Name the phenomenon: Inter-player SIS incohesion
contracycle:
I was thinking the other day, in relation to the murk-in-combat discussion, that you could use a picture of a place in a similar manner to the purpose served by maps. Maps are of course top down and pictures usually horizontal, similar to human eyesight. Using a picture or photograph of a space, you would not be able to put tokens on it, nor count squares probably (you could with a perspective overlay), but you could still say that someone was "here" as opposed "there", and get some idea of movement distances, line if sight etc.
Similarly I think pictures of people are important. One of the "murkiest" things in my experience is what NPC's look like. A verbal description of a person is highly unlikely to make a lasting impression, I find, unless its reliant on gross or abnormal features.
I think ion some respects the DIY tradition of RPG has become slightly counter-productive here; there are things we could do with properly constructed props that we cannot do with description and gesture.
Balesir:
Hi,
I may be way off, here, and it may just be due to the phrasing of the example given, but I have an observation that addresses the original question, I think.
In the example:
Quote
Situation: An starship's engine is about to explode and the emergency alarm sounds. The crew of the spaceship all gather in the engine room trying to solve the problem.
Joe: "I'm going to try to figure out what's going on with the engine." (rolls Starship Mechanic)
GM: (notes a failed roll) "You think maybe the exhaust valve is blocked."
Adam: "I'm going to try to double-check his work. Just in case." (rolls Starship Mechanic)
GM: (notes a successful roll) "Seems like there's foreign substances in the core is causing a chain reaction. Those illirium crystals you picked up on Bane IV were probably impure."
<snip>
It strikes me that there is a pattern (in both examples, actually) of:
[*]Player action described
[*]Player action resolved
[*]Player action described
[*]Player action resolved
[/list]
...and so on.
After each action is resolved there is scope to go back and revisit other actions, but I can't help thinking that room for intersection of intent is not being allowed, here. Each player's input is being closed out as soon as it is made.
If the model for action determination were more like this:
[*]All players state their character's intended course of action (including the GM for NPCs, but possibly only mentally/internally)
[*]Synthesise from the intended actions the probable interactions, interferences and conflicts that arise
[*]Resolve the conflicts (including skill rolls for 'conflicts with the environment') in the order in which they would logically resolve
[/list]
The outcome should then encourage a joining/interaction of the IS's:
Joe: "I'm going to try to figure out what's going on with the engine."
GM: OK - hold that roll a minute. Adam?
Adam: "I'm going to try to double-check his work. Just in case."
GM: OK - are you cooperating in the diagnosis or both going through the whole drill?
Joe: "Um - given the urgency, do you just wanna give me a hand, here?"
Adam: "Oh, er, yeah - OK"
GM: OK - make a roll with an assist (or whatever - two rolls maybe, depends on the system you're using)
The GM then relates the outcome based on the total resolution.
Is that the kind of technique you had in mind?
lachek:
Andy, that's a good example of a technique I'm interested in.
Your suggestion also leads me towards another observation - in past games that have been faltering in this way, my interest has occasionally piqued when the game enter "combat time" - i.e. a structured and heavily moderated chain of events like what you describe. To moderate the entirety of the game in such detail would no doubt be overwhelming for the GM, but to utilize it as a technique when you find that the game is deteriorating into incoherent solitaire play sounds like an excellent idea.
lachek:
Dave, I'm confused. Are you saying that problems with spatial dissonance originates with confusion about social contract? I guess I'm not disagreeing with you per se, I just feel it's too wishy-washy to be useful to me. I'm uninterested in discussing social dysfunction because, while I recognize its importance, I believe we can cover more ground by leaving such considerations for another day.
A good game design cannot "heal" a dysfunctional group, although it may be able to alleviate the symptoms temporarily by avoiding the contentious issues.
A poor game design, on the other hand, can cause a previously functional group to be unable to play successfully.
So, what I'm interested in are approaches to system, scenario design and techniques that, when utilized by previously functional groups, contribute to strong SIS. It is true that if the social contract (specifically, sub-contracts like theme and mood) is not coherent between players, spatial dissonance will occur. I'm consciously assuming this is not the case, for purpose of exploring such techniques.
Or did I misunderstand you?
lachek:
contracycle, using pictures and photographs to strengthen the SIS is a great suggestion. I agree, it is something that used to be very common when published modules were what people played, and it's a facet of gaming that has fallen by the wayside to some degree, I think.
My wife uses this to great effect in her All Flesh Must be Eaten game. She printed off series of portrait photographs from Flickr - in particular, photos tagged with "Homeless" - and glued them onto bristleboard for longevity. It is much easier to attach a voice and personality to a photograph than to a verbal description, and this has made the NPCs really spring to life for us.
Obviously, this technique involves strong GM direction and imposition of their IS onto the rest of the group. Is there a way something similar could be used in a more collaborative environment? Since it requires pre-game prep, I suppose not.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page