This weekend saw me split out my group of 7 in to two groups, due to scheduling conflicts that meant not everyone could be together on one date.
It was a good opportunity to see how the game runs on a smaller scale, and to test some things out in terms of what players liked.
Session 1 of 2 ran with the group of 4, and they were given two explicit options of potential threats they could deal with, along with two of the characters each being given personal messages/information that they could reveal or not. One of them chose to reveal it because her character was comforted at the beginning of the session.
My group is clearly very cautious about getting in to a fight, which is good to know, and means I’ll probably have to force a fight on them if I want them to actually get in to conflict, but it was good to see that they were happy to play in character, and to shun the easy “beat up a bad guy” scenario in favour of keeping an eye out for protecting innocents and helping a fellow team member on their quest.
The session 2 of 2 didn’t go so well, which is entirely my fault! I made a treasure hunt of sorts, where the three of them would have to go through the city to try and find information to get them to the location of a cultist ritual.
Problem 1: I didn’t make any explicit clues, I used custom moves which enhanced the players as they went along, which would have been great if they got to the final location quicker…but didn’t actually help them find the location!
Problem 2: I relied on these moves as a way of giving the players information about their success or not, and the move I had was a roll + mundane. I should have paid more attention to the fact these three characters had the lowest mundane ratings of anyone else on the team. As such, one player managed to rack up an impressive 7 potential in one game through failed dice rolls!
Problem 3: I should have accounted for the possibility of terrible dice rolls. It’s one thing to play the averages, but I see now that if there is no planned route out of the situation for the players and they don’t roll successes then they can’t go anywhere. If your game was one where the players could just say “This isn’t working, we need to change mission” this might be fine, but where it’s important that they actually follow the story through… I clearly needed to have more backups planned, and had to ad hoc these hard pushes in the right direction on the night.
So… lessons learned, not sure if we’ll be split again next month or back as a 7, but either way there are a few strands to play on for the story going forward, and the players seem to be enjoying themselves.
Your second session is basically what inspired the Gumshoe system. When running an investigation scenario, the fun isn’t in whether or not you can find the clues. If the players can’t find the clues, the game crashes to a halt, stagnates, and starts to smell. The story requires you to find the clues to move forward, so you find them – no roll, no chance of failure about it. The investigation game isn’t about whether or not you find the clues, but how you interpret them.
Yeah there were two sets of rolls, the second was basically a “you find the information but how you benefit or not from it depends on your result” kind of thing, the mistake was absolutely requiring a success on the first. Live and learn!
For the second session:
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/7949/roleplaying-games/node-based-scenario-design-part-1-the-plotted-approach