Since my main campaign has hit rather a road bump (one of my players has got a new job meaning he can't make it every other week, and another has been unavailable on the weeks he can make it for the last month), I've ended up running a seperate game on alternate Wednesdays with two of the same players and one new one (who've I've gamed with before).

I'd been planning on running a Fantasy game, and got some details worked out but when it came to it my players expressed a desire to play something different, and settled on Traveller (well, actually MegaTraveller).

Since I has nothing prepared I figured I'd just let them generate characters and see where it lead. We ended up with these:

Minty Farquar An upper class Diplomat, quite skilled, and with some Linquistics knowledge - played by my Girlfriend, Gilli.
Baron Karitha A young, largely unskilled noble, played by Ant, one of my regular players.
Lt. Cdr. -I forget- A naval officer of many years, played by Pete, my new player.

Thinking quickly, I came up with this setup. Baron Karitha is on a routine diplomatic journey to a neighbouring planet, Minty is his Diplomatic Attache and Pete's character is the Captain of the starship (a Patrol Cruiser for anyone familiar with Traveller), and thus refered to as 'Captain' by everyone. The ship comes with a crew of seven, plus a ship's robot. On their first jump something goes wrong and they are hurled a 1000 parsecs from their destination (Voyager anyone? Yes, I know).

Now, I figured this could work pretty well. Pete would enjoy playing a starship captain, dealing with first contact type situations would play to the strengths of Minty. And Ant, well, Ant is the kind of player who can be relied on to make his own fun whatever the situation, and I figured the conflict between the Baron - who's mission it is - and the Captain - who's ship it is - could be interesting.

Now the first (short, since we'd done character generation first, and I had to do scene setting first) worked out pretty well. We got everyone introduced and had the Jump disaster. At the start of the second session I handed the crew members over to the players to control between them as they saw fit (except for the Ship's Doctor, who I kept as a full NPC). The game was thereby exploring two aspects I've wanted to look into for a while; the control of additional minor characters by the players (grogs, as it were), and the interaction of players of different in-world rank.

But the second session was much less satisfactory (not helped by Ant having not slept all weekend and being rather out of it), although the plot went pretty well. They've found a planet with near-future tech and they're formulating plans to get hydrogen supplies from them, and the parts needed to build their own hydrogen refining plant.

The trouble is that the 'spotlight' has pretty much all been on Pete's character, and the way he's been runing his character has been exasperating this. I figured I'd let it run and see what happened, figuring that when they finally made contact things would shift to spotlighting Minty and the Baron. Unfortunately the session ended with him deciding he'd need to deal with the negotiations himself.

Gilli complained after the game that she hadn't had much to do. And she's right, she didn't. Although the playing of minor characters did give some spotlight time to the other players, it's not very satisfactory time.

I plan to start next session by having a chat with Pete, and asking him to make sure he delegates negotiation and the like to the other PCs, and maybe pointing out to Ant that his Character is technically in charge of the mission if not the ship. I'm hoping this will bring things back round to the kind of setup I envisioned, with the three PCs sharing the areas of command.

Hello,

Could you clarify how Pete has been playing? With examples, please.

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

Could you clarify how Pete has been playing? With examples, please.

Hi there,

Yup - that matches with what I'd suspected.

What I think you might consider is taking a strong hand in "scene framing." Here's how I see this ...

Pete does X - fine. Now cut to one of the other players and bloody well have them do something. If they're vague about it, or a little unsure, then toss them a real conflict, right in their lap.

Really good times to cut are within one of Pete's actions, rather than announcing, rolling, resolving, and narrating his actions all the way through before cutting.

Now, this may or may not be the best thing for you, so I'm just presenting it for consideration, not "do this do that" (which it kind of reads like, unfortunately).

But in my experience anyway, this kind of GM-activity still provides lots and lots of player-freedom in terms of what they want to accomplish and get involved in, but shares the spotlight much better. Especially that second point about when to cut - just because Pete's character is dealing with a conflict doesn't mean that he gets full spotlight until it's done.

Best,
Ron

...and here are some ideas for things to throw at the other players:

1. There's a sabotuer on board -- that's why there was a misjump. And they're still mucking about. Maybe leaving malfunctions or booby-traps that the other players *have* to deal with.

2. It's the night watch, and there's some sort of untranslated communications coming through. Do you wake up the captain, or do you wake up the linguist? Probably the linguist.

3. Charater(s) learn about poor morale and/or talk of mutiny amongst the crew, stuff they wouldn't talk about with the Captain.

4. Infect the captain with something, requiring him to be confined to sick bay. Maybe it's the sabotuer? Maybe the doc is the sabotuer?

5. Have the doctor actually releave the captain of duty due to stress and halucinations (probably not a good idea, since this deprotagonizes the captain)

6. Have the aliens insist on face-to-face negotiations. Seperate the captain from the ship. If some of the other PCs are left on the ship, have something happen that requires them to deal with it on the ship. If they also go on the negotiation trip, have alien reps come up to them and attempt 'out of band' negotiations in an effort to gain position or political advantage.

It sounds like what's happening is that the Captain has become the 'Ars Magica' mage, while everybody else is stuck running grogs. If you want to explore the grog idea, you should maybe think about having everybody have a couple of different ranks of character.

Right now, they all have 'command' characters. They should also all have 'enlisted'/below decks characters. And don't let them mix, if you can help it. That is, send the below-decks characters on a mission together, and don't include ANY of the command level characters. Don't let the Captain get away with playing his command guy in a mix where the rest of the players have to play his subordinates. That way lies madness! Madness, I tell you! =)

Ron's comment about the aggressive scene framing is right on. In fact, in my own game (another space hopping deal) I used scene framing of this sort to great effect when the group had to split (between an "away team" and a "stuck on the ship reading Arthurian romances" team).

If your players are keen on the idea, they can get a lot of mileage out of B-plots in parallel to the captain's plotful bits. My favorite example comes from the show Blake's 7; leader Blake and other crew ran around a port looking for a missing McGuffin; the Bastard Hacker and the Dumb Rogue meanwhile split off and attemtped to win a huge bounty for playing DeathChess. <g>

Especially when Pete is coming across more assertively/scene-stealing, giving the other two a stage to themselves might be more liberating. This can greatly empower of the other players in-between scenes where everyone is involved.

Of course, it's really important to talk with Pete. I find it useful to ask him to consider *out-of-character* that's its more fun for everyone to be involved, so that in-character he can slightly bias his choices towards such opportunities. (That is, make him feel like he's co-scheming the narrative along, rather than making him feel ordered around by a GM.

Ok,

I think the problem can sort itself out in the next session.

You mentioned that Ant was out of it last time around. You also mentioned that Gilli was somewhat uninvolved because Ant was out of it...the interplayer dynamic here is important i think.

Maybe Pete felt that he had to keep things running (sadly, by hogging the spotlight) because Gilli isn't really that assertive in game.

Hopefully, Ant is feeling better next time around, and will be able to participate more, and by proxy, so will Gilli. If i may suggest, trying to get Gilli a little more involved without making it look like your trying to get her involved could help her feel a little more assertive in expressing herself.

Is Gilli the newer player? This may be why she is being so quiet, she may be unused to the group dynamic.

On the other hand, if Pete is the new player, he may be used to playing in groups where one had to compete for spotlight time, and his behavior may be a reflection of that. Since nobody else is competing with him, then he naturally wins out and gets it.

Is Gilli's character the ship translator? If so, then Pete's character may be cut out from the negotiations to a greater degree than he may have originally thought, unless some kind of translator module is being used...i'm not sure about the level of Megatraveller technology, so this may be possible. Play up the diplomatic attache angle of her character...the Captain makes some blunders, perhaps, and she is needed to sort them out before the aliens do something involving excesive firepower.

Aggressive scene-framing is a very good idea; give it a shot.

If it continues to be a problem after the next session, then a little pre- or post-game chat may be in order.

Thank you all for your advice. You've pretty much confirmed my thoughts on the matter.

I intend to start next session by having a brief chat with Pete, which I think will resolve the matter; if not, I'll use some of the ideas above as a plan B. I should say that I've played with Pete before, and never had any problem with him, so I can't see any reason why we shouldn't be able to resolve this without being heavy-handed.

I think the problem partly stems from the linearity of the plot. Since they're all stuck on the starship; there has been only one problem to solve. Normally I use a spotlight shifting system similar to the one Ron describes above, but I haven't had anything to switch to.

1. There's a sabotuer on board -- that's why there was a misjump. And they're still mucking about. Maybe leaving malfunctions or booby-traps that the other players *have* to deal with.

3. Charater(s) learn about poor morale and/or talk of mutiny amongst the crew, stuff they wouldn't talk about with the Captain.

Hello,

It'll be an interesting case study for the ongoing (friendly) debate over how "talk it out beforehand" or "fix by playing differently" interact with one another.

To me, what stands out in your post is the contrast between:

- acknowledging that the scenario needs more than one conflict in order to work

- bringing in another conflict "over the next few sessions"

That latter bit jars me. Are the players supposed to notice something going wrong over several instances, then get subtle hints that someone might be causing these problems, then decide to look for the saboteur, etc? In my experience, such a plan for play lacks a lot of grab.

It's up to you, of course, but I suggest considering having the saboteur be (a) wholly and crucially effective, such that he must be acknowledged and must be found, (b) nearly right away in the very next session. The more this overlaps with whatever conflict they're dealing with at the moment, the better. Definitely a "my two cents" issue - discard/adjust to fit.

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

Yes, that would seem like a bit of a contradiction - what I intend to do is introduce other areas of conflict, but hold the saboteur plot back for a while. I haven't yet fixed on what conflicts I will bring in, but I've a couple of weeks to think about it. If I don't get any good ideas I will bring the Saboteur plot forward.

Are the players supposed to notice something going wrong over several instances, then get subtle hints that someone might be causing these problems, then decide to look for the saboteur, etc?

Hi Jack,

Agreed on all points - with the proviso that many a GM has fallen into the trap of shoveling fairly trivial and uninteresting "forward plots" at the characters as he lovingly tends his subtle and fascinating "connector plot" ... which of course he can't reveal, because that would mean the game might be concluded.

So it's those "up front and center" conflicts that seem most important to me, in your current situation.

Anyway, thanks for this excellent discussion. I look forward to seeing how it goes.

Best,
Ron

Mr Jack wrote:

You're right. Play like that does lack grab. What I want to do is have several acts of minor sabotage at times when they can't fix them because they're too busy. I hope to misdirect the players into thinking all the sabotage devices were pre-planted. Building up to more serious acts and finally the identification and dealing with of the Saboteur. If I bring it all out quickly in the next session I feel the plotline will lack both tension and impact.

Hi all,

This is a follow-up to the above, I considered starting a new thread for it, but I don't think there's much new to talk about. Could be wrong.

Last night I ran the next session of the above game. As luck would have it I was giving Pete a lift over to my house, so I got a chance to chat to him over a friendly game of Dead or Alive before the session started. The conversation went something like this:

Me: "About tonight's game. Last week your character pretty much dominated all the play."
Pete (nodding): "Yes."
Me: "And this is a problem."
Pete (nodding more): "Yes."
Me: "I need you to involve others more in the decision making, and delegate things to them. Specifically I think you should hand over the diplomatic stuff to Minty and the Baron."
Pete makes thoughtful noises.
Me: "If you need in character reasons, they have more diplomatic experience and it's often wise to have negotiations carried out by intermediaries, because its harder to pressure people when they can't make the decision themselves." (Pete's very big on IC/OC distinctions and keeping true to character.)
Pete: "The other problem is that IC I don't trust the Baron."
Me: "I'd point out that technically the Baron is in charge of the mission, and although you're captain of the ship; the ship is at his disposal."

I started the game just before the last session finished, after a brief recap so we could redo the 'course of action' discussion. This time Pete handed the diplomatic responsibilities over to the Baron (Ant, who was rather more awake this week), who in turn asked his Minty to assist him. The players also got a lot more into the swing of controlling the minor (crew) characters, so they all got a little bit of spotlight in almost every scene.

Over the last couple of weeks I'd spent some time thinking up additional complications to throw in, but in the end I never had to use any of them. When their initial radio communication was ignored (the aliens thought they were kids pratting about) they took their ship (which we named the ISS Sceptre) down over the one of the oceans, and there then ensued an attempt by the three most powerful nations on the planet to claim them for themselves. The characters decided to establish a 5km no-fly zone around their craft, and ended up shooting down eighteen (!) incoming jets, and capturing two ejected pilots. While Minty was 'interviewing' them, the captives government launched cruise missiles at the Sceptre, which they avoided by plunging under the water; and another nation (The People's Republic) shot down two of the missiles to try and gain their trust. Between the various factions vying for their ear, the dealing with prisoners and their trying to organise a plan I was able to keep the spotlight moving and the session packed.

So, all in all, it went much better than the last session and I think the problem is now resolved. Chatting with Pete had entirely the desired effect, although he was clearly aware of the problem before I raised it, so it may be that it would have worked out OK anyway.

Thanks again for all your advice.

Hi Jack,

I was really enjoying that post and looking forward to the "what happened" paragraph ... and hit a dead stop.

I don't care about the ship and the aliens, man! I wanna know about the players! How'd it go among the time-sharing, spotlighting, back-and-forth stuff? Did Pete's character end up increasing or decreasing his distrust of the Baron - and most importantly, how did that (whichever) get established through the interactions of the players?

And that sort of thing. Um, sorry about the urgent tone; it's just enthusiasm. Post at your own pace.

Best,
Ron

Hi Ron,

I was really enjoying that post and looking forward to the "what happened" paragraph ... and hit a dead stop.

How'd it go among the time-sharing, spotlighting, back-and-forth stuff?

Cool!

Were there differences in how the actual people looked at one another, gave one another facial or verbal cues (a muttered "Yay-uh!" or "That's what she'd do, all right"), between this session and the previous?

How about cues you used regarding what interested them? Could you tell which offerings of yours were, to introduce a metaphor, stinky vs. yummy?

Overall, actually, what matters is the "happy now" part. I hope you'll forgive me for continuing to dig for details - but it's just this sort of thing that can help others when they arrive with similar issues and get directed to this thread.

Again, no rush.

Best,
Ron

Mr Jack wrote: Me: "Right then, you're in a meeting to discuss what to do next."
Pete: "Ok, does everyone agree with the plan?"
Ant: "Er, what was the plan again."
Brief discussion while we remember the salient points of the plan (contact the second most powerful group by tight beam radio, offer to exchange Medical technology for things the PCs need).
Ant (back in character): "Ah yes, why is it we're contacting the second most powerful group? Surely we should deal with the best."
Pete: “We don’t want to disrupt their culture too much. If we give extra power to the most powerful we could unbalance things.”
Ant: “That sounds reasonable.”
Pete: “Baron, could I ask you to front our diplomatic contacts with the aliens.”
Ant: “Yes, of course, that would be appropriate. Miss Farquar I’ll need you to advise me from behind the scenes, and see if you can pick up on anything more subtle from their words or actions.”
Gilli: “Yes, of course Baron, I'd be happy to.”

Continuing on from the above (I’ll respond to the above responses in another post), I’ll go over a few more examples that stood out to me as exemplifying why things went better this session.

The first covers a brief section where three of the crew went out in a GCarrier to rescue the two downed pilots. There were three crew members sent out; I’m not sure here whether Pete chose to send three so one could be taken by each player or purely based on his stated in-game. Gilli took Landrey (the rescuer), Ant took Kenyon (the gun pointer) and Pete took Coogan (the pilot). The reason I find this notable is that Landrey is the highest ranking of the three. So for a scene, Gilli took the command role. Again I’m not sure whether this was deliberate or not. It often seems to me that when things are working well, nice little details like this one fall naturally out of the game. This switching of the chain of command allowed the different players to act out alternate roles and, for the first time, I found it a really convincing demonstration of the minor characters being PCs being a really positive step.

It also meant that we finally starting getting some separation of action, so I was able to cut between different events with the resultant switching of Spotlights, and upping of suspense.(In this case the arrival of jets from a third national power, The Peoples Republic, provided that alternate scene).

Going back to the minor characters again. Last session was the first time I’d introduced them as a concept and I left it entirely up to the players how they’d run them. Last session they seemed kind of hesitant with them, but this time they really took them to heart, with exchanges like:

Pete (as Captain): Mathesson, begin transmission.
Ant: Yes, sir.

What I found interesting was the way in which they assigned the crew, I had expected them to just pick up a crew member for a scene and then put them back in a pot. But this wasn’t what happened. Instead they held onto the characters they started playing, taking their role whenever it turned up again, except where they already had a character in the scene.

Slightly later on, the two pilots were dragged onto the Sceptre, and then interviewed by Minty (Gilli basically took this role for herself), so she finally got some centre stage time for her main character. Towards the end of the interview I threw in another complication (an attack on the Sceptre) and was again able to cut back and forth between the two scenes (elegantly in this case, the Baron was called from one scene to the other).

In a way I see last session as a bit of a blip. Spotlighting isn’t normally a problem in my games. My impression is that the problem cooks down to three main things:

1. A lack of ‘threads’. The last session had no ‘cutting’ opportunities, so I was unable to keep the Spotlight moving. This was because the game was too linear.
2. An imbalance of power. Only the Captain had any existing authority to make substantial actions, the other players were in situation of either having to take, or be given, power. This combined badly with:
3. One character out to limit the effectiveness of another. The Captain was unimpressed with Baron, and was trying to keep him out of things. This in itself would perhaps have worked out, but on the uneven playing field it had nasty consequences.

Hi Ron,

Ron Edwards wrote: Were there differences in how the actual people looked at one another, gave one another facial or verbal cues (a muttered "Yay-uh!" or "That's what she'd do, all right"), between this session and the previous?

How about cues you used regarding what interested them? Could you tell which offerings of yours were, to introduce a metaphor, stinky vs. yummy?

Overall, actually, what matters is the "happy now" part. I hope you'll forgive me for continuing to dig for details - but it's just this sort of thing that can help others when they arrive with similar issues and get directed to this thread.

Loki wrote: I'm glad that your OOC talk with Pete helped things (he sounds like a great player to have in a group), but I noticed reading the transcript that it all depended on Pete giving up his autonomy. Just in case he goes alpha-dog on you again/the passive characters go limp, here's an example of how you could use framing (not that I'm an expert) to get Ant and Gilli more involved.

Man this game sounds like a lot of fun. You've got me wanting to play a SF-themed game someday...

I'd really like to hear more about how it turns out, storywise... keep us posted!

A lack of ‘threads’. The last session had no ‘cutting’ opportunities, so I was unable to keep the Spotlight moving. This was because the game was too linear.