Trollbabe-ish setup lacking drama
Paul T:
Hello, everyone.
First of all, thank you for all the replies. There`s some good advice in there, from everybody.
Ron, thank you for posting that second post, because your first one is very strongly worded and appears to read into my report a bunch of stuff that I am pretty sure isn`t there. Now, I know from conversations with you in the past that you like to jump at an issue you think may be there, with the caveat that, "if this does not describe your game, feel free to ignore it; I wasn`t there in person." I hope you`re still posting from that point of view here!
In particular, it`s very important to point out that I am not Paul Tevis--I just happen to share the same first letter of his last name. Therefore, those linked threads are not mine, and (as far as I know; I have not read them) not relevant to this discussion. Ron, if any of your assumptions in posting in this thread are coming from past conversations with Paul Tevis, please reconsider them in light of this fact.
I also hope that`s where you`re getting all the comments about "make the players do this", "MY players", etc. That has not been my mindset at all. Indeed, the problem with the session described here (and similar situations) is that what I really want is for the players to act, because my interest in GMing the game is to see what they come up with and what direction they want to go in. In a game like this, I`m interested in getting to that point more quickly, and in this case the setup worked a little bit against that goal.
(I`m also a little confused by your comment about the ruleset--it`s designed to create lots of unfortunate consequences to the players` actions, and it did. When the action started to get thick in this particular session, things spiraled out of control very quickly for the PCs, so I`m pretty sure the rules do what they`re supposed to do. It`s very far from an easygoing system--it`s very tough on the PCs, in fact.)
Jesse, what you posted above is very much in line with the issues I`m struggling with, and if you could provide a link to that thread (or enough information for me to search for it), I would be delighted.
Like Jesse, I find it difficult sometimes to see the line between "2d6 ninjas burst through the door" and meaningful antagonism initiated from the GM-side. Jesse, your line about "something else being at stake" is a great way to cut through that Gordian knot, and I`ll be keeping that in mind.
I would like to continue this conversation, in particular for anyone who has had a similar experience.
To reiterate what I said above, my issue with the session was not that it was terrible. We had a good time, but we felt like we were only getting to the good stuff towards the end. I`m pretty confident that, had the session run for four hours (instead of two), the game would have been powerful, interesting, and satisfying. I`ve run many such sessions in the past. Indeed, in the case of this session, the original plan had been to play for that period of time. And our game showed every sign of heading in the right direction.
Instead, we had to cut it short (due to other matters, unrelated to the game), which was somewhat disappointing: we had to stop just as things were coming to a head. The experience left me wondering how a similar fun experience could be delivered in two hours instead of four.
All the points about NPC proactivity were very good. My attitude in designing the scenario had been to create a bunch of NPCs that needed things from the PCs. The presence of the PCs on the island would have allowed any of them to achieve their goals, and break out of a stalemate situation. (And this feeds directly into what Jesse was saying about his Dogs game, as I hope is clear.)
Having been in a more cogent state of mind, I could have been much clearer (in my own head) about what each NPC was after, which would have helped a great deal, and is a point of advice I`ll be carrying away from this thread.
I wonder, also, if a simpler backstory (one that could have been revealed very quickly, with fewer words) would solve this issue. There were enough little twists in turns in my backstory that I think the players were enjoying themselves simply uncovering what was going on. Once enough of the backstory had become clear to act, they did. So, perhaps if there had been less information to uncover, they would have acted more quickly.
I also think that the social circumstances (one person new to gaming altogether, one hadn`t played in a long time, the three of us had never played together at all) are an important factor. I know that I feel hesitant to jump straight into something with an unfamiliar activity and unfamiliar people, preferring to "play it safe", feeling out boundaries, and I can`t imagine that it`s too different for anyone else. I`m kind of surprised no one has commented on that aspect of the game--any similar--or contrary--experiences out there?
Paul T:
(As a sidenote: Ron, your points in the beginning of your last post, about A, B, and B' versus C, were excellent, and I agree in full. I'll definitely be taking that advice home.)
Andrew Norris:
Quote from: Paul T on July 29, 2009, 09:56:36 AM
In particular, it`s very important to point out that I am not Paul Tevis--I just happen to share the same first letter of his last name. Therefore, those linked threads are not mine, and (as far as I know; I have not read them) not relevant to this discussion. Ron, if any of your assumptions in posting in this thread are coming from past conversations with Paul Tevis, please reconsider them in light of this fact.
Those threads have gotten referenced in similar situations (I remember being linked to them when I had some Bang questions in the past), so I don't think it has anything to do with a username confusion. It's fairly common here to reference threads where similar situations have been addressed in the past.
I'd like to reiterate that their content's probably relevant to the situation you're facing. (I'm following this thread with interest because I recently had a player tell me I was running into these same kinds of situations when GMing.)
Noclue:
Nope. Ron refers to the threads as "your old threads." Clearly some internet confusion, but possibly still relevant threads.
Ron Edwards:
Paul T .... ptevis. Got it now. My mistake for sure.
Paul, it seems as though we managed to communicate anyway. I think you'll find the other Paul's older threads interesting.
I noted one other detail upon re-reading the initial posts, which is that one of the players has a strong computer-RPG background. I don't know if what I'm about to say fits, so I present it only as a possibility. Those games are notable for equating "story" with "game designer's back-story," and to play "for story" means basically to keep rubbing every surface until the whole of the back-story is finally revealed and you can bask in its complexity and content. Possibly that experience acted as prior training or at least some degree of influence on that player.
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page