Last weekend, I ran four RPG sessions. This wasn't a mistake, even though not all of the sessions went as well as I hoped, but what made all of it a lot harder than necessary was the amount of sleep I was getting: not very much. Thursday night saw me with insomnia, and I only got 2-3 hours of sleep. Not good when I needed all my wits about me to handle the upcoming sessions. To make things worse, I wasn't catching up on my sleep due to not being able to sleep in.
So, come Sunday evening, it was time for the Serenity RPG session. As opposed to the other three games (all D&D 4e with quite a bit of combat and mechanics), I'm running Serenity very rules-light. Party interaction and role-playing makes the campaign work, not combat.
Anyway my plan for this session - which I'd already informed my players about - was to run it mostly in flashback. The idea was to set the session as "all about the Captain", a player character who is an alcoholic and doesn't really command the respect of the crew. I knew the outline that his player, Nash, had designed for his history, but I hadn't inquired so much into the details.
The other thing I hadn't done was sketch out the plan of the session, like I have for the other "episodes" of this campaign (season). I had a couple of ideas: the session would skip between a meeting with other browncoats in a bar, where one of them recognised the "Captain" from before and accused him of being a traitor, and the events of the war from which the "treachery" sprung. Actual scenes to play on? Not so much, which is where my preparation really let me down. So, off to the session, trying to stay away (I'd consumed a litre of Coke during the afternoon whilst running my D&D game).
And the players saved the session. They roleplayed the game. The rest of the cast slipped into the roles of the "Captain's" squad in the war, Mick stepped up and played the accuser, both in the past and in the present. He took the character places that Nash and I hadn't expected, and, by the end of it, we'd had one of the more intense roleplaying sessions I've experienced.
There were a few really great moments: the first when Nash's Captain admitted that he'd betrayed the browncoats, for the rest of the players (especially Mick) had expected that it was something that the accuser was mistaken about.
The second was when Mick revealed to Nash that the betrayal hadn't made a difference: his betrayal in exchange to clemency for Nash's men had been worthless: the Alliance hadn't followed through on it. That rocked Nash, and was inspired play from Mick. It's something I hadn't suggested, but Mick was going with the moment and making something great.
The last was when Sarah (who'd played a range of strong supporting characters throughout) picked up that the current scene ought to show the start of Nash's PC's redemption, and played a starship captain that gave him a chance.
We got a great session, with a strong narrative arc, and we went home happy. However, I knew I'd been lucky: my players had saved a session that could have ended disastrously.
It got me thinking about the areas where I'm very strong as a DM, and the areas where I'm weaker. I believe that I'm pretty strong on structure: I can work out quests, story arcs, and other details that transform a session from unrelated encounters into something that has larger significance.
Exactly how tight this structure binds changes from session to session. Even though I didn't develop the structure well enough for this particular session, I did have a good idea of the key scenes I wanted to incorporate: Leaving his family; Good times with his troops; The war turning bad; the Betrayal; and his wrecked life afterwards.
Where I'm weaker is in roleplaying while I'm DMing. It's an oddity: I'm not a bad roleplayer when I'm playing in a game. I'm not a great actor, but I'm okay. However, put me in the DM's chair and the ability evaporates. I can do it in very short bursts, but not for the length that a session like this required.
I'm great on rules, I'm less great on tactics; so my combats run fast, but the monsters aren't always as threatening as they could be. Oh well, the players are more interested in their own tactics... and very good they can be as well.
The structure of these Serenity games has been interesting. I (normally) sit down before the session and sketch out a number of acts that I expect the game will follow. (It should be noted that the players do have the ability to break free of this structure if necessary, but the "acts" follow the most logical path and so far they've been doing so). Then, once we get into each "act", the players have a lot more control about how they interact with the characters and places they find themselves in.
I'm wondering now if I should enlist certain players to act as antagonists; sometimes it doesn't make sense for their characters to be with the others. Mick has shown me how well it can work, and so I may go more that way in the future.
Things to think about, certainly.
Cheers!
So, come Sunday evening, it was time for the Serenity RPG session. As opposed to the other three games (all D&D 4e with quite a bit of combat and mechanics), I'm running Serenity very rules-light. Party interaction and role-playing makes the campaign work, not combat.
Anyway my plan for this session - which I'd already informed my players about - was to run it mostly in flashback. The idea was to set the session as "all about the Captain", a player character who is an alcoholic and doesn't really command the respect of the crew. I knew the outline that his player, Nash, had designed for his history, but I hadn't inquired so much into the details.
The other thing I hadn't done was sketch out the plan of the session, like I have for the other "episodes" of this campaign (season). I had a couple of ideas: the session would skip between a meeting with other browncoats in a bar, where one of them recognised the "Captain" from before and accused him of being a traitor, and the events of the war from which the "treachery" sprung. Actual scenes to play on? Not so much, which is where my preparation really let me down. So, off to the session, trying to stay away (I'd consumed a litre of Coke during the afternoon whilst running my D&D game).
And the players saved the session. They roleplayed the game. The rest of the cast slipped into the roles of the "Captain's" squad in the war, Mick stepped up and played the accuser, both in the past and in the present. He took the character places that Nash and I hadn't expected, and, by the end of it, we'd had one of the more intense roleplaying sessions I've experienced.
There were a few really great moments: the first when Nash's Captain admitted that he'd betrayed the browncoats, for the rest of the players (especially Mick) had expected that it was something that the accuser was mistaken about.
The second was when Mick revealed to Nash that the betrayal hadn't made a difference: his betrayal in exchange to clemency for Nash's men had been worthless: the Alliance hadn't followed through on it. That rocked Nash, and was inspired play from Mick. It's something I hadn't suggested, but Mick was going with the moment and making something great.
The last was when Sarah (who'd played a range of strong supporting characters throughout) picked up that the current scene ought to show the start of Nash's PC's redemption, and played a starship captain that gave him a chance.
We got a great session, with a strong narrative arc, and we went home happy. However, I knew I'd been lucky: my players had saved a session that could have ended disastrously.
It got me thinking about the areas where I'm very strong as a DM, and the areas where I'm weaker. I believe that I'm pretty strong on structure: I can work out quests, story arcs, and other details that transform a session from unrelated encounters into something that has larger significance.
Exactly how tight this structure binds changes from session to session. Even though I didn't develop the structure well enough for this particular session, I did have a good idea of the key scenes I wanted to incorporate: Leaving his family; Good times with his troops; The war turning bad; the Betrayal; and his wrecked life afterwards.
Where I'm weaker is in roleplaying while I'm DMing. It's an oddity: I'm not a bad roleplayer when I'm playing in a game. I'm not a great actor, but I'm okay. However, put me in the DM's chair and the ability evaporates. I can do it in very short bursts, but not for the length that a session like this required.
I'm great on rules, I'm less great on tactics; so my combats run fast, but the monsters aren't always as threatening as they could be. Oh well, the players are more interested in their own tactics... and very good they can be as well.
The structure of these Serenity games has been interesting. I (normally) sit down before the session and sketch out a number of acts that I expect the game will follow. (It should be noted that the players do have the ability to break free of this structure if necessary, but the "acts" follow the most logical path and so far they've been doing so). Then, once we get into each "act", the players have a lot more control about how they interact with the characters and places they find themselves in.
I'm wondering now if I should enlist certain players to act as antagonists; sometimes it doesn't make sense for their characters to be with the others. Mick has shown me how well it can work, and so I may go more that way in the future.
Things to think about, certainly.
Cheers!
