Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by hyphz, April 22, 2003, 07:25:42 AM
Quote from: hyphz...The negative feeling I got afterwards...was about the fudging and shifting I had to do. I mean, basically, as I sat there running I had numerous occasions where I was saying, "Well, right now I either have to get them to roll a die or come to some unqualified judgment about their role-playing skill; if they fail or aren't good enough, then the game's going to be over."And this seems to apply regardless of group, regardless of game, regardless of setting: "If they fail, then nothing happens and it's over." Even if there isn't a predefined plot, a dynamic developing plot can still be brought to a crashing halt by a failure at the wrong moment. Or look at the i-System games: if somebody manages to roll a 1, I get to narrate a negative consequence, but if I hose them enough to affect future actions seriously then the game is over, and if I don't they don't give a damn. There must be a middle ground somewhere, but to be honest I really can't see it. Am I doing something wrong? Am I thinking about this all the wrong way? Any help would be appreciated, as right now I just feel really down on the whole RPG business.
Quote from: Mike HolmesYou know, I'm getting a strong Deja Vu feeling here.
Quote from: the something that I wanted to gloss that FangAnd 'no [thing] is so important that you can't cover it with 'a sheet' and use it again.' If the character's don't get the information from the source you thought of, think of another.
Quote from: Ian CharvillQuote from: Something I wanted to gloss over that FangAnd 'no [thing] is so important that you can't cover it with 'a sheet' and use it again.' If the character's don't get the information from the source you thought of, think of another.For this to work, the players must be invested in finding the thing. They don't need to have originated the thing, but they do need to want it. Putting something the players are indifferent to in their path, no matter what, will feel like railroading.
Quote from: Something I wanted to gloss over that FangAnd 'no [thing] is so important that you can't cover it with 'a sheet' and use it again.' If the character's don't get the information from the source you thought of, think of another.
Quote from: John KimOK, while I agree with many of the poster's points, I want to point out drawbacks of the "failure=complication" model. I have experienced this both as a GM and as a player. What I experienced as a player is often a feeling that I was just jumping through hoops: i.e. regardless of what I did, I'd end up at the same ending point simply by a different path. Sometimes I would just metaphorically grit my teeth and proceed by the most blunt means possible, simply accepting that my PC will take some lumps but will make it through in the end.
Quote from: John KimAn important alternative is simply not having a pre-defined plot. If you don't have an established end you are working to, then failures can be seen as opening up new story possibilities rather than closing old ones. There are two approaches to this: [*]Prepare setting elements: i.e. locations, NPCs, groups. As long as there is conflict among the characters and groups, there is interesting material to play out. You improvise what happens in response to the PCs actions. (Simulationist - Exploration of Setting/Situation)[*]Prepare story elements: i.e. you have a Theme or Premise pre-defined, and then improvise setting material and events in response to what the players do with this. (Narrativist)[/list:u]