Well? How was it for you chaps? Things you thought went well? Not so well?
John

It was really good, thanks.

Graham

It was fun. We needed Dave below decks, though.

No, a sort of disgraced noble pirate. Me and Simon played out Les Liaisons Dangereuses.

Graham

Posted By: Graham...Me and Simon played out Les Liaisons Dangereuses.

Graham

I'm fairly sure it was another movie you both played out. One with more of an 'internet only' theme...
John

A rambling, incoherent and railroady game. Not sure what happened their really. My apologies.
John

I thought it was fun. We got a little sidetracked into individual plots, but then we got back together, which was good.

Graham

Dump on the trait bombing. Not for this game because people are well into it and we're having fun. But if I name a trait 'social chameleon' I am pretty sure I can make an arguement where it works as 'all' social skills and is even superior to 'all'other social skills. If I want 'social chameleon' I think a GM would be well advised to suggest, for instance, it only works at the aristo courts of 16th Japan where I picked it up. I may find use for it in other social enviroments but it would be much less effective.

I think Graham makes a point withthe Foibles. Maby they should have something in common. I purposely choose a characte that had disimalr skills to other characters so that it would useful in areas the other characters were weak. But what I should of done is choose Foibles or some skills that meant we were following the same plot, or at least sometimes. Perhaps this is something you could encourage in later games.

Posted By: wulfI think Graham makes a point withthe Foibles. Maby they should have something in common. I purposely choose a characte that had disimalr skills to other characters so that it would useful in areas the other characters were weak. But what I should of done is choose Foibles or some skills that meant we were following the same plot, or at least sometimes. Perhaps this is something you could encourage in later games.

I should have been far clearer about the initial situation prior to creating characters, which may have helped create a sense of group direction and cohesion. Or we could have ended up with characters remarkably similar to the ones we have.

I know what's going on, but I have a feeling everyone's just following the trail I set.
John

Posted By: wulf'John' sez:
"...shutting Dave down."

I didn't mind so much. It was obvious you were trying to give Garham and Simon a chance to try out things that they're play had suggested last wek.

My comments on Trait bombing is relevant. I used 'Social Chameleon' so often in so many different games I thought of using it as a character name much like 'Lucky'' :p

Ironically (?), Lucky didn't actually use his "lucky" forte in any trait bombing during the session ..

This is good stuff. Cheers guys, it is much appreciated and providing me with much to think about.
John

John, I enjoyed the game, but you asked for feedback...

1. The game was on the borderline of an indie-style game where it's all about conflicts between characters, and a more trad game where we all work together for a common aim. Last week, it really was the latter, and I think it worked a bit better. In other words, although this has indie elements, I think a stronger direction which we all buy into works better for this style of game. This is more our fault than yours.

2. I agree that it's better to set a high difficulty and give the players a chance, even if it's unlikely, and also make a win a win, or at least be very clear what the stakes are before rolling. When Adrian won against the sisters, he thought he would be seducing a sister. When I won against the Govenor's daughter, I thought I would be seducing her. So, you could either have said "you won't be able to seduce her, but she will be favourably inclined towards you", or set a high difficulty and allow it to happen. In either case you could still have planted the nice lead that you added, "Now, darling, there's a little thing I want you to do for me". It's fine to step out of game and say "look guys, I've got these leads or would you rather go off and do your own thing?" If it's absolutely not going to happen (eg with Dave and the governor) I would have said very early on that was the case, or let him roll against a super-high difficulty, and then pulled Dave into Graham's arc. Be very free alowing people to roll, beacause there is benefit in the game in failure.

3. Most of the problems were down to the players, rather than your GMing. We need to know what the premise of the game is to ensure that we all have a common purpose - that is unless it's 100% indie. It's our job to follow that purpose. Inter-character conflicts are fun, but I think they should be flavour while we all fight together to fulfill the agreed goal. I think of myself as the GM's little helper - so I followed the rutter lead (thinking that we need the map to go to the next desitination) and the Princess (who Graham's character then murdered). Steve inclines towards that role a little, too, so his presence will help.

4. I really curtailed trait use, and I think most other people did. The points for failed rolls helped a lot. There is nothing at all wrong with using your skills, it's only if you use inappropriate skills. So, always fencing is fine if you are fencing, always getting +2 for smoking, I'd say is not.

5. I do think Dave and Adrian got less spotlight time, but that's just because Graham is a spotlight whore, and I am very charismatic. (Joking!)

However, at a rough count, Simon had more than twice as many rolls as Dave, allowing for success _and_ advancement! :)

Posted By: GrahamThe premise of the scenario? I didn't think there was one. I thought we were just doing stuff with our characters...

Graham

Nuls Points to John.
John

Posted By: SimonWe are privateers supposedly attacking the enemies of our employees. However, the Germans have got another plan. They keep disguising themselves as Arabs and attacking us. This is the mystery we need to solve. How the Princess was involved, I don't know, nor how the governor's daughter was involved.

I am pretty sure that the secret rutter is a treasure map, and that lots of factions are after it.

Yes. um, that's exactly right. Maybe. Actually, it's pretty much on the nose. Sort of.

Posted By: Simon...Still, (Graham) used the skill in an amusing, if hammy, way.

I would argue that that isn't trait-bombing in any way. To me, it's simply throwing in as much as possible without any meaningful way of meshing them into the narrative simply to gain bonuses. Or, as the rulebook calls it "Bad Form". Aside from recognizing that it occurs, and having only successful tests count towards advancement, Chad doesn't really offer much in the way of insight into how to dis-incentivise this sort of play.
John

Posted By: JohnYes. um, that's exactly right. Maybe. Actually, it's pretty much on the nose. Sort of.

And that's why I am the GM's little helper!

I think in retrospect, resigning as Captain was not sensible, nor was having a character (Adrian's) who was fundamentally against the structure of the crew and the mission. No one's fault, though. In our group it is always a massive pain to be the Captain. I felt sorry for Dave!

Is it Privateers again this week?

Yes.

Since Simon is so worried about the our letter of marque status here's my solution:
Someone spends a fate token to establish the fact that the Governor is a traitor/enemy agent to our sponsor nation.
Simplez.

The Governor's a schmuck who's only interested in feeding his lazy arse and getting rich from his estates on the colony. The Captain however is the real power behind the throne. You happy for him to be the traitor?
John

The 'Capatain''? Sort assumed he fits the role bad/fall guy anyway. Just so that this doesn't cut into game time too much can we assume that a lot of the time I spent last week schmoozing with the governor and the 'Capatain' has paid off in one way anyway in that he, the Capatain, is going to come with us to make sure those 'pesky privateers don't interfer? That way if we're cagey around him it's easily explained since we're all up to some skulduggery anyway and can't trust him for those reasons.

That's assumimg we're ever leaving the harbour?

Posted By: fonWhen the revolution kicks off, and the Big Gun levels the Governor's tower, leaving the harbour will be pretty much a necessity.

Plus, although seemingly infinite, I'm sure we'll run out of Simon's sisters on this island at some stage ...

I'll probably skip tomorrow's game.

Graham

Posted By: WKillaqueate

Nice use of the English language. Had to look that one up :) My vocabulary has increased!
John