So, my Apocalypse West game went down today. I would say it was a marginal success. The system was well received and everyone had fun and are willing and anxious to play again. The only problem, at least in my head, is that none of the players took the game seriously. I noticed a lack of seriousness during character creation and no matter how hard I tried to steer the game onto a more serious track, I failed. This particular group of players are mostly Pathfinder players, but they have had experience with Dresden Files, in which they were able to co-create the game world with their GM in that game. From what they told me, that got out of hand and over-the-top silly as well.
I’m not sure whether to suck it up and play a more light-hearted game, which they did enjoy, or try to have a pre-game talk with them and express my desire to have a more serious game, which AW seems to demand.
Here are the playbooks they selected:
Junker: Silas McGee
Saint: Temperance Crandall
Drifter: Handsome Stranger (the first red flag)
Homesteader: Thaddeus Woolsworth
I’m going to let the game sink in for a day or two and then create my fronts. The players did a great job creating memorable PC’s and really enjoyed helping flesh out the NPC’s.
In thinking about the game, I realize that I had a certain expectation of tone going in, but I’ve played, watched, read, discussed, and argued AW for months! The players had never even heard of the game! I failed to share my expectations with them, so I cannot expect them to play the game the way I wanted it played. They played the way they’ve always played their games and had fun doing it. If there was a failure, it was mine. Lesson learned.
How did they handle you asking questions like crazy?
They loved that aspect of it and were, for the most part, very creative. Sometimes they seemed to even jump the gun and start creating content on the fly! I couldn’t even name NPC’s before they were shouting out names (mostly ridiculous names, but they were participating!).
Seems like a pretty good learning moment. Good on you for taking it in stride. 🙂
Sounds like you need to sit down and have “the talk” with everyone. Discuss what you all want out of the game so that everyone is on the same page.
So here’s the thing, though: Do I change the tone of the game for the second session, which might reduce their enthusiasm or do I just roll with it knowing we are only going to be playing a few more session?
I’m leaning toward letting the light-hearted atmosphere stand as they did enjoy themselves. I’ll just make sure that I express my expectations regarding tone BEFORE we play our next new system.
Silly is safe, serious means taking a personal risk. AW handles both, though maybe not at the same time.
Amp up your PC NPC PC triangles.
Make the world real. (Act under Fire’s your friend here in that you can set the dial on just how horrible the environment is).
Future Badness can often invoke dread and bring in the real/serious.
Don’t fear dishing out Harm. The PC’s can take it, and that can make the tone serious. Just eyeball the armor/gang stuff– and even if you over-shoot a few times, you can dial it back later.
Be a fan of the characters. Unless a PC’s so silly you can’t take them seriously and you can’t be a fan of that PC, then tell them the possible consequences and ask.
e.g., “You know if Silas really does “state the silly thing” Roark and Isle will most likely put on gas masks and just start hosing this place down with the liquid from those canisters. What do you do?”
You need to make AW real, and that means your NPC’s and the environment will react non-silly to silly behavior.
That’s about the best you can do beyond “the Talk” which usually results in the group breaking up (not a bad thing often).
Seek other serious players as a second game. G+ hangout games are all over the place. Play by Post games are super serious. You can find your serious fix, just might take some work.
Up to you! If you’re having fun with it being silly and such, then go for it. If you’re not feeling it, you should speak up – they might be enjoying themselves, but you’re part of the group. Are you enjoying yourself?
Do they normally take Pathfinder seriously? I’ve run into people who are always trying to impress others at the table and trying to be funny and show off no matter what, but I’ve also run into people who don’t take indie games seriously. They may have fun with it, but they don’t think it’s a “real” game, like whatever system they’re used to. That may not be the case here, but it’s certainly something you may want to know up front, to make sure everyone is on board.
Caitlynn Belle , I think you may have hit on something. I don’t know that they take the system seriously, which is why they feel it’s okay to act overly silly. I was laughing a lot and enjoying their creativity, but the game ended up being far from what I expected or what I would enjoy had I been a player. I wonder if the fact that it was an Old West setting rather than the modern apocalypse had anything to do with their reaction. They came into the game with decades of western movie stereotypes in their heads.
I don’t know. I’ll have to think about how I want to handle this a bit more. I can certainly tell them that my expectations were different and see if they would prefer to maintain the light-hearted version or, perhaps, switch to a more serious game and see how that feels.
I agree with Caitlynn Belle here. Speak up. Everyone in the group should be enjoying themselves, and that includes you. Rather than guessing what the players want, ask them.
Ouch, that’s rough. You’ll probably want to have a tone conversation, since AW (both World and West) has a pretty gritty tone.
Nothing wrong with a Drifter or Gunslinger not having a name.
I’d start with the expectation setting and maybe follow up with an X card discussion where you make sure you mention that the x card can be used for tone control without having to make a big play stopping deal about it.
I’ve parted ways with a game group over this. They just couldn’t play without making fun of the setting or character names. They wanted something out of the game that was wildly different than I did. Not worse, just a different experience.
A collection of responses.
1. I would roll with it, but keep looping back to real questions like “who do you trust” and “what is it worth” and “where does it hurt”. I suspect the ability to take it seriously could grow in a few sessions once the players are familiar with and invested in their characters and the setting etc. Also, serious does not equal grim. There could be a serious issue of needing to find a suitable place to hold a kickass party and the right gift for Drover before she heads out on a trek to the scrounge lands a day’s drive away. Or a real cutthroat competition to play the best practical joke, winner gets the best spot in the holding for the next season.
2. I’ve been thinking a lot about humor and lightness and gonzo play of late, and I’ve come down on the side of laughter and bizarre situations and goofy play being a good thing. It allows space for making connective tissue in a group of people with injokes that crack you both up over coffee a week later, and having had so much fun that you can’t wait to see what happens next. The world is fucking grim these days, and roleplaying is a way to ease that tension.
3. Maybe to get what you are after in terms of a serious game (and you’ll need to be very clear what that means – does it mean no joking around at the table? Does it mean certain themes in play? Does it mean gut-punching emotional decisions?) you can talk with folks outside the game space and time, and see who else might be up for a smaller group trying a more focused game.
4. I’ve seen this exact situation play out in my living room over and over. Two of the regular GMs will occasionally aim for “a serious, story-driven game”, and by the end of character creation, at least one of the five or six regular players will have a character that’s just absurd and everyone’s laughing and it just goes from there. Fiasco would fit this group best, almost every time. One of the issues I see is the group size. For a “serious” game, smaller groups are much better. An MC and three players, maybe four, and five only if everyone is solidly in board for this particular game and this particular style of play.
One more thing: have an NPC name Handsome Stranger immediately. Have them greet that PC like they’ve seen a ghost or a long-lost friend. Or have them go to another PC with the name – “Excuse me, Miss, but did you see William Drake came to town? I remember him from my time back east – he’s the fastest draw I’ve even seen! He seems to not want to be recognized – he didn’t give his proper name at the hotel. Wonder what trouble he’s got hisself in to warrant going in-cog-neeto like that. I guess Mr. Drake will make it clear soon enough.”
Also, for goodness sake build on what they gave you for fronts and NPCs. You can find the story there and give it a gentle spin towards the type of stuff you want to see.
If all your players want to play it light hearted, I am sorry to say that, but you’re the minority and trying to force your view on the others could potentially lead to a failure of the campaign.
On the other hand, it is possible to couple a serious story with mostly lighthearted characters. I am thinking (not western series, but bear with me) about Sherlock, Misfits, Torchwood, Haway five-o, Supernatural, where most of the characters crack jokes, are sarcastic, or beave in inappropriate ways, but the setting, the themes, and the events are always urgent, serious, and sometimes touch deeeply the characters involved.
Meguey Baker #3 here. Whatever “serious” means, I’d align with the players prior to the next campaign or next session if you can’t stand the levity. Personally, I always choose “find another group” as the very last resort.
It seems they thought Fallout, not Mad Max. All of their play seems to be logical for New Vegas.
Time for the talk.