Hi.

For several reasons, I have not been roleplaying for about two years or so. Its an oversimplification, but a quick explanation is I moved and haven't found a gaming group I meshed with well.

I have two roomates. Both of them used to roleplay. Recently, they approached me about running a game for them. I said sure, and thats when things started to get sticky. They approached me because they were both more casual gamers than I am/was, and I own my books still. My problem is I'm having deciding on what I'm trying to accomplish and what kind of game to play.

I have several problems that I can see, not the least of which are the preferences already stated by the 2 people definitely interested in gaming. One hasn't gamed since the 10th grade, and has fond memories campy & violent D&D sessions. He'd prefer "good ol' fashion [2nd ed.] D&D" but is willing to try a different game based on my recomendation. From what he's told me, he sounds very gamist in the sense of getting cool toys and using them against obstacles the GM throws at the party.

The other played extensively when he was an undergrad 7 years ago. His two favorite games were Vampire and TORG. Combat in his eyes is fun, but there are other things he would want to see than just constant battle. He also has explicitly stated that he will give anything a try except "high fantasy." From what I can tell, his problems are really with what Ron has called "D&D fantasy," and I'm afraid that any kind of fantasy game set in a pre-modern setting (LOTR, D&D, Sword & Sorceror, Exalted, whatever) are all tainted by his distate. This may get better sorted out if I spent an evening teasing out exactly what he disliked, but maybe not.

I tried sitting them down and very a VERY preliminary discussion of what people wanted, but it broke down quickly. There was a lot of shrugging, a lot of vague language, a lot of saying they don't know, and a lot of saying they trust me. About all they would willingly get pinned down on is that some level of violence, combat, and action is desired, and this should be balanced against "time to roleplay too."

There is no game on my shelf right now calling to me. If there was, this may be a lot simpler. As for me, I'm big on sim and illusionism (I'm intrigued by narrativism, but have never been exposed to it in play).

So, um, help is what I'm asking for. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I should go about getting the game started / talking with them? I don't feel comfortable completely taking charge, and I also don't feel comfortable demanding people to tell me opinions when they may honestly have none. Is there a way I'm supposed to carefully take control, or facilitate them having opinions I can work with?

I realize this isn't a comment on actual play that has already occurred, but I think this was the best forum to post this. Thanks.

Well...

You might try just playing with them. There are lots of free / inexpensive indie games available that you could try out. A series of experimental one-shot game sessions might help to calrify (for them, as well as for you) what they want out of gaming. Make it clear up front that you're just "trying out" the games, and then discuss afterwords what you liked and what you didn't like about each system. This will hopefully help them, as well as you, nail down what your specific desires are.

Starting with the goals you've laid out (sim / illusionism, possibly narrativism, combat, but some character role-playing also, player involvement) I suggest trying the following games:

Elfs - Do this one first! This will probably appeal to both players, because it's a satire of traditional campy D&D playing. I think it has a good mix of traditional style and interesting new ideas to spark some good post-play discussion for you. It's also exceptionaly un-serious, and makes a good ice-breaker.

Donjon - This is more of an homage to D&D than a parody. It might take a little tweaking to get the player who dislikes "high fantasy" into this one, as it's much like D&D fantasy. This one is also a discussion sparking mix of the usual and innovative.

Both Elfs and Donjon have fun combat systems, and both can be played on the gamist side (Elfs, especially.)

If you find that your players are taking to the more unusual elements in these games, you might try something like The Pool / The Questing Beast or Universalis. (Universalis is GMless, and can be used to do just about anything.)

If you find that they aren't really into the director stance elements but are enjoying having an active hand in creating the story you might try Trollbabe. (I'm afraid that Trollbabe might fall into the category of "high fantasy" though, so that could be problematic.)

If you find that they just aren't digging the non-traditional elements at all, you might want to go with a comercial system. D6 is pretty nice, IMO. (There are actually some free D6 games available for download.)

Yeah, I own tons of games, and the thought of running several 'sampler sessions' occured to me. Its just that the statement was "We want a campaign," and things got clogged from there. Obviously, playing will make it clear what some people mean and don't mean. I was trying to figure out how to deal with that clog as much as possible before play started. Maybe I'm just over-planning. I do that sometimes. :)

Planning is good, but I don't think that very many people other than serious theory-heads can really articulate what they want out of a game. They know what they want, but unless they've encountered something like GNS, they don't really have a vocabulary with which to describe it.

When dealing with people who's gaming desires are a matter of imbedded perception rather than theoretical dissection, it really takes actuall play to suss out what they want. One big reason for this is that they often say and believe that they want one thing, but in actual play they behave differently.

This is why I suggest one-shots. You don't want to put in a lot of time and effort to embark on a long-term campaign, only to discover that what your players wanted in theory isn't really what they enjoy in practice.

Any of the flavors of Pulp Serial 'genre' roleplaying might suit your players. Typically has lots of action etc for the D&D nostaglic, while not tripping the High Fantasy alarm.

as far as campaign... it always ends...

Will our heros escape from (misc Evil Genius, Dinosaur Island, )?
Tune in next week for the exciting adventures of ... (Buckaroo Banzai, Dirk Danger, Indiana Jones, Flash Gordon, etc)

If you're looking for a straight forward game recommendation I'd go with Adventure.

Why?

1) its not high fantasy.
2) it basically uses the WoD game mechanic which one of your players is already familiar with.
3) its got plenty of room for all the slap bang action and fight scenes they could possibly want (with even a few opportunities for "monster" types given the nature of the pulp world).
4) it also has plenty of opportunity for those other interactions that happen in between fights that fight oriented people refer to as "yeah and some roleplaying stuff too"
5) doesn't require huge amounts of prep...its pulp. If you have lots of action and cool color the plot doesn't need to make much sense.
6) suitable for one shot adventure but easily adapts to a campaign if they decide they like it.
7) if you're already familiar with WoD mechanics (and most people are) its pretty easy for you to get a grasp on without sinking alot of time and effort into something they might not like.
8) it only has really 1 book that you need (don't know how many ever came out for it) and it isn't that expensive a book.
9) it has some pretty cool mechanics like "Dramatic Editing" that sneakily give players some non-traditional power over the game that works well for introducing such concepts in a non threatening way.

That's my suggestion.

Check out Riddle of Steel. Go grab the quickstart rules and get cracking!

Dread.

You've got your violence for the first player plus he can have fun trying to figure out the demons you throw at them. It's not D&D-style fantasy which should please your second player and there's more to do than just combat.

Clearly, you need Dread.

Hi Nick,

I strongly recommend considering, not the other people, but your own self. Why are you playing?

If it's "just to be playing," then perhaps some re-evaluation is in order. Role-playing is one of thousands of possible leisure activities. You could be watching TV with friends. You could be hiking on a forest trail. You could be playing pickup volleyball. You could be scouting for sex. You could be throwing rocks at passing trains.

Why role-play? What do you enjoy about it?

I'm not asking this in order to learn your own, personal answer. That's your business. What matters is whether you can see any value to getting together with these people, at this time, and have any expectation of enjoying yourself.

If so, then bonus - do it, prep it, play it, and see how it turns out. If they aren't able to articulate what they want, fine: set it up for maximum self-gratification in this social context (which is to say, not at their expense either), and find out whether you have a group or not.

Here are a couple of very old discussions to check out:
Playing in the band
Hooking the players
Looking for some advice

Best,
Ron

Valamir wrote: If you're looking for a straight forward game recommendation I'd go with Adventure.

Why?

8) it only has really 1 book that you need (don't know how many ever came out for it) and it isn't that expensive a book.

That's my suggestion.

While Ron's advice is sound, here's my own recommendations for systems to look at.

1. Pick something you're familiar with as a GM. This will make things smoother.

2. Go for systems with simpler mechanics. It may just be my personal preference, but I find that it also feeds into smoothing out a session after a long hiatus in play.

My personal choice is Call of Cthulhu, because most people can grasp the percentage mechanic, and I enjoy the genre. My enjoyment of running the game translates to the players enjoying the session.

Yeah, it sounds like these guys don't really know what they want all that much, and haven't played in so long that their particular styles will probably have eroded in their memories. Which means that you probably have an opportuniuty to introduce them to a style that you like.

I think that most people here think of gamers as having only one style that they can play with. And that may be true for certain individuals. But I also think that many people are more flexible than people imagine. And that, introduced to something fun, they'll go right along with the flow.

So pick somthing that you like, and doesn't directly contradict whatever feedback you've gotten so far and play it. Like Ron said, something that turns you on. Your interest will be infectious. Consider the game in question, then, and watch for incompatibility problems. Address them early and often, and you may well be able to make things stay on track. If you can't then talk it out, and perhaps move on to something better for you all.

But there's no reason that it won't all work out fine the first time. I think that people who know GNS seem to think that all combinations of groups and games have a large propensity for incoherence. But that's just not true. Most play is coherent enough for everyone to have fun. Sometimes it's about certain players altering their styles a bit, but that's not hard for an intelligent or thoughtful player to do, and still have fun.

IOW, don't overworry GNS before hand. Use it to fix, not to predict doom and gloom on what will likely be a good game.

Heh, how many people have players approaching them for play? That's a good sign itself.

Mike

Thank you to everyone. This has been very helpful to me. Some specific responses:

1) Adventure! was already on my list of possibles :)

2) Call of Cthulhu would be on the list, but I'm going to be the GM and one of the players knows Lovecraft MUCH better than me. I'd just as soon not tempt fate :(

3) As for GNS, the Forge is the only place outside my mind I'm using GNS. It'd get a whole lot of blank stares if I dumped that on the players, so I'm not. Its just been used by me on an analytic level to organize my thoughts.

4) Thank you very, VERY much Ron for reminding me I have a stake in this beyond pleasing others. Also, the links were helpful, especially the 'playing in the band' and 'hooking player' threads.

I'll keep you guys posted on how this works. If I hit any snags, I'll ask questions. When play actually occurs, I'll post here how it goes. I'm probably going to put together some very short, 1-session games for different games and see what people like. Beyond that, we'll see

Maurice Forrester wrote: Clearly, you need Dread.

dunlaing wrote:
As for the "not that expensive" part--if you live in the United States and are a stickler for the finer points of retail law, it only costs 10 cents.

Nick Pagnucco wrote:

I tried sitting them down and very a VERY preliminary discussion of what people wanted, but it broke down quickly. There was a lot of shrugging, a lot of vague language, a lot of saying they don't know, and a lot of saying they trust me. About all they would willingly get pinned down on is that some level of violence, combat, and action is desired, and this should be balanced against "time to roleplay too."

.