Trollbabe-ish setup lacking drama
Paul T:
About two months ago, I ran a one-session game using a simple homebrew ruleset based on Vincent Baker's Otherkind dice idea, designed specifically for three players.
(Here's a link, if you want to look, but I don't think it's necessary to the discussion: http://ihousenews.pbworks.com/Playset-Zero)
I was the GM; the two players were a couple who are friends of mine. The guy had some roleplaying experience in his past; his girlfriend did not, but was interested in the idea (especially since she loves computer RPGs).
I used what I'm going to refer to as a "Trollbabe-ish" setup. I'm putting it in quotes, because I'm not entirely sure of the term's accuracy. I've never read the Trollbabe text, and I've only played one session of Trollbabe.
So, here's what I'm using the term as a shorthand for:
* There is a relationship map; a small society of NPCs that have a bit of a tangled web (about 5-6 important NPCs).
* Certain NPCs have done bad things to others in the recent past, so the current situation is one where most NPCs have reasonable grudges against the others.
* I've outlined what each NPC wants, and how the PCs could help them achieve those goals.
* The status quo is tense but stable--no one has a clear upper hand against anyone else.
* The PCs are outsiders, coming in from the outside, and their presence unstabilizes the situation, as any given NPC could easily reach their goals by enlisting the PCs in their current plans.
Again, I'm not sure how close this is to a Trollbabe scenario; it's just based on my limited understanding of how that game works.
The actual scenario was a crew of treasure hunters stuck on an island, in a sort of "17th-century pirate adventure" genre/setting. Half the crew had mutinied, and so the inhabitants of the island were split into two camps. Someone was sabotaging the ship, so no one could get off the island without breaking off hostilities. The two PCs were total outsiders, washing ashore on the island, and literally walking into the midst of the situation. The idea behind all this was to get straight into the game, without the need for an infodump or any discussion of the setting, etc. (The players, in particular the girlfriend, chose the "pirate" theme.)
The game wasn't unenjoyable, but I was kind of surprised by the lack of "stuff" happening. Both players got into it pretty quickly, playing up their characters and willingly playing towards their flaws (each character had a "problematic" feature). We played for about two hours before we had to split (somewhat unexpectedly), and had a good time.
However, I was left a little unsatisfied, because until the very end of the session there was very little action. The players walked around the island, talking to various NPCs, and trying to get to the bottom of things. When NPCs urged them to act, even with significant pressure, the players always held back, waiting until they had some more information. The result was that it felt like I was the only one talking for the first hour or hour and a half. They would ask a question, I would describe scenery and speak through the NPCs. Since there was little conflict, the dice weren't really used during that period. Once they had a bit more of a grasp over what was going on, and as I kept piling on the pressure, the dice came out and things began to spin up quite quickly. Unfortunately, that was towards the very end of the session.
The players both had a good time and want to play again. And I have no doubt that had the session been three or four hours, it would have been great, action-filled, and satisfying.
However, I'm curious about others' methods for using this kind of setup but getting things to happen more quickly. I would have liked to get to some more active participation from the players earlier on. (Actually, I'm almost tempted to say "from the characters", since the players seemed very engaged; they just held off on their characters diving into things until they had a better idea of what the situation was.)
Is it a sign that the situation was too ambiguous or too complex? Or simply a question of the players getting used to the procedures of play?
Or perhaps I should have framed to conflict more directly, giving them what seemed like a fairly unambiguous conflict, and only revealing the "other side" and any moral ambiguity once they got embroiled in it? I hesitate to use this kind of approach because it can feel a little like a railroaded scenario: "Ha! But, now that you've rescued her from prison, it turns the princess is really the villain! Got you!"
What kinds of techniques do you use (specifically in games like Trollbabe, or may also DitV) to get some action happening up front?
I'd like to be able to use this kind of setup within a one- or two-hour time frame as a "demo" or "introduction" to roleplaying for folks new to gaming.
Thanks for reading,
Paul
Ron Edwards:
I'm leaving aside all mention of Trollbabe, because your description deviates from that game's setup in an important way.
Everything that follows should be understood as an educated guess. I wasn't there. If anything or all of what I say doesn't fit, disregard it; I do not claim to be scrying your game.
The issue here is simple: you didn't play your NPCs. You used them as data-drops or some kind of intended stimulus to the players, and that's not enough.
Consider the words I've bolded in these two sentences:
Quote
The PCs are outsiders, coming in from the outside, and their presence unstabilizes the situation, as any given NPC could easily reach their goals by enlisting the PCs in their current plans.
Quote
... until the very end of the session there was very little action. The players walked around the island, talking to various NPCs, and trying to get to the bottom of things. When NPCs urged them to act, even with significant pressure, the players always held back, waiting until they had some more information.
I'm trying to point to the notion that instead of you playing your characters and them playing theirs, you tried to play their characters through the medium of them deciding to act upon your prompting.
Or another way to put it is, given the presence of the newcomers, one or more of the NPCs should have launched into action of his or her own. All your NPCs did was try to get the player-characters to do stuff. None of them did stuff because of the player-characters' mere presence.
As an easy example, NPC X talks to the player-characters and asks for some help. NPC Y, who hates X, sees it or learns of it, and acts to pre-empt the possible agreement or sympathy that had formed. Never mind whether it did or didn't form - Y hates X so much that he or she is convinced that whatever was said, it was to his or her disadvantage. Meanwhile, because the player-characters said "Thanks but no thanks, we'll talk to some other people, then get back to you," X is chewing his or her fingernails with frustration - and decides that the player-characters better get taken out, before they (of course, obviously) are going to ally with Y against him or her.
X and Y, each suitably armed and allied, each acting in what he or she thinks is self-interest, appear to kill or take down these "troublemakers," and it so happens they arrive to do so at the same time.
One mild conversation. Next scene, one savage three-cornered fight.
Is there some reason you GMed like some kind of weird flea market, in which the player-characters got to wander around at leisure, soaking up information and having no particular urgency descend upon them? Why were your NPCs so passive?
Best, Ron
Noclue:
What Ron said. This is "pirate" Yojimbo. Go watch that movie and see how long the titular ronin has to wander about town before he's up to his topknot in shit. Of course, the ronin walks in there with big bad mofo painted across his back, so everyone HAS to have him on their side, or on no one's.
Basically you set up a situation in which the PCs washed up on the island wanting...not sure, but by implication something like "to stay out of trouble and eventually get back home." Your NPCs wanted the PCs to join their side. When the PCs didn't join their side the NPCs let them keep staying out of trouble. That makes for bland games of walking around looking at the scenery.
Now, if your NPCs wanted something before the PCs got there and were in the process of going after it, then the PCs would be a threat if they didn't join up. So, if NPC1 assumed the PCs were joining NPC2, and NPC2 assumed that they were joining up with NPC1...well, you see how things can get hotted up pretty quick.
Paul T:
Those are some very good points, both.
I think there were two things in play:
1. The players were pretty careful about forestalling NPC action. For instance, they pretended to go along with NPCs' plans (on both sides), then kept gently, carefully delaying actually carrying out those plans. They would agree to go somewhere with an NPC, say, and then stall at the last minute, withholding help where they had promised it for as long as possible. They were generally accomodating, understanding, and friendly, trying to forestall conflict until they felt they knew which side to take.
This worked overall: as soon as both sides collided, seeing that things had not gone as planned, then sure enough, the shit went flying. However, it didn't get there quite as quickly as I'd hoped.
2. I was very tired that night, and had some trouble concentrating on the game, which made me feel like I had a million NPCs and bits of backstory to keep straight in my head. I'd also not prepared quite as much as I'd hoped, so I was trying not to contradict myself; trying to keep things straight. As though it took all my attention just to do the usual GM descriptive stuff and act out the NPC roles, not leaving enough "brain power" to say, "And then, so-and-so bursts through the door!"
I'm curious if either of you can suggest some tricks for making a scenario like this pop into action more quickly.
Do you:
* Set up the NPCs and scenario so that they will, by default, have strong, volatile reactions to the PCs, right off the bat? (For instance, the PCs walk into a tribe's village, unknowingly carrying the sign of a forbidden god; the princess believes one of the PCs is her long-lost love, etc.)
* Set up the scenario so that when the PCs arrive, they arrive in the middle of the action? (For example, the two sides are in the middle of a firefight, someone throws a PC a stick of burning dynamite, shouting to throw it over the wall already)
* Choose more forceful, desperate actions on the part of the NPCs? (They're not convinced I'm right? Then I'd better lock them up!)
That last one sounds like what you're suggesting, in terms of NPC actions. Does that mean you must include more volatile, headstrong NPCs in your relationship map, or does it just flow naturally for you?
To me, in the heat of the game, it felt unnatural to act so rashly on behalf of an NPC I basically considered a reasonable and careful planner, especially in response to PCs who were generally helpful and agreeable to his plans, even if not perfectly so.
(Even so, I pushed the players around a fair bit, including insults, orders (e.g. taking away the two PCs' weapons), and even had one of the PCs handcuffed and locked up. But they still didn't react too strongly until a little later, even to that.)
I'm curious what kinds of elements of situational setup tend to make that sort of thing pop a little more.
Or was I just being too weak on the GM-side, from lack of energy and a fear or pushing it too far too fast?
I'm also curious to hear what significant element of the Trollbabe scenario setup I've missed, but I'm guessing that might be a little off-topic. Does it relate to this line of conversation?
(Meanwhile, I'm going to see if I can get some feedback from the players, too, and will post it if I hear from them.)
Noclue:
Quote from: Paul T on July 26, 2009, 07:11:44 PM
For instance, they pretended to go along with NPCs' plans (on both sides), then kept gently, carefully delaying actually carrying out those plans. They would agree to go somewhere with an NPC, say, and then stall at the last minute, withholding help where they had promised it for as long as possible. They were generally accomodating, understanding, and friendly, trying to forestall conflict until they felt they knew which side to take.
I think your island may have a bad case of the respectabilities. Your NPCs have lots of choices that they could be making. As an example, you could stick pistol in their friendly, accomodating hands and demand that they kill a captive to prove their loyalty. Or, when they don't show up to to accompany the NPC he could decide that they had switched sides and send some muscle to kill em (or just hurt them a little). I think fleshing out your NPC's personalities, and giving them different but equally active methods for problem solving would have helped. Say, one dude is cold and ruthlessly calculating. Make the leader of the other side paranoid and given to fits of violent rage. Or whatever. Just as long as they don't simply stand there waiting for the PCs to decide shit.
As for your suggested strategies:
Quote
* Set up the NPCs and scenario so that they will, by default, have strong, volatile reactions to the PCs, right off the bat? (For instance, the PCs walk into a tribe's village, unknowingly carrying the sign of a forbidden god; the princess believes one of the PCs is her long-lost love, etc.)
Something like that might work nicely.
Quote
* Set up the scenario so that when the PCs arrive, they arrive in the middle of the action? (For example, the two sides are in the middle of a firefight, someone throws a PC a stick of burning dynamite, shouting to throw it over the wall already)
This would get to the action quickly, but at the expense of player buy-in, I think.
Quote
* Choose more forceful, desperate actions on the part of the NPCs?
This. Yes, this.
Quote
That last one sounds like what you're suggesting, in terms of NPC actions. Does that mean you must include more volatile, headstrong NPCs in your relationship map, or does it just flow naturally for you?
Yes to both questions. Though, they don't have to be volatile. They have to want something and then you have to play them going about getting what they want as best they can.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page