I’ll warn everyone now, this may ramble a bit, and it may come to pass that numerous problems are identified rather than just one, but work with me and see where we go.

Okay, I have a problem, I’m finding that I can come up with imagery and concepts for role-playing campaigns, but I have a major problem turning these into actual sessions of actual play. Things just do not flow. Now in two instances they have, but I’ve played out the first ‘drama’ so to speak and then faced the same problem.

So I may have two problems: (1) Turning concept into actual play and (2) making things last beyond the first ‘drama’.

Now, with respect to (2), I think I have this figured. I don’t think I’m interested in running games of great length anymore, the traditional campaign, etc. I used to be a big fan of running campaigns like a TV show, still am a big fan of playing games using that format, but I think I’ve moved away from it. In short, I think I want to run a certain situation (trying to avoid loaded comments like story and the like) with a certain group of protagonists and then move when that is done and the story is complete.

At the moment I am probably doing that, but in the wrong way, as I’m essentially running one episode of a campaign and then moving on. Though the story is complete in and off itself, the whole approach is that there is more in a traditional gaming sense.

I’ve still not resolved this because then I hit the Actual Play problem. I can have a concept, the sales pitch if you like, some strong images, etc, but then taking it to actual play, even with characters created sometimes, hits a brick wall.

Any advice or pointed questions to start narrowing this down? Help me work through this strange psychological issue :)

Hi Ian,

When you mention images and concepts, what do you mean? Are they images of a story laid out in a certain order, or are they ideas for NPCs, places, and potential conflicts?

The former might be an illusionist approach - the GM creating a series of encounters that players must follow in order to achieve some goal.

The latter could emphasize protagonism - letting the players construct the important events of play.

And where does the brick wall come in? Do the players fail to play stuff out the way you want? Or does the first big event of play leaves them with nowhere to go?

And what game system are you running?

Alan wrote: When you mention images and concepts, what do you mean? Are they images of a story laid out in a certain order, or are they ideas for NPCs, places, and potential conflicts?

Alan wrote: The former might be an illusionist approach - the GM creating a series of encounters that players must follow in order to achieve some goal.

Alan wrote: The latter could emphasize protagonism - letting the players construct the important events of play.

Alan wrote: And where does the brick wall come in? Do the players fail to play stuff out the way you want? Or does the first big event of play leaves them with nowhere to go?

Alan wrote: And what game system are you running?

That's how I like to do it (although I'll play extended/indefinite games as well). I want to explore a single situatuion--I'm most thrilled when it evolves in a story-like manner (yes, hard to discuss this without terminological problems).

1. The whole RPG exercise is cooperative so make sure you're cooperating with everyone. Discuss starting conditions and character goals with the players. In the game I'm running now the characters are in a city with many mysteries. I asked the players how interested they *and* their characters were in the mysteries. It let me know what kinds of action they might appreciate.

2. If the problem is putting things together so that it flows, try looking at the situation from the perspective of the antagonists (that sometimes helps me). Try describing the situation as though it already happened and think about "why it turned out that way" (what chain of events might one get from the starting situation).

The point there isn't to lock people into a version of events, but rather to create an interesting situation for everyone to play around in.

We have some editorals on our site (Fault Tolerant Scenarios) that you might be interested in. Do a search here and look 'em up--I posted links.

-Marco

[Once again I managed to duplicate a message while trying to Preview it. I've deleted the duplicate material. See next message for the content.]

Hi Ian,

I’m not sure how well, BESM will support this kind of play. You’ve mentioned trying some other short games. Have you tried InSpectres, Trollbabe, or Universalis? These can expose you and your players to some new ideas on how to play.

If you’d like events in play to be more driven by your players, it’s good to think of the GM as the creator of a sandbox or playset, rather than a storyteller.

The first step is determining what interests your players. I imagine that BESM is pretty straight simulationist system, so it won’t have built in mechanics for this. You can ask each player what kind of story they’d like their character to explore. Ask them what kind of problem or challenge they’d like to participate in. Or use a kicker. Have each player create a situation where something has just happened that the character must do something about. Ask them to create a situation that expressed the core of the character.

Instead of starting your idea, start with theirs and hook it into a situation you’ve created. (For example, the trick of the kicker is to start a 4-5 session arc with the exact situation the player defined.)

The second step is creating a framework for the players to play from. A good way to create a flexible situation is the storymap. (See the free download Legends of Alyria). This is a simple diagram of all the NPCs relationships, with background notes on what each wants and a history of any conflicts or secrets. Of course, you may need some places and important things too. You can develop this on your own, or with the players as it’s done in Alyria.

Once you’ve got the storymap, spend some time thinking of how the NPCs will see the players as important to their needs. Also think of how to offer links into the situation. Finally, think of some things each NPC is likely to do in response to pressure.

Now when you play, you put out the toys for the players to use and focus on those they engage with. NPCs act according to their storymap and background, but you also create or modify your prepared material to fit your player’s interests, rather than vice versa.

So I guess, my answer is “surrender the story to the players.” Put their interests first and put your ideas into the storymap and play as seems appropriate.

Also, don’t be afraid to have shorter sessions – 2 to 3 hours of eventful play can eat up a lot of prepared ideas.

Also read narrative scenario writing and Trollbabe one-session adventures.

Hope this helps. This is stuff I'm still learning to apply in play myself.

Alan wrote: Hi Ian,

I’m not sure how well, BESM will support this kind of play.

Hey Ian,

Okay, I have a problem, I’m finding that I can come up with imagery and concepts for role-playing campaigns, but I have a major problem turning these into actual sessions of actual play....I can have a concept, the sales pitch if you like, some strong images, etc, but then taking it to actual play, even with characters created sometimes, hits a brick wall.

Would you be so kind as to detail one of these in a couple of hundred words or so? I have an idea what might be tripping you up, but I don't want to jump to any mistaken assumptions.

Paul

I think Alan is looking in same direction I would, Ian.

It sounded to me from the very beginning that you were relying too heavily on your own image. You'll want to bring the characters in somehow, and start using their ideas to help drive the plot (which should help you get to your images).

The genearl storymap is a great way to do it. My way of thinking about storymaps is this: you're simply defining what will happen if the PCs don't intervene. For example, if an evil wizard wants to take over the throne, your storymap will describe how he'll take it over, who will die in the process and how the kingdom may dissolve afterward.

Then, I figure out how to work the PCs in. Who could they be so that they'll have an opportunity to affect this? Perhaps NPCs will hire them because of their reputation (easier to do when you have experienced characters). Perhaps they'll accidentally stumble into it? Whatever you come up with, let the players know about it up front. For example, you might request that players be members of the royal houses (not necessarily nobility, but stewards, guards, etc), giving them a stake in the outcome of the plot. Or ask them to design mercenaries or thieves and start them off with a seemingly unrelated job that has them bump into some element of the larger plot.

However you do it, they key is that your storymap only outlines what will happen without the characters. Once characters get involved, let them plot their own course - your storymap should easily show you what the results and responses will be.

Additionally, look for any little seeds the players may give you in their characters. You can also ask for seeds. A great one is to ask "Where does your character see himself in five years?" And, if your players can't answer, tell them to come up with a real character - all real people have aspirations beyond kicking doors down, killing mosters and taking their stuff. But it doesn't sound like that's your problem exactly.

Anyway, between some player seeds and your storymap, you should find that your planning between sessions drops (often to nothing). You need to do a little prep for the campaign in general, but that planning should carry you through most of the play.

By the way, I think your concept for short-term campaigns is excellent. Even when I want unending play using the same characters, I almost always plan in terms of short campaigns (3-5 sessions) interspersed with long-term plotlines (usually requiring 10-15 sessions to resolve).

It's late. I'll say this. I am aware of the whole issue of kickers, and relationship maps, and yes, this is the way I want to approach things from now one.

Hell, I have Sorcerer and numerous supplements on my shelf and have read it many times, but this just changes the method of delivering actual play, it does not so much remove the block. Difficult I know, but it's frustrating for me also.

So let's assume I want to go the relationship map, kickers, etc, route to deliver good sessions that result in a story reaching some sort of conclusion. The whole Sorcerer/narrative deal. I would hit a problem creating the relationship map probably, and then providing bangs, etc. I, or the group, have no problem with player/character driven play, it's me getting to actual play no matter what the prep method.

In the interests of moving things on I will post a concept, etc, as Paul has suggested and see where that ends up.

Thanks a lot. And I firmly believe the system is not relavent to my problem at this time.

As requested by Paul

Concept: An anime/Battlechasers style fantasy, with the characters effectively as Superheroes in a fantasy setting. The characters might be epic holy warriors, elemental sorcerers, ancient Battlegolems, half-elementals, whatever. They are mighty heroes in an Exalted-style (if that describes it better). The game is a mixture of fantasy and magic as technology. The premise is the game would start just as the ineffective emperor that has kept the known world relatively stable dies, but the young Imperial Princess has been poisoned and put in stasis. The heroes would all be connected to this factor somehow. They might be the Imperial Princesses champion who secretly loves her, the spurned half-elemental sister, whatever, that would be player driven.

The idea is to run with that. The concept being to resolve the situation somehow, by curing the princess most likely, but depending on chars created, or their goals, it may go another way. Will they instead champion a replacement for the Imperial Princess?

Along with this I have images in my head of vague elements, but with no connections, of things I may want to include as part of the game: visiting an ancient Articifer for technology and battling his golem hordes, visiting a different plane and petitioning the Elemental Dragon of Ice (I'm imaging her a bit like the woman at the end of Ghostbusters - the ice woman ? :) All visuals though.

I don't have much problem with running with a sketchy world, and filling in as we go, we have experience of that everyone is fine.

I have a number of others at this sort of broad concept stage, different styles, tones, etc.

Your concept sounds solid, the kind of random images and plot seeds that I usually start with.

My advice remains basically the same:
1) describe what will happen if the players do nothing
2) develop characters with some connection
3) get seed idea from the characters
4) determine future events based on what the characters do to interrupt #1, with emphasis on seeing elements from #3 enter

In fact, it sounds like my example (the evil wizard killing a king and taking over) should apply almost directly to your concept.

Hi Ian,

To apply my original suggestion:

Start by asking the players what roles they'd like to play in this situation. It's rich in possiblities. One might be the princessess' lover, another the court physician, another the bodyguard who failed, etc. Given that, I'd create the opposition: Who did it? Who's exploiting the situation? Who inside the court is making the heroes lives difficult for their own gain? Who misunderstands what's going on and causes problems? How are they all related? How was the princess poisoned?

For a narrativist slant, ask the players what sort of burden each character might carry and how that would come out in play - for example, the bodyguard, guilty at failing to protect his charge, would be assigned a new one just like her.

With the above, build a storymap.

Second, ask players for probable actions: investigation of who did it, search for the cure, defending against outright assault on the kingdom, etc. For each of these, make notes on: possible leads and clues, the places these lead to, the minor characters involved and their motives, what the primary opponents might do to obscure their own involvement, etc.

I would want a conspiracy in all this, so I'd think in layers. The initial leads and contacts would be small potatoes, with no direct connection to the primary opponents. In the same way, a search for a cure is a multi-step activity.

With the answers to these questions and more, I have my sandbox ready for play. Throw the players in and see where they go. Present, modify or discard prepared stuff as seems appropriate.

Hey Ian,

Thanks for posting that. Here's my thinking:

It's a cool concept, nice Color and Situation, but there's no moral complexity to it. There's no debating what's the correct course of action: save the princess. What it needs is Premise, in the capital P, Narrativist sense of the word. It needs moral abiguity at the player-level.

Think back to college dorm room parties. Know how by 2:30 a.m. there's always an incoherent and uninformed argument among drunken friends about how to solve the situation in Bosnia, or about gun control or something? You need an issue like that. Not one that the players will be bickering about, per se, but one with no easy answer. A question that they can comment on and individually answer through play, by the decisions they make and the actions they take with their characters.

For example, taking your situation, let's say that the poisoning and stasis condition of the princess has been hushed up by the council of ministers, and a clone of her has been created. The question confronting the players is whether this solution to the problem is one they can support.

Lay the issue out for them, in a little one-sheet that you provide to them before character creation. As players, they know about the clone. Whether their characters do or not is up to them. Have a group chargen session, where players present their character concepts to the group and comment and offer suggestions to each other, working above the table to create characters who are positioned within the setting close to the clone issue. Perhaps one of them is the technologist who created the clone. Perhaps one of them is a rejected suitor of the princess who doesn't know she's been replaced with a clone. And then you problematize the situation for them through play. The more morally problematic the situation, the more compelling and meaningful their actions will be. Have a flashback scene or two demonstrating that the real princess was heartless and condescending to decent folk. And show that the clone is decent. Perhaps the setting's equivalent of Mother Theresa is found to be behind the poisoning. And don't consider making this a mystery to be solved; reveal it to problematize the situation. Send someone to kill her, one of the player characters. Don't bother with keeping the player group together as a unit. When you play this way, everyone will be riveted to each other's scenes. When the suitor character is falling in love with the clone princess, then maybe show that she is incapable of stabilizing the social turmoil. The ministers are divided. Etc.

Paul

Right, like maybe in this case the princess, cute as a button as she is, is completely and utterly incompetant (at least in the perceptions of one faction a PC belongs to). While that faction doesn't want the Big Bad taking over, they aren't really thrilled with the idea of the Princess being woken up and becoming Empress either.

The spurned PC sister in your example might be a 100% better choice to be Empress. Except she's a half elemental, and half elementals are strictly forbidden by ancient tradition from holding power...and one of the other PCs just happens to be the champion / Paladin / Defender of Ancient Traditions who could never acquiesse to a half elemental on the throne.

Right there you've set up a couple of Premise type conflicts both within the world and embodied among the players.

There's rule by right vs rule by merit
There's tradition vs challenging tradition.

The key is that these shouldn't be characters who hold certain beliefs and which the players are just going through the motions of "playing their character".

Rather they should be issues that are built into the world and expressed to the characters. The players themselves must choose which choice they believe in and play the character to their own feeling of right and wrong.

This has all been very useful, in that it may actually have allowed me to see the problem so to speak.

I agree with all that has been said, the narrative approach is the way to go. It is the way I think and the players also work this way. The current Buffy campaign might not be totally designed on narrative principles as proposed here (relationship maps, etc), but the players certainly play it that way. I don't have a problem with the players making narrativism focused choices, and working in author stance, though only a few actively persue director stance.

So, what is my problem, may be it is not the generation of relationship maps, and the core of the drama, the layered conflicts (after all, I work well in this capacity as a 'mine of ideas' for the Buffy DM) but some sort of fear or nervousness of trusting that to be enough to go to actual play?

That could be it, having read these posts and thought about it. You see none of the above is unfamiliar to me, I'm not being taught anything new, but I've never gone to actual play with a game/campaign (whatever) built on those principles 100%.

Interesting. Very interesting.

Regrettably I am away this weekend, and busy in the early part of the week - but maybe I should try and work up this premise/idea, see where it goes and then move from there.

How far would I get with prepping the game on relationship map principles without knowing the characters? Can I prep and then re-jig based on characters created and player ideas? It's just I may want it all clearer as a 'set-up' in my head before pitching to the players.

Ian O'Rourke wrote: So, what is my problem, may be it is not the generation of relationship maps, and the core of the drama, the layered conflicts (after all, I work well in this capacity as a 'mine of ideas' for the Buffy DM) but some sort of fear or nervousness of trusting that to be enough to go to actual play?

How far would I get with prepping the game on relationship map principles without knowing the characters? Can I prep and then re-jig based on characters created and player ideas? It's just I may want it all clearer as a 'set-up' in my head before pitching to the players.

Well ...

A lot that's good has already been said. So I'll say some other stuff (you can decide if it hasn't been said or isn't good or both):

The moral conflict isn't necessary--people can get behind saving the day just fine. It's not bad--but the "hey, it's missing" vibe isn't ... I mean ... y'know, *Star Wars*?

My advice would be to flesh out some of the world and hand the PC's some data to start with. You don't have to keep it there--and you certainly don't have to map out *everything* or even most of it--but a few interesting places to check out can also get things going.

Exploration of Situation can also link closely to exploration of setting. I think if I were presented with that situation, I'd ask which allies/helpful people I knew I could round up. If I was told to make 'em up fine. If I was told about the wizard with a ton of golems who might or might not help--but would be really good if he did ... hey, cool!

-Marco