Plotting about Plots

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Dealing with Game Boredom Part I

It's a Weekend night, and your game has gathered in the usual spot.  For a while things probably go fine, but then the Court officers go have a meeting, the Tremere go off to follow up on that cool plot, and a bunch of players, new players or players who haven't quite made it or even experienced players that don't have an in on a plot, are left, sitting around the gathering spot, bored.

Maybe you are one of the players, or maybe you are the ST watching these people.  What do you do to make things interesting?  Part II will be for players, this will be for STs.

This is a problem I've seen come up repeatedly.  It's not only when people go off into meetings, sometimes the whole game has a sort of ennui, doesn't catch on to plot, and doesn't seem to be interacting.

If you are a ST, there are several things you can do.  Lets talk first about one the things I've seen STs do(or done myself), and why they may not work.

Ghosts and Goblins and Werewolves Oh My!

One of the things I see STs do a lot, is as soon as the officers leave the room, they bring in some sort of weird beasty.  A spirit that messes with people, a ghost, a mischevious fairy, even an enraged werewolf.  Generally it takes only a minute or two before all the officers trump back in, the tremere show up, and the PCs who went to them for help get pushed to the side.  A similar situation is the one of the PCs who is bored gets a vision, or a phone call from influences, or whatever, about some problem.  The effect is mostly the same.

I don't think having some sort of supernatural creature waiting in the wings, or some problem that crops up as soon as an officer's meeting starts, makes anybody happy.  I don't think it leads to good plot.  

What does lead to good plot?  Well I'm not a big fan of NPC theatre, but a few well drawn NPCs that visit regularly can serve the Storyteller well.

It's important to establish these PCs before you use them.  They should have hospitality, occasionally drop in for gatherings, etc.  They can be present when the meetings start, or at the beginning of the night.  Then you use them as a catalyst.  This also helps when dealing with gathering sites that are "secured" by the PCs.  When some NPC shows up, having established that they have ways to find out where the site is, and permission to be present is a good thing.

If you've read my earlier post on plots for new players, you'll have some idea of the sorts of things NPCs can do with newer players or players on the outs that don't bring in the more powerful characters.  But when everybody is bored, you don't need to have a plot.  Sometimes you just need some questions, or an interesting item, or for the NPC to tell a story that sets the tone and gets players thinking, or brings up some of the history of the game.

A question the NPC could ask is, "so what happened to (previous prince's name?) they used to be Prince here, right?"  If nobody knows, they might tell a story about the Prince, with or without exaggeration.  This need not be the prince immediately before the current one.  Go back a few years, and there is probably a juicy story of tyrant removed, or a good prince brought low by treachery.

NPC questions can also work to circulate information on already existing plots for new players that may have stagnated.  Ask about the original rumor to get people talking, or even offer up a new tidbit, or an old one that wasn't spread widely enough.  

NPCs could even take advantage of a bored group of Kindred to lecture or teach, and then encourage comments.  

Another thing to do is to bring in NPCs that the new PCs outrank or can easily handle.  Unacknowledged childer, Caitiff who has hospitality but wants to know more about being a vampire,  ghouls who are messangers or observers for their domitors, even a drunk mortal who passes out, or drug addict looking to sell jewelry or stolen items.  Avoid problems that might bring in the officers... reporters and cops are probably not a great idea, unless one of the remaining PCs have some influence in those areas and has demonstrated they know how to use it in the past.  

You can also have NPCs that show up only when the officers are out of the way.  The Anarch recruiter (sent to me by Dan an OWBN player from Buffalo).  The Setite fence.   They may lecture, or pull people off to the side for conversations, or sell dubious goods.  The last can be a way to introduce interesting items like the music box I mentioned below.  

Running Sabbat Fights - an examination of a recent game event

Recently, a nearby game ran a big Camarilla fighting the Sabbat  event.  A city,which was previously Anarch, fell to the Sabbat, and the Camarilla domain nearby decided to organize an effort to take it back before the Sabbat dug in.  

I think the STs did a pretty good job.  However I wanted to offer my thoughts on what they did right, and what they might have done better.  I also want to hear what happened with groups different from mine, so I can build up a better picture.   I did manage to talk to a person who acted as both a PC in the background and played NPCs with extensive Sabbat experience, who have me his perspective.

The game is ordinarily 20 - 30 players, either local or visitors.  I think they had something like 70-90 total for this, based on eyeballing the crowd. (Edit: another player estimated 50 - 70, possibly not including late arrivals) The STs decided to not scale up the threat, and simply make the enemies smarter.  I'm not exactly clear how successful this was.

Non-Combatants/Influence

The STs asked some players as well as STs from other games to act as STs for scenes.  I think they were suprised by the number, since they ended up asking somebody to run the non-combatant masquerade covering portion without giving them any real instructions.

This lead directly to a significant amount of boredom for the players working to use influence.  Sure, we used influence to cover up the masquerade.  But there was no real influence use opposing us, despite the use of the dark epics system.  I would have liked to have seen Sabbat lasombra manipulating influence and prepping things from their end, so that it could have been a combat of influence... their sheriff deputies being blocked by our police contacts, The Camarilla media cover ups being avoided by their video bloggers.  

The ST, who had been given limited instruction, narrated a partial Sabbat fight when the Sabbat shadow stepped (a form of teleportation between shadows) in, but was unwilling to push very hard with it. So the Influence mongers fought for one round, against doppelgangers, then magically fell asleep, and it was called flavor.  A small and relatively weak Sabbat Pack, a group of shovelheads, or war ghouls would have been interesting.

On reflection, if no real challenge was going to be thrown at the influence mongers, their efforts should have been handwaved, with each individual getting a chance to do describe something great and creative they did with influence, and they should have been given the opportunity to play Sabbat NPCs.  

Combat Groups

There were three combat groups, each at different levels of ability.  The most powerful characters fought the most powerful NPCs.  The least powerful fought shovelheads (mass created indoctrinated vampires who are meant as a numerous distraction rather then a serious threat).  I believe this was a good strategy to allow players of different levels of experience and different abilities fight participate.  Some players acted as STs or NPC shovelheads. I am not sure to what extent that worked, but I will edit this when I find out.  I would guess that numerous PCs acting with unfamiliar sheets may have delayed matters.  That of course assumes they had pregen sheets. (edit, they did not, but made base characters, or had them made for them. )

Celerity/Extra Actions

Combat in a lot of cases lasted in real life several hours, and in game several seconds.  A lot of this has to do with a pernicious power... Celerity.  Celerity allows multiple actions within one round.  While in character the character acts faster, out of character, they act slower.  I believe, for massive combats, it may be useful to simplify celerity, and have the  third and fifth levels function normally, and the 1st, 2nd and fourth levels (which give extra actions, though the 1st may or may not depending on the game) give extra traits, or a retest.  This would have two effects.  It would speed up combat actions, and it would prevent celerity from giving those who had it more time with the STs then players who lack it.  

The game however did simplify the off-hand action, which in the mail rule book allows an additional action if one risks extra traits, to give an extra trait, and adjusts the amount of extra traits bid based on wether one has the merit, Ambidexterous, and a relevant ability aptitude (like firearms: double pistols).  I believe that an extra trait is not enough, when comparing to two handed weapons, and advocate an extra trait along with an additional point of damage, but I digress.

 Horror 

I believe the game did a relatively good job at creating a sense of horror, from the stories I heard.  The Sabbat in one location attacked a high school dance, simply to terrorize mortals and the Camarilla.  One Sabbat member killed a girl a Kindred was trying to help escape with a shot to the head that splattered the would be rescuer with blood, then taunted them by saying something like, "you can't save everyone, isn't it a pain to be noble?"

Then they released what are known as hell hounds, monsterous supernaturally adjusted and empowered dogs with an appetite for blood, into the dance.  

However I am not sure, to what extent, the players were challenged by their own inhumanity and monsterous nature.  The Sabbat are monsters, but when telling a story about the Camarilla fighting them, they can be effectively used as a dark reflection.  They should place Camarilla players in a situation where they have to choose between horrible choices... being unable to heal in combat, or killing a innocent person.  Letting a Sabbat pack get away to continue their rampage, or levelling an inhabited apartment building.  

Which brings me too.

Humanity

I know many STs make players throw challenges to keep their humanity after killing Sabbat.  Perhaps just as many don't.  After all, it can be argued that killing the bad guys is good.  I disagree with the later however.  

Vampire is not a game intended to have moral absolutes, or easy answers.  Actions can both be ostensibly good, can be completely justified and nonetheless morally damaging.  This is because of the nature of the beast.  I'll be writing a larger essay on this issue, but I believe fighting Sabbat justifies humanity challenges because the violence, and bloodshed, and killing strengthen the beast.  Keeping one's morals is about feeling guilty, and I'd let any person kill Sabbat and not feel guilty, assuming they agreed to lower their humanity.  Because it's not about who you kill.  It's about the fact that you chose to kill.  

In any case, I don't know the extent that people were encouraged to throw chops (edit some did, but perhaps not everyone who should have), but I did, and felt guilty for injuring the Sabbat and seeking glory, instead of working to help others escape.

Pre-event stuff

there were several things that happened prior to the event night that I thought deserved comment.  

One PC, intimately involved in the planning process, had been asked if they were willing to have their character screwed over by the ST, without details.  They agreed, and the ST decided that they were attacked and controlled by dominate to give information before finally breaking free.  This lead to some great scenes for a variety of players, and an ongoing storyline for some of those in the know.  

Also the Sabbat spent the previous game doing some general attempts to breach the masquerade and damage Camarilla interests, in an attempt to create problems for the Camarilla and probe their responses.  They attacked a hospital transformer (with no real effect on hospital function), a blood bank, and a bus (making the blood driver's blood boil from a distance).  Frankly, I thought the blood bank attack was good, but the rest seem disjointed and ineffective.  I would have liked to see some more effective attacks that served as double threats, as well as attacks that .  Sabbat dressed as police using disciplines and shooting people in shopping district.  ghouling and releasing animals from the Oakland zoo.  Making a Berkeley Lecturer's blood burn. Driving an Armoured Car into a Police station. 

Additional Thoughts

Having talked to a few people who witnessed combat.  I think I can say that the STs were not as well prepared as they could be.  Elders who should have been wily enough to challenge powerful PCs... or better yet, simply avoided them and reaked havoc.  As well, more STs would definitely have served the game better.  Shovelheads attacked in small groups, and were easily defeated, instead of being a real threat.  Finally, there was a lack of ST communication.  A set of Radios would have allowed the STs to keep in touch.

I also think that differing options that the STs didn't attempt would have been interest.  A Player who was unhappy with his PC volunteered to have him be killed by the Sabbat, and ended up playing a shovelhead.  I think it would have been interesting if that PC had been replaced by a Sabbat member.  The same player could have had an integral role, acted as an informant, and otherwise disrupted the Camarilla.

I think it would have been interesting if the victory was more pyhrric, with more Camarilla dead, more infrastructure destroyed, more breaches to cover, etc.  It seems like everything happened incredibly neatly, and aside from the volunteer I believe there was only one PC death.

There were also no assassination attempts.  I think attacking (and possibly killing) one of the PCs in charge would have made the story more interesting either way.

I also wonder, if things had gone differently, and the Camarilla had lost, If that would not have made for a better story.  Less satisfying for the players in the short term... but they were attacking like the Sabbat, in a series of nightime raids by groups on holdings of the other side.  In a toe to toe match, the Sabbat has the greater martial focus, so mindless violence should tilt the advantage in their favor.  The Camarilla could then plan and scheme and succeed by clever strategems instead of brute force.