Ninja Burger and my first game in a while
Callan S.:
Hi Norm,
I don't know if it helps, but in a gamist approach (or perhaps just one type of gamist approach, I dunno), the player themselves reaches for the extra rules, in their search to win or win at a grander scale (assuming they have a thirst for it). So what you could have is a very simple mission, which might be just sneaking down a corridor. However, you then have a larger, extra mission that's there for the big points. This mission either flat out requires special rules knowledge, or the statistical odds are bad/low unless the player figures the new rules that make them more effective.
Mind you, I suppose that doesn't work if your used to using mechanics to reinforce the imagined events amongst the group.
Eero Tuovinen:
DiV is somewhat tricky, but it actually also has its own system for learning the rules; you should use the initiation scenes as an opportunity for teaching. They are simple, no-commitment conflicts created artificially to showcase the character after all, perfect for seeing how the character performs under pressure.
The way I'd orient the players to DiV would probably be to encourage an impression-based character creation, with me explaining what each trait choice means in the fiction and the players putting dice into things according to their character vision. Imagine a young paladin/sheriff/whatever's-most-familiar-point-of-comparison-to-you and tell us what he looks like, acts like, thinks like, I would say - and ask the players to assign dice as they go along, with "larger dice are better than smaller dice" as the rule of thumb. Then after the characters are finished, I'd explain how this game has a sort of flashpoint mechanic - most of it is free and easy narration, but when characters get into conflict, we play a little subgame with the dice. Roll dice, bid them, narrate little snippets of action - demonstrate the initiation scene first with the most responsive player at the table as your victim so the others get to see how it goes. Explain your thought processes and options as you go through it, show the players how the dice choosing is not primarily tactical, but rather a constraint on imagination; I could choose these three dice, but then I'd have to take the blow, and I don't want, so I'm instead going to spend my big fat die so's I get to reverse the blow and narrate this. That sort of thing.
In practice I'd probably strongly consider replacing the backgrounds step in chargen with something a little more concrete if I were playing with uncertain newbies unused to exercising their creativity in this way. Something like "complex history" is great for players who want freedom, but you might benefit from having "the mountainfolk character" or whatever would be familiar to your players. Sort of like using pregenerated character templates to channel the preferences of the players. In general, try to ensure that all choices the players have to make in character generation can be answered directly by querying the player's creativity concerning the fiction; that's usually the part new roleplayers need confidence in, so you should always answer an uncertain player with an exhortation to be confident in choosing answers based on what they see with their mind's eye, remembering that there are no right or wrong choices in a well-designed (non-gamist) game. Simply don't let the players make the choices where they could make a wrong one, and you'll find that their confidence will grow as they begin to see the group as a safe creative environment.
Ayyavazi:
Thanks Eero.
I've actually figured out a little about what I'm going to do in this circumstance. I'm going to have them choose backgrounds and then only assign their stat dice. From there, they have their trait dice and relationship dice free. They fill them all in as the game goes along, which lets them customize their character as it gels in their head.
Introducing the conflict system still seems difficult to me though, for one reason in particular. This group doesn't like waiting a long time for their turn to come around. They don't like the focus not being on them. I know this is something gamers get over with time, but I am trying to ease them into the understanding that I can't hold three conversations at once and roll dice for all of them. I'm not that talented or weird looking.
So I need to know how I can incorporate them all in conflicts most of the time, so that no one has to sit out for a long time. However, I also know that if they are invested enough in their characters and in the story, that they will still pay attention to what is going on and not be so bored. Any suggestions on doing this.
And thanks again for your suggestions. I hope there's no hard feelings that I didn't use them. I think I may have already alienated Egon for that very reason.
Cheers!
--Norm
Eero Tuovinen:
If you're willing to engage in some hackery here, you could try to sort out the DiV rules system into something a bit more communal. For example, instead of having the GM oppose the spotlight dog alone, distribute the GM's dice pool to the rest of the players, have them roll them and then let them play the opposition in the conflict. No need to make this a regular thing, even, but it could work in allowing the players to feel invested if they had their "own" dice on the table and they could plan with the other players how they're going to use them. Could even split responsibilities so that the players choose what the opposition plays and the GM then narrates it, something like that.
That's pretty radical, though, so I have no idea if it'd work. A smaller hack would be to combine the initiation scenes into one big one where all the characters are already together. This way you'd have the normal in-game party situation right from the start. The problem with this approach is that it prevents protagonization: one point of the initiation scenes is that they allow us to perceive the characters as individuals before they are joined up into a group, so if you remove that it's easier for the submissive players to move into a supportive, passive role right from the start without anybody having a chance to see the character alone in the spotlight. But if you think that downtime is a larger problem than passivity, then perhaps this is worthwhile.
In the long run, though, the only real solution is to teach the players to play passionately: peak performance when it's your scene, sympathetic audience when it's not. After I started to actually commit to my audience role in rpgs I never suffered from boredom during downtime; works just great even if you aren't a participant in the game at all.
Ayyavazi:
Thanks Eero,
That radical idea of yours seems perfect. I like the idea of the players getting their own initiations individually, and this idea supports that. I can even give the players a little more control, letting them determine which dice to use for sees and raises and then let them narrate, so that when Dogs aren't involved, their players sort of join me as a GM. I know for a fact one of my players will love this, and probably take advantage of it (in a good way) often. The others will appreciate the inclusion and control it offers them, which is important. As they become more comfortable with listening and being a sympathetic audience, I can wean them off and take up GMing full-time (in game). This will have the added benefit of lessening my workload in game and help me learn the system at a better pace.
I really like how this is shaping up. Thanks for the suggestions again, they really help. Can you point me to any good actual play threads perhaps? Something that would give me an idea how this should all work? If not, I have more than enough to get started. Now I just need to buy enough dice...
Cheers!
--Norm
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page