I've been trying to run a game of the Dresden Files RPG for my friends lately, but it seems I'm not the best at variety.  My players always create the same powerhouse characters with little to no way of actually interacting with people.  I can't seem to find new and interesting ways to actually get the to interact or to even think about interacting before they try to blow up the building.  It's possible I'm setting a bad example by not continuing campaigns, but it's mostly because there's only so far a game can go when the only thing you're doing is blowing up enemies that don't stand a chance.  Do any of you have any suggestions on ways I could work social activities into a game?

I don't know the Dresden Files, but I am guessing it is alternate earth setting?
As such, I take it that after blowing up a building, the characters leave and relax somewhere? Have their characters, while in a pub for example, experience a family member crying his / her lungs out upon hearing of the death of a loved one in the explosion, maybe from watchign the news. Better yet, let them first watch in disbelief at the news and then go all frantic not knowing whether the loved on is alive or not. That'll make them think a little next time they want to blow something up. Or not, but at least it shows them their actions have repercussions without throwing them in jail.

Hi,

In your actual play, have you been setting the 'mission objective' for the players characters?

If so, they are simply trying to find the shortest path to completing the objective. Or the one less arduous and more fun.

If you are setting mission objectives and are going to stick with that, why not just make part of the objective require social interaction? "You must convince person X, without intimidation, torture or murder!"

Hello,

I think you are very far down a road which is already the wrong route for what you say you want. Your friends are almost certainly playing for reasons of their own which clearly preclude any fictional social interactions.

You are going to have to address this in terms of real-world personal discussion. Do they, or do they not, want to play characters who interact with NPCs? If not, why not? Part of this discussion will certainly have to expose what you want them to interact with NPCs for. I suggest you review that issue carefully. Perhaps if you articulated it here, we can talk about ways to make that discussion more successful.

Bluntly, trying to "make" them play differently by using in-game techniques, as Daniel proposes, is an exercise in futility. In my 33 years of role-playing (that's role-playing, not my age), I have not ever seen that tactic work. Hundreds of RPG books have suggested it, but it is worthless.

Best, Ron

What are the characters' aspects?

That is where I'd look for cues.

Ron wrote:
Bluntly, trying to "make" them play differently by using in-game techniques, as Daniel proposes, is an exercise in futility. In my 33 years of role-playing (that's role-playing, not my age), I have not ever seen that tactic work. Hundreds of RPG books have suggested it, but it is worthless.

I suppose I will just have to talk to them and try to convince them that smashing someone is just as fun as talking to them.  Thanks for the help.

DudesInCapes wrote:
I suppose I will just have to talk to them and try to convince them that smashing someone is just as fun as talking to them.  Thanks for the help.

The problem with naming their character aspects is that I keep having to start over with new stories and new characters, because they'd rather beat everything up than follow the rest of the plot.  In most cases, their character aspects are usually rather ridiculous and they almost never use them.  It may just be that I'm not very good at actually GMing.

"The problem with naming their character aspects is that I keep having to start over with new stories and new characters, because they'd rather beat everything up than follow the rest of the plot.  In most cases, their character aspects are usually rather ridiculous and they almost never use them.  It may just be that I'm not very good at actually GMing."

The game runs on aspect.  I let some pretty weak aspects get in my DFRPG because I wanted to make nice and get on with the game.  Never ran FATE for this bunch before and I was eager to please.

But if you can't look players in the eye and say "c'mon, you can do better than that!" don't be surprised if the game falls flat.

Oh yeah. Follow the plot?  What does that mean?  You could be throwing events and situations at the aspects to see what reactions you get, compels, etc.  That should generate action and story.  But you can't get emergent story if you have some plot set up beforehand.  The scenario-creation advice puts aspects front and centre.

What I mean by follow the plot is following ANY plot.  Every time we play they just want me to set up a bunch of monsters for them to fight.  They don't want the story.  They want the battle.

Hello again,

I think you're going to have to decide whether you're posting here for solutions, or posting in order to complain.

What I'm seeing from your posts is that your friends simply don't want to play the same game you want to play. And by "game," I don't mean merely the FATE system, but role-playing as a whole. If they really and truly want to do it one way, and you want to do it another, then you're simply, flatly out of luck, and need to find other people to play with. Nothing can make them change.

If that's the case, and if you're merely complaining, then you're not going to get any replies here merely to pat your shoulder. The people here can definitely talk about how you can bring up the topic to them, or compare situations we've been in. but for anything to be genuinely helpful, then you have to be looking for solutions.

Now, maybe I'm getting the wrong impression. But I'm getting it from the way you're stating the problem in your posts, which looks very straightfoward. They "are" like this, they "want" this, and so on. And in your defense, if they are ignoring their characters Aspects when they're playing FATE of all things, well, yes, it does seem like you're dealing with pretty set views.

I'd like to help with your situation. Are you looking for solutions? And if so, do you have any reason to think that they, or at least one of them, might want to play differently?

Best, Ron

DudesInCapes wrote:
The problem with naming their character aspects is that I keep having to start over with new stories and new characters, because they'd rather beat everything up than follow the rest of the plot.  In most cases, their character aspects are usually rather ridiculous and they almost never use them.  It may just be that I'm not very good at actually GMing.

Yeah, I think you have to start viewing it like the bad guys. If everything they do is thwarted by a group of people blowing things up, you'll be sure they are going to take countermeasures.

Next time, have the bad guys set up a trap. Let them enter a building they will blow up (which, let's face it, never gets old) and have that be the bad guy's plan. When they set us up the bomb (catch the reference) have them get locked up inside. When they wake up from the explosion they will be in a cell. Something like that.

Or have them enter an underwater base. :D

I agree with Ron here. You need to actually talk to the players, to outline what everyone wants from roleplaying. There's no point trying to herd them into "correct" play, via in-world obstacles. In my experience, that'll just lead to a bad time for all, and potentially bad blood to boot.

happysmellyfish wrote:
I agree with Ron here. You need to actually talk to the players, to outline what everyone wants from roleplaying. There's no point trying to herd them into "correct" play, via in-world obstacles. In my experience, that'll just lead to a bad time for all, and potentially bad blood to boot.

I don't mean to be an ass, but why are you (plural) playing DFRPG?

You, as a GM, obviously want to get the most out of the system.  Using aspects, social combats, NPCs with real motivations, etc.  But your friends who control the PCs (and therefore the story) do not want that.  They sound like they want Shadowrun.  Which is awesome.  Some of my favorite times playing RPGs came from Shadowrun.  Because we blew shit up and robbed banks.

It sounds like the PCs want to shoot things.  Dresden has fun combat mechanics, for sure, but it's not the core of the game.  You are fighting the system instead of using it.  Have you considered a discussion on your frustrations and whether DFRPG is right for what they want?

wholeridge wrote:
"What the players want out of roleplaying" is not a valid character motivation. The characters need an in-story reason to do what the players will enjoy.

Daniel36 wrote:
How is that? Character motivations are by default not valid, because the players don't play the characters because their characters want to, the players play because the players want to. Their motivation is more important than their character's motivation.

Daniel36 wrote:
I am not saying they shouldn't be considerate about what you want out of the game (trust me, I have suffered the same problems), but their characters really have nothing to do with the game. Yes, they are a part of a story, and I agree the story would be way more fun for all involved if it were taken seriously, but if light hearted stuff is what your players want, then light hearted stuff you should give, or find another group (or game, as suggested)

Daniel36 wrote:
There is no denying there should be a middle road. If you want their characters to have a good in-story reason, then they should respect that and come up with it. But if that is not going to be enough for you, you have to reconsider the current set-up.

As an "immersive" player, it makes perfect sense to me that the characters would take the easiest path to their goals -- just as we all do in real life -- regardless of what the players want out of roleplaying. "What the players want out of roleplaying" is not a valid character motivation. The characters need an in-story reason to do what the players will enjoy. Otherwise the characters are acting irrationally and cease to be "believable" (in the literary sense of a character being believable).

It is true that both some games and some fiction make no attempt at meaningful character motivation, but I don't see evidence in this thread that the players being discussed want to play silly characters. On the contrary, in taking the easy path of violence -- which the GM has inadvertently left open to them -- the players are having their characters behave very realistically.

Well, yes, you might be able to scold the players into both making their characters behave differently and inventing in-story reasons for that different behavior. But if, as I suspect, the real problem is that the GM created a scenario in which bombings and beatings were the quickest route to success, then doesn't it make more sense to plug this loophole in the scenario design than to sermonize at the players?

Guys, please hold off on your abstract discussion of player and character. It isn't helpful to the needs of the person who started the thread and in fact, may become a comforting distraction from the extremely concrete issue he is facing.

Best, Ron

I don't think this question has come up yet, so I'll ask it:  Who, among yourself and your players, have read (or seen) any of the Dresden Files original source material?  I may also have followup questions.

Cheers,
Roger

Roger wrote:
I don't think this question has come up yet, so I'll ask it:  Who, among yourself and your players, have read (or seen) any of the Dresden Files original source material?  I may also have followup questions.

Cheers,
Roger

I'd like to challenge the advocates of "talking to the players" to give an example of what such a conversation would look like. I've read thousands of words from the old "narrativist wars" threads (and still have questions about what was meant by all that verbiage), but I doubt if any of the people I play with have ever even considered the question "what everyone wants from roleplaying". What could I say to them that wouldn't make them feel that I was wasting their time with abstract intellectual theories in which they had no interest?

DudesInCapes,

I just wanted to say that I've been in your situation. I'll hold of on offering specific advice, but I can say that I didn't personally "get through" this issue with my players until I backed things up like Ron said and had a discussion about what we all wanted from the game. Best of luck!

wholeridge wrote:
I'd like to challenge the advocates of "talking to the players" to give an example of what such a conversation would look like.

If you do wish to push the envelope, and I realize this cuts against prior posts, then I would suggest sticking close to combat and presenting social situations which are both obligatory and closely tied to tactical concerns.

E.g.s

- You have to kill someone. he is in a crowded room, and you don't know who it is. The social interactions involve identifying the target while maintaining secrecy and keeping a tactically sound position.

- Your goal is to protect someone. The fight will occur on someone else's initiative and social interactions go hand in hand with identifying potential threats.

- Four parties are poised for battle. No one party could take them all. Negotiations will determine whether or not the odds will be poor, even, or damned good.

- The party loses and they are prisoners. Luckily, there are factional differences among the enemy. Playing them off against each other through social interaction is the only way out.

No these aren't real specific to DF; it's just what comes to mind when I think of spinning a  little role playing for players that are gung-ho for battle

Brimshack wrote:
If you do wish to push the envelope, and I realize this cuts against prior posts, then I would suggest sticking close to combat and presenting social situations which are both obligatory and closely tied to tactical concerns.

E.g.s

- You have to kill someone. he is in a crowded room, and you don't know who it is. The social interactions involve identifying the target while maintaining secrecy and keeping a tactically sound position.

- Your goal is to protect someone. The fight will occur on someone else's initiative and social interactions go hand in hand with identifying potential threats.

- Four parties are poised for battle. No one party could take them all. Negotiations will determine whether or not the odds will be poor, even, or damned good.

- The party loses and they are prisoners. Luckily, there are factional differences among the enemy. Playing them off against each other through social interaction is the only way out.

No these aren't real specific to DF; it's just what comes to mind when I think of spinning a  little role playing for players that are gung-ho for battle

Hi there,

Finally getting a chance to address this.

To the point of this thread
I have only rarely seen an instance of "Hey everyone, let's talk," resulting in improved play. I don't expect to see it here. What I see based on the limited information is people who really ought to part ways, with "play something else" being a limited or marginal alternative. It's brutally obvious that the group is not committed to what The Dresden Files has to offer, either procedurally or in content. My advice for them to talk is seriously directed toward clearing the air about that, with a maybe 10% proviso that it might work out.

Dan (wholeridge), you asked for an example of what that conversation would look like. I can tell you fairly that it would resemble nothing like the conversations here among people who've agreed to talk about role-playing at an ideas-based level. My best example - which comes from setting up for play, not from deep within a train wreck - can be found in my D&D threads:

From reading a number of posts here at the Forge over the years, I get the idea that role-players think these discussions need to be encounter groups - ripping the emotions out, revealing long-standing trauma, hugging as they collapse into, at last, honest tears. Maybe it does have to be among role-players, although I don't think so, but it certainly doesn't have to be so among non-role-players.

Let's see ...

Me: OK, there are two main ways we can do this. One is more like a video game, where overcoming the monsters and traps is the point. I'd set up a maze and you guys would try to clear it, win or lose. The characters' personalities are there mainly for fun, but not a big deal. The fighting rules are really cool and part of playing would be to get better at them. The other way is more like writing a script as we go along, where the characters are in a difficult situation and have to make decisions and put their lives on the line about it. Their personalities are therefore a really big deal and you should know, I won't be able to dictate what they do or what they think is important. Oh, and don't forget, they can die in the second kind of play, too.

Christopher: The second way.

Dan. The second way.

And that was it, and that's exactly what happened without fail, and without apparent effort or need to remind ourselves at any point - not one - during play.

Also, to fend off any reader-based projection, no, I did not curl my lip or otherwise imply with my tone or expression that "video game" type play was a lesser thing. I presented the options fairly and said I was willing to do my best as DM either way.

Me: OK, there are two main ways we can do this. One is more like a video game, where overcoming the monsters and traps is the point. I'd set up a maze and you guys would try to clear it, win or lose. The characters' personalities are there mainly for fun, but not a big deal. The fighting rules are really cool and part of playing would be to get better at them. The other way is more like writing a script as we go along, where the characters are in a difficult situation and have to make decisions and put their lives on the line about it. Their personalities are therefore a really big deal and you should know, I won't be able to dictate what they do or what they think is important. Oh, and don't forget, they can die in the second kind of play, too.

Ron wrote:
Dan (wholeridge), I have run into this issue regarding the "conscious conspiracy" before. I think it's a bugaboo worry, based on either accidental or willful mis-reading.

When you say you'd like to participate in making a story (and here I mean, characters' decisions genuinely producing plot) through being deeply immersed in playing your charater, there's nothing in what you're saying which is incompatible with my notion of Narrativist play. The word I've used is "mindful," deliberately not "conscious" because of the latter term's connotation of distancing oneself from the experience.

Ron wrote:
The issue I've raised, causing much anger, is that such story creation (which is not the only way to produce a story in role-playing) doesn't happen wholly by accident, and does rely on a shared, genuine desire to play in this way. I am not sympathetic to the various reasons this point upsets people. Since I'm not saying everyone has to cross their arms, look serious, and direct their characters like little pawns, and since I think that "playing my character" and "making a great story" are in this case synonyms, there's no reason for anyone to be as upset as they've been.

wholeridge wrote:
I don't think that I have ever played with any roleplayer who would choose the first alternative. Certain no roleplayer above the age of 15.

So out of curiosity, jburneko, how's the new direction working out with your group?