[Shadowrun] Adding bangs to save a failing campaign...
Joel P. Shempert:
Hi!
As someone who's been working on applying Bangs and similar techniques to a game with a pretty traditional paradigm--with mixed results--I can say it can be a rocky roa, or at least a gradual climb. I wouldn't expect a lot of results very quickly or smoothly. It'll come bit by bit, in little bursts of insight or unconscious shift in play mode, if the players are amenable.
A couple of experiences I could particularly relate to:
1) The Emails; I tried starting a roleplaying blog a couple years ago (it's still up on Blogger, as a sort of internet ghost town), specifically to talk about RPG theory and what I want out of play, with the friends I game with. I got one guy to read it and post a brief reply, and that's very nearly it. No amount of nagging, blogging, and begging could get my fellow players invested in the ideas I was invested in, r invested in reading about them. And I think it's probably a telling cue when you start using phrases (like I just di!) like "get them to. . ." or whatever. In my experience that idiom is a polite version of "make them [do whatever]," and is a sign of an unproductive mindset that can onl end in tears.
2) The "I do nothing" guy; the second link above ("A paper trail to Nowhere") chronicles my flabbergasting experience with a guy who wanted nothing more for his character that session than to sit in his apartment and organize paperwork. It's quite disconcerting to be confronted with such an apparent lack of investment in what's going on. It felt like a slap in the face: "naw, Mr. GM, I'm not really going t take advantage on your (wasted effort t involve me in the game in a dynamic way." It's hard to know what to do in such a situation; I don't know about yours but in my case I'm convinced the player genuinely was content to do nothing that night and just watch others play. I was sorely tempted to just make the action come to his apartment, but that would have felt a lot like the "no matter whatyou do, I'll throw 10 ninjas at you and herd you along!" you were talking about. I eventually salvaged what I could of the scene and went, OK, you find something interesting in your research when you organize it," so it wouldn't be a complete dead end.
I was reading a thread on Storygames today and someone mentioned that using language like "what do you do?" can be kind of a trap, canalizing the player into a mindset of "what the guy would do" in a narrow sense, at the expense of "what would be fun and engaging for the players." Just unobtrusively using language that reinforces "we're creating a fun experience on purpose" can go a long way, like saying "What would you like to see happen for your character now?" and such.
Good luck!
Peace,
-Joel
The Dragon Master:
1. Absolutely, and I'll be talking with the players about that next session. The new idea, which was mentioned in an earlier post, is to have a round robin discussion of the last game session before play starts.
2. Wow. I had read the "Paper trail to nowhere" post a while ago, but hadn't yet had this happen and it got pushed to the back of my mind. Now reading it again, having just experienced it, I feel like the wheels are turning. But I'll get to that in a moment.
I stopped by G's house to hang out on Monday, just to hang out, and we got to talking about the game. One thing that came up is that while I was dumbfounded at D's action, it doesn't have to lead nowhere. It is an opportunity to drag his enemies to a more front and center location. It is also an opportunity to perhaps show the players that this world will react to their actions. I had been planing to have that happen later, when I had a better handle on the system, yet here we are.
The second thing that I realized (which ties into point two above) was only a dim light at the time, and has become clearer as time has passed. (Some background) I frequently find myself being expected to just know what the players are thinking. To put it mildly, I'm not very good at that. At the meet Bloody King asked the Johnson how much Aztechnology had put into this subsidiary. I had no notion of what he was trying to get at... Well, I had some idea (he has a tendency to walk away from certain parts of the setting just based on the notion of character survival, but that is a topic for another post) he was trying to figure out if he was willing to take the job, and I had no idea what the right answer was. I didn't want to place it too high and have his character walk out, didn't want to put it too low and strain suspension of disbelief. Normally I wouldn't mind the players walking away. That's part of the reason I designed the campaign this way. I've got a handful of runs for them to go on, so if they turn one down, I can throw another at them. But this is the first run with all the characters there. If he walks away from this, there is not yet even a "group" to speak of. I almost had a melt down, but decided to step OOC and ask him what he was aiming at, and had the Johnson respond accordingly. This is a new way for me to handle things (as either GM or Player) and I'm not quite comfortable with it yet, but I'm working on it. I've been reading the Burning Wheel system, and think I'll steal their task/intent technique (which is apparently absent from Shadowrun). When a player says something that throws me for a loop ("I pretend to be drunk and wander over to him", or "I sit there looking petulant") I'll as what they are trying to accomplish, and work it from that angle. Hopefully it will prevent game freeze-up on either my end, or theirs.
The first step is definitely going to be talking to the players about some of the things I'll be trying/changing. On that list is the task/intent bit, making sure not to "lead" the characters (much of the "important" info in the compound was on the astral plane, so when D ran ahead I was constantly asking if he's using astral perception), as well as better scene framing (leaving out the sitting around, waiting bits in leu of getting to the action/story/plot/whatever). Still a week away from that though.
greyorm:
Quote from: The Dragon Master on March 19, 2008, 12:20:28 PM
I frequently find myself being expected to just know what the players are thinking. To put it mildly, I'm not very good at that.
Interesting. I was just about to ask you if you had asked the player who decided to keep sitting there having his character do nothing "Why?" The answer to that question might have given you insight on how best to continue from that point, instead of each of you trying to (it seemed to me) silently read the other person and guess what they want.
Quote
When a player says something that throws me for a loop ("I pretend to be drunk and wander over to him", or "I sit there looking petulant") I'll as what they are trying to accomplish, and work it from that angle.
Have you read the recent Sorcerer thread, particularly the part where Ron and Jesse talk about actual-play versus table-talk?
Joel P. Shempert:
Quote from: The Dragon Master on March 19, 2008, 12:20:28 PM
I almost had a melt down, but decided to step OOC and ask him what he was aiming at, and had the Johnson respond accordingly. This is a new way for me to handle things (as either GM or Player) and I'm not quite comfortable with it yet, but I'm working on it.
I hear ya. I've had a lot of experience with that clammed-up, "say what my guy does and that's it" kind of play from both sides of the silence. Even though I've done it (and, when I don't catch myself, still do it), I'm always a bit mystified at the behavior. I think it's partly a reaction to the idea of a GM, or player in a PvP situation, putting the kibosh on any intent he catches wind of ("anything you say will be used against you"), for whatever reason. And partly, in my case, a sense of bad form or something, like I'm getting ahead of myself or preplaying, or trying to do something "meta" (with a vaguely negative connotation of "bad roleplaying") instead of just "playing the character." And it's easy in this mode of play, especially when you do see intent after intent beaten down or even accidentally stepped on, to get into a toxic, passive-aggressive resentment stance: "Oh, they know what my intent is, the bastards. They know."
So yeah, busting through that is a huge, huge deal for me, and to the extend that I've shed "mum intent" play, my gaming has been loads more fun. Hope you're able to get some good use out of explicit-intent play as well.
Peace,
-Joel
Ron Edwards:
Here's a possibly interesting thread: Turtling in RPGs.
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page