For the second part in my apparent series on GMing: failure.
I had a pretty major failure as a GM on Thursday. I had a player rage quit World Wide Wrestling (the fantastic AW hack) after the first match.
Some relevant information: This is at an opening gaming event at a FLGS. We do mostly indie stuff. There's a core group who shows, and we've done a lot of world hacks over the time I've been there. Some fate, and a plethora of things I don't remember the names to. This particular player is very much in that core group, and has never liked AW hacks.
Also: I've frozen up as a player before. I'm no stranger to that. And it sucks. A good GM will notice what's going on, and direct attention somewhere else while the player recovers. This can be done with minimal drama. I thought I was good enough to handle that.
I was wrong.
I pitched wrestling, another player pitched Monster Hearts. We divide up.
At my table, I have three regulars and a newbie. The newbie doesn't know the PbtA systems, but does know wrestling. I do char gen for the two players who don't have them. This is the newbie and the core member who doesn't care for PbtA. I figure with some facilitation on my part, we can get everyone involved and happy.
I was wrong.
We wind up with some alright characters, and get some good heat. I'm not really feeling the chemistry yet in the group, but figure it'll gel once we do a match.
I was wrong.
I call for a break and collect the character sheets to do the bit as creative. I start booking matches, thinking about what'll be on camera and off. I've got some cool things that may come up, and know that the players will mess with this entirely. Its not the most inspired moment as creative director, but i think it'll all work out.
I was wrong.
The first match is between a PC jobber and the hard-core as played by the player who doesn't care for AW hacks. Creative tells them beforehand that the jobber is supposed to lose -- and he's supposed to make it look good.
I stick a mic in the jobber's face (soft move) to make him cut a promo; he says he's going to win and that its going to be great. He gets a 6- on his cut a promo, and I dock him a audience. The jobber starts at 0, so he's now at -1. Fictionally, I say this is folks turning off the TV they dislike him so much.
I shove a mic in the hard-core players face. I get some answers, and he seems to be warming up. He also rolls a 6-! Shit. I make some lame hard move, not wanting to come off too strong too early.
They wrestle; there's not much to tell here. The match doesnt' last for long, and there's not much back and forth. At no point does the jobber have narrative control, and the hardcore player doesn't seem interested in getting momentum or audience. Like he wants it to be over.
I ask him what he does next, and get an "I win the match?". I know -- I know! -- at this point that the player has hit a creative wall, and I need to move focus away. I start asking the jobber how he makes the hardcore look good. He gives some helpful descriptions.
Then, the newbie player -- who we've not met before but who likes wrestling -- asks the hardcore what he does. I see the walls fall. Its like Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra. The player says he doesn't know, and its clear he's not having it.
I direct attention back to the jobber, who describes how the Hard Core throws him out of the ring, getting the victory. I have them both roll; both 10+. It looks good to the audience.
That's when the hardcore player leaves; says the game isn't for him, and something about it being too aggressive and confrontational. Maybe it was; maybe I didn't sufficiently explain that its about playing wrestlers who are friends and are making a product together.
I have failures before, of course. This is the biggest failure in years.
What do you think I could have done differently? What are some of your failures? What strikes you from this description?
I'm really interested in a conversation on this. I'll respond and moderate if necessary; disagree without being disagreeable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the hardcore player was predisposed not to like this game was waiting for you to convince them. That's not your job, man. It's a real shame, but at least they bailed early.
ReplyDeleteOh, I forgot to add in the aftermath: This killed any momentum we'd had. I handed the reigns over to another player, who ran Monster of the Week. We did chargen in about 5 minutes, and killed a troll.
ReplyDeleteAs failures go, that doesn't sound so bad.
ReplyDeleteNot all players are going to love everything. If someone isn't disposed to try to be game and attempt to enjoy something, they aren't going to enjoy it. It's not possible to make them enjoy it. I'd just tell the quitter that you're sorry they didn't enjoy it and you hope that if there's anything they think you did wrong as a GM they'll tell you, because you want to be the best GM you can and help players have fun.
They may have something to say, they may not. It's out of your hands at that point.
(sub)
ReplyDeleteI facilitated a game of Fiasco with a guy who was not into it, but he was at the other end of the table and I wasn't reading him properly. We dragged ourselves through that 5-handed, 2 hour slog, wondering why it wasn't working. It wasn't until the Aftermath that his disdain for the game came out. I feel you.
ReplyDeleteDust yourself off, try again. I love playing fake wrestlers.
I'm with Eva and Eric, it sounds like the hardcore was predisposed to not try to enjoy the game.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I don't necessarily think this is a GM failure. It sounds like you did what you could, and some people just don't want what you're selling. Sucks when it happens. A lot.
ReplyDeleteLike me trying to convince hardcore trad gamers that failure is interesting. Sigh.
That's definitely some immediate consensus from the community; I wasn't really expecting that.
ReplyDeleteIt does align to some of my own thoughts, which I didn't want to lead with. Namely, that it was a failure of self-care on the part of the Hardcore player. That is, that his reaction and negativity for the entire group could have been mitigated had he advocated for himself earlier. Part of what I do as a GM is to try to read my players, keep them engaged, and not overwhelmed.
Like any human activity, sometimes that's imperfect. And there are times when I don't know what to do.
This is one; what do you do when a player isn't into it? Is there any way to handle that? Given the starting conditions, what could I have done to turn this from a failure (at least as a facilitator, whether or not as a GM. That's may be the right distinction.) to a success where everyone has a good time, and the game doesn't come to a screeching halt?
When doing the job as Creative, I decided to put him in the first match. I figured that was better than having him bored on the sidelines, which his body language during character creation suggested he would be. Maybe I should have had him watch a match first. I don't know.
Short of playing something else, I don't know that dude could have been made happy. It sucks when you get those players, periodically they show up when I'm running demos at conventions.
ReplyDeleteI mean you could have said, "Barring playing an entirely different game, what can I do to make this a success for you?" but odds are good he wouldn't have had an answer. Does he even know what it is about the World games that he doesn't like?
The big thing I can think of is to book the first match between two players who know the system. That way, they can build some energy for the game and give a demo for how the match should go.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteMickey Schulz Yeah. I mean, I'd hoped that the energy of wrestling would be contagious. As for what he doesn't like: I believe it goes to not enjoying failure.
ReplyDeleteDavid Rothfeder Yeah, this was a judgement call. With hindsight, I would have preferred he was not engaged in the first match rather than upset.
OK - I've had something (sorta similar) happen in a PbTA game in similar circumstances.
ReplyDeleteGenerally I agree with everyone else that there probably wasn't anything you could do and you shouldn't feel bad about that.
That said...
In my version I thought the best way to engage the Hardcore Player was to make the first scene of the game all about them. Let them feel really invested in it, let them get some good spotlight time and really enjoy themselves so they'll be interested in the rest of the game.
I think this was my big mistake.
When I realised they weren't feeling it, instead of making them do the hard creative work up front I should've let them sit back for a couple of scenes. Get a feel for the game maybe even coast a bit until they were comfortable enough for a scene.
Like your example it ended badly.
Happy to go into more detail in a PM if you want to ping me.
So I played in a con game with Joe Zantek GMing and one thing he did that I thought was invaluable, was he handled character creation as a group event so everyone got invested in everyone's PC and it allowed for everyone to do the heavy lifting up front.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing I should probably say is, in my mind the whole situation sounds more like a failure in how we train players than in GMing. The RPG community doesn't talk a lot about what players can do to have more fun. We have this view that people "just like certain things" and there is no way around that. I disagree strongly with that, and wish we would teach players less of a "true love" model and more of a "you can have fun at many sorts of things" model.
ReplyDeleteAnd having said that, there are always going to be times when you as a player just aren't connecting to games and there genuinely are games that some people will never like. You aren't obliged to torture yourself. It's much like foods, just come back and try it again later when you are feeling more open to it.
Becky Annison I'd definitely enjoy more details. I did a G+ share with you. Feel free to respond to that, or to hit me up by email.
ReplyDeleteShervyn von Hoerl Yeah. With a combination of returning and new characters, we went around and talked some. Could have been more, but we definitely went around the table for heat. There was that connection of every character to every other.
Eva Schiffer Does it sound true that there's a privilege in being a player that GMs do not share? That is, when we are players we can afford to be less aware of the system, the settling, the existence of GM moves, etc. So, the privilege is an affordable unawareness that is lost when changing chairs. Does that sound true?
I guess it feels less like a privilege situation to me and more just a situation where both parties have different responsibilities. There are many styles of gaming where there is a large power differential between the GM and players, but not all styles of tabletop RPGs hold to that.
ReplyDeleteEva Schiffer you may well be right; it is my opinion that you think deeper about privilege than I do.
ReplyDeleteI think one major "disadvantage" of a lot of indie games is how poorly they handle a player that does not want to play the game. I think it is important that this player doesn't like any pbta games. I have more to say by email, but I'm not sure it was your fault so much as inevitable. perhaps the best you could have hoped for was a miserable player hanging around the whole time.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Nichols You started the post saying the player rage quit.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when you described what happened that didn't sound like a rage quit, so much as they simply weren't comfortable with that style of game and chose to walk away. They may have been fine with a more laid back style of competitive game, but wrestling wouldn't be wrestling without its rampant displays of aggression, so they left you to it.
It's good to remember people enjoy different things, and games you imagine as fun may not appeal to others in the group.
Many gamers (video gamer, board gamer, etc.) love competitive play.
Other gamers, however, don't.
Gamers who don't get a kick out of competitive play typically end up playing single person games or co-op games (when they can find them - there aren't that many co-op games).
The gaming category that is dominated by co-op games is RPGs. As a result, the RPG gaming community has a high proportion of those who prefer co-op gaming.
Sales of tabletop RPGs reflect this, from the obvious long term examples (e.g. D&D), to more recent trends (e.g. co-op Apocalypse World based games Dungeon World and Monster of the Week have proven far more successful than the hybrid co-op/PvP original from which they're derived and its PvP derivatives).
The gist of all this is that, whereas you enjoy PvP RPGs, there may be others at your table that don't.
What happened wasn't a failure. You tried something you thought would be a lot of fun and discovered one of the players doesn't enjoy that style of play.
You now know to pay more attention when players indicate if they do or don't like something in a game (if only that was as easy to get right in practice as it is to say!) - and that makes you a better GM.
I'll add to the chorus of "it's not your fault, you can't make someone like something they don't like."
ReplyDeleteThat being said? The second he grabbed that hardcore playbook, I'd be like "Okay, one match and one match only on the card tonight...triple threat TLC (tables, ladders, and chairs) match for the Title!" I'd have all three of those guys in the ring at once, and the spots would be so horrifically over the top that any children in the room would have to leave. If the dude wasn't even a little amused by the end of that? Then there's no hope for him.
(P.S. The Star Trek reference? LOL'd, for real!)
On what Michael D said I personally hate using pvp to refer to rpgs. I think it makes it harder for people who don't get them yet to understand them. I'm a pvp board game there are winners and losers, but in a pvp rpg you usually still don't have the concept of a winner, and it should still be a collaborative game. Just one where the characters have conflict.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't for everyone, but calling it pvp makes the issues with aggression being hard to deal with worse.
Ed Gibbs Yeah, judgement calls. I may've made the wrong one. Maybe pulling him in deeper, with a tag team partner, woudl have worked. I just don't know.
ReplyDeleteSean Leventhal I concur. Monster Hearts and Aw aren't PvP, though most of the drama comes from the interaction of the characters. Drama doesn't imply antagonism, neither does the aggression of WWW. Hell, the thing I love most about WWW is your characters are play fighting and doing a dance together, rather than actually fighting.
Apologies if the use of 'PvP' in reference to RPG's was off putting.
ReplyDeleteThe point I wanted to get across is that what occurs as healthy fun to one player may occur as unwanted conflict to another. There's no right or wrong about this; both points of view are valid; as are the differing degrees to which people might hold these views.
Sometimes it can take a situation like this to find that out.
Where you go with it now you do know, that's what really matters.
As the Hardcore player in this particular game by William Nichols, I thought that I should put in my 2 cents.
ReplyDeleteTL;DR: I'm anxiety-prone; couldn't handle it; ran away.
First, yes, I do not like Powered by the Apocalypse games. William and I have discussed my reasons, and I will admit a large part of it is an arbitrary dislike for the system that even I don't understand. I know it started with an intense dislike for the Playbook names and the AW marketing techniques, which I saw as "Ooh, limited edition playbooks you'll NEVER get anywhere else." I have played many different hacks since then, and many of them have left a bad taste in my mouth that has only cemented my poor opinion. But no one can say I didn't try. (I actually have had fun with DungeonWorld, but I think that's because I understand the D&D half of it well.)
Second, I do not blame William for what happened Thursday, though I disagree with "rage quit." I quit before it became a rage quit.
William did describe the game as energetic and containing a lot of shouting. I had heard many good things about it from other players in our group. I went into it wanting to like it.
So what went wrong?
First, it wasn't so much the AW part of it. William was trying to create energy using techniques I had seen him use at LARPs. The few times I have LARPed, it has been very intense for me. I need to psych myself up for it, and I had no prep this time. I didn't realize that we would be doing that. William is not at fault for that. I didn't grasp the level of intensity involved.
Second, it has been literally decades since I watched any wrestling. I had almost no ability to describe the action, and then I suddenly had a "metaphorical microphone" shoved in my face. I panicked and snapped "I don't know!"
At that point, I had to leave. If I stayed, I know I would have gotten upset and started shouting at people, which I did not want. I didn't want to ruin the game (though it seems I did so regardless).
Sadly, I think that is the nail in the coffin for AW for me. I have had too many bad experiences for the game to ever be fun for me.
And to add: I didn't really grasp the rules of the Wrestling Hack regarding momentum and heat. I figured it would make sense as we played, but I really had little idea of what was going on. That probably added to the confusion.
ReplyDeleteAlright, now that Jeff is here, messaging rules get a little stricter. First offense will be immediate post deletion, second offense will be blockage, since this is a public post. There won't be any explanation in this thread -- though feel free to ask in another, or privately. Basically, I'm not going to allow drama in this thread.
ReplyDelete1. No attacks.
2. No discrediting someone else's lived experiences. You can question -- and please do! -- anything said about systems or ideas, but if someone says "I love chocolate", then don't say "chocolate is stupid, and you are wrong about liking it; you like the chemical blahblahblah that's in it"
3. Don't be a dick. I'll interpret this as broadly as I need to.
So far, everything has been great. I tried to keep this as anonymous as possible while discussing the situation -- and my own failings! --- so as to protect everyone involved. With Jeff unmasked, I'll take different measures to accomplish the same goal.
Lastly: I just got back from PT. As such, I have less patience and ability to write coherently than normal. Know that as we discuss.
Jeff, don't beat yourself up too hard. I'm not very fond of PC antagonism driving conflict myself and of the PBtA family the only one I'm enthusiastic about playing is DW. (I've enjoyed Monster Hearts, but it's not a good match for me for unrelated reasons.)
ReplyDeleteIt's ok to be more firm about saying "I would rather not play this type of game, can we please try X or Y other game instead?" or "if you folks are really set on playing this I'm going to sit out and watch, and that's perfectly fine with me, I'm not trying to guilt you into another choice." Not every player likes every game.
In my opinion, WWW is the best of the PbtA games but it's also the most complex, especially if you don't know anything about pro wrestling. The proof of it can be seen throughout this discussion; people keep talking about "PvP" and "PC antagonism" and what-not, but that's not WWW is about. It's certainly not what pro wrestling is about. It's about putting on a good show for the audience. You're not trying to beat each other up; you're trying to look like you're beating each other up, and making the crowd get really into it.
ReplyDeleteI mean, correct me if I'm wrong, Nathan Paoletta, but here's how not to play WWW:
Me: "I put you on the turnbuckle and attempt to hit you with a superplex."
You: "I knock you off of me, and while you're down, I leap from the turnbuckle with an elbow drop."
dice roll
Creative: "Okay, Player B, you hit the elbow drop. What do you do next?"
And here's how it's supposed to work:
Me: "Okay, for this spot, I'll set you up on the turnbuckle for a superplex, but you'll punch me off of you, then nail me with an elbow drop off the top rope. Sound good?"
You: "Yeah! Let's do it!"
dice roll
Creative: "Player B counters the superplex...MASSIVE elbow drop off the top rope! The crowd gasps!"
Now I'm not saying Will didn't do that...maybe he did...and I'm not saying the players didn't do that...maybe they did...but that right there isn't player versus player. That's two players working together to put on the best damn match they can for the crowd. The object isn't to win; it's to look good, whether you win or lose.
In terms of WWWRPG in particular, I think the solvable problem here is putting a non-wrestling-knowledgeble person in the first match. I try not to do that when I run the game; I think having all wrestling-fan-players lead off (if possible) is the best way to model how it works for other folks, since seeing it in action is where it starts to make the most sense, you know? Being told "you guys work together even though you're competing" is hard to parse if you don't have an example to see it in action.
ReplyDeleteBlowing the first roll of the game is hard, too, and I'm sure is a contributing factor. I am totally sympathetic to the experience of not really knowing what's going on and freezing up!
Nathan Paoletta I'm glad you've been listening in! I saw you sub in earlyon, and figured you'd post if we messed anything up too bad. For me, the tension really was between involving or not involving -- do i bring him in early and risk freezing, or later and risk boredom?
ReplyDeleteAll the advice on the thread -- and privately! -- has been about the same: experiences where what I did worked not at all for others. So, crowdsourced learning!
Now if only this was in a GM guide. Or is it, and I just missed it?
It is a product of hard-won experience and not printed in the book as such (though I think I talk about it a little in the Quickstart PDF that nobody uses).
ReplyDeleteAlso, to be fair, Vincent has very clearly stated that he likes to sneakily distribute the GMs job out to the players. So, yeah, PbtA do require some more heavy lifting from the players and something like WWWRPG also requires a bit of permanent.
ReplyDeleteI can totally see that both of these things would be a turn off for people. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Nathan Paoletta I totally use it when I run WWW. I need all the help I can get.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I totally sympathize with risking boredom. Breaking up interviews and the matches can get people in at different levels of engagement, and also bringing them in as the Announcer. But yeah, all of those things are still better if you see it modeled first, so it can be tough.
ReplyDeleteHere's another technique (that I use for big con games, usually): go around the table before play and have everyone cut a promo in character, with no roll associated. These are "pretaped" promos that roll before the Episode starts. No mechanical risk, and can help people warm-up/get into character/see how other people do it before getting to the "real" game.
A trick I used once that worked well was a "locker room pep talk" by the promotion's manager over what needs to happen. The setup was that the manager was PISSED because too many people on the roster are getting injured from bad matches and everyone needs to focus more on the theatrical aspects.
ReplyDeleteNathan Paoletta Good technique! And I do use your single-session quick start! I suppose I missed something.
ReplyDeleteEd Gibbs That's not bad. "This is a performance, you numskulls, not a fight! I want to see good clean misses. If you get within an inch of each other, I'll dock your pay $500!"
It might not be! I'm relying on memory, on the go today.
ReplyDelete