HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Feb 20, 2012 19:13:50 GMT -8
So I love the hell out of Apocalypse World by Vincent Baker even though I haven't gotten a chance to play it yet. I love how it's written, what it says, and how it's designed to produce fucked up characters in a fucked up world who have fucked up relationships with each other. I love how you're supposed to "play to see what happens" instead of planning out a story beforehand. I love the simplicity of the task resolution mechanics, and how the GM doesn't roll dice but only makes Moves when the players miss their rolls. I'll gush about it more once we get an Indie Games subforum. *cough cough*
Which is why I helped fund Monsterhearts on Indiegogo. It's a game that uses the Apocalypse World engine and mindset to tell paranormal teen romance stories. Yes, like Twilight or True Blood. Snicker all you want, but I love messy relationships in RPGs and the drama they create. It's a 'realer' kind of drama for me since I, as a player, can identify more with mundane problems than the super epic problems of most "heroic" games. It's easier to wrap my head around how my character would feel and react when he's dealing with something mundane like how to let this girl down easy so he can get with her roommate, or what to do when he knows his friend is guilty of a crime but had good intentions. I get tired of the game fairly quickly when each story arc is just another over the top adventure of our characters saving the world yet again. That's probably why I'm not a fan of most superhero comics or movies. Watchmen rocked though, because of all the relationship drama going on.
Anyway, bringing this back to games. I listened to an interview with Vincent Baker and he said that he intentionally designs games that force him to improve in areas in which he feels he is lacking. Dogs in the Vineyard was created because all his NPCs were friendly and helpful; Apocalypse World was created because he felt he couldn't do relationships well. The gameplay focuses specifically on weak areas and forces the GM and players to improve. Or stop playing the game I suppose. Sort of a Darwinian game approach.
One of my players always makes asexual characters. Sex, romance, and relationships never factor into the characters he makes or the games he runs. It kind of annoys me a bit because I think it makes his characters less real. Everyone falls in love or is at least attracted to someone at one time or another in their lives, regardless of who they are. It's totally fine if you want to make your guy celibate, but that means I, as the GM, am going to try and put you in situations where your resolve gets tested. If the player just brushes it off by saying "I'm celibate." then I think they pretty much wussed out. I specifically want to play Monsterhearts with this guy to force him to think about these things. I've pitched the game to him and he said he's interested despite "not being good at that Casanova stuff".
I'm just curious if anyone else out there has done this. Have you ever run a game or crafted a story, encounter, or character specifically to force a player to "play in a weak area"? If so what happened? Did the player thank you for making them play outside their comfort zone? How much did you push the player? Obviously everyone is different and will react differently to this sort of thing, but I'm curious to hear other people's stories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 5:11:41 GMT -8
I haven't done this... but I'm thinking that I should. I like this idea a lot.
--Pukka Tukka
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Feb 21, 2012 7:25:20 GMT -8
This is a complex topic particularly when you get attraction and attachment involved. There are all manner of things to consider.
I think that rpgs are a great way to stretch oneself and try things one might not in real life. That said, as a gm it's very important to be respectful of a player's limits. Push them? Sure. Stretch them? absolutely.
I think that a decent regard for the feelings of others would impel me to discuss it with the player before I threw it at him, particularly if he has a marked adversity to the topic at hand.
Just be respectful of the player's feelings and you should be fine.
JiB
|
|
SirGuido
Supporter
Drizztmas Santa
Ask me about the Drizztmas Exchange!
Posts: 2,127
Preferred Game Systems: L5R, Traveller, Fate Accelerated, Masks
Currently Playing: Nothing.
Currently Running: Nothing.
Favorite Species of Monkey: Anything in a Cage.
|
Post by SirGuido on Feb 21, 2012 8:13:14 GMT -8
When I was running a weekly home game I had a player that was constantly making comments about the others' decisions but would make none himself. So I wrote an arc where he was flat out FORCED to be the one true leader in the group. So he had no other option than to make decisions. It forced him to understand that decisions are hard to make, even in a game. It also helped him out of his shell since he was definitely more of a background player. Is he a shiny star of a player now? No, but he doesn't act as much like a dick and he contributes more now.
|
|
joegun
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 249
Preferred Game Systems: Savage Worlds
Currently Playing: Just GM'ing right now.
Currently Running: Rippers Resurrected, and Savage RIFTS!
Favorite Species of Monkey: Baboon
|
Post by joegun on Feb 21, 2012 13:23:51 GMT -8
I'd say if the Player is open to it go for it. If they aren't, I wouldn't push. Sometimes people are there for a beer and pretzels game, and that is it. I had a player for years that basically made the same character every time. No matter the game system. It was either a long bow or a gun, he was a loner, and a conflicted assassin. But that is what he wanted to play. Always. If you tried to push him into something else, he just got mad until you let him back into his brooding conflicted killer. So we just let him have it. Then he had fun, and we had fun with our characters and our stories. That being said, if the player is up for it, it is ALWAYS good to try and push your players to new heights, they might just find out what they have been missing!
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Feb 21, 2012 14:03:35 GMT -8
I'm with Joe Gun. Make the offer to expand the players horizons, create more depth, etc, but don't force.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Feb 21, 2012 17:15:30 GMT -8
Just to clarify, I ran my idea by the player in question and he's open to giving this a try. He knows that I'm interested running this game specifically because it'll force him to create relationships for his character and to think about the consequences of "mundane" actions. Would I force this sort of thing on a player with no warning whatsoever and completely blindside them? Usually not, though it depends on the player.
If I came completely out of left field with something like this, of the four players I know one would jump straight into the deep end of the pool and play the hell out of it. Another would continue to play, though most likely ignore all relationship aspects of the game. The third would shut down since he only shows up to roll dice and kill shit. (Side note: If I ever get a chance to run Monsterhearts, this player will not be invited to the game.) The last guy would probably fall somewhere between the first two; he's hard to read at times.
Even though the focus in Monsterhearts is on character relationships and I'd like to push the player to explore that, I'm just as eager to push him into a more proactive role. He was the GM for our 4e campaign a while back, and that game was firmly on a set of rails. He was also the GM for our ill-fated Savage Worlds fantasy campaign that lasted only 3 sessions before being abandoned. That fell apart because, again the story was firmly on a set of rails and half the players (myself included) rebelled at just being shoved along through the story despite other actions we tried to take. You know something's wrong when the GM says he has the first 10+ sessions of a game all planned out before you've even started playing. As Tappy would say, why the hell am I showing up to play then; just tell me what happens to my guy. He doesn't do this to be a dick mind you, we suspect that he just likes writing stories and approaches GMing RPGs in the same way.
I prefer to run sandbox games. Often times I don't even come up with a main story, but just create interesting NPCs that are doing interesting things or connected to each other in interesting ways. Then I chuck the PCs into the situation and see what happens. The NPCs react to the PC's actions, which hopefully causes the PCs to react, and things start to snowball into a story. Maybe this is why I like Apocalypse World and Monsterhearts so much; the authors approaches to running games are similar to mine, yet written out more eloquently and clearly than I could ever manage.
Anyway, whenever he's a player in and not running a game, he just sort of sits back and "waits for the main story to happen". He figures that something will come along, point him in the direction of the 'quest', and then give him a kick in the ass to get him moving. I'd like to try and train him to have his characters take action or initiate drama on his own and without there being a big sign post that says "Go here next."
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Feb 23, 2012 8:51:23 GMT -8
A few years ago, I played in a very informal group where we would just get together one day a week and whoever felt like running a game at that point would GM. It was always DnD 3.5, because we just didn't have or know anything else, and we always flew by the seat of our pants, but we all seemed to enjoy it for the most part. One of the biggest problems we had, though, was time management and handling distractions well.
One time, one of the guys who was pretty new to RPG's said that he had an idea for a game, and that he thought it would take a few weeks to play through it. He had never GMed before, and he wanted to give it a shot. We all agreed, and the story began with all of us being approached by a stranger in a bar with "an offer that we couldn't refuse." He gave some minimal details about what he was proposing, and we began talking it over. Old habits died hard, and we all started getting distracted and making jokes, and 15 minutes later, we came to a conclusion. When we told the GM our decision, he goes "Oh, him? He left like 10 minutes ago. Guess you should have figured it out sooner." We were kinda pissed, but he had made a pretty good point, and after that game, I've been determined to keep the story moving whether I'm GMing or not.
This is kind of different from what you've proposed, hyvemynd, but in my case, forcing players to improve can work. If he's agreed to the idea, that at least indicates that he's interested in improving. If I were in his shoes, I'd be down for some 'training.'
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Feb 23, 2012 10:33:52 GMT -8
Hmmmmm ... I think I would call douchebag on that gm. I know he was new and I see the point he was trying to make, but I think he missed the point himself. If I were going to impose a time line on the players making a decision I would say so up front. I have on more than one occasion said, "You have 3 minutes to make a decision," and set a timer to keep them on task. But I set the limits at the outset rather than letting them go and then telling them on the tail end that they screwed the pooch by not being on the spot.
It is important to keep the game on task and keep it moving but there are better ways, IMHO, to accomplish that.
JiB
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Feb 23, 2012 13:49:10 GMT -8
Yeah, I don't play his games anymore, haha. That was not the last douchey move that he pulled, and unfortunately, it was the only one that actually had good intentions.
Anyway, point being, if something that dickish can effect a good change in players, there's a really good chance that a sincere attempt at making someone a better player will succeed as well.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Feb 23, 2012 17:09:03 GMT -8
When we told the GM our decision, he goes "Oh, him? He left like 10 minutes ago. Guess you should have figured it out sooner." LOL. That's freaking epic, and I actually kind of like it. That GM pulled a dick move by not making you all aware that he was trying to keep things on track and minimize distractions before the session though. He should've told you all that he was going to use "real time" before he started the countdown, or at the very least drawn attention to the fact the NPC started looking bored, and again when he stood up to leave. We had a "real time" experiment in our Vampire game that lead to some real drama and great RPing. In a nutshell, the three PCs had just arrived at a hotel where the suspect of a string of vampire murders was staying. This suspect happened to be my character's sire (and we had this weird girlfriend/mother relationship going on) and only I had been invited up to her room to talk. One of the other PCs, an ex-cop and vampire 'clean up guy' told me that I had 5 minutes to go up to her room first and get the others inside. This is my character's sire though, and so of course I'm not going to let her be taken, while the cop PC has every intention of grabbing her and hauling her back to the Prince for interrogation. That's where we ended the session. The storyteller told us that the next session would be played in "real time", meaning that 5 minutes game time was actually going to be 5 minutes in real time. He also enforced the "no take backs" rule so that anything that came out of your mouth during the session got spoken by your character. Briefly, here is what happened next. I go up to the room, see a human with my sire and get jealous. I start asking questions about why she left me and is now with this other guy, completely forgetting to say that other characters are coming up soon. The guy playing the ex-cop, knowing I plan to let his suspect escape, doesn't wait the full 5 mintes and kicks in the door after only a few minutes. My sire bolts, and the other PC runs after her. I follow them leaving the human in the room. The ex-cop and my sire hit the stairs and start heading down. As I pass the elevators, I see a group of the Prince's goons heading back to the room. I run back, but I'm too late; the human has a bullet put in his head to make sure the Masquerade remains intact. He's dead, and my PC feels completely responsible. He's never killed anyone before (something I intentionally built into the character just so things like this could happen). Meanwhile outside, the ex-cop PC open fires on my sire, wounding her enough so that she gets caught by more of the Prince's men. End the session. After the session, the Storyteller said that he felt the "real time" experiment was a failure. He said he felt like he didn't give either of us enough time and that the "no take backs" rule was too harsh. Everyone involved disagreed though. Even though I was pissed as hell (sometimes your character's emotions bleed over into you a bit), the session was awesome, had created some crazy good drama, and moved the story off in interesting directions. But, the Storyteller had given us a chance to prepare. He had told us the week before about the new "rules" for this session, and we had time to think about what we wanted our characters to say and do. Would this have worked if it was just sprung on us with no warning? Eh, probably not.
|
|
|
Post by inflatus on Feb 23, 2012 17:21:00 GMT -8
I agree with the non-force comments. If you have to force players then fun also gets forced. Not many people like to be told how to have fun.
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Feb 24, 2012 7:25:51 GMT -8
That sounds pretty cool, hyvemynd. I'm sure that things would have worked out differently if that game wasn't played "real time." I'm not sure that I would enjoy a game that was totally and completely real time, but having little bits of it where we all know ahead of time what's going on makes for great roleplaying. After all, it's a lot easier to react as your character and act on his or her instincts if you don't have an extra 5-10 minutes to think about it!
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Feb 24, 2012 7:56:11 GMT -8
One of the problems with doing real time events in game is that things don't transpire in real time. A prime example is combat. There is no way to convey everything going on in a fight in real time regardless of the system. The same is true of a role playing encounter because we have to convey in words what the character would see and hear in fractions of seconds. For this reason I limit real time events to I've given them the information now it's time for them to formulate a plan or something similar.
Real time events in game can build tension and drama but can also put the players in a no-win situation where they can't possibly meet the time stricture.
All of that said, I try to hurry people along with their decision making. In combat I will usually tell the next person or two in the rotation to be thinking about what they're going to do and be ready when I get to them.
Just my 2 krupplenicks worth, your mileage may of course vary.
JiB
|
|