[AD&D 2e] {Preplay} Preparing a simulationist AD&D game.
Alex Abate Biral:
Thanks for the hints, Chris. This is a very delicate issue, specially since one of the possible players is new to rpgs. I didn't focus it on my first post because I was trying to define what play was going to be like before thinking about how I would explain this to the players.
In previous games I played, the game master (I have yet to play an rpg without a GM) assumed everyone was in the same page as himself and just pushed on. Usually, when a players simply seemed to don't know what to do, they tried to drive the story to grab that player, but frequently the player just remained distant.
Personally, I hope that by leaving no room for the player simply assume something, and making some introductory scenarios, I will be able to make things very clear.
Rustin:
Alex
Consider Situation as its own special aspect of Color. Which you'll need buy-in from the group up front. To get that buy in, start with a Pitch. (I hate the notion of "selling" Creative Agenda -- it makes it so antagonistic and places burden on one player to be the seller and gives power to the other members as buyers, that dynamic undermines the whole idea of a shared creative agenda-- so a different word might be an Offer or Idea, and see if it generates enthusiasm).
How you ask the group, I think is key.
For Sim, ask the group:
"Hey, what about experiencing a character betrayed and now in need of vengeance?"
Contrast that with how you would ask, if you were probing for interest in Narrativism:
"Hey, what if we discover a character in situations where events test his restraint vs. his sense of justice?"
I suspect mindmapping or brain storming, where a subtle use of GNS/Big Model terms could help you organize the brain storming session.
Alex Abate Biral:
Thank you, Rustin and Chris, for the hints. I just sent everyone in the group an email, and I tried to use a lot of color to make them buy in, trying to describe the situations and way of playing. I will try to have some better introduction with them when they begin creating characters. I will be sending them setting material to read as well as one or two stories for inspiration.
I also want to explain that I agree with you that the most important part of this is getting everyone on the same page. I haven’t discussed much about this because I want to see what they themselves think, get a better feel of their expectations.
By the way, I have just finished reading the narrativist essay. I am sorry I didn’t see what you were worried about Rustin. I actually think that the narrativist in me was stealthily trying to get out when I was designing some things. I think I understand better what you meant, and I don't know if some polemic content in the game won't fire up the narrativist in the players too. I am thinking of explaining that this should be taken as an opportunity to see how the people inside the setting think, rather than applying our own morals to the situations and questioning what is right or wrong.
In order to better direct the experience, I am will also go over with the players about what I think are good simulationist roleplaying techniques. Putting in mental traits that help define the psyche of the character might help avoid this. Maybe something less formal might do the trick too, like a list showing the views of each player character on a varied list of subjects. I know I could use power to prevent some more serious issues, but I really want to make a game with little power this time around. If the players start wanting to address what they may perceive as morally wrong or any kind of human issues rather than simply play their characters, I am thinking of simply playing along, rather than stop them from having their fun. I want this to be more simulationist, but I won't force it down the player's throat. I have a positive feeling about the game, however, since the people I will be playing with will be all very friendly and experienced with rpgs (I had a few novices, but because of time table conflicts, they will participate in another games). Therefore, I am sure that any problem that arises will be talked over rather than ignored.
By the way, I have decided some more things about the game. The players will begin in a city called Gelbgras. I decided to break up the city into various groups, each with their own prominent figures. For example, there are various noble houses (7 for now) which divide the control of various public services. One of them, for example, is responsible for controlling the justice system, while another is responsible for the watch, etc. Each house is also responsible to provide military power. Other groups in the city include the artisan’s guild, which take care of the production of goods, and the farmer’s market, which sell the production of the neighboring farms to the city.
The idea here is to make the city work as a kind of political board game. The first scenario I will run will be about a "villain" (he isn't any better or worse than other characters in the setting) trying to take over the city by changing its many variables until he is in the right position to make a coup d'etat. These "moves" he make on the game board will, frequently, end up involving the pcs somehow. For example, if the villain needs a scapegoat for something he did, he will probably take someone dear to a pc. I want to try to run the game using only this amount of force. Aside from that, the pcs will be able to do anything they want, including ignoring the bigger threat of the villain, joining him, or even simply leave the city. Any choice they make will have wildly different results on the hidden gameboard.
Aside from this bigger first scenario (which I call big thread), there will be some minor threads running in parallel, which can also change the state of the city, but aren't related to the actions of the "villain". Once the bigger thread stop being relevant (the pcs resolve it, ignore it, or simply move from the city) I will come up with different bigger threads as necessary. If the players end up as the main engines of action and these threads become unnecessary, so be it.
The first adventure, which I am preparing now, will consist on the results of a plot of the villain to deplete the fire wood reserves of the city right before the winter. I am writing down how I thing various situations may appear and be resolved, and counting on improvisation to do the rest. If anyone want to comment on this, you will be welcome. Thank you for reading this!
Chris_Chinn:
Hi Alex,
Two thoughts (in reverse order, but for simplicity):
First, the political struggle idea can work out fine, though, generally, "threatening" the status quo won't mean much to the players until it's been solidly established to them. That is, they may not know why they -should- care.
For example, "He's going to have the Karasha Monument taken down!" doesn't mean anything, "He's going to have the Statue of Liberty taken down!" does, because there is context. Getting the players to get context, to care, will need to happen before any changes can mean anything to them.
Basically- they need to care before it means anything, and, also, is there any guarantee they won't side -with- the villain? You might be better off with 3-4 different groups making power moves and letting the players pick sides as they will. (Also D&D as a system really doesn't do much for this kind of game).
Second, and this might just be me -over reading- your words:
Quote
I tried to use a lot of color to make them buy in, trying to describe the situations and way of playing.
You can't -make- anyone buy in.
Usually, these things work best when you get together face to face and talk about it. Pitching it over email, even with copious notes, can lead to everyone coming to the table with some interesting diverse interpretations- which may or may not mesh well together.
The other thing is, you can't necessarily read via email how much enthusiasm most people have or don't have for something. "Yeah I'll play" could be "TOTALLY AWESOME" or it could be "Sure, whatever". Face to face makes it easier to see who's not buying in from the get go.
Rustin:
Hey Alex,
I would recommend two things:
Make a One-Sheet.
Read over the rules for Storming the Wizard's Tower.
Like Chris says, buy-in is a tricky thing. I have had the most success with a One-sheet. A One-sheet is from the Sorcerer game, but it can be applied to any game really. The one sheet should clearly put forward the Color and Reward of the game you want to run. Make one large page with cool pictures that describe the context and theme of the game. You hand it to someone, then watch their reaction. That's a good gauge of buy-in.
Check out my first draft One-Sheet-- for this 7th Seas game.
You'll notice we've reached almost the exact same line of thought: a political board game. I plan on pulling pretty heavy from Burning Empires and the Maneuver/Infection mechanic. Although, I'm not sure I quite nailed the color and feel of that mechanic on the one sheet.
I mention Storming, since I just think the Town creation rules are fun and informative-- not sure exactly if it applies to this goal of Sim in Ad&d. I just sense there is a nugget of what we are looking for in Sim play in that game.
If you do make a one-sheet, let me know. I'd be interested in seeing it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page