I’m running a Vampire/Mage game on Tuesday nights (it alternates every 6 sessions or so with my buddy’s D&D game). This is an intensely political Machiavellian game — on the NPC side. The PCs have acted with a mix of idealism and pragmatism regarding a conflict between the pleasant but incompetent prince (which reminds me: Nobody uses incompetence as a plot point in these games. They should.) and rude opponents who get things done.
Tensions run high. My group is also pretty immersive. A lot of play is “dramatic conversation,” where people talk amongst themselves, in character, in real time, with a few shortcuts to reduce the amount of small talk.” The disadvantage is that players can get really attached to particular POVs, and when the plot turns ugly, player/character separation takes a firm step.
During a discussion about a mage PC helping a vampire PC hunt, one player (not either of those contemplating the preceding) expressed some dissatisfaction with the morality rules and “with a couple of elements of the setting.”
I directed things into a short break so we could chat about it. She said that she felt that the game setting didn’t feel very amenable to radical change. In character, she was having a difficult time, as her PC’s idealism was being sorely tested and she’d been insulted by a major NPC. There were some residual feelings there combined with a general position about how to play the game.
I’ll try to break down what followed into steps:
1) First, I validated her concerns *and* I reaffirmed the frame of reference: that we’re friends enjoying a social activity and it was the nature of my role to respond with real changes instead of excuses.
2) Secondly, I did *not* offer wish-fulfillment as a solution. What I did do was explain the nature of the conflict in the game. I think that it’s a big deal to expose the bones of the game at hand in any situation like this. These gets right down the guts without giving details away. Players can either deal with the premise or they can’t.
3) Thirdly, I responded with an immediately applicable proposal: Morality works on the honour system henceforth. I brought it to the group and people thought it was a decent idea.
I wasn’t thinking about it at the time, but Mo Turkington’s discussions about sockets apply here. I had a situation where the player:
* Had one socket that wasn’t working for her (her interface with the morality rules, even though her PC wasn’t affected at the time. Potential things affect games as much as in-game events, since they affect planning and conception).
* Had one socket that needed to be explored and defined (how much and what kind of effect her character might have).
She responded fairly well and this influenced her play as soon as we got back to it. She hit a scene in Elysium with a significant amount of bravery.
On my end, I needed to clarify, in a completely metagame fashion, what kinds of things were possible in the game. I think many GMs are so used to a mediated role (using rules and conventions) that they simply can’t abandon a system-oriented approach to dealing with bumpy parts of play.
One other issue was seating. The player was seated beside me on the couch, so had the least amount of effortless face to face contact. I’m going to sit somewhere else next time.
This game is pretty emotionally intense. In any game like this it’s important to demonstrate the range of possible options. Next session I’m going to do just that, speeding up changes in the setting so that she (and others) can explore the possibilities.
Its amazing how much stopping to talk to other people as people can clear up.
Also, its amazing how important the seating issue can be in play. I often find that my physical distance from a player in a game is directly proportional to the emotional distance I have from them. Same thing for ability to easily read facial expressions. And as much of my GM skill depends upon empathic bonds with the players, that can be a major game killer.