Thoughts on FAtB
This Saturday a part of my group assembled in our old hometown to play some freeform roleplaying. The scenario: Prometheus’ Mistake from ASF’s scenario book From Atlantis to Blekinge.
I was the GM, and even though I haven’t gamemastered freeform per se before, the style I used was very similar to what I did five or ten years ago in regular table-top. It was heavily railroaded with clearly defined points of input from the players, but I’ll get back to that.
The group of players consisted of Sven, veteran freeformer, Kristoffer and Björn who’ve played a scenario or two, Tomas who haven’t freeformed but have played a lot of regular roleplaying. Lastly there was Helena, first time acting roleplayer, second time if you count group character creation in Primetime Adventures.
But I’ll have to ask myself if it’s really important to talk about how experienced people were with freeform. Nothing in the scenario or the way we played was in any way unique to freeform, but could’ve been done easily in any table-top game. We used some techniques, but clearly didn’t use the full potential of the medium. This was a conscious choice, since I wanted to be in control, but perhaps I would have had more fun if I’ve handed some of it to the players.
The players were sent their two characters, one present-day scientist looking for Atlantis at Greenland and one person living on Atlantis before the catastrophe, five days earlier to give them time for some research and questions to me. None of them had any questions, which I take as a sign of them being clearly written.
The first thing we did when we met was to remove the table and set the sofas and chairs in a U-shape. The area inside the U was the playing area, if one would move out it one would be out of the scene. I had a short talk on standard improvisation techniques like accepting and extending, we talked about using the whole playing area, stand up and move around as much as possible, and I told them how I would use the supposedly secret player handouts. The handouts were supposed to be given to the players in present-day scenes to give them flashbacks from earlier lives, in the end going all the way back to Atlantis. I didn’t like the idea of only giving each player one fifth of the story, the prospect of having people read at different speeds and attention levels, and having the players interrogate each other to find what the notes of the others said. Instead I read them out loud, something that worked very well and was appreciated by the players.
Here comes the first thing I did really badly. I had the players present their characters to each other out-of-character, before the two starting scenes. Why?! The way things were set up, the only two things they needed to know about each other were the appearance of the character and the things the characters would’ve noticed about them. The present-day people had only known each other for two days, and weren’t supposed to know anything about the others. The Atlantis people knew each other well, but it was still totally unnecessary to have the players present the characters beforehand. First of all, some of them got a bit carried away and told the other players a lot of stuff they wouldn’t really know about. I’m not against players having more knowledge than their character, but it makes the first introduction that’s supposed to be the shy awkward questioning people do when they meet for the first time harder. Secondly, appearance and mannerisms is really easy to signal through acting if it’s in some way important for the character. So you’re young and forceful? Then play it! So you’re an old and suspicious war-veteran? Then act like it. Presenting the characters took time, and I think it clearly made the two first-scenes a lot less interesting. Note to self: never have players introduce their characters out-of-character again.
As I said, the scenario was heavily railroaded. There have been a lot of talk on other blogs on railroading lately, and I would like to call what we used functional railroading. I scene-framed like crazy, and skipped a lot of potential scenes just to get to the meat of the action. Each scene was presented in a way that made it possible to play for two hours straight, with a lot of walking around, looking for clues and other standard-adventure things. We didn’t have that much time, so I blatantly told the players that their characters walked over here, found this clue, to get to the most interesting talking part of each scene. In each scene I had prepared I had a signal for either the players or me to use to signal the end of the scene.
What was interesting was that the players, or rather the veteran roleplayers, tried to resist my railroading. Helena complained to me, both during and after the game, that it sometimes was confusing to know whether she was supposed to act in character or out-of-character. This was because I as GM wanted to speed past things that the others wanted to act out. For example, at one point in the scenario the present-day characters were supposed to lower themselves down a hole in the Greenland ice. I wanted them to use third-person dialogue to tell me how they were going to do it, but one of the players said it was easier to use the classical mix of first and third person acting instead of the clearly separated way of doing it. I found this very interesting, since we in the group have worked on trying to avoid the confusing mix precisely because it makes it harder for the rest of the group to respond to the player. You don’t really know if you’re supposed to answer in first or third person, and this is really frustrating.
Another thing we had some problems with was getting the players to act standing and towards each other. More than once people slipped back into sitting down and describing to the GM what their character is up to, something I really wanted to avoid. At one point, when a player said that his character moved over to a paper I had created as a prop to collect a sample of it, I couldn’t resist telling him to just show us what he wanted to do. A bit reluctantly he acted out collecting it, but giving the impression it felt silly. Well, I don’t know, but I think it’s a lot clearer what the characters are doing if the players try to show it rather than tell it. I got some critique after the game that I wasn’t strict enough with reminding the players, but if you ask me I think they all knew what was expected from them.
This’ll be the end of my thoughts for the moment. We did move around between the scenes, in part because Kristoffer really seemed to like it. I realised I could have gone for a more small-scale version of it and just moved myself around. This I think I’ll do when I GM the next time. I didn’t use different tenses while describing the present and the past scenes; something disturbs me a little. I really wanted to, and I feel like I chickened out. But it was hard enough as it was to remember to explain everything that was relevant, without having to force a certain speech pattern.
Now I’ll open this up for player comments and questions, questions from both players and anyone else.
Okay, some thoughts from the noob:
First of all I enjoyed it and wouldn't mind playing again, just to make that clear.
I don't think it was all wrong to have a character presentation before we started but I agree that it could have been stripped down to bare essentials like name and physical characteristics. We already knew some basic facts about the other characters, but not which player portrayed them, and that was good to know before we actually started. Better than suddenly introducing ourselves to each other after being on a boat together for two days or after knowing each other all our lives.
I did notice the heavy railroading. :) I think that was one of the things that made us lazy, we never really got warmed up acting. Acting even seemed a little pointless, things were going to happen the way they were supposed to no matter what we did. Not that I can compare it to anything else than improvised theater, but I felt like I could have just sat there and done or said nothing and the outcome would have been the same. But I guess the point is to experience the story, not create it.
“Helena complained to me, both during and after the game, that it sometimes was confusing to know whether she was supposed to act in character or out-of-character.”
What I meant was more like if you were finished talking or not, because people kept interrupting. :)
I will write a bit more about my view of the game on my own blog, but here I will give direct comments.
I had a nice time. What really struck me about the scenario as we played was that this was one of a very few times in my role playing history that the story itself really touched me. You can feel a lot of things due to the closeness to your character. But I think the main story, though simple, in Prometeus is very strong and founded very well in the roles.
“I found this very interesting, since we in the group have worked on trying to avoid the confusing mix precisely because it makes it harder for the rest of the group to respond to the player.”
you are right. I knew which type of play you wanted, you had been very clear about that. You are right that I wanted a few more things played out.
You and me have been talking about this quite much. I struck me druing play and afterwards that in the friform games that I have played on cons the GM:s usually manages the scenarios in a way that you do an extremely small amount of off-game talk. You don't have the extremely clear borders here, but the off-talk usually only exists during short periods of change. I guess I kind of fell into this.
“Another thing we had some problems with was getting the players to act standing and towards each other.”
You are right. When we did it was much more fun. I myself was hungover and a bit stiff and had to force myself into the physical acting.
The simple trick (which you tried to enforce a lot) to let places in the room represent places in the game is very good and give a much stronger impression.
Helena:
“Acting even seemed a little pointless, things were going to happen the way they were supposed to no matter what we did”
One point of this kind of role playing is that pre destined story will make it possible for your character to be put in a lot of situation were you can act out fully without having to think about what will happen.
A lot of people despise this type opf play and want to make their own decisions. I like both; but it's extremely important that all participants know before the which play is to be expected.
My final point, Helena, is that acting is not pointless. It's the main point, even if in this case the story was really enjoyable too. The situations, characters and their personal problems are there to act against. But I am willing to admit that I didn't act out very much this time. (When I say acting I probably don't mean exactly the same thing as a actor would say, but that's another discussion.)
But your notion here is still very important. It's a common problem with railroaded scenarios, that they might feel uninteresting.
Helena: “… I agree that it could have been stripped down to bare essentials like name and physical characteristics …”
Yes, that could've been done. Each player could get one sentence to introduce the character they're playing: “I'm a former officer, now military historian, who values action over talking” or “I'm a blond-haired actress who knows I'm beautiful”. On the other hand, visual characteristics could really be added by the other players themselves. If the point is that the guy is old, it doesn't matter if his hair's grey or black. Even if you think “black” until he comments his grey hair in dialogue, it's easy to change your mental picture. We do it all the time when listening to someone describing something; we create a temporary picture that we adapt if we find that it contradicts what the other is saying. The same could be used here.
As for mannerisms or background history, this should really come up in dialogue rather than in out-of-character descriptions in the kind of game we played. Having four scientists in a room is excellent; they can discuss each others current research and interests, which make for great dialogue-fodder.
“Acting even seemed a little pointless, things were going to happen the way they were supposed to no matter what we did. … But I guess the point is to experience the story, not create it.”
Well, yes and no. Yes, the events would probably have unfolded the way they did whatever you would've done. Parts of the story were obviously scripted, with the two worlds coming to an end and all that, but parts you could create on your own. I'm talking about all the inter-character relationships, the love triangle, the mistrust and fatalism, could really be used to tell a story within the story. If you had used the time in the scenes for getting the attention of your loved one or trying to convince the others of your view of the world, that would've been the important story.
I think all of you forgot or chose to skip a lot of potential character conflicts, but I still think that the ones you used (how to relate to the gods, how much of the future is pre-determined, do we have free will) were interesting. I feel that you all got a chance, as your characters, to voice your opinion on the subject, which was very nice.
Sven: “I will write a bit more about my view of the game on my own blog, but here I will give direct comments.”
Yay! I'm looking forward to it.
“The simple trick (which you tried to enforce a lot) to let places in the room represent places in the game is very good and give a much stronger impression.”
Yes, this is something I'll use in the future. I'll also try to get people to stand up and move around (that will require a bigger room than the one we used, it was a bit cramped), since it immediately felt like I was interacting with you instead of talking to you.
“But I am willing to admit that I didn't act out very much this time.”
Don't feel bad about it. I actually didn't know until afterwards that you had a hangover, but I don't know if that's a compliment or an insult. I think all of you did a very good job, and I really enjoyed gamemastering. Of course, if we could do something similar again some time.. think about how good that could be.
First of all I want to say that I think your thoughts seem pretty much spot-on in most cases, Jonas. It's really interesting to read your analysis of the game and how it happened. Stuff like this is exactly what the roleplaying community needs in order to develop. Focused, analytic actual play reports. Awesome!
In running through nearly the entire ASF catalogue (well, what is availible to the public anyway) I have noticed certain tendencies and formed a theory concerning the railroading discussion. This could be completely wrong in your group, but I think the behaviour is pretty clear amongst my players: The more “standardized” the structure of the scenario is (that is, the more similarities it has to old school table-top rpgs concerning elements of the story, scene content etc…) the more frustrated the players get by the fact that the outcome of every scene is more or less decided beforehand. A freeform scenario that contains lots of clue-seeking, npc-interactions and “adventuring party-tendencies” usually make my players fall into frustration-mode when they have to concentrate on parts that are not really central to their characters personal issues and the dynamics of group relationships. Which is why I think the scenario called “Under Sommaren” is probably the best freeform I have ever read/played. It simply does an amazeing job of focusing completely on the relationships and history of the characters wich, in turn, makes the players concentrate wholly on feelings and acting. Do you have any plans on running that scenario?
Um, oh yeah… Hi, I guess this is the first time I've commented on something. Thanks for providing lots of interesting reading.
In closer examining my post, I realized I wasn't making my point clearly enough. Or at least I didn't enclose a satisfying summary of my thoughts…
What I was trying to say, if you didn't catch it, is that a freeform scenario seems to work better the less that happens to the characters in the scenes. The context and content that can help them create feeling should be there, but it works best if the interaction between players is the content on which the main focus is laid. I think many freeform scenarios don't do this well enough.
Hi Johan,
For some reason I've forgotten to answer your questions. First of all, welcome and thanks for your comments.
I can't do anything but agree with you. I think you're right when you say that the more the scenario resembles old clue seeking adventures the more the players try to guess what the GM is up to, when he just want them to roleplay against each other. There are a couple of points in the scenario where the players have to figure out how to move on, but I tried to minimize them and make it very clear when they arrived. Fortunately they did realize how to move on, which basically meant putting objects found in one part of a room in another part of the room, but otherwise I would just have cut the scene and told them what to do.
I also tried something else that can be used in this type of case. This time it wasn't that important, but it could be used for clue finding. The characters found an inscription in an ancient language that they all could translate, if they only remembered what it was. I presented the players with some runes and told them that the one who thought his character would be first to decipher it could see a note with the translation. This player could then have his character present the solution to the others. The same thing could be used for other “railroading tasks”, the GM could have the solution written on a note and just hand it to a player.
I won't GM “Under Sommaren”, but I think Sven's going to GM it to me later this fall. He has praised the scenario as well.