Hi and welcome back to Narrative Control. This episode continues our discussion on running games at conventions. This episode is about how to get the game started quickly and get the players into the action.

Hosts: Sean Nittner and Justin Evans

Length: 24:36

Show Notes

[00:26] Introduction to the Show: Hitting the ground running
[00:56] Canon Puncture Promo, er maybe Atomic Ray Podcast Promo
[01:46] Part II of running con games. How to get the game rolling quickly.
[02:46] Starting games with a bang. Showcase each character’s ability.
System
[03:45] Teaching the mechanics to the players.
[04:41] Start by making sure you’re players are equipped with everything they need.
[05:21] Provide a quick summary of relevant rules.
[07:25] Teach rules as needed.
[08:27] Focus on the mechanics that you are going to be using for this game
[09:15] Providing “half-baked” characters.
Setting
[09:50] See what you can trim from the system and setting to make it manageable.
[11:48] Setting exposition in game.
[12:02] Focusing on one portion of a setting.
Characters
[12:20] Give each character an agenda.
[13:50] Some systems provide these: Burning Wheel, SotC, etc
[14:05] How to provide direction if the system doesn’t have a mechanic for it.
[16:09] Creating interconnections between player characters
Pacing
[16:39] You know what sucks?
[17:41] Woops… should have been in the last episode. Playtest your games.
[18:44] Watch the clock and jump to endgame when it time is short.
[19:54] Short circuit the end conflict if necessary
[20:23] Making sure all the players have had the spotlight.
[20:41] Factoring in cleaning up after the game.
Closing
[22:11] Summary and request for feedback
[22:25] Make sure you know the game mechanics well yourself.

Direct download: NC_Episode_018.mp3

"It's ridiculous how little your story matters unless the players have seen it."

Pure freakin' gold. This was a great episode but that line had a particular impact as I was listening. I paused to repeat that sentence over in my head a couple of times. I have seen a lot of GMs try to divert character actions towards a certain end because the "story" is that way, but in reality the story should follow the players.

Very cool.

Hey Robin,

Thank you, it's a statement that really resonates with me as well, I think for the same reasons. Many GMs forget that the players much more important than the story they've concocted and force the players to explore it one way or another (hell, I know I've done it a dozen times). Running games at cons, when you know you can't just pick up where you left off last time really makes you focus on what is important and (hopefully) jettison anything that will get in the way of those important elements coming out.

Posted By: Emmanueljust to mention that I mostly have terrible experience of convention games.

Ugg... this hurts. And I've heard it too many times. Frankly, it's the reason that I avoid playing Dungeons and Dragons at cons, I'm afraid they will feel like episode 74 of the DMs home game. No sense of beginning, middle and end and no attention paid to player buy in.

It sounds like, however, that the GM of your Star Wars game had a good idea, just poor execution. A 15 minute version of the same thing, where the consequence for failure was that the pirate ships did in fact capture your ship, boarded it and jettisoned you guys planet site in escape pods, would have made the fight a lot more dire. Especially if it also meant you were racing to catch up with the kidnapped official was going to be taken off planet soon.

Ahh... my mind ponders... But the point was I'm sorry to hear your con experiences have been bad. The solution (which is probably not the one you want to hear). Go back to that con and run some good games. I know it's not exactly what you're hoping for but often it’s the only way to improve the quality of the convention.

Ugg, sorry to hear you had so much cognitive dissonance (... waiting for the snarky comment from Justin on that one) in your MC game. Player buy in is huge in any game, but especially so when they have so much control over the narrative.

In our current PTA game we specifically opted for a "Clerks meets The Office" game because I knew my players just wanted to jerk around the entire time and this way they aren't "breaking" anything when they do so. This is a game we play during the lunch hour and we're usually venting off our frustrations from the day, so it's totally fine when it goes all over the place.

In a more serious game, however, I find myself really frustrated with a player who is constantly pushing the constraints of the game. The first time I ran DitV I had a player who said "I don't believe in the Faith" and it broke my brain. I spent the entire session trying to make the game work, when it frankly doesn't. "I have a crisis of faith" is fine, but "I don't believe" means you're not a Dog, means you’re not playing this game. And that is what it all comes down to, are we playing the same game?

In your example, I can see how a rule of magic being "magic corrupts" could be really fun. I'm thinking of how in the comic Spawn, every time he used his powers he got closer to going back to hell. Or something more insidious, like the episode Nth Degree of Star Trek (Next Generation) when Barkley becomes so intelligent that nobody else can comprehend him and he can no longer empathize with the crew. He took something that at first everyone thought was great and ended up scaring the hell out of every one. That said, if the one player was playing Spawn, and the rest of you were playing Dresden, you weren't on the same page, and that is a total bummer.

As for upcoming episodes on this, we're going to be doing one soon on "coaching players" and I'll make a note to include our tactics for working with troublesome players at con games, which is a slightly different beast than working with troublesome players who are also your friends. :)