing the game)
In most games that they I've run, and that they choose to play (My FRPG which is fairly Simulationist), our recent Adventure! game, BESM and in a few others normally I have them make characters, then create the situations they are involved in--for a game I've not yet run Witchcraft (Nomads), I was going to have a set up be a Spec Ops unit put together then abandoned on a mission--because they are being tested to see if they can be used by offscreen NPC manipulator guy.
Most of the games I GM, I control all the world, I give setup situation then let them act and react from that initial impetus. Literally throwing the "adventure" in their path--I decide what new challenge will face them "this time" and let them face it as they choose but my Superhero game is meant to give the players more choice in the challenge aspect. I began it because I myself like choosing bad things and good happenning to my character (as opposed to things occuring because of bad die roll, or simple GM fiat)
These players expressed an interest in playing this game, as written with them having significant control. One player triggered his own phobia, a step in the right direction but only a step.
This is not the first game which gives them more freedom we've used but we've only done a few such games and this is the first that I wrote and thus have more interest in finding solutions that may help /others/ with similar problems.
The issue isn't just the concept of "adventure/plot" itself but the fact that the players didn't seem to want to interact with anything that wasn't /directly/ related to the rescue of people--even after the rescue was done they chose to seperate and go where they went, and /not/ interact with the NPC's in their lives (one has almost /no NPC's/ tied to them, a situation I was working on remedying with the friendly fireman--but if they nod and walk off, and ignore the "hey wait a minute" I can't very well have the fireman strap himself to a catapult and launch himself after the character to try and continue the conversation. It be silly :) and that's not what I'm aiming for. That doesn't mean it won't show back up--maybe the next time they help the firefighters that fireman is killed, helping them--but what happens next time doesn't help increase the interaction/game time this session.
I wanted "perhaps try this" but got what amounts to "Who can we blame?", which doesn't resolve the situation at all.
Zak and Andrew gave some good ideas (even if Zak's doesn't work in that format for this particular game.)
I don't want to sound irritated but I am. I wanted some help, insight, not blame throwing and thats what these statements feel like
Bluntly, this reads to me like a GM who not only wants his players to play, but wants them to play just like he wants.
Your characters should come to the game 'before play' with some level of relationships built in.
How interesting is a game that involves lots and lots of action none of which has no emotional investement. Hollywood often makes films like that, and most people find them pretty shallow.
Come of as being very presumptious about the nature of my gaming, and seem to be wanting to blame someone without actually providing solutions--I concede that yes it is possible it is someones fault, mine, theirs, the moons, but this isn't providing a solution--and thae fact is that I provided all the hooks, all the bait, but they didn't for any of it.
Perhaps we shouldn't have gamed that day--maybe it was the day's fault, or the time the game took place--but that can't really be altered since sadly I'm not prescient.
On 8/25/2002 at 7:45am, Sidhain wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Also, how does "Community" and "Seeking a place" tie into the rules? If you want a superhero game that goes beyond the cool powers, neat gadgets and flamboyant villains, you're going to have to either
a) Hold big discussions with your group on how things should play out, and make sure you're all on the same track, or
b) Incorporate the way you want play to work into the rules themselves. This would mean, if your group is interested in banter and Marvel plotlines (where the antics are a backdrop to the emotional plot), your rules should support this.
I missed this part earlier, I read it but didn't have it sink in.
In this case the characters Drive--the reason she is out doing superheroic things is Community--further defined by "Seeking a place", this means that she can re-test (re-roll) any action she failed at if she can justify it (via Internal Monologue) as fitting her drive--So in this case when Nexus was hit with the water and fell, she rushed in after him because of her drive--even though flames licked her wings she went in anyway. When she found him trapped flames moving in--unconscious and grabbed him she realized she was not strong enough to carry him, and so chose to summon winds to help lift her--she rolled and the test was a "failure", however in Hearts and Souls, only the final die roll matters--so she said something to the effect of "He's one of the only people who will understand what it is like to be so different from the rest of humankind, I cannot fail him" she therefore got to reroll--and succeded (She took stress for this, sort of "paying for the roll" because her first one wasn't successful--but she still got to push herself and suceed--real time it took two rolls yes, game time it was simply a minor vein in her forhead throbbing as she struggled to use her powers that way. Monologues play a big role in the game as does stress--I forgot the "witty" banter part and may allow people to use that to "buy off" stress if they make the gm laugh and it's in character appropriate (I loved MSH's Karma reward for humor)
On 8/25/2002 at 8:48am, Ian O'Rourke wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
If my post came off as offensive, then I apologise. I assure you that was not my intention. At times I feel the need to make analogies to make a point, under no circumstances ever take these analogies to be a direct reflection on your game.
Sorry, if I offended.
On 8/25/2002 at 10:29am, C. Edwards wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Hey Sidhain,
Maybe your players just aren't very proficient or comfortable with a game or playstyle that allows them more character "freedom". From your previous posts I gather that you normally run games that drive (or lead) the characters to an adventure's conclusion. If that's the case then your players probably just need time to loosen up and get in the swing of a playstyle they have limited experience with. Old habits die hard. Give them some time, and a little direction, and don't look at these initial play sessions as some kind of failure.
Chris
On 8/25/2002 at 2:17pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Hi Sidhain,
Thanks for sticking with the thread. "Blame" is not the issue - even in the phrases you quoted, interpreting them as blame-oriented shows me that you are pretty wrapped up in this issue, emotionally.
I'd still like to discuss this from the GM point of view, but I think you don't want to. Painstakingly re-stating any point of mine, in order to remove the context of blame, or stepping outside the notion of "story" or "adventure," in order to see how player-input is antithetical to some of the adventure descriptions you've given, would be frustrating to both of us.
Here's my solution. Your situation reminds me very greatly of Jesse Burneko's from over a year ago, in which he was pretty upset about (a) his GM-skills being challenged (in his view) by our discussions of Narrativism and (b) the fact that his long-term game wasn't turning out to be enjoyable, when he thought about it.
Jesse, correct me if I'm mis-representing you, but it seems to me that your first attempts to incorporate more player-input into your group produced some very uncomfortable, very weird sensations for you - and, incidentally, raised a lot of blame-issues within the group itself. A great deal of this had to do with your expectations of what players "should" do when presented with a particular set of "clues" embedded in chance encounters.
Jesse - maybe you're the guy to deal with this thread rather than me. Oh! Paul Czege, and Christopher Kubasik (who's out of town right now, away from his computer), you guys might be good at this too.
Best,
Ron
On 8/25/2002 at 9:25pm, Roy wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Hi Sidhain,
When I first came to the Forge, there were times I felt I was being personally attacked and had to unfairly defend myself. I'll tell you that some of those posts really stung me.
But the truth is that the other members weren't attacking me. They were asking me questions that forced me to think about things that had been bothering me for a while. Like a surgical laser, their questions pinpointed the exact problems I didn't really want to address.
Please understand that no one is attacking you. You don't have to defend yourself. We're all just very passionate about our gaming and want to help out any way we can.
If you're anything like me, you might want to take a closer look at the very things you're trying to defend. The fact that you are defending them might help you find something that's been bothering you without even realizing it.
These players expressed an interest in playing this game, as written with them having significant control. One player triggered his own phobia, a step in the right direction but only a step.
It could be that your players just don't know how to take control. A lot of people I've played with find freedom very stifling. You may need to teach them how to use that freedom in appropriate ways.
But how do you teach them? Create a character and play with them until they get the hang of it. Just make sure you play a supporting character that doesn't steal their thunder.
I want solutions darn it! :)
Here are a couple of things I suggest trying.
#1 -- REWARDS
Pick up a couple of bags of the individually-wrapped bite-sized version of your players' favorite candy bar. When a player does something during the session that you're wanting to encourage, say "cool" and give them a bar. After a few bars, they'll get the picture.
This is a metagame reward used to reinforce the behavior you're wanting to encourage.
The thing you have to watch with this method is to make sure you're not just rewarding them for doing something you personally find interesting. You need to reward them for using the techniques you're trying to teach them, even if they use it in a way you don't personally like. The players are not there just to entertain you.
#2 -- ENGAGE THE PLAYER
Get everyone together for a quick meeting before the next session. Just having dinner together is a great excuse.
Tell them you're wanting to try something a little bit different during the next session and ask them to help you with it.
Describe a setting for the next session, like the building that caught on fire. Then ask each of them to contribute something that would make that setting more interesting for them, like a villain that's behind it or maybe someone in the fire that they'd like to save.
After you've got their suggestions, stop talking about the game and just have fun together. You'll probably find them coming back to the game and adding other suggestions for the setting. This is a great sign that you're getting them interested and excited.
During your prep time for the next session, weave every single one of their suggestions into the situation and turn them loose.
The trick is to get the players interested and involved in the situation, then let the players find a way to get their characters involved. Hats off to Ron for making this point in the Sorcerer & Sword supplement for Sorcerer.
You might also want to check out the Universalis essay "The Importance of the Social Contract". Check out Universalis while you're there; it's pretty damn awesome.
I hope these suggestions help you get your game going in the right direction.
I'd like to say thanks to everyone at The Forge. You've helped me explore new ideas, better myself, and enjoy gaming again. Extra warm thanks go out to Ron, Mike, Ralph (Valamir), and Scott (Moose).
Roy
On 8/25/2002 at 10:22pm, Sidhain wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Ian O'Rourke wrote: If my post came off as offensive, then I apologise. I assure you that was not my intention. At times I feel the need to make analogies to make a point, under no circumstances ever take these analogies to be a direct reflection on your game.
Sorry, if I offended.
Not really offended per se--just irritated--offense is much deeper *L* It's jus tit is /very/ frustrating to have a normally good group of players suddenly /stop/ performing past behaviours even though these behaviours are what they said they wanted. Perhaps it's performance anxiety on their part?! *shrugs*
On 8/25/2002 at 10:30pm, Sidhain wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Maybe your players just aren't very proficient or comfortable with a game or playstyle that allows them more character "freedom".
It's possible, but then the question becomes "why this time and why now"
From your previous posts I gather that you normally run games that drive (or lead) the characters to an adventure's conclusion. If that's the case then your players probably just need time to loosen up and get in the swing of a playstyle they have limited experience with. Old habits die hard. Give them some time, and a little direction, and don't look at these initial play sessions as some kind of failure.
A lot of it has to do with "What game do I want to use", the vast majority are yes traditional games because most of them are familiar with that--they are easy to obtain for the non net people, and they've at least been able to flip through them in the game store. The "less" rigid games, I've been playing around with off and on for some time---and one of them is a big time Larp players (which has similarities of play--putting the person in control of "doing" themselves more often than a standard GM/Player game.)
Anyway thank you all for your comments, it's not that I don't consider them mind you, but I tried really hard to head off all these issues that I'd gleaned from reading here...
On 8/25/2002 at 10:47pm, Sidhain wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Please understand that no one is attacking you. You don't have to defend yourself. We're all just very passionate about our gaming and want to help out any way we can.
I don't percieve it as attacks per se, just trying to apportion responsibility for why the game didn't work as expected--rather than to find ways to keep it from happenning next time.
Now yes we need to know /why/ it didn't work first--but I went in girded with information from here on how and why it could go awry, and discussing these issues with these same players. So /my/ expectations were simply what the players had stated. It resulted in a game that was fairly flat, and short.
It could be that your players just don't know how to take control. A lot of people I've played with find freedom very stifling. You may need to teach them how to use that freedom in appropriate ways.
It is entirely possible--although they've done it in other games I've run for them (independently)
But how do you teach them? Create a character and play with them until they get the hang of it. Just make sure you play a supporting character that doesn't steal their thunder.
Well part of that was why I had Vigil in the "side-plot" so that he could show up and "teach" them how the heroes of old were, and why it's not so bad to try it that way--but, I have to get them to involve themself. I've had too many game where I simplay slapped a mentor type on pc's (I like the X-men formula *LOL*) so I was trying to avoid him being a full on mentor and more a "Kindly old guy" who can help nudge them the right way.
#1 -- REWARDS
#2 -- ENGAGE THE PLAYER
Both good ideas thank you. Bribery does work from time to time.
Tell them you're wanting to try something a little bit different during the next session and ask them to help you with it.
Well that was somewhat what we were doing this session...
the real issue with getting them together for dinner is well--getting them together, game time is precious, and few of us have schedules that meet and make time available more than once a week.
Describe a setting for the next session, like the building that caught on fire. Then ask each of them to contribute something that would make that setting more interesting for them, like a villain that's behind it or maybe someone in the fire that they'd like to save.
Alright, this is doable in some sessions.
After you've got their suggestions, stop talking about the game and just have fun together. You'll probably find them coming back to the game and adding other suggestions for the setting. This is a great sign that you're getting them interested and excited.
Well the fire was derived from "we want a challenge that is non-combat, but still life threatening" and fires, natural disasters and so on are great for this.
.
I hope these suggestions help you get your game going in the right direction.
It is appreciated as with all the comments (except the whose to blame ones :)P Joke!)
On 8/26/2002 at 2:20am, Roy wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Well part of that was why I had Vigil in the "side-plot" so that he could show up and "teach" them how the heroes of old were, and why it's not so bad to try it that way--but, I have to get them to involve themself.
It seems to me that you're confusing two separate issues, that of teaching your players and teaching the characters. You don't need to teach the characters how "heroes of old were", you need to teach the players how to use the techniques you're giving them access to.
Try playing a regular hero alongside the other players and let them learn to be better players by watching you. When they've got the hang of it, kill your character off. You'll get a great adventure out of it too.
Both good ideas thank you. Bribery does work from time to time.
You can look at a reward system as bribery if you want, but rewards lie at the very core of our being. I don't know if it's just human nature or if it's just so ingrained in us since we were young, but do not discount the effects of a good reward system. If you want a certain behavior out of anyone, you have to encourage it. It's just a Fact of Life.
You don't have to reward players with candy as long as you reward them with something. Try rewarding them with the excitement in your voice when you say "Cool! That sounds great!". Get creative.
Well the fire was derived from "we want a challenge that is non-combat, but still life threatening" and fires, natural disasters and so on are great for this.
If my suggestion on engaging the players won't work as is for you, change it. Sit down at the next session and tell them you've been horrendously busy with work (life, whatever) and you haven't really had the time to prepare, but you still really want to play ... so everyone is a GM this week. "So what dastardly disaster are we going to stop tonight, everyone?"
If everyone looks at each other with blank stares, say "How about a fire? No, we did that last week ..."
Once someone pipes up with something interesting, say "Cool! That sounds like a lot of fun! But we'll be done with that in ... like 5 minutes. What kind of complication can we add to that to make it more fun?" Just keep them thinking and adding twists until you're all satisfied, then play.
If you get done too quick, start another scene the same way. Or have one of the other players start a scene.
Roy
On 8/26/2002 at 5:58am, Sidhain wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Sidhain,
Thanks for sticking with the thread. "Blame" is not the issue - even in the phrases you quoted, interpreting them as blame-oriented shows me that you are pretty wrapped up in this issue, emotionally.
Yeah yeah Admantium skull---I stick with things to the bitter end, but it takes blackhole cutters to get anything new in my skull :)
I'd still like to discuss this from the GM point of view, but I think you don't want to. Painstakingly re-stating any point of mine, in order to remove the context of blame, or stepping outside the notion of "story" or "adventure," in order to see how player-input is antithetical to some of the adventure descriptions you've given, would be frustrating to both of us.
From a GM point of view--I gave them the tools (the rules) the suggestion of styles of play, and ran what they asked so I'm not sure, what your trying to say--There is a reason I beleve I put 'adventure' elsewhere in quotes, simply because it's not what it was /really/ but that's the closest word from traditional gaming that I had.
On 8/26/2002 at 6:07am, Sidhain wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
It seems to me that you're confusing two separate issues, that of teaching your players and teaching the characters. You don't need to teach the characters how "heroes of old were", you need to teach the players how to use the techniques you're giving them access to.
Well perhaps perhaps I misspoke--see the thing as I see it is that the characters weren't interacting with the world--to me that is a "fix the characters/game" situation, as the players in /other games/ have no problem playing their characters to interact with the world. So if in one game they work and do things in a manner which is consistent with their stated goals for the game--I expect that to carry over in /another/ game.
And I didn't say bribery was a /bad thing/ :)
You don't have to reward players with candy as long as you reward them with something. Try rewarding them with the excitement in your voice when you say "Cool! That sounds great!".
Now this goes back to the the presumptions that I didn't do this or something similar---I did--for example when the player activated his own phobia,I was delighted and reacted that way. My response was "Way cool! that's a neat idea" Now it's not a bad idea if it hadn't been tried already.
If my suggestion on engaging the players won't work as is for you, change it. Sit down at the next session and tell them you've been horrendously busy with work (life, whatever) and you haven't really had the time to prepare, but you still really want to play ... so everyone is a GM this week. "So what dastardly disaster are we going to stop tonight, everyone?"
Alright.
On 8/26/2002 at 11:25am, Roy wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
see the thing as I see it is that the characters weren't interacting with the world--to me that is a "fix the characters/game" situation, as the players in /other games/ have no problem playing their characters to interact with the world. So if in one game they work and do things in a manner which is consistent with their stated goals for the game--I expect that to carry over in /another/ game.
The characters are an extension of the player, so I would look really hard at what's causing the behavior in the players that is being manifested in the characters.
Here are some problems I can come up with off the top of my head:
1) Players are not familiar with the genre and not sure what their characters are supposed to do. Solution: teach the players about the genre.
2) Players are not engaged by the setting and don't care enough to get their characters involved. Solution: have the players create a setting that engages them.
3) Players are used to playing game X and are not sure how to play characters in this game. Solution: show the players how to play by playing a support character yourself.
4) Players don't really believe they have any control over the setting. Deep down they just think you're going to lead them along the same way you've always done in more traditional games. Solution: force them to take control by not preparing anything.
If anyone else can think of any additional problems, please chime in.
Now this goes back to the the presumptions that I didn't do this or something similar---I did--for example when the player activated his own phobia,I was delighted and reacted that way.
We're not mindreaders.
I would suggest you pinpoint an exact situation or two that you're having problems with, then give us as detailed an account as you can. You might also want to do a bit of soulsearching and figure out what it is you're not enjoying about roleplaying.
Roy
On 8/26/2002 at 7:09pm, Sidhain wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Here are some problems I can come up with off the top of my head:
1) Players are not familiar with the genre and not sure what their characters are supposed to do. Solution: teach the players about the genre.
2) Players are not engaged by the setting and don't care enough to get their characters involved. Solution: have the players create a setting that engages them.
3) Players are used to playing game X and are not sure how to play characters in this game. Solution: show the players how to play by playing a support character yourself.
4) Players don't really believe they have any control over the setting. Deep down they just think you're going to lead them along the same way you've always done in more traditional games. Solution: force them to take control by not preparing anything.
Well, some of this perhaps is accurate, some of it is not, because as I stated we did discuss the differences between H&S and some of the other games we've played. Talking with one of my players she suggested it may have been just the fact that there were only two of them--and the energy level of being a small group wasn't high enough.
We're not mindreaders.
Nope, none of us are.
You might also want to do a bit of soulsearching and figure out what it is you're not enjoying about roleplaying.
THere ya go trying to psychic friends network me--- :) Stop trying to mind read you can't do it :)P
See I enjoy role-playing a great deal, I just didn't enjoy a /single/ session of a single game. Not RP in general. (Although what sadly most of the world calls RP is not what I want---you know CRPG style hack and slash and power up characters, just not my thing.)
On 8/26/2002 at 9:39pm, Ian O'Rourke wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
I'm not sure how we can help at the moment, as you seem to be doing pretty much all we can suggest - without knowing the dynamics of your group to a rediculous level.
As a side note, is this a one-off thing after one sessions, or have these problems exhibited over a number of sessions of this campaign? I only ask becaue if it is a blip it may not be worth worrying about?
If you've detailed this and I've missed it, then I apologise in advance.
On 8/27/2002 at 2:56pm, Sidhain wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Ian,
thanks for sticking with me on this *L*
Anyway basically it was/is meant to be a continuing game a "comic book title" that continues, however my local problem with players (all of them have variable and different schedules so getting a large group of them together at one time is difficult) and I decided to run a game in which I'd just "go with whoever I had at the time" the first game session we'd discussed the rules, they'd been handled pre made pc's and I ran it to give them "how this system works" with four players. Now at the end of that session I told them they could make their own characters and that this session (with pre made characters) just a "fit" (Long story dealing with the fact that I had scenes they played out as superheroes and scenes in a mental hospital, and so on) in essence that construct was entirely designed to allow me to show them how the game worked without stepping on "what they want for the game". Trying to get all four back together again /since/ then has proven impossible (one has a new job, and hours are usually the opposite of my own since we work at the same place)--now the second session involved only one of the original four and another player (who we've played with before, but wasn't available for the first session)---this session went wonderfully--the heroes interacted with each other, with the environement and so on. The next session included the one who'd been at the /other two games/ and one from the first session but not the second--and the problems from this session the actual 3rd that are tied together by common backfrop and the one recurring pc.
Interesingly enough both the players in the third session did fine in the first and I'mb eginning to suspect it has something to do with player personality---some players assume leadership-roles in a game, unconsciously perhaps they give shape to other players ideas--they /being there/ helps the others act out more comfortably, play their roles more smoothly because they do it so naturally.
I note this as a player myself occasionally and far to rarely if I'm in a group the group tends to be more immersive because I simply won't accept less in my own playing style--me using accents and character traits provides an easier time for others to do the same, and this may be the same situation, but from across the table.
On 8/27/2002 at 3:42pm, Ian O'Rourke wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Yikes, my head hurts. I must admit, you are a braver man than me going with such a rotating group of players. I'd be inclined to have not gamed at all under those criteria - but then I'm picky :)
Okay, I must admit to having some trouble decoding the paragraph wher you describe who was at what session - and it sounds like you might have reached a conclusion with respect to one element of your problem? I got the impression this was because someone was missing from the third session (and again I'm assuming it is the third session that is 'faulty') that sort of provided inspiration in the second?
But then I re-read your post and I got to thinking the people there on the second session where in the third, then my logic fell apart.
I must admit, in my experience, though others people's experiences may differ, in such a 'who will turn up this week' campaign structure it can be hard to keep the 'energy' level up no matter what style of game you're trying to create. At the same time, the game sounds very young, with only two official sessions (I assume I have this right?) and as such you may be worrying too much at this point? It might be a blip?
As you no doubt know, sometimes things just fail 'to go', people may be tired, or may be someone is missing who provides a bit of impetus. At this stage, unless it continues for a number of sessions I'd go with the flow. Of course, with your rotating player set-up it might be hard to factor in a solution from analysing more 'broken' sessions - assuming they occur.
Since you noted that you sometimes provide this impetus as a player - is it not possible to provide that impetus as the GM? You may well be doing all this, all we can do is suggest.
Overall though, I'd just go with the flow for a bit, and see what happens. Giving advice in this manner is like shooting in the dark a lot of time :)
On 8/28/2002 at 3:40am, Sidhain wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Ian--basically I had one recurring player through all three sessions, the others varied each session.
Skipiing to the end--as a GM, I do provide some energy in my games, and inspiration but I really am trying to turn the game more significantly over to my players and step back from being so involved. It may not work with some players, and I suspect the best way may be as Roy suggested to literally maek me a "pc" to step in and play with them--since the game allows a GM to step back a bit it might just work--allowing me to play the person and not worry so much about running the world/rules/situation.
On 8/28/2002 at 12:45pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: The problems of players.
Hello,
I think that the "more player control and/or investment" concept pretty much requires full attendance. I don't see how a variable player-roster can result in the kind of effect you're looking for.
The reason for this is that Author stance requires perspective and interest in one another's characters beyond experiencing one's own character. To do this - and to riff off what's happening with another character, when playing one's own - the data have to be there. By "data," I mean the experience and interest of watching what the other guys (players) have done, both within the current session and during the previous sessions.
Without full attendance, a player has lost a huge amount of that necessary data and furthermore, has little sense of causal flow - and that's really important for the "more player control" to work as well.
Best,
Ron