I've seen it happen again and again, but as an ST and a player. The STs will introduce a plot, perhaps with interesting NPCs, perhaps specifically targeted toward new players.
And older players with powerful PCs, (powerful meaning either politically in terms of position or physically in terms of experience points) will jump on it, demand that nobody go after it but them, for everyone's safety.
I've explored this problem before, in my Plots for New Players post. But recently something occurred in a game I ST for, Shadow's Crossing, that has changed my perspective. I've suggested targeting plots for new players, but on reflection, there may be another way to go then in trying to segregate players.
I was running a plotline for a player, and after I was done, he thanked me for giving him a plot he could do investigate. But the thing was, I hadn't targeted the plot toward him. In fact I hadn't known he would even have been played, or glanced at his sheet before the game started. The fact was other PCs were pursing other plots, both PC and ST created, and he just happened to be the one going after this plot.
Instead of trying to keep players involved with specific plots from the get, and other players out, the thought occurs to me. Why don't I simply introduce more and more plots, until everyone is involved with something if they want to be.
Now I know what your thinking, at least if your an ST. If your running 5 or 10 or 20 plots, aren't you going to be too busy to run everything?
Well yes and no. I've found that the more PCs going after a plot, the longer it takes to run, exponentially. The inverse also seems to be true. That means if I run 20 plots for 20 players, I may actually save time over running one or two plots for 20 players.
Why this may be isn't totally clear to me, but it seems that the more info I put out, the more things going on, the more it leads to PCs roleplaying with each other, sharing the information, trading things they have for things they need, etc. Making the game world richer with more to do means that PCs have more to do not just through interacting with STs, but with each other.
There is a time loss however. It's in prep time and downtime responses. However if face time with STs at game is at a premium for players, this is often better then the alternative.
So I'm going to be exploring this in upcoming games, and seeing how well it works.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
The Horror of Ventrue
A while ago, I talked about the Horror of Setites, quoting a post I'd made to the owbn-st list. Well a few days ago on the ventrue ooc list (owbn-scepter-ooc) I posted about what I consider to the be the Horror of playing Ventrue.
To me the core on Ventrue horror, at least based on the fiction and the clanbook is that we are The Man. We are the government. We are the elite few in control of the society. It's the horror of the boot stamping on a human face forever, of royalty abusing the commoners, of fear of those in power, and power corrupting. It's treating people like chess pieces. Hell, our signature PC from the clan novels had a feeding preference for rape victims, so he dominates somebody to rape a person so he can feed. That's Ventrue horror.
I'm not sure that's wrong, but thinking about it there is another element I may have failed to talk about. The horror is not just that the Ventrue are monsters who devalue individuals, who think of others as less then them. Part of the horror is that people want Ventrue in charge. They want safety and security, and if that means putting monsters who think of them as pawns in charge, all they ask is those monsters act like leaders and politicians. a Kind word, a good speech, even a smile and a nod, and Kindred will go and die for the Ventrue.
People want leaders they can love and politicans they can believe in. They will submit to the illusion of compassion in a leader.
And that too is part of the horror of Ventrue. That people obey and follow them, not out of fear, but out of the will to submit.
To me the core on Ventrue horror, at least based on the fiction and the clanbook is that we are The Man. We are the government. We are the elite few in control of the society. It's the horror of the boot stamping on a human face forever, of royalty abusing the commoners, of fear of those in power, and power corrupting. It's treating people like chess pieces. Hell, our signature PC from the clan novels had a feeding preference for rape victims, so he dominates somebody to rape a person so he can feed. That's Ventrue horror.
I'm not sure that's wrong, but thinking about it there is another element I may have failed to talk about. The horror is not just that the Ventrue are monsters who devalue individuals, who think of others as less then them. Part of the horror is that people want Ventrue in charge. They want safety and security, and if that means putting monsters who think of them as pawns in charge, all they ask is those monsters act like leaders and politicians. a Kind word, a good speech, even a smile and a nod, and Kindred will go and die for the Ventrue.
People want leaders they can love and politicans they can believe in. They will submit to the illusion of compassion in a leader.
And that too is part of the horror of Ventrue. That people obey and follow them, not out of fear, but out of the will to submit.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Losing to Win: Why Screwing up in Character is good for your Roleplay
It's been a while since I posted, for which I apologize.
in MET (at least the original version) taking flaws or negative traits (such as being cowardly or obnoxious) gives you points to make your character sheet more complete. I often see individuals picking flaws based on which will least inconvenience them.
To me that ignores the beauty of what flaws are. Flaws don't limit your character. They make your character better.
An Example: Shanghai Kelly is a Gangrel PC based in San Francisco. He happens to be a funny and clever conversationalist. But he is incredibly tactless (or obnoxious maybe, I'm not going to say what is on his sheet, and I really don't know). He'll say rude things he shouldn't, and get shushed for it. He'll piss people off. He'll yell at people, or question people who don't like to be questioned. He'll get mad for no good reason.
Now that might seem like a bad thing, if you play larp to play the perfect vampire that makes no mistakes and destroys his enemies. But that's a pretty boring PC to play. You can play that PC sitting in your haven, and not come to game, and nobody will miss you. People miss Shanghai. It's an occasion when somebody doesn't give him a roleplay nod. His roleplay is entertaining. He helps make game fun for others.
Flaws do that, much more then advantages. There are also Derangements, which are the way the game handles some mental dysfunction or disorder. I know several people that pick the derangments that effect their behavior the least. Or individuals who's derangement manifests only in downtime, or only when in the presence of NPCs. While I don't believe the any character should be defined by their derangement, if it doesn't effect your roleplay, what's the point?
Another Example: The Herald, a malkavian PC in Berkeley. He's clearly schizophrenic, to the point where people wonder about the player, until they chat with him after game. But his madness comes out in his interactions.
Of course screwing up in character doesn't have to be about what's on your sheet. Sometimes you can make a choice that you know OOC may cause your PC problems. Fun problems, that require lots of interactions with other players to work through. A PC I know got captured by the Sabbat, and turned into a Mole. The player volunteered for this to happen. Her character got punished severely for it. And yet that's changed the dynamics of the Sabbat plot from being lead by her Prince to being run by Archons, and created at least three new plots from the fall out(that I know of).
Of course screwing up in character works best if you have support from other players. If a Prince's immediate response to an IC screw up is to kill the character, well that may create future plot, but it puts an end to the screw-ups story. PCs who die silently unnoticed in back rooms with no one to miss them don't make for good plots. Though sometimes killing the wrong character is a form of screwing up in and of itself.
So I guess my point is, play your flaws, in ways that make you interact with others. When others have IC problems, get involved if you can, and try not to put an end to their story inherently. Doing so can lead to great roleplay, and great stories, and most importantly, fun.
in MET (at least the original version) taking flaws or negative traits (such as being cowardly or obnoxious) gives you points to make your character sheet more complete. I often see individuals picking flaws based on which will least inconvenience them.
To me that ignores the beauty of what flaws are. Flaws don't limit your character. They make your character better.
An Example: Shanghai Kelly is a Gangrel PC based in San Francisco. He happens to be a funny and clever conversationalist. But he is incredibly tactless (or obnoxious maybe, I'm not going to say what is on his sheet, and I really don't know). He'll say rude things he shouldn't, and get shushed for it. He'll piss people off. He'll yell at people, or question people who don't like to be questioned. He'll get mad for no good reason.
Now that might seem like a bad thing, if you play larp to play the perfect vampire that makes no mistakes and destroys his enemies. But that's a pretty boring PC to play. You can play that PC sitting in your haven, and not come to game, and nobody will miss you. People miss Shanghai. It's an occasion when somebody doesn't give him a roleplay nod. His roleplay is entertaining. He helps make game fun for others.
Flaws do that, much more then advantages. There are also Derangements, which are the way the game handles some mental dysfunction or disorder. I know several people that pick the derangments that effect their behavior the least. Or individuals who's derangement manifests only in downtime, or only when in the presence of NPCs. While I don't believe the any character should be defined by their derangement, if it doesn't effect your roleplay, what's the point?
Another Example: The Herald, a malkavian PC in Berkeley. He's clearly schizophrenic, to the point where people wonder about the player, until they chat with him after game. But his madness comes out in his interactions.
Of course screwing up in character doesn't have to be about what's on your sheet. Sometimes you can make a choice that you know OOC may cause your PC problems. Fun problems, that require lots of interactions with other players to work through. A PC I know got captured by the Sabbat, and turned into a Mole. The player volunteered for this to happen. Her character got punished severely for it. And yet that's changed the dynamics of the Sabbat plot from being lead by her Prince to being run by Archons, and created at least three new plots from the fall out(that I know of).
Of course screwing up in character works best if you have support from other players. If a Prince's immediate response to an IC screw up is to kill the character, well that may create future plot, but it puts an end to the screw-ups story. PCs who die silently unnoticed in back rooms with no one to miss them don't make for good plots. Though sometimes killing the wrong character is a form of screwing up in and of itself.
So I guess my point is, play your flaws, in ways that make you interact with others. When others have IC problems, get involved if you can, and try not to put an end to their story inherently. Doing so can lead to great roleplay, and great stories, and most importantly, fun.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
How Bad Guys can be Good Genre
In OWBN, the word genre has a specific meaning, that needs to be explained to non OWBN players. Being "In genre" is being consistent with the setting materials in terms of of character and story. The idea is, there are certain established norms regarding certain IC groupings, such as Clans, or Tribes or Sects, and these should be portrayed by the PCs appropriately. The easy example is Black Furies. Black Furies are a tribe of amazonian werewolves with Grecian roots. Playing a male Black Fury would probably be considered "out of genre" or outside of the genre conventions for Black Furies.
Of course if it was always that simple, I wouldn't be writing this. Lets take a look at a more complicated example, and one, in OWBN, which will hopefully upset some people. The Tremere Clan.
The Tremere are a group of vampiric magic users organized as part of a hierachical "Pyramid" which is supposed to be merit based in outlook. Also they are protective of their magic, and strongly discourage teaching them to outsiders.
Since the Tremere are a meritocracy and a hierarchy, often people feel that a dutiful tremere that obeys their superiors is in genre, and a Tremere that, say, rebels against their superiors or teaches their magic to others, is out of genre.
I think this suggests that only good in character behavior is consistent with portrayal. I think that's a simplification. Certainly, not every Tremere should be rebelling and/or teaching magic to passing strangers. It's important that there be a norm. But I believe that so long as that norm is present, characters that rebel against it, or undermine it are consistent.
In the case of the Tremere, the published source books list spells and magical effect that help detect rebels. They list punishments for individuals that cross the line. These are often pointed to when people say things like, "No Tremere, In genre, should be teaching magic to outsiders."
I think they point out the opposite. The fact that the genre goes over consequences means its something that happens often enough to have normal punishments. The fact that there are spells that are helpful in dealing with these issues, means those spells are meant to see play.
So I don't think Tremere, or any group, rebelling against the norm is "out of genre." There are other issues with characters doing so, but they aren't inherently violations of the setting expectations.
I do think that characters that do so will likely be caught and punished, since that's what usually happens when you buck the norm in a strict hierarchy. Characters getting away with breaking the IC rules of the clan that tweak their superior's nose about it and generally broadcast their presence will get slapped. I also think that a norm has to be maintained. Such characters need to be treated as abberations. IC, characters that toe the line need to be clearly rewarded for doing so, and characters that break from it need to be punished, or you risk changing the norms themselves. And characters that break the rules need to be watched to make sure they don't spoil the fun of players of characters that cleave closer to the IC expectations.
But there are opportunities for stories consistent with the norms of the setting where characters deviate from those norms. Not just rebels... tyrants are another good example. A tyrannical Camarilla Prince might abuse the laws of the Camarilla for their own benefit, grant unfair rewards to their sychophants and heap abuse on those who question them to silence critics. These aren't the only types, there are thieves, liars, traitors, subversives, spies.
Is that in genre? Yes, there are tyrants that break the laws, or twist them to their own benefit. There are bad guys. Sometimes the bad guys win. Usually they lose.
Why do I bring these up? It's not because I want to justify some guy teaching his friend magic when he shouldn't. It's not because I think that rebels and tyrants shouldn't ever be held accountable for breaking rules.
It's because I think that bad guys make for good enjoyable stories. Dealing with somebody who's betrayed your group because it's abused him, who forces you to question your loyalty, can be a good story. Taking down a tyrant who claims they acted out of the best interests of your sect, or even with the sect leaders blessings, is a good story. Being the rebel, and trying to make a change happen, that can be a good story, win or lose.
And I'm usually a fan of a good story. If it's in genre.
What do you think?
Of course if it was always that simple, I wouldn't be writing this. Lets take a look at a more complicated example, and one, in OWBN, which will hopefully upset some people. The Tremere Clan.
The Tremere are a group of vampiric magic users organized as part of a hierachical "Pyramid" which is supposed to be merit based in outlook. Also they are protective of their magic, and strongly discourage teaching them to outsiders.
Since the Tremere are a meritocracy and a hierarchy, often people feel that a dutiful tremere that obeys their superiors is in genre, and a Tremere that, say, rebels against their superiors or teaches their magic to others, is out of genre.
I think this suggests that only good in character behavior is consistent with portrayal. I think that's a simplification. Certainly, not every Tremere should be rebelling and/or teaching magic to passing strangers. It's important that there be a norm. But I believe that so long as that norm is present, characters that rebel against it, or undermine it are consistent.
In the case of the Tremere, the published source books list spells and magical effect that help detect rebels. They list punishments for individuals that cross the line. These are often pointed to when people say things like, "No Tremere, In genre, should be teaching magic to outsiders."
I think they point out the opposite. The fact that the genre goes over consequences means its something that happens often enough to have normal punishments. The fact that there are spells that are helpful in dealing with these issues, means those spells are meant to see play.
So I don't think Tremere, or any group, rebelling against the norm is "out of genre." There are other issues with characters doing so, but they aren't inherently violations of the setting expectations.
I do think that characters that do so will likely be caught and punished, since that's what usually happens when you buck the norm in a strict hierarchy. Characters getting away with breaking the IC rules of the clan that tweak their superior's nose about it and generally broadcast their presence will get slapped. I also think that a norm has to be maintained. Such characters need to be treated as abberations. IC, characters that toe the line need to be clearly rewarded for doing so, and characters that break from it need to be punished, or you risk changing the norms themselves. And characters that break the rules need to be watched to make sure they don't spoil the fun of players of characters that cleave closer to the IC expectations.
But there are opportunities for stories consistent with the norms of the setting where characters deviate from those norms. Not just rebels... tyrants are another good example. A tyrannical Camarilla Prince might abuse the laws of the Camarilla for their own benefit, grant unfair rewards to their sychophants and heap abuse on those who question them to silence critics. These aren't the only types, there are thieves, liars, traitors, subversives, spies.
Is that in genre? Yes, there are tyrants that break the laws, or twist them to their own benefit. There are bad guys. Sometimes the bad guys win. Usually they lose.
Why do I bring these up? It's not because I want to justify some guy teaching his friend magic when he shouldn't. It's not because I think that rebels and tyrants shouldn't ever be held accountable for breaking rules.
It's because I think that bad guys make for good enjoyable stories. Dealing with somebody who's betrayed your group because it's abused him, who forces you to question your loyalty, can be a good story. Taking down a tyrant who claims they acted out of the best interests of your sect, or even with the sect leaders blessings, is a good story. Being the rebel, and trying to make a change happen, that can be a good story, win or lose.
And I'm usually a fan of a good story. If it's in genre.
What do you think?
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Being Uncomfortable
Most of the games I play are set in dark scary worlds. Things are not on the upswing in the World of Darkness. There are very bad things. It's a game of personal horror.
By very bad things, I'd say there are two different types: There are things which people acknowledge as bad, but generally don't make them uncomfortable, and things people acknowledge as bad that make them uncomfortable. The latter I'll call horrible things. The former will be not nice things
For example: I have no problem being in a scene where somebody gets killed, or even where mass murder takes place. Mass murder is not nice. I have a big problem being in a scene where somebody gets raped. That's horrible.
I'd expect you see the same thing in other games. In D and D, the Orcs kill the villagers, or enslave them. They don't rape them.
I think a lot of people have this divide, and probably divide it more or less where I do, or within a standard deviation of it. Very bad things tend to be presented by STs, and by players, based on the lowest common denominator, because in a sense Larp is a mass medium.
I think another reason is that killing people means no aftermath. It's a lot easier to have the Sabbat kill a bunch of people, the players kill the Sabbat, and have nothing for the PCs to need to do in downtime. But there is another reason, which is what I want to talk about. You bring in rape, or child abuse, or other Horrible things, and you can hurt people. I'll also say doing scenes about romance, about love and other positive sentiments can also be Horrible, in it's own way. It makes people uncomfortable.
Most games operate on a social contract, a usually unwritten one. In most games what that social contract says about Horrible things is, "nobody gets hurt." You don't run things that make people uncomfortable. If you start something uncomfortable, people can leave without penalty. Some things happen, but they don't ever impact game. You'll hunt down a serial Killer, but never a serial rapist.
But I was reading this post on story-games.com which referenced This post by Davidarman on his game (For Mature Audiences) which mentioned This posting by Meguey Baker on the difference between "nobody gets hurt," and "I will not abandon you," social contracts.
In the first... you don't push people's buttons. In the latter, you push their buttons, then work through the scene and invest in the emotion. You process it, IC. Now I will admit it's dangerous... yes dangerous, to run a scene about a Horrible thing, and try to work through the emotions it generates by staying inside the story.
First, I believe the way we stick to not nice things conditions players to not invest emotionally in the story and to treat game with a sort of crude adolescent humor. Their characters maybe, but many players don't really think about the mortals they kill as people. They laugh and joke about killing, or make fun of people who try to do tender sentimental scenes. And it's possible that such players will do the same for a Horrible thing.
Second, not everybody goes to game to play a game of personal horror. That's not the expectation most players have. They are there to hang with their friends and advance their PC and politic. The idea that they are going to take part in a good story that may depend on them being uncomfortable doesn't cross their minds.
There is also a comment in the Baker post about a third style or at least a variation, "To the Pain." You push to a person's boundaries, and maybe a little past them, but back off if they tell you to. In return they tell you to back off when it starts to hurt them, not just when it's hard for them.
So I'm not sure under what circumstances you can run Horrible things under a "I will not abandon you" contract in a larp or even a "to the pain" contract. Maybe only in one on ones between players of good friends. Maybe only by telling people before hand what you intend to do so they can bail at the beginning.
But I think if you can tell stories about horrible things... it can be some of the deepest most engaging and most memorable roleplaying possible.
I also think that it's important that, regardless of play style... people who decide to step out should not be shamed for it. It's not wrong to not want to deal with Horrible things. They are, by definition, those thinks that make you very uncomfortable. It may mean a missed opportunity for a good scene and good roleplaying, for experiencing personal horror but that's the player's option. I just think it's important to make it clear that it's an option, not an expectation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)