Okay, last weekend I had another horrible session with my group, and I'm not even going to go into it. The details aren't relevant, I'd just be ranting. So, my situation is, these guys are probably the only intelligent gamers in my hometown-all the rest hang out at a comic shop and trade pokemon cards. "The wrong group" isn't the problem anyway. Any other day of the week they could have an engaging discussion, but rpgs turn them into children. It's just that these guys are perfectly fine with having bad sessions that drift towards gamism, or start off that way and then go nowhere, because they're just trying to kill time. They're fine with it, I'm not. If I try to talk about it, I end up bringing in things I've learned here, and they start thinking I enjoy sounding elitist because I have an rpg forum to hang out on. I know these guys would enjoy an rpg with cinematic orientation, or maybe tell a story on a good day, but they don't see the point in learning or even having another system when they already know how to play DnD, GURPS, and Vampire. Go figure. I was going to ask for suggestions, but the last few sessions I've been thinking about hanging it up, and I need to just do that. Now I don't know why I'm posting this. Guess I'm contributing to 'actual play' having the only depressing posts on the forge.

Ron said something about frustrated writers turning to rpgs, I think that about fits me perfectly. I should stay at home and write some things I've been putting off for a few years.

Yeah, and then I'll go spend twenty years in a monastery learning kung-fu. Right. Ah, whatever.

ah.... whats the words I'm looking for here... oh yeah. Been there, done that.

You must have gotten one of my long abandoned, pushed to the recesses of my memories groups or something. Had the same problem.

Back when Vampire: TM was an indie game put out by some little upstart company that had only done a magazine and some other small unmemorable stuff. I picked up V:TM based off a review in Dragon, back when it was a good source of information about other things besides deeunddee. I really liked the ideas behind it, humanity rating, trying to overcome the loss of your previous life, the quick easy story based system (remember the age when this game came out, back in the book o' rules days).

My group just couldn't handle the ideas of the game and played it monty haul, no matter what I did. They just didn't want to try. I had wanted depth of characters and all that. They didn't care. Drove me nuts for two months.

Then I just stopped showing up to run the game. Built another group person by person. Then started running the games I have always wanted to run.

Thats what you gotta do. Start over. At least in my opinion.

Later.

PeterAmthor
http://peteramthor.darkgod.net

Another approach would be to just not talk about the Forge. Whenever I mention the Forge, my group gives me disinterest. They're there to play, not discuss theory. At least, not to discuss theory with all the jargon they don't know. After a session, when we talk about the system and the adventure, we do it in layman's terms, with no jargon. Instead of asking if a rule promoting gamism overshadows the simulationist bent, I'll ask, "So does spending these points for an advantage distracts from the gameplay?" (where gameplay is implicitly: The realism of the game's world).

As far as introducing another system, you may have to get a new group. Or you could try picking a game that's similar to your player's interests and go from there. D&D-heads might get a big kick out of Clinton's Donjon. Vampire folks might be interested in Sorcerer (demon = vampire powers).

Lastly, I'd advise against telling the players they are going to have a revolutionary experience, or anything like that. They'll likely get skeptical and heck, when you play it probably won't be revolutionary. Our group's play style is evolving and changing, so that comparing our first session with our last may look revolutionary, if you ignore all the sessions & discussion in between.

Hi there,

It may be worth considering that Gamism isn't a bad thing. If that's what they want, then that's what they do ... and you're the odd man out. Now, all that is an "if," 'cause I don't know the people and so on. But it does sound a bit like their plain old goals and yours aren't compatible.

Taking a break isn't a bad thing either. It might be good also to decide what you're gaming for. When I realized, a few years ago, that I really needed to write a few short stories and stop inflicting that need onto players, it helped a lot to stop gaming for a while and just write. Then, upon gaming again, I found that I was "clear" and able to accept what the players had to offer rather than force my "must write X" urges upon them.

Best,
Ron

Ron's got a really good point there, with different play goals. One of the first games our group played was InSpectres, which I was certain they'd love. Turns out, they didn't want to play everday joes, and they weren't comfortable with the increased player control. I went back and tried Call of Cthulhu d20, but that was a bust (the tactical calculations and huge skill lists turned us off). So I wrote a game to fit our group's current preferences, which turns out to be (jargon ho!) Exploration of Situation and Character, with a side of Gamism.

Hey,

I think you should seriously consider the Scott Knipe method. If I'm recalling correctly, a few years ago he was in a similar position as you, the lone voice of stylistic experimentation in a group that was perfectly comfortable with their traditional style of play. He'd been messing with his own game designs for a while, but rather consistently failing to generate any interest in playing them from the group. What ultimately ended up breaking the logjam for him was writing Nightwatch for InSpectres. There was something about writing a supplement for some other designer's game that gave him credibility by association, such that when he "needed to playtest" it, his friends were willing. I think you should find an indie game you'd like to play with your group, conceive of a supplement for it, and open a channel of communication with the game designer about your interest in doing a supplement. The credibility by association, and the eventual need to playtest the design might just loosen up some of the inertia in your group.

Paul

My gaming group sounds about the same. I suppose the way I run games for them isn't really narrativist, but here goes. It might need many baby steps for your group to get out of the rut.

I always try to give them a mission. They, of course, are free to do something else, but I dangle this like a fishing lure. Usually, they nibble. Marc Miller, who created Traveller, called this the "pull", the goal they move towards. Rescue the princess, find the treasure, escape the dungeon, whatever. It gives the game direction.

I have lots of baddies to remind them the stakes are high. Marc Miller called this the "push", the stuff they flee from, or fight through, or try to avoid. The session starts to drag, throw some orcs or stormtroopers or whatever at them. I usually try to have a justification for these, not just random malice.

I try to create variety. I stole this idea from the Dream Park rpg: the "beat chart". In drama, there are beats, or scenes with a common motivation. Dream Park recommended alternating action beats (fight, chases, etc.) with development beats (clues, puzzles, intresting npcs, etc.). This way, you can sneak in the things you like, and keep lots of butt kicking action for them.

I also try to come up with interesting locales: cliffsides, vertical shafts, attics, cellars, moving vehicles. Rent "Raiders of the Lost Ark" for inspiration. The Inca temple, the fight on the truck, the Well of Souls: all physically challenging and unusual.

I try to make the opposition as mysterious and challenging as possible. My first few sessions, the bad guys got smeared. I gradually made them more powerful until my players really worked up a sweat. I give the bad guys a battle plan, especially in games with magic. Think of all the devious ways to use even low level spells. If you can, why can't your evil geniuses? And I never, NEVER, use standard "Monster Manual" foes. I always tweak them, and give them a reason for being where they are, even if the players never ask.

Another steal from Traveller: the patron. An old friend is in trouble, a young woman needs help finding her father, a wealthy dilletante needs chaperones, a merchants caravan needs guards. Short term, high risk, high pay (or a cut of the spoils). Again, they might walk away, in which case, up the stakes. This kind of character can also serve as a guide and source of information. Make them weak and in need of protecting, so the party doesn't just follow them. But this provides motivation they themselves lack. Gamist? Simulationist? Railroading? Yeah, maybe all of the above. But it beats being bored and discouraged.

Paul Czege wrote: Hey,
The credibility by association, and the eventual need to playtest the design might just loosen up some of the inertia in your group.

Good call, Leomknight. Traveller was the first game to have some really good ideas on how to run a more Simulationist game. Another big plus, Combat is lethal as all get out, so players are encouraged to get out of the Tactical mindset. A little. Traveller isn't the best at this, but given it's introduction it was great for the time. And a lot of Marc's essays are still valid today, not to mention a lot of the other stuff published for the game. For example, the "negget" adventure format was the first really good encoding of the "Roads to Rome" methodology.

Mike

If you're the GM for your group, there are some things you might want to try. Most of these things are discussed to in Sorcerer or its supplements, but I'm slow, and it took some beating to get them through my head.

a) one story for each character. The kicker mechanic from Sorcerer really drives this, and I have unabashedly stolen it for games in all manner of systems (including Traveller). For all that I read about kickers, I needed to see this in action to really grasp what it looks like and how to do it. The important part is that each character will get a little time in the spotlight,

b) Plot out important scenes. Figure out one or two important scenes for each character during the evening. Don't make them much more than a couple of quick notes about NPCs invovled and what the goals for the scene are, because it's a sure bet that the players aren't going to be following the script.

c) give the players enough rope to hang themselves. Ask them if there are things that they want to do. If the current pace of events doesn't demand immediate action, I tend to ask the players if there's anything that their character wants to do before I launch my scene. More often than not they'll tie their own rope.

Wow, useful replies. Ron, you're right. There's nothing wrong with gamism. I like to win too, but I'm not as much into the constant joking in-game. I'm the odd man out, so I should either get with the program or leave. These guys aren't as bad as I made them out to be, either, they'd really like to play some games I've shown them, but I'm never ready when a session surprises me as it always does. What it all comes down to is we don't meet regularly, so everything's a one-shot.

As for the supplement idea, that's perfect! That novel I was talking about is a SF world designed top-down, with no characters or plot yet. An rpg format would be a great vehicle for development. Follow in the steps of linus torvalds and huck finn before him, getting others to do my work for me. Muwhahaha. Oh, and I'll try not to railroad anyone. Hey, I can't do that if I don't have the foggiest what I want to happen, right?

Oh, and no more angry late-night posts for me. Well, thanks for all the ideas, folks.

Well, I'm in a vaguely similar situation with one of my groups right now. The problem seems to be that all of the players have lots of negative motiviations for the characters - they want to avoid this, not do that, etc. So I'm ripping my hair out trying to find something they DO want to do.

In your particular case, I have two suggestions:

1) See if someone else wants to GM. This will first off all get you off the hook of having to provide a scenario each week. Secondly, it give you an insight as to what the other people want (since most GMs design the kinds of things they'd like to play). And... it might just make you realize you were doing a better job than you'd thought.

2) If you do feel the need to write, try fitting it into the game. I know I have similar cases where I just need to write, and I can often tie it into the story of the game. My players almost always like my newspaper excepts that I'll give them periodically. These give me a chance to write, make the players feel cool by seeing a few of their characters' actions in the headlines, and also throw out half a dozen plot hooks at once without being overt (it works much better than "OK, you guys can do x, y or z this week").

Justin,

The problem seems to be that all of the players have lots of negative motiviations for the characters - they want to avoid this, not do that, etc. So I'm ripping my hair out trying to find something they DO want to do.

You should seriously take a look at the Kicker mechanics in Sorcerer. They'll paste right onto your game, whatever you're running.

Paul

Paul Czege wrote:
You should seriously take a look at the Kicker mechanics in Sorcerer. They'll paste right onto your game, whatever you're running.

This topic is deceased by now but I thought it deserved a happy ending. My friends and I have gone off to college, and due to the loss of several people including the resident GM, the four of us going to our local state university play board games and watch movies together. We're having a lot more fun each time, and maybe we can roleplay again at some point in the future.

Oh, and I recommend Settlers of Cataan to anyone with 30 bucks, some buddies, and a lot of time to kill. Great stuff.