Storytelling

[TNP]

Personally, I'd much rather go to the party event. I'm quite happy putting my character at risk but I hate combat scenes. Hate. It might date back to the 3 day time stop combat scene way back in the old days of oWoD on Masquerade. I also find it rather boring; I get no kick from cocaine nor typing up a ten line pose explaining how I shoot someone with a gun. It's even worse than reading someone's ten line pose about how they shoot someone with a gun.

But aside from how incredibly boring combat is, it really does nothing to advance my character. WoD especially is about character interaction within a sphere (especially oWoD with it's built in antagonism toward other spheres) and across spheres (such as in nWoD). Forming bonds, alliances, friendships, politicking, etc is what theoretically happens at that party. In the combat scene you kill things. Both the characters and the game, I think, benefit more from the party. It also makes XP bloat and the size of one's sheet less meaningful.

[Arkandel]

@Pyrephox said:

@Arkandel said:

Those are not great returns for an evening's work - not in XP, not in RP, not in anything. At least in my book, >people's milage may vary.

I think the 'in my book' thing is relevant here. There are a number of people who I know, who much prefer the social scenes over the combat scenes - hell, half the time I do, although that's more that combat scenes are very easy to run poorly, and a poorly run/played combat scene is both boring and actively frustrating, while bad bar RP is only boring.

While I agree completely - that's why I put the disclaimer about my preferences there in the first place - I never said anything about combat scenes. I don't even like full-combat PrPs, they take too long.

What I'm arguing is actual plots in PrPs versus not having them at all. A social confrontation or investigative challenge versus having a party of whatever sort.

[Coin]

@TNP

I think it's...

1. ...a mistake to conflate "plot scene" or "prp" or "a scene someone runs and is not a party" with "combat combat combat". It's silly and inaccurate. Even if your experience says that most of them are combat, that's still just your experience; it's not an absolute. I can, and have, run plots where there was no combat, or minimal combat, or sporadic, two-turn-long combat, or the looming threat of combat without any actual blows.
2. ... a mistake to assume that when Ark (or someone else) mentions "a pizza party", they are still talking about "a situationw geared towards allowing politicking, social advancement, and other non-combat opportunities for a character to achieve goals". In general, it means " a pizza party were everyone sits around and shoots the shit".

While I agree that a large part of storytellers seem to think that only combat is a decent measure of challenge for PCs (something I disagree with), it's important we also note that the vast majority of people who run "party" scenes, for lack of a better term, don't have character-driven goals in mind for the antendees; it's just a venue to pose your character doing mundane things (or sometimes non-mundane, but still rote things).

It's important for an event, be it social, combat, whatever, to have a goal: something that the PCs can itneract with beyond "the pizza's here" or "bubble party!" Not because these things aren't fun inandof themselves, but because they aren't plot. They can become plot if someone puts forth the effort, but they don't actually start that way.

[EmmahSue]

I don't have a problem with Conditions, I just... don't tend to remember or think of them in the moment. If someone said to me, "Should I get a condition for that?" I'd prolly go look it up and agree, no problem.

ES

[Coin]

@EmmahSue, oh, I know. I was just using you as a point-of-fact, frankly.

And because I can. I can use you. You are my puppet.

Mwah-ha-ha-ha-haaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

[Misadventure]

Conflict.
Decisions that lead to consequences.
Characterization and character change.

That's what tends to be fun for me. If you could add in that these stories are accounted for when shifting the status of the setting, awesome.

ETA: Actually, for apply lines 2 and 3 to the setting (setting as character) and you have everything that makes me happy seeing as a player, providing as a ST.

[mietze]

If Jane interacted out on the grid 4 times with different people,, even if it was social, why shouldn't that be rewarded, vs. Bob who only shows up for 'important' plot scenes? (I think we all know people like that).

Personally I enjoy risk a lot. Not all the time, but I feel most engaged with a mix of both. I have had PCs that only showed up for shoot 'em up scenes though. And my favorite PC primarily did social and networking stuff for like a year because nobody invited me to anything more than that (and I was too intimidated for awhile to realize that I could run my own stuff, once that changed then I was a lot happier!)

I don't understand the need to denigrate one kind of activity over the other. "Important" risky scenes are often long and involve a lot of rules. It's not everyone's cup of tea. Social scenes, especially big mixers, are draining for a lot of people, and they avoid them like the plague.

I guess it's a pet peeve of mine when people who are consistently active (they say yes to a lot of folks seeking rp, they're willing to meet new folks even if it's not super exciting environments, ect) are perceived as less deserving/good than people who can't be assed to show up unless it's a Super Important Metaplot Thing.

This is a separate issue from calling a meet and greet a PRP though. I wholeheartedly agree that it isn't.

[Arkandel]

@mietze said:

If Jane interacted out on the grid 4 times with different people,, even if it was social, why shouldn't that be rewarded, vs. Bob who only shows up for 'important' plot scenes? (I think we all know people like that).

The problem isn't Jane (who just goes and joins whatever), it's the 'ST' who runs PrPs because of those rewards. And the reason the practice shouldn't be encouraged is that, essentially, it comes down to grinding XP - at least that's my observation from seeing how often such throwaway meet-and-greet - to use your term, I like it - scenes rather than something more engaging.

Furthermore, as @Coin said, most games already reward people for just existing and that's through fixed XP at the end of every cycle. Yes, I would agree there should be some way to differentiate players who showed up and actually posed, albeit in bar scenes, and those who sit in the OOC room and chat on channels.

But here are a couple of reasons they shouldn't be incentivized further:

• they become a way to grind XP; it's easier and faster to run a meet-and-greet, and it can happen recurringly forever. I can come up with nameless, plotless scenes several times a week, at a Beat each that adds up.
• it cheapens the efforts of other characters and STs. If you run an involved story with a half dozen carefully designed NPCs and answer +comms from people investigating IC events while I run a non-plot in which nothing happens, should our incentives be the same? Likewise if your Ventrue diplomat keeps being part of extensive, complicated negotiations to keep the Primogen from each other's throats while mine chats about the weather, should our growth through adversity be the same?
• it affects the game's culture. Expecting something extra for very little effort goes against attempts to reward involvement or engagement, plus it turns rewards into something to be taken for granted. Do we need two ways to give players something essentially simply for existing?

Personally I enjoy risk a lot. Not all the time, but I feel most engaged with a mix of both. I have had PCs that only showed up for shoot 'em up scenes though. And my favorite PC primarily did social and networking stuff for like a year because nobody invited me to anything more than that (and I was too intimidated for awhile to realize that I could run my own stuff, once that changed then I was a lot happier!)

You won't hear me protest about IC networking or advancing social agendas through PrPs. In fact I wholeheartedly advocate their use.

I guess it's a pet peeve of mine when people who are consistently active (they say yes to a lot of folks seeking rp, they're willing to meet new folks even if it's not super exciting environments, ect) are perceived as less deserving/good than people who can't be assed to show up unless it's a Super Important Metaplot Thing.

Well, I agree, I just don't know what you are referring to. Who suggested players showing up only for important metaplot scenes are better than anyone else? I just don't see what meeting new people or showing up for RP on the grid regularly has to do with PrPs, they are just completely different things.

[mietze]

Since I would hope that Bob isn't participating in the action plot that he's STing, I thought we were speaking of participants, period.

If someone shows up for a social scene and interacts with people in a way that is engaging and meaningful, I do not see why they should get less reward than someone who shows up to an "important" scene where frankly, in that same amount of time, there may be far less bridgebuilding and interaction between PCs just by the nature of things.

The complaint seemed to be that Jane could get "the same" reward for showing up to 4 social gatherings, that Bob gets for doing his danger scene. I would ask, why should she not, or even perhaps get more? Done right, she's actually probably engaging more people in RP in those 4 scenes and making connections than he is (which is its own reward, so I don't terribly mind that he's being given an advantage mechanically in XP gathering) That's 4 times the activity to his 1. But ideally, I think people probably should be doing both.

[Coin]

@mietze, you're still talking about participants, while @Arkandel is still talking about storytellers.

Get on the same page, folks.

[Arkandel]

Let me try to clarify.

My problem/peeve/objection has to do with PrPs in which there is no plot. That's it, that's all I've an issue with.

Non-combat PrPs are fine and, in fact, often preferable. Risk comes in more flavors than filling out damage boxes and confrontation isn't always bloody. Challenges of all kinds should be present for characters with a different focus (stealthy, investigative, hackers, socialites, tricksters, etc) and not just the violent variety.

Finally, plots without wide-reaching consequences are fine in my book; not every PrP has to be about saving the world. A small, personalized intimate plot is worth as much (hell, probably more) than cinematic blockbuster events.

All I ask is that some sort of actual plot exists in a PrP.

Does that make it any clearer?

[Pyrephox]

An attempt to gently steer the topic back towards the original topic:

Let's talk about STing plots that don't rely on combat or the rather straightforward 'here's a mystery, solve it' kind of construction. What would make a GOOD social plot for example? How can we make things like court meetings, and such, less of a 'everyone pose standing around while The Important People infodump or strut' kind of thing, and more like a collaborative event where every PC can move forward with one goal or another?

[mietze]

I'm not sure that court scenes can. In fact, I wish kind of that info dump things like that were run more like board meetings (just business) to keep them brief, like under an hour, if you want to react or whatever, do what you can, if you want to talk to others, keep it to tt, but the speaker needs to keep moving, and then cut people lose for social reaction later. A spherewide meeting like that is just not the place for individual goals necessarily. I don't think you can make every group scene into a plot, especially 15+ ones. It's just a thing that you know what to expect, and hopefully you get out of it soon enough to do some more personal RP.

I could see maybe as an incentive to getting biz done early, running a more targeted social thing afterwards. Fight club? Debate? Scavenger hunt? But I think court is by its very nature not very collaborative. Just my personal take on it though. Mostly due to years of oWoD courtstuff where folks had to show up to something that was already going to take 3 hours for everyone to pose in what they're wearing instead of putting it in their desc, waiting round robin, ect, trying to get through biz only to have someone drop a plot element 4 hours in that by that point nobody gave a shit about because they were all exhausted.

[Misadventure]

Stakes.

You have to have them. Something to gain, something to lose , though it doesn't have to be a zero sum.

Bring some. Let players define some. Resolve the challenges, enact the gains and losses.

Be bolder than nickle and dime'ing towards success.

[Arkandel]

My last infodump scene didn't go so well. Essentially I had two goals going in; there was a plot point to be resolved (a PC had hurt an innocent bystander) and a larger one to be advanced (a larger meeting had to be arranged).

The sheer number of PCs (I think something like 9?) present presented the greatest difficulty; it was simply impractical to deal with the spam, both for my sake - trying to keep the NPCs address everyone's comments made it somewhat commical - and that of onlookers who were starting to lose track of what was happening. Furthermore, PCs with authority were frustrated because they couldn't deal with the matter at hand had to swim through the same amount of raw text.

Now, let's use a sample generic plot just to make things more clear if no one minds? Say, we have emissaries in Vampire coming from a different Praxis to bring news of a dangerous group of vitae-addicts who might have found refuge to their city.

1. There's a balance to consider between only involving the big-name PCs in closed meetings (which seals the majority of players out of the plot, turning it into something they care less about) and making every scene chaotic. If possible, breaking it up between public forums and private addresses seems like a good idea; for instance NPCs could address each Covenant separately.

If interaction is not going to add to the plot at that point, maybe consider doing it via announcements, although that risks detachment (reading about things isn't the same as being part of them).

2. Introducing an internal structure to the larger scenes. This may require IC authority but imposing strict pose order (my usual 1PR failed me) could help. Each Covenant picks their representative and there's a bigger scene with its own drama and revelations, each Covenant sits at a +place together so they can pose at each other, but only their representative gets to pose giving voice to their questions, remarks and proposals.

3. A plot device I really like to use is to turn PCs into mouth-pieces. That scales up very well (since I don't need to be present for every scene) and puts characters in the driver's seat - in our case an old blind monk could ask the Ordo Dracul to do research on his behalf, a fanatical Inquisitor could be - barely - constrained by the Lancea Sanctum while they go around recruiting help to drive the pagan demon-worshippers from the city, etc. I hate micromanagement, so finding a few proactive players, giving them the spiel and unleashing them on the grid is an excellent practice if you want information to spread out.

4. The KISS principle really helps. A complex plot full of jargon will be much harder to catch on than a more straight-forward enough - stories don't need to involve every word in italics from the splatbook to be fun. In case anyone has managed to miss it I'm also pretty wordy (why use one word when ten will do?) but walls of text put people off too, so when I need to dump plot on people I try to keep it as compressed as possible.

5. I try to give the social challenge here room to grow. Did the lowly lay LS member just oppose that Inquisitor's wish to drown the mortals in the homeless shelter (beneath which the invaders are hiding) in their own blood 'just to make sure' ? Make him remember it and make sure the PC knows it is remembered. Choices made have to mean something and have consequences just like in combat - only it's more delicious for STs because the worse you can usually do in a fight is kill a character but using an encounter gone bad you can torment them for months to come, and in the process make the nameless NPCs be memorable.

Just some notes.

[Pyrephox]

@Arkandel I think those are some excellent ideas. I also wonder - do you think it would help to have PCs who were planning to attend those meetings establish /one/ IC goal for their character for that meeting and send it to the ST or person running the scene in advance? Basically, just one thing that they want to get out of that meeting, whether it's talk to X about Y, or humiliate Z in public, or whatever. While it wouldn't be perfect, it might help to give the runner of an idea of where the focus should be - if half a dozen say 'Find out more about This Plot', then spend more time on that. If /no one/ is interested in The Invasion of the Bodysnatchers, then have that be a brief note at the beginning, and then spend the rest of the time focusing on what PCs are actually into.

[Arkandel]

@Pyrephox Generally speaking I'm delighted when players in my plots volunteer glimpses of where their PCs' mindsets are, what they mean to do or why. As STs we don't necessarily know every character in the plot, or we know their public persona more than the more intimate workings of whatever's happening in their heads, so the more hooks I'm given the more buttons I can push.

In that light that'd make a great idea - the only caveat is whether goals PCs have are achievable. So the Emissary is in town to warn about these dangerous addicts but he doesn't have the authority to bring in a kill squad from his own Praxis to help out, so no matter what great arguments or how eloquent the Carthian Primogen is that's not going to happen. You could always throw them a bone ('I'll do whatever I can, I'll send out a letter to my Prince right after this!') but it's often the case that players' reach greatly exceeds their grasp in these things.

[Pyrephox]

@Arkandel Sure! But at least the ST would know that's where the players' heads are at. Then s/he can either give them a heads' up that it's beyond the scope of this scene, or maybe reassess their own opinion of whether it IS beyond the scope of that scene - if you've got fifteen PCs wanting to Summon the Elder God Muchumocho or whatever, then maybe that's where you should go with it. Might be fun!

[TNP]

@Coin said:

@TNP

I think it's...

1. ...a mistake to conflate "plot scene" or "prp" or "a scene someone runs and is not a party" with "combat combat combat". It's silly and inaccurate. Even if your experience says that most of them are combat, that's still just your experience; it's not an absolute. I can, and have, run plots where there was no combat, or minimal combat, or sporadic, two-turn-long combat, or the looming threat of combat without any actual blows.
2. ... a mistake to assume that when Ark (or someone else) mentions "a pizza party", they are still talking about "a situationw geared towards allowing politicking, social advancement, and other non-combat opportunities for a character to achieve goals". In general, it means " a pizza party were everyone sits around and shoots the shit".

Except that I wasn't. There were no hidden messages in my post. I said exactly what I wanted to say: I don't like combat and prefer social events. I was, in effect, agreeing with Pyrephox who posted:

I think the 'in my book' thing is relevant here. There are a number of people who I know, who much prefer the social scenes over the combat scenes - hell, half the time I do, although that's more that combat scenes are very easy to run poorly, and a poorly run/played combat scene is both boring and actively frustrating, while bad bar RP is only boring.

If said party is also a 'plot scene' or 'prp' then great. I wish more over them had more than combat. I have, and do, participate in combat scenes. They are abundant. And yes, things can happen during them that are significant to the characters involved. But I'm usually bored and would gladly hand wave ninety percent of them.

[Arkandel]

Let's talk storytelling versus play styles, shall we?

I had this... let's call it a concern, since it's not a problem per se. While running plot some of my players (almost always Mages but the same principle probably applies to anyone with sufficient telepathic/foretelling abilities) would switch to dice and powers before or even in the place of interactions.

To give an example, it'd go something like this (greatly simplified for expedience's sake):

<the players are expecting a representative of an NPC group to negotiate with>
Me: "A man walks into the bar. He looks like <X> and says <bunch of IC things>."
Them: "I cast Supernal Vision. Then I scrutinize him for spells. Then I read his aura. Then I read his mind."
Me: "Okay, roll and pose it please?"
Them: "I'm sitting at the bar. I say hi." <rolls bag of dice>
Me: "The man does <Y> and says <other IC things>"
Them: "I'll open a +job so I can spy on them after they leave here with Scrying."
Me: "...Okay, roll and pose it please?"
Them: "I take a sip from my glass and smile enigmatically." <rolls bag of dice>

So it kind of goes like this; it doesn't happen often but when it does it's a bit frustrating to me. I get little feedback from the players - although when I ask them over pages if they're enjoying this they are, which, okay - but I can't engage them in actual roleplay.

In fact I get the feeling they'd have been okay or even preferred if the whole interaction had taken place in a +job so they can throw powers at the situation and get answers back from it.

Is that something you folks have dealt with and, if so, what do you think is an acceptable compromise?