Creating a Community
Frank Tarcikowski:
Uh, or let's just spin it off. I was feeling in the mood.
Balesir:
Hi,
Sorry to wake up after a long 'snooze', but this caught my eye:
Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on January 24, 2008, 10:22:38 AM
Quote
If they're there to have an audience with the hierarch, and he secretly is trying to get them to say something about his rival that he can later turn to his advantage, I don't really want to lay that card on the table right up front.
That’s not what I wanted to suggest. I’m not suggesting you state whatever you want to be the outcome of a given scene. That would indeed be boring. I rather suggest that you be clear about the general agenda. An audience with the hierarch is an audience with the hierarch, that’s already pretty clear.
On the other hand, why not explore what happens when you are upfront about this sort of thing?
Just an off-the-wall suggestion, but you could try discussing with the players - out of character - that you are thinking of having a scene where the Hierarch invites them for interview but secretly wants to get them to admit something about his/her rival. Ask whether they think the characters (who obviously don't want to let anything slip) should let something slip for the purpose of making the game more fun and opening up some plotlines for you to use.
Given the rut that your players are in, this might just jolt them enough to start considering whether the assumptions they have about 'how this is done' are necessarily true...
And I see it as a no-lose situation, for you. If they decide that, yes, it would be fun to have made a faux pas with the Hierarch (and you can let them decide if the characters realise that's what they have done, too), then you have a lead-in to plenty of future drama. If they don't then you have de-prioritised the Gamist-inclined goal of thwarting the Hierarch's machinations and let the players see that the NPC is trying to manipulate their characters - and reduced trust between characters can help make plots and drama, too!
Andy
Reithan:
I disagree on these grounds
Quote from: W. H. Auden
Drama is based on the Mistake. I think someone is my friend when he really is my enemy, that I am free to marry a woman when in fact she is my mother, that this person is a chambermaid when it is a young nobleman in disguise, that this well-dressed young man is rich when he is really a penniless adventurer, or that if I do this such and such a result will follow when in fact it results in something very different. All good drama has two movements, first the making of the mistake, then the discovery that it was a mistake.
Sure, if the characters choose to make that mistake, then indeed it opens the stage for future drama. But by not giving them that information I totally ENSURE drama ensues. Either A. when they are manipulated, or B. when they realize the heirarch is trying to manipulate them.
Now, on the other hand, if I give them the information and they choose (as I have every inclination to believe they would, based on their history of risk-avoidance) NOT to make that mistake, then no one makes a mistake and no drama is created: The heirarch has made no mistake - he knows he learned nothing. The Players have made no mistakes, they were not manipulated, nor did they experience the drama of discovering manipulation was even a goal. Everyone walks away from the meeting with everything having gone exactly as they thought it did. No drama spawned. :(
Now, at this point, I could FORCE drama, by having the heirarch detain them, interrogate them, or otherwise prove that they were mistaken when they thought he would simply let them get away without his manipulation...but that's basically railroading, IMO.
Also, eeven if we take your suggestion to just let them get away with it and hope that reduced trust will spawn drama - well...no one except the PC's trust was reduced (the heirarch already knows he's a creep) and the PCs probably (based on current actions as well as implied by the scene framing) already don't trust the heirarch. (otherwise, why wouldn't he just ASK for the information?)
Balesir:
Hmm, I think a more accurate definition of drama or story (and definitely a more useful one for roleplaying purposes) is that it consists of escalating attempts to meet a dramatic need that is repeatedly blocked. Now, the blockage may be a 'Mistake' - or better yet several blocks may share a mistake or misconception as a theme - but not all of the blockages need to be mistakes.
However, that was an aside.
Quote from: Reithan on January 25, 2008, 11:46:39 AM
Now, on the other hand, if I give them the information and they choose (as I have every inclination to believe they would, based on their history of risk-avoidance) NOT to make that mistake, then no one makes a mistake and no drama is created: The heirarch has made no mistake - he knows he learned nothing. The Players have made no mistakes, they were not manipulated, nor did they experience the drama of discovering manipulation was even a goal. Everyone walks away from the meeting with everything having gone exactly as they thought it did. No drama spawned. :(
Nothing gained - except a graphic illustration that avoiding the mistake was not a meaningful goal for the players. What I am trying to say is that, if the players are in a rut as has been described (and goodness knows I have seen that phenomenon before!), then a culture shock sort of approach might be what is needed to get the thought processes working.
Not telling the players seems to me to be driving the players just where you don't want them to go. You want a mistake/misunderstanding for drama - fine. But by trying to trick the players into making that mistake you are reinforcing their 'avoid slipping up' mentality by making it an adversarial game between the GM and the players.
I may have got the wrong end of the stick, and if so I apologise and you can just ignore me, but it strikes me that if you draw the players more into the setting up of the drama rather than trying to set it up by fooling them they might see having their characters walk into situations as a fun option rather than as a result of a screw up on their part.
Andy
Reithan:
Quote from: Balesir on January 25, 2008, 02:41:29 PM
Hmm, I think a more accurate definition of drama or story (and definitely a more useful one for roleplaying purposes) is that it consists of escalating attempts to meet a dramatic need that is repeatedly blocked. Now, the blockage may be a 'Mistake' - or better yet several blocks may share a mistake or misconception as a theme - but not all of the blockages need to be mistakes.
To me, that sounds more like 'Suspense' than 'Drama'.
Anywho, I see what you're saying, and I may indeed try it, but it seems to me it has just as many possible problems as the current approach, thus not really being 'better', but just 'different', though probably not any 'worse' either.
That being said, maybe something different is all I really need to shake things up a bit, I'll have to think on it a bit.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page