Friday, May 2, 2014

A Game of Ice and Fire, Part 3: First Session

So, no game this most recent week allows me to play catch up and keep this thing mostly on schedule.  Today I talk about, what I feel is one of the most important sessions, the first one.

Opening Day

Part of the fun or roleplaying games is creating a story and memorable encounters with your friends, the other players, and having fun.  The having fun part is pretty easy for some games like D&D or games that really only have one focus, like combat or cunning and intrigue.  Every one can be included at the same time and characters have very similar focuses.  There are few times when one or more people are not engaging in the game at a time.

In A Song of Ice and Fire, characters have a variety of choices to focus on.  Looking back at my previous post, you can see that we have basically 3 types of characters; 2 fighters, 1 social character, and 1 assassin.  If I focus on combat in a session, the 2 fighters are happy and quite useful.  The assassin and social character don't work well in straight up combat at all.  On the other hand, if I focus on the political intrigue side, potentially 3 characters are sitting on the side lines.  It's a careful balance one has to strike, but inevitably there will be some points when a player's character is not actively participating in the game, especially in SIFRP.

For the first session, I just recently decided to treat it sort of like the pilot to a new TV show; give each player a small scene where their character can shine and start introducing the mechanics of the game relevant to that character.  In a game like SIFRP, it makes sense, especially if you look at the books and actual T show.  It also would work for any game that has such varied choices for character creation and when having characters with different focuses.

First I started with Lucius, the bastard born assassin.  I set a training scene with him and his assassin trainer.  We traded rolls back and forth seeing who could get the upper hand with Stealth and Awareness rolls.  This no risk conflict allowed us to get used to the opposed test mechanics and roll some dice.

Second, I turned to Terrance, the heir to the house to start on the Intrigue rules.  In SIFRP, Intrigue is almost like combat.  For basic things, like getting past a guard, one roll is usually all that suffices.  Longer cons, or discussion call for multiple rolls, and it is very similar to combat.  I started with a local merchant who was looking for better prices on the metals he buys from the house.  Again, a simple, no to little risk conflict for the player.  That scene doubled as a gauge of power level for Terrance.

Third came the two fighters who got to fight off some bandits that harass the lands around House Trevayne.  This one was more of a learning point for me.  I knew the characters would be able to handle 3 bandits, one of whom was hiding, but I had no idea that they would just stomp them into the ground.  There's nothing wrong with the characters being powerful and it makes sense that trounce no name bandits.  It helps me know that if I want them to face a challenge, they will probably have to be similarly powerful enemies.

After introductions to the characters, I devised a small session to introduce some other noble Houses the group would be encountering; a wedding!  Nothing dire, like in the books, but a simple affair that really just served the purpose of letting the characters roleplay and get them involved in the world more.

Overall, I thought it was a pretty solid session and introduction to the game.  Next week, the group gets started on the adventure that is published in the back of the rulebook; Peril at King's Landing.

5 comments:

  1. Why run "no risk" conflicts? What does "no risk" mean, in this context?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No risk is an interesting concept. We can look at it as anything where a character does not face death with failure, but it could be more nuanced than that. A race could be "no risk," but a player may have a reason for running the race. Maybe, if he wins the race, he will have a chance to have an audience with the magistrate and have a chance to assassinate him for his evil deeds. In this case, it is not "no risk," but "no risk of death."

      Many times PCs will engage in a "no risk" conflict for mere amusement, or to open up plot devices/twists. The race analogy could truly be no risk, if by losing if all of the runners then get invited to a banquet with the magistrate, giving the PC an opening.

      Then the only reason for the no risk conflict would be, either to test out a character's abilities and enhance on their personality. Most conflict, say combat, does not really give a sense of personality, "I strike the kobold." However, a no risk conflict could further the perception of a character's personality, such as firing a warning shot past the ear of a bandit, to get him to go away. The arrow might intimidate him to not fight, but if it doesn't you will still be getting into the fight you were about to have anyway. The action gives a personality trait that you would rather not kill people, or whatever your justification for the action is.

      Delete
    2. Brandon really hits the meaning of "no risk" there. In combat terms, "no risk" translates to "no chance of death." That would be the idea with Elan and Zoren, the two combat characters. For Lucius, if he fails at the stealth rolls and gets seen by his master, it's not a detriment to him, it doesn't put him in peril. In fact, it would actually make sense for him to be caught. For Terrance, if he loses the negotiation, the amount of money lost would basically be insignificant to the House fortunes.

      For the why, it helps ease the players into the game, we all get a glimpse of the rules, and it lets me judge the relative power of the characters. Sure, I can see that a score of 5 in Stealth costs a lot of XP, is almost max for starting characters, and average rolls will be about a 15. However, until we start rolling dice, and I start seeing how much of an advantage someone with a 5 has over someone with a 3 or 4, I have a difficult time seeing the relative power levels.

      Delete
    3. I definitely get the idea of running easy conflicts as a situation to train the players (not the characters) how to use their stuff. On the other hand, the fact that "risk" is synonymous with "death" in RPGs is a real shame, and I know you guys have a more nuanced view, but I've seen it in discussions for more than a decade... I think we've got a topic for next week's discussion!

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete