Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Joel P. Shempert, September 28, 2006, 09:07:34 PM
Quote from: Silmenume on August 18, 2006, 03:10:18 AMIn the past the few first times I had actually struck a troll I had rolled "20's" so I was informed that the blade seems to have a "purpose" against trolls. This disambiguation, growth of knowledge, about the sword and its abilities is pure Sim in action. There were no rules or mechanics or existing system elements that codified this process but was a decision created on the fly given the circumstances at hand and the nature of the established world.
Quote from: Precious Villain on August 18, 2006, 07:08:51 PMIs it possible that what is really going on in these sessions is a form of mild illusionism - that is upon the rolling of a 1 or a 20 the DM looks at the scene and then uses the tremendous authorial leeway provided by this statistically unlikely event to narrate (i.e. insert into the SIS) whatever event may push "the story" forward. These are big groups - with enough people all shouting and yelling and rolling dice you'll get lots of 1s and 20s (the odds of getting either one are 1 in 10, after all). If the rule is: "Upon the rolling of a 1 or 20, the GM determines some exceptionally good or bad result for the character in question" then the GM has a lot of authority.
Quote from: Silmenume on August 19, 2006, 04:52:50 PMThe best theory or idea I have at the moment is that all rolling of twenty sided dice in our game serve as guide to positiveness or negativeness (on a continuum) of what will be narrated – whatever that might be. "1's" and "20's" are a sort of "quantum" jump outside that continuum. Something "fate" altering or changing happens as a result of such roll.
Quote from: Silmenume on August 21, 2006, 05:20:33 AMEven in combat itself we rarely use exact numbers. If a rolled number plus the player's to hit bonus is pretty high we rarely bother calculating the exact value. Overwhelming is overwhelming and that's good enough to keep things moving at a pretty fast clip. A middling number might get a second roll with the player having to roll higher than the first roll.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on August 21, 2006, 10:12:41 AMI am fascinated by your apparent denial of reality, Jay. The reality is apparent to anyone who's followed your threads over the last year.A ton of guys are in a room. They are all rolling dice constantly, 1d20 at a time. Cary cherry-picks the 1's and 20's as his "story control" moments and improvises his way toward further conflicts and toward outcomes that he prefers, or deems will generate the most fervent response. You guys essentially act as his creative unconscious, and he acts as its manager and editor. With that many people rolling that many d20s per unit time, 1's and 20's are going to pop up all over the place. Ralph's point about sequential 20s is a good one (and leads me to be highly suspicious of many of them), but that's not relevant to the basic point, which is that Cary has dozens of opportunities to say "he snaps his bonds!" provoking cries of response, with you guys all laboring under this weird illusion that this has anything to do with dice-based task resolution. It's not. You guys play via a Drama mechanic, specifically Cary's, as cued by you all rolling like little madmen.He is obviously a master of building suspense, whipping all of you into a frenzy, and recognizing when to change his mind. You do realize that, right? Cary was not prompted into not killing off that guy because the four 20s told him to. He changed his mind because the sequence of 20s got you all hot and bothered, and he knew when to satisfy the urge that had built up. It's clear to me that his notes are his springboard for improvising during play. It's also interesting, I think, to point out that if the guy had rolled a 3 or something for his first roll, Cary would have had his character executed, and the bunch of you would have wept and wailed just as intensely as you did for the character's survival. [snip]And finally, all this fascination with the Tolkien canon is a tremendous mental dodge on your and probably everyone else's parts. Everything in play is Cary's bitch, including the source material, and including anything you guys make up to go with it. It's totally malleable clay, or better, a totally transparent lens through which all of you pretend to be generating some kind of fiction, when the raw release of emotion is really the priority at the table.
QuoteIn Chapter 1, I said that sometimes that GM rolls two dice to determine events that the rules don't cover. You should know, however, that more often I roll those dice for the sound they make, then rule exactly as I want to rule. Even if I dink a player around, he thinks that I am doing so because "that's what the dice said," so he's not likely to argue or complain.
QuoteAfter all, you are the GM, and the rules are flexible enough that you are their only true arbiter, so overpowering the PCs is like fishing in a bucket.
Quote from: RonAnd finally, all this fascination with the Tolkien canon is a tremendous mental dodge on your and probably everyone else's parts. Everything in play is Cary's bitch, including the source material, and including anything you guys make up to go with it. It's totally malleable clay, or better, a totally transparent lens through which all of you pretend to be generating some kind of fiction, when the raw release of emotion is really the priority at the table.
Quote from: Precious Villain on September 28, 2006, 10:47:10 PMMy methods tended toward brute, overwhelming force.
Quote from: Melinglor on September 28, 2006, 11:51:53 PMFrom where I sit, Cary's got that shell all the frickin' time, and he sometimes deigns to allow others to sway his decrees if they get psyched enough.
Quote from: Barlennan on September 29, 2006, 12:15:51 AMI also used overpowered NPCs to force the plot back into line. The last game I ran fell apart after the session where one of my NPCs had a weapon skill of 22, allowing her to stab a PC even after being hit in the face with acid and blinded. In hindsight, I can't blame the player for screaming at me.
Quote from: Glendower on September 29, 2006, 01:41:20 AMI've been there. Sometimes I go back there. The scary thing about illusionism is that it's expected, sometimes even demanded among players that I've run games with. [snip]A year ago, there was a constant push and pull contest of wills between GM and Player. Now, I collaborate and challenge. We had to talk it out, and we had to work on building back some trust. I had to trust them to guide the path of the game, and they had to trust me to make that path interesting.The second group is a work in progress. They still don't trust or like the things I've learned on this site, and object to me giving them narrative power. This stuff is foreign to them. But slowly, I'm winning them over. The Dogs in the Vineyard AP I posted recently was one attempt on my part to show them how exciting it is to have players in charge. It's rough going, and I try to keep the dialog open. But I am surprised at how easy it is to slip into that authoritative, "This is the main plot do not deviate" mindset. Scary stuff.
Quote from: Callan S. on September 29, 2006, 06:40:56 AMThat's why I refered to capes - targeting emotional hotspots would be/is very useful, if only the GM was playing the same game as the other players. So I'm awkwardly suggesting a mental switch around - instead of looking at his decrees and thinking "How do we get rid of that?" instead thinking "How do I give everyone that power? So were all playing the same game and everyone is drawing everyones emotions out". So, kill the conch and keep the 'tease out feeling' somehow (if more mechanically regulated), as RL feelings are what significant SIS stuff grows from.
Quote from: Frank T on September 29, 2006, 08:43:05 AMJoel, I have two questions for you:Did your players like your OtE sessions?Did you like your OtE sessions?