Last night was the second of a long term Fantasy Hero game. Here are my observations that I think are relevant to folks in this forum.

Our group: diverse set of adult men, all 26 or older, married (some twice - not at once), half with children, college educated, technology focused, 1 PhD, a couple of graduate degrees, and at least one verypowerful telescope.

About 2 months ago, our group decided to try a couple of long-term games as means of acoomodating a player who, up to that point, was put off by a favorite RPG format of mine, the one-shot/short-term game. I offered a format that would accomodate both of us: a long term connected game that would offer continious PC development for him (what he desired) and rotating GMs or change of pace and the ability to have different stories and GM styles (my desire).

My portion of the game (the other parallel game was science-fiction) was a fantasy game, strongy influenced by Sword & Sorcery. I was a big Harn fan for many years, and decided to take a radically different tack for this course. I refuse to hyper-engineer the background. I involved the players in game creation to a point I would have balked at but months before. I demanded Kickers. I managed to coax real Kicker from all but half of the 4 who showed up to the first game. Bad sign? Maybe. Disconnect. Yup, think so.

Players: T, P, J, and C. (real names withheld)

Preperation: relationship map based on Dashiel Hammet's The Maltese Falcon. Now, this not being Sorcerer I wasn't looking for a moral perspective to hang the map on. What I was looking for was ample oppurtunities for PC ambition and greed. The map was made up of vairous city elements wheeling and dealing to acquire the dreaded Dagger of Yeng(tm).

The Dagger was actually right from T's Kicker, so in with it and out with what I had written down. His PC was warned off of the Dagger's trail by a mysterious persona. A weak Kicker, sure, but as Ron put it in one of his writings, a weak Kicker can also mean a player who is really asking for it. And considering I was looking for baby steps, I was fine with it.

J mentioned during PC creation that he wasn't sure he liked this "new" GM style. I said that that was OK, I wasn't sure it was going to work, but that if it didn't I would not be offended if we abandoned it. I am pretty clear with these guys that it's OK in my book to have different tastes in all things.

The Game itself: (next post)

What Happened (Or the things that I noticed):

J was very disinterested in the game. (There's more to this than just this game, but perhaps I'll talk about this later)

P at one point, while becoming involved with an NPC who was on the map, stopped and asked "Is this NPC important to your plot? If not, I can just move on." I was distrubed by this attitude and told him the NPC was important "if he is important to YOU."

T was quite fun. He really began to get into things. At one point he rode along with one NPC on the map, formulating plans to ambush the NPC's rival, basically being a good little plot-pilot. In the space of a few minutes he turned around and asked me about what other power brokers existed in the town, such as merchants or orther nobility. He then came up with his own plan to acquire the dagger, paying a gang of mercenaries to ambush the ambushers afterward. Wow! Cool! Just what I was after!

Unfortuneatlely, I can't say I had much fun. The fact that J wasn't into things, and after a point, I found P reading rules books for other games when dealing with T and J. I took that to mean that I failed to provide an engaging game for them.

When I finally made it home I admitted to my wife that I would rather have stayed home than GMed. Trust me, my wife was shocked: "You normally run to these things."

I'm still in shock today - how long have I felt like this? Have I just kept pressing the button hoping the food would come out? I'm hoping that it's just because our play styles are drifting too far apart and that it's not because I Suck At Being A GM (tm).

Is this a new style for the group?

I assume that at some point in your GMing career, that you had a good time doing it. What made that play fun?

I won't bash the choice of systems. Not because I like FH (I do quite a bit), but because I don't see anything here about how the system affected play. That is, I don't see a ton of long, drawn out combats. You seem to be promoting and getting Narrativist play from the active players, and boredom from the rest. Which I'd have to guess might be due to other factors...Perplexing.

Mike

Mike:

Is this a new style for the group?

I assume that at some point in your GMing career, that you had a good time doing it. What made that play fun?

I don't see anything here about how the system affected play.

Hi James,

Definitely take this as an armchair comment. You're the guy who's there, and I'm not.

... but it looks like some GNS-type disconnection to me.

Unfortuneatlely, I can't say I had much fun. The fact that J wasn't into things, and after a point, I found P reading rules books for other games when dealing with T and J.

I took that to mean that I failed to provide an engaging game for them.

Ron said:

...it sounds to me in addition as if they similarly failed to provide an engaging game for you.

Uh, go back to what you were doing when you were having fun.

Narrativism isn't a superior way to play. It's just a choice or a preference. If the other modes are more satisfying for you and the other players, then why not go back and do that?

Mike

From what little is there, it looks like they were after a story that (maybe) didn't exist (the is-this-person-plot comment, for one).

You say that J didn't like the "new style"--was that Kickers? Or the rotating GM's or... ?

I happen to like free-form play (and as a player, I'll make up my own goals pretty consistently)--but I can also see how that could make me feel like the game was 'adrift' if I didn't feel a solid sense of pacing (and I'd be worried--what if my kicker is too much of a curve-ball and the GM can't think of anything good to do with it--and then, what if *I* can't think of anything good)--in other words, if I felt I was having a hard time coming up with a kicker I might feel that "none at all" was better than "a weak one" if I thought the GM had the requisite "a lot of meat" for me to go after in terms of situation.

I guess what I'm saying is that it looks to me like the Narrative thrust here didn't take hold real-well. And there's no reason to expect that that shouldn't happen occassionally (that I can see).

As Mike said, that's a preference--not a superior mode of play.

Maybe next time you come up with a tight, interesting (at least to you) situation and frame them into it.

-Marco

Mike,

I don't want you to misunderstand me: I'm not of the mind that Narrativism is better or worse. I merely wanted to try it and see if it was better for me. The jury is still out, but from what snippets I've tasted, I liked it.

Marco, that's right, I had no pre-programmed story. There was a powder keg, some matches, and a bottle of Grape Wild Turkey on the table. One player seemed to get the gist of things, but the other didn't, and the third wasn't interested enough to try.

After thinking about this on the drive home, the only question I have now is 1. How do I go about fixing it? OR 2. How to I go about Bowing Out Gracefully?

I refuse to spend another evening not having any fun.

Hi James,

No one can make other people like things. It's up to you to decide whether you want to keep playing in this fashion with the same group of people. If you do, you might be in for more No Fun, hours of it plus the let-down based on commitment to your prep. If you don't, you'll never know whether the next time might have been all-fun.

So it's all up to you, based on your knowledge of the people involved. I suggest you put aside thoughts of "fixing it," as there's nothing to fix.

Best,
Ron

James, my suggestion is to ask everyone what didn't work for them... a few minutes of conversation can clear up a week's confusion. People are not always distracted at game sessions because of boredom. It could be sometime painfully ordinary, like J feeling under the weather or stressed out about something unrelated to the game.

Ask and ye shall know... :)

All good advice, thanks fellas. Er, and gals.

JamesDJIII wrote: Preperation: relationship map based on Dashiel Hammet's The Maltese Falcon. Now, this not being Sorcerer I wasn't looking for a moral perspective to hang the map on. What I was looking for was ample oppurtunities for PC ambition and greed. The map was made up of vairous city elements wheeling and dealing to acquire the dreaded Dagger of Yeng(tm).

The Dagger was actually right from T's Kicker, so in with it and out with what I had written down. His PC was warned off of the Dagger's trail by a mysterious persona.

John Kim:

It sounds to me that P had the impression that you were set on arranging a plot involving the Dagger...

JamesDJIII wrote:

John Kim wrote: It sounds to me that P had the impression that you were set on arranging a plot involving the Dagger...

Ummm <scratches head> not really. In fact I made a fairly clear point early on that I would not arranging any such plots. The whole dagger business was a specific outcome of T's kicker - it could have been a person, or a casket of wine, who knows? Clearly, the sort of play I was looking for really didn't take root in 2 out of the 3 players present.

John,

Hey you know I never thought of that way. In any case, I think this threa has served it's purpose - and I want to thank everyone for their suggestions. Maybe something good will come of it.