Gentlemen! Let us conduct running game commentary for the benefit of immortal posterity.
Good: Very cool plot and we are into it by the end of game one. We know what the conflict is, what some of the parties are, and something of where they stand. All characters featured and introduced and some relationships established. It was a game one that did a game one's job: the ball is rolling.
Bad: Really slow start. I attribute most of this to being a first game in a new wonky format. I attribute some of it to a lack of opportunities for action/challenges - there was a brief bit of 'social combat' but it was rather trivial, and there were hints of unknown magics and beast attacks but we never really saw a puzzle or a fight.
Observations: So far it appears we have a group of players who doesn't have that guy who is foaming at the mouth to seize control of the plot direction (Chad and Phil historically in our tabletop games). At least for the first game, this required a lot of repeated jamming the ignition to get people together and the adventure/plot moving. It will be interesting to see how a group works when there are five players and their general personalities with regards to aggression and extraversion, in a group setting, range from middle of the road to usually-dead-quiet.
Once again it looks like I am going to become, or have become, the authority figure within the group. I am comfortable with that but I don't want anyone to feel like I always have to be the boss-guy in the PC party (I am the captain of the battletech company) so I'll just put it out there to consider that I could be the leader of this group, but I don't have to be. This observation is of course made in conjunction with the observation that we have a very quiet group of players and I'm probably the least or second-least quiet person.