Hi. I'm mostly a lurker here, but I've run up against a wall in my last few campaigns. I could really use some solid advice from you guys (and girls) at the Forge.

You see, the problem I'm having with the groups with whom I currently play and for whom I currently run is with the characters. I had been hitting this glass-ceiling of Simulationism and Narrativism, while the wind was being kicked out of the sails right at the last moment. This rarely happened (for me) in games in which I only played. Generally, my PCs are built as seething cauldrons of Kickers, Bangs and Story Elements. Typically, more meaty stuff for my characters is left on the GM's Cutting Room Floor than I've ever encountered coming from other players when I GM.

The reason for this is simple, to me at least. I find complicated characters to be more interesting over the long haul than cardboard cutouts. So, characters that I play often have families, significant others, tragedies, ad infinitum. This also raises the ire (I've noticed recently) of some players as subplots tend to intersect with my characters more than others. Other players in these gaming groups also tend to get bored with their unstoppable bricks that appeared out of nowhere just as the momentum is really starting to kick in for my 50-year former Wizard's Apprentice with a Lotus-powder habit and a daughter that hates his guts.

Something I've noticed quite recently is that I'm enjoying playing more than running. I enjoy running games. I'm okay at it. But the lack of enjoyment from running the games was merely the result of stories going pretty much nowhere. The characters that the players were bringing to the table had no ties to anything and therefore existed just for the combat. No matter what game I brought to the table, the groups' default mode of play was "hit us with your best shot".

I tested my theory about characters making games more interesting by running a few one-shots and short 2-3 game adventures using pre-generated characters that I had made. The games were a hit. The groups STILL talk about these games, months after they have been run. They talk about the pregens they played as if they were their own creations even though the pregens had flaws and challenges within their character concepts that the players (in these groups) would have never introduced of their own accord. A few even want to continue these games later on. I'm not adverse to doing so, but a number of players want to create their own characters. Their concepts: Vampire Hunter D, without the funny hand thing.

I'm not sure why this is but I'm theorizing, from my observations of the groups with whom I play and run that:

1) Many of the players want the "untouchable" character. The character that can't get dropped in combat, has no history to truly haunt him/her, never makes a mistake, etc.

2) Many of the players want this "life insurance" because they have something invested in their character after spending an hour or more making them. I think the pregens went over so well because the players had nothing invested in the characters up front. It was okay for some of the players to have a pregen character who had a nagging mother and no physical skills because they didn't make the characters. They were just playing them. Oddly, this produced more protagonistic play as the players were more apt (from my observations) to send their characters into harm's way. So a player who was adverse to drop his 20 CON fighter into a fray to save a damsel in distress had no problem pitting his STR 1 (Buffy) weakling up against the school bully.

3) Players, of course, get bored eventually with their "untouchable" characters as they find no real "character" there to explore. There's no depth. So the game soon degenerates into an exploration of setting rather than character and, subsequently, the focus of the game goes from the individual players to the GM. To the default, "let's see what the GM throws at us this week" as opposed to a game exploring the characters that they have created.

So, I was looking for any corroborative experiences here that others on the Forge may have encountered with "life insurance" minded PCs. I was also hoping to find a means of turning this mode of character creation around. For systems, we've played most everything from Feng Shui to D&D to The Window to Over the Edge, but the end result has been the same. The players spend 40 minutes trying to figure out how best to maximize their damage causing and damage soaking capabilities and return with a background such as "I was orphaned when I was a small child and do not remember my family or have any friends or pets. I am a powerful warrior now. Go."

Oddly enough, I've only had 1 character die in four years of GMing in this area. I'm not a killer GM. So what's up?

Hello,

Wow - what a thorough post. I think in many ways you answered most of your own questions regarding the other people, so perhaps the real question is, What do you want to do?

If you want to keep playing with these specific people, then there's a bit of a problem. You want them to play very differently from what they're used to. It seems to me as if - pending some major input from tuletary deities or sunspots - they are not especially inclined to change their habits concerning characters they make up themselves.

Perhaps a kind of blend of the pregenerated vs. wholly-player-generated concepts is your best bet. There are lots of ways to do this, but what if you were to provide five or six "frameworks" containing nothing but contexts for the characters (brother to whom, escaping from whom, etc), and let the players fill in powers-stuff? For instance.

Less drastically, do exactly what you did before with your pregenerated characters, but this time, provide each one with a "crossroads" set of options for the player to choose among, during play, when the time comes.

I also strongly suggest checking out the material available for Legends of Alyria (see the threads in that forum for links), as well as getting your hands on the game InSpectres. Both of these games take an unusual approach to character creation, such that the players really can't do that classic "my guy, no ties" model, and they're far more engaged in what's going on than is typical prior to play.

Best,
Ron

I think Ron has a lot of good points.

The key thing was this: your pre-gen experience worked wonders. That's important. They *can* get behind the stuff you like. Here are some more suggestions:

1. Exploration of Setting can be *closely* tied to character. Or rather, instead of giving them Setting, give them Situation and make it applicable. This can be going into the family vaults and finding out old Uncle Warchester was a really *bad* guy ... and his family is still probably doing those same bad-things--to Ron's brilliant concept of kickers (check threads).

2. Something I've toyed with is telling each player to come up with a way their PC is related to the two PC's next to them. It can be shared goals, a shared past, a blood relationship, etc. You might get "We all went in the dank dungeon together"--so maybe talk to them about why you're doing that ("This game will be shaped by your characters so make 'em interesting")

3. Make the characters before the first session. Then you can take time to wrap the story around them (I dunno if you're doing this or not)--it's hard to retrofit Wolverine ... but with two shotguns when everyone is at the table and you've got *anything* pre-prepared.

4. Consider playing a "focused game." Invite everyone who's interested but make it clear that this is an alternate gaming night to try out "this weird character-oriented stuff." Anyone who shows up should be ready to make a deep character (give 'em guidelines before hand).

-Marco

Thanks Ron and Marco for the advice. This was exactly what I was hoping to find here. Ron's idea of "frameworks" are great. The players responded well to the "templates" in Feng Shui, although the "melodramatic hook" was often glossed over. I'm not so sure about "giving up" the group so to speak. My observations cover three separate gaming groups in our area (roughly 25 or so different gamers). Each week, I run one game almost exclusively and play in two others. The other two I also run from time to time, but not all that often. Being that a number of these players are pretty good friends of mine, I wouldn't want to isolate any of them by selecting a core group of players for a separate, more Narrativist style game. Although I admit that this would probably be the most efficient means of achieving my goal (more player/character driven game sessions).

Thanks also for the links. I'll take a closer look at InSpectres. I've corresponded off and on with Jared in the past. I really respect his work. He's prolific as all get out. I have looked over Legends of Alyria, but, other than knowing that Seth Ben-Ezra has a name I would kill for, I must admit I'm not all that familiar with it. Thanks again for the direction.

Marco:
I think you picked up on the same wavelength as me in noticing that the groups (all 3 of them) responded with more character-driven play when given pregenerated characters. Even with templated characters they were more prone to act proactively in the story (although not much).

As a rule, I always do #3. Sometimes I'm more stringent about character than others. When I see a character that's really lacking, I tend to ask questions. I do a game that I call the "3 Why's". If a player says his character has no parents, I ask "Why does you character have no parents?" The result might be something like "They were killed by orcs." To which the resulting question is "Why were they killed by orcs?" And then, of course, the player follows with either something nifty like "They were sold out by my uncle." or something lame like "They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time." After I've gone through 3 levels of "Why?" I follow up with more detailed questions like: "Since your parents were killed who raised you?"; "Do you ever visit the spot where your parents were killed?" etc. until a character starts to form out of the morass. The problem is the majority of players tend to glaze over after the first "Why?" and some are completely tight-lipped after the third.

Of the four, I especially like numbers 1 and 2. No. 2 I will most likely use within the week. Thanks for the help.

As a follow up question, especially for Ron, do you think it's possible to start out with a shell of a character like, say, Conan at the Tower of the Elephant and then develop them along the course of the story? Of course, we know that Conan would one day become King, but everything else is pretty vague.

How would you do that, especially in regards to Sword and Sorcerer or games of a similar genre? The reason I ask is that I don't see it, hopefully, as being to terribly off topic and also I think that it might be an approach that these groups would be interested in taking.

Is there any way to handle the group of Solomon Kanes whose histories are revealed in play??

Thanks again for the help and advice. I'll let you know how Ron and Marco's suggestions work out. I'll also look into InSpectres and Legends of Alyria.

I can sympathize. We've got one player, who we've been playing with for six years, who is convinced that if his traits aren't high enough his character is going to die. Why this is completely ridiculous is that in the system we are using it is impossible for your character to die if you don't choose for it to happen. It doesn't seem to matter how many times I tell him we can't/won't kill your characters - he just refused to believe me. Near as I can it's because he still firmly believes that the rules end at the GM's screen.

I'd say "Try a system where character death is up to the players", but I haven't had any luck so far. Maybe you would have better luck with that approach, given these players seem to be suffering more from a rut than inflexibility?

I've been in that GM position of players playing nothing but walking statistics, so I though I'd throw in my two cents. You mentioned "Life Insurance" mentalities, I judging on the fact you want to get a more narrative game, this is an asset. You see even though it a superficial attachment they have to their characters, they have an attachment. You can use this draw drama out of them, since they don't want to lose their characters they value the in game life of their character, meaning they won't purposely go head long in to a potentially lethal situation, meaning they will react more like real people. So that means you can attack there minds instead of there combat ready sheets. Let me put this in to practice for you.

Awhile back I was GMing a game of Spycraft with my usual group, the game was a continuation of a pervious campaign, so in story terms a few years passed, in game terms they jumped up a few levels, well having invested a pervious campaign with the same characters they choose there levels so they maxed out there sats. Long story short, this made it hard to give them villains and challenges that they couldn't totally crush with their die rolls. So, reacting to this I attacked and challenged something about their characters that does not level up, there characters minds. I introduced a psychic that could force fear on people with dreamlike trances. What happened was when one character was affected I took them aside and gave them a one on one role-play through this dream. (of course they didn't know what was going on, they thought they were kidnapped and set to some weird prison or something) The thing that kept it edgy was that if they shot some one or set of a grenade or something, it happened in real life. (And they were asleep in the same room) so if the demolitions expert, a free sprit, was suddenly trapped in a 5' by 5' room, they try breaking out with explosives, but meanwhile the rest of the team sees there demo guy pulling bombs out and setting them up in their room, what do they do, he their friend and they don't want to kill him but he has a gun because in the dream the demo guy may see them as guards trying to stop him from escaping, so he will shoot at them.

I hope that was clear. Needless to say even if they didn't plan on character based role-playing by send certain situations at them I forced them to make decisions that require allot of character. The one situation jolted them in to expecting this kinds of deep decisions, make them think out there characters. Maybe this can help, I know it worked in my group, maybe it work for yours.

Good Luck With Your Game

Hmm....

A suggestion: use games where the best way to "munchkinize" a character is to give it a rich background. Riddle of Steel comes to mind; I only have the QS version but even that's mega-nifty. You might even want to make a few templates since they respond well to that sort of thing--like "knife fighter," "archer," "knight,"--I'd figure all the combat statistics and set the best Profession, and figure status, equipment etc.; and then let them choose the rest of their professions and, most importantly, spiritual attributes. Really stress spiritual attributes, like spending 5-10 mins with each player discussing where to put them.

And make sure they know the only way they can rock the proverbial house is to motivated to do so.

(oh yeah. And that learning curve bit. Uh...yeah, you'll get over that. ;] )

cruciel wrote: I can sympathize. We've got one player, who we've been playing with for six years, who is convinced that if his traits aren't high enough his character is going to die. Why this is completely ridiculous is that in the system we are using it is impossible for your character to die if you don't choose for it to happen. It doesn't seem to matter how many times I tell him we can't/won't kill your characters - he just refused to believe me. Near as I can it's because he still firmly believes that the rules end at the GM's screen.

I'd say "Try a system where character death is up to the players", but I haven't had any luck so far. Maybe you would have better luck with that approach, given these players seem to be suffering more from a rut than inflexibility?

Marco wrote: Wuh--woah. System Doesn't Matter.

*astonished*

I can't help but tinker with nearly any game system I run. The vast majority of rules that I change these days are related to character creation.

I tend to veer away from point-based systems in favor of a sort of "Pick some of these" approach. Example: Advantages/Disadvantages(Merits/Flaws, Qualities/Drawbacks, whatever). Instead of having point costs/bonuses for Merits & Flaws, I would simply tell my players "choose up to three of each", and simply ignore the point values. This way, when someone chooses a particular merit or flaw, they're doing it because it's interesting, not because they get more points.

I also do the same thing with equipment. I'm sick of seeing lists and lists of every last little trinket a character owns. Instead, I say "just tell me what the three most important things are that you carry around with you." I'm nice and I let them count stuff like "cigs & a lighter" as one item.

I will fully admit to stealing this idea from Jared (Specifically, octaNe's rule for coming up with your character's description).

This can be tailored to nearly anything you want highlighted in the game. I'm running Legend of the Five Rings next, and one of the things I'll be including is "come up with three NPCs that are important to your character". I'm also encouraging them to use the Heritage Tables found in the clanbooks.

One thing that has worked surprisingly well is Secrets. I told my Cyberpunk players: "Come up with a Secret that either your character is hiding, or something that is being hidden from your character. It will come out in-game." The great thing is that the players all came up with their secrets in front of the other players, so they were all in on it. Some would say that would kill the surprise, but it worked out better this way, because as a player, you were slowly nudging things toward this secret coming out, and because the others are in on it, they can help, but more importantly, they won't do something that will accidently screw things up for you. Nothing's worse than a secret that gets revealed too quickly.

I'm all for focused games. One of these days, I'm gonna run a game where all the players decide beforehand how their characters die, and then concentrate all my energy on simply getting to that point for each of them.

-- Ben

Scripty wrote: As a follow up question, especially for Ron, do you think it's possible to start out with a shell of a character like, say, Conan at the Tower of the Elephant and then develop them along the course of the story? Of course, we know that Conan would one day become King, but everything else is pretty vague.

crucial wrote: I can sympathize. We've got one player, who we've been playing with for six years, who is convinced that if his traits aren't high enough his character is going to die. Why this is completely ridiculous is that in the system we are using it is impossible for your character to die if you don't choose for it to happen. It doesn't seem to matter how many times I tell him we can't/won't kill your characters - he just refused to believe me. Near as I can it's because he still firmly believes that the rules end at the GM's screen.

Scripty,
I think that one of the problems that you are encountering with your group right now is that they have forgotten that they also have a responsibility to develop the story not only the GM. They have fallen into the trap of thinking that their characters are no more important than the paper and dice that formed them, or that their characters are too important to risk involving in a story that the GM has forged. They need to be reminded that their character is their way to buy into the story, add to it, and make the story theirs as much as it is the GM’s. I know that this is getting into 'Impossible thing' territory but it is through colourful, complex and engaging characters carefully woven into the setting with the game premise in mind that, in my opinion, gets closest to the game experience that you seem to enjoy, and facilitates a cooperative approach to story-telling

Perhaps your group has a lesson to learn, or more likely re-learn about how to best play in the same sandpit with each other. But how do you achieve this lesson? I cannot confess to know the best way to achieve a change in your gaming group, but I know that my current gaming group had a similar experience about a year ago, to the point that some of the group were considering abandoning gaming altogether. We decided on a course of action to remedy the problems in the group and I believe that we have rekindled our enjoyment of the hobby and perhaps brought our gaming experience to new levels. I have a few suggestion for you to take a look at, they are working for us, and they may work for you. Here goes.

1) Well in my group, as an element of the social contract, we have agreed to rotate the responsibility for GMing around the table, so that everyone gets the experience of running a game on a regular basis. Now some people like to play and some people like to run games. But I find that the effect of this round robin approach is that it gets everyone thinking like a GM. Everyone wanting to be part of the process of creating the game world. This is apparent in the character generation stages of successive games as players show a willingness to weave their characters into the game setting of their accord with Bang, Hooks, Kickers, Complexities and Hang-ups. Now we constantly surprise each other and this is from a group that has many years of role-playing experience. Decades in some instances.

2) Try new games. Systems do Matter. I agree with Ron you should try Inspectres, but I will add you should try Sorcerer, Riddle of Steel and Wuthering Heights. Experiment with new and funky games for short periods of time. I don’t know if that is what you are doing when you have been testing your theory. But a new system can help channel the group’s effort towards a common goal through a mutual exploration of the material. A new system can also break players out of established modes of play and get them to re-evaluate how they play. Like your group, we constantly discuss and debate the Sorcerer games we played in for a period of only 3 weeks over 6 months ago. But I do believe that we have taken the lesson learnt from the experiences in our games from one game to the next.

3) Finally I recommend that you get back to basics. The best way I can offer for you to achieve this is to get your group to get involved in a collaborative act of story telling. A wake up call to show your group how much fun being a part of the story can be. You should try Universalis with the group in one of two ways a) Use it to relearn what it is they like about gaming, involvement in characters in which they have invested time and energy. Create a couple of one-shot stories last no more than a game session or two. b) Use it to create the characters and setting for your next game. Start the session with a pre-made Setting, Premise and/or Theme, which will focus the game into using the system that you wish to GM and let the players create the game setting amongst you. After an hour or so, put away Universalis and break into the GM/Player mode.
Gary

Scripty,

I do not agree that system does matter. However some systems makes your job as a GM that much easier (which to me as a lazy sod is priceless).

My advice is to gradually reward your players with "story bonuses" as you explore their backgrounds in play. Let me show and tell:

In my current V:tm group we had a "lets make some characters and play tonight" session. We spent very little time on character background since we were all eager to play.
Instead we explored backgrounds during play. One player had car-thief ala GTA:Vice City (console game) as a concept. Coming from Philedelphia he asked during play if he had any contacts in New York (our setting). Sure he did, and when he met his contact we got a subplot and at the same time created a bit more background for the character. The same things have happened to the other characters to a greater or lesser extent.
Now this session has grown into one of the more memorable campaigns I have run.

This may create more work for the GM at first (oh joy!), but when your players start seeing the tangible benefits storywise of backgrounds, they will start thinking in those patterns (its pavlovian).

Eventually you will be able to make the campaign character driven.

There is not one way to solve this, but I think a combination of the advice given here, like Ben Morgan's three important NPCs, and a gradual approach will get you there in time.

Kaare Berg wrote: Scripty,

I do not agree that system does matter. However some systems makes your job as a GM that much easier (which to me as a lazy sod is priceless).

Double arguments, my spesiality.

Sorry for confusing you. I am as stated lazy. By that I mean that my preperations for a session 9 times out of 10 consists of a few loose notes of clues, NPCs and quick theme and purpose definition. The rest I have in my head or improvise.

By saying that system does not matter I am saying that you can create wonderfully detailed PCs in any system. The process is universal. It maybe that the GNS discussions have confused my definition of system, so to clearify this: system is to me *sharp intake of breath* the rules that come in the book.

What I was trying to show was how I go about creating backgrunds for PCs with close to none in play. I make them up as we go along. Often a player will grab on to the framework I suggest and elaborate on this himself. This involves trust between me and my players, but I found that it creates vivid and memorable games.

Some systems (per my def.) facilitate this (why I love TROS), but ultimatly one does not need the system. There you have my circular argument biting me again.

it really becomes sort of a zen like philosophical problem: Here is the game grasshopper, it will aid you on the way but it is not the solution.

You do not need rules to create backgrounds, but at times it may help.

Any clearer?

Before the conversation moves towards whether or not system matters, I'd like to extend thanks for all the really helpful ideas I've gotten here. I was hoping for some input here and certainly have not been let down. Thanks a bunch to everyone for taking time out of their day to jumpstart my brainpan.

Ben's idea of the use of "Secrets" is great as is his suggestion of 3's (borrowed as he admits from Jared). I'll most likely be using those ASAP. My group loves the idea of Signature Items, as they are items that the PCs can rely on forever.

Also Ian Charvill and Kaare's advice for "Build Depth as You Go" approaches may come in helpful. This kind of approach could certainly fit in with our use of Drama Points, either as a way for characters to spend or earn them.

Hello,

'Scuse me - please take the system mattering or not mattering issue to another thread for that purpose. Marco, help us stay on track with Scripty's issues in this one.

Scripty, your question about a sketchy character being filled out through play per se is unfortunately too broad. "Can" it work? Yes. Absolutely. I'm an advocate of either providing a background with lots of embedded conflicts, for sketchy characters that become richer during play; or starting with characters full of embedded conflicts, for a sketchy background that becomes richer during play. One of the character creation options in Hero Wars (a game built on the former technique in general) offers a very organized method of allowing a character to begin with only three words on his or her sheet, and becoming a full-fledged written-up character over the first couple of sessions.

However, the technique by itself is not a solution to what you're describing. If the player is used to setting up characters according to a certain conceptual template (survability, effectiveness), then he'll probably just switch from doing that pre-play to doing that during-play, with no particular change in the behavior that's bugging you.

In other words, if you want to have characters' histories get filled in through play itself, for purposes of getting richer and more-involved characters in general, then the players have to want to play characters of that sort. Again and again in your posts, I'm seeing a very strong tendency for you to ask, "How can I make them want what I want?"

And perhaps here's where the System thing is throwing people - no game system is, itself, going to make anyone want to do anything. It can at best provide a nifty pattern of relationships among its mechanisms to inspire new behavior - at best. More likely, the person will merely play the way he or she is used to, ignoring the features of a system that don't fit (and likely perceiving them as stupid or weird).

Here's the part of your post that sticks out like a sore thumb, to me:

Being that a number of these players are pretty good friends of mine, I wouldn't want to isolate any of them by selecting a core group of players for a separate, more Narrativist style game. Although I admit that this would probably be the most efficient means of achieving my goal (more player/character driven game sessions).

I am chastened.

Ron Edwards is right though.

"How can I make them want what I want?" . . . no game system is, itself, going to make anyone want to do anything . . . More likely, the person will merely play the way he or she is used to

Thanks again Ron and Kaare. I must admit, though, that Ron's post took the wind out of my sails a bit. I have repeatedly had "the discussion" with each of the groups as to the style of play I'm going for. I have had very enthusiastic reactions after each, even to the point that it's becoming old hat. The end result is, however, the same-old-stuff. I tell them about character driven play, how they can help develop the story through their character, help with character generation and then: "Whompf!" "What do we do?"

I don't think it's so much that the group wants something completely different from what I'm going for as it is that they have nothing to gauge it against. They have no idea how to do it. That's where the advice comes in.

Most of these guys, and girls, have been playing rpgs since the '80s. Most of them learned by playing with other people and have a particular mode of play ingrained in their brainpans. Most of them erroneously perceive characters with kewl powers to be characters with depth. There's a disjunct here. They know "how" to play and make characters. But they don't know about "character". A part of me thinks that they don't want to think about it that much, partially because they're so willing (even encouraging) for me to supply their background on their behalf. They want to play and they want to be cool. Most of the time, they want me to just plop them into such situations. I'm hoping to find ideas to empower them.

I could easily trash all three groups by inviting only those who were really interested in playing player-driven games but my end result (minus the complications of hurt feelings) would (and has proven) to be the same: players creating characters that aren't interesting enough (for the players) to drive play. Thus, the onus falls upon me to "make" their characters interesting in the setting. Players won't come to the table with a thief valiantly searching for his lost daughter. They'll come to the table with a thief and, when I ask what they're doing in the setting, they'll stare blankly and say something like: "I'm going to a tavern..." At which point, I will try to clarify that's not what I was going for and eventually we'll whittle it down to searching for a daughter that was lost, etc. Following that, sometimes painful, sometimes futile, process, I'll give a brief cheer that all this is stuff that they could have thought up on their own, without all the nudging. I explain that they don't have to run everything by me, the GM, for it to be okay. Then the process starts all over again. Pavlov has nothing on me. So, perhaps, from my standpoint, the problem isn't so much interest in the concepts as it is understanding the concepts.

And these are the players I know who WANT character-driven play and would sign up for Donjon, Sorcerer or the Pool. And subsequently defer everything over to me at every possible point at which they could. You would think I'm scary looking or something. But I'm not. I'm no more intimidating than a tribble.

I understand how getting a new group (or culling one from the existing groups) would be preferable, but I have tried to pull my own group together in the past along these lines. It met with miserable failure. I went almost a year without running a game of any sort, except for pick-ups of D&D3e or WEG Star Wars when the other GMs were out of town. Even the FLGS owner told me, "What you're going for sounds interesting but most of the kids who pick up this flyer just aren't getting it." After a while, I resuscitated the local Vampire LARP (bringing it from an anemic 3 players back to a healthy 40) using primarily concepts and ideas that I've found here and elsewhere and began my own weekly tabletop game, mostly from the crowd that were either kicked out of the FLGS' longstanding D&D game, those who weren't interested in D&D anyway, those who came over from the LARP and those who have come over from the other two groups because of my new-fangledy ideas about this gamin' bidness. Over the past few years, this group, and the resultant spin-offs, have become friends. I'm hoping not to alienate the group any further. We're already pretty much the Island of Misfit Toys in this town. The die-hard D&D group that plays the same night that we do consistently scratch their heads when they hear what's going on at our tables. "What he rolled a 7 on a Spot and he's still sees something? That ain't right..."

Your suggestion is valid and if I were living back in, say, Atlanta or San Fran, it would even be a no-brainer. But here in BFE Northwest Florida, I don't much see how I can "cull the herd" without (a) ticking people off (most people enjoy my games even if they don't "get it") and (b) winding up right back where I started. "Character driven play" in these parts is primarily thought of as some "White Wolf" thing. That's the most common response I get when new players seek to join. I explain a little of how things go and they say, "So, it's like White Wolf... (or Vampire, or Mage, etc.)". Finding another gamer who has actually heard of Donjon or Sorcerer isn't all that likely. And I do ask around. A lot. At this point, through the FLGS, I am the Adept Press audience of 1 here in Panama City, FL.

So, I'm hoping for some ideas that might help me steer the group or "inspire" the group to be more proactive/protagonistic during play. I appreciate your input, Ron, and, as mentioned before, agree with it from one particular standpoint. But, in my given situation, I don't see it as all that constructive. Maybe that's an aspect of viewpoint. Perhaps, if I closed down the group and were more stringent about what I wanted, I would enlist or attract like minded gamers, eventually. But finding people who "want" to play in this style isn't so much the problem. It's taking people who have the old style ingrained within them and trying to re-tool them to this new way of thinking. After discussion, that's where I think the problem truly lies, in my case.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,
Oh golly.

Have you considered the notion that the better friends people are, the less likely they are to resent parcelling up social activities (what you call "isolating")?

Furthermore, your "admission" sentence says anything that I'd say - you've proposed the solution to your situation by shooting it down. I suggest picking it up, dusting it off, and taking another look at it.

Best,
Ron

Again I am chastened

I don't think it's so much that the group wants something completely different from what I'm going for as it is that they have nothing to gauge it against. They have no idea how to do it. That's where the advice comes in

If your players are willing to read up, an excellent website with articles on many topics is Burning Void. Here are a few about fleshing out characters, motivating them, etc.

3 dimensional character generation article: http://www.burningvoid.com/users/heather/roleplaying/Essays/3dchargen.html

A quick essay on motivated characters- they may not have the back-story at first, but maybe they'll find something more interesting to do than go to the tavern. http://www.burningvoid.com/users/heather/roleplaying/Essays/selfmot.html

Creating useful characters. This approaches the idea from the 'far side' perspective of not drowning the GM in too much information- useful for showing how much can be done, and the advantages of it. http://www.burningvoid.com/pipermail/void/2001q1/000013.html

It's a fun site to browse, with many a thoughtful or inspirational essay. It approaches things from a slightly different perspective than the forge, so you might find a valuable path between them.

Hope they help,
Scott

[Of course, they don't have to 'read up' extensively- you can cut & paste key points onto a sheet, if you want. It's not really a technique; choosing how to convey the extra options is harder. But it has content- a 'why bother'- which might encourage your players.]

You have quite the boggle there. If they actually want to play differently, and just can't figure out how, maybe you're throwing too much change at them all at once. Too much, it's just plain confusing them. You could trying easing them into it with familiar ground. Run a combat driven adventure that requires character motivation.

Play soldiers in a war or something. Characters can be either a veteran bad-ass who is required to come with a severe emotional flaw of some kind, like a heroin addiction or an ear collection; or a new soldier without the flaw, but also without the skill. Have combat all over, but give 'em orders like burn all the woman and children in the village. Have an npc who falls into the new soldier category, who protests the orders. Follow orders? Or kill the new guy when he turns a gun on the commander? It could devolve into an evil slay fest, or it could not. Someone mentioned it (Ben?), but hit 'em with the expectation upfront that none of these soldiers are going to survive the war. What the players do will decide if the soldiers die as heroes, traitors, villians, or nobodies.

Don't know if it helps, but good luck with whatever you do.

Scripty wrote: Most of them erroneously perceive characters with kewl powers to be characters with depth. There's a disjunct here. They know "how" to play and make characters. But they don't know about "character". A part of me thinks that they don't want to think about it that much, partially because they're so willing (even encouraging) for me to supply their background on their behalf.
...
So, I'm hoping for some ideas that might help me steer the group or "inspire" the group to be more proactive/protagonistic during play. I appreciate your input, Ron, and, as mentioned before, agree with it from one particular standpoint. But, in my given situation, I don't see it as all that constructive.

Thanks Kaare (no need to feel chastened), ScottM, Jason, and John. More great suggestions here. I'll take a look at burningvoid. To date, I hadn't heard of it. Great suggestion John regarding powers/cool factor and a reminder about plot developing character. I'm clipping all of this info so I can properly ingest it and apply it where needed. I've also been reading Bankuei's articles on rpg.net recently. Great ideas on conflict and character there.

It's encouraging to hear that you've been through this already Kaare. Jason may well be right that I'm overloading the players. I tend to be of the immediate gratification alignment and have been known to be rather free with my use of handouts. Perhaps the players knowing their characters' destinies up front (as in Jason's example where they all know they're going to die) could help ease the survivalist mindset a bit. Funny, but that's also in Sword & Sorcerer, where Ron talks about characters' destinies as playing a part in the game. Has anyone used concepts like this in their games? How did it work out in regards to character development and easing players into character development mode?

I'm confused. You say you have these players who try your wacky one shots. Your sure they would take to this new style if only the veil was lifted from their eyes. They'd really get into Donjon or Sorcerer, if only...

Well what are you running? I see no mention. Have you tried any of the games that Gary mentioned or the ones you mentioned? SOAP? Dust Devils? TROS? Howabout just playing freeform?

If the players are as ready as you seem to think they are, and only need to be shown how, then I'll have to disagree with Jason. Plunge them into a system that will show them what it's like. Head first. Try SOAP. No GM. Players have to come up with characters on their own and the only way to have fun is to characterize and motivate them. No GM to make it all go if they don't. Play once, and I garuntee you you'll be able to communicate better in terms of what your trying to accomplish.

When My Life with Master is available, get a copy and run that. I'd like to see a player try to turtle up in a game like that. Heck, download and play Nicotine Girls tonight. Hard to worry about your combat effectiveness in a game that has no combat system.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: If the players are as ready as you seem to think they are, and only need to be shown how, then I'll have to disagree with Jason. Plunge them into a system that will show them what it's like. Head first. Try SOAP. No GM. Players have to come up with characters on their own and the only way to have fun is to characterize and motivate them. No GM to make it all go if they don't. Play once, and I garuntee you you'll be able to communicate better in terms of what your trying to accomplish.

Well Scripts, I really don't have any solutions for you, but can offer my definite empathy and in fact, have found this thread helpful for myself, since I have had the EXACT same problem as you (mostly), and I'm another Jason, so yet one more of us can tell you 'I know how it is, brother'.

I'm in a small town in northeast Oklahoma, and my gaming group consist(s/ed) of two friends my age (30s), and some cousins (20 or younger), though my aunt played for one campaign (that was weird). This was all way before any real boom in this narrative stuff, so we played Warhammer FRP and tried Hero a couple times, and usually my friend Rob ran, but I'm capable of doing it so I would take over when I could, and run so he could play, the Warhammer game... and it worked to an extent but MAN. Exactly what you said, "Okay, we wrote down our dice rolls for our 'character' - now entertain us". I think NEW players, who don't know much about rpgs at all, would be more manageable, than semi-experienced ones who know *something* of RPGs.

As it is, they have that same iron-clad, "Referee throws crap at us, we try to survive and beat it, repeat" mindset. And so they want creativity and plot and some drama, but 'not a lot', mind you, nothing to get in the way, no cumbersome oaths and responsibilities, no intricate character interaction or backgrounds, etc. Occasionally, they would inadvertently create character depth and background, and everyone would act like an alien dropped onto the table, when one became a chaotic, mentally unbalanced Paladin, or another became a ruthless, blood-thirsty murderer or even a mage avatar of the Hampster God... it was ok, everyone remembered those actions and those characters - but it HAD to be done IN play for them. No one came to the table or during creation, developed Milo, the narcoleptic halfling with a fetish for ceramics, etc. Well me, I had my characters, usually unusual or crazy ideas, and everyone really thought the idea was cool - but the mindset is 'but I don't have time to do that, thats for creative people, I just wanna play'.

And THAT is the killer blow. In my own throw-together homebrew I attempted last, I got some more open-ended characters with more unorthodox playing, but still, there was no real character development (except Rob, the other referee, who's an old hand at rpgs) and so we just sorta 'tabled' role-playing for a while - thats been over two years now so... it takes a PROACTIVE effort by everyone to keep it running - because it can surely break down and sit in the mud if no one makes an attempt.

This will be a rather short post compared to the in-depth stuff so far, but..

I really dig the "lifepath" style of character background generation. Some games use this mechanically - MechWarrior comes to mind - but the game I always think of first is Mekton Z, which is the first game I ran across it in.

I'm partial to this because while - like you - I really enjoy coming up with the extensive background stuff that makes the character a character, I find that in most groups I play in, either the rest of the PCs don't care, the GM doesn't, or some combination of both. While dying and losing all that work would be a pain, it's more crushing to never see it get used at all.

Lifepaths are great, then, because it's something random that gives me a very solid skeleton and some muscle. I haven't really "lost" anything if the character dies or the GM glosses over most character history. At the same time, because of the fact that it's random, I'm more attached to the character than if it was just something the GM wrote up; I tend to look at those as "pet characters" that the GM would himself like to play but can't.

Anyway. Check out Mekton Z for the best example I can think of; the lifepaths are tailored to the setting/genre, they don't grant system bonuses (being an orphan doesn't give you +10 Streetwise and you start with 5 credits, for example), and give you a character you can really make your own.

Scripty,

Something that I've noticed in all of your statements is that you are identifying the problem as solidly in the player's court, and with their characters. You're going to be battering your head against a brick wall trying to change that.

The one thing you can change is what you give the players. Don't expect them to create characters that magically create deep stories. Instead, present things that interest the players, and reward them for good play. Make the story related things the most exciting, and hand out the character advancement rewards for them, not for killing the most things.

Ultimately, think about it as you would training an animal. I can tell my cat to ask to come in the house by meowing instead of hanging on the screen, but she won't do it (even though she knows it makes me mad). By not letting her in when she hangs on the screen, I've stopped her from doing it, and she meows or thumps the glass instead. Your players are no different; they'll do the thing that gives the reward.

Clay wrote: Scripty,

Ultimately, think about it as you would training an animal. I can tell my cat to ask to come in the house by meowing instead of hanging on the screen, but she won't do it (even though she knows it makes me mad). By not letting her in when she hangs on the screen, I've stopped her from doing it, and she meows or thumps the glass instead. Your players are no different; they'll do the thing that gives the reward.

Lol Marco,

But Clay has a valid point. This kind of mindset changes slowly, and only through encouragement.

Do not neglegt this Scripty, there is no quick fix. You are dealing with people you care about. It dosen't get harder.

Thanks again to everyone for sharing their experiences and suggestions. I must admit, Marco, I almost coughed up my milk when I read the cattle prod comment. It was interesting that anonymouse brought up "lifepath" systems. The first one I remember was R. Talsorian's (?) Cyberpunk 2020 (man, that's catching up to us!). We had a lot of fun with it back in the day, but there were also a lot of details that were swept under the table. John Kim mentioned that characters are developed through plot. Especially in regards to a character driven plot, I think this might be the best way for me to go. Last campaign, I had all the characters start out by thinking up a Kicker. This worked out pretty well (after the glaze was removed from their expressions) and they really enjoyed this at the onset. Perhaps if I just let them set up their inter-party relationships and get their Kickers together then I can possibly pursue John's suggestion and we can fill in the details of their backgrounds during play (via "Flashback Panels" and whatnot). The only problem with last campaign is that all of their Kickers went separate ways. Therefore, I had 7 mini-campaigns going all at once. It was a bear. I can see this working with 4 or so players. But has anyone ever tried Kickers with groups of 5 or more? Is it possible to do something akin to Kickers in this kind of group?

The reason I'm veering off into this direction a bit is that, after considering John's statement (and Bankuei's articles), it sort of made sense. Not only do the players set up situations that they want resolved, but they also set up challenges, obstacles and choices that they want to roleplay. But how would you use such a method in large groups? Is there a such thing as a "Group Kicker"? Or can a party have 2 players start out with Kickers this week and 3 players start out with Kickers a couple of weeks later?

Hi Scripty,

Depends on what you mean by "group." You might be working with the assumption that the Important Stuff in play occurs when every character is in the same spot with something to do, perhaps even a shared goal. That assumption isn't necessarily justified.

Also, think of Kickers as being quite broad in their potential scope. You can have five player-characters operating in terms of five extremely different Kickers (to take the most tricky case), but a particular session might focus on only two of them in those terms.

It's hard to describe these ideas to people without much experience in multiple-protagonist play, because they have kind of a black-and-white view that says, "Either every character is totally involved, or some players sit out being bored." All I can say is that this viewpoint needs to be broken at its most basic level, which is to say, Just because Character A is not "in action," does not mean that Player A is disengaged.

There are lots of threads on the Forge about playing in the fashion I'm trying to convey, but preparing for GenCon is limiting my ability to thread-hunt ... if someone could look up discussions of scene-cutting and so forth, that would be handy.

Best,
Ron

Scripty,

Doing kicker-based play with four players was about the biggest challenge that I want to experience. Seven fully-blown story lines is probably a bit much. I actually prefer having about two different story lines. One way to handle it was suggested in Sorcerer & Sword, and I liked it a lot, although I haven't used it yet. With this method, you have a single or a couple of main characters, and other characters acting as the supporting cast.

If you think about a show like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, that's a good model. There's a single star, but there are lots of supporting characters who get their own time in the spotlight, and even their own lesser story lines. I have seen this done by other game masters with some success.

Clay wrote: Ultimately, think about it as you would training an animal. I can tell my cat to ask to come in the house by meowing instead of hanging on the screen, but she won't do it (even though she knows it makes me mad). By not letting her in when she hangs on the screen, I've stopped her from doing it, and she meows or thumps the glass instead. Your players are no different; they'll do the thing that gives the reward.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Scripty,

Depends on what you mean by "group." You might be working with the assumption that the Important Stuff in play occurs when every character is in the same spot with something to do, perhaps even a shared goal. That assumption isn't necessarily justified.

...

It's hard to describe these ideas to people without much experience in multiple-protagonist play, because they have kind of a black-and-white view that says, "Either every character is totally involved, or some players sit out being bored." All I can say is that this viewpoint needs to be broken at its most basic level, which is to say, Just because Character A is not "in action," does not mean that Player A is disengaged.

There are lots of threads on the Forge about playing in the fashion I'm trying to convey, but preparing for GenCon is limiting my ability to thread-hunt ... if someone could look up discussions of scene-cutting and so forth, that would be handy.

Best,
Ron

Clay wrote: Scripty,

Doing kicker-based play with four players was about the biggest challenge that I want to experience. Seven fully-blown story lines is probably a bit much. I actually prefer having about two different story lines. One way to handle it was suggested in Sorcerer & Sword, and I liked it a lot, although I haven't used it yet. With this method, you have a single or a couple of main characters, and other characters acting as the supporting cast.

If you think about a show like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, that's a good model. There's a single star, but there are lots of supporting characters who get their own time in the spotlight, and even their own lesser story lines. I have seen this done by other game masters with some success.

John Kim wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: If the players are as ready as you seem to think they are, and only need to be shown how, then I'll have to disagree with Jason. Plunge them into a system that will show them what it's like. Head first. Try SOAP. No GM. Players have to come up with characters on their own and the only way to have fun is to characterize and motivate them. No GM to make it all go if they don't. Play once, and I garuntee you you'll be able to communicate better in terms of what your trying to accomplish.

OK, I'm not Scripty -- but my impression is that they don't like authoring background.

Mike Holmes wrote:
What made the one-shots work for Scripty is not the nifty backgrounds he wrote. It's that the situation was set up such that all that there was to do was to explore the characters (am I right here Scripty?).

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:

John Kim wrote: OK, I'm not Scripty -- but my impression is that they don't like authoring background.

I'm not sure what you're objecting to. Either they are ready to play characters, as the poster claims, or they're not. I am assuming that he's being accurate. I'm not proposing any games that require any real "background" at all, in fact. Because I feel that "background" is a red herring here. What Scripty seems to want is well-characterized play.
...
The games I suggest will result in players doing exactly what Scripty wants. Once they see a system that promotes this sort of play they'll see that it's an option in general to play with these differing priorities. And then they can talk about it.

On group kickers. I have some very limitted experience with running kickers in our six person group (five players). Doesn't seem like all that much of a chore to just connect the sequence of events two or more kickers start early on. You know how sometimes in a story the main characters will start in completely places and through a series of events end up being embroiled in the same conflict? The example on the front of my mind is the beginning to Terminator 3. There will be details left open in a kickers; you can fill in those details with bits from someone elses kicker.

John Kim wrote: Based on this, I don't think that either Soap or Nicotine Girls seem like clear choices. First of all, neither have kewl powers for the PCs.

Hey,

OK, so your five suggestions were: Soap, Dust Devils, The Riddle of Steel, freeform play, My Life with Master, and Nictotine Girls....

...the two things that I understand about these players are: (1) they like kewl powers, and (2) they don't like authoring motivating background for their PCs....

Based on this, I don't think that either Soap or Nicotine Girls seem like clear choices. First of all, neither have kewl powers for the PCs....I would think that the ideal would be a game which they are excited about from the start. So, this would have kewl powers, and wouldn't require them to write up a motivating background -- but still stress well-characterized play.

Mike knows this because he was a playtester: each player character in My Life with Master has a "More than Human," which describes a powerful and surreal ability beyond ordinary human capacity. And no hard-to-create goals...

Paul

cruciel wrote: On group kickers. I have some very limitted experience with running kickers in our six person group (five players). Doesn't seem like all that much of a chore to just connect the sequence of events two or more kickers start early on. You know how sometimes in a story the main characters will start in completely places and through a series of events end up being embroiled in the same conflict? The example on the front of my mind is the beginning to Terminator 3. There will be details left open in a kickers; you can fill in those details with bits from someone elses kicker.

I'm new at this so please bare with me.

I love the idea of developing backgrounds through play, and as a GM you have the opption of giving characters backgrounds and connections as the game goes on. If you ask your players broad questions through out the game about thier characters lifestlye you can start implementing those responses. For example, Does your character enjoy drinking and wenching? Later in the game you can have a child the character doesn't know about show up (tough for female characters but you figure it out.) Does your character enjoy sports? Have the "superbowl" occure in your game world. If you ask a few broad questions every game sestion you can slowly highlight the human side of these combat bricks.

Another option is giving them rewards that are laced with responsiblity and story. To take a page from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, give the players an extremly powerful artifact in the from of something they should care about, i.e. a sister. One of the cards in D&D's Deck of Many Things gives the characters a Keep. This is an amazing responsiblity if played correctly.

My final point is a question of how much control of the game world do you give to your players? Can they narrate sceans? Are they allowed to create NPCs? Maybe this isn't their thing, but if you give more control of the enviroment to you players you might get the result of more input from a player who has a greater stake in the game.

I know grammer and spelling errors are ofensive so I'd like to apologize for them.

SeanFrank

SeanFrank wrote:
My final point is a question of how much control of the game world do you give to your players? Can they narrate sceans? Are they allowed to create NPCs? Maybe this isn't their thing, but if you give more control of the enviroment to you players you might get the result of more input from a player who has a greater stake in the game.

I know grammer and spelling errors are ofensive so I'd like to apologize for them.

SeanFrank

If your players are haveing a problem with actually narrating( I don't know how to qoute yet, but the spot 17 roll followed by a buch of blank, blank) I suggest trying the game Pantheon by Robin Laws. If I'm remembering correctly it's powered by "The Narrative CageMatch" system where each player goes around in a circle adding a sentence to the story.There is no GM. The only rules are for when players disagree, because sentances like "bobby is strangled to death while I watch" are part of the game, and bobby's player might not want his character to die just yet. There's even points awared at the end of the game for players who stick to the cliches of the genre your playing in. Beer and prerzels yes, but a great way to train your players how to narrate.

SeanFrank

Scripty wrote: The players all know this, at least I've told it to them several times. But they rarely take advantage of it. Perhaps it's my approach. I could be overloading them. But situations have occured where a player has rolled a die and said "I got a Spot of 17" and I've replied "Tell me what you see." Blank.

"What is it that you're looking for?"

Blank.

Dr. Dave is compelled to add his own prescription for Scripty.

Take a sauna/cold swim approach: go full-on Sim with SLA Industries. Bathe in blood. It's a fun game. After several good sessions, have a character generation session for Ars Magica, and ask that everyone "roleplay as their characters." Create characters and covenant.

It will open the pores.

For me, the root of character drama is choice. What happens when you give your players multiple legitimate paths, each with their own pitfalls and blessings? For example, maybe you could give your characters three bosses--say, a bishop, a King, and a guildmaster. Make their bosses' happiness mutually exclusive, or, at least, make the intersection of their bosses' happiness really hard to find--and then see what happens.

Another thing that might help you is playing with name characters from a character-driven TV show, like Buffy or Farscape or even the Sopranos, in a sample game. If the players are involved enough in the show to want to recreate the character faithfully, they'll have a great example to follow.

Hope this helps--

zo.