Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Scripty, October 12, 2003, 10:20:59 AM
Quote from: Ron Edwards2. About that My-turn-your-turn isssue in the fight, you were working against some seriously-established habits of play both in yourself and in the players. So don't worry about it much. I strongly recommend that you emphasize conflicts, not tasks, in such scenes."I pick up the chair and throw it at him!" is not a conflict resolver. It merely rearranges stuff in the scene, and then the player looks at you expectantly. "I'm knocking him out with the chair!" is a conflict resolver. Here's my point: the latter is no less absorbing and in-character than the former.People always mess this up. They think Author Stance and Fortune-in-the-Middle have to be disconnected from "getting into my guy," and they are profoundly wrong.So merely ... ask, during these scenes. If you get a chair-throwing line, with no conflict resolution, just get it in there by asking. Then your Simple Contests will mean that stuff happens.
QuoteThe first glitch occured when the Aquilonian, who had volunteered to "case" the premises, decided instead to sneak in and singlehandedly pre-empt the party... The Aquilonian's player then settled into a deep funk... I understood how the player felt, but I suppose he didn't understand the extent of the gamble that he was undertaking.
QuoteI had some problems with the extended contest representing the climb up, however. How exactly does an inanimate object act to prevent the players from climbing it
QuoteAt what point do you put a brake on player protagonism to preserve protagonism for everyone else?
Quote from: Brand_RobinsIts also important to know what the expected consequences of failure are. If you expect to die/be removed from game by failure, or to have your hero role negated, then you're going to become despondent upon failing. This, it seems, is what happened to your player. Sure, he wasn't dead, but he also had lost his sense of his character's heroic ability. Partly this seems to be immaturity on his part, but it also probably has to do with the way that such situations are often handled in game. "You should be dead, but I'll give you a break and keep you alive until someone else rescues you" is not something that is going to make someone wanting to play a hero happy.
Quote from: Brand_RobinsThe way around this is to make it clear what the results of failure will be, and that a failure can be more of a chance to be a hero, rather than less of one – and then the player has to do their part and deal with that like an adult. In this situation the response on these lines would be "You're captured, but already you are plotting your daring escape/epic confrontation of wills with the sorcerer/seduction of the sorcerer's daughter."
Quote from: Brand_RobinsI'd say there are two issues going on here. The first, and probably more important, is questioning why you made the climb up the tower an extended contest. Extended contests are best used when there is something dynamic and dramatic at stake, something with which a significant portion of the game should be taken up with. Scaling the tower in this case, and in the story as I remember it, seems to be less a central pivot of the story and more an event that lies between the pivotal events (meeting Taurus and either fighting the spider or meeting the Ganesha clone) – so it seems more fitting to a simple contest.
Quote from: Brand_RobinsMy group does this by briefly pausing play and having a quick series of author stance ides about how we can move the scenario back on track in a way that will preserve everyone's hero roll. As GM you should, of course, be able to call such a stop as well. But I don't think the traditional notion of the GM having to single-handedly fix all the problems is the best way to fix the issue. It works much better to get everyone to step away from character roll and have the group as a whole fix the issue collaboratively. If the GM forces a fix it could, really, end up ruining the protagonist stance of everyone – as the story has become something forced by the GM. If the group as a whole cooperates to fix it, then it's a joint story told by all.
Quote from: Brand_RobinsOf course, the other option (something someone more comfortable with Narrativism will probably bring up shortly) is to be more aggressive in your scene framing.
Quote from: Brand_RobinsFinally, I don't think you're doing badly or that you messed up the game. You sound like you're doing better than I did the first couple times I tried running a game in my personal version of narrative play. I think you need to talk about the game with the players and set up a stronger social contract, and you may need to scene-frame more aggressively, but your game sounds fun to me. In fact, it sounds like a game that I'd like to play in.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsI hope I'm not being too terse with the following, but time is limited at the moment.
Quote from: Ron Edwards1. The canonical story should have been abandoned the moment you looked at the character sheets, if not before. Your tendency to "make things go like they go" got you into a lot of trouble; role-playing HQ is authorship rather than celebration of the source material.
Quote from: Ron Edwards2. Character protagonism is not the same thing as player ego. When the latter turns out to be the issue, and the "character's integrity" is used as club to keep the ego climbing ever higher, then you are facing major GNS conflict, if not indeed Social Contract conflict at a wider level.
Quote from: Ron Edwards3. The good news is that you are doing well to filter, re-form, play again, filter, re-form, play again, and so on. Over time, I expect to learn about some amazing play.
Quote from: simon_hibbsOn runing a series of simple contests, there's nothign wrong with this. Each contest has normal consequences in terms of wounds, which are cumulative penalties, and you just carry on. Not a great way to do things naratively perhaps, but perfectly allowable under the rules if all the combattants are saying is 'I hit him'. If they want to knock their opponent permanently out of the contest then they need to either go to an extended contest or try something more than just 'I hit him'. For example "I attack so ferociously they shit themselves and run for it". Any level of success at that, and the opposition will have to withdraw, though because it's a contest involving morale more than physical abilities they can defend with appropriate abilities such as loyalty or determination as well as just close combat.Simon Hibbs
Quote from: Mike HolmesBrand is assuming that when you say, "there's not much you can do to have a tower resist" that you're telling him that it ought to be one roll - a Simple Conflcit.
Quote from: ScriptyI thought that any contest requiring more than one roll should be an Extended Contest.
QuoteIs that how you play HeroQuest (i.e. Roll a Simple Contest for surprise, roll another to hit, roll another for the wounded party to attempt to run away...)?
QuoteWhat I've been doing has been tying all those elements to one roll and then trying to interpret what happened from there.