Campaign First Aid! Help needed :|

Games Discussion Ars Magica
21

Dunno. I wouldn't say so.... Your troupe seems to be quite large already. Dunno if increasing it would solve the problem. IMS the troupe has reduced steadily through time, and now it is 4 of us playing most of the time. There is a nominal 5th player, but he hardly ever comes. Take in mind the control factor drops drastically the more people you introduce to the game. Maybe you are looking at a substitute for one or more of the current players that do not show much enthusiasm?

Quite something that is your call, more than ours here :slight_smile: I wouldn't think we can help much in such a decision.

Cheers,

Xavi

22

The strange thing is that the best roleplayer in the group is the one player who didn't have any other roleplaying experience at all. She'd played some computer roleplaying games, and her boyfriend is a fan of WoW. But other than that, she didn't know anything about roleplaying games. And now she's the player who's most proactive and plays in character. Strange.

E.

23

Maybe it is strange for you but not for me. My experience is regular roleplayers used to make character abilities first of all. And the regular rulebooks support this idea because they have a lot of rules and the players somehow get lost between the more hundred sides of rules. ArM is a typical kind of these games. They make their characters and only wait what is the movie the SG provide them.
Some games support making characters with vivid personality and ArM5 went in this direction with story flaws. I like the '20 questions' and similar help to make personalities seeming a real one. See Shadowrun, 7th Sea. But even having 20 answers doesn't mean the interest is increased. They are somehow in the prison of abilities and rules. I really think it in this manner.

Your best player came to the session and knows almost nothing about the rules. She knows a little about the hermetic things and everything about the saga. She presumably doesn't want to read the rulebook during the session and doesn't want to get bored. The only chance she has to get involved in the story. :slight_smile: Really.

The conclusion is less rule produce more roleplaying.

I think you could exploit her boyfriend's interest in WoW if you throw in some dark feeling into certain story lines. The quesitor who must commit crimes is a typical possibility.

24

Not that strange, maybe - think about it. In on-line games and computer games, if your character just sits there and waits... very little usually happens (oddly enough). You have to take action, to try different angles, to think creatively about the problem and hold details in your mind and apply what you've learned as you go - whereas your other players, who learned the generic "call and response" style, wait to be led by the nose and spoonfed each step of the way, the only way ~they~ are used to.

It's not their fault, it's their past GM's... and they only knew what they'd been taught, lo, back to the beginning - and they had to fake it! Learning to RP is truly an oral tradition, and the "right" way is often simply the way that you first learned as a naif, unfortunately, at least for many.

Adding quality to the group wouldn't hurt. In fact, it may, indirectly, push some of the less enthusiastic out - and that would not be a bad thing either. Better than you, as SG, uninviting anyone, which is awkward at best. Let Darwinism play its role. But make sure that the replacements are indeed quality - maybe run a different night with them a couple times first, to get a feel for their style, before risking throwing water on a dying fire.

25

So,

I have discovered that when players are inactive in a game that I GM, just sitting around waiting for me to do something for them to react to, I hold a large part of the responsibility for my stagnant game. Possibly most of the responsibility. This isn't about Ars Magica, or problem players, but about GMing.

As a GM, I need to know what the players want and don't want. If I deliver what they don't want instead of what they do want, they will either wait for me to do something interesting (from their point of view) or drift away from the game.

As a GM, I need to empower players, so that they feel comfortable enough with the world to take initiative. If a player thinks his initiative will be stomped on, or continually corrected, or limited to rubber-stamping the GM's intentions, he won't bother. He'll wait for something he finds worthwhile.

As a GM, I need to work with the players to make sure they create characters who make sense for the campaign I intend to run, who belong in the world, who have something they want to do IC, who have the means to start doing it and, above all, interest the players. To the extent I fall short of this in any way, I will get lackadaisical players of lackluster characters.

As a GM, I need to remember not to bog the players down in details when they take the initiative or flex their power. This one dooms many campaigns to a lingering death.

I'm not saying you do any of these things... I'm talking about me, not about you.

If you think there is a possibility that any of the above might also apply to you, you might want to talk to the players, not about their roleplaying, but what they are hoping for from you.

Some thoughts: Only let a PC run a Quaesitor if you are willing to let his opinion of Hermetic Law largely represent the truth in your game. When a player prefers to have his character hang out in his lab, it means that the game world is less interesting than his lab;. A SG probably needs to to something to be sure that characters have a balance of lab versus adventure time that works with your campaign and that is consistent with the other characters. If a player designs a magus who spends all his time in the lab, he'll need another character to do something during adventures, but if his magus spends a lot more time in the lab and library compared to other PC magi, that character will be a lot more powerful than those others. Finally, most rpgs are played at a level where interest is generated by discovering whether a PC can do something, but AM can be played so that the question is more about how the PC does it, or what he decides to do.

Anyway,

Ken

26

So,

I have discovered that when players are inactive in a game that I GM, just sitting around waiting for me to do something for them to react to, I hold a large part of the responsibility for my stagnant game. Possibly most of the responsibility. This isn't about Ars Magica, or problem players, but about GMing.

As a GM, I need to know what the players want and don't want. If I deliver what they don't want instead of what they do want, they will either wait for me to do something interesting (from their point of view) or drift away from the game.

As a GM, I need to empower players, so that they feel comfortable enough with the world to take initiative. If a player thinks his initiative will be stomped on, or continually corrected, or limited to rubber-stamping the GM's intentions, he won't bother. He'll wait for something he finds worthwhile.

As a GM, I need to work with the players to make sure they create characters who make sense for the campaign I intend to run, who belong in the world, who have something they want to do IC, who have the means to start doing it and, above all, interest the players. To the extent I fall short of this in any way, I will get lackadaisical players of lackluster characters.

As a GM, I need to remember not to bog the players down in details when they take the initiative or flex their power. This one dooms many campaigns to a lingering death.

I'm not saying you do any of these things... I'm talking about me, not about you.

If you think there is a possibility that any of the above might also apply to you, you might want to talk to the players, not about their roleplaying, but what they are hoping for from you.

Some thoughts: Only let a PC run a Quaesitor if you are willing to let his opinion of Hermetic Law largely represent the truth in your game. When a player prefers to have his character hang out in his lab, it means that the game world is less interesting than his lab;. A SG probably needs to to something to be sure that characters have a balance of lab versus adventure time that works with your campaign and that is consistent with the other characters. If a player designs a magus who spends all his time in the lab, he'll need another character to do something during adventures, but if his magus spends a lot more time in the lab and library compared to other PC magi, that character will be a lot more powerful than those others. Finally, most rpgs are played at a level where interest is generated by discovering whether a PC can do something, but AM can be played so that the question is more about how the PC does it, or what he decides to do.

Anyway,

Ken

27

Okay, this is indeed a bit of a pickle.

Having a group without initiative or focus is hard work. IMHO some of the problems come with how the camopaign and the characters were coordinated at the beginning. But with a passive group, it's difficult. I for one have a hard time driving much work on conceopt and background out of my players. This is needed for the SG to play up to their preferences/sympathies/antipathies/allies/enemies/rivals etc. Once you find the types of stories the players find interesting and engage actively into, things will look up. But this is not easy in any way.
I'd perhaps try really hard to set up a story with a major threat, forcing the PCs to action. This has already been mentioned, so it's not new. Try not to make it too complex or daunting, but important enough to make them give a damn, so they have to take a stand. Maybe not a direct trhreat to the wellbeing, wealth or safety of their covenant or labs. Perhaps some upcoming conflict between two major supernatural beings/groups (or even important Magi in your Tribunal of residence). Have the PCs need to back or help either side, because the result of the conflict will mean important things for them. Two faeries fighting over control of an enchanted forest, which happens to contain the PCs important vis source. After the death/resignation og the Praeco, the two major candidates trying to shift political power to his own side, which of the two different attitudes to secrecy/the Mundanes/the church/etc. can you live with in the future? It need not be only two sides, it could be 3 or more, for added complexity. Or just make their choices seem easy at first, but throw in major turning points, have the side they support be a total jerk or refuse them.

Some problem could also be with the fact that Ars Magica has other thinsg that might draw attantion than the stories: The Lab. I have another campaign going on, totally different from ArM. It's a 1930's pulp, action, adventure campaign, and we have no or very few reasons for downtime and projects. Sure, we've developed our characters' background significantly - one is a professor or Archeology and a Scottish Laird, one owns a major mining consulting form, a Royal Navy officer is active in the intelligence community, a tabloid journalist is trying to develop an ultratech radio from alien technology, the sicilian gunslinger has his gangster organisation in the mediteranean.
And no matter what thin pretext for an adventure, we jump to it!
"We're going into the jungle, from whence no-one has eveter returned, excately why?".
"Well, one of the Professor's students has disappeared on an expedition. Plus the Navy Officer thinks the krauts are up to something!"
"Aha, and why am I going?"
"What, you've something better to do?"

This never happens in Ars, but then again, with each player also having a Companion plus a Grog, someone ought to be active. If not for himself, then as a servant or shield grog for another player's Magus.

28

Lot's of good points here. But I think also one of the points I forgot to mention is that the group is having trouble finding a day everyone can play, so out of the seven players, often only 4 show up, if even that many. I made a Yahoo-group for the campaign, and we use polls to find out when the players can play in the coming month. And out of 10 possible choices, we had only one day when 4 of the players (my absolute minimum for this campaign) could show up. One player didn't even answer on the poll, and all the other dates were picked by only one or two players. So it feels like we're getting nowhere fast. :neutral_face:

Maybe I should just put Ars on the shelf for some time, or give them some other rpg to play? A friend of mine, not playing Ars (he doesn't like the concept of the game.. he wants sci-fi), wants to play Fading Suns, a setting I really like. Maybe I'll just try that for a while? :unamused:

E.

29

You whine to much. Do something yourself at last.

30

Oh how nice. :frowning:

E.

31

Dunno about your case, but the players IMS are part of my group opf friends to go out. More than once we have pwerformed "live" sessions in the middle of a pub... or the still remembered scene where we played a combat scene in a disco :laughing:

You only need a minimum there: a die (at most) tends to be enough to imrpovise a scene if the people more or less remembers the most used ability/art levels of their character(s) (most players do). It is a little bit odd if there is few people that do not belong to the saga, but for a largish group that is not a big problem.

So, if you find yourseldf in a pub with 4 of the other players, there is few things stoping you from iompriovising a covenant meeting or running a fast (1 hour or 2) adventure on the spot. Sometimes it works, sometimes it turns silly and you laugh a lot (and sometimes, still works nevertheless) before droping the story and doing something else, but once you get over the tresshold of "RPGs are not played in public places" few things can stop you from finding time to play. Most saga discussions I have had have been in the pub, and a lot of them developed into IC council meetings.

So, what "you can do" is carry a D10 in your pocket and rising the issue to the group of players casually in the pub :wink: It might work. :slight_smile:

Cheers,

Xavi

32

Yeah, I once played in the cellar in some London pub, it was great fun. :slight_smile:
The people in my group are not close friends of mine, we only get together to play Ars Magica, and maybe at some parties and such.
I agree that it's way better to play with people who are friends outside the campaign, so to speak. I remember years ago, we had a campaign in AD&D which lasted for four years. Great fun :slight_smile:

E.

33

It's little details like this that make all the difference. :unamused:

Look - as much as I hate to adopt the attitude, and at the risk of discovering there's more you are neglecting to share, I gotta agree with Birbin.

I've seen this before - a GM wants a game, and so they grab anyone and everyone who says "I'll try it" - and they have a nothing but a clusterflop as a result.

Pull your head - and I mean this with love in my heart - pull your head out of whatever orifice you've got it shoved into! What you have done, sodales Ferretz, is desperately try to put together a game - at the cost of having any real chance for a "good" game. You've clearly just grabbed anyone and everyone you like (or who's handy), with no thought to whether they'll actually (to use the technical term) "add" something to the game (other than one more luke-warm body). Or even if they'll be able to play on the day you want.

Here's what you do - decide who your best 4 players are, the 4 you can depend on to help drive the game from the Character side. Ask them when they can play. Find an acceptable common time, and an acceptable common frequency to meet - once a month, once a week, every February 29th, whatever they say they can stick to - for three of them. (If you get four, hey, great; if only 2 can agree, then you have a moral decision to make.) Then, announce that as The Game. If others can make it, great - if not, you're not losing anyone who helps the game. NO EXCUSES!

Then, don't change it, and don't accept anyone new without a recommendation (and/or a test run and a vote from the Troupe!). Get a core group, and grow from there. (And when I say "grow", I mean in quality, not just quantity, which is largely what you seem to have now.)

You want to hang out with friends, then either find friends who can RP, or don't expect good RP. You want good RP, then don't invite friends (or cool strangers!) who can't RP or who won't commit to it.

It's that simple. Really, it is.

34

Well, thanks for that insight :laughing:

To avoid the danger of forgetting to mention details like that again, I will just have to say that the beginning posts in this thread were really helpful, and it now seems we're getting the group back on it's feet. :wink:

Cheers,

E.