Players have run out of ideas

[Wolfwood2]

@Toturi: Yes, that's exactly what the situation is.  They are desperately working to preserve the status quo without leaving a plot hook I can write with later.  Which is annoying at several levels.  One, because imperfect solutions are way more interesting than perfect solutions, and two, the fact that they're treating it like I have them backed into an impossible situation, when rather, it's merely impossible for them to come out smelling roses and dancing with bunnies. 

There's a few things here.  First of all, if they aren't enjoying something the solution isn't to keep forcing it on them until they learn to like it.  It doesn't work with spinach and it won't work with gaming.

Second, you've several times expressed frustration they don't start a long-term social conflict against this guy (something they may not even see as a possibility).  Well it only takes one side to start a social conflict, just like it only takes one side to start a physical conflict.  If you want a social conflict so much, why don't you start one?  Have the vampire guy engage to try and break up the group or whatever, and explicitly tell the players, "Okay, you're in a social conflict.  This is the first exchange.  The vampire just took his whack, and this is the goal he's seeking from the conflict.  Do you want to concede or fight back, and if you fight back, what is your goal?

I mean, if you thought your players were avoiding a physical fight, you could just have the bad guys show up and start shooting, right?  How is a social fight any different?

[noclue]

@Toturi: Yes, that's exactly what the situation is.  They are desperately working to preserve the status quo without leaving a plot hook I can write with later.  Which is annoying at several levels.  One, because imperfect solutions are way more interesting than perfect solutions, and two, the fact that they're treating it like I have them backed into an impossible situation, when rather, it's merely impossible for them to come out smelling roses and dancing with bunnies.

If only there was some way a GM could compel characters to make difficult choices in this game.

@Roxy: I don't agree with compelling in any form the sorceress to NPC herself. 

Ignore the NPC part and focus on the tempting the player with enough power to solve their problems, but with a price part. Figure out what price you do like and this can work nicely as a compel.

What the sorceress asked me if she could do was arrange some sort of amplifying field, in which her magic would be stronger than normal, and try and lure the vampire and mercenaries into that to fight.  It seemed like that should be possible, but I didn't know how to set up the mechanics at all.

Setting up a field sounds like some kinda ritual (or a summoning). Tricking the vamps to step into the trap sounds like either a Provoke using intimidate or some kind of compel on the Vampire's aspect. Their high concept includes hunger and arrogance. She could compel that to get them to come close.

[toturi]

@Toturi: Yes, that's exactly what the situation is.  They are desperately working to preserve the status quo without leaving a plot hook I can write with later.  Which is annoying at several levels.  One, because imperfect solutions are way more interesting than perfect solutions, and two, the fact that they're treating it like I have them backed into an impossible situation, when rather, it's merely impossible for them to come out smelling roses and dancing with bunnies. 

Then why don't you give them what they want? You know what their idea of fun is. Is having your fun dependent on them not coming out smelling roses and dancing with bunnies?

[Roxy Rocket]

What the sorceress asked me if she could do was arrange some sort of amplifying field, in which her magic would be stronger than normal, and try and lure the vampire and mercenaries into that to fight.  It seemed like that should be possible, but I didn't know how to set up the mechanics at all.

Simple: She takes Refinements as Temporary Powers, the ritual zone is just an excuse. So any enchanted items or foci she builds or specializations she acquires using the refinements only work inside that zone. Think book five and the unicorn hair rope.

Temporary Powers cost one fate point per refresh of the power. If she took three ranks of refinement it would take three fate points. If she doesn't have the fate points she needs she could go into debt.

Make sure you and she know the magic system.

I'd say if they want to set up a fight just have them outline the situation they want. Skip all the scenes of preparation and tricking the vampire into their ambush you can. Go big, with lots of aspects on the scene and props to work with and so on. Make it happen somewhere big, like a church. If the fight goes hard enough maybe one of you can chase the vamp onto the roof and he can fall off like in The Crow or it can burn down with him in it or something.


I agree with giving the players what they want even when the rules say no. I don't agree with giving the players 'perfect scores,' but if that's their condition for playing it can't be helped. Give in. Give in really hard so the fun doesn't die an ugly little death.

[citadel97501]

Another option would be to let her do some Thaumaturgy Maneuvers that she can tag as she begins to caster her magic, I would suggest Ley Line Access, Hidden Binding Circle, stuff like that, remember there is nothing more terrifying than a wizard who comes prepared, which is one of the reasons you don't try to storm a Wizard's home, unless

(click to show/hide)

your stupid, have dozens of Red Court and an Ick Demon, or all three of these like in Changes.

[Jancarius]

@tymire: But a scene aspect can only be 'tagged' once, and then she's no better off than anyone else unless she spends fate points, correct?  Something that always bugs me a bit about some of the maneuver/scene aspects/Declarations is that sometimes it seems like there should be some more 'relative strength' on them... ie: Being blind and being off balance shouldn't have the same value.  A aspect that's harder to set up, like, say an amplified magic zone, seems like it should be always on.  Rather, I guess, it feels like the work they put into setting up a situation/aspect should pay off more than just "oh, I show up to the combat and apply maneuvers to the scene"

@Wolfwood: Actually, the vampire is already using a social conflict against the artist character, and if he succeeds, the artist is going to get convicted of being a child molestor/stalker (something along those lines).  It's just none of the 3 completely social oriented characters seem to realize "Hey, we could help out on this/engage in our own counter-campaign".

I do see your point about forcing the issue on them.  But @toturi: Yes, it kind of does.  I find it boring when the players have untainted successes that they didn't have to work their asses off to acheive.  And if I'm bored with the story I'm telling, I'm not having fun.  And further, them not coming out like roses is like a giant plot device engine to help my game move forward.  Conflict drives stories ya know?

@noclue: I'm still pretty iffy on compels (and I'm bad about handing out fate points too) cause I'm still so used to D&D where the DM controls everything that's not a PC and the PCs have absolute control over themselves unless magically controlled.  So I guess I feel like 'compel' to fight the vampire is taking away their choice.  Plus, the Kincaid-expy has enough FP to just buy out of it.  I do want to offer the players "and here's power with a price!" but they all seem SUPER gunshy of making any deals with things stronger than them.  I've suggested to them involving other vampires, the fairy courts, simply bigger badder creatures, etc, and they're all like "eeeeeeehhhh no."   

@Roxy: I really lik the idea of the field is a temporary power, I think that would be the best way to express it mechanically.  I did try and set them up for a big church shoot out last time, but they refused to engage, and Antonio wasn't interested in a big public fight for no gain (the paintomancer and sorceress were absent).

[admiralducksauce]

For aspects that you feel should hit harder than others, well, you can always compel them harder.  If someone's "Blind" then as GM, I'm going to compel as soon as I can with a stiff complication.  If they're "Off Balance", though, I'd just let that come out in play.  Let a character take advantage of that as they wish.

[Lanir]

A quick caveat: This is starting to sound like something I've run into. So if I'm reading too much into some parts of what was said, I apologize. Take and use what you can.

Wow... Yeah, sounds like it is more of an OOC chat issue. Initially I was thinking more along the lines of a "give them a nudge and show them there's a path they can take" sort of issue you could solve with IC stuff. It sounds more like you and your players have some trust issues though. Maybe not huge ones, but they're big enough to cause some issues. If you're all thinking in D&D terms then this is easy to fall into.

1. Fate isn't as mechanically crunchy as D&D. So when a GM makes a scenario, they're making a story. To keep from having to constantly come up with new material, it's natural the GM wants to save something for next time. To kind of use your analogy, when everything is rainbows, roses and dancing bunnies, the story's over and the characters can be retired. If your players really want this then honestly you might as well give it to them but if it's a misunderstanding... keep reading.

2. When people sit down to game, there's an inherent agreement about what can be done. It's not something formal in most situations but everyone has expectations about what could or should be involved in a game and if things go well you all meet in the middle. Most of the time in D&D, the conflict is about whether the PCs have big enough numbers to do what they're attempting. In less crunchy, story-centric games the agreement about what kinds of conflict are of interest and what risk a player is willing to have their character undertake matters as well. Keep in mind these ideas also tie heavily into what motivates a PC to go on an adventure in the first place too.


It sounds like you and your players are disagreeing on the second point and it's being complicated by the expectations from the first point. To put it another way, you're trying to have a battle on grounds and using methods that they're inherently suspicious of because in D&D those things have a stigma of "the GM is screwing me over" attached to them. In this system that not only doesn't apply in most cases, but using your surroundings in clever ways and making allies is a legitimate way to handle problems. There's give and take as with any path to power. Basically what the players need to know is that the consequences of accepting a deal like that are going to be within their comfort zone. From what you've described I'm guessing they're so D&D-centric they don't have a comfort zone for this topic or they don't trust you enough. Maybe you can all talk and kick around some ideas to get jump start this area of the game. Don't be afraid to recruit them for ideas on what would be interesting opposition too. If they buy into your villain it should be easier to justify a rematch later.

[noclue]

Being blind and being off balance shouldn't have the same value.  

kinda depends if you're trying to see something, or getting pushed over.

It's just none of the 3 completely social oriented characters seem to realize "Hey, we could help out on this/engage in our own counter-campaign".

You might want to just tell them about this option. Also, compels!

@noclue: I'm still pretty iffy on compels (and I'm bad about handing out fate points too) cause I'm still so used to D&D where the DM controls everything that's not a PC and the PCs have absolute control over themselves unless magically controlled.  

In DFRPG the players can make assessments and declarations to add things to the "everything that's not a PC" and the GM can use compels to exert some influence on the players. I think compels work best when the GM is playing to see what happens, rather than trying to force a particular thing. If they buy off the compel, cool. That says something about their character. If they take the compel, also cool. That says something else about the character.

I guess I feel like 'compel' to fight the vampire is taking away their choice.  

If you always make sure that the player you're compelling has the FP to buy their way out of it, then they have choice. Don't compel them to fight the vampire. Compel them to make choices. They wrote their Trouble, so make it cause them trouble. They wrote their High Concept, so ask whether they're willing to follow their principals even if it's inconvenient and dangerous. Compel dramatic choices based on two aspects in conflict, and see which one they follow and which one they turn away from. Or Compel one of their aspects in a way that demands a revealing player choice, but leave them free to act however they see fit. Tell them the FP is there to say whatever they choose, it comes with consequences.

Plus, the Kincaid-expy has enough FP to just buy out of it.

Awesome. His FP are your freedom. If he's sitting back on a mountain of FP, you should compel him into spending those FP to make character defining decisions.

I do want to offer the players "and here's power with a price!" but they all seem SUPER gunshy of making any deals with things stronger than them.

 
Well, first put them in a position where they desperately need help if they're going to get what they want, then have the NPC offer them assistance.

[admiralducksauce]

Well, first put them in a position where they desperately need help if they're going to get what they want, then have the NPC offer them assistance.

It sounds like they DO need help if they're going to come out unscathed, and coming out unscathed sounds like it's what they want, and it sounds like Jancarius HAS offered them assistance but taking assistance from powerful monsters taints their "win" condition back down to where it's not what they want.

I think explicitly telling the social PCs that they can help is right on, though.

[@BCrosswood]

If I were you I'd just move forward with the plot. If they want to pussyfoot around until one of the characters gets put in jail for sex crimes, let them. Knowing OOC that inaction has consequences will help keep this from happening in the future. AND it gives you more story to follow up on. Does the PC escape and take the party on the lam? Does the party have to get the governor to parden their friend somehow? I believe in setting timelines behind the scenes, so if nothing happens to delay effect X then effect X will happen in 5 days, etc.

[Roxy Rocket]

...If they want to pussyfoot around until one of the characters gets put in jail for sex crimes...

Stealing my brother's idea:

If they had good rapport and presence I'd open a session with their interview on a local morning talk show. Let them make a lot of jokes and win over the audience as a kind of 'your move now, WCV.' Then as soon as you get back stage or out the studio you 'meet up' with the other players and do that movie line exposition thing:

"Alright. That's done. Let's go kill this mofo."

And before that the other players could play the friendly opposition and you could play the hostile opposition. Whether it's the audience that's friendly and the interviewer is hostile, or the two hosts and other guest that are friendly and the audience is hostile or a mix of things it's up to you.

You could get really wacky and Mission-Impossible (verb) the job. Have all the guests and hosts actually be the other players and when you get outside do the mask tear off thing, drive to a storage garage or something and release the Real Hosts and Guests.


Jokes and wacky schemes to diffuse the unwanted plot are much better than 'teaching a lesson' because you've already got problems with gaming group cohesion. Lowest common denominator is best.