The Forge Archives

Well, I ran my new D&D 3E campaign on saturday night and things didn't go quite like I had hoped.

The main problems was that I wanted the players to concentrate on their own character's story along with the overall story.  I had the players write out backgrounds for their characters and everyone seemed pretty happy with their characters and fealt a connection with them.

Well, I started the session giving each player a scene with their character.  Most of the players really enjoyed being able to do stuff that was centered on their character.  The problem was that when I was running a scene for one player the other players could care less about that player's story and got bored (but they seemed pretty interested when it came to their turn).  

At first I thought that it just wasn't going to work out and that they weren't into character exploration, but later on a few of the players suggested that we run their individual stuff over email or ICQ instead of on Saturdays when everyone is together.  We came to the conclusion that having six players left too much time between a character's scenes.

I am wondering how I can get everyone interested in each other's personal stories?  I have plans to tie all of their personal stories into the "whole" story, but if I can't get everyone interested in what the other players are doing maybe I'm just wasting my time.

Things seamed to flow much smoother when everyone was together fighting mosters (which I reluctantly resorted to), but according to the survey I had the players fill out, that is the least interesting part of the game for them.

Am I doing something wrong or is 6 players and 1 DM too many people for this type of campaign? or maybe they're just lieing to me

,Matt

Well this would depend on the kind of game you're envisioning playing and how tightly scripted the unique scenes are.  But one method thats been used with great success in a variety of games is to make the other players participants in the other player's scene.

In many D&D games when the party would split up I'd have then non present players run the "bad guys" for the inevitable monster encounter.  This worked really well, and the other players were far nastier to each other than I would have been.

Also if you don't already have an agenda for certain scenes letting the other players run key NPCs can work, especially if the scene is a player initiated one.  If player A wants an audience with the king to ask for a boon let player B be the king, and player C be a royal advisor (one who is known to not really like the party anyway), and player D be the King's daughter who might be convinced to help...I've run scenes like this in even the most old school games (I guess you could call it stealth player authority because none of us figured we were doing anything unique) and often times the DM can just sit back and relax and watch the players entertain each other.

Of course Ars Magica formalized the troupe concept.  Ultimately if the individual sessions are too tight to allow other players to scramble them up with their involvement, let the other players roll up a cast of "supporting characters" and side kicks to use while the spot light is on one of the primaries.  I've done this before in D&D too when 1 player would repeatedly want to go off on "Theives Guild" business.  I eventually had all the other players roll up minor theives and thugs of the guild so they could all participate in robbing the rich wizard's tower.

Hey Matt,

I don't think the issue is the amount of time between a character's scenes. Read my post http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=13342">here.

Paul

QuoteIn many D&D games when the party would split up I'd have then non present players run the "bad guys" for the inevitable monster encounter. This worked really well, and the other players were far nastier to each other than I would have been.

Also if you don't already have an agenda for certain scenes letting the other players run key NPCs can work, especially if the scene is a player initiated one.

I really like this idea.  There are quite a few NPCs that the players will want to interact with that can easily be played by other players without compromising the story.  I will discuss the option with everyone and see how they feel about it.

QuoteI don't think the issue is the amount of time between a character's scenes.

Ok, I read you post and now realize it's all my fault.  how do I go about fixing the probelm?  Valamir's suggestion solves the boedom problem, but is there any way to get the players interested in each other's stories?  I know when we played sorcerer and The Pool I was pretty interested in everyone's stories even when they had no bearing on my own.  is that just me or was it because of some aspect of how the game was run?

,Matt

Matt,

What's wrong with the players' suggestion that you guys do most of the individual/Exploratory stuff on-line? Character Exploration focused play sets the internal experience as the priority, and it strikes me that the suggestion is valid, based on the goals you all have agreed upon.

In other words, from this perspective, you all have to "play together" because the characters are together in the imaginary game-space, which requires the real people to be interacting with one another. When the characters aren't together, then the players are just as well off not being in the same room.

There is no way to make the players interested in one another's characters. They have to do that, in both directions, and for that to happen, they have to want to do it.

I guess I'm saying you can't have it both ways. If the goal is to "feel one's character," then yes, waiting while someone else gets the necessary input to do this is boring, and you guys should take some proportion of this activity on-line, and do "characters are together" material in face-to-face play. If the goal is to "entertain one another via our characters," in a thematic way, then deliberate and explicit metagame interactions about that are necessary (ie Narrativist play).

My impression was that you were playing mainly toward the first priority (Simulationist/Character). Again, if so, then I agree with the on-line solution, and suggest putting the "get everyone interested in one another's characters" idea aside.

Best,
Ron

QuoteWhat's wrong with the players' suggestion that you guys do most of the individual/Exploratory stuff on-line?

I don't have much of a problem with doing that aside from time constraints.  In essence what will end up happening is I will move from running one game on Saturday's to running 1 game on Saturday and 6 more throughout the week.  Add prep time to that and I dont think I'll be able to keep up.  I've already spent too much time on prep to begin with.

QuoteIn other words, from this perspective, you all have to "play together" because the characters are together in the imaginary game-space, which requires the real people to be interacting with one another. When the characters aren't together, then the players are just as well off not being in the same room.

I don't think that's the case at all, but since I rarely disagree with you I think we may be missing something.  I don't intend for the game to consist of each character simply taking his turn doing his own thing.  The characters all know each other and all have aspects of their lives that have a bearing on the others.  They need to do things together in order to reach the climax of the story.  I am simply (or not so simply) trying to establish a story that focuses not on the group saving the day, but a group of "individuals" saving the day together.

If you already realized this I guess I should point out why I disagree with what you stated.

I feel that players should have a desire to maintain an interest in what is happening with the other characters especially when it will have a bearing on them later on (and it will).  Just because their charcater's are not present doesn't mean it's irrelivant to the story.  It's like suggesting that a person read a book and skip all the parts that don't include their favorite character.  

My desire to have each character establish himself as an individual is an attempt to enhance the overall enjoyment of the entire story not just the individual characters' stories.

Maybe it's just not possible to obtain what I'm looking for.  Is it impossible to focus on individual characters AND the overall story at the same time?
Am I stuck choosing between a well developed story and well developed characters?

QuoteThere is no way to make the players interested in one another's characters. They have to do that, in both directions, and for that to happen, they have to want to do it.

I think if the characters are interesting enough  their stories should be able to attract the interest of the other players.  I agree that if you don't want to be interested in someone else's character there is no way to make you, but isn't a general interest in the other players part of the social contract?

I realize that if a character is doing something that has no bearing on anyone else at any time then it serves no purpose in a group setting, but I don't intend to run my campaign that way.  If Joe the theif wants to go rob a house in the middle of the night you can bet the owner of that house will play some role in the story somewhere down the line.  I've already established how each NPC the players created ties in to the story.   The plot isn't so set in stone that I can't adjust it as time goes along.  I may be a simulationist, but I'm not so rigid in my GMing that I won't do what's best for the story.

,Matt

Hi Matt,

Well, let's hold on one minute here ...

"Doing things so they'll be best for the story," given that the GM is steward of the story, is Simulationist (of a given sort).

But that's GNS talk, and we're really talking about concrete play. So I'll stick with that.

It seems to me that the question goes like this. If you're actually playing, and running a scene, and XYZ is happening with someone's character, how can the other players be shown that what is happening is important to their characters?

1) Utilize NPCs and events to "cut across" characters, including secondary or truly irrelevant details. If character A talks to the milkmaid, have the milkmaid walk through the room during character B's scene, for no reason. If character B casts a spell, have someone gossip about it during character C's scene.

2) Some of the effects described in #1 will, of course, not be irrelevant at all. Think of the most important reactions of NPCs (like the shopkeeper you mentioned) - and have aspects or details of their reactions appear nearly continuously through the scenes of different characters, as background if not centrally.

3) Go for the spectacular - what can each character "do"? Provide the most challenging, interesting opponent or problem for that character, playing specifically to his or her strengths.

4) Most importantly, don't waste time. Learn that system cold and fly dazzlingly fast through dice rolls, modifiers, movement rates, and terrain description. Use a dry-erase board for set pieces, don't say "um," point to a player and demand response, and move to someone else if they're not quick enough.

All of the above were my most potent weapons as an Illusionist Champions GM. #1 became a Narrativist tool later, although used in a different way.

Best,
Ron

All the above advice is sound and good, if it applies at the road-surface level.  To me it sounds like a lot of assumptions are being made that I personally can't see.  Normally, I wouldn't put something like this up, because of a strict, 'walk the walk' policy, so....

Basically?  Get the other players involved.  I don't really care how, just stop trying to look at it in terms of getting the players involved in the other character's stories, let that happen naturally (the only way it'll ever happen anyway, you can't force it).

I do it basically in one of three ways.  The first, and possibly hardest, is captivating presentation; just be a good 'storyteller' and have your words 'keep' them.  (I said it wasn't easy, but I usually depend on pacing and 'when all else fails run an action scene.')  The second is the obvious, 'have them play the other characters in those scenes' sort of thing.

The last has to do with a technique I am developing for Scattershot called 'Exposure.'  Whenever I see a character write-up, in whatever game system and playing mode, I look for Exposure.  I guess the simplest way to describe Exposure is anything the player is unconsciously (or consciously) 'throwing out' character hooks with.  What 'counts' as Exposure varies from playing style to playing style, from GNS mode to GNS mode, but it must alway serve the style, mode, or whatever you play.

If a player takes a near superhuman rating and has an 'experienced' character, I take it that there will either be some kind of subtle reputation or something that will draw special note from all present whenever used.  If a player puts anything into their history, I expect to play on it at least referentially.  This all seems part and parcel with the preliminary stuff you've already done.

What the technique of Exposure does is make the specific 'hooks' more explicit in your thinking.  These are the strings that you have to bring into other player's personal character stories.  If one player's character is interested in finding something out, lay some of the clues out in another's 'personal' time, even though they can't use this knowledge directly, it will most likely get their attention.  You know, if one is 'looking for the Maltese Falcon,' simply give it to a different, yet completely unknowing, character; just watch how closely the first player attends the second's character's story.

Some forms of Exposure also qualify as weaknesses for the character; be exceptionally careful using these.  Constantly casually throwing others' characters in jeopardy is poor play.  Revealing these weaknesses in play centered on another player's character becomes a tantalizing (and hopefully empty) threat that will also get their player's attention.

The real trick with Exposure is becoming conversant with things a player doesn't realize they have as Exposure in their character and not overdoing it.  Both are very subtle, both should remain so.  What Exposure does for you here is it gives you 'threads' to pull into a story they appear unrelated to that will result in interest on the part of the other players (whose characters the 'threads' are 'attached' to).

Before I forget, Exposure works both ways.  It comes from the personal stories for the characters and is used to fuel those stories, and it also lets you 'attach' characters together in a 'destined to work together' or 'small world' sort of way.

Fang Langford
(Who apologizes if this is hard to follow, I've had a horrid influenza for five days and the meds make the world spin and spin and spin.)

Quote1) Utilize NPCs and events to "cut across" characters, including secondary or truly irrelevant details. If character A talks to the milkmaid, have the milkmaid walk through the room during character B's scene, for no reason. If character B casts a spell, have someone gossip about it during character C's scene.

2) Some of the effects described in #1 will, of course, not be irrelevant at all. Think of the most important reactions of NPCs (like the shopkeeper you mentioned) - and have aspects or details of their reactions appear nearly continuously through the scenes of different characters, as background if not centrally.

Those are all great ideas Ron, and stuff I've already started to do.  One example is that the Innkeeper that is housing the party's Bard has hired the party's fighter to retrieve the head of the dead dragon so he can mount it in his Inn.  This eventually led to him recruiting the rest of the PCs to help.  He then proceeded to lie to them about the price, but the bard knows he's lieing because she's friends with the innkeeper and was there when he came up with the idea to hire someone.

So far we have only had one session and criss-crossing all the NPCs is something that I'm in the process to doing, but I'm still in the introductory phase of the campaign.

Things should flesh out a little better next week.  I think part of the problem on saturday was that one player hadn't slept in 2 days and was cranky and tired, another had spilled boiling water on her hand that morning and was hopped up on morphine and vicadin.  One player hadn't completed 80% of the pregame stuff I had asked for which left me somewhat unprepared in regard to his character.  Another was unfamiliar with his own story because he had someone else write his character background.  Of course he failed to mention that until halfway through the session around the same time he enlightened everyone that his character was evil despite the fact that his background neither stated or implied that).  

I think once everyone is healthy things might work out better.  Then again, maybe my group is just too disfunctional.

,Matt

Fang Wrote

QuoteI do it basically in one of three ways. The first, and possibly hardest, is captivating presentation; just be a good 'storyteller' and have your words 'keep' them. (I said it wasn't easy, but I usually depend on pacing and 'when all else fails run an action scene.') The second is the obvious, 'have them play the other characters in those scenes' sort of thing.

Those are all things I'm working on.  Throwing in combat always tend to grab attention, as does sex.  Everyone seemed pretty interested when the party druid (neutral evil half orc with the 4 charisma) slipped the party's good cleric a love potion and proceeded to take him to her room and eventually get pregnant by him.  In his personal story he was building a new church and had chosen the slums of the city to build in since it was cheep and they needed some religion down there.  Well the half orc wasn't too happy about mister goody goody building a beacon of light in her nice cozy slum so she made an effort to get involved in his story.

I'm hoping I can get that kind of interaction from all my players.

QuoteI guess the simplest way to describe Exposure is anything the player is unconsciously (or consciously) 'throwing out' character hooks with.

This all seems part and parcel with the preliminary stuff you've already done.

That was actually a big part of why I did that.  I already have a few ideas on how I intend to intermix each character's personal stories and backgrounds.  I just need a little time to build to it.  I'm kind of looking at the campaign as a building processes where everything comes together in the end.

,Matt

Quote from: Eloran
Am I doing something wrong or is 6 players and 1 DM too many people for this type of campaign?

There are possible techniques to improve your game, like the others have posted. But you could also consider playing with fewer players. This instantly causes all players to get more time for their character's development.

This goes back to age old arguments about optimal group size. I won't go too deeply into it, but one pretty sensible argument is that protagonists have to split the available protagonism to an extent. This is not perfectly true, but how often do you see more than a couple of main characters in a book. While certainly possible, especially in RPGs, it is also certainly more difficult.

The counter arguments point to the possible interaction of PCs and the collaborative power that a larger group can have. I don't deny this. But the balance between these two forces seems to land at three or four PCs. This is just from observation and experience, but any less and you lack interaction often. Any more and you spread things too thin. So, that's my suggested level, for any style of play. YMMV, of course, but I think it would help in your case.

Seeing as the game is already in progress, you may not want to mess with the group composition. But consider splitting the group up into two separate groups. Doubles your play, and each player will get twice as much focus for their character. You can find ways for them to interchange characters later at an appropriate moment to mix things up.

Hope that helps.

Mike

Matt,

I have another comment. In many ways, this thread has been something of a bait-and-switch. You opened it with questions about GMing technique, with the only reference to the players being that they are not necessarily interested in one another's playing-time.

Then a few posts later, we learn that (a) one player did not prepare at all, and you allowed him to play anyway; (b) another did not prepare and (functionally) lied about it, and you permitted him to continue to play; and (c) players frequently practice "mess with other players' characters" as an ongoing part of play.

In other words, there's a lot of stuff going on here, far more deeply significant than "gee, how can I get them to pay attention to one another's scenes." Please note, I do not necessarily consider (c) above to be dysfunctional. I do think that you have an ideal for how these people should be playing, and approaching playing, and at least some of them do not accord with that ideal - and your solution is to continue to pretend that they do, hoping they somehow "change" to meet it one day. We can't help you with that; clearly, the only real-world solutions are to adjust your ideal or to adjust the composition of the group.

Best,
Ron

QuoteIn many ways, this thread has been something of a bait-and-switch. You opened it with questions about GMing technique, with the only reference to the players being that they are not necessarily interested in one another's playing-time.

I wish you wouldn't use that term, it makes me feel like you think I was deliberately trying to deceive you and that's not the case.  In general the game ran fine with the one exception of keeping people interested in the story, so I feel my initial question and provided info was sufficient.  I washed my hands of the two unprepared players before the game began.  I told everyone a month ago that if they didn't prepare I didn't care if they had any fun.  My conern was more with the players that DID prepare and are interested in character delvelopment and story more than combat.  

QuoteThen a few posts later, we learn that (a) one player did not prepare at all, and you allowed him to play anyway; (b) another did not prepare and (functionally) lied about it, and you permitted him to continue to play

If it was my choice I would tell them they can't play.  I've run that past the other players and have received no support.  The other players understand my disappointment, but no one wants to step up to the plate with me on it.  Though I've known and gamed with many of these players for years I am relatively new to this particular group and don't feel I have the authority to oust someone from the game.

QuoteI do think that you have an ideal for how these people should be playing, and approaching playing, and at least some of them do not accord with that ideal - and your solution is to continue to pretend that they do, hoping they somehow "change" to meet it one day.

I don't expect them to meet my ideal so much as I'd like them to expand their horizons and look at gaming in a different light like so many of us at the Forge have done.  And for the most part they have.  



,Matt

Hi Matt,

I must tell you that phrases including, "... it makes me feel like you think I was ..." are not going to be useful in discussions with me. I'm very straightforward - if I'd considered you to have been deceptive, I would have said so (probably privately, and told you to stop). The effect of the thread was bait-and-switch; whether it just worked out that way, or what, is irrelevant.

Your latest post leaves me further in the dark. Are the players according with your goals (enough), or aren't they? It's not a matter of degree. Either the amount of overlap among everyone's priorities of play is functional, or it isn't.

Fang, Paul, Ralph, Mike, and I represent a broad spectrum of approaches to play. We've offered quite a lot of stuff to consider, and I know you put a lot of time and effort into preparing. At this point, I'm very interested in your game (as you know, we talked all about being in-between Narrativist and Simulationist goals and how to deal with that), so please don't take my terseness for personal criticism. Go for that second session, and keep us posted.

Best,
Ron

Well, I ran the second session of my game on Saturday and I have to say it went much better than the previous one.

I ran the game quite similar to last week, but did some crossovers between each character's story.  It worked out pretty well as far as keeping people interested.  We were also short one player so I think that sped things up a little.

We also had a couple scenes that we desided would be better played out privately.  

More of the main story came to light and I think the players were pretty intrigued with what was happening.  the bard was going crazy because she had no idea who to trust and the paladin was completely frustrated trying to keep the other character's morals in check.  It was pretty entertaining.

The few problems we did have all revolved around the one problem player I mentioned before.  For starters, he guessed that the cult of the dragon was the main villain.  Props to him for figuring it out, but he didn't have to announce it OOC to everyone.  I'm contemplating altering the story to keep the players guessing, but I don't know if I'd be doing it just to spite him.  The only thing that really pissed me off was that he spent about 50% of the session playing games on his palm pilot.  In part I guess it's my fault for not giving him stuff to keep his attention, but I refuse to load the game down with combat just to satisfy one player.

I do think there is hope for him however.  There was a moment when I thought I was drawing him in, but alas I failed.  There were two NPCs that he included in his background: his mother and the weapons master that trained him.  His character was actually living with his mother and the one scene he had with her showed him to be kind of a momma's boy of sorts.  So, of course, this week I had her kidnapped by the villains.  The villains tried to make a deal with him.  He was to keep his group distracted from their current investigation.  In exchange he would be rewarded financially and his mother would be spared.

I could see it in his face that he wanted to care about what was happening.  It was frustrating because I could literally see him convince himself  that she was already dead and there was no need to let his charcater get emotional about it.  Is that kind of pesamistic attitude a standard fixture amoung Gamists?

By the end of the session he did betray the party by giving the villains valuable information about the investigation, but I think it was more for the money than his mother's life.

I'm not sure quite what to do now.  I think I need to prove to him that his mother is still alive and that her fate does indeed revolve around his actions.  For a while I was considering kiling her in front of him to show him that he was responsible for her death, but he did make an attempt to help the villains so I will probaly hold off.

Overall I'd have to say that I'm pretty happy with teh way the session played out.  

,Matt